Evidence for God from Science

What defines an aberrant or non-mainstream denomination around here? Is it a single or small set of core tenets (e.g. a belief in salvation and the Trinity)? Is it based on the holy texts of that denomination? Is it the number of adherents relative to other denominations? Is it all of those things? Or none?

I can see how LDS could be termed as aberrant (totally different scripture, for a start), and JW as non-mainstream (very small proportion of adherents), but I guess I'm confused as to how other branches would be categorised. I've jotted down a little list below, which is based more or less entirely on gut feelings. Are the items on my list correct? If so then why, and if not then why not?

Quakers - non-mainstream, a little bit aberrant

Anabaptists - non-mainstream, but not aberrant

Pentecostal - sort of mainstream, not aberrant

Anglican & RC - mainstream, not aberrant

Presbyterian - ditto

Eastern Orthodox - mainstream (in its region), not aberrant

Coptic & Assyrian - ditto

Methodist - mainstream(ish), not aberrant

Messianic Judaism - non-mainstream, possibly aberrant but possibly not strictly Christianity

Something that is aberrant deviates from the norm, something that strays off the path, something that is abnormal. Aberrant Christianity would be any religion that identifies itself as Christian but deviates from what is clearly revealed in the Bible. Examples of aberrant Christianity would be the Jehovah's Witnesses, the Mormons, and the Christian Science movement. Aberrant Christianity always has the Bible plus another text as holy litterature. Moreover, the Bible is always of secondary importance to the other text. In some versions of aberrance the Bible is re-translated to conform to the aberrant views of the religion.

PerciFlage wrote: Quakers - non-mainstream, a little bit aberrant

Anabaptists - non-mainstream, but not aberrant

Pentecostal - sort of mainstream, not aberrant

Anglican & RC - mainstream, not aberrant

Presbyterian - ditto

Eastern Orthodox - mainstream (in its region), not aberrant

Coptic & Assyrian - ditto

Methodist - mainstream(ish), not aberrant

Messianic Judaism - non-mainstream, possibly aberrant but possibly not strictly Christianity

You seem to be confusing aberrance with bad doctrine, above. Aberrance isn't on a continuum where some are a little aberrant and others are a lot aberrant. Aberrance is like pregnancy: you are or you aren't. An aberrant Church is not Christian, no matter what it calls itself.

Bad doctrine is a misunderstanding of Scripture. Examples of this would be Preterism and Replacement Theology.

FL

EDIT: Preterism and Replacement Theology are more bad theology than bad doctrine. Bad theology always leads to bad doctrine.

Thanks for that reply, FL. So would you say a faithful adherence to the Bible is key to defining whether something is or is not Christianity, more so than Trinitarian or Messianic beliefs? And going by that would you plump for filing, say, Messianic Judaism under the rubric of Christianity rather than aberrance?

I'd also be interested in knowing whether when you say "Bible" you mean it in a strict Western/Eastern canonical sense, or more of a loose books of the Jewish tradition sense. For example, would a group who adhered to a Christ-centric interpretation of the wider Jewish canon but no other literature be considered Christian to you? Just to be clear, I'm talking about the texts found in the various apocrypha and codices which are related to but excluded from the Western/Eastern canons, not clearly unrelated works like the Book of Mormon.

PerciFlage wrote:...would you say a faithful adherence to the Bible is key to defining whether something is or is not Christianity, more so than Trinitarian or Messianic beliefs?

''Faithful adherance to the Bible'' is probably meaningless to the majority of so-called Christians. It sounds good and even a Mormon will tell you that he follows what's in the Bible. So, no, ''faithful adherance to the Bible'' is not a defining factor in Christianity. Read all of John, chapter 3 to understand what makes a Christian.

The Trinity is biblical, unitarianism is unbiblical. Messianic Judaism recognizes the triune nature of God; Jews who worship at a Messianic synagogue are Jews who recognize Jesus as Messiah and God. They are sometimes refered to as ''Hebrew Christians'' to distinguish them from Gentiles who worship at the same synagogue. So, Messianic Judaism is not an aberrant form of Christianity.

PerciFlage wrote: I'd also be interested in knowing whether when you say "Bible" you mean it in a strict Western/Eastern canonical sense, or more of a loose books of the Jewish tradition sense. For example, would a group who adhered to a Christ-centric interpretation of the wider Jewish canon but no other literature be considered Christian to you? Just to be clear, I'm talking about the texts found in the various apocrypha and codices which are related to but excluded from the Western/Eastern canons, not clearly unrelated works like the Book of Mormon.

When I say ''Bible'' I mean the 66 books of the Protestant canon (BTW these books are also used by Messianics). I have no objection to using the Roman Catholic canon but I don't consider the apocrypha as inspired. The aprocrypha can shed some light on OT stories and that's about it. (Orthodox Judaism rejects the apocrypha as well.)

Your question, ''would a group who adhered to a Christ-centric interpretation of the wider Jewish canon but no other literature be considered Christian to you?'' ...is a little cryptic. A group cannot be Christian any more than a factory can be Christian. A group - or a factory - may be composed of Christians; a Christian is someone who has repented and accepted Jesus as Lord of his life.

FL

Furstentum Liechtenstein wrote:

PerciFlage wrote:...would you say a faithful adherence to the Bible is key to defining whether something is or is not Christianity, more so than Trinitarian or Messianic beliefs?

''Faithful adherance to the Bible'' is probably meaningless to the majority of so-called Christians. It sounds good and even a Mormon will tell you that he follows what's in the Bible. So, no, ''faithful adherance to the Bible'' is not a defining factor in Christianity. Read all of John, chapter 3 to understand what makes a Christian.

The key is in the word "faithful". When I said "faithful adherence to the Bible", that was just my way of expressing the same sentiment you did when you said that aberrant divisions deviate from "what is clearly revealed in the Bible". I would agree with you that whether or not Mormons claim to adhere to the Bible, they do not do so faithfully.

Furstentum Liechtenstein wrote: Your question, ''would a group who adhered to a Christ-centric interpretation of the wider Jewish canon but no other literature be considered Christian to you?'' ...is a little cryptic. A group cannot be Christian any more than a factory can be Christian. A group - or a factory - may be composed of Christians; a Christian is someone who has repented and accepted Jesus as Lord of his life.

I probably should have phrased this better - I meant would the beliefs of such a group be true Christianity rather than aberrant Christianity? You said in your earlier reply that "aberrant Christianity always has the Bible plus another text as holy literature" - so what I was angling at with my question is whether you would consider a belief system with Messianic and Trinitarian tenets but which gave the Apocrypha equal weight to the Protestant canon as aberrant?

I think that we tend to throw words around a bit too much.
ab·er·rant
/ˈabərənt/
Adjective
Departing from an accepted standard.
Diverging from the normal type.
Synonyms
abnormal - anomalous

What we are saying is that there is a "norm" an "orthodoxy" in Christianity and what is outside that is aberrant.
But what "dictates" the norm?

PaulSacramento wrote: What we are saying is that there is a "norm" an "orthodoxy" in Christianity and what is outside that is aberrant.
But what "dictates" the norm?

Yes, exactly. More specifically I'm interested in both the firm and nebulous concepts that individual members of this forum use to define the norm. This is just for my own curiosity - I'm not after a one-size-fits-all answer, as I know that individual members of the same denomination can vary pretty wildly in some of their beliefs.

PerciFlage wrote:

PaulSacramento wrote: What we are saying is that there is a "norm" an "orthodoxy" in Christianity and what is outside that is aberrant.
But what "dictates" the norm?

Yes, exactly. More specifically I'm interested in both the firm and nebulous concepts that individual members of this forum use to define the norm. This is just for my own curiosity - I'm not after a one-size-fits-all answer, as I know that individual members of the same denomination can vary pretty wildly in some of their beliefs.

Well, the norm for a Catholic is one thing and for a protestant another and for an orthodox another but only in the "minor details" ( such as Canon for example), though the norm for the Eucharist for a Catholic is NOT the norm for a Protestant.
I think that the more we focus on the minor details of our different denominations ( and yes, they are minor) we tend to disregard ALL that we have the same, most importantly the open declaration that Jesus Christ is Our Lord, that He lived, died and was resurrected and that in HIM we have our salvation.

PerciFlage wrote:

Furstentum Liechtenstein wrote: Your question, ''would a group who adhered to a Christ-centric interpretation of the wider Jewish canon but no other literature be considered Christian to you?'' ...is a little cryptic. A group cannot be Christian any more than a factory can be Christian. A group - or a factory - may be composed of Christians; a Christian is someone who has repented and accepted Jesus as Lord of his life.

I probably should have phrased this better - I meant would the beliefs of such a group be true Christianity rather than aberrant Christianity? You said in your earlier reply that "aberrant Christianity always has the Bible plus another text as holy literature" - so what I was angling at with my question is whether you would consider a belief system with Messianic and Trinitarian tenets but which gave the Apocrypha equal weight to the Protestant canon as aberrant?

Truly saved Christians may have bad doctrine and unbiblical beliefs (such as speaking in tongues/thinking that Christians are the ''New Israel''/vegetarianism/belief that they constitute the ''True Church'') but that doesn't make such persons followers of an aberrant church. They are just in a church with bad doctrine. As for the Apocrypha, the Romish and Eastern Orthodox churches both have their versions - and, from what I know - they do not consider them on the same level as the rest of the Bible. They may pay lip service to the idea that they are inspired but that's about it. For example, I have been to many Roman Catholic services and have yet to hear the priest base his homily on an apocryphal book. Also, I have 4 RCC Bibles and in each case, the Apocrypha are in a section by themselves between the Old and New Testaments.

So, the bottom line is that I don't consider this relevant. Some Protestant believers also think the King James Bible is the only valid one. That's OK by me. That's where they are and the rest isn't really important.

PaulSacramento wrote: I think that the more we focus on the minor details of our different denominations ( and yes, they are minor) we tend to disregard ALL that we have the same, most importantly the open declaration that Jesus Christ is Our Lord, that He lived, died and was resurrected and that in HIM we have our salvation.

Agreed...but are we now discussing denominations?

FL

Agreed...but are we now discussing denominations?

FL

One can argue that even JW's are a "denomination" because, in the end, they believe that salvation is through Christ ONLY, that He lived and died and was resurrected and will come again.
That salvation is only in Our Lord.

PaulSacramento wrote:

Agreed...but are we now discussing denominations?

FL

One can argue that even JW's are a "denomination" because, in the end, they believe that salvation is through Christ ONLY, that He lived and died and was resurrected and will come again.
That salvation is only in Our Lord.

With that aberrant thinking, even Mormons* would be Christians! Sorry, JWs are not a denomination of Christianity. You need to brush up on what a Christian is. Jehovah's Witnesses do not see Jesus as God. Jesus is the greatest man who ever lived according to them.

FL

*to Mormons, Jesus is God...but god of this planet only. Their ersatz Jesus also died for our Salvation.

Furstentum Liechtenstein wrote:

PaulSacramento wrote:

Agreed...but are we now discussing denominations?

FL

One can argue that even JW's are a "denomination" because, in the end, they believe that salvation is through Christ ONLY, that He lived and died and was resurrected and will come again.
That salvation is only in Our Lord.

With that aberrant thinking, even Mormons* would be Christians! Sorry, JWs are not a denomination of Christianity. You need to brush up on what a Christian is. Jehovah's Witnesses do not see Jesus as God. Jesus is the greatest man who ever lived according to them.

FL

*to Mormons, Jesus is God...but god of this planet only. Their ersatz Jesus also died for our Salvation.

Trust me, I don't need to brush up on JW theology and they view Jesus as the "incarnation" of the archangel Michael and the first created being that God created. They view him as "a god" but not The God since they do NOT believe in the Trinity.

My point is that, if we look hard enough we can find aberrant teachings in any denomination, like transubstantiation.
It is orthodox for a RC but not so for a typical protestant.

PaulSacramento wrote: My point is that, if we look hard enough we can find aberrant teachings in any denomination

Yes, and that's due to man's fallen nature. You muddy the waters by using the same word, aberrant, to qualify both bad theology within Christianity and fake Christianity. To say that JWs can be considered a Christian denomination is just wrong.

Now, get back on course or get off the bridge.

FL

Furstentum Liechtenstein wrote:

PaulSacramento wrote: My point is that, if we look hard enough we can find aberrant teachings in any denomination

Yes, and that's due to man's fallen nature. You muddy the waters by using the same word, aberrant, to qualify both bad theology within Christianity and fake Christianity. To say that JWs can be considered a Christian denomination is just wrong.

Now, get back on course or get off the bridge.

FL

While I personally agree that theirs is an aberrant theology, who gets to make that call?
Is this a "majority rules" thing?

PaulSacramento wrote:

Agreed...but are we now discussing denominations?

FL

One can argue that even JW's are a "denomination" because, in the end, they believe that salvation is through Christ ONLY, that He lived and died and was resurrected and will come again.
That salvation is only in Our Lord.

Paul,
With everything you've written about JW here on this board, I can't believe you actually said this.