[4364Synapse]

I don't have much to add to the conversation, but as an Anabaptist (Mennonite), it is great to see various denominations getting along in a manner expected of us. It warms my heart, and gives me hope, that the brotherhood of God's children is alive and well.

[aeneasmackenzie]

Well, HN is not for flame wars or religious dispute. And I don't think it would be very effective.

More seriously, I think there is still hope for a full reunification. The Miaphysite heresy was resolved in 1990 after 1549 years. The Great Schism could go another 500 on that track record, and the protestants another 1000. At the rate things are going though, most denominations will just disappear from evaporation and increasingly lax doctrine long before that.

[4364Synapse]

>HN is not for flame wars or religious dispute. And I don't think it would be very effective.

Sure, I would agree with that wholeheartedly. Just based off of previous experience I've had on here mentioning any facet of religion, has resulted in an overwhelmingly negative outcome, to the point of irrationality. The context was in how to get a desired outcome without resorting to legal action[1], I thought it was fairly innocuous. I wasn't exactly exposing "You need to think like I do on XYZ.", but there was a bizarre sort of backlash that resulted.

If I had to guess, perhaps the commenting audience that article drew in was a bit less welcoming than this one? However, I did see a few flame-y comments in here as well, that got greyed out. It's hard to really get a feel for the general audience on this site. It's not a Christian forum, but it's also not /r/atheism, either.

Overall, I'm just glad when I see responses that aren't purposefully malicious, you know? It's much easier to be mean to people than to be nice. It was refreshing to see people be nice to one another, even though they disagree on so many issues.

[1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32194373#32195842

[kjellsbells]

> most denominations will just disappear from evaporation and increasingly lax doctrine long before that.

Curious about this statement. Are you saying that doctrinal purity is required? I would have thought that Anglicanism especially tolerated an incredibly wide set of viewpoints. I still recall a one time Bishop of Durham saying that we had no right to insist on the veracity of the Virgin Birth. Is doctrinal laxity something measurable or simply a complaint the orthodox make when their fellow believers have moved away from them but are simply in the process of coalescing around a new set of principles?

[alexvoda]

I think purity and lack of purity are both required for a religion to be a successful meme.

To much purity and the religion faces a "no true scotsman" decline resulting in schisms and deconversion

To little, and it becomes too diluted to hold any significance.

The way a religious macromeme manages the level of purity in an evolving social environment is natural selection at work.

[aeneasmackenzie]

I mean relative to their own orthodoxy. Doctrinal laxity is a process that once started has never ended. Very quickly you end up with no doctrine at all and then people start to wonder why they’re getting up early on the weekend. Look at the Methodists, they’ve had two schisms (or one drawn-out schism? I’m not sure) in the last two years.

[cbfrench]

Agreed! And mad respect for the Anabaptist tradition. The nonviolent witness of the peace churches has been a powerful spiritual and theological influence for me.