What's The One True Christian Sect

[connermt]

There are many, many, many sects of christianity in the world.
People are told there's only 'one truth' (whatever that means). So which truth - which sect, is the 'one' with 'the truth'?
Surely if there was only 1 truth, there would be one sect that has all of its beliefs falling in-line with the '1 truth's' parameters. Any deity worth mentioning should be able to provide the one truth to its chosen people (and yes I'm more than comfortable with setting parameters for said deity - get over it...after all, someone needs to do so).
So which christian sect/group/denomination is correct?
Which one has the 'one truth' that humanity needs?
Or do they all produce the 'one truth' or none?
Or is there no 'one truth' so the 'chase' doesn't matter?

[connermt]

Now, Zzyzx, according to the rules of this forum the bible (and other scriptures) cannot be used as authoritative prooftexts. That is, they can't be used as proof that some belief is true. Indeed, Wikipedia is often considered, at least by the critics, to be of more value than scripture in this area. I'm simply pointing out that Wikipedia is often unreliable. Not always, but quite often.

But Wikipedia often, but not always, will link directly to credible sources for the arguments made. I know it's rather hit or miss, but they at least attempt to support the statements made via links to original sources.

The Bible doesn't do that at all.

In many cases, it's all about what the person(s) involved want to see.
I've seen people scoff at scholars who study this stuff simply because they aren't 'christian' or the like.
But it is totally hypocritical for one to discount something like a wiki-page while 'assuming' the bible as accurate IMO.
But alas, most religions wouldn't exist without hypocrisy it seems.

[1213]

.

If people are faithful to God, they don’t make own sects, but remain loyal to Jesus.

Since the vast majority of Christians associate with or identify with various sects, are they not being "faithful to God and Jesus?"

They may be, they just may not know enough.

[1213]

If people are faithful to God, they don’t make own sects, but remain loyal to Jesus.

I think that everyone who starts a new sect believes that they are doing so in order to remain loyal to Jesus. There is a perception that the group that they are splitting from has in some way or other become disloyal or unfaithful.

I think you have good point. It is possible that person wants to make reformation, because other people have corrupted the original system. In that case the person is not in my opinion making new sect, but returning to the old system. And that is not wrong in my opinion.

[ttruscott]

...

Yes, there certainly seems to be many, many different sects in the Christian Faith.

...

The Christian pov:
Don't forget, it is Satan's job to keep Christians in their sins especially antagonism to hell. this gives us not only a vast number of false doctrines and theologies and Churches but a vast array of opinions within each sect.... which is a proof of the war between good an evil rather than the failure or good.

Thus if we accept the Christian pov, such proliferation of ideas and theologies and sects is inevitable and predictable.

Peace, Ted

[connermt]

[Replying to post 44 by ttruscott]

Thus if we accept the Christian pov, such proliferation of ideas and theologies and sects is inevitable and predictable.

You said from the christian POV "...it is Satan's job to keep Christians in their sins ... this gives us not only a vast number of false doctrines and theologies and Churches but a vast array of opinions within each sect.... which is a proof of the war between good an evil rather than the failure or good. " but does nothing to indicate which one is right and which one to follow.
It seems as though you're making a (rather obvious statement from a christian POV) and offering nothing to counteract it....

[connermt]

[Replying to post 43 by 1213]

It is possible that person wants to make reformation...

Though the reasoning should be in question - the need should be identified prior to (or even if) acceptance takes place.

...reformation, because other people have corrupted the original system.

If that's the true genesis of the change, and not something else.

In that case the person is not in my opinion making new sect, but returning to the old system. And that is not wrong in my opinion.

Or it could be a scam in disguise.

[Clownboat]

.

It seems a bit ironic when religionists decry use of sources that CAN be checked for accuracy while apparently considering ancient writing that CANNOT be checked for accuracy as authoritative.

Except we can't, according to the rules, remember?

Forum Rules do NOT prohibit you from considering scriptures authoritative (personally) -- but DO prohibit using them as authoritative for arguments in debate in C&A.

Yep. So, since it's already against the rules to use scripture as a prooftext, you won't have a problem with my pointing out that Wikipedia is often unreliable, and that when it is, it's perfectly acceptable to point it out?

Of course I have no objection to you (correctly) pointing out that Wikipedia is often unreliable -- and I trust that you have no objection to me pointing out that religious texts are often unreliable AND are unverifiable AND tell tales about "supernatural" characters and events that defy all we know of the real world.

With Wikipedia articles one can at least verify or refute claims by consulting other, disconnected sources of information. Can the same be said for supernatural claims made in the name of religion?

Of course you can point this out, and it would be appropriate to do so...in a venue in which it were permissible to use scripture as source texts. Since we cannot do so in here, pointing out that you can dismiss scripture as authoritative proof texts for a religious truth is irrelevant. All who post here have already agreed that scripture is not appropriate for this purpose.

Or to put it a bit more bluntly, our joint agreement that scripture cannot be used as a proof text for religious truth does NOT mean that wikipedia is therefore accurate, any more than the inaccuracy of Disney's version of Pocahontas means that Pecos Bill really did make the Grand Canyon by riding a tornado down to a spring breeze. Nor does someone who believes in the bible as scripture (and agrees not to use it in here as a prooftext) become unqualified to point out inaccuracies in other sources.

I mean, if you go THERE, then the guy who honestly posts that article on "peep stones" as an accurate source of information on Mormonism (and the Urim and Thumim) has no business telling me that I can't use scripture as a proof text.

I mean, sauce for the goose and all.

Since it keeps coming up, what was so off about the peep stones from wiki?

Is this not accurate?:
According to Latter Day Saint theology, seer stones were stones used by Joseph Smith to receive revelations from God. Some other early Latter Day Saints also possessed and used seer stones, including one of Smith's self-professed successors, James Strang.

Smith owned at least two seer stones, which he had earlier employed for treasure seeking before he founded the church.[1] Other early Mormons, such as Hiram Page, David Whitmer, and Jacob Whitmer, also owned seer stones.[2] Seer stones are mentioned in the Book of Mormon and in other Latter Day Saint scriptures, usually by the term "Urim and Thummim".[3] James Strang, who claimed to be Smith's successor, also unearthed what he said were ancient metal plates, known as the Voree plates, and translated them using a seer stone.

[dukekenha]

There are many, many, many sects of christianity in the world.
People are told there's only 'one truth' (whatever that means). So which truth - which sect, is the 'one' with 'the truth'?
Surely if there was only 1 truth, there would be one sect that has all of its beliefs falling in-line with the '1 truth's' parameters. Any deity worth mentioning should be able to provide the one truth to its chosen people (and yes I'm more than comfortable with setting parameters for said deity - get over it...after all, someone needs to do so).
So which christian sect/group/denomination is correct?
Which one has the 'one truth' that humanity needs?
Or do they all produce the 'one truth' or none?
Or is there no 'one truth' so the 'chase' doesn't matter?

We are talking about Christianity and the basis of faith is in the bible. Bible is the boundary of Christian faith. I believe that there is one true church and it is biblical when we speak about one true. Your question is valid. It is hard to defend stand if biblical accounts will not be considered or accepted.

So which christian sect/group/denomination is correct?

The answer to this question is the one in the bible. I believe that no one should create their own sect but abhor to which is in the bible. If the name of the sect or denomination does not follow what is written then we can remove them in the check list. See if we follow the boundary then we have no problem in determining which is correct/true. Claiming is one thing but proving it is another thing.

Re - Means again
ligion - Means To tie

Re-Ligion - Means to tie again

Simply means that we are not to create new but abhor which is already is.

Which one has the 'one truth' that humanity needs?

Again the check list must be in the scripture. It is the boundary.

Or do they all produce the 'one truth' or none?

truth differ in how people believe or maybe we may include intention of the believer. Intention if not true will make people selective in believing the scripture. They select which to believe and throw others, some even use things that does not belong because it fit what they want. A good example is tithing. Tithing is for Israelites and not Christian, but since it has a specific guarantee and that conmert is the example of intention. But if the intention is following what is written selective is not an option if it is the Christian law according to scripture then a Christian should be willing and obedient.

Or is there no 'one truth' so the 'chase' doesn't matter?

To the "none". Well it is for those who doesn't accept the scripture or none Christian definitely not Christian.