<!--QuoteBegin-Sky+Jun 5 2005, 11:17 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Sky @ Jun 5 2005, 11:17 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--QuoteBegin-Depot+Jun 5 2005, 11:08 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Depot @ Jun 5 2005, 11:08 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> The Bible is interpreted differently by different religions obviously. This is only one thing that makes each Protestant religion unique. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> I'm sorry, but...isn't this proof that the Bible is not infallible? <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> No, I think not. I don't see the corelation.
[OFFTOPIC] Depot, you sux at protestant! Its sunday morning, GTFO forums, you shouldnt be here right now! Egads, what would Cyndane think of this behavior!? [/OFFTOPIC]
<!--QuoteBegin-pieceofsoap+Jun 5 2005, 11:24 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (pieceofsoap @ Jun 5 2005, 11:24 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> [OFFTOPIC] Depot, you sux at protestant! Its sunday morning, GTFO forums, you shouldnt be here right now! Egads, what would Cyndane think of this behavior!? [/OFFTOPIC] <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif' /><!--endemo--> Lollerz soap. Blame it on the Hemp Festival.
While I do not support Depots statement that the different sects are different religions, since they do follow one book.
*edit* Code did not work as I thought it would. Lets try quotes.
Here is a very comprehensive breakdown of Christianity's sects. I am going to put this in code to make it easier to read. <!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Main Unit: Christianity
Sub-Groups: <b>Adventist Family Adventist groups</b>: Jehovah's Witnesses, and British Israelism Baptist Family Southern Baptists, American Baptists, etc.
<b>Christian Science-Metaphysical Family</b>: Christian Science, New Thought Communal Family The Jesus People, Twin Oaks, etc.
<b>Eastern Orthodox Family Various Orthodox churches</b>: Russian, Greek, Serbian, etc.
Holiness Family Christian and Missionary Alliance, Church of the Nazarene, etc.
Independent Fundamentalist Family Plymouth Brethren, Fundamentalists, etc.
Latter-day Saints Family Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, The community of Christ
Lutheran Family Evangelical Lutheran Church in America, Lutheran church - Missouri Synod, etc.
Messianic Judaism Jews For Jesus, and other similar groups
Pentecostal Family Assemblies of God, Church of God (Cleveland, TN)
Pietist-Methodist Family Scandinavian Pietism, United Methodist Church, other Methodists
Reformed-Presbyterian Family Reformed, various Presbyterian churches, Congregational, United Church of Christ
Western Liturgical Family Roman Catholicism, including the Latin Rite and the Eastern Rite Churches: (Armenian 5 Catholic Church, Chaldean C.C., Coptic C.C., Marionite C.C., Melkite C.C., Syrian C.C.); Old Catholicism; Ukranian Catholic Church, Anglican Communion
Those are the main sects of christianity and pretty much everyone that claims to be christian can fall under one of those churches or demnomiations, whichever you prefer to call it.
Depot, I would also like to point out, that the portion you quoted refers to the Lutheran church of Demark, which is the offical church of denmark. While I do not doubt that the Protestant form may have something similar obviously MetalCat is not aware of what they would call it.
Thanks for listing the various sects Cyndane. Acknowledging these sects all follow one book, if they don't interpret the Bible differently and consequently form their doctrines from their interpretations, why is each sect's beliefs and teachings so different?
I do not believe they differ greatly enough to warrant being called a different religion.
<!--QuoteBegin-m-w+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (m-w)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Religion: 1 a : the state of a religious <a nun in her 20th year of religion> b (1) : the service and worship of God or the supernatural (2) : commitment or devotion to religious faith or observance 3 archaic : scrupulous conformity : CONSCIENTIOUSNESS 4 : a cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> <!--QuoteBegin-m-w+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (m-w)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Sect: 1 a : a dissenting or schismatic religious body; especially : one regarded as extreme or heretical b : a religious denomination <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Using those definitions, one can see that while there are minor differences (Read: How liberal and conservative sects are on issues) there is not enough to make them seperate entities, which is why almost anyone of any other christianity sect, can go to any other sects church and still feel comfortable to an extent.
<!--QuoteBegin-Depot+Jun 5 2005, 11:20 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Depot @ Jun 5 2005, 11:20 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--QuoteBegin-Sky+Jun 5 2005, 11:17 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Sky @ Jun 5 2005, 11:17 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--QuoteBegin-Depot+Jun 5 2005, 11:08 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Depot @ Jun 5 2005, 11:08 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> The Bible is interpreted differently by different religions obviously. This is only one thing that makes each Protestant religion unique. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> I'm sorry, but...isn't this proof that the Bible is not infallible? <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> No, I think not. I don't see the corelation. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Simple: how can you say the original meaning is still there if it's been interpreted a number of different ways, and that's just in the Protestant sects. How many times do you think it's been translated, edited, and interpreted in the 1500-2000 years since the different books of the Bible were written?
And, if the original meaning is gone, what sense does it make to apply the Bible at face value to everyday life, just because it's the Bible? Doesn't that imply that the Bible is infallible?
<!--QuoteBegin-Sky+Jun 5 2005, 01:06 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Sky @ Jun 5 2005, 01:06 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--><!--QuoteBegin-Depot+Jun 5 2005, 11:20 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Depot @ Jun 5 2005, 11:20 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--QuoteBegin-Sky+Jun 5 2005, 11:17 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Sky @ Jun 5 2005, 11:17 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--QuoteBegin-Depot+Jun 5 2005, 11:08 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Depot @ Jun 5 2005, 11:08 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> The Bible is interpreted differently by different religions obviously. This is only one thing that makes each Protestant religion unique. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> I'm sorry, but...isn't this proof that the Bible is not infallible? <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> No, I think not. I don't see the corelation. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Simple: how can you say the original meaning is still there if it's been interpreted a number of different ways, and that's just in the Protestant sects. How many times do you think it's been translated, edited, and interpreted in the 1500-2000 years since the different books of the Bible were written?
And, if the original meaning is gone, what sense does it make to apply the Bible at face value to everyday life, just because it's the Bible? Doesn't that imply that the Bible is infallible?<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> How about you giving us <b>YOUR</b> interpretation of how and why the various sects were created, and why their doctrines and teachings are different, albeit only slightly in some cases.
All I said was, it's my oppinion these various sects were created because of different interpretations of the same book. It's a large book, and any 2 people who read it could interpret certain scriputure in different ways. <!--emo&;)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/wink-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='wink-fix.gif' /><!--endemo-->
<!--QuoteBegin-Depot+Jun 5 2005, 01:13 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Depot @ Jun 5 2005, 01:13 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--QuoteBegin-Sky+Jun 5 2005, 01:06 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Sky @ Jun 5 2005, 01:06 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--><!--QuoteBegin-Depot+Jun 5 2005, 11:20 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Depot @ Jun 5 2005, 11:20 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--QuoteBegin-Sky+Jun 5 2005, 11:17 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Sky @ Jun 5 2005, 11:17 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--QuoteBegin-Depot+Jun 5 2005, 11:08 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Depot @ Jun 5 2005, 11:08 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> The Bible is interpreted differently by different religions obviously. This is only one thing that makes each Protestant religion unique. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> I'm sorry, but...isn't this proof that the Bible is not infallible? <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> No, I think not. I don't see the corelation. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Simple: how can you say the original meaning is still there if it's been interpreted a number of different ways, and that's just in the Protestant sects. How many times do you think it's been translated, edited, and interpreted in the 1500-2000 years since the different books of the Bible were written?
And, if the original meaning is gone, what sense does it make to apply the Bible at face value to everyday life, just because it's the Bible? Doesn't that imply that the Bible is infallible?<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> How about you giving us <b>YOUR</b> interpretation of how and why the various sects were created, and why their doctrines and teachings are different, albeit only slightly in some cases.
All I said was, it's my oppinion these various sects were created because of different interpretations of the same book. It's a large book, and any 2 people who read it could interpret certain scriputure in different ways. <!--emo&;)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/wink-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='wink-fix.gif' /><!--endemo--> <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> You're missing the point. If two people interpret the Bible differently, how can both claim it to be infallible, when one's literal application of the Bible to a given situation might be different from the other's? The Bible might be "infallible" to both of them, but to an outside observer it's contradictory.
<!--QuoteBegin-Sky+Jun 5 2005, 01:17 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Sky @ Jun 5 2005, 01:17 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--QuoteBegin-Depot+Jun 5 2005, 01:13 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Depot @ Jun 5 2005, 01:13 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--QuoteBegin-Sky+Jun 5 2005, 01:06 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Sky @ Jun 5 2005, 01:06 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--><!--QuoteBegin-Depot+Jun 5 2005, 11:20 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Depot @ Jun 5 2005, 11:20 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--QuoteBegin-Sky+Jun 5 2005, 11:17 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Sky @ Jun 5 2005, 11:17 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--QuoteBegin-Depot+Jun 5 2005, 11:08 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Depot @ Jun 5 2005, 11:08 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> The Bible is interpreted differently by different religions obviously. This is only one thing that makes each Protestant religion unique. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> I'm sorry, but...isn't this proof that the Bible is not infallible? <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> No, I think not. I don't see the corelation. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Simple: how can you say the original meaning is still there if it's been interpreted a number of different ways, and that's just in the Protestant sects. How many times do you think it's been translated, edited, and interpreted in the 1500-2000 years since the different books of the Bible were written?
And, if the original meaning is gone, what sense does it make to apply the Bible at face value to everyday life, just because it's the Bible? Doesn't that imply that the Bible is infallible?<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> How about you giving us <b>YOUR</b> interpretation of how and why the various sects were created, and why their doctrines and teachings are different, albeit only slightly in some cases.
All I said was, it's my oppinion these various sects were created because of different interpretations of the same book. It's a large book, and any 2 people who read it could interpret certain scriputure in different ways. <!--emo&;)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/wink-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='wink-fix.gif' /><!--endemo--> <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> You're missing the point. If two people interpret the Bible differently, how can both claim it to be infallible, when one's literal application of the Bible to a given situation might be different from the other's? The Bible might be "infallible" to both of them, but to an outside observer it's contradictory. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> You're dodging the issue of debate here. Answer the question please.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->How about you giving us YOUR interpretation of how and why the various sects were created, and why their doctrines and teachings are different, albeit only slightly in some cases.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<!--QuoteBegin-Depot+Jun 5 2005, 01:18 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Depot @ Jun 5 2005, 01:18 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--QuoteBegin-Sky+Jun 5 2005, 01:17 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Sky @ Jun 5 2005, 01:17 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--QuoteBegin-Depot+Jun 5 2005, 01:13 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Depot @ Jun 5 2005, 01:13 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--QuoteBegin-Sky+Jun 5 2005, 01:06 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Sky @ Jun 5 2005, 01:06 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--><!--QuoteBegin-Depot+Jun 5 2005, 11:20 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Depot @ Jun 5 2005, 11:20 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--QuoteBegin-Sky+Jun 5 2005, 11:17 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Sky @ Jun 5 2005, 11:17 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--QuoteBegin-Depot+Jun 5 2005, 11:08 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Depot @ Jun 5 2005, 11:08 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> The Bible is interpreted differently by different religions obviously. This is only one thing that makes each Protestant religion unique. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> I'm sorry, but...isn't this proof that the Bible is not infallible? <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> No, I think not. I don't see the corelation. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Simple: how can you say the original meaning is still there if it's been interpreted a number of different ways, and that's just in the Protestant sects. How many times do you think it's been translated, edited, and interpreted in the 1500-2000 years since the different books of the Bible were written?
And, if the original meaning is gone, what sense does it make to apply the Bible at face value to everyday life, just because it's the Bible? Doesn't that imply that the Bible is infallible?<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> How about you giving us <b>YOUR</b> interpretation of how and why the various sects were created, and why their doctrines and teachings are different, albeit only slightly in some cases.
All I said was, it's my oppinion these various sects were created because of different interpretations of the same book. It's a large book, and any 2 people who read it could interpret certain scriputure in different ways. <!--emo&;)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/wink-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='wink-fix.gif' /><!--endemo--> <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> You're missing the point. If two people interpret the Bible differently, how can both claim it to be infallible, when one's literal application of the Bible to a given situation might be different from the other's? The Bible might be "infallible" to both of them, but to an outside observer it's contradictory. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> You're dodging the issue of debate here. Answer the question please.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->How about you giving us YOUR interpretation of how and why the various sects were created, and why their doctrines and teachings are different, albeit only slightly in some cases.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> Considering <u>I</u> was the one who first asked you the question "How is the Bible infallible if there are multiple interpretations," I'd say <u>you're</u> dodging the discussion. <!--emo&;)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/wink-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='wink-fix.gif' /><!--endemo-->
<!--QuoteBegin-Depot+Jun 5 2005, 01:27 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Depot @ Jun 5 2005, 01:27 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> That's fine, you don't have to answer Sky. Cyndane did, and I appreciate that. Not to answer a question with a question. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> Possibly because SHE started the issue of sects and such, while I had nothing to do with that. Go back and check my posts. Now, if you would be so kind as to answer my quesiton.
1. The teachings are different because certain people think they are better then others at interpeting something. Which is why there are over one thousand different translations of the bible.
2. People in general can never decide on one thing to be good for everyone. Since everyone has their opinions they feel obligated to share them even if they are not wanted and even if they are quite obviously flawed.
3. Christianity has borrowed from so many other socialogical factors, it makes it hard to decipher who really has the right of it.
4. Some people don't like being labeled as Catholic, even though that is where they have all come from. Therefore a new name was created.
<!--QuoteBegin-Depot+Jun 5 2005, 11:40 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Depot @ Jun 5 2005, 11:40 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Acknowledging these sects all follow one book, if they don't interpret the Bible differently and consequently form their doctrines from their interpretations, why is each sect's beliefs and teachings so different? <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> To date Cyndane alone has given a reasonable explanation to this.
<!--QuoteBegin-Cyndane+Jun 5 2005, 01:33 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Cyndane @ Jun 5 2005, 01:33 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->1. The teachings are different because certain people think they are better then others at interpeting something. Which is why there are over one thousand different translations of the bible.
2. People in general can never decide on one thing to be good for everyone. Since everyone has their opinions they feel obligated to share them even if they are not wanted and even if they are quite obviously flawed.
3. Christianity has borrowed from so many other socialogical factors, it makes it hard to decipher who really has the right of it.
4. Some people don't like being labeled as Catholic, even though that is where they have all come from. Therefore a new name was created.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> So what you're saying is, it's not simply a matter of how the Bible was originally interpreted when these various sects were formed, but moreso the varying oppinions of how to create the doctrines and run the church?
<!--QuoteBegin-Cyndane+Jun 5 2005, 09:49 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Cyndane @ Jun 5 2005, 09:49 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Metalcat, claiming to be christian and practicing christian are two different things. I was referring to the latter.(Practicing christian) <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif' /><!--endemo-->
*edit* <!--QuoteBegin-Metalcats link+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Metalcats link)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <i>Evangelical Lutheran Church - as the established Church of Denmark</i> - shall be supported by the State, and also by provisions on freedom of religion, speech and assembly. State support is partly moral and political (Sunday observance legislation and legislation on church matters), partly financial and administrative (contributions to clergy salaries and pensions, the collection of church taxes, the maintenance of the national church governance by means of a Ministry of Ecclesiastical Affairs and diocesan administration, supervision, advisory services, etc.).
<i>Of religious communities, the established church is by far the largest (encompassing 85.4% of the population in 1998). Alongside the established church various other Christian churches are represented in Denmark and have been accorded the status of officially recognised religious communities. These are (in order of size) the Roman Catholic Church with c. 35,000 members, the Danish Baptist Church with c. 5500 adult members and the </i><b> Pentecostal churches with c. 5000 members;</b> of communities with 3000 members and under mention should be made of the Seventh Day Adventists, the Catholic Apostolic Church, the Reformed Churches in Fredericia and Copenhagen, the Salvation Army, the Methodist Church, the Anglican Church and the Russian Orthodox Church in Copenhagen. In addition, with a rather more distant relationship to Christianity, there are Jehovah's Witnesses with ca. 15,000 members and the Church of Jesus Christ of the Latter-Day Saints (Mormons) with c. 4500 members. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Seems the Lutheran church is the offical church of Denmark... interesting he didn't know that. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> lutheran is what is also called protestants
<!--QuoteBegin-Depot+Jun 5 2005, 02:39 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Depot @ Jun 5 2005, 02:39 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Still ... awaiting ... your ... response, Metalcat. <!--emo&???--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/confused-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='confused-fix.gif' /><!--endemo--> <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> response on what?
that there is a single sunday school in Denmark?
oh the protestant lie thing.. eh wait a second <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif' /><!--endemo-->
going to bed now, 10pm over here will find it tomorrow m'kay?
<!--QuoteBegin-pieceofsoap+Jun 5 2005, 11:19 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (pieceofsoap @ Jun 5 2005, 11:19 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--QuoteBegin-Sky+Jun 5 2005, 10:17 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Sky @ Jun 5 2005, 10:17 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--QuoteBegin-Depot+Jun 5 2005, 11:08 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Depot @ Jun 5 2005, 11:08 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> The Bible is interpreted differently by different religions obviously. This is only one thing that makes each Protestant religion unique. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> I'm sorry, but...isn't this proof that the Bible is not infallible? <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Even I can pop in and say here, that the fact that different people interpret it different ways is more of a reflection of the fallability of people, rather than the fallability of the Book. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> For the record I concur.
that there is a single sunday school in Denmark?<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> <!--QuoteBegin-Metalcat Jun 5 2005+ 10:31 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Metalcat Jun 5 2005 @ 10:31 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> QUOTE (Depot @ Jun 5 2005, 09:17 AM) As noted, adult Sunday Schools are popular amongst the Protestant religion, and not necessarily limited to any particular region as far as I know.
Depot, you sux at protestant
im protestant and never heard about a sunday school, im protestant and everything you ever said about protestants is not true... <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Why do you think I "sux at protestant"?
And please show me where "everything you ever said about protestants is not true..."?
A SINGLE sunday school? I gave you one example, you want more?
<!--QuoteBegin-Metalcat+Jun 5 2005, 03:52 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Metalcat @ Jun 5 2005, 03:52 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> yeye i go to bed now but will find something tomorrow (probaly while your asleep) so you will have to wait <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> NOOOOOooooo....., you simply CAN'T leave us all hanging! I am teh sux at protestant, but WHYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYY? <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif' /><!--endemo-->
<!--QuoteBegin-Soap+Jun 5 2005, 02:43 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Soap @ Jun 5 2005, 02:43 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Even I can pop in and say here, that the fact that different people interpret it different ways is more of a reflection of the fallability of people, rather than the fallability of the Book. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> If it was truly infallible, the bible would account for the infallibility of people, surely? (:
<!--QuoteBegin-Snidely+Jun 5 2005, 03:09 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Snidely @ Jun 5 2005, 03:09 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--QuoteBegin-Soap+Jun 5 2005, 02:43 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Soap @ Jun 5 2005, 02:43 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Even I can pop in and say here, that the fact that different people interpret it different ways is more of a reflection of the fallability of people, rather than the fallability of the Book. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> If it was truly infallible, the bible would account for the infallibility of people, surely? (: <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> Depends on how you see it. I see the Bible as being infallible, yet if you took my interpretation against any of the other Christians here, it would be likely very different. That is because I'm not an infallible being <!--emo&;)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/wink-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='wink-fix.gif' /><!--endemo--> Just because the word is correct also doesn' t mean we are fully able to interpret what God was meaning in every case, that would be highly arrogant to assume.
<!--QuoteBegin-Aegeri+Jun 5 2005, 04:15 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Aegeri @ Jun 5 2005, 04:15 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Just because the word is correct also doesn' t mean we are fully able to interpret what God was meaning in every case, that would be highly arrogant to assume. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> Which supports what I said earlier. I really feel the Bible can be interpreted differently by different people, and different sects of the Protestant religion.
<!--QuoteBegin-Depot+Jun 5 2005, 02:51 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Depot @ Jun 5 2005, 02:51 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> And please show me where "everything you ever said about protestants is not true..."? <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> I think that might actually have been intended to mean 'not everything you said about protestants is true' (MetalCat?).
As an additional note, just in case MetalCat meant what I think was said earlier: IIRC the Lutherians were the original Protestants, but the term has since been expanded to include a fair number of descendent and/or similar denominations. In many cases Protestant will get used to say "Christian but not Catholic".
After 1400-odd years of lingual evolution, a few translations, and a lot of corrupt bureaucracy (*) I rather suspect we can all agree that the only way the literal meaning of the Christian texts could remain constant through the ages would be with ditheistic intervention. A thought exercise that works well is to imagine traveling back in time a few thousand years and trying to explain planet formation and evolution to a local. An omnipotent deity would obviously do a better job with whatever was to be explained, but the game of telephone still requires farther oversight. Of course finding the correct version among the many existing variations is a problem regarding which we are left to our own devices.
*: IIRC, these introduced a few deliberate alterations. The only of which I remember off the top dealt with demons versus witches while trying to shoo out the pagans. Will look for references later if I feel energetic.
(edit: And unfortunately, some folks like to wrap faith around <a href='http://www.fortwayne.com/mld/fortwayne/news/local/11821558.htm' target='_blank'>other agendas</a>, so when people complain about the religious, remember which ones they are actually referring to.)
Alrighty, I am gone for like 30 minutes and this thread just go insane... bah.
1. Christianity has two sects, under which all can be classified. Protestant, and Catholic.
2. Catholics have two sects under them.
a) Eastern Orthodox. 1.)Some Protestant Christian Churches avoid using the term completely. The Orthodox Churches share some of the concerns about Roman Catholic claims, but disagree with Protestants about the nature of the Church as one body. For some, to use the word "Catholic" at all is to appear to give credence to papal claims.
b) Roman Catholic. 1.)It can refer to the members, beliefs and practices of the Roman Catholic Church in all of its more than twenty rites. Most people think of Latin Rite when thinking of the Roman Catholic Church but there are other rites in union with Rome in addition to the Latin Rite.
3. Protestant (Grouping of other sects)
a) Lutheran (first split from Catholism.) 1. For the Lutherans, for example, the Bible is the Holy Scripture... however what rules and regulates their rituals, administration, and the practical way of life is the "Book of Concord" and their many rules and regulations of their synods.
b) Baptist 1.)Baptist churches are part of a Christian movement often regarded as an Evangelical, Protestant denomination. Baptists emphasize a believer's baptism by full immersion, which is performed after a profession of faith in Jesus as Lord and Savior
d) Mormon 1.) They use the Bible as their Holy Scripture, but also the "Book of Mormon", "Doctrines and Covenants", and "The Pearl of Great Price".
e) Methodist 1.)The early Methodists reacted against the apathy of the Church of England, became open-air preachers and established Methodist societies wherever they went. They were notorious for their enthusiastic sermons and often accused of fanaticism. In those days, members of the established church feared that the powerful new doctrines promulgated by the Methodists, such as the necessity to salvation of a New Birth, of Justification by Faith, and of the constant and sustained action of the Holy Spirit upon the believer's soul, would produce ill effects upon weak minds.
Although I find your descriptions relatively accurate, without going into an in depth discussion on each I am more curious why each Protestant sect is so different than the other if they all read from the same Bible. I know we touched base on this earlier, but I'd like a better reason to dispell my Biblical interpretation theory.
Comments
I'm sorry, but...isn't this proof that the Bible is not infallible? <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
No, I think not. I don't see the corelation.
Depot, you sux at protestant!
Its sunday morning, GTFO forums, you shouldnt be here right now!
Egads, what would Cyndane think of this behavior!?
[/OFFTOPIC]
Depot, you sux at protestant!
Its sunday morning, GTFO forums, you shouldnt be here right now!
Egads, what would Cyndane think of this behavior!?
[/OFFTOPIC] <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
<!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif' /><!--endemo--> Lollerz soap. Blame it on the Hemp Festival.
*edit* Code did not work as I thought it would. Lets try quotes.
Here is a very comprehensive breakdown of Christianity's sects.
I am going to put this in code to make it easier to read.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->
Main Unit: Christianity
Sub-Groups:
<b>Adventist Family Adventist groups</b>: Jehovah's Witnesses, and British Israelism
Baptist Family Southern Baptists, American Baptists, etc.
<b>Christian Science-Metaphysical Family</b>: Christian Science, New Thought
Communal Family The Jesus People, Twin Oaks, etc.
<b>Eastern Orthodox Family Various Orthodox churches</b>: Russian, Greek, Serbian, etc.
<b>European Free-Church Family</b>: Amish, Brethren, Mennonites, Quakers, Shakers, others
Holiness Family Christian and Missionary Alliance, Church of the Nazarene, etc.
Independent Fundamentalist Family Plymouth Brethren, Fundamentalists, etc.
Latter-day Saints Family Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, The community of Christ
Lutheran Family Evangelical Lutheran Church in America, Lutheran church - Missouri Synod, etc.
Messianic Judaism Jews For Jesus, and other similar groups
Pentecostal Family Assemblies of God, Church of God (Cleveland, TN)
Pietist-Methodist Family Scandinavian Pietism, United Methodist Church, other Methodists
Reformed-Presbyterian Family Reformed, various Presbyterian churches, Congregational, United Church of Christ
Western Liturgical Family Roman Catholicism, including the Latin Rite and the Eastern Rite Churches: (Armenian 5 Catholic Church, Chaldean C.C., Coptic C.C., Marionite C.C., Melkite C.C., Syrian C.C.); Old Catholicism; Ukranian Catholic Church, Anglican Communion
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Those are the main sects of christianity and pretty much everyone that claims to be christian can fall under one of those churches or demnomiations, whichever you prefer to call it.
Depot, I would also like to point out, that the portion you quoted refers to the Lutheran church of Demark, which is the offical church of denmark. While I do not doubt that the Protestant form may have something similar obviously MetalCat is not aware of what they would call it.
<!--QuoteBegin-m-w+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (m-w)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->
Religion:
1 a : the state of a religious <a nun in her 20th year of religion> b (1) : the service and worship of God or the supernatural (2) : commitment or devotion to religious faith or observance
3 archaic : scrupulous conformity : CONSCIENTIOUSNESS
4 : a cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<!--QuoteBegin-m-w+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (m-w)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->
Sect:
1 a : a dissenting or schismatic religious body; especially : one regarded as extreme or heretical b : a religious denomination
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Using those definitions, one can see that while there are minor differences (Read: How liberal and conservative sects are on issues) there is not enough to make them seperate entities, which is why almost anyone of any other christianity sect, can go to any other sects church and still feel comfortable to an extent.
I'm sorry, but...isn't this proof that the Bible is not infallible? <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
No, I think not. I don't see the corelation. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Simple: how can you say the original meaning is still there if it's been interpreted a number of different ways, and that's just in the Protestant sects. How many times do you think it's been translated, edited, and interpreted in the 1500-2000 years since the different books of the Bible were written?
And, if the original meaning is gone, what sense does it make to apply the Bible at face value to everyday life, just because it's the Bible? Doesn't that imply that the Bible is infallible?
I'm sorry, but...isn't this proof that the Bible is not infallible? <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
No, I think not. I don't see the corelation. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Simple: how can you say the original meaning is still there if it's been interpreted a number of different ways, and that's just in the Protestant sects. How many times do you think it's been translated, edited, and interpreted in the 1500-2000 years since the different books of the Bible were written?
And, if the original meaning is gone, what sense does it make to apply the Bible at face value to everyday life, just because it's the Bible? Doesn't that imply that the Bible is infallible?<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
How about you giving us <b>YOUR</b> interpretation of how and why the various sects were created, and why their doctrines and teachings are different, albeit only slightly in some cases.
All I said was, it's my oppinion these various sects were created because of different interpretations of the same book. It's a large book, and any 2 people who read it could interpret certain scriputure in different ways. <!--emo&;)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/wink-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='wink-fix.gif' /><!--endemo-->
I'm sorry, but...isn't this proof that the Bible is not infallible? <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
No, I think not. I don't see the corelation. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Simple: how can you say the original meaning is still there if it's been interpreted a number of different ways, and that's just in the Protestant sects. How many times do you think it's been translated, edited, and interpreted in the 1500-2000 years since the different books of the Bible were written?
And, if the original meaning is gone, what sense does it make to apply the Bible at face value to everyday life, just because it's the Bible? Doesn't that imply that the Bible is infallible?<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
How about you giving us <b>YOUR</b> interpretation of how and why the various sects were created, and why their doctrines and teachings are different, albeit only slightly in some cases.
All I said was, it's my oppinion these various sects were created because of different interpretations of the same book. It's a large book, and any 2 people who read it could interpret certain scriputure in different ways. <!--emo&;)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/wink-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='wink-fix.gif' /><!--endemo--> <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
You're missing the point. If two people interpret the Bible differently, how can both claim it to be infallible, when one's literal application of the Bible to a given situation might be different from the other's? The Bible might be "infallible" to both of them, but to an outside observer it's contradictory.
I'm sorry, but...isn't this proof that the Bible is not infallible? <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
No, I think not. I don't see the corelation. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Simple: how can you say the original meaning is still there if it's been interpreted a number of different ways, and that's just in the Protestant sects. How many times do you think it's been translated, edited, and interpreted in the 1500-2000 years since the different books of the Bible were written?
And, if the original meaning is gone, what sense does it make to apply the Bible at face value to everyday life, just because it's the Bible? Doesn't that imply that the Bible is infallible?<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
How about you giving us <b>YOUR</b> interpretation of how and why the various sects were created, and why their doctrines and teachings are different, albeit only slightly in some cases.
All I said was, it's my oppinion these various sects were created because of different interpretations of the same book. It's a large book, and any 2 people who read it could interpret certain scriputure in different ways. <!--emo&;)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/wink-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='wink-fix.gif' /><!--endemo--> <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
You're missing the point. If two people interpret the Bible differently, how can both claim it to be infallible, when one's literal application of the Bible to a given situation might be different from the other's? The Bible might be "infallible" to both of them, but to an outside observer it's contradictory. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
You're dodging the issue of debate here. Answer the question please.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->How about you giving us YOUR interpretation of how and why the various sects were created, and why their doctrines and teachings are different, albeit only slightly in some cases.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I'm sorry, but...isn't this proof that the Bible is not infallible? <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
No, I think not. I don't see the corelation. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Simple: how can you say the original meaning is still there if it's been interpreted a number of different ways, and that's just in the Protestant sects. How many times do you think it's been translated, edited, and interpreted in the 1500-2000 years since the different books of the Bible were written?
And, if the original meaning is gone, what sense does it make to apply the Bible at face value to everyday life, just because it's the Bible? Doesn't that imply that the Bible is infallible?<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
How about you giving us <b>YOUR</b> interpretation of how and why the various sects were created, and why their doctrines and teachings are different, albeit only slightly in some cases.
All I said was, it's my oppinion these various sects were created because of different interpretations of the same book. It's a large book, and any 2 people who read it could interpret certain scriputure in different ways. <!--emo&;)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/wink-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='wink-fix.gif' /><!--endemo--> <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
You're missing the point. If two people interpret the Bible differently, how can both claim it to be infallible, when one's literal application of the Bible to a given situation might be different from the other's? The Bible might be "infallible" to both of them, but to an outside observer it's contradictory. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
You're dodging the issue of debate here. Answer the question please.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->How about you giving us YOUR interpretation of how and why the various sects were created, and why their doctrines and teachings are different, albeit only slightly in some cases.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
Considering <u>I</u> was the one who first asked you the question "How is the Bible infallible if there are multiple interpretations," I'd say <u>you're</u> dodging the discussion. <!--emo&;)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/wink-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='wink-fix.gif' /><!--endemo-->
I already told you I don't see the corelation. We were discussing another issue altogether.
Possibly because SHE started the issue of sects and such, while I had nothing to do with that. Go back and check my posts. Now, if you would be so kind as to answer my quesiton.
2. People in general can never decide on one thing to be good for everyone. Since everyone has their opinions they feel obligated to share them even if they are not wanted and even if they are quite obviously flawed.
3. Christianity has borrowed from so many other socialogical factors, it makes it hard to decipher who really has the right of it.
4. Some people don't like being labeled as Catholic, even though that is where they have all come from. Therefore a new name was created.
To date Cyndane alone has given a reasonable explanation to this.
2. People in general can never decide on one thing to be good for everyone. Since everyone has their opinions they feel obligated to share them even if they are not wanted and even if they are quite obviously flawed.
3. Christianity has borrowed from so many other socialogical factors, it makes it hard to decipher who really has the right of it.
4. Some people don't like being labeled as Catholic, even though that is where they have all come from. Therefore a new name was created.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
So what you're saying is, it's not simply a matter of how the Bible was originally interpreted when these various sects were formed, but moreso the varying oppinions of how to create the doctrines and run the church?
*edit*
Correct depot.
*edit*
<!--QuoteBegin-Metalcats link+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Metalcats link)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->
<i>Evangelical Lutheran Church - as the established Church of Denmark</i> - shall be supported by the State, and also by provisions on freedom of religion, speech and assembly. State support is partly moral and political (Sunday observance legislation and legislation on church matters), partly financial and administrative (contributions to clergy salaries and pensions, the collection of church taxes, the maintenance of the national church governance by means of a Ministry of Ecclesiastical Affairs and diocesan administration, supervision, advisory services, etc.).
<i>Of religious communities, the established church is by far the largest (encompassing 85.4% of the population in 1998). Alongside the established church various other Christian churches are represented in Denmark and have been accorded the status of officially recognised religious communities. These are (in order of size) the Roman Catholic Church with c. 35,000 members, the Danish Baptist Church with c. 5500 adult members and the </i><b> Pentecostal churches with c. 5000 members;</b> of communities with 3000 members and under mention should be made of the Seventh Day Adventists, the Catholic Apostolic Church, the Reformed Churches in Fredericia and Copenhagen, the Salvation Army, the Methodist Church, the Anglican Church and the Russian Orthodox Church in Copenhagen. In addition, with a rather more distant relationship to Christianity, there are Jehovah's Witnesses with ca. 15,000 members and the Church of Jesus Christ of the Latter-Day Saints (Mormons) with c. 4500 members.
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Seems the Lutheran church is the offical church of Denmark... interesting he didn't know that. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
lutheran is what is also called protestants
response on what?
that there is a single sunday school in Denmark?
oh the protestant lie thing.. eh wait a second <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif' /><!--endemo-->
going to bed now, 10pm over here will find it tomorrow m'kay?
I'm sorry, but...isn't this proof that the Bible is not infallible? <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Even I can pop in and say here, that the fact that different people interpret it different ways is more of a reflection of the fallability of people, rather than the fallability of the Book. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
For the record I concur.
response on what?
that there is a single sunday school in Denmark?<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<!--QuoteBegin-Metalcat Jun 5 2005+ 10:31 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Metalcat Jun 5 2005 @ 10:31 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->
QUOTE (Depot @ Jun 5 2005, 09:17 AM)
As noted, adult Sunday Schools are popular amongst the Protestant religion, and not necessarily limited to any particular region as far as I know.
Depot, you sux at protestant
im protestant and never heard about a sunday school, im protestant and everything you ever said about protestants is not true... <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Why do you think I "sux at protestant"?
And please show me where "everything you ever said about protestants is not true..."?
A SINGLE sunday school? I gave you one example, you want more?
NOOOOOooooo....., you simply CAN'T leave us all hanging! I am teh sux at protestant, but WHYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYY? <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif' /><!--endemo-->
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
If it was truly infallible, the bible would account for the infallibility of people, surely? (:
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
If it was truly infallible, the bible would account for the infallibility of people, surely? (: <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
Depends on how you see it. I see the Bible as being infallible, yet if you took my interpretation against any of the other Christians here, it would be likely very different. That is because I'm not an infallible being <!--emo&;)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/wink-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='wink-fix.gif' /><!--endemo--> Just because the word is correct also doesn' t mean we are fully able to interpret what God was meaning in every case, that would be highly arrogant to assume.
Which supports what I said earlier. I really feel the Bible can be interpreted differently by different people, and different sects of the Protestant religion.
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I think that might actually have been intended to mean 'not everything you said about protestants is true' (MetalCat?).
As an additional note, just in case MetalCat meant what I think was said earlier: IIRC the Lutherians were the original Protestants, but the term has since been expanded to include a fair number of descendent and/or similar denominations. In many cases Protestant will get used to say "Christian but not Catholic".
After 1400-odd years of lingual evolution, a few translations, and a lot of corrupt bureaucracy (*) I rather suspect we can all agree that the only way the literal meaning of the Christian texts could remain constant through the ages would be with ditheistic intervention. A thought exercise that works well is to imagine traveling back in time a few thousand years and trying to explain planet formation and evolution to a local. An omnipotent deity would obviously do a better job with whatever was to be explained, but the game of telephone still requires farther oversight. Of course finding the correct version among the many existing variations is a problem regarding which we are left to our own devices.
*: IIRC, these introduced a few deliberate alterations. The only of which I remember off the top dealt with demons versus witches while trying to shoo out the pagans. Will look for references later if I feel energetic.
(edit: And unfortunately, some folks like to wrap faith around <a href='http://www.fortwayne.com/mld/fortwayne/news/local/11821558.htm' target='_blank'>other agendas</a>, so when people complain about the religious, remember which ones they are actually referring to.)
1. Christianity has two sects, under which all can be classified. Protestant, and Catholic.
2. Catholics have two sects under them.
a) Eastern Orthodox.
1.)Some Protestant Christian Churches avoid using the term completely. The Orthodox Churches share some of the concerns about Roman Catholic claims, but disagree with Protestants about the nature of the Church as one body. For some, to use the word "Catholic" at all is to appear to give credence to papal claims.
b) Roman Catholic.
1.)It can refer to the members, beliefs and practices of the Roman Catholic Church in all of its more than twenty rites. Most people think of Latin Rite when thinking of the Roman Catholic Church but there are other rites in union with Rome in addition to the Latin Rite.
3. Protestant (Grouping of other sects)
a) Lutheran (first split from Catholism.)
1. For the Lutherans, for example, the Bible is the Holy Scripture... however what rules and regulates their rituals, administration, and the practical way of life is the "Book of Concord" and their many rules and regulations of their synods.
b) Baptist
1.)Baptist churches are part of a Christian movement often regarded as an Evangelical, Protestant denomination. Baptists emphasize a believer's baptism by full immersion, which is performed after a profession of faith in Jesus as Lord and Savior
d) Mormon
1.) They use the Bible as their Holy Scripture, but also the "Book of Mormon", "Doctrines and Covenants", and "The Pearl of Great Price".
e) Methodist
1.)The early Methodists reacted against the apathy of the Church of England, became open-air preachers and established Methodist societies wherever they went. They were notorious for their enthusiastic sermons and often accused of fanaticism. In those days, members of the established church feared that the powerful new doctrines promulgated by the Methodists, such as the necessity to salvation of a New Birth, of Justification by Faith, and of the constant and sustained action of the Holy Spirit upon the believer's soul, would produce ill effects upon weak minds.
Any questions?