Okay, tell me which denomination of Christianity provides the one true definition of what constitutes "real" Christianity, and I'll be happy to throw that recommendation to the community for a vote.
So if all are included, what is the basis for exclusion?
I believe this is a case of is "Is the glass half-empty or half-full?" I am thus not in disagreement with GloryToGod, but I would still have a different view of the situation. It's another one of those optimist vs. pessimist situations.
GloryToGod is inclined to say they're all included (optimist), but I'm inclined to say that no denomination has the ultimate truth about Christianity. The truth about Christianity is in the hands of the one who brought it into the world: Jesus. His Kingdom is not of this world, but is of a world external to the one in which we dwell.
Jesus said, "I am the way, the truth and the life. Nobody comes to the Father except through me." It wouldn't make sense, therefore, for any church or denomination to have the ultimate truth about Christianity because only Jesus can ever be that truth.
A church or denomination that proclaims it is the one and only true Christianity is leading people astray. The statement in the above paragraph is a reminder to us all not to forget who the gate-keeper is of Christianity.
My view on arguments about Trinity, divinity, deity and polytheism is that they distract us from really understanding the phenomenon of Jesus. Christianity is not a science and nor is it a religion of technicalities. Christianity is a religion of the heart and for that reason I don't believe we should even be arguing about Trinity, divinity, deity and polytheism because these things have nothing to do with the heart of the individual seeking God but are fleeting notions of cold logic that detract from the experience of the heart and soul of Christianity.
Whether we are talking about JWs or non-JWs, what matters is that we live Christianity with the heart not the head. Some JWs and non-JWs live with their heads. They are the ones who are most likely to argue with each other about whether the other is being Christian or not. Those who live with their hearts know that these arguments are pointless.
I don't believe in the WatchTower Society. I don't believe in Roman Catholicism, Mormonism, Anglicanism, Anabaptism, Baptism, etc. I believe in Jesus.
I don't believe in organisations and ideology, but I do believe in people. I believe in Jesus, in Catholics, in Mormons, in Jehovah's Witnesses, in Anglicans, in Baptists, Anabaptists, etc. I denounce the organisation and its ideology, but not the person.
When the issue comes up as to whether a Catholic, Protestant, Mormon or JW is "in the light," I believe it is only necessary to say one thing: that Jesus said, "I am the way, the truth and the life. Nobody comes to the Father except through me." Everything else is unnecessary IMHO.
Take away the WatchTower Society, the Roman Catholic Church, the Mormon Church and all the little Protestant churches, the man-made kingdoms of Christianity, take away the doctrines we have formed in the past 2,000 years, especially the Trinity, which was a by-product of politics in the fourth century, and one thing remains: Jesus.
One may think that tradition is important. I say nay. Tradition is only temporary. Tradition only exists for adherents to find common ground in a community. The purpose of tradition is to maintain a collective psyche, to assure ourselves that we gather together for the same purpose. Unfortunately, people won't always agree about traditions.
Jesus is beyond tradition. The Trinity or whatever alternative concept you have about Jesus' relationship with God is tradition that arises out of politics local to a time, place and culture. When you argue about Trinity and its alternatives you are arguing about tradition. It's a fact that Jesus never said you had to believe in the Trinity, and nor did he ever say it was essential to get the nature of God right.
These beliefs arose out of the politics of the fourth century because of Arianism, where it was believed that it was important to get the nature of God right. Before then, I am sure, Christians didn't really care. Arius duped the Christians into caring about the nature of God, and ever since we've been arguing about it. Arianism has since disappeared into insignificance, but it was a very nice way of sabotaging and undermining Christianity and getting people focused on the wrong things. I think it's best that we move on and leave these mistakes behind.
If people bicker over the Trinity, its alternatives and the nature of God, it's done out of habit. It's become a tradition. The past generation contemplated the nature of God in Christianity, so the present generation continues it. The trouble is that people spend so much time contemplating the nature of God in Christianity but they forget to ask themselves if it's even necessary in Christianity.
When you read in the New Testament about all the struggles the early Christian community faced, how often did the apostles say it was important to contemplate the nature of God? My impression was that they were more concerned about their relationship with God than His nature. What wasn't essential or necessary for the early Christians is not essential or necessary for us either.
