Christian Witness

[keltic63]

If a person declares themself a Christian Witness, what does it mean?

what does that phrase imply to you? or what do you infer from it?
is there a standard definition?

does presenting one's self as a witness imply judgment against individuals or certain groups of people?


Discuss.

[u-dog]

Originally Posted by keltic63

If a person declares themself a Christian Witness, what does it mean?

what does that phrase imply to you? or what do you infer from it?
is there a standard definition?

does presenting one's self as a witness imply judgment against individuals or certain groups of people?


Discuss.

Yes, there is a standard definition and its WRONG !!!!! the standard definition is telling people about jesus and how if they don't believe in him people are going to Hell.

"Witness" is a legal term and is being used metaphorically in Scripture. A witness has only one responsibility: to tell what he/she saw directly. The judge judges, the prosecuter prosecutes, the defender defends, the witness witnessses.

Period.

[Progo35]

This depends on the context. Sometimes, Jehovah's Witnesses will call themselves "Christian witnesses" to emphasize their connection to Christianity, often when witnessing to a non-Jehovah's witness. That is what I would infer from "Christian Witness" where both words are capitalized.

Others are referring to the Great Commission and how they seek to execute it. So, for instance, someone might say, "I want to be an effective Christian witness for my best friend, Carla, who is an agnostic." In this case, the person is seeking to use their relationship with this person as a gateway for introducing the gospel message and encouraging her friend to trust in Christ for her salvation. This is usually followed up with how he or she plans to do this.

Finally, a "Christian witness," may also be referring to their demonstration of Christian principles in pursuit of a particular cause. For example, I might say, "I want to be a Christian witness for those who have suffered under futile care laws, so that I can encourage Congress to outlaw this practice." In this case, one is reffering to Christianity within the broader scope of what defines Christian action.

In fact, one humbling fact is that in the Webster's dictionary, "Christian" literally means "little Christ" in Greek, and that next to the theological definition it is defined as "a caring attitude or action, demonstrative of generosity and compassion towards others." In this context, anyone can be a "Christian" if they love others as themselves, avoid certain actions, like stealing, and look out for the needy. For a Christian, "christian witness" sometimes refers to this role, which anyone can perform, plus their faith, which they hope will be communicated by their actions.

[BrentRichards]

Originally Posted by Progo35

So, for instance, someone might say, "I want to be an effective Christian witness for my best friend, Carla, who is an agnostic." In this case, the person is seeking to use their relationship with this person as a gateway for introducing the gospel message and encouraging her friend to trust in Christ for her salvation. This is usually followed up with how he or she plans to do this.

This is where we get in trouble ... too often, a certain segment of the Christian world allows this idea to create a totally utilitarian view of relationships ... non-Christians, the "backsliding" and others become "targets" more than people ... the phrase "use their relationship" (thought I know you didn't mean it that way) is apt ... many do in fact USE relationships solely as a forum to preach their version of the gospel (and I say "their version" because any gospel that involves USING people isn't Jesus's gospel!) I remember that subculture well ... if you had a non-Christian friend, you were supposed to have a "strategy" for how you were going to "win" them, else you had no business hanging out with them. Christianity, at that point, becomes roughly equivalent to car sales.

[Zerbie]

I only recently learned of the existence of this term (a few months or a year ago) and thought: Oh, so that's what they call that harassment.

Upon hearin this "new" term, I thought immediately of the time I was accosted at a freeway reststop by a group (about 5 people) of loonies who surrounded me and a friend (who didn't speak any English) and refused to let us move until we "came to Christ." I was 17. They kept asking what I would do if a 100 foot tidal wave came rushing down the freeway towards me, and demanding I translate the question into French for my friend (I got out all of "S'il y avait une onde. . ." before I broke down in confusion wondering how I could get away from the looney toon people or if I could shout loud enough to alert security. I desperately wanted to tell them they were the reason I was an atheist, but I was afraid they would assault us physically. I was extremely concerned for my safety. It seemed like forever, but they finally gave us up for lost and left. Leaving me new fuel for hating Christians (which I did whole-heartedly throughout my teens).

Or the non-threatening but still very annoying version of same:
About 3 years later I was alone at a campus cafeteria eating lunch between classes and reading from an astronomy text book. A super-friendly girl about my age came bounding over right towards me and sat down across from me with a spritely smile and immediately announced her name and reached out to shake my hand. I said hello, but gave her a suspicious look. She seized the astronomy book and announced that she had taken 101 last semester too and wasn't it fun. So we chatted for a while about the class. Then she started asking me questions about my life, which I mostly evaded. Finally she grinned and announced, "I belong to this wonderful church--" whereupon I let out my breath, shook my head and cut her off with "Don't waste your time sweetie. Invite someone else." And to her credit, she left.

These experiences are what I think of when someone says "Christian witness."

[BrentRichards]

Originally Posted by Zerbie

I only recently learned of the existence of this term (a few months or a year ago) and thought: Oh, so that's what they call that harassment.

Upon hearin this "new" term, I thought immediately of the time I was accosted at a freeway reststop by a group (about 5 people) of loonies who surrounded me and a friend (who didn't speak any English) and refused to let us move until we "came to Christ." I was 17. They kept asking what I would do if a 100 foot tidal wave came rushing down the freeway towards me, and demanding I translate the question into French for my friend (I got out all of "S'il y avait une onde. . ." before I broke down in confusion wondering how I could get away from the looney toon people or if I could shout loud enough to alert security. I desperately wanted to tell them they were the reason I was an atheist, but I was afraid they would assault us physically. I was extremely concerned for my safety. It seemed like forever, but they finally gave us up for lost and left. Leaving me new fuel for hating Christians (which I did whole-heartedly throughout my teens).

Or the non-threatening but still very annoying version of same:
About 3 years later I was alone at a campus cafeteria eating lunch between classes and reading from an astronomy text book. A super-friendly girl about my age came bounding over right towards me and sat down across from me with a spritely smile and immediately announced her name and reached out to shake my hand. I said hello, but gave her a suspicious look. She seized the astronomy book and announced that she had taken 101 last semester too and wasn't it fun. So we chatted for a while about the class. Then she started asking me questions about my life, which I mostly evaded. Finally she grinned and announced, "I belong to this wonderful church--" whereupon I let out my breath, shook my head and cut her off with "Don't waste your time sweetie. Invite someone else." And to her credit, she left.

These experiences are what I think of when someone says "Christian witness."

Sigh. On behalf of the evangelical community, I'm sorry.

It puts me in mind of when someone says "Have you ever heard of Amway?" RUN!

[Progo35]

The kind of Christian witness that I would want to present to an agnostic friend would be one based on love in a friendship that is not dependent upon whether or not that person converts and is not formed only to bring that person to Christ. For instance, I have a friend who did come to Christ, but everytime we talked about Jesus or God, I was either talking about that in relation to my own convictions about right and wrong or she asked me a specific question about Christian theology, which I answered. I certainly do NOT condone what those people did to Zerbie. That is nuts, and I've had my own run ins with such errant "witnesses." For instance, I remember going to this "Christian" camp where they talked about the unforgiveable sin ALL DAY LONG. Moreover, these people told me that God hated me, stole my stuff, threw rocks at me, hit me, and subjected me to repeated sexual harrassment-ALL THE WHILE PROCLAIMING THE "GOOD NEWS" OF CHRIST! By the time I got out of there two weeks later, I was so traumatized that it took me six years to understand that I had not committed the unforgivable sin and that God was there all along. So, yeah, I hear you. But, there's a big difference between what Zerbie is talking about and what I mean by a theological Christian witness.

And, the problem for Christians is this: if believing in Christ is the only way to salvation, than those who do not know Christ will not enter heaven by default. So, the duty to witness is regarded as being spiritually akin to helping someone who is planning to go skydiving and either doesn't know or doesn't believe that they have been equipped with a defective parachute. If I knew this about someone, I would do everything in my power to prevent them from jumping out of the plane until they have an efficient parachute. If I had to, I would confront that person and physically block them from going on the airplane. This, I think, is the kind of thinking that motivates some of these botched discussions.

In my opinion, good evangelism changes this metaphor by adding the idea that the Christian is in the plane with the other person and simply has to inform him that the right parachute is under the control panel. They will both jump, so there is an equality that exists between them, making it a totally natural for the one skydiver to tell the other that she needs to change her parachute. I.e, if Christians establish that they are simply there to walk with their friend and bring up faith at appropriate times, the rest of the time just "being in it together" with the other person, evangelism becomes much more considerate and effective.

[BrentRichards]

Originally Posted by Progo35

The kind of Christian witness that I would want to present to an agnostic friend would be one based on love in a friendship that is not dependent upon whether or not that person converts and is not formed only to bring that person to Christ. For instance, I have a friend who did come to Christ, but everytime we talked about Jesus or God, I was either talking about that in relation to my own convictions about right and wrong or she asked me a specific question about Christian theology, which I answered. I certainly do NOT condone what those people did to Zerbie. That is nuts, and I've had my own run ins with such errant "witnesses." For instance, I remember going to this "Christian" camp where they talked about the unforgiveable sin ALL DAY LONG. Moreover, these people told me that God hated me, stole my stuff, threw rocks at me, hit me, and subjected me to repeated sexual harrassment-ALL THE WHILE PROCLAIMING THE "GOOD NEWS" OF CHRIST! By the time I got out of there two weeks later, I was so traumatized that it took me six years to understand that I had not committed the unforgivable sin and that God was there all along. So, yeah, I hear you. But, there's a big difference between what Zerbie is talking about and what I mean by a theological Christian witness.

And, the problem for Christians is this: if believing in Christ is the only way to salvation, than those who do not know Christ will not enter heaven by default. So, the duty to witness is regarded as being spiritually akin to helping someone who is planning to go skydiving and either doesn't know or doesn't believe that they have been equipped with a defective parachute. If I knew this about someone, I would do everything in my power to prevent them from jumping out of the plane until they have an efficient parachute. If I had to, I would confront that person and physically block them from going on the airplane. This, I think, is the kind of thinking that motivates some of these botched discussions.

In my opinion, good evangelism changes this metaphor by adding the idea that the Christian is in the plane with the other person and simply has to inform him that the right parachute is under the control panel. They will both jump, so there is an equality that exists between them, making it a totally natural for the one skydiver to tell the other that she needs to change her parachute. I.e, if Christians establish that they are simply there to walk with their friend and bring up faith at appropriate times, the rest of the time just "being in it together" with the other person, evangelism becomes much more considerate and effective.

Believe me, Progo ... you DON'T come across as one of those "using" people evangelists! Hope I didn't suggest you were.

[Zerbie]

Originally Posted by Progo35

The kind of Christian witness that I would want to present to an agnostic friend would be one based on love in a friendship that is not dependent upon whether or not that person converts and is not formed only to bring that person to Christ. For instance, I have a friend who did come to Christ, but everytime we talked about Jesus or God, I was either talking about that in relation to my own convictions about right and wrong or she asked me a specific question about Christian theology, which I answered. I certainly do NOT condone what those people did to Zerbie. That is nuts, and I've had my own run ins with such errant "witnesses." For instance, I remember going to this "Christian" camp where they talked about the unforgiveable sin ALL DAY LONG. Moreover, these people told me that God hated me, stole my stuff, threw rocks at me, hit me, and subjected me to repeated sexual harrassment-ALL THE WHILE PROCLAIMING THE "GOOD NEWS" OF CHRIST! By the time I got out of there two weeks later, I was so traumatized that it took me six years to understand that I had not committed the unforgivable sin and that God was there all along. So, yeah, I hear you. But, there's a big difference between what Zerbie is talking about and what I mean by a theological Christian witness.

.

Wow those people were insane! What they did to you was abuse, on several levels.

Yes the airplane/parachute analogy is exactly the sort of "logic" that those people used who threatened and intimidated us at the rest stop. Whatever they thought they were trying to say, the message they conveyed was "Hello, we're totally insane and have no contact with planet earth. Be like us, or else!"

It's a trap to think we're responsible for anybody else's relationship with God. We're only responsible for our own, and if someone else sees what we have and wants to ask about it, that's wonderful. But those objectionable insane behaviors only lead people to throw out the baby with the bathwater.

Anyway, sorry you ran into that too. I didn't know Christians ran into this crap from one another, too.

[lydiam]

I've let go of the language of "witness." It has such horrible connotations... like those people Zerbie encoutered. Of course, we are all witnesses in the literal sense of the word to whatever we've seen. I don't feel like this is something I even need a word for. I'm a Christian and if you hang around me you'll know that about me. I believe Jesus was way more real than a magic pill that keeps your from a tortured afterlife... that's not what he was about... so the idea that I've got to quick get some Jesus into everybody before they die doesn't sit well with me. I believe in treating people the way Jesus treated people for sure... radically inclusive and always standing up to authority... but I don't like calling it "my Christians witness." I just finished a book called Take This Bread by Sara Miles and I liked these quotes:

"You have been greatly loved, said one piece of the Gospel that had stuck with me. Go and do likewise... That seemed pretty damn clear."

"Christianity wasn't an argument I could win, or even resolve. It wasn't a thesis. It was a mystery that I was finally willing to swallow."

[Daniel]

I still remember the constant urging to witness when I was in school at Evangel. That was what the Christian life was all about apparently- witnessing for Christ. It wasn't enough to be good at your chosen profession. You were supposed to use that profession to be a witness for Christ. That was its purpose.

This seems like a rather narrow view of things.

Other religions have had also focused on witnessing, including Buddhism.

http://www.religionfacts.com/buddhis...ory/sangha.htm

When Mahakasyapa died shortly after the First Council, Ananda became head of the sangha (Buddhist monastic community). During the 40 years he led the sangha, Buddhism spread throughout India. The Buddha had directed his disciples to teach "for the welfare of the many, out of compassion for the world," and this his disciples did. Never using violence or coercion, they simply taught others the way to enlightenment.

Early Buddhist evangelism usually consisted of a pair of monks entering a village, going from house to house with their begging bowls until they had enough for the one meal they ate each day. The monks would then return to the outskirts of the town, where they would often be followed by those who had been impressed by their demeanor and wished to talk with them. The monks would share what they knew, then move on to the next village. The rapid growth of Buddhism probably had much to do with the way the monks conducted themselves. Always peaceful and respectful, the Buddhist monks would speak in the same way and with the same sense of compassion to people of any caste.

I think we live in a time and era when evangelism runs counter to the the social fabric of society as we know it. We are, after all, the recipients of 18th century enlightenment, where self-determination and the right of the individual is everything.

[pnggrad79]

Being from a Southern Baptist background, we were trained, cajoled and manipulated into Tuesday night visitation, in which we were to get the cards people filled out on Sunday, show up at their house uninvited, and ask them, "If you were to die today, where would you spend eternity". At the time, it didn't seem out of the ordinary, or rude to me at all. I had been trained to "go be a witness" to the lost and dying, and without me, they would spend eternity writhing in hell and I would stand before God on Judgment Day with the blood of these people on my hands.

This kind of fervent, fatalistic kind of evangelism I think did more damage to Christianity than anything. I think we have totally taken the message of Jesus Christ and just murdered what He intended for us to do with it. We have used Christianity to justify all kinds of horrible things (the Crusades, the Inquisition, the Holocaust, slavery, imperialism) and if that wasn't enough, we have to tell people they are going to hell, get them saved from it, and then act like we have nothing else to do with them. We never see them back at church. No relationship has been formed, but we sleep at night knowing we have done our job. To me that is a mockery of what Jesus is all about.

Probably what turned me off to this Tuesday night stuff was the play going around called "Judgment House" or some other variant. There is the script and people of a church have to play these parts of people on the edge of eternity. It illustrates how if you "make the right decision" before you die, you go to heaven, when you die. There is a staircase, and it is painted gold, and a Jesus looking fellow at the top with a huge book and he points to it, looks up your name and says, "Welcome". But then there are vignettes where the AIDS victim dies( I love the connotation that all AIDS victims are going to hell), or the drunk driver, or the prostitute and they have rejected the good news, and they die and are transported up to the heaven briefly only to be rejected by Jesus, and dragged offstage by a screaming devil. It is all very dramatic and showy. When our church did it, I played one of the parts of a person going to heaven, and as the play progressed, it made me angrier and angrier at the misinformation, the gross simplification of Jesus, and the categorization of people. I was so upset by all this, I wrote a letter to the Baptist Standard and expressed my displeasure at how this play stirred up the emotions of people, who ended up being frightened to death and accepted Jesus, but we never saw them again. I said, "Where is grace in all this?", Where is Love?", "Where is the notion of forgiveness, and Jesus as Savior?" The people at church didn't understand why I ranting about all this. They were like, "It's just a play, it is just to get people into church to hear the gospel." I was like, "that is not the gospel, it is not good news to tell people they are going straight to hell if they don't act like you do!" We have (excuse me) bastardized the gospel so much in this country, it is no small wonder that churches are losing ground, credibility and authority. I for one left the church not only because I was divorced, but I was (gasp) gay. When I left, I truly felt that God couldn't love me, didn't love me and I was lost and going to hell. 7 years later, I know the truth, thanks to many people like Soulforce, Mel White, Jeff Miner, Jack Rogers, etc.

It wasn't long after that fiasco that I realized I was a lesbian, divorced my husband, moved in with my now wife and my two kids, and have tried my best to recover from Southern Baptist-ism. It has been 7 years since that retarded play and it still irks me about it, but all that to say, I think my Christian witness is best seen when I emulate Christ in my daily actions toward people. When I go out of my way to help someone, when I don't cut people off in traffic, when I love my wife, am merciful to my kids when they screw up, and when I comfort a child at school who comes from a rotten home. That, to me is when I show what Jesus means to me. I don't wear a placard that says, "I AM A CHRISTIAN!!!" because if you are a Christian, you don't need to go around telling everyone, they see it by who and what you are. I am not perfect and I don't have all the answers, but being a Christian witness simply means for me, to show, act and emulate what Christ has done for me and been for me. It is not showy, or sensational. It is personal and relational. I am not out to gain anything by it, nor am I out to win points with God. It is simply taking what Christ has shown me, (grace, mercy, forgiveness, love) and being that to other people.

[BenL]

After reading the accounts of people who were brought up to "witness" to the Gospel in certain ways, all I could think of was Jesus rebuking the Pharisees (or whoever), saying that they already had their reward. On the contrary, he said that those who do good works in private, that their Heavenly Father knows what they have done and will reward them privately, maybe now, maybe in the future. I paraphrase. I have never been good at remembering scripture word for word ... or chapter and verse, for that matter.

Somehow witnessing has come to be about keeping score ... for others, but mostly for the witness. "I converted 'x' number of people. I will get my reward, and everyone else will know what good work I'm doing." Jesus condemns that kind of attitude, but we think he's talking about someone else.

To me, the way I lead my life has to be my witness. The love I have for my fellow human being is more important in the final analysis than how many people I have converted. Besides, any successful effort in evangelizing comes from God, not from my persistence, in my opinion.

We need a gentler, more loving approach to witnessing. Beating people over the head with the Bible seems a gross misuse of divine revelation to me.

[BrentRichards]

Saint Francis said to his brothers: "Preach the gospel always. When necessary, use words."

[keltic63]

Originally Posted by BenL

Somehow witnessing has come to be about keeping score ... for others, but mostly for the witness. "I converted 'x' number of people. I will get my reward, and everyone else will know what good work I'm doing." Jesus condemns that kind of attitude, but we think he's talking about someone else.

I'm reminded of a very old gospel hymn:

Will There Be Any Stars in My Crown?


that reference to having stars in our crowns when we get to heaven is directly related to the number of people we brought to salvation through Christ. The idea of keeping score is deeply ingrained in the evangelical/fundie mindset

[BrentRichards]

Originally Posted by keltic63

I'm reminded of a very old gospel hymn:

Will There Be Any Stars in My Crown?


that reference to having stars in our crowns when we get to heaven is directly related to the number of people we brought to salvation through Christ. The idea of keeping score is deeply ingrained in the evangelical/fundie mindset

Will There Be A Toaster On My Counter?

[Progo35]

This is an awesome discussion-I'm really enjoying it.

Yes, it is sad when Christians are unkind or abusive to anyone, even within their own circles. I remember being shocked by these people and their behavior, and frustrated, as I had come there to learn more about God and Jesus. I think that the problem is sometimes the language evangelicalism uses. For instance, there's the idea that you neeed to have an experience where you explicitly ask Jesus to "come into your heart" and be your savior. Yet, not all relationships with God start out using this particular designation for that exchange, and I couldn't remember ever doing that. I just knew that Christ was in me because I thought about Him all the time, and felt that he gave me the grace to be kind to others, and totally believed in the resurrection. But, when I told people that I didn't remember having the kind of exchange referenced above, it contributed to various people thinking that I wasn't a "real" Christian. Now that I've thought about it a lot more, I do remember a specific instance in which I learned about death from a neighbor and was upset about it, so my parents explained that God sent Jesus to die so that we could be forgiven and have eternal life. That night, I prayed to God: "save me from death, I ask you to forgive me sins, you are the savior," and I've felt God very tangibly since that time. But, my parents didn't emphasize hell more than to say that there was one and that there was a devil but that if I put my trust in God, he would always protect me. So, the doctrine of being a sinner was introduced but not in the way these people talked about it. The way they discussed it, they called everyone a "sinner" and I felt frustrated because I didn't consider myself to be a "sinner," but someone who sins. But I think that the thing they were unwilling to explore and that I didn't have the opportunity to address in respect to their particular theology, is that I had moved beyond the first stage of faith where one not only recognizes the propensity to sin, but then becomes joyful because of his or her relationship with God, who makes everyone new. Since my home church didn't use this word to describe people, the word "sinner" seemed deprecating.

Now that I am older, I understand what they meant by "sinner" as just being a word to describe the frailty of human willpower. One of the major problems was that in contrast to this camp, my church didn't place enough emphasis on spiritual warfare or the need for Christ as a savior to counteract the spiritual damage that had been done to me. The response was, "well, of course that's wrong," but my church also didn't subscribe to the belief that Christ was necessary for salvation, and my mom didn't even believe that hell existed, which was too far in the opposite direction for me to sort out good evangelism-bringing others to Christ and/or loving others-from bad evangelism/spiritual abuse.

Unfortuantely, I have to say that my home church also become a nexus of misery for me around the same time. No one told me that I was going to hell, but other kids tormented me all day while adults just turned their backs. I had rocks, acorns, pencils, and just about anything else thrown at me. People took chalk and drew all over my coat while I just sat there because I didn't want to give them the satisfaction of running away. One boy called me a retard and said that I had "no feelings anyway." Finally, this same boy cornered me in the church kitchen with a butcher knife and chased me up the stairs with it, at which point my parents and I left the church. I became very sad at this point, and my firm belief that Jesus had allowed this to teach me to be more like him and to glorify him began to crack, and sadly, I started to actively wonder if I had done something bad or if some of the old Testamament passages were still applicable-I had read them that year-and I was not allowed to worship with other Christians because I was disabled. (Poeple with disabilities were not able to enter the temple to worship/offer sacrifices, to emphasize that God was perfect, although the OT demanded that they be taken care of/provided for). At this time, I also knew about the passage in John where Jesus heals a blind man and tells the disiples that he wasn't blind because of anything that he or his parents did, but so that God could show his glory through him. That is what I always believed about myself, but in addition to having these problems at church the same stuff was happening at school, and I was really starting to become frayed, mentally. I started having bizarre, blasphemous thoughts that I couldn't control, and this drove me nearly out of mind, as I felt incapabable of resisting the devil. I think that I've always had somewhat obsessive compuslive tendencies and that the extreme stress of being harassed all the time had exaccerbated the problem to the point of being almost out of control. Of course, I couldn't tell anyone, because I was sure that they would think it was the medication I was one or that I was simply mentally ill. Now, OCD is a mental illness, but I did feel that I needed to discuss it on a spirtiual level and that my parents would probably address the situation by saying that God would protect me, but then saying to stop thinking that way or that the devil didn't exist (this was something my mom hypothesized about-she thought that the devil was too horrible to exist in the sight of a loving God, although I think she's changed her mind since then.)

It was in this state that I went to this "Christian" camp, which served to traumatize me to the point of feeling like part of my soul was missing. The worse thing about this experience wasn't the abuse, but the theological premises the peopl there espoused. One of the reasons that I felt so frustrated is that after this experience, I forgot how to use the Bible to answer my questions/comfort me. For instance, I used to look to the Sermon on the mount, which says that if you are hated for righteousness sake, than great is your reward. But, usually I applied that at school when I was kind to people who were mean to me in return. At this camp, we learned (which is credible but should be understand as one of the dual meanings of this text) that "for righteousness" meant not "for being kind" but "for believing in Christ." (I now believe that this verse applies to both types of righteousness depending on the situation. )

In terms of Christian community, I was now confused because the people there weren't hating me "for righteousness sake" -they hated me, a fellow Christan, not for believing in Christ, but because I was different, and they KNEW CHRIST. But, then I struggled with whether or not the Sermon on the Mount was applicable to my situation, and wondered if I was not a Christian, or something. So, I become completely confused, as it was totally inexplicable for people who knew about Christ to do to me what people did to Him!

I feel grateful that I never gave up on my faith and that God kept leading me on. I finally chose to "re accept" Christ-going back through/facing the theology that had harmed me in the first place, but reassigning it to its proper context, away from what these people did. One of the most miraculous things that happened then is that the blasphemous thoughts I had been dealing with faded and are no longer a problem. And, I came to feel that God had put me through this so that I could identify with those who had been harmed by bad examples of who Christ is.

The End.

[Daniel]

Originally Posted by Progo35

In terms of Christian community, I was now confused because the people there weren't hating me "for righteousness sake" -they hated me, a fellow Christan, not for believing in Christ, but because I was different, and they KNEW CHRIST. But, then I struggled with whether or not the Sermon on the Mount was applicable to my situation, and wondered if I was not a Christian, or something. So, I become completely confused, as it was totally inexplicable for people who knew about Christ to do to me what people did to Him!

Perhaps this is too fine a point to make on this thread, but it seems to me that being a witness for Christ means that one must ACT like Christ. So I think that the behavior in question disqualifies the persons you describe.

This is my beef with the whole matter of witnessing. One can believe anything, but in the end, what comes out of one's mouth is the least of things.

What matters is what one does.

Words are cheap.

Knowing Christ? Knowing something means more than mouthing the right words at the appointed time. Really knowing something means it's in one's bones and one doesn't have to think or act twice about it.

[BrentRichards]

Originally Posted by Daniel

Perhaps this is too fine a point to make on this thread, but it seems to me that being a witness for Christ means that one must ACT like Christ. So I think that the behavior in question disqualifies the persons you describe.

This is my beef with the whole matter of witnessing. One can believe anything, but in the end, what comes out of one's mouth is the least of things.

What matters is what one does.

Words are cheap.

Knowing Christ? Knowing something means more than mouthing the right words.

Bingo. In Jesus' words:

Matthew 15:7You hypocrites! Isaiah was right when he prophesied about you:
8" 'These people honor me with their lips,
but their hearts are far from me.
9They worship me in vain;
their teachings are but rules taught by men.'[d]"

You know more Bible than you let on, Daniel ... suspicious. How dare you know something about someone else's faith ... that's, that's, ... RESPECTFUL! C'mon!

[scott snedeker]

Originally Posted by Progo35

This is an awesome discussion-I'm really enjoying it.
I came to feel that God had put me through this so that I could identify with those who had been harmed by bad examples of who Christ is.

The End.

I have been taught through adversity that there are liars and mislead people who predatorially dehumanize others to compensate for their personal sense of inadequacy. They call themselves christians but they resembles Christ's torturors not Him. They use biblical text as a weapon, committing great evil. This text and the term christian is now so soiled with poisonous hate after millennia that it is undrinkable to me. When I see a bible it reeks of an evil so immense I want to grasp it with a paper towel and throw it out of the window and then wash my hands.

I have also come to know people who express unconditional love to such a profound degree that my paradigm has shifted. They call themselves pagans, and more specifically, faeries. I have reconnected with wonder and joy and love of self and others after being welcomed into their fold.

If you were to meet these faerie folk, you would likely see that they are more Christ-like than any other large gathering of people. They use the spirit of love, sensuality, kindness and complete acceptance. There is no text because it would diminish the reality of the love of the universe. A reality known by one man 2000 years ago.