Which denomination is the right one?

[AV1611VET]

I think you and I have different definitions of what a "legitimate" question actually is. And from your semantic angle, you're correct. But from my other historically inclined, epistemological and ethical angle, it is very much a legitimate question.

For me, an example of an illegitimate question would be one like this: "Are Jews even human?"

That would be, for me, a clear example of an utterly illegitimate question.

I'll say this much.

For someone who doesn't know the answer, you're good at trying to make me look like I don't know either.

But I promise you -- it's not working.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

I'll say this much.

For someone who doesn't know the answer, you're good at trying to make me look like I don't know either.

But I promise you -- it's not working.

I'm not trying to persuade you to not be an Independent Baptist. Although, it would be nice if you could stop talking at people unilaterally.

 

[AV1611VET]

Not all legitimate questions have clear answers. Some questions are outside of our reach to acquire an answer and know.

Then why was it asked?

Did ... ahem ... someone prompt the OP to ask this good question, so that same someone could prompt you to make your point that it doesn't have a good answer?

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Then why was it asked?

Did ... ahem ... someone prompt the OP to ask this good question, so that same someone could prompt you to make your point that it doesn't have a good answer?

I have no idea. I don't know who Joseph G is. I haven't yet had any conversation with him/her. Have you?

 

[AV1611VET]

I'm not trying to persuade you to not be an Independent Baptist.

Why should I change?

When I think it's the right answer?

I'm not like turncoat Jerry Falwell, who changed from Independent Baptist to Southern Baptist.

Although, it would be nice if you could stop talking at people unilaterally.

A unilateral question deserves a unilateral answer, don't you think?

 

[AV1611VET]

I have no idea. I don't know who Joseph G is. I haven't yet had any conversation with him/her. Have you?

I don't think you quite understood the point I made with that question.

But it was more rhetorical than not.

It doesn't matter who the asker was, nor the answerer -- (re the OP ie).

It was asked for a different reason.

 

[Reasonably Sane]

1.2M views · 45K reactions | #God #Jesus #HolySpirit | ChristianBook

#God #Jesus #HolySpirit.

www.facebook.com

Be blessed!

I've seen this guy before. I think he's really good. Honestly, if I absolutely insisted on going to a church that agreed with me on everything, I would have to start my own church.

When I moved from Seattle to central, rural Kentucky, I was shocked at the sheer volume of tiny congregations and how many had the word "separate" in their name. Then I joined a gospel band that would play at a lot of those churches. I heard all sorts of unrehearsed sermons by pastors that come from all walks of life and were paid $30 a month or something like that to preach. I heard a LOT of "fire and brimstone" sermons, "devil alcohol" and "are you being good enough to make it to heaven" sermons. I saw a lot of "scared" Christians. This should not be.

But what forced me to leave our church we thought we had found was when I tried to have a civil discussion with a deacon about a particular issue (CI vs ECT - it's in my post signature) the guy came unglued. Eventually he held up his huge bible and, with a red face and big veins in his neck yelled, "I BELIEVE WHAT THE WORD OF GOD SAYS!" To which I responded, "So do I. Where we differ is in interpretation." We chose to leave that church for one reason: I was being a divisive spirit. That violates scripture. BTW, the reason for his outburst is that he could not handle a single one of my arguments. Not one. He only believe what he believed because it is what he had been taught by other church leaders ever since he was a toddler.

But those experiences led me to a conversation with a music pastor at a large Louisville church. When I mentioned this stuff to him he said, and I paraphrase, "We are near a large Christian college and so have a lot of professors that attend here. What I've learned from conversations with them is that the more someone knows about the bible, the less dogmatic they are about their opinions about any of the secondary issues in the bible. e.g. the age of the earth.

But the reason one might leave a church due to a secondary issue is if it constantly pounded home. Imagine a pastor that colors many of his sermons with his belief that the earth is millions of (or 6000) years old, and that those who disagree are woefully ignorant - or worse. And you have the opposite viewpoint. I don't know about you, but I'd have to change churches. And it is not because of what he teaches. It's because of his perspective/attitude on those that disagree.

BTW, a fun conversation starter for me, in any Christian circle, is to ask people, "How much time passed between Genesis 1:1 and 1:2, and what is meant by "heavens", and "the beginning" of what?

 

[2PhiloVoid]

I don't think you quite understood the point I made with that question.

But it was more rhetorical than not.

It doesn't matter who the asker was, nor the answerer -- (re the OP ie).

It was asked for a different reason.

Oh,................. I see. It sounds like your rhetoric insinuates that any question which any other person, or Christian, poses and somehow doesn't line up with your "Independent Baptist" point of inquiry must have been caused by Satan. Am I far off the intended referent?

 

[AV1611VET]

Oh,................. I see. It sounds like your rhetoric insinuates that any question which any other person, or Christian, poses and somehow doesn't line up with your "Independent Baptist" point of inquiry must have been caused by Satan. Am I far off the intended referent?

No you are not.

You are dead on target.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

No you are not.

You are dead on target.

Just be glad I'm a Christian, buddy.

 

[AV1611VET]

Just be glad I'm a Christian, buddy.

Believe me ... I am.

 

[Jipsah]

Anglican.

 

[Jipsah]

Independent Fundamental Baptist

Is not.

 

[Jipsah]

In your opinion, whose fault is that?

Tim Johnson

 

[dzheremi]

The way this question is often asked betrays the (likely subconscious) bias of the asker, as denominationalism as a thing is a post-Protestant innovation. For the vast majority of Christian history, no one would've accepted this idea that they are somehow part of a "denomination". This partially explains why the more historically-rooted churches, such as those of the Catholics, the Orthodox, and the high church forms of Protestantism form what can more properly be called communions, rather than denominations.

That said, obviously my own faith is such that I believe Orthodoxy to be correct, and the other forms of Christianity at least somewhat wrong, to the extent that they are in conflict with Orthodoxy. That doesn't mean that the people in them are bad or condemned or whatever, but that if a person wants to answer the question of where they should be in order to receive the faith that has been once delivered to the saints, there is really only one correct answer.

 

[AV1611VET]

... but that if a person wants to answer the question of where they should be in order to receive the faith that has been once delivered to the saints, there really only one correct answer.

What would John the Baptist say?

 

[dzheremi]

What would John the Baptist say?

Frankly, I don't think a question that assumes that St. John the Forerunner was a member of a Baptist congregation deserves to be taken seriously. I know there's no arguing history with someone who thinks that "The Trail of Blood" is a work of Church history, but suffice it to say that it isn't, so your question is incredibly malformed and ahistorical.

 

[FireDragon76]

Somebody new to Christianity probably doesn't value this as much, but I think comprehensiveness is important in the sort of church one engages with. Comprehensiveness tends to go hand-in-hand with anti-fragility and relevance realization. For example, does your religious tradition have a deep or shallow worldview? Does it have recognizable practices of spiritual formation that are taught or inculcated in some way, or does it rest on the merely propositional or entertaining? Is it open to dialogue with other forms of intellectual thought and other ways of living? All of those are important.

 

[AV1611VET]

Frankly, I don't think a question that assumes that St. John the Forerunner was a member of a Baptist congregation deserves to be taken seriously. I know there's no arguing history with someone who thinks that "The Trail of Blood" is a work of Church history, but suffice it to say that it isn't, so your question is incredibly malformed and ahistorical.

I take it you're familiar with The Trail of Blood, by Dr. J. M. Carroll?

 

[dzheremi]

I take it you're familiar with The Trail of Blood, by Dr. J. M. Carroll?

Yes. It is pseudo-history.