Religious Fundamentalism's Main Driver: Certainty (hell, Mormons, America, atheism)
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.
In the end, a lot of us have come to the conclusion that if you guys can't agree on this rudimentary stuff then there is a good chance that ALL of you all are wrong.
The greater point is that there a lot of denominations and they cannot come to agreement on basic 'biblical doctrines' such as:
1) How one is saved. with or w/o baptism
The Christian ones agree. It's faith that saves. Yes, some then add baptism, but it's not an essential doctrine.
Quote:
2) Whether one is always saved once saved
Again...not really an essential.
Quote:
3) The make up of 'God'- triune vs oneness
There was a church council that cleared this up about 1800 years ago. They stated that a person that did not believe in a triune God was not a Christian. Historically, this has been the position of the Christian church since then -- in all denominations. To disagree with it means that a person is in a different religion, not a different denomination.
Quote:
4) How old one has to be in order to be accountable to God for their beliefs and actions
Again--not an essential doctrine.
Quote:
5) Whether spiritual gifts are still possessed by believers or not
Not an essential doctrine.
Quote:
And this is just the basic stuff.
Each denomination can quote chapter and verse as to why they take the stance that they do on these and other doctrines. And of course if they disagree with your stance it always goes back to their "wrong" interpretation of those verses within context, original meaning etc, etc.
In the end, a lot of us have come to the conclusion that if you guys can't agree on this rudimentary stuff then there is a good chance that ALL of you all are wrong.
There is room for debate among non-essential doctrines. I have no problem calling someone a "brother" if they believe they can speak in tongues--as long as they have the important stuff right.
But I asked above for a list of the 30,000 + denominations. I have yet to see it. Funny how that works.
I asked for a list of 30,000 + denominations. That is not a list of 30,000 + denominations. Are you not able to provide that, either?
These links acknowledge about 41,000 denominations, including duplications where very similar denominations have established HQ in different countries. There are a couple hundred that someone has written Wikipedia articles about and that is what is on that particular list. I have seen 30,000 as a round number if you remove the duplications between countries. I am willing to believe that if you winnow out denominations that evolved in parallel and don't have big differences in doctrinal position it is down to a few thousand. But it only takes a few hundred to drive home the essential point which is that doctrine is a subjective enterprise and that any ONE denomination claiming to be CORRECT is making a highly dubious claim which is easily discredited by reality itself.
Biblical doctrine, Biblical morality, Biblical anything really, ends up meaning what different groups decide it means -- to them -- and this should not surprise us at all. Because even English law, which doesn't claim to be divinely inspired and immutable, has conflicting interpretations and applications, which is why we have lawyers and courts and why enforcement and interpretation and the laws themselves do change over time. Any attempt to render a matter black and white runs into the problem that every person has their own perspective and incomplete set of facts and perceptions about facts and confirmation bias that they operate from.
These links acknowledge about 41,000 denominations, including duplications where very similar denominations have established HQ in different countries. There are a couple hundred that someone has written Wikipedia articles about and that is what is on that particular list. I have seen 30,000 as a round number if you remove the duplications between countries. I am willing to believe that if you winnow out denominations that evolved in parallel and don't have big differences in doctrinal position it is down to a few thousand. But it only takes a few hundred to drive home the essential point which is that doctrine is a subjective enterprise and that any ONE denomination claiming to be CORRECT is making a highly dubious claim which is easily discredited by reality itself.
Biblical doctrine, Biblical morality, Biblical anything really, ends up meaning what different groups decide it means -- to them -- and this should not surprise us at all. Because even English law, which doesn't claim to be divinely inspired and immutable, has conflicting interpretations and applications, which is why we have lawyers and courts and why enforcement and interpretation and the laws themselves do change over time. Any attempt to render a matter black and white runs into the problem that every person has their own perspective and incomplete set of facts and perceptions about facts and confirmation bias that they operate from.
Where is the actual list of the 30,000, or 41,000? You say those links "acknowledge" them. Yet...no actual list. I find that interesting.
Where is the actual list of the 30,000, or 41,000? You say those links "acknowledge" them. Yet...no actual list. I find that interesting.
That is a misdirection from the point I actually made. Please address the actual point. My point is that we don't even need to document a number greater than 2, and I doubt even you would disagree that there are hundreds of denominations.
That is a misdirection from the point I actually made. Please address the actual point. My point is that we don't even need to document a number greater than 2, and I doubt even you would disagree that there are hundreds of denominations.
You provided a supposed list. I'm making the point that the list does not exist.
Having said that, you have not really addressed the point that I made regarding essential and non-essential doctrines. I honestly don't care if someone believes in amillenialism, or premillenialism. It really doesn't matter. If you want to split off from a church over it, it's sad that you would...but it doen't invalidate your church.
I have also shared on here that prior to taking the position I have as a pastor I interviewed for and candidated at a few churches. I almost had a position in an E Free church, a Baptist Church, an independent Bible church, and and was offered a position in an independent Evangelical church. They all teach pretty much the same thing...but had different philosophies of administration and church polity. They were not separated over doctrine. Do you realize that separate denominations exist for reasons other than doctrine?
Or do you realize that what many call a "denomination" exist that are not Christian? If one claims to be Christian but they worship a much different God than Christians worship....how are they possible just a different denomination?
You're the one making unsubstantiated statements as facts. I'm merely asking you to back up the statements you make. If you're not able to do that, then perhaps you shouldn't make the statements.
We're talking about religion and morality here. There are very few "facts" to go on. Besides, almost everything I say is simple logic and shouldn't need endless links and supporting evidence. Was I completely in error to say, for instance, that you think that genocide, killing babies, etc. is immoral?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vizio
How do you know they are all correct?
I'm an atheist, Vizio. I don't think ANY of them are correct - including yours. I'm only pointing out that your way to worship God is only one of thousands. You can claim that your way is the right way, but then again, that other church down the street is going to say the same thing about their way. In fact, how long do you think it'll take to find a church that will say, "Yeah, we're doing it all wrong, but we don't care. So we'll keep doing it our way."
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vizio
Your point? I guess I wouldn't have to ask all these questions if you'd stop making assumptions and actually go with facts.
Myself and others have given you tons of facts. But you keep moving the goal posts around so that it's impossible to score. In fact, you're doing it right now, but I don't really care. You have a habit of rejecting facts if they don't agree with your beliefs. Even making an issue over the 40,000+ Christian denominations. Who gives a crap? The point is that there are thousands of them and that means there are thousands of different ways to worship.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vizio
You are correct. I do not recognize the Apocrypha because God did not inspire them. The Catholic Church will also tell you they are not inspired.
How do you know that God did not inspire them? Because of what the Catholic Church said 1200 years ago? Have you ever researched precisly WHY they didn't include those books? Why would these books be mixed in with 'inspired' books? Is this part of the grand conspiracy between God and Satan to confuse the living crap out of humanity?
Yep, it's my turn to ask a lorry load of questions.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vizio
Why wouldn't I want to take God at his word?
You don't even know if you are. All you can do is have faith - but that doesn't mean the words you find in the Bible were actually 'inspired' by God. A lot of it sounds so silly that I find it difficult to imagine them being inspired by anything more than a dummy goat herder who was considered stupid even in his own time.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vizio
I'm curious....have you ever played a team sport? Did you just make up the rules as you went and ignored the refs, or umps? Do you like to watch football, or baseball? Do you ever expect the umpire to actually call a ball and a strike? Or is it just up to the interpretation of the hitter to decide whatever he wants goes?
The difference between a team sport and religion is that the rules for, say, baseball, are straight-forward. You don't have to interpret them because they say what they say. There are no metaphors, no symbolism, there isn't a new set of rules that contradicts the old set of rules, and sports rules do not make value judgments (i.e. it doesn't count if a homosexual hits a homerun or women aren't allowed to play, etc.)
I can just see Biblical baseball rules:
"Thou shalt not hitteth the holy sphere over the foul line; those that undertake such an act commits a sin against Abner Doubleday and he shalt judge thou with the fornicators, homosexuals, adulterers, and fortune tellers who shall be cast into a lake of fire.
Those who shalt bunteth the holy sphere must seek forgiveness for art thou not deceiving thy foes? I will then commandeth thy foes to attack thy city; young and old, male or female, human or animal, they shalt leave none alive, and thy team will forever be forefit down to the seventh generation. Thou shalt never swing thy bat again, even in the name of thy LORD Doubleday."
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vizio
I'm sorry...but you're now making some assumptions that are not necessarily true.
How am I wrong, then? If you must take the Bible as historical truth, how do you then incorporate evolution and the Big Bang with Adam and Eve and the creation account in Genesis? And why do all of the FACTS point to naturalistic explanations rather than supernatural or magical explanations?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vizio
I've also read several of the different texts of various cults, and studied the doctrines of other churches.
Mmhmm, but it's still only your opinion that your belief system and your church have the right of things and everyone else is wrong. Or maybe God doesn't care if you believe in Dirt Man and Rib Woman just as long as you believe in him.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vizio
The difference, of course, is that these theologians point to God's Word. Not just some feeling that they got after eating a bad taco.
So? Every theologian and Bible scholar points to God's Word. It's not as if other preachers are standing behind their pulpits and reading from a Harry Potter novel, the directions on how to set your VCR clock, or the back of a cereal box. Yeah, at the end of the day, ALL of them, even the good ones, the best ones, are merely offering up their own interpretation of the Bible. The fact that the Apocrypha isn't included and the fact that who knows how many of the Dead Sea Scrolls were burned as fuel by the goatherder who found them - not to mention the likely mistranslations and mistakes that undoubtedly crept in throughout the centures AND the fact that the New Testament was written at least a generation after Jesus's death means that you can't be sure WHAT the Bible means. No one can.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vizio
I have repeatedly asked you and others to back up your statements with facts. You repeatedly have not--but instead rip into me for daring to ask questions that you cannot back up.
Vizio ... unlike you, I have answered every single question you have asked. I'm not afraid to toss my cards on the table instead of playing them close to my chest like you do. And I answer your questions with statements, not more questions. Assumptions or not, you have yet to prove anything I've said to be wrong; most of what I say, well, the facts speak for themselves. They don't need supported.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vizio
Complete non-sequitur.
Ya don't say ....
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vizio
How do you know that? This is yet another example of an assumption you're stating as fact. I'm asking you to back that up. Can you?
No, Vizio, it is an example of something I've said that is so ridiculously obvious that it doesn't need backed up. Are you going to tell me that you picked your particular belief but you think there's another belief out there that's better than yours? I very much doubt that. If that's an assumption, I think it is an extremely safe one and doesn't need supported. Unless there is some other factor such as money influencing choices, it stands to reason that a person is going to pick whatever he/she believes is the best choice (they can be wrong, of course, but they still believe it was the best choice at the time of the choosing). People generally don't say, "Well I could get this product which has a 5 star rating - but nah, I think I'll get this other product instead that has a 1.5 star rating. Yeah!"
Is that really such a far-fetched assumption that it doesn't come anywhere near factual? That I now have to somehow support it with something? Besides, the fact that you take the Bible as literal and historical truth means you've pretty much chucked science into the trash bin anyhow, so there's not much use in a scientific poll or survey.
We're talking about religion and morality here. There are very few "facts" to go on. Besides, almost everything I say is simple logic and shouldn't need endless links and supporting evidence. Was I completely in error to say, for instance, that you think that genocide, killing babies, etc. is immoral?
Murdering innocent babies is absolutely immoral.
Quote:
I'm an atheist, Vizio. I don't think ANY of them are correct - including yours. I'm only pointing out that your way to worship God is only one of thousands. You can claim that your way is the right way, but then again, that other church down the street is going to say the same thing about their way. In fact, how long do you think it'll take to find a church that will say, "Yeah, we're doing it all wrong, but we don't care. So we'll keep doing it our way."
You don't KNOW that though. You are making absolute statements about God...specifically the one you claim doesn't exist.
Quote:
Myself and others have given you tons of facts. But you keep moving the goal posts around so that it's impossible to score. In fact, you're doing it right now, but I don't really care. You have a habit of rejecting facts if they don't agree with your beliefs. Even making an issue over the 40,000+ Christian denominations. Who gives a crap? The point is that there are thousands of them and that means there are thousands of different ways to worship.
I'm not moving any goal posts. I've asked for 40,000 + in a list...you have failed to provide it. Yay. I expect that.
Do I recognize that there are all sorts of valid ways to conduct a worship service? Sure--absolutely. But the statement that there are many ways to get to God implies that no one knows the way to please God. That is a false statement and I'm going to disagree with you every time and ask that you back up that statement every time.
Quote:
How do you know that God did not inspire them? Because of what the Catholic Church said 1200 years ago? Have you ever researched precisly WHY they didn't include those books? Why would these books be mixed in with 'inspired' books? Is this part of the grand conspiracy between God and Satan to confuse the living crap out of humanity?
Yep, it's my turn to ask a lorry load of questions.
They've never been considered inspired-- by the RCC or by any group of Christians. They do not line up with the theme, the style, and the overall message of the Bible.
Quote:
You don't even know if you are. All you can do is have faith - but that doesn't mean the words you find in the Bible were actually 'inspired' by God. A lot of it sounds so silly that I find it difficult to imagine them being inspired by anything more than a dummy goat herder who was considered stupid even in his own time.
I know what God has said. I adhere to that.
Quote:
The difference between a team sport and religion is that the rules for, say, baseball, are straight-forward. You don't have to interpret them because they say what they say. There are no metaphors, no symbolism, there isn't a new set of rules that contradicts the old set of rules, and sports rules do not make value judgments (i.e. it doesn't count if a homosexual hits a homerun or women aren't allowed to play, etc.)
I can just see Biblical baseball rules:
"Thou shalt not hitteth the holy sphere over the foul line; those that undertake such an act commits a sin against Abner Doubleday and he shalt judge thou with the fornicators, homosexuals, adulterers, and fortune tellers who shall be cast into a lake of fire.
Those who shalt bunteth the holy sphere must seek forgiveness for art thou not deceiving thy foes? I will then commandeth thy foes to attack thy city; young and old, male or female, human or animal, they shalt leave none alive, and thy team will forever be forefit down to the seventh generation. Thou shalt never swing thy bat again, even in the name of thy LORD Doubleday."
Just read the Bible. It's really not all that complicated.
Quote:
How am I wrong, then? If you must take the Bible as historical truth, how do you then incorporate evolution and the Big Bang with Adam and Eve and the creation account in Genesis? And why do all of the FACTS point to naturalistic explanations rather than supernatural or magical explanations?
I have no problem with the idea that God used a big bang to create the universe. As for evolution? There are many scientists today that disagree with the idea. It's not a proven thing.
Quote:
Mmhmm, but it's still only your opinion that your belief system and your church have the right of things and everyone else is wrong. Or maybe God doesn't care if you believe in Dirt Man and Rib Woman just as long as you believe in him.
Jesus affirmed Adam and Eve. So yes...it does matter. It also matters that sin did enter the world through Adam because it speaks to our current state.
Quote:
So? Every theologian and Bible scholar points to God's Word. It's not as if other preachers are standing behind their pulpits and reading from a Harry Potter novel, the directions on how to set your VCR clock, or the back of a cereal box. Yeah, at the end of the day, ALL of them, even the good ones, the best ones, are merely offering up their own interpretation of the Bible. The fact that the Apocrypha isn't included and the fact that who knows how many of the Dead Sea Scrolls were burned as fuel by the goatherder who found them - not to mention the likely mistranslations and mistakes that undoubtedly crept in throughout the centures AND the fact that the New Testament was written at least a generation after Jesus's death means that you can't be sure WHAT the Bible means. No one can.
You'd be really surprised. I had lunch with about 8 other pastors yesterday. Many of them preach some pretty interesting stuff.
As for your statement regarding errors creeping in...you really need to do some research regarding textual dependability. They compared the Isaiah scroll from the Dead Sea scrolls to one 1000 years later and found very very few differences. The fact is....the copyists took it very seriously. You can trace back through the copies and find where errors crept in.
Quote:
Vizio ... unlike you, I have answered every single question you have asked. I'm not afraid to toss my cards on the table instead of playing them close to my chest like you do. And I answer your questions with statements, not more questions. Assumptions or not, you have yet to prove anything I've said to be wrong; most of what I say, well, the facts speak for themselves. They don't need supported.
But you continue to make statements as facts.
Quote:
No, Vizio, it is an example of something I've said that is so ridiculously obvious that it doesn't need backed up. Are you going to tell me that you picked your particular belief but you think there's another belief out there that's better than yours? I very much doubt that. If that's an assumption, I think it is an extremely safe one and doesn't need supported. Unless there is some other factor such as money influencing choices, it stands to reason that a person is going to pick whatever he/she believes is the best choice (they can be wrong, of course, but they still believe it was the best choice at the time of the choosing). People generally don't say, "Well I could get this product which has a 5 star rating - but nah, I think I'll get this other product instead that has a 1.5 star rating. Yeah!"
Is that really such a far-fetched assumption that it doesn't come anywhere near factual? That I now have to somehow support it with something? Besides, the fact that you take the Bible as literal and historical truth means you've pretty much chucked science into the trash bin anyhow, so there's not much use in a scientific poll or survey.
Murdering innocent babies is absolutely immoral. ...snip...
.
When is a baby not innocent?
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.
