How do you feel about claiming a denomination or religion?

IRQ Conflict · Post by **IRQ Conflict** » Fri Feb 10, 2006 12:50 am

Thanks for the eye opening post Judah! I was, until now convinced it was RCC / Western fanatacism that was to blame till you posted and I looked it up. The internet is a wonderfull tool is it not?

History of the Crusades

Judah · Post by **Judah** » Fri Feb 10, 2006 2:46 am

IRQ, the paper you found by Thomas F. Madden ("The Real History of the Crusades") is well worth the read.
I had seen it before. That is the history that I know, and as well as being written by a scholarly Crusade historian, the points he makes certainly fit consistently with all that I have learnt of the real Islam as well.

Yes, the internet is a great teacher although one must always be mindful to check the credentials of the writer and/or the references to be sure what you are reading is indeed scholarly and survives peer scrutiny.

Thanks for putting up that link for anyone who pops in here and is interested.
I should have included some with my previous post but was in a bit of a hurry.

IRQ Conflict · Post by **IRQ Conflict** » Fri Feb 10, 2006 11:24 am

It's interesting that he mentions some TV documentary 'type' shows that weren't based on fact, but he calls them "entertaining". I wonder why the deception? Why is it people have to lie to others about history all the time. It took me three mouse clicks to find the answers on the net. I HATE HOLLYWOOD!

BBC/A&E documentary, The Crusades, hosted by Terry Jones. Both are terrible history

I think that the truth is alway's more entertaining than not.

BGoodForGoodSake · Post by **BGoodForGoodSake** » Fri Feb 10, 2006 1:42 pm

IRQ Conflict wrote:It's interesting that he mentions some TV documentary 'type' shows that weren't based on fact, but he calls them "entertaining". I wonder why the deception? Why is it people have to lie to others about history all the time. It took me three mouse clicks to find the answers on the net. I HATE HOLLYWOOD!
BBC/A&E documentary, The Crusades, hosted by Terry Jones. Both are terrible history
I think that the truth is alway's more entertaining than not.

I don't know how to respond to this other than, the truth is found in neither places.

IRQ Conflict · Post by **IRQ Conflict** » Fri Feb 10, 2006 1:54 pm

True, though it should. Here is the definition of Documentary

Judah · Post by **Judah** » Fri Feb 10, 2006 6:50 pm

Here is another authoritative paper on the Crusades.

James Arlandson, The Truth about Islamic Crusades and Imperialism, published in The American Thinker, 10 February 2006.

kateliz · Post by **kateliz** » Sat Feb 11, 2006 2:44 am

This aches my heart! Denominations are okay? What??? They are good because they keep those with different ideas away from eachother? What???

Believe me, I know exactly where you're coming from, all who say that. It's convenient and simplifies things, as well as keeps people from ripping eachother's throats out! However, we're missing part of the story by this logic.

Let's start of the Body of Christ being one, as Judah pointed out. The Body of Christ is one. Christ is the head, and all His blemish-free Children comprise the rest. One Body.

There's also only one Truth. Truth is truth, and that which is not truth is not truth. One Truth.

All members of the one Body should adhere to the one Truth. This we all agree on. Truth is good, and what is not Truth is not.

Truth should be sought after by the Body.

If there are disagreements among the members of the one Body as to what is the one Truth, should they not try to find out who's right and who's wrong? After all, there is only one written record of Truth, and they could simply go to it to find who's right and who's wrong.

What's the problem then? That the truth recorded in this book is too difficult to ascertain? I say it's not. I say the problem lies in the members' attitudes. What would it be like if we set aside our denominational titles, mixed everyone up, set them up in new groups, and placed the Bible in front of them? Chaos? Yes, but what else? Would we be encouraged then to see, once and for all, who's right and who's wrong? Maybe. But what's more likely? That the groups would disentegrate and the broken pieces would go and seek out new groups of their own choosing. What kind of unity is that? And why? Bad attititudes. It's the attitude that says, "I don't need to prove myself, and I won't listen to you try to prove yourself. I want to believe what I want to believe, so so-long-suckers!"

And that, my dear Brothers and Sisters, is how you get denominations!

Is it really such a funny idea to put together a small group of Christians from different denominations, place a Bible in front of them, tell them to seek out what that book says, and to come to a general concensous? Wait, doesn't this happen in Bible studies all over the world already? Is it really that impossible if each participant agrees that the Book knows more than they do? No! Of course it's not impossible!

May the right attitude be in all of us! Let Truth be sought after in humility!

I hate the sin of sectarianism. When I find them again, I will make a point to post on this forum the verses where it states that such a thing is sin, although profitable in discerning truth to some degree. But it's in there, alright.

I don't mean to come off as cold or hard, but it's biblical to express contempt with falsehood for love of Truth. I wrote this with love toward people, but disgust towards the idea of denominations. How much better the world and the Body would be off without them! I cry "UNITY AND TRUTH!!!"

Judah · Post by **Judah** » Sat Feb 11, 2006 5:18 am

Kateliz, you are right about attitude to each other - it should be one of love, caring and sharing, and humility.

The truth is not always as easy to discern as you suggest, and many very holy people will have a slightly different perception of truth, and who is to say exactly which perception is "truth" and the rest not?
Don't forget the words of 1 Corinthians 13:12 Now we see but a poor reflection as in a mirror; then we shall see face to face. Now I know in part; then I shall know fully, even as I am fully known.

You and I might not agree on some point - for instance, about denominations being a good or bad thing - but who is to say which of us is right? Shall we argue about it and get upset with each other, or shall we accept that each of us can make valid points and underneath it all, we both love the Lord and together can praise Him and care for each other?

So, isn't it far better that we accept and make allowances for our differences where there is no heresy involved, and all of us worship our Lord in the manner which best fits our own individual styles, perceptions, understandings and needs?

In essentials, there is far more unity between Christian denominations than disagreement - but there is diversity in those matters that are peripheral. Why is that a problem? Can we not allow for individual differences and accept different forms of worship, different words, different peripheral doctrine, different practices, and recognize the right we all have to praise God according to our differences? Does "one size" have to fit all?

What is wrong is any destructive bickering and hatred between members of different denominations. But where we all accept the core essentials that make us Christians, then let's not get upset about the rest that is less important.

Jac3510 · Post by **Jac3510** » Sat Feb 11, 2006 7:47 am

Kateliz,

I understand your point and sympathize a great deal. However, as Judah as has pointed out, there are legitimate differences between belief systems. Now, in the end, there is only one Truth, and any denomination that does not line up with it is, in fact, wrong. That, though, does not mean that they are not Christians (although, given the doctrinal statements of some denominations, I would question . . . ).

Ecumenicalsim isn't really all that attractive to me. The last thing I want to do is sit under a preacher who believes that confession to a priest is necessary, or that baptism is necessary for salvation. I will not sit under someone who rejects the authority of the Bible or who believes that God has decided who will be saved and who will be condemned.

In the end, I may be wrong on one or all of these, although I don't believe so. But, Kateliz, the people that advocate these ideas believe them. What, then, are we to do? It sounds very nice and spiritual to say that we should let God guide us to Truth, but that is denying a very basic human reality: though justified, we are not yet glorified. We still have the old man to deal with. As such, we perceive Truth dimly. This does not excuse our espousing false doctrine. As teachers, we will be held accountable for what we say. But, it goes a long way toward proving the notion that we can't just "get along."

There is no such thing as a non-denominational Christian. They simply don't exist. Please keep in mind, Kateliz, all a denomination is, is a group of Christians getting together and saying, "We believe this to be true." Everyone can't believe the same thing . . . it's just not going to happen on this side of eternity!

chrisluvsmarkrad · Post by **chrisluvsmarkrad** » Sat Feb 11, 2006 10:35 am

Hi Kateliz,
Thanks very much for posting your reply! I really felt like I didn't know how to respond to some of the posts prior to yours as I had mentioned in my original question I didn't want to argue with anyone, so I just didn't.
I agree with you. Take care and may Christ walk with you and bless you every moment.
Sincerely,
Christie

kateliz · Post by **kateliz** » Sat Feb 11, 2006 1:22 pm

It is relieving to find people who agree with you! Thank you, Christie, for sharing your own relief with me, and causing me to share in it as well!

Judah, I am concerned that you do not care more for Truth. Please don't take that wrong, but I'm being honest. I know not of one thing pertaining to Christian theology, (at least that I can think of right now,) where it doesn't matter which way you believe, keeping in view that anything that isn't True does dishonour to God. And I fail to see how anything can be "peripheral" in God's eyes- the one to whom every "little" sin is equally awful. God doesn't see things as we see them, as you pointed out, and any "little" step away from His reality I imagine would be equal with any "big" step. (However, I am not negating anyone's salvation by saying that- if you have been cleansed, you have been cleansed, despite disagreements on the "peripherals". Spiritual reality is spiritual reality.) Who among us can say that one part of Truth is less important than another? I know it may look less important, but I...

But Jesus was able to specify the two most important commandments. Huh. Well now, that's something to consider. If there are two most important commandments, (which is obvious,) then could there be least important ones? Seems like an awful thought, and sin is sin, but in light of that....

However, Judah, you seem to be okay with all of the vast differences between all of the denominations. That is serious. There are extremely "important" matters that are disagreed on. How can the Body function properly, or effectively at all, if we are off playing in our own little lands of what we each consider reality? How can a Body diseased with falsehoods and ignorant of spiritual reality function effectively in that reality? The Truth is important! We shouldn't be okay with falsehoods being propagated as Truth, too much is at stake! We are not a healthy Body as is, and we must go to our Physician for the healing we so desperately need!

I want to see the Body function as one! It is a burning passion I have, and for the rest of my days I will ache to see it happen. I will not sit and be content with the status quo- the Body is diseased and dismembered!!!

Although, I hate ecumenicism as well, Jac. But not for the goal of unity, for it's ignoring those so important differences in views on spiritual reality and Truth. You're right, we can't all just "come together" and pretend all is honky-dory. And as you, I will not suffer to sit under someone preaching falsehoods. But, there is where we come into how the Body should function, (that is, we should not have priest/pastor/preacher and lay-people, all members of the Body are priests.) We should all get together and place ourselves before God's Word, and not just sit and let someone else present it to us as they see it, without us even opening our mouths to, if not disagree, even ask questions.

And did we forget that the Holy Spirit will guide us into all Truth? Where-ever that verse is! No, we will not be perfect while on earth, and yes we see very dimly, but that does not mean we should be content with it. The point is to not be content with it, and while on earth we should seek to allow ourselves to be guided into all Truth, where-ever that may lead us. It is not a fantastical idea, it is what should be and can be, (that we seek it.) Though we cannot see clearly now, we should seek it, and seek it as a unified Body who humbly takes the role of student. It should be and can be, if only we humble ourselves and truly want it.

I want the Body to function!!!

I am seeking to see it happen as it should with my church and the new Bible study God graciously gave me. It will take time, (of course,) but it must be done. I will not settle for less! I will not! I want God's best while on earth. I wish more of us would be more passionate about it. I wish I could be so much more passionate about it.

And Jac, I for one am a nondenominational Christian. I also do not view myself as belonging to a political party. I will seek the truth and believe what I will believe, but I will not label myself as anything but Christian, even if someone else could stick all sorts of labels on me, (although, of course, if asked I will specify what I believe.)

May we all be dissatisfied and hungry!!! (And why am I talking like that?

Judah · Post by **Judah** » Sat Feb 11, 2006 4:47 pm

Kateliz, have you not noticed my signature banner?
Jesus is the Truth, and I care for the Truth more than you can judge and know of me.

It is also true that we all have differences of opinion, and that this side of eternity we will continue to have an imperfect knowledge.
Jac's post expresses my own thoughts as well - I agree with him.

Are you advocating that it is only your knowledge that is true and that of other Christians who disagree with you are false?
That is entering dangerous ground.
How is it that you can say that my understanding of truth is a matter of concern? We live in different cultures, have language differences, live different lifes, have different experiences, different perceptions, etc. Are we not to understand things with some differences inherent to that process? Which one of us is right?
You must be careful that you do not bring conflict such that parts of the body are being separated and divorced from each other. How can the body function then?

There are some things that could be considered the core essentials of the Christian faith. Most who are accepted by each other as being Christians will be able to claim the Nicene or Apostle Creeds covers those core essentials. These are truths that relate directly to salvation.

But then as Jac points out, there are other matters where it is not fully clear which view is true despite the most diligent and prayerful and Spirit-guided study by some of God's holiest people. We each must make a decision for ourselves on these things. They are peripheral to the essential core belief leading to salvation, but by calling them peripheral I am not discounting them in any way - just saying that they are not the core essential beliefs leading to salvation.

I believe that we need to exercise humility and love in order to accept each other unreservedly despite these differences, and to allow for the possibility that we ourselves might be wrong - just as Jac has pointed out. In any of these "peripheral" issues, Jac may be right or he may be wrong. I may be right or I may be wrong. You may be right or you may be wrong. Where truth is not fully known in sparkling clarity, then we must be generous in our acceptance of differences. It is arrogant to say that, in these peripheral matters, that only I am right and all others wrong. I find that when I listen to others speak about how they understand these matters, really listen so to understand from their perspective, I often find that there is less difference between us than I had first thought. When what is at the heart is a common love for Jesus, why am I to focus derogatively on that which makes the hand different from the foot, the eye different from the nose?
Am I to be so arrogant to say that my perception of truth is more true than yours when each of us voice differences? I accept that you may disagree.

That is not to say that I will not bother to diligently seek the truth, and to present it as best as I can to others. You must already know that I attempt to do that, having read and commented on some on my previous posts you have seen. While I do that in all sincerity, appealing to Scripture, I am still aware that I may have misunderstood something and therefore welcome being shown by another where they think I have done so. I know that I am not infallible - and I know that none of the rest of us are either although some have greater knowledge and discernment than others.

Kateliz, have you thought that maybe you are more inclined to one Christian denomination than another? Simply by the process of elimination, where you don't agree with what one denomination is saying, you will be defining yourself accordingly. It may be a matter of "I'm not a this" and "I am not a that" but it is a defining process anyway.

I am happy to worship within many denominations. Provided that the core essentials, as I call them, are present - then I can worship with many Christians and feel at home with them. It does not mean that I must give away my different perception of truth where a difference exists and must adopt theirs instead. It means that I can worship together with my brothers and sisters in Christ and not let that which we cannot resolve in this world come between us.

Jac3510 · Post by **Jac3510** » Sat Feb 11, 2006 5:15 pm

Sorry, Kateliz . . . Judah is right on this one (generally agreeing with me does that!

j/k). You are walking on some really dangerous ground here. But, let me point out two things:

1. Your claim that there should be no distinction between lay people and ministers is simply ludicrous. It stems from an idea that ministers hold the same office as OT priests. We simply don't. There is absolutely no parallel. We don't provide people access to God. What we are called (by who? God?!?) to do is to prepare laypeople for their own ministries. This is done primarily through teaching, but other aspects of this are important as well.

2. You are NOT nondenominational. The very word "nondenominational" puts you in a denomination. Take away the religious connotation of the word for a minute, and you'll see what I'm talking about. If you ask a bank teller for a $100 withdrawal, and they ask you "What denominations would you like that in?" are they saying anything religious? No, they are asking what type of bills . . . to which, you could respond a $100, or twenties, or all ones (yikes!) or whatever. In the same way, a Christian "denomination" is the "type" you are. You profess no allegiance to a particular organization. Thus, you are "independent." That, my friend, is a denomination.

Your problem is not with denominationalism. It is with organizationalism. You don't think that a group of Christians should band together under similar beliefs. I don't see how that is Scriptural, and it is hypocritical, because you do it yourself. You wouldn't join a "denominational" church because that group professes beliefs you don't agree with. Therefore, you would join a church that does profess, as a group that which you agree with. Therefore, you, again, ARE denominational. You simply reject every "official" denomination.

The only "truly" non-denominational Christian would be the one who would attend and join absolutely any local church, regardless of beliefs. I think, though, we can all agree that such a "Christian" probably has a LOT of bad theology, and that would have little to do with the teaching he or she did or didn't agree with espoused from a given pulpit.

Judah · Post by **Judah** » Sat Feb 11, 2006 5:33 pm

I think you were looking for this verse, Kateliz.

But the Counselor, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, will teach you all things and will remind you of everything I have said to you. (John 14:26)

My understanding (and personal experience) is that the Holy Spirit within definitely does teach and remind.
However, a proper intelligent scholarly approach to the study of Scripture is important in order to eliminate misconceptions - and this is where "the Church" does provide through those who are educated in Hebrew and Greek, etc, and are spiritually alive.

However, it is important to understand that the "you" in John 14:26 is a plural "you" (as so often elsewhere the Greek NT).
So you (singular - should I say "thou"?) have to be very careful when using this verse to justify inward individual illumination. Of course the Holy Spirit is given to each person individually, as John 14:23 makes clear, but the Holy Spirit is also the gift to the church and gives life to it as the body of Christ.

What I am saying is that we are also dependent upon the greater knowledge of others, those who have studied the original languages, to know what is truth.

And with this is mind, I have a question to pose...

Jesus was speaking to His disciples together as a group, so the "you" (being plural) referred to all of them.
But was Jesus talking to each of them as individuals in the group setting, or was He talking to the group of individuals, or was it in both aspects together?
I think the distinction is an important one to make, and whether there is to be an emphasis more on one than another.

The Holy Spirit can be trusted to teach accurately. There could be a question as to whether or not someone, being imperfect, receives the message accurately. But would not the perfect Teacher have taught perfectly such that the message was accurately received?

Even so, I am always inclined towards checking my perceptions with other Christians more mature in the faith and more knowledgeable than I.

chrisluvsmarkrad · Post by **chrisluvsmarkrad** » Sat Feb 11, 2006 5:39 pm

You know originally when I posted this question, one of the things that had been bothering me was that my husband and I were told that we were not "spiritually mature enough" to pray with and for other's at the alter call. This was a Pentecostal church which we no longer attend. Doesn't it state that when 2 or more are gathered in His name..........or am I wrong on that? I really don't like denominations. I thought we were supposed to be childlike in heart not divided over the spirit. I am thinking the enemy perhaps has caused some churches to come against each other with differences that make people argue, I don't think negative's come from God. God's will over man's opinion is what has been expressed to me from the Holy Spirit. There are many times I cry, at night mostly, asking in Jesus name that He will break down the human will and show His light to those who are lost, homeless, beaten, broken, whatever. I hear people honking their car horns at each other, expletives being shouted, fighting, so much going on. I pray hard for their salvation and everyones one mindedness with Christ, without someone telling me I'm not spiritually mature enough to do so. We don't want to argue, at least I don't and I don't think Kateliz is looking for that either. Please understand this. Thank you. Peace, Love, Tenderheartedness and Lovingkindness to all!![/code]

Evidence for God from Science

How do you feel about claiming a denomination or religion?

Hi

Does anyone agree with this?