Announcement

Collapse

General Theistics 101 Guidelines

This area is open for nontheists and theists to interact on issues of theism and faith in a civilized manner. We ask that nontheist participation respect the theistic views of others and not seek to undermine theism in general, or advocate for nontheism. Such posts are more suited for and allowable in Apologetics 301 with very little restriction.

The moderators of this area are given great discretion to determine if a particular thread or comment would more appropriately belong in another forum area.

Forum Rules: Here
See more
See less

What constitutes a Christian denomination?

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Cow Poke
    replied
    Originally posted by rogue06 View Post

    Leave a comment:


  • rogue06
    replied
    Originally posted by Cow Poke View Post

    Leave a comment:


  • JonathanL
    replied
    Originally posted by rwatts View Post
    Indeed. There is a correct interpretation. And maybe no one has it.
    And maybe someone does.

    Originally posted by rwatts View Post
    Nevertheless, at day's end, people use the Bible to define and defend their own ideas as to what a Christian actually is. And the all seem to think they have the correct/best interpretation. Each could use your - "there really exists a correct interpretation of the Bible, and that all other interpretations are incorrect. And it isn't inconceivable at all to imagine that some people really have found the correct interpretation, while others are simply wrong about what they believe the Bible teaches" - argument as supporting their own Christianity.
    No they couldn't because it isn't an argument trying to support any particular view of Christianity, it was simply an argument that given the assumption that the Bible is true it is worth it trying to spend the effort researching which interpretation of the Bible makes the most sense and which ones do not.

    Leave a comment:


  • rwatts
    replied
    Originally posted by Chrawnus View Post
    Because I was referring to when you wrote:

    "They got all of their arguments about Methodists, Baptists etc. being heretics and on their way to hell, from the Bible. I got all my arguments about them being the heretic and on their way to hell, from the Bible."
    O.k.

    I think elsewhere I had written that we each saw the other as on their way to hell and ourselves as on our way to heaven.



    Originally posted by Ch
    As I already said, that's quite obvious. My counter-point is simply that there really exists a correct interpretation of the Bible, and that all other interpretations are incorrect. And it isn't inconceivable at all to imagine that some people really have found the correct interpretation, while others are simply wrong about what they believe the Bible teaches.
    Indeed. There is a correct interpretation. And maybe no one has it.

    Nevertheless, at day's end, people use the Bible to define and defend their own ideas as to what a Christian actually is. And the all seem to think they have the correct/best interpretation. Each could use your - "there really exists a correct interpretation of the Bible, and that all other interpretations are incorrect. And it isn't inconceivable at all to imagine that some people really have found the correct interpretation, while others are simply wrong about what they believe the Bible teaches" - argument as supporting their own Christianity.
    Last edited by rwatts; 02-22-2015, 02:58 PM.

    Leave a comment:


  • Cow Poke
    replied
    Originally posted by Chrawnus View Post
    It's quite funny, but I just noticed that I tend to overuse this guy () quite a lot.

    Leave a comment:


  • JonathanL
    replied
    Originally posted by rwatts View Post
    Why only hell? Why not heaven?
    Because I was referring to when you wrote:

    "They got all of their arguments about Methodists, Baptists etc. being heretics and on their way to hell, from the Bible. I got all my arguments about them being the heretic and on their way to hell, from the Bible."

    I don't see how you could both have been correct about thinking the other was on their way to hell, while simultaneously being on their way to heaven. That would be quite the contradiction.

    Originally posted by rwatts View Post
    Is Fred interpreting the Bible correctly is something that can be asked of all denominations, sects and individuals.
    Sure is.

    Originally posted by rwatts View Post
    At days end, I fail to see how any denomination, sect or individual could survive, thinking "We believe this even though we don't think it's Biblically based".
    As I already said, that's quite obvious. My counter-point is simply that there really exists a correct interpretation of the Bible, and that all other interpretations are incorrect. And it isn't inconceivable at all to imagine that some people really have found the correct interpretation, while others are simply wrong about what they believe the Bible teaches.

    Leave a comment:


  • rwatts
    replied
    Originally posted by Chrawnus View Post
    Well, I guess you could both have been correct, and you were both going to hell, but that was not really my point.
    Why only hell? Why not heaven?

    Originally posted by Ch
    My point is that the Bible really does have something to say about whether or not someone is damned, and how to get out of that state of damnation, and that there really is a correct interpretation of the relevant parts of the Bible. So when someone points out that group X thinks group Y is going to hell based on something they read in the bible, while group Y thinks the same of group X my initial reaction would be to ask, "are any of these groups interpretations of the Bible correct?", it would not be to throw my hands up in desperation and conclude that it's impossible to tell one way or the other.
    Is Fred interpreting the Bible correctly is something that can be asked of all denominations, sects and individuals.

    At days end, I fail to see how any denomination, sect or individual could survive, thinking "We are Christian because believe this even though we don't think it's Biblically based".

    Sure my experience is very limited, but I've yet to meet a person claiming to be a Christian who does not see the Bible as an authority, defining her/his Christianity.
    Last edited by rwatts; 02-22-2015, 02:43 PM.

    Leave a comment:


  • JonathanL
    replied
    Originally posted by rwatts View Post
    Why were one or both of us wrong on that issue, given that you were not there?
    Well, I guess you could both have been correct, and you were both going to hell, but that was not really my point. My point is that the Bible really does have something to say about whether or not someone is damned, and how to get out of that state of damnation, and that there really is a correct interpretation of the relevant parts of the Bible. So when someone points out that group X thinks group Y is going to hell based on something they read in the bible, while group Y thinks the same of group X my initial reaction would be to ask, "are any of these groups interpretations of the Bible correct?", it would not be to throw my hands up in desperation and conclude that it's impossible to tell one way or the other.

    Leave a comment:


  • rwatts
    replied
    Originally posted by Chrawnus View Post



    And either one, or both of you were simply wrong on this issue, it really isn't much more complicated than that.
    How were one or both of us wrong on that issue, given that you were not there?

    And I think it is a point, given that so many folk use the Bible to define who is, and who is not a Christian.
    Last edited by rwatts; 02-22-2015, 02:29 PM.

    Leave a comment:


  • JonathanL
    replied
    Originally posted by rwatts View Post
    That is my point. AFAICT, everyone who claims to be Christian, including those you reject as being Christian, claims to follow the Bible. It was my experience on meeting the Christadelphians.
    Of course everyone who claims to be Christian also claims to follow the Bible. That's quite obvious and to be frank, isn't much of a point at all.

    Originally posted by rwatts View Post
    They got all of their arguments about Methodists, Baptists etc. being heretics and on their way to hell, from the Bible. I got all my arguments about them being the heretic and on their way to hell, from the Bible.
    And either one, or both of you were simply wrong on this issue, it really isn't much more complicated than that.

    Leave a comment:


  • rwatts
    replied
    Originally posted by Chrawnus View Post
    I don't think you're telling us anything particularly surprising or revealing there.
    Then see the post I put up after that where I explain it more fully:-

    http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/sh...l=1#post163986

    Leave a comment:


  • JonathanL
    replied
    Originally posted by rwatts View Post
    ETA
    And they way I see it, everyone who claims to be Christian also claims to follow the Bible.
    I don't think you're telling us anything particularly surprising or revealing there.

    Leave a comment:


  • rwatts
    replied
    Originally posted by Chrawnus View Post



    I'm quite confident in my belief that the Bible says nothing of the sort, but if it did l would have to rethink my position on what defines a Christian.
    That is my point. AFAICT, everyone who claims to be Christian, including those you reject as being Christian, claims to follow the Bible. It was my experience on meeting the Christadelphians.

    They got all of their arguments about Methodists, Baptists etc. being heretics and on their way to hell, from the Bible. I got all my arguments about them being the heretic and on their way to hell, from the Bible.

    Leave a comment:


  • JonathanL
    replied
    Originally posted by rwatts View Post
    I have a problem with that. Isn't that what this argument is largely about?
    You might have a problem with it, but I don't.

    Originally posted by rwatts View Post
    People are asserting that group X cannot be Christian because its members don't follow a Y, where Y is "my version of Christianity" or Y is "anyone who doesn't follow a vegetarian lifestyle is in a state of damnation"?
    Which makes it a question of which of these claims are correct (if any of them are correct) and not a question of how to get people with deeply non-reconcilable teachings to sing kumbayah with eachother.

    Originally posted by rwatts View Post
    What if, according to the Bible, anyone who does not follow a vegetarian lifestyle is in a state of damnation?
    I'm quite confident in my belief that the Bible says nothing of the sort, but if it did l would have to rethink my position on what defines a Christian.

    Leave a comment:


  • rwatts
    replied
    Originally posted by Chrawnus View Post
    So if a sect maintained that God calls us to be vegetarians I would not necessarily say that they aren't Christian, unless they insisted that anyone who doesn't follow a vegetarian lifestyle is in a state of damnation.
    I have a problem with that. Isn't that what this argument is largely about?

    People are asserting that group X cannot be Christian because its members don't follow a Y, where Y is "my version of Christianity" or Y is "anyone who doesn't follow a vegetarian lifestyle is in a state of damnation"?

    What if, according to the Bible, anyone who does not follow a vegetarian lifestyle is in a state of damnation?

    ETA
    And they way I see it, everyone who claims to be Christian also claims to follow the Bible.
    Last edited by rwatts; 02-22-2015, 02:03 PM.

    Leave a comment:

widgetinstance 221 (Related Threads) skipped due to lack of content & hide_module_if_empty option.
Working...
X