Hi I found this forum by accident,
looking up a "trail of disasters" online left by a former user who was spamming other forums.
After being banned from that user's own site that "they" were promoting (it turned out to be one person under several names), I realized maybe it was better to identify as a Constitutionalist under natural laws and not call myself a Christian if people assume I follow the Bible literally, which I do not. I didn't want to cause any further confusion, as I seemed to have alienated people with my views of Universalism and Buddhism I was told cannot be Christian though I disagree.
So I may be coming out as a secular gentile Constitutionalist, and only under "free exercise of religion" do I believe in the Bible as a free choice to follow where needed, as with other Christians who use that. I believe the message and faith in Christianity is independent of the Bible, and can be expressed using any venue needed for someone to relate to, including Buddhism and Constitutionalism I found to be consistent and complementary. But I was accused of teaching false Universalist heresies and told I cannot be Christian and teach that all people and all paths lead to the same truth through Christ Jesus. Since I now question if I can be Christian, that makes me agnostic.
If I am expected to put faith in the literal Bible above free speech and freedom of religion, and right to petition even Government to redress grievances, no, I am not giving up my religious freedom and belief in consent by educated choice, to "force" unity by making threats of sending people to hell as I ran across on that website. If that is what it means to be Christian, then no thanks I must not be one because I believe we can establish truth by free will and reason, and yes I do believe in invoking the authority of Christ Jesus as "Restorative Justice" to establish consensus on law and justice. But no, I don't believe in condemning people to hell, and I do believe it is God's plan that all people and all paths find unity in truth but by free choice and not fear-based coercion and bullying.
So I may be agnostic if my beliefs are not yet proven about God creating natural laws, and Christ Jesus fulfilling them, and it is not acceptable for secular gentiles like me to follow and consider this consistent with Christian faith.
Until this is PROVEN to be agreed upon and consistent with Christianity then technically I "don't know" if it is the universal truth or not.
I believe it can be proven by consensus, but of course I can be wrong, so that means I "don't know" which means agnostic.
I believe that God and Jesus can be understood and translated into any other religions or even secular terms, but until this is proven by consensus then "I don't know" if I am following the same "God and Jesus" as Christians who use the Bible to confirm agreement. I use natural laws with other secular nontheists, and I was using Biblical laws with Christians, and Constitutional laws with other naturalists.
But since it came under question whether I am teaching the same things that Christians teach using the Bible, or I am teaching something conflicting or inconsistent, then until there is a consensus (as I believe in) then it isn't proven and I "don't know yet."
Thanks to the previous user for leading me here,
and I hope my experience can help other people who have felt as left out of whatever loop other people are on.
I believe Christ Jesus means Restorative Justice and anyone can believe in that, live by and establish that by practicing forgiveness and correction for conscience sake, and reach agreement on the same truth that sets humanity free from strife and suffering. If people use the Bible for this, or the Constitution and Bill of Rights as I do, all laws are fulfilled in the same spirit of Universal Justice as Jesus represents, whether we personify God or not. So I don't see any reason to discriminate against people who are nontheistic or secular in our views of life and ways of communicating these.
Thank you,
Emily Nghiem
looking up a "trail of disasters" online left by a former user who was spamming other forums.
After being banned from that user's own site that "they" were promoting (it turned out to be one person under several names), I realized maybe it was better to identify as a Constitutionalist under natural laws and not call myself a Christian if people assume I follow the Bible literally, which I do not. I didn't want to cause any further confusion, as I seemed to have alienated people with my views of Universalism and Buddhism I was told cannot be Christian though I disagree.
So I may be coming out as a secular gentile Constitutionalist, and only under "free exercise of religion" do I believe in the Bible as a free choice to follow where needed, as with other Christians who use that. I believe the message and faith in Christianity is independent of the Bible, and can be expressed using any venue needed for someone to relate to, including Buddhism and Constitutionalism I found to be consistent and complementary. But I was accused of teaching false Universalist heresies and told I cannot be Christian and teach that all people and all paths lead to the same truth through Christ Jesus. Since I now question if I can be Christian, that makes me agnostic.
If I am expected to put faith in the literal Bible above free speech and freedom of religion, and right to petition even Government to redress grievances, no, I am not giving up my religious freedom and belief in consent by educated choice, to "force" unity by making threats of sending people to hell as I ran across on that website. If that is what it means to be Christian, then no thanks I must not be one because I believe we can establish truth by free will and reason, and yes I do believe in invoking the authority of Christ Jesus as "Restorative Justice" to establish consensus on law and justice. But no, I don't believe in condemning people to hell, and I do believe it is God's plan that all people and all paths find unity in truth but by free choice and not fear-based coercion and bullying.
So I may be agnostic if my beliefs are not yet proven about God creating natural laws, and Christ Jesus fulfilling them, and it is not acceptable for secular gentiles like me to follow and consider this consistent with Christian faith.
Until this is PROVEN to be agreed upon and consistent with Christianity then technically I "don't know" if it is the universal truth or not.
I believe it can be proven by consensus, but of course I can be wrong, so that means I "don't know" which means agnostic.
I believe that God and Jesus can be understood and translated into any other religions or even secular terms, but until this is proven by consensus then "I don't know" if I am following the same "God and Jesus" as Christians who use the Bible to confirm agreement. I use natural laws with other secular nontheists, and I was using Biblical laws with Christians, and Constitutional laws with other naturalists.
But since it came under question whether I am teaching the same things that Christians teach using the Bible, or I am teaching something conflicting or inconsistent, then until there is a consensus (as I believe in) then it isn't proven and I "don't know yet."
Thanks to the previous user for leading me here,
and I hope my experience can help other people who have felt as left out of whatever loop other people are on.
I believe Christ Jesus means Restorative Justice and anyone can believe in that, live by and establish that by practicing forgiveness and correction for conscience sake, and reach agreement on the same truth that sets humanity free from strife and suffering. If people use the Bible for this, or the Constitution and Bill of Rights as I do, all laws are fulfilled in the same spirit of Universal Justice as Jesus represents, whether we personify God or not. So I don't see any reason to discriminate against people who are nontheistic or secular in our views of life and ways of communicating these.
Thank you,
Emily Nghiem
