How and why did you reject christ?

[Shadow Wolf]

How I'd love to know what that term, "a genuine personal relationship" can apply to either a god or his son, neither of whom is ever actually present, and whose responses must be imagined.

Probably the best I can describe it as would be that is the beliefs of a true believer. As far as responses, it can be surprisingly "daoist" in a way in how they interpret things happening around them as signs of gods communication. To them, however, parting sharply from a Daoist flow of acceptance l, these events going on around them are basically micromanged by a god who doesn't play with dice, so the order and stability of the universe and life overall, down to the mindane of their life, is all micromanaged by god.

 

[QuestioningMind]

It is pretty clear. I understood it perfectly, immediately, no problems or issues 8n understanding it. Asking what was meant is one thing, deriding it as problematic and poorly approached amd defined is entirely different. Would you make these criticisms to those writing in science journals?

So very sorry... I had no idea you were so sensitive.

After reading through some of the comments I think you need to define what you mean by 'reject'. You seem to be defining it as 'rejecting Christ as your savior.' Whereas I think most respondents define it as 'rejecting the notion that Christ is real'.

So when you ask 'if you had a genuine relationship with Christ' the answer becomes 'I deluded myself into THINKING I had a genuine relationship' because it's impossible to have a genuine relationship with someone who doesn't exist.

As you can see from my original post I simply said that I thought you needed to clarify what you meant by reject and then pointed out how there might be a confusion, based on my own confusion and the confusion I detected in some other responses. I'm sure you understood perfectly since you wrote it and knew what you intended to say. All I did was suggest that maybe it wasn't so clear to everyone else.

I've read over what I wrote numerous times now and for the life of me I can't see how it can be taken as derisive or claiming that your entire post was poorly approached. All I was trying to do was suggest that a bit of clarification might help. If I was derisive and overly critical and just don't realize it, please point out for me what I'm missing.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

So very sorry... I had no idea you were so sensitive.

You, among, are tye ones criticizing something that wasn't asked of you. You don't understand because your opinion of the matter is irrelevant. But instead asking what it means, people opened with criticisms and demanded she answer so they can hear their voice and insert their insignificant and utterly useless opinions on the matter regarding the questions of why people with a personal relationship with Jesus turned apostate. And its not even about that anymore, as its turned into butt hurt over being excluded from a question you cant even answer to begin with.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

This could have been a great and informational thread. Instead its Christian apologetics and people who's feelings were hurt over being excluded by language they didnt understand. Some people contributed meaningfully, but its alot of people who werent asked.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

I simply said that I thought you needed

She doesn't need to do anything. If yoy do t get it you arent being asked, because clearly some people get it in a way that is lost on many. You need to ask her, or someone else, to help you understand, not tell them they need to. And its not just you, but several who demand and uofrint criticize.

 

[Babydoll.]

I rejected Christ because the Bible is scientifically disproven and according to the scholar DM Murdock, Rabbi Jesus is a fictional character who never actually existed.

 

[Altfish]

Meaning.

But life has 'meaning' to me without religion

 

[Mock Turtle]

It's baffling to me how many atheists say that they became atheists in their teens - sometimes even earlier. And most of them haven't gone back and had a serious look at whatever faith they left behind since they left it, meaning they're trusting a child (themselves at that age) to have accurately understood complex theology.

Though, this explains why the "God" most atheists argue against is a low-resolution caricature of what the scriptures are actually talking about.

I think it's baffling for so many of us as to why anyone would believe their particular religious belief is correct when there are so many others, apart from being influenced whilst a child perhaps, or perhaps choosing to believe one version over another. Fortunately I didn't have such, but I did have a decent enough brain so as to make me more suspicious of what religions were all about (unlike all the other kids apparently, and not being intimidated by what they seemed to represent), and nothing subsequently caused me to change that suspicion - if anything it has hardened, knowing more about what has happened over history and not seeing any proper evidence as to any claims made by any religion. Some of us not only went back, we looked at most of the religious beliefs and what they claim - and so many having contradictions. You appear to have settled on one - not even think it might not be correct? Perhaps not also understanding how such might be self-grooming - that is, preferring to believe some historical writings over others or none?

 

[stvdv]

Many people reject christianity, but I'm wondering if they had a relationship with christ, how did they reject christ and/or his god. There is a difference.

I wonder too. I had a 'good' personal experience with Christ and His God, hence I will not reject Christ nor His God (Deo Volente).

Why did you reject christ after having a genuine personal relationship with and his god?

I accepted Christ after my personal relationship. It is a good relationship, so I stick to it, and won't reject it (Deo Volente).

If it was a "bad relationship" then I could imagine the thought might pop up to reject Christ.

e. g.:

I had gluten-allergy, and once they had this 'bread and wine' thing in the Church, and I thought, "This is an interesting challenge, as in 'truth or dare'. I better partake, maybe Jesus cures me (and it won't harm me anyway, as it is blessed by Jesus)", but it nearly killed 'me' (ca. 2 weeks 'hospital' ; severe 'bread'-allergy).

I did not accept Jesus after that experience, and kind of thought "thank you for this proof", and I decided "Jesus is off the list to be my Saviour".

But slowly it dawned on me, that I should have to accept unconditionally what He (or God) gives me (that's the teaching, as I understood it by then).

This time He decided to "almost kill me". But, I am still alive, and I learned my lesson. No need to blame Him, but definitely no incentive to accept him.

 

[stvdv]

I'm more open than most since I really have nothing to hide about my spiritual life

Being open is enough IMO
To have 'nothing' works for me. When I went on my spiritual quest to India, I quit my rented house, and I loved it, to return in an empty new house.
To have 'nothing to hide' is even better IMO

I did read a native american quote (I posted it somewhere). The author of this book asked her chief if she can use his words in her book. He says, "Of course you can use them. They are not my words, but of god". (Context please)

I already like this "chief".

I met a Master once, who said 'Just follow my Teachings, no need to mention my name'.

 

[BilliardsBall]

Why did you reject christ after having a genuine personal relationship with and his god?

Did you have a conversation with him (if you had a genuine relationship with christ before) and told me hey, see ya? or had a deep talk of departure?

If you had a genuine relationship with the christian god directly, the same questions.

Many people reject christianity, but I'm wondering if they had a relationship with christ, how did they reject christ and/or his god. There is a difference.

For me, I never had a relationship with christ's father. Never believed he existed. Christ, I can kinda understand, because he was a human flesh and blood. That, and I do believe in spirits (say of my loved ones), so this wasn't too hard to "get." The more I worshiped, the less I worshiped. It was an intense feeling of "this isn't right for you." Then I say and thought about what my priest said to me before I went to RCIA. "Maybe you should wait." Now, if Churches want you to come to church and be saved, what priest would ask you to wait first?

So, however you define it, I said in so many words "hey, jesus. I know you're important to people. I can't believe in human sacrifice. (I feel its wrong to worship 'you' as a person/flesh/however defined). This is my last actual Mass.

That's it.

I'm more open than most since I really have nothing to hide about my spiritual life. I did read a native american quote (I posted it somewhere). The author of this book asked her chief if she can use his words in her book. He says, "Of course you can use them. They are not my words, but of god". (Context please)

Why did you reject christ after having a genuine personal relationship with and his god?

I didn't, and I've never met an atheist who said "I rejected a personal relationship with Jesus!" I've heard many atheist testimonies that they rejected a pastor they followed, serving God, praying to God, etc.

The difference is telling to me.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

I didn't, and I've never met an atheist who said "I rejected a personal relationship with Jesus!" I've heard many atheist testimonies that they rejected a pastor they followed, serving God, praying to God, etc.

The difference is telling to me.

There are quite a few on this board who rejected christ for lack of evidence or personal experience with the church or people. Reject is a strong word. I don't mind using it because I did reject christ (the Church) and did so appropriately but not apologetically. Catholics (my experience) aren't really big about rejection because once you baptized they feel god may bring you back. Fundamentalist are a different sort.

In person, I've only met one atheist who said she didn't want to go back to christianity. It was because of upbringing. I don't know any person who actually had a relationship and literally walk away. I'm wondering if it in part has to do with guilt. Some people have to wane off of christ because of what they were taught.

 

[Vouthon]

I was driven out by a congregation who thought it funny to mock disability.

That's absolutely appalling, both by itself (for lacking humanitarianism) and especially so given the actual teachings attributed to Jesus concerning the disabled:

Jesus said also to the one who had invited him, “When you give a luncheon or a dinner, do not invite your friends or your brothers or your relatives or rich neighbors, in case they may invite you in return, and you would be repaid. But when you give a banquet, invite the poor, the crippled, the lame, and the blind. And you will be blessed" (Luke 14:12-14)
​

What a horrible lot of people, no wonder you abandoned the congregation. I'm glad that you moved on to better things.

 

[ChristineM]

That's absolutely appalling, both by itself (for lacking humanitarianism) and especially so given the actual teachings attributed to Jesus concerning the disabled:

Jesus said also to the one who had invited him, “When you give a luncheon or a dinner, do not invite your friends or your brothers or your relatives or rich neighbors, in case they may invite you in return, and you would be repaid. But when you give a banquet, invite the poor, the crippled, the lame, and the blind. And you will be blessed" (Luke 14:12-14)
​

What a horrible lot of people, no wonder you abandoned the congregation. I'm glad that you moved on to better things.

Thanks, but to be honest it is what i expect now and am pleasantly surprised when it does not happen.

Its not as though the disability is a big or visual (no pun) thing, it's just dyslexia but it meant at that time i was unable to read the bible.

Soon after i was diagnosed and corrective measures prescribed. But no way was i going back

 

[QuestioningMind]

You, among, are tye ones criticizing something that wasn't asked of you. You don't understand because your opinion of the matter is irrelevant. But instead asking what it means, people opened with criticisms and demanded she answer so they can hear their voice and insert their insignificant and utterly useless opinions on the matter regarding the questions of why people with a personal relationship with Jesus turned apostate. And its not even about that anymore, as its turned into butt hurt over being excluded from a question you cant even answer to begin with.

WOW,

you are INCREDIBLY defensive. Or maybe you just have TERRIBLE reading comprehension. I even reposted my OP in order to show that ALL I did was suggest MAYBE they ought to define a word to avoid confusion. If you're going to get butt-hurt just because someone suggests a point could be clarified, you REALLY shouldn't be on a forum like this.

 

[QuestioningMind]

She doesn't need to do anything. If yoy do t get it you arent being asked, because clearly some people get it in a way that is lost on many. You need to ask her, or someone else, to help you understand, not tell them they need to. And its not just you, but several who demand and uofrint criticize.

You're just not too bright, are you? By suggesting that she define what she meant when a word was used I WAS asking her to help me understand. Saying 'I think you should'; is NOT DEMANDING anything, it's a SUGGESTION.

I think you need to go climb back under your rock, because you're just looking for reasons to feel insulted.

 

[Vouthon]

I've never been too clear on how Christians - especially non-trinitarians - differentiate between the father and the son, and seem much more focused on the son

Well, as you know I'm Trinitarian (which means that for me: "The Father is that which the Son is, the Son that which the Father is, the Father and the Son that which the Holy Spirit is, i.e. by nature one God" (Council of Toledo XI); "Each of the persons is that supreme reality, viz., the divine substance, essence or nature." (Fourth Lateran Council (1215)).

So, I cannot really speak for fellow Christians who think about the Deity in a very different way, although I would be fascinated to read their response to your question.

But I will say - and I'm speculating here - that the "Father" may be perceived as more removed from a believer's daily life (even though He is ultimately addressed in all public prayers, first and prior as the ultimate 'source') and indeed from the exigencies of existence in general - since He is (from the human perspective) utterly transcendent, imperceptible and ineffable. I mean, He is described as "one God and Father from whom all things are", whereas the Son is "one Lord Jesus Christ, through whom all things are" that has become incarnate as a human being and whom we can thus directly relate to more readily as a result; whilst the "one Holy Spirit [is] in whom all things are", that is immanent, Wisdom 12:1-6: "For your immortal spirit is in all things" and is acclaimed in the creed as having "spoken through the Prophets".

Consider:

“Far removed is the Father of all from those things which operate among men, the affections and passions. He is simple, not composed of parts, without structure, altogether like and equal to himself alone. He is all mind, all spirit, all thought, all intelligence, all reason” (St. Irenaeus (Against Heresies 2:13:3 [A.D. 189])

"It must not be supposed then that God is a body, or in a body, but a simple intellectual nature, admitting of no addition at all. There is in Him no greater or less, no higher or lower, for He is the Monad, the Unit, Mind, the Fountain of all mind." (Origen (De Princiipis i.1.6 [A.D. 220])
​

Maybe, in a sense, the Son and Holy Spirit can feel closer to the Christian's daily life or less 'alien'? Or just more 'relatable' or something?

 

[Shad]

How so?

The word doesn't change religious or not.

Relationships involve two entities at least. You talking to God in your head is not a relationship. If you are hearing voices we need to figure out if you have mental issues before determining the voice you hear is God. Ergo a distortion unless you can demonstrate there are two entities involved.

Definition of RELATIONSHIP

 

[Unveiled Artist]

Relationships involve two entities at least. You talking to God in your head is not a relationship. If you are hearing voices we need to figure out if you have mental issues before determining the voice you hear is God. Ergo a distortion unless you can demonstrate there are two entities involved.

Definition of RELATIONSHIP

Did you once have a relationship with christ and rejected him?

Those who have or had will understand the nature of the question and the word relationship (which does NOT need to be in caps), while others to whom it doesn't apply, most likely will not understand the question.

All christians, I shall say safetly, are not talking to god in their heads. They do have a relationship between two entities and communicate with him as such. Whether one's bias belittles the nature of this of this communication or not, the point remains the same.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

So, the OP question seems to boil down to this: how do you go from goosebumps to godlesness?

How do the two relate?