Who Represents Christianty?

[Divine Insight]

Isn't the Church of Christianity supposed to represent Jesus?

Didn't Jesus hang around with sinners proclaiming that sinners are the ones who need salvation the most?

If so, then shouldn't "Christian Churches" embrace sinners and invite them openly into their congregations?

Question for debate: Why do so many Christian Churches renounce sinners and refuse to allow them to be part of their Church of Christ?

Shouldn't they be welcoming sinners above all others as Jesus did?

[Divine Insight]

...Shouldn't they be welcoming sinners above all others as Jesus did?

I think yes, but for them, it should be said as Jesus said: "Neither do I condemn you. Go your way. From now on, sin no more." John 8:11

But do you think they would like to hear that?

That's not for the Christians to decide.

That would be between Jesus and those who come to him.

Perhaps the people who are gay don't feel that Jesus condemns their sexual orientation. After all, the Bible teaches that the Holy Spirit will guide people and that we are also given a "God-given" sense of conscience. Therefore if these people do not innately feel that their sexual orientation is a "sin" then that's between them and Jesus isn't it?

Why should the Christians stand up and condemn people in Jesus' name?

Isn't that Jesus' job?

Clearly if these gay people are coming to Jesus and want to be part of a church of Christ, then they must feel that Jesus will accept them just as they are.

Who are the Christians to demand that Jesus must condemn them?

Where do they get their authority to condemn others in Jesus' name?

Aren't they being as hypocritical as the Pharisees that Jesus lambasted?

Didn't Jesus also teach that anyone who stands between him and someone who is trying to reach out to him will be extremely sorry come judgement day?

Christians have no business judging people in the name of Jesus.

They should be leaving all judgement up to Jesus.

[Mudcat]

[Replying to post 1 by Divine Insight]
Hi Divine Insight,

I am a new poster. This post being my first. For the record, I am (or at least I consider myself to be) a Christian.

In response to your question. I think there is a place for exclusion of others, in a Christian church. However, I do not believe such exclusivity should be directed at new comers, as you (correctly I think) pointed out. Jesus seemed to be in the business of reaching out to sinners.. particularly those folks whose sins were more socially unacceptable.

It is the Church's mission and duty to reach out the lost in effort to bring the Gospel to them. Exclusion based upon an unbelievers sinful action would be an incorrect step as I see it.

I would be agreeable to the idea, that churches acting in such a manner wouldn't seem to be doing something that is actually consistent with the Christian paradigm. In short, such action is wrong as I understand it.

Hopefully, such instances are the exception to the rule, rather than the rule itself. I don't mean to give such behavior a free pass, but it's worth noting that sin impacts believers and unbelievers alike. However, the admission that all people err, does not give excuse to error... mainly just notes that it's to be expected.

I do feel there are points where a church can move to exercise exclusionary behavior though. There are a number of verses that actually address disciplinary type actions ... but such actions are limited to believers and have no extension to unbelievers.

All the best,

Mudcat

[Divine Insight]

I do feel there are points where a church can move to exercise exclusionary behavior though. There are a number of verses that actually address disciplinary type actions ... but such actions are limited to believers and have no extension to unbelievers.

Hi Mudcat,

I actually agree with much of what you are saying. I even agree that a church can indeed move to exercise exclusionary behavior within the context of Christianity and the Abrahamic religions in general. In fact, I believe that Jesus even chastised the Pharisees of the temple for being selectively exclusionary.

I personally feel that if churches were to actually enforce everything their religion proclaims that God has commanded they would be extremely dangerous and even need to break secular laws. Aren't there places in the Bible that say, and Christians who also believe, that people participating in homosexual behavior should be put to death?

If that's true, then Christian Churches would be very hard-pressed in this day and age to exercise the demands of their religious doctrine. The Bible also says "Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live - Exodus 22:18". If these doctrines are taken seriously we could end up with a repeat of the burning times.

Clearly any modern day form of "Christianity" is necessarily going to need to ignore much of this foundational doctrine. Therefore they are necessarily becoming selective in which "bigotries" to exercise in Jesus' name.

You also when you say:

... but such actions are limited to believers and have no extension to unbelievers.

I also agree with this. And I confess that I myself am clearly an unbeliever in Christianity. For sure.

However, in the case of Gays who want to be Christians, these are people are clearly "believers". So these Gay people would qualify as "believers". Therefore their inputs and interpretations of the religious doctrine is just as valid as any other believer.

If they have a heartfelt sincere belief that there is nothing wrong with homosexuality within the context of a genuinely loving relationship, then this is a valid view of a "believer".

They can also argue that they believe in the "Holy Spirit" and in a God-given conscience, and proclaim that they have no feelings of guilt or shame in their loving relationship and therefore it cannot be wrong, or they would not feel at peace with God.

I personally feel that this is a very strong argument from a "believer". If a person claims to believe in Jesus and God and also claims that they have no feelings of wrongdoing or guilt with respect to God and feel total peace and acceptance from both God and Jesus, then why should any other "believer" question that?

They are coming to Jesus openly confessing precisely who they are openly. They aren't attempting to hide anything from Jesus or God. In fact, they are even seeking to have their relationship consummated before the very eyes of God.

At this point, even if there are other "believers" who feel that this is a "sin" why should they care? Everything is being confessed openly before Jesus and God. If Jesus and God have a problem with this, surely they will unleash their wrath upon this homosexual couple in their own time. Why should other "believers" be so anxious to rush Jesus and God into condemning this same-gender loving couple?

The "believers" who believe this is a "sin" can simply refrain from this behavior themselves. Why do they feel a need to condemn people before Jesus and God even have a chance to say anything about it?

Who knows, maybe Jesus and God will "forgive" them.

After all, according to the Gospels Jesus forgave unbelievers who actively mocked him, beat him, and nailed him to a pole to kill him. He forgave them on the grounds that "They know not what they do".

Maybe Jesus will forgive the gays on these same grounds. After all if these gay people are convinced that they are doing nothing wrong, and being gay is a sin, then clearly "They know not what they do".

After all, why would they seek to be married before God if they thought this was a sin? That would be like insuring their own condemnation. Clearly they must not believe this to be a sin or they wouldn't be seeking to do it openly taking vows before God.

The believers who think it might be a sin should just shrug their shoulders and say, "Oh well, at least it's not me doing that."

That's really all they need to do. Condemning people in Jesus' name or excluding people in Jesus' name makes no sense.

Allowing Jesus to be the ultimate judge, does make sense.

Allowing people to take vows before God does not mean that you, or any believer, are condonng those vows. In fact, that's not even up to you, or any believer. That's up to Jesus and God. All you, or any believer, are doing is being a witness to those vows. Your approval is not required.

[1213]

Clearly if these gay people are coming to Jesus and want to be part of a church of Christ, then they must feel that Jesus will accept them just as they are.

I think that is not how Jesus works, because he says:

"Repent, for the Kingdom of Heaven is at hand!"
Matt. 3:2

Not everyone who says to me, 'Lord, Lord,' will enter into the Kingdom of Heaven; but he who does the will of my Father who is in heaven.
Matt. 7:21

I think the words that Jesus told show that people that have done wrong can have wrong things forgiven, but it is expected that people reject those wrong things. If person doesnt regret his wrong doings, why would he come to Jesus to ask forgiveness? Or if nothing is wrong, why would anyone come to ask forgiveness?

[Divine Insight]

I think the words that Jesus told show that people that have done wrong can have wrong things forgiven, but it is expected that people reject those wrong things. If person doesnt regret his wrong doings, why would he come to Jesus to ask forgiveness? Or if nothing is wrong, why would anyone come to ask forgiveness?

People who are gay may not consider being gay to be "wrong".

They aren't coming to Jesus to ask forgiveness for being gay. They are coming to Jesus to ask to be forgiven for all the other petty things that straight Christians go to Jesus for.

After all, why are straight people going to Jesus to ask for forgiveness?

The point is that if gay people don't feel that there is anything wrong with being gay, then they are hardly going to consider asking Jesus to forgive them for something they don't even believe is wrong.

After all, if they feel that God naturally created them to be gay then it must be God's will, right?

I mean think about this for a moment.

Are you naturally gay? Do you naturally want to become sexually intimate with someone of your own sex?

If not, then clearly God did not create you to be that way. Nor do you need to "fight of temptation" to even be gay.

When a gay person hears this what are they supposed to think? If you weren't created to be gay, and they were, then clearly God must want them to be gay otherwise he wouldn't have created them to feel this way.

I think that's a legitimate position for gay people to take.

Also, why would anyone who doesn't naturally want to be gay even bother being gay if they don't naturally have that inclination.

For those Christians who claim that being gay is a choice I need to ask them, "Do they even have any desire to chose to be gay?". Is this something that they would like to do but are only choosing not to do it because they feel that God disapproves?

If that's not the case then how can they say that it's a choice?

I couldn't be gay if I wanted to be. The thought of becoming sexually intimate with another man is totally repugnant to me, and I cannot choose to make it not repugnant. In fact, I've even find women who have very masculine characteristics to be highly undesirable in terms of sexual attraction or intimacy.

So clearly it's not a choice. If a person is actually attracted to their own sex then they must have been innately created that way. And if that's the case then clearly that must have been what the created intended to be.

If you're going to believe in a creator God, then you need to consider these facts.

So gay couples could easily want to come to Jesus for the same petty sins that straight Christians want to come to Jesus over. There is no reason that gay people need to think that they need to confess to Jesus that being gay is a "sin". If they don't believe that to be the case, then there's no reason to confess it as a sin.

And like I say, all Jesus could do is roll his eyes and say, "Oh well, I'll have to forgive them simply because they know not what they do." After all that seems to be his hallmark.

Why would Jesus hold anyone responsible for committing a sin when they don't believe its a sin? He's already forgiven people for crucifying him on those very same grounds.

I mean, if you're going to believe in this fairytale, why not accept all of it, instead of trying to use Jesus as a weapon of condemnation?

Jesus forgives. He doesn't condemn unnecessarily.

John 3:17 For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world; but that the world through him might be saved.

Jesus can't be saving gays if bigoted Christians are condemning the gays before they even come to Jesus.

Why should any Christian want to stand between Jesus and anyone?

If someone wants to come to Jesus the best thing any Christian can do is stand aside and let them pass. Condemning them in Jesus' name does not match up with scriptures.

Where does Jesus tell anyone to condemn anyone in his name?

[1213]

People who are gay may not consider being gay to be "wrong".

After all, if they feel that God naturally created them to be gay then it must be God's will, right?

Firstly I think, in this case it is better not to speak about gay, because it is not word that is used in the Bible.

Bible tells:

'You shall not lie with a man, as with a woman. That is detestible. "'You shall not lie with any animal to defile yourself with it; neither shall any woman give herself to an animal, to lie down with it: it is a perversion. "'Don't defile yourselves in any of these things: for in all these the nations which I am casting out before you were defiled.
Leviticus 18:22-24

Detestible = abomination = a disgusting thing.

According to the Bible, two males having sex is disgusting thing.

Jesus didnt come to tell that it is not anymore a disgusting thing, because:

"Don't think that I came to destroy the law or the prophets. I didn't come to destroy, but to fulfill. For most assuredly, I tell you, until heaven and earth pass away, not even one smallest letter or one tiny pen stroke shall in any way pass away from the law, until all things are accomplished. Whoever, therefore, shall break one of these least commandments, and teach others to do so, shall be called least in the Kingdom of Heaven; but whoever shall do and teach them shall be called great in the Kingdom of Heaven.
Mat. 5:17-19

And because it is a disgusting thing, I think God didnt create people to do so. And I believe most people understand why it is disgusting.

Are you naturally gay? Do you naturally want to become sexually intimate with someone of your own sex?

If not, then clearly God did not create you to be that way. Nor do you need to "fight of temptation" to even be gay.

I dont want to become sexually intimate with same sex, because it is in my opinion also a disgusting thing. I think that is not because of how God created people, but because I think it is disgusting and not reasonable.

Those who want to do so, think they get something nice from it and therefore want to do so, not because God has created them to do so.

For those Christians who claim that being gay is a choice I need to ask them, "Do they even have any desire to chose to be gay?". Is this something that they would like to do but are only choosing not to do it because they feel that God disapproves?

I think I am forced to think do I want to become sexually intimate with same sex, because people speak so much about that matter. If no one would never have mentioned that, I probably would never have even thought of it. But now that I know about that, I have thought that it is not good, or right thing to do and I think it is disgusting.

I couldn't be gay if I wanted to be. The thought of becoming sexually intimate with another man is totally repugnant to me, and I cannot choose to make it not repugnant.

Have you ever thought why you think it is disgusting?

I mean, if you're going to believe in this fairytale, why not accept all of it, instead of trying to use Jesus as a weapon of condemnation?

I think I believe all that Jesus told. And I think I have not condemned anyone.

[Divine Insight]

Jesus didnt come to tell that it is not anymore a disgusting thing, because:

"Don't think that I came to destroy the law or the prophets. I didn't come to destroy, but to fulfill. For most assuredly, I tell you, until heaven and earth pass away, not even one smallest letter or one tiny pen stroke shall in any way pass away from the law, until all things are accomplished. Whoever, therefore, shall break one of these least commandments, and teach others to do so, shall be called least in the Kingdom of Heaven; but whoever shall do and teach them shall be called great in the Kingdom of Heaven.
Mat. 5:17-19

So are you saying that Christianity cannot be one jot or one tittle different from Judaism?

If you actually stand by using Jesus as an excuse to enforce every disgusting thing that it is in the Old Testament then why aren't you killing heathens, witches, adulterers, etc.? In fact, you would need to support the killing of homosexuals too.

This is, in fact, precisely why Christianity is such an extremely dangerous religion:


I agree with this post made by OnceConvinced:

If you're gonna execution homosexuals because of what the bible says, then you should also kill the following:

Kill People Who Don't Listen to Priests (Deuteronomy 17:12)
Kill Witches (Exodus 22:17)
Kill Fortunetellers (Leviticus 20:27)
Death for Hitting parents (Exodus 21:15)
Death for Cursing Parents (Proverbs 20:20, (Leviticus 20:9)
Death for Adultery (Leviticus 20:10)
Death for Fornication (Leviticus 21:9)
Death to Followers of Other Religions (Exodus 22:19, Deuteronomy 13:7-12)
Kill Nonbelievers (2 Chronicles 15:12-13)
Kill False Prophets (Zechariah 13:3, Deuteronomy 13:1-5)
Kill the Entire Town if One Person Worships Another God (Deuteronomy 13:13-19)
Kill Women Who Are Not Virgins On Their Wedding Night (Deuteronomy 22:20-21) " which would include the majority of Christian women these days.
Death for Blasphemy (Leviticus 24:10-16)
Kill People for Working on the Sabbath' (Exodus 31:12-15)
Kill Sons of Sinners (Isaiah 14:21)

Where does bigotry in the name of Jesus stop if you use Jesus as an excuse to follow the immoral commandments of the Old Testament?

And because it is a disgusting thing, I think God didnt create people to do so. And I believe most people understand why it is disgusting.

I personally think that mosquitoes are disgusting too, but apparently God made them too if we're going to believe in a God.

Are you naturally gay? Do you naturally want to become sexually intimate with someone of your own sex?

If not, then clearly God did not create you to be that way. Nor do you need to "fight of temptation" to even be gay.

I dont want to become sexually intimate with same sex, because it is in my opinion also a disgusting thing. I think that is not because of how God created people, but because I think it is disgusting and not reasonable.

Those who want to do so, think they get something nice from it and therefore want to do so, not because God has created them to do so.

Who are you to say why other people do things?

Many gay people proclaim they are in love. They even want to get married. You can't very well knock that. Being willing to get married is pretty powerful evidence that they are serious about their love and commitment to each other I think.

For those Christians who claim that being gay is a choice I need to ask them, "Do they even have any desire to chose to be gay?". Is this something that they would like to do but are only choosing not to do it because they feel that God disapproves?

I think I am forced to think do I want to become sexually intimate with same sex, because people speak so much about that matter. If no one would never have mentioned that, I probably would never have even thought of it. But now that I know about that, I have thought that it is not good, or right thing to do and I think it is disgusting.

So then don't do it. What's the problem?

I couldn't be gay if I wanted to be. The thought of becoming sexually intimate with another man is totally repugnant to me, and I cannot choose to make it not repugnant.

Have you ever thought why you think it is disgusting?

Yes I have. It's clearly not because there is a God who hates homosexuality. it's simply because I'm not sexually attracted to masculinity. I'm actually not even attracted to women who have strong masculine characteristics. So my rejection of becoming sexual with another man doesn't really have anything to do with homosexuality, it's simply has to do with the fact that I'm not sexually attracted to masculine characteristics.

By the way, when I say that homosexuality would be "disgusting" for me, I only mean if I am being asked to participate it. I don't think it's disgusting to see same gender couples who are in love with each other. So I may not find homosexually to be "disgusting" in the same way you do.

I mean, if you're going to believe in this fairytale, why not accept all of it, instead of trying to use Jesus as a weapon of condemnation?

I think I believe all that Jesus told. And I think I have not condemned anyone.

If you condemn people from your society because you have judged them to be sinners, then you have indeed condemned people as sinners.

All I know is that whenever Jesus is used as an excuse for bigotry and hatred, that never looks good for Christianity to be sure. And it only confirms the atheist's claims that the religion is dangerous and preaches hatred and social condemnation in the name of Jesus.

[Mudcat]

I do feel there are points where a church can move to exercise exclusionary behavior though. There are a number of verses that actually address disciplinary type actions ... but such actions are limited to believers and have no extension to unbelievers.

Hi Mudcat,

I actually agree with much of what you are saying. I even agree that a church can indeed move to exercise exclusionary behavior within the context of Christianity and the Abrahamic religions in general. In fact, I believe that Jesus even chastised the Pharisees of the temple for being selectively exclusionary.

I personally feel that if churches were to actually enforce everything their religion proclaims that God has commanded they would be extremely dangerous and even need to break secular laws. Aren't there places in the Bible that say, and Christians who also believe, that people participating in homosexual behavior should be put to death?

If that's true, then Christian Churches would be very hard-pressed in this day and age to exercise the demands of their religious doctrine. The Bible also says "Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live - Exodus 22:18". If these doctrines are taken seriously we could end up with a repeat of the burning times.

Clearly any modern day form of "Christianity" is necessarily going to need to ignore much of this foundational doctrine. Therefore they are necessarily becoming selective in which "bigotries" to exercise in Jesus' name.

You also when you say:

... but such actions are limited to believers and have no extension to unbelievers.

I also agree with this. And I confess that I myself am clearly an unbeliever in Christianity. For sure.

However, in the case of Gays who want to be Christians, these are people are clearly "believers". So these Gay people would qualify as "believers". Therefore their inputs and interpretations of the religious doctrine is just as valid as any other believer.

If they have a heartfelt sincere belief that there is nothing wrong with homosexuality within the context of a genuinely loving relationship, then this is a valid view of a "believer".

They can also argue that they believe in the "Holy Spirit" and in a God-given conscience, and proclaim that they have no feelings of guilt or shame in their loving relationship and therefore it cannot be wrong, or they would not feel at peace with God.

I personally feel that this is a very strong argument from a "believer". If a person claims to believe in Jesus and God and also claims that they have no feelings of wrongdoing or guilt with respect to God and feel total peace and acceptance from both God and Jesus, then why should any other "believer" question that?

They are coming to Jesus openly confessing precisely who they are openly. They aren't attempting to hide anything from Jesus or God. In fact, they are even seeking to have their relationship consummated before the very eyes of God.

At this point, even if there are other "believers" who feel that this is a "sin" why should they care? Everything is being confessed openly before Jesus and God. If Jesus and God have a problem with this, surely they will unleash their wrath upon this homosexual couple in their own time. Why should other "believers" be so anxious to rush Jesus and God into condemning this same-gender loving couple?

The "believers" who believe this is a "sin" can simply refrain from this behavior themselves. Why do they feel a need to condemn people before Jesus and God even have a chance to say anything about it?

Who knows, maybe Jesus and God will "forgive" them.

After all, according to the Gospels Jesus forgave unbelievers who actively mocked him, beat him, and nailed him to a pole to kill him. He forgave them on the grounds that "They know not what they do".

Maybe Jesus will forgive the gays on these same grounds. After all if these gay people are convinced that they are doing nothing wrong, and being gay is a sin, then clearly "They know not what they do".

After all, why would they seek to be married before God if they thought this was a sin? That would be like insuring their own condemnation. Clearly they must not believe this to be a sin or they wouldn't be seeking to do it openly taking vows before God.

The believers who think it might be a sin should just shrug their shoulders and say, "Oh well, at least it's not me doing that."

That's really all they need to do. Condemning people in Jesus' name or excluding people in Jesus' name makes no sense.

Allowing Jesus to be the ultimate judge, does make sense.

Allowing people to take vows before God does not mean that you, or any believer, are condonng those vows. In fact, that's not even up to you, or any believer. That's up to Jesus and God. All you, or any believer, are doing is being a witness to those vows. Your approval is not required.

Thanks for the reply DI, probably take me a bit to get the hang of posting editor. I usually like to respond in a point to point fashion.. don't know how to yet.. so I will respond to the gist of what you seem to be saying.

You seem to be hung up on homosexuality, ssa, gay.. whatever you want to call it.

As a Christian, I don't see any reason that such behavior gets a free pass as "sinless"any more than the moments I indulge myself in to much alcohol..or anything else for that matter.

The impetus of your argument is along the lines that a person who feels no guilt for a specific action is doing a correct action in the sight of God. Yet most Christians get the idea that our own hearts/thoughts can be deceitful.

You admit you are not a Christian yet posit this as a viable argument. If you aren't a Christian.. what is it an argument for? How Christians should play Christianoploy better?

Really doesn't cut any ice with me....

Let me ask you this.
If you don't believe in Christ, what purpose do you see in offering your opinions on how Christians should "do" Christianity? I mean, why do you think you should be taken seriously.. I am not beyond convincing.

[dianaiad]

Well, first of all, Mormons aren't Christians so citing them as an example of a "Christian" church that had a problem with someone disguised as a homeless man doesn't represent Christianity at all. But the "Mormons are not Christians" argument is an altogether different issue so I won't belabour it.

Too late, Overcomer.

......and I do think you missed the point of the story, actually. So, I think, does the OP.

And the point is that while the members of the congregation had problems with the homeless man, the Bishop of that ward, who pretended to BE that homeless man, took everybody firmly to task over it. So did the other pastor who tried the 'experiment' in his own congregation.

Sadly, I was in a church where outsiders were not welcome. The youth pastor was bringing street kids into the church to give them a safe place to be and a sense of family that they didn't have. Some of the parents were outraged. They didn't want those kinds of kids (some swore, some had drug and alcohol problems, etc. ) influencing their kids and said they would take their kids out of the youth group if those kids didn't go.

That disgusted me. The church is not a social club for "nice" people. It's a place for everybody, no matter who they are and what they have done. The reality is that all of us are sinners and those parents who didn't want "those kinds of kids" in the church were sinners themselves -- yet nobody asked them to leave. The youth pastor quit and went to another church where, I hope, he was allowed to bring all kinds of kids into the fold. I left that church myself.

I see. So...let me get this straight.

The folks who kicked the kids out (and evidently, whose pastor allowed this to happen) are Christians, but the Mormon congregation who had problems with the homeless man...but who nevertheless did not physically kick him out or complain, and who were lectured to about their attitude by their leader, is not?

Interesting.

I think the sad thing is that we expect the problem kids to negatively influence our kids. Why can't our kids positively influence the problem kids? But that's an issue for another thread as well.

I have also been in churches with tremendous outreach programs who purposely go after the so-called "undesirables" of society. They welcome the homeless, the alcoholics, the broken and the lost. They follow what was preached in James 2:1-4:

My brothers and sisters, believers in our glorious Lord Jesus Christ must not show favoritism. Suppose a man comes into your meeting wearing a gold ring and fine clothes, and a poor man in filthy old clothes also comes in. If you show special attention to the man wearing fine clothes and say, Heres a good seat for you, but say to the poor man, You stand there or Sit on the floor by my feet, have you not discriminated among yourselves and become judges with evil thoughts?

Another verse, also in James, instructs the church to care for widows and orphans. For centuries, the church was the primary source of care for the poor, the sick, the homeless, etc. It is only recently, with the rise of social welfare, that the government has gotten involved in these issues. The church has, sadly, relinquished some of its care-giving duties to the government.

So yes, there are churches where the congregants act like they are the elite and only certain people can join them. They do NOT follow God's Word or honour Christ in being like that. But there are others that do follow what the Bible says and welcome everyone, no matter who they are, with welcome arms.

Bear in mind that NO church has any perfect people in them and, therefore, there will always be mistakes made by any given church. When a person is filled with the Holy Spirit, that Holy Spirit directs him to grow and be like Christ. But the process of becoming like Jesus lasts a lifetime and we all have our "old selves" to wrestle with as we have to grow from baby Christians into mature ones.

Also remember that just because somebody attends a church, that doesn't make him a Christian.

Indeed?

And how DO you define the word 'Christian,' Overcomer?

Are you one of those who defines it, basically, as 'he who believes everything I do about Christ is a Christian, and nobody else is?"

It is being reborn in Christ and entering into a relationship with God through the person of Jesus Christ by the infilling of the Spirit that makes one a Christian. There are always people in churches who never enter into that relationship and, therefore, aren't working in the power of the Holy Spirit at all.

And your opinion that Mormons cannot, and do not do this is based upon what, exactly?

Churches are a mixed bag just as society is.

Indeed.

.....and so is Christianity.

Overcomer, it's like this:

I am a Christian because Jesus Christ is at the center of my belief system and because I claim to be one.

If I thought, as it seems you do, that only those who believe the 'truth' about Jesus Christ and enter into a relationship with Him based upon that truth, then I'm the Christian and you....aren't.

Why not? That's how you are defining it for me, after all. Why can't I use the same reasoning to define you and your beliefs?

I'm a Christian and
You aren't.

Simple.

The problem, of course, is that I can't DO that. I can't deny your Christianity. I'm fairly certain that you are, indeed, a Christian, unless you are assuming a persona in here that does not reflect your 'real world' life. I don't have a reason to think that, though.

What I can, and DO, do is this. I am a Christian because I say so. My beliefs are not quite the same as yours about Christ, but I'm certainly willing to accept that you are Christian, as well.

But here's the thing: you do not get a vote in either my Christianity or my salvation. The only people who can really know either one are Jesus Christ and me, and perhaps not even me. Many of your own type of Christians have, after sinning greatly and having repented, say something like "I thought I was saved, but I wasn't, and the reason I know that is because NOW I am!"

But either way, Overcomer, you don't get a vote.

[Divine Insight]

Let me ask you this.
If you don't believe in Christ, what purpose do you see in offering your opinions on how Christians should "do" Christianity? I mean, why do you think you should be taken seriously.. I am not beyond convincing.

Well, you're new here, and I'm sure people get tired of hearing my history. But I was a Christian at one time. In fact, I was born and raised into Christianity. I had no problem with the religion originally. In fact, I was actually inspired to become a preacher. Not for any particular Church, but for God. It seemed to me that God wants us to "preach his word", and Jesus specifically instructed his disciples to do so. So I decided to preach God's Word. After all, if God is real, what could be a better mission in life than to spread the word of God.

Now the first thing you need to understand is at this stage I was actually a believer in my parents, my clergy, and other people within the congregation of the church. I could hardly be a believer in the Bible specifically since I hadn't yet studied in it full. Did I believe in Jesus? Well sure. As much as most Christian do at least. I even became a "Born Again" Christian, which in our denomination simply means that I have accepted Jesus as my Lord and Savior and I have asked him to come into my heart and life.

I confess that I was also a bit naive. Since I actually believed this I actually expected a real "Holy Spirit" to make itself known to me in some way, (which never happened I must say). In any case, my goal was not only to teach the word of God, but obviously to LEARN it. After all, how could I teach something that I hadn't yet fully learned?

Before I continue I should also tell you that several of my uncles were Christian Preachers and they often came to our house for dinner, and also brought other preachers with them. They would then sit around after dinner having discussions about the Bible and the religion. I naturally found this a good time to ask questions. But what I soon found was that with every question I asked I quickly noticed that the preaches themselves were not sure of the answers, nor did they all agree on what the answer should be. And these were all preachers from the same denomination of Christianity. Free Methodist, just in case you're wondering.

So I realized that I'll have to look into the Bible myself and find the correct answers. Perhaps I could help some of these preachers better understand since they seemed to be confused themselves.

Now you might at first think that this sounds awfully arrogant of me to think that I should be able to study the Bible and set these preachers straight. But hey, I was told that the Bible has answers for every question. And I naively believed that. Therefore I had absolutely no reason to believe that I shouldn't be able to find the correct answers to these questions just by reading the Bible.

However, when I actually sat down and started to read the Bible I could see precisely why these preachers were so confused and in disagreement. The Bible has absolutely no answer to anything. On the contrary the more I read it the more it absurd and contradictory it became.

I was also quite naive in that I was originally foolish enough to believe that my family, Church and congregation just happened to be the correct version of Christianity. But I soon woke up to the fact that there are a myriad of disagreeing Christian sects and denomination. So clearly the Bible has no clear answers on anything.

As I continued to look into it I thought that maybe Catholicism had it right and it was actually the protesting Protestants who have it all wrong. So I started to look into Catholicism. Some of my best friends were Catholics so it was easy to gain insight into Catholicism. I soon discovered that even Catholicism has no clue what's going on and they change their minds all the time too. In fact, historically the Catholic Popes have not been consistent in their beliefs.

So, ok, I didn't give up entirely. What about the original Judaism? Maybe there's something to Judaism? Of course, this would mean that the whole Jesus thing is wrong. Moreover, many of the most severe problems I had was with the OT not with the NT. I soon realized that Judaism wasn't in any better shape. I even gave Islam a passing glance, but let's face it, after realizing the Judaism and Christianity have no credibility the idea that a third off-shoot from this same original folklore might wasn't really worth considering at this point.

I have since come to the very clear conclusion that none of this Hebrew mythology can be true. It all necessarily has to be false. I'm 100% certain of my conclusion, with no doubts or reservations remaining.

Ironically, in all of this I never truly gave up on the romantic notion of a "God", or a "Mystical essence to life". I didn't become a secular materialistic atheist. Instead I continued to look around at other world religions to see if there was anything out there that could potentially make sense. I found it in Taoism. Although I wouldn't call myself a "Taoist". For me Taoism isn't truly a religion it's just a philosophy that hypothesizes the mystical essence of reality. And I think it does an excellent job. That doesn't mean that it's true. But I think it has potential to be true.

In any case, I'm convinced completely without any shadow of a doubt in the fallacy of Christianity and all the Abrahamic religions.

Now you ask:

Let me ask you this.
If you don't believe in Christ, what purpose do you see in offering your opinions on how Christians should "do" Christianity? I mean, why do you think you should be taken seriously.. I am not beyond convincing.

Actually I would much prefer if they didn't "do" Christianity. I personally don't believe that Christianity is sincerely "doable". But since they seem to be hell-bent on doing it anyway, then I feel that I have sufficient background in the religion to offer suggestions.

To begin with, the reason that I believe Christianity is "not doable", is precisely because Jesus has no feet of his own. Jesus cannot be the basis for Christianity. The reason is simple. The only clout that Jesus has is the fact that he sits on the shoulders of Yahwah as the "Only Begotten Demigod Son of Yahweh". And yes, Jesus is a "demigod" myth. He was born of a virgin mortal woman who was magically impregnated by God. That's the very definition of what a demigod is.

Moreover, how can Jesus be the basis for the moral structure of Christianity, when the Gospels clearly demand that Jesus claimed that he did not come to change the law, and that not one jot nor one tittle shall pass from law until heaven and earth pass?

Christians are using Jesus all the time to support the hatred and bigotries of the Old Testament, or from the writing of Paul in the New Testament. But what Paul was doing most of the time was dredging up hateful and bigoted stuff from the Old Testament and preaching it in the name of Jesus. Jesus himself never preached any of that stuff, according to the Gospels that claim to actually be "quoting Jesus".

Jesus actually preached the opposite moral values from what was in the OT. If he really did claim that he did not come to change the laws, then he is a hypocrite. The Old Testament has God commanding people to judge each other as being sinners and to stone sinners to death. Jesus taught people not to judge one another and not to cast the first stone. That's actually blaspheme against the teachings of OT.

Jesus cannot have been the demigod son of the God of the Old Testament. Nor can Jesus have been that God himself.

~~~~~~

So let me ask you this,...

How are you going to "do" Christianity?

Are you going to follow the teachings of Jesus which are in opposition to the jots and tittles of the Old Testament? Or are you going to use Jesus as an excuse to hold the Old Testament up to be the final Word of God?

As far as I'm concerned neither way can be made to work. If you try to hold to the teachings of Jesus, then clearly the claim that Jesus did not come to change the laws is false. If you use Jesus to uphold the laws of the Old Testament, then I suggest to you that you are supporting an extremely dangerous religion.

~~~~~

I always say that Jesus was crucified twice. Once when he was nailed to the pole, and a second time when he was nailed to the Old Testament as the demigod Son of the God of the Old Testament.

The religion is unworkable, IMHO.

There is no way to "save" this religion. Nor can I imagine why anyone would even want to.

May I also ask you the following question:

Why do you believe in a religion that proclaims that you have fallen from grace from your creator, you are in an adversarial relationship with the creator, and this creator had to have his own corrupt priests incite the crucifixion of his only begotten son to pay for your unworthiness?

This has to be the most negative religion on planet Earth. And why would you ever "rejoice" over this religion is it was true? If this religion is true it's the saddest thing I can imagine. There would be absolutely nothing to rejoice over.

I honestly can't understand how any Christian could even claim to be disappointed if Christianity was shown to be false. It seems to me that nothing could be greater news. Christians should be thrilled to discover that Christianity is false. This means that they were never in the doghouse with their creator in the first place, and they weren't responsible for God having to have his own corrupt priests brutally crucify his only begotten son to pay for their sins.

Surely nothing could make a Christian happier than to discover that Christianity is false.

Yet, here they are asking everyone to believe it's true on pure FAITH?

What?

Why in the world would anyone want to have faith that Christianity is true?

On the contrary, any sane person should be far more interested in believing on faith that it's as false as it can possibly be. And all the evidence actually points to that conclusion anyway.

So why do you even bother to have faith that Christianity is true?

And how do you "do" Christianity?

Do you pretend that Jesus taught different moral values from the Old Testament thus changing the laws which he claimed he did not come to do?

Or are you one of those dangerous Christians who use Jesus as an excuse to hold up all the nasty directives in the Old Testament as being the "Word of God"?