Why do converts hate their former faiths so passionately?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Marybeloved
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
CopticChristian said:
CalChristian;8555510:
'm not sure what your desire is in constantly stressing that The Catholic Church has no organization, no authority, no common faith, no common name and no parishes - but whatever that point is, it’s irrelevant to what I posted and IMO is in no sense a reply.

Yes, all denominations are associations of congregations, which in turn are associations of Christians. They all come from that - Christians. Now, I have no clue what in the world that has to do with anything I posted.

Here it is again. IF it helps you, you may (in your reading) replace “denomination” with the any of the following…

From religioustolerance.com
Denomination: an established religious group, typically uniting a group of individual, local congregations into a single administrative body.
Click to expand...
From thefreedictionary.com
Denomination: . A large group of religious congregations united under a common faith and name and organized under a single administrative and legal hierarchy.

From onlinedictionary.com
Denomination: a group of religious congregations having its own organization and often a distinctive faith

From Allwords.com
Denomination: a group of religious congregations having its own organization and a distinctive faith

I mean the word with these definitions, as you well know. Read the post with these meanings of that word. Then, IF you want to discuss the POST, I welcome that, my brother.

Those that have changed denominations because of theology CAN be rather passionate.
After all, they regard churches as accountable and potentially wrong (all of them, including the CC).

My Protestant congregation is about half former Catholic, including the pastor (and me). But I’ve NEVER - not once - heard a disparaging word or comment about the CC (or any comment AT ALL about it in the sermons or official publications). My OWN feeling is that I’m profoundly grateful for my time in your denomination and for the MANY blessings I received there - I have nothing but gratitude for that. I regard your denomination as sound and valid, and I hold it in considerable esteem. I regard all in Her as my FULL, entirely unseparated, equal and equally blessed brothers and sisters in Christ. I regard all Her ministers and ministries as fully valid, I regard Her Sacraments as fully valid. I pray daily for God’s rich, abundant blessings to Her, Her ministers and ministries and Her Holy Father. Yes - I know none of this is mutual (which just makes Catholics more “anti” than I am, lol) but none of that bothers me personally. Of course, there are a couple of things
I disagree with in Catholicism (or I’d still be there) but they do NOT cause me - in any sense - to question their Christianity or salvation or my spiritual unity with them.

.

The Church came before the Bible. The Bible was birthed by the Church. The Church and the Bible came before those above in red. These are outside sources that I can accept or reject. You choose to accept and I choose to reject. I am not obligated by definitions.

eu·tha·na·sia noun \ˌyü-thə-ˈnā-zh(ē-)ə\

Definition of EUTHANASIA
: the act or practice of killing or permitting the death of hopelessly sick or injured individuals (as persons or domestic animals) in a relatively painless way for reasons of mercy
Click to expand...
Sorry, I don’t have a CLUE what your “reply” to my post has to do with it.
How do you decide which definitions you choose to adhere to and which you do not? I want to know.
Click to expand...
I typically use a dictionary. In ecumenical discussions, I often go to the religiontolerance site since it exists to help all post in non-offensive, accurate, ecumenical terms. What I don’t do is go to an economics definition to give a theological definition (in economics, denomination means a part of a whole; a dime is a denomination of a dollar, but that’s an ECONOMICS definition, wholly inappropriate and inapplicable in a religious discussion, obviously).

Now, you’ve known exactly how I use the term. But, for a reason I’m sorry but I just don’t know, you’ve chosen to quote my posts but not reply to them, quote them without any possibility of discussion. I’m simply without a clue why.

Yes, your denomination (see above) came before my tome of the Bible was printed (2006), yes. I have no clue whatsoever what that has to do with ANYTHING in my post but yes, I think that’s true. Is your denomination older than Scripture (which first appeared around 1400 BC)? Not according to my Catholic teachers. But again, I just don’t have a CLUE what that has to do with ANYTHING I posted or ANYTHING in this thread.

.
 
CalChristian said:
Sorry, I don’t have a CLUE what your “reply” to my post has to do with it.

I typically use a dictionary. In ecumenical discussions, I often go to the religiontolerance site since it exists to help all post in non-offensive, accurate, ecumenical terms. What I don’t do is go to an economics definition to give a theological definition (in economics, denomination means a part of a whole; a dime is a denomination of a dollar, but that’s an ECONOMICS definition, wholly inappropriate and inapplicable in a religious discussion, obviously).

Now, you’ve known exactly how I use the term. But, for a reason I’m sorry but I just don’t know, you’ve chosen to quote my posts but not reply to them, quote them without any possibility of discussion. I’m simply without a clue why.

Yes, your denomination (see above) came before my tome of the Bible was printed (2006), yes. I have no clue whatsoever what that has to do with ANYTHING in my post but yes, I think that’s true. Is your denomination older than Scripture (which first appeared around 1400 BC)? Not according to my Catholic teachers. But again, I just don’t have a CLUE what that has to do with ANYTHING I posted or ANYTHING in this thread.

.
Click to expand...
You are stubborn insisting that the Catholic Church is a denomination. One of the Forum masters posted this. Stop, look at the screen. This is Catholic Answers. Are you looking for an answer or just trying to post your point of view. This is Catholic Answers. The question is this. Is the Catholic Church a denomination. The answer is this…
Originally Posted by guanophore
Click to expand...
The Catholic Church is not a “denomination”. It is the One Church founded by Jesus, from which all others have denominated. And with each and every denomination, more of the Gospel message has been lost
Click to expand...
Insist as you must. Here is the answer from Catholic Answers. Your insistence will not change this fact. Rethink your position, stop insisting something that is not true and then move on.👍

There can be no discussion until this error is rectified. Once this error is rectified then there can be a discussion.

When did you stop beating your wife? To answer this I must admit I beat my wife. If I offer any answer and you keep insisiting I answer the question we go nowhere. First we establish I do not beat my wife. Got it.👍
 
CalChristian said:
Yes, your denomination (see above) came before my tome of the Bible was printed (2006), yes. I have no clue whatsoever what that has to do with ANYTHING in my post but yes, I think that’s true. Is your denomination older than Scripture (which first appeared around 1400 BC)? Not according to my Catholic teachers. But again, I just don’t have a CLUE what that has to do with ANYTHING I posted or ANYTHING in this thread.
Click to expand...
CalChristian with all due respect, your insistence on planting on us a description we out-rightly reject and indeed find false and offensive borders on insults now.

We call Martin Luther’s movement 'the reformation". Why? Do you think we think of it as a reformation or simply a deformation? Yet we call it that out of respect because it’s the description it assumed. The Catholic Church is called simply that- The Catholic Church. If you have no ill will, I have no idea why you would persist to call as with a description we reject and are simply never known for- Are you here to offend Catholics or what exactly is the point?

Protestantism grew out of the rejection of the idea of the one true church visible and Apostolic- It formed its many denominations based on that same ideology of rejection of authority and it still does. You are attempting to class the Catholic Church that existed before the first letter of the NT was ever put down in ink, in a movement that exists on the basis of rejecting that one church. Protestantism and its many denominations is a distinct movement within Christianity- It’s the height of arrogance to impose your ecclessiology on churches that existed before the New Testament!

In any case we reject that description. You cannot call us things we have rejected- that’s called bullying. We have a name, you know it. If it’s too long for you, you can even type CC. Can we move on now?

Peace!
 
I am a former evangelical nondenominational christian, as well as a former Anglican and I dont hate my former faiths at all. In fact, I respect them both for different reasons, and I am thankful that I had the opportunity to spend time with other believers in those groups.
 
CopticChristian said:
40.png
CalChristian:
From religioustolerance.com

Denomination: an established religious group, typically uniting a group of individual, local congregations into a single administrative body.
Click to expand...
From thefreedictionary.com

Denomination: . A large group of religious congregations united under a common faith and name and organized under a single administrative and legal hierarchy.

From onlinedictionary.com

Denomination: a group of religious congregations having its own organization and often a distinctive faith

From Allwords.com

Denomination: a group of religious congregations having its own organization and a distinctive faith

.

You are stubborn insisting that the Catholic Church is a denomination. One of the Forum masters posted this. Stop, look at the screen. This is Catholic Answers. Are you looking for an answer or just trying to post your point of view. This is Catholic Answers. The question is this. Is the Catholic Church a denomination. The answer is this…
Click to expand...
  1. I didn’t know that this website finds it offensive to embrace that The Catholic Church has an organization and a faith. Could you inform me why that is so offensive? Please read the definition. Please, if you will, explain what is offensive about the defintion and why The Catholic Church so clearly does not fit such (and finds it so offensive to suggest that it does)? Thank you very much!
  2. No one yet has disputed these several dictionaries (none are Protestant or from Protestant websites, in fact one exists to PROMOTE ecumenical discussions and religious tolerance). I have made it CLEAR I’m not using the economics definition of the term but the religious one.
  3. If The Catholic Church is not an organization with congregations, organization and a faith - as you seem to be insisting is the insistence of this website - then why is The Evangelical Lutheran Synod a denomination since it TOO has an organization, congregations and a faith? How can a definition have two contradictory meanings - meaning one thing when applied to all but self? Could you explain?
AND could you please explain what in the world this has to do with what I posted vis-a-vis the issue of this thread? I’m really lost… I gave my opinion. No one replied to it at all.

.
 
CalChristian said:
  1. I didn’t know that this website finds it offensive to embrace that The Catholic Church has an organization and a faith. Could you inform me why that is so offensive? Thank you!
  2. No one yet has disputed these several dictionaries (none are Protestant or from Protestant websites, in fact one exists to PROMOTE ecumenical discussions and religious tolerance). I have made it CLEAR I’m not using the economics definition of the term but the religious one.
  3. If The Catholic Church is not an organization with congregations, organization and a faith - as you seem to be insisting is the insistence of this website - then why is The Evangelical Lutheran Synod a denomination since it TOO has an organization, congregations and a faith? How can a definition have two contradictory meanings - meaning one thing when applied to all but self? Could you explain?
AND could you please explain what in the world this has to do with what I posted vis-a-vis the issue of this thread? I’m really lost… I gave my opinion. No one replied to it at all.
Click to expand...
WE REJECT THE DESCRIPTION- You don’t need to use it to communicate with us, you know our name- CAN WE PLEASE MOVE ON NOW??
 
Marybeloved said:
CalChristian with all due respect, your insistence on planting on us a description we out-rightly reject and indeed find false and offensive borders on insults now.

We call Martin Luther’s movement 'the reformation". Why? Do you think we think of it as a reformation or simply a deformation? Yet we call it that out of respect because it’s the description it assumed. The Catholic Church is called simply that- The Catholic Church. If you have no ill will, I have no idea why you would persist to call as with a description we reject and are simply never known for- Are you here to offend Catholics or what exactly is the point?

Protestantism grew out of the rejection of the idea of the one true church visible and Apostolic- It formed its many denominations based on that same ideology of rejection of authority and it still does. You are attempting to class the Catholic Church that existed before the first letter of the NT was ever put down in ink, in a movement that exists on the basis of rejecting that one church. Protestantism and its many denominations is a distinct movement within Christianity- It’s the height of arrogance to impose your ecclessiology on churches that existed before the New Testament!

In any case we reject that description. You cannot call us things we have rejected- that’s called bullying. We have a name, you know it. If it’s too long for you, you can even type CC. Can we move on now?

Peace!
Click to expand...
Well said. You insist on calling the Catholic Church a denomination, our Priests you call ministers. As a former Catholic surely you know better.
 
Marybeloved said:
I’ve encountered ex-Catholics that hate the Church with a passion, I’m sure the same thing can be attested in other faiths to a lesser or greater extent. I’m not a convert myself, (at least not from another faith, but from a life of indifference) so I don’t really understand this phenomenon well.

Why? 🤷
Click to expand...
I think Thomas Kuhn’s theory of “paradigm shifts” explains it.

A paradigm is a way of explaining reality. All paradigms have some “pressure” on them–that is, they all have things that they find it difficult to explain. (I know it’s fashionable for Catholic apologists to claim that this isn’t true of Catholicism, but it pretty clearly is true.) However, merely having trouble explaining certain things isn’t going to make you abandon the paradigm. You can come up with “epicycles”–ways of explaining the problems. As long as you remain within your paradigm, you simply experience these difficulties as difficulties.

But suppose a paradigm comes along that explains the things that really worry you about your present paradigm. You may decide to “convert” to it. (Kuhn’s famous and controversial claim is that even scientific revolutions work this way, instead of being the result of the accumulation of objective evidence.) Once you make that “paradigm shift,” you have a completely different frame of reference for looking at the evidence. In my experience, paradigm shifts make it very hard for a person even to remember what it felt like to hold the old paradigm. You keep remembering the old paradigm through the framework provided by the new. Your memory fixes on the things that bothered you about the old paradigm, or the things that pointed toward the paradigm you now hold. Those things seem now as if they were obvious truths that you really knew deep down all along. Your attempts to “save” the old paradigm now seem to you like desperate, even hypocritical efforts to defend the indefensible and avoid facing the truth.

People who still hold to the old paradigm–who refuse to see the light you have seen–are going to anger and frustrate you. You are going to assume that they are “fighting the truth” just as you did. You are going to find it hard to accept that they may be just as conscientious and intelligent as you are.

Furthermore, you are going to be tempted to claim expertise on the old paradigm, even though the shift your mind has undergone has left you perhaps less able to understand it than someone who never held it at all.

I myself fall into this. When I encounter students who hold to fundamentalist or dispensationalist ideas, I pride myself that I can understand them because I was once like them and saw my professors as scary liberals just as they now see me. Just writing this post has brought home to me that I’m deceiving myself in this regard. I certainly know a great deal about dispensationalism that most academics don’t, but I find it very hard to get inside the mentality of someone who still holds to it, because it seems to me like such a ludicrous, threadbare, impoverishing way of looking at Scripture. . . .

Edwin
 
Marybeloved said:
WE REJECT THE DESCRIPTION- You don’t need to use it to communicate with us, you know our name- CAN WE PLEASE MOVE ON NOW??
Click to expand...
Sure…

But years of Catholic training are now made confused…

Why does this website not only insist upon (but find it offensive to say otherwise) that The Catholic Church has no organization and faith? When I was Catholic, it not only taught that but make it rather important! I’m really confused now…

Oh, well…

If I may ask another question, since it’s offensive to say that The Catholic Church has an organization and faith, why is it not offensive to say that The Methodist Church has an organization and faith? Catholics do call other churches “denominations” - so it must not be offensive that they have an organization and faith. Why is it offensive in one case and appropriate in another? Is the word not permitted at this website - regardless of the institution? Is it simply regarded as an offensive word - by all, for anything? If so, I apologize, I missed that as I read the rules (realizing not everything can be spelled out in the rules); if it’s an offensive word than I’m sure it’s offensive when directed to noncatholic entities too.

Thanks!

.
 
CalChristian said:
  1. I didn’t know that this website finds it offensive to embrace that The Catholic Church has an organization and a faith. Could you inform me why that is so offensive? Please read the definition. Please, if you will, explain what is offensive about the defintion and why The Catholic Church so clearly does not fit such (and finds it so offensive to suggest that it does)? Thank you very much!
  2. No one yet has disputed these several dictionaries (none are Protestant or from Protestant websites, in fact one exists to PROMOTE ecumenical discussions and religious tolerance). I have made it CLEAR I’m not using the economics definition of the term but the religious one.
  3. If The Catholic Church is not an organization with congregations, organization and a faith - as you seem to be insisting is the insistence of this website - then why is The Evangelical Lutheran Synod a denomination since it TOO has an organization, congregations and a faith? How can a definition have two contradictory meanings - meaning one thing when applied to all but self? Could you explain?
AND could you please explain what in the world this has to do with what I posted vis-a-vis the issue of this thread? I’m really lost… I gave my opinion. No one replied to it at all.

.
Click to expand...
Let me enlarge your mind. Words in these sites and all sites are born out of usage. Usage does not necessarily equate with correctness. If you want to know what a Methodist believes ask a Methodist. If you want to know what a Muslim believes ask a Muslim. If you insist on using language that was generated through usage as I pointed out in Euthanasia then you will not get a correct answer. This is Catholic Answers. The Catholic Church is not a denomination regardless of who defines it that way including you. Can you get that point.

I use words as I see fit, sometimes depending on usage, however also in terms of hisoricity. When there is a question I choose words that convey my thoughts. I pray you give up this futile effort.
 
Contarini said:
I think Thomas Kuhn’s theory of “paradigm shifts” explains it.

A paradigm is a way of explaining reality. All paradigms have some “pressure” on them–that is, they all have things that they find it difficult to explain. (I know it’s fashionable for Catholic apologists to claim that this isn’t true of Catholicism, but it pretty clearly is true.) However, merely having trouble explaining certain things isn’t going to make you abandon the paradigm. You can come up with “epicycles”–ways of explaining the problems. As long as you remain within your paradigm, you simply experience these difficulties as difficulties.

But suppose a paradigm comes along that explains the things that really worry you about your present paradigm. You may decide to “convert” to it. (Kuhn’s famous and controversial claim is that even scientific revolutions work this way, instead of being the result of the accumulation of objective evidence.) Once you make that “paradigm shift,” you have a completely different frame of reference for looking at the evidence. In my experience, paradigm shifts make it very hard for a person even to remember what it felt like to hold the old paradigm. You keep remembering the old paradigm through the framework provided by the new. Your memory fixes on the things that bothered you about the old paradigm, or the things that pointed toward the paradigm you now hold. Those things seem now as if they were obvious truths that you really knew deep down all along. Your attempts to “save” the old paradigm now seem to you like desperate, even hypocritical efforts to defend the indefensible and avoid facing the truth.

People who still hold to the old paradigm–who refuse to see the light you have seen–are going to anger and frustrate you. You are going to assume that they are “fighting the truth” just as you did. You are going to find it hard to accept that they may be just as conscientious and intelligent as you are.

Furthermore, you are going to be tempted to claim expertise on the old paradigm, even though the shift your mind has undergone has left you perhaps less able to understand it than someone who never held it at all.

I myself fall into this. When I encounter students who hold to fundamentalist or dispensationalist ideas, I pride myself that I can understand them because I was once like them and saw my professors as scary liberals just as they now see me. Just writing this post has brought home to me that I’m deceiving myself in this regard. I certainly know a great deal about dispensationalism that most academics don’t, but I find it very hard to get inside the mentality of someone who still holds to it, because it seems to me like such a ludicrous, threadbare, impoverishing way of looking at Scripture. . . .

Edwin
Click to expand...
Contarini I figured you were a professor when I read your post. 😉
As that great philosopher Louis L’amour once wrote:
“Seek for answers, and when you find what seems to be an answer, question that too.”
😉
 
Contarini said:
I think Thomas Kuhn’s theory of “paradigm shifts” explains it.

A paradigm is a way of explaining reality. All paradigms have some “pressure” on them–that is, they all have things that they find it difficult to explain. (I know it’s fashionable for Catholic apologists to claim that this isn’t true of Catholicism, but it pretty clearly is true.) However, merely having trouble explaining certain things isn’t going to make you abandon the paradigm. You can come up with “epicycles”–ways of explaining the problems. As long as you remain within your paradigm, you simply experience these difficulties as difficulties.

But suppose a paradigm comes along that explains the things that really worry you about your present paradigm. You may decide to “convert” to it. (Kuhn’s famous and controversial claim is that even scientific revolutions work this way, instead of being the result of the accumulation of objective evidence.) Once you make that “paradigm shift,” you have a completely different frame of reference for looking at the evidence. In my experience, paradigm shifts make it very hard for a person even to remember what it felt like to hold the old paradigm. You keep remembering the old paradigm through the framework provided by the new. Your memory fixes on the things that bothered you about the old paradigm, or the things that pointed toward the paradigm you now hold. Those things seem now as if they were obvious truths that you really knew deep down all along. Your attempts to “save” the old paradigm now seem to you like desperate, even hypocritical efforts to defend the indefensible and avoid facing the truth.

People who still hold to the old paradigm–who refuse to see the light you have seen–are going to anger and frustrate you. You are going to assume that they are “fighting the truth” just as you did. You are going to find it hard to accept that they may be just as conscientious and intelligent as you are.

Furthermore, you are going to be tempted to claim expertise on the old paradigm, even though the shift your mind has undergone has left you perhaps less able to understand it than someone who never held it at all.

I myself fall into this. When I encounter students who hold to fundamentalist or dispensationalist ideas, I pride myself that I can understand them because I was once like them and saw my professors as scary liberals just as they now see me. Just writing this post has brought home to me that I’m deceiving myself in this regard. I certainly know a great deal about dispensationalism that most academics don’t, but I find it very hard to get inside the mentality of someone who still holds to it, because it seems to me like such a ludicrous, threadbare, impoverishing way of looking at Scripture. . . .

Edwin
Click to expand...
👍 Thanks for this interesting insight!
 
I was the one I was speaking about. …A priest molested me as I stated earlier, but the comment was inappropriately decided to be removed because it told what he did in civilized language. I was civil and the action against me was very inappropriate because those in charge have learned from the very best manipulators to be the one to decide, even though those decisions are quite unjust. There is no way to get around the truth and the hatred I fostered for many years against priests and Catholic laity for helping bishops and priests hide their deeply dark sins against me and other victims of sex abuse. This is not over and it will be decades before the clergy are floored from the sins they fostered, aided by the deep misguided mindset of Catholic laity.

Even my new parish priests told me they couldn’t blame me for leaving the church - looking for a safe place. The first mas I attended in a litmus test to see if I could handle it was met by a priest egerly inviting my non-Catholic children to consider the priesthood or religious life. All I could think of was “you perverted freak”. I gave him my intentionally fake angry smiling face while gritting my teeth in order to control my faculties. i wanted to rip him apart. The flames of anger from my eyes must have been obvious. I told him about it later as I finally decided to come home. He told me he understood my anger. Ironically I discovered that he was the priest that turned in a monster priest against the ArchBishop’s demands that he “keep you big mouth shut.”

One of the things extended to Catholics is the right to protect oneself. I chose to protect myself and hated clergy for around 30 years, ever since I left the seminary. I still hold a lot of baggage against the priest that was hid and managed to become a pastor right after molesting me. I was 18 years old and that seems to be the litmus test for being able to get away with it. He should have been put in jail for what he was really guilty of and he, unlike me, is prospering because he doesn’t have the ethics to conduct himself appropriately.

Those of us that try to explain our issues, get infractions for “inappropriate language” or some other concocted false accusation in order to justify burying us beneath the sand. They do not know how to deal with folks like me that were deeply hurt and express our feelings as part of our therapy. They have taken the place of bishops that held onto inappropriate and very uncharitable policies of hiding the offending clergy in order to save face, save money and save their reputations… all at the expense of children and vulnerable adults. When my parents agreed to allow me to pursue the seminary, they had no idea that I would be molested in the ways that occurred, physically, emotionally and spiritually. I’m sure that the next step will be banning those of us that speak the truth because our truth does not agree with their desire to disbelieve holy men could do such evil acts. Those lay folks always ban people or give infractions when the truth hurts. This is one of the many reasons I’ve chosen to be here. To speak to those suffering Catholics the need a friend. This lack of charity is why so many Catholics run from the Church as well as hate the lies… Lies perpetuated like this make Catholicism look like a cult, which is very difficult to successfully argue against.

The positive side of this message is that at least the Holy Father seems to see the problem and has addressed it appropriately. Unfortunately, Catholics, like fundamentalist, hide behind their misunderstandings and continue to perpetuate the lies and act like their defending the faith when in fact they’re only scandalizing the entire Church community, including all Christians from other faiths. When will we ever open our hearts to God’s love? PAX
 
VeritasLuxMea said:
The feeling that your parents/family lied to you and/or didn’t let you choose your faith but instead forced it upon you.

The INSANE amount of pressure that is brought to bear to bring you back into the fold. E.G., “come back to the old faith or we will disown you”, etc.

Those two off the top of my head.
Click to expand...
I am sorry,but I do not buy the bolded sentence. I am wondering,those who claim such a position,do they also feel the same about their child’s education? Was it being forced upon him/her? Did Mary force Judaism on Jesus? The above to me is a cop-out and basically is saying: Since I do not have strong convictions about my faith,then I’ll let my kids choose his/her own faith.

As Director of Catechetical Ministry,I hear it all the time by many parents. Relativism at its best!
 
Marybeloved said:
I’ve encountered ex-Catholics that hate the Church with a passion, I’m sure the same thing can be attested in other faiths to a lesser or greater extent. I’m not a convert myself, (at least not from another faith, but from a life of indifference) so I don’t really understand this phenomenon well.

Why? 🤷
Click to expand...
To some extent, there’s an aura of Christ’s comment about serving one master

Matthew 6:24 NIV -
“No one can serve two masters. Either he will hate the one and love the other, or he will be devoted to the one and despise the other. You cannot serve both God and Money.”

While Christ was specifically referring to money in this case, the parable can be broadened to any core belief system. So when someone abandons the Catholic or other faith for another, they do so because they think they are moving to the correct Master, or closer to the truth. In doing so they “despise” their former Master.

It’s the way we’re made. Hatred and even “despise” may be too strong a word in most cases, but new converts develop a certain cynicism about their former faith, particularly in the early stages when they are still trying to justify their decision to themselves and former compatriots.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top