u/JHLV04

This is mainly for my Orthodox brothers and sisters, how do you respond to claims of people quoting the Ten Commandments with reference to the veneration of icon. I understand it to be veneration and not worship, my growing intrigue in Eastern Orthodoxy is making me question this more from those in the tradition themselves.

Many Protestants might argue against it being the church that Christ left due to icon veneration, but I think that’s an oversimplification on their part.

For those of your born in Baptist environment and household, is there something specific keeping you from exploring other denominations?

And if you converted to a Baptist denomination, why ?

Hey everyone, I’m researching denominations and theology, and Lutheranism is intriguing to me. I greatly admire Martin Luther’s protest against the corruption and indulgences of the Catholic Church dedication to the love of God for all, along with the rejection of Calvinist predestination.

The primary paradox I am struggling with is the idea that some are elect to believe, which I can see is a theology that is consistent with a conception of God being outside space and time. However, my view is in Arminian in the sense that I value our free will and I struggle with the idea that this is more than God being outside space and time, but actively electing some to be saved. Our damnation is our own fault, but we are not predestined to be damned?

Hey beautiful people, I’m a recent convert to the faith and have been researching denominations for a while. I’m currently stuck between these two mentioned above, although I think I lean more Methodist.

I side more with the Christus Victor view as opposed to penal substitutionary atonement, and I reject the idea that some of us are predestined in any way to receive salvation over others. While I understand Lutheranism is not as strict as Calvinism, it doesn’t say that some are NOT destined to be saved.

The Arminianism view of things tends to make the most sense to me, and I feel like holiness should be something we strive to work towards everyday through our actions in the real world .

That is not to dismiss that for Lutherans, good work will inevitably come from faith, and they are still required to follow the Law in service to others. The Gospel is distinguished from the Law as the news that Christ has redeemed us from sin and faith in Him alone is what will enable us to carry out our works.

Hey everyone I’ve been a Christian since early this year but currently non denominational. Ive been speaking to people and learning about denominations and their theology, but Lutherans are currently a bit unknown to me.

What makes you guys different from other Protestant denominations and how would you articulate your justification of Lutheranism being the closest representation of the gospel and church of Christ?

I’m currently non denominational, but my view on the ordination of women in making me lean toward Anglican and episcopal churches. The letters to Timothy that have stuff about women is shown by modern scholarship to not be written by Paul, and I’m pretty sure he also had women in leadership roles with him if I’m not wrong?

I think the main defense for not ordaining women is tradition and that the disciples were all men, but I feel like this can ignore the significance of women in the faith. God chose to enter the world through the womb of a woman, something so sacred. Mary is greatly worshiped and venerated by many Catholics and Orthodox and they reject women being ordained.

Christ even having women following him was seen as a huge taboo, and I can’t help but think that finding excuses to exclude women from leadership and using divine providence to justify this is not something He is hugely concerned about.

Perhaps this is a minority opinion I hold, but I feel that many of the people who express visceral rage and distaste towards women in clergy are using ‘tradition’ as an excuse for their dislike of a woman having authority.

It just seems like an odd thing to freak out over I’ll be honest it amuses me when I see conservatives make reaction videos to it with their bedroom wall full of icons of Mary and statues on their desks 🤣🤣, while calling women who speak heretics, like it’s beyond insane to me.

I also feel that this dogmatic and inflexible thinking is what can hinder real change and progress. I think everyone should be encouraged to question ‘tradition’ .

Hey guys I’m currently looking into denominations after choosing to embrace Christianity, albeit while struggling a lot with faith. I’m of a mixed Indian Chinese and English background but I’m a UK citizen and so are my parents. I was initially apprehensive about Catholic and Protestant denominations due to the colonial history in Asia and the consequences from that.

The picture is of course nuanced, and every group has bad actors who misuse their scripture, I’m just aware of my bias here due to my background. My mums family were Hindu and I looked into it but didn’t find the theology consistent. I then was a hardcore atheist, which explains why I’m still struggling with faith but I’m trying.

I love the apophatic tradition in EO and pre colonial roots of OO, but dislike the inflexibility with accepting lgbt people.

Many of my friends are queer and the idea of them being viewed as less then is saddening to me. I stumbled across the Episcopal church in my research and then found it it’s essentially the American version of Anglicanism lol.

Hey everyone, I’m a new but doubting and conflicted Christian. After a spiritual experience and hard atheism, I found the philosophical arguments for God powerful and the resurrection of Jesus to be compelling. The account of human nature in the Christian tradition is more thorough compared to others I feel.

I’ve been delving into denominational research since. I love parts of every tradition. I love the mystical tradition in EO, and the pre colonial roots of OO and EO. I’m of a mixed Indian Chinese and English background, so I’m familiar with colonial Christianity and that Protestant and Catholic missionaries were mostly involved.

I’ve learned that St Thomas Christians have existed in India for 2000 years and the Portuguese Catholics were shocked and attempted to convert them still. Despite this, I know that apostolic churches tend to be fixed on conservative views. A lot of my friends are queer and the thought of them being excluded from a sacred space and being treated lesser than is infuriating to me.

I’m torn between the reflective and liberal theology offered by Episcopal and Protestantism, and the pre colonial roots of EO and OO.

This is me, but how do you guys deal with heavy doubt and feeling like it’s false? Also I’ve never felt anything while praying and I’ve mostly accepted Christianity based on the historical claims

Hey everyone I’ve called myself a Christian, albeit a wavering one since early this year after staunch atheism. The philosophical arguments for God and the case for the resurrection, and qualia are what were strong for me. However I still have strong doubts in areas that I would like to express.

- I don’t think we often contemplate just how little time humans have existed on this planet. Other animals have lived and suffered and died for hundreds of millions of years. It seems so wasteful and odd, let alone other human species existing, too. All of that just for God to finally reveal himself fully 2000 years ago, with our current source being a philosophically rich, yet also controversial set of texts that we call the Bible. I will admit that Christianity is unique in its historical case, but a gut feeling of mine is that it will eventually be a studied as a dominant part of human culture and evolution, but generally regarded as untrue and a reflection of us projecting our hopes and ideals onto the world, instead of taking the world as it is.

- Eucharistic miracles. To me it seems odd and trivial for God to prove which denomination of the right religion is true, instead of answering the prayers of the distressed. If he is all loving and all powerful, why use that love and power to prove a denomination and not help convince others his existence from other faiths. This also relates to non resistant non believers. Why is he so present in the life of others, they feel the spirit of love and joy, and yet others cry out in desperation and receive nothing whatsoever.

- Self pleasure being sinful because it’s not a part of God’s design for us. Sin makes sense in things that are harmful to others or our environment. I’ll be honest, the obsession with self pleasure is quite amusing to me. I do not see how this is inherently harmful. It’s a different conversation when it comes to the source that we use - I understand the harms of the corn industry and how this is harmful to people, and is proven to be. But self pleasure in of itself is not inherently harmful. I like when CS Lewis makes a distinction between theistic morality in that we don’t only refrain from things that harm others, but we view our body as belonging to God in a sense, so self pleasure goes against his ‘design’ for what we are supposed to do. I can’t help but view this is as a form of sexual repression, control and shame around sexuality. As far as I’m concerned, my body belongs to me, and the same for everyone. This kind of thinking also aligns with the whole ‘God made me straight’ nonsense, and that being gay offends him. Great, but I’m sure there’s actual harmful things to be concerned with instead of two consenting adults.

Hey guys I’m curious as to how people would draw a line between having faith, delusions or religious psychosis. I have experienced some challenges with my well being involving paranoia and delusions which felt real and scary, and I understand religious psychosis themes involve negative emotions or hearing voices thinking it’s God.

I realise it’s a crude argument by Reddit atheists saying they we are deluded or that religious belief is ‘normalized psychosis’, but I think you can appreciate my question since I have struggled with psychologically.

I suppose if we frame the experience of God as love and hope in the face of despair, then this is in a very different category to which delusions are. People in religious psychosis don’t really hear God telling them to love people, it’s mostly psychologically distressing messages. Am I right in my distinction, and how do you guys navigate poor mental health with Christian faith?

I hope the title accurately reflects what I’m describing. I want to feel more convicted in my faith and have called myself a Christian since early this year. I have seen snippets of testimonies where people feel the presence of God during times of physical and mental crisis or they prayer and have an experience. Even Thomas Aquinas said a similar thing, that the arguments are nothing compared to feeling the Holy Spirit during prayer.

I’ve had some tough experiences over the past few years and of course a lot of beautiful experiences, and I’m incredibly greatful for my family. However, I came to Christianity through intellectual study of the arguments for God and the history of Christ and the resurrection. I have tried praying before but not experienced what people describe.

The only similar feeling is when I was walking home with a mutual friend after seeing my close friend perform in a small band, and it was late at night. I was mesmerized by the beauty of the night sky. Explored Hinduism due to cultural heritage, became very strong atheist but then gradually explored religion more seriously.

Also appreciate that I’ve challenged myself hard and I had a very scientistic and materialistic view of the world so I still struggle with the concept of the Trinity and ‘feeling’ the Holy Spirit. I appreciate that I have accepted a resurrection, but I also like the way that classical theism is argued, as the source from which all springs.

I also very much struggle with angels and demons and view this is more cultural developments that are also present cross culturally. This is not to undermine the rigorous philosophical arguments for God, but rather to express my skepticism of other metaphysical deities.

I’ve had a few dreams about Jesus, but I try to be intellectually honest about how I would judge someone from another faith dreaming about a deity they have read about or feel connected too. Would I have had this dream if I have never heard of or been able to create images in my head prior to the dreams? Unlikely if I’m being honest. The first one was around age 10. A man dressed in white being surrounded by a bright light. Nothing was said but in my mind it was Jesus. I’m a British national so would be familiar with Easter and Christmas, and would have seen things about Jesus. I remember when I was 9 for Easter we had a school trip where we went to a hall and I remember watching a video but don’t remember all the details. It wouldn’t surprise me if the dream was actually soon after this, which would serve as a stronger explanation and would not risk me falling into God of the Gaps territory.

The other two dreams were a few months ago, at a time when I was particularly struggling with my faith, more so than what I am now. I was on holiday in Wales with my family and we had had conversations about my overthinking about faith.

The dream (s) was actually a pretty poignant one. It was of Christ on the cross saying ‘Father forgive them.’ The two dreams were quite similar and not too far apart. Eerie in a sense, but also explained by psychological reasons. I hope God can appreciate my thought processes and how I try to make sense of things and connections.

The hardest thing though is that I felt no spiritual presence whatsoever when I think about the challenging and painful experiences I have had. I am eternally greatful for my loved ones and their support, but I think the visceral reality of pain can make us take the problem of evil more seriously. This is not to say ‘if God real why my tummy hurt’, but a deeper reflection that faith really gets pressure tested during situations like that.

A part of me can take comfort in knowing how painful crucifixion is, and logically this would show that God is no stranger to pain.

And through those times, I’ve had myself and others to strengthen me. I have faith in my own resilience and also an understanding of my own vulnerability, but I wish I could feel that God strengthens me, but I just don’t. And I have tried sincerely, does anyone else experience this?

I’ve called myself a Christian since early this year, but I’ve also been curious to learn about Islam. I’ve briefly studied dharmic faiths and they are philosophically rich and beautiful, but I find the historical grounding for the key figures like Jesus and The Prophet Muhammad to be much stronger.

What makes you guys be a Christian instead of a Muslim? And are there any aspects of Islam that you think make more since then Christianity. I’ll be honest, I’ve been struggling with the concept of the Trinity and have recently posted about it. I appreciate that Islam has tawid or pure monotheism which is definitely more simple and consistent.

Although what draws me more to Christianity is I believe that the resurrection is the best explanation of the historical facts - and I don’t know why God would deceive people for 600 years? God becoming flesh shows a God who is not a stranger to suffering, too.

Hey, I’ve self identified as Christian but have been learning more about other faiths too, especially Islam. There are still elements of Christianity that do confuse me a bit. The Trinity being the main one. Islam professes tawid or pure monotheism. Can you guys please help explain The Trinity and how it is still monotheism. I’m also confused when Jesus is praying to the father. Or is this because he has two distinct natures, and his human nature is the one that prays? But if this is the case, some could argue that he is praying to himself in essence?

What’s your story?

I would say I’m now a Christian but I have a lot of doubts and struggles. Was raised agnostic but with Christian and Hindu cultural celebrations. Had a spiritual experience a few years ago looking into the night sky after being with friends, explored Hinduism, but had heavy doubt. I fell into new atheism but saw how shallow it was, and found arguments for God and Christianity far more compelling than I gave them credit for.

How do you guys reconcile the differences in the resurrection narratives in the gospels? This is something I’m struggling with a bit, thank you for the responses 👐🏽.

Hey, I’m kind of stuck on this point a little bit and was wondering if I could get some advice on how you guys navigate the fact that Christ’s divinity was something that evolved over time, and wasn’t necessarily what the historical Jesus himself actually did.

I personally place my faith in the Resurrection as being foundational, which I personally think has a robust case. I’ve tried to reconcile parts of the gospel that are mythologized or been read into the Old Testament text. When I read Matthew for the first time, I didn’t realize how much emphasis was on things being prophesied. E.g by Isiah.

There are also parts in which things are borrowed from one gospel to another or things that didn’t directly occur. For example, the graves opening up and the dead walking around - surely several independent sources would have written about something like that.

If I’ve got anything wrong, apologies, I’ve not studied properly the scholarship but it’s a pattern I’ve noticed that professors of religion mention about the gospels. This is not to say that they are entirely unreliable, for example they all agree on women being the first to see the empty tomb, which would have been something odd to make up in that social context - considering women’s position.

I just feel that to be intellectually honest in my faith journey and ask others about questions I have. This isn’t to sound snarky or edgy, but I believe or like to think that God would understand how our different minds process different bits of information, and that some things will confuse us a little, but nonetheless we try to make sense out of it the best way we can. I am autistic and adhd diagnosed so I tend to be very analytical.

See the response from u/Deer_Hart, he explained it better than I did

I’ve probably identified as a Christian since early this year but I’m struggling to accept and reconcile things around the age of Mary. I’ve asked this on other forums and some have tried to explain context and other people have been dismissive and said the following:

- God can do anything even if it is immoral. This statement shuts down any open dialogue about morality and whether it is contextual and even flexible. If we have a law written onto our hearts, why should we force ourselves to switch it off?

- Adolescence didn’t exist as a stage due to economic pressure - thereby making teens grow up faster. This does make sense, but to me this seems like they had a childhood taken from them, albeit not intentionally, but it still raises issues for me. For example, I see responses that we judge things by ‘modern standards’, and that this shouldn’t be applied to older times. This to me sounds like some form of moral relativism? Or am I mistaken?

- An opinion from me - the concept of what a child is being flexible is a great moral concern. I know that in Matthew causing one of these little ones to stray should result in consequences. But if now we would consider a 14-16 to be a child both mentally and physically, and all it takes is a use of term, then child marriage and pregnancy was easily justified then and no one saw an issue with it? To me, morality around treatment of children is a strong issue and should be taken seriously.

- I see Christians criticize Islam due to verses regarding age of Aisha - although I think some sources state she was actually around 16-19? I’m not educated on this area so apologies for any straw man’s or mistakes. But could it not be said that we are quick to critique moral issues in another faith, but fail to look at our own due to our bias? If we read the story about Mary in another religion, would we condemn it more so? And if this is the case, are we excusing otherwise morally questionable elements of our faith but ignoring it because it might mean facing an uncomfortable reality?

I’ve been thinking about the context behind the virgin birth and the story behind it, but there are some gaps in my knowledge so apologies if I make wrong statements 👐🏽👐🏽. Was it that she was visited in a dream by the Spirit and asked? I also know that ideas around her age bring up moral issues, but there’s apparently nothing that specifically mentions her age. However I think it would be fair to say that if she was actually mid teens, then that should make anyone think. I know people give ‘cultural context’ argument when it comes to age of marriage, but would that not show that morality is flexible to change?

I hold that someone of that age is not mature mentally and physically to deal with that situation. I say this coming from a good place and someone who identifies as a Christian and believes that Christ was resurrected and his message. It’s just a question that has been pressing on me for a while regarding morality and things that we might overlook or justify because it’s a core feature of our faith, when in other situations would judge the morality of the circumstance more harshly.

Like if it was featured in another faith would we judge it more so, but we are less inclined when it occurs in our own faith?

I could be wrong - but would that not contradict some kind of real moral obligation? It would be wrong for that to occur to a teenager now, and I personally don’t see why it should be suddenly right then? I see many Christians criticize Islam because of the age of Aisha, but how is this any different? The arguments are the same regarding cultural customs and maturity etc

Hey everyone, I’ve made a few posts on here about my research on denomations along with their history and theology. I’ve mentioned that I like different parts of Eastern Orthodoxy and Methodist and Episcopal theology. Some responses have included that you cannot combine different elements that are not recognized as an officiant church.

My question is though - apart from affirming the Nicene Creed, what makes a church a church? Protestantism exists because of Reform and change, what makes that any different to me embracing Theosis yet rejecting the idea that women cannot occupy higher positions.

Another question is - is Orthodoxy the truly authentic church taught by Christ and the apostles, and we reject it because we do not agree with certain ideas? Also - the concept of Theosis or apophatic/negative theology developed a bit after the time of Christ and his apostles if I’m not wrong? So even in ‘Orthodoxy’ concepts develop from Aristotelian or Platonic philosophy and metaphysics.

Catholics who also claim to be the one true church due to apostolic succession believe in papal authority - which I don’t believe was mentioned in the Bible or practiced by Christ and the Apostles? If theology develops and changes within apostolic churches, why can I not combine different ideas?

And isn’t Theosis the same as social holiness in Methodism?