Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I view the Bible as it is written. For example "Day" in Hebrew can mean an era, a day, a season, or a year. I see 2 creations of man. One where He created them Male and Female, then a second time when He created Adam and Eve to tend the garden...
Ahh, but to play devil's advocate, how do we know that the references and interpretations that we read are correct? Whose truth are we reading? After all, these are written by other humans, who have their own agendas, their own doctrine, their own take on things, etc. And, even if the references are not written from a particular denominational standpoint, they are still influenced by whatever denomination the author happens to be. That's why we have so many denominatons, because Christians can't agree on the color of new carpet for the sanctuary, nevermind Biblical doctrine. Yes, one can say that one is being lead by the Holy Spirit, but once you read something, you are influenced by it, regardless. Ultimately, I believe we agree with those who agree with us.
I tend to agree with you in your post for the most part about Christians not agreeing on things..that usually happens when the focus is taken off of Christ and put on a building, parking lot, whatever..it is sad. As far as Bible truths.. Bible Truth
Originally Posted CelticLady1So I'm correct when I claim that Christians then follow the majority and those who don't split off to form their own branch.
Most of the branches you see arent really separated by that much as far as differences go
Most of the branches you see arent really separated by that much as far as differences go
True, but they were big enough to fight wars over it or to see each other as competition who fish in the same pond. At the very least the differences were large enough to branch off.
I mean there were times that marriage between the different religions (or branches) was strictly forbidden.
I'd say that although they might have the same scriptures, the Holy Spirit cannot be the same in all the different branches.
So it would be more 'normal' inspiration than Holy Spirit.
Originally Posted by arguy1973 True but they were big enough to fight wars over it or to see each other as competition who fish in the same pond. At the very least the differences were large enough to branch off.
I mean there were times that marriage between the different religions (or branches) was strictly forbidden.
So I'd say that although they might have the same scriptures, the Holy Spirit cannot be the same in all the different branches.
Maybe its possible that God let people see a scripture differntly because of the differences in people..we arent all the same..you and I probably like different types of music, different seasons..Now I dont think for a second that anybody is being led by the Spirit to "compete" or fight wars over who is right. IMHO thats being led by a different spirit..and not one from God
Originally Posted CelticLady1So I'm correct when I claim that Christians then follow the majority and those who don't split off to form their own branch.
But if I'm correct in my assumption they can't all be inspired by the same Holy Spirit, right?
I'd say that your first point is true, which makes your second point valid, as well. Who's to say whether it's the larger group that's correct, or the splinter group, (or neither one, for that matter). Each has their own interpretation of the Bible. I'm definitely no expert, but from what I have read recently, even in the early days of the Christian church, there were differences in doctrine, (i.e. interpretation of scripture). The basic belief system of Christianity, (such as the Nicene Creed, etc.), won out over other so-called heresies of the day.
Early Christian history is quite interesting, and I am continuing to read and learn more about it. I don't believe it's as cut and dried as many folks would have us think. It is extremely complex. It's one of the reasons that I am glad I stopped going to church. I can explore such things on my own, without church leaders peering over my shoulder, so to speak, telling me their version of Christianity, (and it's early history), and why I should believe it. Call it my own quest, I suppose.
Originally Posted by arguy1973 True, but they were big enough to fight wars over it or to see each other as competition who fish in the same pond. At the very least the differences were large enough to branch off.
I mean there were times that marriage between the different religions (or branches) was strictly forbidden.
I'd say that although they might have the same scriptures, the Holy Spirit cannot be the same in all the different branches.
So it would be more 'normal' inspiration than Holy Spirit.
For the most part, conflicts between different parts of the church were over political issues rather than doctrinal ones. The religious wars in England were fought mainly over domestic versus foreign control of the government, for example. The fights between Catholic and Protestants were largely fought because people wanted local control rather than perceived control by Rome.
This is a result of ignoring the Holy Spirit and seeking worldly power, instead.
Originally Posted by arguy1973 True, but they were big enough to fight wars over it or to see each other as competition who fish in the same pond. At the very least the differences were large enough to branch off.
I mean there were times that marriage between the different religions (or branches) was strictly forbidden.
I'd say that although they might have the same scriptures, the Holy Spirit cannot be the same in all the different branches.
So it would be more 'normal' inspiration than Holy Spirit.
We have to be careful to give credit where credit is due. Not for one second will I believe that the Holy Spirit inspired the types of situations you are describing.
I feel that the majority of denominational differences have a lot to do with comfort zones. (Types of music, services, etc...) Others regard a different interpretation of verses in the Bible. Usually these interpretations could go either way, and the end result of choosing sides would not be eternal damnation for either side. These are peripheral issues that are not of eternal consequence. Unfortunately, some people choose to take a staunch stand on these minute issues. Couple that with their "holier-than-thou" attitude (which is not God-given ), and you have a recipe for disaster. And what ends up happening is carried out in the name of religion.
I don't have a problem with different denominations. I worship where I feel comfortable and others do the same. I do not doubt their salvation at all. I would also welcome them into my family with open arms. When we look at them, we should see a fellow beliver, a brother/sister in Christ. Not the enemy.
I can explore such things on my own, without church leaders peering over my shoulder, so to speak, telling me their version of Christianity, (and it's early history), and why I should believe it. Call it my own quest, I suppose.
I agree. It is my belief that religion has more to do with culture (I believe this to be the reason of split from the early Christians) than scripture.
Then again 'mainstreaming' a religion to be accepted (or even made popular) by the masses could be considered propaganda.
Originally Posted by arguy1973
Quote:
Maybe its possible that God let people see a scripture differntly because of the differences in people..we arent all the same..you and I probably like different types of music, different seasons..
True, but the danger of following this line of thinking is that scripture, the Holy Spirit, or even God doesn't matter, because by adapting scripture to every possible flavour thins the message to the point of being meaningless. In short the scriptures becomes stretched too thin if it can mean anything to anybody.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
But if I'm correct in my assumption they can't all be inspired by the same Holy Spirit, right?
how do we know that the references and interpretations that we read are correct? Whose truth are we reading? After all, these are written by other humans, who have their own agendas, their own doctrine, their own take on things, etc. And, even if the references are not written from a particular denominational standpoint, they are still influenced by whatever denomination the author happens to be. That's why we have so many denominatons, because Christians can't agree on the color of new carpet for the sanctuary, nevermind Biblical doctrine.
Yes, one can say that one is being lead by the Holy Spirit, but once you read something, you are influenced by it, regardless. Ultimately, I believe we agree with those who agree with us.
). Each has their own interpretation of the Bible. I'm definitely no expert, but from what I have read recently, even in the early days of the Christian church, there were differences in doctrine, (i.e. interpretation of scripture). The basic belief system of Christianity, (such as the Nicene Creed, etc.), won out over other so-called heresies of the day. 
In short the scriptures becomes stretched too thin if it can mean anything to anybody.
