No Denominations?

[CopticChristian]

This is good advice. The Hebrews definition, modified to specifically refer to objects of religion, would make a better definition.

“Now faith is the assurance of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen, insofar as these are religious things.”

After all, I believe atoms exist, and would not call this faith, and I also hope that Dundee United wins the cup, and this is also not faith.

Most people in two of the four church communities I am part of (Church of Scotland and Scottish Episcopal) do not think the Bible is inerrant. The University group (non-denominational) is split, probably 50/50 (although I haven’t done any statistics). The Catholic community strongly supports inerrancy (although not universally; quite a few of the Catholics there don’t accept it).

Why would inerrancy be important for going to Church? Why would Trent be important for going to Mass?

I go to Church on Sunday because of the community, because of the preaching, because of the singing, and because prayer, especially community prayer, helps me come intellectually and emotionally closer to relationship with God. Also, I want to serve others, and the Church helps in this.

I attend the Mass because it is a beautiful and unique ancient expression of the Christian faith, and because of the friends I have who also attend, that we can enjoy attending together.

Brandon,

I sense you are a person of integrity and appear to be investigating thoughts honestly. I would find it difficult to attend any service that I could not accept as honest. In other words since I do not believe that the Book of Mormon is Scripture and that Joseph Smith is not a prophet, as much as I like the Mormon people, I could never attend a Mormon service.

Integrity, honesty, mean different things to different to different people. I would imagine that denying the Eucharist for me would cause me not to attend any service where this is believed, to be true to myself.

I suggest you discount what any particular Catholic believes as it concerns the Bible and look to what the Church teaches…dissent does not equate with what is to be believed to be true…I suggest you not get your strength of beliefs from dissenters, rather from the disseminator of beliefs that provides those beliefs rather than those that choose to dissent. How can any sense of understanding be made from gathering information from dissenters? Gather the information, weigh it, consider it, accept it, reject it and then if you choose to dissent you know why you dissent rather than joining in with dissenters that have different reasons for dissenters. You should have your own reasons for dissent or you are no better than a lemming.

thank you

 

[mackbrislawn]

Why not simply live with the uncertainty?

Actually, we do live with a huge amount of uncertainty. That is, in Catholicism there is a large latitude for personal opinion. Only on a few items have there been dogmatic announcements. It is just when a matter comes to a head is there a need for dogma.

For instance, prior to the Jerusalem council, the opinion that Gentiles needed to be circumcised was a valid opinion. But after the Jerusalem council, it was not.

 

[melekali]

There’s a concept I’ve been thinking about, called post-denominational Christianity. First, some definitions:

Denominational Christianity: Here I mean any Christian communion that has a history, a creed and a defining character (it is in some way exclusive). Even groups that may not be denominations under the standard definition, such as Orthodox or Catholics, qualify as part of denominational Christianity under this definition.

Non-denominational Christianity: This was an effort to break away from any denominations and to found a Christian community that did not have any defining character or creed. Very quickly it developed a character and creed. After a couple decades, it also developed a unique history, and therefore itself became a denomination.

Post-denominational Christianity: This is a meta-group within Christianity. Different denominational Christians can be post-denominational. Post-denominational Christianity will not become a denomination, because it will be open to all denominational forms of Christianity, and indeed all groups that identify as Christian. Any worship or doctrinal choice will be a matter of taste, or even a matter of believing that one form of worship or element of doctrine is true or right, while remaining open to the possibility of being wrong. To keep from having a centralised character, post- denominational Christians will worship within multiple denominations; it may be helpful for its diversity that post-denominational Christians attend a different denomination each time they move, or that they go to multiple different churches on Sunday or through the week. The only denominational element post-denominational Christianity will come to have is a historical character.

I am a post-denominational Christian. I worship during the week with a group at my university (non-denominational), p ray the morning prayer at a Scottish Episcopalian Church, and attend contemporary Presbyterian worship on Sundays (while twice a month going to Catholic Mass on Saturday evening). I have made meaningful connections within these communities, and am starting to build bridges.

What do you think of this sort of movement? Does anyone here identify with post-denominational Christianity? What problems do you see with it? What would you think about a post-denominational Christian attending Mass?

A more provocative question… what do you think about opening communion to post-denominational Christians?

Here’s a differentiation I have made between denomination & communion that may be helpful…

I refer to Protestant Churches as denominations but not the Catholic Church because by its very nature the Catholic Church contains many Churches with varied traditions and practices that are in communion. This is why it is more accurate to call the Catholic Church a communion, not a denomination. The difference is made clearer in examining the definitions of key words: denomination - “a sect,” sect - “a faction united by common interests or beliefs”and communion - from the Latin “*mutual participation” *(Dictionary.com, denomination, sect and communion, respectively). This can be seen in history when referring to splinter groups such as the Waldensians, Anabaptists, or any other group that breaks away from the whole.

 

[grandfather]

That’s why I like to say that, in science, there are no authorities. Only experts.

This is a great question. Every religion has groups that approach religion differently. There are conservative, reformed and orthodox Jews, Shia and Sunni Muslims, different schools of Buddhism, etc. There are thousands of Christian denominations.

The reason this developed, the root of it is found in Luther’s doctrine sola scriptura. It was inevitable. It unleashed the chaos. If you believe that doctrine it can only lead to where we are, where you are, knowing nothing for certain.

If God did give teaching authority to His Church and promised to protect her doctrine in truth until the end of time as Jesus promised in scripture then you have a guarantee, a divine promise that the knowledge you have about spiritual matters is true.

There is no comparison between religion and how the natural sciences are approached.

 

[Brandon_Rimmer_1]

Actually, we do live with a huge amount of uncertainty. That is, in Catholicism there is a large latitude for personal opinion. Only on a few items have there been dogmatic announcements. It is just when a matter comes to a head is there a need for dogma.

And even with dogma there is uncertainty. Why trust the dogma?

For instance, prior to the Jerusalem council, the opinion that Gentiles needed to be circumcised was a valid opinion. But after the Jerusalem council, it was not.

And yet, there can still be doubt about this, even if it has been decided. Even the most basic ideas of Christianity, the “crux of orthodoxy” (death and resurrection) are not certainties, even if people use the word. And Ratzinger, to his credit, acknowledges it. He says that there is no way to escape the uncertainty, but that faith involves, to good measure, living as though these things are true. I’ll get a quote from the Intro to Christianity on this.

 

[mackbrislawn]

Brandon Rimmer;9275707]

And even with dogma there is uncertainty. Why trust the dogma?

Yes, why trust the dogma? Because that is something an individual has already decided to do–trust the source of the dogma. Why the individual has decided to trust that source is an entirely different and deeper question.

And yet, there can still be doubt about this, even if it has been decided. Even the most basic ideas of Christianity, the “crux of orthodoxy” (death and resurrection) are not certainties, even if people use the word. And Ratzinger, to his credit, acknowledges it. He says that there is no way to escape the uncertainty, but that faith involves, to good measure, living as though these things are true. I’ll get a quote from the Intro to Christianity on this.

Ratzinger is right. And here he is refering to that entirely different and deeper question.

You’re asking the underlying philosophical question about what is it that we can really know? Some will answer the question with, not much.

 

[Brandon_Rimmer_1]

You’re asking the underlying philosophical question about what is it that we can really know? Some will answer the question with, not much.

Those ‘some people’ would include me.

 

[grandfather]

Brandon,

If someone asked me how to define faith the last thing I could possibly come up with is the word intuition, or religious intuition.

People use the same word, but have very different meanings for the word. We are talking about different things.

Regarding certainty, I suspect you would agree that if God exists and He created everything that is, were to reveal information about religion, spiritual things, you would say that we could know with certainty that it is true.

Your uncertainty comes from asking, how can we be certain that God revealed XYZ? How can we believe those who claim authority to speak for God? There are so many people with such diverse doctrine, maybe none of them have the story straight.

Would you say that this fairly represents your position?

 

[grandfather]

Brandon,

If someone asked me how to define faith the last thing I could possibly come up with is the word intuition, or religious intuition.

People use the same word, but have very different meanings for the word. We are talking about different things.

Regarding certainty, I suspect you would agree that if God exists and He created everything that is, were to reveal information about religion, spiritual things, you would say that we could know with certainty that it is true.

Your uncertainty comes from asking, how can we be certain that God revealed XYZ? How can we believe those who claim authority to speak for God? There are so many people with such diverse doctrine, maybe none of them have the story straight.

Would you say that this fairly represents your position?

 

[Brandon_Rimmer_1]

Brandon,

If someone asked me how to define faith the last thing I could possibly come up with is the word intuition, or religious intuition.

Interesting! I noticed this from another poster as well, and have revised my definition to better match with Hebrews, at least when I’m talking with other religious people. When I’m talking with people I meet in my department, typically non-religious, describing faith as an intuition helps them understand better what it is. But it is decidedly unhelpful in these conversations.

So my ‘definition of faith for the religious’ is: ‘faith: The assurance of religious things hoped for, the conviction of religious things not seen.’

People use the same word, but have very different meanings for the word. We are talking about different things.

Regarding certainty, I suspect you would agree that if God exists and He created everything that is, were to reveal information about religion, spiritual things, you would say that we could know with certainty that it is true.

I would not say this. The only way God could accomplish this is by placing within us some sort of a priori knowledge of his existence that is basic enough and easy enough to explore that it cannot be doubted. We would know things about God like we know that 1+1=2. If he has done this for some people, he has not done this for me.

Any other form of revelation that I can imagine cannot be certainly known. I may believe (and do believe) that God has revealed himself both in the life of Christ and in the words of the Gospels, but I cannot be certain that these sources are really his revelation. There are good reasons to accept these sources, but the reasons alone are human reasons, and may be wrong.

Your uncertainty comes from asking, how can we be certain that God revealed XYZ? How can we believe those who claim authority to speak for God? There are so many people with such diverse doctrine, maybe none of them have the story straight.

Would you say that this fairly represents your position?

Yes.

 

[mackbrislawn]

Those ‘some people’ would include me.

Some mystical persons will claim that God directly gives them knowledge. Sort of zaps it into them. I guess in that case, they “know.” Now, as for the rest of us, do we go and sit at their feet, or should we regard them as mentally ill?

 

[Brandon_Rimmer_1]

Some mystical persons will claim that God directly gives them knowledge. Sort of zaps it into them. I guess in that case, they “know.” Now, as for the rest of us, do we go and sit at their feet, or should we regard them as mentally ill?

I think it should be on a case-by-case basis, based on our reasons for believing what they say. I’ve never met someone who I think has any direct knowledge of God, though many people have claimed this.

But there are mystics in the past: Therese of Avila, Julian of Norwich, Dietrich Bonhoeffer and some of the spiritual masters in the Philokalia. These seem to have had some real interaction with the divine. Though I appreciate their experiences, I do not understand what they say most of the time, and it seems difficult for them to translate their knowledge. Also, there is no guarantee that their experiences are real.

 

[grandfather]

People use the same word, but have very different meanings for the word. We are talking about different things.

 

[grandfather]

Some mystical persons will claim that God directly gives them knowledge. Sort of zaps it into them. I guess in that case, they “know.” Now, as for the rest of us, do we go and sit at their feet, or should we regard them as mentally ill?

Catholicism calls this private revelation and says it is unreliable. We know what we know in faith with certainty through public revelation.

 

[grandfather]

Brandon,

I want to state your position on certain knowledge in religion, but replace religion with math.

There is a very complicated and difficult math problem. Thirty accomplished students of mathematics set out to find the answer. All thirty work through the problem using their intellectual knowledge and best efforts. They come up with 30 different anwers.

The conclusion proven by this exercise is there is no right answer knowable with certainty and we know this to be true by intuition.

Logic says
The problem may be unsolvable.
One of the thirty answers may be correct and the other 29 are mistaken.
One of the answers may be correct, but we can never know for certain.
One may be correct and we can know it with certainty.
None of the answers are correct.
All of them have some basic correctness and should be appreciated for their common principles…
We should try to subscribe to all the answers as containing some correctness.

Since we intuit that if there may of may not be a correct answer in the bunch, but probably not, we should give up on solving the math problem and finding the correct answer. There are too many claims to the right answer to ever unravel the mess created by self-proclaimed answer men.

 

[Daniel1Catholic]

Christ taught us to be one. To be of one body, to be of one mind, to be one in belief: “so in Christ we who are many form one body, and each member belongs to all the others.” Romans 12. Also: “complete my joy by being of the same mind, having the same love, being in full accord and of one mind.” Philippians 2. If by joining this “church” as you claim, we intentionally regect the notion to be one. We reject it because within this denomination that you claim, we all have our different beliefs. We must remember that Christ established a church. That church is the Catholic church. He established a Pope.:" And I tell you that you are Peter (Rock) and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell will not overcome it." Mathew 18. Are we not to believe our lord? How can we “re-establish” a different church in his name? If this is true, why not have a “Non-Religious Religion” where a Hindu can be part, as can a Christian, as can a Jew? No, he states that “I tell you the truth, no one can enter the kingdom of God unless he is born of water and the Spirit.” John 3. We have our own beliefs on matters of salvation, and although your idea sounds good for ecumenical purposes, it ultamitly denys belief in Christ and his teachings as lord and savior, and the need of salvation through the church to Christ.

PAX

 

[Brandon_Rimmer_1]

I will tell you about a documented modern miracle. Assume the story is true. There is abundant evidence to support it. A man was born blind. He only had whites in his eyes, no pupils, or iris. He lived this way into adulthood. There are photos of him and his eyes. The famous saint and mystic Padre Pio prayed for him and he received sight. He was examined by physicians who said he had 20-20 vision. His eyes by appearance did not change from the way he was born.

Assume this is true. Would you say this provides some certain evidence that a miracle happened?

No, I do not think so. I’m assuming this is true, but I’m also assuming that the person in question does not know this with certainty. Maybe he witnessed the miracle himself. How would he know it is really a miracle?

Other explanations include:

1. 
   *]Aliens
   *]Unknown biological recovery
   *]Satanic influence
   *]An elaborate hoax (the ‘blind’ man was in on it)
   
   Now, I do think that miracles have happened, although I think miracles can be explored and even understood scientifically. I do not see how I can be certain of it, but I think that miracles have happened. If I were to witness a miracle, I’d be even more confident, but not absolutely certain.
   

   You can intellectually compare the claims of the various contradicting theologies using logic to find inconsitencies. This can be done by the power of reason.

   I agree. This can be done. But the power of reason is fallible, and therefore the results we get are also fallible.
   
   I have performed this very exercise, and have developed a theology that I think is most accurate.

 

[PRmerger]

I agree. This can be done. But the power of reason is fallible, and therefore the results we get are also fallible.

Indeed, the power of reason is fallible.

But the central tenet of Christianity is that we are in a love affair with Our God.

In love affairs there is no such thing as certainty.

There is no such thing as knowing something infallibly.

There is no such thing as using reason alone to discern whether one is in love and ought to pursue a relationship (or religare–from whence comes the word “religion”).

 

[Brandon_Rimmer_1]

Indeed, the power of reason is fallible.

But the central tenet of Christianity is that we are in a love affair with Our God.

In love affairs there is no such thing as certainty.

There is no such thing as knowing something infallibly.

There is no such thing as using reason alone to discern whether one is in love and ought to pursue a relationship (or religare–from whence comes the word “religion”).

Amen! It is because of this faith that I chose to enter into relationship with Christ.

This is why I am Christian. Well said!

 

[PRmerger]

Amen! It is because of this faith that I chose to enter into relationship with Christ.

This is why I am Christian. Well said!

Excellent. And in order to have a relationship with Christ one needs religare, that is, religion.

And, the ONLY way you know anything about Christ is because a religion told you about him.

(Unless you want to claim that you are a mystic, or receiving private revelation. And if so, I won’t go there with you. )