- Topic
From the talk in the threads Happy New Year and Internet Tree of Knowledge about denominations, I thought it would be good to continue that discussion in its own thread…
I'm especially curious about this now, after reading comments like these from our wmscog friend, 144000 (taken from those two threads, bolding done by me):
It would have been better for you if you reccomended your own "Zion", but few to none of you have one, exposing the falsehood even more. In fact more often than not you people admit your confusions about the bible and how you don't think any of the denominations have it right (which is the exact same thing we claim, barring ourselves! How we should be in agreement!) Forgive me for speaking in general about all of you as a collective.
But the truth is revealed by so many of you who cannot even say which church is the true church. There is no truth here, only falsehood and men stumbling from place to place, from a famine not of food, but of the word of the Lord.
By the way, I can't think of too many people here who "don't think any of the denominations have it right," rather many have said that there is no single denomination that is the only true church.
Questions for discussion: How would you define a "true church"? Is there specific criteria you would use? (Don't just say one that follows the Bible–too vague.)
It would be better for you if you proclaimed that your own Zions were the true church, and that all the others were false. Instead you put up with each other, where, if you truley believed what you believed, then you would believe that they are the product of the evil one just as much as we are. The bible was right to say "for you put up with it easily enough" and rebuked the different gospels, which are relaly no gospels at all.
But you do not believe that, or if you do then your actions aren't proving it.
And if you are about to reply that it isn't technically a "different gospel" and that you all "believe in Jesus" let me save you so time, to do so is to deny the word of God almighty, who promised the abundance of different gospels and misinterpretations of Christ. We see its fulfillment in hundreds of different denominations.
This is reference to 2 Cor. 11:4, "For if someone comes to you and preaches a Jesus other than the Jesus we preached, or if you receive a different spirit from the Spirit you received, or a different gospel from the one you accepted, you put up with it easily enough."
Questions for discussion: What exactly do you define as the gospel, and how would you know if it was a "different gospel"?
Go and learn what defines a same or different Jesus. He isn't rebuking pagans, he's rebuking churches of Christ who deviate from commands, such as the viel for women "we have no other teaching" nor does the true church of God! "I follow peter" and "I follow paul" the mere existence of differnt denominations is rebuked, Such people are not one in Christ and you are cruelly teasing them if you are telling them they will share in his great reward.
Questions for discussion: What does define "a same or different Jesus"? Do all teachings of different churches have to be exactly the same in order to be "one in Christ" or are some differences allowed?
All these questions are related and can meld into one discussion. And like I said, I'm especially interested in the wmscog's perspective on all this.
The WMSCOG, while I was a member, says there is only one gospel. If everyone teaches, follows, etc. that one gospel, naturally, they would all be doing the same thing. Keeping the same celebrations/congregations the same way.
It made sense to me then and it still makes sense to me now.
The only differences are whatever isn’t explicit in the bibl. For example, I haven’t seen in the bible that brothers and sisters can’t go preaching together. So you’ll see some zions that allow it while others only allow brothers with brothers and sisters with sisters.
How services are held on the days of worship should be exactly the same because God “set the example” through the disciples.
Interjecting here, but it seems strange that men and women can't sit together at services but can go preach together at some Zions. I know of husband and wife teams. Wonder what the reasoning is?
For me the most basic thing is, "Jesus is THE CHRIST."
That is what the bible says and that is one thing that binds us Christians together. This is where the Ahnians differ.
No church has two people with identical beliefs
^ True what Simon says.
Going a bit further, most church members (any church) would not be able to tell you exactly what their church teaches on quite a good number of points. That includes me. I would have to look it up.
Genny, I believe Renita has misunderstood your question. Or perhaps I have.
I think you were asking what differences are acceptable across denominations while Renita seems to have understood that you were asking what differences are allowed between different congregations (gatherings) of the same church (denomination).
Emil, I have answered both questions. There are to be zero differences when it comes down to the teachings of God. There are differences in regards to what are not direct teachings from God. I gave an example of both.
The matters up for dispute in the bible have been “cleared up” by Zahng. Either she answered directly or her example answers.
In regards to where people sit during service, that has both an explanation and an example to follow. It limits distractions of horny members. The Jerusalem temple separates men and women during service. For many members, that alone is enough reason to do the same. (well, what about married couples?) eliminate the explanation to unmarried people. Why do they get to sit together and I don’t? Because they’re married. Are they married too? No they’re engaged? Are they married? MIND YOUR OWN BUSINESS AND FOCUS ON THE SERMON! Lol.
YoMomma SoFat wrote:
Emil, I have answered both questions. There are to be zero differences when it comes down to the teachings of God. There are differences in regards to what are not direct teachings from God. I gave an example of both.
The matters up for dispute in the bible have been "cleared up" by Zahng. Either she answered directly or her example answers.
In regards to where people sit during service, that has both an explanation and an example to follow. It limits distractions of horny members. The Jerusalem temple separates men and women during service. For many members, that alone is enough reason to do the same. (well, what about married couples?) eliminate the explanation to unmarried people. Why do they get to sit together and I don't? Because they're married. Are they married too? No they're engaged? Are they married? MIND YOUR OWN BUSINESS AND FOCUS ON THE SERMON! Lol.
I have been told in the bigger "buildings" people with less faith aka newbies sit up front or towards the front and as they prove themselves to be more brainwashed or I guess faithful is a better word, they get to move towards the back. Like for instance, as "possible example" if a member were to tell the higher ups that another member was doubting the doctrine, the doubter would be moved to the front or kept away from others, like isolated from the group and the "rat" (that's just what we call them in jersey, just a nickname) would be asked to come sit towards the back with the "popular girls" or boys, as it were……whoops it looks like they might have to change the seating chart this week.
They have been changing things up a bit lately, haven't they
Idk.. In both Santee and Seattle Zion, the youth Sat in front. In santee, my group Sa. Directly behind the youth. In Seattle, my group was kind of towards the back. But it was a small church. It was easy to be toward the back.
I started in the back and moved forward
Also our youth sat in the back
Simon wrote:
I started in the back and moved forward
Also our youth sat in the back
Simon, are you sure you were with the wmscog and not the gocsmw because over the past 10 months i've been here it seems wherever you were they did everything different from everybody else. Don't get cranky i'm just kidding but it does seem like your place did a lot of things differently
Yes they did because as a cult they are about as consistent as unmixed cake batter
Simon wrote:
Yes they did because as a cult they are about as consistent as unmixed cake batter
In the words of sistah Renita……tru dat!
Simon, you were in the Presbyterian church by accident, not the wmscog. That's what it sounds like.
Lol! Yea, he’s a special case.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.