Christian: Denominations?

[Terrywoodenpic]

I find it impossible to believe that God allows us a choice of how to worship him, yet will condemn all but one single sect or denomination, with out even naming it.

We can not "Self Appoint" the way to God.

It would seem that variation and choice are one of the greatest strengths of Christianity.
We all share the teaching of Jesus as the greatest and most important of those strengths.
Scripture and tradition does not come predigested, it requires interpretation and application to life's realities
As the world and civilisation change, so does the need for reinterpretation to give a Christion dimension to the new changes and opportunities.
Some times existing denominations embrace the change some times not.
The Church supported the Biblical belief in a flat earth, long after there was absolute proof to the contrary...it changed...

The protestantism of Luther was not about theology, he remained a Catholic. It was about abuse of power, wealth and the selling of forgiveness.
Even Calvin looked back to early Catholic theologians for his views on sin and forgiveness and the absolute power of God. The Catholic church today would have little to argue about with Luther. Though they certainly do not subscribe to the extremes of Calvin.

The only thing that Keeps the Churches apart is their lack of Generosity of spirit.
We all Love God and Follow the Teachings of Jesus
God Loves Everyone...
Dogma certainly gives cohesion and strength to any set of believers, However Dogma is also divisive, and keeps groups of otherwise fellow Christians apart.
Christianity is Greater than any of its disparate parts.
Those that seek God through ecumenicism, would seem to be following more closely in the footsteps of Christ than those who do not.

 

[viole]

I find it impossible to believe that God allows us a choice of how to worship him, yet will condemn all but one single sect or denomination, with out even naming it.

We can not "Self Appoint" the way to God.

It would seem that variation and choice are one of the greatest strengths of Christianity.
We all share the teaching of Jesus as the greatest and most important of those strengths.
Scripture and tradition does not come predigested, it requires interpretation and application to life's realities
As the world and civilisation change, so does the need for reinterpretation to give a Christion dimension to the new changes and opportunities.
Some times existing denominations embrace the change some times not.
The Church supported the Biblical belief in a flat earth, long after there was absolute proof to the contrary...it changed...

The protestantism of Luther was not about theology, he remained a Catholic. It was about abuse of power, wealth and the selling of forgiveness.
Even Calvin looked back to early Catholic theologians for his views on sin and forgiveness and the absolute power of God. The Catholic church today would have little to argue about with Luther. Though they certainly do not subscribe to the extremes of Calvin.

The only thing that Keeps the Churches apart is Generosity of spirit.
We all Love God and Follow the Teachings of Jesus
God Loves Everyone...
Dogma certainly gives cohesion and strength to any set of believers, However Dogma is also divisive, and keeps groups of otherwise fellow Christians apart.
Christianity is Greater than any of its disparate parts.
Those that seek God through ecumenicism, would seem to be following more closely in the footsteps of Christ than those who do not.

My ex-church of Sweden happily marry gays.

Is that conform to the message of the Christ?

Ciao

- viole

 

[The Emperor of Mankind]

I find it impossible to believe that God allows us a choice of how to worship him, yet will condemn all but one single sect or denomination, with out even naming it.

That's the problem, isn't it? Every sect says God says theirs is the true one.

 

[Terrywoodenpic]

There is a difference between a reformation and a restoration. Luther, Calvin, Wycliffe, Zwingli and many others attempted to reform the Catholic Church. They could see how the Church had changed over time into something quite different from the Church Jesus Christ had established. With respect to Martin Luther, in particular, it never really was his intention to start a new church, but to reform the existing one. Thus, the Protestant Reformation began to take place.

Mormons don't believe that a reformation was sufficient, for the simple reason that we see God-given authority to direct Christ's Church on earth as being an essential component of any church that claims to be "His" Church. Since He was the one who established it in the first place, calling apostles to stand at its head and to be able to receive guidance and direction from Him, He was the only one who could re-establish it in its original form, teaching its original doctrines, and being governed by twelve apostles of His choosing. We believe (other Christians will disagree, of course), that this restoration (or re-establishment) of Christ's original church took place when the Father and the Son chose Joseph Smith as what we refer to as "the Prophet of the Restoration." Mormonism was established through communication between God and man. It continues to exist today through that same communication. The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is led today by a prophet (Thomas S. Monson) whom we believe to have exactly the same authority as did Peter, and by a quorum of Twelve Apostles who hold the same authority as did Jesus' original twelve.

Some time in life and it seems also in Faith, It becomes an opportune time to wipe the slate clean and start again. This is what I see a restoration faith, like the Latter day Saints, as doing. However It also seems that God in his wisdom always allows those that came before to continue.

All faiths, like humans are less than perfect. so some become less perfect over time. Others change and adapt and continue to grow in faith.

This world has seen many faiths come and go since the universe was created. It is a slow but inevitable process.
The LDS are a small Christian church that has a faith and social philosophy that complies closely with that of the teachings of Jesus.

It has accepted a place and duty to increase the Love of God amongst men.

It fills a need among Christians and a way to God, or it would never have existed.

 

[Terrywoodenpic]

My ex-church of Sweden happily marry gays.

Is that conform to the message of the Christ?

Ciao

- viole

I can not see any reason why they should not be married
It seems many theologians can not see an impediment either.
But then who can speak for God?

Jesus made no comment on the matter, except that we should all love one another. Perhaps he knew it would be an issue one day.?

That's the problem, isn't it? Every sect says God says theirs is the true one.

Few sects are so absolute.
However, It is what ever God wishes that matters, not what a subset of his worshippers might wish were true.

The Evidence shows that there are many ways to worship God.

 

[sojourner]

It is not possible for a Mormon to be Christian. The reason is: their very beginning is based on something anathema, CURSED, to God.

Love of God is cursed to God? Really?!

 

[viole]

I can not see any reason why they should not be married
It seems many theologians can not see an impediment either.
But then who can speak for God?

Jesus made no comment on the matter, except that we should all love one another. Perhaps he knew it would be an issue one day.?



Few sects are so absolute.
However, It is what ever God wishes that matters, not what a subset of his worshippers might wish were true.

The Evidence shows that there are many ways to worship God.

Cool.

Other denominations believe that gays should not marry.

Are they also conform to the message of the Christ?

Ciao

- viole

 

[Terrywoodenpic]

Cool.

Other denominations believe that gays should not marry.

Are they also conform to the message of the Christ?

Ciao

- viole

Some churches take longer than others to change.
The Anglican faith is some what split in that The USA and the UK and some others, now accept women priests and Bishops, while most of the African Anglican churches do not. The position of Gay marriages is even more divided.
with only some priests breaking ranks and performing marriages.

I know of at least one married gay priest, prior to his move to a london church he was our vicar.

However as members of a congregation Gays that have married elsewhere are accepted.
Churches tend to follow some way behind public sentiment on these issues.
Given more time, Gay marriage will be possible in most churches. Perhaps even ones that say impossible today.

 

[Terrywoodenpic]

I was a Unitarian, now I'm a member of the Anglican Church.

That is interesting I am Anglican with christian unitarian sympathies (not UU)

 

[Sundance]

That is interesting I am Anglican with christian unitarian sympathies (not UU)

Quite a conundrum we have here, ain't it?

 

[sojourner]

Catholic. Every Christian church is a splinter from the Roman Catholic Church - the only church that was around during the time of Christ.

There was no Roman Catholic Church during the time of Christ. The RCC, as a unique, identifiable entity, was brought about finally in the Great Schism of 1054. Until then, there was only "the Church," and its "power base" alternated between Rome and Constantinople, with the Bishop of Rome only being a "first among equals" with the Patriarch of Constantinople and other bishops.

 

[rrosskopf]

There was no Roman Catholic Church during the time of Christ. The RCC, as a unique, identifiable entity, was brought about finally in the Great Schism of 1054. Until then, there was only "the Church," and its "power base" alternated between Rome and Constantinople, with the Bishop of Rome only being a "first among equals" with the Patriarch of Constantinople and other bishops.

I have to agree. There was no recognized central authority once the apostles died. Bishops were given a kind of "respect" based entirely on what city they lived in. There is nothing in the name of a city which would change its suseptability to heresies, or suggest a hierarchy of bishops. There were hundreds of sects - not one united sect. Constantine added the terror of political force; do you know what happened to anyone caught with writings that disagreed with the Nicene Creed? They were to be put to death. Hide your Bibles! ;-) There was a tradition of secret teachings that went back at least to the 2nd century, where Jesus instructed Peter, James and John in the Christian Mysteries. The churches that claimed to have a knowledge of these mysteries were known as gnostics, and it was believed that no church could claim to be true without this knowledge. Around 700 AD, the Roman Catholic church outlawed all secret ceremonies and rites. Today, the only Christians that claim to have the mysteries are the Mormons. Joseph Smith, farmboy and rural prophet, somehow orchestrated the return of gnosticism. Imagine what he could have done if he had actually gone to college.

 

[David1967]

I have to agree. There was no recognized central authority once the apostles died. Bishops were given a kind of "respect" based entirely on what city they lived in. There is nothing in the name of a city which would change its suseptability to heresies, or suggest a hierarchy of bishops. There were hundreds of sects - not one united sect. Constantine added the terror of political force; do you know what happened to anyone caught with writings that disagreed with the Nicene Creed? They were to be put to death. Hide your Bibles! ;-) There was a tradition of secret teachings that went back at least to the 2nd century, where Jesus instructed Peter, James and John in the Christian Mysteries. The churches that claimed to have a knowledge of these mysteries were known as gnostics, and it was believed that no church could claim to be true without this knowledge. Around 700 AD, the Roman Catholic church outlawed all secret ceremonies and rites. Today, the only Christians that claim to have the mysteries are the Mormons. Joseph Smith, farmboy and rural prophet, somehow orchestrated the return of gnosticism. Imagine what he could have done if he had actually gone to college.

Interesting. Ive never heard of LDS compared to gnostics.

 

[Mr. Beebe]

After a careful study of the scriptures, I joined the Seventh-day Adventist Church.

 

[Shiranui117]

I have to agree. There was no recognized central authority once the apostles died. Bishops were given a kind of "respect" based entirely on what city they lived in. There is nothing in the name of a city which would change its suseptability to heresies, or suggest a hierarchy of bishops. There were hundreds of sects - not one united sect. Constantine added the terror of political force; do you know what happened to anyone caught with writings that disagreed with the Nicene Creed? They were to be put to death. Hide your Bibles! ;-) There was a tradition of secret teachings that went back at least to the 2nd century, where Jesus instructed Peter, James and John in the Christian Mysteries. The churches that claimed to have a knowledge of these mysteries were known as gnostics, and it was believed that no church could claim to be true without this knowledge. Around 700 AD, the Roman Catholic church outlawed all secret ceremonies and rites. Today, the only Christians that claim to have the mysteries are the Mormons. Joseph Smith, farmboy and rural prophet, somehow orchestrated the return of gnosticism. Imagine what he could have done if he had actually gone to college.

Gnosticism and the LDS have basically nothing in common, though, outside of both claiming to have been granted access to "lost" or "hidden" Scriptures...

 

[rrosskopf]

Gnosticism and the LDS have basically nothing in common, though, outside of both claiming to have been granted access to "lost" or "hidden" Scriptures...

There was no single group of churches that identified themselves as Gnostics; that is just the name given to all sects who had a tradition of the Christian Mysteries. You could say equally well that they had little in common with each other, other than that one defining point of doctrine. Without the apostles, and divine revelation, there was no positive influence to keep the churches united in doctrine.
That being said, the Naghamadi books, which are considered to be gnostic, are very much in line with LDS doctrine, and are our oldest Christian texts.

 

[sojourner]

I have to agree. There was no recognized central authority once the apostles died. Bishops were given a kind of "respect" based entirely on what city they lived in. There is nothing in the name of a city which would change its suseptability to heresies, or suggest a hierarchy of bishops. There were hundreds of sects - not one united sect. Constantine added the terror of political force; do you know what happened to anyone caught with writings that disagreed with the Nicene Creed? They were to be put to death. Hide your Bibles! ;-) There was a tradition of secret teachings that went back at least to the 2nd century, where Jesus instructed Peter, James and John in the Christian Mysteries. The churches that claimed to have a knowledge of these mysteries were known as gnostics, and it was believed that no church could claim to be true without this knowledge. Around 700 AD, the Roman Catholic church outlawed all secret ceremonies and rites. Today, the only Christians that claim to have the mysteries are the Mormons. Joseph Smith, farmboy and rural prophet, somehow orchestrated the return of gnosticism. Imagine what he could have done if he had actually gone to college.

There was no recognized, central authority even when the apostles were alive. The apostles were never united in doctrine. The "apostles' teaching" was broad and varied. Jesus, Peter, James and John weren't alive in the second century. The notion that Jesus taught "secret mysteries" isn't congruent with biblical understanding of how Jesus taught. This is nothing more than pseudo-Masonic claptrap. There are other modern sects that claim esoteric knowledge. The Mormons have no corner on that market, or any exclusive claim to apostolic authority.

 

[sojourner]

My ex-church of Sweden happily marry gays.

Is that conform to the message of the Christ?

Ciao

- viole

Absolutely.

 

[rrosskopf]

There was no recognized, central authority even when the apostles were alive. The apostles were never united in doctrine. The "apostles' teaching" was broad and varied. Jesus, Peter, James and John weren't alive in the second century. The notion that Jesus taught "secret mysteries" isn't congruent with biblical understanding of how Jesus taught. This is nothing more than pseudo-Masonic claptrap. There are other modern sects that claim esoteric knowledge. The Mormons have no corner on that market, or any exclusive claim to apostolic authority.

Actually, even the Bible mentions that Jesus spoke in parables, to keep the wrong people from knowing the truth. United in doctrine or not ( I believe they were for the most part), the apostles were the central authority of the church, Peter being the chief apostle. It was a significant event when Peter, James and John appeared to Joseph Smith and Oliver Cowdery, conferring upon them the Holy Priesthood. It gives the Mormons a better claim to apostolic authority than any other church.

 

[sojourner]

Actually, even the Bible mentions that Jesus spoke in parables, to keep the wrong people from knowing the truth. United in doctrine or not ( I believe they were for the most part), the apostles were the central authority of the church, Peter being the chief apostle. It was a significant event when Peter, James and John appeared to Joseph Smith and Oliver Cowdery, conferring upon them the Holy Priesthood. It gives the Mormons a better claim to apostolic authority than any other church.

That quote is considered by NT scholars to be an unauthentic quote, and out of character for Jesus. The apostles weren't "centralized." In fact, they were divided over several points of doctrine, and separated by distance.

The alleged appearance doesn't at all give Mormons a "better claim," since it was uncoroborrated by a third party, and since the historic and apostolic faith is connected both by time and by supporting documents and cultural acknowledgement of apostolic authority since the beginning. Apparitions do not supplant cultural documentation.