Why can't Christianity be a simple religion?

Hestha

Active Member
Jun 1, 2012
590
3
✟8,272.00
Faith
Agnostic
Marital Status
Single
Why can't Christianity be a simple religion? Why must there be so many variants, or denominations, of the religion? Why do Christians always have to argue on what is right and wrong in theology? Why is this even important? What is the purpose of having so many different interpretative traditions? Why not just have one set of beliefs, traditions, and practices that unite all Christians? Wouldn't it be better if Christianity would be nice and simple where everything is laid out neatly on what you should do and do not do, believe and not believe, in order to attain justification instead of having so many roads to God? To me, Christian theology is mind-boggling, because so many Christians here like to give different responses, giving the impression that there is no right answer. Rather, there seems to be a bazillion answers. More than that, Christianity seems to be more of an internal faith than an external faith, which means theology is all about exercising your noggin to exhaustion. If the Christian faith is so complicated and convoluted, then why not just reject the faith altogether and become an irreligious atheist or choose some other religion that is more "spiritual than religious" or theologically much more simple to digest than Christianity?
 
Last edited:

leftrightleftrightleft

Well-Known Member
Jul 14, 2009
2,644
363
Canada
✟22,986.00
Faith
Seeker
Marital Status
Married
If there are two positions, A and B and there is disagreement on which is true, how does that lead to the conclusion that neither A or B are true? In your OP you suggest rejecting Christianity because of disagreement within the group, I don't see how that follows.

I think Christianity has some core premises that all (or 99%) of Christians agree on. Even if they use different language to describe those premises (because of culture, upbringing, life experiences etc).

Unfortunately (or fortunately?), Christians are people and as such they are not objective but are limited by subjectivity, misinterpretation, culture, upbringing and life experience.

I don't see Christianity as all that convoluted: Personal relationship with God through Jesus.

Most (if not all) Christians will agree with this basis. Everything else is secondary really.

Christianity can be as complicated as you wish. You can delve into the more intellectual and philosophical views and read lots of books by the likes of CS Lewis, Descartes, Augustine etc. But at the end of the day it just boils down to the sentence I put in bold. You can essentially choose to make it as complicated or simple as you wish.
 
Upvote 0

Hestha

Active Member
Jun 1, 2012
590
3
✟8,272.00
Faith
Agnostic
Marital Status
Single
If there are two positions, A and B and there is disagreement on which is true, how does that lead to the conclusion that neither A or B are true? In your OP you suggest rejecting Christianity because of disagreement within the group, I don't see how that follows.

I think Christianity has some core premises that all (or 99%) of Christians agree on. Even if they use different language to describe those premises (because of culture, upbringing, life experiences etc).

Unfortunately (or fortunately?), Christians are people and as such they are not objective but are limited by subjectivity, misinterpretation, culture, upbringing and life experience.

I don't see Christianity as all that convoluted: Personal relationship with God through Jesus.

Most (if not all) Christians will agree with this basis. Everything else is secondary really.

Christianity can be as complicated as you wish. You can delve into the more intellectual and philosophical views and read lots of books by the likes of CS Lewis, Descartes, Augustine etc. But at the end of the day it just boils down to the sentence I put in bold. You can essentially choose to make it as complicated or simple as you wish.

Then there is plain old atheism. No god, no spiritual responsibility. :)

You can always choose another option: that sometimes reading science can help you become a better person. After I have taken an introductory psychology class, I am aware of the bystander effect in human populations and how I can overcome natural tendencies and stress on the importance of altruism. There is also that famous psychology study about the Good Samaritan, in which a confederate is placed in the social experiment in order to see how people would react to the injured man or hear a seminary about the Good Samaritan. After I am aware of such a case, I think it's best to help people whenever, wherever possible. In other words, help people for the sake of helping people. I do not think that contradicts the Christian god's message at all. :)

In this respect, what is the purpose of being religious when you have science?
 
Upvote 0

Hestha

Active Member
Jun 1, 2012
590
3
✟8,272.00
Faith
Agnostic
Marital Status
Single
It's because Christianity is not a religion. Men, trying to make it a religion complicate simple belief.

Yes, it is a religion. Here are the definitions of religion:

1: a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, especially when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies, usually involving devotional and ritual observances, and often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs. CHECK
2: a specific fundamental set of beliefs and practices generally agreed upon by a number of persons or sects: the Christian religion; the Buddhist religion. CHECK
3: the body of persons adhering to a particular set of beliefs and practices: a world council of religions. CHECK
4: the life or state of a monk, nun, etc.: to enter religion. CHECK
5: the practice of religious beliefs; ritual observance of faith. CHECK
 
Upvote 0

leftrightleftrightleft

Well-Known Member
Jul 14, 2009
2,644
363
Canada
✟22,986.00
Faith
Seeker
Marital Status
Married
Then there is plain old atheism. No god, no spiritual responsibility. :)

You can always choose another option: that sometimes reading science can help you become a better person. After I have taken an introductory psychology class, I am aware of the bystander effect in human populations and how I can overcome natural tendencies and stress on the importance of altruism. There is also that famous psychology study about the Good Samaritan, in which a confederate is placed in the social experiment in order to see how people would react to the injured man or hear a seminary about the Good Samaritan. After I am aware of such a case, I think it's best to help people whenever, wherever possible. In other words, help people for the sake of helping people. I do not think that contradicts the Christian god's message at all. :)

In this respect, what is the purpose of being religious when you have science?

I'm not sure I'm understanding your post. But I'll try to go through it anyway. When I said there are two options A and B, I'm not suggesting that there is ONLY A and B. I recognize there are millions of options. But A and B ARE options and just because they are mutually exclusive doesn't mean NEITHER is true. So if two Christians disagree on a mutually exclusive theological point, it doesn't automatically follow that neither Christian is correct, it may just mean one of them is wrong.

I'm not sure that science has ever been a good tool for studying "why". It does an excellent job of explaining the "how" and the "what". Ultimately, all scientific theories are based on a model which is an imperfect representation of the "true" situation. Models often remain valid even after the model has been "debunked" as "false" so long as you assume the correct model parameters. In this sense, I don't think science ever really discovers "truth", I think it is simply a model-creation tool used to explain how the universe works.

In the psychological studies you cited, the studies are giving a theoretical explanation of how people respond to a given (modelled) situation. People are morally imperfect which is precisely why these experiments got the results they did. Most people have an intuitive sense of what they ought to do but when it comes to actually acting, people seem to have a hard time living out what they know they ought to do. These two experiments support Christian philosophy perfectly.

However, the experiments don't highlight why the alternative is seen as morally "better". Why is it better to help the wounded man or help the seizure patient? Why not just keep going? What's the basis for this intuitive sense of right or wrong? You say that you would counteract these human tendencies because science has shown you these tendencies, but science has never explained to you why certain tendencies are worse than others. Science doesn't have a morality, science is necessarily amoral (in my opinion).

So why would you help the wounded person in the hall?

Also, since you seem to know what you OUGHT to do, what makes you think you would? I bet almost all those people in that experiment, if given the scenario on paper, would also say the exact same as you, "Well I would OBVIOUSLY help the wounded person, even if I was in a hurry." EVERYONE says that...but (as the experiment proved), FEW OF US actually walk the walk. EVERYONE talks the talk...FEW walk the walk.

Ironically, Jesus highlights all of this in the Parable of the Good Samaritan which is the basis of the psychological experiment. Perhaps Jesus has something to tell you through this story?
 
Upvote 0

Faulty

bind on pick up
Site Supporter
Apr 23, 2005
9,467
1,019
✟64,989.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Then there is plain old atheism. No god, no spiritual responsibility. :)

That's not even close to being true. You are responsible for this...
The times of ignorance God overlooked, but now he commands all people everywhere to repent, because he has fixed a day on which he will judge the world in righteousness by a man whom he has appointed; and of this he has given assurance to all by raising him from the dead.
Acts 17:30-31
You'll be held accountable to that.

If you met a robber that was going around robbing banks at will and you asked why they did such things and aren't they concerned about the consequences, and he told you, "I'm an a-legalist. I don't believe in cops, or judges, or laws. I've got nothing to worry about." Would you admire their freedom or would you be stunned by their response?

There's a Judge, there is a legal debt you owe, and there is an appointed day in court. You have sinned and broken His law. If you aren't standing before Him blameless on that day, with the right-standing of Jesus as your defense, you will be found guilty. Today is the day to repent because tomorrow isn't promised to you.
 
Upvote 0

elopez

Well-Known Member
Oct 11, 2010
2,503
92
Lansing, MI
✟18,206.00
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Single
Simple compared to what? Why should we even expect things to be simple? There are many denominations I would think because a lot of people have doctrinal differences. Though despite these differences there is much common ground that unites us all as Christians, otherwise known as the nicene creed. This is the one set of beliefs you request that unifies the religion.

There is only one road to God in all of Christianity which is Christ. There is no other way, and we all believe this. We know what to do and not to do which Christ also laid out.

What you seem to be having an issue with is the philosophical/theological aspect of Christianity, and I admit this is not simple. We have a variety of views, for example, concerning the nature of God in relation to omniscience; some people think God knows the future while others do not. In all actuality, this difference may be insignificant for salvation.
 
Upvote 0

Faulty

bind on pick up
Site Supporter
Apr 23, 2005
9,467
1,019
✟64,989.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Why can't Christianity be a simple religion? Why must there be so many variants, or denominations, of the religion? Why do Christians always have to argue on what is right and wrong in theology? Why is this even important? What is the purpose of having so many different interpretative traditions? Why not just have one set of beliefs, traditions, and practices that unite all Christians? Wouldn't it be better if Christianity would be nice and simple where everything is laid out neatly on what you should do and do not do, believe and not believe, in order to attain justification instead of having so many roads to God? To me, Christian theology is mind-boggling, because so many Christians here like to give different responses, giving the impression that there is no right answer. Rather, there seems to be a bazillion answers. More than that, Christianity seems to be more of an internal faith than an external faith, which means theology is all about exercising your noggin to exhaustion. If the Christian faith is so complicated and convoluted, then why not just reject the faith altogether and become an irreligious atheist or choose some other religion that is more "spiritual than religious" or theologically much more simple to digest than Christianity?

Learn the parable of the mustard seed...
He put another parable before them, saying, [COLOR=windowtext !important]“The kingdom of heaven is like[/COLOR] [COLOR=windowtext !important]a grain of mustard seed that a man took and sowed in his field. [/COLOR][COLOR=windowtext !important]It is the smallest of all seeds, but when it has grown it is larger than all the garden plants and becomes a tree, so that the birds of the air come and make nests in its branches.”[/COLOR]
Matt 13:31-32
The seed is the Word of God. The tree is the church. Mustard seeds grow into a bush, not a tree, so the object is already different than it's intent.

The birds are defined by Jesus elsewhere as the devil and his minions. In this deformed tree, the devils will come in and be able to build their homes and dwell there.

The church is under constant attack from within and it is constant warfare between the sheep and the wolves who dwell in the church system and attempt to devour it from the inside. The fact you notice it proves these words of Jesus as prophetic and true.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

razeontherock

Well-Known Member
May 24, 2010
26,545
1,480
WI
✟35,597.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
Why can't Christianity be a simple religion?

Not only can it be - it IS. And it is the simplicity of the Gospel which is where it's power lies. Jesus, suffered died and buried, rose again, ascended, and coming back.

What makes it complex is trying to apply that

Why not just have one set of beliefs, traditions, and practices that unite all Christians?

Because the Lord is a Good Shepherd. What one person needs, another is not ready for, and another may never understand. And yet there is one flock

Wouldn't it be better if Christianity would be nice and simple where everything is laid out neatly on what you should do and do not do, believe and not believe, in order to attain justification

That would be a lie. Justification is not something we can somehow attain. see the above. And that is the Good News!

instead of having so many roads to God? To me, Christian theology is mind-boggling, because so many Christians here like to give different responses, giving the impression that there is no right answer.

And when you apply yourself to seeking God, you will also have your own unique perspective that is valuable. :) God weaves it all together, like a tapestry

More than that, Christianity seems to be more of an internal faith than an external faith, which means theology is all about exercising your noggin to exhaustion.

Good observation! But notice you correctly said "theology," and not Salvation. ;) Theology doesn't save us. Correct thinking brings its own reward though

f the Christian faith is so complicated and convoluted, then why not just reject the faith altogether and become an irreligious atheist or choose some other religion that is more "spiritual than religious" or theologically much more simple to digest than Christianity?

One would follow Christ only if nothing less than the Truth will suffice. Count the cost. Also, look at this:

"But the God of all grace, who hath called us unto his eternal glory by Christ Jesus, after that ye have suffered a while, make you perfect, stablish, strengthen, settle [you]." (1 Peter 5:10)

In other words - hang in there! The OT parallel is the children of Israel wandering in the desert for 40 years under Moses, and then finding out (under Joshua) it was really just a 3 day's journey. All they had to do was get down to business!
 
Upvote 0

Emmy

Senior Veteran
Feb 15, 2004
10,199
939
✟50,995.00
Faith
Salvation Army
Dear Hestha. Christianity is quite straightforward and simple. Jesus Himself
told a Lawyer in Matthew 22, verse 35-40: " The first and great Commandment is: " Love God with all thy heart, with all thy soul, and with all thy mind. The second is, Love thy neighbour as thyself." Then Jesus tells us the true fact: " On these two Commandments hang all the Law and the Prophets." Quite easy to understand and to follow. God wants our Love, freely given and no conditions tagged on. A good way to start is: treat all we know and all we meet as we would love to be treated, kindly and with friendly words, helping hands, and let love and charity always surround us.
Jesus will give us His Love and Joy, and the Holy Spirit will empower us with His Love, also. We ask and receive: ( Matthew 7, verse 7-8) then we thank God and share all Love and Joy with all around us.( our neighbour)
God will see our sincere efforts, and God will approve and bless us. God will also know: We love God because we follow His Commandments to LOVE:
God with all our beings, and love our neighbour as ourselves. We will stumble at first, and forget, but then we ask God to forgive us, and carry on loving and caring: we keep asking and thanking, asking and thanking, and God will
give and strenghten us.
What is easier to remember, Hestha? and love is very catching, soon we will be
surrounded by kindness and love and men and women God will Love and Bless. Love is a Christian`s great weapon, and Love will overcome all enmity and unkindness. Soon we will find that all our words and deeds are guided by love and compassion, we will change gradually and become " Born Again."
Unless we try, we will never know how great Love and Compassion will grow.
I say this with love. Greetings from Emmy, your sister in Christ.
 
Upvote 0

AlexBP

Newbie
Apr 20, 2010
2,063
104
41
Virginia
✟10,340.00
Faith
Anglican
Marital Status
Single
Why can't Christianity be a simple religion? Why must there be so many variants, or denominations, of the religion? Why do Christians always have to argue on what is right and wrong in theology? Why is this even important? What is the purpose of having so many different interpretative traditions? Why not just have one set of beliefs, traditions, and practices that unite all Christians? Wouldn't it be better if Christianity would be nice and simple where everything is laid out neatly on what you should do and do not do, believe and not believe, in order to attain justification instead of having so many roads to God? To me, Christian theology is mind-boggling, because so many Christians here like to give different responses, giving the impression that there is no right answer. Rather, there seems to be a bazillion answers.
Ask yourself this. Would Shakespeare be any better if there wasn't ongoing disagreement among people about what his plays and poems mean? Would the field of philosophy be improved if we somehow wiped out the multiple viewpoints and vibrant debates that have always characterized it? Would the USA be a better country if everyone were in total agreement about everyone?

Happiness and progress and human flourishing can only exist where there are multiple viewpoints. The interplay between different human beings who believe different things is what makes life worth living.
 
Upvote 0

Hestha

Active Member
Jun 1, 2012
590
3
✟8,272.00
Faith
Agnostic
Marital Status
Single
Ask yourself this. Would Shakespeare be any better if there wasn't ongoing disagreement among people about what his plays and poems mean? Would the field of philosophy be improved if we somehow wiped out the multiple viewpoints and vibrant debates that have always characterized it? Would the USA be a better country if everyone were in total agreement about everyone?

Happiness and progress and human flourishing can only exist where there are multiple viewpoints. The interplay between different human beings who believe different things is what makes life worth living.

I suppose you're right. On an evolutionary standpoint, nature is immensely diverse, and yet, so unified. Each living creature on Earth is related to another creature in some way ancestrally. Nature is also diverse, as the individual populations strive to compete and adapt to the environment. Human thought may be the product of evolution, and thus, it is also plausible to suggest that theology is the product of evolution. Each new generation tries to adapt what was old to what is current and constantly changing in the present, yet keeping the essence of the faith. If a particular viewpoint is flawed, then it would have fewer followers or supporters and then finally collapse and become extinct.
 
Upvote 0

Hestha

Active Member
Jun 1, 2012
590
3
✟8,272.00
Faith
Agnostic
Marital Status
Single
Not only can it be - it IS. And it is the simplicity of the Gospel which is where it's power lies. Jesus, suffered died and buried, rose again, ascended, and coming back.

Are you sure that is a claim shared by ALL Christians?

What makes it complex is trying to apply that

Or not. You don't have to apply a millennia-old text to your life. :)

Because the Lord is a Good Shepherd. What one person needs, another is not ready for, and another may never understand. And yet there is one flock

In other words, there is a flock, and everybody is different in the flock. So, the essence of a Christian is the metaphorical flock, and each individual of the flock has differing opinions about where the flock should go. So, what happens if a wolf disguises itself as a sheep and leads the flock into the wrong direction - to its den where the wolf can cook the entire flock for dinner? In that case, would the entire flock be doomed? Where is the shepherd? Maybe the shepherd comes into the flock and accidentally spots an interesting sheep and kills it, but when he comes home, he realizes that he has really killed a wolf in sheep's clothing! You know, like Aesop's fables?

And when you apply yourself to seeking God, you will also have your own unique perspective that is valuable. :) God weaves it all together, like a tapestry

I suppose you are suggesting that I should think more more metaphorically, abstractly or metaphysically, and understand that sometimes some things are just not easy to quantify or measure or describe. Therefore, the essence of something - the archetype - can only be described by what people all describe and what people take personally.

Good observation! But notice you correctly said "theology," and not Salvation. ;) Theology doesn't save us. Correct thinking brings its own reward though

The problem is, you don't know who is "correct". Every one has his or her own opinions, and every one is entitled to them. Every one thinks he or she is correct. And every one thinks every one else is wrong.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Hestha

Active Member
Jun 1, 2012
590
3
✟8,272.00
Faith
Agnostic
Marital Status
Single
I'm not sure I'm understanding your post. But I'll try to go through it anyway. When I said there are two options A and B, I'm not suggesting that there is ONLY A and B. I recognize there are millions of options. But A and B ARE options and just because they are mutually exclusive doesn't mean NEITHER is true. So if two Christians disagree on a mutually exclusive theological point, it doesn't automatically follow that neither Christian is correct, it may just mean one of them is wrong.

But nobody likes to be wrong. The problem is, if someone is wrong, then that someone would always think of something to justify that "wrong" position and continue that interpretative tradition as though it had been true. If that sort of interpretative tradition works, then it may continue to be passed down to further generations, even though newer interpretations may be more "accurate" or "better" than older interpretations. Also, since people do not normally like to be wrong or feel like they are wrong, I think it's best to show that "wronged" Christian the "correct" method of interpretation politely and sensitively.

I'm not sure that science has ever been a good tool for studying "why". It does an excellent job of explaining the "how" and the "what". Ultimately, all scientific theories are based on a model which is an imperfect representation of the "true" situation. Models often remain valid even after the model has been "debunked" as "false" so long as you assume the correct model parameters. In this sense, I don't think science ever really discovers "truth", I think it is simply a model-creation tool used to explain how the universe works.

Though, it can be a strong foundation for philosophy. A philosophy based on science would be more closer to life, more real, more sincere, than a philosophy based on superstition.

In the psychological studies you cited, the studies are giving a theoretical explanation of how people respond to a given (modelled) situation. People are morally imperfect which is precisely why these experiments got the results they did. Most people have an intuitive sense of what they ought to do but when it comes to actually acting, people seem to have a hard time living out what they know they ought to do. These two experiments support Christian philosophy perfectly.

However, the experiments don't highlight why the alternative is seen as morally "better". Why is it better to help the wounded man or help the seizure patient? Why not just keep going? What's the basis for this intuitive sense of right or wrong? You say that you would counteract these human tendencies because science has shown you these tendencies, but science has never explained to you why certain tendencies are worse than others. Science doesn't have a morality, science is necessarily amoral (in my opinion).

Of course not. As a human being, I would just imagine that the observations had been accurate and true to life, and therefore, treat the confederate (an actor who plays a role in a typical social observational study) as a real injured man. Naturally anyone would feel empathetic for that person, and seeing that nobody would help out due to a false perception that others would do, anyone would keep that experience in mind the next time he/she goes out. In other words, be the good Samaritan. I think the intuitive sense of distinguishing between right and wrong is empathy, but that's just my guess. Science may be amoral, but I think I should use my moral judgments on science due to feeling empathy.

Also, since you seem to know what you OUGHT to do, what makes you think you would? I bet almost all those people in that experiment, if given the scenario on paper, would also say the exact same as you, "Well I would OBVIOUSLY help the wounded person, even if I was in a hurry." EVERYONE says that...but (as the experiment proved), FEW OF US actually walk the walk. EVERYONE talks the talk...FEW walk the walk.

Think of it this way. If you are in the room and there is a bunch of people around and having a party, and there is a sickly sort of person on the side of the room, would you care about that person, or would you assume that other people would take care of that person? Chances are, you would do the latter rather than the former. That's the bystander effect.
 
Upvote 0

GrayAngel

Senior Member
Sep 11, 2006
5,370
114
USA
✟21,292.00
Faith
Deist
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Others
Why can't Christianity be a simple religion? Why must there be so many variants, or denominations, of the religion? Why do Christians always have to argue on what is right and wrong in theology? Why is this even important? What is the purpose of having so many different interpretative traditions? Why not just have one set of beliefs, traditions, and practices that unite all Christians? Wouldn't it be better if Christianity would be nice and simple where everything is laid out neatly on what you should do and do not do, believe and not believe, in order to attain justification instead of having so many roads to God? To me, Christian theology is mind-boggling, because so many Christians here like to give different responses, giving the impression that there is no right answer. Rather, there seems to be a bazillion answers. More than that, Christianity seems to be more of an internal faith than an external faith, which means theology is all about exercising your noggin to exhaustion. If the Christian faith is so complicated and convoluted, then why not just reject the faith altogether and become an irreligious atheist or choose some other religion that is more "spiritual than religious" or theologically much more simple to digest than Christianity?

The reasons there are so many denominations and disagreements are:

1. People put their own personal beliefs over what the Bible teaches, which leads to 2 and 3...

2. People misinterpret scripture based on their personal bias, and they are unable to see the clear truth.

3. Cherrypicking. Instead of believing in the whole of scripture, people pick and choose which portions of it to believe in. Of course, in their choosing, the only reason they are able to do so is because of 2.

4. Language and cultural barriers. One of the few legitimate reasons for disagreement is the simple fact that we're not reading the Bible in the languages or the cultural contexts in which it was originally written. But then again, we have so many resources available to the laymen these days (especially thanks to the Internet) that no one who teaches scripture for a living has an excuse to not do their research.

5. Even when the evidence is clear, people do not like to admit they're wrong. Instead, they have a tendency to protect their beliefs all-the-more when presented with such opposition. Some will even go so far as to ignore the facts and claim that the Holy Spirit has led them to their conclusion. And yes, I have sadly seen this happen many times. People seem to confuse personal opinion with divine inspiration quite often.

6. In some cases, the Bible has been altered. In fact, if you look in some Bibles you'll see [some verses in brackets, which means that it is highly doubtful that those verses who in the original documents.] But again, as our resources improve, this is ceasing to be a problem. By comparing recent manuscripts with older ones, and by comparing the whole together and seeing where they line up, we've weeded out most if not all of the things that don't belong.

7. In some rare cases, such as the verse stating that the "sons of God and daughters of men" were marrying and having offspring called Nephilim, we really have no idea what scripture says. But disagreements over these details do not typically spawn new denominations.

If you don't believe me, look at the "debates" concerning predestination and speaking in tongues. For both, there's one side who is clearly right and one side that is stupidly wrong. Why do the "debates" continue? Because the side that is wrong is too braindead/brainwashed to see the obvious.

But having said all that, most denominations really aren't that different. We pretty much all agree on all of the important stuff. It only gets complicated when you start getting into the nitty gritty details, which BTW are not required for salvation. Christianity is a simple religion.
 
Upvote 0

razeontherock

Well-Known Member
May 24, 2010
26,545
1,480
WI
✟35,597.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
Are you sure that is a claim shared by ALL Christians?

Yes. What's your point?

Or not. You don't have to apply a millennia-old text to your life. :)

You asked what made it complex. I told you. If this is your response, how am I to consider that your questions was sincere?

In other words, there is a flock, and everybody is different in the flock. So, the essence of a Christian is the metaphorical flock, and each individual of the flock has differing opinions about where the flock should go.

Gotta stop ya right there, as that last phrase doesn't follow from the rest. Not logically, nor is it factually correct.

I suppose you are suggesting that I should think more more metaphorically, abstractly or metaphysically, and understand that sometimes some things are just not easy to quantify or measure or describe. Therefore, the essence of something - the archetype - can only be described by what people all describe and what people take personally.

Not really what I'm suggesting no; but if that thought helps you go for it.

The problem is, you don't know who is "correct". Every one has his or her own opinions, and every one is entitled to them. Every one thinks he or she is correct. And every one thinks every one else is wrong.

Most of that is false, outright.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

GrayAngel

Senior Member
Sep 11, 2006
5,370
114
USA
✟21,292.00
Faith
Deist
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Others
But nobody likes to be wrong. The problem is, if someone is wrong, then that someone would always think of something to justify that "wrong" position and continue that interpretative tradition as though it had been true. If that sort of interpretative tradition works, then it may continue to be passed down to further generations, even though newer interpretations may be more "accurate" or "better" than older interpretations.

The newer interpretations are not always better than the older. Even in the first century church, the youth were coming up with all kinds of strange ideas and were misinterpreting scripture. The goal should be to turn back the clock to the theology of Paul. The only time "new" interpretation is any good is when it pushes current theology back that direction.
 
Upvote 0