The Validity Of Splinter Religions

[quickrace89]

Hi all, new member here. I don't think this topic has already been discussed, seeing it didn't turn up in the first few pages of Search. If it's an old topic, let me know so I can delete this and save what dignity I have remaining.

 

Christianity*, especially in America, seems to consist of a great many splinter groups - and more are created every year. All the different flavours of Christ you can find in the world have followers who are as pious and devoted as each other, and as pious and devoted as those who follow older, more established rulebooks. From an atheist point of view (and of equal bias, or lack thereof, towards all of them) they all appear to hold the same validity and "Truthiness". Other than your own personal bias propelling you right into the depths of one of them, how can one be better or more "accurate" than the others?

 

Opinions from devotees of one group or another especially welcomed!

 

*: I only feel qualified to comment on this general religion, as I do not feel that I have enough experience and contact with any others to form a 100% fair view (leaving the assumption of a god's existence or lack thereof out of the matter).

[Shyone]

From an atheist point of view (and of equal bias, or lack thereof, towards all of them) they all appear to hold the same validity and "Truthiness". Other than your own personal bias propelling you right into the depths of one of them, how can one be better or more "accurate" than the others?

 

Opinions from devotees of one group or another especially welcomed!

All religions look like "splinter religions" to me. Islam Hindu, Buddhism, Jainism, Baha'i, Christianity, etc. They don't necessarily splinter from each other, but they all come from something related in our psyche (not the God Psyche, but the brain thingy).

 

Since these religions are mutually incompatible, none is true. Same for denominations and sects and smaller divisions of religion. The existence of division implies lack of unformity and lack of agreement.

[oddbird1963]

I don't think approaching churches as "better" or "more accurate" is the right way to go about comparing various offshoots of Christianity.

 

These terms assume that the person doing the evaluating is in possession of knowledge of the "true" Christianity and can judge the accuracy of all other groups. There is no one bench mark Christianity by which all others should be judged.

 

There are a couple of ways to evaluate offshoots. First is to identify their theology in terms of earlier theologies or more predominant theologies, understanding the history of the movements which produced the offshoot. Are these groups more or less Arminian in their approach. Are they Calvinist? Are they some offshoot of the Mormons? Where do they stand with regards to what is generally accepted as "orthodox" doctrine.

 

Second, is to identify the type or style of church polity they used and the social structure of the churches. Are they centered around a strong personality? Are they driven more by a committee or a consensus type of cultural milleau? How much control do they try to exert on the private lives of their members?

 

In all of this, no Atheist or agnostic, freethinker or skeptic is able to say that a group is "better" or "more accurate" in their christianity. In all truth, no Christian is able to say that. What a tremendous affront to the Christian exhortation to be "completely gentle and humble" to stand in such arrogant judgement of another group! It is presumptuous for a Christian to declare they possess the "true christianity" and are capable of judging another. It is ludicrous for an agnostic or atheist to do so.

[skepticalme]

To me it appears that, since religions do split and evolve, this is evidence that these ideologies are entirely the product of man. You see this in any group based around ideas such as political parties and cultures. Just as oddbird pointed out, like political parties and cultures, there is no absolute right or wrong. Just what you agree with. Ironically it follows a pattern similar to the evolution of species, just on a smaller scale. Like evolution, ideas are passed from one generation to the next mostly intact, but with each subsequent passing small changes are made that accumilate over time resulting in splits(speciation). In fact, when evolution deniers ask me, "If people evolved from monkeys, why are there still monkeys?" Besides being factually incorrect I point out that, "If the Lutheran church came from the Catholic chuch, why are there still Catholics?"

[quickrace89]

To me it appears that, since religions do split and evolve, this is evidence that these ideologies are entirely the product of man. You see this in any group based around ideas such as political parties and cultures. Just as oddbird pointed out, like political parties and cultures, there is no absolute right or wrong. Just what you agree with. Ironically it follows a pattern similar to the evolution of species, just on a smaller scale. Like evolution, ideas are passed from one generation to the next mostly intact, but with each subsequent passing small changes are made that accumilate over time resulting in splits(speciation). In fact, when evolution deniers ask me, "If people evolved from monkeys, why are there still monkeys?" Besides being factually incorrect I point out that, "If the Lutheran church came from the Catholic chuch, why are there still Catholics?"

 

Well, if you put the question to a logical thinker (i.e, an atheist), it will become immediately apparent that the multitude would suggest they are false. What I really would like to know is what the Christians say.

[florduh]

Validity? None. Purpose? Definitely.

 

Each little (or large) variation on the god/religion theme allows the individual to imagine he has greater insight than the unwashed masses. The more unique the adopted doctrine is, the greater the feeling of superiority. It's simply ego.