What Denomination Are You?

[mee]

Originally Posted by Alex P

Fair enough lol... I am all for accurate knowledge... Of faiths. Like I am no longer a JW, and I will never be one again. But it bugs me to the nines when people try to give people false information about them. That is the only benefit I found from learning with the JW's, I can educate(not that I agree with the beliefs) those which believe/spread inaccurate information about them.

One thing I would consider though mee, you make them come across as robots lol... :P

people do have pre-conceived ideas
in more ways than one

[China Cat Sunflower]

Originally Posted by seattlegal

I don't have one.

Don't worry SG. I know it's hard to admit that you're a Branch Davidian. I'll go easy on you.

Chris

[17th Angel]

I still find to this day that, that situation could have been handled much better than it was, the authorities kind of helped feed the illusion of Mr "Koresh".

[juantoo3]

On February 28, 1993, the U.S. Treasury Department's Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms (ATF) conducted a raid on Mount Carmel, a property of the Davidians. The raid resulted in the deaths of six Davidians and four ATF agents after a firefight broke out. Following this confrontation, the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) laid siege to Mount Carmel for 51 days, during which the FBI and ATF conducted around-the-clock operations including psychological warfare (psyops) on the occupants of the complex. The government's siege on the Branch Davidians ended on April 19 when federal agents released CS tear gas into the building, and several fires broke out, spreading quickly through the structure. 76 Branch Davidians, 21 of whom were children, were killed in the ensuing blaze. Autopsies confirmed that many of the victims, including David Koresh, had died of single gunshot wounds to their heads.
The Departments of Justice and the Treasury each conducted investigations in 1993. In 1999, when evidence about the use of pyrotechnic tear gas became public, Attorney General Janet Reno appointed former Senator John Danforth as a Special Counsel to investigate the events at Waco. Danforth issued a report concluding that the fire was started on the inside by Davidians. The FBI agents that fired the tear gas used pyrotechnic Flite-Rite grenades to shoot tear gas into the wooden building, though sworn testimony by FBI agents and supervisors claimed that no pyrotechnics were used, or even present at any time.
The government put some of the survivors on trial. All were acquitted of conspiring to murder federal agents, but some were convicted of aiding and abetting voluntary manslaughter.

Branch Davidian - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The US government executed 21 children on that day.

In May 1992, Chief Deputy Daniel Weyenberg of the McLennan County Sheriff's Department called the ATF notifying that his office had been contacted by the local United Parcel Service regarding a driver seeing a package that had broken open on delivery to the Branch Davidian residence, revealing that it contained firearms, inert grenade casings, and black powder. On June 9, 1992 a formal investigation was opened and a week later it was classified as sensitive, thereby calling for a high degree of oversight from both Houston and Headquarters (italics on the original).[13][14]
The documentary Inside Waco claims that the investigation started when in 1992 the ATF became concerned over reports of automatic gunfire coming from the Carmel compound.[15]
The ATF began surveillance from a house across the road from the compound, but their cover was noticeably poor (the "college students" were in their 30s, not registered at the local schools, and they did not keep a schedule which would have fit any legitimate employment or classes).[16] Subsequent investigations, including sending in one agent undercover, revealed that there were over 150 weapons and 8,000 rounds of ammunition in the compound. Most of the weapons were legal semi-automatics; however, the ATF alleged there were also a number of fire-arms that had been illegally modified to fire full-automatic.[15]
Davy Aguilera, the ATF agent that had prepared the affidavit, testified later on the trial that a neighbor heard machine-gun fire; but Aguilera failed to tell the magistrate that the same neighbor had previously reported the noise to the sheriff, who investigated the noise. The sheriff found Koresh had a *lawful* item called a hellfire device, which allows a semi-automatic firearm to fire at a rate approaching that of fully automatic firearms. The affidavit was approved by a U.S. magistrate and was used as a base for warrants.[17]
Alleging that the Davidians had violated federal law, the ATF obtained search and arrest warrants for Koresh and specific followers on weapons charges due to the many firearms they had accumulated, and they planned their raid for March 1, 1993, with the code name "Showtime".[18] However, the raid was moved up a day in response to the Waco Tribune-Herald "Sinful Messiah" article (which the ATF had tried to prevent from being published).[15]

emphasis mine, -jt3

Waco Siege - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[juantoo3]

Originally Posted by wil

I don't know, but my current tally...

3 - Generic
-AME
- Anabaptist
-Anglican
-Apostolic-Baptist
2-Catholic
-Charismatic-Christian Science
-Christian Science
-Eastern Orthodox
2 - Episcopal
-Evangelical
-Gnostic
1-Jehovah’s Witness
-Lutheran
-Messianic Judaism
-Methodist
-Mormon
3 - Non-Denominational
-Pentacostal
-Presbytarian
-Quaker
-Religious Science
-Rosicrucian
-Seventh Day Adventist
-Unitarian Universalist
1 -Unity
-Other

Let's see...I was baptised as an infant into the Catholic church, although I can count the times I've been inside one on the fingers of one hand, went to a "Church of the Nazarene" for a time as a child, and to an independent/non-denominational/Charismatic/Holy Roller church for another time as a child. As a young man I was voluntarily baptised in the Pentecostal church. I have found some key points of agreement with Quakers, SDA's and JW's, as well as some key points of disagreement. Some time later I was greatly influenced by what I know as "Messianic Judaism," although it seems what I understand that to mean and what some of our Jewish friends understand that to mean contradict on some key points. And I spent some time learning from an independent Biblical and Linguistic scholar. I am self guided for the most part using primarily these two last resources, but I can comfortably say that all of these have left an imprint (for better or worse).

So, what am I? I don't know that I fit anywhere comfortably on the list, including "generic." It's not about not "exposing" myself, I don't quite know what to call myself. "Generic" to me, considering my extensive study in times past, is a little too *de-valued* to use as a term. That is, for myself not others, the term "generic" holds a connotation of little or trivial value. What ever it is I turn out to be, it certainly is *not* of little or trivial value.

If absolutely forced, I suppose I would stick with the Messianic Jews.

[GlorytoGod]

no particular denomination.

I was baptized in an Assemblies of God Pentecostal church but also attend a Partners in Harvest Church.

Praise God

[Dondi]

Welcome to the CR forums, GlorytoGod!

[17th Angel]

There should be the "abit" denomination... Bit of this, bit of that

[seattlegal]

Originally Posted by juantoo3

Let's see...I was baptised as an infant into the Catholic church, although I can count the times I've been inside one on the fingers of one hand, went to a "Church of the Nazarene" for a time as a child, and to an independent/non-denominational/Charismatic/Holy Roller church for another time as a child. As a young man I was voluntarily baptised in the Pentecostal church. I have found some key points of agreement with Quakers, SDA's and JW's, as well as some key points of disagreement. Some time later I was greatly influenced by what I know as "Messianic Judaism," although it seems what I understand that to mean and what some of our Jewish friends understand that to mean contradict on some key points. And I spent some time learning from an independent Biblical and Linguistic scholar. I am self guided for the most part using primarily these two last resources, but I can comfortably say that all of these have left an imprint (for better or worse).

So, what am I? I don't know that I fit anywhere comfortably on the list, including "generic." It's not about not "exposing" myself, I don't quite know what to call myself. "Generic" to me, considering my extensive study in times past, is a little too *de-valued* to use as a term. That is, for myself not others, the term "generic" holds a connotation of little or trivial value. What ever it is I turn out to be, it certainly is *not* of little or trivial value.

If absolutely forced, I suppose I would stick with the Messianic Jews.

From dictionary.com

ge·ner·ic
–adjective Also, ge·ner·i·cal.
1. of, applicable to, or referring to all the members of a genus, class, group, or kind; general.
2. of, pertaining to, or noting a genus, esp. in biology.
3. (of a word) applicable or referring to both men and women: a generic pronoun.
4. not protected by trademark registration: “Cola” and “shuttle” are generic terms.
–noun 5. a generic term.
6. any product, as a type of food, drug, or cosmetic commonly marketed under a brand name, that is sold in a package without a brand.
7. a wine made from two or more varieties of grapes, with no one grape constituting more than half the product (distinguished from varietal).

What's trivial about 'generic?' Is lacking a 'brand name' trivial? (See Tao Te Ching 1)

[juantoo3]

Originally Posted by seattlegal

What's trivial about 'generic?' Is lacking a 'brand name' trivial? (See Tao Te Ching 1)

Connotations and definitions are a bit different...might as well ask why I like orange better than blue.

*For me* there is an attached connotation of cheapness, triviality, insignificance to the term "generic."

If it works for someone else, more power to them.

BTW, we're gonna give you a new car...would you rather have a brand name cadillac or a generic cadillac?

[seattlegal]

Originally Posted by juantoo3

Connotations and definitions are a bit different...might as well ask why I like orange better than blue.

*For me* there is an attached connotation of cheapness, triviality, insignificance to the term "generic."

If it works for someone else, more power to them.

BTW, we're gonna give you a new car...would you rather have a brand name cadillac or a generic cadillac?

Hi juantoo3. Cadillac is a brand name. There is no such thing as a "generic Cadillac." It's an oxymoron. Car, with or without descriptive adjectives, is the generic term.

I can't claim a 'brand name' because I'm not a member of any specific sect. If I claim a 'brand name,' it would be copywrite infringement on my part. If that makes me cheap or trivial in some peoples' eyes, that's no skin off my nose. Some spoke of Jesus in the same way, saying, "Can anything good come out of Nazareth?"

[Penguin]

My local vicar said "one should be a Christian first, and denomination comes second"

[juantoo3]

Originally Posted by seattlegal

I can't claim a 'brand name' because I'm not a member of any specific sect. If I claim a 'brand name,' it would be copywrite infringement on my part. If that makes me cheap or trivial in some peoples' eyes, that's no skin off my nose. Some spoke of Jesus in the same way, saying, "Can anything good come out of Nazareth?"

Ah! But this presumes I level judgment in your direction. Like I said, for me. If it works for others, have at it. I cast no judgment, certainly not in such a trivial matter. And when I think cheap, you are nowhere near the list, I assure. Seattlegal, you are a priceless treasure.

[juantoo3]

Originally Posted by Penguin

My local vicar said "one should be a Christian first, and denomination comes second"

That's a good attitude.

[quakeyjase]

Hi Folks!

I'm new to this forum and I'm a Quaker.

peace and blessings,

qj