What kind of Christian are you?

[pi3141]

18 hours ago, bamboozooka said:

my point has just been reinforced big time.

 

Church of England admits it doesn't have a definition of 'woman'

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-11000401/Church-England-woman-decide.html

 

Thats unreal, I would have thought they would have been very clear on that question.

 

If they can't even define a woman, how can they ban women from holding higher positions in the church.

[Campion]

7 hours ago, pi3141 said:

Thats unreal, I would have thought they would have been very clear on that question.

  

If they can't even define a woman, how can they ban women from holding higher positions in the church.

They have women bishops now, so I guess it's only a matter of time until there's a woman archbishop. Or not, if they can't define who they are! What I don't get is, why be unable to define only women? It's implying that they can define men, trans and whatever other genders there may be, which seems strange. Unless they actually can't (or don't want to) define any genders, which is an equally strange position for them. There's effectively no distinctions between us on gender and people can call themselves whatever they like. 

 

Next stop race? Can the C of E define black, white, asian etc with any accuracy, or does that similarly collapse into an individual's choice based purely on personal preference? 

[Nemuri Kyoshiro]

On 4/4/2022 at 7:39 PM, bamboozooka said:

should you ditch the church as a place of worship and worship in your own home at a homemade altar?

 

 

No. Paul warned that the fellowship should not be neglected. I do not believe that Christianity is a religion: it is a relationship with God through Jesus Christ. I grew up Anglican but the church no longer stands for what I believe in. The Anglican church is crawling back to Rome on its hands and knees. The Lutherans now find themselves in accord with Rome as do the Methodists. I cannot subscribe to that. Sola Scriptura is what I try to adhere to but finding a church that stick to that. Maybe the Seventh Day Adventists but most mainstream Christians consider them a cult.

[Campion]

7 minutes ago, Nemuri Kyoshiro said:

No. Paul warned that the fellowship should not be neglected. I do not believe that Christianity is a religion: it is a relationship with God through Jesus Christ. I grew up Anglican but the church no longer stands for what I believe in. The Anglican church is crawling back to Rome on its hands and knees. The Lutherans now find themselves in accord with Rome as do the Methodists. I cannot subscribe to that. Sola Scriptura is what I try to adhere to but finding a church that stick to that. Maybe the Seventh Day Adventists but most mainstream Christians consider them a cult.

If it's a small church, then home meetings could be just as valid as in a traditional church building, but maybe you meant just worshipping as individual families? I've heard historians say that the very early Christian church was effectively a network of house churches in members' homes. 

 

How do you reconcile that with the idea that Christianity is just a relationship with God through Jesus? Does this relationship require a community of other Christians; at face value you could relate to God 1 to 1. 

[Nemuri Kyoshiro]

16 hours ago, Campion said:

How do you reconcile that with the idea that Christianity is just a relationship with God through Jesus? Does this relationship require a community of other Christians; at face value you could relate to God 1 to 1. 

Jesus told his disciples to preach the gospel in all nations. That is the great commission. Keeping it to yourself goes against that so we must be a part of a community of Christians, but that does not mean being part of an organized establishment church. There are prayer groups everywhere that adhere to the gospel and that do not need a priest to provide absolution. The Epistle of James is instructive in this regard as is the 1st epistle of Peter. My own preference is to belong to a loosely-organized group that meets on a regular basis at different locations.

[barca]

I have struggled with reconciling Christianity to my reality for 25 years, being from a fundamentalist family that attends a cultlike church around which all their life activities focus.

 

I have come to believe that Christianity is primarily a shared hallucination and social construct (like other religions) which operates via social strong-arming to silience dissent and appeals to humanity's natural tendency toward guilt, shame and fear. Those raised in the church have every reason to keep silent about any qualms or doubts they may have. If they raise these opinions, they risk social ostracism. Since humans are social creatures, it is very rare that a person will sacrifice his church and family relationships by questioning the faith.

 

I was lucky enough—truly, it is not so lucky—to have been ostracized from my late teens for being a "rebellious youth", and once I was ostracized, I no longer had to operate under false pretenses in order to secure my place in the community. After that I saw no reason not to voice my dissent openly.

 

That said, I do believe in the metaphysical power of Christian teachings, if they are taken metaphorically. There is great value in Biblical teachings, as there is other religious works.

[Campion]

5 hours ago, barca said:

I was lucky enough—truly, it is not so lucky—to have been ostracized from my late teens for being a "rebellious youth", and once I was ostracized, I no longer had to operate under false pretenses in order to secure my place in the community. After that I saw no reason not to voice my dissent openly.

 

I can relate with this, tho I wasn't brought up in a fundamentalist religion, but in my country youth rebellion was a normal and expected part of life in the 2nd half of the 20th C, like a rite of passage almost. Questioning traditional religion was part of that, but now the rebellious instinct seems to have been subverted by the political left to support their "causes". Leftism has become the new conformity in reality, but with a mask of rebellion to make it attractive to the youth with a veneer of radicalism.   I'd say we need to revive that spirit of true rebellion and free thinking. 

Edited July 23, 2022 by Campion

[Michi713]

On 7/16/2022 at 7:16 PM, Nemuri Kyoshiro said:

Maybe the Seventh Day Adventists but most mainstream Christians consider them a cult.

Been hanging out with SDAs and the ones I know are good people.   I'm not on board with 100% of their doctrine, but nothing of theirs seemed way far out there.  They don't qualify as a cult to me.  
 

They have excellent studies on the sanctuary, Daniel, and Revelation.  They are way into prophecy though, and have their own interpretation of the prophecies in Daniel 9, 11, and 12 and who and when they are referring to. 
 

They are slightly ascetic:  no jewelry, some are vegetarian, if not they have a restricted diet.  From sundown Friday to sundown Saturday they rest, study, and worship, spend time with family and turn off everything secular.  For someone who needs that it is really good. 
 

That said many of them believe the Saturday Sabbath is the seal of God and Saturday worship will be the deciding factor in the end.  

Many believe the papacy is the beast and Sunday worship is the mark of the beast.  (Martin Luther claimed the papacy was the beast.)  

 

Their argument is compelling but it's hard for me not to believe the seal of God is the Holy Spirit and the mark of the beast is currency.  It is really hard to believe the other wonderful, charitable Christians I have met could be condemned because they go to church on Sundays.  
 

They also believe Ellen White is a prophet and quote her often.   From what little I read from her, she seems only to be a great theologian and a great writer.  I agree with you though, sola scriptura.

 

[Edgewood]

On 7/22/2022 at 11:49 PM, barca said:

 

I have come to believe that Christianity is primarily a shared hallucination and social construct (like other religions) which operates via social strong-arming to silience dissent and appeals to humanity's natural tendency toward guilt, shame and fear. Those raised in the church have every reason to keep silent about any qualms or doubts they may have. If they raise these opinions, they risk social ostracism. Since humans are social creatures, it is very rare that a person will sacrifice his church and family relationships by questioning the faith. 

 

But that was not the way original Christians behaved.......... what we call Christianity now is something which was created by the Pagan Roman Empire to avert their own demise at the hands of the very Christians they finally managed to subvert.

 

Read the words of Jesus himself and perhaps look into the very early 'church' and the way Christians behaved in the Roman Empire...... they gave to the poor and shared everything they had with each other...... they behaved exactly as Jesus says they should.....and the Pagan Cults of Rome complained that they could not compete with the pure doctrine of love and charity........ so of course, they plotted to take it all over and they succeeded.... but try to see beyond this and discern the truth of Christianity which has sadly been deliberately obfuscated all these years.

[Nemuri Kyoshiro]

On 8/26/2022 at 9:18 PM, Michi713 said:

They have excellent studies on the sanctuary, Daniel, and Revelation.  They are way into prophecy though, and have their own interpretation of the prophecies in Daniel 9, 11, and 12 and who and when they are referring to. 

Yes. All roads lead to Rome. They pretty much are in line with what the Reformers believed.

[tommydrifter]

On 7/17/2022 at 9:16 AM, Nemuri Kyoshiro said:

I do not believe that Christianity is a religion: it is a relationship with God through Jesus Christ.

 

this is the true spirituality: god, oversoul, and the divine human in spiritual alignment (god-mind awareness). jesus christ is the perfection of this spirituality and the example to follow. to acknowledge christ as saviour is to know this reality experientially. 

 

this is what i look for in truthful information sources such as karl mollison, stewart and janet swerdlow, eckhart tolle, and former forum contributor oz93666 (see diagram below).

 

G

~

/ i \

G -> god; ~ -> divine communication via oversoul in god-mind awareness; / i \ -> the divine human (in spiritual alignment)

 

---

 

i am not a religious person historically but this model of spirituality is indeed the truthful and correct model of reality: all will come to understand this because this is your destiny and the point of your creation. (in this sense, i am a christian.)

[andy1033]

I am a roman catholic who believes jesus really in the sun in the sky, and that is what we worship, as gods sun.

 

We can only know god through his son, and that is what that means.

[Gnostic Christian]

Did Jesus, a Jewish Rabbi, teach these.

 

If he did, he cannot be a messiah and die for us.

 

Ezekiel 18:20 The soul that sinneth, it shall die. The son shall not bear the iniquity of the father, neither shall the father bear the iniquity of the son: the righteousness of the righteous shall be upon him, and the wickedness of the wicked shall be upon him.

 

Deuteronomy 24:16 (ESV) "Fathers shall not be put to death because of their children, nor shall children be put to death because of their fathers. Each one shall be put to death for his own sin.

 

Regards

DL

[Campion]

On 9/14/2022 at 10:00 PM, Gnostic Christian said:

Did Jesus, a Jewish Rabbi, teach these.

 

If he did, he cannot be a messiah and die for us.

 

Ezekiel 18:20 The soul that sinneth, it shall die. The son shall not bear the iniquity of the father, neither shall the father bear the iniquity of the son: the righteousness of the righteous shall be upon him, and the wickedness of the wicked shall be upon him.

 

Deuteronomy 24:16 (ESV) "Fathers shall not be put to death because of their children, nor shall children be put to death because of their fathers. Each one shall be put to death for his own sin.

 

Regards

DL

 

I don't recall reading passages like these in the Gospels which are the closest thing we have to what Jesus actually said (though it's rather problematic to insist they give Jesus's words in any historical sense. Perhaps we can refer to the literary Jesus rather than the historical Jesus). With that caveat, I'd say there's no good evidence he did.  I think there are references to Jesus changing and reinterpreting what we call the Old Testament so this may be one example of that. 

Edited September 17, 2022 by Campion

[Gnostic Christian]

19 hours ago, Campion said:

 

I don't recall reading passages like these in the Gospels which are the closest thing we have to what Jesus actually said (though it's rather problematic to insist they give Jesus's words in any historical sense. Perhaps we can refer to the literary Jesus rather than the historical Jesus). With that caveat, I'd say there's no good evidence he did.  I think there are references to Jesus changing and reinterpreting what we call the Old Testament so this may be one example of that. 

We do not know if a real Jesus lived or not.

 

Mine was a question in logic and morals and what a Jesus would teach.

 

If Jesus taught what I quoted, which would be the moral teaching, then he could not be a savior as it would be a sin to use another to die for us.

 

Regards

DL

 

 

[Campion]

6 hours ago, Gnostic Christian said:

We do not know if a real Jesus lived or not.

 

Mine was a question in logic and morals and what a Jesus would teach.

 

If Jesus taught what I quoted, which would be the moral teaching, then he could not be a savior as it would be a sin to use another to die for us.

 

Regards

DL 

 

I see where you're coming from DL, and agree that the sins of the fathers shouldn't be blamed on the sons. Of course if he didn't really exist then this is about the Christian community rather than Jesus. And if we're questioning it that far, then why should someone need to die to be a saviour? I don't think the accounts of Jesus's trial with Pontius Pilate mention him being sentenced because of other people's sins do they? Even in the Bible, that idea was a later addition wasn't it? 

 

On 9/14/2022 at 10:00 PM, Gnostic Christian said:

Each one shall be put to death for his own sin.

 

I don't agree with this part though because I don't like the death penalty. But hey, you're quoting bronze age writings there so I wouldn't expect it to be completely relevant now. 

[Gnostic Christian]

18 hours ago, Campion said:

I don't agree with this part though because I don't like the death penalty. But hey, you're quoting bronze age writings there so I wouldn't expect it to be completely relevant now. 

We are rich enough today to be able to warehouse prisoners.

 

In the older days, poverty made killing a more viable choice.

 

Scriptures generally call for an eye for an eye, but you will note that Yahveh kills as a punishment for many infractions that are less that a killing. 

 

An immoral practice that Christians constantly ignore.

 

Regards

DL

[Gnostic Christian]

18 hours ago, Campion said:

then why should someone need to die to be a saviour?

IDK.

 

Probably a left over thinking from baby sacrifices.  

 

In areas of finite recourses, a child sacrifice was insurance paid to ensure a worker would not starve to death.

 

They developed the Temple prostitute system and tried to sanctify children producing sex so as to try to keep child sacrifices at a minimum.

 

Tough time equal tough laws.

[Gnostic Christian]

On 9/2/2022 at 7:27 AM, andy1033 said:

I am a roman catholic who believes jesus really in the sun in the sky, and that is what we worship, as gods sun.

 

We can only know god through his son, and that is what that means.

If you are saying that Christianity was originally a nature based religion, I agree.

 

That is why the sing of Adam's sin being a happy fault and necessary to God.

 

It actually is for both Christianity and nature, and stupid supernatural additions or beliefs just screw up decent thinking.

 

Regards

DL

[Gnostic Christian]

On 7/16/2022 at 6:33 PM, Campion said:

Next stop race? Can the C of E define black, white, asian etc with any accuracy, or does that similarly collapse into an individual's choice based purely on personal preference? 

??

 

Biases are all we are, and they choose our paths, so yes, it is all subjective.

 

That includes a bias towards fellowship, which is the root of the racism bias.

 

I see it as easy to define what you have a problem with.

 

Statistics are easy to understand, but then again, I have been thinking demographically for years now, thanks to my apotheosis.

 

Regards

DL

[Campion]

1 hour ago, Gnostic Christian said:

IDK.

 

Probably a left over thinking from baby sacrifices.  

 

In areas of finite recourses, a child sacrifice was insurance paid to ensure a worker would not starve to death.

 

They developed the Temple prostitute system and tried to sanctify children producing sex so as to try to keep child sacrifices at a minimum.

 

Tough time equal tough laws.

 

Also there's a reference to animal sacrifice which was common in the ancient world, it's still practiced now in some areas. Jesus being the Lamb of God replaced the animals (sacrifice was of course a money spinner for the Temples). 

 

I interpreted your earlier post as an open question around whether Jesus was an orthodox Jewish Rabbi following the Old Testament traditions, alternatively was he a bit more free thinking, and integrating other ideas. I've come to realise that the area was more of a melting pot than I used to be taught. 

 

"Mandatory Sacrifices

There were two mandatory sacrifices in the Old Testament Law. The first was the sin offering. The purpose of the sin offering was to atone for sin and cleanse from defilement. There were five possible elements of a sin sacrifice—a young bull, a male goat, a female goat, a dove/pigeon, or 1/10 ephah of fine flour. "

https://www.gotquestions.org/Old-Testament-sacrifices.html 

Edited September 19, 2022 by Campion

[lake]

Mod note:

 

This is not aimed at any single member .... Please consider that which you post and how it may effect the forum before posting.

Thank you.

[Campion]

1 hour ago, Gnostic Christian said:

??

 

Biases are all we are, and they choose our paths, so yes, it is all subjective.

 

That includes a bias towards fellowship, which is the root of the racism bias.

 

I see it as easy to define what you have a problem with.

 

Statistics are easy to understand, but then again, I have been thinking demographically for years now, thanks to my apotheosis.

 

Regards

DL

 

I'm not quite following you. Are you saying that the Church's current state of flux and uncertainty is a type of bias? 

[Gnostic Christian]

3 hours ago, Campion said:

I interpreted your earlier post as an open question around whether Jesus was an orthodox Jewish Rabbi following the Old Testament traditions,

I do not see him as such, given that he put man above God.

 

That is what the holders of the oral traditions which is what leads Jewry and what Jesus taught.

 

Key to this might be when he said that the Sabath was created for man and not man for the Sabbath.

 

I think he would say the say about religions and Gods.

 

He asked in the bible, have ye forgotten that ye are Gods? 

 

Most have but not Gnostic Christians.

 

Regards

DL

[Gnostic Christian]

2 hours ago, Campion said:

 

I'm not quite following you. Are you saying that the Church's current state of flux and uncertainty is a type of bias? 

No.

 

What they practice is the usual tribalism that all of us have.

 

They just have to do a lot of lying to keep the old fantasy traditions alive.

 

All the God religions will be replaced by state isms, or atheist churches, as modernization kills the supernatural beliefs.  

 

Regards

DL