Sects within Religion

[Murad]

In all 3 of the Abrahamic religions there are numerous, numerous sects... Also there is numerous numerous sub-sects(sects within sects)

*Judaism
Conservative
Orthodox
Reconstructionist
Humanistic

*Christianity
Catholic
Protestant
Latter Day Saints
Mormon

*Islam
Sunni
Shia
Sufi
Alawaites
Druze

Etc...etc...



Whether you are a Jew, Christian or Muslim... Could your sect of the religion be wrong?
The answer is Yes.
But who is willing to admit their perception is wrong? Or should i say, how can one confidently know their sect is the correct or the "true" path when other sects of your religion believe they follow the absolute truth?
I personally believe the absolute truth is with God & the best we religious folks can do is acquire knowledge.

What are your opinions?

[cnorman18]

Note edits.

In all 3 of the Abrahamic religions there are numerous, numerous sects... Also there is numerous numerous sub-sects(sects within sects)

*Judaism
Reform
Conservative
Orthodox
Reconstructionist
Humanistic

*Christianity
Roman Catholic
Eastern Orthodox
Protestant
Pentecostal
Latter Day Saints
Mormon

*Islam
Sunni
Shia
Sufi
Alawaites
Druze

Etc...etc...



Whether you are a Jew, Christian or Muslim... Could your sect of the religion be wrong?
The answer is Yes.
But who is willing to admit their perception is wrong? Or should i say, how can one confidently know their sect is the correct or the "true" path when other sects of your religion believe they follow the absolute truth?
I personally believe the absolute truth is with God & the best we religious folks can do is acquire knowledge.

What are your opinions?

As you'll see, I have edited your post slightly to add some alternatives that you've left out.

I think I'd agree; I can only speak for Jews, but most of us, with the exception of some Orthodox, acknowledge each other as Jews and leave judgment about doctrinal correctness to God. As I've mentioned many times, doctrinal correctness is not a particularly high priority in modern Judaism, at least, anyway.

I know that many liberal Christian denominations have the same attitude, regarding their own approaches as merely the most comfortable or reasonable to them without denying the authenticity of other Christian denominations. Since no one around here has a signed authorization from God, that seems a reasonable approach to me.

[McCulloch]

In all 3 of the Abrahamic religions there are numerous, numerous sects... Also there is numerous numerous sub-sects(sects within sects)

Why limit yourself to only the Abrahamic religions?

Whether you are a Jew, Christian or Muslim... Could your sect of the religion be wrong?
The answer is Yes.

Whether you follow one of the Abrahamic religions, the Dharmic religions, Taoic religions or folk religions your choice of major religious branch could be wrong.

BTW, you left off Bahá'í from the list of Abrahamic religions.

I personally believe the absolute truth is with God & the best we religious folks can do is acquire knowledge.

If there really was a God, wouldn't that god want to reveal this truth to us? Wouldn't a more reasonable conclusion be that since religious truth seems to be so unfathomable, maybe it isn't there at all? Just saying.

[cnorman18]

...If there really was a God, wouldn't that god want to reveal this truth to us?...

Maybe He wants us to think for ourselves. I've written about that quite a lot; the conviction that God obviously wants infants who constantly look to Him for easy answers and have no responsibilities but adoration and praise seems to be endemic among BOTH fundamentalists and atheists. I understand it in the former, but in the latter... It's always puzzled me.

[McCulloch]

...If there really was a God, wouldn't that god want to reveal this truth to us?...

Maybe He wants us to think for ourselves. I've written about that quite a lot; the conviction that God obviously wants infants who constantly look to Him for easy answers and have no responsibilities but adoration and praise seems to be endemic among BOTH fundamentalists and atheists. I understand it in the former, but in the latter... It's always puzzled me.

Let me enlighten you.
Atheists do not believe in a god that wants infants who look to him for easy answers. How can we? We don't believe in a god at all. However, in arguing against the concept of God, one of the most objectionable characteristics of many theists is their seemingly unthinking acceptance of their particular revelations from the god. Thus we argue against that form of theism more vigorously than any other form.
From where I sit, there is no practical difference between a god that is silent and a god that isn't there at all. It is the gods with their various messengers, prophets, apostles, vicars, revelations and priests who make a muddle out of things.

[Goat]

...If there really was a God, wouldn't that god want to reveal this truth to us?...

Maybe He wants us to think for ourselves. I've written about that quite a lot; the conviction that God obviously wants infants who constantly look to Him for easy answers and have no responsibilities but adoration and praise seems to be endemic among BOTH fundamentalists and atheists. I understand it in the former, but in the latter... It's always puzzled me.

I know that if I was a parent, i wouldn't want to have 6 billion kids whining after me asking me to do everything for them.

[cnorman18]

...If there really was a God, wouldn't that god want to reveal this truth to us?...

Maybe He wants us to think for ourselves. I've written about that quite a lot; the conviction that God obviously wants infants who constantly look to Him for easy answers and have no responsibilities but adoration and praise seems to be endemic among BOTH fundamentalists and atheists. I understand it in the former, but in the latter... It's always puzzled me.

Let me enlighten you.
Atheists do not believe in a god that wants infants who look to him for easy answers. How can we? We don't believe in a god at all. However, in arguing against the concept of God, one of the most objectionable characteristics of many theists is their seemingly unthinking acceptance of their particular revelations from the god. Thus we argue against that form of theism more vigorously than any other form.
From where I sit, there is no practical difference between a god that is silent and a god that isn't there at all. It is the gods with their various messengers, prophets, apostles, vicars, revelations and priests who make a muddle out of things.

I understand all that; but we seem to have reached a point, on this forum at least, where there are at least as many non-fundamentalist and non-literalist theists as the other kind. Don't you think it's time the atheists here begin to acknowledge OUR positions as well, and stop continually arguing as if fundamentalist literalism were, in effect, the only form of religion that exists or is worth discussing? And in a like manner, can the fundamentalists here approach us as something other than a variation on "heathen unbeliever" and consider another point of view that also has reverence and regard for God and the Bible, even if they're not the same as their own?

Further, is it possible to acknowledge that we "rational theists," if I may use that phrase, don't necessarily posit a "silent," i.e. essentially absent, God? I don't claim that either, and my views cannot be fairly summarized that simply or simplistically. Can we at least be given credit for thinking a bit more deeply than that, and not have our views dismissed and basically ignored as either de facto atheism or unacknowledged crypto-fundamentalism?

I posted a thread on the Hebrew Bible a few days ago. I know it was long, but it wasn't War and Peace either; and I thought it rational, rather different from the usual approaches found here on EITHER side, and worth consideration. I hoped that there was at least a paragraph or two that someone might want to talk about. In spite of a couple score of reads, it received no response whatever. Crickets chirping. The usual.

It just doesn't appear that either the atheists OR the fundamentalists around here are particularly eager to engage in debate or discussion with those who don't fit the stereotypes they're prepared to argue against, or to consider points of view that they might find unconventional or, dare I say it, exhibit some actual scholarship as opposed to mere polemics (or arguments over who's read the most obscure theologians and philosophers and can throw around the most abstruse and pedantic allusions to academic schools of thought). God forbid, you'll pardon the expression, that we deal with anything that isn't facile and easily classified. I mean, it's nice when people donate tokens and acknowledge that I'm not a Bible-thumper and all, but can we please go beyond that once in a while and fricken TALK about it?

To take only one example; I've posted any number of messages about the curious correlation between the Exodus narratives and the (inarguably historical) Thera explosion at about that time, and nobody -- ever -- has ever wanted to get NEAR that discussion, as if the only alternatives were (1) the Bible is literally true, and (2) the Bible is total fiction/folklore/fable. It's just not that damn simple, when thinking about ANY of the narratives, laws, poems and parables and other forms of literature in the Bible, and I've been beating that drum for three years now to virtually no effect.

Sorry for the rant. But I've been on this forum for a long time, and I can count the number of in-depth discussions of religion beyond the conflict between strict materialism and strict literalism that go past "Yeah, well, there's that too, but that's not what I'm here to argue against" on my two hands. I never thought that shooting fish in barrels was a particularly fun activity myself, but I see thread after thread after thread that seems intent on doing no more than that, and little interest in moving beyond it. Do people only work the easy crosswords too?

There. I'm done. Everyone feel free to go on attacking the fundamentalists and hard atheists as if they were the only ones at the table. I'll just watch.

[Murad]

If there really was a God, wouldn't that god want to reveal this truth to us? Wouldn't a more reasonable conclusion be that since religious truth seems to be so unfathomable, maybe it isn't there at all? Just saying.

The Quran tells us:

If Allah so willed, he would have made you a single People, but his plan is to test each of you separately, in what He has given to each of you: so strive in all virtues as in you are in a race. The goal of all of you is to Allah. It is He that will show you the truth of the matters in which ye dispute. (Qur'an 5:48)

Whose to say i follow or dont follow my religion in its true form? I try to, but if im doing something wrong, only God has the right to reveal to truth unto me.

Contrary to the taliban ideology that they have the right to enforce their Islamic Sharia on muslims.

[Joshua Patrick]

Note Edits:

In all 3 of the Abrahamic religions there are numerous, numerous sects... Also there is numerous numerous sub-sects(sects within sects)

*Judaism
Reform
Conservative
Orthodox
Reconstructionist
Humanistic

*Christianity
The Catholic Church
Orthodox Catholic Church
(Can I just point out, that the Orthodox Church and the Catholic Church are the same church, just the Orthodox Patriarch's are in schism over the "The Pope", and some Liturgical forms. Catholcis are aloud to take sacraments in Orthodox church, vice versa)
Protestant
Pentecostal

Christian Based:
Latter Day Saints
Mormon
(These are *Christian based*, since they do not follow the apostle's creed set forth by the early church fathers)


*Islam
Sunni
Shia
Sufi
Alawaites
Druze

Etc...etc...

We could also say Catholic Church, is a sect in Judaism

[Kuan]

*Christianity
Catholic
Protestant
Latter Day Saints
Mormon

Latter Day Saints and mormons are the same thing...