My personal favorite denominational weirdness is the predestinarian Calvinist branch, a perfect example of the insanity that results from theology.
In brief: God knows everything. Everything. Past and future. Hence, it follows, that he already knows who is going to Heaven before you are born!. Of course, you have free will, but God already knows what you will decide to do with your free will. Most of us are toast. (God, I have no shame)
There were “differences” in Theology long before Christianity was introduced in the Bible. Look at the differences in the sects of the Pharisees and the Sadducees. As long as we (mankind) are allowed to figure it out for ourselves, we’ll never agree on anything.
Why all the politics?
He who controls the messenger controls the message.
So what is that about? Is it about “purity of the message” or is it about the control?
Politics has been called the art of compromise.
Yet, Christ did not compromise. Jesus died for what he believed in.
But before I go on, let me tell you what it is I believe, which is only fair. And for that purpose, I quote Philip K. Dick in his essay “The Android and the Human.”
That, I suppose, is my credo as well. I read the novel at an impressionible age, I guess – long before reading the Bible.
So, past being prologue, let me try to continue and give an honest answer to your query.
If you aren’t familiar with what Jesus taught, you should read the Sermon on the Mount, the Sermon to the Mulitudes, and the Sermon at the Last Supper. That’s only 7 1/2 chapters, but that is the long and short of it. Based on those, you should be able to recognize a Christian when you see one. But, you probably don’t see many that fit what Jesus had in mind. Why? A simple question which has an easy answer.
Man, as a whole, is weak. I mean that in the South Park sense of the world, i.e. “dudes, this is totally weak.” As we, most of mankind, is weak, we lack faith. Once that lack of faith and the resulting compromise is required, it is only ultimately a question of how great a compromise one makes with, for lack of a better word, evil.
The rest is only an argument. Depending on where you stand, you can make it in a variety of ways. Is man basically good, and only inclined to evil? What does that mean? The past, viewed through optimism or pessimism, gives only this: we are where we are now. Christ came, the Church became. The Romans eventually made it their state religion, which persists to this day as the Roman Catholic Church – the last vestige of that ancient empire. Francis of Assisi, Marguerite of Porete, and many others attempted to reform the Church over the centuries. Luther, convinced that everyone would read the Bible exactly as he did, declared Scripture should be the only guide, and various Protestant theologies followed.
What we are left with today is exactly what Christ himself faced. The Pharisees relying on the traditions of the men before them have their teachings (though if the messenger is flawed, who will listen to the message?), the Saducees relying solely on Scripture have their own as well (but many of them know neither the sciptures nor the power of God). And a few who know the Truth and keep it and cry out for justice day and night. Same sh-t, different day. But I think humanity will make it anyway. You get me?
As different as Christian denominations are, basically they have as their center the teachings of Jesus Christ, and I see this as keeping them within the same religion. Are the differences so large as to make Christianity invalid as anything beyond a descriptor of groups based on Jesus’s teaching? I almost say yes, in the sense that there are quite a few fundamental differences in theology which makes it difficult to reconcile Christian denominations, as much as they have Christ at the center:
(since I’m Roman Catholic these are written from that context)
-the divinity of Christ–true God and true man?
-the virgin birth
-the sacraments
-original sin
-transubstantiation
There is a difference between believing Christ was God in a human body, a good man blessed by God, and completely God and completely human at the same time. (“became man” vs. “became like man” was a dividing line when the Nicean creed was developed, IIRC) There is a difference between a communion as a representation of the Body and Blood, and as a miracle transforming the essence of the bread and wine. The trouble is, there is one Truth*, and these belief systems include the kinds of differences that cannot be reconciled. In addition, people can call themselves members of a denomination but not believe all of it, so people as Christians are even harder to make blanket statements about than the denominations.
*I know this is a whole 'nother debate.
Ya know, the RCC’s belief that its religion is the correct one has been commented on and denigrated quite often on this board. While I don’t agree with the RCC, I don’t find their position outrageous. Of course people adhere to a religion think that their’s is the correct and best one. Of course people believe that adhering to their religion is the best way to get into heaven (or whatever their belief in an afterlife is). If you didn’t believe this, you’d be mighty stupid to stick with your religion:
Bob: Ya know, I’ve been looking into other religions, and I think the Southern Baptists got it right. That is the one true and correct faith.
Mike: So, ya gonna convert?
Bob: Nah, my family’s always been Zoroastrians, and I’m gonna stick with that.
Mike: But doesn’t that mean, according to the Baptists, that you’re gonna go to hell?
Bob: Well, that does have me a bit worried, but family’s important.
Sua
(N.B. No offense to Southern Baptists or Zoroastrians intended.)
Amen! 
Thank you for saying this–it’s what I always think when I see that comment too.
Two thousand years after the Jews received the commandments of the Lord God, there was confusion among them. Sectarianism had evolved. Two thousand years after the Lord Jesus gave His life on the cross, there is confusion among Christians. Turns out we humans just have no attention span at all.
I don’t belong to a sect. None at all. I attend church now and then, sometimes even on Sunday. I talk of matters of faith with other Christians when they bring it up. When they bring up theology, I sometimes even talk about that. Mostly, though, I just talk of the Love of the Lord, Jesus. Why is that? It is the only thing I am sure about. That leaves me out of even the very broad definitions of Christian made by most organized Churches. I cannot claim to believe without doubt in transubstantiation, or consubstantiation, or the virgin birth, eternal torment of the damned, or the literal truth of the bible, or Donation of Constantine, or the inheritance of apostolic authority, or the intercession of saints, or a hundred other tests of theological merit. To me, faith is entirely in the heart. My faith comes to me from miracles, my knowledge of the Lord comes from the reports of men. Knowledge matters little to me, and faith matters above all other things but love.
I celebrate that love with anyone who joins me in wishing to make it grow, and become stronger. The love of Baptists, and Catholics, Hindus and Mohammedans, Wiccans, or Druids will find welcome in my heart, because it is love. I am the willing and joyous servant of the Lord Jesus, and make it no secret. But He has commanded me to love all his children on the earth. I believe He loves them as well.
When I go to a church, I go to seek the comfort of fellowship in faith. In most cases, that is exactly what I find. People gathered to share each others joy in the Lord. At times, even the guy in the box in the front of the church has it.
Tris
Can I ask a question that has been bugging me? It came up as a result of another thread.
What is the deal with “saved” or “born again” Christians being the only REAL Christians? I refer to a comment made (sorry I don’t know how to link to it!) that while some Catholics are Christian, not all of them are, nor are Methodists, Baptists and other Protestants.
WTF?
Do other religions with several denominations say these kinds of things? Do orthodox Jews say that reform Jews aren’t REALLY Jewish? What about Buddhist sects? Is only one REALLY Buddhist?
Or is this just another lame Christian catfight?
PS- just loved Dennis Miller’s comment about being born again- “well excuse me for getting it right the first time…”
Any info out there from our non-Christian posters?
If you are accepting answers from deists, I can help.
The simple answer is Jesus said, early on in his ministry, that “no one can be saved unless they are born of water and Spirit.”
In the Sermon of the Last Supper (I linked to it above) Jesus states that in order to receive the Holy Spirit, you must keep his teachings (which, according to the Free Spirits, are covered in the other two sermons I linked to).
Thus, people who do not keep his teachings, are not really Christians, since they do not have the Holy Spirit and are not, in fact, saved.
Different denominations have their own opinions as to what teachings of Jesus apply to them such that their members are saved, which may or may not have any Biblical basis.
Perhaps, but it is, to some extent, the only game in town.
This is interesting…I’ll throw my two cents in.
I wonder if schisms in Christianity are less likely in our modern times because of reduced political power. Let me clarify–we’ve got Baptists, Adventists, Methodists, Lutherans, Catholics, Unitarians, Anglicans, etc., etc., etc., yet these are all considered “Christian.” In times past in the Western world, the Catholic church enjoyed great political power–even Henry VIII thought twice before taking the Pope on. Priests were often political leaders, and kings ruled largely because people believed he had the divine right granted by God as channeled through a priest. Threats to that power were taken seriously and dealt with harshly.
While a student at Marquette University (a Jesuit school, therefore Catholic, 'tho I am not) I wrote a research paper on the heresy of Pelagius. Pelagius, for those who don’t know (and it may be a majority since he’s obscure!), was a man who didn’t believe in original sin and preached that if a man could live a just, righteous life, he’d get to heaven without strict adherence to church rules. What you did, in essence, carried more weight than what you said you believed.
This makes a certain sense to me. However, early Catholicism (400s AD) being what it was, sensed a danger and quashed it. Violently. Methinks if Pelagius were to teach today, in a climate where churches are vastly less politically powerful, he might start up his own belief system and have a successful church. Instead, he was labelled a heretic and died in loneliness and obscurity. Perhaps today’s various Christian offshoots developed just late enough to survive political quashing–'tho Catholics sure did try with Lutherans.
I’m not sure that there’s a large enough fundamental difference between any of the various denominations to cause a huge schism today, anyway. For me, the basic definition of a “Christian” is one who believes in Jesus as God the saviour, the Messiah. (I do think that those who are hard enough to think that they’re the only ones allowed “good” in God’s eyes are off their rocker, however. Ick.) I think the only thing that would cause such a schism would be for one of the larger (and therefore, more noticed–definitely not my 7th-Day Adventists!) denominations to make some sort of fundamental change. For example, there was talk awhile back of the Pope declaring Mary a deity. Wow! Then you’d see some fireworks, methinks.
Sure. See:http://www.adl.org/presrele/IslME_62/3034a_62.html, or http://codoh.com/newsdesk/970613.HTML, or http://www.firefighter.com/july27-2.cfm, although I’m sure to get an earful.
Untrue. Despite some occasional inflammitory rhetoric, the belief that Reforms or Conservitives are not Jews is confine to a few very small groups in the fringes of Ultra-Orthodox (or “Haredi”) Judaism. They may believe that their customs of worship are wrong, even sinful, but few believe that non-Orthodox Jews are not Jewish. Remeber, most religious Jews think of Aetheist Jews as being “lost sheep”, or “captured babies” - misguided, sure, but still a part of the Jewish People.
Besides, those arson cases you linked to were caused less by theology and more by the complexities of Israeli politics.
Asceticism? Today?? Well, I’d wish him a lot of luck with that. But, these things do tend to be cyclical so you never know.
Once again, modern Unitarians are not Christians - or at least all Unitarians do not consider themselves Christian. Some Unitarians consider themselves Christian, but believing in Christ is not a requirement for being a Unitarian.
I for instance, consider myself Unitarian, but am an Agnostic and am unconvinced that there even was a historical Christ (although I believe it was probable).
But it still exists, which answers the original question.
A pretty fine hair to split, really. Consider http://detnews.com/1997/nation/9704/20/04200004.htm about protests over a road staying open on the Sabbath.
Thirty thousand denominations and still counting.
Gnosticism wasn’t really Christainity. Gnosticism was a free-floating syncretistic system that would attach itself to whatever religion was around at the time, and take on its form. Gnostic “Christianity” actually had more in common with some of the Greek mystery cults than it did with Orthodox Christianity.
For the first fifteen hundred years or so of Christian history, heresies would appear from time to time. Some of them would attract enough of a following that after being condemned by the Church, they would continue on as a separate Christian sect, but they came up few and far between. Prior to Luther, Catholicism and Christianity were synonymous, with some exceptions (the Nestorians, Arians, Monophysites and Monothelites.) There were, at most, maybe a half dozen “denominations”, and most of these split off from the main body of the Church within the first five centuries, at which time orthodoxy in Christian belief hadn’t been fully established. It is interesting to note that all the sects that split with the Church before the Schism of 1054 still believe in transubstantiation. Also, the Catholic Church still recognizes the validity of the Priesthood and Sacraments of the Orthodox Churches.
It wasn’t until Luther came along with the idea of sola scriptura that the body of the Christian Church suffered split upon split upon split, resulting in the great mass of confusion we call Christianity today.
And there are still new denominations forming. Most recent was the Vineyard movement, which I believe started in the late seventies or early eighties, which started off as an energetic reform movement within charismatic Protestantism and deteriorated into a mind-control cult. The Word-Faith movement, which is probably the ugliest Christian heresy to come along in the last century, because it still tries to masqurade as mainline Christianity, is well on its way to becoming a separate denomination. There is a split in Seventh-Day Adventism, one branch leaning toward orthodox Christianity, the other leaning over the edge…
You have to admit, though, that the two fit very well together. At least in the same way water and earth make mud. The Christian moral code is fairly simple to follow if you believe reality is an illusion and thus do not have to follow it.
Don’t forget the Free Spirits. Hey, I’m a fan, remember! 
Really? I actually lived in their commune in Haight/Ashbury for a month back when I was a Free Spirit (still borderline Catholic). You should have seen the Chick tracts fly. I had these guys pegged as the typical Protestants before I showed up here. It was a weird situation – they were trying to get the homeless off of the streets (and make them work in their associated business) and I was trying to put them back on the streets. But they were pretty cool – I only almost got thrown out once because of my adamant opposition to their magic-time-traveling-sin back-to-Jesus-on-the-cross teaching.
Tell me more…
Which one’s the Branch Davidians? 
But it is a mainstream Orthodox Jewish position that persons converted to Judaism by a Reform or Conservative rabbi are not actually Jewish, is it not? BTW, has that issue been resolved in Israel in re: the Law of Return?
Sua
You are more or less correct, SuaSponte, and as a Israeli Conservative Jew, it is a matter which concerns me greatly. Due to the Russian immigration, there are a great number of potential converts living in Israel, and many consider the overly strict Orthodox conversion policy as impeding their assimilation into mainstream society, as well as an undo source of political influence (not to mention a case of religious intolerence). Besides that, the whole situation has caused a major divide between the American and Israeli Jewish communities which we would like to heal. The political issue has not been resolved, although it may come up in the current Knesset turbulence - although I’m not keeping my hopes up for an agreeable solution.
Bear in mind, though, that Conservative and Reform converts consist of a small portion of converts in general, who in turn consist of a miniscule portion of the world’s Jews. Most Jews regard converts as an exception, perhaps an oddity; they are bewildered by the fact that someone may actually choose to be a Jew.
Tell me about it - my old roomie is a convert and is now a Conservative rabbi. He’s always been a freak, before and after conversion. And I love the big ape.
He doesn’t have a Law of Return problem - his conversion was overseen by an Orthodox, a Conservative, and a Reform rabbi.
Sua