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?

[Maseehullah]

*Christianity
Catholic
Protestant
Latter Day Saints
Mormon

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

There are several divisions within Mormons, their main church is based in Salt Lake City, Utah, but there is a splinter group based in Missouri. And a few other groups which still practice polygamy that broke away from the main church.

[Kuan]

*Christianity
Catholic
Protestant
Latter Day Saints
Mormon

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

There are several divisions within Mormons, their main church is based in Salt Lake City, Utah, but there is a splinter group based in Missouri. And a few other groups which still practice polygamy that broke away from the main church.

I know, there are the LDS, RLDS, and FLDS. No need to say it twice though. The main branch goes by LDS (Latter Day Saint) and mormon. The others go by reformed latter day saint (RLDS) and fundamentalist latter day saint (FLDS.) As I said, no need to mention it twice. Not a big deal though.

[Maseehullah]

I know, there are the LDS, RLDS, and FLDS. No need to say it twice though. The main branch goes by LDS (Latter Day Saint) and mormon. The others go by reformed latter day saint (RLDS) and fundamentalist latter day saint (FLDS.) As I said, no need to mention it twice. Not a big deal though.

I only mentioned it once though?

[Kuan]

I know, there are the LDS, RLDS, and FLDS. No need to say it twice though. The main branch goes by LDS (Latter Day Saint) and mormon. The others go by reformed latter day saint (RLDS) and fundamentalist latter day saint (FLDS.) As I said, no need to mention it twice. Not a big deal though.

I only mentioned it once though?

Im referring to murad's post where he lists both latter day saint and mormon.

[cnorman18]

If we had any Pentecostals in here, we'd be listing sects till Messiah comes -- or comes back, whatever. "No, I represent the Full Gospel Church of the Spirit Baptism in the Name of Jesus, and that's not the same as the regular Church of the Spirit Baptism in the Name of Jesus. Those guys are heathens." You disagree with some people in your church, you open a storefront down the street and add a phrase to the name. Bingo, new denomination. It never ends.

Okay, if we've got the list straight for the moment, can we maybe get back to the questions Murad asked in the OP?

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?

[McCulloch]

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.

Yes, I know. It is not nearly as much of a challenge. You non-literalist theists are so damned reasonable that I can hardly find a point on which to debate.

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?

But it is. While I might disagree with the liberal theists on some points, I regard them as mostly harmless.

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?

I doubt it, but I'll let them answer that.

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?

Sorry, I still don't see the difference between a god who wants you to think things through and therefore remains silent, undetectable and a god who really is not there.

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?

Perhaps we don't quite see how it is relevant.

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.

I am not quite sure that those on our side characterize the Biblical tales are total fiction. Like many mythological texts, there may be some true historical events which triggered the tales. How does that change anything? You've got literalists on one side insisting that it be taken as true in every detail, subverting science and history to do so, who endanger our society in the process. Then you have the other side, which includes you and I, who argue that rational thinking people, should base their beliefs on evidence, logic and reason.

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.

I doubt it.

[cnorman18]

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.

Yes, I know. It is not nearly as much of a challenge. You non-literalist theists are so damned reasonable that I can hardly find a point on which to debate.

So maybe we could debate whether a God-concept is always and forever, world without end, a pernicious negative; and if it isn’t, as you seem to be admitting here, could we explore how even atheists and other nontheists might find something useful and positive about our kind of religion? Getting that admission from nontheists around here is rather like pulling teeth, and I’ve NEVER seen it followed up.

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?

But it is. While I might disagree with the liberal theists on some points, I regard them as mostly harmless.

Case in point. Could we maybe talk about how RELIGION ITSELF is not the enemy, as it is almost invariably expressed here, but how judgmental, prescriptive and literalist religion is our COMMON enemy -- or “opponent,� to put it in less combative terms? All I’ve ever seen from atheists here about my own approach is, essentially, “You’re not helping� -- and I don't think that's true. Beyond even that relatively benign appraisal, over and over again, I see the contention, sometimes explicit, that the very existence of rational religion somehow validates fundamentalism. I think that’s bullfeathers. Does actual science validate junk science?

My puzzlement about atheists insisting alongside fundamentalists that the Bible must be approached in a literal fashion lies precisely there. I see no interest whatever in discussing how the Bible itself, when approached in rational and realistic terms as I and others do, might be indicative of the wrongness of the literalist approach and valuable for reasons other than those advanced by literalism. This would place both atheists AND rational theists on the same side in trying to counter literalism, which seems to me to be a good thing for us both.

How often has anyone seen THAT approach to the question of the Bible's nature or proper study? Whenever I have brought up the positive value of the Bible when approached in a scholarly and rational manner, how often have atheists exhibited the least interest in those posts, even insofar as they might counter fundamentalist claims on their own ground? On the contrary, all I EVER see here from atheists is one variation or another on “Why do we need it at all?�

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?

I doubt it, but I'll let them answer that.

I’m not particularly optimistic on that score either; but then I expect more from those who claim to believe in rational thought and intelligent debate in the first place.

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?

Sorry, I still don't see the difference between a god who wants you to think things through and therefore remains silent, undetectable and a god who really is not there.

We can debate that on another thread, but maybe belief in the IDEAL of a God who represents the values that we rational theists believe to be the point of religion is a good thing in itself. Belief in the value of that abstract, indefinable thing called “Truth� is a good thing when one is engaged in scientific research and rational thought about anything, isn’t it? As I say, that’s a debate for another thread; but just dismissing the idea out of hand as useless and pointless, as you have consistently done and do again here, doesn’t seem especially rational nor productive to me. Like I said; that amounts to “You’re not helping� in the battle against oppressive fundamentalism, and I don’t think that’s true.

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?

Perhaps we don't quite see how it is relevant.

And that is precisely the problem. If you dismiss RATIONAL religion as irrelevant when fighting the IRRATIONAL kind, aren’t you basically ignoring what might be your strongest ally?

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.

I am not quite sure that those on our side characterize the Biblical tales are total fiction. Like many mythological texts, there may be some true historical events which triggered the tales. How does that change anything?

Well, for starters, we might find a bit less insistence that the Bible, and religion in general, are merely cynically concocted fictions intended to indoctrinate the masses so they can be controlled. We might find a bit of support from nontheists against those who contend that religion of any kind is a form of clinical insanity. Perhaps a little more opposition to the idea that ALL religion is ALWAYS a negative factor in EVERY period of human history and EVERY circumstance. And so on.

I feel sure you don't subscribe to those views yourself, but have you ever seen any atheist, including yourself, dispute or counter any of those claims? I haven't. The only people around here who find anything wrong with those claims seem to be theists -- fundamentalists, of course; but also rational theists like me, whose rational arguments seem to get lost in the noise of doctrinaire dogmatism and disdain for the same, as if those were the only relevant factors.

Clinging consistently to the contention that religion per se is invariably a negative and pernicious influence in human history, even by passive silence in the face of such extreme claims, is the key here. Admit it or not, that is what most of the discussion and debate from the atheist side here amounts to, does it not? NO ONE, other than the most boneheaded, would deny that religion has often been a negative in human history; but to claim that it has ALWAYS been so does not seem to me to be either rational nor historically accurate, and the positives are almost always dismissed or discounted.

Can you tell me where, in science, logic or any other academic field, that common exceptions to a general rule are properly dismissed as irrelevant and not worth examining more closely? That’s what happens here every damn day.

You've got literalists on one side insisting that it be taken as true in every detail, subverting science and history to do so, who endanger our society in the process. Then you have the other side, which includes you and I, who argue that rational thinking people, should base their beliefs on evidence, logic and reason.

Exactly. So why do you keep telling me that I and my beliefs and approach are irrelevant? “The enemy of my enemy is my friend,� is the way I learned it. But my OWN views are all but invariably dismissed as -- as I said above -- either de facto atheism, which they aren’t, or unacknowledged crypto-fundamentalism, which they ALSO aren’t. In any case, they don’t count here, and I don’t like that, and I don’t expect to like it anytime soon.

I’ve said from the very beginning here that I’d rather share company with an intelligent, thoughtful atheist than a fundamentalist theist any day of the week and any time of day; we have more in common. But what do I get from atheists? I get (1) astonishment that I’m actually rational and that it’s hard to find anything to argue with, or (2) smug, pat-on-the-head patronizing acknowledgment that I’m not a COMPLETE idiot.

And those are the POSITIVES. I’m more often sneered at for retaining anything remotely resembling the primitive, ignorant and childish superstitions that actually mention God as an intellectually respectable concept. Acknowledgement that I and others like me have a positive and valuable role to play in this ongoing debate? I'm still waiting. The attitude I see most often is, "Why don't you get out of our way?"

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.

I doubt it.

(sigh) So do I. I sometimes think that if I had any sense, I’d just bail out of this forum and read. But I keep trying. SOMEBODY ought to continue to make you guys uncomfortable, wondering if there might really be something worth thinking about seriously under the general head of “religion.� When you can bear to face the possibility, that is. Doesn’t seem to happen often.

[sleepyhead]

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?

Hello murad,

I'm a member of the association for research and enlightenment. This isn't a sect or a religion but I'll pretend it is in order to respond to your post. They have a theology that they teach so in that respect they are a religion.

I was a Catholic, LDS, and Church of Christ before I joined the ARE so in the past I have come to the conclusion my previous beliefs were wrong and accepted different views.

The importance of knowing the absolute truth is no longer as significant as it was. There is really no benefit for being a member of the right sect. The best we can do is use the knowledge we already have for both our benefit and the benefit of others.

PS to cnorman Where is the article you wrote. I didn't read it before because it was too long but I'll go ahead and put it on my kindle.