6 ms·

I get what you're saying, but there's plenty of disagreement on what those concepts even are. td;dr: Denominations vary wildly, and it's almost impossible to s

I get what you're saying, but there's plenty of disagreement on what those concepts even are. td;dr: Denominations vary wildly, and it's almost impossible to separate one's personal biases from choosing a congregation. For example, Catholicism is very heirarchical, stating that one cannot receive salvation except through the Catholic Church. Methodism states that good acts + belief are the gateway to heaven. Lutheranism promises salvation to all that believe in Christ. Or take the infallibility of the Bible. The Roman Catholic faith places a lot of emphasis on church doctrine, which is based on the Bible to be sure, but also a lot of church constructs. Baptists believe in a very literal interpretation of the Bible. Mainline protestants emphasize historical context and nuance. ELCA does not even claim the Bible is the literal word of God. Plus, individual congregations within a denomination might have differences in emphasis, sociopolitical leanings, etc. It's important to know that "The Church" is in many cases, and especially for Protestant denominations, made up of congregations from the bottom up, and reflects the aggregate of its membership.

tenacious_tuna 6y ago
I talk about this more in another reply [1], but I'll restate here: If it's possible for all these varied denominations to come to wildly different conclusions about god, the world, and his desires for us, all based off the same source materials and epistemological tools (e.g., faith)--differences that're important enough to have fought wars and divided nations over--why then do people believe these source materials and tools are still a reliable way to determine how one should live their life? The fact that these huge disagreements exist is evidence to me that the bible specifically and religious texts generally aren't reliable systems to learn about the world. What frustrates me is people who "church shop" seem to be aware of this, because they're seeking a church that is similar enough to their existing beliefs yet the indicators of that are difficult to find because even within the same denomination a specific population can hold different beliefs, yet they don't extrapolate to the wider issue of the base beliefs being the issue. [1]: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26624502 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26624502
- LargeWu 6y ago
  Because on the main point, they're all pretty much aligned: Salvation is achieved through Jesus's death on the cross. And fundamentally, it's the only thing that really matters in Christianity. In that respect, shopping for churches is mostly irrelevant. What you see as fundamental differences are really more social than theological, in which case the shopping around makes a lot of sense. "the bible specifically and religious texts generally aren't reliable systems to learn about the world." I think most mainline Christians would reject the notion that the Old Testament is a factual historical record. (Less so for Evangelical and Pentecostal, however). Religion teaches us "why", not "what".
  - tenacious_tuna 6y ago
    My experience in life with self-identified Christians has largely been in the context of those people disagreeing, on moral grounds, with actions I take or people I support--almost always citing religion in their reasoning. It's possible the people I've dealt with just aren't components of this "mainline christianity" you're familiar with, but they use the same tools to believe these things. To me, those tools are egregiously flawed, and I have a vested interest in making sure those tools don't get used to believe false things that bring harm to myself or my neighbors. > Because on the main point, they're all pretty much aligned... Historically, wars have been fought over these disagreements--both within only Christianity, and in the wider religious space. I think it's worth considering other religions personally because it's what led to my de-conversion: I couldn't answer the question of why, other than being raised in it, I should believe Christianity over, say, Buddhism or Islam. As I regarded other religions with skepticism, when I was a Christian, I should also regard Christianity. While the specific point I've made previously deals with selecting a denomination and a church within that denomination it's also true that people choose religions for similar (flawed?) reasoning. Further: > What you see as fundamental differences are really more social than theological... I'm not sure I'm convinced on this. Take gay marriage, for example: I vividly recall being 12 in our church, sitting in on a conversation between my (single) mother and our pastor, on how to deal with people who chose to sin in our lives, specifically referring to my father who was openly gay at the time. The church we went to was firmly against homosexuality, but was of the love-the-sinner-hate-the-sin cloth. On the upshot, they were relatively kind to those of the LGBT community, but they did still make it clear they did not support their "choices" and largely ostracized them--with reasoning that, in their view, was ensconced in theology. While LGBT rights have certainly been a social issue throughout the world, I think dismissing this "difference" between my church and the one on my college campus who made a point of welcoming LGBT members is to minimize these actual theological differences. There's part of me that wonders if this is a bad-faith maneuvering (not on your part, but organized religion as a whole) to downplay socially repulsive beliefs without having to sacrifice their supposed moral authority. > I think most mainline Christians would reject the notion that the Old testament is a factual historical record. This certainly hasn't been true across history, and even now I harbor doubt. Perhaps I've only dealt with more fundamentalist types than you, but the opposite has been true in my experience, and is definitely not true of the more loudmouthed Creationist/Ken Ham style evangelicals. While they may not be representative of the majority, *they are affecting policy* in many regions of the country. My mother, an elementary teacher, frequently voices her frustrations that she's not allowed to pose creationism as an "alternative" to evolution in her classes science units--something that is allowed in several other states[1, though from 2014]. You see similar flaws in other arenas, too: my grandparents view climate change as an issue outside of human concern, squarely in God's hands, in part because they believe in life-after-death and the eventual rapture, so while they should do reasonably well to steward the planet, they don't think we're going to be here forever so it doesn't matter if Earth becomes an unlivable rock; while some may suffer the effects of an adverse climate, it won't matter when everyone's in heaven. I also wonder about what motivates these changes in how doctrine is viewed. Supposing your right, what drove the digression that the Old Testament is not factual? I doubt it was the Church deciding on its own, outside of societal pressure. I'm sure it's because of pressure from those who found fault in the Old Testament teachings--those who were condemned by it, or ostracized by the churches of their time, and the Churches granted this concession without wholly usurping their power. But what about the next issue? Maybe folks are believing less in Noah's Ark, but how will they contend with folks who're trans, or polyamourus, or take issue with abstract (i.e., not historical) teachings of the bible like not rebelling against kings, for they have been ordained by God [2]? [1]: http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/science/2014/01/creationism_in_public_schools_mapped_where_tax_money_supports_alternatives.html http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/science/201... [2]: https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Romans%2013&version=NIV https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Romans%2013&ver...
skissane 6y ago
> stating that one cannot receive salvation except through the Catholic Church The contemporary position of the Catholic Church is that non-Catholic Christians and non-Christians can be saved. What you've said there will be read by many readers as saying that only Catholics will be saved, which is not the Catholic position at all, in fact it is the condemned heresy of Feeneyism. Now, the Catholic Church also teaches that when non-Catholics and non-Christians are saved, they are saved through the Catholic Church – but in a mystical rather than visible way – so what you've said is literally true, but is prone to misinterpretation.
jimbokun 6y ago
The differences are way over rated, especially between the denominations themselves. If you look at the core statements of beliefs from various Christian denominations, you will find far more similarities than differences, especially around the core tenets of the faith.
- kongolongo 6y ago
  How do you choose between a Christian denomination and being Hindu, for example, then?
  - jimbokun 6y ago
    I don’t know, maybe study both religions and try participating in some way, and see if either resonates with you in some profound way?
    - tenacious_tuna 6y ago
      This is unreasonable to me when both possible worldviews make such wide-reaching claims about reality, and require me to subscribe to particular rules and philosophies--especially when you consider these beliefs are in direct opposition to one another. As the Christian god demands "You shall have no other gods before me" how can I freely consider participating in other religions alongside Christianity? Surely one of them must be closest to reality with its claims--unless I am to regard the demands these religions make of me merely as suggestions, or allegorical teachings? While that's certainly possible (and, I'm told, the case of the Greek and Roman gods), that's not how I often encounter religion in my life. Typically it's being cited as edicts or prohibitions that must be followed, lest terrible things happen, and being used to motivate people's decisions around policy and behavior, policy and behavior which I've watched cause harm to myself and those I care about. I find it a ridiculous proposition that a person could make a decision that would have such effects by seeing which of these contradictory things "resonates" with them, somehow.

tenacious_tuna 6y ago

I talk about this more in another reply [1], but I'll restate here: If it's possible for all these varied denominations to come to wildly different conclusions about god, the world, and his desires for us, all based off the same source materials and epistemological tools (e.g., faith)--differences that're important enough to have fought wars and divided nations over--why then do people believe these source materials and tools are still a reliable way to determine how one should live their life? The fact that these huge disagreements exist is evidence to me that the bible specifically and religious texts generally aren't reliable systems to learn about the world. What frustrates me is people who "church shop" seem to be aware of this, because they're seeking a church that is similar enough to their existing beliefs yet the indicators of that are difficult to find because even within the same denomination a specific population can hold different beliefs, yet they don't extrapolate to the wider issue of the base beliefs being the issue. [1]: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26624502 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26624502

LargeWu 6y ago
Because on the main point, they're all pretty much aligned: Salvation is achieved through Jesus's death on the cross. And fundamentally, it's the only thing that really matters in Christianity. In that respect, shopping for churches is mostly irrelevant. What you see as fundamental differences are really more social than theological, in which case the shopping around makes a lot of sense. "the bible specifically and religious texts generally aren't reliable systems to learn about the world." I think most mainline Christians would reject the notion that the Old Testament is a factual historical record. (Less so for Evangelical and Pentecostal, however). Religion teaches us "why", not "what".
- tenacious_tuna 6y ago
  My experience in life with self-identified Christians has largely been in the context of those people disagreeing, on moral grounds, with actions I take or people I support--almost always citing religion in their reasoning. It's possible the people I've dealt with just aren't components of this "mainline christianity" you're familiar with, but they use the same tools to believe these things. To me, those tools are egregiously flawed, and I have a vested interest in making sure those tools don't get used to believe false things that bring harm to myself or my neighbors. > Because on the main point, they're all pretty much aligned... Historically, wars have been fought over these disagreements--both within only Christianity, and in the wider religious space. I think it's worth considering other religions personally because it's what led to my de-conversion: I couldn't answer the question of why, other than being raised in it, I should believe Christianity over, say, Buddhism or Islam. As I regarded other religions with skepticism, when I was a Christian, I should also regard Christianity. While the specific point I've made previously deals with selecting a denomination and a church within that denomination it's also true that people choose religions for similar (flawed?) reasoning. Further: > What you see as fundamental differences are really more social than theological... I'm not sure I'm convinced on this. Take gay marriage, for example: I vividly recall being 12 in our church, sitting in on a conversation between my (single) mother and our pastor, on how to deal with people who chose to sin in our lives, specifically referring to my father who was openly gay at the time. The church we went to was firmly against homosexuality, but was of the love-the-sinner-hate-the-sin cloth. On the upshot, they were relatively kind to those of the LGBT community, but they did still make it clear they did not support their "choices" and largely ostracized them--with reasoning that, in their view, was ensconced in theology. While LGBT rights have certainly been a social issue throughout the world, I think dismissing this "difference" between my church and the one on my college campus who made a point of welcoming LGBT members is to minimize these actual theological differences. There's part of me that wonders if this is a bad-faith maneuvering (not on your part, but organized religion as a whole) to downplay socially repulsive beliefs without having to sacrifice their supposed moral authority. > I think most mainline Christians would reject the notion that the Old testament is a factual historical record. This certainly hasn't been true across history, and even now I harbor doubt. Perhaps I've only dealt with more fundamentalist types than you, but the opposite has been true in my experience, and is definitely not true of the more loudmouthed Creationist/Ken Ham style evangelicals. While they may not be representative of the majority, *they are affecting policy* in many regions of the country. My mother, an elementary teacher, frequently voices her frustrations that she's not allowed to pose creationism as an "alternative" to evolution in her classes science units--something that is allowed in several other states[1, though from 2014]. You see similar flaws in other arenas, too: my grandparents view climate change as an issue outside of human concern, squarely in God's hands, in part because they believe in life-after-death and the eventual rapture, so while they should do reasonably well to steward the planet, they don't think we're going to be here forever so it doesn't matter if Earth becomes an unlivable rock; while some may suffer the effects of an adverse climate, it won't matter when everyone's in heaven. I also wonder about what motivates these changes in how doctrine is viewed. Supposing your right, what drove the digression that the Old Testament is not factual? I doubt it was the Church deciding on its own, outside of societal pressure. I'm sure it's because of pressure from those who found fault in the Old Testament teachings--those who were condemned by it, or ostracized by the churches of their time, and the Churches granted this concession without wholly usurping their power. But what about the next issue? Maybe folks are believing less in Noah's Ark, but how will they contend with folks who're trans, or polyamourus, or take issue with abstract (i.e., not historical) teachings of the bible like not rebelling against kings, for they have been ordained by God [2]? [1]: http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/science/2014/01/creationism_in_public_schools_mapped_where_tax_money_supports_alternatives.html http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/science/201... [2]: https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Romans%2013&version=NIV https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Romans%2013&ver...

skissane 6y ago

> stating that one cannot receive salvation except through the Catholic Church The contemporary position of the Catholic Church is that non-Catholic Christians and non-Christians can be saved. What you've said there will be read by many readers as saying that only Catholics will be saved, which is not the Catholic position at all, in fact it is the condemned heresy of Feeneyism. Now, the Catholic Church also teaches that when non-Catholics and non-Christians are saved, they are saved through the Catholic Church – but in a mystical rather than visible way – so what you've said is literally true, but is prone to misinterpretation.

jimbokun 6y ago

The differences are way over rated, especially between the denominations themselves. If you look at the core statements of beliefs from various Christian denominations, you will find far more similarities than differences, especially around the core tenets of the faith.

kongolongo 6y ago
How do you choose between a Christian denomination and being Hindu, for example, then?
- jimbokun 6y ago
  I don’t know, maybe study both religions and try participating in some way, and see if either resonates with you in some profound way?
  - tenacious_tuna 6y ago
    This is unreasonable to me when both possible worldviews make such wide-reaching claims about reality, and require me to subscribe to particular rules and philosophies--especially when you consider these beliefs are in direct opposition to one another. As the Christian god demands "You shall have no other gods before me" how can I freely consider participating in other religions alongside Christianity? Surely one of them must be closest to reality with its claims--unless I am to regard the demands these religions make of me merely as suggestions, or allegorical teachings? While that's certainly possible (and, I'm told, the case of the Greek and Roman gods), that's not how I often encounter religion in my life. Typically it's being cited as edicts or prohibitions that must be followed, lest terrible things happen, and being used to motivate people's decisions around policy and behavior, policy and behavior which I've watched cause harm to myself and those I care about. I find it a ridiculous proposition that a person could make a decision that would have such effects by seeing which of these contradictory things "resonates" with them, somehow.