Future of Christianity

[Barry]

Where do you see "Christianity" heading over the next 100 years?
What changes do you think might happen?

What impact will this have on society in general?

Barry

[backtothefuture]

Barry,
I personally believe that CHristianity is even at this time dying out. There are more and more people in my circles that even though they believe in God and Christ, do not want to be knowns as Christians. THere has just been to much hurt for most of us in this religion.
People are hungry and searching more than ever for answers.
I believe we will be one nation (or world) under God, just the same God with different meanings to it.
I never thought I would ever think of Christianity fading away, but I think it is.
Kind of like the world war 2 veterans. Once they are all gone, like my dad, that era is over.
Maybe the same for Christianity one day. Don't know really.
I use to think you had to be a "Chrisitan" to have good morals and all those things that went with it. But that really isn't true in my eyes anymore. I know lots of wonderdul people who all believe differantly than I do. At one point in my life I probably wouldn't have even associatied myself with them, but now, I love the diversity and we are all learning from one another.
Just my 2Cents :)
Nancy
ps. where is the spell cheaker now?

[ozark]

I don't think Christianity is dying, just changing as Christianity has always changed. Medieval Christianity died and was replaced by Modern Christianity. Modern Christianity is dying at least in the West and will be replaced by Postmodern Christianity. Modern Christianity is booming in third world countries that are just now coming into the Modern paradigm. Places like South America and Africa will become the center of Modern Christianity. However, if Christianity refuses to change in the West, I think it may not die, but it will become irrelevant.

I believe and hope that out of the death of Modern Christianity will arise a Christianity based on love rather than dogma. While many are lamenting the death of Modern Christianity some. including myself, are seeing opportunity. Man's need for God has not changed. I believe there is a Christianity coming that will be better able to meet that need. That's the way I see it at least.

[Barry]

Hey Nancy and Doug.
Interesting points and feelings.
I only wish we could talk in person over a cup of coffee this morning.
In which case the joy of your company would have made my day.

It is good that there is some dissatisfaction in where Christianity presently resides. And of course such a thread begs the usage of the term Christianity by each one to be used in slightly different and personal ways. So we might think similar points but express them differently.
But I agree with you both. Eventually the Christianity of the "elite" mindset must give way to the spirit of Unity that Christianity IMHO actually means.

I hope to see major movements soon in this direction. IMHO it has begun but is not yet very predominate.
But such will make major changes to how "business" is done.
Barry

[Amie]

I think that irrelevance Doug mentions is what Nancy might be sensing. I haven't noted its' relevance in my lifetime. They got Bush elected, and nearly McCain, but I don't think that makes them relevant. I mean, Christianity is no flagship - they are like 50 years behind the growth of society.

I'm reading this book now where two men poured their thinking power into finding the pulse of the church, and I think that they have done well. However, I feel that this is assigning an overimportance to the church -- as if what the church does results in societal change. Maybe that is what oughta be seriously worked at, yet there is no way that the majority of Christians are at the starting point that society is at to even begin right now.

For me, Christianity largely comes off as corny. Seriously, in a world where say for example, women are already in high powered positions and husbands and wives already finding ways to make partnerships work, they are still making the point that women have a place? That Palin is okay as long as her husband approves ie? It's silly.

One question that another writer posed is basically "Are we more moral than God?" His answer was typical, but his question excellent imo. Maybe the issue is not God's morality at all, but the focus on morality by God's self appointed representatives?

Some thoughts on a cynical morning :)

Amie

[Barry]

Some thoughts on a cynical morning :)

Amie

I just grab a second cup of coffee and the caffeine high compensates.
:rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl:

Barry

[Truthseeker]

The trend I see is Communistic, Humanistic.

People see Religion as "divisive", since so many people have so many different ideas about God and Truth. Christianity is seen as the main culprit.

So God is being re-named: Love, Life--something Generic like that--something that all can identify with. Jesus, it is said, is merely a fable--stolen from Pagan Mythology. (Rather than seeing that the story of Jesus was told from the Garden--and Pagan Mythology was "stolen" from that.)

The Bible is seen as the "root of all evil"--the root of racism, slavery, wars, abuse of women, children, etc.

I don't see it as a good trend, except that after its run its course, people will return to a personal God and to the Bible for direction, because they'll see in time how empty life will be--and how their idealism didn't become the utopia they envisioned.

Today, rather than flocking to The Church, perhaps, they are flocking to world leaders that they "hope" in. What's the difference? Men are men, are they not? At least with a church, they hear the name of Jesus--they experience, depending on the church, some of God's Word.

And the "religious" will be peer-pressured and then ordered to shut up. So the freedoms we enjoy now about sharing our Faith won't be here. Freedom of religion, as stated in our Constitution will become Freedom FROM religion.

And anyone with Faith in God, who base that on the bible will be censored--as that will be seen as "religion." I don't see good times ahead.

People would rather believe that what they themselves think and feel is more enlightened than what Jesus thought and felt--what the Apostles thought and felt. Yet they always go SOMEWHERE for direction. God, the Bible, is only being replaced with human Government.

:) --rhonda

[Amie]

Rhonda,

Religion can be divisive. It can also just be diverse. You and I can have different points of view and be friends if we so choose. If however, it is our religion to not maintain a friendship because of our differences, well that's divisive. Constant efforts at manipulating and coercion, imo, is not respectful.

I don't see distancing from the culture of Christianity as also distancing one's self from God, or from considering what Jesus might have thought or felt. (Not that you do sis)

Humanist is defined as "One who is concerned with the interests and welfare of humans." Humanism is "A system of thought that rejects religious beliefs and centers on humans and their values, capacities, and worth." It sounds to me like Jesus was a humanist and a practitioner of humanism. How that plays out into society is variable and I don't think that communism proved to be supportive of humanism as it was harmful to humans.

Religion is not in the forefront of societal change. If it were, we will not have progressed as much as we have. Love creates frontiers and boundaries. I disagree that God being love is a "re-naming", it was the revelation of Jesus himself. Amen that God is generic (meaning "Relating to or descriptive of an entire group or class") and known by all regardless. God is unownable and unsearchable, but God is known.

If people are flocking, then they are flocking. Some are free thinkers and have made a choice. For those that are not, I hope that they consider it.

If we see things differently sis, then so be it. I hope that you will continue to be open and honest and true to yourself. It is fantastic knowing you. If you ever feel that I am crossing boundaries in my approach to sharing my disagreement, please let me know and allow me to learn how to better be your friend.

Amie

[Amie]

I just grab a second cup of coffee and the caffeine high compensates.
:rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl:

Barry

What kind of coffee are they selling you in Canada anyway? lol!!

Amie

[Truthseeker]

Dear Sis, I think you know me; by all means feel free to disagree! That's really the main point of my post--the freedom all of us now enjoy to believe and worship God as we choose (or not to at all, if we choose.) I'm seeing the trend going away from that freedom--and while you don't see Communism as humanistic, in that it isn't good for humans--many, many people are being indoctrinated that it is.

The problems I see will come when Government dictates those things.

And as far as I know, people aren't forced to belong to any church, or to be "divisive" because of religion--nobody is forced to be religious or not. Its a choice--and I like it that way. Indoctrination of any kind can be dealt with as long as people are free to hear other sides. :)

There's a big difference between unity and uniformity. I see uniformity coming, for the sake of "peace". Speech and thought will not be free, if the trend keeps going in this direction. I don't see this as being good for humanity.

While God defines Himself as Love--I also see Him as God, the Creator; as a Person. I'm free to speak this, to incorporate it in what I say and do. As you and others are free to express your Spiritual Life through all you say and do. That freedom is precious.

Bless ya, Sis. You couldn't be a better friend than you already are. Love ya--rhonda

[Amie]

Thanks Rhonda,

And good point. If people choose to "flock", they have still made a choice.


While God defines Himself as Love--I also see Him as God, the Creator; as a Person.

I see love, as a person. Love is also undefinable imv.


I see uniformity coming, for the sake of "peace". Speech and thought will not be free, if the trend keeps going in this direction. I don't see this as being good for humanity.

I agree that it wouldn't be good for humanity, which is why I believe that humanity will learn from it if indeed that is the course we are on.

Nancy sees inclusivity and diversity in our future; seeing that as the passing away of Christianity. Doug brought up that while Christianity may not necessarily die out completely, that it is in danger of becoming irrelevant - stuck in its' modern thinking. I see the modern thinking steeped within Christianity as already irrelevant. Barry agrees that whatever was, is giving way to the realization of unity. I don't think anyone is claiming that there was no gain from it in the past, but that it is ancient or becoming ancient. Maybe Christianity will become relevant... what are we doing here?

As in all of us. Is this inclusivity and freedom that we all love the birth of something new within Christianity? Or is this something altogether different?

I'm not sure myself, and isn't that weird? I keep on keepin' on, but have no idea where I'm going. lol!

Amie

[ozark]

As in all of us. Is this inclusivity and freedom that we all love the birth of something new within Christianity? Or is this something altogether different?



One thing that kept Christianity alive for 2000 years is its ability to die and be reborn. It usually is behind societal change and even fights it, but change does come. Heretics of one generation become the heroes of another.

I don't think what is happening is completely new. Perhaps what is done is being realized. I believe God is at work that we might possess what He has given. Everything is working toward that end. If humanity does not possess God's gift, what good is that gift? What sense would it make for God to even give it? Our destiny is tied to God. I don't think that is negotiable.

[Truthseeker]

Perhaps we do have a lot to learn yet. :)

If inclusivity and tolerance, based on Love is what is happening--I'm all for it.

Differences and diversity are beautiful things.

But I don't see that happening (at least not yet.)

Rather than loving in spite of our differences, I'm seeing the same ol' same ol'--everybody need believe and act the same--if there is to be "peace.". And that "sameness" is longed for and sometimes demanded by whomever happens to be in power.

And that's when freedom goes out the door.

If this trend is as I think its going--then that means we have a lot to learn yet. :) --rhonda

[Amie]

Rather than loving in spite of our differences, I'm seeing the same ol' same ol'--everybody need believe and act the same--if there is to be "peace.".

Well then, welcome to Talk-Grace - our little social effort at learning to embrace diversity and peace at the same time :D.

Amie

[Amie]

Heretics of one generation become the heroes of another.

What's that saying?... Something like, "Three steps ahead and you're a genius, ten steps ahead and you're just crazy."

Do you think that our destiny being tied to God means an eternal Christianity?

Amie

[Truthseeker]

Dear Sis,

Christianity IS eternal.

So what do we do with the fact that Christianity has a "bad name" in the world? Do we run from the title "Christianity"? So as to avoid the bad name?

Because it has a bad name, no doubt.

And is it justified? Interested in everyone's thoughts.--rhonda

[Barry]

Dear Sis,

Christianity IS eternal.

So what do we do with the fact that Christianity has a "bad name" in the world? Do we run from the title "Christianity"? So as to avoid the bad name?

Because it has a bad name, no doubt.

And is it justified? Interested in everyone's thoughts.--rhonda

One's own definition of Christianity, may vary widely in this thread. Christianity is not actually a biblical term. [Not that anyone said that it was just thinking out loud :)]

This is why I started this thread and it is why I am enjoying it immensely.
Is one referring to the purely cultural aspect?
Is one referring to the purely biblical aspect?
Is one referring to the purely revelation or enlightenment aspect?

And unusually each person combines several aspects into their own "definition".

Because of the ambiguous nature of the question there may be no "correct" answers. I may have something (or more) to say later but am just really enjoying being quite and listening right now.

Nevertheless, :) Rhonda you seem to be appealing to the eternal message. And there is a eternal message, or else we at Talk-grace would not be doing what we are doing.
I would propose that the eternal message may differ from each one's definition of "Christianity". And may differ also from the "Christianity" of the first-fruits application.
JMO.

Love you all,
Barry

[davo]

Yeah good discussion… :)

As I see it – Jesus never came to start a new religion [Christianity] but rather to sum up an old one, and in so doing establish permanently the means whereby God's grace can be known by all in this life. I suspect those first-fruits Christ-ones or "Christians" were the prime designated ones to whom the label "Christian" specifically applies, as I speculate HERE (http://pantelism.com/FirstCALLEDChristians.htm), but that need not negate any following and following Christ from claiming such to themselves as a means of identification to the one through whom the world has been reconciled.

It's what's grown out of that "identification" since that seems to have evolved into a kingdom all its own, hence "Christendom". That itself has become the self perpetuating and self sustaining controlling behemoth through that most effective of all motivators – FEAR.

[Truthseeker]

Dear brother, the word "Christian" is biblical.

Act 26:28 Then Agrippa said unto Paul, Almost thou persuadest me to be a Christian.
1Pe 4:16 Yet if [any man suffer] as a Christian, let him not be ashamed; but let him glorify God on this behalf.

I sense that because people get a bad taste in their mouth regarding certain words--that we're to "bravely run away" (to coin Monty Python and the Holy Grail) from those words--as a better way of reaching them? Let's use "new words" that people aren't at all familiar with--then they won't reject our words right offhand? Is that the method that works best?

Is it time to run away from the word "Christian" (follower of Christ)?--rhonda

[ozark]

It's what's grown out of that "identification" since that seems to have evolved into a kingdom all its own, hence "Christendom". That itself has become the self perpetuating and self sustaining controlling behemoth through that most effective of all motivators – FEAR.

Well said, Davo. Everybody loves Christ. In survey after survey even those who don't call themselves Christian respect and even admire him. It is Christendom that ticks them off and rightly so.

[davo]

Dear brother, the word "Christian" is biblical. ...

Is it time to run away from the word "Christian" (follower of Christ)?--rhondaHi Rhonda… I agree completely… "the word "Christian" is biblical" [check out my link]. The point I'm raising is not so much whether we bear "the name" or not – I do :), but rather has "Christianity" become something other than what was intended, i.e., was Christianity intended to be a religion etc.

Yes Doug, it's the survival at all cost of the "dom" wherein lies the problem, IMO.

[Amie]

..has "Christianity" become something other than what was intended, i.e., was Christianity intended to be a religion etc.

Yeah, I see this as a conversation and not really a declaration of set doctrine. Just what is "Christianity" anyway; and what does "Christian" mean? And contextually, is that a term reserved for the "elect"?

There are folks that are members of this forum that prefer no labels and there are folks who follow the Jesus story who do not call themselves Christians. Their reasons have nothing to do with concerns about association. Whatever we call ourselves, we are still brothers and sisters imo. We live in a unified world regardless of categories and labels.

I called Christianity corny or something to that effect earlier.. not too considerate of me. So how do we call things like we see them without the condemnatory tone? When I was younger, I swore off lying. I haven't made a perfect score of it, but I do pretty well I think. There's a story behind that of course, but I won't take things too off track. What I've found is how challenging it can be to tell the truth and not cause harm -- to maintain personal integrity, and outward consideration. It can be tough. We all speak so candidly around here, and Talk-Grace is here for that open discussion. I learn from watching other folks how to better have a healthy relationship with the part of diversity that is "other", if you know what I mean.

Just some thoughts..

Amie

[Truthseeker]

It really is tough, dear Sis Amie. I'm not sure its even possible, thus the saying that you can't please all the people all the time. We simply must use words to speak. It isn't so much the words, but the reactions that the words bring in how they're defined.

Its especially tough for me, because I define words as to their dictionary definitions. For instance, "doctrine" means "belief," "religion" means "belief system" and "Christian" means one who believes and follows (or strives to follow) the teachings of Jesus Christ.

So aisi, we all have our doctrines, our religion, and are Christians, if we stay with the original meanings of the words.

Because of painful experiences, people have a tendency to want to banish every reminder, including the words that were used during that experience. This is understandable, which is why I'm sincerely asking if you think its wiser to use other words in place of the originals.

This doesn't come without its own problems that are created by redefining words. For instance, to say we steer clear of "religion" isn't exactly true if we have any belief system at all. To say doctrines aren't important would only be true if we have no beliefs at all regarding God. There can be a lot of confusion in the redefining--because to say one is not religious would mean one doesn't believe in God at all to many people, unless the people also have managed to redefine the word "religious." On the other hand, if the hearers have redefined the words, then if I say I'm religious (which, truly I am in that I have a belief system) it may be taken that I'm a Traditional Fundy. lol. So I grapple with whether its better to go with the redefining, or to try to stick with the words' true (original)meanings. Because of abuses under the words, the words themselves become offensive.

I was a JW from 1984 to 1994. We wouldn't "touch" anything that closely resembled Christendom, which we taught was soon to be destroyed (as was the whole Empire of False Religion, that we believed was symbolized as Babylon the Great in scripture). We didn't celebrate holidays, we didn't accept traditional church doctrine--we didn't even sing traditional hymns (we had our own songs). What we failed to see was that we had become just as DOM as the religions we preached against. Its kinda hard to remove DOM when you believe the KingDOM of God is to be ushered in by your own organization because it has God's backing, and that you're being led into all Truth. And any movement that grows and needs organization to do a work, must...well it must become an organization. With that must come leaders at the top, with overseers. JW's try very hard to NOT be DOM, but that's just not possible. There are no paid elders or ministers, so its claimed that there is no clergy/laity--yet there IS a Governing Body (a group of men), and top down authority with district and circuit overseers, as well as elders in each congregation that "lead" the org, and whose direction is followed. And because all must agree with what the leaders say, unity is claimed--but in reality its uniformity. Everyone speaks the same--anyone who doesn't is a threat to the peace (and so-called "unity"). So a movement that was begun to preach "Get out of her, my people!" and rescue people from ChristenDOM became DOM too--it couldn't help but do that, even tho banished all Religious tradition. They merely created their own. --rhonda

[Amie]

Rhonda,

I think it is possible for those who want it to be. For those who don't want it to be possible, they'll do whatever it is that they want to do.

You and I both tend to stick to simple definitions via the dictionary, yet even there it isn't always so simple. Like:



1.
a. Belief in and reverence for a supernatural power or powers regarded as creator and governor of the universe.
b. A personal or institutionalized system grounded in such belief and worship.
2. The life or condition of a person in a religious order.
3. A set of beliefs, values, and practices based on the teachings of a spiritual leader.
4. A cause, principle, or activity pursued with zeal or conscientious devotion.

There are a few defintions above which would not have everyone as religious. There are some who would have everyone as religious.

Different things mean different things to different people - who do not see themselves as redefining anything at all.


Christian
adj.
Professing belief in Jesus as Christ or following the religion based on the life and teachings of Jesus.
Relating to or derived from Jesus or Jesus's teachings.
Manifesting the qualities or spirit of Jesus; Christlike.
Relating to or characteristic of Christianity or its adherents.
Showing a loving concern for others; humane.
n.
One who professes belief in Jesus as Christ or follows the religion based on the life and teachings of Jesus.
One who lives according to the teachings of Jesus.

The dictionary leaves the word "Christian" wide open for interpretation. For example, what "religion of Jesus" and did Jesus even establish a religion at all? What is "characteristic of Christianity and its adherents"? What is "humane"? (You and I both know that can be arbitrary since some doctrines justify the maltreatment of certain groups of people)

I am not claiming that no one is interested in "redefining" things, I've heard that used by people on very specific subjects. I appreciate the value in that when the original definition is in err. We're a tad more educated these days than folks who believed that, for example, illness that resulted from drinking from still water was because that was where demons liked to live. I'm not sure that would qualify as a "redefinition" though - maybe an accurate definition? Just thinking.

Our experiences lend to the way we understand words. I heard Davo mention one time about giving someone a bell and it literally took days for me to figure out that he meant calling them on the phone! lol! Another friend of mine from down under talked about putting the "footie" on and I was sure he was talking about slippers -- NO, he was talking about soccer/football, lol! Even within the US there are tons of different uses of language. I make fun of my hubby for example, because he "warshes" dishes, hehe. I won't tell you what he picks on me about! haha! Mike, our son, was around our friends from Pennsylvania so much that he called us "mudder" and "fadder" for a while. That might sound a bit like "fodder", which is feed for livestock.

And we all know that "cool" is "hot", and that "bad" can be "as in good" or "as in bad". Just think on our Barry for a second.. lol! (love you Barry!) We had to come to terms with our terms and many folks have to get to know the depths of Barry to understand his language: "human potential", "define ourselves for ourselves", etc. I put forth effort to understand him and it has been worth it. I had to work to understand Davo too - and still put forth effort.

There are different kinds of leaders and the meaning of that word, along with the definitions, is/are still evolving. Here's a cool comparison imo:

http://educationinnovation.typepad.com/.a/6a00d83533a43669e200e55453646b8833-800wi

For a lengthier comparison, click here: http://www.winstonbrill.com/bril001/html/article_index/articles/401-450/article419_body.html

Even with no organization, doesn't every movement have within it those who went first? (Leaders)

There are also people that we learn from. Their being more educated doesn't necessitate an unbending, inerrant attitude. Inspirational doesn't have to mean controlling and manipulative. I feel that I can relate where you are coming from Rhonda, because what I found/find within most church/ministry walls reflected the behavior within my horribly dysfunctional childhood home. I've seen people take on the role of "lateral leader" and propagate in order to walk people to the place where they are at, which isn't authentically 'walking beside' at all. I have a hard time watching while people are mislead and used. All in the name of what? Saving souls? Injecting love?

It is always human beings that attach definitions to words. We determine the meaning (we wrote the dictionary). What Ed, for example, means by "idiot", I suspect, is nowhere near as condemnatory as I take it. You are right, we cannot please everyone. I told him how I felt and it was reasonable enough for him to choose a different word. If I told him that I was offended by his breathing, other solutions would be in order. That's part of having a relationship and I think that actually relating to one another is something fairly recent else options for those "other solutions" would be more easily definable.

You have learned that when we are against, that which we hate, we easily become exactly what we rail against. How true that is too. I think that is the reason Jesus said "resist ye not the evil" (Matthew 5:39). In turning the other cheek, we are not accepting the disgrace of the slap, we are offering the person an opportunity for growth, and we cease being mirror images of our enemies, among, I"m sure, other things.

I call myself a "Christian" because I believe that Jesus was Christ to the world - I see myself as a part of that story (as one who received the benefits of that salvation). Other people have other reasons. I also know that many of my fellow Christians are talking about things that just are not relevant to real life. Just yesterday I was listening to a man on the radio preach about how we have our houses and cars because God is good and how we are to give God praise. What about the homeless? Is that because God is bad? And I give my children "praise" by taking notice of their successes -- is buying me a house God's success? I don't necessarily see God's success that way. Seriously too, does that mean that homelessness is God's failure? How is any of that topic helping me to understand how to deal with the emotional crunch that many of us are dealing with? How does that help offer the homeless, hope? I won't knock folks for talking about those things, but I find that they themselves leave church still hungry for something that would matter to real life.

Amie

[Truthseeker]

Dear Sis Amie,

I think I'm trying to simplify--I realize every subject has lots of gray areas, (can't see the forest because of the trees)--but if we get to the heart of the matter, its usually very simple. :)

So again, to be "religious" after you've read the above definitions means you have a belief system. It need not include God. A belief system is all that it requires, and we all have one! IOW I'm saying its not anything to be ashamed of--its just like eating and drinking--we're human, and we are all religious. What would be upsetting or wrong in just admitting that and moving on? Would it turn people off (that's my question.)

To be a Christian means that one believes in Jesus Christ, and one's religion, or belief system revolves around him. Now, if we redefine that because we don't want to be associated with "Christendom"; if one were to ask, "Are you a Christian?" and the answer is "No," then generally that person will assume we don't believe in Jesus Christ.

Now I suppose we could "sneak it in" with those who are offended by the term "Christian"--and react favorably to our saying "No" to the question. Then as that person gets to know us and has put in some kind of personal investment, we can gently show how we aren't "Christian" but how we actually do believe that Jesus Christ is the Savior of mankind.

But what of those who are offended at the "No," answer? Is our audience, since we believe in Infinite Grace, more of a "No" audience, and therefore our chances are better that they'll react favorably? Because either answer can offend.

I think I'm much more inclined to just answer "Yes," right off the bat and take it from there, because its honest. Its heartfelt. I could care less about those who've abused the name of Christ--its CHRIST that is the Way, the Truth and the Life. His name isn't dependent on what others have done in it--his name remains true, even if so many who've worn it have not. Even those who have not are still his.

Those who don't feel comfortable with it, I understand. Just not for me, I guess. --rhonda

[Amie]

Rhonda,

I'm relieved that you realize that this subject can have gray areas. My answer to the question "Are you religious?" would be, "It depends on what you mean by religious", lol!! According to what you mean sis, my answer is of course "yes". Some folks would disagree with us both, and that's cool with me. I cannot learn from a single soul if we are all clones. There again, I am all too open about offering up what I mean by "religious" and in that case my answer would be "no, I am not".

Some people it might turn off, and they are free to be turned off. They are free to disagree and to call themselves whatever they are comfortable or feel right about calling themselves. I would still hope for a friendship.

If someone were not to be comfortable with the label "Christian", then other people's assumptions would be cleared up if they continued with having a relationship. There are many reasons for redefinition and what we call ourselves and how we define ourselves is deeply personal. You are free to call yourself what you want just like other people are free to decide for themselves their own identity - and their own meanings behind their own identity.

The way I see it, I'm looking through labels and am interested in getting to know individuals - human beings. It's sexist if a man makes up his mind about us because of our identity ("female"), is it not pre-judging to also focus on the label of a human being (Christian, Transmillennialist, Preterist, Baptist, Muslim, Jew, Athiest, etc) and to draw conclusions before ever having known them? I mean, if people want to do that, that is fine. That is there business. People who are interested in being friends and in having relationships, make the choice to do so.

I was worried about the whole association thing for a while myself and my worry was also honest. Now I know that if other people aren't interested in knowing me because of a prejudice, that is their choice to make.

There are people here who do not call themselves Christian because they do not see that as applicable to us in this day. They see us as children of God and see Christ's work as toward that the entire time. There are some people around here too, that do not call themselves Christian because they truly and honestly are not a part of the religion that has grown over the centuries. They do no qualify even by Christianity's own standards (the creeds) - I know for sure that if you defined me by that standard, I am no Christian either.

I am glad that you are honest and that you share from the heart. I believe firmly that people here who see things differently than you are also being honest and sharing from the heart.

This conversation brings to mind Romans 14. There was the "weaker brother" who abstained from eating some foods still. Those having stronger faith did not fear eating whatever they wanted. They knew that Jesus would carry them though etc. To talk that person in to eating meat is to bring sin upon him because he is doing something against his own conscience. If a person is uncomfortable with calling themselves a Christian because of what that word means to him or her, I am not interested in bringing that on their conscience. It is our own consciences that we have to live with.

For you, it is dishonest to say that you are not a Christian. For others, it is dishonest to say that they are.

Oddly enough (to me), I agree that this is very simple. It is very simply, freedom.


Amie

[Truthseeker]

Amen, Amie! Freedom is what its all about. --rhonda

[Michael]

rhonda & Amie,

Personally im hoping to be more "like the birds,the grass and the lilies,how they grow;they neither toil or spin;and yet i say to you that even Solomon in all his glory was not arrayed and as fruitful like one of these",just simply natural,for creation simply shows forth the glory of God within itself as His creations.

That why i think we can find God in nature more easily,for it is even part of the Temple not made by human hands or activities.Come To The Garden

I think i have more surrendering,abiding and just learning to be in His Presence yet ?

Blessing & Grace

Michael

[Barry]

rhonda & Amie,

Personally im hoping to be more "like the birds,the grass and the lilies,how they grow;they neither toil or spin;and yet i say to you that even Solomon in all his glory was not arrayed and as fruitful like one of these",just simply natural,for creation simply shows forth the glory of God within itself as His creations.

That why i think we can find God in nature more easily,for it is even part of the Temple not made by human hands or activities.Come To The Garden

I think i have more surrendering,abiding and just learning to be in His Presence yet ?

Blessing & Grace

Michael

Hey Michael
If you don't mind me saying :)

I've noticed in your general disposition there is not the usual physical verses spiritual dichotomy. I find that refreshing.

Yes, when the temple made with hands was thrown down with not one stone left upon the other it was not the physicality of it that was destroyed. But rather the "building" of it.
This because the heavens of the heavens could not contain Him. But still, He chooses to dwell there in as if the stretching out there of were a tent.

Then of course he dwells in us (mankind).

Just to share the basic premise of my approach with you which is quite simple. We do not make Unity, we realize it. Wherein the physical is not intended to be seen as a barrier between God and man but rather a place of ongoing development. Ongoing development because everything has been made new.

Just a few of my own thoughts where little is actually set in stone.

Blessings Barry

[Michael]

Barry,

Thankyou for your thought where little is actually set in stone.Yes I like simple too ! And i have also found realization comes out of living and being it,which is where the power of grace comes in because everything has been made new. I still rejoice and weep from that scene in the movie The Passion where Jesus makes that statement "Its time to make all things New to Mirim his mother.It simply nailed me in my heart and between my eyes.It is and It's New even Now.
I searched for years with a broken heart for Unity even among christian only seeing glimering flashes of its reality.Then i had a moment of realization in the Face of Jesus and the thought came"I am that Unity now live it in and from me.Yes Christ is the fullness and fulfillment of all things and we within Him in Faith's realationship we begin being and living it.Even when or Inspite of its apparent invisiblity.
The Church(body) is whole,it is fullness in life,love,and communion,and its open to all who would be whole,thus the call of the Church(body) is to manifest the Truth in its fullness,not its least,expression.The Church(body) is communion with God and one's brethern,a reality which is to be realized and experienced in the local body and universally.Its A Communion Of Love.
"Faith is not a logical certainty but a realationship". ....Its is to know God not as a theory,belief,or an abstract principle,but as a person,To know a person is essentially to love him or her;there can be no true awareness of other persons without mutual love.

I've noticed in your general disposition there is not the usual physical verses spiritual dichotomy. "I find that refreshing". Thankyou for noticing what God has place,there that i cannot often see myself, Thankyou,and Thank God !

I do ramble too,don't I....Lol!

Peace Barry

Michael