If they meant in any special 'Divine mission' way, I don't think so, but I don't think I can have any certainty that I could never be convinced of that. It would depend on more than just words though.
If they mean it in the 'I believe we all come from a Divine source and express that in this way', sure. I would at least believe that they believe that sincerely.
No, scripture makes it clear that in order to become a child of God, in a living relationship with Him, one must be born again, supernaturally born spiritually by God, not just born in a human way.
The scriptures are not clear on that. Phrases that can be translated are child or son of God are used dozens of times throughout the texts. There are many parts of the texts where, viewed solely on its own, it is very debateable and unclear who is being referenced as much of the cultural knowledge assumed by the authors no longer exists. There are also translation issues, such as how Hebrew, like many Semitic languages where 'son of' is commonly used as a group identifier (like asking if Saul is the son of prophets to ask if he is a prophet) which isn't used in Greek, so translations of the Hebrew texts that rely on the Greek tend to move from groups to individual titles.
Within the New Testament, yes, the version that that is referring to those who have come to Jesus is one version, a term of ideological designation shows up, but it used elsewhere to refer to all spirits (Book of Hebrews), Israel specifically as a nation which is then used by Paul in Acts to expand the definition to everyone and the implications he views on that, it's used to refer to angels, and there are a few times where how it is translated and treated textually has changed a lot and can be viewed as lesser deities, angels, all humans, an ethnic or people group designation, or an ideological one. For example, most branches of Judaism among others don't have the concept of angels being able to disobey, so when the phrase Bene Elohim or similar show up and they're rebelling, a Jewish commentary or summary will have that refering to humans, not angels, whereas the same parts of the texts within Christian denominations where angels can rebel, they are treated and the term often translated as angels.
at the time of the return of Christ the Earth will be under the Rule of the Antichrist. The term antichrist only appears in the Epistles of John, and it's an adjective to describe people who are opposed to Jesus, not a title of any individual. There is no 'the' Antichrist in the Bible, that was a later invention by certain denominations combining the term with the Beasts of Revelation.
Just as Xmas has nothing to do with Jesus as he wasn't born in cold December month but rather during Spring months of April/May.
Claiming he was born in spring has as little support as the claim of December or January (there is more than one date for Christmas). We have absolutely no idea what time of year he would have been born in and the texts make no claim on that. Just as any quotes by Jesus could be 'false attribution by those who never met or known Jesus personally', the nativity stories are literary, written by people who were not present and quite likely were trying to write a spiritual and group significant rather than historical account. There being shepherds in the fields does not give any time anymore than nativities discussing a census or where Mary and Joseph travelled from, which varies by gospel. The dating of Christmas comes the early church leaders before the canon was finalised, so far more gospels and other texts were involved, and they were responsible for deciphering the dates for Easter and from that the date of Christmas, and has everything to do with Jesus and the early churches views as they developed and separated out of Judaism, which was having multiple significant cultural shifts within it at the time.
I think your comments would put you in the category for going to hell - you’re probably beyond saving ! This rhetoric has used by some as part of religious abuse.
I simply can’t see how salvation freely offered to all, as a gift of grace for the taking, without discrimination or prejudice can be cruel.
After the development of God as omnipotent and omniscient in the early centuries CE and Hell as eternal torment gained traction within that time, it then raised the moral question on how omnibenevolent it is to create a living being knowing that they would get into a situation where it could be eternally tortured for not accepting a gift (or having their soul annihilated for it, many early church leaders leaned towards that), especially with textual evidence that God can and does change people's hearts to suit his purposes. Romans 9 particularly has had a lot of ethical discussion around it and has created a lot of pain and anguish over the centuries, the idea that it's okay for God to create people of wrath that God destined for destruction? That and other parts of the texts can give the impression that it is not a gift truly available to all and that it is not free. I mean, true, free consent cannot be given in the situation of coercion through threat of punishment, how more so is that when we're talking a Divine who, being all powerful and all knowing, could have created the universe and us in any way.
Having grown from an evangelical background and treated as an 'object of wrath', it is very cruel being told God could have made us and the world any way he wanted, but chose with infinite knowledge and power to make us in such a way that Hell is the default option - if we do nothing, we go to Hell; if it is willed, our hearts will be hardened and we go there anyways. Studying the development of the texts and these concepts is what I started young to cope with the pain that caused young me.