"Cult of Mary"

Even when I was exploring the NT 40 years
ago, I found Paul's views on women disturbing.
It's only when you talk to a spin specialist,
like you or a minister, that the right context
can be put on Paul's words to make them
say what you want them to say. Again, that's
why, at last count, there are over 2500 brands
of Christianity now, each with it's own spin on
the NT, and each more convincing than the
last. It's a circus.

The reason there are so many brands of Christianity is because people decided they were going to make up their own interpretations. The Church's take is not spin, but I can see why you use that strawman argument and see it that way. It is easier to do that then really discuss it.

Quote: FrGamble

The reason there are so many brands of Christianity is because people decided they were going to make up their own interpretations.

But they all think theirs are the RIGHT ones,
including you. And they'll argue them to the
death. The reason there are so many is obvious.
The NT is clear as mud and there are so many
fill in the blanks and use your own judgement
parts that we're lucky there are only 2500.

A minister will say, NO! It's explained to the
exact point, and you will say the same thing
and explain it entirely different than him. To
an atheist it's tilting at windmills, but it gives
them something to do. Mark Twain said people
seem to find religion interesting, it gives them
something to fiddle with.

Exactly.

How do you explain that for over 1500 years there was only one brand of Christianity. It is when people decided, "Hey, I can make up my own take of things outside the authority of the Church that Jesus Himself established and which put together the Bible in the first place" that things got all screwy.

Religion and the question of God is one of the most important questions we can ever answer and discuss, it is not fiddling. What you believe about God, positive or negative, colors everything else in your worldview.

Quote: FrGamble

How do you explain that for over 1500 years there was only one brand of Christianity.

You know the reason. Would you call the
years between 400AD and 1500AD the
'enlightened years'? It wasn't until the
invention of the printing press and the
availability of the Bible in a mass produced
form, that people could have access to
the book and make their own judgements.

Why would you say there was only one
'brand'. Have you never heard of the
Orthodox church, then? Only been around
since the 4th century. Their beliefs differ
greatly from the Roman Catholic. And
I just discovered there are 30,000 separate
Christian sects now, not 25K. Is that progress?

Quote: FrGamble

How do you explain that for over 1500 years there was only one brand of Christianity.

One?

From the start there were many branches. The very first Christian emperor, Constantine, had to call a church council in an attempt to impose harmony. You know, there were Nestorians and Monophysites (remember the "one tiny iota"?). Later on I'm sure you know what "Great Schism" means.

How many councils of the church between Constantine and the XV Century?

The Orthodox Church started to break away from the Catholic Church in the Great Schism and after the disastrous fourth crusade (beginning of 13th century) it was pretty much a done deal. However, they still today remain as close as kissing cousins. They are the only separated Church whose sacraments we recognize and from whom we could receive the sacraments from if need be. Maybe many branches is a good image, after all the Lord used the same, we are many branches and He is the vine. It was not until the Great Schism and then another 500 or so years until the Protestant Reformation that branches cut themselves off from the vine. There have always been some wild branches going in different directions that the ecumenical councils helped to prune and bring back. There have been 21 of these councils from Constantine all the way up to the Second Vatican Council in 1965.

Quote: FrGamble

Maybe many branches is a good image,

So you brag the church was united for 1500 years, but when this turns out not to be the case then "many branches is a good image."

If you can't have it both ways, you can't have it all ways either.

It's a good image because the different branches for all those centuries were still connected to the one vine.

Quote: FrGamble

It's a good image because the different branches for all those centuries were still connected to the one vine.

What do you call the image of Monophysite churches being destroyed or appropriated by mainstream Christians?

Face it, Christians are no less and no more than the same, the exact same, as any common large group of people.