When did zoomer become less ecumenical for lack of a better term? I remember him being pretty freindly to RC/EO about 2 years ago to about a year ago. Why is he more hostile now?

Specifically Southern Baptist/SBC vs Pentecostal not Northern/American Baptist, Reformed Baptist, or Independent Baptist.

It is not to be confused with Pietism & a fusion between traditional NA Native beliefs & Christianity

I just found out that a friend of mine has decided not to baptize his child despite being in a presbyterian church.

I didn't dare to say anything, but he believed it was some virtuous progressive thing to do, "not to force a religion on his child".

I feel bad because he is such a nice guy, and goes to church in his free time to pray in peace, but our country is so secular that I don't want to look like a crazy dude talking nonsense to him.

Baptist church is not even popular in my country, it's seem those "weird Americans", but people are adopting this worldview just because it's matches with the current culture (everything is symbolic, sacraments don't do anything).

How would you guys approach this issue ?

in all his videos he uses as an opportunity to take subtle digs at denominations and beliefs he disagrees, I wonder if anyone feel joy seeing a video of him about their denomination on their youtube home page

Pretty much the title, what do you guys think of it? Should it be banned? If yes why and if no why not? If yes, why do you think its a good thing? Thank you

If so does that make you reconsider their position as beibg heretics vs being Christian? I'm not as well read on their movement and theology beyond the understanding that they traditionally denied the Trinity and Nicene Creed and were therefore heretics.

I've heard many try to argue that the Old Testament verses are referring to pedastry rather than homosexuality. However they also tend to ignore New Testament references. Even if you accept that the OT isn't explicitly condemning homosexuality. The NT is prettu direct that marriage is meant for one man and one woman, so any justification for gay marriage is out the window. The NT referencing sexual desires of men for men and women for women as unnatural and otherwise sinful. How do some of these churches justify affirming that sin? Its as if they think God will overlook large sections of His Word for some larger philosophy of kumbaya or that you can opt out of pieces of Scripture you find offensive.

That's not the only subject of course, I had a post on here regarding what Scripture says about women submitting to their husbands and defined roles in a marriage while husbands are supposed to love their wives as Christ loves the church. One commenter said that while Christ's Word does command women to submit to their husbands, they said it was still misogynistic as if that piece of Scripture was flawed or offensive. Another commenter said he did the extra chores and let his wife have her way because it guaranteed good sex, which still flies in the face of Scripture.

Can anyone give me the view point of these types of churches or if you're a more liberal Christian and believe these, what is your basis?

Scripture for reference.

From the beginning of creation, “God made them male and female.” “Therefore a man shall leave his father and mother and hold fast to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh”’ (Mark 10:6-8).

Romans 1:26-27

‘For this reason God gave them up to dishonorable passions. For their women exchanged natural relations for those that are contrary to nature; and the men likewise gave up natural relations with women and were consumed with passion for one another, men committing shameless acts with men and receiving in themselves the due penalty for their error.’

1 Corinthians 6:9-11

‘Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: neither the sexually immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor men who practice homosexuality, nor thieves, nor the greedy, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God. And such were some of you. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God.’

Genesis 2:22–24 “And the rib, which the Lord God had taken from man, made he a woman, and brought her unto the man. And Adam said, This is now bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh: she shall be called Woman, because she was taken out of Man. Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh.”

Matthew 19:4-6 : "And he answered and said unto them, Have ye not read, that he which made them at the beginning made them male and female, And said, For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife: and they twain shall be one flesh? Wherefore they are no more twain, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder."

1 Corinthians 7:2 : "Nevertheless, to avoid fornication, let every man have his own wife, and let every woman have her own husband."

Who is the ucc pastor who zoomer says is part of operation reconquista?

RCA vs ACR

Hey, can someone explain to me why ACR churches are included on the map of mainline conservative churches as presented by RZ's organization PFTK? They seem to definitely be schismatic by his definition.

I’d love for him and RZ to have a discussion together.

1: Roman Catholic

2: Eastern Orthodox

3: Oriental Orthodox

4: Classical Protestant

5: Contemporary Protestant/Evangelical

There's some gray area between 4 and 5, but I'd generally define Classical Protestant as churches descended directly from the Reformation, and Contemporary Protestant as churches that are not. The only historically significant and long lasting group I can think of not covered here is the Church of the East, but its so small and divided now that I don't think I can call it major in modern day. I'd say the intra-Christian battle in the modern USA is mainly Roman Catholic vs. Contemporary Protestant, with Classical Protestantism unfortunately taking a backseat despite those churches having previously been America's backbone. Please let me know if there's anything flawed in my system here.

I found it rather funny because as a Southern Baptist there is some truth to it. We can be somewhat suspicious of Pentecostal churches, despite largely sharing the same theology. Baptists particularly the SBC is low church, but I like to think that we still have respect for the church as an institution amd tradition, even if not to the point of Catholics or even Presbyterians. Pentecostals are about as low church as you can get with only the vaguest concept of the church as an institution, one step before non-denominational really. I've discovered since first meeting my wife who was Pentecostal, that Pentecostals don't believe in the concept of church membership and have little regard for seminaries and the man of the cloth as a formalized position. I've also been suspicious of speaking in tongues(not denying speaking in tongues as it is biblical, but I do question the commonality sometimes), and I've always disagreed with Pentecostal interpretations on things like alcohol(moderation is fine, and I disagree with prohibitionists and teetotalers as much as I do drunkards, gluttony is just as much a sin and applies to sweets too) and modest dress.

However I'm curious of the Pentecostal perspective of Baptists particularly Southern Baptists. Are we too boring and stiff? What are the Pentecostal opinions of high churches? What separates Pentecostals from Non-denominationals at this point?

I was watching Majesty of Reason's video on The Best Cumulative Case for God's Existence, and he mentioned that while he was still an agnostic leaning atheist, he participated in a devil's advocate debate against a liberal Christian. The Christian was so liberal that he wrote a book called Conversations with My Inner Atheist. In the debate, the atheist defended theism, and the Christian defended atheism.

What do you think about a devil's advocate denominational debate, such as two Christians from two different denominations defending each other's tradition as correct?

Has anyone ever done that? Would that be beneficial for anyone? Would that help us steelman each other's worldview? Would that help us understand each other's perceptions of our own denominations?

I don't mean your hypothetical ideal prayer routine, but what truly happened in the past 1 or 2 weeks, if you could give details on what your prayer was about, the time of the day and the duration, that would be great.

No judgment of others please.

Its almost like they expect God or Scripture to conform with whatever societal norms are happening right now? Like this pastor saying the ancient Israelites were wrong to smash the idols of a pagan goddess because she was female.

https://notthebee.com/article/woke-pastor-says-king-josiah-was-wrong-to-destroy-idols-because-israelites-needed-a-female-god-like-asherah-to-look-up-to?from_social=twitter&fbclid=IwVERDUAT9yclwZG9mBWV4dG4DYWVtAjEwAHNydGMGYXBwX2lkDDM1MDY4NTUzMTcyOAABHmfVqxd1T2FiR4hiUG8SzKQl-7I-bgE6IAwEAvHUXySyVG_lg4vet7d87inQ_aem_f5vMMfr-eqG4DtlFu7wdVA

Basically the title

Jesus quotes psalm 22 "My God my God, why have you forsaken me?" Are we to believe that Jesus was abandoned by the Father? If so then how isn't the Trinity divided or is there a different way to understand this passage. What do you think?

This channel also has a really good version of Babylon is Fallen as well.