# I found a church i like



## ambush80 (Aug 1, 2013)

My In-Laws United Church of Christ.  They have a fantastic lesbian pastor who speaks with honesty, love, compassion and conviction. They have a glorious, humble atrium displaying all the wonders of creation.  They do aggressive ministry at home and abroad.  They let some Jews and Buddhists share their building and allow them to display some of their material openly.   They have no problem believing that the great flood and Jonah and the fish didn't really happened that way,  Many of then believe the walking on water to be symbolic.  They have a good age structure and they don't care what I wear.


Amen?


----------



## JB0704 (Aug 1, 2013)

How often do you attend?


----------



## centerpin fan (Aug 1, 2013)

ambush80 said:


> My In-Laws United Church of Christ.  They have a fantastic lesbian pastor who speaks with honesty, love, compassion and conviction. They have a glorious, humble atrium displaying all the wonders of creation.  They do aggressive ministry at home and abroad.  They let some Jews and Buddhists share their building and allow them to display some of their material openly.   They have no problem believing that the great flood and Jonah and the fish really happened that way,  Many of then believer the walking on water to be symbolic.  They have a good age structure and they don't care what I wear.



I'll pass, but I'm glad you found the church of your dreams.


----------



## bullethead (Aug 1, 2013)

centerpin fan said:


> I'll pass, but I'm glad you found the church of your dreams.



I thought he said "I found a church I like"?


----------



## centerpin fan (Aug 1, 2013)

bullethead said:


> I thought he said "I found a church I like"?



He asked for an "amen".


----------



## bullethead (Aug 1, 2013)

centerpin fan said:


> He asked for an "amen".



Amen = Church of his dreams?


----------



## centerpin fan (Aug 1, 2013)

bullethead said:


> Amen = Church of his dreams?



There is a question mark after his amen.


----------



## bullethead (Aug 1, 2013)

centerpin fan said:


> There is a question mark after his amen.



Correct.
You are very good at stating the obvious, except when asked why you added something beyond the obvious.

Why did you post that you were glad he found the church of his dreams when he said he found a church that he liked?

Does asking for an Amen and/or an Amen with a question mark have anything to do with why you replied about him finding the church of his dreams?


----------



## ambush80 (Aug 1, 2013)

JB0704 said:


> How often do you attend?



Been a few Sundays.  Easter, Christmas.  Special events (my mom in law's birthday)



centerpin fan said:


> There is a question mark after his amen.




Old timey preaching style While wiping sweat off my three piece suit.


----------



## centerpin fan (Aug 1, 2013)

bullethead said:


> Why did you post that you were glad he found the church of his dreams when he said he found a church that he liked?



Because I was glad.  He's mentioned that church before and obviously is a fan.  




bullethead said:


> Does asking for an Amen and/or an Amen with a question mark have anything to do with why you replied about him finding the church of his dreams?



"Amen" is an affirmation.  If he hadn't asked for an amen, I doubt I would have posted.


----------



## TripleXBullies (Aug 1, 2013)

ambush80 said:


> My In-Laws United Church of Christ.  They have a fantastic lesbian pastor who speaks with honesty, love, compassion and conviction. They have a glorious, humble atrium displaying all the wonders of creation.  They do aggressive ministry at home and abroad.  They let some Jews and Buddhists share their building and allow them to display some of their material openly.   They have no problem believing that the great flood and Jonah and the fish didn't really happened that way,  Many of then believe the walking on water to be symbolic.  They have a good age structure and they don't care what I wear.
> 
> 
> Amen?



That's very.... progressive? Something's gotta give...


----------



## JB0704 (Aug 1, 2013)

TripleXBullies said:


> That's very.... progressive? Something's gotta give...



From previous conversations, I think I remember that it's a universalist church.  Very permissive and inclusive.


----------



## JB0704 (Aug 1, 2013)

ambush80 said:


> Been a few Sundays.  Easter, Christmas.  Special events (my mom in law's birthday)



Easter?  What significance does that holiday have in a church which doesn't believe the resurection?  I think you have indicated that in the past about them......


----------



## centerpin fan (Aug 1, 2013)

TripleXBullies said:


> That's very.... progressive? Something's gotta give...



The UCC is a very progressive church.  (Obama's pastor, Jeremiah Wright, is a UCC minister.)

They tend to be very liberal theologically and socially.  (A college buddy of mine was going to be a UCC minister.  I never really understood that since he was very politically conservative.)


----------



## NE GA Pappy (Aug 1, 2013)

I don't believe that church would fall under any definition of "church" even 50 to 75 years ago.  

Glad you like it, but I couldn't even walk through the door for a service knowing what you posted.


----------



## TripleXBullies (Aug 1, 2013)

NE GA Pappy said:


> I don't believe that church would fall under any definition of "church" even 50 to 75 years ago.
> 
> Glad you like it, but I couldn't even walk through the door for a service knowing what you posted.



You should hedge your bets. What if they've got it right? Do you want to take that risk?


----------



## JB0704 (Aug 1, 2013)

TripleXBullies said:


> You should hedge your bets. What if they've got it right? Do you want to take that risk?



I think universalists give 'em all a pass.


----------



## TripleXBullies (Aug 1, 2013)

But WHAT IF... being intolerant to the that point of lesbian preachers and/or other faiths gets you barred from the pearly gates?


----------



## centerpin fan (Aug 1, 2013)

TripleXBullies said:


> But WHAT IF... being intolerant to the that point of lesbian preachers and/or other faiths gets you barred from the pearly gates?



I'll take my chances.


----------



## ddd-shooter (Aug 1, 2013)

I think it's great you found a building you are comfortable in. 

However, to be in the actual church, you MUST be born again into Christ.
Edit to say not any particular denomination, but rather the biblical definition of church as the body of Christ.


----------



## JB0704 (Aug 1, 2013)

TripleXBullies said:


> But WHAT IF... being intolerant to the that point of lesbian preachers and/or other faiths gets you barred from the pearly gates?



A universalist, being inclusive, would have to tolerate the intolerant.


----------



## bullethead (Aug 1, 2013)

centerpin fan said:


> I'll take my chances.



Heyyyyyyyy, now your starting to sound like "us"!


----------



## stringmusic (Aug 1, 2013)

A universalist Hindu "Christian" "church" that doesn't really believe anything the bible says, sounds great.....


----------



## vowell462 (Aug 1, 2013)

Lesbian preacher? That sounds pretty cool. For I have always considered myself lesbian......


----------



## JFS (Aug 1, 2013)

bullethead said:


> Heyyyyyyyy, now your starting to sound like "us"!


----------



## TripleXBullies (Aug 1, 2013)

stringmusic said:


> A universalist Hindu "Christian" "church" that doesn't really believe anything the bible says, sounds great.....



But a "christian" "church" that you attend that really believes half of what the bible says, sounds better.


----------



## stringmusic (Aug 1, 2013)

TripleXBullies said:


> But a "christian" "church" that you attend that really believes half of what the bible says, sounds better.



Can't speak for everyone who attends the church that I do, but I believe the entire bible, but you already knew that.


----------



## Huntinfool (Aug 1, 2013)

ambush80 said:


> who speaks with honesty, love, compassion and conviction.
> 
> Amen?



Any chance they actually preach Christ crucified and the Bible somewhere in the midst of all the love, compassion and conviction?


----------



## TripleXBullies (Aug 1, 2013)

stringmusic said:


> Can't speak for everyone who attends the church that I do, but I believe the entire bible, but you already knew that.



You believe the bible as you see fit. When you don't like it, you just change perspective so that it fits what you like. EVERYONE does that.


----------



## 660griz (Aug 1, 2013)

stringmusic said:


> Can't speak for everyone who attends the church that I do, but I believe the entire bible, but you already knew that.



Just don't follow all of it. You will be locked up.


----------



## Huntinfool (Aug 1, 2013)

TripleXBullies said:


> You believe the bible as you see fit. When you don't like it, you just change perspective so that it fits what you like. EVERYONE does that.



Mighty strong statement right there painted with a mighty broad brush.

It's a good thing you don't have to prove it.


----------



## Huntinfool (Aug 1, 2013)

660griz said:


> Just don't follow all of it. You will be locked up.



I really don't want to bite.....but ok....I will.

Actually....you're kind of right even though you didn't mean to be.  Bible is very clear that following Jesus might get you in trouble with the unbelieving world and it's leaders and authorities.


----------



## Artfuldodger (Aug 1, 2013)

JB0704 said:


> From previous conversations, I think I remember that it's a universalist church.  Very permissive and inclusive.



I don't see any ties to a Universal Church on their website.

http://www.ucc.org/about-us/what-we-believe.html


----------



## stringmusic (Aug 1, 2013)

TripleXBullies said:


> You believe the bible as you see fit. When you don't like it, you just change perspective so that it fits what you like. EVERYONE does that.



When you read, or have a conversation with someone, do you keep the exact same perspective the entire time? Or does it change based on the text your reading or the conversation you're having?


----------



## TripleXBullies (Aug 1, 2013)

Huntinfool said:


> Mighty strong statement right there painted with a mighty broad brush.
> 
> It's a good thing you don't have to prove it.



I did it completely on purpose... NO ONE takes every piece of the bible literally. EVERYONE chooses which pieces are literal and which aren't. NO TWO PEOPLE have the same take on every piece of it...


----------



## TripleXBullies (Aug 1, 2013)

stringmusic said:


> When you read, or have a conversation with someone, do you keep the exact same perspective the entire time? Or does it change based on the text your reading or the conversation you're having?



I'm not saying that I keep the same perspective all of the time. 




stringmusic said:


> Can't speak for everyone who attends the church that I do, but I believe the entire bible, but you already knew that.



I am saying it depends on what your definition of the word IS, is.... or BELIEVE. You believe the bible, every bit of it... while someone else can believe the bible, every bit of it and believe much differently than you.


----------



## bullethead (Aug 1, 2013)

stringmusic said:


> When you read, or have a conversation with someone, do you keep the exact same perspective the entire time? Or does it change based on the text your reading or the conversation you're having?



Do you hold the words of God or conversation with God to the same standards as everything else you read and everyone else you converse with?

We are told all the time that God should not be held to the same standards as we hold everything else, then in the next breath.......
Kinda goes along with my claim about people changing to suit.


----------



## stringmusic (Aug 1, 2013)

TripleXBullies said:


> I did it completely on purpose... NO ONE takes every piece of the bible literally. EVERYONE chooses which pieces are literal and which aren't.


That's because some parts are allegorical and some parts are literal. Either way, people can disagree about some things in the bible, as long as it's not about Jesus' death and ressurection. People disagreeing on parts of it have ZERO bearing on whether it is true in it's entirety or not.


> NO TWO PEOPLE have the same take on every piece of it...


Can you prove that, or are we still at the point in these conversations that we get to make stuff up without any evidence?


----------



## stringmusic (Aug 1, 2013)

TripleXBullies said:


> I'm not saying that I keep the same perspective all of the time.


You seem to be insinuating that's what should be done when a person reads the bible. 



> I am saying it depends on what your definition of the word IS, is.... or BELIEVE. You believe the bible, every bit of it... while someone else can believe the bible, every bit of it and believe much differently than you.


Your point?


----------



## stringmusic (Aug 1, 2013)

bullethead said:


> Do you hold the words of God or conversation with God to the same standards as everything else you read and everyone else you converse with?
> 
> We are told all the time that God should not be held to the same standards as we hold everything else, then in the next breath.......
> Kinda goes along with my claim about people changing to suit.


I don't hold that we shouldn't have different perspectives while reading the bible. Seems a pretty logical conclusion to come to when reading something.

And yes, I hold God's word to a higher standard.


----------



## Huntinfool (Aug 1, 2013)

TripleXBullies said:


> I did it completely on purpose... NO ONE takes every piece of the bible literally. EVERYONE chooses which pieces are literal and which aren't. NO TWO PEOPLE have the same take on every piece of it...



Believing the Bible and interpreting every piece exactly the same as the next guy are two entirely different concepts.


----------



## hummdaddy (Aug 1, 2013)

ddd-shooter said:


> I think it's great you found a building you are comfortable in.
> 
> However, to be in the actual church, you MUST be born again into Christ.
> Edit to say not any particular denomination, but rather the biblical definition of church as the body of Christ.



Oh the biblical huh


----------



## Artfuldodger (Aug 1, 2013)

It looks like they are part of the OSAS group that believes in a triune God:

We believe that all of the baptized 'belong body and soul to our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ.' No matter who – no matter what – no matter where we are on life's journey – notwithstanding race, gender, sexual orientation, class or creed – we all belong to God and to one worldwide community of faith. All persons baptized – past, present and future – are connected to each other and to God through the sacrament of baptism. We baptize during worship when the community is present because baptism includes the community's promise of 'love, support and care' for the baptized – and we promise that we won't take it back – no matter where your journey leads you.


----------



## Artfuldodger (Aug 1, 2013)

One of the local Seventh Day Adventist Churches in Augusta shares their building with another denomination that goes to Church on Sunday. 
That is different from a Church sharing their building with Buddhists.


----------



## TripleXBullies (Aug 1, 2013)

stringmusic said:


> That's because some parts are allegorical and some parts are literal. Either way, people can disagree about some things in the bible, as long as it's not about Jesus' death and ressurection. People disagreeing on parts of it have ZERO bearing on whether it is true in it's entirety or not.
> 
> Can you prove that, or are we still at the point in these conversations that we get to make stuff up without any evidence?



Yeah, I can't prove it... But would you disagree? You think that there might be 2 people that believe EVERYTHING THE BIBLE SAYS in the same way? It's far too big for that to happen.

Because this is what you said earlier...




stringmusic said:


> A universalist Hindu "Christian" "church" that doesn't really believe anything the bible says, sounds great.....



You're saying they don't really believe anything that the bible says. By "don't really believe" you mean not much but maybe a little? Well you don't believe everything the bible says the same way that the christian sitting in the pew next to you do, so what level of believing is necessary to be considered for the pearly gates? If it's just JesUS as you say, then EVERY OTHER detail, lesbian, female or all that other junk means nothing at all.


----------



## stringmusic (Aug 1, 2013)

TripleXBullies said:


> Yeah, I can't prove it... But would you disagree? You think that there might be 2 people that believe EVERYTHING THE BIBLE SAYS in the same way? It's far too big for that to happen.


Yes, I would disagree.



> You're saying they don't really believe anything that the bible says. By "don't really believe" you mean not much but maybe a little? Well you don't believe everything the bible says the same way that the christian sitting in the pew next to you do, so what level of believing is necessary to be considered for the pearly gates? If it's just JesUS as you say, then EVERY OTHER detail, lesbian, female or all that other junk means nothing at all.



As far as going to heaven, no, that other stuff doesn't matter. As far a following Christ and His teachings, it means a lot. Usually, if one believes the first thing, they try to do the other.


----------



## Artfuldodger (Aug 1, 2013)

According to the OSAS believers salvation happens in an instant. At that time your name is recorded in the Book of Life and nothing can snatch you from God's hands. So from that prospective the United Church of Christ members are saved. We might not agree with sharing the building with non-believers but they are saved. 
(if one adheres to the OSAS belief system)


----------



## bullethead (Aug 1, 2013)

Artfuldodger said:


> It looks like they are part of the OSAS group that believes in a triune God:
> 
> We believe that all of the baptized 'belong body and soul to our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ.' No matter who – no matter what – no matter where we are on life's journey – notwithstanding race, gender, sexual orientation, class or creed – we all belong to God and to one worldwide community of faith. All persons baptized – past, present and future – are connected to each other and to God through the sacrament of baptism. We baptize during worship when the community is present because baptism includes the community's promise of 'love, support and care' for the baptized – and we promise that we won't take it back – no matter where your journey leads you.



That sounds like the way Jesus would want it done. Everybody is welcome.


----------



## stringmusic (Aug 1, 2013)

bullethead said:


> That sounds like the way Jesus would want it done. Everybody is welcome.



Everybody is welcome. That doesn't mean Jesus is a relativist.


----------



## TripleXBullies (Aug 1, 2013)

Huntinfool said:


> Believing the Bible and interpreting every piece exactly the same as the next guy are two entirely different concepts.



Like I said, it depends on what your definition of the word BELIEVE is. You believe it, but you believe it differently than your pew neighbor.


----------



## bullethead (Aug 1, 2013)

stringmusic said:


> Everybody is welcome. That doesn't mean Jesus is a relativist.



What means that he is not?


----------



## TripleXBullies (Aug 1, 2013)

stringmusic said:


> Yes, I would disagree.
> 
> 
> 
> As far as going to heaven, no, that other stuff doesn't matter. As far a following Christ and His teachings, it means a lot. Usually, if one believes the first thing, they try to do the other.



A big thing here, which believing and interpreting is important for, is asking for forgiveness. It would seem as though this church doesn't consider it a sin to be homosexual. That's a pretty big difference in BELIEF, or interpretation. If can consider that a big enough difference not to go to the church, the belief and interpretation in and of the bible are pretty big deal.


----------



## TripleXBullies (Aug 1, 2013)

Artfuldodger said:


> According to the OSAS believers salvation happens in an instant. At that time your name is recorded in the Book of Life and nothing can snatch you from God's hands. So from that prospective the United Church of Christ members are saved. We might not agree with sharing the building with non-believers but they are saved.
> (if one adheres to the OSAS belief system)



Yet another belief. You believe the bible as much as they do apparently, just interpret it differently... Or would you say they are picking and choosing what they like better?


----------



## TripleXBullies (Aug 1, 2013)

stringmusic said:


> I don't hold that we shouldn't have different perspectives while reading the bible. Seems a pretty logical conclusion to come to when reading something.



Exactly.. That's what I'm saying...


----------



## stringmusic (Aug 1, 2013)

bullethead said:


> What means that he is not?



"Everybody is welcome" doesn't mean people get there however they want.


----------



## bullethead (Aug 1, 2013)

stringmusic said:


> "Everybody is welcome" doesn't mean people get there however they want.



What does it mean?

Sounds to me like as long as you believe in Christ you are welcome, no matter what your sexual preference is etc...


----------



## stringmusic (Aug 1, 2013)

bullethead said:


> What does it mean?


It means....


stringmusic said:


> "Everybody is welcome" doesn't mean people get there however they want.





> Sounds to me like as long as you believe in Christ you are welcome, no matter what your sexual preference is etc...


That is true, BUT, believing Christ existed, or knowing what the bible says about Christ, and believing Christ is your Saviour are two very different things.


----------



## bullethead (Aug 1, 2013)

stringmusic said:


> It means....
> 
> 
> 
> That is true, BUT, believing Christ existed, or knowing what the bible says about Christ, and believing Christ is your Saviour are two very different things.



Believing in Christ would encompass the belief he is your Savior. 
Merely believing a guy named Jesus existed is an entirely different meaning.
It sounds like the church wants anyone that believes in Christ(as their Savior) and does not discriminate due to things that other denominations discriminate against.


----------



## Artfuldodger (Aug 1, 2013)

They also believe Jesus is God. I could worship with them as a visitor. I don't believe they are doing anything that disqualifies them as Christians. They follow the "just as I am" belief. 
My problem joining their Church is they appear to add liberal politics to their agenda. I'm sure they would just consider it helping people that are downtrodden as Jesus helped the underdog.
I would have to think about letting unbelievers like Jews use the Church building. They would probably say it gives them a chance to witness.
After thinking about it, they may be right and I may be wrong on how to worship & witness & help others.
I would hate to think my view of this Church is tainted because of a few members like Jeremiah Wright.


----------



## TripleXBullies (Aug 2, 2013)

Where is Ambush??


----------



## stringmusic (Aug 2, 2013)

TripleXBullies said:


> Where is Ambush??



At church......


----------



## centerpin fan (Aug 2, 2013)

stringmusic said:


> At church......



Exactly.  He's probably overcome by the Spirit.  

It's hard to type when you're speaking in tongues.


----------



## TripleXBullies (Aug 2, 2013)

centerpin fan said:


> It's hard to type when you're speaking in tongues.



I agree.. I wouldn't go to the church if they did that..


----------



## SemperFiDawg (Aug 2, 2013)

You Atheist make a lot of hay with the different interpretations of the Bible., but are remarkably silent regarding the fact that no matter how different the interpretations regarding the details, they all uniformly affirm the deity, atoning death, and resurrection of Christ.  Of course it would be hard to sell the fact that they all differ on John 3:16 

“16 “For God loved the world in this way: He gave His One and Only Son, so that everyone who believes in Him will not perish but have eternal life. 17 For God did not send His Son into the world that He might condemn the world, but that the world might be saved through Him. 18 Anyone who believes in Him is not condemned, but anyone who does not believe is already condemned, because he has not believed in the name of the One and Only Son of God"

but respect for the truth ain't exactly at the top of a lot of y'all's agenda.  

Tackling the issue of diversity of interpretation head on, did it ever occur to any of you that maybe, just maybe, that it why The Bible is called the Living Word; because it speaks to people across the entire spectrum of humanity regardless of circumstance and on a personal level, and what you see as a fault is in fact it's strength, or is that too reasonable a proposition for you to entertain?


----------



## JFS (Aug 2, 2013)

SemperFiDawg said:


> they all uniformly affirm the deity, atoning death, and resurrection of Christ



LOL, you would hope so, why would they include anything to the contrary?  Good god man, talk about selection bias....





> but respect for the truth ain't exactly at the top of a lot of y'all's agenda.



The truth? You can't handle the truth  C'mon sfd, you can't get all huffy and say people aren't interested in the truth just because they don't swallow your third hand ghost stories.


----------



## drippin' rock (Aug 2, 2013)

SemperFiDawg said:


> You Atheist make a lot of hay with the different interpretations of the Bible., but are remarkably silent regarding the fact that no matter how different the interpretations regarding the details, they all uniformly affirm the deity, atoning death, and resurrection of Christ.  Of course it would be hard to sell the fact that they all differ on John 3:16
> 
> “16 “For God loved the world in this way: He gave His One and Only Son, so that everyone who believes in Him will not perish but have eternal life. 17 For God did not send His Son into the world that He might condemn the world, but that the world might be saved through Him. 18 Anyone who believes in Him is not condemned, but anyone who does not believe is already condemned, because he has not believed in the name of the One and Only Son of God"
> 
> ...



I like the part where Paul writes a letter to the Chinese and then after that writes one to the Native Americans.


----------



## jmharris23 (Aug 2, 2013)

drippin' rock said:


> I like the part where Paul writes a letter to the Chinese and then after that writes one to the Native Americans.



???


----------



## drippin' rock (Aug 2, 2013)

> Tackling the issue of diversity of interpretation head on, did it ever occur to any of you that maybe, just maybe, that it why The Bible is called the Living Word; because it speaks to people across the entire spectrum of humanity regardless of circumstance and on a personal level, and what you see as a fault is in fact it's strength, or is that too reasonable a proposition for you to entertain?



Just wondering where the folks early Christians had no idea about fit in.  And on the off chance they did know about the Chinese, we could wonder about the Celts, or the Polynesians.


----------



## centerpin fan (Aug 2, 2013)

drippin' rock said:


> Just wondering where the folks early Christians had no idea about fit in.



Matthew 28:19-20 is where they fit in.


----------



## Artfuldodger (Aug 2, 2013)

SemperFiDawg said:


> You Atheist make a lot of hay with the different interpretations of the Bible., but are remarkably silent regarding the fact that no matter how different the interpretations regarding the details, they all uniformly affirm the deity, atoning death, and resurrection of Christ.  Of course it would be hard to sell the fact that they all differ on John 3:16
> 
> “16 “For God loved the world in this way: He gave His One and Only Son, so that everyone who believes in Him will not perish but have eternal life. 17 For God did not send His Son into the world that He might condemn the world, but that the world might be saved through Him. 18 Anyone who believes in Him is not condemned, but anyone who does not believe is already condemned, because he has not believed in the name of the One and Only Son of God"
> 
> ...



I agree but there are possibly some Christians who responded to this thread who alluded that maybe the members of the United Church of Christ never received salvation because of the Lesbian preacher. They are using double talk as some of them believe salvation starts at conversion as the simple gift of grace. All a person  has to do is ask & believe and they are given salvation. They say they believe it is really that simple. Somehow though the OSAS lesbian preacher looses her eternal salvation.


----------



## Artfuldodger (Aug 2, 2013)

I don't believe in the concept of "once saved always saved" so it is easy for me to believe the lesbian preacher's name was recorded in the Lamb's book of Life but was eventually blotted out because of a lack of repentance. She returned her free gift.


----------



## drippin' rock (Aug 2, 2013)

Artfuldodger said:


> I don't believe in the concept of "once saved always saved" so it is easy for me to believe the lesbian preacher's name was recorded in the Lamb's book of Life but was eventually blotted out because of a lack of repentance. She returned her free gift.



OOOOOOrrrrrr, like hermaphrodites, people can be born with genes that make them something other than the Christian version of normal.  Therefore if there is a god, they have to be part of his plan.

OOOOOOrrrrr, there is no plan.


----------



## drippin' rock (Aug 2, 2013)

centerpin fan said:


> Matthew 28:19-20 is where they fit in.



My version reads, Therefore go and make disciples of all nations..... that we know about...


----------



## Artfuldodger (Aug 2, 2013)

drippin' rock said:


> OOOOOOrrrrrr, like hermaphrodites, people can be born with genes that make them something other than the Christian version of normal.  Therefore if there is a god, they have to be part of his plan.
> 
> OOOOOOrrrrr, there is no plan.



Either of those two concepts are more believable to me than some Christian's versions of normal.
There are a lot of gray areas between male/female and effeminate/feminate.


----------



## centerpin fan (Aug 2, 2013)

drippin' rock said:


> My version reads, Therefore go and make disciples of all nations..... that we know about...



That is definitely "your version".


----------



## SemperFiDawg (Aug 3, 2013)

JFS said:


> LOL, you would hope so, why would they include anything to the contrary?  Good god man, talk about selection bias....



Your point?


----------



## SemperFiDawg (Aug 3, 2013)

drippin' rock said:


> I like the part where Paul writes a letter to the Chinese and then after that writes one to the Native Americans.



Sarcasm noted.  As to the truth of the matter;  China now has the fastest growing Church in the world.  Guess they understand Paul's letters pretty well.


----------



## SemperFiDawg (Aug 3, 2013)

drippin' rock said:


> Just wondering where the folks early Christians had no idea about fit in.  And on the off chance they did know about the Chinese, we could wonder about the Celts, or the Polynesians.



DR you're missing my point.  The point was that The Gospel transcends all boundaries to speak to all people on a personal level.


----------



## SemperFiDawg (Aug 3, 2013)

drippin' rock said:


> OOOOOOrrrrrr, like hermaphrodites, people can be born with genes that make them something other than the Christian version of normal.  Therefore if there is a god, they have to be part of his plan.
> 
> OOOOOOrrrrr, there is no plan.



I don't buy that at all.  Everyone is born predisposed toward sin.  Some may be more predisposed to homosexuality than others, some more prone to lust, others drunkenness,  others violence, etc., but you don't have to act on them.  What this church has done is to not only condone the sin, but to assert that God accepts the sinner actively engaged in the sin.  It's no different than saying God accepts drunkards, rapist, murders, etc. who are actively still engaging in the acts.  In other words it releases the individual from the act of repentance.

Many are quick to point out the story of Jesus and the prostitute and cite "Those of you without sin, cast the first stone.", but they never cite what Jesus told her next "go and sin no more."


----------



## bullethead (Aug 3, 2013)

SemperFiDawg said:


> I don't buy that at all.  Everyone is born predisposed toward sin.  Some may be more predisposed to homosexuality than others, some more prone to lust, others drunkenness,  others violence, etc., but you don't have to act on them.  What this church has done is to not only condone the sin, but to assert that God accepts the sinner actively engaged in the sin.  It's no different than saying God accepts drunkards, rapist, murders, etc. who are actively still engaging in the acts.  In other words it releases the individual from the act of repentance.
> 
> Many are quick to point out the story of Jesus and the prostitute and cite "Those of you without sin, cast the first stone.", but they never cite what Jesus told her next "go and sin no more."



And that folks is why there are now 33,000 different denominations within Christianity. Somebody somewhere is Not Buying it, so they go where they do buy it.


----------



## ambush80 (Aug 3, 2013)

I like the things they are concerned with: social justice, equality, peace and kindness.

I can't really join their club because I still think the notion of a man coming back from the dead is ludicrous.


----------



## Artfuldodger (Aug 3, 2013)

SemperFiDawg said:


> Many are quick to point out the story of Jesus and the prostitute and cite "Those of you without sin, cast the first stone.", but they never cite what Jesus told her next "go and sin no more."



Mainly because it's not the main part of the story. Jesus didn't come to the Earth to condemn but to save people. He aimed to bring, not only the accused to repentance, by showing her his mercy, but the prosecutors also, by showing them their sins; they thought to insnare him, he sought to convince and convert them.

True a Christian should repent and try not to sin. What happens to the woman in the story if she does sin again? When un-believers are saved in the United Church of Christ are their names not written in the Book of Life the instant they become a believer? Or do you believe as I do that they can lose their salvation if they stop repenting three month after receiving salvation?


----------



## SemperFiDawg (Aug 4, 2013)

JFS said:


> LOL, you would hope so, why would they include anything to the contrary?  Good god man, talk about selection bias.



So when there's diversity you see contradiction and where there is unity you see selection bias.  Riiiiiiiight.  Guess we Christians are not the only ones biased.


----------



## SemperFiDawg (Aug 4, 2013)

Artfuldodger said:


> Mainly because it's not the main part of the story.



Really?  Care to defend that statement?


----------



## JFS (Aug 4, 2013)

SemperFiDawg said:


> So when there's diversity you see contradiction and where there is unity you see selection bias.  Riiiiiiiight.





Not sure what you don't understand.  If you want to start with the universe of all religious works, there is no agreement that the christian fable is true.  If you allow the proponents of the fable to pick their support you would of course expect them to pick the ones that support the fable.   

So if you are claiming there is no selection bias then lets consult the Diamond Sutra or the Yajur Veda to see if they  "all uniformly affirm the deity, atoning death, and resurrection of Christ"


----------



## SemperFiDawg (Aug 4, 2013)

JFS said:


> Not sure what you don't understand.  If you want to start with the universe of all religious works, there is no agreement that the christian fable is true.  If you allow the proponents of the fable to pick their support you would of course expect them to pick the ones that support the fable.
> 
> So if you are claiming there is no selection bias then lets consult the Diamond Sutra or the Yajur Veda to see if they  "all uniformly affirm the deity, atoning death, and resurrection of Christ"




I don't understand why you are switching arguments.  Thought it was obvious I was addressing the critique of different interpretations of the Bible with this statement:



> You Atheist make a lot of hay with the different interpretations of the BIBLE., but are remarkably silent regarding ....



You either didn't get that or ignored it and are moving to a totally different argument.


----------



## JFS (Aug 4, 2013)

SemperFiDawg said:


> I don't understand why you are switching arguments.



No switch. Self selected consistency is irrelevant.  And yes, inconsistencies undermine the credibility of your self selected sources.


----------



## NE GA Pappy (Aug 4, 2013)

bullethead said:


> And that folks is why there are now 33,000 different denominations within Christianity. Somebody somewhere is Not Buying it, so they go where they do buy it.



could you please name the top 50 percent of them?


----------



## SemperFiDawg (Aug 4, 2013)

JFS said:


> No switch.



Oh so the questions,"What accounts for the perceived contradictions in the Bible?" and  "Is Christianity different than others world religions?" are one in the same.  Wow!  Who knew!



JFS said:


> Self selected consistency is irrelevant.



Uhhhh, you gonna have to define that one for me.



JFS said:


> And yes, inconsistencies undermine the credibility of your self selected sources.



See above.


----------



## Artfuldodger (Aug 4, 2013)

SemperFiDawg said:


> Really?  Care to defend that statement?



Many scholars agree that the verses are not original to John's Gospel, pointing out that the story interrupts the flow of the verses that come before and after. The style is also noticeably different from that of John's usual writing.

http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2008/aprilweb-only/117-31.0.html

The way John 8.1-11 rhetorically functions in many conversations is as evidence that Jesus had moral standards. Jesus's embrace wasn't unconditional, it had strings attached. That is, Jesus's welcoming of tax collectors and sinners wasn't as radical as we might think. We must recall, the argument goes, that Jesus told the woman "Go and sin no more." And so, the argument continues, the church should follow Jesus's lead. We should embrace the sinners of the world but we need to tell them to "Go and sin no more."

The trouble with this, from a practical standpoint, is that way too often this is the first, last and only word the church offers the world. Instead of "Neither do I condemn you" it's always "Go and sin no more."

But I'd like to make a different point today. And it's this:

John 8.1-11 isn't even in the Bible.

Or at least not in the earliest manuscripts we have of John.  Check any modern translation.

Now, to be clear, I don't really want to push this too far. I don't really have a problem accepting John 8.1-11 as canonical. I mainly bring this up so we can ponder something.

http://experimentaltheology.blogspot.com/2012/05/go-and-sin-no-more.html


----------



## SemperFiDawg (Aug 4, 2013)

Artfuldodger said:


> Many scholars agree that the verses are not original to John's Gospel, pointing out that the story interrupts the flow of the verses that come before and after. The style is also noticeably different from that of John's usual writing.
> 
> http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2008/aprilweb-only/117-31.0.html
> 
> ...



You are correct regarding the text being missing in some of the earliest manuscripts, but that is not what is in question.  The veracity of the story is the heart of the matter and I would refer you to this link:

https://www.christiancourier.com/articles/34-current-perversion-of-john-8-1-11-the


Excerpt
"In spite of the sparse manuscript evidence, there is a wide-spread conviction among textual critics (those who pursue the science of restoring the original text from available data) that this narrative represents a factual episode in the ministry of Jesus. Even Professor Bruce Metzger of Princeton University, a renowned textual scholar (and no conservative), concedes that “the account has all the earmarks of historical veracity” (1971, 220). There is much concurrence: “Throughout the history of the church it has been held that, whoever wrote [this section], this little story is authentic” (Morris 1971, 883). We are not, therefore, uncomfortable in accepting the record as actual history."

With regards to the command to "Go and sin no more"

Excerpt
"Even a cursory reading of the text reveals that the Lord did not condone the woman’s sin. In fact, he said: “Go on your way; and sin no more.” The verb (“sin”) is a present tense form in the imperative (command) mood. The idea conveyed is: “Stop this life of sin.” Or, as William F. Beck rendered it: “Go, from now on don’t sin anymore” (1963, 181). Christ unequivocally indicated that what the woman did was sin."

So while you state that repentance is not the main idea the story is portraying, can you think of any instance in which forgiveness is given prior to repentance taking place in the heart.  I can't, and that is why I can't accept the fact that a practicing homosexual can claim to be a Christian and yet continue to take pride and actively participate in a sinful act.  It is the very antithesis of contrition and repentance.  How can someone be saved if they don't believe they have sinned in the first place?  What is there for them to be saved from or for?  The whole premise they expound is absurd.


----------



## bullethead (Aug 4, 2013)

SemperFiDawg said:


> You are correct regarding the text being missing in some of the earliest manuscripts, but that is not what is in question.  The veracity of the story is the heart of the matter and I would refer you to this link:
> 
> https://www.christiancourier.com/articles/34-current-perversion-of-john-8-1-11-the
> 
> ...



Your views will change if "god forbid" one of your children should ever happen to be gay.


----------



## bullethead (Aug 4, 2013)

NE GA Pappy said:


> could you please name the top 50 percent of them?



Here is a good start for you, but I missed the number by about 10,000.......less than what is out there.

http://churchrelevance.com/qa-list-of-all-christian-denominations-and-their-beliefs/


----------



## bullethead (Aug 4, 2013)

NE GA Pappy said:


> could you please name the top 50 percent of them?



Grab a snickers, you're gonna be a while.
http://www.philvaz.com/apologetics/a106.htm


----------



## bullethead (Aug 4, 2013)

here are the 35 largest

http://undergod.procon.org/view.background-resource.php?resourceID=87


----------



## SemperFiDawg (Aug 4, 2013)

bullethead said:


> Your views will change if "god forbid" one of your children should ever happen to be gay.



Fraid not.


----------



## TripleXBullies (Aug 5, 2013)

SemperFiDawg said:


> You Atheist make a lot of hay with the different interpretations of the Bible., but are remarkably silent regarding the fact that no matter how different the interpretations regarding the details, they all uniformly affirm the deity, atoning death, and resurrection of Christ.  Of course it would be hard to sell the fact that they all differ on John 3:16



There you go using the word fact... Jews don't agree with that about the bible.. So what fact are you referring to? There are plenty of people and groups that believes parts of the bible but not all of it.


----------



## TripleXBullies (Aug 5, 2013)

ambush80 said:


> I like the things they are concerned with: social justice, equality, peace and kindness.
> 
> I can't really join their club because I still think the notion of a man coming back from the dead is ludicrous.



So you like the church enough to go there "religiously?" Or it's palatable as far as a church goes?


----------



## TripleXBullies (Aug 5, 2013)

Artfuldodger said:


> Mainly because it's not the main part of the story. Jesus didn't come to the Earth to condemn but to save people. He aimed to bring, not only the accused to repentance, by showing her his mercy, but the prosecutors also, by showing them their sins; they thought to insnare him, he sought to convince and convert them.
> 
> True a Christian should repent and try not to sin. What happens to the woman in the story if she does sin again? When un-believers are saved in the United Church of Christ are their names not written in the Book of Life the instant they become a believer? Or do you believe as I do that they can lose their salvation if they stop repenting three month after receiving salvation?



I would believe that.. Jesus came to save what he already condemned.


----------



## ambush80 (Aug 5, 2013)

TripleXBullies said:


> So you like the church enough to go there "religiously?" Or it's palatable as far as a church goes?



I'm not gonna go there.  I've gotten the speil already.   I might attend one of the other religion's services for information.  Wanna go?


----------



## TripleXBullies (Aug 5, 2013)

Are you recruiting me? Under cover?


----------



## ambush80 (Aug 5, 2013)

TripleXBullies said:


> Are you recruiting me? Under cover?



Nah.  It would be interesting to get an openminded-ish Christians view of their service.


----------



## SemperFiDawg (Aug 5, 2013)

TripleXBullies said:


> There you go using the word fact... Jews don't agree with that about the bible..



I wasn't aware "Jews" constituted a denomination of Christianity.


----------



## TripleXBullies (Aug 6, 2013)

SemperFiDawg said:


> You Atheist make a lot of hay with the different interpretations of the Bible., but are remarkably silent regarding the fact that no matter how different the interpretations regarding the details, they all uniformly affirm the deity, atoning death, and resurrection of Christ.  Of course it would be hard to sell the fact that they all differ on John 3:16



You didn't say Christianity. You said interpretations of the bible. So what you said is not a fact at all. They definitely don't all have that same piece.


----------



## SemperFiDawg (Aug 7, 2013)

TripleXBullies said:


> You didn't say Christianity. You said interpretations of the bible. So what you said is not a fact at all. They definitely don't all have that same piece.



Context


----------



## SemperFiDawg (Aug 7, 2013)

TripleXBullies said:


> There you go using the word fact... Jews don't agree with that about the bible..



I think you are confusing race with religion and assuming there is not such thing as a Jewish Christian.  You would be wrong.  

Now with that clear can you provide proof of any Christian denomination that denies the doctrine of John 3::16. 



TripleXBullies said:


> So what fact are you referring to? There are plenty of people and groups that believes parts of the bible but not all of it.



Listen I realize your are attempting to evade the point.  Pretty obvious. You can't even cede the point that's being presented though its obviously true.   That doesn't reflect we'll.


----------



## centerpin fan (Aug 7, 2013)

ambush80 said:


> My In-Laws United Church of Christ.  They have a fantastic lesbian pastor who speaks with honesty, love, compassion and conviction. They have a glorious, humble atrium displaying all the wonders of creation.  They do aggressive ministry at home and abroad.  They let some Jews and Buddhists share their building and allow them to display some of their material openly.   They have no problem believing that the great flood and Jonah and the fish didn't really happened that way,  Many of then believe the walking on water to be symbolic.  They have a good age structure and they don't care what I wear.



Another UCC church makes the news:

http://minnesota.cbslocal.com/2013/...rged-for-vandalizing-pro-gay-marriage-church/


----------



## ambush80 (Aug 7, 2013)

centerpin fan said:


> Another UCC church makes the news:
> 
> http://minnesota.cbslocal.com/2013/...rged-for-vandalizing-pro-gay-marriage-church/



Amen?


----------



## centerpin fan (Aug 7, 2013)

ambush80 said:


> Amen?



To vandalizing a church?  No.

I Googled the church.  They also have a lesbian pastor:

http://pilgrimschurchucc.org/STAFF.html


----------

