Shadow Wolf
Certified People sTabber
For what judgements ye make ye shall be judged. With what measures ye mete it shall be measured against you.
Christians tend to frequently forget those instructions.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
"They": Addendum to Jesus on Same Sex Marriage.
- Thread starter John D. Brey
- Start date
Christians tend to frequently forget those instructions.
rational experiences
Veteran Member
If a human theist who knows they never owned why creation existed. Knows they don't own it. Presence is self status.
And yet you prove as just biology you theoried about volcanoes. As a beginning term.
Immaculate first theme. Where it came from.
So you said the Immaculate had come from evil. It's not really a thesis. Said as the status by your man self.
So if you claim I can copy which is what you said. You didn't own any status to copy gods energy history. Types.
You decided to teach evolution is the only correct law. Natural anywhere. Self evolved.
Not as a thesis as a statement only.
Claim to being conscious aware as highest correct. State of being. Self awareness.
So above mass is in gas light. But it's given a Fuel. You know above s mountain it's not cold tipped like a plugged themed volcano pyramid.
So you are not copying not natural history. But themed natural history.
With molten part inside as your pretend pyramid volcano as your nuclear reaction.
I'll put pressure back onto a volcanic theme. It's sides and top. Proven it wasn't a good idea. By a human theory.
So obviously you don't want molten metal pouring down on life via heavens upside down theme. A fake Pyramid.
Spiral down term.
As heated sun fused particle mass. Cooled. Re heated. Mass. Melt.
Void cools it sucks it out natural cause.
Our brother says let me keep it pouring in hot. I want to control UFO I studied theoried sbout. Don't allow cooling. One way he says. To my machine only.
Not kept out where even a volcanic explosion began. Just in space.
As God by man loves us. We know he never did.
Theme.
Mind gone strange theist belief human. Once was truly innocent loving themselves. Science what it's causing in reactive isn't love.
Straight away you realise oh a very strange way of writing themes bible or science. As the mind proves it was thinking strangely and not naturally.
Real natural first minds were not theists is correct.
And yet you prove as just biology you theoried about volcanoes. As a beginning term.
Immaculate first theme. Where it came from.
So you said the Immaculate had come from evil. It's not really a thesis. Said as the status by your man self.
So if you claim I can copy which is what you said. You didn't own any status to copy gods energy history. Types.
You decided to teach evolution is the only correct law. Natural anywhere. Self evolved.
Not as a thesis as a statement only.
Claim to being conscious aware as highest correct. State of being. Self awareness.
So above mass is in gas light. But it's given a Fuel. You know above s mountain it's not cold tipped like a plugged themed volcano pyramid.
So you are not copying not natural history. But themed natural history.
With molten part inside as your pretend pyramid volcano as your nuclear reaction.
I'll put pressure back onto a volcanic theme. It's sides and top. Proven it wasn't a good idea. By a human theory.
So obviously you don't want molten metal pouring down on life via heavens upside down theme. A fake Pyramid.
Spiral down term.
As heated sun fused particle mass. Cooled. Re heated. Mass. Melt.
Void cools it sucks it out natural cause.
Our brother says let me keep it pouring in hot. I want to control UFO I studied theoried sbout. Don't allow cooling. One way he says. To my machine only.
Not kept out where even a volcanic explosion began. Just in space.
As God by man loves us. We know he never did.
Theme.
Mind gone strange theist belief human. Once was truly innocent loving themselves. Science what it's causing in reactive isn't love.
Straight away you realise oh a very strange way of writing themes bible or science. As the mind proves it was thinking strangely and not naturally.
Real natural first minds were not theists is correct.
wellwisher
Well-Known Member
The problem appears to be the word marriage, and not the love between two committed people. Marriage is a classic term, thousands of years old, that refers to a binding union between a man and a woman. This union is biologically optimized for making offspring. It also defines the best team for the raising of one's own children. There is a connection to one's own children, that is instinctive, so even someone who may not like children, will find that love in their own children.
What appeared to have happened was a tactic was employed, by the Left, to create anarchy. This is connected to the commandeering of language, to create confusion and division.
The word marriage was forced redefined to meet the needs of an agenda, without any popular or Democratic vote. Even in California, known to be highly liberal, the commandeering of the word marriage was forced by law, without any referendum or popular vote to keep the peace. If given to the people to decide, it would have failed even in California.
It would have been better, for all, if a new term had been created, that legally gave all the secular benefits of marriage, but allowed the religious word marriage, to retain it classic definition. But the Leftist goal was to infiltrate religion, in an attempt to create conflict and division. They hate religion and like to stick it to them.
As an educational example of the word affect, say we used the Leftist language commandeering scam and decided to call both homosexuality and bestiality, homosexuality. Currently these each have their own term. The commandeered term; homosexuality, would allow bestiality to gain social status, overnight, based on the hard work of homosexuals. However, my guess is the homosexuals would be insulted by the change in language, since the vast majority do not subscribe to bestiality. They would not wish to lumped together, by their own word. If we could force this on everyone, there would be constant conflict among these two groups. If the goal was anarchy, this simple change would be a means to that end. Luckily the political Right is not mean spirited, as is the radical Left.
When the idea of homosexual marriage, was first main stream considered, this was due to the disease and death created by gay behavior in the 1980's, when the closet was first opened, wide. Over 100,000 young Gay men died over a few years of AIDS. The idea of committed relationships, was a viable solution compared to continued promiscuity. Terms were brain stormed for a marriage equivalent, such as gay unions.
The problem was that the secular legal system would not allow all the benefits of marriage for these new unions, since the new term lacked precedent and the greedy government did not wish to lose tax money. It was easier to legally fight for these secular rights with the term marriage. This term was this than forced onto everyone, by Leftist legislatures; state and Federal. Stealing was never the best way to go, when the bible says thou shall not steal; classic terms of religion that are very specifically defined.
The solution to the division and conflict is to redefine the union of similar sex couples, with a unique term, like unions, while allowing these couples all the secular benefits of marriage. This is still better than the disease prone homosexual promiscuity. There is no need to steal and expect everyone to blindly accept it, like they do in Democrat run cities. Maybe this can need to go back to the states to decide; unions instead of marriages. Then again, the Trade Unions may get upset, if union dues are not paid.
What appeared to have happened was a tactic was employed, by the Left, to create anarchy. This is connected to the commandeering of language, to create confusion and division.
The word marriage was forced redefined to meet the needs of an agenda, without any popular or Democratic vote. Even in California, known to be highly liberal, the commandeering of the word marriage was forced by law, without any referendum or popular vote to keep the peace. If given to the people to decide, it would have failed even in California.
It would have been better, for all, if a new term had been created, that legally gave all the secular benefits of marriage, but allowed the religious word marriage, to retain it classic definition. But the Leftist goal was to infiltrate religion, in an attempt to create conflict and division. They hate religion and like to stick it to them.
As an educational example of the word affect, say we used the Leftist language commandeering scam and decided to call both homosexuality and bestiality, homosexuality. Currently these each have their own term. The commandeered term; homosexuality, would allow bestiality to gain social status, overnight, based on the hard work of homosexuals. However, my guess is the homosexuals would be insulted by the change in language, since the vast majority do not subscribe to bestiality. They would not wish to lumped together, by their own word. If we could force this on everyone, there would be constant conflict among these two groups. If the goal was anarchy, this simple change would be a means to that end. Luckily the political Right is not mean spirited, as is the radical Left.
When the idea of homosexual marriage, was first main stream considered, this was due to the disease and death created by gay behavior in the 1980's, when the closet was first opened, wide. Over 100,000 young Gay men died over a few years of AIDS. The idea of committed relationships, was a viable solution compared to continued promiscuity. Terms were brain stormed for a marriage equivalent, such as gay unions.
The problem was that the secular legal system would not allow all the benefits of marriage for these new unions, since the new term lacked precedent and the greedy government did not wish to lose tax money. It was easier to legally fight for these secular rights with the term marriage. This term was this than forced onto everyone, by Leftist legislatures; state and Federal. Stealing was never the best way to go, when the bible says thou shall not steal; classic terms of religion that are very specifically defined.
The solution to the division and conflict is to redefine the union of similar sex couples, with a unique term, like unions, while allowing these couples all the secular benefits of marriage. This is still better than the disease prone homosexual promiscuity. There is no need to steal and expect everyone to blindly accept it, like they do in Democrat run cities. Maybe this can need to go back to the states to decide; unions instead of marriages. Then again, the Trade Unions may get upset, if union dues are not paid.
Last edited:
John D. Brey
Well-Known Member
Very accurate and articulate argumentation in my opinion. And I agree there should be a union of some kind affording homosexuals all the economic and cultural benefits that typically come through marriage. One of the focuses of this thread, from my standpoint, is separating the rather natural sin of homosexuality, from the "abomination" that is "homosexual marriage." The wickedness Jesus states will usher in the last days isn't homosexuality, nor even rampant homosexuality, for those things have occurred many times in history, even in Jesus' day in Rome and Greece. The abomination welcoming everyone to the "last days," or "end times," is the unconscionable ignorance of metaphysics, and theology, reality really, that's blind to the "holy" nature of "holy matrimony."
Throughout human history marriage has been a symbol of the binary relationship between God and man (two utter oppositions). It's the union or marriage of opposites (not sameness) that's the glory of marriage such that when Daniel (2:43) speaks of mingling with the "seed of men" but not binding together as is natural in normal union, we're likely in the presence of a discussion going on between Daniel and Jesus that manifests itself in Jesus' revelation in Luke chapter 17 where he speaks of two men in the same bed as a sign of the time of his return. In the same chapter he makes it clear that the true significance of their sharing a bed is that they're doing it legally ---ἐκγαμίζω----, they're being "given legal authority" to share the same bed in holy matrimony.
Earlier in this thread, Mike referred to the KJV English translation of "ἐκγαμίζω" ---"given in marriage," as though it's a daughter being given in marriage. But the context is patently clear that Jesus is speaking of homosexuality. Furthermore, in the essay linked to in the thread-seeder, it's pointed out that simply by exegeting the Greek word (ἐκγαμίζω) in its biblical usage, the interpreters could have gotten it right:
The serious exegete looks for significant nuances that reveal the under-workings of the holy spirit working beneath the profane text. And such a nuance exists in the text quoted above. It's the Greek word ἐκγαμίζω. It's found (without a definite article) five times in the scripture and all of them are used to point out the unlawfulness of marrying the persons where the word is used.
Matthew 22:30 notes that at the resurrection its unlawful to marry (ἐκγαμίζω) since there's no dual gender, everyone is the same gender, such that sex would be same-sex, such that marriage would be unlawful. The second place the word is found, Mark 12:25, says much the same thing as Matthew 22:30 (same-sexers at the resurrection won't be allowed to marry). The remaining three times the Greek word is used (Luke 17:27, 20:34-35) it’s dealing one way or another with the legality or illegality of marriage. Every time "ἐκγαμίζω" is used throughout the scripture it refers to the illegality of marrying the people being targeted. And why is their marriage illegal? In every case (5) they're same-sexers, or same-sexers are being juxtaposed in the context.
Added to the fact that Jesus uses a loaded word (ἐκγαμίζω without a definite article) to give away the meaning of "they" in his parable, is the fact that when speaking of this "they," who are married, and given legal authority to marry, Jesus singles out the only two cases in the history of humanity where homosexuality is known to have been normalized, accepted as non-sinful, as it is today.
Matthew 22:30 notes that at the resurrection its unlawful to marry (ἐκγαμίζω) since there's no dual gender, everyone is the same gender, such that sex would be same-sex, such that marriage would be unlawful. The second place the word is found, Mark 12:25, says much the same thing as Matthew 22:30 (same-sexers at the resurrection won't be allowed to marry). The remaining three times the Greek word is used (Luke 17:27, 20:34-35) it’s dealing one way or another with the legality or illegality of marriage. Every time "ἐκγαμίζω" is used throughout the scripture it refers to the illegality of marrying the people being targeted. And why is their marriage illegal? In every case (5) they're same-sexers, or same-sexers are being juxtaposed in the context.
Added to the fact that Jesus uses a loaded word (ἐκγαμίζω without a definite article) to give away the meaning of "they" in his parable, is the fact that when speaking of this "they," who are married, and given legal authority to marry, Jesus singles out the only two cases in the history of humanity where homosexuality is known to have been normalized, accepted as non-sinful, as it is today.
Likewise also as it was in the days of Lot; they did eat, they drank, they bought, they sold, they planted, they builded; But the same day that Lot went out of Sodom it rained fiare and brimstone from heaven, and destroyed them all. That's how it shall be in the day when the Son of Man is revealed.
Luke 17:28-30.
After Jesus makes the statement referenced above, which can now be understood to be speaking of homosexuals specifically, as the "they," and the "them," who will be "marrying" in the day when the Son of Man shall return (as they were marrying in the days of Noah, and the days of Sodom and Gomorrah) Jesus follows up by saying:Luke 17:28-30.
34 I tell you, in that night there shall be two men in one bed; the one shall be taken, and the other shall be left. 35 Two women shall be grinding together; the one shall be taken, and the other left.
One would think the careful exegete would have noted that the two women "grinding together" (a metaphor used elsewhere in the scripture for sexual relations) are doing so not during the day, but, at night. And the men sharing a bed aren't taking a short siesta in the middle of a hot day after a nice meal; they're spooning together in the middle of the night.
John
Last edited:
John D. Brey
Well-Known Member
If we judge according to the Bible, then by the Bible shall we be judged. Which is why someone like myself has spent more hours studying the bible than most people have spent in whatever their vocation happens to be. If I'm going to be judged by how I judge according to the Bible, I take that very seriously.
I judge that when society legalizes same-sex "marriage" we are in, or at the mezuzah to, the end-time. And since by that measure I shall be judged, I can say in all truth that knowing this to be the case, I've redoubled the time I spend in the Bible that I not be caught unawares when the lapse between the Apocalypse and normal times slams shut.
John
John D. Brey
Well-Known Member
Do you believe in God? If not, saying that only God is the judge, is bearing false witness.
John
Shadow Wolf
Certified People sTabber
Where do you get off on saying it's ok for you to judge when your Messiah told you that it isn't your place or business and is the exclusive right of the Father?
John D. Brey
Well-Known Member
And:
Do you see what a nice tag-team the two statements of yours make for anyone wanting to wrestle with your worldview? You make the Gange brothers of the World Wrestling Association look positively puny.
John
John D. Brey
Well-Known Member
Do you believe what my messiah says is true? If not, then you could be considered to be using his name in vain, and giving false testimony, by implying anything he says is binding on you or me. If what Christ Jesus says isn't absolutely binding on you, that's ok by me, but to use what he says, that doesn't bind you, to bind me up as tight as a straight-jacket, is almost like forming a wrestling tag-team between you and the referee against little ole me.
John
74x12
Well-Known Member
Although I don't believe homosexuality is kosher ... I do think there was more to the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah than that. Homosexuality was common enough in many ancient cultures that were not destroyed by fire and brimstone. The Greeks and later Romans for example.
Homosexuality is also not cited as a reason for their destruction in Ezekiel 16:49 although it could be implied under the general heading of "idleness". Meaning they got up to all kinds of unsavory things because they had too much time on their hands.
But I think their main sin was preying on innocent travellers. This is why the angels came disguised as travellers to see how the people treated them. I believe this was known/reflected in cultures around the Mediterrenean for centuries afterward. The idea that "gods" or angels (to the Hebrews) could come disguised as travellers meant that the guest became sacred and worthy of great honor and respect. We see that hospitality was among the greatest virtues in many ancient cultures. I theorize this was because the story of Sodom and Gomorrah was spread around so much.
Jude 1:7 says they went after strange flesh and this doesn't necessarily mean homosexuality either. Actually Jude could seem to be indicating that the people of Sodom went after Angelic flesh. So a similar sin as seen in the times of Noah when the sons of God went in unto the daughters of man. They do seem to have been particularly attracted to the two angels that came to the city. Jesus also says "as in the days of Noah they were marrying and giving in marriage". So I believe he links the end times with the times described in Genesis 6 when the angelic race called the sons of God married the daughters of man.
However I realize the mainstream interpretation is that "strange flesh"(Jude) would refer to homosexuality.
Last edited:
John D. Brey
Well-Known Member
Daniel is offering a great mystery when he speaks of the "they" who will mingle themselves with the seed of men. And as is the case when a great biblical mystery is offered up for deciphering, the decipher must have ready reference to the general lay of the land so far as the entire scripture is concerned. Here, Daniel is juxtaposing his males (the Hebrew word is masculine) mingling with the seed of men, with another mysterious group of males (angels are always male in scripture) mixing not with the men of their day, but with the daughters of men:
And it came to pass, when men began to multiply on the face of the earth, and daughters were born unto them, 2 That the sons of God saw the daughters of men that they were fair; and they took them wives of all which they chose. . . 4 The Nephilim were on the earth in those days, and also afterward---when the sons of God went to the daughters of men and had children by them.
Genesis 6:1-4.
Genesis 6:1-4.
In the Hebrew, the "sons of God" are the בני האלוהים (bene ha-elohim). Nowhere in all of scripture does this term refer to anyone other than angelic creatures. When these angels, took the daughters of men, they successfully mingled and cleaved in order to produce a class of creatures called the "Nephilim" נפלים, the "fallen ones." This successful cleaving of angelic and human flesh created the Titans of Greek mythology. They were known as "giants" and according to Genesis chapter six, were the ancient men of mythological renown (Hercules, Apollo, Abandon, etc.). The NT book of Jude speaks of these fallen angels when the writer says:
And the angels which kept not their first estate, but left their own habitation, he hath reserved in everlasting chains under darkness unto the judgment of the great day. 7 Even as Sodom and Gomorrah, and the cities about them, in like manner giving themselves over to fornication, and going after strange flesh.
Jude 6-7.
Jude 6-7.
A second witness to the veracity of the Genesis six account of angels cleaving to the daughters of men is found in 2 Peter 2:4:
God spared not the angels that sinned, in Genesis six, but cast them down to Tartarus, and chains of darkness to be reserved unto judgment, and spared not the ancient world of mythological giants, but saved Noah . . . thereafter bringing the flood upon the giants, and turning the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah into ashes . . ..
In both of these scriptures, speaking of the angelic infiltration of humanity, the antediluvians and Sodom and Gomorrah are paralleled as though these two peoples are the poster-children for mixing with the angels to produce strange flesh. When Jesus states that the days of his return will be like the days of the flood, and Sodom and Gomorrah, he's clearly referencing the fact that in the end-times not only will homosexuality be rampant, which is somewhat insignificant in light of the Romans and Greeks of his own day, but more importantly they will be marrying even as angelic flesh is being married to the human race to once again produce this strange flesh.
John
Last edited:
John D. Brey
Well-Known Member
I just addressed this in a message posted right after you posted yours: message number 51. As noted throughout this thread, it's not homosexuality specifically that's in the crosshairs. It's another kind of mixing of flesh that's unauthorized in biblical law, the mixing of unlike creatures, either bestiality, or worse, angels and men (producing "strange flesh").
Other sins are noted in Ezekiel, but we would need to know what's meant by "abomination" תועבה in verse 50 before we rule out homosexuality. It's possible that while the men were seeking out "strange flesh," i.e., the Nephilim (said to exist after the flood), the women were left to satisfy their lust among one another.
Be not forgetful to entertain strangers: for thereby some have entertained angels unawares.
Hebrews 13:2.
Hebrews 13:2.
I don't think the entertainment implied by the writer of Hebrews includes sexual congress as found in Sodom and Gomorrah and the antediluvian civilization.
The argument here is that for some reason, homsexual marriage is juxtaposed with the marriage of angels and man. One reason is likely that both are, so far as metaphysics and theology are concerned, an "abomination," since they are contrary to the clear design of nature where unity implies the fusion of different, specifically binary poles, into a new whole. And this fusion, or union of difference, is always difference of gender, not kind, such that homosexuality and bestiality are linked since homosexuality unifies same gender, while bestiality unifies difference of kind. Both are an abomination.
Nevertheless, Jesus appears to be focusing, as is this thread, now, not on homosexuality, since that's common, but on the mixing of different kinds of species, angel and man, since it appears transparently clear that Jesus is predicting that as in the days of Noah, when homosexuality was rampant, and angels were interbreeding with the daughters of men, so too, in the end of days, i.e., the time of his return, angels and men will once again be interbreeding while homosexuals are marrying.
Daniel adds something earth-shattering to the mix. This time the angels aren't cleaving to the daughters of men to produce Titans, and great men of renown (the Greek demigods, Nephillim), but are instead mixing different kind (angel and man), with same gender (angelic men mixing with the seed of men), as has never occurred since man has walked the planet.
John
Last edited:
John D. Brey
Well-Known Member
If this is indeed something that's never happened, and if Jesus is in fact prophesying its occurrence, then it surely behooves us to try to understand what this new kind of mixing noted by Daniel and Jesus implies?
In ancient times, when angels, who are always male, mixed with the daughters of men, the union produced "strange flesh," i.e., the Titans and demigods of Greek mythology (who were actual creatures and not merely mythological). In Revelation 12:7-8 we're told of a future time when the fallen angels who still have access to heaven (which some of them left to fornicate with the daughters of men) are all, every one of them, removed from heaven and hurled to earth.
In Genesis chapter six, some of them leave willingly in order to attempt to pollute the human genome that Christ not be able to be born of anything but strange flesh. But in Revelation chapter twelve, specifically the verses just prior to Satan and the angels being booted from heaven, Christ has already been born such that the Genesis six fiasco failed. Mixing angelic DNA with human DNA failed to stop god's plan in Christ (thanks in part to Noah and the flood that destroyed most of the Nephilim).
What occurs in Revelation 12:7-8 is orders of magnitude more drastic for Satan and the fallen angels than what occurs in Genesis. At the time of their expulsion from heaven, interbreeding with mankind is pointless since they know "their time is short" (Revelation 12:12). There's no time to breed a new army of Titans since those familiar with biblical eschatology are aware, as is Satan, that he has merely 3 1/2 years till Christ returns with his new Body to establish his kingdom on earth.
With this in mind, what's Daniel revealing when he notes that these fallen angels aren't mixing with females to produce Titans, strange flesh, but are mixing (without it resulting in fusion, birth) with the "seed of men"?
A first hypothesis would be that since this "mixing" is clearly being juxtaposed with same-sex males, who can't produce through their cleaving, and since Daniel appears to be noting something utterly new, it's not likely demon possession, which, like homosexual mixing, occurred in Jesus' day, but rather, is a new kind of creature relationship that's neither sexual, nor possession, but rather a union where the human male, and the angelic male, share one body, without either losing their conscious self, but where they unite not in "strange flesh" (human and angelic) but "strange soul," they are a human mind and soul enhanced by angelic mind and soul in a new hypostasis designed to parallel what's going on in heaven, in their absence, as God gives their heavenly realm over to the Church in the rapture or resurrection of the Church.
Satan and the angels are cast from heaven simultaneous to the rapture or resurrection of the Church, such that as God augments the human soul and spirit with a heavenly body (at the resurrection of the Church), Satan and his fallen minions mix, augment, the seed of men, on earth, in a new, terrestrial, hypostasis, designed to create the army Satan will use to refuse Christ and the Church when they return at the second coming. As he does in every other case where he mimics God's plan, Satan creates a counterfeit rapture that takes place not in the heavenly realm he has just left, permanently, but on earth, where he would like to establish his rule and posterity forever more.
In the rapture, God creates new spiritual creatures in the heavenly places (Ephesian 1:3; 2 Corinthians 5:17), while on earth Satan creates new terrestrial creatures by mixing the former heavenly creatures with "the seed of men" (Daniel 2:43).
John
Last edited:
Shadow Wolf
Certified People sTabber
Nothing to wrestle with. I used to be a Christian, I used to be a sinner but I left all that behind. Now I am not a sinner as I don't sin.And:
Do you see what a nice tag-team the two statements of yours make for anyone wanting to wrestle with your worldview? You make the Gange brothers of the World Wrestling Association look positively puny.
John
The great thing about being an ex-Christian of my former status means I remember well what Jesus' commandments and instructions are but because I'm not a Christian anymore they no longer apply to me. I no longer follow in his path, so why would his rules apply to me?Do you believe what my messiah says is true? If not, then you could be considered to be using his name in vain, and giving false testimony, by implying anything he says is binding on you or me. If what Christ Jesus says isn't absolutely binding on you, that's ok by me, but to use what he says, that doesn't bind you, to bind me up as tight as a straight-jacket, is almost like forming a wrestling tag-team between you and the referee against little ole me.
John
John D. Brey
Well-Known Member
From my own experience I would guess, and it's just a guess, that you grew up in a Christian family and once thought of yourself as a Christian. But when you became an adult, which is to say free to think and decide for yourself, you may have realized you didn't believe the tenets of the Christian faith you were once associated with.
The reason I say this is because when I realized that I was a sinner, understood what that meant, i.e., that I had no possibility of a relationship with God beyond his harsh judgment, it was the most existentially terrifying moment I've ever experienced; mental, spiritual, intellectual, suffocation; I was drowning in fear, shame, and concern about eternal separation from God.
When, into that situation, I felt a hand grab mine, a hand with a hole in the middle of it, and felt it pulling me out of the water I was drowning in, it was the greatest feeling of relief, salvation, and hope I've ever felt.
From this personal experience of mine, I can't imagine anyone going through anything like it and ever thinking for a second of returning to life outside of the immeasurable comfort of faith in Christ. He pulled me out of the muck and mire of a meaningless, pointless, life, over forty years ago and there hasn't been a day since that I haven't been on my knees thanking him with all my heart.
John
Shadow Wolf
Certified People sTabber
I grew up in a Christian family, schooled by Church curriculum for a while, it was even being planned I would be the new Youth Pastor when that one and his family moved to another state. But I left when I was 15.
It was a very insulated and literalist world I came from, and due to a number of reasons but a significant one being I was in public school for high school and absolutely nothing I saw in the outside world fit with what I was told it was by the Church. It was a double whammy, a blow to the literalism I was indoctrinated with and also to the discovery it's not this evil, terrible place that is out to get Christians.
I used to know that fear. I fully believed and accepted I was a sinner in the hands of an angry god. I feared falling from his grace, I feared not being good enough, I feared his wraith and judgement so much I had nightmares about them. I believed I was saved, but I also believed Jehovah turned Lot's wife into a pillar of salt just for looking back.
John D. Brey
Well-Known Member
I would just add that for me faith in Christ wasn't the cause of my fears but the solution to them.
John