BeachOfEden

Well, Christ did say, "You can not serve to masters because you'll be end up loving the one and hating the other." It seems to me that Jim wants to be accepted by the far religious right because they have some how aquired the copy rights to the term "Orthodox" and "Evangelical". Do you think that Jim may be doing the same thing as the the far right but in reverse? That is, that he goes to these fundie events, embracing the term "Evangelical" Christians, aspires to blend in as one of them..and hopes he can win them over to the more liberal left? If so, indeed in not trying to do the same thing that the far right tries to do to us but in reverse? For myself, I don't desire to to this..that is..try and blend in with the far religious right...in hopes that I can win the right over to the left with us. Now, if someone ALREADY shows signs that they WANT to become more moderate minded/progressive...well, then that IS different and then I DO WANT to inner act with them...but it is up to the individual on the right to first show that THEY DO want to become more Progressive. Infact...I only will go on sites forums and partipate that cleary indentifies itself as moderate or Progressive. I am greatly interested in visiting forums that are Liberal Catholic or Pro-Progressive reformed forums for people coming from CS, JW, LDS, SBC...ect backgrounds....but as long as all of these state clearly that they ARE ALREADY pro-moderate or Progressive...if they do not state this or state they are the opposite...then I have no desire to visit their sites or forums.

Ok, let me examine it again, "An attempt to hijack Christianity by Jim Wallis Last week, I wrote about the "Justice Sunday" event held at a Louisville, Kentucky, mega-church. James Dobson of Focus on the Family, Tony Perkins of the Family Research Council, Prison Fellowship's Chuck Colson, and Southern Baptist leader Albert Mohler were joined by Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist on video in the event titled "Stop the Filibuster Against People of Faith." Of course, I have no objection to Christian leaders expressing their faith in the public arena - it's a good thing that I do all the time. The question is not whether to do so, but how. As I heard more and more about "Justice Sunday," it felt to me like it was crossing an important line - saying that a political issue was a test of faith. So, when I was invited to speak at an interfaith "Freedom and Faith" service at Central Presbyterian Church in Louisville, I agreed. On Sunday morning, I flew to Louisville, and that afternoon addressed more than 1,000 people who attended the rally. I didn't go to say that these leaders shouldn't bring their faith into politics; the issues concerning them - abortion and family values - are also important to me. But the way they were doing it was wrong. The clear implication of their message was that those who opposed them are not people of faith. Ok...I think you are right. If this is so, that Jim Wallis wen to this so-called Justice Sunday and he was not pleased with what he encountered then to be frank...how foolish of him to KNOW before hand that, " James Dobson of Focus on the Family, Tony Perkins of the Family Research Council, and Southern Baptist leader Albert Mohler," were all going to be there, if not RAN the whole thing that this would turn into a fundie festivals to proclaim themselves "Orthodox" and everyone else NOT. I mean, come on, anytime one is invited to a so-called, "Inner-faith" event...whether it claims to be about women or the environment....'or whatever...if' it tells you before hand that those putting on the vent or sponsoring it are SOUTHERN Baptist..then you KNOW it will simply be a TRICK to try and fool Progressive and moderate Christians into their southern fried far right wing exclusive version of Protestantism. They KNOW the have established a bad image in the media for being sexist and homophobic and for being anti-eco friendly...so to try and improve their image and thus attempt to 'look' more tolerant and mainstream they do these little events from time to time to pretend like they are eco-friendly or not bigots. Some moderate and Progressive Christians actually fall for this and they go to these events actually thinking that these far right extremists Protestnats will magically announce that they realize they were wrong and want to turn Progressive. Instead what happens, is the Progressives go to these events only to have the far right Protestants like SBC put on a show and try word things are certain way to try and merely try and pitch their same-old same old old time bigotries instead packaged in new "seeker-Senstive" words. The Progressives go away diguisted, the fundies go away disapointed that the healthen liberals did not accpet "The Real" Christ..but they hope some might have been inspired to turn from the left to join them on the right

i was not seeing which of these '3' concepts of Christ were the best..Rather I was simply sugesting that these '3' views of Christ DO exist, and I was simply giving the second view, Divintarianism...a name, and I was sugesting the in general we reconize these '3' views exists...basically...reconzining that a second view on Christ nature does exist between #1 Trinitarianism...and #3 Unitarianism. So basically you have '3' views of Christ... 1. Trintarianism+The Jesus is God incarnate 2. Divitarinism= That Jesus is the highest reflection of God's divine nature..without ever being God. 3. Bibical Unitarianism= Jesus is the adopted Son of God

"There are, btw, many strains of reform "CS" in modern society packaged like Dr. Weill and many voices of the NA, New Thought movement , that sort of thing. I'm not sure about how or if that has happened with JW." Oddly, it hasn't. Unforuantly, when people leave JW they usually join something equally fundamental, if not worse like Assembly of God or Southern Baptists..or the they go the other extreme and become bitter atheists and attack anyone verbally who believes in God. I am curious, have you found that to be the case with most Ex-CS?

The following article is from the web site Jehovah's Witnesses Reform http://www.jwreform.org/reform.html It has some good points.. It's title is "Is Reform a Good Idea? " ..But the question is...Reform from with in or from out? "There are some who might object to any attempts to reform the organization of Jehovah's Witnesses. They might believe that criticizing the organization might be equivalent to criticizing Jehovah God himself. But we have to keep in mind that this is NOT the case. If we were to equate criticism of the organization with criticism of God, then most of the faithful people written about in the Bible would be blasphemers. Throughout the history of Israel and Judah and the Christian congregation there were many leaders of Jehovah's people who were not living up to the standards they should have been. In such cases, people spoke out in criticism of them, and this is a reaction that is praised by the Bible writers. Some of the Bible writers themselves were critics of their leaders. The kings of Judah were certainly part of Jehovah's "organization." They were the leaders of the people, not only politically, but also spiritually. So was it wrong to criticize them? Was exposing their error disrespectful of Jehovah? What about the apostles in the first century? If they made a mistake, was it wrong to criticize them? Let's look at a few examples. The prophets of ancient Israel spoke out against Jehovah's arrangement all of the time. Elijah and Elisha criticized King Ahab. Samuel spoke against Eli the high priest, as well as Saul the king. Jeremiah spoke against several kings of his day. An unnamed prophet criticized King Jeroboam's religious innovations. Malachi spoke against the priesthood in his day. The Bible is rife with examples. Many, many, many of the kings and priests of Israel were not measuring up, and time and time again, the prophets got up in front of the people and publicly criticized these leaders for their wrongs. They brought to the people's attention not only their leaders' personal failings, but the weaknesses and wrongs of their public policies as well. It was common for the prophets to speak both to the people about the kings and directly to the kings, telling them their failings and what they needed to do to change. To be sure, the prophets were inspired by Jehovah to speak what they did, and we are not. But the crucial point here is that God did not choose his prophets from among the royalty or from among the priests. Where did the prophets come from? These people were not always (and not usually) men of the higher echelon in Israelite society. Most came from humble circumstances. They were often the lowly, the unpopular, or the outcasts. Even more significantly, they were under the authority of the religious and political leaders. Yet they spoke out candidly and courageously against those leaders. Did Samuel keep his mouth shut and say, "Saul is the king, God's anointed. I better not say anything about his sins. That would be disloyal to God and his arrangement." Did Elijah? Jeremiah? When David sinned with Bathsheba, did God appear to him personally and call him to account? No, Nathan is the one who came to David in the name of Jehovah to counsel him. Organizationally, Nathan was lower on the totem pole than David. And yet, Jehovah used him. In early Christian times, it was very similar. Peter was one of the Twelve, and yet Paul, who was not, actually criticized Peter publicly in a letter about his improper behavior (Gal. 2:14). That letter was read all over the Mediterranean. Was Paul condemned for this? If so, we have no record of it. (For a more thorough discussion of the first century parallels, see the article, "Should a Witness Disagree with the Organization Publicly?") The Bible shows that counsel often does not come from the "top down." And with respect to those in the highest positions, counsel almost always comes from the bottom up. It is no doubt true that when an individual member of the present-day Governing Body does something wrong, one or more of the other members might correct him. But what if the Body itself is in error? For them to expect correction to come directly from God himself with no middle-man is not in keeping with biblical precedent. The counsel would have to come from someone below them. In Bible times, Jehovah raised up the poor and the afflicted, the "lesser" ones, to speak up for what is right and to point out problems in their leaders. He will do the same today when necessary. Those in authority, if truly good, will react as David did, and as Peter did--humbly and rightly. They will not act as Ahab and Jezebel, who tried to get rid of those who called them to account. The most obvious example is that set by our ultimate exemplar Jesus. Did he not expose the failings of the religious leaders of his day? While he lived, was he not a Jew? Did he not adhere to the Mosaic law? So why did Jesus speak out against the scribes and Pharisees? It was because he saw that the sheep were being led by the blind and were in danger. They needed help. He wasn't about to sit by and let them be trodden on. The Pharisees tried to silence Jesus out of what they saw as respect for God's arrangement. But they were wrong in doing so. His disciples continued to expose the hypocrisy well after he died. This is, and has always been, God's way. Here is what the Watchtower has to say about it: “Why did Jesus publicly criticize religious men who claimed to serve the same God he preached? Was his motive bad? Not at all…. Was it only Christ who could properly make such comments? No, for the Bible shows clearly that Jesus’ disciples also called attention to religious error…. Further, out of love for truth these first-century Christians exposed deviations from true Christianity by ones professing to be Christians.—1 Tim. 1:19, 20; 2 Tim. 2:16-19…. As with Jesus, the motive behind the criticism was good. So the disciples were being Christian—not unchristian—in pointing out religious error. Consequently, is it unchristian today to offer Bible-based comments about another’s religion? The Scriptural answer must be No. True, criticism that reveals faults in the teachings or practices of someone’s religion might at first seem severe. Yet, how should one react? Not like those who became violently enraged over Stephen’s criticism. Rather, note the fine reaction of some Athenians who heard Paul’s comments. They accepted the Bible truth and became believers, to their eternal benefit.—Compare Acts 17:11, 12. Far from being rejected as unchristian, then, criticism based on God’s Word should be carefully considered, for it can bring real benefits.” (Awake, 11/22/1974, p. 27) The Bible is chock full of servants of God, greater and lesser, perfect and imperfect, who exposed falsehood. They were faithful people worthy of example. Imitating them is not somehow sacrilegious and preserved only for a special few. They showed us how to act. And they spoke out on behalf of the people against corruption. We are obliged to do the same, not look the other way. Moreover, their purpose was not to see the fall of God's arrangement (look how devastated they were when it did fall), but to reform it and make it right. When it was finally time to bring the Jewish system to an end, Jesus lamented: "Jerusalem, Jerusalem, the killer of the prophets and stoner of those sent forth to her--how often I wanted to gather your children together, the way a hen gathers her chicks together under her wings!" (Matthew 23:37). By this time he had exhausted all options. We are far from that point with regard to our own organization. Some people are under the impression that acknowledging even one mistake in our organization will somehow call into question our whole faith system. But we have to remember whom we serve--Jehovah God. If men are imperfect, that says nothing about him. If men are even sinful and evil, does that do anything to Jehovah? Of course not. Why, then, should our faith in him be affected? Some, including the Governing Body, have used the example of Korah to argue that criticism of those in authority is inappropriate. Setting aside, for the moment, the presumptuousness of the Governing Body to equate themselves with Moses, we need only to point out that the Christian system dissolved the Israelite priesthood, made all of God's servants equal, and put in the place of the priesthood only one true high priest, Jesus Christ, who is the only figure who has the right to be called the Greater Moses (Heb. 3:1, 8:1, 10:19-22). He is the one whom Moses prefigures, not the leaders of any earthly organization. We wish to make it clear that it is not our intention to gain some kind of control over the organization through these reforms. That would merely replace one form of hierarchy for another. We would rather our current leadership loosen its unauthorized hold over its brothers. King David had a chance to kill Saul and did not do it. Forcefully usurping power is not the intention of anyone here. There is a big difference between killing the anointed of God (not appropriate) and speaking out when the anointed one sins (appropriate). There are many Jehovah's Witnesses, who, although they see the problems in the organization, are convinced that the correct course of action is to let matters lie. They talk about "waiting on Jehovah" to handle matters, leaving things in his hands. But there is a fine line between being patient and allowing bad things to go on when we have the capability to stop them. The last thing we want to become is status quo people. Should we ever be content with "good enough"? If we don't think that way about our standing with God, then we shouldn't think that way about our religion. Each and every day that passes, there are people in Jehovah's organization who are being mistreated in some way as a result of the policies put in place by the Governing Body. Are we to walk by the bleeding man on the side of the road and not pay him any attention? Perhaps the priest in Jesus' parable of the good Samaritan, who passed the injured man, thought to himself, "If God wants this rectified, he'll take care of it. I'll leave it in his hands." Or maybe the Levite who walked by and did nothing thought, "These sorts of evils will be handled in God's new system of things. Nothing I can do will keep this man from dying eventually anyway. Might as well let God save this man in his due time." But Christianity is not a passive religion. It is an active one. It requires us to act on behalf of our brothers. There are countless proverbs in the Bible that urge us to help when help is needed: "As for anyone stopping up his ear from the complaining cry of the lowly one, he himself also will call and not be answered" (Proverbs 21:13); "Do not hold back good from those to whom it is owing, when it happens to be in the power of your hand to do it. Do not say to your fellowman: 'Go, and come back and tomorrow I shall give,' when there is something with you" (Proverbs 3:27-28). There is something with us. We can help, and so we should. It should not make us afraid if people speak up and speak out. What can men do to God and his people? Nothing. On the other hand, if we ourselves keep silent, if we fail to speak out when we see wrongdoing, we may become guilty by association, accomplices to the crimes. We may be the ones "winking" at badness. We would be like Eli who did not correct his sons firmly enough. That goes against everything we believe in. Good and truth and right come well before loyalty to imperfect men. To be sure, we do not want to go overboard and get caught up in hate speech. The Reform Movement is certainly not for that. However, we do not see anywhere in the Bible where reticence is praised as virtuous. We think many of us have a mistaken notion as to how Jehovah handles problems among his people. When people think of Jehovah acting on behalf of his servants, they seem to assume supernatural intervention of some kind, but in the Bible, 9 times out of 10, Jehovah handles things through human agents, not directly with a lightning bolt or dove from heaven. A story might help illustrate this point: A terrible flash flood hit a small town, and people were trying to get out. There was a brother stuck up on the roof of his house stranded. He prayed and said, "Jehovah, if it be your will, please save me." A few minutes later, a man in a row boat came by and offered assistance. The brother said, "Thank you, sir. But I am leaving things in my God Jehovah's hands. If he wants me to survive, he will rescue me." So the man went on his way. Then a police rescue boat came by and offered the brother assistance. His reply was the same. "My salvation will be from my God Jehovah," he said to himself. Finally, a rescue helicopter came by and put down a ladder. But the brother wouldn't go up. "Thank you, but I think it is best to leave things in Jehovah's hands." Finally, the waters overwhelmed him and he drowned. When he was resurrected in the new system, he met up with one of the faithful men of old, and he told his story. "I guess Jehovah didn't think it best to save me, " he said. The reply was: "He sent you two boats and a helicopter. What more did you want?" So we think this applies to the present situation. Yes, Jehovah will handle this matter in his time, and we all know that God's kingdom will solve all of humankind's problems. But that doesn't mean we live our lives in such a way that we help neither ourselves nor anyone else because we are waiting for God to correct things. Whenever anything happens here on earth that furthers God's will, that is Jehovah acting. Whenever we do something good in the name of Jehovah, that's him doing it. Whenever someone preaches the word, that's Jehovah speaking. That's how he operates. And yes, on occasion, God spoke directly to a king or priest, or used a miracle to handle certain matters himself, but that was not his usual method. His most common way of handling things was through the mouths and deeds of his people. And now that the days of miraculous intervention are over, we should expect that to be the case even more so. Although we are not prophets, the prophets set a very clear example for us today. We may sometimes have to reflect the same spirit out of loyalty to Jehovah. When people say they are "waiting on Jehovah," what is it exactly that they are waiting for? It seems to mean more that they are waiting on the Governing Body, rather than waiting on Jehovah. This is understandable, since we are taught that they are basically the same thing. But is it wise to fall into lukewarmness as we wait for God to speak to the Governing Body? How is it that he will speak to them? The Governing Body admits no inspiration, so even they acknowledge that Jehovah will not give them a special revelation. The biblical examples make it clear that God speaks to people in many ways and from many sources, some of them even unlikely. As God often needed to send servants of the leaders of Israel to speak to those leaders to get them to act justly, he may choose to do the same today. It has become quite clear that those in authority in this organization will not act to right the wrong policies that were put in place by their predecessors. They have even added to these wrongs. While acknowledging that there have been beneficial organizational adjustments over the years, we do not feel the necessary changes called for here will be made voluntarily by those in power. So they need some encouragement. There is nothing wrong with giving the members of the Governing Body this encouragement. They will only change by force of circumstance, and we need to create that circumstance. The current problems have gone on for too long already. They need to be handled swiftly. Remember, Jesus said: "Truly I say to you men, Whatever things you may bind on earth will be things bound in heaven, and whatever things you may loose on earth will be things loosed in heaven. Again I truly say to you, If two of you on earth agree concerning anything of importance that they should request, it will take place for them due to my Father in heaven. For where there are two or three gathered together in my name, there I am in their midst" (Matthew 18:18-20). To be sure, sometimes our leaders are the ones through whom God might work. But note that Jesus says that he is with any two or three that are gathered in his name. He uses his servants, any whom he wishes, to accomplish his purposes. And we are all his servants. So, depending on the issue, Jesus will choose whomever will be able to accomplish the task as he wants it done. Which servants will be instrumental in this reform, we don't know. But we do know it won't be revealed from on high through an angel to the Governing Body. If the Reform Movement is in some small way responsible for positive change, that is Jehovah acting. We are not taking things out of his hands; we become his hands. But one might object that it is presumptuous of the members of the Reform Movement to act when they do not know whether Jesus has chosen them. He didn't come down and personally commission them in order to accomplish his purposes. That is true. However, Jesus has already given a commission to all Christians. He tells us what we need to know through his word, and we are supposed to follow it. That's where we get our authority. Here is what the spirit says: Jesus counseled: "If your brother commits a sin, go lay bare his fault between you and him alone. If he listens to you, you have gained your brother. But if he does not listen, take along with you one or two more..." (Matt. 18:15-16). The brothers in charge have not listened when single individuals have written to them. So now we are taking more along, writing to each of them as a group. Notice, if you will, that the whole point of laying bare a fault is not simply to pronounce the brother in error, but to get the brother to listen. We think this principle applies here. The scriptures support the idea of warning any Christian brother if they are taking a step towards apostasy. "Brothers, even though a man takes some false step before he is aware of it, you who have spiritual qualifications try to readjust such a man in a spirit of mildness, as you each keep an eye on yourself, for fear you also may be tempted." (Gal. 6:1) The New World Translation muffles the power of this scripture by limiting the right to readjust someone to only those having "spiritual qualifications." Witnesses are taught that these qualifications belong solely to those appointed by the Watchtower. Other Bible translators handle this scripture as follows: "Brethren, if any person is overtaken in misconduct or sin of any sort, you who are spiritual [who are responsive to and controlled by the Spirit] should set him right and restore and reinstate him, without any sense of superiority and with all gentleness, keeping an attentive eye on yourself, lest you should be tempted also." (Gal. 6:1 AMP) "Brothers, if a man is taken in any wrongdoing, you who are of the Spirit will put such a one right in a spirit of love; keeping watch on yourself, for fear that you yourself may be tested." (Gal. 6:1 BBE) "My brothers, perhaps a man has done something wrong. If so, you who are strong in the Spirit must help him to do the right thing again. Help him in a gentle way. Take care yourself, that you are not tried and will want to do wrong." (Gal. 6:1 BWE) "My friends, you are spiritual. So if someone is trapped in sin, you should gently lead that person back to the right path. But watch out, and don't be tempted yourself." (Gal. 6:1 CEV) These translations stay true to the spirit in which those words were written. It's simple: if we witness a brother or sister taking a false step, it is our Christian obligation to lead them back to the right path. We are responsible for one another. To delegate that responsibility to someone else is not a scriptural option, unless we are not spiritual to begin with. Christ, as the head of the congregation, has a body, and we are that body. Let's not allow paralysis to set in. Let's follow the lead of our head. Granted, according to Romans 12:3-8, not everyone in the congregation serves the same function. But all act in accordance with the spirit that bears witness with them. Isn't it possible that his spirit is leading everyday Jehovah's Witnesses to do something about this whole affair? There are many who may not listen, but that doesn't mean we should not speak (Isa. 6:9-10). If, after gentle persuasion, our efforts are rebuffed, then we would do well to at least make it a matter of prayer to God, and let them be, for they are beyond our help. However, we do this only after all options have been exhausted. They have not been yet. And then, even at the end, we would never close the door to them, just as the parable of the prodigal son demonstrates. We wish to reiterate that our purpose here is not to "restore pure worship," as we often hear the Watchtower Society claiming it has done, but merely to do our Scriptural duty and offer needed counsel in a loving way to the brothers in charge, calling attention to their misconduct and pleading with them to change their policies in some important areas. Whether they listen or not is up to them. We will leave that part up to Jehovah. But if any good comes of this movement, if even one person's life is helped, then it will have been worth it. Some are of the opinion that the Bible points to a future disciplining of the organization, as was the case with Israel of old. Some talk about it as a complete shakeup (i.e., the organization will be replaced with a new better one) and assume that Jehovah will somehow accomplish this goal by using some worldly entity (as he did Babylon) to execute judgment on the organization. This revelation, to them, indicates that it is too late to save the organization, that its fate has already been determined. But this view denies the free will of the leaders of the organization. It takes away from them their chance to choose their course of action and to be judged according to their deeds. It withholds from them the opportunity for repentance, which all humans must have. (For a full critique of this view, see the article, "When Is It Too Late?" on the Beth Sarim site.) Those who feel that God and Christ will do nothing to help the congregation until the end of this system are forgetful of two important facts: 1) Jesus is ruling over the congregation right now (Ephesians 1:22-23; Colossians 1:13, 18) and promised his disciples since the very beginning that he would be with them all the days until the conclusion of the system (Matthew 28:20); 2) His rulership involves the subjection of all his enemies, the enemies of truth and right and good (1 Corinthians 15:25). His kingship over the world may not have begun yet, but most certainly his kingship over the congregation has. On the other hand, there is a lesson in what happened to ancient Israel and Judah. Why ensure that so many things were written if not to serve as a warning to later generations? Are we not supposed to learn from past mistakes, so that said mistakes do not become repeated mistakes? The same things that stumbled Israel will inevitably stumble us, for such things are common to all humans. But we are not left without help from our God either. Even if we believe that Jehovah will execute some kind of judgment on the leaders of this organization because of their bad behavior, we have to keep in mind that there will be a period of time before this judgment comes. Are we just going to sit back and let any kind of badness continue? Are we going to let people's lives be threatened and even ruined because of the actions of a person in authority? That is just too callous. Think of how many thousands of years Israel existed before Jehovah gave up on it. It had problems all the way along. Now what did God's loyal Israelite servants do? Did they give up on it and say, "No point in fixing anything. It's going to be destroyed anyway." Absolutely not! They were constantly trying to make things better. Think about good king Josiah. Do you remember how he reacted when he found out that there was nothing he could do to prevent the destruction of Jerusalem? He went ahead with his reforms anyway! (2 Kings 22-23) What a wonderful man. We should follow his example with enthusiasm. We don't throw our hands up in defeat. We encourage people, including our leaders, to do what is right. Like the prophets of old, we call for change and hope that they listen." ????? Is it logical to assume that he would do nothing about the corruption in his congregation until it was time for him to conquer his enemies in the rest of the world? If he were not presently leading his congregation to do what is right, then why were the Scriptures given to us? What were all his words, which he uttered 2,000 years ago, for? I think it IS logical. Jesus allows the coruption IN the JW org the same as he allows others wrongs to occure in this present imperfect age..such as allowing Bush to be president and allowing his war to continue. These wrongs, both Bush, the war, and the injustices of the JW organization will be resolved during Jesus Christ 1,000 rein. I am not sugesting we just wait on on the org to correct matters either, ovbiously my reply to this would be HELL NO. We do each individually go on and do what we think is just and right regardless of what the JW org does or does not, and sure, we hope that individuals with in the org, would soften their harden hearts and heads and choose to change on their own...Just as we, each have done. We can express our disagreeement to their committed injustices, such as on this site, in magazines, in books or even on the media, in hopes that others might not join in their ignornace and harm to others. But we are not trying to chance or correct "The organization" from the INSIDE. There are many logical reasons WHY the idea of this idea of reform from withOIn the JW org will never work. One reason is because of the ovbious fact that the JW org is fundamental in structure, after all the whole main core of the JW organization Is "The 'Organization," and that the JW organization is the channel to Jehovah even before the Christ. The mere concept or belief that Jehovah 'required's, 'needs', or does opperate and always HAS THOUGH an athoritive board of imperfect men sets up a religion that is fundamental in nature rather than Progressive, Liberal or even Moderate. The same can be said the Roman Catholic church and it's structural belief that the whole church is built on, this belief that Pope and the Vatican, their own collection of imperfect men, are THEE cornerstone upon which Christ build his church. Another example, the Southern Baptist Convention. It too is a board of imperfect men who speaks for and on behlaf of all who indentify themselves as "Southern Baptists," whether those in BSC agree with this or not. The only true way a Southern Baptist can indentify him or herself from the views that the Southern Baptist Convention states, is to disconnect their indenity with Southern Baptist. Now wait a minute, you may say, are you telling me I can't be a Witnesses of Jehovah and voice that I don't agree with the organization's opinions or views? Or that one can not be Catholic and voice a disagreement with the Pope? Most asurely, there ARE Progrressive minded 'individuals' withIN the JW organization, as well as withIN the Catholic church and even the SBC, but their Progressive or even moderate views will never been appreciated or acknoweldged withIn these groups. People have tried. Moderates and Progressives withIN Southern Baptists tried to stop the Southern Baptists Convention from turning into the rigid and intolerant source it is today. You can read about it on the linkls below. During the 60's an attempt was made to modernized the Catholic Church , and this was called the creation of Vactin II. Some small changes were made, but look, here were are some 30-some years later, and can priests marry? Can women preach? Is birth controll encouraged? You can learn alot about this by renting the series, Brides of Christ. Yet, there are liberal Catholic Church and there are Progressive baptists who simply do not add the title, "southern" to their churches. There ARE Progressive minded Christians for Jah, they just are not in the JW organization.

Yeah, I myself can not ever recall have a heated debate with ANY Progressive...no matter what faith group background they come from...as long as they are NOE PROGRESSIVE..then i usually always get along

Fred: " Take the Arian view that Jesus was God's first creation, but not himself divine. I suggest that, at its best, this corresponds to the conventional view (Catholic and Protestant) that the universe is merely the "handiwork" of God: beautiful, artful, expressive, but not gifted with God's own being, except by a short visit long ago. We stand in relation to God as works of craftsmanship, created to love and serve and glorify God, but not ultimately to be united with God in God's own being. At its worst stands an atheistic materialism which denies not only that the universe is divine, but that anything at all is." Yes, that is precisley what i believe and I have come to invent this new term it, "Diviniatain," to believe that Jesus was divine in nature because he was the first first thing that God created..and as was/is at God's right now. But I see this as being "different" than both triniatianism and unitarism..cause...Trinitarian believes that when Christ was born on earth through Mary that it was literally God as a baby=incarnation. Unitarianism, from what the author of BibicalUnitarians.com told me..rejects the idea that Christ was ever incarnted of God but that they also reject the divinitarian idea that Christ DID have a pre-life in heaven as the first thing created directly by God. They believe that Jesus did NOT exist before he was born here on earth. The owner of this bibical unitarian site told me that if one holds the belief that jesus DID have a life in heaven BEFORE coming to earth and that he WAS the first created being by god then this is neither arianism or unitarianism..But I don't know..what do you think of this cliam of his? Also have you ever checked out bibicalUnitarians.com?

Before, I begin this discussion let me clearify that I post this thread for Progressive Christians ONLY, I am not asking, requesting for any Non-Progressive input on this... Jim Wallis' site sent this to me via e-mail... An attempt to hijack Christianity by Jim Wallis Last week, I wrote about the "Justice Sunday" event held at a Louisville, Kentucky, mega-church. James Dobson of Focus on the Family, Tony Perkins of the Family Research Council, Prison Fellowship's Chuck Colson, and Southern Baptist leader Albert Mohler were joined by Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist on video in the event titled "Stop the Filibuster Against People of Faith." Of course, I have no objection to Christian leaders expressing their faith in the public arena - it's a good thing that I do all the time. The question is not whether to do so, but how. As I heard more and more about "Justice Sunday," it felt to me like it was crossing an important line - saying that a political issue was a test of faith. So, when I was invited to speak at an interfaith "Freedom and Faith" service at Central Presbyterian Church in Louisville, I agreed. On Sunday morning, I flew to Louisville, and that afternoon addressed more than 1,000 people who attended the rally. I didn't go to say that these leaders shouldn't bring their faith into politics; the issues concerning them - abortion and family values - are also important to me. But the way they were doing it was wrong. The clear implication of their message was that those who opposed them are not people of faith. We can get some historical perspective by looking at how Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. did it - and he was the church leader who did it best. Once after he was arrested, he wrote a very famous "Letter from a Birmingham Jail," addressed to the white clergy who were opposing him on the issues of racial segregation and violence against black people. Never once did he say that they were not people of faith. He appealed to their faith, challenged their faith, asked them to go deeper with their faith, but he never said they were not real Christians. If Dr. King refused to attack the integrity and faith of his opponents over such a clear gospel issue, how can the Religious Right do it over presidential nominees and a Senate procedural issue known as the filibuster? After the "Justice Sunday" event, and the controversy surrounding it, some of the sponsors are denying they ever claimed that those who oppose them are hostile to people of faith. Yet their words stand for themselves. In the letter announcing the event on the Family Research Council Web site, Tony Perkins wrote: "Many of these nominees to the all-important appellate court level are being blocked...because they are people of faith and moral convictions.... We must stop this unprecedented filibuster of people of faith." So, I told the Louisville rally that when someone has stolen our faith in the public arena, it is time to take our faith back. "Justice Sunday" was an attempt to hijack Christianity for a partisan and ideological agenda. Those on the Religious Right are declaring a religious war to give their version of faith religious supremacy in America. And some members of the Republican Party seem ready almost to declare a Christian theocracy in America. It is time to take back both our faith and our Constitution. Ok..now here's the part that interests me: "It is now clear there are some who will fight this religious war by any means necessary. So we will fight, but not the way they do." This is why i am leary of mixi8ng my Progressive christian beliefs WITH poltics..i don;t want to simply become the left's flip side answer to the right. "We must never lie or misrepresent the facts or the truth. We must not demonize or vilify those who are our opponents." But we do not have to. They do this themselves. "We must claim that those who disagree with our judgments are still real people of faith" I acknowledge that they ARE people of faith. But I personally have no desire to embrace their terms or titled or endevor to be accpeted as "Orthodox" by them. "We must not fight the way they do, but fight we must. A great deal is at stake in this battle for the heart and soul of faith in America and for the nation's future itself. We will not allow faith to be put into the service of one political agenda. " That's why i say we should be careful not to become the flip side to the right. This is a call for the rest of the churches to wake up. This is a call for people of faith everywhere to stand up and let their faith be heard. This is not a call to be just concerned, or just a little worried, or even just alarmed. This is a call for clear speech and courageous action. This is a call to take back our faith, and in the words of the prophet Micah, "to do justice, to love kindness, and to walk humbly with our God." They (the far right) have never taken 'OUR faith." Rather they have simply popularized 'their' version of it and stamped the word, "Orthodox" on it. But what was it that this Presbyterian church did that Jim wallis found disturbing? Do you know?

And to help in this regard, from now on, I will try and clearify to WHOm I am addressing my threads to,a nd if I think the subject might inspire this type of debate I will try and make sure I place it on this debate section.

Yeah, it makes sense to me too. I have a question, and I'll see what you all think of this....Should there be a "Conservative/Progressive dialog" forum? Or IS the Debate issue section the same of this? Just wondering.

It appears to me, from my observation of both James and Fred's comments, that both of you presumed when I started this thread challenging this new Pope's views..that you both interpretated to mean I was requesting that non-Progressive Catholics come here and defend their position. This was not MY desire nor can I see where I requested that any non-progressives Catholics come here and defend non-Progressive Catholicsm. This is a Progressive Christianity board, and as such, if anything I desired Progressive Catholics to respond with 'their' views. Had I desired to hear or inner-act with NOn-Progressive Catholics would not it made some sense if I went to 'THEIR' sites? It's like Des comes from a Christian Science background....neither Des or myself or anyone here for that matter, ever requested that Christian science come here and defend the (NON-progressive) Christian Science faith. Had I or Des wanted that..would it have not made since that we go on the Christian Science site...rather than on here, a Progressive site? If you or the both of you..somehow read this thread I started and asumed it as a request for Non-Progressive Catholics to come here and defend their fundamental Catholic's views...then I am not sure what to tell you..other than I see no where on this site where I gave any impression that I wanted, desire or request such a Progressive verses Fundamental dilalog. I merely was asking Progressives, as well as Progressive Catholics what 'their' take was on this new pope. Regardless of what I had inteneded when I started this thread, it has turned into something else...rather than simply asking Progressives for their view..it has turned into conservative Catholics challengeing the Progressive view. This does not interest me...dialogging with non-Progressive Catholics or Non-Progressives of any faith. However, again this IS what this thread has turned into..so if there are Progressives here who desire to continue in this dialog on non-Progressive Catholicsm...be my guess...but I have no interest in such a dialog so i am leaving this discussion to those who care to debate with Conservative Catholics. the topic does not interest me.

James, You keep stressing to US how the Catholic churche's man-made dogmas mean alot to YOU..and WE keep stressing you that the Catholic churches man-made dogmas do NOT mean alot to us. As I said before, as Pregressive Christians we do NOT care about the man-made rules of the fundamental churches, be they fundamental catholic, Fundamental Protestants, JWs or Mormon... This IS WHAT WE PROGRESSIVES CARE ABOUT... The 8 Points Original Version By calling ourselves progressive, we mean that we are Christians who: 1. Proclaim Jesus Christ as our Gate to the realm of God 2. Recognize the faithfulness of other people who have other names for the gateway to God's realm 3. Understand our sharing of bread and wine in Jesus's name to be a representation of God's feast for all peoples 4. Invite all sorts and conditions of people to join in our worship and in our common life as full partners, including (but not limited to): believers and agnostics, conventional Christians and questioning skeptics, homosexuals and heterosexuals, females and males, the despairing and the hopeful, those of all races and cultures, and those of all classes and abilities, without imposing on them the necessity of becoming like us; 5. Think that the way we treat one another and other people is more important than the way we express our beliefs; 6. Find more grace in the search for meaning than in absolute certainty, in the questions than in the answers; 7. See ourselves as a spiritual community in which we discover the resources required for our work in the world: striving for justice and peace among all people; bringing hope to those Jesus called the least of his sisters and brothers; 8. Recognize that our faith entails costly discipleship, renunciation of privilege, and conscientious resistance to evil--as has always been the tradition of the church. James wrote: "I'm simply saying that from a theological point of view that JWs, evangelical Protestants and Catholics are quite different. And in many areas, eccliosology (the organization of the Church), sacramentology, reference to and interpretation of Scripture, recognition and interpretation of Tradition, and so on." We don;t care about their theological differences. As Progressives we only care that these 3 fundamental groups you quoted above do not honor the above 8 points of social justice.

Yeah, me too. I am learning as well.

I meant parade..instead of paradise.

My dad died in 1996 and since then I moved in to help my elderly mother she does not have alttimzer....just she is crippled and needs help getting around. Even though she is JW..somehow she is pretty hip for 75. She likes Led Zep and Elton John and she loves to listen to classic rock. I took her to a pow wow a year ago and she loved it and I might take her to the very liberal Summer Soltice paradise in santa Barbara in june.

BrotherRog RE: What's "Decision Theology"? "Essentially, it's what Billy Graham et al preach; i.e. that all humans need to be exposed to the Good News of the Gospel of Jesus Christ and to make the decision to accept this unmerited gift of salvation that God intends for them or not. It's actually very Armininan (Wesleyan) IMO, but the Calvinists can claim it too - they just add the predeterministic caveat that "God knows in advance which persons will choose to accept the gift of salvation or not"... ; )" Ah. Thanks BroRog, for explaining this..cause I hadn't known this term before. I think this is the same thing as someone here termed, "Or Else Theology." I wrote an essey much like this on my own site called, "A Fair Ransom," and in it I explain how both Fundamental Prots and JW's contridict their claim that they teach a 'FAIR" chance at salvation for 'ALL'.

Welcome ONMYWAY. Glad to have a Progressive Catholic. They need a voice here as well! My hope is that we would have at least 1 Progressive Christian from each and every Judeo-Christian faith group..to counter the far right view. PS. We may have a Progressive Christian whi is XSBC joining us soon...that i met on MySoace..we'll see. BeachOfEden

Cool. It seems like most here are either from the wid-west or New England states.

Is Anyone Here From Southern CA? I was just wondering if I am the only one.

Southern Baptists/Far Right Protestants See New Pope As New Pal Sunday, April 24, 2005 12:32 a.m. ET Original story By RICHARD N. OSTLING AP Religion Writer Edited By BeachOfEden Now that Americans have had a few days to absorb the election of Pope Benedict XVI, it's clear that conservative Christians, whether Roman Catholic or not ,feel they've won another battle in the nation's culture wars. Liberals agree, but they aren't happy about it. Rev. John Thomas, president of the non-fundamental United Church of Christ, denounced the former Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger. "Cardinal Ratzinger's long tenure in the Vatican has been marked by a theological tone that is rigid, conservative and confrontational," said Thomas, whose denomination will consider the same-sex marriage at its July convention. The pope has lacked "the warm pastoral heart" that bishops need, Thomas charged, his "harsh treatment" of liberal theologians as head of the Vatican's orthodoxy watchdog agency was "profoundly troubling" and his attitude toward non-Catholics has been "narrow," "constrained," "insensitive" and "demeaning." In other words his part of the Religious Right. A competing assessment: "Faithful Christians ought to be thrilled," declared Charles Colson, the evangelist who's among the best-known members of America's most far right fundamental Protestant group, the Southern Baptist Convention. Colson is especially pleased because, as he sees it, America's cultural minority (aka..the NON-fundamental Christians) are alarmed by the cardinals' choice. He praised Ratzinger's recent sermon against becoming more moderate, which amounted to a papal campaign platform. He also agreed with the pope that Western civilization is doomed if tolerant trends persist. While the pope is no Protestant, conservative evangelicals see him as a powerful ally in such matters and Benedict's track record suggests they're correct. Such matters the Southern Baptists and fundamental Christians would find agreeable to the new Pope's such as denying women from being pastors/priests/elders in the church, Protestanting against gays, and basically claiming to be 'THEE 'TRUE' unsullied church," while others are false or "CULTS." Time will tell when the firendship between these 2 will fade when they will finally use this claim against one another as a weapon. Be Affraid, Be Very Affraid... Since the mid-1960s, liberal denominations like Thomas' United Church of Christ have suffered a steady slide in membership, while fundamental groups like the Southern Baptists have continued to expand. And in the past generation, Southern Baptist agencies have actually moved from moderate conservatism to stricter conservatism. Penn State historian Philip Jenkins noted in his book "The Next Christendom" that the same trend is true globally. While flexible, more tolerant churches stagnate, fundamental and Pentecostal Christianity are growing in the developing world, as is fundamental Islam. These groups have been dogged in promoting rigid doctrinal and moral interpretations of Sacred Scriptures. If Benedict plays to the fundamental Protestants in the United States, he'll be working with the growth explostion of the far religious right world today.

From observation of both Evangelicals and Catholics and their theological discussions...it would seem that they view these terms towards Jesus "divine in nature", and "incarnated" as One and the Same thing. When I was raised in JW this was Not the case. JW's, as well as all unitarians and bibical unitarians rejct the very phrase "incarnate" in connection to Jesus Christ. However, JW's have always stressed that Jesus is "divine in nature...in that he prefectly reflects God's qualities or personality." At the same time many liberal Christians, such as UU Christians are leary of the phrase "divine," or "divine in nature" because they oddomatically asume this means the trinity= that Jesus IS God. So what this measn is that there are basically '3' views on Jesus..but that the vast majority on both the far right and left don;t even acknoweldge that the second view exists....They go as follows.... 1. Trinitarian/incarnate= Jesus IS God 2. Divinitarian/Jesus is divine in nature= Jesus is NOT God ..but he is divine in nature because he perfectly relfects Go'd nature and qualities. 3. Uniatrainism..as in...UU Christian= Jesus is neither God nor divine in nature by prectly relfecting God, rather Jesus was and is merely a nobel example of a good man and teacher and a model for us to follow. What do you think of these three terms?

Well, it's like the written review at the JW K.Hall...accept it only has like 10 blank spaces to fill in instead of like 40 to 100. It also contains a basic online of the pastor sermon for that day, as well as annoucements such as church events coming up.

Well, it's like the written review at the JW K.Hall...accept it only has like 10 blank spaces to fill in instead of like 40 to 100. It also contains a basic online of the pastor sermon for that day, as well as annoucements such as church events coming up.

Yes, let's. Thank! Now, what you were saying about the Scripture about the Spiritual milk verses spiritual solid food. Have any of you had a fundamentalist from your previous fundamental faith group background excuse YOU of "Not progressing onward to SPIRITUAL SOLID FOOD-" merely because you refused to agree with 'their' fundamental interpreations on Scriptures? This IS what did it for me....the gal I was studying with when I was IN JW and was like 21 years old back then..she coped a stuck up pharisee additude and excuse me of this because I would not agree to embrace the JW "organization" as my channel to god..kinda like this catholic guy wants the Progressive Catholics to do with the Pope. This all also connect to the spiritual caffeteria approuch that the fundies of all 31 flavors love to excuse of of..you know, "Picking and choosing what please us."? In their stupidity they can not see that what we are doing is simply following Pauls' advice to the Boreans to, "Check and see if what where are being told [by those claiming religious authority] tell us. Acts 17:11.

Yeah, the religious tolerance netowrk DOES DO na EXCELLENT job of explaing all these faith groups, so much so I added there guild onto my Progressive XJW webpage. I was educated on this cause my mother was devote Luthern before she became JW and before she was Luthern she was raised in the United Brthern church, which, oddly enough merged into the United Methodist Church like in 1961. This is an very odd fact cause United Brthern was VERY fundamental and yet UMC is NOT. Basically, from what i have gathered... 1. Catholic, Luthern and Episcopalain are the most ritualistic in nature..they all have the robes, alter boys type thing, light candles and do communion every sunday and they recite prayer book type chants..thus is why many former Catholics who grow up and become liberal-minded find it easy to join a liberal Episcopalian church. 2. Second down the chain...would be... Disciples of Christ, and United Church of Christ and United Methodists, In these there usually are no robes and only the first 2 do communion every Sunday, while UMC does not, they have some candles and still have come prayer books but are far less ritualistic based. 3. Then other faith groups like JW's and more modern day non-denominational protestant churches have no robes or rituals at all and do not belive in reciting prayer books or having candles or robes or any rituals. 4. There are the chrasimatic churches which are like The Penacostal church/Asselmbly of God Church of the Narzerean FourSquare Gospel Church of God In christ Vineyard Christian fellowship Calvary Chapel * 4Square, Vineyard and Calvary are like Pentacostal lite. Aposticalteltic Assmeblia