WI: No Jehovah's witnesses.

Depends on how you define nominal and practicing. I speak with my gods regularly and make offerings to them when able to.

We don't really have temples. I just practice at my home. If you mean the ancient temples in Scandinavia, no. I live in the Southeast United States. Kinda hard to go to them.

And no, it's not really similar at all to Hinduism. The only things they seem to have in common is that they're polytheistic
Do you not feel that you should or that you want to practice your faith togheter with other people?
 

SsgtC

Banned
Do you not feel that you should or that you want to practice your faith togheter with other people?
Not really, no. There really isn't a centrally organized religion to belong to. Most groups are fairly small anyway. A lot are family based. Besides, where I live, I'm pretty much the only one. I'm deep in the Bible Belt
 

SsgtC

Banned
If the only criterion is self identification then you open the door to having to accept different definitions of things, which just makes the term meaningless.
No, it's a ridiculous argument to try and equate religion, which is intensely personal, to government. What you're arguing is denomination. Not whether someone is or isn't Christian.
 
To argue that would require you to forget that pre and post creed all the bishops were the same, except for the Arians, most of whom later accepted the Creed. I mean we forget that the original trinity doctrine is pretty inclusive, hence the whole filoque debate. So really the trinity was already there, and its certainly in the bible, hence why most bishops didn't become Arian and why most Protestants aren't unitarians.
Arguing over the nature of "father, son, and holy ghost" does not make one not Christian if one accepts they exist. A Christian only needs needs to believe that Jesus is the Son of God and the Messiah, and to follow his teaching. It's the Churches who set further qualifications in order to be a member of them.
Also on your final point, you can go on r/Christianity and most people there will say Unitarians aren't Christian. This is the same with pretty much any Christian forum for mainstream denominations.
Strange that all the Christians I know disagree. As I said it's a church doctrinal thing not a Christian believer thing.
 
What if the founder of Jehovah's witnesses, Charles Taze Russell, died before he had a chance to found what would today be Known as Jehovah's witnesses. How would history be different?

A lot of US Supreme Court First Amendment cases might never have been decided:

***

In the United States, numerous cases involving Jehovah's Witnesses are now landmark decisions of First Amendment law. In all, Jehovah's Witnesses brought 23 separate First Amendment actions before the U.S. Supreme Court between 1938 and 1946. Supreme Court Justice Harlan Fiske Stone once quipped, "I think the Jehovah's Witnesses ought to have an endowment in view of the aid which they give in solving the legal problems of civil liberties."[28]

The most important U.S. Supreme Court legal victory won by the Witnesses was in the case West Virginia State Board of Education vs. Barnette (1943), in which the court ruled that school children could not be forced to pledge allegiance to or salute the U.S. flag. The Barnette decision overturned an earlier case, Minersville School District vs. Gobitis (1940), in which the court had held that Witnesses could be forced against their will to pay homage to the flag.

The fighting words doctrine was established by Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire (1942). In that case, a Jehovah's Witness had reportedly told a New Hampshire town marshal who was attempting to prevent him from preaching "You are a damned racketeer" and "a damned fascist" and was arrested. The court upheld the arrest, thus establishing that "insulting or 'fighting words', those that by their very utterance inflict injury or tend to incite an immediate breach of the peace" are among the "well-defined and narrowly limited classes of speech [which] the prevention and punishment of...have never been thought to raise any constitutional problem."

On January 15, 1951, the U.S. Supreme Court reversed the decision of a lower court in convicting two Jehovah's Witnesses lecturers of disorderly conduct of conducting public speeches in a city park of Harford County in Maryland without permits. The Supreme Court stated that the initial conviction was based on the lack of permits that were unconstitutionally denied, therefore convictions were not able to stand. The initial conviction was declined for review by the Maryland Court of Appeals under its normal appellate power, and further declined to take the case on certiorari, stating that the issues were not "matters of public interest" which made it desirable to review. Chief Justice Fred Vinson delivered the opinion of the Court, stating that rarely has any case been before this Court which shows so clearly an unwarranted discrimination in a refusal to issue such a license. It is true that the City Council held a hearing at which it considered the application. But we have searched the record in vain to discover any valid basis for the refusal.[29]

On March 9, 1953, the U.S. Supreme Court overturned and remanded the Supreme Court of Rhode Island's affirmation of the conviction of an Ordained Minister of Jehovah's Witnesses for a violation of holding a religious meeting in a city park of Pawtucket. The opinion of the court was that a religious service of Jehovah's Witnesses was treated differently from a religious service of other sects. That amounts to the state preferring some religious groups over this one. The court stated that the city had not prohibited church services in the park as Catholics could hold mass in the same park and Protestants could conduct their church services there without violating the ordinance.[30]

In a more recent case, Jehovah's Witnesses refused to get government permits to preach door-to-door in Stratton, Ohio. In 2002, the case was heard in the U.S. Supreme Court (Watchtower Society v. Village of Stratton536 U.S. 150 (2002)). The Court ruled in favor of Jehovah's Witnesses, holding that making it a misdemeanor (to engage in door-to-door advocacy without first registering with the mayor and receiving a permit) violates the first Amendment as it applies to religious proselytizing, anonymous political speech, and the distribution of handbills.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supre..._Jehovah's_Witnesses_by_country#United_States

***

"Zechariah Chafee, a great champion of free speech, once described the Jehovah's Witnesses, whose free speech rights he repeatedly supported, as a 'sect distinguished by great religious zeal and astonishing powers of annoyance.'" http://www.dorfonlaw.org/2011/03/okeefes-no-hero-but-he-is-journalist.html
 
Tibet and the Falun Gong will be pleased to hear that China is run by the People.

But Christians of various stripes have an ancient and venerable 1900 year + old tradition of claiming others aren't Christian across cultural lines, for ideological reasons and often following it up with rude gestures and violence. The seventy year rule "The People" doesn't nearly have that level of precedent and has had the same central authority over all that time, unlike Christianity.
 

Md139115

Banned
I for one, am interested in hearing more discussion about going door to door as the Mormons and JWs do. Is it an effective tool for finding new converts? Does it increase or decrease tolerance of members of those denominations through exposure? How would a person go about trying to convert one of these missionaries if they wound up on one’s doorstep?
 
Where do you get this idea? I mean Jesus is mentioned more in the Quran than any other person. Similarly the Quran regularly says that Muslims should make no distinction between Prophets, but that Allah sometimes gives more or less powers to individual prophets. Read more here or here



That would make sense if he wasn't directly quoting Exodus 3:13-15 where God says his name is "I am". Similarly, throughout the chapter Jesus is saying "I am He" repeatedly. He also claims dominion over death, something that to Jews belonged only to God. No to me it is pretty clear that you have to be seriously misreading the Bible to think John doesn't claim Jesus is divine. Furthermore, from a historical context it doesn't make sense. The Bible was put together by the Council of Nicaea, as a distillation of the faith, this is why the Orthodox say that the Bible isn't supreme, the tradition is supreme, of which the bible is a part. And those Bishops wanted to very clearly portray their message, namely that Jesus was the Messiah, Son of God, and God. This is why they chose John to be in the Bible, specifically to explain the divinity of Christ.



I mean most Trinitarian Christians, read 90%+ of all Christians, believe that non-Trinitarians aren't Christian.



Gnostics as a group didn't really exist, or rather they were several related groups all of whom had often wildly different views. To say they were wiped out is sort of correct, but not very accurate. The early church considered them a threat however, with Nicaea they almost all died out, or only existed on the fringe. Most gnostic communities were dead by the 5th century, which is before paganism began to be persecuted officially by the state.



I have no idea what this means. The Awakening's where explosions in Evangelical belief. If you mean that Born Again's are gnostic that makes little to no sense, as they feature none of the characteristics of Gnostic groups. Similarly it didnt take that long for Gnosticism to return, the Bogomils were Gnostic, the Paulicians were Gnostic, the Cathars were Gnostic, so historically it is just wrong



Matthew mentions it as well.

church intermediacy: the belief that all relations with the Maker are conducted through the intermediacy of the Church. (as defined by Quietism)

Thank you for the info and input - in regards to the Great Awakening here is what I am suggesting. - The gnostic belief is about having a personal relationship with God; whereas the Church created the concept of 'church intermediacy' via the sacraments (the belief that the only route to salvation was through the church); Luther broke away of course and placed emphasis on 'the word' and 'faith only' but for the most part continued 'intermediacy' with a limited number of sacraments. The Calvinist then sought to break the Church's hold over the individual with the new concept of predestination. This opened the door for a return to a personal relationship with God (gnostic) but before they knew it created something called a 'conversion experience' and 'visible saints.' Really just more 'intermediacy'; salvation via church membership only (back to control). - It isn't until the 'free will' doctrine gets some real legs under it during the Great Awakening, and spreads across America, does the gnostic concept of a personal relationship with God, as a route to salvation (without church doctrine) become once again the dominate doctrine. Enter then the Evangelicals, who of course would blow it as well; I believe the buzz word now is "Christian fellowship" (fail to please the church elders and you get denied 'fellowship' (they ask you to leave) which is once again just more 'church intermediacy.')

I had over the years many students refuse to claim the word 'religion' emphasizing that they were not part of any religion but were in a personal relationship with God. Often it turned out they were just evangelicals and never realized that their personal relationship with God was dictated by the doctrine of 'fellowship' (the church elders).

What I was suggesting was that the 'free will' doctrine (GA) opened the door for a return to the Gnostic belief, but as with each new 'reformation' the concept of church always returns to claim its role as the only road to salvation.

Each reformation has been an attempt to return power to the individual (gnostic), each failed. Luther's 'faith only' tried but the Lutherans never got above it; predestination tried but in the end failed to free the individual; 'free will' had a shot but now they're all about fellowship.

I know (by my definition) only one true gnostic, a friend Adrian. He is a deeply committed Christian, well studied, listens to everyone, and replies to none. (I am more tolerant of sitting in a church then he is, and I'm not a believer)

Please feel free to critique, I am not thin skinned.

P.S. You seem to be suggesting that Evangelicals existed before the Awakening. I thought that the Awakening created Evangelicalism. (free will)
 
Last edited:
A lot of US Supreme Court First Amendment cases might never have been decided:

***

In the United States, numerous cases involving Jehovah's Witnesses are now landmark decisions of First Amendment law. In all, Jehovah's Witnesses brought 23 separate First Amendment actions before the U.S. Supreme Court between 1938 and 1946. Supreme Court Justice Harlan Fiske Stone once quipped, "I think the Jehovah's Witnesses ought to have an endowment in view of the aid which they give in solving the legal problems of civil liberties."[28]

The most important U.S. Supreme Court legal victory won by the Witnesses was in the case West Virginia State Board of Education vs. Barnette (1943), in which the court ruled that school children could not be forced to pledge allegiance to or salute the U.S. flag. The Barnette decision overturned an earlier case, Minersville School District vs. Gobitis (1940), in which the court had held that Witnesses could be forced against their will to pay homage to the flag.

The fighting words doctrine was established by Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire (1942). In that case, a Jehovah's Witness had reportedly told a New Hampshire town marshal who was attempting to prevent him from preaching "You are a damned racketeer" and "a damned fascist" and was arrested. The court upheld the arrest, thus establishing that "insulting or 'fighting words', those that by their very utterance inflict injury or tend to incite an immediate breach of the peace" are among the "well-defined and narrowly limited classes of speech [which] the prevention and punishment of...have never been thought to raise any constitutional problem."

On January 15, 1951, the U.S. Supreme Court reversed the decision of a lower court in convicting two Jehovah's Witnesses lecturers of disorderly conduct of conducting public speeches in a city park of Harford County in Maryland without permits. The Supreme Court stated that the initial conviction was based on the lack of permits that were unconstitutionally denied, therefore convictions were not able to stand. The initial conviction was declined for review by the Maryland Court of Appeals under its normal appellate power, and further declined to take the case on certiorari, stating that the issues were not "matters of public interest" which made it desirable to review. Chief Justice Fred Vinson delivered the opinion of the Court, stating that rarely has any case been before this Court which shows so clearly an unwarranted discrimination in a refusal to issue such a license. It is true that the City Council held a hearing at which it considered the application. But we have searched the record in vain to discover any valid basis for the refusal.[29]

On March 9, 1953, the U.S. Supreme Court overturned and remanded the Supreme Court of Rhode Island's affirmation of the conviction of an Ordained Minister of Jehovah's Witnesses for a violation of holding a religious meeting in a city park of Pawtucket. The opinion of the court was that a religious service of Jehovah's Witnesses was treated differently from a religious service of other sects. That amounts to the state preferring some religious groups over this one. The court stated that the city had not prohibited church services in the park as Catholics could hold mass in the same park and Protestants could conduct their church services there without violating the ordinance.[30]

In a more recent case, Jehovah's Witnesses refused to get government permits to preach door-to-door in Stratton, Ohio. In 2002, the case was heard in the U.S. Supreme Court (Watchtower Society v. Village of Stratton536 U.S. 150 (2002)). The Court ruled in favor of Jehovah's Witnesses, holding that making it a misdemeanor (to engage in door-to-door advocacy without first registering with the mayor and receiving a permit) violates the first Amendment as it applies to religious proselytizing, anonymous political speech, and the distribution of handbills.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supreme_Court_cases_involving_Jehovah's_Witnesses_by_country#United_States

***

"Zechariah Chafee, a great champion of free speech, once described the Jehovah's Witnesses, whose free speech rights he repeatedly supported, as a 'sect distinguished by great religious zeal and astonishing powers of annoyance.'" http://www.dorfonlaw.org/2011/03/okeefes-no-hero-but-he-is-journalist.html

BTW, I was happy to learn that Chafee's classic Free Speech in the United States is available for free online. Here is the passage I have quoted put in context:

"Alma Lovell was the earliest arrival in the Supreme Court of Jehovah’s Witnesses, a sect distinguished by great religious zeal and astonishing powers of annoyance. Within two years it has called forth from our highest tribunal five separate decisions and many more denials of certiorari. Its members possess that quality of our Colonial ancestors which Burke described as “the dissidence of dissent and the protestantism of the Protestant religion.” They accept the New Testament very literally, and their consequent pacifism got them into several Espionage Act cases. They apparently hold no church services, and are opposed to all organized religious systems as instruments of Satan and injurious to man. The Roman Catholic Church is singled out for particular and offensive condemnation, which has caused some nasty rows, one in Maine ending fatally. They are also unpopular with ritualists of quite another sort, because the young Jehovah’s Witnesses in public schools conscientiously refuse to salute the flag. The German members are equally disliked by the Nazis and largely consigned to concentration camps. They are afraid of nothing, not even ridicule...."

https://archive.org/stream/in.ernet.dli.2015.499889/2015.499889.free-speech#page/n417/mode/2up/
 
Last edited:
church intermediacy: the belief that all relations with the Maker are conducted through the intermediacy of the Church. (from Quietism)

The rejection of Quietism has more to do with the rejection of passivity, over active contemplation. In fact all of the Quietists were still practicing Catholics and the leaders stopped publishing when the Pope banned their works.

The gnostic belief is about having a personal relationship with God; whereas the Church created the concept of 'church intermediacy' via the sacraments (the belief that the only route to salvation was through the church);

I can see where this comes from. However this misses out large parts of Gnostic theology. Specifically the Dualistic theology, theories about Divine Emanations and falls, and the focus upon Knowing the truth. Similarly the Mainstream Church didn't invite Sacraments, most of those have their origins in Jewish religious practice around the time of Christ, and are related to ritual purity, and where performed with Levites.

Luther broke away of course and placed emphasis on 'the word' and 'faith only' but for the most part continued 'intermediacy' with a limited number of sacraments. The Calvinist then sought to break the Church's hold over the individual with the new concept of predestination. This opened the door for a return to a personal relationship with God (gnostic) but before they knew it created something called a 'conversion experience' and 'visible saints.' Really just more 'intermediacy'; salvation via church membership only (back to control). - It isn't until the 'free will' doctrine gets some real legs under it during the Great Awakening, and spreads across America, does the gnostic concept of a personal relationship with God, as a route to salvation (without church doctrine) become once again the dominate doctrine. Enter then the Evangelicals, who of course would blow it as well; I believe the buzz word now is "Christian fellowship" (fail to please the church elders and you get denied 'fellowship' (they ask you to leave) which is once again just more 'church intermediacy.')

Okay, the issue here is that while the effect might be progressively closer to Gnosticism, the point was not to break the hold of the Church. And this goes for both Calvin and Luther, both wanted to strip away tradition and apply Aristotlean logic to every part of the faith. Similarly, the focus on individual practice has always been there, that's the entire point of Monks. In fact asceticism has isn't a purely Gnostic thing, as demonstrated with the desert father's.

What I was suggesting was that the 'free will' doctrine (GA) opened the door for a return to the Gnostic belief, but as with each new 'reformation' the concept of church always returns to claim its role as the only road to salvation.

I mean I do agree with this distillation.
 
I for one, am interested in hearing more discussion about going door to door as the Mormons and JWs do. Is it an effective tool for finding new converts? Does it increase or decrease tolerance of members of those denominations through exposure? How would a person go about trying to convert one of these missionaries if they wound up on one’s doorstep?

Mormons and JWs each have a different way of going about door-to-door work.

For Mormons young men (and less often women) volunteer to serve a 2 year stint in a city, usually out of state or country. They go through a missinary bootcamp, then get assigned an experienced partner (they’re always in twos unless they’re training a third). Mormons have a fairly straight forward approach if you invite them in. They tell you the history of the Book of Mormon, read a bit from it, and encouge you to read from it, and pray about if its true or not. Next time they see you they ask if you read and prayed about it, and how you felt while praying. If you say something like “I felt peaceful,” or “I felt good” they’ll tell you that was God. Anyway they’ll invite you to their church and try and get you connected with people there, and they’ll pressure you fairly hard to get baptisted if you keep meeting with them, which will mostly consist of them talking about your assigned reading. They have an answer for every possible conversion question and all the controversal topics, and if they can’t remember the offical response they tell you they’ll pray/study and answer you question next meeting.

For JW’s its generally adults, sometimes a young person with an older adult, of all age ranges. JW’s go to a missionary class each week to prepare for their door-to-door work, and new JW’s will team up with an experienced partner. Unlike Mormons who go through the same routine every time, JW’s use articles in the Watchtower magazines as talking points to get people interested (things like “did Jesus really die on a cross?” Or “Whats God’s real name?” Or even things like “How I can keep my children safe?”). Once you’re interested they come to your house once a week to take you through a scripted Bible Study (which similar to the Mormon format just uses certain Bible verses to ‘prove’ their religion is true and all others are fake) they’ll invite you to attend a kingdom hall (ie church) meeting and encourage you to behave like they do, go out and do door-to-door work and eventually get baptisted. Just like Mormons they have a rehearsed response for any criticism/ concern, but they’ll find a Watchtower/Awake article that proves their point. Recently it’s become very popular to just find the correct answer on jw.org and show a video on their smartphone/tablet to the person showing the correct answer.

These aren’t meant to be criticisms of either religion, just the facts as I see them on their techniques.

Actually with no JW’s I do think more mainstream Christians might engage in door-to-door work.
 

elkarlo

Banned
Actually, I'm not Christian. I'm Norse Pagan. I'm not a JW. I was raised as one but left the religion 17 years ago.

To answer your question, I consider a religion to be Christian if they believe Jesus to be the Christ and Messiah, to believe that he died for their sins and if they actively try to live by Jesus' teachings. I put no stock in whether they consider "God" to be a singular being (i.e. Jehovah) or a Trinity. Neither do I care if they subscribe to any particular creed issued by man.
But you're clearly putting personal bias into your definition. Which I think makes it too broad and therefore wrong
 
But you're clearly putting personal bias into your definition. Which I think makes it too broad and therefore wrong

No, he's using a non Christians definition and one that is probably less biased. A Christian, as this thread illustrates, consistently has examples of Christians trying to define Christian in terms that exclude "those people" over there who in their personal opinion aren't "Christian enough".

This is a 1900+ year old Christian tradition, in a manner of speaking. We have doubts about Paul bringing in all these non Jews in the 1st century after all.

Anyone who claims to a Christian is a Christian is a pretty functional definition actually. It simply dispenses with Christians judging as to whether other Christians are Christian which also annoys a lot of self defined Christians.

Unless Jesus comes down and sorts it out, I can't think another universal definition that holds in all circumstances.
 
Last edited:

SsgtC

Banned
But you're clearly putting personal bias into your definition. Which I think makes it too broad and therefore wrong
No, I'm not. Again, I'm NOT a Christian. So I'm a little unclear as to how I'm biased. I was asked what criteria I used to determine if someone was a Christian. I provided it. For the record, I do not believe in Jesus or the Bible. So to say I'm biased is just a bit odd
 

elkarlo

Banned
No, I'm not. Again, I'm NOT a Christian. So I'm a little unclear as to how I'm biased. I was asked what criteria I used to determine if someone was a Christian. I provided it. For the record, I do not believe in Jesus or the Bible. So to say I'm biased is just a bit odd
Not being a Christian is not the problem. Look how you worded your response. It's much more selective than that. Otherwise it's easy for things to run together and be confused
 

elkarlo

Banned
No, he's using a non Christians definition and one that is probably less biased. A Christian, as this thread illustrates, consistently has examples of Christians trying to define Christian in terms that exclude "those people" over there who in their personal opinion aren't "Christian enough".

This is a 1900+ year old Christian tradition, in a manner of speaking. We have doubts about Paul bringing in all these non Jews in the 1st century after all.

Anyone who claims to a Christian is a Christian is a pretty functional definition actually. It simply dispenses with Christians judging as to whether other Christians are Christian which also annoys a lot of self defined Christians.

Unless Jesus comes down and sorts it out, I can't think another universal definition that holds in all circumstances.
I'm on my cell so excuse my shortness.

Problem is things change and evolve and eventually there is drifting. Mormons are Christian inspired but they have drifted pretty far out of what is Christian orthodoxy. Heterodoxy is fine and that still is Christian, when things get to the point where they're heresy, it's no longer truly Christian. JW I feel has crossed that line. It's close but they have. Mormons are clearly not Christians.
 
Back in my old neighborhood the Mormon's were regulars, but answering the door naked or challenging their faith seemed unnecessarily rude, so I use to just open the door, and before they could say anything, quickly grab the Watchtower from their hand and replace it with a quarter I had ready. (They always asked for a quarter for the tract, for some reason, circa 1990), I would smile and say thank you, and close the door (without slamming it). Quick, no muss.


You're confused the WatchTower is the JWs.

But yes the principal I suppose is the same.

Mormons are clearly not Christians.

What makes Christians, Christians?

Jesus Christ and belief there in, Mormons believe in Christ, the death, resurrection all that.

What about that isn't Christian?
 
Last edited:
Top