-1 Corinthians 1:10 (ESV)
“I appeal to you, brothers, to watch out for those who cause divisions and create obstacles contrary to the doctrine that you have been taught; avoid them.”
-Romans 16:17 (ESV)
“I am astonished that you are so quickly deserting him who called you in the grace of Christ and are turning to a different gospel— not that there is another one, but there are some who trouble you and want to distort the gospel of Christ. But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach to you a gospel contrary to the one we preached to you, let him be accursed. As we have said before, so now I say again: If anyone is preaching to you a gospel contrary to the one you received, let him be accursed. For am I now seeking the approval of man, or of God? Or am I trying to please man? If I were still trying to please man, I would not be a servant of Christ.”
-Galatians 1:6-10 (ESV)
Paul was writing each letter to different churches based on things he knew were happening at that particular church.
A verse without context is popular but has very little meaning.
You need look no further than Philippians 4:13, in which Paul is talking about being able to be content in prison. Context matters.
You’re pointing out that scriptural context is important, and you’re right. These verses, in full context, are about divisions in the church.
> Divisions in the Church
10 I appeal to you, brothers, by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that all of you agree, and that there be no divisions among you, but that you be united in the same mind and the same judgment. 11 For it has been reported to me by Chloe's people that there is quarreling among you, my brothers. 12 What I mean is that each one of you says, “I follow Paul,” or “I follow Apollos,” or “I follow Cephas,” or “I follow Christ.” 13 Is Christ divided? Was Paul crucified for you? Or were you baptized in the name of Paul? 14 I thank God that I baptized none of you except Crispus and Gaius, 15 so that no one may say that you were baptized in my name. 16 (I did baptize also the household of Stephanas. Beyond that, I do not know whether I baptized anyone else.) 17 For Christ did not send me to baptize but to preach the gospel, and not with words of eloquent wisdom, lest the cross of Christ be emptied of its power.
Do you follow the LGBT church? Or the anti-LGBT church? Or do you follow X? Or do you follow Y?
But how would you actually implement that in this app? People fundamentally disagree about the meanings of many verses.
Or are they trying to suggesting the act of pointing out the very clear different and incompatible beliefs between two different Christian groups is actually the division the Bible is against.
Hard to tell which, but those two readings are basically the opposite of each other.
But seriously, it really is a mix. A church can most certainly shape its members beliefs, but many people will also leave a church over issues like these.
One idea I have is to use a ML recommendation model that would use theological preferences as inputs. The trick would be how to personalize that model for a given user before knowing what content they want or would be put off by. Perhaps that could be part of the onboarding process though.
Please don't.
If I want machine learning based AI augmented recommendations, that's literally the entire internet at this point outside a few niche circles.
A Bible app does not need to go down that path.
That's...not particularly true, especially for the denominations that are both large and institutionally old, or are newer but less centrally authoritarian. The Roman Catholic Church (for an example in the former category) for instance, has a small number of declared-as-infallible dogmas, a larger number of doctrines that arr understood to be certain or argued to have been infallibly declared, a wide space of broadly accepted doctrine about which there is still debate which is recognized as legitimate and not dissent, and plenty of open theological questions, more of which are added all the time, because changing circumstances raise new questions not previously considered, and change the factual context of previous considerations so that, even for doctrines that are solid, what piece of the prior articulation is the actual doctrine and what piece reflects the limitations of the context considered at the earlier time must be discerned, and is often actively debated.
There's rather more to it in general but the concept of dogma is one of the reasons that many Christian denominations exist - in protest of the notion of dogma.
For example: Papal Infallibility. The dogma of Papal Infallibility is that God created the post of Pope and inaugurated St Peter as the first one. God created the papacy for His purposes therefore holders of that role cannot be fallible. However, the Pope is a man (why can't Papa be Mum?) and I'm pretty sure that involves being a sinner. It takes some pretty fancy footwork to elevate a bloke who was a mere automatically sinning Cardinal into an Infallible Pope.
For me the whole crux (if you like) of Christianity is that the ultimate divine being became a person and suffered as such - if you like: They experienced Their creation first hand. I don't think you should go around elevating people into little or demi Gods - that's a form of polytheism. Funnily enough I'm declaring my own form of dogma: People are not infallible: Pope, Queen, nor gerdesj.
I do understand the Catholic concept of dogma and even why it still exists. It is not my point to belittle it either but there is quite a good reason why: "practically all denominations have a specific alignment." Those people find the concept of dogma and the like ... sometimes unsatisfactory.
Or that presbyteries are not like catholic churches or anglican ones! There are no priests or higher authorities! Each presby congregation is made up of members, who elect elders, who then visit their local presbytery (the regional org) to vote on matters.
Most importantly, it misses the fact, that Presbyterian is an anagram for Britney Spears
Teaching that you want to hear essentially.
Anyway, that's too bad that you received that hostility. I have 2 mormon friends in my high school. They are chill and fun to hang-out with. They often invited me to join their church, but I can reject without making it a big issue.
I'm a non-denominational protestant, but my family is good friends with a Roman Catholic family down the street... we do have so much in common with them, despite our disagreement as to whether justification and righteousness before God is conferred on the basis of faith alone in Jesus Christ alone.
There is a strong tendency for Catholics and Protestants, when we all chill out and sit down carefully making distinctions about Justification, to find we agreed all along but had different language to describe the same thing.[1] I suspect it extends to other doctrinal issues and areas of genuine disagreement become much more productive when said attitudes and practices are adopted.
I also strongly suspect that most areas of disagreement between Christians are persistent symptoms of European Renaissance politics with theological rationalization.
[1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joint_Declaration_on_the_Doc...
Speaking more seriously, most churches these days are very ecumenical since they have realized they have much more in common with each other than secular culture.
For example, the pro-LGBT and anti-LGBT churches have drastically different views of many verses.