“christians who are just easter/xmas types are less threatening than someone who actually has real faith”
I disagree. I’m more threatened by christmas/easter types. It’s fairly typical for them to be bitter, resentful, back-biting, and repressed because they profess their beliefs without the requisite walk and therefore feel “pressured” into “doing what’s right” without receiving any joy. As a result, their spirit festers and the often become some of the worst people I know. I call them “christmas/easter” types regardless of how often they go to church because, even if they regularly read the bible, perform devotions, attend every week, they still have a spiritual hole inside of them. I’ve even seen this true of charismatics who lead truly spirit-led and spirit-filled revivals. Although the Holy Spirit comes down and provides a true annointing on many present, the leaders are using their ministry to fill a hole within themselves. I blame current evangelism tactics for this. Most fellowships stop evangelism with someone once conversion is achieved and do not teach them how to truly listen, therefore they lean heavily on the promised “peace that passes understanding” while being un-equipped to receive it.
My commentary is getting into some heavy territory here, and it’s hard to even BEGIN to touch on the points I’ve already mentioned without writing a paper on each one, so I’ll wrap up this point by saying those with real faith (although I hesitate to use that word as so many have been distilled by many who repeat them in the hopes of attaining the concepts behind them) hrmm...actually, let’s say “those that most resemble the early ‘ixthys-fish-drawing’ christians in nature.” I.e. Close personal walk, good stewards, generally exemplifying Christ’s behaviour in their everyday life and radiating it outward from them. (I can’t find my lexicons and google has failed me, therefore I can’t seem to locate an appropriate Greek word for this concept. Got anything?) Regardless of what we call them, the people you describe as having “real faith”, assuming, after my description, that we’re talking about the same types of people, are the least threatening to anyone but reactionary pagans. (yes, I know that was a horrible set of comma splices, but I’m on a roll here so I’m not editing it. *grins*) Paganism is, after all, based strongly on the interconnectivity of all things in the universe. Christian-bashing simply for the sake of it is divisive and disruptive. The two don’t mix. Paganism in any form is still widely unrecognized as a religion or legitimate spiritual path. (and still illegal in australia and several other countries, if I recall correctly) Any of the enlightened pagans I’ve talked to at length about christianity have all had the same response – “That’s their faith or personal spirituality. How can I cut that down or belittle that without degrading my own? Spirituality is a powerful and personal thing, emphasis on personal.” So I’m going to disagree with you on the above quoted point.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
1)
Date: 2006-04-03 02:18 pm (UTC)I disagree. I’m more threatened by christmas/easter types. It’s fairly typical for them to be bitter, resentful, back-biting, and repressed because they profess their beliefs without the requisite walk and therefore feel “pressured” into “doing what’s right” without receiving any joy. As a result, their spirit festers and the often become some of the worst people I know. I call them “christmas/easter” types regardless of how often they go to church because, even if they regularly read the bible, perform devotions, attend every week, they still have a spiritual hole inside of them. I’ve even seen this true of charismatics who lead truly spirit-led and spirit-filled revivals. Although the Holy Spirit comes down and provides a true annointing on many present, the leaders are using their ministry to fill a hole within themselves. I blame current evangelism tactics for this. Most fellowships stop evangelism with someone once conversion is achieved and do not teach them how to truly listen, therefore they lean heavily on the promised “peace that passes understanding” while being un-equipped to receive it.
My commentary is getting into some heavy territory here, and it’s hard to even BEGIN to touch on the points I’ve already mentioned without writing a paper on each one, so I’ll wrap up this point by saying those with real faith (although I hesitate to use that word as so many have been distilled by many who repeat them in the hopes of attaining the concepts behind them) hrmm...actually, let’s say “those that most resemble the early ‘ixthys-fish-drawing’ christians in nature.” I.e. Close personal walk, good stewards, generally exemplifying Christ’s behaviour in their everyday life and radiating it outward from them. (I can’t find my lexicons and google has failed me, therefore I can’t seem to locate an appropriate Greek word for this concept. Got anything?) Regardless of what we call them, the people you describe as having “real faith”, assuming, after my description, that we’re talking about the same types of people, are the least threatening to anyone but reactionary pagans. (yes, I know that was a horrible set of comma splices, but I’m on a roll here so I’m not editing it. *grins*) Paganism is, after all, based strongly on the interconnectivity of all things in the universe. Christian-bashing simply for the sake of it is divisive and disruptive. The two don’t mix. Paganism in any form is still widely unrecognized as a religion or legitimate spiritual path. (and still illegal in australia and several other countries, if I recall correctly) Any of the enlightened pagans I’ve talked to at length about christianity have all had the same response – “That’s their faith or personal spirituality. How can I cut that down or belittle that without degrading my own? Spirituality is a powerful and personal thing, emphasis on personal.” So I’m going to disagree with you on the above quoted point.