People smugly dunk on American Low Church Christianity - in part because it's an easy target - but it seriously has some big strengths that make it more appealing than other branches of Christianity. See the problem with Catholicism, Orthodoxy, and High Church Protestantism is they are CONFESSIONAL and so you need to believe ABSOLUTELY in their doctrine or else even stepping foot in church is POINTLESS. Even if you believe in 99.9% of it but you just can't believe in the other 0.1% out of reason and conscience. The internet also makes information more widely accessible than ever before and you can easily find any tiny historical or theological error with these given sects to make you question them - in part and then in their entirety because these are CONFESSIONAL and demand ABSOLUTE belief without a SINGLE point of contention. American Low Church Christians, meanwhile, can handwave away all of this - at least everything that doesn't directly contradict with the Bible. Not to mention how easily they can isolate themselves away from the past - its sectarian baggage and some of the stupid/silly things Christians did - and it's much more "inclusive" than denominations. For example I don't believe in this but I'm a multiethnic White American - my ancestors are a blend of Central and Eastern Europeans - I have no familial or racial reason to be a Catholic, Orthodox, Lutheran, or Calvinist but this type of nondenominational Christianity is much better at transcending that. At least I can sympathize with it so I definitely think people should be more self-aware especially trads here.

>>17862219 (OP)
This is also why it's the ONLY branch of Christianity in the world to be doing semi-okay in terms of popularity (for better or for worse)

>>17862219 (OP)
Most of it has to do with punching down, which with Europeans, its all they know how to do. Intellectuals do the same thing. That's why Pol Pot needs to be rehabilitated in an American context.

>>17862219 (OP)
>I have no familial or racial reason to be a Catholic, Orthodox, Lutheran, or Calvinist
Or any of these explicitly "WASP" sects like Anglicanism lol

>>17862226
>which with Europeans, its all they know how to do
It's mostly American converts to Catholicism, Orthodoxy, or a Protestant sect desu

>>17862232
>See the problem with Catholicism, Orthodoxy, and High Church Protestantism is they are CONFESSIONAL and so you need to believe ABSOLUTELY in their doctrine or else even stepping foot in church is POINTLESS
What planet are you on lol, less than 33% of professed American Catholics believe transubstantiation is anything more than a metaphor, let alone following "the Church"'s teachings on shit like abortion.

The truth is that for most cradle catholics, orthos, w/e it's more or less just an ethnoreligion (no matter how much they try to cope that hispanics or filipinos or croatians are catholic *only* because they've performed a rigorous theological analysis of the main variants of christianity and found them all wanting)

>>17862272
meant to reply to >>17862219 (OP)

>>17862272
This post addresses that? I'm talking about serious genuine belief not just something you do because it's kinda fun or you have some sort of familial/racial compulsion.

>>17862277
If you're just some normal White American dude you have no reason to suddenly start going to a Catholic church even though you don't believe in any of it lol. You don't even get community because of this.

>>17862278
What if I do?

>>17862219 (OP)
>>17862223
Being appealing only matters insofar as the truth itself is appealing. Popularity doesn't matter at all; the truth is not a democracy.

If you're interested in Christianity for any reason other than seeking, and wanting to actually know, the truth - e.g. you just want to believe something that's popular / you just want to be part of some social groups - then you ultimately won't find anything, and it will be a waste of time.

Paul in 1 Corinthians 15 accurately said that the entire point of all this is the fact that believers will be resurrected, and there will be a final judgement. If the Resurrection of Christ didn't happen, then there is no alternate or secondary point to be had by any of it, the resurrection is the whole point.

>>17862219 (OP)
I view the first two points as weaknesses, not strengths.
First – I don't want to be in a church where people are free to disagree with each other on key doctrines. There is one truth, but many distortions of the truth. We should have clear guidance from the church which is "the pillar and foundation of the truth".
I don't want Christianity to "isolate itself from the past".
The ethnic/racial thing is an issue I sympathize with. I ended up joining my "ethnic" church and it wasn't for theological reasons alone.

>>17862455
>We should have clear guidance from the church which is "the pillar and foundation of the truth".
And if it is a Christian church, then the people will all have the truth itself, which is God's word.

>>17862455
Modern Catholicism isn't really anything like you make it sound, outside of it being somewhat of an ethnofaith in many places, Juan.

For me, it's the Religious Society of Friends.