How Should a Christian Act?

Momma Angel wrote:

It's not the people we are to be intolerant of, it is the sins that are against God.

Which, from my own personal viewpoint which is outside of religions of any sort, is just about everything that is done in His name and publicly known and reviewed--even on the community level.

That's why I don't try to get into all that. Because I don't want to be associated with what I consider to be a damaging, far-reaching, delusion that many consider the 'spread of Christianity' but which I fully understand to be a direct fulfillment of the 'strong delusion' that Paul mentions in 2 Thess.

The antichrist is most likely christianity, itself. That's how strong the delusion is. Not that all who trust in the message that was seeded by Christ are deluded because of Christ being somehow false or deceptive, either in word or principle. But that the delusion is fostered by human nature's inescapable weakness of discernment--we judge all books by their covers, over and over again. Names are the same thing. Words deceive us and we further it with our own words and propensity to put more faith in definitions and labels than we do in our God-given, innate, infallible sense of logic and common sense--and the ability to know truth from falsehood (not fact vs fiction which is something altogether different).
It is innate and nondiscrimatory, one of our few truly unalienable rights-- although it is killed and maimed at such an early age that most think it never existed, and a lot of us talk ourselves out of it if we have any left.

The main culprit who persuades us to trust elsewhere? Religion. As the authorities ordained by God. That's horse puckey and I denounce it with every breath.

0 Replies

Quote:

It's not the people we are to be intolerant of, it is the sins that are against God.

Momma- You speak of "sins against God". Yet, unless I have been asleep at the switch all the time, I have seen no one offer a scintilla of proof that:

There is a God.

That if there indeed IS a God, he has defined sins that are against him.

That Jesus, who may or may not have claimed that he was the "son of God" (after all, most of the things that were written about Jesus were written, and reworked many years after the life of the putative Jesus)was the messenger who carried the word of God.

Often the only "proof" that is offered is the concept of "faith". When one relies simply on "faith" then the deuces are wild. A person, or group of people can offer up anything, no matter how bizarre or irrational, as evidence of their claims.

0 Replies

Questioner wrote:

MA wrote:
Don't blame God. Don't blame the message.

What else IS there to blame?

Our own lack of humility.
Our persistence in trying to prove our point to someone with the same persistence but a different point.
The idea that we can know anything at all on behalf of someone else and therefore be 'right' on wider plane than self.

Selfishness. Ego.

What I perceive to be the read identity of 'sin' and the source of the only true and dangerous 'evil.'

It's not just christians and christianity...

It is all of us. We choose sides depending on what we perceive of what image of God is globally accepted because it is presented with the bible and by those of a certain name.

And in the end, it turns out that indeed the whole world, every person, is deceived by the image of the beast--the god we created from the reflection of our own thoughts based on something not any one of us has ever actually seen.

The answer to whether the bible is true is an answer that says christianity is fundamentally a lie. Not speculation, but experience and understanding--through reading that same bible.

0 Replies

I am afraid even if God did prove Himself to those of you that doubt Him, you would still ask for more.

You can rely on man all you want. You can trust man all you want. I prefer to rely on God and I prefer to trust Him.

I hope you all have a wonderful holdiay!

0 Replies

I noticed queen annie talking about her concept of the anti-Christ...

There are some things I learned when I was young, and though my translation may no longer be quite as literal, I still have momentary remembrances of those early images....

I'm almost certain the anti-Christ is said to come from the East, and wear a blue turban.... My eyes bugged out for a minute when I saw the new Indian leader during a recent visit.

Bright blue turban.... Funny the things that stick with us...

And, he was said to be Ghandi-like.... Shocked

0 Replies

Several years ago when the theory of the third and final Antichrist was first put forth, you could maybe make an argument that Nostradamus was talking about a middle eastern warlord wearing a blue turban. But in light of recent events, specifically the war in Yugoslavia, that theory no longer floats. He was obviously talking about a leader of United Nations/NATO forces when he said blue leader. The white leader is the middle eastern warlord that everyone seems to have mistaken for the Antichrist, and we have already discussed that he is a decoy in One If By Land, Two If By See.

Line two is a reference to the Crusades and an earlier allied European force that invaded the Middle East in 1099 AD. French troops became the first Western forces to occupy the Holy Land, and since Nostradamus was born in France and raised in the Catholic faith, I believe that he was referring to both when he said, France has done them good. French occupation allowed the Church to control the Holy Land and begin converting the heretic faiths to their brand of Christianity.

Death from the great antenna hanging from the branch, means that the blue leader (of a future allied European force), will be dropping nuclear bombs on the white leader and his people. The early nuclear tests performed by the United States were done with the explosive device suspended from a steel tower that resembled a broadcast antenna. The King that is seized or captured will be the middle eastern warlord (the white leader) because Daniel 11:25 tells us that after he is stirred up to battle, he shall not stand, for they shall forecast devices against him. The real Antichrist will defeat the decoy because he planned to do so in advance.

Nostradamus tells us exactly who the real Antichrist is in his epistle to Henry II when he says, Gallic Ogmios will be accompanied by so great a number that the Empire of his great law will extend very far. For some time thereafter the blood of the innocent will be shed profusely by the recently elevated guilty ones. For those who have already read my book, you know who Ogmios is, and that he can be identified by his great law that Nostradamus refers to. The blood of the innocent being shed profusely is the mass murder of millions in the Middle East by so great a number, which is an army of NATO forces. Daniel 8:25 backs this theory up when it tells us that the Antichrist, by peace shall destroy many. It is Western leaders that are pushing for a peace agreement in the Middle East, and some of them do so to mask their real motive, world hegemony.
_____________________

Ooops. Nostradamus seems to say the anti-Christ is the UN.

By God, I knew it!! Laughing

0 Replies

I have heard that too Lash. Whoever or whatever it is will seem to solve all the problems of the wars. He's going to bring peace but only for a short time.

Guess we will just have to watch and see.

0 Replies

Quote:

First, there is no one specific person denominated "the antichrist" in the New Testament. Rather, John declares that "many antichrists" have arisen (1 John 2:18; 2 John 7).

Second, the Bible does not suggest that a mysterious antichrist is some sinister personage who is to appear in the late twentieth century. There were many antichrists in the first century. ". . . even now," affirms the apostle, "have there arisen many antichrists" (1 John 2:18; 4:3).

A careful analysis of John's references to "antichrist" reveals that the term is a general designation employed to suggest a spirit of unbelief that can be manifested in a variety of ways, both in the past and present.

Thus, in 1 John 2:18, underline the term "antichrist," and in your margin note: See vs. 22; 4:3; 2 John 7. A general disposition of unbelief; not a specific person.

0 Replies

umm I see this taking place pretty often now??

0 Replies

It's going to be pretty interesting to see how all this does play out though, isn't it? So many different thoughts on it. I don't think any of us have 100% of what it's going to be.

0 Replies

Quote:

Antichrists will deny the faith and try to deceive the faithful. But the true Christian has the anointing of the Holy Spirit to preserve him from error. He will never defect. He may get tossed around a little, but he will never leave because Christians accept the faith through the Holy Spirit.

0 Replies

Phoenix32890 wrote:

Quote:
Often the only "proof" that is offered is the concept of "faith". When one relies simply on "faith" then the deuces are wild. A person, or group of people can offer up anything, no matter how bizarre or irrational, as evidence of their claims.[/color][/b]

Excellent point.

I can really only guess, but I think "believers" feel that they betray their faith when they indulge a "non-believer's" demand for reasons in support of faith. Is this why "believers" are so reluctant to rely solely on rational explanation?

The only alternative that I can see to this is that they are simply incapable of having such a dialogue on purely rational terms. But, I give them the benefit of the doubt and assume that they are just unwilling.

My appeal to "believers" in this situation is that you let down your guard and try to understand that for "non-believers" your constant, faith rhetoric really only widens the gap. "Non-believers" do not understand your "faith".

If you truly care about their fate and are not interested only in winning points for your side, then you must engage them on their terms. "Non-believers" tell you over and over that what they need from you is reason, and you consistently deny them any. Thus, you amplify their frustration.

Pick apart this post if you want to, and show me where I am wrong. But don't ignore the parts that are right.

(P.S. It's very late, and I can be a bit self-righteous when I'm tired. Sorry.)

0 Replies

Oh yeah, and the antichrist is corporate power. (Duh)

0 Replies

echi,

There is nothing to pick apart in your post. However, since my Christianity is based on faith and not proof, how can I or anyone else offer the kind of reason you suggest?

I cannot prove God to a non-believer. It cannot be done to their satisfaction. At least, that has been my experience.

God says He that hath ears let him hear. It's all a matter of faith, echi. I can understand how frustrating it may be for non-believers. But, it's frustrating for believers also to understand how someone can't understand the faith part.

That's just the way it is.

0 Replies

You guys should really stop taking yourselves so seriously. Life is short; too short to dedicate it to a static, totalitarian idea.

My thought is that any GOD would view all ye faithful as a bunch of tools. How do you presume to pay homage to GOD?

0 Replies

Instigate wrote:

You guys should really stop taking yourselves so seriously. Life is short; too short to dedicate it to a static, totalitarian idea.

My thought is that any GOD would view all ye faithful as a bunch of tools. How do you presume to pay homage to GOD?

Yes, I take life seriously. I take my beliefs very seriously.

How do you mean how do you presume to pay homage to God?

0 Replies

Momma Angel wrote:

How do you mean how do you presume to pay homage to God?

God is omnipotent; What effect do you think your devotion has on himher?

Ultimatlely, You're looking for something. You're expecting a reward, and that is your problem.

The expectation of a reward completely eviscerates the concept of Godliness.

0 Replies

But, you are mistaken, I am not looking for a reward.

0 Replies

You wanna go to heaven, don't you?

0 Replies

I am not a Christian because I just want to go to heaven. I am a Christian because I believe in Jesus Christ and that He was crucified for the sins of the world.

If I were a Christian merely because I wanted a reward, I wouldn't be a real Christian IMO.

0 Replies

How Should a Christian Act?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know