Non-denoms ?? oxymoron??

[GregoryPalamas]

Cat,

I didn’t know I was trying to woo people through dishonesty. Nevertheless, I’ve said all I wished to say on this thread. So, I’ll stop.

CDL

 

[truthnlight]

Isn’t non-denomination a denomination ?:newidea:

 

[Syele]

Isn’t non-denomination a denomination ?:newidea:

did you read the thread? People who call themselves non-denominational use the definition of the word that requires a denomination to have a centralized authority.They have none.

 

[Contarini]

Setting aside for a moment the notion that schism is justified because you say it is, let us understand what exactly you believe a “non-denomination” is.

CDL

There is no such thing as a “non-denomination.” A non-denominational church (i.e., local congregation) is a church that does not answer to any kind of authority above the local level, though it may participate in purely voluntary cooperative endeavors with other churches.

This is not an oxymoron. It’s a perfectly clear, intelligible concept. Sure, it can get fuzzy round the edges–just when do cooperative activities become denominational authority–but the same is true of any definition of anything.

I know that you used to be part of perhaps the most denominational of denominations (the UMC). . . . (I say this because the UMC exercises a good deal of authority over local congregations without claiming any transcendent spiritual authority to do so–this is characteristic of denominationalism as defined by scholars of American religion.)

Edwin

 

[Romulus]

I beg to differ… Quote:

Pretty much after saying we were a cult he then compared us to the likes of David Koresh. It is there in black and white…

And while I am at it can we stop using the word ‘oxymoron’ sometimes I think that people are repeating it over and over because they want to use the backdoor aproach to calling us morons. I know what it means but this, in writing, is how it looks.

Hi Singingbeauty, seriously its not my intention to call ppl morons here. By the way, you believe a denomination is a “sect of Christianity”. You mentioned in a previous post that you’ll get back with us on the definition of denomination. Would you care to share your findings? Syele brought up some interesting points on the origin of the word Denomination…I’m looking further into it.

peace be with you

 

[JoeyWarren]

Singing Beauty said:I beg to differ… Quote:

I said:
They all have gone off on their own, just like David Koresh group.

Singing Beauty said: Pretty much after saying we were a cult he then compared us to the likes of David Koresh. It is there in black and white…

Let me hi-lite the stress.

They all have gone off on their own, just like David Koresh group.

No where have I claimed equality. What I have claimed is a going off on their own to be a separate entity. This is what David Koresh and his group did. They went off on their own.

---

I did not say they all became like David Koresh types, did I?

---

Now a few have become just like the David Koresh group.

 

[GregoryPalamas]

Let me hi-lite the stress.

They all have gone off on their own, just like David Koresh group.

No where have I claimed equality. What I have claimed is a going off on their own to be a separate entity. This is what David Koresh and his group did. They went off on their own.

I did not say they all became like David Koresh types, did I?

Now a few have become just like the David Koresh group.

Joey,

I imagine they all understood. Sometimes people just like to push buttons. I don’t know why that is but I’ve seen it very often. In the sense you mean it clearly non-denominatinals have gone off on their own. So did Koresh. It’s a good capitalistic move and it is schism.

CDL

 

[jfallaw]

I’ve read through this whole thread.

A few comments.

1. Someone made critical comments about a non-denom church selling books, CDs, etc. The Catholic parish where I play piano has maintained a bookstore for years, and sells books, cards, etc. And I’ve visited other Catholic churches that have some kind of bookstore or sales rack. My home parish sells “The Word Among Us” in the narthex (actually, it’s free, but they ask for a donation of one dollar if you can afford it). Also, my parish allows the Boy Scouts to sell Christmas wreaths between Masses.

So it’s not just a “Protestant thing” to buy and sell in the Church.

That was me. I know that Catholic churches sell things. My church has a bookstore, too, but not in the church. It is in another building. The fact is that the church I was speaking of sells stuff right there in the foyer, and Jesus said not to buy and sell in the church. If a Catholic church is selling stuff in the sanctuary, then they too are breaking that command, and I don’t think it is right even for them to do so. But as a convert from evangelical protestantism, I can say that most of the churches I attended were rabid buyers and sellers. Some are even starting to put ATM’s in the church! So, while it is not just a “Protestant thing”, it is much worse in those churches.

 

[lak611]

That was me. I know that Catholic churches sell things. My church has a bookstore, too, but not in the church. It is in another building. The fact is that the church I was speaking of sells stuff right there in the foyer, and Jesus said not to buy and sell in the church.

How is it any different for this church to sell merchandise in the foyer than it is for a Catholic church to sell raffle tickets in the vestibule?

 

[jfallaw]

How is it any different for this church to sell merchandise in the foyer than it is for a Catholic church to sell raffle tickets in the vestibule?

I just said there is no difference. It is wrong no matter who does it. My (Catholic) church sells stuff, but they do it in another building. I think it’s wrong to do it anywhere near the sanctuary, just cuz Jesus said it is a house of worship, not a marketplace. My observation was that every Protestant church I’ve ever been to sells loads of worthless **** right in the church. I saw a guest speaker pull out a credit card machine right in the sanctuary to sell his books.

 

[JamesN]

The word “denomination” is based around the fragment “nom” - or “name”.

Surely, if you’re non-denominational, it means you’re without a name, and if you’re without a name, you’re without a meaningful identity?

 

[Digitonomy]

The word “denomination” is based around the fragment “nom” - or “name”.

Surely, if you’re non-denominational, it means you’re without a name, and if you’re without a name, you’re without a meaningful identity?

Excellent etymology, but I’m not as sure about the conclusions. We are talking about non-denominational Christians, not a non-denominational religion. As such, they are without a meaningful identity only to the point of distinguishing themselves from other Christians, not without a meaningful identity altogether. And even *that *lack of identity is simply on the basis of name; once you get inside the doors you may find that that particular church is quite clear about what it stands for and how it differs from other churches.

 

[Contarini]

The word “denomination” is based around the fragment “nom” - or “name”.

Surely, if you’re non-denominational, it means you’re without a name, and if you’re without a name, you’re without a meaningful identity?

That’s just plailn silly. Etymology is not argument.

Edwin

 

[Syele]

Joey,

I imagine they all understood. Sometimes people just like to push buttons. I don’t know why that is but I’ve seen it very often. In the sense you mean it clearly non-denominatinals have gone off on their own. So did Koresh. It’s a good capitalistic move and it is schism.

CDL

Obviously we didn’t. The way it was put sounded offensive and to more than one person. I’ll let it go since it wasn’t intended that way and I know things can sound different on a forum. HOWEVER most of this thread, as far as I can tell is just a for non-denominational bashing and nothing more. Any reasonable arguments posted are ignored.

 

[Romulus]

That’s just plailn silly. Etymology is not argument.

Edwin

Syele, a non-denom used Etymology

 

[Romulus]

Obviously we didn’t. The way it was put sounded offensive and to more than one person. I’ll let it go since it wasn’t intended that way and I know things can sound different on a forum. HOWEVER most of this thread, as far as I can tell is just a for non-denominational bashing and nothing more. Any reasonable arguments posted are ignored.

Aww Syele, don’t leave this thread…seriously we are all here trying to share and to gently rebuke if one us is has it “wrong.”

in other words you reject the meaning that millions of people agree on caue the dictionary is vague. In tht case let’s look up it’s word origins.

Syele, this is good, let us share and be charitable Dictionarys are vague and may cause confusion…sure…so you went back to the origin of the word Denomination, thanks for sharing the link with everyone. So let us start with the original…1398…“a naming”… Is this what you accept? and if so or not so, that is fine. With this 1398 meaning, Would you agree then that “non-denominational Church” is equivalent to “no-name Church”??

Do you agree that a non-denominational christian church or “no-name Christian church” is a “branch of christianity or sect of christianity” that has “no name”??

By the way, so what if “millions of people agree”…that is not “evidence”…someone else can find another “million” that disagree…and we are back to the beginning of the issue.

Well if you insist on reducing it to what it meant in 1716. and ignore its current meaning, then don’t go claiming Catholics are not a denomination. they are a religious sect and they do have a name.

Good point, it becomes a, “well i accept the 1761 meaning”…and “I accept the 1398 meaning”. If we use the 1398 meaning…“a naming” , then we ask ourselves…what is the name of that Christian Church? Oh wait, its name is a “no-name” Church…oh, so it does have a name…and it is “no-name”…hence, we are back to it being an oxymoron…even if we go with the 1398 meaning.

I would agree that the Catholic Christian Religion can be regarded as a “sect of Judaism”…as also the “first/originating/original Christian Religion”…and yes, I know many protestants don’t agree with that, that is why we need to start a thread called, “Jesus’s Church, The NT Church, where is it today?” or look for it using SEARCH…but I haven’t found it.

remember, English is an evolving language. It changes over time. The way we speak today is vastly different than it was in 1716. I simply don’t buy your argument that one cannot use a term in a way different than it’s original meaning.

Sure, through time it may lose and gain new meaning…but wow…I hope you don’t read the bible with this way of thinking We must take into consideration the context of the greek/Hebrew words used in scripture…what meaning it had when the bible writers used them. We can’t always use modern new meanings when reading the bible…if we do, we are in danger of taking things out of context.

Good luck on that. I doubt you can make that point just by claiming non-denominational is an oxymoron. Sounds like an entirely different thread to me.

“Good luck”? We don’t believe in “luck”…we are Christians Syele. I don’t think you understood me…Yes, its entirely different thread to determine where is the CHURCH of the New Testament today…and once we determine that…maybe then we can conclude whether or not all other Church’s that are not in communion with the NT Church are sects/factions…even if its a “no-name Christian Church”

If I missed something or misunderstood, let me know…we should all be open to hearing different points of views.

peace be with you

 

[GregoryPalamas]

Aww Syele, don’t leave this thread…seriously we are all here trying to share and to gently rebuke if one us is has it “wrong.”

Syele, this is good, let us share and be charitable Dictionarys are vague and may cause confusion…sure…so you went back to the origin of the word Denomination, thanks for sharing the link with everyone. So let us start with the original…1398…“a naming”… Is this what you accept? and if so or not so, that is fine. With this 1398 meaning, Would you agree then that “non-denominational Church” is equivalent to “no-name Church”??

Do you agree that a non-denominational christian church or “no-name Christian church” is a “branch of christianity or sect of christianity” that has “no name”??

By the way, so what if “millions of people agree”…that is not “evidence”…someone else can find another “million” that disagree…and we are back to the beginning of the issue.

Good point, it becomes a, “well i accept the 1761 meaning”…and “I accept the 1398 meaning”. If we use the 1398 meaning…“a naming” , then we ask ourselves…what is the name of that Christian Church? Oh wait, its name is a “no-name” Church…oh, so it does have a name…and it is “no-name”…hence, we are back to it being an oxymoron…even if we go with the 1398 meaning.

I would agree that the Catholic Christian Religion can be regarded as a “sect of Judaism”…as also the “first/originating/original Christian Religion”…and yes, I know many protestants don’t agree with that, that is why we need to start a thread called, “Jesus’s Church, The NT Church, where is it today?” or look for it using SEARCH…but I haven’t found it.

Sure, through time it may lose and gain new meaning…but wow…I hope you don’t read the bible with this way of thinking We must take into consideration the context of the greek/Hebrew words used in scripture…what meaning it had when the bible writers used them. We can’t always use modern new meanings when reading the bible…if we do, we are in danger of taking things out of context.

“Good luck”? We don’t believe in “luck”…we are Christians Syele. I don’t think you understood me…Yes, its entirely different thread to determine where is the CHURCH of the New Testament today…and once we determine that…maybe then we can conclude whether or not all other Church’s that are not in communion with the NT Church are sects/factions…even if its a “no-name Christian Church”

If I missed something or misunderstood, let me know…we should all be open to hearing different points of views.

peace be with you

Romulus,

Excellent post. The nominalist (seems an oxymoron in and of itself) position that Syele posits offers us more problems than solutions. If words have no meaning except that which an individual ascribes to them how does one communicate? As you pointed out how would we ever be able to translate any text or understand our neighbor let alone translate the scriptures from their original language if words do not have meaning beyond what an individual gives them and even beyond the whims of societal tastes.

Denomination means name or designation. By definition this means a fraction or a limitation of something. A “non-denomination” might mean that it has no limits, no name, no designation. Or it could mean that it is a limitation of nothing. Or even that it has no limits which I suppose that is what is intended. However, a non-designation of something that has no limits in and of itself has no meaning.

Hence, “non-denomination” would seem to be an oxymoron.

CDL

BTW It should also be noted that I don’t consider pig latin and ebonics proper languages, either. Call me a Realist if you wish.

 

[Contarini]

Romulus,

Excellent post. The nominalist (seems an oxymoron in and of itself) position that Syele posits offers us more problems than solutions. If words have no meaning except that which an individual ascribes to them how does one communicate? As you pointed out how would we ever be able to translate any text or understand our neighbor let alone translate the scriptures from their original language if words do not have meaning beyond what an individual gives them and even beyond the whims of societal tastes.

That’s not true. If we all agree on what a word means, then it communicates. A “denomination” has a very definite, agreed-on meaning in modern American Protestantism. It means a group of local churches united by some sort of organization. A local church that does not belong to such an organization can claim to be “non-denominational.” There is nothing oxymoronic here at all.

I agree that “denomination” has a broader meaning as well. But in speaking of religious bodies, this is its commonly agreed-on meaning.

Edwin

 

[Romulus]

That’s not true. If we all agree on what a word means, then it communicates. A “denomination” has a very definite, agreed-on meaning in modern American Protestantism. It means a group of local churches united by some sort of organization. A local church that does not belong to such an organization can claim to be “non-denominational.” There is nothing oxymoronic here at all.

I agree that “denomination” has a broader meaning as well. But in speaking of religious bodies, this is its commonly agreed-on meaning.

Edwin

A local church that does not belong to such an organization can claim to be “non-denominational.” There is nothing oxymoronic here at all.

Edwin, doesn’t a “no-name church” that does not belong to such an organization as you mentioned, become a new “organization” in the process of not belonging…or “separating”, even if it is just one “local church”?? Is it not a “sect of Christianity”?

My gosh, we seem to be caught in a vicious loops here …really I’m trying my best to understand how it is not or not an oxymoron… Be patient everyone, as we are reminded by 2nd Timothy

peace be with you

 

[GregoryPalamas]

That’s not true. If we all agree on what a word means, then it communicates. A “denomination” has a very definite, agreed-on meaning in modern American Protestantism. It means a group of local churches united by some sort of organization. A local church that does not belong to such an organization can claim to be “non-denominational.” There is nothing oxymoronic here at all.

I agree that “denomination” has a broader meaning as well. But in speaking of religious bodies, this is its commonly agreed-on meaning.

Edwin

Obviously your assertion is untrue. No matter how often you repeat it, the fact that over half here disagree with you shows that your assertion is simply unsupportable.

CDL