AletheiaRivers

I don't think JW's consider themselves Protestant, but they are. They're sure as heck not Catholic. And I believe, but am not sure, that they are listed in the "membership" of Protestant churches.

Unitarianism has definitely changed over the years. When it first developed, it was a Christian position opposed to the Trinity. As it evolved it came to embrace rationalism, modernism and inclusivity. In 1981 the Unitarians merged with the Universalists, creating the UU. They are so inclusive that Christians are in the minority. Unitarian Universalists have CUUPS - Unitarian Universalits Pagan Society. Aletheia

XianAnarchist LOL! and Thanks! Don't tell Wikipedia I borrowed ALOT of info. Aletheia

As XianAnarchist pointed out on another thread, Evangelicalism originally was pretty much all there was prior to the 19th century. After that, things got REALLY complicated. Here are the major influences on Protestantism since the magisterial Reformation and the Puritan Reformation in England. 1) Holiness movement and Pietism 17th and the 18th century - Puritans, Pietists, Methodists, Quakers, etc ... Depth of religious experience as opposed to doctrine-centeredness. 2) Evangelicalism End of 18th century - Pietist revivals ... Conversion experience, piety, Bible study, Family Values, Abolitionism, non-formal worship, ecumenical cooperation. 3) Liberalism Mostly the end of the 19th century - Protestant churches. Attempts to accomodate Biblical doctrine with the principles of the Enlightenment. 4) Pentecostalism Early 20th century - Holiness movement. Gifts of the Holy Spirit. Divine healings. Miracles. Later spawned hundreds of new denominations. 5) Fundamentalism 20th century - In reaction to liberal Bible critique, Fundamentalism arose among those denominations most affected by Evangelicalism. Biblical inerrancy. Culturally conservative. 6) Neo-evangelicalism Mid 20th century - Reacted to perceived excesses of Fundamentalism, adding an emphasis on liberal arts, co-operation among churches, Christian Apologetics, and non-denominational evangelization. Protestant families of denominations Anglican Calvinist/Reformed/Presbyterian Lutheran Methodist Pentecostal Quakerism Unitarian I didn't know Presbyterianism came out of Calvin. Again: questions? Comments? Rants?

That's what I've come to appreciate with all the reading I've done the past few days. You could have saved me a lot of work had you been around! Aletheia

Yeah, I've noticed this. Unfortunately I, having been raised a Jdub (un-officially protestant), don't really know anything about Catholicism when it comes to doctrine other than what the JW's decried as being "not the truth". Do you consider yourself a "progressive Catholic"? One of my favorite authors, Thomas Moore, was a monk and is still Catholic despite disagreements over doctrine. He considers it home and has no intention of leaving. I respect that. I don't think Matt Fox would have left the priesthood if he hadn't been officially "silenced" (is that the term?) by the Church for having a witch, Starhawk, on his teaching staff at Naropa University. Now he's Episcopalian, but I think he still considers Catholicism home. Most of my favorite thinkers are or were Catholic, but most of them had issue with one or another Catholic doctrine. LOL. I guess that happens no matter what denomination you belong to, huh? I, for one, would love to learn more about the Catholic view of Christ as long as my "progressive" bent wouldn't get in the way. Aletheia PS: The big difference I've noticed between Evangelicals and Fundementalists is that Fundementalists don't want anything to do with society or other Christians that are not Fundementalists. Fundementalists don't like Evangelicals because Evangelicals on whole, will talk to the Catholic church. Evangelicals are ecumenical, Fundementalists are not.

LOL! You're not alone Des. I started the thread and I'm still not sure. One thing I appreciate though, is that Fundementalists have and are still trying to steal the term "Evangelical".

Matthew 5:22 - "... and if you say, 'You fool', you will be liable to the hell of fire" Hell in this verse is the word "Gehenna". Wikipedia has this to say: In Matthew 10:28, Jesus says that God can kill the body and the SOUL in Gehenna. If the soul is DESTROYED, how can it suffer? Another websight had this to say: “Gehenna” appears in the Greek Scriptures twelve times (Matt.5:22,29,30; 10:28; 18:9; 23:15,33; Mark 9:43,45,47; Luke 12:5; James 3:6). Matthew's gospel, more than the others, is directed at Jews. Jews would have known what the word Gehenna was. Sheol and Hades are another discussion. Alethiea

I pretty much agree with the JW view of "Hell", but I sure as heck wouldn't quote JW literature to conservative Christians. You know they are going to run screaming "Cult!" However, there are tons of word studies out there that conservative Christians might be willing to give an ear to. Aletheia

This is a definition of CULT that I found. It included the definition DCJ used. It's interesting what groups use that definition. 1) "Beliefs and goals which are not held by the majority of society" - That would make Christians in general a cult. 2) "Novel belief system" - Could again apply to Christians in general when compared to the rest of the world. 3) "High levels of dependency and obedience to the cult's leadership" - Ya mean like JESUS? 4) "Seperation" - Doesn't fundementalism teach "double seperation? (Def: separation not only from non-believers, but also those who refuse to distance themselves from non-believers.) 5) "Infiltration of religion into nearly every aspect of life" - This could include Fundementalists, anyone who is devout, most Jews, most Muslims. I find it amusing that a particular sub-group within Christianity has decided that other certain groups are cults, when by defintion, Christianity itself is a cult.

Darby, I hope you aren't leaving? I think these verses are just as important as the "love" versus. I agree. I would love to discuss them. My post on Evangelicalism was an attempt to open up dialogue with the conservative ones who post here and with conservative "lurkers". I hope you stay. I think we all have a lot to teach each other. Aletheia

Why don't you post your opinion in this thread? Discussing the labels and how to get past them is why I started the thread. It might help the thread last longer. Threads die such quick deaths on this board because new ones discussing the exact same thing get started, which shoves the old thread off the board. Just a thought. Aletheia PS: SOME Evangelical individuals might consider other Christians as being cults. But by and large, I am not getting the impression that Evangelicals as a group are like that. Am I wrong? Am I being too open-minded? Anyone?

An online acquaintence mentioned to me not too long ago that "the Lord discusses Hell alot more than he discusses Heaven" and so it should be the worry of Hell that Christians focus on. She's a Calvanist, which explains the Hell obsession. Of course, according to Calvanism, we are all pre-ordained to go one place or the other, so why worry huh? Angels are alive and well in some New Agey types of Christianity. (I don't mean that in a bad way. I just don't know how else to designate the group.) I don't have a definite oppinion on angels. The Bible says they exist. Are they supposed to all be real? Are some of them metaphor? (Like the Cherubim in the garden.) I admit, I love the image of the "gently influencing Angel" like is pictured in the movie City of Angels. But then, I'm a sucker for Nick Cage. Aletheia

LOL Fatherman! I am going to have that image forever burned in my brain! Soma, The article is beautiful. I can feel the love and peace just flow off of it. Like fatherman, I wonder if another term besides Progressive Christianity might not be better? The Christ Way popped into my head as I was reading it. Just a thought. Aletheia

LOL! Urban legend? Very funny! This made me think of a review I read yesterday on Amazon.com on a book about Open View Theology. Most (if not all) of the bad reviews on books about OV are from Calvanists because the views of Calvanism are diametrically opposed to OV. A person giving the book a GOOD review pointed out how funny and ridiculous it was for a Calvanist to review the book at all. Why? This reviewer was being sarcastic. He actually gave the book a very good review. But he had a point. The "point" about hell in the acticle, I think, was a similar one. Aletheia

Des Exactly. I think where Fundementalists and others want to create clear distinctions between "us and them", we should do just the opposite. I'm trying to respond to "exclusivity" with "inclusivity". To do that I'm reading and learning. And as I read and learn, I'm realizing I'm not so different from many of these people at all. It's not so much that progressive Christians hold opposite views on every single belief that conservative Christians have, but that conservatives by and large are "exclusive" and liberals are "inclusive". I'm finding that interpretive wise, I agree with much (not all) of what Evangelicalism espouses. I agree with a lot of Catholicism. I agree with a lot of Judaism. Heck, I'm finding I agree with many of the scriptural interpretations of the JW's again! I NEVER thought I'd say that! Cynthia I'm jealous! I have a brand new NOAB and I'm STILL jealous!

Jim Wallis is a Liberal Evangelical Christian. Pretty cool huh? He is taking the term "Evangelical" back from the Fundementalists, he says. Here's a quote: I'm looking forward to reading Tony Campolo too. Aletheia

Cynthia, It's all Philip Yancey's fault ya know! Him and CS Lewis! Him and CS Lewis and Jim Wallis. Him and CS Lewis and Jim Wallis and Tony Campolo. Him and CS Lewis and Jim Wallis and Tony Campolo and ... I love it when people think outside the box and so teach me to not only think outside MY box, but to quit boxing so many dang things! Aletheia

I think liberal, moderate and conservative are probably better terms. Otherwise it sounds like ALL evangelicals are on the far far right and I'm not getting the impression that is always true. I would categorize some Evangelicals (like Philip Yancey and Jim Wallis) as Moderate. I could be wrong about that. One websight defined the difference between fundamentalists and evangelicals as: The same websight defined Fundamentalism as: It sounds like years ago a group broke away from the Fundamentalists and became Evangelicals. Evangelicals want to associate with "the world" and do good works. Fundamentalists want to avoid associating with "the world". It also sounds like Fundamentalism, in general, is more LITERAL in it's intepretation of the Bible. I'm trying to understand all viewpoints. Like I've said, I'm illiterate in these matters and I'm trying to learn. I want to get past the labels.

DCJ I have heard that defined as reading the text "plainly". Does that seem right?

DCJ, I thought the same thing as you when I read the definition, until I thought about the difference between "literal" and "without error". I'm going to be silly, to show the difference, so bear with me. I may have a copy of Little Red Riding Hood, that is without error in it's text. There are no major differences between the original manuscript and the one I own. I can say my copy is "without error". but The story is not literally true. Do you believe that the moon will LITERALLY be turned to blood? That a seven headed wild beast being ridden by a harlot will LITERALLY show up during the tribulation? That individuals with 666 LITERALLY stamped on their flesh exist? Some Fundementalists do. Jehovah's Witnesses used to, and so could have be called Fundementalists at that time. Now however, they view that as metaphor. JW's believe "all scripture is inspired and beneficial for teaching" and that it is without error but that some of what is found in the Bible is symbolic. Does that sound like a reasonable difference to you? That not all evangelicals are fundementalists? I'm learning, so I'm open to correction. Thanks! Aletheia

It seems to me that I have a lot of misconceptions about what certain labels mean as applied to Christianity. For example, I have always described JW's as "fundamentalists". However, it seems to me now that that is not an appropriate description. JW's would more appropriately be called "evangelical" because they do not hold to a complete literal view of the Bible. So, here is one "definition" of Evangelicalism that I found. I find much of it admirable and some of it not so admirable. Any opinions, comments or rants?

I'll be the first to admit that I have an intellectual bent. I think, because of my coming away from JW's and having grown up in predominantly Mormon Utah, that I need to re-learn what Christianity IS. JW's and Mormons are so seperatist, that I've grown up never hearing terms like "Fundamentalist" or "Trinity" or "Dispensationalism" or "Evangelical" or "Pre-millenialist". I feel Christian terminology illiterate. For JW's, the Bible is to be interpretted "fundementally" or "legalistically" which I don't agree with. For many progressive Christians, the Bible is pretty much metaphor. I appreciate Borg's view, but I'm finding that I lean a little bit more to the right than he does. Yancey's and Lewis' views, though more conservative, speak to me. I like the way someone on here put it: I'm teaching my head so that my heart can say "Yes". But Yancey is helping me appreciate that even though my head might say "No" my heart can still say "I trust". Aletheia

BroRog Thank you for the book recommendations. I lean towards Open View myself. Would you consider the two books you mentioned two of the best? I've done an Amazon search in the past and their are so many. I know that some denominations are twisting OV and using it to justify "failed prophecy". That is unfortunate. Fatherman Whoo hoo! My hubby told me it was only available on VHS. I'm a DVD snob, so I'm very excited. It'll have to wait though. I have the Teaching Company stuff to listen to and absorb first. Cynthia Thank you for the other Yancey book recommendations. Part of the reason I wandered over to the bnet Evangelical bulletin board was because of Yancey. I thought, if Yancey is an Evangelical and is this wonderful, maybe they have something to offer. I admit, I don't even know what "Evangelical" means and I have no idea what makes an Evangelical an Evangelical. LOL. I got the Teaching Company stuff on DVD only because I learn better when I have to watch something. It helps keep me from getting distracted. Aletheia

Cynthia, I'm about 1/4 way through Lost Christianities". I could probably be finished by now, but I'm watching them with the hubby and he's gone all day. I'm really enjoying them. I am absolutely loving Philip Yancey's "Invisible God" book! How he describes his faith in God could be my words. His struggles and how he's worded things has made me cry. I can't wait to read the book on Grace. The book I'm reading was written in 2000. The grace book is a lot older. Do you know if his views have changed much between the two? I hope not, because I sure like his views in this one. Aletheia