DarylFawcett asked in the Opening Post : “I don't know if this question was ever asked and if this is even the most appropriate place to ask it.
Why are there so many denominations that seem to believe something from the Bible that in some instances contradicts the beliefs of one or more denominations with the beliefs of one or more other denominations?”
Though several individuals expressed reasons why they think that there are different denominations, I believe that many times the reasons are more complex and that there are often very benign reasons for equally honest-hearted individuals to believe in different Christian doctrines that have nothing to do with evil motives or simple confusion.
1) SIMPLE INHERITANCE OF RELIGIOUS THOUGHT
For example, a young child inherits a group of beliefs from it’s parents and is exposed to their first doctrines by their caregivers and the social group they are exposed to. The innocent young child’s relative and tentative acceptance of and belief in their parents teaching does not seem to represent any malignant or evil motive despite their native belief differing from their neighbors christianity.
As the young child grows into the young youth, the youth often possesses insufficient sophistication to manage the increasingly disparate doctrinal claims to which they become exposed. They may react to differing claims by clinging reflexively to their prior tradition or they might engage in a logical / spiritual journey towards the gradual coming to their OWN convictions upon specific points of doctrine. However, even upon entering into such a journey, they may still carry with them much of the tradition and bias and limitations we all have.
A christian often grows up with a fairly narrow and individual doctrinal framework by which they interpret not merely the scriptures, but by which they make sense of existence itself. Another christian presumably grows up with a different specific doctrinal framework through which they must then, interpret the data they are exposed to. (I have wondered what sort of christianity an unbiased and ignorant but honest young and "unbiased island native" would form if given a New Testament that he came to believe in and had to interpret without any outside influence. )
2) EXPOSURE TO DIFFERENT DATA
One is exposed to new data, whether is it in grade school math class; high school social studies, in Sunday school, or in a conversation with another person who’s views differ from our own. Once exposed to new doctrinal data, one then cannot help but make a choice as to what to do with the data.
Avoiding Change by Rejecting any new data : We can reject new information outright without sifting it for value. This is obviously a static and stagnating position that leaves one at a low level of knowledge and of understanding (if data is an important part of it's basis)
Sifting the new data : We can sift it for value and determine if there is any greater light , knowledge and understanding to be had from the new data we are exposed to. If the data is of poor quality, it may logically be rejected outright.
If the new data is better than current data, but is still consistent with current beliefs, this changes us by enhancing our current convictions and / or understanding of current beliefs.
If new data is better than prior data and differs with current beliefs, this still changes us by allowing us to either slightly or significantly changing current theological models of belief. If this new understanding is seen by the individual as an improvement over old beliefs, then there is no dissonance or frustration inside the individual, whereas their prior “same belief” companions may experience doctrinal discord with the individuals new belief. The type and amount of such discord seems often to vary based on the personalities involved as much as it does the differing beliefs themselves.
3) DIFFERING BASIC DATA SETS
The historical fact that data sets are different for different individuals at differing times in history when many denominations derive contributes to some of our differing beliefs.
For example : The time and place and other circumstances into which one is born will affect what Bible one grows up with, thus the biblical text differs for say, an early greek speaking Christian than it will for a later english speaking christian as examples such as the Johannine Comma show us. The ten commandments one reads are different for German Catholics in 1530 than for German Protestants. The major nuances are different even now if I read a text based on the Masoretic original than one based on the Septuagint. The text for the NIV is different pre-2007 than post 2007. Many of the biblical texts that made textual changes based on Dead Sea Scroll texts are now quite different in certain passages compared to old testaments not making use of such textual corrections. The early Christians who read Codex Alexandrinus based bibles will be reading a differing text than say, C. Vaticanus or C. Ephraimii (resq) or quite different if they grew up reading C. Bezae-based bibles as their personal new testament.
Though the specific textual differences will nuance doctrinal differences, these differences are often not due to some evil motive to change from some original textual based belief to another, but nuances based on textual differences seems completely logical to those who, throughout the centuries, used differing biblical texts.
4) AMOUNT AND TYPE OF DATA ONE IS EXPOSED TO
All of us had a certain level of knowledge and limited logic as small children. As one considers the first thoughts we remember having about God, our concepts were typically very simplistic and vague. IF we could even say the words, then “Jesus” and “keep his commandments” were the answers to most Sunday School questions when we were pre-schoolers. If I was a hindu or a muslim pre-schooler, the answers were different, but still, the data one was exposed to formed such pre-conceptions and importantly, as a young child, we had no specific and conscious and logical choice as to what data sets our culture would instill within us.
Our current and vastly varying levels of data types; knowledge levels; and interpretive frameworks are so often based on a lifetime of varying individuals characteristics, intellectual abilities, and exposure to data sets which vary. Such things are complicated and generalizing them is like being asked to describe growing up “in 20 words or less”. Any such answer will be an insufficient gloss over.
5) THE LOGIC AND FRAMEWORK OF INTERPRETATION
What I notice on the Christian forums, in the main, is not a disagreement on what a particular version of the bible says, but rather disagreements on how to INTERPRET what that single verse or set of verses mean to them. The interpretations we layer and apply to texts is a different thing than the text itself. The normal humans mind wants data and understanding of data as part of a model of meaning. The putting together of the pieces of data is often accompanied by more speculation than religionists are willing to admit. Even the logic underlying speculations is arguably suspect.
As a humourous example, I heard someone comment that Isaac (whom Abraham was commanded to Sacrifice) could not have been a teenager, since “killing most teenagers would not have been a sacrifice”.
Though we dismiss such a use of logic as humor, still, some individuals may make such logical assumptions and speculate beyond the power of the data to support the speculation. When we confuse firm speculation with knowledge, we privately endow our own data with importance and meaning it may not have.
Still, in our minds eye, when we imagine Abraham, we still imagine SOME sort of man (perhaps a generic old man with a white beard) and we still imagine SOME sort of younger man (a son of the father). Why we assume that our individual minds-eye assumption is correct is difficult to say and yet we see individuals arguing over such speculations. The speculations differ even about basic issues such as the origin and purpose of evil; the purpose of mortality; the nature of redemption and resurrection; the nature of heaven and of qualifications necessary to enter heaven. These are some very basic principles.
6) DIFFERING RESULTING INTERPRETATIONS OF DIFFERING DATA
As I pointed out in a prior post, even individual experiences may inaugurate subtle changes in doctrine as we seek to understand nuances of the redemption. For example, a christian mother who loses a child just after birth may seek doctrinal comfort that differs from a prior belief that all individuals, even infants, who have not accepted Jesus, go to a Hell. This may seem so unjust, that the mother refuses to believe the doctrine, even if she held that belief prior to this individual experience. As she reads, and studies, and thinks, she may look for and find logical support for a christian model that seems more fair in her specific eyes, while her inexperienced 13 year old neighbor might never have even given the doctrine a thought. Neither of these individuals who subsequently hold differing religious opinions on the fate of the infant are evil, but they have had differing experiences which drive which sets of data they seek for and how they interpret the data they are exposed to.
My point is not a definitive treatise on all the various reasons why individuals vary in their belief, but simply to point out that there are multiple reasons for differences within the evolving christian religion that results in differing denominations that are not evil, but are simply part and parcel of inevitable circumstances of mortality and are not the result of evil in the hearts of individuals who hold differing opinions.
Clearly
twtzvisiou
