Recently learned that even Protestants fall on a wide range of spectrum, that some even acknowledge (macro)evolution while some think dancing is a sin.
Is there any source that gives a good overview?
bumperiono
Protestants are generally divined into two camps, Mainline and Fundamentalist. You already know what fundamentalists are, they can be easily spotted because they think evolution is bullshit.
Mainline Protestants are: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5bWHSpmXEJs
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mainline_Protestant
>>495689
Your typology is fucking shit.
How about a theologically driven typology: pseudo-Catholics, Lutherians, Calvinists, Radicals
Or a Church History driven typology:
Lutherians, Radicals, Calvinists, Anglo-Protestants, Old dissenters, New dissenters, Methodists, Baptists, Fundamentalists?
fucksake, no wonder the churches are dying.
>>495714
>pseudo-Catholics
What the hell are those? Are they the ones who go to Church on Christmas and Easter and believe gays should marry, abortion is cool by God, and all manner of sin is justifiable if it makes you happy?
Also, there's no "I" in "Lutherans."
>>495761
>Lutherans are either anti-evolution, or SJW. Depends on the Lutheran denomination you're talking about. Same for Methodists and Calvinists.
That sounds like an issue of secular politics.
>Anglican communion
They also have episcopalian governance and a tradition of interpreting praxis through a rereading of doxy in terms of social engagement.
I'm not entirely clear why you're fascinated with protestants intervention into secular politics.
It isn't like they're anabaptists who know god's command is that the rich ought to be killed.
>>495775
>That sounds like an issue of secular politics.
It's an issue of moral doctrine in their denominations. The Mainline ones have very open gay people in relationships in their clergy. I used to be an Episcopalian: we had black a black Jesus slide show and said gay people were the modern day Christ for not being allowed to marry, they were on the cross.
>>495787
Hey Constantine are you russian
>>495787
Yes, fundamentalists do consider all of creation to be morally charged, much like the anabaptists, but unlike the anabaptists they lack some of the theological features which makes this revolutionary or a matter of universal tolerance.
Here's a question: The anglican and orthodox communions are close to reaching agreement. Why are the majority of these communions able to separate social from moral governance, and agree on issues of doctrine?
>>495805
No, Greek Orthodox.
>>495813
The Orthodox Church is not close, but moving toward communion with the Anglican denominations which *broke away* from the communion. The Continuing Anglican movement, for example.
>Why are the majority of these communions able to separate social from moral governance, and agree on issues of doctrine?
Anglicans barely have any doctrine to speak of, it's almost all left to the individual. That more than anything is what cockblocked communion with the Orthodox Church, but the female ordination completely ruined any possibility, and the gay stuff is just icing on the cake that cannot be. The Anglican Communion is rekt, there is no way to salvage it as a Church. We can worth with them, and are very happy to, but there is no way we will ever been on the same page, there is zero hope for that now.
>>495917
>The Anglican Communion is rekt, there is no way to salvage it as a Church.
Africa dude.
>>495926
Africa will quite the Anglican Communion when the CoE does gay marriage.
From there, they will either go independent, or go Orthodox (Orthodox would appeal to them more than the Catholic Church because they would maintain their autonomy).
>>495564
>Protestants fall on a wide range of spectrum
You're not wrong
>>495689
American please, stop applying your horseshit crackpot cathegories to the whole planet.
>>495962
Pretty sure the Lutheran World Federation's main churches (Evangelical Lutheran Church of America, the Church of Denmark, and the Church of Sweden) are all SJW.
The Church of Scotland is in the same transition phase the Episcopal Church was in before it went full SJW (unions are okay, not marriage yet, gay ministers up to the local congregation, etc.)
The Methodist Church of Great Britain blesses same-sex unions. Will eventually get around to marriage, I guarantee it.
The United Reformed Church (the main Presbyterians of England) have gay marriage.
Almost all the the churches in the Evangelic Church of Germany communion (includes Lutheran and Reformed) bless same-sex unions. Gay marriage won't be far off.
Church of Norway is not exactly SJW, but does allow gay marriage as of 2015.
Church of Iceland has gay marriage.
The dichotomy doesn't really apply to Europe because they don't have fundamentalists. That doesn't mean they don't have the other category in spades.
>>495950
My first thought as well
>>496095
Though his initially gripes were just, Luther developed into an egomaniac once he had baronial support. As for the barons who backed him, they had no concern over theology themselves, they just wanted political independence from the HRE and the Pope.
>>496081
The Lutheran Church in Slovakia rejects gay marriage.
>>496289
What percentage of Lutherans do you suppose live there?
>>495564
>that some even knowledge evolution
What the fuck; how did you not know this? Do you literally live under a rock?
>>496301
The ones who do are basically: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PIb6AZdTr-A
Their religion plays zero part in their lives outside of church, and in church they often have sermons on the importance of feminism and gay marriage. It's not surprising he wouldn't know of them despite their size.
>>496309
>protestant churches literally peddling political shit
Not even surprised.
>>495564
>(macro)evolution
'macro' evolution isn't even a thing in biology
>>496297
Around 10%. Used to be 90% before counter reformation.
>>496337
This, the micro/macro division only exists outside of biology.
>>496309
Are you a creationist?
I believe in evolution and take my religion quite seriously.
>>496436
Orthodox. I'm a former Episcopalian, though
>>496439
Then you aren't a Protestant. I'm only talking about Protestants here, not Orthodox.
I'm not a creationist in the young earth "evolution doesn't real" sense.
>>496444
Ah right, sorry for the confusion.
>>496436
It's 316 000 members actually, but whatever. Not sure what your percentage horseshit is supposed to prove.
>>496444
Do you subscribe to the view of Fr. Seraphim Rose?
http://startingontheroyalpath blogspot co uk/2009/10/evolution.html
I am a hair's breadth from converting to Orthodoxy but the reactionary side of the religion is massively offputting
>>495564
Protestants can believe just about anything, m8. Unlike Catholics or Orthodox they don't all follow once central Church that mandates more or less uniform beliefs. There are hundreds of different Protestant churches, grouping them all together as believing the same thing is ridiculous.
>>496354
I'd go as far as to say it only exist within theology.
Protestants are the group that carry the spirit of the first generation Christians best. Jesus was an anti-clericist, his religion was one of complete individualization. When he said whereever two or three of your gather, I am there he meant it literally. That's what his church was.
The larger organization of the Orthodox and Catholics is the anti-thesis to Jesus. By the 2nd century though the corruption had already set in.
>>497936
>Protestants are the group that carry the spirit of the first generation Christians best
but the gospels hadn't been compiled until well after the first generation so where the fuck does sola scriptura come from
>>497945
You're still thinking in terms of structured religion. The teachings Jesus brought forth was not structured. The religion had no scripture and no priesthood.
The idea of a priesthood with special administrative powers or the idea that there is certain texts that must regarded as canonical is a pagan idea. I am not saying Protestants got everything right but they are far closer to the 1st generation.
Think about what Jesus did. He never wrote anything down, he never gave anyone authority. His church consisted of gathering a few dozen people and speaking to them. Nothing was formal. It operated on the micro-level, there is no official cannon.
>>497989
Where do Protestants come up with this garbage?
>>500427
That's what you get if you don't have doctrine
>>497936
>Jesus was an anti-clericist
This is a completely lie
>>497989
>The idea of a priesthood with special administrative powers or the idea that there is certain texts that must regarded as canonical is a pagan idea.
It's in the old testament, and Christ was a religious Jew who considered Pharisaic Judaism to be orthodox.
>>500508
Christ nowhere says anything against the clergy. Christian clergy is meant to be a direct successor to Jewish clergy, the Temple of Jerusalem from a Christian perspective was an icon for Christ's Body, and His Apostles are charged with being ministers of her.
>>500492
If you read what jesus there is no basis for a cleric order. None. His words only consist of spiritual talk.
"For where two or three gather in my name, there am I with the" That's his church. It's the presence of the holy spirit that legitimizes on as a Christian and that presence is in all believers. The Catholic and Orthodox position is that the holy spirit is a prisoner, who is held captive at some counsel, with some high priest that alone has the knowing. While their church may be very old, it is not the church of Jesus. Jesus went to the poor and took fellowship with anyone that wanted to listen with an open heart.
In this regard I think the group that is closest to the 1st generation Christians are the quakers. There is no official priest, the holy spirit is the true guiding forth and it is in everyone.
>>500547
>If you read what jesus there is no basis for a cleric order.
THERE DOESN'T NEED TO BE. Christ Gospels can't be abstracted from ancient Judaism and the OT.
>The Catholic and Orthodox position is that the holy spirit is a prisoner, who is held captive at some counsel, with some high priest that alone has the knowing
No. Orthodox Ecumenical Councils have to be first of all in the name of Christ: if they have any other motivation, they are void. Second, they are invalid of the laypeople reject them (that is why the the Orthodox Church did not reunite with the Catholic Church, because even though every bishop but Marky Mark favored it, and even the Emperor of the Byzantines favored it, the laypeople rejected it).
From a Protestant perspective, the Holy Spirit contradicts himself all the time, because every tom dick and harry who get the fainest notion or whim can shake hands and say we speak for the Holy Spirit.
>In this regard I think the group that is closest to the 1st generation Christians are the quakers
Yeah, people who get together and have talks about how great Mohammed and gay marriage are. No thanks.
>>500519
>Christian clergy is meant to be a direct successor to Jewish clergy
Which Jesus came to destroy. He didn't come to replace with a new group of equally corrupt and hypocritical priests. The whole point of God coming to earth was that he was now directly interacting with the people.
In the past God was inaccessable and the priesthood had special powers to divine what he wanted or so the story goes. But this is hypocracy. The priesthood is just much human as the average person. God does not pick favorites, he conveys with all his creations equally. Did Jesus say the holy spirit was only in priests who won a theological debate? Or the priest that is the most popular? Or the priest that knew the guy that knew the guy that knew Peter? No the holy spirit is in everyone.
There is nothing special about a priest spiritually, they are just another man. God reveals himself to one man as easily as another. The priest's role through history has been to try obstruct everyone else from reaching God, to pretend that they alone understand him.
>>500508
Though I don't (and neither did any Christian for 1500+ years) believe in Sola Scriptura but I know that person does, how about this:
"Truly, I say to you, whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven."
- Mathew 18:18
This was said directly to Peter.
"And I tell you, you are Peter,[a] and on this rock[b] I will build my church, and the powers of death[c] shall not prevail against it."
- Matthew 16:18
Keep in mine 'Petra' (Peter) means 'rock'.
Also just read what he said here:
>>500547
>Quakers are the closest to 1st generation Christians
He acts like we don't have thousands of pages of writing from early Church Fathers and what they believed, how they worshipped (passed on to them by the Apostles, who were taught by Jesus Christ himself).
He would prefer to use Sola Scriptura to invent what he imagines the 'early Church' to be like instead of just reading exactly what it was like.
To fully understand how wrong that poster has it, just look at this:
He is claiming the Quakers are the 'best example of 1st century Christianity' yet Quakers DO NOT practice ANY sacraments.
To take one sacrament: Even if you are subscribing to Sola Scriptura it is very obvious that the Eucharist was extremely important to the apostles (or, for the sake of argument if you must call it 'the Lords Supper' because you are a Protestant, it is still extremely important to the early Christians).
1/2
>>500579
Really though just google these things and people much more intelligent then myself will have responses written about them from any age, from ancient to modern.
Our connection to the early Church is not some mysterious thing as the Protestants wish it was, for us it is very real and something we do not take for granted in our sacred tradition. Just for example: we have preserved writing from Pope Clement; this is the THIRD POPE including Peter, that means that there is only one person between a Pope we have plenty of writing by and PETER THE APOSTLE OF JESUS.
2/2
>>500579
There you go again, trying to reason out what Christ wants you to do based on what some assholes did who were informed in turn by other assholes. All you have to do is read Christ's actual words.
>>500563
>From a Protestant perspective, the Holy Spirit contradicts himself all the time, because every tom dick and harry who get the fainest notion or whim can shake hands and say we speak for the Holy Spirit
There has been just as much contradiction within the official priesthood. The Catholic and Orthodox split up over this.
The reason the holy spirit is going to vary from person to person is because we all live different lives. What's right for Tom isn't right for Harry. However Harry cannot put on a special hat and say he knows what is right for Tom because he's acting on behalf of God. The holy spirit acts on a subjective, personal level, speaking differently to each person.
>Christ Gospels can't be abstracted from ancient Judaism and the OT
Jesus's has almost no presense in the OT, it's debatable if he even appears once. What Jesus came to do was to DESTROY the ways of the OT. The priesthood ended. The need for sacrifices ended. Look at how Jesus lived his life. Did he wear a special hat? Did he build himself a huge shiny temple? No he lived as ordinary man, that's how the Christian community is to be. There are no priests. There is the individual, the holy spirit that guides him, and the goodness he brings to his community.
>>500583
>people much more intelligent then myself will have responses written about them
Argument from authority - the only retort you have.
>>500589
>St. Peter, the asshole, was informed by another asshole named Jesus.
Protestants believe this?
>>500596
>There has been just as much contradiction within the official priesthood. The Catholic and Orthodox split up over this
No it's called a schism especially because it wasn't a matter of faith that divided orthodox and catholic.
Those differences came later
>>500598
1: I did present an argument.
2: That is not an argument from authority. An argument from authority would be 'Well this smart person says ___ is true so ___ is true!'. What I am saying is 'This person has thought about this for years and years and has postulated an argument for it so why don't we start from there with our discourse instead of rehashing arguments over and over?' which in no way means I am saying they are absolutely right or wrong; just that it is a good place to start when framing an argument.
Just like if you were arguing against the Big Bang Theory and I said 'well can you point out what parts of Father George Lemaitre's proofs you find to be incorrect?' that wouldn't be an argument from authority. Or do you think that every time someone debates about something they have to completely build the theory from the ground up from scratch to get to the point where they are agreeing with someone else's proofs; and then argue from there?
>>500610
The theory stands by itself, and it's not solely le Maitre's theory anyway. Present the argument independently of anyone who has "thought about it for years and years". Relativity isn't (more or less) correct because Einstein was a genius. It's correct because you can read it and see that it makes sense.
>>500604
The only Law is God's law. Not the law of the priests, this is what Jesus came to destroy and he certainly didn't want it replaced with another man-made law.
There is only the eternal Law of God now which is available to everyone with an earnest heart and an open mind. People are not cattle, each person is unique and will have a unique path. Only the individual can truly understand what God wants of them. This is why there is no cannon. Understanding of the holy spirit's will is not one of studying dogma but of passionate leaps into faith.
>>500607
You can rephrase it as much as you want but there have been disagreements among the Orthodox and Catholic for all sorts of things.
>>500633
There are plenty of problems the Big Bang Theory (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Bang#Problems_and_related_issues_in_physics) and all of them would start at the proofs behind the Big Bang Theory and why parts of them my be correct or incorrect.
But either way: why not just ignore the last sentence of my post if you truly believe what you say? Why didn't you respond to the entire rest of my post about the subject to that person; and only the part where I suggested they research the topic off of 4chan if they are interested?
>>500642
>The only Law is God's law.
God's law established a priesthood, bud. We know Christ considered the OT to be the Law because he quotes things like Psalms from "the Law".
>>500667
>God's law established a priesthood, bud
Do you honestly beleive that the eternal laws of the universe and it's envitable destiny are to be controlled by a fucking priesthood? A few mortal men sitting in a room? Think about how vast the universe how long it's been going since before a single human existed. That alone should tell you God's law is going to exist perfectly fine without a single priest.
God's truths are eternal, while the rulings of a priesthood only began a couple thousand years ago.
Further more the idea of a priesthood is absurd. God is omni-present, if he wants to communicate something he isn't going to play telephone with the priesthood. He's going to say it to whoever needs to hear it directly.
>We know Christ considered the OT to be the Law
The Law of God from the OT is relevant. The law of the priest's is not. The Rabbi's laws are mere opinions, same with the Orthodox or Catholic laws. The most meaningful understand of God is the subjective and personal one, direct contact with the holy spirit.
>>500722
>Further more the idea of a priesthood is absurd
Uh, dude, that's heresy. You might want to be careful with that.
>>500734
God's Laws are eternal. They are as old as time, possibly even before that. His laws are not merely the way in which things live but the way the cosmos works.
Did he have a fucking priesthood to regulate that? A priesthood has no more power to regulate the laws of morality than they do to regulate gravity.
>>500722
>God is omni-present, if he wants to communicate something he isn't going to play telephone with the priesthood. He's going to say it to whoever needs to hear it directly.
So, how does Christ fit into this idea?
>>500722
>do you honestly believe that if God wanted to impart humanity with sacraments, ceremonies expressing truth, and a way of life, he'd bother to have people specially appointed to ensure these things are not distorted????
>>500755
This is all getting a bit abstract. The priesthood is a solid foundation of order that you can rely on, way more so than some vague "God's Law" or whatever you call it.
>>500769
Right. The Catholic church never corrupted the teachings of Christ. The 30 was totally in line with God's plan. The priesthood is just as subjective as the indivual, but at least the indivual can understand his own subjectivity. The priesthood cannot understand the subject of others.
>>500765
Christ is the model, he's showing us how to be a man. How did Christ now what God wanted of him? He prayed, he listened to the holy spirit. He didn't refer to the Torah or ask a Rabbi. That is the model to follow on how to know what God wants of you.
>>500775
>The priesthood is a solid foundation of order that you can rely on, way more so than some vague "God's Law"
"I prefer man-made laws to God's laws"
You know what else is solid and universial? Secular law, in fact because it is backed up by the police and courts it's even more base than the priest's laws. So why don't you put down the bible and stop going to church and have that tell you how to live your life?
>>500819
>Christ is the model, he's showing us how to be a man.
And who's supposed to do that now?
>the indivual can understand his own subjectivity.
lol
>>500755
Why have you still not addressed Mat. 18:18 then?
>>500830
Why don't you go find a priest and ask him the question
"What has my life been leading up to?"
See if he can answer this. Even if he were to call a ecumenical counsel and all the bishops were to debate it for a year they still could not answer this. The only person on the planet that can answer this is the individual, apart from god he is the only one that can understand his own subjectivity and thus what he should do with his life.
If God truly speaks through the priests than this priest should easily be able to answer the question. But he doesn't speak through the priests, he speaks directly to you, and this is where you will get your answer.
Now understand that what I said applied to everyone. And yes the Orthodox and Catholics really are stupid enough to hold ecumenical counsels to ask what everyone else in the world should be doing. Talk about comedy.
>>500819
>The Catholic church never corrupted the teachings of Christ.
I'm Orthodox. Latin Christianity did indeed corrupt Christ's teachings.
>Christ's Truth is subjective
Obviously not. Orthodox and Coptic have been separated for 1,600 years. We only started up dialogue again relatively recently, and we find the issue we split over was purely semantics (both sides were justified were they correct, but both sides misunderstood the position each other was representing). We find that once we resolved this, we are on the same page with everything else. This obviously was not 1,600 years of lolrandumb, it was 1,600 of scrupulous preservation of the teachings of Christ, without falling prey to modernism or subjective interpretation. We fully recognize each other now as Christ's Church, and becoming One Church is just a matter of ironing out the process, like eliminating duplicate bishoprics, etc. Once all that is finished, it's a wrap.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AE1FzSC8DBs
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V27RKwOoQbY
>>500864
So your answer to my question is "nobody"? Nobody is supposed to show us the way now?
>>500875
The fact that you were able to keep your own laws unified for so long is very admirable. But these are human laws, they are not God's laws.
Let's take Kirkeegard's Abraham example. How do you think God communicated to Abraham? Did he give the message to a priest who than gave it to Abraham? Was it written in some the Torah or some Rabbi's commentary? No, in fact if one consulted the Torah, a Rabbi he would say that killing your own son is not what God would want. The Torah itself forbids human sacrifice.
So we already see God's laws are not bond up in a priesthood or a holy book. We also see that they vary from person to person, what was right for Abraham would have been wrong for anyone else. God's laws may even contradict the bible or priests and these laws are spoken directly to the individual.
>>500875
Can't forget the English version too:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WkqZbFQb0O0
>>500888
I'll repeat again. Jesus is the model, he understood things by directly communicating with the holy spirit. He didn't go to a fucking priest and ask what God wanted, he asked God directly. That is how you will know the way. The understanding of God's Law is a strictly individual one, only you can know what God wants of you. No other mortal can answer that..
>>500917
>He didn't go to a fucking priest and ask what God wanted
On what planet did you come up with the idea that this is what Priests do/are/facilitate?
>>500917
And how exactly does someone today learn what example was set by Jesus if he can't trust anyone but himself?
>>500941
Let's suppose I had the full answer and I explained it to you. How would you know I'm correct? You'd have to trust your own judgement. And if you did trust your own judgement and follow what I told you, what happens when you reach a situation where you must contextualize what I say? You'd have to use your own mind and trust yourself.
So you are always in a position where you must trust yourself. There is no escaping the subjectivity or life because you will always be your own subject and never some else's. The only real alternative you would have would be to renounce any free thought and find yourself a slave master who would make all the choices for you.
While priests, theologians, and various books may contain a lot of knowledge and be usful it is the individual that is the final arbitrator. If Abraham did not trust himself and refereed to the Torah or a Rabbi about what to do he could not have went through with his mission. The Torah would tell him human sacrifice is wrong and the Rabbi would say what he hears is not really God's voice.
>>500907
"Kierkegaard's" Abraham had a great deal of hard evidence that God was the one talking to him. He wasn't Joseph Smith.
>>500962
I understand the need to think for oneself. That does not in any way justify your ideas. If you don't think anything good will come of explaining yourself, why don't you fuck off?
>>500994
I'm not talking about Joseph Smith. Joseph Smith is just a continuation of the negative priesthood, the same thing the Orthodoxy did but his church is much younger.
The statement "God spoke to me. He said that you should do this." Is never a Christian statement. If God wants a person to do something he will not have an intermediary, he will speak directly the correct statement is "God spoke to me and he should I should do this".
Joseph Smith, a Ecumenical Counsel, or any sort of priest is an intermediary. The holy spirit is in everyone, one need only become aware of it.
>>501214
God did tell us to do things, Jesus is God. God told us to do a lot of things, and the main job of the clergy is to see that these things aren't fooled around with (that includes enacting them: one of the main reasons only the clergy performs sacraments, is that the clergy is really well versed in how to perform them and won't screw them up). You can't even remember it all, the idea that God should keep reiterating it for you is a bit ridiculous.
Do you remember the rich man and Lazarus?
>I pray thee therefore, father, that thou wouldest send him to my father’s house for I have five brethren; that he may testify unto them, lest they also come into this place of torment. Abraham saith unto him, They have Moses and the prophets; let them hear them.
>>501214
By the way, Ecumenical Councils are only about preserving doctrine that was always there, for the sake of autists who decide to challenge it because it isn't explicitly written down, or how it is written doesn't satisfy them. That is why even though the Coptics haven't participated in the last four Ecumenical Councils, they are in total accord with them.
>>501276
Preserving man made rules.
