In honor of u/Tetartos_Ippeas I will occasionally repost from other fora to c/Conspiracies. This one is in light of a comment by u/no_ez.
This is expanded from an earlier post via my attempting to keep the most important details without imbalance (even though editorial decisions are unavoidable and the current list is Amerocentric).
- Constantine didn't like other Catholics and founded Roman ("Lateran") Catholics, 312.
- Roman Catholics under Damasus I and "antipope" Ursinus I didn't like each other and were briefly two churches, 366-367.
- Roman Catholics didn't like Nestorius whose church got called Church of the East, 424.
- Roman Catholics didn't like Cyril of Alexandria whose church got called Oriental Orthodox, 451.
- Roman Catholics didn't like Abraham I whose church got called Armenian Apostolic, 607.
- Roman Catholics didn't like Michael I whose church got called Eastern Orthodox, 1056.
- Roman Catholics under Innocent II and "antipope" Anacletus II didn't like each other and were briefly two churches, 1130-1138.
- Roman Catholics didn't like Peter Waldo whose church got called Waldensians ("Huguenots"), 1215.
- Roman Catholics under Urban VI and "antipope" Clement VII didn't like each other and were briefly two churches, 1378-1417.
- Roman Catholics didn't like John Wyclif whose church got called Lollards, 1381.
- Roman Catholics under Gregory XII, "antipope" Benedict XIII, and "antipope" Alexander V didn't like each other and were briefly three churches, 1409-1417.
- Roman Catholics didn't like Jan Hus whose church got called Moravians ("Hussites"), 1415.
- Roman Catholics didn't like Martin Luther whose church got called Lutherans ("Evangelicals"), 1521.
- Lutherans didn't like Conrad Grebel whose church got called Anabaptists, 1525.
- Lutherans didn't like Huldrych Zwingli whose church got called Zwinglians ("Calvinists"), 1529.
- Henry VIII didn't like Roman Catholics and founded Anglicans ("Episcopals"), 1534.
- Menno Simons didn't like Roman Catholics and founded Mennonites, 1536.
- Shimun VIII didn't like Church of the East so Roman Catholics founded Chaldean ("Malabar") Catholics for him, 1553.
- John Knox didn't like Roman Catholics and founded Presbyterians, 1560.
- Anglicans didn't like Richard Fitz and John Browne whose church got called Congregationalists ("Brownists", "Independents", "United Church of Christ"), 1567.
- Roman Catholics didn't like Gaspar van der Heyden, Jean Tan, and Joannes Polyander, whose church got called Reformed, 1571.
- Anglicans didn't like Henry Barrow and John Greenwood whose church got called Separatists ("Barrowists", "Pilgrims"), 1587.
- Anglicans didn't like John Smyth whose church got called Baptists, 1607.
- Johann van Oldenbarnevelt didn't like Calvinists and founded Remonstrants ("Arminians"), 1610.
- Henry Jacob didn't like Anglicans and founded Calvinist ("Particular", "Reformed") Baptists, 1616.
- Anglicans didn't like Hamlet Jackson and Dorothy Traske whose church got called Seventh Day Baptists, 1616.
- Congregationalists didn't like Roger Williams whose church got called American Baptists, 1638.
- Gerrard Winstanley and William Everard didn't like Anglicans and founded Levellers ("Diggers"), 1649.
- Anglicans didn't like George Fox whose church got called Friends ("Quakers"), 1650.
- Paul Palmer didn't like other Baptists and founded Free Will Baptists, 1702.
- Alexander Mack didn't like Roman Catholics and founded German Baptists ("Church of the Brethren"), 1708.
- Roman Catholics didn't like Jakob Ammann whose church got called Amish, 1712.
- Roman Catholics didn't like Cornelius Steenoven and Dominique Varlet whose church got called Old Catholics ("Independent Catholics"), 1724.
- Eastern Orthodox didn't like Cyril VI so Roman Catholics founded Melkite Greek Catholics for him, 1729.
- Ebenezer and Ralph Erskine didn't like other Presbyterians and founded Associate Reformed Presbyterians ("United Secession Church", "United Free Church"), 1733.
- Anba Athanasius briefly didn't like Eastern Orthodox so Roman Catholics founded Coptic Catholics for him, 1741.
- Thomas Nairn didn't like Presbyterians and founded Reformed Presbyterians ("Covenanters"), 1743.
- Other Baptists didn't like George Whitefield whose church got called Second Baptist ("Separate Baptists"), 1743.
- James and Jane Wardley didn't like Quakers and founded Believers ("Shakers"), 1747.
- John Wesley didn't like Anglicans and founded Methodists ("Wesleyans"), 1784.
- Martin Boehm didn't like Mennonites and Philip Otterbein didn't like Reformed, and they founded United Brethren, 1800.
- Barton Stone didn't like Presbyterians and founded Churches of Christ, 1803.
- Methodists didn't like Hugh Bourne and William Clowes whose church got called Primitive Methodists, 1807.
- Presbyterians didn't like Thomas Campbell whose church got called Disciples of Christ, 1809.
- Anthony Groves didn't like Anglicans and founded Plymouth ("Open") Brethren, 1825.
- Quakers didn't like each other, and their churches got called Orthodox Quakers ("Friends United Meeting") and Hicksite Quakers ("Friends General Conference"), 1827.
- Reformed didn't like Samuel Frohlich whose church got called Apostolic Christians ("Evangelical Baptists", "New Anabaptists"), 1830.
- Lutherans didn't like Johann Scheibel whose church got called Wisconsin Synod ("Independent Evangelical", "Old") Lutherans, 1832.
- Reformed didn't like Hendrik de Cock whose church got called Christian Reformed, 1834.
- Other Lutherans didn't like Carl Walther whose church got called Missouri Synod Lutherans, 1839.
- David Welsh, Thomas Chalmers, and Robert Candlish didn't like Presbyterians and founded Free Church of Scotland, 1843.
- Albany Conference didn't like Baptists and founded Adventists ("First-Day"), 1845.
- William Johnson didn't like other American Baptists and founded Southern Baptists, 1845.
- John Wilbur didn't like Friends United and founded Conservative Friends ("Wilburite Quakers"), 1847.
- John Darby didn't like Open Brethren and founded Exclusive ("Darbyist") Brethren, 1848.
- Methodists didn't like James Everett, William Griffith, and Samuel Dunn, whose church got called United Methodist ("Reform"), 1849.
- Gilbert Cranmer didn't like Adventists and founded Church of God (Seventh Day), 1858.
- Southern Baptists didn't like James Graves whose church got called Landmark Baptists ("Bride"), 1859.
- Other Methodists didn't like Benjamin Roberts whose church got called Free Methodists, 1860.
- Jonathan Cummings didn't like Adventists and founded Advent Christians, 1860.
- Ellen White didn't like other Adventists and founded Seventh-Day Adventists, 1863.
- William and Catherine Booth didn't like Methodist Reform and founded Salvation Army, 1865.
- George Hoffman didn't like United Brethren and founded United Christians, 1877.
- German Baptists didn't like Samuel Kinsey whose church got called Old German Baptists, 1881.
- German Baptists didn't like Henry Holsinger whose church got called Brethren Church, 1882.
- Baptists didn't like Richard Spurling whose church got called Church of God ("Cleveland"), 1886.
- Charles Spurgeon didn't like other Baptists and founded Independent ("Fundamental") Baptists, 1887.
- Albert Simpson didn't like Presbyterians and founded Christian and Missionary Alliance, 1887.
- Donald MacFarlane didn't like Free Church of Scotland and founded Free Presbyterian Church of Scotland, 1893.
- William McAlpine, William Simmons, and Bishop Johnson didn't like other American Baptists and founded National Baptists, 1895.
- Charles Parham didn't like Methodists and founded Apostolic Faith ("Assemblies of God"), 1895.
- Joseph Widney and Phineas Bresee didn't like Methodists and founded Church of the Nazarene, 1895.
- Baptists didn't like Charles Jones and Charles Mason whose church got called Church of God in Christ, 1896.
- Benjamin Young, Benjamin Irwin, and Abner Crumpler didn't like Methodists and founded Fire Baptized Holiness ("Pentecostal Holiness"), 1896.
- Southeastern Kansas Fire Baptized Holiness Association didn't like Fire Baptized Holiness and founded Bible Holiness ("Wesleyan Fire Baptized Holiness"), 1898.
- Nicholas Tolstoy didn't like Eastern Orthodox so Roman Catholics founded Russian Catholics for him, 1905.
- William Fuller didn't like Fire Baptized Holiness and founded Fire Baptized Holiness Church of God, 1908.
- James Wedgwood didn't like Roman Catholics and founded Liberal Catholics, 1917.
- Karel Farsky didn't like Roman Catholics and founded Czechoslovak Hussites, 1920.
- Watson Sorrow and Hugh Bowling didn't like Pentecostal Holiness and founded Congregational Holiness, 1921.
- Aimee Semple McPherson didn't like Assemblies of God and founded Foursquare, 1923.
- Union Bible College and Oregon Yearly Meeting didn't like Friends United and founded Central Friends and Evangelical Friends, 1926.
- Geevarghese Ivanos didn't like Eastern Orthodox so Roman Catholics founded Malankara Catholics for him, 1930.
- Baptist Bible Union didn't like other American Baptists and founded Regular Baptists, 1932.
- Seventh-Day Adventists didn't like Victor Houteff whose church got called Davidians, 1934.
- Herbert Armstrong didn't like Church of God (Seventh Day) and founded Grace Communion International ("Worldwide"), 1934.
- Gresham Machen didn't like other Presbyterians and founded Orthodox Presbyterians, 1936.
- Carl McIntire, Oliver Buswell, and Allan MacRae didn't like Orthodox Presbyterians and founded Bible Presbyterians, 1937.
- Louis Bauman and Charles Ashman didn't like German Baptists and founded Grace Brethren ("Charis"), 1939.
- Roman Catholics didn't like Carlos Duarte Costa whose church got called Brazilian Catholic Apostolic, 1945.
- Liberal Catholics didn't like other Liberal Catholics and founded Liberal Catholics International, 1947.
- Hilmer Sandine didn't like other Congregationalists and founded Conservative Congregational Christian Conference, 1948.
- Roman Catholics didn't like Michel Collin whose church got called Apostles of Infinite Love, 1951.
- Harry Johnson didn't like other Congregationalists and founded National Association of Congregational Christian Churches, 1955.
- Glenn Griffith didn't like Church of the Nazarene and founded Bible Missionary, 1955.
- Benjamin Roden didn't like other Davidians and founded Branch Davidians, 1955.
- Toma Darmo didn't like Church of the East and founded Ancient Church of the East, 1964.
- Chuck Smith didn't like Foursquare and founded Calvary Chapel, 1968.
- Marcel Lefebvre didn't like Roman Catholics and founded Society of Saint Pius X, 1970.
- North American Christian Convention didn't like Disciples of Christ and founded Independent Christians, 1971.
- Jack Williamson didn't like other Presbyterians and founded Presbyterian Church in America, 1973.
- William Kohn didn't like Missouri Synod Lutherans and founded Evangelical Lutherans, 1976.
- Clemente Dominguez y Gomez didn't like Roman Catholics and founded Palmarian Catholics, 1978.
- Calvary Chapel didn't like John Wimber whose church got called Vineyard, 1982.
- Clarence Kelly didn't like Society of Saint Pius X and founded Society of Saint Pius V, 1983.
- Francesco Ricossa didn't like Society of Saint Pius X and founded Institute of the Mother of Good Counsel, 1985.
- Alexander Murray didn't like Free Presbyterians and founded Associated Presbyterians, 1989.
- Roman Catholics didn't like George Stallings whose church got called African-American Catholics, 1990.
- David Bawden didn't like Roman Catholics and founded Conclavists, 1990.
- John Whitcomb didn't like other Grace Brethren and founded Conservative Grace Brethren, 1992.
- Lucian Pulvermacher didn't like Roman Catholics and founded True Catholics, 1998.
- Mike Bickle didn't like Vineyard and founded International House of Prayer, 1999.
- Free Church of Scotland didn't like Free Church Defence Association whose church got called Free Church of Scotland (Continuing), 2000.
- WordAlone Network didn't like Evangelical Lutherans and founded Lutheran Congregations, 2001.
- Robert Nemkovich didn't like Old Catholics and founded Polish National Catholics, 2003.
- Oscar Michaelli didn't like Roman Catholics and founded Catholic Apostolic Remnant, 2006.
- Paull Spring didn't like Evangelical Lutherans and founded North American Lutherans, 2010.
- Keith Boyette didn't like United Methodists and founded Global Methodists, 2022.
- Laurent Mbanda didn't like other Anglicans and founded Global Anglicans, 2025.
This leaves out movements, including both cults, and movements like evangelical and born-again; it also leaves out much that could be said (including lateral transfers, mergers, and dissolutions), but I'm trying to focus on schisms that are close to the trunk.
Thanks! One thing that most Christianities have in common is that they broadly accept each other as alternate Christianities. They may often not commune but they have a habit of recognizing brothers. A "denomination" that accepts no "Christianity" but its own is rapidly revealed to be a cult because it's not part of an organic body; but an organic body has many parts with different functions and roles, and this division is from the Lord.
So the right response should be: "My denomination has useful distinctives but the rest of the church, which happens to be missing out on these distinctives, still has the core truth held everywhere." Most say this. We have some great creedal formulations of the core, and we have broad agreement on the 66 protocanonical books that are founding that core. Then the truth found in the rest of the universe is also there, but misses out on enough of the core that it doesn't constitute itself as Christianity but only as insightful truth-based movements.
Any large group, the US government being a good handy example, has crazy fragmentation and specialization, some functional, and a whole lot personality-driven and political. In OP there are divisions that inspire mourning over misunderstanding, and divisions that inspire rejoicing over revelation. And we don't immediately need to know which are which. But none of this indicates that we don't have a Thing going, and most of this does speak in favor of the health of the Thing. I was inspired to do this because an X Catholic proposed simplistically that it's only the Protestants who like to split (because our system enables us to do it faster to make up for lost time). I tried to be fair to all the splits that have gone on, and have omitted many that are more minor. With all the 501(c)(3) and parachurch orgs out there you could easily get to 30,000, and I don't remember the sourcing of that number.
But we preach unity in diversity and not the loss of either or the overbalance of either. So I stuck with those that (apparently) still have representation today, as being a default baseline that keeps away from judgment. It's also true that there are splits that fall off the vine, dry up, and die; there are splits that regroup after time (I included the most famous); there are mass imports that change the character of a continuous group. These are all potentially healthy dynamics, with the issue only arising if there's a belligerent attempt to overpower another group. There are plenty of wars between some of these groups, which I didn't mention because sooner or later they realizing fighting is pointless. The only test of walking in the truth is the continuation of walking in the truth; if that is not disproven, usually by Jesus removing a candlestick, then we shouldn't presume to close out the test early.
Just another related observation I made: I used to listen to a philosophy podcast intended for general audiences called, "The Partially Examined Life". It was entertaining in and of itself, but after hundreds of episodes I couldn't help coming to a certain realization: philosophers never ever came to any conclusions.
Their expositions and discussions drew on the work of philosophers over many centuries and even millennia. Quite evidently--not in all that time with all those geniuses working on it--they had never reached any analysis that they could all agree on and proceed from there.
I have to put it in crass terms to make a point: the whole of this supposedly lofty pursuit of knowledge boiled down to mental masturbation. You know, like, no babies were born into the world who could develop over time.
It was quite a revelation to me. With philosophy, I always assumed I was missing out on important ideas from the world's best thinkers. I was not. I will never bother reading a book of philosophy in the rest of my life. Frankly, I am very much biased towards dismissing out of hand anything that anyone calling themselves a philosopher has to say.
But this reply is not to bash philosophers, as much as they may deserve it. You see, I had a complementary observation: unless it was some special situation concerning an antiquarian, no scientific professional would ever bother reading any of the historical texts on math or physics or chemistry, not even of the greatest geniuses.
There would be no point, nothing to be learned. All the work of the geniuses would have been incorporated into the current state of the art (or science, in this case). Various laws and principles might still bear their names, but that's about it.
What that made me realize was that one group of people was actually trying to get somewhere and the other group was not. There was a profound and fundamental difference between the two, and what I had observed was simply a manifestation of that difference.
I suppose what I'm saying is that you might consider giving consideration into which group religious scholars of all types might fall, and to which group you wish to belong. Don't bother telling me because your decisions are, of course, entirely up to you and cannot be considered right or wrong.
(I often feel, however, that people confronted with such questions hasten to tell me because their subconscious impels them towards the idea that they cannot be "wrong", and to do this they must demonstrate to others that they are "right". If you feel the urge to do so, then that in itself is a type of evidence you should examine.)
Best of luck in your journey!
Francis Schaeffer said every philosopher erased the circle drawn before he came and then just drew a new circle to be erased again.
By contrast, you're right that scientific inquiry emphasizes collation and retention of dependable knowledge, and I've sought to model that.
One point I discovered, salient to Conspiracies, is that scientific inquiry utterly depended upon assumptions of natural law and usually theism until the late 19th century when certain Britons effectively declared war on religion on behalf of "science". However, I've been able to treat inquiry about the unexplained ("supernatural") with the same principles of scientific method that has been used to master the now-explained.
So it's possible to trace a proper developmental and maturing trend in religious scholarship, despite its sometime false starts. But the religious are also often subject to the same failure to grow as the natural philosophers. So each stands or falls to his own master. Thanks for the thoughts.
Philosophers do come to conclusions, it's just that other philosophers don't agree with those conclusions. That's because great minds don't think alike - they think independently. This is the same reason there are lots of Christian denominations, especially within Protestantism and other categories of Christianity where people are encouraged to think for themselves more rather than accept tradition without much criticism. The fact Roman Catholicism has less schisms can be explained by their beliefs about tradition and their hierarchical structure which gatekeeps positions of teaching and doctrinal authority. So agreement is not necessarily an indicator of truth.
Scientists also disagree with each other all the time over fairly recent theories, and science in fact came out of philosophy - theories about the world which were then tested empirically. But you'll find a lot more agreement between scientists than philosophers. Is that because their beliefs can be tested empirically, or is it due to a conspiracy controlling the direction of science, or non-conspiratorial financial incentives or reasons similar to why Roman Catholics are in agreement?
There is a famous quote by Physicist Max Planck:
A study in 2019 found some evidence this may be true: https://www.chemistryworld.com/news/science-really-does-advance-one-funeral-at-a-time-study-suggests/3010961.article . Philosophers of science also had a debate about how science progresses, with Popper arguing it happens by theories being disproved by new evidence but Kuhn countering that it's by new paradigms which gradually gain more support than the old ones. Kuhn's view is potentially consistent with Planck's quote.
To the person who thinks scientists find agreement because they use empirical tests to find the truth, they would need to explain why scientists have also agreed on things which weren't backed by the evidence of the time, like phrenology or COVID vaccine safety. To the person who thinks scientists find agreement through non-evidentiary means, they would need to explain how science has been able to build on itself and develop technologies that work and also why other fields like philosophy don't find agreement through similar non-evidentiary means.
Why then refer to them as "great"? What is the definition or qualities of "greatness"? Why use words without specific meaning? Is it "vague" as philosophers themselves would say, being that which I point to when I say "great"?
What does a giant stack of conclusions add up to if it is acknowledged that it adds up to nothing? Of what value is it all other than mental masturbation, as I stated? It serves many egos, as can be plainly seen. Why not conclude that was always the point, just with lots of extra steps and confused and incomplete understandings?
To put it bluntly, I feel that everyone needs to pull their heads out of their asses instead of believing that all but a remnant of any of this has any worth. In my view, adding yet more words to their voluminous and unending nonsense does nothing to push back the frontiers of knowledge, it only extends a distorted and literally useless view of those purportedly seeking knowledge.
These are some independent thoughts for you--you will not find them written elsewhere--but I doubt you liked hearing them or got the slightest enlightenment out of them. That's precisely how independent thoughts are received in the real world.
I don't see why you chose to fixate on the word "great" when I was only referring to a common saying.
A conclusion is something, so I don't understand what you mean? If I use philosophy to conclude that abortion is murder and therefore wrong and hence decide not to abort my child, that is most definitely "something" other than "mental masturbation".
You're right I didn't get the slightest enlightenment out of them but perhaps I misunderstood and they just need to be explained better.
Saying it friendly, this view collapses when applied to itself.
Your statement that the last person is meaningless deflates to nothing instantly when the next person says you are meaningless.
Everyone actually believes in growth and progress, they can't help being in bodies that grow. The best independent thoughts get validated and resonated by other minds, which is what makes them great. Thank you for understanding.