Methodists v Presbyterians v Episcopalians

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Methodists hate gays.

Right. Because not ordaining a homosexual means you hate them. People like you are what makes me want to leave the Episcopal Church and go back to being Methodist.

Right, because your God, who last showed himself to illiterate peasants 1,000's of years ago, really hates the idea of gays being ordained. It says so, right? in that book he wrote 1,000's of years ago.

Sorry some Methodist was rude to you once.

Nice way to deflect that what pp said is factual

You know that thinking something is a sin isn't remotely saying you hate a group of people, right?

Are you always this much of a drama queen?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:In my limited experience, Episcopaleans are very close to being Catholic but without emphasis on guilt, they have female priests, etc. They lean very liberal. Too much so for me!

It's very hard to find a Methodist church in this area that has a traditional service. They are mainly contemporary, with praise bands, individual chairs, coffee and snacks you can bring into the service, along those lines. But I love me a good old traditional Methodist service, when we can find it!

Presbyterians seem more likely to offer a choice of contemporary or traditional worship. Some great youth programs as well.

I just left the Catholic Church so have done a lot of "sampling" to decide what I want. But for me I'd be most comfortable with traditional Methodist, Presbyterian, or Lutheran. Hope this helps! Are you looking for a new denomination, OP?

I agree that Episcopaleans are very close to being Catholic. They also seem overall more liberal than Catholics as well.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Please compare and contrast. Looking to join a new church.

If I could only choose from those three I would go with a 'traditional' Methodist. However, if I could choose from any I wouldn't go to any on your list. Too many religions putting their own 'spin' on the word as well as the recent additions of churches who are created to make people comfortable in whatever non scriptural belief they want to have.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Please compare and contrast. Looking to join a new church.

If I could only choose from those three I would go with a 'traditional' Methodist. However, if I could choose from any I wouldn't go to any on your list. Too many religions putting their own 'spin' on the word as well as the recent additions of churches who are created to make people comfortable in whatever non scriptural belief they want to have.

Churches are trying to survive financially in this new "feel good" customer-centered environment, so they need to adapt their teaching, or at least their emphasis, in order to bring people in and keep them there. It used to be that fear of hell would be enough to get people to come to church, but hell is an unpopular notion these days, with fewer people believing in hell than ever before. Heaven is still popular though, so churches may emphasize that.

What's also popular is something that has always been a side benefit of church - community - a nice group of people to see on a weekly basis, get some low cost childcare on Sunday morning and get help with health/family issues as they arise. Sure, church people will pray for you, but they will also provide tangible help, especially if a lot of people at church know who you are and like you.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Please compare and contrast. Looking to join a new church.

If I could only choose from those three I would go with a 'traditional' Methodist. However, if I could choose from any I wouldn't go to any on your list. Too many religions putting their own 'spin' on the word as well as the recent additions of churches who are created to make people comfortable in whatever non scriptural belief they want to have.

Churches are trying to survive financially in this new "feel good" customer-centered environment, so they need to adapt their teaching, or at least their emphasis, in order to bring people in and keep them there. It used to be that fear of hell would be enough to get people to come to church, but hell is an unpopular notion these days, with fewer people believing in hell than ever before. Heaven is still popular though, so churches may emphasize that.

What's also popular is something that has always been a side benefit of church - community - a nice group of people to see on a weekly basis, get some low cost childcare on Sunday morning and get help with health/family issues as they arise. Sure, church people will pray for you, but they will also provide tangible help, especially if a lot of people at church know who you are and like you.

I appreciate what you have to say but to me it's pandering for the sake of their incomes, for those who are paid, and to keep the numbers up. In some cases, like Osteen, it is all about image and income.

As to religions...when they deviate, add too or take away, I can't imagine God granting such dispensation nor can I believe those kind of things will be used at the end.

As to community...or fellowship...it is important...so much so it is talked about quite a bit in the NT. So is church structure, and accountability within that structure...but so many personal wants etc. get that changed.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Please compare and contrast. Looking to join a new church.

If I could only choose from those three I would go with a 'traditional' Methodist. However, if I could choose from any I wouldn't go to any on your list. Too many religions putting their own 'spin' on the word as well as the recent additions of churches who are created to make people comfortable in whatever non scriptural belief they want to have.

Churches are trying to survive financially in this new "feel good" customer-centered environment, so they need to adapt their teaching, or at least their emphasis, in order to bring people in and keep them there. It used to be that fear of hell would be enough to get people to come to church, but hell is an unpopular notion these days, with fewer people believing in hell than ever before. Heaven is still popular though, so churches may emphasize that.

What's also popular is something that has always been a side benefit of church - community - a nice group of people to see on a weekly basis, get some low cost childcare on Sunday morning and get help with health/family issues as they arise. Sure, church people will pray for you, but they will also provide tangible help, especially if a lot of people at church know who you are and like you.

I appreciate what you have to say but to me it's pandering for the sake of their incomes, for those who are paid, and to keep the numbers up. In some cases, like Osteen, it is all about image and income.

As to religions...when they deviate, add too or take away, I can't imagine God granting such dispensation nor can I believe those kind of things will be used at the end.

As to community...or fellowship...it is important...so much so it is talked about quite a bit in the NT. So is church structure, and accountability within that structure...but so many personal wants etc. get that changed.

Olsteen is really the exception. Most churches are struggling to get by - dependent on a shrinking base as more people become "spiritual but not religious" atheist/agnostic or just quietly drop out of church. The Pastor's salary and church upkeep are paid by church members, so it's not surprising that ministers want to keep the operation going - it is their livelihood, after all.

[Anonymous]

The common thread is that none of them really believe any of it. Good social clubs, though.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Please compare and contrast. Looking to join a new church.

If I could only choose from those three I would go with a 'traditional' Methodist. However, if I could choose from any I wouldn't go to any on your list. Too many religions putting their own 'spin' on the word as well as the recent additions of churches who are created to make people comfortable in whatever non scriptural belief they want to have.

Churches are trying to survive financially in this new "feel good" customer-centered environment, so they need to adapt their teaching, or at least their emphasis, in order to bring people in and keep them there. It used to be that fear of hell would be enough to get people to come to church, but hell is an unpopular notion these days, with fewer people believing in hell than ever before. Heaven is still popular though, so churches may emphasize that.

What's also popular is something that has always been a side benefit of church - community - a nice group of people to see on a weekly basis, get some low cost childcare on Sunday morning and get help with health/family issues as they arise. Sure, church people will pray for you, but they will also provide tangible help, especially if a lot of people at church know who you are and like you.

I appreciate what you have to say but to me it's pandering for the sake of their incomes, for those who are paid, and to keep the numbers up. In some cases, like Osteen, it is all about image and income.

As to religions...when they deviate, add too or take away, I can't imagine God granting such dispensation nor can I believe those kind of things will be used at the end.

As to community...or fellowship...it is important...so much so it is talked about quite a bit in the NT. So is church structure, and accountability within that structure...but so many personal wants etc. get that changed.

Olsteen is really the exception. Most churches are struggling to get by - dependent on a shrinking base as more people become "spiritual but not religious" atheist/agnostic or just quietly drop out of church. The Pastor's salary and church upkeep are paid by church members, so it's not surprising that ministers want to keep the operation going - it is their livelihood, after all.

While I do believe a full time minister should be paid a living wage...if they are concerned with their being able to maintain that then they are working for themselves. And I have seen many who are more concerned about their work than God's.

There are big changes happening...much of it is shifting over to weak foundations that will crumble fairly quickly. The feel good has no real substance and can't be maintained.

2 Timothy 4:3 For the time will come when people will not put up with sound doctrine. Instead, to suit their own desires, they will gather around them a great number of teachers to say what their itching ears want to hear.

This is such a time.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The common thread is that none of them really believe any of it. Good social clubs, though.

There are liberal churches where people speak openly of being atheist or agnostic. They go along with the ritual, but don't pretend to hold Christian beliefs

[Anonymous]

so is there no actual religious difference? They all believe the exact same thing?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:so is there no actual religious difference? They all believe the exact same thing?

They should believe the same, have the same tenets, there should be no divisions nor differences in foundational beliefs...but there are.

1 Corinthians 1:10-13

10I appeal to you, brothers and sisters,a in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that all of you agree with one another in what you say and that there be no divisions among you, but that you be perfectly united in mind and thought. 11My brothers and sisters, some from Chloe’s household have informed me that there are quarrels among you. 12What I mean is this: One of you says, “I follow Paul”; another, “I follow Apollos”; another, “I follow Cephasb ”; still another, “I follow Christ.”

13Is Christ divided? Was Paul crucified for you? Were you baptized in the name of Paul?