? A Question For All Former Christians Who Fell Away ?

[YahDough]

This is a question addressed only to former Christians who have left the faith.

Why did you become a Christian?
[/b]

[sleepyhead]

[Replying to post 1 by YahDough]

Hello Yahdough,

The problem with your post is that you don't define what you mean by Christian. I'm now reluctant to call myself a Christian because my understanding of Jesus's role is different than my previous understanding. In that sense I'm no longer a Christian. The reason I'm no longer a Christian is because many of the fundamental Christrian beliefs didn't make sense anymore.

[YahDough]

[Replying to post 1 by YahDough]

Hello Yahdough,

The problem with your post is that you don't define what you mean by Christian. I'm now reluctant to call myself a Christian because my understanding of Jesus's role is different than my previous understanding. In that sense I'm no longer a Christian. The reason I'm no longer a Christian is because many of the fundamental Christrian beliefs didn't make sense anymore.

Hello sleepyhead,

I deliberately did not define Christian because Christianity it is a process. If a person gives up on the process, they will never become a believer which is the goal of Christianity. I am just wondering why (and how) people started the process before they fell away.

Mk:16:16: He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned.

[playhavock]

Sounds like one big lead into a "no true christen" sort of logical fallacy, I'm not going to play along if that is the case. I was a christen, and I see no reason to give you the reasons for why I was that unless I am 100% sure you will not turn around and say I was not a "true" one because I deconverted, I just do not have the time for that sort of nonsence.

[Divine Insight]

Hello sleepyhead,

I deliberately did not define Christian because Christianity it is a process. If a person gives up on the process, they will never become a believer which is the goal of Christianity. I am just wondering why (and how) people started the process before they fell away.

I agree with Sleepyhead. There are so many different denominations and views of Christianity that it's pretty much impossible to even define it in a meaningful way.

I also find your term "fell away" to be accusatory and derogatory.

I don't feel that I ever "fell away" from Christianity. On the contrary I embraced it so completely that I finally had no choice but to face the fact that it can't possibly be true.

That's hardly "Falling Away"

Mk:16:16: He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned.

I find it ironic that you would try to define Christianity using verses that I personally view as very solid reasons why the religion cannot possibly be true.

I now view Christianity as basically a "Train-wrecked religion". It was originally based on the concepts of Judaism and supposed morality, and now with the New Testament it appears to be condemning people for merely not believing in it, forget about morality, that's clearly been tossed right out the window.

You ask:

Why did you become a Christian?

I'm not sure if I ever did based on what Sleephead has pointed out. That can all depend upon how you define "Christianity".

The denomination of Christianity that I was raised in did not define Chrisitanity based on hateful accusations such as those of Mark 16:16. In fact, if that had been the basis of Christianity I doubt that my parents would have bothered with Christianity.

Mark is not Jesus. Let's get that straight right off the bat.

I was born into Christianity. As a young child I believe in "God" innately. Not because of anything any adults had taught me. However, since my parents were Christians and took me to a Christian church I naively believe that perhaps God has something to do with this Church and its Bible. After all my very own parents were telling me that the Bible is the Word of God, and Jesus is his son.

However, and here's the rude awakening, I quickly realized that even the pastors didn't agree on what these supposed word of God has to say. And I was surrounded by pastors because several of my uncles were pastors and they would often bring over friends of theirs who were also pastors.

This was the first clue for me that there were problems with the religion. Here I am seeing right before my very eyes pastors themselves disagreeing on what the Bible has to say or what God expects from people. They argued these things very politely of course, but there were still clear disagreements.

That's when I decided to look into the matter for myself. After all, it was crystal clear that I can't trust the preachers as they don't even agree with each other.

I soon realized that "Christian denominations" that are far removed from ours were even more radical in their interpretations and disagreements.

I also began to realize that all of Protestantism is nothing more than a rebellion against Catholicism. I realized at that point that if there is anything to the religion at all it must lie in Catholicism because anything outside of Catholicism is already clearly just rebellious opinionated nonsense and cannot possibly be the word of God.

Then I began to realize that Catholicism itself is just an offshoot of Judaism and that the Jews never even accepted that Jesus was "The Christ" or the special son of God.

It just got worse and worse. And of course to complete the picture Islam needs to be taken into account as well since it too is an offshoot of the same religion.

You can't very well proclaim that the Christian Bible is the "Protected infallible word of God" whilst all these other forms of the religion exist. That wouldn't be much 'protection'. Especially considering that within Christendom itself we see the disagreements between Catholicism and the myriad of protesting Protestantisms.

So it's pretty obvious that there is no "protection" going on here at all. It's clearly a free-for-all where every religious sect proclaims to hold the "Word of God" when in truth it's far more reasonable to realize that none of them hold the word of any God.

I also looked into the Bible myself to see if I could make any rational sense of it. After all that is the "Protestant" ideal. We're supposed to read it for ourselves and draw our own conclusions instead of allowing some Pope to tell us his interpretations.

Well, when I do that I find that Bible to be utterly absurd. IMHO, it cannot possibly be the thoughts, actions, commandments, or directives of any God.

The Bible contains highly immoral bigotries and directives, IMHO.

I also noticed right away that even the New Testament has Jesus himself rejecting the immoral teachings of the Bible. There are historical claims that the Pharisees had him crucified precisely because of his blaspheme and apostasy against the God of the Bible and Orthodox Judaism. Jesus was a heretic and basically a heathen according to the Old Testament.

My conclusion can only be that this Jesus fellow was indeed preaching against the immorality taught by the Old Testament. He could not possibly have been the son of that God, IMHO.

Moreover, IMHO, even if it could somehow be made to make sense that the he was the sacrificial lamb of the God of the Old Testament, that very notion represents to me an extremely immoral and insane God. A God who could only be extremely inept and desperate himself with no better choices available to him.

In order for the Bible to be true God would need to be extremely inept, weak, and basically powerless to address any situation in a sane and intelligent manner.

In fact, just look at the Biblical picture. This God attempts to solve all of his problems using truly ignorant and violent means of desperation. And far more importantly none of his solutions ever actually solve anything. He totally fails every single time he tries to do something.

The Bible itself demands that our creator is a looser God. At one point he had to drown out the bulk of humanity along with most of the animal kingdom in his attempt to rid the world of sin, and failed miserable. Plus he LOST the vast majority of souls that he himself supposedly created.

According to the New Testament Jesus proclaims that the path is straight and the gate is narrow and only FEW will make it into the kingdom of God. So the God of the Bible has been confirmed both in the Old and the New Testament to be a looser God who loses the vast majority of souls that he creates.

That's not a very good record for a creator or souls.

Also this contrast between the Old and New Testaments is an extreme contradiction. In the Old Testament this God apparently hates the world so much that he simply drowns out the sinners, yet in the New Testament this God supposedly loves the world so much that he gives his only begotten son to save it.

This would be a completely untrustworthy God who can't even make up his mind how he wants to deal with the objects of his own creation.

It's a train-wrecked religion, that can't possibly be made to make sense.

No apologies in the world can save this religion. It's way too self-contradicting and utterly absurd. Jesus didn't even agree with the God portrayed in the Old Testament.

Also, we now know that the fable of the fall-from-grace that tries to pin all the evils of the world onto mankind is indeed a lie. We now know that death, disease, thorns on plants. natural disasters and dog-eat-dog was the nature of planet earth long before humans ever came onto the scene.

So the Bible is based fundamentally on a lie to begin with.

It's clearly every bit as false as Greek mythology.

There was not "falling away".

I simply realized that this religion cannot possibly be true.

Moreover, I never even gave up my faith in a mystical spiritual essence to reality. I still believe innately in a "God" to this very day. I just realize that I don't need to support and stand behind every ancient superstitious fable to maintain that belief.

Just because I believe in a God doesn't mean that I need to accept a religion that demands that God is less intelligent than a barroom drunkard and less moral than an insane criminal.

Why should I believe in a God who is so inept that he has to have his own son crucified in a desperate effort to save the objects of his creation. Objects that he clearly looses far more than he wins?

Such an inept creator has no business creating souls. If he's that bad at creating souls then he shouldn't keep creating them. To do that would be totally irresponsible on his part anyway.

The Biblical account of Got cannot possibly be true.

It's just not even in the running for a picture of a sane creator, IMHO.

And here you are supporting Mark 16:16 who would condemn people for merely not believing that our creator is an insane bumbling idiot.

Why should I believe that in the first place?

And why should I be condemned for refusing to believe it?

If there is a God, he should take it as a compliment that I totally reject the Bible as having anything at all to do with him.

To believe that the Bible describes God is the surest way to demean and degrade God.

[McCulloch]

[Replying to post 1 by YahDough]

I became a Christian because the teachings of the New Testament seemed to give a purpose to my existence. I realize now that that purpose was a pipe dream, an illusion, but at the time, I had not the internal fortitude to find my own purpose.

[YahDough]

[Replying to post 1 by YahDough]

I became a Christian because the teachings of the New Testament seemed to give a purpose to my existence. I realize now that that purpose was a pipe dream, an illusion, but at the time, I had not the internal fortitude to find my own purpose.

Thanks for responding McC. What was your initial salvation experience? Did you get baptized as a believer? Did you receive the Holy Ghost (Spirit)?

[McCulloch]

What was your initial salvation experience? Did you get baptized as a believer?

I have to wonder why these questions are being asked. Are you going to compare the responses to similar questions by those who have not fallen away[/8i]? Does it give you some kind of satisfaction and security to be able to tell yourself that the fallen were not really True Christians in the first place?

A friend of mine had gotten me to agree to a Bible study with the preacher at her church. Up to that time, my understanding of the Bible was somewhat fragmented, incomplete and sketchy. After several weeks, I came to the understanding that I was a sinner in need of reconciliation with God. We prayed together and then I was taken to a place where I was baptized.

Did you receive the Holy Ghost (Spirit)?

I was told at the time that I had received the Holy Spirit. And at the time, I believed that I had received the Holy Spirit. Of course, that does not mean that I actually did receive the Holy Spirit. I believe now that there is no Holy Spirit, so I now believe that I did not receive the Holy Spirit. But at the time, I did believe. I had no strange utterances, spoke in no foreign languages, proclaimed no prophecy nor encountered any miraculous healings. Did I receive the Holy Spirit? Did you receive the Holy Spirit? How can we know for sure?

[YahDough]

What was your initial salvation experience? Did you get baptized as a believer?

I have to wonder why these questions are being asked.

I have a burden for those who have fallen away from Christ.

Are you going to compare the responses to similar questions by those who have not fallen away[/8i]?

I'm not sure. I wasn't planning to, but that might be interesting.

Does it give you some kind of satisfaction and security to be able to tell yourself that the fallen were not really True Christians in the first place?

No way. But the goal of the "True Christian" is to become a true believer. That is the process known as sanctification.

A friend of mine had gotten me to agree to a Bible study with the preacher at her church. Up to that time, my understanding of the Bible was somewhat fragmented, incomplete and sketchy. After several weeks, I came to the understanding that I was a sinner in need of reconciliation with God. We prayed together and then I was taken to a place where I was baptized.

That's a great testimony.

Did you receive the Holy Ghost (Spirit)?

I was told at the time that I had received the Holy Spirit. And at the time, I believed that I had received the Holy Spirit.

That's why I prefer to call the Comforter the Holy Ghost instead of the Holy Spirit. It's more scary, more real. (to me). A person shouldn't have to doubt His presence in their lives.

Of course, that does not mean that I actually did receive the Holy Spirit.

It sounds to me like you did. Where did you go from there? Did you study with the help of the Holy Ghost to learn more? When did you quit trying?

I believe now that there is no Holy Spirit, so I now believe that I did not receive the Holy Spirit.

I think we should use the word "think" not "believe" when we aren't positive what is happening.

But at the time, I did believe. I had no strange utterances, spoke in no foreign languages, proclaimed no prophecy nor encountered any miraculous healings. Did I receive the Holy Spirit?

I think you did. Perhaps you just let doubt destroy your initial confidence. Doubt and sin are killers of faith.

Did you receive the Holy Spirit?

Like I said, I prefer to call Him the Holy Ghost (Comforter), but yes I did. I did not speak in tongues either. And it took me four(4) water baptisms before I started to feel confident of my salvation. I was a backslider.

How can we know for sure?

It's all about confidence. Faith is the confidence we have in what we believe.
Faith in Christ Jesus comes by hearing and reading the rhema (word) of God.

God bless you McC.
Thanks

[sleepyhead]

Hello Divine Insight,

I'm going off topic a little but I feel I must respond whenever this claim is made.

DI>>>I also noticed right away that even the New Testament has Jesus himself rejecting the immoral teachings of the Bible. There are historical claims that the Pharisees had him crucified precisely because of his blaspheme and apostasy against the God of the Bible and Orthodox Judaism. <<<

If you read the 4 gospels from the last supper to the end you'll notice that the Pharisees are only mentioned one time, and that is in the gospel of John, relative to the crucifixon of Jesus. John only claims that there were some Pharisees in the crowd. The moral here is that while Jesus and the Pharisees may have called each other nasty names, the Pharisees were not involved in having Jesus crucified.