Why I am a Christian

[aj4u]

If so, this one God would appeal to a universal following, not bind himself to one culture..

This is true.

Thus, I'm very quickly drawn to Christianity. Judaism remains married to the Hebrew people. Islam, while spreading, remains bound to Arabic and Middle Eastern culture. Part of the reason we have so much misunderstanding is that the faith is meant to be lived out in an Arabic society dominated by supporters. Only Christianity is monotheistic, universal, and portrays God as loving--even pro-active in providing reconciliation.

Islam and Judaism is monotheistic as well. Just because they stick to their culture, that doesn't mean they're not monotheistic. Edited May 1, 2009 by aj4u

[aj4u]

I am a Christian because there is no other name given whereby we might be saved save for the name of Jesus Christ. However, not all that call themselves Christian are. I believe we have to really know who Jesus is to be saved. Many know about Jesus, but don't know Him. Additionally, many religions that are mutually exculsive from eachother claim to have a witness of some spiritual significant thing in their life, but that is not really a confirmation that they are in the faith. Satan can appear as an angel of light and deceive many. If he can do that, then it shouldn't surprise anyone that his children can appear as ministers of righteousness, but they are wolves in sheeps clothing whether they realize it or not.

[Maureen]

The fourth blessing is of a Judah-ite church:“Judah, your brothers shall praise you; your hand shall be on the neck of your enemies; your father’s sons shall bow down before you. Judah is a lion’s cub; from the prey, my son, you have gone up. He stooped down; he crouched as a lion and as a lioness; who dares rouse him? The scepter shall not depart from Judah, nor the ruler’s staff from between his feet, until tribute comes to him; and to him shall be the obedience of the peoples. Binding his foal to the vine and his donkey’s colt to the choice vine, he has washed his garments in wine and his vesture in the blood of grapes. His eyes are darker than wine, and his teeth whiter than milk."This church would have to be a powerful church, one that appeared great unto men. I see this as a church of power and influence, with a Godly form. Note the description of his clothing and the care he takes to appear regal. However, despite his apparent vanity, we see he is faithful and lives the life he wants others to make him appear to be.

FunkyTown, your list of 12 tribes/churches is interesting and I understand why you would pick the Church of Joseph. I would pick the Church of Judah, since that is the line that Christ comes from.

[prisonchaplain]

I have personally never seen an exorcism, nor manifestation of tongues, nor have I seen snake-handlers in church, nor anyone drink arsenic in church and comment on its fine nutty flavor. I have seen(And I hesitate to write this simply because it's pretty sacred) miraculous healing, but that is just one of the signs.

What about the remainder of those manifestations? To simply go out and do it to prove you can would be to tempt God, but those are the signs that must manifest to show those that believe.

IMHO, based on the NT accounts, the drinking of poison and handling of snakes was not meant as an intentional ordinance of the church, but rather a promise of protection for missionaries. Paul encountered these and survived miraculously. Healings and tongues, on the other hand, get reported with some regularity. My church teaches that healing is included in the atonement--not as a 100%, on-demand, miracle, but one for which we can pray with confidence and regularity.

So I have struggled with this. I have heard tale of Elders performing exorcisms(Though never seen it, so they could be urban legends), and have heard that languages come easier to Missionaries. That still leaves two manifestations I haven't seen.

Exorcisms are responses to clearly demonized individuals, not something to be conjured up as proof of authority.

That makes me ask the question, "What if the many churches are manifestations of God's greatness and will?"

If we look at it that way, this would mean there is one Church (As there is one Israel) represented through multiple families. Observing the blessing, that would mean there would be:

...

It will seem obvious who I'm suggesting here, but know that's because I happen to be LDS.

This church would be one that was attacked bitterly, but did not become violent. It would have to be a worldwide church as the branch flows over the walls(A suggestion that, though it is an American church, its branches go everywhere?), blessed through times of plenty and adversity. Large families(Blessings of the breasts and womb) and set up in the Everlasting Hills(Specifically: Utah could be a type of the 'Everlasting Hills'). Set apart from his brothers: There is no denying the LDS church is seperate and apart from its brothers.

*****

Now, what does that have to do with authority? Like times of old, Authority was dispensed as by God through Families(Or churches, in the example given above). Each Family is responsible for something else, something that God wanted. The wide variety of churches, at the moment, serves His will, though we are all 'Of the tribe of Israel', or one church.

Well...Jesus said if they be not against me do not contend against them...leave the sifting of wheat and tares for the Day of Judgment. Perhaps we do hunt to hard for heresies--and then sometimes miss the blatant ones in our own houses.

[prisonchaplain]

I think that my problem with the tongues = authorization" argument is that I see no scriptural evidence of this pattern. I see that tongues (among the rest of the spiritual gifts) follow the believers. I don't see any correlation whatever with ones authorization to baptize, etc. etc. What would the purpose of the 12 and the 70 have been had that Lord not intended to organize his leadership? I think there is more evidence to support the idea of hierarchy than there is an authorization free for all. And if there was, then where are all the women apostles?

Women ministers, and everyone a minister? Sounds a lot like my church, and in some respects, yours. We've discussed much in these threads about how LDS leaders can rely heavily upon a large cadre of members who faithfully answer their callings. Likewise, in Pentecostal churches, we believe all members are priests, and that women can proclaim the gospel. The 12 Apostles did serve as leaders and missionaries. The 70 were clearly missionaries--sent ones. But, the Great Commission (Matt 28:19-20) is a general call to make disciples--something we all should be doing.

There certainly is some hiearchy in the New Testament, and in church history. However, I see that as a means of providing some structure, some vetting process, and some ability to prevent heresy and to publicly recognized God's giftings in people.

I think what is missing here is priesthood keys. Moses held keys as did Elijah. Peter certainly held more keys than other leaders of his time. Priesthood is passed from one authorized holder to the next. It is also clear that there are two levels of priesthood; Melchizidek and Aaronic -- one having more keys than the other. I don't see how ones expression of tongues qualifies them with "parts" or "keys" to this power. It was Moses who got the priesthood from his FIL....not from a tongues experience in the desert.

Keys come from God's ordination. The Church publicly recognize what God has done, not the other way around. What tongues did in the NT was prove to the Jewish believers that God had poured out his Spirit (with accompanying power to witness of Jesus) upon Gentiles. If the gift of the Holy Spirit is "so you will be my witnesses...to the utter most parts of the world," then tongues (the physical demonstration of Spirit-baptism) is a public marker of that commission. And the beauty of it is that it's available to all believers. But, of course, it's responsiblity too, so not all will take it.

[bytebear]

Women ministers, and everyone a minister? Sounds a lot like my church, and in some respects, yours. We've discussed much in these threads about how LDS leaders can rely heavily upon a large cadre of members who faithfully answer their callings. Likewise, in Pentecostal churches, we believe all members are priests, and that women can proclaim the gospel. The 12 Apostles did serve as leaders and missionaries. The 70 were clearly missionaries--sent ones. But, the Great Commission (Matt 28:19-20) is a general call to make disciples--something we all should be doing.

When I read this, the first think I thought was, "Every member a missionary."

[Traveler]

Prisonchaplain – I have always enjoyed reading your post and I feel you are a good example of someone seeking Christ. If I may, I would like to get inside your head (a little bit) and try to understand your thinking process. I am particularly interested in the reason you stated that you are convinced there is a g-d.

It may be that most of what I am about to say could be used by LDS. Not sure...see what you think. This is the response I give to the question, "How can you say that your religion is the only way?"

First, I am convinced there is a god. Cannot look at the complexity of the universe, of my world, of my own body, and not see design and a Designer.

This idea that complexity must come from an outside, separate or independent designer is of most interest to me. Is not G-d even more complex than the universe, our world or our bodies? If something complex requires a designer then would not the more complex require much more a designer?

Next, I am convinced that there is only one God.

If the essence of G-d is related to the design of the complex then by that logic G-d cannot be singular. But by that same notion if design of the complex is divine intelligence and “good” then all designing of complex must have something similar or in common. Therefore anything or all things that become or learns that which is the common in design of the complex is G-d. Whch to me is the heart of the divine purpose of mankind and why G-d restored the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints. A Saint being someone in the process of being divinely imporved by design.

The Traveler

[prisonchaplain]

This idea that complexity must come from an outside, separate or independent designer is of most interest to me. Is not G-d even more complex than the universe, our world or our bodies? If something complex requires a designer then would not the more complex require much more a designer?

The design argument could lead to an eternal progression of creators, or, and imho more likely, to one Prime Mover. A being that would indeed be eternal and all-knowing/powerful and everywhere present.

If the essence of G-d is related to the design of the complex then by that logic G-d cannot be singular. But by that same notion if design of the complex is divine intelligence and “good” then all designing of complex must have something similar or in common. Therefore anything or all things that become or learns that which is the common in design of the complex is G-d. Whch to me is the heart of the divine purpose of mankind and why G-d restored the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints. A Saint being someone in the process of being divinely imporved by design.

The Traveler

Complex vs. complicated perhaps. The Prime Mover could be, and perhaps must be, singular. That first cause of all else. If that being stands alone and separate as Creator, then the purpose of his creation would be his, and might be as simple as for pleasure.

If, as you suggest, creation is an expression that is quite literally OF the Creator, then the LDS idea of us being not reconciled, but truly and literally joined and assimilated with God is certainly plausible.

[Still_Small_Voice]

Exorcisms are responses to clearly demonized individuals, not something to be conjured up as proof of authority.

"And these signs shall follow them that believe; In my name shall they cast out devils . . ." Mark 16:17

We can also attribute the casting out of demons to people being born again in Jesus Christ. As people become truly converted to the Gospel of Christ, devils are cast out of their lives. I believe that there are actual exorcisms that do happen today, but perhaps this scripture can also be seen as partially fulfilled in the a fore manner that I stated in this post.

[Traveler]

The design argument could lead to an eternal progression of creators, or, and imho more likely, to one Prime Mover. A being that would indeed be eternal and all-knowing/powerful and everywhere present.

Complex vs. complicated perhaps. The Prime Mover could be, and perhaps must be, singular. That first cause of all else. If that being stands alone and separate as Creator, then the purpose of his creation would be his, and might be as simple as for pleasure.

If, as you suggest, creation is an expression that is quite literally OF the Creator, then the LDS idea of us being not reconciled, but truly and literally joined and assimilated with God is certainly plausible.

Thanks for your response:

I am not in complete disagreement but as we talk about design, having worked and participated in the design of complex systems, I have come realize that seldom, if ever, is design dependent on a single designer superior to that of a team. Note that in scripture when explaining the creation that the expression of design is plural and not singular – indicating a team. It is only after the fall of mankind that there are any expressions of a single G-d. In reality when it comes to competing, a unified team always wins over a loan single competitor, even when the loan single competitor is better than everybody else. If there is complexity in design – it would appear that logic of a singular designer is flawed.

Another point I am trying to make is that if there are separate beings that are capable of being one with G-d then that which defines G-d as “one” cannot be singular and G-d is not alone in what he is. The joining or being one with G-d – I submit is best given in the example of the joining of a man and woman in marriage.

The Traveler

[prisonchaplain]

"And these signs shall follow them that believe; In my name shall they cast out devils . . ." Mark 16:17

We can also attribute the casting out of demons to people being born again in Jesus Christ. As people become truly converted to the Gospel of Christ, devils are cast out of their lives. I believe that there are actual exorcisms that do happen today, but perhaps this scripture can also be seen as partially fulfilled in the a fore manner that I stated in this post.

Another factor I hate to bring up, because I am convinced that the 66 books of the Protestant Bible are canon--but the longer ending of Mark 16 is one of the most controversial, in that most early manuscripts of Mark do not contain it. We do not see this ending until copies that date to the Middle Ages.

All of these matters though, including casting out of devils, are in other parts of the Bible. Our belief that the struggle is not against flesh and blood, but against spirits and principalities includes belief in a malevolent Devil and his minions. And yet, like you, I find that for Christians, the focus in our personal lives should be to allow the Spirit to expunge the demonic in our lives, more than literal demons. IMHO, those flee at conversion, and cannot reside in a Spirit-filled believer.

[prisonchaplain]

Thanks for your response:

I am not in complete disagreement but as we talk about design, having worked and participated in the design of complex systems, I have come realize that seldom, if ever, is design dependent on a single designer superior to that of a team. Note that in scripture when explaining the creation that the expression of design is plural and not singular – indicating a team. It is only after the fall of mankind that there are any expressions of a single G-d. In reality when it comes to competing, a unified team always wins over a loan single competitor, even when the loan single competitor is better than everybody else. If there is complexity in design – it would appear that logic of a singular designer is flawed.

Another point I am trying to make is that if there are separate beings that are capable of being one with G-d then that which defines G-d as “one” cannot be singular and G-d is not alone in what he is. The joining or being one with G-d – I submit is best given in the example of the joining of a man and woman in marriage.

The Traveler

I could be facetious and call you a theological communist... Where that comes from is that while teams often produce superior work to individuals, there are times when the individual artist will produce a more consistent, thematic work than a committee possibly could. IMHO, creation for God is more art than engineering.

As for the plural pronouns in the creation account, I doubt that they either support polytheism, a counsel of gods, or the Trinity, for that matter. They could simply be indicative of a "royal We," as when the Queen says, "We are not pleased."

[aj4u]

When I read this, the first think I thought was, "Every member a missionary."

You are either a missionary or you're a mission field. (Cunningham)

[Traveler]

I could be facetious and call you a theological communist... Where that comes from is that while teams often produce superior work to individuals, there are times when the individual artist will produce a more consistent, thematic work than a committee possibly could. IMHO, creation for God is more art than engineering.

As for the plural pronouns in the creation account, I doubt that they either support polytheism, a counsel of gods, or the Trinity, for that matter. They could simply be indicative of a "royal We," as when the Queen says, "We are not pleased."

Again I am not sure that I can go along with your reasoning although I am grateful for your response. The first five books of the Bible are generally believed to have one source – generally believed to be Moses. This means that the style is from the same place and time. But we see the reference to G-d is not consistent within the textual style as you have explained as a possible reason. I think that explanation can be logically eliminated and we must consider other interpretations. We know from scriptures and revelation that G-d is consistent in his dealings with mankind. I find it interesting that in all cases (not just some) prior to the fall that the references to G-d are plural. All references after the fall are singular; including the texts of the same period and origin. Something about the fall is to me the most logical reason for the difference. Especially since the creator of the Genesis, Exodus, Numbers and Deuteronomy texts is singular throughout all those texts.

I believe that the scriptures are trying to convey and teach important principles and if they are understood correctly we well realize that divine references must be consistent according to context. The only context in which the references change is the fall of man. It is the only reason I can think of to justify a style change if referencing the divine.

The Traveler

[h2001st]

Just curios what version of Christianity you are and what is their take on those born before/or without any idea of Jesus?

I had a rather wordy response- however I realized that you may be asking something different than my "soliloquy." Do you mean the pagans before Christ's time? or rather the "righteous unlearned" who die before receiving the sacrament of baptism?

Edited May 4, 2009 by h2001st

[Avrham]

Why I am a Christian?

Well I found Christ believe it/or not while i was sinning(reading the bible while i was drunk)I read the passages All of John3 hit me like a stone and has lead me too where i am currently

being a Christian(LDS) has helped me being a better person finding out about God first and foremost and then deciding on Christianity as a way of life is the fun part of my existance ,I see God's truth in everyday life

The reason's for me being a LDS member at the time i was seeking Jesus in my life he lead me too this Church(although i think i could have joined any Church at the time) and about my testimoy of Joseph Smith well I think of John 3-3 being born again and seeing truth I believe I feel comfortable in any Church and find spiritual witness being unique to all Christian faith not just LDS alone:):):):)cheers

[aj4u]

When I deicide to give my heart to the Lord, the Devil took note of it and knew that he couldn’t stop me from being a Christian, but he tried to destroy my usefulness for the Lord by sided tracking me into a cult. I have learned that people get sucked into cults when they judge the Bible by what teachers say rather than judge the teaching by what the Bible has to say. Jesus does say beware of false prophets who come in sheep’s clothing. From now on I check out everything I read and hear with the Bible.

[the Ogre]

PC:

Thanks for the thread, it is a good one. I am a Chr-stian because of the example of my father. I was born a Latter-day Saint, but I knew from my father that conversion is the most important step a young man can take in his life. I gained a testimony of Joseph Smith very soon and learned a lot from his personal writing. I then moved to President Brigham Young and learned to love him. Eventually a true conversion came about because I learned to understand what kept these two great men moving: the love of J-sus Chr-st. I then read the scriptures and eventually took Moroni's challenge and received a witness I can not deny regardless of every human-philosophy I have studied over the years.

I love J-sus Chr-st the man. I love J-sus Chr-st my G-d.

I know though, if I did not have my father around, I would have accepted Judaism (probably the Conservative movement) as opposed to Chr-stianity because of the hatred I have experienced from other "Chr-stians" regarding the Mormonism of my ancestors. My maternal great-grandmother converted from Judaism with her husband and moved to Utah. They could barely speak English, but were happy here through the rest off their lives. Except for J-sus, there is nothing in Chr-stianity for me. The out-of-control neurotic hatred has always pushed me away. I have studied Chr-stian theology and mysticism for years and do not doubt the spiritual gifts you have made mention of, but the way many Chr-stians have allowed hatred and oppression of minorities to control themselves is more poison than I can swallow.

-Aaron the Ogre

[prisonchaplain]

Ogre, if you were telling me you would askew church altogether because of hypocrites I'd retort, "Better to spend this lifetime in church with a few of them, than eternity in hell with all of them." BUT, you are not saying that...you're telling me that my brothers and sisters have failed you and yours. Shame on us! I'm glad you did find a community of faith.

[the Ogre]

Ogre, if you were telling me you would askew church altogether because of hypocrites I'd retort, "Better to spend this lifetime in church with a few of them, than eternity in hell with all of them." BUT, you are not saying that...you're telling me that my brothers and sisters have failed you and yours. Shame on us! I'm glad you did find a community of faith.

PC,

Do not say shame on us. That is wrong. Did you do this? I know many LDS who are guilty of the same hatred (some of it is evident on this board). This was done by the many as opposed to the few. Are Jewish people somehow exempt from hatred? No, of course not and I know I would run into the idiots in many synagogue who do not welcome converts or welcome back those who have lived outside the covenant for generations.

Shame on me for implying you are somehow guilty of other's stupidity.

Aaron the Ogre

[prisonchaplain]

I identify myself as a Christian, a Protestant, an Evangelical, a Pentecostal, and an ordained minister of the Assemblies of God. So, when one of my bretheren offends and I'm asked about it, though I did not personally do it, the offense came from my people. Maybe it's not "shame on me," but it is "shame on us."

There are AoG churches that hold "anti-cult" seminars. There are certainly evangelicals who say, without nuance or hesitation that your people are not Christians. And, some horrible things have been done by self-proclaimed Christians, in the name of God.

Rather than dismiss such by saying, "I didn't do it," I find it better to hear the stories, look into my own heart, and into the culture of my people, and try to learn to do better. Sometimes an apology is also warranted.

[FunkyTown]

I identify myself as a Christian, a Protestant, an Evangelical, a Pentecostal, and an ordained minister of the Assemblies of God. So, when one of my bretheren offends and I'm asked about it, though I did not personally do it, the offense came from my people. Maybe it's not "shame on me," but it is "shame on us."

There are AoG churches that hold "anti-cult" seminars. There are certainly evangelicals who say, without nuance or hesitation that your people are not Christians. And, some horrible things have been done by self-proclaimed Christians, in the name of God.

Rather than dismiss such by saying, "I didn't do it," I find it better to hear the stories, look into my own heart, and into the culture of my people, and try to learn to do better. Sometimes an apology is also warranted.

I have a theory about these sorts of things:

By blurring the very simple line between who is Christian and who is not, Satan allows himself a great amount of power over God's people. Want to have all the Protestants in Prague toss all the Catholics out windows and execute them? Just tell them the Catholics aren't Christian. Want to eliminate the Protestants or Greek Orthodox? Call an Inquisition! That'll give the Heathens what for.

Sadly, this tactic is dual edged, because people will start patting themselves on the back and saying that anybody who claims to be Christian is necessarily. This, despite the Bible clearly saying this is not so.

That's why I have a theory: I work out my own salvation with fear and trembling, trusting that God and His son Jesus Christ will see me through despite my own failures.

[aj4u]

There are so many nominal Christians in the world today that mess up people's minds. It is getting to the point that I don't want to use the term Christian anymore. Maybe I'll say I am a disciple of Christ or a follower.

[Guest]

PC, pardon my ignorance... I'm not quite sure what you mean by "speaking in tongues". I thought it was being able to speak German to preach to the Germans and such, but reading through some of the posts it seems like this is not the case? Can you explain this to me like I am a first-grader? Thanks, PC!