Originally Posted by Fides

Do you know if FM is serious or spoofing? The reality is there are people out there with extreme views and some who are a danger to society. On a site like this it isn't always easy to tell.

Poe's law, named after its author Nathan Poe, is an internet adage reflecting the fact that without a clear indication of the author's intent, it is difficult or impossible to tell the difference between sincere extremism and an exaggerated parody of extremism.

Poe's law - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Originally Posted by gerhard dengler

Thanks for the answer.

I'm not trying to denigrate the beliefs of either the Protestant denomination individually or collectively, when I point out that there are
33,000 separate ones. What I am trying to get is why/how the reformed belief systems became so fractured.

As far as the initial splintering, it was once described to me as variations in how one might clean out a sock drawer. One person might dump out all of the socks and only return those socks to the drawer that they really want to keep. Another might look into the sock drawer and just remove those few socks that have seen better days.

The decentralization of authority and use of democratic processes to revise statements of belief and set standards for church leadership has led to some splinters. This usually starts with a social movement such as women’s suffrage that achieves majority support in some congregations sooner than others. The regional or national governing body may then allow women to become elders or pastors based on the desires of the majority (in communion with the holly spirit of course). More conservative congregations would then splinter away from the main body perhaps rejoining decades later when social norms have stabilized across the region or country. Claims are usually made that the split is based on alternative interpretations of the Bible but it has been my observation the impetus for reinterpretation generally has been social change.

Denominations are also overcome by dramatic divisive political events such as The War to Suppress Yankee Arrogance. Many denominations in the USA split before the war, eventually rejoined decades after the war only to split again over some new social issue.

In the interest of full disclosure I should say I am a Presbyterian married to a pervert, which has proven quite satisfactory so far.

Originally Posted by ne0ica

Most Cof from ROI are embarrased by the OO. St Annes church in Dublin won't even let the Dublin lodge have a service there anymore.

Yes I don't think they associate themselves with the protestants up here and you wouldn't blame them. I would add to that, that alot of Northern Irish Protestants are also embarrassed by the OO.

Originally Posted by Gurdiev

You don't even have to believe in God to join the Anglican Church....(!) .I think if you're someone who likes your religion to have some gravitas , thecRCC is a better option than the Anglican.
If you like an unchallenging, friendly socially aware church then the latter is better.
COI seems a bit more traditionally 'Protestant' than Anglican

TBH I don't think anyone in Southern Ireland has experienced a true Protestant church. I have been to tons of Protestant churches and compared to like the Baptist church and the Presbyterian church they aren't even Protestant.

Originally Posted by ne0ica

Do you remember the rector back in the late 90's in Dublin who said he didn't even believe in Jesus.

eh?

Originally Posted by between the bridges

at this time of year i 'do the rounds' i.e attend OO services in a number of different parish's, there are subtle differences in the service's and huge differences in the sermon tone/content. add in a couple of 'foreign' ministers (a nice Kenyan chap who hasn't a clue about the OO and a ROI chap who thinks we are the devils spawn) an it makes for quite a diverse range!

We don't care love. You've already told us that.

Originally Posted by alaimacerc

Ah, religious dogma and claims of self-evidence. What a combo.

Free will, omniscience and omnipotence are not logically compatible. If, 14.6billion years ago, I created the conditions that caused you to make that last post, and knew at the time that it would, then you have no free will, merely the illusion of such.

Pick any two (at most; most likely, 'none of the above').

Your logical PP will say that the simultaneous claim of all three is "a great mystery". That's a polite religious euphemism for "it's nonsense on stilts, and I'm not even going to try to rationalise it".

Not so - God can have foreseen what would happen (if forseen is the right word) as a product of our free will and allowed it to happen. There is no inherent contradiction between free will, omniscience, and omnipresence...

Originally Posted by Niall996

World wars with countless dead, maimed, ruined al over whether a piece of bread is really a bit of Jesus's flesh or symbolically a piece of his flesh. Monthy Python couldn't have made it up.

None of the (major, at least) schisms actually occurred over transubstantiation. The Council of Trent did get in some Counter-Reformation digs in on the topic, though.

Originally Posted by toxic avenger

Not so - God can have foreseen what would happen (if forseen is the right word) as a product of our free will and allowed it to happen.

Not merely foresaw, but caused to happen. If something happens entirely because of an action of yours, and you fully foresaw that it would happen, then no-one else seemingly involved has an effective agency at all, and all responsibility (in every sense) is your own.

There is no inherent contradiction between free will, omniscience, and omnipresence...

Handwaving.

Originally Posted by Frosty1

TBH I don't think anyone in Southern Ireland has experienced a true Protestant church. I have been to tons of Protestant churches and compared to like the Baptist church and the Presbyterian church they aren't even Protestant.

You do realize that there are, to take just the two examples you mention, both Baptist and Presbyterian churches in "Southern Ireland"?