Ask Me Help Desk - Christianity - So many sects, so little Bibles.

Heh yeah "Denomination Shmenomination" just was meant to do away with all the names, titles, sects, denominations, etc. It seems rather pointless... especially since beliefs vary even within the different denominations. A big controversy at the Protestant Church I was raised in was whether modern music (that included a guitar and drums instead of an organ) was considered holy. This debate actually split the Church into two sermons every Sunday.

So doing away with the names and all, when it comes down to it, it is likely that every Christian has their very own specific interpretation of it all. With so much variation (however minute), the only true constant would be what? Following Christ.. aka "accepting Jesus Christ as your Lord and Savior"? I don't mean to say that it is "simplistic"... but still it really is just that "simple".

Like when you are learning something new... while learning, it can seem complex, difficult, confusing, etc... but once you finally KNOW it... it seems so simple.

Anyway, not sure where I was going with all this...

Chey, I completely agree. The Bible was written by man... I know many people that God somehow protected it but I don't see how that could be possible. On top of that, there was a CONSIDERABLE amount of time between the last book that was written and the first assembly of a the Bible as we know it today.. which ever Bible that is.

And if the Catholic Bible came first and it also included the verse about adding to or taking away from the Bible being the sin of all sins, how is having such a popular Bible that contains 7 less books explained/accepted? Just curious... I don't claim to have the answers... but I do have the questions :D

And when it comes down to it, are all these other denominations accepted by each other... or by God, in their eyes?

Beyond that, denomination or not, would any disprovable, reasonable interpretation also qualify?

Quote:

Originally Posted by DrJizzle

heh yeah "Denomination Shmenomination" just was meant to do away with all the names, titles, sects, denominations, etc. It seems rather pointless... especially since beliefs vary even within the different denominations. A big controversy at the Protestant Church I was raised in was whether or not modern music (that included a guitar and drums instead of an organ) was considered holy. This debate actually split the Church into two sermons every Sunday.

So doing away with the names and all, when it comes down to it, it is likely that each and every Christian has their very own specific interpretation of it all. With so much variation (however minute), the only true constant would be what? Following Christ.. aka "accepting Jesus Christ as your Lord and Savior"? I don't mean to say that it is "simplistic"... but still it really is just that "simple".

Like when you are learning something new... while learning, it can seem complex, difficult, confusing, etc... but once you finally KNOW it... it seems so simple.

Anyway, not sure where I was going with all this...

Well, I certainly hope that "following Christ" isn't the only constant. It's not much of one, taken on its face. Here again, the thing has to be unpacked. An awful lot gets smuggled in with one simple word, "following". And there's tons of theology packed into the other one, "Christ".

Here again, I am not at all fond of the urge to boil things down. Things are complex and complicated, and there are reasons for this. We do ourselves no favors by pretending things are otherwise; we just distort the reality that we hope to understand. You mention how what at first "seems" a difficult task later, once mastered, "seems" easy. But notice that the difficulty or ease with which we perform various tasks isn't always, or even often, reflective of the complexity of those tasks. There's an awful lot of complexity involved in seeing a colored object. The fact that we don't pause over it, that we take it for granted, doesn't by any means imply that there isn't complexity. Why on earth would anybody suppose that something as transformative, historically rich, cognitively demanding, and, well, deep as Christianity could ever be boiled down to a slogan? It's preposterous.

Someone may mouth the words "Jesus Christ is my Lord and Savior". She may even, in mouthing them, feel a warm tingle in her belly or be overtaken by a faint quiver in her voice. Can it be inferred from this that she has the foggiest idea what she's talking about or what she's committed to? Of course not. This sort of thing is quite commonplace (subsitute this phrase, "I love you", for the other, and you'll see what I mean--lots of people say those words and haven't a clue what they mean or what they commit themselves to thereby). Similarly, someone can read and re-read the Bible assiduously over many years, be able to recite lengthy passages, etc. What is this evidence of? Is it evidence of a deep understanding of Scripture? Is it evidence of one's salvation? Is it evidence of--or somehoe constitutive of--being a Christian? Clearly the answer is no on each count.

So what is it that all these people with all these interpretations have in common? Probably no single thing. It's unlikely that there is one essential feature that is to be found among all Christians, even among all authentic Christians (if we play along and accpet the fundamentalist distinction between real Christians and faux Christians). And there are lots of reasons for this too, though I'm not sure how much good is to be had from wading into them here. Suffice it to say, for present purposes anyway, that Christianity is a highly variegated phenomenon. This isn't to suggest that one ought to adopt a relativistic attitude toward the differences and, with a shrug of the shoulders, incline to the notion that truth is in the eye of the beholder. Not every interpretation is a good interpretation; and not every idiot opinion is an interpretation. This is why it is important to argue things out, in a rigorous way. Beliefs aren't sacrosanct, and the mere fact that I believe X doesn't make it true that X. I had better be in a position to justify my belief that X, and if I can't I'd better be prepared to jettison that belief. That's how we mature intellectually, to say nothing of morally and spiritually. It profits me nothing to cling to false beliefs. So rational people have a responsibility to be reasonable and argue about their beliefs, adopting the true ones and rejecting the false ones.

The difficulty I sometimes run across is this, that there are some who are prepared to jettison the most basic norms of reason in order to avoid surrendering a belief they are unable to justify. Thus we find, for instance, the bizarro-world logic involved in holding the belief that one does not interpret the Bible. The line runs something like this: The Bible says not to interpret the Bible. Therefore, I don't interpret the Bible. Not only is that an invalid argument (the conclusion doesn't follow from the premise by any rule of inference), but it assumes that the word "interpret" means the same thing in the two propositions--which isn't at all obvious. My point here is that one cannot reason, and so one cannot argue, with someone who refuses to adhere to the most basic rules of logic. The conversation has to stop because the issue isn't one of fact or belief but of intellectual honesty and rationality. This is why so few people outside the fundamentalist crowd stick with the Christianity forum at AMHD. And this has a lot to do with the nastiness that so often erupts there. When you are attempting to argue with someone who simply won't conform to the most basic norms of reason (logic) there are two common courses of action: give voice to your frustration or quit the conversation entirely. I don't post here much anymore--and I'm not alone in this--because I chose the second. But there have been some recent exchanges in which it is blazingly obvious that someone got frustrated and lost his or her temper because one party to the discussion chose to leave rationality to one side in order to press a rhetorical advantage. It is my sense that this is the reason nothing ever seems to get resolved: It isn't the differences of opinion and belief, nor differences of interpretation or denomination. It is rather that those differences cannot be rationally assessed and sifted unless all parties observe fundamental rational norms. And that is something that has nothing whatever to do with one's commitments coming in; that has everything to do with one's character.

I certainly don't intend to take away from the complexity of it all or boil it down to a slogan that can be slapped on a t-shirt. I guess I am choosing my words based off beliefs already in my mind.

I agree that everything as we know is complex beyond most of our understanding. But, in the end, it still ALL boils down to one simple thing. However, attempt to unpack that one simple thing and you unravel complexities are unfathomable.

"Simple" is still a tricky word to use there...

I guess it seems to me that one could live their life with one basic understanding (and I certainly mean "understanding" in the truest sense of the word... not just someone's cop-out)... but that one true understand would then guide his life in the right direction. Of course the actual events of that persons life could be wildly rich and complex, difficult and trying, etc... but he is still driven by just that one true understanding.

Isn't that the way Jesus lived His life? Sure, He studied the OT but He obviously wasn't able to study the NT.

But He did posses the ultimate understanding of God.

Still no point here.. just thinking this stuff out on paper :D

The Bible actually talks about how we should all be of "the same mind," and avoid divisions. The divisions in Christianity are the effects of people following more after the "traditions of men" rather than what the Bible actually teaches.

Quote:

Originally Posted by DrJizzle

With so much variation (however minute), the only true constant would be what? Following Christ.. aka "accepting Jesus Christ as your Lord and Savior"? I don't mean to say that it is "simplistic"... but still it really is just that "simple".

It's not as simple as many people think. Acts is a great book on conversions. They all have a pattern:

1.)Hearing the Word
2.)Beliving in Christ
3.)Be baptized
4.)Walk in the newness of life
5.) Be faithful until death

Most people today do not follow the examples and structures laid out in the Bible. If it was good enough for the first Christians, why is it not good enough for people today? The same stuff people went through back then, people still go through today; it's just a different time.

Also, people think that "believing" automatically exempts them from everything. "Oh, I'm a Christian, but it doesn't matter if I do wrong because God will forgive me in the end." It's not that easy.

In the end isn't the bible just a book?

The problem is that man is fallible and man is the one interpreting the bible. That's why we have so many different sects, so many arguments about the "word".

I have to question why a book that's supposedly written by God is so difficult to interpret. Wouldn't God make it easier? After all, we're only human.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Altenweg

In the end isn't the bible just a book?

The problem is that man is fallible and man is the one interpreting the bible. That's why we have so many different sects, so many arguments about the "word".

I have to question why a book that's supposedly written by God is so difficult to interpret. Wouldn't God make it easier? After all, we're only human.

To a Non believer that is the pat answer. However to a Christian, the Bible is the inspired word of God. It is a blueprint for our daily living. It is one of the ways God speaks to us. It is an owners manual for our bodies and our lives. You need to believe that before you can accept anything else in the world of Christianity.
The Bible is not difficult to interpret. Man through his stubbornness to cling to tradition is generally responsible for a lot of the rabbit trails that churches lead people down. Often times to failure because again it has turned into a man made religion, not Christianity. If God made the Bible any easier would man be able to understand it any better? Not likely!

Quote:

Originally Posted by 450donn

To a Non believer that is the pat answer. However to a Christian, the Bible is the inspired word of God. It is a blueprint for our daily living. It is one of the ways God speaks to us. It is an owners manual for our bodies and our lives. You need to believe that before you can accept anything else in the world of Christianity.
The Bible is not difficult to interpret. Man through his stubbornness to cling to tradition is generally responsible for a lot of the rabbit trails that churches lead people down. Often times to failure because again it has turned into a man made religion, not Christianity. If God made the Bible any easier would man be able to understand it any better? Not likely!

There's something I like about what Akoue said earlier:

The "word", i.e., the Bible, is a book. It is an inspired book, to be sure, but a book just the same. Start conflating the Word and the "word" and what you've got is idolatry. One can be a perfectly good Christian without ever having read a single word of the "word".

450donn, you say that it is a blueprint for our daily living. To which blueprint are you referring?

You also said, "the Bible is not difficult to interpret." Why then have there been so many religious wars throughout history, why the Protestant Reformation, and why do differences in interpretation and belief about the Bible break up friendships, families, and even nations?

In order to understand the bible one must first have faith and believe. Each person has a different relationship with Jesus. It still boils down to whether or not you believe and have faith, in something not seen or not being able to touch this Holy Person. I try very hard to walk the walk not just talk it. So my view is wait until Jesus comes again then we can all ask Him these questions.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Wondergirl

450donn, you say that it is a blueprint for our daily living. To which blueprint are you referring?

You also said, "the Bible is not difficult to interpret." Why then have there been so many religious wars throughout history, why the Protestant Reformation, and why do differences in interpretation and belief about the Bible break up friendships, families, and even nations?

Because you have an fallible man trying to interpret what the word of God is saying without accountability!

Quote:

Originally Posted by 450donn

Because you have an fallible man trying to interpret what the word of God is saying without accountability!

I don't think accountability has anything to do with it. I agree with the "fallible man" part though. Just as we are individuals with different life experiences, so also are there as many interpretations.

And Bible verses mean different things to me at different times of my life.

I'm sure there are plenty of people that believe that the Bible is not difficult to interpret... and I'm willing to bet a lot of them have a different interpretation of it.

As for not being able to understand the Bible until you believe... well, that seems a bit backwards to me. It would seem that such an inspired work would be what makes most a believer... not the other way around.

OK DJ think of it this way. Could you possibly understand a text book aimed at a person seeking a doctorate degree before you could learn to spell the word doctor? No, definitely not. In the same way, the bible is a collection of words until you believe. Then the meanings of the words becomes understandable as your spirit grows in the Lord.
Those that have strayed from the teachings of the word and are teaching their followers what they believe without accountability are in for a rude awakening come judgment day In my opinion

Quote:

Originally Posted by 450donn

OK DJ think of it this way. Could you possibly understand a text book aimed at a person seeking a doctorate degree before you could learn to spell the word doctor? No, definitely not. In the same way, the bible is a collection of words until you believe. Then the meanings of the words becomes understandable as your spirit grows in the Lord.
Those that have strayed from the teachings of the word and are teaching their followers what they believe without accountability are in for a rude awakening come judgment day IMHO

Well true... someone reading it would have to be open to it and prepared to learn it first. So someone first sparks someone's interest in Christianity... then they turn to the Bible to learn more. I'm sure there are people that would dive right into a religion and "believe" whatever based on what other people tell them but there are plenty of intelligent people that would want some first hand information, right?

As for your second statement, I agree. But there seems to be no real way of knowing who is actually on the right path. Who has strayed and who has not? It seems that everyone's belief was somehow originally determined by someone else's personal belief, interpretation, or misinterpretation.

So since one cannot know which is the correct teaching... one must believe what they choose to believe. So how do they decide what that is? By settling on an interpretation of their own? Well, then we are back to square one.

OH but there is!
If you do a web search on cults you will come up with a large list of identifiers. That is a good first start.
Second if you are attending a church, I don't care what flavor, and somet teaching does not sit right with how you understand the word of God, it is your right, no duty, to confront the teachers. If they cannot show you in the bible that their teaching was/is sound or if they state that it is their was or the highway, you know they are far off base. You need to then run as fast as you can from them because it is fast becoming a cult if not already one.
Sound church teachings are not of man but of God, and if any organization feels the need to supplement books to support their teachings there is a problem with that organization. Book of Mormon is a classic example In my opinion!
Rev 22:18-19
I testify to everyone who hears the words of this prophesy of this book: if anyone adds to them, God will add to him the plagues which are written in this book;19 and if anyone takes away from the words of the book of this prophesy, God will take away his part from the tree of life and from the holy city, which are written in the book."
Pretty cllear to my way of thinking.

I do see where you are going with this.. but ultimately, it seems that it will lead to the same dilemma.

That's apparent just by the amount of soundly backed sects that exist today. Everyone of them using the "a" Bible to back their various claims.

That still leaves so much to what you are willing to accept in your own mind... again, dropping us back at the beginning.

On a side note, is that verse you just quoted also in the Catholic Bible?

No clue, I am not of that religion.
I guess the end of all this has to be "faith" without it you cannot believe, or understand what God is saying to you when you read the scriptures.it

DrJ, I think you are falling into some of the same old arguments. In order to actually discuss this you would have to do something like what the council of Nicea did. They met to officially decide what went into the Bible as we know these books today. The books excluded can almost all be found in a different book called the Gnostic Gospels.

There's the issue, as far as I am seeing it. You are not defining WHAT "Christian" means. Sect or no sect, in order to be a Christian you have to have some kind of an understanding of this. I don't think anyone would dispute that the Bible says," I am the way the truth, and the light, no man shall come to the father except through me." (John 14:6)

There ARE clear and identifiable markers in Christianity. You cannot simply discount one part of the teachings of Christ for another more easily interpreted teaching. One of the things the early church fought over was wither or not Christ was the literal or Figurative Son of God. Many people don't know this in the more modern Christian world today.

The issue becomes not one of faith, but one of ignorance. The guidelines are laid out there, the interpretation IS actually more personal and wrought from wisdom than simply knowledge.

These were two key conflicting ideas in the Catholic church that led to dissent into the Protestant faith. The clergy of the Catholic church were the only people other than the wealthy that were able to actually read the Bible, thus the common and poor were completely dependent on the clergy to interpret the Bible for them. The corruption of these clergymen led to the common people's dissent and eventual ability to have the Bible available to them in a language they could read.

The issue in modern day is not the availability of these scriptures, nor is it IF a man can interpret the word of God. The question becomes, is the man teaching ignorant of what he teaches. A politician would be hung if he misquoted policy the way a LOT of Christians misquote scripture. People are so easy to spout off about what the Bible says, what it means, and how it should be applied to our daily lives.

See to it that no one takes you captive by philosophy and empty deceit, according to human tradition, according to the elemental spirits of the world, and not according to Christ. (Col 2:8)

Oh, by the way, early Christianity was viewed as a cult. ;)

Chey5782 makes some good points.

As I said in an earlier post, I don't think that there is some one essential trait that is going to determine Christian from non-Christian. Even something as basic as belief in the salvific import and effect of the death and resurrection of Christ is going to be understood differently. Among different Christians--or different groups of Christians--there are family resemblances which need to be explored with considerable care.

So to the question, What is a Christian? there isn't, I think, likely to be a single univocal answer. Even a slogan like, "A person who accepts Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior" is going to mean different things. And it just makes no sense at all to try to define what is Christian by apeal to the Bible since there were Christians before there was a distinctively Christian Bible. I think a much more useful set of criteria involve relations of historical continuity. Certainly this is how early Christians themselves answered this question. The so-called Rule of Faith controversy of the second and third centuries took up this very issue since it was important to distinguish Christianity from, for instance, gnosticism. It was necessary, in other words, to distinguish orthodox Christianity from heterodox or heretical alternatives.

The solution decided upon by early Christians is one that makes eminent sense, even though there are some here who are violently opposed to it: Orthodox Christianity is defined not by appeal to a book but rather by appeal to ecclesial structure. Christian communities are those overseen by bishops who have apostolic succession. This provides for continuity in the face of itinerant preachers who claim to have had some private revelation, etc. Then as now, eccelsial structure provides a mechanism of stability and continuity of doctrine that charismatic movements of the sort that are so popular in the US, and so stridently represented here at AMHD, simply cannot. Enthusiasm is all well and good, but it isn't a reliable guide to the truth. Since the Christian Bible was produced by the Church as a means (among others) of providing for ecclesial and doctrinal stability, it strikes me as a profound misunderstanding of both the historical conditions of the (Christian) Bible's production as well as of its theological purview to make of it a criterion for what counts as Christian.