Hey, Y'all. I wondered why is it that we have so many different denominations in christianity? I have not chosen a denomination. My parents took us from one to the next and I grew up pretty danged confused. I got curious about wicca and some other types of religion because I didn't know where I belong. I believe in God yet I have a lot of respect for wicca and people in Islam and I think that maybe my parents not leaving us to one particular branch christianity helped make me to not grow to be one of the many close minded and judgmental christians that I know. Lots of other christians I know call themselves people of god and speak of gods love yet they are racist and hatefull. You'll hear them use the and word more quick than anyone. I don't go to church because of these things and all the denomination confusion. Why have all this denomination when they all believe in the same God? Life is confusing enough I say.

Hi,
Without giving specific references, many denominations of Christian Faith started when some of the church members disagreed with the teachings.
For example, in Christian Religion, there are church names so numerous that it's hard to keep up with them.
The Church of Christ, The Church of God, First Baptist, First Grace Baptist, just to name a very few.
The first church was Christ's Church, from where all the others "broke off", with a little different and slight variations.
I know what you mean by going to church, listening to others, and then seeing how they act in real life, outside of church. That is up to them.
If you are really interested in going to church, just go. Pick one that you will know someone, sit with them. Church is just like the rest of life; some good people, some not so good people.
Many people who grow up in families that have no religion, or practice it, leave children who "are trying to find themselves", in church, and in life. You have to do it yourself. If you believe in God, then learn more about Him, in a church.
I do wish you the best, and I am sure you will get some more answers, from those more qualified than I to give you advice.

I think it's human nature to question and argue and then get mad and take off if someone disagrees with your opinion. That's how a lot of churches started... look at the Church of England (Anglicans, Episcopalians). King Henry VIII wanted to divorce his wife but the pope said no, so he was annoyed and formed his own religion. Two more modern examples are the Lutherans and the Baptists. Apparently the Lutherans have about 20 sub-denominations! The two largest ones are the Evangelical Lutheran Church, and the Lutheran Church, Missouri Synod. The former has liberal leanings and the latter is much more conservative, hence the split. Growing up, one of my foster families was Baptist. It was explained to me that Baptists believe in the autonomy of the local church, so therefore each individual church can make its own rules and be a Church unto itself. In my city for example, there are nine Baptist churches, and they run the gamut from the Bible Baptist Church which only uses the King James Version of the Bible and is very conservative, to the First Baptist Church, which is very liberal, and all kinds of churches in between, which differ basically on how they decide to interpret scripture. There is even one called the Regular Baptist Church. Like the others are all irregular or something? LOL.

Btw, not sure if you know this or not, but there are many different "denominations" of Judaism and Wicca too. Among Jews there are the various Hasidic groups including the Lubavitch, then there's the Modern Orthodox, the Conservative, the Reform, the Reconstructionist, etc... and basically the differences between these groups are their beliefs about the Torah (Bible) and Talmud. The Orthodox believe the Torah is the written word of God, whereas the Reconstructionist think it's a just a record of the traditions of the Jewish people, and not at all divine. So once again the splits are a matter of interpretation of scripture.

Then there is my one friend, who was raised by parents who are into Traditional Witchcraft, and are against Wicca! LOL! They say Wiccans are flakes and they themselves are the only ones practicing REAL witchcraft. So the problem exists in every faith community.

Don't know if what I've said has made much sense, but basically I believe it all boils down to disagreements and fighting...

King Henry VIII wanted to divorce his wife but the pope said no, so he was annoyed and formed his own religion.


Hello Orange,

What you wrote makes a lot of sense.

Henry VIII didn't start a new religion.

He merely replaced the pope with himself, and then the newly named but largely unaltered "Church of England" continued Roman traditions. That meant that Henry could please himself in the matter of personal dispensations and also stop paying taxes to Rome.

What is referred to in Anglicanism as "High Church [of England]" is virtually indistinguishable today from Roman Catholicism, even down to a celibate priesthood.

Its more common name is Anglican-Catholicism, and it is but a whisper away from Rome.

The modern Church of England-at-large has no separate and distinct teachings on which all its adherents or even its ministers remain fixed. Its formal creeds have been diluted repeatedly and abandoned often, and a please-yourself approach to theology has completed its hurtle to what might be its total demise.




MORGANITE


:)

Thanks for your comments Morganite. I appreciate it! :) But, the Church of England doesn't have a celibate priesthood. My friend's dad is an Anglican priest. I've never heard it called Anglican Catholicism, I'll have to ask him about that. I know that he says it's called Anglican here in Canada and Episcopalian in the US. But basically it's the Church of England (or Scotland or Ireland, haha, depending on where you're living!) Anyway thanks this is a cool discussion.

You got to be some kind of genius to keep up with all the different religions sect sub-sect denominations and churches.It seemes every time someone gets a bug in his butt the solution is to start another church!No wonder there is so much confusion in the world.I've always ignored the politics of religion and have concluded that good people are just good people.And bad people are everywhere.There are so many opinions everywhere and everybody thinks they're right.Where I draw the line is when you try and tell me how wrong I am.Its one thing to disagree its another to try and tell someone what to do!I have learned to leave closed minded intolerant people alone and enjoy the company of those I find to be just good humans whether they are christian or not because who really cares where you find the God of your own understanding!:cool:

In general if you view denomination as a group of people who meet to worship Jesus with different beleifs and practice, there was from the beginning of Christianity. If you merely read the letters of Paul to the different churches you will see where the people even within 40 years of Jesus death were doing some difference in practice and customs.

At the very early church councils we see who the nationality of where you lived influenced customs and beleifs.

Today sadly as it did back then, a lot comes from who wants to be the chief and leader ( instead of Christ)

The Church of the East ( Orthodox) broke away from Rome over several issues, some breaks like with Martain Luther happened because of political reasons. Yes he disagreed with the Catholic Church, and was sentenced to death by them. He then used the worldly politics to get Germany stand up against the political power of Rome. This political break started other political breaks which stemed religioius breaks also.

Then of course England using religion made a political break from them also.

Today of course if the preachers wife upsets two of the elders, they move down the road and start their own church now. It has become too easy with no penalty to start a new church.

You have 30 or so different baptists, a vareity of Methodist, 10 or so Lutherans, about 30 or so Catholic groups ( more about like 200 but I only count the ones that actually have churches and are large enough to have notice)

So most of it has to do with mans desire to be a leader, politics of the world, and disagreement over what is normally minor bibical opinions

Hey, Y'all. I wondered why is it that we have so many different denominations in christianity? I have not chosen a denomination. My parents took us from one to the next and I grew up pretty danged confused. I got curious about wicca and some other types of religion because I didnt know where I belong. I believe in God yet I have alot of respect for wicca and people in Islam and I think that maybe my parents not leaving us to one particular branch christianity helped make me to not grow to be one of the many close minded and judgmental christians that I know. lots of other christians i know call them selves people of god and speak of gods love yet they are racist and hatefull. Youll hear them use the n word quicker than anyone. I dont go to church because of these things and all the denomination confusion. Why have all this denomination when they all believe in the same God? life is confusing enough i say.

Crankiebaby,

The simple reason for different denominations is that most people who consider themselves "Christian" do not take the bible seriously. Instead of believing what God has communicated through the scripture they decide what He means rather than simply believing exactly what He has said. Consequently one group believes God means "X", but another groups says "No, He means "Y." The truth is He means exactly what He says.

How do you pick a church? Ignore the denominational title and pick a church that believes the bible as it is written. If you find a church like that (and there are many to find), there will be no predjudice in their teaching or in their hearts because they will realize that we are all related. We all trace our ancestry back to Adam and Eve... Literally.

As for Christians being narrow minded, you are quite correct. One cannot believe that sin is sin (no gray areas here), that there is but one God and that is the God of the Bible, that Jesus is the Only Way to God, and not be narrow minded. However, that kind of narrow-mindedness is what God requires.

May God richly bless you,

Phil Debenham

In short, the various denominations have arisen out of the idea that one man's interpretation of scripture are as good as anothers'.

This idea leans heavily on the Bible being the sole authority on doctrinal issues.

The problem with this is that it ignores the fact that Christ did not commission a book or books; He founded a Church, gave it leaders and gave those leaders authority.

Further, the idea discounts the fact that we did not even have a "Bible" until about 300 years after Christ died.

... but this, of course, only speaks about Christianity.

I see that you recognize some good in people of other faiths. That is fine. We can find good people in all faiths.

You believe in God. That is just the first step. The next step is to ask yourself "Has God revealed Himself personally to Mankind?". And "If so, then how?"

For me, the evidence points to the Historic Judeao-Christian faith.

Thanks for your comments Morganite. I appreciate it! :) But, the Church of England doesn't have a celibate priesthood. My friend's dad is an Anglican priest. I've never heard it called Anglican Catholicism, I'll have to ask him about that. I know that he says it's called Anglican here in Canada and Episcopalian in the US. But basically it's the Church of England (or Scotland or Ireland, haha, depending on where you're living!) Anyways thanks this is a cool discussion.

Orange,

Anglican priests, per se, are not celibate. The celbate priests within Anglicanism that I mentioned are High Church, or Anglican-Catholics. This will help clear the confusion.

The terms Anglo-Catholic and Anglo-Catholicism describe people, groups, ideas, customs and practices within Anglicanism that emphasise continuity with Catholic tradition. Since the English Reformation there have always been Anglicans who identify themselves closely with traditional Catholic thought and practice.

The concept of Anglo-Catholicism as a distinct sub-group or branch of Anglicanism, however, began to come to prominence in the Church of England during the Victorian era under the influence of the Oxford Movement or "Tractarians".

Anglo-Catholic people and churches are usually identified by their liturgical practices and ornaments. Anglo-Catholics use many traditional Catholic practices in their liturgical ceremonies such as vestments, incense and candles and devotion to the Blessed Virgin Mary. Anglo-Catholic liturgical practices (incorrectly called 'Ritualism') were a particular source of controversy in the nineteenth century, especially in England where Parliament was asked to legislate against certain practices.

Many Anglo-Catholic "innovations," which were revivals of dormant Catholic practices eventually became accepted by most mainstream Anglicans.

What Anglo-Catholics believe is highly debated even among people who identify themselves as such. The Thirty-Nine Articles make distinctions between Anglican and Roman Catholic doctrine; but the Articles have never been regarded with much favour by Anglo-Catholics, and because they were purposely written in such a way as to be open to a wide range of interpretation, some Anglo-Catholics have defended Catholic practices and beliefs as being consistent with the Articles.

Anglo-Catholic priests often hear private confessions and anoint the sick, regarding these practices (as do Roman Catholics) as sacraments; whereas more Protestant-minded Anglicans generally think of them as merely optional sacramental rites. (The classic Anglican aphorism regarding confession is "All may, none must, some should").

Anglo-Catholics share with Roman Catholics a belief in the sacramental nature of the priesthood and the sacrificial character of the Mass; many encourage priestly celibacy, and until the 1970s almost all rejected the possibility of women receiving Holy Orders.

In recent years, though, some Anglo-Catholics have accepted the ordination of women and other aspects of "liberalism" such as the use of modern and inclusive language in Bible translations and the liturgy, although many have not and have set up as an opposiiton.

While the nineteenth-century Anglo-Catholic movement began partly as a reaction to liberalism (in the theological sense), secularism (in the Darwiniam sense), and Evangelicalism (in the "enthusiastic" sense) in the Church of England, the movement's heirs in the modern church are far more diverse and in some respects more inclusive. The movement Affirming Catholicism is an example of a more liberal approach to Anglo-Catholic theology and practice.

Most of the groups making up the Continuing Anglican Movement are regarded, and regard themselves, as Anglo-Catholic.

In the Anglican Communion three terms are frequently — but not always correctly — used to denote the parish's style of worship: High Church, Low Church, and Broad Church (or Latitudinarian).

"High Church" is generally used to describe moderate to advanced Anglo-Catholicism, and a heavy leaning towards Rome, including the Papacy.

"Low Church" is used for Anglicans of a more Evangelical or Protestant theology who emphasise the primacy of scripture, salvation by grace through faith alone and worship based on the official prayer books but with much less ceremonial.

The term "Broad Church" is sometimes used for those "middle-of-the-road" Anglicans who are somewhere between the "high" and "low" traditions, or those who stress that there is room for diverse traditions in the Anglican Communion.

Some Anglo-Catholics (sometimes called Anglo-Papalists) consider themselves under Papal supremacy even though they are not in full communion with Rome. Many Anglo-Catholics seek for reunion with Roman Catholic Church. In fact a significant portion of Britain's Roman Catholics are former Anglicans or their descendants.

What has come to be called "Anglo-Catholicism" has a long history within the Anglican Church. From the time of the founding of the first monasteries at Glastonbury in Britain, around the fourth decade C.E. there has been an apostolic line of bishops in the British Isles. Indeed, the first group of missionaries to the Celts of the British Isles are documented as having been compatriots of St. Joseph of Arimathea, and to have been commissioned for their evangelism by the Apostle Philip (who then held the Ephesian See at Hieropolis), sometime around A.D. 47. King Arviragus of Somerset and his sons, Coillus and Marius, deeded the first lands for the Christian monastic communes around Yniswitrin (Glastonbury).

Abbot-bishops continued to lead Christians within commune-settlements in the British Isles, peacefully co-existing with local pagans, until the Bishops of Rome (Popes) sent St. Patrick and St. Augustine of Canterbury to the Isles as missionaries, specifically to get the Celtic Chrisians -- whose practice, having derived from St. Philip the Apostle, was more akin to that of the pre-Chalcedonian Christian East (Middle East) than to that of Rome and the Christian Church of Continental Western Europe, which used Latin rites -- under the authority and rites of the Apostolic See of Rome. Some of their ancient liturgies can be found in the remnant of the Stowe (Lorrha) Missal.

In A.D. 664, the Abess of Whitby, St. Hilda, convened a synod of Celtic bishops that began the process of placing the bishops in the British Isles under the Patriarchal jurisdiction of Rome. By the end of the reign of English King Richard II, in A.D. 1400, the popular right of appointment of Archbishops to their Sees, held by the King, had been ceded to the Roman Pope. British bishops were under direct Roman authority for several more centuries.

Noted should be however, that from the start of Christianity in Britain until the reign of Henry VIII, papal authority was - theoretically - accepted, even though the authority of the pope was far less due to communication difficulties in the first centuries after the collapse of the Western Roman Empire.

When the Reformation broke out on the European Continent, the tide swept up England as well. Nevertheless, King Henry VIII remained staunchly a Catholic in theology and liturgy, while some reformers (such as Bishops Ridley and Latimer) wanted to follow the radical reforms of Geneva.

Henry said he restored the right of the Sovereign to appoint the Archbishops to their Sees and repudiated Roman usurpations of that right; yet he did this less for the pleas of his bishops than for his own self-interest in obtaining an annulment of his marriage to Catherine of Aragon. After a brief re-imposition of Roman control during the reign of "Bloody" Mary Tudor, King Edward VI restored royal supremacy. Under his reign the English Church was radically reformed with a new liturgy and new theological positions.

When Queen Elizabeth I took the English throne, she sought to steer a via media between the "excesses" of Rome, on the one hand, and those of Geneva, on the other. Thus was born the Elizabethan Settlement, and the promulgation of a single Book of Common Prayer, for whatever theological party was to use it within the Anglican Church.

From that time, through Archbishop Laud and the Caroline divines, up to the time of the Oxford Movement Tractarians, and the Anglo-Catholic Congesses, to the present day of Affirming Catholicism, there has always been a strong theological party within Anglicanism which has sought to stress apostolic continuity all the way back to the apostle Philip. Despite Roman claims to the contrary in pope Leo XIII's Apostolicae curae (1893), the Anglican Archbishops of Canterbury and York have consistently made clear, starting with their official response, "Saepius officio", that there is an unbroken apostolic succession in the Anglican priesthood, and that the Historic Episcopate has been in the British Isles from the earliest days of the Church.

The Church of England in Scotland is "The Church of Scotland," but the Irish Anglican Church is "The Church in Ireland."






M:) RGANITE

I was referring to the Anglican Church... specifically, the Anglican Church of Canada, because that's what most people think of when you say "Anglican" here. But thanks for the info on Anglo-Catholicism. I've never heard anything about it, and I'm always interested to learn new things!

Well what ever life is one big lets see how much more you can take and then thankfully you die and don't have to care anymore

well what ever life is one big lets see how much more you can take and then thankfully you die and dont have to care anymore
I don't think so. Life is an opportunity to know the One who created you and loves you and even died for you. Life can be the beginning of eternal life. Life far more rich than any of us can imagine. Abundant life. Life doesn't have to be negative, crankiebabie.

well what ever life is one big lets see how much more you can take and then thankfully you die and dont have to care anymore

I sense that this is not what you really believe in your heart. I think you see the wonders of the Universe, and of life itself, and know that behind all of this incredible design is probably a designer.

... Am I right? :o

Yes but sometimes it feels that way.

I do know what you mean, Crankiebabie.

... and believe me, all of us feel that way sometimes... even those who we might think never have doubt; like Billy Graham, The Pope, etc.

I bet each one of them would admit to occasional dark doubt...

I was referring to the Anglican Church... specifically, the Anglican Church of Canada, because that's what most people think of when you say "Anglican" here. But thanks for the info on Anglo-Catholicism. I've never heard anything about it, and I'm always interested to learn new things!

Thank you for your explanation. The "Anglican Church" proper is the "Church of England" and is used interchangeably.

Anglicanism has a large 'communion' throughout the world, not all of which enjoy the name "Anglican." It is good to learn that there is a "Canadian Church of England."

It is quite propbable that the Canadian Version of Anglicanism does not enjoy a "High Church," so the question of Anglo-Catholics is moot.

It is gratifying to note that the Anglican Church of Canada (that sounds odd, a bit like saying, the English Church of Canada") is engaged in outreach to Roman Catholics, Lutherans, and Baptists.

Do you (or your Rev. Uncle) see them extending their oecumenical outreach beyond those 'safe' boundaries?


M:)RGANITE

It is gratifying to note that the Anglican Church of Canada (that sounds odd, a bit like saying, the English Church of Canada") is engaged in outreach to Roman Catholics, Lutherans, and Baptists.

A nice point. Yes, Ecumenism is alive and strong amongst the larger Non-Catholics and the Catholics.

Chuck Coulson is involved in a good one called Catholics and Evangelicals together.

Great stuff!

well what ever life is one big lets see how much more you can take and then thankfully you die and dont have to care anymore


You reminded me of John Milton and Alexander Pope.


O visions ill foreseen!
Each day's lot's
Enough to bear.
[John Milton]

He was but born to try
The lot of man -- to suffer and to die.
[Alexander Pope]


It were better to be blessed with a more trimphal outllook than be condemned to live a hapless victim under the threat of enduring, unavoidable, and eterrnal tragedy.



M:)RGANITE

Well maybe they and I are related somehow.

Thank you for your explanation. The "Anglican Church" proper is the "Church of England" and is used interchangeably.

Anglicanism has a large 'communion' throughout the world, not all of which enjoy the name "Anglican." It is good to learn that there is a "Canadian Church of England."

Yeah that's why I said Episcopalian in my first post, because I thought that's what Anglicans were called in the United States. I could be mistaken though?


It is quite propbable that the Canadian Version of Anglicanism does not enjoy a "High Church," so the question of Anglo-Catholics is moot.

It is gratifying to note that the Anglican Church of Canada (that sounds odd, a bit like saying, the English Church of Canada") is engaged in outreach to Roman Catholics, Lutherans, and Baptists.



I'm not sure about the High Church thing... the term High Church sounds a bit familiar to me so it could that there are some "High-Churchers" here in Canada. Somehow I don't think they're here in the wilds of Saskatchewan though LOL. Maybe in a bigger more cosmopolitan centre like Montreal or Toronto. I can ask my friend's dad though if you're interested.

As far as being accepting of other groups, I think the Anglicans have a pretty good track record generally, but as with any group, there are some radicals, both left and right. Right now one of the big issues is whether to allow gay marriage. And a while back it was whether to ordain women priests.


Do you (or your Rev. Uncle) see them extending their oecumenical outreach beyond those 'safe' boundaries?

I'm not sure what you mean by this last bit. In my city we have a large Multifaith ecumenical organization made up of many different religious groups (Christian and non-Christian alike) and they get together several times a year to exchange ideas. They even have multifaith services a few times a year, that the public can attend. The Anglicans participate in this too. It's all good. :)

I think Ecumenical outreach is good in so far as it's not done to gloss over the differences.

The goal should be first to recognize the commonality, then clarify the differences.

I think Ecumenical outreach is good in so far as it's not done to gloss over the differences.

The goal should be first to recognize the commonality, then clarify the differences.

Well I'm not sure about other places, but here the multifaith group's purpose is mostly for mutual understanding, respect and peace. It was started after our local synagogue was bombed with a molotov cocktail and there was a deadly fire.

Well I'm not sure about other places, but here the multifaith group's purpose is mostly for mutual understanding, respect and peace. It was started after our local synagogue was bombed with a molotov cocktail and there was a deadly fire.

Ecumenism and multi-faith fellowships have different purposes.

The Ecumenical (or Oecumenical) Movement (OM) has as its goal the unification of all churches in the Roman and Protestant communions.

Multi-faith organisations build bridges of peace, trust, and understanding in communities.

Om has a huge mountain to climb, as its history shows. Inter-faith groups have made significant contributions to communities and are set to continue their good work.





M:)RGANITE

Oh okay I didn't realize that the 2 groups - ecumenical and multifaith - were actually different. But that makes sense now, thanks! The group I'm talking about in my city is obviously a multifaith group then. I think it would be much much harder for everyone in the city to be ecumenical. Too much arguing... they probably couldn't even decide on the colour of tablecloths for a potluck LOL.

Blah Blah Blah. No offense to anyone but this is exactly why I joined a NON-denominational BIBLE based church. Too much conflict. What really matters is that in your heart you love and accept that Jesus Christ is Lord and died for your sins. You commit your life to Him. It's so simple yet people insist on making it so difficult! The principle is to live with Christ in your heart and in your life. Not to follow dogma's and "rules" created by man and religion. Read the bible. Study it. Learn it's teachings and embrace them. The other simple gift from God that most people can't comprehend is that God loves us and forgives us no matter what our past sins are, as long as we ask Him to, and believe that He will forgive us. Unconditionally. It really is that simple. God Bless, and take care. Dana

Joycemeyer.org (recommeneded by me and also seen on TBN)

Any church, even non denominatin is still based on beliefs, since all Christian churches are based on the bible and ones understanding.

The only fault I find at times with some of the newer nondenominatinal churches are that they fail to accept other denominations as Christians and wish to go out and "save" them because they may also believe in ancient traditions of the early christians.

And again the denominations who do not accept as Christian those churches who wish to follow a more basic form of Chrsitianity.


The fact is there is only ONE church but many groups that are all part of that ONE church even if they don't want to accept the other members of it.

Blah Blah Blah. No offense to anyone but this is exactly why I joined a NON-denominational BIBLE based church. Too much conflict. What really matters is that in your heart you love and accept that Jesus Christ is Lord and died for your sins. You commit your life to Him. It's so simple yet people insist on making it so difficult! The principle is to live with Christ in your heart and in your life. Not to follow dogma's and "rules" created by man and religion. Read the bible. Study it. Learn it's teachings and embrace them. The other simple gift from God that most people can't comprehend is that God loves us and forgives us no matter what our past sins are, as long as we ask Him to, and believe that He will forgive us. Unconditionally. It really is that simple. God Bless, and take care. Dana

joycemeyer.org (recommeneded by me and also seen on TBN)

DANA,

When you begin a post with "Blah, Blah, Blah," you must expect that it will cause offense. If you do not want to be offensive, then do not be offensive, instead of being offensive and then saying you didn't mean to be offensive.

There are serious issues here that deserve more than your opprobrium, if that is what your Blah Blah Blah is intended to convey. There are reasons, historical, political, and theological why denominations, sects, and cults inbcluding those like yours exist and if people wish to probe them in a serious and scholarly manner, then they are free to do so without interference or carping criticism.

By saying what you have said abouit what a person needs to be a Christian, you are doing exactly the same that others have done, but you find fault with them whilst managing to recommend your own way as better, best, correct, more correct, or whatever it is you really believe about whatever it is that you have.

In spite of what you believe and say, there is no Bible based non-denominational church or group that exists that is free from the personal interpretations of others, nor from the thrust of denominationalism, and Joyce Meyer is certainly not unopinionated.

To illustrate my point about your not being truly non-denomiunational, if you have communion, is it after the rite of the Roman Catholic Church, the Eastern Orthodox Church, the Episcopalian Church, Lutheranism, Pentecostsalism, or what? Whose practice do you follow, and hwose understanding of what it is and what it does do you hold to be correct?

I offer that as a self-test to see whether your non-denominational church is truly free from the 'rules' of other denominations, or whether it is not.

You seem to have missed them point of this thread, and in doing so you have reached certain conclusions about what people do or do not comprehend. But, with so little prior information about the faith position of each of the participants, not all of whom have made a 'confession,' your conclusions are at best suspect and unsound at worst.

It would be nice if you could make a more positve and constructive contribution to a subject that matters to a lot of people, even if it does not matter to you. The subject/question asked for explanation of the multidenominational nature of Christianity.

Such a question cannot be answered with a homily.

My personal experience with a "non-denominational church" is that during one of my absences the "non-denominational church" held a prayer meeting for my conversion to their denomination. and it seems as if you are telling everyone here to fall in behind you in your church. Can you see what is wrong with that picture?

Come on!




M:)RGANITE


:)

Any church, even non denominatin is still based on beliefs, since all Christian churches are based on the bible and ones understanding.

The only fault I find at times with some of the newer nondenominatinal churches are that they fail to accept other denominations as Christians and wish to go out and "save" them because they may also beleive in ancient traditions of the early christians.

And again the denominations who do not accept as Christian those churches who wish to follow a more basic form of Chrsitianity.


The fact is there is only ONE church but many groups that are all part of that ONE church even if they don't want to accept the other members of it.

Father,

You are correct. There is no such thing as a non-denominational church. It is an oxymoron.



M:)RGANITE



:)

I meant to comment on non denomination or is? Morganite. Some how it ended up else where.

I did not read any of the other responses. I might not be able to answer you with details but I will let you know my opinions and thoughts of your questions.

I myself was raised as a catholic. My step fathers nanny was johova witness, and My step father is baptist. So there were times that we went to the catholic church and sometimes we went to the baptist church. Johova witness, no offense to any, but when I went there not all dressed up and a visiter they looked at me like I did not belong and that I was not welcomed.

As far as I am concerned Protestant, Catholic, Baptist,Orthadox, and Pentocost, and others that maybe I missed. They all teach about the same God, they all teach about Jesus Christ, but each church has a different outlook on the bible. Each church has a different history and some of the churches broke away from the catholic church to start their own with differing opinions and beliefs. The churches pray differently have different customs and different ways of carrying out the word of God, and mass.

For me I was actually opened to trying out other denominations and my grandfather would say you know how many years that this church has been in our family, but Now as an adult I find myself open to other churches other teachers but I feel most comfortable in the Catholic church.

As far as judgemental, as far as hyprocrital people you get them everywhere and anywhere but not all are like this.

I had someone tell me because I do not go to church 1 a week but this person does in so many words he is a better christian then I am. The way I feel though is that it is not how many times you go but how you live your life on a everyday basis and how you treat each other. Being judgemental and hypocritical is against the teachings of God and Jesus. There are some churches where you go in not looking your best and people frown and judge you for not wearing the proper dress(Dresscode) yet Jesus excepts us all, especially the humble at heart.

Well What do you think about what I wrote? For me personal I think everybody is in a growing path and that there is not one perfect choice of denomination. My advice to you is if you really want to start a path to a denomination or spiritual adventure. Go to different denominations attend a service at different churches and denominations then whichever one that makes you feel the most comfortable the one that moves you the most spiritual, stick with that one.

What I also found even in the catholic church in the last three months I have been to three different catholic churches. Each one was different in some way and I like one over the other two for certain reasons. It all depends on the priest and what community you are in.

Well I think I wrote enough and please reply to what I wrote I am interested in what you think.

Joe

I certainly didn't mean to be offensive to anyone, but it appears I struck a nerve in at least one person here, and for that I apologize. All I was trying to convey is that in my OPINION the bible should be the basis for any religion calling themselves Christian. We all have our own belief system and I do not believe I was trying to convert anyone to my way of thinking, only giving advice to look to the bible for accuracy. I was baptized Catholic before my parents were divorced, then attended mulitple churches of my dad's choosing throughout my upbringing including, Methodist, Presbyterian, Assembly of God, and a few others I can't even remember. The result was a very confused me! I didn't attend church for many years as a young adult due to the fact I didn't know who was "right". I still believed in God and I bought a study bible to help me understand the teachings of Christ and biblical principles. After many years, I longed to fellowship with other like-minded Christians. I chose the church that I did, because the teachings are purely bible based, and everything I have been taught can be found in the bible. This wasn't always the case with other churches I attended. I can find no reference to pergatory in the bible, along with a lot of other religious beliefs I was taught growing up. I chose to join a church who can back up it's teachings through the bible. I know this sounds over-simplified but I don't pretend to be a scholar of religion or the bible for that matter. I have read it, and re-read many books of it, but I don't pretend knowledge I don't have. All I can share is my own experience and the joy I have known since accepting Jesus as my savior, and making him Lord of my life. After re-reading my post, I wish I had left out the blah, blah blah, but I was alluding to my own personal experience with a multiple religion upbringing and the confusion it brought to my life until I sought out the truth as stated in the bible. All said and told, I am not trying to minimize anyone else's belief system or religion, only relaying my own experience.

God Bless,
Dana

I think it was the "blah blah blah" that annoyed people, Dana... not your religious beliefs. When I'm talking and someone says, "blah, blah, blah" to me, I feel as if they're dismissing everything I'm saying or else just telling me to shut up. Thanks for explaining it a bit better.

Anyway welcome to the board!

I agree with you Orange, and point well taken. Hindsight is always 20/20 and again, the blah blah blah was read out of the context I originally intended it to be. After I read it again, I was a bit mortified at how it actually "sounded". I did sound rather condescending opening a post that way. Much apologies and future posts will be read twice before I hit submit. Thanks for the response. I can accept and appreciate constructive critisicm. Hugs to all I offended.

God Bless,
Dana

I think the best church I went to was with my favorite cousin and his family when I was a preteen. It took place in this familys basement and everyone wore jeans, t-shirt and sneakers. You could dance if you felt like dancing and sing too and no one judged but everyone would dance and sing with you. They had a guitar player and a couple that sang and the preacher had a nice smelling after shave and when he talked it was like he was talking solely to you. They also did cute little skits and plays.

Personally I like a church with authority. Of the 3000 or so denominations only a few have earth and heaven authority. I speak of "The Church" as mentioned in the Holy bible as the foundation (or ground) and pillar of the truth. That Church was founded by Jesus Christ on Simon whom Jesus named as Peter or The Rock who was the original leader of the apostles as the bible indicates.
Yes I like a Church that goes by what the Bible teaches and indicates. As such I changed from the church I grew up with to the Catholic Church, because it has the Christ given earthly authority and was inspired by the Holy Spirit to promulgate The Holy Bible.
Nearly all of the other denominations teach some fairly good Christianity, but for full true Christianity complete with the God given graces of the Sacraments the members partake of the Catholic Churches of Eastern and Roman rite in communion with each other are for me the way to go.
And I do recommend that others seriously consider looking into that.
Peace and kindness,
arcura (Fred)

Most of you know I'm a Catholic Christian - and agree wholeheartedly.

I was raised in a sincere Christian (Protestant) home. For that I am incredibly grateful.

But in my more inquisitive years, it hit me:
What about the first 1500 years?

Christ founded a Church, set up the Apostles to lead it and gave them and their successors authority over his Church. The books of the New Testament show this clearly. And even after that, we have tens of dozens of writings (http://www.newadvent.org/fathers) that tell us what Christianity taught.

Only after about 1500 years of Christianity do we find leaders espousing the "invisible Church" and "sola scriptura" doctrines.

It was after the first 1500 years that those heresies crept in to spread around the world in the next 500.
And that is sad.
So many millions have been lead astray.
Perhaps the most dangerous one is the so-called "Know so salvation" of sola scriptora.
The adherents to that one use the trick of selective verse manipulation to lead people to believe that the teaching is biblical when it is really not.
The bible is full of passages that insist one must have faith and work it, but those are skipped over or ignored.
The fact that there are over 3000 different denominations and the list keeps growing should be a wake up call to an intelligent mind that there is something seriously wrong there.
Peace and kindness,
Arcura (Fred)
:) :) :)

Christianity in its pure form is any and all believers, no titles not real man made doctrine just people living their lives for the glory of God.

Of course in the matter of man, man wants to rule and contol all things so we as human mess it all up.

Most know I am Orthodox Catholic, so I do not defend it or attack others for it.
I was a regular guest speaker at a local methodist church for over a year and found good christian friends there.

The divisions of man started before the end of the Bible, we only have to read the letters of Paul to see how man started doing this or that different and Pauls letters are corrections to them. So it did not end at the last writing of Paul, but churches continued to want to and try to follow incorrect paths, and the church leaders after Paul and after John and after Peter had to deal with them. But even as all did not fully accept Paul, others never accepted this new leader ( now called Bishops) or that leader.

During the first 1000 years the church was not merely one unit, but made up of various churches each under their own Bishop normally. As man does they looked up to and/or followed the Bishops of the larger or largest churches in an area. We see this at the very first church councils, divisions first by some beleifs and then by division as to where the churches were located.

There were disagreements, over the trinity, over the human nature of Christ, over the divine nature of Christ. Over the proper creed and so on.
It was never a 100 percent agreement. But though it all and in spite of mans desires the spirit control and allowed the truth to prevail.

Was there sin and corruption in the early church, of course as it is in all churches today. We see early how a husband and wife sold some property and in an attempt to look big to the eyes of the church lied about how much it sold for. They paid the price, today more often than not, you will not be struck dead for a lie to the church but the example of mans sin is seen early in church history.

I love and respect all Christians and believe we are saved often in spite of our denominatin because of the love of Christ.

It is the lifestyle that shows if we are christian or not, the denomination or any public profession means little.

Last week these two Mormom (LDS) came to my door. I guess the stautue of Mary in the front yard did not scare them away.

I had them come in, I knew of their faith, so I did not offer them a soda but offered them apple juice or water, told them to sit down and rest. I found they had rode their bikes 15 miles to our community and was going now door to door. I invited them back if there were in the area and hungy ever.
Would not Christ had done the same to any man.

They were respective of my faith as I was of thiers ( although they still left me one of those little mail in cards) I had shocked them in that I had actually read the Book of Mormon at least 3 times and may have know some of it better than they did.

So yes I do believe I have the best denomination but I will not fault you for your faith, but it is having a faith in Jesus that is the most important. Yes I believe I have a special closeness because of the sacraments that I have but I believe it is in the living of our faith that we prove it.

I agree with Fr Chuck 95%.

It is difficult to define "believer", so it is a reasonable thing for a person to investigate Historical Christianity to help them decide where to go to worship - and get good direction that is based on good doctrine.

For example, Jehovah's Witnesses and Mormons call themselves Christians, but I, personally, have to disagree... but without attack of any sort.

It's a tough ground to play in helping folk determine what is good Christian doctrine and what is not.

Sola Scriptura being a perfect example: It's not found in the Bible, and it's not found as a teaching by "church leaders" until many centuries later.

... so while I recognize Protestants to be Christians, I must also, when asked, point out that Sola Scriptura is not a doctrine taught by Christ or his Apostles.

... of course all I've said in this brief post is addressed in literally thousands of volumes - so justice cannot be done in a post or three...

My wife often reminds me to be nice and play well with others, one of my harder things to do, as I am fairly "outspoken"

The same reasons many call the LDS non christian is the same reason that groups call Catholics non christian, so I prefer to stand that people can have a personal relationship in spite of their local churches teachings, some just have a better opportunity.

And who knows, as my wife ( a saint into herself for putting up with me) reminded me, who knows if they were angels sent to see if I would show hospitality to people in this group. Something she lives by not judging many as much as I do.

And from actions such as this, often we can find people drawn to us for acting as Christians.

While I can fault teachings of various groups, if they call upon the name of Jesus, baptise in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit.
I can't merely dismiss them because they have accepted perhaps other teachngs of man.

But that is of course another discussion I normally don't get into.

And as in school anything over 70 percent is passing, I will take the 95 and be happy. But of course try for some extra credit latter.

Excellent points. I might add that our (Roman Catholic) own Catechism's language about "who is saved" teaches that it's not like the old [and mostly mis-quoted] attitude of "there is no salvation outside the Roman Catholic Church".

In fact, many Catholic's themselves are oft surprised when they come across a section (of the Catechism) like this example (http://www.kofc.org/publications/cis/catechism/getsection.cfm?partnum=1&SecNum=2&ChapNum=3&articlenum=9&ParSecNum=3&subSecNum=3&headernum=4&ParNum=841&ParType=a). [Some may need to sit down for the part about Muslims]

Father Chuck,
Thanks for a very good and thought provoking post.
Pax Christi,
arcura (Fred)