Are you a Christian?

[Skyangel]

I am starting this thread because Winepusher asked me if I am a Christian. if anyone else wishes to ask me personal questions, I will attempt to answer them to the best of my ability. You are all welcome to ask anything you like. I promise you that I do not get offended by any questions but I will tell you it's none of your business if I think you are asking something that you do not need to know about me, so please don't get offended if I say that to you.

-----------------------------------------------
Winepusher asked:
Are you a christian? Another user (thevoiceofgod) claimed to be a christian but his ideas strayed far from mainstream christianity, and as I was reading this post, it seems to me yours do to.


Skyangel wrote:
Was Jesus a Christian?

The same Spirit that is in Jesus is also in me. That same Spirit was also considered to be of the devil by the hypocrites who crucified Jesus.

Some people think I am a Christian, some think I am of God and others think I am of the devil. I will leave the judgment to you.

I am no more a Christian than Jesus is.

I am the same kind of believer in God that Jesus is.

Winepusher wrote:

Can you be direct with your response?

-----------------------------------------------

My answer is that I can be as direct as you want me to be. What else do you want to know?
In short here is a summary of my life...

I was born into a family of agnostics.
I began questioning about God when I was about 6 or 7 when I came across religious instructions at school.

I went to a few churches with friends when I was a child. Some of those I attended included Anglican, Presbyterian, Baptist, Catholic, Pentecostal.

When I was 15 years old I responded to an altar call and gave my life to Jesus.
I regularly attended christian churches for approx 30 years after that.

I stopped attending religious institutions about ten years ago and the reason for that is a long story.

These days I only go to church when friends invite me for special occasions and I do it for their benefit not mine. I do it to show them I still love them and have nothing against them but I do stand against the false doctrines in Christianity.

I love the Lord with all my heart and I hate the deceptions in religions.

I do not call myself a Christian simply because Christianity today is not about being a follower of Christ but rather about belonging to a religious institution.

I follow the Truth and reality of Jesus who IS Truth. He is also not a Christian.

I am a woman who was born in 1954. I am married and have been married to the same man for over 30 years. I have four adult children and five grandchildren all under 5 so far.

[Skyangel]

I do not call myself a Christian simply because Christianity today is not about being a follower of Christ but rather about belonging to a religious institution.

I can understand. I'd be curious in your thoughts of a church that I'm in the process of starting - New Kind Church.

With all due respect Otseng, I can see you are putting a lot of time and effort into trying to create just another traditional man made religious institutions which claims to different from all the rest, yet you still have a man made creed and man made time table and man made meetings in specified locations. There is nothing spontaneous about it. It looks to me like it will turn into just another a rigid religion based on Catholicism. Its just a "horse" of a different color but still a "horse".
Painting a car a different color does not change it from being what it is.

No man can start a church since Jesus has already built the church and is building the church and will keep building the church and there is only one real church and that is His church which is a living breathing body. You can start a religion but not a church. Followers of the Truth (The Real Jesus) ARE the church regardless of whether they believe any man made creeds or not. We ARE the "bricks and mortar " of His church, His body and the Spirit brings us together In Spirit not in any physical location, when we least expect it, not according to any time tables but when "fate" happens to make our paths cross as in the example of how we share things on the internet when each person has time, not at a certain time at a certain day in a certain place.

I live in Australia and it can be morning here and it can be evening in America at the same time and we might both have different dates on the calendar too but we can still "get together"on the internet in Spirit even if we never meet one another in the flesh.

God brings people from Australia together with people from America and other places and makes them one in Spirit and they fellowship on the internet via the written word or via video conferencing or instant messenger etc. There are no fixed dates or fixed times or fixed prayer meetings or anything like that. It is all as spontaneous as the wind blows and when they are online. Sometimes the communication is as gentle as a soft breeze and sometimes as wild and cruel as a tornado which makes us "run for cover" as it were or feel like "banning" someone from our lives forever, which any of are capable of doing at any time with or without the internet. All these things , good and bad in our lives, are from God and all of them shape us and make us into who and what we are.
They ( the circumstances and the people which God sends across our paths) try us and test us to see how we react and what we do to those we like and dislike and how we treat even our enemies even if we deny we have any of them.
Jesus had enemies so anyone who wants to believe they don't have enemies is either trying to believe they are better and nicer to people than Jesus ever was or they are hiding their heads in the sand in denial of the Truth of their own foolishness and hypocrisy.

Being part of the Body ( Church ) of Jesus is not about being part of any man made institution no matter how " untraditional" they think they are. It is about being ONE in Spirit and about thinking the same way Jesus does and about doing and saying the same as He does and says in the same way He did and said the same as the Father at all times. It is all about spontenaeity and doing what needs doing at the time without restricting yourself to timetables and formats and rituals.

Jesus had no written creed to follow except the OT in written form. He had no catholic church to base anything on. He based His life and actions on Love for God and Love for people and that is as simple as it gets. He did what was asked of Him and did not retaliate when people were cruel to Him. He may have said and done a lot of cruel things to others but He did it all because of His love and passion for Truth, honesty and integrity. He lived and walked in Truth at all times. He never pretended to be something He was not. When we was angry He did not pretend He was not angry but overturned tables and made a spectacle of Himself in the temple. If He did that today He would be arrested for disturbing the artificial peace and thrown out of any religion and even placed in jail or in some assylum for the mentally unstable.

Most Christians don't want to think about that side of Jesus or how He would be treated today and when they are faced with the same angry Spirit, they tend to think it is of the devil in exactly the same way the hypocrites in the bible did and they reject it as being of God at all. Most Christians wish to live in lukewarm hypocrisy because it is comfortable in their lukewarm cess pit where they can pat each other on the back and stroke each others egos and pretend to build each other up in faith as they sit around in their holy huddle pretending to be spiritual and denying they are the hypocrites that they are. They make God sick. That is one of the reasons I left Christian religions. They say one thing and do another. They say they love their enemies but as soon as someone gets angry with them and upsets them they turn that person away from their lives and want nothing more to do with them. They don't want to believe that God gets angry with hypocrites. They tend to preach that anger is a sin but its not a sin at all when you are angry at the same things the Father is angry and for the same reasons He is angry.

I better stop before I get too wound up and someone gets offended by my words.
I tend to get very passionate about the things of God and how people treat their enemies and cast them out and reject them because I have been cast out and rejected by people far too many times for speaking the Truth and it makes me very angry at hypocrites who prefer to throw people away like dirty rags than understand them and why they are angry and what makes them so angry.

Love can be as strong and as cruel as death. It is a fire which cannot be quenched. That same eternal fire (love) can be seen as the love of God by some and can be seen as hell by others. Our God is a consuming fire. I am in that fire and He is in me.

Sgs 8:6 Set me as a seal upon thine heart, as a seal upon thine arm: for love [is] strong as death; jealousy [is] cruel as the grave: the coals thereof [are] coals of fire, [which hath a] most vehement flame.

[Adamoriens]

Anyway, as adults on the internet in any debate situation I really think all people ought to be treated equally and no gentler treatment or more respect ought to be given to females than is given to males.

Perhaps in the marketplace of ideas personal identities have no place. I would rather the discussion consisted of ideas rattling about, disembodied of their proponents. Maybe this thread is out of place?

[Skyangel]

Anyway, as adults on the internet in any debate situation I really think all people ought to be treated equally and no gentler treatment or more respect ought to be given to females than is given to males.

Perhaps in the marketplace of ideas personal identities have no place. I would rather the discussion consisted of ideas rattling about, disembodied of their proponents. Maybe this thread is out of place?

Why would it be out of place? It's in a general chat area, not in any debate area.

In my opinion and experience it is extremely difficult to discuss just ideas without having people get their emotions involved with their ideas simply because many people are very passionate about beliefs/ideas and they tend to take those beliefs/ideas very personally and many get personally offended if their religious doctrines or religions come under attack.

[ChaosBorders]

Anyway, as adults on the internet in any debate situation I really think all people ought to be treated equally and no gentler treatment or more respect ought to be given to females than is given to males.

Perhaps in the marketplace of ideas personal identities have no place. I would rather the discussion consisted of ideas rattling about, disembodied of their proponents. Maybe this thread is out of place?

Perhaps, but I personally would be rather bored by that. Ideas are important, but to me the people throwing them out there are usually of greater interest.

[Skyangel]

Anyway, as adults on the internet in any debate situation I really think all people ought to be treated equally and no gentler treatment or more respect ought to be given to females than is given to males.

Perhaps in the marketplace of ideas personal identities have no place. I would rather the discussion consisted of ideas rattling about, disembodied of their proponents. Maybe this thread is out of place?

Perhaps, but I personally would be rather bored by that. Ideas are important, but to me the people throwing them out there are usually of greater interest.

The way I see it, people and their ideas are united as one and when people express their opinions, ideas, beliefs, etc. they cannot do it without some personal involvement with those ideas. The only way people might be able to express ideas without anything of their personal identities attached to those ideas is to share ideas which are not their own but belong to someone else. In a way, I think that is what most people do when they preach and teach things that they have been taught to believe are true rather than found to be true of their own accord.

[ChaosBorders]

Anyway, as adults on the internet in any debate situation I really think all people ought to be treated equally and no gentler treatment or more respect ought to be given to females than is given to males.

Perhaps in the marketplace of ideas personal identities have no place. I would rather the discussion consisted of ideas rattling about, disembodied of their proponents. Maybe this thread is out of place?

Perhaps, but I personally would be rather bored by that. Ideas are important, but to me the people throwing them out there are usually of greater interest.

The way I see it, people and their ideas are united as one and when people express their opinions, ideas, beliefs, etc. they cannot do it without some personal involvement with those ideas. The only way people might be able to express ideas without anything of their personal identities attached to those ideas is to share ideas which are not their own but belong to someone else. In a way, I think that is what most people do when they preach and teach things that they have been taught to believe are true rather than found to be true of their own accord.

They can also likely do it if they are exceedingly good at hypotheticals and perspective-taking, but for the most part I agree. But I think Admoriens' desire is more that there be an environment where the concept of a veil of ignorance as it applies to communication is automatically enforced. This is a fair desire in that it allows ideas to be judged completely independent of the one contributing the idea.

The downside of this method is that the idea is still subject to the readers' own biases and skewed sense of perception, and not knowing anything about the identity of the one you are addressing makes it next to impossible to intentionally communicate your idea in a manner that might get past any biases which could otherwise cause the reader to ignore or misinterpret the idea.

So there's pros and cons.

[Skyangel]

They can also likely do it if they are exceedingly good at hypotheticals and perspective-taking, but for the most part I agree. But I think Admoriens' desire is more that there be an environment where the concept of a veil of ignorance as it applies to communication is automatically enforced. This is a fair desire in that it allows ideas to be judged completely independent of the one contributing the idea.

The downside of this method is that the idea is still subject to the readers' own biases and skewed sense of perception, and not knowing anything about the identity of the one you are addressing makes it next to impossible to intentionally communicate your idea in a manner that might get past any biases which could otherwise cause the reader to ignore or misinterpret the idea.

So there's pros and cons.

I agree that it is easier to communicate with those you know than with those you don't know. If we know and understand each others biases and why we have those biases, it can be easier to get past the biases and gain a better understanding of why people think the way they do.

In my experience I have found that by making an effort to understand those who oppose me and my ideas, they in turn will sometimes, not always, make an effort to also understand me. I have turned enemies into friends before and can do it again given enough time and providing the "opposition" or "enemy" does not decide to walk out on me or throw me out of their lives in some childish huff because I have offended them in some way.

I have found from experience that any mature people who overlook offenses, can get to know each other and come to an understanding of how each other thinks if both sides are determined to keep communicating till that goal of understanding is achieved. In the process they both need to overlook or forgive any emotional outbursts or perceived offenses and toughen up if their egos get hurt in the process.

I have found that if people put in the effort and put up with any emotional pain or frustrations it might cause in the process of coming to an understanding of others, the end result is more than worth what it costs us emotionally. The price of turning an "enemy" into a friend is not "cheap" but it's worth a lot more than it ever costs us.

[Darias]

I'm a Christian.

I was raised by Protestant, Baptist parents.

I prayed and learned about God and the Bible all throughout my childhood, but I didn't make the faith my own until I was around 13, or 14 years of age.

I am not the "typical Christian" that everyone thinks about when they hear the term.

I don't subscribe to any particular Christian ideology, although some of my theological beliefs may lean towards Baptist ideas. I question and analyze every preacher I hear, especially my own.

I love history and science.

I believe in Evolution and the Big Bang - there is nothing in those two theories that demand the revocation of God. They are simple facts of nature, which I had to incorporate into my faith over the years.

No. I'm not a proponent of Intelligent Design.

I'm theist in the sense that I believe that God intervenes in the lives of men via the occasional miracle (or mathematical improbability) and the day-to-day communication God and men have with each other.

I'm very skeptical about popular Christian End Times doctrines.

I'm not a fan of Pat Robertson...

I support Homosexual Marriage and the end of don't ask don't tell.

I'm heterosexual.


And Jesus is my savior at the same time.



[center]
[/center]

[Skyangel]

I'm a Christian.

I was raised by Protestant, Baptist parents.

I prayed and learned about God and the Bible all throughout my childhood, but I didn't make the faith my own until I was around 13, or 14 years of age.

I am not the "typical Christian" that everyone thinks about when they hear the term.

I don't subscribe to any particular Christian ideology, although some of my theological beliefs may lean towards Baptist ideas. I question and analyze every preacher I hear, especially my own.

I love history and science.

I believe in Evolution and the Big Bang - there is nothing in those two theories that demand the revocation of God. They are simple facts of nature, which I had to incorporate into my faith over the years.

No. I'm not a proponent of Intelligent Design.

I'm theist in the sense that I believe that God intervenes in the lives of men via the occasional miracle (or mathematical improbability) and the day-to-day communication God and men have with each other.

I'm very skeptical about popular Christian End Times doctrines.

I'm not a fan of Pat Robertson...

I support Homosexual Marriage and the end of don't ask don't tell.

I'm heterosexual.


And Jesus is my savior at the same time.



[center]
[/center]

Hello Rhonan.
What makes you skeptical about the end time doctrines in christianity?
I am asking because that is one of the things you listed that we seem to have in common. I think the end time doctrines taught in christianity are false doctrines which deceive those who believe them.

[Darias]

I'm very skeptical about popular Christian End Times doctrines. . .

Hello Rhonan.
What makes you skeptical about the end time doctrines in christianity?
I am asking because that is one of the things you listed that we seem to have in common. I think the end time doctrines taught in christianity are false doctrines which deceive those who believe them.

I enjoy history very much, and that is the main reason for my healthy skepticism.

Of course you don't have to be a student of history in order to doubt the ever-changing prophesies in Christian Eschatology.

For me, Y2K taught me a lesson in fear-bating. My parents and grandparents had stocked up on food after listening to their pastor and the general paranoia over the year 2000.

But when the machines failed to rise up against us - and when the lights continued to burn brightly, I realized that something was a little off about the TV evangelists' predictions...

But Y2K was only a recent flub in a long line of what I'd like to call, "whoopsie prophesies." 2012 will only be the next domino to fall.

But there are many more historic, groundbreaking prophesies:

Here are 10 that didn't pan out, so far:

The Prophet Hen of Leeds, 1806

History has countless examples of people who have proclaimed that the return of Jesus Christ is imminent, but perhaps there has never been a stranger messenger than a hen in the English town of Leeds in 1806. It seems that a hen began laying eggs on which the phrase "Christ is coming" was written. As news of this miracle spread, many people became convinced that doomsday was at hand — until a curious local actually watched the hen laying one of the prophetic eggs and discovered someone had hatched a hoax.

The Millerites, April 23, 1843

A New England farmer named William Miller, after several years of very careful study of his Bible, concluded that God's chosen time to destroy the world could be divined from a strict literal interpretation of scripture. As he explained to anyone who would listen, the world would end some time between March 21, 1843 and March 21, 1844. He preached and published enough to eventually lead thousands of followers (known as Millerites) who decided that the actual date was April 23, 1843. Many sold or gave away their possessions, assuming they would not be needed; though when April 23 arrived (but Jesus didn't) the group eventually disbanded—some of them forming what is now the Seventh Day Adventists.

Mormon Armageddon, 1891 or earlier

Joseph Smith, founder of the Mormon church, called a meeting of his church leaders in February 1835 to tell them that he had spoken to God recently, and during their conversation he learned that Jesus would return within the next 56 years, after which the End Times would begin promptly.

Halley's Comet, 1910

In 1881, an astronomer discovered through spectral analysis that comet tails include a deadly gas called cyanogen (related, as the name imples, to cyanide). This was of only passing interest until someone realized that Earth would pass through the tail of Halley's comet in 1910. Would everyone on the planet be bathed in deadly toxic gas? That was the speculation reprinted on the front pages of "The New York Times" and other newspapers, resulting in a widespread panic across the United States and abroad. Finally even-headed scientists explained that there was nothing to fear.

Pat Robertson, 1982

In May 1980, televangelist and Christian Coalition founder Pat Robertson startled and alarmed many when — contrary to Matthew 24:36 ("No one knows about that day or hour, not even the angels in heaven...") he informed his "700 Club" TV show audience around the world that he knew when the world would end. "I guarantee you by the end of 1982 there is going to be a judgment on the world," Robertson said.

Heaven's Gate, 1997

When comet Hale-Bopp appeared in 1997, rumors surfaced that an alien spacecraft was following the comet — covered up, of course, by NASA and the astronomical community. Though the claim was refuted by astronomers (and could be refuted by anyone with a good telescope), the rumors were publicized on Art Bell's paranormal radio talk show "Coast to Coast AM." These claims inspired a San Diego UFO cult named Heaven's Gate to conclude that the world would end soon. The world did indeed end for 39 of the cult members, who committed suicide on March 26, 1997.

Nostradamus, August 1999

The heavily obfuscated and metaphorical writings of Michel de Nostrdame have intrigued people for over 400 years. His writings, the accuracy of which relies heavily upon very flexible interpretations, have been translated and re-translated in dozens of different versions. One of the most famous quatrains read, "The year 1999, seventh month / From the sky will come great king of terror." Many Nostradamus

devotees grew concerned that this was the famed prognosticator's vision of Armageddon.

Y2K, Jan. 1, 2000

As the last century drew to a close, many people grew concerned that computers might bring about doomsday. The problem, first noted in the early 1970s, was that many computers would not be able to tell the difference between 2000 and 1900 dates. No one was really sure what that would do, but many suggested catastrophic problems ranging from vast blackouts to nuclear holocaust. Gun sales jumped and survivalists prepared to live in bunkers, but the new millennium began with only a few glitches.

May 5, 2000

In case the Y2K bug didn't do us in, global catastrophe was assured by Richard Noone, author of the 1997 book "5/5/2000 Ice: the Ultimate Disaster." According to Noone, the Antarctic ice mass would be three miles thick by May 5, 2000 — a date in which the planets would be aligned in the heavens, somehow resulting in a global icy death (or at least a lot of book sales). Perhaps global warming kept the ice age at bay.

God's Church Ministry, Fall 2008

According to God's Church minister Ronald Weinland, the end times are upon us-- again. His 2006 book "2008: God's Final Witness" states that hundreds of millions of people will die, and by the end of 2006, "there will be a maximum time of two years remaining before the world will be plunged into the worst time of all human history. By the fall of 2008, the United States will have collapsed as a world power, and no longer exist as an independent nation." As the book notes, "Ronald Weinland places his reputation on the line as the end-time prophet of God."

http://www.livescience.com/strangenews/ ... tions.html

When I started hearing word of people calling President Obama the Anti-Christ, I just laughed. That would make him only one of the thousands throughout time who have been accused of such.


One would think the world has a short-term memory problem.

Put on some tinfoil hats people -- 2012 is just around the corner!



Image from: http://www.sodahead.com/united-states/i ... poster.jpg


But in all seriousness, I despise such non-sense. People all-too-often build their faith in God upon the empty words of ignorant men and their fantasy-born predictions. Once 2012 fails to happen, many might reject faith in God just because of the lies presented by fundamentalist entertainers. It's sad really.