Talk about Human Depravity … for Goodness Sake!

[2PhiloVoid]

Yet most Christians would rather rant about two men living together. And that is precisely why I don't take Christian outrage all that seriously. The "moral compass" as such, is broken. It sees far too much as evil for me to have confidence in it, even when it is "right". As they say, a broken clock is right twice a day.

Maybe a number of Christians rant about that, but I'd rather rant about sins that are more obvious and pronounced in society than homosexual behavior. No, I'd rather rant about hetrosexual behavior that is still widely--oh so widely--outside of the Will of God.

And FD, you really do need to reconsider while there's still time, my friend. This apostasizing of yours is kind of silly, I must say. I'm not even clear on what exactly it is that you're so upset about. You reacted in a similar fashion a few years ago, and then came back, and now you're frustrated again and think Buddhism is going to clear all of that woe up for you. I beg to differ, even if I do appreciate some of the various points that Buddhism in various garbs has to offer.

 

[FireDragon76]

Maybe a number of Christians rant about that, but I'd rather rant about sins that are more obvious and pronounced in society than homosexual behavior. No, I'd rather rant about hetrosexual behavior that is still widely--oh so widely--outside of the Will of God.

And FD, you really do need to reconsider while there's still time, my friend. This apostasizing of yours is kind of silly, I must say. I'm not even clear on what exactly it is that you're so upset about. You reacted in a similar fashion a few years ago, and then came back, and now your frustrated again and think Buddhism is going to clear all of that woe up for you. I beg to differ, even if I do appreciate some of the various points that Buddhism in various garbs has to offer.

My views were never really orthodox Christian per this website's definition. Years ago I decided there was nothing intrinsically evil about homosexual behavior, and that's made reconciling that with Christianity difficult. Time and again, my affiliation with mainline Protestant churches more tolerant of my attitudes was attacked on this forum. So I decided in the end, it wasn't worth it. I'll let other people claim the label of Christian, if they want it, but that is a fight I am frankly burned out on.

Christians waste alot of time trying to hunt pecadillos when the world faces real problems, like climate change, for instance. If a religion can't help people deal with reality, it has serious problems. That lead me to look at deeper issues in Christianity, and I believe it ties back to things that may be intrinsic to the religion itself, and unavoidable without serious reformation. Things that make a conservative/fundamentalist take on Christianity untenable.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

My views were never really orthodox Christian per this website's definition. Years ago I decided there was nothing intrinsically evil about homosexual behavior, and that's made reconciling that with Christianity difficult. Time and again, my affiliation with mainline Protestant churches more tolerant of my attitudes was attacked on this forum. So I decided in the end, it wasn't worth it. I'll let other people claim the label of Christian, if they want it, but that is a fight I am frankly burned out on.

Christians waste alot of time trying to hunt pecadillos when the world faces real problems, like climate change, for instance. If a religion can't help people deal with reality, it has serious problems. That lead me to look at deeper issues in Christianity, and I believe it ties back to things that may be intrinsic to the religion itself, and unavoidable without serious reformation. Things that make a conservative/fundamentalist take on Christianity untenable.

Lol! That's interesting that you bring up the way in which we face real problems. I for one am very much aware of, and in agreement with you, that climate change is a really big 'real problem.' It just so happens that while I was out shopping yesterday, I came across the following book for a measly $10 and not only am I eager to crack it open and check it out, I think it applies as one aspect in our attempts to address this as one of humanities' depravities in this thread, and that book is "Introducing Evangelical Ecotheology: Foundations in Scripture, Theology, History, and Praxis," by Daniel L. Brunner, Jennifer L. Butler, and A.J. Swoboda.

I don't know if everything in this book will be something I'd agree with, but it looks interesting, maybe promising. So, in my bringing this up, maybe there's still a spare Christian leg somewhere upon which you could rest your tired body, if you so choose to do so. Of course, I've got more books like this one....

 

[FireDragon76]

Lol! That's interesting that you bring up the way in which we face real problems. I for one am very much aware of, and in agreement with you, that climate change is a really big 'real problem.' It just so happens that while I was out shopping yesterday, I came across the following book for a measly $10 and not only am I eager to crack it open and check it out, I think it applies as one aspect in our attempts to address this as one of humanities' depravities in this thread, and that book is "Introducing Evangelical Ecotheology: Foundations in Scripture, Theology, History, and Praxis," by Daniel L. Brunner, Jennifer L. Butler, and A.J. Swoboda.

I don't know if everything in this book will be something I'd agree with, but it looks interesting, maybe promising. So, in my bringing this up, maybe there's still a spare Christian leg somewhere upon which you could rest your tired body, if you so choose to do so. Of course, I've got more books like this one....

I may check it out but I often find the Christian response to environmentalism to be tepid, especially in the Protestant tradition., and even in mainline churches. Whereas I find Thitch Nhat Hanh's views on the environment to be more profound.

At my Lutheran congregation the attitude is basically just a kindler, gentler version of 1950's Lutheranism, but it's still got the same obsession with personal morality, personal guilt, and blood sacrifices you'ld find in an LCMS church. There's little "big picture" going on, and the spirituality of otherworldly salvation is egocentric and individualistic.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

I may check it out but I often find the Christian response to environmentalism to be tepid, especially in the Protestant tradition., and even in mainline churches. Whereas I find Thitch Nhat Hanh's views on the environment to be more profound.

Actually, similar to the Christian eco-books that I have from twenty years ago, this book isn't what I'd call 'tepid' in its assertion that there exist a profound necessity for the growth of a robust environmental consciousness among Christians. Thus, even if you don't agree with it's religious thrust, this book isn't a shallow treatment of the subject.

At my Lutheran congregation the attitude is basically just a kindler, gentler version of 1950's Lutheranism, but it's still got the same obsession with personal morality, personal guilt, and blood sacrifices you'ld find in an LCMS church. There's little "big picture" going on, and the spirituality of otherworldly salvation is egocentric and individualistic.

Alright. I understand somewhat your complaint in all of this and I think you already know that I've had to hear various criticism of my 'own form' of Christian faith, such as it is, philosophically conceived in the eclectic and inter-denominational expansiveness that I promote. I will say that this book by Daniel L. Brunner, Jennifer L. Butler, and A.J. Swoboda does address sin, and it does so on some level that is not cutting itself off from basic Evangelical notions of faith. HOWEVER, at the same time, in perusing the book, these three authors seem to want to instill a much wider spiritual conscience into their readers by infusing some much needed reorienting of perspective, even in regard to how we address and manage our theology of sin. Since you mentioned sin, I took the liberty to further quickly peruse this book, and I came upon the following (moderately lengthy) quote that I think is one for us to consider in this thread, and not just as it applies to Environmental concerns, but to many of them :

A second way to conceptualize personal sin is as relational. From this standpoint, sin is primarily understood as broken relationships, as estrangement or alienation. It is a view more attuned to Eastern Orthodoxy, in which salvation, becomes the process of restoring broken relationships through the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus Christ. Bryant Myers delineates the extent of this relational estrangement, stating that people experience broken, unjust relationships “with ourselves, with our community, with those we call 'other,' with our environment, and with God.” Instead of a healthy sense of self, our belovedness, and our vocation, our relationship with ourselves is marred by self-deprecation and a poverty of being. Instead of a reciprocated connectedness with our community, we exploit our neighbors and isolate ourselves. Instead of justice and shalom with “others,” we dominate and oppress those not like us. Instead of being rooted in and caring for our created environment, we overuse the land and its resources. Instead of a dynamic spiritual relationship with God, we fall prey to the idolatry of consumerism and substitue gods. (p. 128)​

REFERENCE
Brunner, Daniel L., Jennifer L. Butler, and A. J. Swoboda. Introducing Evangelical Ecotheology: Foundations in Scripture, Theology, History, and Praxis. Baker Academic, 2014.

 

[FireDragon76]

Actually, similar to the Christian eco-books that I have from twenty years ago, this book isn't what I'd call 'tepid' in its assertion that there exist a profound necessity for the growth of a robust environmental consciousness among Christians. Thus, even if you don't agree with it's religious thrust, this book isn't a shallow treatment of the subject.

Alright. I understand somewhat your complaint in all of this and I think you already know that I've had to hear various criticism of my 'own form' of Christian faith, such as it is, philosophically conceived in the eclectic and inter-denominational expansiveness that I promote. I will say that this book by Daniel L. Brunner, Jennifer L. Butler, and A.J. Swoboda does address sin, and it does so on some level that is not cutting itself off from basic Evangelical notions of faith. HOWEVER, at the same time, in perusing the book, these three authors seem to want to instill a much wider spiritual conscience into their readers by infusing some much needed reorienting of perspective, even in regard to how we address and manage our theology of sin. Since you mentioned sin, I took the liberty to further quickly peruse this book, and I came upon the following (moderately lengthy) quote that I think is one for us to consider in this thread, and not just as it applies to Environmental concerns, but to many of them :

A second way to conceptualize personal sin is as relational. From this standpoint, sin is primarily understood as broken relationships, as estrangement or alienation. It is a view more attuned to Eastern Orthodoxy, in which salvation, becomes the process of restoring broken relationships through the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus Christ. Bryant Myers delineates the extent of this relational estrangement, stating that people experience broken, unjust relationships “with ourselves, with our community, with those we call 'other,' with our environment, and with God.” Instead of a healthy sense of self, our belovedness, and our vocation, our relationship with ourselves is marred by self-deprecation and a poverty of being. Instead of a reciprocated connectedness with our community, we exploit our neighbors and isolate ourselves. Instead of justice and shalom with “others,” we dominate and oppress those not like us. Instead of being rooted in and caring for our created environment, we overuse the land and its resources. Instead of a dynamic spiritual relationship with God, we fall prey to the idolatry of consumerism and substitue gods. (p. 128)​

REFERENCE
Brunner, Daniel L., Jennifer L. Butler, and A. J. Swoboda. Introducing Evangelical Ecotheology: Foundations in Scripture, Theology, History, and Praxis. Baker Academic, 2014.

OK, but labeling something as sin and tying it into a blood sacrifice doesn't make sense to me, it does not seem helpful.

I understand greed and hatred as fundamentally rooted in ignorance based on the notion of the self as an autonomous being which has an ultimate reality or existence. The remedy for this is insight from mindfulness, not a blood sacrifice to an angry god.

Indeed, Lutheranism in some ways seems to feed this illusion of the self by insisting on an eternal home for it in some far away heaven. Ignoring the millions of people who suffer in hell in the traditional narrative . I told my pastor bluntly, I'm not sure heaven could be a happy place if Leonard Nemoy or William Shatner end up in the other place just because they aren't Christians, and I'm not sure I would be fully human if that question did not concern me. Evangelicalism has no real salvific role for love, only for God's arbitrary decrees and whims.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

OK, but labeling something as sin and tying it into a blood sacrifice doesn't make sense to me, it does not seem helpful.

I understand greed and hatred as fundamentally rooted in ignorance based on the notion of the self as an autonomous being which has an ultimate reality or existence. The remedy for this is insight from mindfulness, not a blood sacrifice to an angry god.

I've explained this elsewhere. It's not the blood per say, but the fact that a death as a penalty has been made that gives the symbol of 'blood' its meaning. The additional layer of significance is that Jesus is the 'sacrifice' made for DEATH in our stead so that, by faith, and though we may yet die physically, then we, like Christ in His DEATH, will also be given a Resurrection. And THAT is the Victory! Don't look at the substance, look at the significance of it all, FD!

Indeed, Lutheranism in some ways seems to feed this illusion of the self by insisting on an eternal home for it in some far away heaven. Ignoring the millions of people who suffer in hell in the traditional narrative . I told my pastor bluntly, I'm not sure heaven could be a happy place if Leonard Nemoy or William Shatner end up in the other place just because they aren't Christians, and I'm not sure I would be fully human if that question did not concern me. Evangelicalism has no real salvific role for love, only for God's arbitrary decrees and whims.

FD, don't become one of them .............

 

[FireDragon76]

I've explained this elsewhere. It's not the blood per say, but the fact that a death as a penalty has been made that gives the symbol of 'blood' its meaning. The additional layer of significance is that Jesus is the 'sacrifice' made for DEATH in our stead so that, by faith, and though we may yet die physically, then we, like Christ in His DEATH, will also be given a Resurrection. And THAT is the Victory! Don't look at the substance, look at the significance of it all, FD!

That would require me to believe in things like resurrection and so forth. As I said in another post, I believe the Easter Experience is best accounted for in After Death Communication.

Early Christians like Paul believed in an immanent resurrection of all the dead, which did not happen. This goal post was eventually shifted further and further into the future, until Christians learned to settle for an otherworldly heaven.

FD, don't become one of them .............

I'm already one of them.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

That would require me to believe in things like resurrection and so forth. As I said in another post, I believe the Easter Experience is best accounted for in After Death Communication.

Early Christians like Paul believed in an immanent resurrection of all the dead, which did not happen. This goal post was eventually shifted further and further into the future, until Christians learned to settle for an otherworldly heaven.

From my own reading, I'm sure there was some misjudgment about how and when the final aspects of an Eschaton would and could wrap up for both the Jewish people and for the various Christians who were increasing in numbers during the 1st and 2nd centuries, but to my mind, this misjudgment by them isn't something to sneeze at, especially since it's not as if the early disciples were told exactly how and when the end of 'all things' was going to happen. No, they were given more general guidelines in outline form, and such general forms were, and still are, prone to human interpretation. Of course, hindsight being what it is, we can at times later see that some interpretations may be better than others.

So, I think you're just jettisoning some of this prematurely, but I'm sure you're doing so according to all that you've thus far studied, which is reasonable to some extent. Just keep in mind that even though it can be said that you're reasonable in your view of things doesn't thereby infer that some of the rest of us are unreasonable or have studied in some inferior way.

I don't mind so much that you feel you need to trek off in your own direction, but I won't abide insinuations coming from you that you're somehow in the superior position of 'knowing better' than I. Rather, I'd instead prefer to say that you, being my peer, have decided that the evidences you've encountered from your own sources have led you to a different conclusion. I hope you'll extend the same courtesy to me in return.

I'm already one of them.

I'd say 'ok,' but since I think apostasy has a risk of becoming demonizing at some point if left unchecked (i.e. leads to the Mark of the Beast), I'm not going to offer you a pat on the back. If anything, it's not ok but rather sad for me to contemplate your newest direction. But, only you can live your life and think your thoughts. I wish you the best, whatever comes.

 

[FireDragon76]

From my own reading, I'm sure there was some misjudgment about how and when the finally aspects of an Eschaton would and could wrap up for both the Jewish people and for the various Christians who were increasing in numbers during the 1st and 2nd centuries, but to my mind, this misjudgment by them isn't something to sneeze at, especially since it's not as if the early disciples were told exactly how and when the end of 'all things' was going to happen. No, they were given more general guidelines in outline form, and such general forms were, and still are, prone to human interpretation. Of course, hindsight being what it is, we can at times later see that some interpretations may be better than others.

Maybe.

All I know is that it was my pastor's Bible study on Revelation, I think, that was the tipping point and I realized it was a book I was not into at all, that this was "not my tribe", and that I very much doubted the "Jesus" presented was the same as the carpenter from Nazareth.

I tried to give it a fair shake, and it is disappointing to say the least. It's not without some sadness I made my choice. I'm still debating how much I can remain affiliated with my congregation.

I don't mind so much that you feel you need to trek off in your own direction, but I won't abide insinuations coming from you that you're somehow in the superior position of 'knowing better' than I. Rather, I'd instead prefer to say that you, being my peer, have decided that the evidences you've encountered from your own sources have led you to a different conclusion. I hope you'll extend the same courtesy to me in return.

I'd say 'ok,' but since I think apostasy has a risk of becoming demonizing at some point if left unchecked (i.e. leads to the Mark of the Beast), I'm not going to offer you a pat on the back. If anything, it's not ok but rather sad for me to contemplate your newest direction. But, only you can live your life and think your thoughts. I wish you the best, whatever comes.

"Mark of the Beast"? "Demonization"? OK, that explains where you are coming from, at least, and your difficulty understanding my POV.

Let's put it this way, I'm sure there are many things in the universe we do not understand, but the elaborate mythology of angels and demons is a myth rooted in dualistic religions imported from Persia to Second Temple Judaism. You won't find it in older sources in the Old Testament. Calling them "demonic" is a way to forestall genuine critical thought and honest inquiry.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Maybe.

All I know is that it was my pastor's Bible study on Revelation, I think, that was the tipping point and I realized it was a book I was not into at all, that this was "not my tribe", and that I very much doubted the "Jesus" presented was the same as the carpenter from Nazareth.

I tried to give it a fair shake, and it is disappointing to say the least. It's not without some sadness I made my choice. I'm still debating how much I can remain affiliated with my congregation.

"Mark of the Beast"? "Demonization"? OK, that explains where you are coming from, at least, and your difficulty understanding my POV.

No one said I was having a difficulty understanding your point of view; rather, I have a lack of desire to join you on your apostasy and my remaining stance doesn't mean I belong to the "know nothings."

Let's put it this way, I'm sure there are many things in the universe we do not understand, but the elaborate mythology of angels and demons is a myth rooted in dualistic religions imported from Persia to Second Temple Judaism. You won't find it in older sources in the Old Testament. Calling them "demonic" is a way to forestall genuine critical thought and honest inquiry.

This is the kind of response I was essentially asking you to avoid, making an assumption that I'm somehow 'less equipped.' I already am familiar with your brand of assessment; don't think for a moment as if it's the first time I've ever heard or read anything about the origins of angels, demons, gods and other ancient ideological paraphenalia from and through the Axial Age and earlier. I get it. I got it. Long ago. I just think there's more to it all than what you're willing to affirm.

Be that as it may, if you've truly and fully decided that you're going to follow the "Way of the ocean," I can't stop you. Enjoy the long swim.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Maybe.

All I know is that it was my pastor's Bible study on Revelation, I think, that was the tipping point and I realized it was a book I was not into at all, that this was "not my tribe", and that I very much doubted the "Jesus" presented was the same as the carpenter from Nazareth.

I tried to give it a fair shake, and it is disappointing to say the least. It's not without some sadness I made my choice. I'm still debating how much I can remain affiliated with my congregation.



"Mark of the Beast"? "Demonization"? OK, that explains where you are coming from, at least, and your difficulty understanding my POV.

Let's put it this way, I'm sure there are many things in the universe we do not understand, but the elaborate mythology of angels and demons is a myth rooted in dualistic religions imported from Persia to Second Temple Judaism. You won't find it in older sources in the Old Testament. Calling them "demonic" is a way to forestall genuine critical thought and honest inquiry.

Above, you said, "I'm already one of them."

And then I said, "... I think apostasy has a risk of becoming demonizing at some point if left unchecked (i.e. leads to the Mark of the Beast), I'm not going to offer you a pat on the back. If anything, it's not ok but rather sad for me to contemplate your newest direction. But, only you can live your life and think your thoughts. I wish you the best, whatever comes."​

Notice that what I ACTUALLY said was that apostasy has a risk of becoming demonizing at some point. I didn't say that it automatically IS. So, you may want to differentiate my language and my semantic application without further stretching what I've said, FD. I didn't say that you're presently walking in 'demon land' ; no, I've implied that you are opening yourself up to that potential. Please learn to discern what is being said just a little better. Give me some charity as I attempt to provide some to you in return.

 

[FireDragon76]

Above, you said, "I'm already one of them."

And then I said, "... I think apostasy has a risk of becoming demonizing at some point if left unchecked (i.e. leads to the Mark of the Beast), I'm not going to offer you a pat on the back. If anything, it's not ok but rather sad for me to contemplate your newest direction. But, only you can live your life and think your thoughts. I wish you the best, whatever comes."​

Notice that what I ACTUALLY said was that apostasy has a risk of becoming demonizing at some point. I didn't say that it automatically IS. So, you may want to differentiate my language and my semantic application without further stretching what I've said, FD. I didn't say that you're presently walking in 'demon land' ; no, I've implied that you are opening yourself up to that potential. Please learn to discern what is being said just a little better. Give me some charity as I attempt to provide some to you in return.

Thank you for your concern, but from my perspective, Christianity is no less problematic in that department, and has its own possible blindspots to deal with, it's own "demons" out to trick the faithful.

It's sort of like the old monks in the desert, there was nowhere they could go and not find temptation seeking them, because temptations are just part of human nature, they are not from some place out there invading us. And that's where the language of demonization gets it all wrong. The "demons" are just manifestations of our mind, our shadows that we repress. And what is repressed is often expressed in twisted, destructive ways.

It is much better to simply be mindful of things as they arise, acknowledge them nonjudgmentally, and let them pass. This isn't about purity or holiness or anything like that, but simply dealing wisely with our desires and emotions.

I remember years ago hearing a Dharma talk, and Master Hanh's teachings were being discussed, and one thing he said that surprised the host/director of our small group was that he said we should always approach negative emotions like anger gently, like we were holding a baby. That was a huge revelation from growing up in a culture where negative emotions are treated with fear. Even welcoming the darkest emotions and mental imagery with kindness can be incredibly liberating, the Tibetans have this as part of their practice called Chod.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Thank you for your concern, but from my perspective, Christianity is no less problematic in that department, and has its own possible blindspots to deal with, it's own "demons" out to trick the faithful.

It's sort of like the old monks in the desert, there was nowhere they could go and not find temptation seeking them, because temptations are just part of human nature, they are not from some place out there invading us. And that's where the language of demonization gets it all wrong. The "demons" are just manifestations of our mind, our shadows that we repress. And what is repressed is often expressed in twisted, destructive ways.

It is much better to simply be mindful of things as they arise, acknowledge them nonjudgmentally, and let them pass. This isn't about purity or holiness or anything like that, but simply dealing wisely with our desires and emotions.

I remember years ago hearing a Dharma talk, and Master Hanh's teachings were being discussed, and one thing he said that surprised the host/director of our small group was that he said we should always approach negative emotions like anger gently, like we were holding a baby. That was a huge revelation from growing up in a culture where negative emotions are treated with fear. Even welcoming the darkest emotions and mental imagery with kindness can be incredibly liberating, the Tibetans have this as part of their practice called Chod.

Thank you for reminding me of the limits of various forms of Buddhism and why I ultimately chose not to chase after them in any form.

In a kind of way, Chod sounds interesting, but I could never actively seek this kind of enlightenment outside of any academically inclined, metaphorical or philosophical investigation. I'd never just 'give myself over' in a mindless yoga to travel through or within "darknesses," whether imagined or real, interior or exterior to myself. To do so as a form of real-time mystical praxis sounds rather like a fool's errand and something I wouldn't do unless I was fully deceived into doing so (Think: Ghost Rider here).

And because I already have had plenty of experience in my life with having been not only deceived but also corrupted, I'm under no compulsion to "seek out" more Chod, and I doubt it actually does what it claims to do: to get at some 'root problem.' Sometimes...................our problems are a combination of not only too much 'Me,' but also a distorted ideal that is marketed to Me from the outside, one that rather than freeing me from being Me, it just ends up adding more ME to ME.

In contrast to Chod, it has been my encounter with Jesus which has actually cut through ME--it has cut through Me and allowed Me to realize that life and its meaning is not all about Me nor is it merely about ameliorating My negative feelings which I may have about everything, or everyone, around Me.

 

[FireDragon76]

In contrast to Chod, it has been my encounter with Jesus which has actually cut through ME--it has cut through Me and allowed Me to realize that life and its meaning is not all about Me nor is it merely about ameliorating My negative feelings which I may have about everything, or everyone, around Me.

No, it's all about God... a being that looks remarkably anthropomorphic, and obviously created in man's image.

Are you familiar with Feuerbach's critique of Christianity?

 

[2PhiloVoid]

No, it's all about God... a being that looks remarkably anthropomorphic, and obviously created in man's image.

Are you familiar with Feuerbach's critique of Christianity?

Yes, I am.

 

[FireDragon76]

Yes, I am.

Well, given that... you can understand why I see a religious appeal to a transcendent God just isn't persuasive?

If I go to a Catholic Church, I meet a God that approves of Catholicism. If I go to a Lutheran Church, I meet a God that is obviously a Lutheran. Each group is seeing God dealing with their own psychology issues. It's really not that different from what you see in Buddhism, except Buddhists are completely transparent about the matter.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Well, given that... you can understand why I see a religious appeal to a transcendent God just isn't persuasive?

If I go to a Catholic Church, I meet a God that approves of Catholicism. If I go to a Lutheran Church, I meet a God that is obviously a Lutheran. Each group is seeing God dealing with their own psychology issues. It's really not that different from what you see in Buddhism, except Buddhists are completely transparent about the matter.

And which Christian group do I belong to, FD, since I do not formally belong to any of them?

 

[Moral Orel]

And which Christian group do I belong to, FD, since I do not formally belong to any of them?

Your God must be The God of the Philosophers, right?

 

[FireDragon76]

And which Christian group do I belong to, FD, since I do not formally belong to any of them?

Your religious beliefs seem broadly Restorationist, in between Church off Christ and Disciples of Christ. The focus on prophecy and the end times makes you closer to Church of Christ, though. Most Disciples of Christ pastors I have encountered are more or less on the same page as mainline Protestantism.