I’ve noticed that too. Sometimes I think it would be fun to invent a denomination, you know, just for kicks. I wouldn’t actually promote or believe in it though, it would just be weekend project. Or perhaps I could write my own Gospel …
Perhaps, Manny , you might want to expand on what you mean by Protestantism.
!Then why the need to start entire new churches?
Frankly, I have noticed this phenomenon regarding some of my non-Catholic Christian friends. Although not all Protestant faiths promote such relativism as JonNC pointed out.
Why do you call it a “need”?
I disagree somewhat. If this were relativism i.e. “that’s true for you but not for me”, the differing truths would be treated with tolerate or acceptance under the same roof, not the desire to create another church. In this example, the protestant church goer feels so strongly that he must leave because it violates his interpretation of Truth from Scripture. In my opinion, if this were true relativism, then both versions of the Truth would be accepted under the same roof, not needing to be separated.
But I think the differing “truths” are, indeed, tolerated under the same roof which is called Protestantism.
This comment is hypocritical. It is funny how catholics can accuse protestants of holding “differing truths” and yet when catholics are shown to also hold a whole host of differing views on various issues of theology, their excuse is, "Well, this is permitted because there is no ‘official’ statement from our church on those particular topics . . . "
I agree.
how can the Bible be authoritative? if one protestant denomination interprets it one way, and another protestant denomination interprets it another way, how does the Bible say who’s right or wrong?This comment is hypocritical. It is funny how catholics can accuse protestants of holding “differing truths” and yet when catholics are shown to also hold a whole host of differing views on various issues of theology, their excuse is, "Well, this is permitted because there is no ‘official’ statement from our church on those particular topics . . . "
Oh, that expains it!
So then, I guess, until their church leaders finally make up their minds as to whether a thing should be regarded as truth or not, all catholics are encouraged to simply tolerate one another in their differing truths. Sounds like relativism to me . . .
I agree.
But just so you know, Protestants do have an authoritative external standard of truth, and that is the Holy Bible, the same standard of truth upon which the Christian Church has stood for the last 2000 years.
My only question is this:
What does your infallible teaching magesterium actually accomplish for you in the final analysis? At the end of the day, you still have to interpret your magesterium, and the last time I checked, not all catholics can agree as to what the “offical” statements of your church actually mean.
The truth is, your interpretation process is only one step removed from ours, and therefore, it is in no way safe-guarded from the “subjective judgment” of which you so condemningly speak.
Why does this matter? Why do humans need to establish a hierarchy of correctness with their religions?
Just because one believes in relativism doesn’t mean there aren’t absolute truths. Murder is bad, Theft is bad, etc etc. moral relativism doesn’t mean that anything is free to go, it relies on experience and reason to determine what is beyond those absolutes. Allowances must be made, the world and truth is not black and white. Even the Catholic Church concedes some relativistic ideas. Salvation can be found outside of the RCC, Communion to non Catholics can be given in some circumstances, allowances are made. Mercy is an important part of Christianity that could perhaps use a little resurgence. Is it more difficult to make some determinations yourself? Absolutely, but then again whats the point of a mind if God forbids its use?