I respect that as a Christian I believe that it has many values that make life better and easier to navigate. That said if we don't reflect on how we apply those principles we can end up becoming tyrannical society as the past proves time and time again. God bless and wish you all the best.
I'm a Christian and I appreciate the perspective you share here so much. I spent years in fundamentalist Christianity and found it super restrictive. I'm much freer now, taking a much broader understanding of Christianity and many things, and as such, I also feel much more "pro-Christian" than I was as a fundamentalist.
I'm more pro Christian than those who call themselves Christian. I'm also more Muslim than most people who call themselves Muslim. Definitions are everything. (Follower of Christ? ✓) (Submitted to the Creator of all? ✓ ) Yuppers. Neither of these words are synonymous with "religion", nor do they require an agreed upon belief system.
As an aside I would like to add that with churches selling trump trinkets, bakker buckets, comic books of fake christianity, that how to be a man series, etc. Jesus would be wearing out whips to drive this out faster than they could be made. Good thing he left😁
Essentially, I think: Do whatever works, as long as it's not causing harm, including to yourself. Then I mind my business & don't get into pointless debates that just wind up upsetting people who aren't actually as sure of their beliefs/needs/etc. as they think. My grandmother was a very religious woman. So was my other grandmother. One would pray for anyone in need & wished everyone the best. She was wonderful
“As long as!” That is considered boundaries. Who established those boundaries? Most people would agree that it’s harmful to not warn a blind person that’s in direct path of a on coming car to move out of the way. However if that blind person wants to argue that the car doesn’t exist and you’re just keeping them from living free. What then?
@@ricksmobileservice8246 Yes, that would be a boundary. Sorry, are you: -implying that there should not be boundaries on ideas/beliefs/rules/etc? -asking who should decide the boundaries on someone's ideas/beliefs/rules/etc? -wondering if I'd get into a discussion rather than getting a person out of the way of imminent harm? -believing that a(n at all rational) person being told they're in imminent danger would stand there & debate about the existence of...cars...or other well established existing & potentially dangerous thing...& take the chance of getting seriously wounded or killed rather than move to a neutral position & THEN speak with (or ignore, whatever) the very anxious person attempting to kindly help them? ...or are you trolling to see if I'd humor an aforementioned pointless debate?
@@ricksmobileservice8246Next time, dont use cars in your analogy. Just use holes in the ground. Holes dont make noise as cars do, so uncharitable recipients of your analogy are just going to abuse the allegory in that manner instead of actually considering the implications of a blind man being too prideful to acknowledge that he is walking on a path that will cause him harm.
The ultimate “elephant” in the room is an individuals notion to know and at some level understand who holds the answers and solutions for boundaries while the one who sits across from them with a different perspective is convinced they have a better understanding of that reality! There is a self-preservation, self-esteem, self-confidence and self-satisfaction in knowing and controlling moral boundaries that’s on a personal level, as well as moral boundaries that establish unity among people. Boundaries as a whole can only be provided by a singular authority figure, and if permitted by that authority, individuals will participate at some level. An authority that establishes a world view provides direction, purpose and identity which is absolutely needed. The human nature ultimately, would want nothing more than to be in control of those boundaries, even when it’s presumed a belief in God!
You're a funny dude. I couldn't say a thing to you on this though, because it's a been there, done that situation. My dad isn't famous like yours, but like yours, he was a pastor for many years. Our other main difference is that I am a follower of Christ. It's like we could talk about so much and nothing at all. Very curious what's going on in my brain right now.
I went through a very similar agnostic phase from 2014 to 2019. I think those who are deconstructing and angry at the religion would benefit the most from faith. It might even require a conservative faith at the start, but that would go away shortly after into a more moderate orthodox faith.
Problem is, Christ himself would fail your exclusivity objection. It was his way, or the highway. Sheep and goats. Broad gate, narrow gate. To say you have no issue with Christianity-which literally means “little Christs” or followers of Christ”-yet reject Christ is simply illogical. You equate fundamentalism, and “conservative Christianity” with things you reject, but have thrown the baby out with the bath water when you reject Christ’s claim to exclusivity. Not someone showing the way, but being the Way. Fundamentalists don’t own the claim that you must be “born again” to see the kingdom of God-Christ does.
1 Corinthians 15:1-4 KJV 3 For what I received I passed on to you as of first importance that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures John 3:16 16 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life Ephesians 2:8-9 8 For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God: 9 Not of works, lest any man should boast ROMANS 10:13 For “whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved.”
If your not pro fundementalist your not pro Christian. St Paul was a fundementalist, Jesus is a fundementalist his laws still stand and his gospel shall never change. Your not pro Christian your pro anything that doesn't conflict with your sin
I'm pro people that lost their home like the ones in AZ just because they gave water to the homeless. I don't believe people who cause this to happen are christian no matter what they say. If you can't walk the walk, stop using the label.
I'm actively anti religion. The basis of most religions is not questioning and feeling ashamed for things you didn't do. That's harmful, even ignoring all the hate and bigotry, misogyny, homophobia, and all the other aspects of religion that are harmful.
I hear you, and I've seen too much of that as well. But It seems to come from the tiny fringe groups of specific larger groups. Those people tend to blame the Bible or Gd for their bigotry, and do it loudly. I wish they'd stop. Wishing you an awesome day.
So you also are against all Catholics, all Muslims, and all Hindus. Every religion is under the assumption that they are the only way, at the true core of what the religion actually states.
1 Corinthians 15:1-4 KJV 3 For what I received I passed on to you as of first importance that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures John 3:16 16 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life Ephesians 2:8-9 8 For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God: 9 Not of works, lest any man should boast ROMANS 10:13 For “whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved.”
Well said!! I don't understand why some people find this concept difficult to grasp.
I respect that as a Christian I believe that it has many values that make life better and easier to navigate. That said if we don't reflect on how we apply those principles we can end up becoming tyrannical society as the past proves time and time again. God bless and wish you all the best.
I'm a Christian and I appreciate the perspective you share here so much. I spent years in fundamentalist Christianity and found it super restrictive. I'm much freer now, taking a much broader understanding of Christianity and many things, and as such, I also feel much more "pro-Christian" than I was as a fundamentalist.
I'm more pro Christian than those who call themselves Christian. I'm also more Muslim than most people who call themselves Muslim. Definitions are everything. (Follower of Christ? ✓) (Submitted to the Creator of all? ✓ ) Yuppers. Neither of these words are synonymous with "religion", nor do they require an agreed upon belief system.
As an aside I would like to add that with churches selling trump trinkets, bakker buckets, comic books of fake christianity, that how to be a man series, etc. Jesus would be wearing out whips to drive this out faster than they could be made. Good thing he left😁
Essentially, I think: Do whatever works, as long as it's not causing harm, including to yourself.
Then I mind my business & don't get into pointless debates that just wind up upsetting people who aren't actually as sure of their beliefs/needs/etc. as they think.
My grandmother was a very religious woman. So was my other grandmother.
One would pray for anyone in need & wished everyone the best. She was wonderful
“As long as!”
That is considered boundaries.
Who established those boundaries?
Most people would agree that it’s harmful to not warn a blind person that’s in direct path of a on coming car to move out of the way. However if that blind person wants to argue that the car doesn’t exist and you’re just keeping them from living free. What then?
@@ricksmobileservice8246 Yes, that would be a boundary.
Sorry, are you:
-implying that there should not be boundaries on ideas/beliefs/rules/etc?
-asking who should decide the boundaries on someone's ideas/beliefs/rules/etc?
-wondering if I'd get into a discussion rather than getting a person out of the way of imminent harm?
-believing that a(n at all rational) person being told they're in imminent danger would stand there & debate about the existence of...cars...or other well established existing & potentially dangerous thing...& take the chance of getting seriously wounded or killed rather than move to a neutral position & THEN speak with (or ignore, whatever) the very anxious person attempting to kindly help them?
...or are you trolling to see if I'd humor an aforementioned pointless debate?
@@ricksmobileservice8246Next time, dont use cars in your analogy. Just use holes in the ground. Holes dont make noise as cars do, so uncharitable recipients of your analogy are just going to abuse the allegory in that manner instead of actually considering the implications of a blind man being too prideful to acknowledge that he is walking on a path that will cause him harm.
The ultimate “elephant” in the room is an individuals notion to know and at some level understand who holds the answers and solutions for boundaries while the one who sits across from them with a different perspective is convinced they have a better understanding of that reality!
There is a self-preservation, self-esteem, self-confidence and self-satisfaction in knowing and controlling moral boundaries that’s on a personal level, as well as moral boundaries that establish unity among people.
Boundaries as a whole can only be provided by a singular authority figure, and if permitted by that authority, individuals will participate at some level. An authority that establishes a world view provides direction, purpose and identity which is absolutely needed. The human nature ultimately, would want nothing more than to be in control of those boundaries, even when it’s presumed a belief in God!
I'm not pro Christian. I'm pro Christ though. Much love.
Christ never denounced slavery, but could have done so. Not a cool dude.
You're a funny dude. I couldn't say a thing to you on this though, because it's a been there, done that situation. My dad isn't famous like yours, but like yours, he was a pastor for many years.
Our other main difference is that I am a follower of Christ. It's like we could talk about so much and nothing at all. Very curious what's going on in my brain right now.
I went through a very similar agnostic phase from 2014 to 2019. I think those who are deconstructing and angry at the religion would benefit the most from faith. It might even require a conservative faith at the start, but that would go away shortly after into a more moderate orthodox faith.
Problem is, Christ himself would fail your exclusivity objection. It was his way, or the highway. Sheep and goats. Broad gate, narrow gate. To say you have no issue with Christianity-which literally means “little Christs” or followers of Christ”-yet reject Christ is simply illogical. You equate fundamentalism, and “conservative Christianity” with things you reject, but have thrown the baby out with the bath water when you reject Christ’s claim to exclusivity. Not someone showing the way, but being the Way. Fundamentalists don’t own the claim that you must be “born again” to see the kingdom of God-Christ does.
A system is a system
Controling the members is what religion is made for.
No prize no burn just dirt in the end
Love you, brother 😊
you can come along if you feel like it!
1 Corinthians 15:1-4 KJV
3 For what I received I passed on to you as of first importance that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures
John 3:16
16 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life
Ephesians 2:8-9
8 For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God:
9 Not of works, lest any man should boast
ROMANS 10:13
For “whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved.”
If your not pro fundementalist your not pro Christian. St Paul was a fundementalist, Jesus is a fundementalist his laws still stand and his gospel shall never change. Your not pro Christian your pro anything that doesn't conflict with your sin
There is avast difference between religion and God.
I'm pro people that lost their home like the ones in AZ just because they gave water to the homeless. I don't believe people who cause this to happen are christian no matter what they say. If you can't walk the walk, stop using the label.
The problem I have Abe is that on Twitter I lightly dialoged with you and you quickly blocked me. I do not think you have an open mind.
Being a Christian "if you feel like it" is not being a Christian
What is it then?
@@dm.3145denying your ways, repent and trust Gods ways.
I'm actively anti religion. The basis of most religions is not questioning and feeling ashamed for things you didn't do. That's harmful, even ignoring all the hate and bigotry, misogyny, homophobia, and all the other aspects of religion that are harmful.
Understandable
I hear you, and I've seen too much of that as well. But It seems to come from the tiny fringe groups of specific larger groups. Those people tend to blame the Bible or Gd for their bigotry, and do it loudly. I wish they'd stop.
Wishing you an awesome day.
Good for you 🥕😊
I respect that
Hilarious 😂
So you also are against all Catholics, all Muslims, and all Hindus. Every religion is under the assumption that they are the only way, at the true core of what the religion actually states.
1 Corinthians 15:1-4 KJV
3 For what I received I passed on to you as of first importance that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures
John 3:16
16 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life
Ephesians 2:8-9
8 For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God:
9 Not of works, lest any man should boast
ROMANS 10:13
For “whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved.”