Jump to content

The Protestant Community

Christian and Theologically Protestant? Or, sincerely inquiring about the Protestant faith? Welcome to Christforums the Christian Protestant community. You'll first need to register in order to join our community. Create or respond to threads on your favorite topics and subjects. Registration takes less than a minute, it's simple, fast, and free! Enjoy the fellowship! God bless, Christforums' Staff
Register now

Fenced Community

Christforums is a Protestant Christian forum, open to Bible-believing Christians such as Presbyterians, Lutherans, Reformed, Baptists, Church of Christ members, Pentecostals, Anglicans. Methodists, Charismatics, or any other conservative, Nicene- derived Christian Church. We do not solicit cultists of any kind, including Mormons, Jehovah's Witnesses, Eastern Lightning, Falun Gong, Unification Church, Aum Shinrikyo, Christian Scientists or any other non-Nicene, non-Biblical heresy.
Register now

Christian Fellowship

John Calvin puts forward a very simple reason why love is the greatest gift: “Because faith and hope are our own: love is diffused among others.” In other words, faith and hope benefit the possessor, but love always benefits another. In John 13:34–35 Jesus says, “A new command I give you: Love one another. As I have loved you, so you must love one another. By this everyone will know that you are my disciples, if you love one another.” Love always requires an “other” as an object; love cannot remain within itself, and that is part of what makes love the greatest gift.
Sign in to follow this  
VioletCake

What denominations did you think were weird as a child?

Recommended Posts

I'm wondering what denominations you thought were weird when you were a kid. This is something I'm curious about, and it is not intended to be a debate or to offend anyone. But I think a lot of us who grew up in a specific denomination were probably influenced as children to think that certain other denominations were weird and/or wrong. So, what ones did you think, as a child were weird?

 

I grew up conservative Baptist. I thought that Pentecostals and Church of Christ were particularly weird. I was also under the impression that Presbyterians were more liberal, for some reason (probably because I had cousins who were Presbyterian and liberal), and that Lutherans and Methodists didn't even teach anything from the Bible. A lot of this was misinterpretation of things I had heard from other adults, TV shows, etc.

 

I don't think of them that way now!

 

What about you?

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post

I grew up secular humanist and eventually embraced Atheism ... you were all way too fanatic and needed your meds adjusted. ;)

Share this post


Link to post

When I was growing up, I though that the Mormons were weird in that the belief of Joseph Smith and the golden plates seemed bizarre and should have been easily provable given the year that they were allegedly found (1823). Islam seemed to be steeped with mythology as well complete with Muhammad flying off to heaven on a winged donkey (other texts infer it was a winged horse).

Share this post


Link to post

I was in lots of many churches when I was a kid: Catholic churches, Baptist churches, Lutheran churches, Pentecostal churches, Anglican churches, adventist churches and a few others. I didn't find them weird at all because I expected all of them to be different. There was another church in my area however which I presume belonged to some religious cult. They were very strict about who they let into their church — unless you were dressed a particular way, the ushers at the door wouldn't let you in.

Share this post


Link to post

I grew up thinking Catholicism quite convoluted. My next door neighbors were catholic and I often wondered how they could remember all of the saints and who to pray to for which thing.

Share this post


Link to post

I grew up in a small town where it was more about different types of Christians more than if you were Buddhist or Muslim. So the weirdest one to me was the Catholics because the kids in my class had rosaries for some reason and they would confess to a priest. Since it was a small town, we all knew who went to what church so I had been in every church except the Catholic one. So there was some mysticism and secrecy about the Catholic religion, I was never sure if they were Christian or something else. So growing up, Catholicism was the weirdest to me because no one explained to me how their church worked as a child.

Share this post


Link to post

Interestingly I didn't think anything was weird or unusual as a child. I think that to me is one of the joys of being a child - we tend to just accept people as people and don't bring in any other sort of rationale for it.

 

These days I still don't think I would call any denominations weird...I think learning about other religions is fascinating, and it's part of what makes the world interesting. Yes, there are definitely religions out there that I don't understand the belief systems around - but again, it's interesting learning about them. I took some theology classes in college and always found it fascinating learning about different beliefs.

Share this post


Link to post

Well I remember that I had a good friend whose family was Presbyterian and just because of the funny sounding name I used to think that it was like a cult of some sort. Plus, the actual church had a very odd looking balcony in it, which I had never seen before, so that just added to the mysterious nature that I thought that it had. I hope I get to run into that friend sometime soon...I'm not sure if he knows this about me.

Share this post


Link to post
I grew up secular humanist and eventually embraced Atheism ... you were all way too fanatic and needed your meds adjusted. ;)

 

Out of curiosity, are you still an atheist? I am just wondering considering the subject matter of this forum. Cheers.

Share this post


Link to post

 

Out of curiosity, are you still an atheist? I am just wondering considering the subject matter of this forum. Cheers.

 

Nope, Five point Calvinist (for which I can take no credit).

Share this post


Link to post

I grew up mainly around Catholics and never really encountered any other denominations. I always had a respect and deep interest in all other religions I encountered, and have always been interested in learning about them. But the first time I officially thought a religion was weird was when as an adult I worked with a Jehovah's Witness.

Share this post


Link to post

As a child, the whole religion thing seemed very weird to me. I just couldn't get it at all. Can't really emphasize on a certain denomination. But no one really liked Muslims and their traditional clothes.

Share this post


Link to post

 

Nope, Five point Calvinist (for which I can take no credit).

 

It is good to hear you have been saved by our Lord. :)

 

I realize I kind of went on a tangent here. To answer the original question, I thought the Mormons and JWs were really weird. Turns out they weren't denominations, but cults. Some aspects of Catholicism were strange to my eyes too. The Method logo was curious to me when I was young, but not any more.

Share this post


Link to post

When I was a child and a Catholic, I found members of the JW and INC strange. Most of my classmates were Catholic and only one was a JW member. The JW member would not join us for the daily flag ceremony and that fact alone made him stand out in my mind. He claims that their religion forbids them from reciting pledges to the flag and country and singing the national anthem. At least this was what the teacher told us. I didn't talk much with that classmate because besides being a JW member, he prefers to be alone and hardly participates in other school activities. INC. on the other hand, is a locally-founded church which means Iglesia ni Cristo or Church of Christ. I found its members weird because they call their church Church of Christ yet they don't even believe that Jesus is God and their founder claims that he was the first and last messenger of God. Many townspeople call them Iglesia ni Manalo (Church of Manalo) because of the members' blind obedience to their founder.

Share this post


Link to post

I don't think there were any I thought were strange because I grew up with them, so they were 'normal'. We had two sects that stood out: the Jehovah's Witnesses and the Brethren, an ultra-conservative local church. I had members of both in my classes growing up. Neither could take part in clubs or school assemblies, or things like the Harvest Festival but they were perfectly nice. The Brethren members had an issue with not being allowed to view televisions or attend science classes, but the schools worked round that as they did with the dress issues (floor length skirts or trousers and long sleeves at all times, with very restricted hair styles). I do wonder how the members of the sect manage nowadays with so much online, smartphones and the works.

Share this post


Link to post

As a child growing up, I think the Jehovah Witnesses were quite an interesting people. I sometimes wanted to dodge them but once you sat with them, it was educative and often fun sharing the word of God together.

Share this post


Link to post

Where I am from there are revivalist churches.They are involved in a lot of chanting and trance-like movements. Growing up as a child, I had viewed them as strange but not weird. It was interesting to see how they operated and I and my friends would go to their church observe their movements.

Share this post


Link to post

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • Similar Topics

    • Transgender Dad Is Raising 5-Year-Old Transgender Child

      The transgender father of a 5-year-old boy who wants to be a girl says he did not talk his child into becoming transgender, too. View the full article

      in Christian Current Events

    • 10-Year-Old 'Child Drag Star' Photographed Posing with Naked Adult Drag Queen

      A London magazine called Huck Magazine shared a photo of a 10-year-old Canadian “drag kid” called Nemis Quinn Mélançon-Golden with a fully grown, adult drag queen who is completely nude. View the full article

      in Christian Current Events

    • Life without God Is Weird

      I think logic and argument can suggest God. I have personally benefited from apologists like William Lane Craig, who do this well. Of course, this is not the only way to suggest God. It’s possible to make God plausible, not as the conclusion of a thread of reasoning, but as the premise of human experience. This approach says, in effect, “if God doesn’t exist, so much of life—so much of what we simply assume everyday in the way we function—becomes mysterious and inexplicable.” Such a strategy is often rationally avoidable. But that doesn’t mean it’s less effective in real life. In fact, in our cultural setting, many of the lonely, transcendence-starved, quietly despairing people around us may resonate with aesthetic and existential considerations more than a logical case. Quite often the sheer beauty of the gospel is its most powerful apologetic. That is why I go back to C. S. Lewis’s fiction again and again. He speaks to the imagination powerfully. Here are three aspects of human life and society that are somewhat out of place—homesick, we might say—within the confines of a naturalistic worldview. They don’t prove God, but they’re just kind of weird without him. 1. Thought If our brains are simply the epiphenomenal byproduct of a naturalistic, evolutionary process, then thought becomes something of an oddity. In naturalism, our brains function as they do because of the winnowing effect of unimaginable eons of natural selection. Passing on our genes has determined everything. So can we trust our use of reason—or any of our knowledge? More basically, what exactly is thought? How is it generated from strictly physical processes? You don’t have to be religious to appreciate the complexity of this question. It’s a perennial challenge of philosophy. Consider the issue of consciousness, for instance. Thomas Nagel, who happens to be skeptical about God’s existence, thinks human consciousness is not reducible to strictly material process. In his excellent introduction to philosophy, he admits: I myself believe that this inner aspect of pain and other conscious experiences cannot be adequately analyzed in terms of any system of causal relations to physical stimuli, however complicated. There seem to me two very different kinds of things going on in the world: the things that belong to physical reality, which many different people can observe from the outside, and those other things that belong to mental reality, which each of us experiences from the inside in his own case. This whole idea of a “mental reality,” distinct from the physical one, is curious. Why should the physical world generate this separate, mental realm? Take, for example, math. We tend to think of math as a strictly logical, self-explanatory phenomenon. But when you think about it, math is highly mysterious. Why should it be the case that 2 + 3 = 5 always and everywhere? The physical world is interdependent and relative—even time and space are interwoven, as Einstein showed. But the world of numbers is fixed and universal and binding. So where did it come from? Here’s a way to grasp the problem: If the entire universe collapsed into non-being, would it still be that 2 + 3 = 5? Most people say yes. But if the universe is all there is, what gives these numbers their stability? Why does the mental realm have permanence if the material realm is in flux? What is this intellectual world that rises up all around us, like an invisible castle—and how did it get here? Without God, thought seems out of place. 2. Choice Choice is another oddity within naturalism. If the universe is a closed system of cause and effect, then ultimately everything that happens has a prior material cause—like one pool ball hitting another. So, if we are strictly material entities (albeit highly complex ones), where would free will come from? We make choices with our brains, and our brains are physical objects, alongside the whole panoply of other physical objects in the universe, from stars to sponges to sauerkraut. What would make our choices something other than the result of an extremely complicated series of previous material events—trillions of pool balls? In fact, the more we understand neuroscience, the more see how tightly our mental life is correlated with the physicality of our brains. Consider the case of Phineas Gage, who worked in railroad construction in the 19th century. He had an unfortunate accident in which a large iron rod was driven completely through his head, up through the left frontal lobe. But he survived and slowly recovered. Unfortunately, his personality changed after the accident. (Basically, he became not so nice.) Lots of other instances like this have been documented, in which the physical brain exerts a massive influence on the sum of our mental life. This raises the question: Is mind ultimately reducible to matter? If so, is our consciousness of making responsible decisions illusory? Is free will possible? Even more troubling, what about our moral decision-making? If reductive physicalism is the whole show, in what sense can our actions be objectively good or evil? Without God, choice seems out of place. 3. Hope Hope is essential to human life. As the holocaust survivor Viktor Frankl put it, “He who has a why to live for can bear with almost any how.” And tragically, the opposite is true. Hopelessness is unlivable. Recent headlines have sadly reminded us what we do when we run out of hope. The power of hope is dramatized poignantly in the movie The Shawshank Redemption, and in particular its portrayal of Andy Dufresne’s struggle to find hope in a seemingly hopeless situation. It’s hope that determines whether life is worth living: either “get busy livin’, or get busy dyin’.” He chooses to live. And in the context of this choice, he says, “Hope is a good thing, maybe the best thing; and no good thing ever dies.” But can a naturalist agree with Andy Dufresne? I cannot see how. In a naturalistic philosophy, hope does die. Just wait long enough, and there’s no one around to do any hoping. In fact, not only will every individual person die, but the entire universe will eventually wind down into a heat death, and thus every single achievement of every single person will also be swallowed up and forgotten forever. Why do we hate and fear this prospect of everything winding down so much? Why does it seem so unnatural? Sadness at death is understandable on the grounds of naturalism. But the intensity of our fear of death is curious. Why do we long for ultimate meaning, for abiding happiness, for connection to something transcendent? It’s a curious thing that a world ultimately devoid of hope should produce creatures who cannot function without it. Indeed, without God, hope seems out of place. Someone Whispering   C. S. Lewis famously wrote, “God whispers to us in our pleasures, speaks in our consciences, but shouts in our pains.” In other words, not all of God’s speech is at the same volume. The clarity and force of divine revelation varies. Clues of God in our mental, volitional, and emotional life are, as I see it, in the “whisper” register. These are not the most obvious or undeniable places to find God. (For those, I personally go back to the Big Bang, the resurrection of Jesus, the lives of godly saints, and my own deep-seated, undeniable sense of God in my heart and conscience.) Nonetheless, that our world has produced creatures who think, choose, and hope is, within a naturalistic framework, a curious turns of events. If we listen carefully, we might hear Someone whispering. View the full article

      in Christian Current Events

    • Guatemalan Migrant Father Declined Medical Treatment For Sick Child Before Death

      By Joe Simonson - The father of the Guatemalan child who died in a U.S. government holding facility on Christmas Day denied further medical treatment from U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CPB) agents after the child vomited following an initial examination from doctors, a spokesman from the Department of Homeland security said on a call to reporters Wednesday. Government officials provided further details, including the startling disclosure of the father’s behavior, regarding the timeline of the child’s deteriorating condition. According to officials, the eight-year-old boy, who has not been named, was given multiple medical examinations by doctors before being released with prescription medications. Following the child’s first discharge from the hospital, both he and the father were put into a temporary holding facility where agents were aware of the child’s illness and provided the child with his medication. A few hours after the father and boy entered the facility, the child complained of being nauseous and later vomited. It was at this point that the father declined further medical treatment for his son and told officials that he “had been feeling better,” an official said. During a subsequent welfare check, agents at the facility noticed the child’s condition and transported him to the hospital. The child later lost consciousness during transit and shortly after was declared dead. Government officials did not comment on why exactly they think the father denied further treatment for his child, despite him exhibiting more severe symptoms. Content created by The Daily Caller News Foundation is available without charge to any eligible news publisher that can provide a large audience. For licensing opportunities of our original content, please contact [email protected] Guatemalan Migrant Father Declined Medical Treatment For Sick Child Before Death is original content from Conservative Daily News - Where Americans go for news, current events and commentary they can trust - Conservative News Website for U.S. News, Political Cartoons and more. View the original full article

      in Political Conservative News

    • Ninth Circuit Court Rules Border Wall Must Be 'Short Enough That A Pregnant Woman Carrying A Child In Each Arm Could Be Expected To Scale It Without Difficulty'

      SAN FRANCISCO, CA—Amid heated debate in Washington over President Trump's border wall, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals has weighed in, ruling that construction on the U.S.-Mexico border wall can proceed, so long as it is "short enough that a pregnant woman carrying a child in each arm could be expected to scale it without difficulty." The post Ninth Circuit Court Rules Border Wall Must Be 'Short Enough That A Pregnant Woman Carrying A Child In Each Arm Could Be Expected To Scale It Without Difficulty' appeared first on The Babylon Bee. View the original full article

      in Christian Satire

×

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.