[DrJ]

There are so many varied beliefs amongst so many people that ALL stem from the same book. How is this explained? What makes you different from all the other Christians that call themselves by a different name?

[450donn]

Very simple. Man!
Man is interpreting the Bible. Because of that mistakes can and often are made. It is when those mistakes are not caught and stopped/fixed does a teaching become a problem. That is one of the reasons cults can spring up, people do not question a teaching if it is against what they believe the bible is teaching.

[DrJ]

If it is as simple as merely "mistakes" then why do so many sects STILL exist?

Who has the correct interpretation?

Since EVERY sect is based off the interpretation of Man, and apparently some of these are in error, isn't it then possible that everyone has it wrong?

[450donn]

Yes it is possible. But I don't believe that is the case. While man is fallible if you sit 50 or 100 knowledgeable people down in a room and try and teach them something that is factually incorrect. You may be able to get through your talk, but how many will believe you? How many will challenge your theories? All? Some? None? My guess is some. Same for the Christian beliefs. If I was sitting in a church and the teachings did not line up with how I as a rational adult understood the Bible on that subject. I would have to challenge the theories. Sadly all too many people have not done that for what ever reason and fallen into one cult or another blindly following a personality and not the word of God.

[paraclete]

Most of the differences in belief revolve around issues that are not central and have taken Scripture too far by focusing on one verse. It is an unfolding Revelation and some cannot accept those who have looked and seen something that was there all the time but ignored.

It is exactly like a prophetic vision I heard preached one time. The preacher saw a line of people extending and then it branched at 45 degrees, but some people kept going as they had before, and after a time it turned back again at 45 degrees, but some people kept going as they had before, and after a time the line turned again at 45 degrees but some people kept going as they had before. If you draw this series of lines you will see that some are now headed back towards the point where it first branched, but many are far away from the original path

Let me put this in context; ( one point of view )the first branch was Constantine and the Church becoming the "offical religion", the second was the Reformation, the third; the rise of Pentacostalism. In between there have been many small diviations in the path, each one leaving a group of people headed in a slightly different direction

[Forgedpandemic3]

This is why I'm not religious. There is always people who claim to be part of the same religion, and yet, they fight over which sect is the right one. Also I can't stand it when the religious-finatics shove their religion down people's throats and say it's the only truth. I never believed that and I never will. It's pathetic. God wouldn't have allowed the world to create so many religions if he only destined the world to only have one religious truth, or two if you count Judaism. Basically I'm an Agnostic Chrisitian who commits Buddhist practices. How's that for a set of beliefs?

[paraclete]

Sounds like you don't have the truth of any there. God isn't afraid of skeptics you should ask God to reveal himself to you, then you will no longer be agnostic. You fail to realise Christianity is a relationship, a one on one with Jesus Christ, this can only happen when you believe

[Fr_Chuck]

In the US, the US Constitution is a few pages long. And how can there be so much dispute between people on what it means ? People wish to take their personal beleifs and use it to prove their point of views

[Wondergirl]

There are so many varied beliefs amongst so many people that ALL stem from the exact same book. How is this explained?

Which Christian beliefs do you want to talk about? That babies are or are not to be baptized? That the devil is real or just an avoidance of human responsibility? That God gave the land of Israel to Abraham and his family forever? How many sacraments there are? That Creation took place in six 24-hour days? -- all beliefs of certain Christians but not other Christians, each of whom interpret the Bible a certain way.

In the beginning, the Catholic Church was the teacher of Christian doctrine, and then, like someone just mentioned on this thread, there came the Reformation and sola scriptura, the Bible interpreting itself, but also opening up interpretation to disagreement not only among church bodies but also between individuals. As I had posted on a now-closed thread, Christianity does not come down the pike smoothly and glides to a stop. It swerves and veers and fishtails all the way.

[DrJ]

So each sect of Christianity was based off how someone interpreted the Bible to define their own personal beliefs. Would that be accurate?

(I have to assume a yes to that. I'm sure plenty will say no but there is no way prove that without using personal beliefs.. which would, in turn, kind of just disprove it at the same time)

To take it a step further, is it also accurate to say as long as the Christian has accepted Jesus Christ as their Lord and Savior that, regardless of what Christianity sect they belong to, they will be saved?

(While a "no" from some here is inevitable, I have to look passed that and assume a yes, once again)

To stretch that a little bit more, it should also be accurate to say that, as long as one has accepted Jesus Christ as their Lord and Savior, regardless of what THEIR interpretation of the Bible IS, they, too, will be saved. Yes?

So then even the act of "accepting Jesus Christ as your Lord and Savior" is open to interpretation, since all that we know about Christ and Salvation is found in the Bible..?

[Wondergirl]

So each sect of Christianity was based off of how someone interpreted the Bible to define their own personal beliefs. Would that be accurate?

(I have to assume a yes to that. I'm sure plenty will say no but there is no way prove that without using personal beliefs.. which would, in turn, kind of just disprove it at the same time)

Wasn't this covered in your world history class in high school? Originally, the Catholic Church carried from the early Christian church doctrines that everyone agreed on. The Protestant denominations were started to "protest" against the Catholic Church in some way. None of the "protesters" had the same reason for protesting. Once this started (the Reformation), the doctrines differed from each other and the Bible was open to interpretation. The various Christians here were raised in either the Catholic Church or in one of those protesting church bodies or maybe in a more recent sect. Now there are widely differing ideas on various doctrines and Christian teachings.

[DrJ]

Wasn't this covered in your world history class in high school?

It most likely way... but, regretfully, I lacked the appreciation for knowledge at that age and therefore, never paid much attention to history.

But thank you, I really do appreciate you spelling that out for me. Strange how things that are common knowledge to one, seem to slip right by another. :o

So is there also an answer as widely accepted about who is right? Or more so, who is wrong? Do Catholics believe Protestants, or any other protesting sect, is not saved (or the other way around)?

[Wondergirl]

So is there also an answer as widely accepted about who is right? Or more so, who is wrong? Do Catholics believe Protestants, or any other protesting sect, is not saved (or the other way around)?

Each church or denomination thinks it's right. Catholics and Protestants believe each other is saved, but may disagree on the finer points such as, should babies be baptized, was Jonah really swallowed by a great fish (or is that an allegory), did Creation take six 24-hour days or did it happen in some other way, was Mary a virgin or a "young woman," should the Bible be understood literally, and on and on.

[DrJ]

So what then of other interpretations?

[Akoue]

So what then of other interpretations?

What about them? If we are to be charitable--as I think we should be--and suppose that one belongs to a particular denomination because one believes that denomination's interpretations to be correct, then the only thing left is for competing interpretations to duke it out. Let them be sifted by means of reasoned argument in order that it might be determined which are and which are not plausible.

There's been an awful lot of hand-wringing about arguments among Christians. I can't see why this should be cause for concern. If your faith is something about which you care very deeply--as it should presumably be--then of course you're going to want to (a) advocate for it and (b) defend its claims to truth from those who subject it to critique. That's as it should be. The problem as I see it isn't that there is too much argument among Christians at this site, but that there is too little. Argument is reasoned discourse governed by the laws of logic. Instead of that, what we get is, at best, barrages of biblical verses (as many as a search engine can dig up) with little or no hermenutical care taken by the "barrager". The idea--held dear by some--is that the Bible interprets itself, so there's really no need for reasoned discourse: just cut and paste from your search engine and plaster a bunch of verses on the screen and, well, QED.

I'm sure someone will be along soon to admonish you that one oughtn't to "interpret" Scripture. Again, the idea seems to be that any bozo sitting on his couch with a beer in one hand and the other down his pants and the Bible open on his lap can understand every jot and tittle of the Good Book without ever "interpreting" any of it. This may make absolute mush of the English language, but the sort who take this view don't seem too concerned about linguistic subtleties. Nor, for that matter, have they any evident regard for the cognitive operations of the human mind, which interprets squiggles of ink as letters and words and interprets letters and words as bearers of linguistic meaning, and so on. If you ever find yourself really, really bored, or stuck with a bad case of insomnia, you might read through some of the threads from December through about March. It's illuminating.

[DrJ]

Denomination Shmenomination! If any other interpretation of the Bible is acceptable, then should ANY interpretation be acceptable? I realize this opens it up to some pretty creative interpretations but still... if sense can be made of it and it doesn't disprove itself, it would seem that it should also be considered as a valid interpretation.

What being a Christian really boils down to is being a follower of Christ. That is all the word means, right? I know I have been called a non-believer or "not a Christian" due to my own beliefs/interpretations of the Bible, God, Jesus Christ, Salvation, etc and that seems to be caused by certain interpretations being invalid or unacceptable.

So where is that line drawn in people's minds? What constitutes acceptance over absurdness?

[Akoue]

I'm not sure what the upshot of the "denomination shmenomination" bit is supposed to be--though I suspect I would like it if I did. It strikes me as perverse when people who regard the Bible as the unadulterated word of God at the same time suppose that it can accommodate only a quite superficial literal interpretation (or "understanding", for those whose panties get in a twist over the use of the word "interpretation"). In the history of Christianity--which I find it useful to consult on such matters--the idea that the text has only its surface meaning is a very recent phenomenon. Historically, it was held to have a literal meaning, an allegorical meaning, a typological meaning, etc. In other words, any given passage has several meanings, at different levels. This strikes me as not only plausible but as blazingly obvious. So, yes, in that sense anyway, I would agree that a multiplicity of interpretations can all be right--at the same time. But, of course, this requires considerable care and sophistication, since one can run amok with the "multiplicity of interpretations" line. Too often I've seen it used to paper over sheer laziness on the part of the interpreter. (Same goes for the restriction to the literal, by the by.)

As for you other point: I would be cautious about claiming that being a Christian "boils down" to any one thing. It's a way of life, or it should be, and it is and ought to be rich and complex and, yes, complicated. People often crave the bullett, the nugget, the bare bones. They want things to be simple and they want complex things to be simplified. But if Christianity is to mean anything, it shouldn't be the sort of thing that can be put on a friggin' bumper sticker.

Now I know that this is going to seem just appalling to some in the fundamentalist crowd who take the view that being a Christian is neither more nor less than "accepting Jesus Christ and your Lord and Savior". But that's a howler. Every word of that motto needs to be unpacked, and if you undertake the unpacking of it seriously, then what you're going to end up with is something rich and complex and, yes, complicated. Which is as it should be. I always encourage people to avoid the salesman pitching them salvation on the cheap.

[450donn]

So where is that line drawn in people's minds? What constitutes acceptance over absurdness?

That should be a very basic question but people will argue over it for eons.
Acceptance comes from believing, reading, learning about hearing.preaching the word of God. It does not mean that you have to belong to some certain religious organization to be saved. Nor does it require you to follow some ceremonies that man has devised.
Now what the word says is very important. One of the verses talks about not forsaking the fellowship of other believers. That one is conveniently left off by many people who feel that organized religion is not the way to God or for what ever reason not for them. I Jn chapter one is short, but very important in how we walk this life called Christianity.

[Akoue]

Now what the word says is very important. One of the verses talks about

Just to be clear.

The Word (of God) is the second Person of the Trinity.

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 sinlge word of the "word".

[Chey5782]

There are so many varied beliefs amongst so many people that ALL stem from the exact same book. How is this explained? What makes you different from all the other Christians that call themselves by a different name?

First of all, they do not all come from the same book. Not every sect of Christianity observes their faith using the same translation. While you can call it the same Bible all you want, technically some words are either not translatable or there are so many different words for it that the meaning can be corrupted in translation. No I am not saying that the Bible is corrupt, only that if you ask any translator they will agree on some level that you cannot completely and accurately translate some parts of languages into others.

I harped on that because some of these sects were formed by simple people who had no ability to read from the same Bible that Catholic priests did at the time. Many of these sects were formed by people who took their understanding of the Bible, compared it to other practicing factions of their religion of the time, and saw corruption. I believe someone already pointed out the Protestant, so I don't need to delve into that further.


I'm surprised no one else has pointed this out, so I am going to. The Bible was written by man, inspired by God. Man is fallible, and while God is not, he did give the fallible man a free-will.

Many sects of Christianity are a sect because they choose to focus on a different aspect of Christianity. sect - Definition from the Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary Some sects are considered heretical, while some simple choose to follow the basic tenets and teachings of the New Testament. Some differ over things as small as what animal God has said man can eat. In no way does this make their faith less observed by those of their sect. Faith is what brings the sects together, observation of the faith is what makes them unique.

To date there are over 87 known versions of the Bible, and those are just the complete Bibles.

And for that matter, what about the Mormon Bible, or the Catholic Bible? These are two sects that consider themselves Christian. The Mormons have an entire extra Bible they believe inspired by God. The Catholic Bible has 7 books that aren't included in the Protestant version. Granted, they don't differ theology wise over the important things, but this is a fact.