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

[Katzpur]

Nobody takes the brunt of it like the Catholic Church though. They are probably the most hated by Christians christian denomination out there. They are the target of all sorts of conspiracies.

That's a pretty subjective statement. Look at any actual survey, and Mormons will be right at the bottom of the list. If the list includes all religions (not just Christians), Mormons typically fare just barely higher than Muslims.

 

[Samael_Khan]

That's a pretty subjective statement. Look at any actual survey, and Mormons will be right at the bottom of the list. If the list includes all religions (not just Christians), Mormons typically fare just barely higher than Muslims.

Do you have a link to the survey?

My comment was pretty off the cuff though and is more based off general stigma than actual facts.

 

[McBell]

Church of God
Assemblies of God
Church of the Nazarene
Church of Christ
Baptist Church
300,000 Non-denominational churches (who knows?)
Coptic
Eastern Orthodox
Greek Orthodox
Free Will Baptist
Presbyterian
Methodist
Pentecostal
Four-Square
MI
Mennonite
Amish
Calvary Chapel
Apostolic


But I don't have a desire to continue... Just one GREAT Church house with many rooms.

Well, there are at least four distinct groups within the Amish, Mennonites being one of them....

the Old Order
the New Order
the Beachy Amish
the Mennonite Amish
​

Their practice of complete exile has formed several other smaller groups that are not 'recognized' by the top four.

 

[Katzpur]

Do you have a link to the survey?

My comment was pretty off the cuff though and is more based off general stigma than actual facts.

I've actually seen more than one survey, but the one I could find easily was this one.

 

[thomas t]

Well over 80 are listed >here<.

It took me as long as it takes to type "List of Christian sects" to find it, and rather longer to do a quick count.

these aren't sects though

 

[Katzpur]

these aren't sects though

Why do you say that?

 

[thomas t]

Why do you say that?

I'm non-denom.
But I don't like my brothers and sisters in the churches to receive condescending remarks like this.

 

[Katzpur]

I'm non-denom.
But I don't like my brothers and sisters in the churches to receive condescending remarks like this.

I guess I'm just not sure what you found to be condescending. Was it the use of the word "sect"? If so, I suspect you're thinking of it as being a synonym for "cult," which it can be. It can also be used, however, as a synonym for "denomination." I got the impression that @Mestemia was using the word to mean nothing more than "denomination," which of course is not a condescending term at all. I am very happy, though, to meet someone on this forum who is as bothered by condescending remarks towards other people's beliefs as I am.

 

[oldbadger]

I think the Catholic Church still has a billion followers.

As far as I understand, Satanists aren't linked to the mythical figure of Satan? So they might not care?

Now your point that Satanists are not linked to Satan does intrigue me.
I'll think about posting up a new thread to research all that .

 

[blü 2]

these aren't sects though

We can amicably disagree on that. However it goes, they're different versions of Christianity, each arising from a strong dislike of one or more of the other versions.

 

[1213]

Reading your bible, can you (very briefly) tell us what Jesus and his followers did on the first day that they were in Jerusalem in that last week? Any clues?

I think it is better, if people read what the Bible actually tells.

 

[1213]

Hello 1213.....
Gospel of Mark 1:1 The beginning of the gospel of Jesus Christ, the Son
of God; KJV

The earliest copies did not include 'the Son of God'. NIV

One example from the first verse.

I think that is different issue than translation difference. It is basically missing part. I didn’t find any version that doesn’t have that part. It seems to be also in the NIV, at least in version that I have.

Luckily, I don’t think it is necessary to have the “the Son of God” in Mark 1:1, it doesn’t change the story or meanings.

 

[1213]

...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?

I think those are clear in the Bible, if read the whole text.

...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.)

No one has been able to show real contradiction in the Bible. People have only managed to show contradictory interpretations.

...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. ...

Yes, and the ignoring others is the problem. People should read the whole book and remain in the truth and not add own meanings to it, because they cause most, if not all problems. One problem with salvation issue is, what people think it means and what Bible tells it means. By what I have understood, salvation means that sins are forgiven and so person is saved from the judgment that would come because of sin. The forgiveness is offered freely, and no one has done anything to deserve it, it is a free gift.

Different matter is, who and why gets eternal life. Bible tells eternal life is a gift for righteous people. Righteous people are loyal (faithful) to God and do good works, because they understand it is good and right. And I think that is where the problem with works and faith comes in. Some seem to think it is faith or works that makes person righteous. It is not so, it is righteousness of person that makes him faithful (loyal) to God and to do righteousness. As Jesus said, by fruits we know them. If person is righteous, it comes visible in actions. Righteousness can be called also wisdom of the just.

These will go away into eternal punishment, but the righteous into eternal life.
Mat. 25:46

For the wages of sin is death, but the free gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord.
Romans 6:23

…Whoever is born of God doesn't commit sin, because his seed remains in him; and he can't sin, because he is born of God. In this the children of God are revealed, and the children of the devil. Whoever doesn't do righteousness is not of God, neither is he who doesn't love his brother.
1 John 3:7-10

So, works don't save, but they tell who is righteous. And if person is righteous, he gets eternal life. If someone disagrees with this, I would expect him to show scriptures that tell otherwise.

...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..

I think also that’s correct meaning comes clear, if you read more. Disciples didn’t eat the real physical body of Jesus, which is why I think it should be clear for all that it is about something else. Also, because Jesus continues by saying:

It is the spirit who gives life. The flesh profits nothing. The words that I speak to you are spirit, and are life.
John 6:63

Jesus also said:

Then he took a loaf of bread, gave thanks, broke it in pieces, and handed it to them, saying, “This is my body, which is given for you. Keep on doing this in memory of me.” He did the same with the cup after supper, saying, “This cup is the new covenant in my blood, poured out for you.
Luke 22:19-20

There are 3 possible meanings for blood and body, in the Bible, one is the actual physical body of Jesus, one is the bread and wine and one is his word and the spirit of God. Because Jesus says John 6:63, I think the words are the thing that gives lie.

 

[1213]

Example. Huge chunks are missing from the NIV

Missing part is not in my opinion same as difference in translation. If the part is missing entirely, it is not translated at all. By what I know, it uses earliest manuscripts. And it is probable that the earliest have many things missing, because those parts just have not lasted time so well. It does not mean the other translations are then wrong.

 

[ChristineM]

Missing part is not in my opinion same as difference in translation. If the part is missing entirely, it is not translated at all. By what I know, it uses earliest manuscripts. And it is probable that the earliest have many things missing, because those parts just have not lasted time so well. It does not mean the other translations are then wrong.

It is missing from niv but not other translations. Excuses dont make the omissions meaningless

NIV versus KJV Bible

 

[McBell]

these aren't sects though

By by the very definition of the word "sect" they are in fact, sects.

a group of people with somewhat different religious beliefs (typically regarded as heretical) from those of a larger group to which they belong.
​

Don't get hung up on the "typically regarded as heretical" part as it is not a requirement to be a sect.

Of course, the alternative would be to use the word cult.

One suspects you would dislike that word even less, right?

 

[Katzpur]

I think those are clear in the Bible, if read the whole text.

I disagree.

No one has been able to show real contradiction in the Bible. People have only managed to show contradictory interpretations.

You just got through questioning the "need for interpretations." I'm not going to waste my time arguing with you about the "contradictions." If I were to point a few of them out to you, you'd just say that the didn't exist. And the reason you've give for that would be that they were simply a result of different "interpretations." And we'd be back to square one.

Yes, and the ignoring others is the problem. People should read the whole book and remain in the truth and not add own meanings to it, because they cause most, if not all problems. One problem with salvation issue is, what people think it means and what Bible tells it means. By what I have understood, salvation means that sins are forgiven and so person is saved from the judgment that would come because of sin. The forgiveness is offered freely, and no one has done anything to deserve it, it is a free gift.

Sure it is, unless you look at other verses which say that's not the case.

Different matter is, who and why gets eternal life. Bible tells eternal life is a gift for righteous people. Righteous people are loyal (faithful) to God and do good works, because they understand it is good and right. And I think that is where the problem with works and faith comes in. Some seem to think it is faith or works that makes person righteous. It is not so, it is righteousness of person that makes him faithful (loyal) to God and to do righteousness. As Jesus said, by fruits we know them. If person is righteous, it comes visible in actions. Righteousness can be called also wisdom of the just.

These will go away into eternal punishment, but the righteous into eternal life.
Mat. 25:46

For the wages of sin is death, but the free gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord.
Romans 6:23

…Whoever is born of God doesn't commit sin, because his seed remains in him; and he can't sin, because he is born of God. In this the children of God are revealed, and the children of the devil. Whoever doesn't do righteousness is not of God, neither is he who doesn't love his brother.
1 John 3:7-10

So, works don't save, but they tell who is righteous. And if person is righteous, he gets eternal life. If someone disagrees with this, I would expect him to show scriptures that tell otherwise.

Once again, it's not a matter of whether I agree with your "interpretation" or not. It's that you simply refuse to acknowledge that it's possible for people to have equally legitimate arguments for what they believe and yes, -- what they "interpret" the scripture as meaning. You're convinced that your interpretations (and you do have one, as you demonstrated later in your post) are the right ones and that if people disagree with you, they are quite simply "wrong."

I think also that’s correct meaning comes clear, if you read more. Disciples didn’t eat the real physical body of Jesus, which is why I think it should be clear for all that it is about something else. Also, because Jesus continues by saying:

It is the spirit who gives life. The flesh profits nothing. The words that I speak to you are spirit, and are life.
John 6:63

Jesus also said:

Then he took a loaf of bread, gave thanks, broke it in pieces, and handed it to them, saying, “This is my body, which is given for you. Keep on doing this in memory of me.” He did the same with the cup after supper, saying, “This cup is the new covenant in my blood, poured out for you.
Luke 22:19-20

There are 3 possible meanings for blood and body, in the Bible, one is the actual physical body of Jesus, one is the bread and wine and one is his word and the spirit of God. Because Jesus says John 6:63, I think the words are the thing that gives lie.

I believe you are missing the entire point of what I'm saying, and I don't believe it's because I didn't explain myself very well. I happen to agree with you when it comes to this particular doctrine. But ask a knowledgeable Catholic scholar and I can guarantee he'll be able to give you a very convincing argument supporting his position on that doctrine. And he'll do so by using scripture.

The bottom line is that you're over-simplifying the whole matter.

 

[Left Coast]

I've actually seen more than one survey, but the one I could find easily was this one.

Fascinating data. I found it odd that there was so little difference in the opinions of folks who know a Mormon personally vs. those who don't, whereas for instance people's opinions of atheists improves drastically if they know one personally. Random sidetrack, but I thought it was curious.

 

[Katzpur]

Fascinating data. I found it odd that there was so little difference in the opinions of folks who know a Mormon personally vs. those who don't, whereas for instance people's opinions of atheists improves drastically if they know one personally. Random sidetrack, but I thought it was curious.

I used to have a book (I've since lost it, unfortunately) that said if someone knows, just one or two Mormons, their opinion of them is lower, for some reason, than if they know quite a few. I've not been able to figure that one out.

 

[paarsurrey]

By by the very definition of the word "sect" they are in fact, sects.

a group of people with somewhat different religious beliefs (typically regarded as heretical) from those of a larger group to which they belong.
​

Don't get hung up on the "typically regarded as heretical" part as it is not a requirement to be a sect.

Of course, the alternative would be to use the word cult.

One suspects you would dislike that word even less, right?

Well, even the non-believers- the Atheism people have many sects/denominations but like our friend @thomas t they would deny it perhaps to show it that they stand united, please. Right?
I would like that all Christian denominations (the old one's like the Catholics and or Protestants) and the new ones (like JWs, LDS and the Bahais) become true followers of Jesus, instead of the incorrect one's, as I understand them to be because of following (sinful) Paul and or his made-up Pauline-Christianity whatever the denomination they belong to, to become one , please. Right?

Regards