Question ...

[One Bad Pig]

"Calvinist"? Good heavens, NO!

I belong to no sect. I am Bible-based, non-denominational. I believe that "churches" are essentially man-created institutions far-too-often for purposes that are anything but Christ-centered. That answers your question as to why there are so many different Protestant groups. It's not just "Protestant" - all kinds of "churches" pop up everywhere like weeds. In my birth-country (Puerto Rico) one was created by a guy claiming to be Christ. As Durante would say, "Everybody wants to get into the act!"

Helpful to know, thanks. That's essentially how I was raised (except we used the 1769 KJV, not the 1611). One of the issues I have with the bible alone base is that it's inevitably going to have problems because it's a misuse of the bible. The church came first, after all, and the books weren't written to be a comprehensive guide, but to address specific issues. It's sort of like trying to learn how to drive and obey all the traffic laws using only a copy of the car repair manual. It's pretty much inevitable that there will be disagreements over interpretation, because part of the basis for interpretation is missing.

"... stark view of the world"? I am based on what God has told me. There is no reason for optimism in THIS world. Instead we should expect exactly what we see. I mean, open your eyes and take an honest look. Or have you forgotten how to do that? All that said, I try to focus on the rare sprinklings of "good" and beauty that keep the world from being a living hell. But again, I never lose sight of what God has clearly told me (in His Special Revelation) about what I should expect here. We all live the facts of His Revelation and those facts make me long for Heaven - just as Paul did.

Jorge

It is indeed a fallen world, but it is still God's creation, and each one of us is still made in the image of Christ (and has an obligation to care for His creation).

[One Bad Pig]

This is one of many reasons for my disbelief. I don't consider it limited to Protestantism, though. Less splintering in other sects, perhaps, but the differences in the canon still exist.

A fundamental difference in non-Protestant splits is that they are still tied to a common history, and it is usually rigorists who schism because the main body is seen to be compromising or lax in some way. They also tend to be small and easily fractured by further schism.

[oxmixmudd]

Wasn't my point but ... doesn't matter.




Nice of you to switch horses on me and to then criticize me for not knowing that. Wow!




Not the point but ... doesn't matter.



I had previously put out TWO possible explanations. Reading problems?
Also, I try to focus on matters of substance, not cosmetic trivia.
Of course, those with an ulterior agenda do the exact opposite.



You know very well that that's NOT what I mean.

Funny thing though - you claim to be "very careful about the actual wording of the original text" but when that "actual wording" threatens/challenges your OEC beliefs then you either trash it, distort it or ignore it.

It would be absolutely fantastic to get some bona fide consistency from you people.
Jorge

And when the wording challenges your modern scientific beliefs, you "trash it, distort it, or ignore it" using the very same reasoning and thought processes you criticize here. Job refers to sky as cast metal. You ignore that. Genesis refers to the sky as a fixed dome that separates heavenly waters from the Earthly seas. You 'trash' that. Other passages speak of 'windows' in heaven to let the waters and manna down. You 'distort' that.

In fact, each and every time the wording of scripture is in conflict with what you accept scientifically, you call the text metaphor or class it as poetic or perhaps phenomenal. Science and our knowledge of ancient culture are in fact the primary criteria driving how you interpret the texts I mention above, nothing in those texts tells you they should be understood the way you and those like you read and interpret them.

The only person that has visited this site that is 'pure' or 'clean' on that front is John Martin. He is the only one I know that does not allow what is known scientifically about the world to cloud or otherwise at some point or another drive his interpretation of the Bible.

You are in point of fact the same inconsistent person unfaithful to the meaning of the text (by your standard of measure) you try to criticize every day Jorge - you just never look in the mirror.


Jim

[Jorge]

Helpful to know, thanks. That's essentially how I was raised (except we used the 1769 KJV, not the 1611). One of the issues I have with the bible alone base is that it's inevitably going to have problems because it's a misuse of the bible. The church came first, after all, and the books weren't written to be a comprehensive guide, but to address specific issues. It's sort of like trying to learn how to drive and obey all the traffic laws using only a copy of the car repair manual. It's pretty much inevitable that there will be disagreements over interpretation, because part of the basis for interpretation is missing.

Yup. I come to terms with what you bring up this way: I can choose to follow the views/interpretations of someone else or I can do the hard work myself. I keep it honest at all time -- after all, who would I be fooling except myself (I certainly wouldn't be fooling God!)? Most important of all, since these are spiritual matters I know that God is Faithful to answer ("Seek and ye shall find") at His pleasure. So I ask for His guidance, I trust in Him to deliver, I put in some hard work, and I live with that. BTW, of course God has anointed some to be His 'voice' here on earth. Many godly men have put out lots of good, edifying material. It is worthwhile to seek out these things also.

Yes, there will be disagreements over interpretations. I can handle that as long as the other positions are reasonable and honest. What I always do is to seek out the root cause of the disagreements -- where do they stem from? Even disagreements based on ignorance are tolerable. However, and sadly, far-too-many times I find that they stem not from ignorance, or from reason, or from honesty, but instead they stem from the pursuit of self-centered agendas that disregard God's plain Words. That's when my 'fur' goes up.

It is indeed a fallen world, but it is still God's creation, and each one of us is still made in the image of Christ (and has an obligation to care for His creation).

All of that is certainly true. That does not change the fact that we are living in the midst of a sin-filled world and there is far, far more ugliness than what God had intended. I still give thanks to God many times throughout the day. I try to be happy and to help to make others happy. I help where I can... ease pain and suffering where I can.

But the reality remains what it is.

Let me put it this way: if God asked for volunteers to get off of this planet right away, I'd be clawing over your back to get to the front of the line (figuratively speaking, of course!).

Jorge

[Jorge]

And when the wording challenges your modern scientific beliefs, you "trash it, distort it, or ignore it" using the very same reasoning and thought processes you criticize here. Job refers to sky as cast metal. You ignore that. Genesis refers to the sky as a fixed dome that separates heavenly waters from the Earthly seas. You 'trash' that. Other passages speak of 'windows' in heaven to let the waters and manna down. You 'distort' that.

In fact, each and every time the wording of scripture is in conflict with what you accept scientifically, you call the text metaphor or class it as poetic or perhaps phenomenal. Science and our knowledge of ancient culture are in fact the primary criteria driving how you interpret the texts I mention above, nothing in those texts tells you they should be understood the way you and those like you read and interpret them.

The only person that has visited this site that is 'pure' or 'clean' on that front is John Martin. He is the only one I know that does not allow what is known scientifically about the world to cloud or otherwise at some point or another drive his interpretation of the Bible.

You are in point of fact the same inconsistent person unfaithful to the meaning of the text (by your standard of measure) you try to criticize every day Jorge - you just never look in the mirror.

Jim

One word: Xanax.

Take two. Get a good night's rest. Return when rational. Good night.

Jorge

[One Bad Pig]

Yup. I come to terms with what you bring up this way: I can choose to follow the views/interpretations of someone else or I can do the hard work myself. I keep it honest at all time -- after all, who would I be fooling except myself (I certainly wouldn't be fooling God!)? Most important of all, since these are spiritual matters I know that God is Faithful to answer ("Seek and ye shall find") at His pleasure. So I ask for His guidance, I trust in Him to deliver, I put in some hard work, and I live with that.

The problem with this approach, beyond what I've noted above, is that we are told NOT to lean on our own understanding. Historically, that's how pretty much every heresy got started. I hardly got where I am by uncritically accepting the views of others. Christ promised that upon the rock of Peter's confession He would build His church, and that the gates of hell would not prevail against it. And reading the writings of the church from the second century on, the church which canonized the scripture on which you rely, I found quite the congruence with what my church teaches today. I could not ignore that.

BTW, of course God has anointed some to be His 'voice' here on earth. Many godly men have put out lots of good, edifying material. It is worthwhile to seek out these things also.

Yes, there will be disagreements over interpretations. I can handle that as long as the other positions are reasonable and honest. What I always do is to seek out the root cause of the disagreements -- where do they stem from? Even disagreements based on ignorance are tolerable. However, and sadly, far-too-many times I find that they stem not from ignorance, or from reason, or from honesty, but instead they stem from the pursuit of self-centered agendas that disregard God's plain Words. That's when my 'fur' goes up.

While there are those who seek justification for their own agendas and read scripture with that in mind, I don't think that particular problem is nearly as widespread as you imply. Instead, I see a whole lot of people convinced that their interpretation is correct, many of whom are quite sincerely trying to follow God's will.

I still give thanks to God many times throughout the day. I try to be happy and to help to make others happy. I help where I can... ease pain and suffering where I can.

But the reality remains what it is.

Let me put it this way: if God asked for volunteers to get off of this planet right away, I'd be clawing over your back to get to the front of the line (figuratively speaking, of course!).

Jorge

Well, I think Paul would chide you for your eagerness to leave. I think that, if I'm the last person on the planet, God just needed to work me over a bit more to make me ready for eturnity. What He wants is good.

[oxmixmudd]

One word: Xanax.

Take two. Get a good night's rest. Return when rational. Good night.

Jorge

Yes - I understand that for you to look in the mirror at yourself or even to simply look objectively at the evidence is too traumatic, too overwhelming, and all you can do is spout off something like the above when something hits too close to home.

Jim

[Carrikature]

A fundamental difference in non-Protestant splits is that they are still tied to a common history, and it is usually rigorists who schism because the main body is seen to be compromising or lax in some way. They also tend to be small and easily fractured by further schism.

I'm not sure that helps. "We do it better" is still doing it.

[Jorge]

The problem with this approach, beyond what I've noted above, is that we are told NOT to lean on our own understanding.

Absolutely true which is why I do NOT do that. I lean on the BIBLE. I pray for His guidance since only God can give me true understanding of spiritual things . I read, research and listen to others with a critical, discerning mind. I hold on to the good and spit out the bad. And how do I know that it's "good"? Easy - does it match with God's Word! In short, I am not the source, I am a vessel.

Historically, that's how pretty much every heresy got started. I hardly got where I am by uncritically accepting the views of others. Christ promised that upon the rock of Peter's confession He would build His church, and that the gates of hell would not prevail against it. And reading the writings of the church from the second century on, the church which canonized the scripture on which you rely, I found quite the congruence with what my church teaches today. I could not ignore that.

Okay, I understand. Keep in mind my words above. Also, in my own life I have found that God's Truth "resonates" with the soul. More times than I can remember I have heard/read words that had something "wrong" even though I could not identify or express what it was. Later, sometimes years later, I would discover (or God would reveal to me) what it was. 'Spiritual discernment' (not 'intellectual') is the technical term.

By the way, Evolution and giga-years were some of those things. At the beginning I did not have the knowledge nor the experience to justify my position but there was "something" -- a "spiritual disharmony", an uneasy feeling -- that told me something was "wrong". Decades later, the rest was history.

While there are those who seek justification for their own agendas and read scripture with that in mind, I don't think that particular problem is nearly as widespread as you imply. Instead, I see a whole lot of people convinced that their interpretation is correct, many of whom are quite sincerely trying to follow God's will.

My experience has been another. Self-centeredness has countless manifestations and each one creates a personal agenda, be it explicit or implicit. After that agenda takes root then all things are interpreted to serve the agenda. This principle applies to when God tells us that we cannot serve two masters. We must deny ourselves (one master) if we are to serve Him (The Master). No one can serve both.

Well, I think Paul would chide you for your eagerness to leave. I think that, if I'm the last person on the planet, God just needed to work me over a bit more to make me ready for eturnity. What He wants is good.

I recall that Paul very much wanted to "leave" to be with Christ but Paul also knew of his work for God. I say the same: not my will but His Will be done. If God wants me here for another 100 years then that's what it will be - He has a purpose. I'm just saying that I'd happily leave before lunch today if God asked me.

Jorge

[Jorge]

Yes - I understand that for you to look in the mirror at yourself or even to simply look objectively at the evidence is too traumatic, too overwhelming, and all you can do is spout off something like the above when something hits too close to home.

Jim

Jorge

[rwatts]

In short, I am not the source, I am a vessel.

Look, I just have to ask Jorge.

But were you ever torpedoed at one stage and the vessel sunk?

[HumbleThinker]

Why - on what grounds - are you opposed to ID? If you are not opposed to ID then why not?

"Design" is insufficiently defined and arbitrarily applied. ID misapplies many aspects of information theory. ID is religion aka creationism trying to mask as science as rightly revealed in the Dover trial. It has no explanatory power much less predictive power. Experts in biology and mathematics have thoroughly rebuked ID's claims. These are the reasons off the top of my head.

[One Bad Pig]

I'm not sure that helps. "We do it better" is still doing it.

Given that every group consists of fallible humans, I'm not sure why you expect a different outcome.

[Carrikature]

Given that every group consists of fallible humans, I'm not sure why you expect a different outcome.

I don't. Religious systems are wholly consistent with every other system conceived of and perpetuated by humans, up to and including schisms and insistence that a given human's favored system does it better because reasons. When I pointed out that this is one of my reasons for disbelief, you proceeded to insist that your system is better. Which is expected, and honestly not that big of a deal, but if you want to claim a high ground you need something more.

[Jorge]

"Design" is insufficiently defined and arbitrarily applied. ID misapplies many aspects of information theory. ID is religion aka creationism trying to mask as science as rightly revealed in the Dover trial. It has no explanatory power much less predictive power. Experts in biology and mathematics have thoroughly rebuked ID's claims. These are the reasons off the top of my head.

The above is nothing more than the typical mindlessly-parroted canned PRATTs.
The above is also dripping with anti-ID bias, rank ignorance and Materialistic influence.
In short, there is nothing salvageable or that contributes to the discussion in any way.

The things HumbleThinker claims above are simply r-i-d-i-c-u-l-o-u-s! I personally have over 30 books and scores of papers and articles that explain ID to the hilt. In fact, responding to fanatical ideological opposition, ID proponents have gone to extreme measures to explain it so that anyone - even grade-school kids - could understand it.

HumbleThinker is so far gone that, in automobile terminology, he is 'totaled'.
IOW, I would not even attempt to repair that 'wreck'!

That's all TWeb needed -- another one of 'those' to add to the 'flock'.

Jorge