30,000+ Christian Creeds, Churches, Groups? Nah! :)

[oldbadger]

But there is only one doctrine, the Bible. It is interesting why people call themselves Christian, but don’t remain in the doctrine that is in the Bible.

Yes, but there are thousands of different translations of the bible.

Which one?

 

[oldbadger]

There are at least 200 versions of the bible in the English language alone, each subtly or not so subtly different from all the others.

Ans of course there is no original so nothing to provide a standard

I would so love to read an original Gospel of Mark, free of all the evangelical fiddlings and additions. But I don't think that some church leaders would be quite as keen as me about that.

 

[thomas t]

I am sure that in some cases the shism was quite amicable, the fact remains they split

yeah, they split technically.
In my opinion, in times that abuse of power might occur, even in the churches, some competition among the churches of a town is helpful.

To speak from own experience from one of churches I went, one board member frankly asked me: what would you do if we kick you out? For that person disagreed with how I lead my life...
- I wold go to the next one.
- and if they kick you out, too?
- I would go to the next one.
- and if they kick you out, too?
- I would find the friends that left the church last month and found a house church with them.

At that point the conversation ended.

They didn't throw me out. Rightly so.
Here, the many splits as you call it, really helped.
The other churches might have been happy to welcome me. They knew it and calmed down.

So, the current situation of the churches helps.
In some instances at least. Namely when overmotivated church elders may want to impose their way of life on others, they step back and think twice.

 

[oldbadger]

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (aka, though inaccurately, as Mormonism), Eastern Orthodoxy, Methodism, Presbyterianism, Quakerism, Pentecostalism, Lutheranism.

Thank you.
Some time I must seek to discover how and why The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints came to be known as 'The Mormons'.

 

[PureX]

I think you don't really understand science.

And I think you think science is something that it's not.

There are no theories of god.

There are only theories of God. That's what theology is: theories of God. And then the religions help people live according to the theory they choose.

 

[PureX]

Very true.
There are as many opinions about the formation and features of the Universe/s as there are scientists.

... Because they are all speculating. Yet when the scientists speculate, it's in the 'sacred quest for knowledge'. While when the theists do it, it's proof of their blinding ignorance.

What an amazing double-standard. What an obvious and irrational bias. And yet so many atheists throw this absurd bias around as if it were some sort of philosophical death-punch to theism.

 

[ChristineM]

Or multiplied

Take a stick, snap it in two, the schism is the stick multiplied, two sticks with half the stickiness

 

[ChristineM]

I would so love to read an original Gospel of Mark, free of all the evangelical fiddlings and additions. But I don't think that some church leaders would be quite as keen as me about that.

I think the closest to original is the Vulgate, closest in time that is, written/compiled about 80 years after the original.

It is claimed the 4th century codex sinaiticus is close to the original NT, bur i am pretty sure 200 years of hand copying will include many mistakes

 

[capumetu]

I've been reading about the 30,000+ Christian Churches etc for a while now.

So let's see how many that we actually know about, can we do that?

I don't think we'll find one hundred, but if we do I will be very surprised and pleased to have the list.

I'll start with CofE, Catholic, Dominican, Franciscan, Anglican, Baptist, Christian-Spiritualist, Jehovah's Witness, Plymouth Brethren, Brethren, Zoar, Baptist and ........ and........ ummm. I got 14!!!

14 out of 30,000...... so get to it..... please.

You are correct sir, matter of fact, Jehovah has always just had one group that belong to him, since the Law covenant made His people a nation.

 

[oldbadger]

... Because they are all speculating. Yet when the scientists speculate, it's in the 'sacred quest for knowledge'. While when the theists do it, it's proof of their blinding ignorance.

What an amazing double-standard. What an obvious and irrational bias. And yet so many atheists throw this absurd bias around as if it were some sort of philosophical death-punch to theism.

Not all......... just the more ignorant, less effective and unsuccessful scientists, I reckon. The loud mouths ever were the passengers.
I love debating atheists, they so often cling to bible for their truths whilst at the same time denouncing it. Great fun.

But I am very pleased with the science that has warmed my wife and me and kept us going. I shan't knock all of it.

 

[oldbadger]

I think the closest to original is the Vulgate, closest in time that is, written/compiled about 80 years after the original.

Yes, I think even that has been fiddled with imo.

It is claimed the 4th century codex sinaiticus is close to the original NT, bur i am pretty sure 200 years of hand copying will include many mistakes

.....and many additions and removals. After all, they thought they were doing it all for the one true God. Their God.
Whenever I think about moaning about one leader or t'other I decide that things could be much worse, such as a theocracy 'guided by somebody's God' . Screeech! *shivers*

 

[Katzpur]

Thank you.
Some time I must seek to discover how and why The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints came to be known as 'The Mormons'.

Oh, that's easy. We have a volume of scripture called "The Book of Mormon," that gets its name from an ancient prophet named Mormon. Way back in the early days of our church, our enemies started calling us "Mormons." It was meant to be a derogatory nickname, but it caught on and we started using it ourselves. While there has never been a "Mormon Church," and we have always preferred to be called by our official name, there has been a real push towards that end recently, and we are asking people to call us "Latter-day Saints" and to use the full name of the Church when referring to it. It doesn't bother me personally, though, to be referred to as a Mormon or as LDS. Anyway, that's how we came to be known as Mormons.

 

[thomas t]

Its why I dont see how there could be a communicating God.

That fact alone shows there isn't any God around, otherwise you would have only one doctrine in use instead of 30,000 plus variations of Christianity.

I think the situation is more complex.

When you have variety, some churches sometimes try out something new and in the process of it God can show if this works out or not. If it does, other churches can follow their example. If it leads to more problems, other churches should refrain from following their example.

One example from Germany. Praise music in evangelical or penticostal churches used to be far more interesting and inspriring than the music in the mainline churches in terms of liveliness, so the mainline churches needed to ask themselves what went from with their music that only 80 year olds seem to approve of.

 

[oldbadger]

Oh, that's easy. We have a volume of scripture called "The Book of Mormon," that gets its name from an ancient prophet named Mormon. Way back in the early days of our church, our enemies started calling us "Mormons." It was meant to be a derogatory nickname, but it caught on and we started using it ourselves. While there has never been a "Mormon Church," and we have always preferred to be called by our official name, there has been a real push towards that end recently, and we are asking people to call us "Latter-day Saints" and to use the full name of the Church when referring to it. It doesn't bother me personally, though, to be referred to as a Mormon or as LDS. Anyway, that's how we came to be known as Mormons.

Thank you for that.
I must try and remember.....
I'm a Deist, and I get called all kinds of names, though not always connected to my deism!!!

 

[1213]

Yes, but there are thousands of different translations of the bible.

Which one?

I think most of them are close enough. If there is some difficult part, I recommend to look what is said in more original language.

Do you think there is some major difference, could you show one example?

 

[1213]

What's even more interesting to me is the fact that so many Christians who interpret the Bible one way don't seem to like it when people who interpret it differently call themselves Christians, too.

I don’t know any case where interpretation is necessary. Bible explains well what is means. What do you think, is it necessary to have interpretations?

 

[1213]

There are at least 200 versions of the bible in the English language alone, each subtly or not so subtly different from all the others.

I would like to know, what do you think is the biggest difference in translations?

 

[ChristineM]

I would like to know, what do you think is the biggest difference in translations?

Example. Huge chunks are missing from the NIV

 

[Katzpur]

I don’t know any case where interpretation is necessary. Bible explains well what is means. What do you think, is it necessary to have interpretations?

Well, obviously, there wouldn't be 30,000+ different denominations if 30,000 different groups of people all understood the Bible in the same way. If you seriously think that "the Bible explains well what it means," you're just not thinking things through very carefully. For starters, there's always the question as to whether a particular passage is to be understood as literal or as metaphorical. Did a particular event actually happen or was it a parable? Who was the audience? Do the words in a particular verse apply to humanity as a whole or only to the individuals to whom they are directed? What about matters where there appears to be a contradiction? (If you tell me there are no such instances, I'll know you haven't studied the Bible much at all.) The supposedly simple and straightforward question of whether we are saved by faith or by works can be argued both ways, simply by using certain verses and ignoring others. I could give you literally dozens and dozens of examples of where some Christian denominations think the Bible is saying one thing, while others think it's saying something different. An "interpretation" is nothing more than "the action of explaining the meaning of something."

For example, John 6:53-56 (KJV) says:

"Then Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, ye have no life in you. Whoso eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, hath eternal life; and I will raise him up at the last day. For my flesh is meat indeed, and my blood is drink indeed. He that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, dwelleth in me, and I in him."

If you were to tell me what that means, you would be interpreting the words of scripture. If a Roman Catholic (I'm assuming you aren't one) were to tell me what that means, he'd be interpreting the words of scripture, too. But I can pretty much guarantee that your interpretations would be different from yours. That's just how it is, and to pretend otherwise is to exhibit an extreme naivety.

 

[Clara Tea]

I've been reading about the 30,000+ Christian Churches etc for a while now.

So let's see how many that we actually know about.

Trappists (silent order).

That's why no one ever heard of them. They proselytize in braille, but a blind person must first go to their church to find the sign that tells people where to go. They are afraid to mention the name of their God (some spell that G_d) because he is so powerful. They provide seeing eye dogs to their blind followers, but none can find them. They believe in hiring the handicapped, so their seeing eye dogs are also blind (which cuts down the number of followers at every street corner).

Unlike most religions, God answers their prayers, but, since God is also Trappist, they don't hear him (which, of course, is proof of God's existence).

They entice new members to join by offering trips to amusement parks (you'll see crowds of monks passing through the park). However, they must get new stress companion dogs every time they ride the 200 foot drop rides (dog highly stressed).

They no longer have field trips to the zoo, since one of their blind members mistook a bear for his companion dog.

Lacking advertising, they lack funding, so they sent a monk out into the job market. He had no particular skills, except making religious icons. So, they found him the perfect job, nailing tiny Jesus figures to crosses so they could sell them to tourists. With trembling lip, he cringed with each hammer swing (occasionally crushing Jesus). He spent the whole night counting rosary beads to atone. (I don't see why....the next morning the statue was whole again).

To encourage their ban on talking, they printed their bibles without ink. So, they are not only the most silent order, they are also the least informed.

If they enforce their religion in public schools, they'd have to silence all the kids (that, of course, is impossible).

Jesus's last words were "ouch." Since that isn't particularly salient, they figured that no one should talk at all, for fear that their last words would not be filled with wisdom.