If Jesus' first convert was his mother she certainly forgot that very quickly --- that and all the special and quite unforgetable circumstances of his birth. When she heard of his behaviour she gathered up her others sons and came to take him away because he was 'beside himself' ---ie insane. Hmm, wonder what THAT was about? I am reminded of a most interesting poem:

 MARY by Philip Appleman

Years later, it was, after everything
got hazy in my head - those buzzing flies,
the gossips, graybeards, hustling evangelists -
they wanted facts, they said,
but what they were really after,
was miracles.
Miracles, imagine! I was only a girl
when it happened, Joseph
acting edgy and claiming
it wasn’t his baby - - -

Anyway, years later
they wanted miracles, like the big-time cults
up in Rome and Athens, God
come down in a shower of coins,
a sexy swan, something like that.
But no, there was only
one wild-eyed man at our kitchen window
telling me I’m lucky.
And pregnant.
I said, “Talk sense mister, it’s got to be
the one thing or the other.”
No big swans, no golden coins
in that grubby mule-and-donkey village. Still,
they wanted miracles,
and what could I tell them? He
was my baby, after all, I washed
his little bum, was I
supposed to think I was wiping
God Almighty?

But they wanted miracles, kept after me
to come up with one: “This fellow at the window,
did he by any chance have wings?”
Wings! Do frogs have wings?
Do camels fly?
They thought it over. “Cherubim”, they said,
“may walk the earth like men
and work their wonders.”
I laughed in their hairy faces. No
cherub, that guy! But
they wouldn’t quit - fanatics, like
the gang he fell in with years ago’
all goading him till he began to believe
in quick cures and faith healing,
just like the cranks in Jerusalem, every
phony in town speaking in tongues
and handling snakes. Not exactly
what you’d want for your son, is it?
I tried to warn him, but he just says,
“I must be about my father’s business.”
“Fine,” I say, “I’ll buy you a new
hammer.” But nothing could stop him, already
hooked on the crowds, the hosannas,
the thrill of needling the bureaucrats.
Holier than thou, he got, roughing up
the rabbis even. Every night
I cried myself to sleep - my son,
my baby boy - - -

You know how it all turned out, the crunch
of those awful spikes,
the spear in his side, the whole town watching,
home-town folks come down from Nazareth
with a strange gleam in their eyes. Then later on
the grave robbers, the hucksters, the imposters all
claiming to be him. I was sick
for a year, his bloody image
blurring the sunlight.

And now they want miracles, God
at my maidenhead, sex without sin.
“Go home,” I tell them, “back to your libraries,
read about your fancy Greeks,
and come up with something amazing, if you must.”

Me, I’m just a small-town woman,
a carpenter’s wife, Jewish mother, nothing
special. But listen,
whenever I told my baby a fairy tale,
I let him know it was a fairy tale.
Go, all of you, and do likewise.

The Church, overall, has been a secular movement with religious overtones since the end of the first century AD.  It's no different than saying you're leaving a political party, or a social movement, or a service club, etc.  Even the Reformations were secular events.  "Christian" is such a broad, sweeping term it's almost lost it's meaning.  To each his/her own.

She was raised Roman Catholic and had a bout of religious fervor a few years back. Stopped writing about vampires and witches, turning instead to a writing about Jesus. Examples:

http://www.amazon.ca/Christ-Lord-Road-Anne-Rice/dp/1400025915/ref=sr_1_6?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1280450957&sr=8-6

http://www.amazon.ca/Christ-Lord-Egypt-Anne-Rice/dp/0676978959/ref=sr_1_7?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1280450957&sr=8-7

Mendalla

 It sounds more like she said what she said in order to call for attention for fellow travelers with Christ to reject church based teaching and embrace Jesus Christ.

I've heard this before. Dorthy Solle a German theologian made a similar point in her book Creative Disobedience, her reflection of why Christianity failed in WW2  from preventing Christians from becoming mass murderers. And that  the church contributed to it by holding obedience and self sacrifice as the highest  moral values,

 I wonder through what kind of community she will join or is a part of , that will help her sustain and develop her faith.

 Ann also posted earlier this week the following,

"Gandhi famously said: “I like your Christ, I do not like your Christians. Your Christians are so unlike your Christ.” When does a word (Christian)become unusable? When does it become so burdened with history and horror that it cannot be evoked without destructive controversy?"

and today she posted the following from St Paul

‎"If I speak in the tongues of men and of angels, but have not love, I am only a resounding gong or a clanging cymbal. If I have the gift of prophecy and can fathom all mysteries and all knowledge, and if I have a faith that can move mountains, but have not love, I am nothing." (1 Corinthians. St. Paul)"

He also said,

"You Christians look after a document containing enough dynamite to blow all civilisation to pieces, turn the world upside down and bring peace to a battle-torn planet. But you treat it as though it is nothing more than a piece of literature." - Gandhi

If she was aware of these issues going into it, then what is her complaint? Perhaps she didn't sell as many books in her stint as a Christian and decided that vampires are still the way to go. I read the books she wrote after she became a Christian. They were pretty bad.

If she is still a follower of Jesus Christ, but has decided not to attend a Church, I believe that she is still a Christian. Salvation is not found in Church attendance. It is found in God's grace, which is found in Jesus Christ.

If she has also rejected Jesus Christ, and Christianity as a whole, then one has to wonder if she was ever part of the elect or if she just became a Christian due to an emotional response. Time will tell.

It may be like Quebec where christian means catholic... To me it is another sign of the problems facing the RC church - from within the challenge continues against the pope and the direction the church has taken.

Rev Steven Davis said

"But the church is the gathered community, the family of God. We are called not only to be in relationship with God but with one another. I don't blame those who have chosen the route of "individualistic Christianity" - obviously they've responded to what Jesus would surely criticize about the church were he here: that too many of us have become self-righteous; that too many of us think we've "done it" by being part of the church rather than by living our faith day by day where it really counts; that we have become to some extent that which actually creates barriers for some people against God rather than inviting people into relationship with God. Nor do I suggest that those who have chosen the route of "individualistic Christianity" route aren't "real" Christians. Many who would call themselves Christians but rarely or never attend church have a deep relationship with God and live  their faith better than many who attend church on a regular basis. But "individualistic Christianity" can also be abused, just as institutional Christianity can be abused. How many who find God more easily in the woods than in church actually spend significant time "in the woods" finding God? How many now use that catch-phrase simply as an excuse not to be in relationship with God but to avoid God? I wonder."

I can only reply "There are many who have started to attend a church because of this need for community and been rejected, ignored, kept outside the real community that should be there"

 Exactly, kay. Which is why I said:

"I don't blame those who have chosen the route of 'individualistic Christianity' - obviously they've responded to what Jesus would surely criticize about the church were he here: that too many of us have become self-righteous; that too many of us think we've "done it" by being part of the church rather than by living our faith day by day where it really counts; that we have become to some extent that which actually creates barriers for some people against God rather than inviting people into relationship with God." 

We - as the church - have to do better, not for ourselves (not to attract people and their money, time, etc. - the things we want from them) but to offer them a sense of God within a community of God's people. We'll never do that perfectly - we're human beings, and therefore imperfect - but we have to do better. But just as Jesus criticized the nature of the religious community but didn't excuse himself from it, I don't believe that individualistic Christianity separate from Christian community is a particularly good option either.

Diane Bulter Bass has a great blog on belief site

Hi there Witch....

If I may ..... that slogan "its not religion, its a relationship" ....

Sincerely.... that sums up how I feel.    I am sorry that this phrase has also been hijacked and is now regarded as something ugly.     Its like the "born again" phrase....

Some of us respect and cherish those concepts for what we hope they more truely are and I hope you sense that respect even towards others like yourself.   There seems to be so many that have, often with very good reason, come to find those phrases very distasteful and fake.    I hope that in some small way you will sense a more loving and respectful spirit in me and I promise to be very careful with when where and how I express phrases like that.

I sincerely appreciate you....

Hugs

Rita

Could it be that there is a difference between (R)eligion and (r)eligion. I agree that a believe in God or gods is a Religion. But, I think the difference between the t r's is a point of diparture. Religion with a small r suggests to me anyway the rules and regulations that some believe one must follow if one wishes to achieve salvation or go to Heaven.

The Mormons, for example are a very works based Religion. In order to be saved and go to Heaven, a good Mormon does not drink cafeine, smoke, drink alcohol, must go on mission, get baptised etc....etc.... In the Reformed Christian tradition, it is God's grace through Jesus Christ that saves the elect. No works involved. It is totally God's call.

Oops.....a correction re my above post about Christopher Rice. It seems he didn't write "Called Out of Darkness" although he is an author and has written other books. Called Out of Darkness is Anne's conversion story I guess. Maybe someone already explained that!

That's nothing more than a difference of belief about God. Both you and Mormons believe in God (the same god even, since you're both Christian sects), you just believe differently about some aspects of His nature. Capitalization is not relevant, and according to the rules of grammar, not required.

It is also not very practical. However some can get around it by living in community with family and with books, and by being online on sites like WC.  However many need to learn in different ways and church could help those of us who are like that.

I believe it sort of comes down to the right action versus right belief debate.  However we get it wrong on both accounts. The right belief people tend to think, it is about right belief in certain doctrines.They tend to want to form communities only with people who belief like they do.  However I think it is also about right belief in how to treat people who are different and to do other things.

In my experience most UCCs in Ottawa would rather close than include those who are different. Thus many have closed. Why else would churches not put up signs saying they welcome LGBT people. Why else would they consider it acceptable to meet in inaccessible old buildings. Why else would they refuse to consider to print bulletins in accessible formats for those that need it. It certainly does not cost any money to do so.  How many have actually looked at what it would cost to abandon there old buildings and rent space elsewhere?

In 1988 I was dumbfounded that the whole debate was about whether being LGBT was right or wrong. Was I the only one who thought the debate should be whether or not we can exclude people who believe in Christ's message. 

Likewise why is the debate about accessiblity about whether or not we can afford it, instead about how can we be accessible.

Or in the marriage debate why is it so important to continue to discuss if it is right or wrong to do so,  Instead of what is the best way to include LGBT people. After all LGBT people are what they are, people who oppose are not excluded when a church minister does it.   Those who claim so are just lieing, or are just people who want to force there belief on others at the cost of excluding others. So they threaten to quit, and a small minority do so.

These are my toys and if you do not play with them the way I want, I will take them away from you, is the attitude.

I don't recall that the definition of religion even mentioned works, or salvation, or mortality, or man-made rules. or anything of that sort. All that is required is a belief in God.

You say you have a relationship. No problem there; so do I. Pretty much does any adherent of any religion. That's not an issue.

You say that your version of Christianity differs from Momon's version of Christianity. Again, no problem there as no one ever said you were carbon copies. You both believe in Christ, you're both Christians; you both believe in God, you both have a religion. Again, not an issue.

If you really need to have a way to denote you are different in beliefs than other people who believe in God but do so differently, why not either make up a new word, or just use one of the many already in use, such as Mormon/Protestant/Catholic/etc.?

Why try to co-opt an existing word in common use and try to arbitrarily change it's meaning to suit yourself?

I am not trying to co-opt anything. I think most people are fairly aware of the differences between different Religions. The issue for me is when people insert works and performance into a Religion and make it part of the definition.

 I suppose what it comes down to for me is man made rules and regulations making performance more important that grace. Performance has nothing to do with a relationship, in my opinion anyway. To me, that is a very large difference between Religions. Performance becomes an idol becuase it replaces God sovereign grace.

I guess what I am trying to say is that I see a difference between God's sovereign grace alone and performance as a means of trying to please God and earn His favor. To me, there is a very important and fundamental distinction.

 If more UCC or other churches were accessible to those who were different (disabled, LGBT, from other traditions, and cultures) we could be a home for many. However the barriers are just too high for them and us, and those in a positions to do something about it, are not aware of barriers,  do not want to change themselves, blame the other, or do not know how to help others to overcome barriers.

The biggest sin of the UCC GC is the belief that to stand up and refute empire is being empire.

Some Mormons do describe themselves as Christians, others do not. Their beliefs about God, Jesus and salvation are so fundamentally different then conservative (and in my view, even liberal) Christian views that I find it hard to say they are a even a Christian sect. They are free to believe what they believe however. That is between them and God.

that may be< i only speak from my experiemce with my cousin.

According to her while on paoer they seem similar that they aren't.  I really don't have much info though.

Certainly one of the differences she spoke about was the need to work yoour way up the salvation ladder.It's why they all go door to door, to save folks and earn brownie points.  Shw was thrilled to get converts and earn points.

She also talked alot about "saving " our grandparents.  granmother died in 1961 but she would email cousins tryning to raise a $20,000 donation in order to post humously convert our grandmother to mormonism and save her>

I find that while they speak of Jesus they seem to have an odd view .

Personnally anyway

 double post.

Who cares what Mormons believe about God or Jesus?  They were officially a racist organization until 1978 when they received a "Revelation from God" (tm), ending discriminatory practices against African-Americans.  How convenient - God changed their rules just before the government was about to crack down on them.  Just as they did over polygamy some time back around the turn of the century.

Mormonism was founded by a con man, has racist and polygamist roots, continues to hold demonstrably false beliefs, and is among the more embarrassing cults to admit you are a member of.

From mormonwiki....a Mormon friendly site:

www.mormonwiki.com

It is a common Latter-day Saint (LDS) belief that God the Father, was once a mortal, even as we now are. Some believe that He was once a man like us; others believe that He was once a man like Jesus Christ. This is found in Joseph Smith's teachings:

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints has unique doctrine concerning Satan, which is the restored true doctrine of the original Church. To understand the origin of Satan, one must understand the Plan of Salvation. The Plan of Salvation, as revealed by Christ to His prophets, states that all people lived (before they were born onto the earth) as spirits in a pre-mortal existence, the spirit-offspring of God. Christ was the first-born of God's spirit children, and Lucifer was "a son of the morning." That is, he was among the first born, but was also an intelligent, bright spirit. Mormons are often accused of claiming that Satan and Christ are brothers. Without proper background, the statement sounds bizarre and cultish, but with a little understanding of the Plan of Salvation, the concept is easily comprehended. Since all of Heavenly Father's spirit children are brothers and sisters to each other, Christ is our brother, as was Lucifer.

Mormon doctrine teaches that baptism is a necessary ordinance to return back to Heavenly Father. Not only does the ordinance need to be performed, but it also must be done in the proper way and with the authority of Christ’s priesthood.  (works based salvation)

Baptism is recognized only when performed by someone holding the proper authority, designated to the office of a Priest in the Aaronic Priesthood or a higher office. (legalism)

Mormons believe that baptism is a necessary prerequisite to entering the kingdom of God in the hereafter, similar to the belief in many Christian sects. This belief presents a problem, however, for the millions of people who have lived and died without the opportunity to even hear of Jesus Christ, much less have the chance to be baptized. For this reason, Mormons believe in the ordinance of Baptism for the Dead. This work is done only in temples, and is performed by someone acting in behalf (proxy) of someone who has died. Mormons believe that such an ordinance as the baptism for the dead, is only of value if the deceased person, who is in spirit, freely chooses to accept the work done on his or her behalf. If the ordinance is accepted by the deceased, he or she will have the opportunity to enter the kingdom of God, the same as if he had the opportunity of being taught and baptized while on earth. (I do not know of any other Christian denomination that performs Baptism for the Dead)

Following baptism by immersion, individuals are confirmed. This means that a priesthood holder, with the proper authority, places his hands on the individual's head and confirms him as a member of the Church. At the same time, the individual is given the Gift of the Holy Ghost. Mormons believe that this gift and its companion blessing entitles the recipient to have the constant companionship of the Holy Ghost as a guide and guardian, so long as the recipient lives worthy of the gift.

Joseph Smith taught that the influence of the Holy Ghost, which is the convincing power of God of the truth of the gospel, can be received before baptism, but the gift, or constant companionship, of the Holy Ghost, is obtained only after baptism. "You might as well baptize a bag of sand as a man," he said, "if not done in view of the remission of sins and getting of the Holy Ghost. Baptism by water is but half a baptism, and is good for nothing without the other half—that is, the baptism of the Holy Ghost" (Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, p. 314).

A person is expected to receive the witness of the Holy Ghost to the truthfulness of the gospel of Jesus Christ, of scripture, and of the words of the living prophets before baptism. The full outpouring of the Spirit does not come, however, until the person has complied with the command to be baptized. Only after baptism can the gift be conferred by one in authority, and even then the Holy Ghost cannot be received by someone who is not worthy of it, since the Holy Ghost will not dwell in the heart of an unrighteous person. Thus, the actual companionship of the Holy Ghost may be received immediately after baptism or at a subsequent time, when the one receiving the promise becomes a fit companion for that holy being. Should the individual cease thereafter to be clean and obedient, the Holy Ghost will withdraw (more works based salvation and legalism).

The Ten Commandments are eternal gospel principles that are necessary for our exaltation. The Lord revealed them to Moses in ancient times (see Exodus 20:1–17), and they are also referenced in whole or in part in other books of scripture (see Matthew 19:18–19; Romans 13:9; Mosiah 12:33–36; 13:13–24; Doctrine and Covenants 42:18–29; 59:5–13; 63:61–62). The Ten Commandments are a vital part of the gospel. Obedience to these commandments paves the way for obedience to other gospel principles. (more works based salvation.)

According to the doctrines of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, the term Salvation means, "to be saved from both physical and spiritual death." Mormons believe that every person will be saved from physical death by the grace of God, through the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ. "Each individual can also be saved from spiritual death as well by the grace of God, through faith in Jesus Christ. This faith is manifested in a life of obedience to the laws and ordinances of the gospel and service to Christ" (LDS Guide to the Scriptures).  (God's grace is a gift, but you have to work for it)

Exaltation is eternal life—the kind of life God lives. Heavenly Father's plan enables his children to return to live with Him forever as exalted beings, ultimately becoming gods.  (I do not think that even Christians with liberal theological views belive this).

(all emphasis mine)

I talked to the sparrow. He confirmed what I already knew. Plus, in talking with Mormon missionaries (a few of those sparrows around), I also already knew this stuff.

I have no axe to grind with anybody, Witch. Like I said, their beliefs are between them and God. I am simply responding to your claim that Mormon beliefs are only "slightly" different than mine (or conservative Christian theology).

Well like I said, their beliefs are more than slighty different. We will disagree about that. The fact remains, which I have shown using information from a Mormon site, is that there are fundamental differences in LDS and conservative theology and doctrine. You have completely ignored the factual information I provided. Mormons do not believe that salvation comes through Christ alone. They have added works to the gospel of Jesus Christ. They believe that God was a mortal man and that He still has a body of flesh and blood. They believe that Jesus is a created being and that Jesus and Satan are spiritual brothers. They believe in the Baptism of the Dead and that we humans can become equal with God and even attain godhood. These are not simply "slight differences" in belief with conservative theology, regardless of how much you protest otherwise and  dismiss as "window dressing."

Your conclusion about you knowing that "I was probably brought up to hate Mormons and JW's" has no grounding in fact and only serves as a personal attack. Just because you were brought up that way, does not mean that other people were. My mother was and is far from being a Christian with conservative theological views and certainly did not teach me to hate anybody. So your accusation of her teaching me to hate is fairly insulting. Your accusation of how I was "probably brought up" was and is uncalled for.