DFXK,
From reading your posts it indicates to me that the Roman Catholic Church is about doctrinal control, and authority over people. That is as I have always suspected. It is the difference between power residing in the Hierarchy and power residing in the Laity. That is the difference between the RC Church and the Reformation movement especially noted in the Church of England. The right to choose ones belief resides in the individual and not in the Church Hierarchy.

The laity in the RC Church must follow the teaching by the Hierarchy of the authorised line as head bowed worshippers. Sounds like fundamentalism to me. "Those that do not we will shut down."
Quote, "The problem is for Protestantism that it lacks a unified tradition, allowing groups to flourish without being criticised by the keepers of the keys to that tradition, and being duly shut down."

In Christian evangelical Churches there is no distinction of hierarchy and laity as everyone is recognised for their giftedness and ability they have to exercise in the service of God. The Church teaching should be focused in equipping people for their ministry in Church and community life.

There are no catechism schools in Evangelical Churches on Church indoctrination and lingering emphasis on preparation for the afterlife. These are preliminary to faith and are initial issues. The emphasis should be upon building character that demonstrates devotion to God and community, social attitudes that demonstrates repentance and forgiveness and behaviours that happily serve other people as was taught and demonstrated by Jesus Christ. People are not devoted to a Church doctrine but to the worship and expression of the character of God.

Hi all

fide mae (post 2:48:25 PM 4/2/06)
Hebrew? Messianic Jews understand Hebrew perfectly. They wouldn't agree with your analogy. Allegorical interpretation can distort Scripture. Variance to literal interpretation is risky. Scripture must be compared to Scripture & placed within its context.
If the text is 'isolated', literal is safer.
(5/2/06)

Col Rouge (post 10:27:43 AM 5/2/06)
My children aren't constrained. All six members think very independently.
Fundamentalists hopefully maintain the basics. Within my "study group" we actually have Pre-, A- & Postmillennial thinkers studying together. There's no attempt at 'control'. We openly discuss our differences.
Meanwhile, Islam is not so simple. Despite its claims, it is not very "tolerant" - even internally.
(5/2/06)

DFXK (post 10:42:07 AM & 10:45:08 AM 5/2/06
Personal dissatisfaction in Protestantism led to a study of Catholicism. I was just as disillusioned. So, I went on to the orthodoxy. Guess what? Again not content (Greek & Coptic) - though I cheered recently when the Greek Orthodox Jerusalem Patriarch sold some land back to the Jews for 10% of its value. He realised the Abrahamic Promise's irrevocability. He blessed the Jews - just as God demands.
On the Pope: I'm pleased to see a man who is uncompromising about the values of Christ ascend into the position. I may not always agree with him, but he's less likely to oscillate. A "yes" will mean a yes.
(5/2/06)

Philo (post 12:39:52 PM 5/2/06)
That's the Protestant dilemma. Who is right? It can't be everyone.
Anglicans in the UK 'accept' homosexuality. We have a similar 'problem' within the Uniting Church in Australia. So, whilst we might love non-heterosexuals, their sin is unaccepted to God. We shouldn't deviate from His perfect will.
The Anglican Church was the first to allow contraceptives & abortions. Abortions are clearly killing another life for lifestyle expediency. Most so-called contraceptives are actually abortifacients - foetus killers. Where's our adherence to God's sanctity of life here?
The Catholic Church has been unwavering on this issue since its inception. Why is Protestantism so silent?
Is it any wonder that Muslims see Christians as 'divided'?

Cheers all

Fundamentalists and Liberals essentially make the same mistake and go in different directions with it. Fundamentalists believe they're wise because they know the truth; liberals believe they're wise because they seek the truth. Both are proud and ego-driven.

The explanation for this, by the way, is that both are human. Pride is inescapable. Even those who would be humble are in fact acting out of pride. True humility, I think, is unachievable; it can only come as God's grace. Lacking it, we can at least TRY to strike a balance -- on the one hand to be open to the truth rather than always asserting it, to refrain from unnecessarily judgments and not place ourselves above others... but on the other to fight for what is right and not fall into a paralyzing self-doubt. Arrogance and self-doubt are equally dangerous traps, and it is hard to see sometimes how we can avoid falling in either one or the other. (This, I think, is similar to what Kierkegaard argues in "Fear and Trembling"... although as I recall he paints an excessively gloomy picture of the dilemma. Taking matters and particularly one's own position too seriously is an especially unappealing reflection of pride.)

Fundamentalist are fundamentally flawed
Liberals are either lazy or lack courage.
This struggle will continue because the general trend is away from religion in general and organised religion in particular. Christians can either ignore all the scientific evidence that’s proves the bible to be a work of fiction. Or they can decide that the bible is full of parables and made up stories to tell a underlining truth. Trouble is once you start to do that you start to find that Christianity is much different to all other religion at it’s core values. From there it’s a short step to agnostic street and if the person has the moral courage Atheism.

I use to think that people are religious because they don’t question then I thought it was because they didn’t ask the right question’s now I know it’s because they don’t like the answers.

My typology tried to pick up on tradition reason and scripture as authoritative in the Church.
LittleAgreeableBuddy, I put Orthodoxy in a separate category as it really subordinates scripture and particularly reason to tradition. Tradition formally has a stronger part to play in Orthodoxy than in the other categories.
BOAZ_David I think there are a lot of people on that evangelical-fundamentalist borderline. If you listen to them, often you can't tell. In the end it comes down to whether people have a theory of interpretation: if people deny this, they are fundamentalists; if they accept that human reason has a part to play in the interpretation of scripture and that the context of that writing has to be established, then they are more likely to be evangelicals. Paul Barnett's latest book on the early church is a good example of the kind of interpretative process I'm talking about, without putting reason above scripture, which is the mark of liberalism. And of course some people self-label in a way that really is'nt objective, which can present problems or any categorisation.
If we emphasise the transcendence of God and his self-revelation(rather than try to assimilate him to human concerns and preoccupations including reason and tradition) then I think we are on the right track. As Barth said, "Let God be God!"

Isn't religion a nest of worms when you analyse it. In 2000 years more than 20,000 break away groups from the original that Christ proposed have developed. Can they all be right, Can any of them be right?

The first simple concept to understand in Christianity is this:

The first four books of the New Testament are Jesus' teachings = Christ = Christianity = The Son of God = The Messiah. Christianity is the following of Jesus' teachings and deeds so without him it is back to Judaism.

Anything after those are man's interpretations of Jesus' teachings, Yes even good old Revelations is only a man's words of what he saw allegedly after or during the visit of an angel.

The Old Testament = Judaism - not to be done away with but to be understood as Judaism in it's relationship with Christianity.

Once you accept that then you can look at religion more closely.

In Matthew Chapters 5 & 6 Jesus the son of God changes many of the traditional teachings of the OT. Read it carefully. It is at this point that he changes Christianity from an eye for an eye religion to a turn the other cheek religion.

People always can quote the reference to homosexuality in Leviticus but forget to read all the other rules in that chapter. If you believe Homosexuality is a sin then it is exactly the same as all sins including judging others... OOps now there is the beginning of trouble.

So if you aren't allowed to judge others you can't judge homosexuals... or you have sinned! and it is as bad a sin as homosexuality if all sin is equal.

Isn't this mind numbing stuff... Ha!

Chrsitianity will continue to break up into more sects/groups/denominations due to the fact that it's practitioners can't follow the simple rules themselves...

I wonder what it's founder would say - all these people have taken his ministry and "renamed it" to "The Fred Bloggsywhatsamaycallme Ministry" or any other name they could think off thereby taking Jesus Christ's name out of his own ministry. Amazing!