What denominations are you and why?

Orthodox because I generally agree with Catholic theology but I want to be cool and edgy, and a traditional russian gf will fall into my lap, right?

No need to be buttpained because there are a good number of Orthodox responses.

this

Attached: 74B1B0D1-A6C8-4B25-A6DF-89C50CA480B6.png (634x348, 318.4K)

Non denominational. my grandparents are active Methodists; but my parents are about as lukewarm as it gets. I'm only on my first reading of the book and it's painfully evident that i'm neither intelligent enough nor learned enough to decide what's the right thing to pick.

Genuine non-trolling question to the orthodox christians here, how do you rationalize not belonging to the roman catholic church when Jesus clearly states, "And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it."?

It seems blatantly obvious to me that Jesus is saying that St. Peter will build Jesus's church, how can you go against that without essentially being a protestant, and interpreting the bible as you please? This has confused me ever since I came back to Christ.

Attached: peter and paul.jpg (571x800, 124.71K)

Catholic because everyone is going to hell besides this church.

I don't wanna debate because it's against the thread rules, but here's the wikipedia article on this topic:
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eastern_Orthodox_opposition_to_papal_supremacy

...

see

Baptist. As an atheist it was very easy to flag the silliness of the borrowed man made philosophies borrowed from the world put into multiple religions. The insane, funny, crazy, and sad history of the power struggles of the made for human pride organizations found within all organizations. But when shared and read the bible itself, I had no defense or escape by mocking. I feel there must be some insight in those that claim to be christian. But for me its the bible that saved me, so I attend a congregation that tries to live to the bible without hundreds or thousands of years of man s additional comments.

IFB because it's the only church built upon and founded by Christ.

Baptist denotes never of pedobaptist tradition. Fundamental meaning safeguarding the received word of God. Independent meaning not in one of the denominations/state-churches, all which were variously conceived of and started by men who never appeared in the Bible, who were not apostles nor prophets nor the Lord Jesus Christ. Ephesians 2:20.

Orthodox.

You see, I have been non-denominational my whole life, and then I thought about having children.

Protestantism is change, it was founded on change, and follows the pattern of degradation albeit slower than say, secularism. I read up on my history, the Puritans become the Universalist perennialists(in a bad way). A similar pattern has occurred during most of the Protestant community. My and your good old Baptist, non-denominational, Lutheran, whatever, all have degraded. Most conservative churches 50 years ago have become liberalized.

Now to the popes. They follow the same trend of degeneration. They yield to modernity and have encouraged it sometimes. In addition to a protestant background already predisposed to disliking it, this may be it. But I looked into it, and it appealed to me, that is the ancient part of Catholicism. Catholicism before it ever started thinking of modernity and progress and the such. I saw that during that period they were one with the Orthodox, and were Orthodox. A thousand year long legacy of strong and powerful western Christianity, unyielding to sin.

Now about children.

I wanted a church that will not change. I have found it in Orthodoxy. It has not changed since it was founded except for the external things, slow adaptation with the previous Tradition and not changing anything in mind. It has upheld in the purest form everything Christ has taught to men.

In addition to this, I had read Guenon, Evola, perennialist authors. The central thing I got from them is there has been a single religious tradition throughout history from which all the others had come, and degenerated, from.

I have found it.

Catholic because I believe it is the Church Christ founded and it has kept the traditions of the Apostles.

Do we rationalize? Do I rationalize? No, I don't.

Once upon a time I was passing by an Orthodox Church. Then I asked something from God and it became true.

It came to pass, I was passing by the same Church again and asked something else from God. And it became true again.

Then the same happened a third time.

After the 100th time I noticed that I am an Orthodox Christian with a determined faith. I haven't even noticed when this did happen.

So do I rationalize? No I don't.

See

Orthodox since I was born and also it makes most sense and teaches most about love of God and theosis.
I had nearly deviated first time when I actually began reading stuff. At this time most popular were seraphim rose and I also mainly used just articles written by some literally whos. Retarded "teachings" like toll houses, rigid tone and protestant tier writing of the newer authors almost disconverted me, but then I thought that it would be moronic to do so, based on a small knowledge I had, so I stayed, fortunately. Then I've read what theologoumena was, afterwards I began reading some of the church fathers, who were preaching love of God, so I stayed here for good.

Orthodox because i was born one
Then i become an edgy bagan at 14 but God called me back at 23.

Francis =/= reincarnation of Peter
There are countless other arguments as well but OP said no debates

Orthodox, because it is the true Church which was found by Christ himself.

Attached: 79056b304b322243d23f6f7e23d2ee88--christian-faith-christian-quotes.jpg (736x736, 79.07K)

Orthodox, because I want to follow Christ and Orthodox is the closest road if not the same road which the apostles walked. It withstood the winds of change brought upon by satan and its allies; stand tall and true; it florishes not on the worldly matters like Protestant and Catholic church who wields worldly powers and play politics but have endured persucution of many evil such as communist regime and other purges and it separates itself from the states entirely in its pursuit of our Lord.

Catholic to escape the denominational dialectic of the One True Church™ and Sola Scriptura. I don't even care about Vatican II, Novus Ordo and whatever "heresies" the Pope utters and does at this point, Sedevacantism has the same premise as Orthodoxy and even Protestantism.

Attached: keys.jpg (879x938, 808.83K)

I'm Presbyterians. I was formerly a reformed baptist but since I'm attending a Presbyterian church and after reading a bit on it and what we disagreed on and after reading Ignatius and him talking about unity and that there should be no sedition I felt that it was only appropriate I converted to be in better union with my minister and church.

Which of the 5 solas do you have the most issues with? And do these issues stem from a biblical basis or is it just your own personal feelings?

How so?

...

Seems as though you have more faith in the tradition of man that the word of God. So much so that you will even follow you tradition to death and false hood even at the expense of the scriptures IE word of God.

...

Catholic because it's the Truth

except when you guys switched from the Christus Victor theory of the atonement to the Satisfaction theory of atonement for no reason (you can thank Anselm of Canterbury for this)

Anglican because I was baptized into it and I'm too concerned about cultism in the other Apostolic branches. However, Archbishop Welby has to leave for good. He's not really up to the task.

Catholic
Because I was born and babtised Catholic. Although later I nearly left my faith, but I fully returned to it after researching stuff about it. Prayers and contemplation will let you choose your faith the best.

baptized early in life as Lutheran. later on converted to orthodoxy because I wanted to be a part of an apostolic church and orthodox seemed the most theologically sound in my view of things.

O i am laffin

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Epistle_of_Clement

Attached: 1347448921373.jpg (250x250, 16.62K)

Mostly-baptist non-denom, because I was raised that way. Although truly I wish all Christians would return to 1st and 2nd century traditions in addition to the Nicene Creed, with no extra fluff. The Didache, the letters of St. Justin Martyr, and the Nicene Creed and Bible. Every thing else seems like more added weight and creates divisions between the different churches. I'm sick of all the Protestant and Apostolic mud-flinging, and the Ortho vs Cath bickering.

Attached: 1492640330070.png (470x698, 53.91K)

I went this way:
catholic (lapsed)
protestant (muh bible)
jewish (yes, I spoke seriously with a rabbi)
atheist (nietszchean)
pagan/atheist (NORSE GODS N'SHIT)
satinist (lol winnie the pooh everything, winnie the pooh me)
atheist (buddhism)
ayy lmaoist' (raelian)
atheist (buddhism again)
newageist' again (urantia)
catholic (3 years and counting).

Strange isn't? Well that is me.

Church of Christ because it is the most similar you can get to the early church

You should reread your quote, it says "I will build my church", not "you will build my church"

*funded by John the Baptist
Fixed

Roman Catholic because the Church founded by Jesus Christ himself cant be wrong. Even if it was it wouldnt be some German or worse a burger that would tell me what's true and false.
Orthodoxe although have legitimate apostolic succession they invented meme issues to schims from the church to appease they're political Lords.

Holy crap my shit phone keyboard.

Obsessed.

The Bible aka God's perfect word tells me what is true and false

The Trinity makes sense.
Study on your own.

Evangelical Lutheran, was raised Assembly of God/Non-denom, but became very interested in Christianity when I hit my teens as I had always believed when I was younger. I read the Bible over a couple of times on my first gen iPod touch. I didn't really have a decided denomination until after I moved out and wanted to go to church. The Evangelical Lutheran church just made the most sense with what I had read.

Orthodox because Christ started an actual church and had actual apostles who had successors and the chain was never broken and will never be broken until the end of the world. And these wise sages are still here to teach us. a true religion never needs "reformation/restoration" since it is preserved by the grace of God.

Attached: 20lg.jpg (593x535, 32.19K)

Amen brother.

Attached: cruce.jpg (640x480, 80.63K)

lol

Attached: 23a2e11eb65ba639aa94d7035acbfc63--lutheran-ministry.jpg (660x723, 104.73K)

Great movie btw.

Right back atcha bud

Attached: Screenshot_2018-06-28-03-09-30-1.png (1330x1763, 1.04M)

Orthodox, i could go through the many objections and arguments people would have. But ultimately i think the reason i ended up Orthodox is because it was Orthodox theology, Saints and people who brought me to God, to believe in a real way rather than some kind of mental exercise.

And they're not in anyway associated with the Catholic Church. They have all been excommunicated and have no relationship to the Catholic Church whatsoever. They are a completely different church. So what's your point? Our Church is no way sanctions the ordination of women, the marriage of faggots, and the murder of children still in the womb. The ELCA does.

Huh, guess I should've read the article, my bad. It is truly unfortunate that the ELCA does that as well. My local church is actually a LCMS church which dissaproves of all those things. If I'm speaking truly honestly here, I said Evangelical Lutheran only because recently I've been reading about the role of the Finnish Evangelical Lutheran church in the Finnish civil war. I've never looked much into the ELCA.

Oh, well ok. You should have said so. LCMS is pretty based, one of the few good mainline Protestant denominations. You should still begome Gadolig though.

The Church should excommunicate in a spectacular and terrifying ceremony. This is a way to make catholicism great again.

...

...

That's what Orthodoxy is, + the other 6 ecumenical councils.

A book wrote compiled and gave to you by catholics.
Really makes me think.

Rome put the bible together?

Rome help spread it around.

The Orthodox put the Bible together.
Christianity is an Orthodox construct.

Church of God, at the moment, because it's what my foreign wife is used to. I was raised Southern Baptist, but they've become cucked to feminism.
canecaldo.wordpress.com/2018/06/15/in-for-a-penny-in-for-a-pound/
dalrock.wordpress.com/2018/05/30/hysteria-grips-man-up-headquarters/

Will probably change to another more traditional/biblical denomination before we have kids. I just wanted something she felt comfortable with while she got used to living in my country, and it's decent enough for edification. It's more heavily weighed towards singing and worship than biblical sermons, though, which is opposite of what I prefer.

Attached: christian.png (280x242, 108.86K)

Not meant as a criticism or a debate, but First look for people who use the KJV and not some modern trash that changes with editions every 10-20 years and takes out dozens of verses like Acts 8:37 and Matthew 18:11 and changes the words elsewhere in thousands of places (i.e. removing "without a cause" from Matthew 5:22), in addition to translating according to dynamic equivalence and referencing "modern scholarship" for LGBT-compliant definitions. Then maybe you won't have these problems— I know I don't.

Forgot to say God bless you and stay well out there.

Stop spreading such lies, it makes people extremely disappointed in Orthodoxy when they figure out it's not true.
Or you're gonna tell me the Orthodox don't have Chrismation as a separate sacrament from Baptism? Or that the Orthodox don't have a ceremony for marriage? Or that the Divine Liturgy of St John Chrysostom isn't full of developments? Or that the liturgical year isn't full of developments? Or that the Orthodox don't have a defined canon for the Old Testament and for the New Testament? Or that the Orthodox don't have an iconostasis? Or that the Orthodox give communion in hand rather than by intinction? Or that churches are led by a college of presbyters with a president/representative among them rather than by a bishop, if we're gonna go as far back as possible? What about the liturgical reforms that have happened several times? And you think that stuff like monopatrism, or the Pope as "first among equals", or the essence-energy distinction (or even hesychasm as a whole)… were around in the 1st and 2nd centuries? What about particular local traditions that would take a while to be recognized by the entire Church, like the Theotokos's Dormition?

I know this isn't a debate thread but I can't not address this nonsense. The Orthodox Church has had developments, both in doctrine and in practice, throughout the centuries. You're saying it remained like a fossil out of mere anti-Catholic spite.

I didn't pick Orthodoxy, Orthodoxy picked me tbh. After reading the Bible, even though I was more agnostic than anything I wanted to be Catholic (as it is both the largest Christian tradition in the world and in my country, France) but wanted to check out an Orthodox church at least once first, out of curiosity. The one day I decided to go to see what an Orthodox church looks like, it turned out they were having a little conference to present Orthodoxy as part of a series of conferences in the city where various religious traditions would present themselves. I really loved what the priest said, and decided to turn up for the Sunday service. I was absolutely floored, something turned my soul upside down, and the mix of standing for 2 hours, seeing the golden icons everywhere, hearing the prayers sung in Russian, French, Greek and Arabic, seeing people do the sign of the cross constantly, seeing them prostrate during the epiclesis (which turns out to be a liturgical abuse), I felt something like a powerful peace, and I truly did not know if I was having a fever dream, if I was still alive even, if I had stepped into a reality more real than what we see everyday. Suffices to say I was sold. Studying the history and theology of the Orthodox Church also pushed me toward Orthodoxy.

However, these days I'm pushed toward Catholicism, after all the studying. But leaving my two parishes would be heartbreaking, and honestly, as beautiful as the Mass is, there's something about the Divine Liturgy that I haven't found anyone else to have, Catholic or Protestant. It's not just a sensory overload either, as one of my two parishes is very tiny and worships in a Catholic chapel without many means, and it is still amazing.

I basically think Catholics are right doctrinally now, but the Orthodox liturgy is definitely a piece of the Kingdom of God brought to earth… I don't want to be Eastern Gadolig either, I think Rome is right to claim that the Roman way is the correct and normative way. So I don't really know where I am right now. Call me an Orthodox defending papal supremacy.

Oh, also I'm remaining Orthodox for now because I think the Pope has done two gravely uncanonical things that justify not being in communion with him. See

No, there is absolutely no development in doctrine. Only the theological terminology developes and becomes clearer.

The faith is clarified in the face of growing heresies and disputes. That's what doctrinal development is.

Ironic, considering that Charlemagne pressured the pope of his day, Leo III, to add the Filioque to the Creed because he believed it was in the original creed. Leo III refused, by the way, so much so that he erected two silver tables of the Creed (one in Greek and one in Latin) without the Filioque in Rome.
Charlemagne even accused the Eastern Christians of worshipping images in the Libri Carolini, but he had a terrible misunderstanding of what the Seventh Ecumenical Council said.
It's hilarious how Rome accuses the Orthodox Church of being historically subject to political powers, yet the beginning of our separation began by a political power pressuring Rome.

That's quite inspiring, thanks for posting

Is this accurate? catholicbridge.com/orthodox/has_the_orthodox_changed_any_teaching_or_doctrine.php

One thing "westerners" don't understand about Orthodoxy (sometimes even when they are Orthodox) is that we are not subordinate to any rules. The rules are not the path for salvation, they are merely a guidelines pointing to this path. In the Orthodox Church we have always applied the rules with consideration. Priest and bishops have always have the right to apply economia, that is to stop the application of a rule when they consider this bad in the specific situation.

(And when I wrote "always", I realy meant "always" because this has been the Eastern way – the way Eastern empires (Babilonia, Persia and Macedonia) applied laws is very different from the Roman jurisprudence.)

So do the Orthodox bishops and priests permit contraception, divorce, etc? Occasionaly, yes. They did this in the past more rarely and they do this today more often.

But do we have new canons saying that contraception and divorce are ok? No, never. And this "No, never" is what makes Orthodoxy stable.

As for "Primacy of Peter, Mary's perpetual virginity, and Mary's sinlessless", well, the change here is only in the Catholic "Church".

Ops, I was too quick to write.

There is no difference between Orthodox and Catholics here. The difference is about the virginity of Joseph.

Catholic Bridge is propaganda garbage.

That's… not what economia means.

Contraception has literally never been a tolerated thing in the East until we figured out there is a difference between abortifacient and non-abortifacient contraceptives.
Even then, speaking of "permit" implies they're not considered sins. "Tolerate with regret to prevent a greater sin" is more like it.

Lol, you want to pretend you're a radtrad orthodox, kid?
Ah, yes, the primacy of Peter. Such a 2nd-3rd century innovation.
The Orthodox reject that the Theotokos is ever-virgin now? lmao
Mary's sinlessless is such a heresy. Who'd dare to call her all-immaculate after all? And all-immaculate even fromconception? St Gregory Palamas wouldn't dare to do such a thing, would he, this Pillar of Orthodoxy?

The Orthodox have always defined themselves purely in opposition to Roman Catholicism. People like you are why I'm leaving your "Church".

Is this true? I can't believe to be honest. Sounds like relativism to me.

Let's move to another thread:

nice datamine
non-denom progressive church because still under parents control

:)
Considering that Orthodox guys are minority in Zig Forums but majority in this particular thread, the conclusion is that only they are proud of their Church.

You are the only other person I've seen here who has looked into Urantia. I grew up on that bullshit and it messed me up on so many levels. If you could, would you share your thoughts on it?

Attached: grand-universe-10.jpg (720x540, 34.87K)

Reformed Baptist.

I can't stand IFB churches, I don't worship the KJV Bible, and I appreciate the rich heritage of our Baptist forbears stretching from the Reformation in England to present day. Our pastor has over 40 years of experience, he's an amazing expositor of the Word, and we have weekly Communion, with wine, which many other Baptist churches don't do.

1644 London Baptist Confession is our church's statement of faith. I'm dispensational premillennialist, but most others are Covenantalist.

The further back you go in time the better Christianity is. 1600s > 2000

Anglican because I agree with it theologically and Its my heritage for hundreds of years.

Born a Catholic, I'll die a Catholic

I'd agree with that. I have a strong attraction to Apostolic Christianity, but I still believe that the modern Catholic/Orthodox Church's are different in practice than the Church of the first and second centuries.

I converted to Orthodoxy on April 17th of this year. My journey was a relatively long one.

Years ago, I believe it was after I was confirmed into the Methodist church, I remember the youth group was tasked with administering communion on a given Sunday. As I tore the bread and said "the Body of Christ broken for you" to each to came to me, I thought to myself "who am I to take part in this?". This was the beginning of my questioning of Methodism and this point was only exacerbated by the fact that they use grape juice rather than wine.

Through college I didn't attend church regularly, but I moved and then sought out a new Methodist church, away from the busy downtown area of my new residence. I left that church after it became clear that the female preacher was more interested in scoring political points than teaching the Word of Christ.

In May of 2017 I joined Vanguard America, a fascist group. I didn't go to Charlottesville myself in August but I drove a few guys to meet up with a carpool, and thus definitely had a hand in that event. The only thing that prevented my attendance was money. After that day, and the subsequent breakup of that group, I knew I had to immediately find a church to seek salvation. I then went to the old Methodist church in the downtown area, thinking that right-teaching would be prevalent there given that it was the oldest church in town, having been established around the same time as the town. Imagine my disappointment when this wasn't to be the case.

I met with the two head priests one day after the service on their invitation. I will never forget that the first thing they said to me was that their church accepted gays and lesbians, rather than that their church taught the Word of Christ. But the worst day was yet to come.

I don't think I'll ever forget that day. It was about 4 or 5 weeks since I began attending on August 19th, 2017. The wife of the head preacher, an ordained preacher herself, stood up to deliver the sermon. She spoke for 15 minutes or so about how wonderful it was that Man and Woman joined themselves together in marriage, and showed that by sharing a name; but she herself noted that she didn't take her husband's surname. This made me sit up stiffly to pay closer attention. I honestly don't remember her segue into the rest of her sermon, but it consisted of speaking out about her feminist ideals and how her own sister called her a 'bitch' (she said "the 'B" word) because of this "preacher's" support for gay marriage. This preacher said this as she stood in front of the alter. I was shocked beyond belief. I shook her husband's hand as I left (I think) but I know I didn't look him in the eye. I couldn't, because I knew it would be the last time I attended his church as a prospective member.

I spent a month or so searching myself, and through the history of my church to find a proper fit. God sent a wonderful woman to guide me while I was at work, which is not at all what I expected. I work at a gunshop in the States, and a younger woman came in with a shotgun that she had jammed up that morning while hunting with her husband. As the gunsmith worked on it, I watched her as she stood by the door, looking out of it while standing on her tiptoes. As this was mighty suspicious, I politely asked her what she was doing. She told me she was trying to to see her church, an Orthodox Church, which was apparently just a short walk from where I work. This led to a conversation about it, and what to do if I chose to attend, and then on November 11th, 2017, I stepped foot in that building and I haven't left since.

I didn't intend to begome, but on December 25th, 2017, I went to my home state and attended the Christmas service there. It consisted of modified hymns (to be more modern, of course) and the pastor played most of the movie 'A Miracle on 34th Street' for his sermon. The following Sunday, the 3rd of January, I began my catechumenate into the Orthodox Church.

TL;DR, I tried several churches but a lady with a gun, plus terrible experiences at Methodist churches made me Orthodox.

Attached: DM1ZU5fXkAMuqkR.jpg (1022x749, 42.05K)

What's the catechumenate process like?

I honestly think mine was a little bit abnormal, because it seemed short, but it consists of meeting with your priest about once a week for several months on end. Like one-on-one classes, or if you go to a large parish there might be more people in it. But it's not a 20-30 person class by any means. He'll probably give you lots to read too!

Non-denom, I guess you could say "Evangelical", because I believe that it is the closest thing to the original faith.

So I’ve spend an inordinate amount of time church hopping through various denominations (Baptists, Anglican/Episcopalian, Lutheran, etc), and I’ve come to greatly love and appreciate the Presbyterian style churches. To me, the church policy makes the most sense, and I’m convinced of the regulative principle of worship; man has no business altering the worship of god to his fancy.

Presbyterianism confirmed, Papists BTFO'd.

Attached: john-knox-maria-platt-evans.jpg (779x900, 238.88K)

I was attracted by its style and depth. Is not necessary to say that it is very well written. The passages on the life of Jesus are absolutely fabulous. I think I read it at least a couple of times. It is a conceptual compendium in which it tries to unite the spiritual world with the material through the "morontial" dimension, through the best scientific data of the early twentieth century. It says to be a precise description of reality, but contains many inaccuracies very typical of a human author. It's description of the universe is very different from what we know today (like the antiquity of life on earth). There are a lot of flagrant mistakes. I would like to believe in the Urantia Book, but in conscience I can not. After all, it is nothing more than a small new age sect not very different from the Mormons. In my case, if science says one thing, I usually attend to what science says.

I think it's a facelift of the bible towards intellectual readers. And it almost works with me.And the bible is much more humble in that aspect. It just says to be inspired by God.

As you already know, the origins of the book are very confusing. Seventh-day Adventists were chosen to bring a new revelation to humanity? Today I do not think so. Galatians 1:8!