I am an athiest converting to Christianity.

I am an athiest converting to Christianity. How do I choose between Catholic/Orthodox/one of the Protestant denominations? I want the truth

Thalidomide Vintage Ad Shirt $22.14

Unattended Children Pitbull Club Shirt $21.68

Thalidomide Vintage Ad Shirt $22.14

  1. 6 months ago
    Anonymous

    Why did you convert?

    • 6 months ago
      Anonymous

      OPs baiting you

    • 6 months ago
      Anonymous

      Note that "convert" is this context meas "larp as a christian to own the libs." OP'll be a muslim or pagan in a few months.

  2. 6 months ago
    Anonymous

    The answer is none. All forms of Christianity are fricked. In fact all Abrahamic religion is false.
    Would you trust a bunch of israeli elders that wrote down these fables a few hundred years before Jesus bar Pantera showed up?
    Would you trust Old israelites to tell you how to live now?
    Didn't think so.

  3. 6 months ago
    Anonymous

    [...]

    How do you "win" or "lose" an argument about an invisible israelite in the sky?

  4. 6 months ago
    Anonymous

    whatever denomination your parents were members of

  5. 6 months ago
    Anonymous

    WHY would you think like this?

    Do you BELIEVE the Bible or NOT?
    Do you even know what a "religion" is?

  6. 6 months ago
    Anonymous

    Read up on their theological stances and choose the one that sounds most right to you.

  7. 6 months ago
    Anonymous

    Mormon

  8. 6 months ago
    Anonymous

    attend a service of each at a decent church of that denomination
    follow your heart
    I cant believe im at the point of actually saying at. And please excuse the autism here

  9. 6 months ago
    Anonymous

    I you really are on a soulsearching journey and not just playing along as this bi-weekly rendition of someone pretending to be as much then what has to be said up front is that if you're asking for reasons to take up one form of the faith like it's a class in an rpg then you are doing this whole coming to jesus thing a very backwards way. You need to know yourself first and then come into the arms of your chosen church not the other way around.

  10. 6 months ago
    Anonymous

    [...]

    Gay Cryer is an psuedo-intellectual who has agreed with Arians before. even if Palamites were right, you would never know it from the way he behaves.

    Regardless with is a bait thread to create Christian infighting.
    Salvia officinalis, the common SAGE or SAGE, is a perennial, evergreen subshrub, with woody stems, grayish leaves, and blue to purplish flowers. ALL FIELDS

    • 6 months ago
      Anonymous

      Do you happen to be schizophrenic?

      • 6 months ago
        Anonymous

        Nope, just a man who has seen enough 1PBTID to be able to identify them without even needing to see IDs.

        • 6 months ago
          Anonymous

          >Nope
          I don’t believe you :3

    • 6 months ago
      Anonymous

      In what sense does the middle guy still exist or how is he distinguished from the EO?

      • 6 months ago
        Anonymous

        >In what sense does the middle guy still exist or how is he distinguished from the EO?
        Both the russian bishop and the Constantine are part of the orthodox church. Breaks in communion between autochephalous churches aren't uncommon, with them usually being resolved within decades. Even so, Russia is still in communion with multiple of the other autocephalous churches.
        The "true orthodox" are basically a type of schismatics who fully split from the main church over the calendar change and ecumenism, they aren't in communion with any of the jurisdiction of the main orthodox body.
        The difference between them and the old calendarists is paper thin since most believe they are the the "true" church and their views on whether other synods are valid is different from another, with there not being a single unified body but multiple denominations all ratively insular. The thing that differentiates them the most is the fact some old calendarists see the sacraments of the main church as valid and just sever communion as protest, with the other old calendarists basically being like the "true orthodox".

    • 6 months ago
      Anonymous

      >Gay Cryer is an psuedo-intellectual who has agreed with Arians before
      no he didn't you've just resorted to lying now

  11. 6 months ago
    Anonymous

    >I want the truth
    There is no israelite in the sky.

  12. 6 months ago
    Anonymous

    i am also lost here
    >Catholic corruption and politicizing clearly justifies the reformation
    but
    >fragmentation and the creation of batshit insane idolatry cults like mormons and israel worshipping evangelicals shows why central clerical authority is needed
    but
    >praying to anyone but God/Christ feels DEEPLY wrong to me, and the "bread is my flesh" thing pretty clearly seems like a metaphore that was already used throughout the gospel, where faith in christ sustains everlasting life, just as the body sustains its self with food and drink

    in the end of the day all i can think to do is pray and internalize christ's teachings and live the best I can

    • 6 months ago
      Anonymous

      I tried to figure out what the apostles believed and eventually became Catholic. You'll have to do some research though since the Orthodox make a strong case too.

      • 6 months ago
        Anonymous

        I can understand that, but the Catholic Church is much too corrupt for me to believe it actually has any sort of real religious authority anymore.

        • 6 months ago
          Anonymous

          It's far from the most corrupt it's ever been historically. That line of reasoning also begs the question: If the Church became corrupt and lost its authority, when did that happen, and where did the authority go? When I dug into the various Protestant claims, I couldn't find any that made sense. Periods of corruption in the Church are painful, and it's our misfortune to be living in one, but the Catholic Church is either the one Jesus established or it isn't. I believe it is, so it's my duty as a faithful Catholic to obedient to it and help improve it, not flee to a false church that will inevitably have its own set of problems anyway.

          • 6 months ago
            Anonymous

            They've been covering up pedophiles for a long time, it isn't just a recent thing. I've read really old books where priests were pedos. I also don't think the pope was ever supposed to be the king of the religion. A well respected leadership figure, yes, but not a ruler. I will say this though. I feel like the veneration of Mary goes a step too far, but it's better than the orthodox who are basically worshiping idols and who are often government puppets.

          • 6 months ago
            Anonymous

            Those are sensible critiques, but it still sidesteps the the authority question. If they were once the true Church, capable of doing things like authoritatively declare a canon of scripture which we now call the Bible and move the Sabbath to Sunday, when did that stop? And if corruption is the criterion for rescinding authority, why was that authority not rescinded in the far more corrupt years of the Church's past? In marriage, spouses make vows to remain loyal in sickness and in health. That same level of fidelity is demanded of us as well. A few generations from now, all those problems you listed will be gone, and a bunch of new ones will inevitably crop up to replace them, but the Church will endure. We need to be loyal to her because that's what Jesus expects from us.

          • 6 months ago
            Anonymous

            I don't see how the Catholic Church as any more authority than the Orthodox Church over the canon of scripture. The structure of the early church isn't the same as the modern Catholic Church, and part of the split was caused by the pope elevating himself as the head and final authority of the religion. As for why wasn't it rescinded earlier? What do you think the Protestant Reformation was about?

          • 6 months ago
            Anonymous

            It's worth researching the Orthodox vs Catholic claims since both sides make solid cases for their ecclesiology. I find the Catholic claim stronger, but I don't want to strawman the Orthodox position either. As for the Protestant Reformation, you can't presume 1517 as the time authority left the Church since doctrine established far earlier was also altered. That begs the questions, when did the Church stop being the Church the way the apostles understood it? How can one decide if apostolic authority did indeed stop? If it did stop, did the religion change as well with regards to scriptural directives like Phil 2:2 and Matt 18:17? If not, what ecclesial structure should be followed to make those directives possible to follow? And so on... The Protestant claim becomes very weak under this type of historical and ecclesial scrutiny.

          • 6 months ago
            Anonymous

            >the Protestant Reformation, you can't presume 1517 as the time authority left the Church since doctrine established far earlier was also altered. That begs the questions, when did the Church stop being the Church the way the apostles understood it? How can one decide if apostolic authority did indeed stop? If it did stop, did the religion change as well with regards to scriptural directives like Phil 2:2 and Matt 18:17? If not, what ecclesial structure should be followed to make those directives possible to follow? And so on... The Protestant claim becomes very weak under this type of historical and ecclesial scrutiny.
            Its a different view of 'what is the church' we don't think the church is only a literal organization but all believers. as for who is in and who is out there isn't anyway to know a person's heart

          • 6 months ago
            Anonymous

            I understand the claim, but I'm accusing it of being incoherent. Passages like Phil 2:2 and Matt 18:17 become impossible to faithfully follow without some method of resolving doctrinal disputes. It's fair to critique Catholicism or Orthodoxy because their solutions come with various tradeoffs, but it isn't coherent to ignore those passages the way Protestants do.

          • 6 months ago
            Anonymous

            I understand the claim, but I'm accusing it of being incoherent. Passages like Phil 2:2 and Matt 18:17 become impossible to faithfully follow without some method of resolving doctrinal disputes. It's fair to critique Catholicism or Orthodoxy because their solutions come with various tradeoffs, but it isn't coherent to ignore those passages the way Protestants do.

            There are other structural issues with Protestantism as well. Statements like, "Defend sola scriptura and a 66 book canon of scripture without reference to an ecclesial authority established by Jesus," are essentially impossible to answer. If dodged by presuming a once valid authority that has since left the Church, that then forces the question, "When did ecclesial authority leave the Church?" If the answer to that is anywhere after roughly the year 150, that still invalidates almost the entirety of Protestantism based on sacramental theology alone. There's no coherent way I know of to be a Baptist or an Evangelical while also agreeing with the basic facts of a video like this:

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            >When did the ecclesial authority leave the Church?
            I have entertained in passing the idea that the ecclesial authority given to Peter by Christ was given ONLY to Peter and that the Church as an organization did not inherit it. I've never seen or heard of anyone else having had a similar idea but it does neatly tie loose ends created by doubting the idea of a one true denomination/sect.

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            Again, read Philippians 2:2. There's only supposed to be one Church, and it's supposed to be one in spirit and one of mind. The scandal of denominations is a sin we need to remedy, not embrace. Our divisions can't be resolved within a Protestant ecclesial framework, but they can within a framework of apostolic succession, which, not for nothing, is what the apostles and every Christian before the year 1517 unanimously held as revealed truth. It wasn't wrong of Luther to push for reformation within the Church, many saints have done that throughout the millennia and succeeded, but it was gravely wrong for him to abandon the Church that Jesus established and the revealed deposit of faith in favor of his own prideful re-imaginings. "The apostles were wrong and I am right," is a thought none of us should be entertaining whatsoever.

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            I think the more relevant passage is Matthew 16:18
            Is Peter's authority as described in that verse supposed to be transferrable to others be they individuals or groups/governing bodies of congregants? How you answer that question is what decides a lot. Personally I think most Christian churches are fragments of a once whole Church. Splinters of a once whole plank.

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            If that were the case then there would be no Bible either. The earliest canon of scripture was established in 382 at the Council of Rome centuries after the death of Peter. If I put together a collection of books and said, "This is the infallible Word of God," people would rightly ignore my claims unless I was performing miracles to back them up. Our beliefs about the Bible exist because they've been infallibly declared by ecumenical councils, and the reason we believe those councils have any authority is because Jesus gave the Church authority to make divine proclamations (Matthew 16:19). This is my biggest problem with sola scriptura. The Bible can't actually bootstrap its own authority since it came well after Jesus's ascension. Its authority is derived from the Church which is derived from Jesus's promise to Peter. If the Church couldn't have declared an infallible canon of scripture, on what basis should we believe the Bible at all?

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            You worship an Afro-Asiatic demon. Silence, ape

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            >Our beliefs about the Bible exist because they've been infallibly declared by ecumenical councils, and the reason we believe those councils have any authority is because Jesus gave the Church authority to make divine proclamations (Matthew 16:19). This is my biggest problem with sola scriptura. The Bible can't actually bootstrap its own authority since it came well after Jesus's ascension. Its authority is derived from the Church which is derived from Jesus's promise to Peter.
            That's admitting to a textbook example of circular reasoning. The church is infallible, because they propagate texts and interpretations where they claim they're infallible, and the texts are accurate because the church says they're infallible. A variation of the good old "the Bible is true because the Bible says that the Bible is true" but with the church organization rather than just the mythology. Ultimately what you're doing is taking the word of other fallible human writers and authority figures as infallible.

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            The Church held the authority to proclaim dogma since before the Jesus's promise was recorded on paper. It was later written about in the book of Matthew, which was eventually declared a part of the canon of scripture, but the promise came before any text was written. It makes sense that Matthew chose to record it in his gospel, but even if that knowledge were only passed down orally for some reason, that wouldn't alter the faith. The authority to reveal dogmatic truths was granted to Peter by Jesus, the Son of God for the purpose of building the Church. That's why we believe the Bible is infallible, not the other way around.

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            >The Church held the authority to proclaim dogma since before the Jesus's promise was recorded on paper. It was later written about in the book of Matthew, which was eventually declared a part of the canon of scripture, but the promise came before any text was written.
            You've merely added more mythology on top of your previous claims, whether it was oral or written doesn't ultimately matter if both of them are unfalsifiable. According to the Bible (the text), Jesus (the person) was supposedly infallible and divine, who then gave authority to declare infallible and divine things to other people, therefore the Bible (the text) and people promoting it are infallible and divine. The only reason you think there was an oral promise or any of the supernatural events happened in the first place is because the ancient israelites (infallible authority figures in your eyes I suppose) who eventually collected and wrote the stories of the Bible claim they happened. Thus you're still using circular reasoning and appeal to authority.

            We don't even have any texts written by Jesus himself, and most historians and biblical scholars - those who aren't forced to agree with Christian dogma due to working for institutions that explicitly demand their employees to make an explicit statement of faith - agree that the gospel writers are anonymous; it's only later that the names got attached to certain writings, plus they have obvious literary dependency to other gospels (i.e. they use copy pasta and not eyewitness testimony), among other various issues like contradictions (women at grave for example) and not having any of the original copies accessible.

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            >apostolic succession, which, not for nothing, is what the apostles and every Christian before the year 1517 unanimously held as revealed truth
            Wrong historically speaking. It was a long while between the death of Yeshua, the writing of gospels, and the establishment of the first proto-orthodoxy, which then started to either assimilate or persecute other denominations as heresy. The victory of Paul's personal doctrine and the subsequent later establishment of the "first proper" orthodoxy only tells us their version was victorious - might makes right, history is written by the victors and that sort of shit - not whether it's actually the One True Church™. One which has proven itself woefully inadequate time and time again despite trying to declare the pope and his lackeys as infallible messengers of a god on earth. Ask yourself: if the church is acting in a non-biblical manner, who should you trust more: the Bible or the church? The supposed word of god or the word of man?

            If that were the case then there would be no Bible either. The earliest canon of scripture was established in 382 at the Council of Rome centuries after the death of Peter. If I put together a collection of books and said, "This is the infallible Word of God," people would rightly ignore my claims unless I was performing miracles to back them up. Our beliefs about the Bible exist because they've been infallibly declared by ecumenical councils, and the reason we believe those councils have any authority is because Jesus gave the Church authority to make divine proclamations (Matthew 16:19). This is my biggest problem with sola scriptura. The Bible can't actually bootstrap its own authority since it came well after Jesus's ascension. Its authority is derived from the Church which is derived from Jesus's promise to Peter. If the Church couldn't have declared an infallible canon of scripture, on what basis should we believe the Bible at all?

            >on what basis should we believe the Bible at all?
            I suggest you ponder on that question for an extended period of time.

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            >Our beliefs about the Bible exist because they've been infallibly declared by ecumenical councils, and the reason we believe those councils have any authority is because Jesus gave the Church authority to make divine proclamations (Matthew 16:19). This is my biggest problem with sola scriptura. The Bible can't actually bootstrap its own authority since it came well after Jesus's ascension. Its authority is derived from the Church which is derived from Jesus's promise to Peter.
            That's admitting to a textbook example of circular reasoning. The church is infallible, because they propagate texts and interpretations where they claim they're infallible, and the texts are accurate because the church says they're infallible. A variation of the good old "the Bible is true because the Bible says that the Bible is true" but with the church organization rather than just the mythology. Ultimately what you're doing is taking the word of other fallible human writers and authority figures as infallible.

            >The Church held the authority to proclaim dogma since before the Jesus's promise was recorded on paper. It was later written about in the book of Matthew, which was eventually declared a part of the canon of scripture, but the promise came before any text was written.
            You've merely added more mythology on top of your previous claims, whether it was oral or written doesn't ultimately matter if both of them are unfalsifiable. According to the Bible (the text), Jesus (the person) was supposedly infallible and divine, who then gave authority to declare infallible and divine things to other people, therefore the Bible (the text) and people promoting it are infallible and divine. The only reason you think there was an oral promise or any of the supernatural events happened in the first place is because the ancient israelites (infallible authority figures in your eyes I suppose) who eventually collected and wrote the stories of the Bible claim they happened. Thus you're still using circular reasoning and appeal to authority.

            We don't even have any texts written by Jesus himself, and most historians and biblical scholars - those who aren't forced to agree with Christian dogma due to working for institutions that explicitly demand their employees to make an explicit statement of faith - agree that the gospel writers are anonymous; it's only later that the names got attached to certain writings, plus they have obvious literary dependency to other gospels (i.e. they use copy pasta and not eyewitness testimony), among other various issues like contradictions (women at grave for example) and not having any of the original copies accessible.

            I'm familiar with the academic theories about anonymous gospels and competing branches within the Church, as well as most of the other theories Bart Ehrman popularized like Jesus not claiming to be God. It's a very in-the-weeds discussion to flesh out why I think those theories are wrong, but the high level summary is that the gospels almost certainly weren't anonymous based on the actual evidence, and none of the competing branches could credibly demonstrate a claim to being authentic compared to the apostolic succession and historical evidence for the Church.

            This is a long video but a good one if you have time for it. It addresses a variety of claims that are popular within academic circles about the historicity of Jesus and the Church, and it provides a pretty compelling case against the revisionist history now being promulgated in academia:

            ?t=195

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            >the academic theories about anonymous gospels
            It's hardly a theory when the authors quite literally copy from each other, and one of the gospel writers outright says he's gathering stories that are circling around. None of the writers even claim to be eyewitnesses, that's a conclusion you only get to if - again - you treat Paul (who by his own admission never even met Jesus while he was alive) and later the early church who attached names to some of the more popular stories and canonized them as an infallible authority figures.
            >revisionist history now being promulgated in academia
            The only thing that's being done is applying the same criticism to the Bible you would feel comfortable using with any other holy text or other mythology you personally don't believe in, especially since nowadays one can do so without fear of ostracization or the death penalty.

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            >None of the writers even claim to be eyewitnesses
            You should reread the ending of John my man

          • 6 months ago
            Anonymous

            The church cannot be destroyed as long as people accurately follow Jesus Christ's teachings. As for Philippians 2:2, the way the Catholic Church systematically protects pedo priests and other corrupt officials makes me think being of one mind with it as it is now probably isn't a good thing. Unity must be created through communication and consensus, not imposed from the top down by a worldly power. As for Matthew 18:17, when it says "tell it to the church" it very clearly means to consult with your local priest, but that doesn't necessarily mean the local church is under the authority of a temporal king of Christianity even if it is most likely under the authority of some bishop or another. While I am in general more inclined towards the teachings of the Roman Catholic Church than the Eastern Orthodox Church, I whole-heartily reject Papal infallibility.

          • 6 months ago
            Anonymous

            It's reasonable to critique recent Popes for throwing around their authority too much, and the bishops' protection of pedophile priests is indefensible. That said, these problems won't exist within a generation or two, whereas throwing out all forms of ecclesial authority creates unresolvable contradictions.

            To be of "one mind" like in Philippians 2:2 means there must be some way to bring about interpretive consensus within the Church. That consensus has historically been achieved by looking to the apostolic faith to determine truth when there are competing interpretations. If Christians can interpret scripture however they see fit, then there's no longer a way to reconcile these discrepancies, hence the thousands of Protestant denominations that continue to multiply.

            And in Matthew 18:17's case, how can my priest correct me if I chose his church because I already agreed with his interpretation of scripture? He'd be a yes man at that point, hence liberal Christianity.

        • 6 months ago
          Anonymous

          Name one "uncorrupt" Church. Your purity tests will result in infinite sects.

    • 6 months ago
      Anonymous

      to anyone but God/Christ feels DEEPLY wrong to me
      Catholics don't do this; this is just propaganda invented by your aforementioned groups like Evangelicals. A saint is just someone you know is in heaven. You are not praying "to" the saint, but asking that saint to put in a good word to God. The Hail Mary that Protestants say is "praying to Mary" is literally just recitation of text from the Gospels.

      Let me also give some other context; Protestants threw out books of the Bible that are the scriptural basis for several major beliefs of Catholicism. The reason they did this is because the Protestant reformers imagined that Hebrew was magically superior to Koine Greek (which was the standard language of the Israelites during the life of Christ), so they consulted medieval israeli manuscripts composed 900 years AFTER Jesus, which didn't contain several books of the Old Testament that were considered canonical during Jesus' life, and used that medieval israeli text as the basis of the Protestant canon. Since the Reformation original Hebrew copies of the books thrown out by the Protestants were found, and they confirm and corroborate the position the Catholics and Orthodox had from the beginning.

  13. 6 months ago
    Anonymous

    you can choose whatever. just know there is only one correct option.

  14. 6 months ago
    Anonymous

    [...]

    He refuses to debate Peter Dimond.

    • 6 months ago
      Anonymous

      So what, he only agrees to argue with people he's certain he'll beat?

  15. 6 months ago
    Anonymous

    [...]

    I actually recommend guys like David Erhan, Craig Truglia and Ubi petrus.
    Read books like orthodox dogmatic theology Pomazansky and Rose.

  16. 6 months ago
    Anonymous

    If you wanted the truth you would become an esoteric Christian (the bible is blatantly full of shit)

  17. 6 months ago
    Anonymous

    Just join whatever church you vibe best with, I'm sure j-man would understand.

  18. 6 months ago
    Anonymous

    >I want the truth
    Then why on Earth are you converting to Christianity?

  19. 6 months ago
    Anonymous

    Jesuit

  20. 6 months ago
    Radiochan

    bible says you need to accept Jesus Christ in your heart, repent, and be baptized for the remission of sins
    Have you done the first 2, at least?

  21. 6 months ago
    Anonymous

    Just read the bible. Why do you want to be one of a congregation when you don't know what YOU think & believe?

    • 6 months ago
      Anonymous

      'just reading the bible' is not enough

      • 6 months ago
        Anonymous

        Yeah it is. People congregate into cults and bullshit one another into oblivion.

        Better to find out what to believe... so you then know what to think.

  22. 6 months ago
    Anonymous

    Why do concerts choose their church like a football team?

  23. 6 months ago
    Anonymous

    A true Christian absorb the essence of all religions.

  24. 6 months ago
    Anonymous

    neoplatonist protochristianity with a zoroastrian understanding of physics / astronomy with hermetic qabalah and hindu spirituality.

  25. 6 months ago
    Anonymous

    I converted to Orthodoxy (Antiochian) from a "Restorationist" Evangelical church.

    I'm assuming you already have a Bible, if not then get a few different ones (you can read most of them for free online). Grab a KJV, an ESV, etc... Just stay away from "The Message" translation. Start reading scripture to get familiar with it. Don't "read into" it too much. Get familiar with the contents of Scripture before you try to interpret it. Start with Genesis and Exodus, then move on to the New Testament. Make sure you read the Psalms at some point, they're beautiful.

    Best advice I can give is just jump in. Christianity is experiential. From my experience this whole process will make you a new person and you can't do that by just studying to find the right one. Find a few different churches in your area and go visit for a service. Go up and visit with the priest/pastor, get to know the people you'll be worshipping with. Chances are there are folks with similar backgrounds to you that will help you avoid pitfalls and the like. As you're doing all this then layer on the studying.

    Obviously I hope you visit an Orthodox parish; I hope you visit more than one. When you visit make sure you wear comfortable shoes. Sit down if you need to. After liturgy is a coffee hour where there' s coffee and snacks. Go to that too. Visit with priest, he'll want to meet you, that's his job.

    Here's a some resources to check out If the above sounds too intimidating and you want to "study" first:

    "The Orthodox Way" by Met. Kallistos Ware
    "Arise, O God" by Fr. Andrew Stephen Damick
    "Religion of the Apostles" by Fr. Stephen de Young
    >>Frs. Andrew and Stephen run a good podcast called "The Lord of Spirits"
    "Orthodoxy and Heterodoxy" by Fr. Andrew Stephen Damick (a good survey of religions from an Orthodox perspective)
    "Rock and Sand" by Fr. Josiah Trenham
    "A House for My Name" by Peter Leithart
    "The Unseen Realm" by Dr. Michael S. Heiser

    God bless you anon.

    • 6 months ago
      Anonymous

      Personally, I'd suggest reading the gospels first, then diving into Genesis and Exodus, then rereading the gospels and the rest of the New Testament. It's important to become knowledgeable, and the new stuff makes more sense with the old stuff as a foundation, but the earlier someone learns about Jesus and can potentially be saved, the better.

      • 6 months ago
        Anonymous

        >I want the truth
        Most of the propositions of each denomination and religions in general are unfalsifiable, each picking and choosing which parts or traditions they decide to follow. If you're joining for the benefits, just choose the denomination that aligns best with your already existing values. They'll give you a Bible reading plan to adhere to; actually reading the thing in all its entirety isn't even required. This anon is a good example of such reading plan. The intent is to first selectively feed the newcomer the heckin' wholesome chungus parts of the religion (this is the reason you join), and only after that read the morally dubious parts with confirmation bias: if you for example happen upon a verse that promotes the superiority of the israeli race, or endorses slavery, punishing children for the crimes of their parents, treats rape as a property crime against the woman's father, treats little girls as war loot, or has god enacting all kind of various fricked up shit - you don't have to worry. You're already starting with the preferred conclusion that god is the source of goodness, so instead of reading the verses as they are, you start mangling your brain into a pretzel to justify why god allows or endorsed such acts, or how those verses were just metaphors, or how the evils committed serve some ultimate unknown mysterious purpose that will surely justify all the harm done.

        Here's a Bible reading plan no Christian will ever endorse: you know how books work, right? Inside they have these things called pages, and the text starts at the first page. First you read through that page, then you flip over to next page and read that. Repeat the process until you've read through the whole book. If an infallible god-being is indeed the author of the Bible, then it follows he is also a perfect communicator. Even if the Bible is written in an order you don't personally like, surely you must admit that god knows better than you?

        • 6 months ago
          Anonymous

          >Here's a Bible reading plan no Christian will ever endorse: you know how books work, right? Inside they have these things called pages, and the text starts at the first page.

          I'm

          Personally, I'd suggest reading the gospels first, then diving into Genesis and Exodus, then rereading the gospels and the rest of the New Testament. It's important to become knowledgeable, and the new stuff makes more sense with the old stuff as a foundation, but the earlier someone learns about Jesus and can potentially be saved, the better.

          and I started the Bible from page 1 when I decided to embrace Christianity, and it's dry and boring as frick. It took me months to get to the New Testament even with daily reading because my focus would slip and I didn't want to skim. I recommended the the reading order I did because we were sent to preach the Good News of Jesus. If they are capable of accepting Jesus's message as true, it is best for them to have that opportunity early because you never know when you're going to die.

          • 6 months ago
            Anonymous

            >it is best for them to have that opportunity early because you never know when you're going to die
            That sounds like a really bleak worldview. Why would a supposed all-loving god punish someone with hell for wanting to be throughout in reading his word in its entirety, and they didn't have a chance to accept a single specific supernatural proposition as true until a certain arbitrary point?

          • 6 months ago
            Anonymous

            I don't think it is.

  26. 6 months ago
    Anonymous

    I went to an Anglican church and was sold. I'd recommend doing a bit of research on your country of origin and see what fits culturally. That's one view. I like Catholicism because it's the one that united Europe for the crusades. It has a very robust history. It
    's the most popular globally. Many great empires were Catholic. Deus Vult.

  27. 6 months ago
    Anonymous

    Choose whichever you think will inspire you to be liberal in charity, restrained in evil conduct, and energetic in good conduct.

  28. 6 months ago
    Anonymous

    wow this thread is depressing. like 3 or 4 serious answers to OP's deadly serious inquiry.

    My answer is conservative Lutheranism. It is the denomination that takes the bible "the most seriously" if that makes sense.

    • 6 months ago
      Anonymous

      it doesn't account for apocrypha, the Q source, or political canonization

    • 6 months ago
      Anonymous

      This is probably a bait thread OP didn't respond to anyone

  29. 6 months ago
    Anonymous

    >I am an athiest converting to Christianity. How do I choose between Catholic/Orthodox/one of the Protestant denominations? I want the truth
    Ok. So another Christian or israelite is starting a Thread to Talk about Christianity....
    Pure bait lol.

  30. 6 months ago
    Anonymous

    Catholics are probably the most ridged, Rule-obsessed. Even though not all of these rules are correct, but they aren't wrong enough to Not be saved - they are basically Christians
    Eastern/ Orthodox are more correct, I believe. However they are still steeped in rules & Tradition but a bit Less
    Anglicans and Lutherans would be the next - less rule-bound and traditional, but more so than most of the 'Protestant' group - actually they only protest about blatantly wrong rules/traditions (and Anglicans allow Divorce RE: Henry VIII).
    Baptists and Presbyterians Still can seem a little rigid to some, but nothing like the Catholics.
    Now you have Pentecostals, Most Non-Denominational Churches, etc. These are still true to the Official Biblical rules, but accept more things like healing & casting out spirits as Jesus and apostles did, and Don't demand you follow Traditions & extra rules that Men made up (such as The Pope). Just the rules Jesus Gave us.

    Now comes the supposed Liberal Churches that seem to think it is OK for a pastor to be Homosexual or females teaching men.
    Unitarians seem to think you can combine Christianity with Other Beliefs.

    This Is WRONG - 'What company does the Light have with Darkness?'

    You should Sincerely ask God almighty, the Creator to reveal himself and what direction to go.
    I'm just a Man who knows a little.
    - That Through Jesus ALL things were Created - and apart from Him, there is No Salvation. No one comes to the Father, but by the Son

    May God Bless you, teach you & keep you.

  31. 6 months ago
    Anonymous

    Orthodox

    It's the ancient church without wierd stuff like popes and Vatican ii

  32. 6 months ago
    Anonymous

    random.org

    what? you're telling me the genetic lottery is any different? no christian chose the denomination they were born into

    • 6 months ago
      Anonymous

      >no christian chose the denomination they were born into
      sure if you ignore converts and people that switch denominations

      however every atheist is only one because they were born in the secular west

      • 6 months ago
        Anonymous

        >however every atheist is only one because they were born in the secular west
        I was Christian but became atheist after I learned how formal logical arguments worked. I then was unable to maintain my Christian beliefs under my own scrutiny.

        • 6 months ago
          Anonymous

          how do you maintain the believe in: logic, reason, human thought, objective truth within an atheist world view

          • 6 months ago
            Anonymous

            First assume you exist, second assume you can reason through logic, third assume you can learn about the world by interacting with it. With this rock solid foundation you can build a extremely accurate model of reality and internally consistent worldview. However I don't see a path to God and that's why I don't believe.

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            >First assume you exist, second assume you can reason through logic, third assume you can learn about the world by interacting with it. With this rock solid foundation you can build a extremely accurate model of reality and internally consistent worldview.
            that is my point, you can't show any of that exists, you're just assuming it does.
            But you have no more proof for those concepts then you do for got yet you accept them anyways
            that is how atheism becomes arbitrary and ad hoc

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            Theism is "arbitrary" in the exact same manner, mate.
            >First assume that a god that wants its creations to know reality exists, second assume you (a creation of god) exist, third assume you can reason through logic (with a mind given by god), fourth assume you can learn about the world (created by god) by interacting with it (using your god-given faculties). See!? You need god in order for logic and senses to work!
            Both theists and atheists accept several unprovable axioms about reality for convenience's sake - such as that a physical reality exists and we can derive conclusions about it to a certain degree of accuracy - however the difference between a theist and an atheist is that former adds an unnecessary, unfalsifiable supernatural claim into the mix that adds quite literally nothing, in fact it makes the whole thing even more arbitrary and circular because you claim to be using your infallible god-given yet for some reason fallible faculties to prove a god. Occam's Razor dictates that entities should not to be multiplied beyond necessity. Besides, evolution already explains the origin of reasoning: a creature that can't accurately perceive its environment, make predictions and change its future actions based on that has a selection bias against its continuation.

            "Logic isn't real if god isn't real" is one of those silly arguments theists make when backed into a corner, because obviously if there's no tangible evidence for a god why not go the full way and just throw your hands up in the air while claiming that no one can really know if reality is even real; but for some reason you can if a god is real.

  33. 6 months ago
    Anonymous

    >making crickets fight
    >modern bloodsport

    a thread died for this.

  34. 6 months ago
    Anonymous

    It’s pretty simple really, Protestants schism over every little thing because they have no established doctrine, and the Pope preaches out of the mouth of a serpent.

    That only leaves one

  35. 6 months ago
    Anonymous

    Pick one with historical continuity

    ?si=2qvbHLpJHYkjmbdm

  36. 6 months ago
    Anonymous

    The truth is there is no convincing evidence of an existence of God and you're only doing this as a way to cope with a trauma of some kind.

    • 6 months ago
      Anonymous

      Just because you're miserable doesn't mean everyone else has to be.

  37. 6 months ago
    Anonymous

    Answer a few questions.

    1. Do you think baptism is a personal decision or something parents can make for children?
    2. Do you believe in free will in terms of salvation?
    3. Do you believe salvation can be lost, in other words if you become a true believer can you cease to be a true believer?
    4.Do you think it's important if your church is organizationally linked to the original apostles?
    5.Do you believe that one man can be Jesus' successor as leader of the entire Church?
    6.Is it possible for a believer to stop committing sin completely by the power of the Holy Spirit?
    7.What gifts of the Holy Spirit do you think are still in operation today?

  38. 5 months ago
    Anonymous

    Asiatic baboon religion.

  39. 5 months ago
    Anonymous

    >dudeee do I go for the stability bonus of catholicism or the morale boost of orthodoxy which one do i choose??
    Life is not a videogame you fricking loser

  40. 5 months ago
    Anonymous

    I once saw an atheist say “If Christianity true Orthodoxy because universalism”

  41. 5 months ago
    Anonymous

    Choose the denomination that worships a israelite.

  42. 5 months ago
    Anonymous

    Did anyone else convert to Christianity, have an initial kind of convert's zealotry and then realise you don't really believe in it as much as you thought you did?
    I'm specifically interested in people who weren't baptised as kids and first stepped into a church after their conversion but reverts are welcome as well since I doubt I'll find many like me

  43. 5 months ago
    Anonymous

    at this point, with which you feel most comfortable, before putting on the label of any Christian denomination, I would recommend that, since you have decided to follow the path of Christ, you talk to the bishops of the churches that catch your attention, you can also read to some theologians or just go hear mass in some random church. If you are interested you can start with the first thing, I would not recommend reading the Bible (any version) without at least an introduction from a bishop or priest, this is not a confrontation against Protestants but in my opinion even in their denominations they have a particular vision of the things that reading the bible without any "help" can at least cost more work to assimilate

  44. 5 months ago
    Anonymous

    https://libgen.st/book/index.php?md5=924ABA132117960DB2C1B65A1DC5B3E1

  45. 5 months ago
    Anonymous

    https://annas-archive.org/md5/aa4597d4106e4e1e50ebcfdde1d27c3c

  46. 5 months ago
    Anonymous

    https://libgen.st/book/index.php?md5=2687AB87409A3F5655E27F173336A9D9

  47. 5 months ago
    Anonymous

    https://libgen.st/book/index.php?md5=72A9AF272ACE6CBED768FA39B4C694FA

  48. 5 months ago
    Anonymous

    https://energeticprocession.wordpress.com/2022/10/22/the-four-horsemen-of-palamism/

  49. 5 months ago
    Anonymous
    • 5 months ago
      Anonymous

      While I am not Catholic, he could do worse for what church to join.

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *