I don't want to be Christian

[Starfish]

I'm not a Christian and don't think I can be, it doesn't feel my religious idenitity, ever instinct I have goes against it but I do love my Saviour and the atonement over the years grows more special and dear to me.

-Charley

I guess it also depends on your experience with traditional, mainstream Christianity. Having always been LDS, I have no experience with the above Christianity, other than to have always felt a kinship as fellow worshippers of Christ. So I've never minded sharing the title.

But my every instinct cannot reject the title. I AM Christian because I follow Christ. This is what the ancient saints were called. So I say I'm not mainstream Christian, but yes, I am a Christian.

I don't think either is wrong here. Just personal preference. Except it may get confusing to the non-LDS.

Edited November 8, 2008 by Starfish

[Moksha]

It's certainly more accurate than calling ourselves saints, which always seemed a bit presumptuous to me!

HEP

Very misleading too. We have the same faults as everyone else.

[Guest HEthePrimate]

Very misleading too. We have the same faults as everyone else.

:) Indeed.

[Pronto]

Where I used to work there was a bunch of "Christians" that would pretend to be all offended when anyone said a swear word - so I chose not to be associated with them.

[Teancum18]

Wow, and I thought I'd seen everything....

[jimuk]

I " think " i know where Elgama is coming from. I know 100% that we as LDS are Christians.

But lets look at it this way, do we want/need to be accepted as Christians by all other denominations, i think not, the reason for this is this.

If the day comes when we are seen as Christians, what then, whats the next move, do we then become members of the " world council of churches ", would we then be dominant to their decisions and governing.

Remember folks " we are a peculiar people, we are not of this world "

Just my thoughts.

Edited November 9, 2008 by jimuk

[Moksha]

Remember folks " we are a peculiar people, we are not of this world "

Fortunately, we do not have to show our passports either in America or on Urantia242.

[WiseMagic12312]

Remember folks " we are a peculiar people, we are not of this world "

peculiar being an extreme understatement.

People, I am not LDS. You all are Christians whether you want to be or not. If you don't want to be Christian, don't be Mormon. You're a paradox, Elgama. Wanting to be a specific religion to follow a God that you want to reward you one day after this life, but then you want to negate the core element of your faith that defines your works that you hope to be rewarded one day? Ok????? :confused: What a petty thing to be thinking about Elgama. I mean, if it's important to you; fine, to each their own. It just seems to me like there are more important things to exhaust your mental faculties over.

[Elgama]

Actually I follow God because I love and trust Him in my life He has been a part of my life forever, has been there when no other was - I don't care about the afterlife it is something that has gained importance in past 6 years since I got married and had children in that I don't want to lose them - but I don't spend my life pondering the afterllife.

The thought has troubled me because for me I made a deliberate decision not to be Christian - its not a major niggle consuming everyday that is usually more mundane stuff like where are the kids socks, why does my hubby have to be ill on his holiday etc

-Charley

[Traveler]

The problem here is semantics. For over 1600 years traditional Trinitarian Christians have been a majority in Western Civilization and have defined what it means to be a Christian based on Creeds rather than sacred scripture. For most of this history the penalty for not accepting the Trinity definition of Christian based on the doctrine of the Trinity was death. I challenge anyone that would espouse any other test for Christianity in Western Civilization to produce even one contrary historical document showing acceptance of non-Trinitarian Christianity prior to 1750. Included in such a declaration must be legal protection for non-Trinitarian life and property for not accepting the doctrine of the Trinity.

Let me be very clear on this notion. It is my belief that to take someone’s life or to even behold to any institution that would by declaration, take the life of any otherwise lawful devout person for the reason of disagreeing with doctrine is a definition of murder. I would not condone such murder now or ever. Jesus told the Jews that murder was the most clear indication of someone that follows the lust of the devil (see John 8:44).

Personally I do not believe that Christianity existed as an institution with any people or society that participates in religious executions of otherwise lawful individuals that treat their fellowmen with compassion and kindness. I understand fully why someone like Elgama does not want to be identified (even remotely) with such institutions – I would not either.

The Traveler

[bytor2112]

Fortunately, we do not have to show our passports either in America or on Urantia242.

Although I would gladly show a passport if I could go to Urantia242......

[prisonchaplain]

Traveler, I've no interest in justifying the Inquisition, or any other host of theological witch hunts. Most of them, however, were primarily political, rather than doctrinal. Your suggestion that the Trinity doctrine predominated only on the threat of death for dissenters is a bit over the top, imho. Consider that post-1750, the doctrine remains central to most Christian churches despite the lack of danger.

[Traveler]

Traveler, I've no interest in justifying the Inquisition, or any other host of theological witch hunts. Most of them, however, were primarily political, rather than doctrinal. Your suggestion that the Trinity doctrine predominated only on the threat of death for dissenters is a bit over the top, imho. Consider that post-1750, the doctrine remains central to most Christian churches despite the lack of danger.

Can you provide a historical document (prior to 1750) where someone publically declared that the Trinity doctrine did not define a Christian? Do you know of any historic public declaration where someone not accepting the Trinity doctrine was not in danger of losing life or property? Is there any institutional example of efforts not to drive disbelievers of the Trinity from their homes? Was Charlemagne (one of history’s greatest mass murder of non-Trinitarians) a Christian? Did the institutions he belonged to and contributed to provide an example of Christianity?

It is my understanding that most of the refugees that settled the Americas came here because they were not safe in any historical Christian society (or protected by any Christian institution) in Europe. I do not believe that a Christian institution would allow even one such refugee to be in danger – let alone thousands. There may have been Christians among them but they had no say in their societies or institutions – that I know of. If you have evidence to the contrary I would be most interested and willing to acknowledge and praise such an individual and an example of Christianity. But I cannot praise the institutions or societies that pretended to do and allow such things in the name of Jesus Christ.

BTW- Without reservation I believe you, Prison Chaplin, to be a Christian and I say this without accurate knowledge of where you worship.

The Traveler

[jimuk]

Man alone has decided on what a christian is, this is why it matters not that others say that we are not Christians. We are followers of Jesus the Christ, this is what matters.

Let the rest of mankind call themselves what they will, if they wish to be subject to what man says they are, again so be it.

I believe in god the father and in his son Jesus Christ and in the holy Ghost, and so be it.

I am not going to try to convince others as to whether Jesus, heavenly father and the holy spirit are of one flesh or three separate entities, they have already been convinced of this by a group of very intelligent intellectual old men sitting in council in Nice many many years ago. These guys by coming to their "OWN" decision on the Almighty, have also paved the way as to what a Christian is. so please remember none of it is from heavenly father.

It matters not one jot what the rest of mankind think they are, but you know who you are.

Edited November 10, 2008 by jimuk

[WiseMagic12312]

Please do not see these responses as rude or belittling. On the contrary, they are asked in the hope that challenging your thinking will derive responses from you that will help me understand more fully where you are coming from. Additionally, please feel safe in continuing this discussion with me; you are. :)

Actually I follow God because I love and trust Him in my life He has been a part of my life forever...

So after He has done all these things for you, you want to negate the core element of your faith that demonstrates your faith, love, and gratitude to Him?

...but I don't spend my life pondering the afterllife.

A) There's a difference between pondering and achieving. B) You contradict yourself when you say you don't want to ponder it, but you want what's best for your children and want to be with them forever. C) If you don't care about the afterlife, and you don't want to be Christian, then why be religious at all? "Because I love and trust God." Well, you're not "following" Him, as you put it, when you negate the very things He wants you to do in order to "follow" Him. I'm sorry, I just see paradoxical inconsistencies in your postulated paradigms and it baffles me. IMHO, I don't think you, yourself, see your own logical, analytical inconsistencies and contradictions.

The thought has troubled me because for me I made a deliberate decision not to be Christian - its not a major niggle consuming everyday...

Obviously, it's bothered you enough to create an entire thread over it, where people can put their thoughts and ideas and create discussions that you no doubt wanted to partake in. You wouldn't have created the thread otherwise. So the issue was obviously sticking out enough in your mind while looking for your child's socks.

------------------------------

Again, forgive me for asking such challenging questions that no doubt appear antagonistic in their truest form. I assure you that such is not the case. Not being religious myself, and never being baptized in any church, I logically cannot understand your crude reasoning for your paradigms regarding the very religion you belong to, but I do want to understand; if understanding is possible in this case.

WiseMagic

[WiseMagic12312]

Traveler, I've no interest in justifying the Inquisition, or any other host of theological witch hunts.

I'm afraid you don't have a choice in the matter PrisonChaplain. All substantial, credible discussion must be backed by analysis, support, and logic. Otherwise it is nothing more than crude opinion. Academically speaking, which is how the world defines credibility whether you accept that or not, your argument holds no merit if you want to inappropriately end it with "I have no interest in justifying the inquisition..."

Can you provide a historical document (prior to 1750) where someone publically declared that the Trinity doctrine did not define a Christian? Do you know of any historic public declaration where someone not accepting the Trinity doctrine was not in danger of losing life or property?

Traveler, I don't comment much on your posts, despite having read numerous posts of yours. IMHO, if someone wants to challenge something you have said, they need to be prepared to back it with irrefutable evidence. As you have demonstrated once again in this post, anyone is going to be hard pressed to out-discuss you.

For the record, given my extensive, unbiased research of the history of religion (I don't belong to any religion), the Trinity exists for two reasons, and two reasons only! (As demonstrated academically and scholastically)

1) The council of Nicea fabricated it after the days of heated discussion and confused interpretation of scripture.

2) The Church of Rome, later to be known as the Roman Catholic church, crusaded through the eastern part of the world, enforcing their religion and doctrine. They made it law and killed those who did not obey the law. It wasn't a witch hunt. What a silly thing to call a validated piece of history. It is academically and scholastically proven that Christianity was the law and government for over 1,000 years, and people who did not adhere to the law and government were thrown into prison without trial, or worse, killed.

As an additional note, it is scholastically and historically proven that the Trinity is inadequate in its simplest form. Listen up people, you're about to learn something not taught in your religions. The Trinity was written in what is called the language of negation. Academically speaking, it is impossible to define something by what it's not. That's what the language of negation is: speaking about something and defining it by what it's not. It's just not possible. For example: The sky is not tangible. It is not black. It is not living. It does not truly exist as the eye perceives it. -- Ok? So then what is the sky?? See, through the language of negation, I have defined what the sky is NOT, but have given no definition to what it IS. The Trinity is subject to the same limitation, problems, and inadequacy as I have just demonstrated here with the sky.

PrisonChaplin, you seem like a great guy, and I have enjoyed many of your posts, but in the most loving form of sincerity I can offer, I think you need to consider a more in-depth study. Especially if you want to be a Chaplain.

WiseMagic

[Elgama]

Please do not see these responses as rude or belittling. On the contrary, they are asked in the hope that challenging your thinking will derive responses from you that will help me understand more fully where you are coming from. Additionally, please feel safe in continuing this discussion with me; you are. :)

If I had been remotely offended you would have been told about it by now lol - my thinking is probably not in a position to be challenged much right now, I am 5 months pregnant with a toddler and a preschooler usually by time I get online I don't have much brain left - used to have one many eons ago lol

So after He has done all these things for you, you want to negate the core element of your faith that demonstrates your faith, love, and gratitude to Him?

I don't see how stating I am Christian is the core element of my faith far from it. The 2 biggest elements of my faith are the Atonement and Prayer. Without them my faith is nothing.

A) There's a difference between pondering and achieving. B) You contradict yourself when you say you don't want to ponder it, but you want what's best for your children and want to be with them forever. C) If you don't care about the afterlife, and you don't want to be Christian, then why be religious at all? "Because I love and trust God." Well, you're not "following" Him, as you put it, when you negate the very things He wants you to do in order to "follow" Him. I'm sorry, I just see paradoxical inconsistencies in your postulated paradigms and it baffles me. IMHO, I don't think you, yourself, see your own logical, analytical inconsistencies and contradictions.

Of course its paradoxical and full of contradictions I am merely mortal trying to understand someting I can only possibly hope to understand a small part of. Like with academic studies of many kinds its possible to hold two different views because of limited understanding, when full understanding is achieved you may discover you were both right or both wrong at least in part. I know with many forms of physics you are told to forget much high school physics because at university level you will learn many laws are very different or in History facts and dates become speculation and guesswork.

I already am living an eternal life I believe it was CS Lewis who put forward the idea that the present moment was when we touched eternity, the past was gone and the future yet to come, but right now is when our actions count. I believe that whole heartedly eternal life is now whether I make the Celestial Kingdom is determined by what I do right now this minute, but it is Heavenly Father's decision where I go not mine - I chose to be a Latter Day Saint because it is where God lead me not because I wanted a reward, it was simply the right thing to do. I didn't have a husband or children then and I certainly didn't want to be with my family for eternity it was more of a deterent than a reward. I do not see how saying I follow Christ, but I am not a Christian or merely stating I am a Latter Day Saint or Member of Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints negates anything

You don't have to be Christian to follow God there is only one God and many of the most Christlike people who clearly have him in their countenance are not Christian come from many different faiths. You don't have to be Christian to Love your God with all your might and strength, and to Love your fellow man, and to have self esteem.

Obviously, it's bothered you enough to create an entire thread over it, where people can put their thoughts and ideas and create discussions that you no doubt wanted to partake in.

I merely felt prompted to and glad I did - the phrase I follow Christ I am not Christian has put to bed those niggles I can now get back to finding my daughters clothes for nursery.

I logically cannot understand your crude reasoning for your paradigms regarding the very religion you belong to, but I do want to understand; if understanding is possible in this case.

WiseMagic

Thats because you are trying to be logical, I am not a huge fan of logic when it comes to understanding the divine - human brains cannot hope to understand it all. For me life experience, personal revelation, prayer etc are far more effective tools. Which is why I posted this in he first place>

And I doubt you can understand anymore than I can truly understand mainstream Christianity, Buddhism, Hinduism, Paganism (I have a better understanding thanks to a Druid exboyfriend who taught me wonderful meditations), I can love their beliefs and understand why they hold them. But I believe my way is true or correct which is why I can never truly understand someone on a different path.

-Charley

[WiseMagic12312]

-Charley

Ok, I am very glad to know that you were not offended because I have enjoyed this discussion. I find it challenging and thought-provoking.

I think I more fully understand where you are coming from. It has also made it more clear to me that we are talking about two different things: hence the reason for me looking at it logically, and you looking at it divinely.

I do believe that there is a logical way of looking at things and the spiritual way of looking at things. However, one cannot exist without the other. You are taught about the Divine through doctrine. That doctrine would be pointless if it were not logically sound. It wouldn't make sense to anyone and therefore they would not listen to it. So the doctrine in question is what I was looking at logically. However, you weren't looking at the doctrine, you were looking introspectively towards yourself and trying to reconcile your inner feelings with what you've been taught. Logic can be applied in the process, however, it's ultimately you who feels what you feel. While I am not a huge fan of emotions (I believe people would live longer with less of them), feelings are feelings no matter what. So I think what you meant to say was "you cannot understand feelings through logic." Not, "You cannot understand the divine through logic." God has order, purpose, and logic. If not, He would not be God, He would be an agent of chaos. But I think you meant the former and not the latter. You seem too smart to be in need of a lecture about God and logic. :)

Thank you for giving me more understanding.

WiseMagic

[prisonchaplain]

Can you provide a historical document (prior to 1750) where someone publically declared that the Trinity doctrine did not define a Christian? Do you know of any historic public declaration where someone not accepting the Trinity doctrine was not in danger of losing life or property? Is there any institutional example of efforts not to drive disbelievers of the Trinity from their homes? Was Charlemagne (one of history’s greatest mass murder of non-Trinitarians) a Christian? Did the institutions he belonged to and contributed to provide an example of Christianity?

It is my understanding that most of the refugees that settled the Americas came here because they were not safe in any historical Christian society (or protected by any Christian institution) in Europe. I do not believe that a Christian institution would allow even one such refugee to be in danger – let alone thousands. There may have been Christians among them but they had no say in their societies or institutions – that I know of. If you have evidence to the contrary I would be most interested and willing to acknowledge and praise such an individual and an example of Christianity. But I cannot praise the institutions or societies that pretended to do and allow such things in the name of Jesus Christ.

BTW- Without reservation I believe you, Prison Chaplin, to be a Christian and I say this without accurate knowledge of where you worship.

The Traveler

Again, I have no desire to justify the use of violence or force to combat heresy. Power does corrupt, does it not?

I will offer a possible explanation, though. Ancient societies did not separate church and state. Further, the Christian state was charged with defending the faith against all enemies, foreign and domestic, and certainly against theological heretics. It was believed that if false religion was allowed to grow, it would be a cancer that would destory many lives, and probably bring the wrath of God upon the country. Thus, heretics were not viewed as lost souls in need of saving, but at soldiers of Satan who must be vanquished.

We look back and declare such a view to be gross and deadly error. However, any repudiation of such violence and force does not speak to the validity of the Trinity doctrine, nor does it deny the seriousness of over nearly 1700 years of on-going sustaining of this central doctrine by most Christian churches.

[prisonchaplain]

Man alone has decided on what a christian is, this is why it matters not that others say that we are not Christians. We are followers of Jesus the Christ, this is what matters.

Let the rest of mankind call themselves what they will, if they wish to be subject to what man says they are, again so be it.

I believe in god the father and in his son Jesus Christ and in the holy Ghost, and so be it.

But should not Christians share "like precious faith." So, if there is disagreement about something so basic as to who God is, what his nature is, then is it not understandable that those coming with new and different doctrines would be questioned rather strenuously?

I am not going to try to convince others as to whether Jesus, heavenly father and the holy spirit are of one flesh or three separate entities, they have already been convinced of this by a group of very intelligent intellectual old men sitting in council in Nice many many years ago. These guys by coming to their "OWN" decision on the Almighty, have also paved the way as to what a Christian is. so please remember none of it is from heavenly father.

Just keep in mind that Trinitarians believe the Council was guided by the Holy Spirit, and that God had his way in Nicea. This is a doctrine that has been sustained by Christians for 1700 years.

[WiseMagic12312]

Just keep in mind that Trinitarians believe the Council was guided by the Holy Spirit, and that God had his way in Nicea.

So you honestly believe that God would inspire something through the language of negation when all the proceeding scripture has little to no evidence of God ever speaking in the language of negation?? I refuse to believe that an Almighty being would inspire a doctrine that is so limited in nature and written in language that is erroneous. Whatever, to each their own.

However, any repudiation of such violence and force does not speak to the validity of the Trinity doctrine,

You are right. But then again, such support as that is not necessary. The language of negation alone discredits it's validity. As does the scholastically inquiries of it's origin, definition, composition, and roots.

For 1500 years, people believed the world was flat. How much longer until the Trinity is finally proven with sound eyes and ears to be wrong. Even the Bible does not support it. It's a chaotic notion that defies the order of what God is suppose to be. Are you insinuating that God is an agent of chaos?? How logically sound is it to believe that God was praying to Himself in the Garden of Gethsemane? Or that He was atoning for His own demands of Justice in the Garden? That makes absolutely no sense to me! Because to manifest Himself in three different forms is not a testament to His divinity,but rather would be a chaotic demonstration that defies all logic and order. The idea of a different entity seeking reconciliation and advocating two different parties makes more sense to me and that's not even a doctrine I believe in. In fact, this is why I refuse to believe in a God or a religion.

What a waste of time.

WiseMagic

Edited November 11, 2008 by WiseMagic12312

[WiseMagic12312]

I want to clarify something. I have nothing against people wanting to believe in anything they want. What I am showing here is my confusion for some doctrine. Of all the religions I have studied, there are 4 pieces of doctrine that make the least sense to me and are the most illogically conceived:

1) 168,000 people will make it into Heaven ONLY and no one else -- Jehovah's Witnesses

2) The Trinity -- Everyone, except the LDS faith, supposedly

3) Just believe and you are saved -- Born Agains

4) Closed Cannon -- Everyone except JW's and LDS.

It makes no sense to me. I can't understand how anyone can look at those doctrines, even if there is no God, and accept them as logical, thought out, coherent, unbias, and illegitimate.

"Oh you just don't have faith, WM." How can I have faith in something that makes no sense in it's simplest form of logic?

WiseMagic

Edited November 11, 2008 by WiseMagic12312

[Traveler]

Again, I have no desire to justify the use of violence or force to combat heresy. Power does corrupt, does it not?

I will offer a possible explanation, though. Ancient societies did not separate church and state. Further, the Christian state was charged with defending the faith against all enemies, foreign and domestic, and certainly against theological heretics. It was believed that if false religion was allowed to grow, it would be a cancer that would destory many lives, and probably bring the wrath of God upon the country. Thus, heretics were not viewed as lost souls in need of saving, but at soldiers of Satan who must be vanquished.

We look back and declare such a view to be gross and deadly error. However, any repudiation of such violence and force does not speak to the validity of the Trinity doctrine, nor does it deny the seriousness of over nearly 1700 years of on-going sustaining of this central doctrine by most Christian churches.

Jesus spoke of two or three gathered in his name – there would be love. He spoke of identifying his disciples as loving one to another.

During the most of the time in the history of Christianity in Western Civilization, I cannot find a single society or institution that even exhibited tolerance, let alone love and compassion taught by Jesus to those that chose to follow him – even if it meant their death as Christ had died for others. When we speak of that to which we are willing to attach the sacred name of Christ – as his light to the world; our standard should be high and unyielding. I just do not see that light shinning in the institutions and societies for over a thousand years.

Likewise the Jews claimed to be the covenant remnant of Abraham – see what Jesus said in John 8:39 “….If you were Abraham’s children, ye would do the works of Abraham.” When we testify to the world that something is of Christ or Christian we are in essence saying that they do the works of Christ.

I believe what Elgama is trying to say is simply that: if what defines Christian societies and institutions for most of the 2000 years since Christ are those societies and institutions that exhibited consistently the lack of tolerance (even genocide in some cases) – then by such a definition let none of us today call ourselves such manner of Christians.

I cannot think of anything that speaks to the validity of doctrine more than the effect of that doctrine upon the generations of societies and institutions that espouse it.

The Traveler

Edited November 11, 2008 by Traveler

[Teancum18]

I'm not a prophet or a seer. And I certainly don't speak on behalf of the LDS church with this next statement. IMHO, Trinitarians will rue the day they ever believed God, Christ, and the Spirit are one being.

[WiseMagic12312]

I believe what Elgama is trying to say is simply that: if what defines Christian societies and institutions for most of the 2000 years since Christ are those societies and institutions that exhibited consistently the lack of tolerance (even genocide in some cases) – then by such a definition let none of us today call ourselves such manner of Christians.

The Traveler

Yes, I have picked up on that as well. I would add to that, Traveler, based on my rewarding conversation with her, that she wants to identify what being a Christian means to her, through her own feelings and experiences. Not what the world tells her -- which I deeply admire and is why I found my conservation with her so rewarding; because I was able to learn that about her.

WiseMagic