Divisions of christianity and their differences

[Darth Avlectus]

I know a pet peeves of moderators is quoting mod advisory notes however I was inspired by this one:

The Catholicism/Protestantism debate was causing a derailment and there wasn't a good way to split it off into a new thread. I deleted the off-topic material/posts. If you'd like to continue that topic, please start a new thread on it.

 

I felt this was actually going to be a good discussion but where it was originating from, it was veering off (THAT) topic. Hopefully we can revive it here bring the talk back to light about Christianity and its various branches/divisions/etc. I was kind of interested as to where the debate was going with my fellow LF members. As to Christianity's history, I'm sure all of us could use a bit of refreshing. The debate seemed like it was getting interesting too. Soooo, here is a thread for those sentiments although hopefully in a better, more civil manner this time.

==========================

Now, we know about Christianity and that it has various divisions. There are various facts about each branch and its views. Perhaps as a whole Christianity steps on its own toes with all its divisions? Perhaps the arguments are due to dispute over facts? Misunderstandings? misinterpretations? While this is an old debate with multiple sides/perspectives to it through the times, it's worth at least bringing up here on LF.

 

What form of christianity are/were you of? What are your experiences? Your thoughts? Criticisms?

 

In any case, let us have a good discussion. And non-Christians are of course welcome to chime in, inquire, and discuss. Those who are Christian are encouraged to discuss of course. Let's try to have a clean and respectful discussion in this thread, please. We're all friends here.

==========================

I'll start: I am christian of the non-denominational sort. Sort of nomadic. Aware of the various sorts of it, I was never able to choose one, really.

As you may or may not know, I had a time where I did not believe. I came back to believing as a matter of open mindedness and that ultimately I could not take it upon myself to make a claim whether or not God existed; reality is what it is. Had a several personal life experiences overall that has led me to at least believe there is something more than just this life here.

 

I've had my times (good and bad) with it. I have utmost respect for the structure and religious part of belief systems, even if I do not actively partake in it. Not that I haven't, just don't much anymore. I am more freelance and a spiritualist type of Christian. I believe that you are defined by your heart, mind, and actions, as an expression of your very being through living.

 

Work ethic, self sufficiency, and keeping what is important near--that is what I perceive to bring one closer to the source of creation. Doing everything that you possibly can before asking for help. I also hold very few preconceived notions about that source of creativity. Presumptions maybe. The most I have ever heard any two agree upon (who believe) is simply that "God is".

 

Aware of the history that Christ studied Bhuddism for a while I am interested in some of its areas of study, mostly for the reason of the martial arts and philosophy though. However...if I could learn internal energy control for medicinal purposes, health, and longevity, great. At the very least self defense, exercise, health and longevity amongst the spiritual.

 

I agree with vanir: in many ways it is about getting up off your hide and becoming proactive. In your community, your life, work, everything. I will be the first to say that I could use a little improvement in this area as of late. I can really only speak for myself.

 

Anyone else care to join in?

[Trench]

I (as a Christian) am annoyed when people see one "type" or even just one individual person who calls themselves a Christian and judges all Christians based on that. Most of the Christians that people see are either doom-saying street preachers, or preachers who don't say anything except that you're going to hell. At my church its different, we have youth services with break dancing (and I mean real break dancing), awesome sunday morning services (our pastor is crazy- good, funny crazy not bad weirdo crazy), lunchs, business fairs, etc... We are also a non-denominational church. sometimes we'll go out on Wednesdays and pay for peoples gasoline, visit retirement homes, give gifts to the less fortunate, etc...

What really disappoints me is that a recent memo which was (accidentally) released by the U.S government, has called Christians, anti-abortionists and gun-owners (even the licensed ones) terrorists. Seriously?

I'd better stop before I go off topic about the tyranny of the U.S government.

[Q]

What really disappoints me is that a recent memo which was (accidentally) released by the U.S government' date=' has called Christians, anti-abortionists and gun-owners (even the licensed ones) terrorists.[/quote']

Could you provide a source for this, please?

[vanir]

The debate really centred around pointing out to EW who I quite like being entertaining and informative, that whilst he might suggest as a Protestant that Papal ideology is not pertinent, history would dictate that Protestantism merely substitutes the Pope for a Monarch where any political system is formed (which Christianity is first and foremost). The division of Catholicism (ie. original Christianity as an "organised religion" or political system) and Protestantism was the assertion that only members of the Clergy were privy to the works of God. Depending upon your rank within the Clergy varying degrees of preserved scripture were made available to you. Protestantism claimed the Church was using this monopoly as a political power and anybody could interpret the Bible for themselves. But of course then you have Luther's ideals, Calvin's ideals...In the midst of this the reality was Royalty was now given the power to sieze Church property where the shift from Catholicism to Protestantism was made...on it goes. Because as head of State the Monarchy (and therefore Royal aristocracy) was by default head of the Church under this new system. Of course Calvin tossed in an assembly of peerage so Anglicanism has an inherent Parliamentary system, where Lutherism can still be authoritarian monarchies, but there is little other political difference.

 

Anyone go ahead and correct me on any points they feel have placed them in an unjust light.

 

As for the various denominations I feel they are more retroactive than selective. You discover who you are best, sometimes the hard way, sometimes by culture, for whatever reasons. The maxim of most psychologists is that where your beliefs are causing you problems or any kind of personal issues, you should do something about that.

 

My personal opinion is that if you think Jesus is still Mr Walks-on-water and God is a giant with a white beard you should probably pick another religion.

[Trench]

Could you provide a source for this, please?

 

I heard it on the news and my dad filled me in. I can't provide a source, but if you search around the internet your bound to find it.

[Web Rider]

I heard it on the news and my dad filled me in. I can't provide a source' date=' but if you search around the internet your bound to find it.[/quote']

 

I read said "memo" and it doesn't do what you say it does. It refers to any radical group that threatens violence when they don't get their way. This includes republicans who support killing democrats, democrats who support killing republicans, anti-abortionists who blow up clinics, eco-crazies who blow up hummers, and just about any group from left to right that starts making threats when they don't get their agenda supported.

 

here's the actual HSA document: http://www.gordonunleashed.com/HSA%20-%20Rightwing%20Extremism%20-%2009%2004%2007.pdf

 

here's the one about leftwingers: http://theplumline.whorunsgov.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/04/hsa-leftwing-extremists-increase-in-cyber-attacks-dated-26-january-2009.pdf

 

It's actually somewhat hard to find because most of the people up in arms about the first one are conspiracy-nut bloggers and here's a surprise, radical rightwingers!

[Q]

Hey, thanks, WR. Thanks for providing the actual documents.

[EnderWiggin]

Ok, this is making a bit more sense to me now.

 

he might suggest as a Protestant that Papal ideology is not pertinent, history would dictate that Protestantism merely substitutes the Pope for a Monarch where any political system is formed (which Christianity is first and foremost).

I would in fact suggest that.

The division of Catholicism (ie. original Christianity as an "organised religion" or political system) and Protestantism was the assertion that only members of the Clergy were privy to the works of God. Depending upon your rank within the Clergy varying degrees of preserved scripture were made available to you. Protestantism claimed the Church was using this monopoly as a political power and anybody could interpret the Bible for themselves.

Agreeing so far.

Because as head of State the Monarchy (and therefore Royal aristocracy) was by default head of the Church under this new system. Of course Calvin tossed in an assembly of peerage so Anglicanism has an inherent Parliamentary system, where Lutherism can still be authoritarian monarchies, but there is little other political difference.

Ok, I see what you mean. However, currently, there's no monarchs to be found controlling Lutheranism (especially in the USA). So while what you said was true when discussing the Monarchs (Sweden, for example) back when Lutheranism was first spreading throughout Europe, it has no actual bearing in this day and age.

 

Thus, I can be critical of the R. Catholic church for employing a system in which the papacy is a requirement as a mediator for God. In the Lutheran church (and originally one of Luther's 95 theses), we believe that you can talk to God directly without the aid of a priest or clergyman of any type. No one would dare suggest that I need Barack Obama or Elizabeth II to talk to God for me.

 

Using the fact that the papacy was replaced with monarchy (or aristocracy) in the beginnings of the Lutheran religion to relate the two religions today is fallacious. It would be comparable for me to criticize the R. Catholic church because of indulgences - yes, they were wrong, but they've been abolished since the 1560's so what are you going to do? Just because we had a monarch to assume the role of the papacy in the infancy of our religion does not act as a counterpoint to my dislike of the R. Catholic church for the reasons of mediation.

 

_EW_

[Jae Onasi]

This thread will specifically EXCLUDE the atheism/theism debate, because there are already a number of threads on this. This thread will work on the presumptions that

a. God exists

b. Christ as a central figure of the religion exists/existed and is not a myth.

[Emperor Devon]

This thread will work on the presumptions that

a. God exists

b. Christ as a central figure of the religion exists/existed and is not a myth.

 

Why do these have to be presumed to recognize intra-religious differences?

[Web Rider]

This thread will specifically EXCLUDE the atheism/theism debate, because there are already a number of threads on this. This thread will work on the presumptions that

a. God exists

b. Christ as a central figure of the religion exists/existed and is not a myth.

 

Why do these have to be presumed to recognize intra-religious differences?

 

I second this notion, not all sects of Christianity have these views.

[Jae Onasi]

I'm not interested in seeing this turn into a theism/atheism debate. I've set some ground rules for this thread for clarity's sake.

 

Edit--per GTA's desire:

I wanted to have it be a respectable thread that would not devolve into theism vs anti theism flame wars. Apparently the staff agree with that. <shrugs> Also wanted to see more of the discussion between Vanir and EnderWiggin because I was interested to see where it also was going.

 

 

That's the way it is, guys. Any further discussion of any ground rules need to be done with me by PM.

[Totenkopf]

I second this notion, not all sects of Christianity have these views.

 

Since those 2 views seem to underpin Christianity, which sects would you be referring to then?

[Web Rider]

Since those 2 views seem to underpin Christianity, which sects would you be referring to then?

 

Partially, it's because "God exists" and "christ existed" would make Jews, Muslims, and several dozen other mono-theistic religions "Christians" as well. In short it's too general, considering that there's fairly sound that a person fitting Christ's description and religious polarity existed in the appropriate time.

 

There are some gnostic and quaker sects that are either agnostic and refuse to take a stand on god existing or outright say they don't believe god exists. Admittedly these are all very small, very fringe sects,

[True_Avery]

It would possibly be more accurate to say:

a. A single god exists

b. Jesus was the son of god

c. Jesus died for our sins

 

Stuff like that, but even that is a little too general. Some sects of Christianity believe Jesus did things at different times (like the 1914 prophecy from Jehovah's witness and the Mormons stuff).

[Tommycat]

Partially, it's because "God exists" and "christ existed" would make Jews, Muslims, and several dozen other mono-theistic religions "Christians" as well. In short it's too general, considering that there's fairly sound that a person fitting Christ's description and religious polarity existed in the appropriate time.

 

There are some gnostic and quaker sects that are either agnostic and refuse to take a stand on god existing or outright say they don't believe god exists. Admittedly these are all very small, very fringe sects,

 

Which Christian sects do not believe Christ existed?

 

Choosing those assumptions focuses the debate more on the differences between the sects of Christianity, AS THE TITLE SUGGESTS

[vanir]

EW, point and counterpoint. Thoughtful and concise, and I do not wish to derail this thread, so I cede to another time. It's no biggie and I don't think you're wrong, simply felt (initially...as I said best ceded for another time) a wider breadth was in order when one sect challenges another off hand (neither and both to which I have any particular devotion). Luther himself maintained his devotion to the Catholic Church, whilst the breakaway Protestant sects were largely for political reasons and not personally supported by him. You might call him the unwitting catalyst mediaeval politics was waiting with baited breath for, only to be quickly superseded by the industrialist power base anyhow (ergo the golden triangle, WW1 yada yada yada).

And certainly I've no intention or allusion to any attempt at personal academic challenge to you. I'm happy to state I'm just a bartender with a high school education and no particular authority, just a wont to speak freely. And an appreciation for your replies

 

Which Christian sects do not believe Christ existed?

The Anglican Church has formally stated the Bible is a book of allegory and in no conflict with science. At this time the existence of the Jesus figure is unsupported by strict archaeological evidence. This itself is no discounting, it is merely a lack of resounding concert for an intentionally faith based system. From my own readings of the Bible it appears faith based devotion is a strict requirement, I know this is particularly true within the Catholic Church.

The testing of faith is considered a character development. You're not supposed to know one way or the other, that's the point. Choosing to become a good human being even though you know there's no guarantee it'll ever do anything for you. That's what makes you a good human being, it is who you are, no afterlife deals involved. It's not a matter of buying your way into heaven with good deeds. It's a matter of discovering yourself as a good human being, and there is an allowance of hope that this might do something for you. Maybe, but beside the point.

I imagine Jesus would want stand up buddies, not slaves and businessmen (working on the basis he did/does exist, etc.).

 

Let's say we proved scientifically Jesus and God existed, the whole thing was just like the fundamentalists say and totally literal. How could you ever trust all those people rolling up at the pearly gates were doing anything other than looking out for number one from the moment they heard? Would they even have a right to be standing there?

But the person who had no idea, and lived their life thusly just for good conscience, well you'd swing the doors wide open wouldn't you? Saying now this one actually reciprocates what we were trying to achieve.

[Darth Avlectus]

The testing of faith is considered a character development. You're not supposed to know one way or the other, that's the point. Choosing to become a good human being even though you know there's no guarantee it'll ever do anything for you. That's what makes you a good human being, it is who you are, no afterlife deals involved. It's not a matter of buying your way into heaven with good deeds. It's a matter of discovering yourself as a good human being, and there is an allowance of hope that this might do something for you. Maybe, but beside the point.

 

Ah, an expression of your belief through your very being and how you live?

Hmm. What does everyone think of this? I wonder.

[Totenkopf]

Which Christian sects do not believe Christ existed?

 

Choosing those assumptions focuses the debate more on the differences between the sects of Christianity, AS THE TITLE SUGGESTS

 

 

Thank you. Seems some people need to read the title of the thread first before posting.

 

Put another way: fail to read OP properly = massive FAIL.

[Jae Onasi]

I think good works should be an outward expression of gratitude for the sacrifice Christ made for us and to serve as an example of Christ's love to others, not because they win us a spot in heaven.

 

Paul said in Eph 2:8,9 "for by grace you have been saved through faith, and that not of yourselves; it is the gift of God, not of works, that no one would boast." It's pretty clear from that passage (among others) that salvation doesn't come from buying our way into heaven with good works, but rather God's grace.

[Trench]

I think good works should be an outward expression of gratitude for the sacrifice Christ made for us and to serve as an example of Christ's love to others, not because they win us a spot in heaven.

 

Paul said in Eph 2:8,9 "for by grace you have been saved through faith, and that not of yourselves; it is the gift of God, not of works, that no one would boast." It's pretty clear from that passage (among others) that salvation doesn't come from buying our way into heaven with good works, but rather God's grace.

 

Nice Biblical quote! Are you a Christian Mrs. Onasi?

[Tommycat]

Vanir: Interesting take on it. Puts a whole new spin on theology and the proof/disproof of god. For faith to work one must not have definitive proof. As that would negate the liklihood of good deeds being done out of the goodness of the individual.

 

Hmmm sounds more Gnostic than Christian though...

 

I always liked Sirach. especially "Work at your tasks and in his own time and in his own way God shall reward you." While it makes no mention of what tasks and what reward it seems almost to follow in with Karma(something I am more of a fan of).

[vanir]

I think good works should be an outward expression of gratitude for the sacrifice Christ made for us and to serve as an example of Christ's love to others, not because they win us a spot in heaven.

 

Paul said in Eph 2:8,9 "for by grace you have been saved through faith, and that not of yourselves; it is the gift of God, not of works, that no one would boast." It's pretty clear from that passage (among others) that salvation doesn't come from buying our way into heaven with good works, but rather God's grace.

 

Your version sounds a little servile.

The 14-century translation of Greek scripture goes like this,

 

And when ye were dead in your guilts and sins,

2 in which ye wandered sometime after the course of this world, after the prince of the power of this air, of the spirit that worketh now into the sons of unbelief;

 

3 in which also we all lived sometime [in whom we all lived sometime] in the desires of our flesh, doing the wills of the flesh and of the thoughts, and we were by kind the sons of wrath, as other men [as and others];

 

4 but God, that is rich in mercy, for his full much charity in which he loved us,

 

5 yea, when we were dead in sins, quickened us together in Christ, by whose grace ye be saved,

 

6 and again-raised together, and made together to sit in heavenly things in Christ Jesus;

 

7 that he should show in the worlds above coming the plenteous riches of his grace in goodness on [upon] us in Christ Jesus.

 

8 For by grace ye be saved by faith, and this not of you [and that not of you]; for it is the gift of God,

 

9 not of works, that no man have glory.

 

10 For we be the making of him, made of nought in Christ Jesus, in good works, which God hath ordained, that we go in those works [that God made ready before, that in them we go].

 

Which is a totally different context to that which you suggest.

[Totenkopf]

Curious, though, do you believe that faith is merely stating you believe in God, or does it have some other component? You could say you believe in God, but still go to Hell if faith is only defined as a simple declarative statement. If Faith is instead a combination of behavior and acknowledgement of God's existence, then perhaps Catholics and Protestants aren't really all that far apart. Afterall, it's easy to say you believe in something, but something else to put your money where your mouth is. Besides, as I recall, it was only the Cruxifiction and sacrifice of Christ that opened Heaven up to man. Simply believing in God (and living according to His laws) prior to that only kept you out of Hell.

[EnderWiggin]

Luther himself maintained his devotion to the Catholic Church, whilst the breakaway Protestant sects were largely for political reasons and not personally supported by him. You might call him the unwitting catalyst mediaeval politics was waiting with baited breath for, only to be quickly superseded by the industrialist power base anyhow (ergo the golden triangle, WW1 yada yada yada).

Very, very true. It actually must have been rather disappointing to him, since his only objective was to unify and reform the catholic church and he ended up splintering it.

And certainly I've no intention or allusion to any attempt at personal academic challenge to you. I'm happy to state I'm just a bartender with a high school education and no particular authority, just a wont to speak freely. And an appreciation for your replies

 

Thank you, I appreciate yours as well.

 

Thank you. Seems some people need to read the title of the thread first before posting.

 

Put another way: fail to read OP properly = massive FAIL.

 

...except for the fact that this thread is actually based off of a debate between vanir and myself in the other thread

 

Are you a Christian Mrs. Onasi?

 

Someone's new

 

_EW_