AletheiaRivers

Can you just imagine what it would be like if every Christian on the planet decided to quit fighting among themselves, quit worrying about end times, life after death, who is saved, who is not (ad nauseam) and instead become united as ONE BODY with a goal of feeding the poor, helping the planet, etc ... etc ... Oh the HORROR of it!

I do have a knee-jerk reaction against those who think that JWs aren't Christian. (I'm not in any way referring to you.) There are even some over at beliefnet who don't want JW's to be able to participate on the Christian discussion boards because they think they aren't Christian. I don't get it. What do individuals or groups hope to accomplish by treating others that way? Do they hope it will "bring them to Christ"? It doesn't work that way. Sorry. Rant. I imagine that if I found a faith community that I really, really loved but that said "Sorry, we just don't think your baptism was valid because ... " that I would try to take it with a grain of salt and would do what was necessary to join that community. I just get tired of the stereotypes of JWs and Mormons that are flung around on TV and on the Net. Every group has its weirdos and scandals and that is all you hear about. (Ex-JWs and ex-Mormons can be the worst offenders in this regard.) I wasn't a member of a cult and my neighbors don't have 5 wives, only 3.

Exactly what I was trying to say baptism means to me. Thanks for putting into words so eloquently what I feel inside.

I don't reject my previous baptism. I like the idea, however, of the initiatory event of baptism, of the outward show of dedication and being adopted by a community. I would hope my new family would allow me to be re-baptized because I WANT TO and not because they think I was never a "true" Christian because I was a JW. I think it comes back to how a group views the meaning of baptism. If a group believes that baptism does something magical to a person, then I can see why such a group might insist that a person be re-baptized. I'm only discussing the meaning of baptism as a public and internal dedication to God. Baptism might not be the only way I could make a public dedication though, as has been mentioned.

I actually find the idea that many denominations have - that Mormons and JWs aren't Christian - quite amusing. The reason why, they say, is that Mormons and JWs don't believe in the Trinity. Too funny! I also find it funny that many think JWs and Mormons are the same in their beliefs. There are SOME similarities, but all Christian groups share SOME similarities. Probably the biggest (and most problematic) view that JW's and Mormons both have is that they each believe they are the RESTORED church, the ONLY true church, and unless you belong to THEIR church, you're in trouble. They believe there was a "great apostacy" and that they are the one and only restored, true Christianity. The community-experience of Mormons in Utah is amazing. Everyone knows everyone else. You go to church with not only the person next door, but pretty much everyone in your neighborhood. The "wards" have basketball courts and rec rooms where the neighborhood gets together. My husband, who lived in NYC for 18 years, compares it to the community experienced in predominantly Jewish neighborhoods in NYC. The synagogue isn't just where you go to worship, it's where the community gets together to be a community. There is definitely a down side to Mormonism, but the complaints against it usually come from legalistic, literalistic Christians and ex-Mormons who think they have the "Real Truth" now. Sorry to go so far off topic Des. Ummm, let's see - I guess then, according to many denominations, I've actually never been a Christian and my baptism doesn't count, so I could get re-baptized. This begs the question then - If a group doesn't consider my baptism to be VALID, would I even WANT TO BELONG to such a group? Dont' think so.

I still have a hard time wrapping my head around the idea of baptism as a means or as an idea of "washing away sins". I'm not saying what is or isn't Biblical, just that, as an ex-JW growing up in Utah, it is an alien idea. JW's view baptism (like many other Christian groups do) as an outward dedication to God. It's a sign for all to see that you want to dedicate your life to God, to do God's will. This thread has made me look back on my baptism as a JW and what it meant to me at the time I did it. My baptism was a dedication to a very specific idea of God. It was a dedication to the JW interpretation of JEHOVAH. It was a dedication to the JW interpretation of "The Truth". It was a dedication to a God that JW's believe they ALONE understand or know. Yes I dedicated myself to "God", but I can't even conceive of having a relationship with THAT God now. The God I pray to, think of and love is SO MUCH bigger than "Jehovah". For that reason I might consider getting baptized again, to dedicate myself to GOD instead of to "Jehovah". However, from what others have written, it doesn't sound like churches "allow" re-baptism. Go figure.

For Catholics: I think the word you were looking for is Transubstantiation - the bread and wine are changed into the body and blood of Christ. I'm wondering what other Christian denominations believe in Transubstantiation? For JW's: We were taught that only those who were going to be co-rulers over the earth (with Christ) were to partake at the "Memorial". For JW's, this "Mass-equivalent" is only observed once a year, close to Easter (the first full moon after the spring equinox). Only those who "know" they are "annointed" (144,000, derived from Revelation), partake of the bread and wine. That's only a few thousand partaking each year out of millions of JW's worldwide. So - From being told year after year after year that unless you just "know" you are supposed to partake, you don't. That could be a difficult mindset to overcome. Personally, it wouldn't enter into my mind at all. I'd love to receive communion.

Lily, you might want to check out this: Lost Christianities I bought the series a few months ago on DVD. It's awesome. It's also available on casette, CD and video (VHS).

Issues and Methods in Interpreting Scripture

Works versus faith was also my reason for starting the Catholicism and Evangelicalism thread. Fred and Darby both posted great stuff. I was hoping DCJ or James or CurlyTop would throw in their two cents. From all the research I've done, it seems to me that the "works" argument is really a strawman because I've yet to come across a Christian group who says works is more important than faith or that works can lead you to God. All that I've read and talked to say that works flow from faith, even Fundamentalists, so I'm not sure why Catholics (and Orthodox) are always getting picked on in the works department.

Uh oh. Seems the number 616 has been known all along (brought out by a poster at bnet). Irenaeus wrote about both numbers in "Against Heresies", but he preferred the number 666. Seems Crowley might have been the beast after all. Against Heresies Click Here

In my "Lucifer, Satan, Samael, Samhazai, Azael" search over the past couple of hours, I found the coolest sight! I actually found the link on the Wikepedia article about lucifer. It was listed at the bottom of the page under "Outside Sources": This is a link about lucifer Once I read that one I thought "OK, now I'm confused. Is it "lucifer" in Job or not? So I searched the same sight for "Job" and found this: This is a link about the satan in Job

Thanks. I think I understand. I appreciate the explanation. I swear I'm not trying to be dense.

Yup! Clear as mud! Could you elaborate just a teeny tiny bit? Jesus Christ (and I am going to keep the two together or I'm gonna get REALLY confused ) is a sign but he didn't historically exist? I'M SO LOST!

Oh oh oh! NT Wright did an interview at bnet that I just came across. In it he discusses the words used to translate physical body and spiritual body in 1 Corinthians and how they aren't correct. Your Spirit Powered Resurrection Body - NT Wright It's a very short article and quite thought provoking. He might say we're "Soul powered humans having a human experience looking forward to being Spirit powered humans having a human experience."

Which is why I appreciate the difference between literal and inerrant and infallible. Coming from a JW background (which believe ALL THREE to be true, like most fundementalists), it's taken me a long time to appreciate I can affirm scripture as trustworthy and even affirm that Jesus was resurrected without saying that the Bible is a scientific history book that is to be looked upon as a reference book. McLaren says something about "Narrative Theology" that I need to look up and re-read. It was something that made me go "A-HA!" when I read it.

So many things popped into my head when I read that. It reminded me of Zukav's comment in Seat of the Soul when he brought out that temptation is not always a bad thing. Temptation successfully "battled" brings growth. I'm not sure, but don't some Christians believe that Satan and Lucifer are two seperate beings? Does the word Satan even appear in the OT? I'm thinking of Job and wondering if it was Satan there or Lucifer? Lucifer = Light Bearer I know most Jews don't read "Satan" as being the serpent in the garden of Eden. Mormons believe Satan is Jesus' and Adam's brother, and that he volunteered to be the catalyst for human growth. They have a very different view as to why humans are on earth. They don't view humans as "fallen" so much as "learning". Stream of thought stuff ...

Yes yes yes! I would say that the literal interpretation is right AND a metaphorical interpretation is right. There are double meanings in so many scriptures it makes my head spin. Studying Jewish mysticism really brought that home to me. They wove double meaning into just about every word. Heck, even the letters themselves have double meanings.

"The Bible is the cradle that holds Christ. That "cradle" includes written collections of earlier oral folktales of prehistory; court documents; poetry; polemics; allegory; crafted historical narrative; pastoral letter. Parts of the Bible are indeed historically factual; other parts are folkloric, or metaphorical. (Scholars use the same techniques to ascertain which are which that they would use to study any other ancient documents.) Truth is not synonymous with factuality. The Book of Jonah, for instance, is a beautiful little story of God's grace and inclusivity that speaks a truth about God whether one reads it as a series of historical events or as a parable." I posted this in Des' Bible thread. I came across it on the Traditional Christianity board over at bnet. There are many that don't believe the Bible is word for word literally and inerrantly true, but they do believe that the "gist" is there. This "gist" includes the belief that Jesus literally rose from the dead. I was suprised to find out this is the position of many Christians, including quite conservative ones, and that the literalist interpretation isn't the most popular or common. (I'm bummed! Where did Homer go? )

Cynthia, I'm the one that used the term role model to express my difficulty in finding meaning in a path that has that as its center. I didn't mean to imply that is what YOU do. I'm sorry that my words came out that way.

I don't much care for moderate either. Actually, I don't like the terms liberal, moderate or conservative. I wouldn't mind them except people don't seem to be able to get past the pre-conceptions such labels bring to mind. (I'm not referring to this board, btw, but to beliefnet.) Oh no! Now you've done it. I will forever-more think of myself as a yeasty, fermented Christian. (No cracks about leaven please!)

I think these parts of Jesus life need to be affirmed as well. I, personally, can't find meaning in Christianity if it means just following Jesus as a role model, even if he is the PERFECT role model. I've tried. Does that mean that I make myself believe in the Divinity of Jesus as well as the resurrection IN ORDER to stay Christian? Not at all. I have reasons for my belief that perhaps won't mean anything to anyone else but me. I'm not alone however. I've talked to many liberal Christians who believe in the Incarnation and in the death and resurrection. Perhaps such beliefs are more in tune with moderate, mainline Christianity? I'm a work in progress (progressive, get it? )

Brain droppings! Your brain droppings are quite awesome. I appreciate your explanation. It helped a lot. I just didn't want to read anything into your words that aren't there. "Pure" monism, as you can probably tell, bugs me a lot. I just don't see the point. (Doesn't mean pure monism ISN'T true, just that I don't like where such a proposition leads.)

Brian McLaren, in the first chapter of Generous Orthodoxy, makes the point that different Christian groups focus on Jesus in very different ways. Each of these groups believe that Jesus saves, but they might disagree as to HOW Jesus saves. The point of his chapter (I think) is that ALL of these views have a place and perhaps they can be a part of a "balanced" Christianity. Conservative Protestants - The Crucifixion - Jesus was born to die to absorb the penalty of all human wrongdoing. Jesus death was a sacrifice, perhaps forshadowed by the animal sacrifices required by God during the Temple periods. Roman Catholicism - The Resurrection - By entering life's worst (suffering and death) and breaking through it, Jesus changes forever the whol equation of existence. Death does not have the last word. Jesus LIVES! Eastern Orthodoxy - The Incarnation - The early chuch leaders used the term "perichoresis" (peri - circle, choresis - dance) to describe the Trinity. The Trinity is an eternal dance of Father, Son and Spirit sharing love and joy. Against this backdrop, God's act of creation means God is inviting more and more beings into the eternal dance of joy. The Eastern Orthodox Jesus saves by simply being born, by coming among us, and by inviting us into the dance. Liberal Protestants - The Life - The Gospel centers in the words and deeds of Jesus Christ. His teachings and acts of love, healing, justice and compassion offer a way of life that, if practiced, bring blessings to the whole world.