Gay Churches Decline / Fundamental Churches Grow

[redarmy11]

Satanic Atheism
http://www.darkfiber.com/atheisms/atheisms/satanist.html

I definetly would rather rip somebody to shreds than help them cross the road even, I'm very unsympathetic to bums, I know its hard to get a job, but its the tax payers money that keeps their worthless hide alive. I don't like criples or retards either, I feel very sympathetic towards them, but I'd rather see them dead than living in this world all of their lives spunging off of the tax payers just like the other two.I love blood. nothing makes me more happy than seeing an ass hole get his body torn to shreds. I like to steel, I love the rush it gives me.

Woody, if you want to discredit atheism, you'll have do better than emails from people who are either winding up the recipient, or else mentally ill.

As a christian evangelical you should know that a person either serves God or themself

What do you do to serve God, apart from spewing bile on internet forums? I'm genuinely interested because it seems to me that the bile-spewing takes up an inordinate amount of your time. Would God not be better served elsewhere?

 

[Woody]

RA said,

What do you do to serve God, apart from spewing bile on internet forums? I'm genuinely interested because it seems to me that the bile-spewing takes up an inordinate amount of your time. Would God not be better served elsewhere?

So you want my christian resume, I'll give it historically, I'm not bragging because you DID ask and I am NOT ASHAMED to tell of my service for Jesus Christ or His gospel?

o about 5 years faihful choir service (there when the doors opened 3 times a week, I might have missed a couple though due to illness)
o 3 years faithful visitation service (there every week)
o 2 years faithful in special men's group and men's and women's singing groups
o 1 year as sunday school class greater (faithful of course)
o 9 years in a rest home ministry that met every 3rd & 5th sunday of the month (faithful of course)
o 1 year sunday school class president (I missed a sunday or two, I think)
o about 1/2 year church finance committee
o 1 year guitarist in church music group (there every sunday)

This is in addition to some pretty regular church attendance for many years, and special "one-timer" events like helping wire a sanctuary, door-to-door efforts, christmas carroling, etc. etc.

I plan to serve the remainder of my life in service to the Lord as a musician after my career makeover is completed. I am quite excited about it.

Would God not be better served elsewhere?

You are right, God would be better served elsewhere, and I have been praying about that. That is a very astute observation by you. Why am I even here? Some people say they are entertained -- but that's not a good reason. You're right -- I need to give up on sciforums.

 

[KennyJC]

That's quite a lot of time and effort spent on something that doesn't exist.

 

[Woody]

I'm sorry Woody but you really do need prayer for your obsession. If you are prepared to be nasty to fellow christians just because you believe that they might disagree with you about homosexuality (I did not quote my views actually), it's you that needs some help from God.

You are acting like a judgmental moralist. Do you honestly believe that this form of obsessive crusade is really what Jesus would consider the most important thing you could do with your life?

Please reflect and pray.

kind regards,


Gordon.

Gordon,

You are on some very thin ice. This is an issue of whether you believe the bible or not. If you do not believe the bible is true, then I'm sorry but you are not a christian. I really don't need to tell you that.

You are acting like a judgmental moralist. Do you honestly believe that this form of obsessive crusade is really what Jesus would consider the most important thing you could do with your life?

Please reflect and pray.

If it can not be done in love then it really shouldn't be done at all. Sciforums is not a place of love, so I probably do not belong here.

Do you honestly believe for your own sake, as an evangelist that opposes the very word of God, that you are really serving Him, and not another? Do you likewise believe that a church that is directly opposed to His teachings can effectively serve Him?

I'm talking about churches that tell their members they are not sinners and they do not need to change. At one time my sister went to a unitarian universalist church. It would have put her in hell and I don't like that. As a matter of fact I'm quite offended that some pastor would have stood by and let my sister go to hell.

Please reflect and pray. Seriously.

Jesus even said , A Kingdom divided can not stand, and there are few things in the history of the church that are ripping it apart like the gay marriage issue.

I have great sympathy for my brothers and sisters in christ that are struggling with SSA. As sexual beings we all struggle with appropriate expression of our sexuality, and that includes both of us.

Perhaps my interface with the homosexual community would be much better served on another forum where I discuss issues with ex-gays. The bible says "such were some of you," concerning former homosexuals -- some of them are church members just like everyone else.

Really what it comes down to, is that I must believe that God is in control. I don't like some things going on in His house, but why not stand back and let Him deal with it? Also, I should do as I am commanded by Him.

 

[redarmy11]

RA said,
So you want my christian resume, I'll give it historically, I'm not bragging because you DID ask and I am NOT ASHAMED to tell of my service for Jesus Christ or His gospel?

It's ok Woody, no need to get defensive - like I said, genuinely interested.

And disappointed.

It seems to me that... well, you've attended church a lot. But doesn't being a Christian entail a lot more than turning up, singing hymns and reciting the Bible backwards? Why not go out on the streets and start a soup kitchen? Travel to Africa once a year, helping lepers and AIDS victims? Wouldn't this be a better use of your time than typing all those reams and reams of words - many of which are, well... a bit negative. You know... judgemental. I honestly expected you to be setting us all a better example.

And your planned future career as a musician - again, the best use of your time, when you can (and surely should) be helping your fellow man? W.W.J.D.

P.S. Sorry about the "reciting the Bible backwards" bit - force of habit. That's the way we 'Satanic Athiests' do it.

 

[Woody]

RA said,

And disappointed.

It seems to me that... well, you've attended church a lot. But doesn't being a Christian entail a lot more than turning up, singing hymns and reciting the Bible backwards?

The 9 years of rest home ministry must have blown right by you then. What do you think we were doing in this outreach ministry? We weren't there for our health. Also on visitation, we dealt with people that had all types of issues, not just religion: funerals, hospitalization,etc. and they weren't all christians either.

And your planned future career as a musician - again, the best use of your time, when you can (and surely should) be helping your fellow man? W.W.J.D.

Yes, music is right, because I have a great passion to serve the Lord with it. Music is a very important part of ministry and I would like to go evangelical with it. This is not to say soup lines, etc,. are not important. Missionary work is the most important work of all. Helping your fellow man is important, but none of these things are as important as doing that which puts you in fellowship with Him. He is interested in our love above all other things, above our love for our fellow man. That is why he created us.

The bottom line is that the Lord doesn't care about burnt sacrifices ( how much I give, good attendance, good works, etc, etc) nearly as much as service in love to Him or to others (by doing what he has empowered me to do).

I honestly expected you to be setting us all a better example

Well, I'll never live up to anyone's expectation on this forum, and I can't say it's all my fault, not by a long shot. As you said, you are disappointed with my service to the Lord. I'll never be good enough for your expectation, and that's because I am just a human. Only Jesus meets the criteria you expect.

 

[Diogenes' Dog]

Sciforums is not a place of love, so I probably do not belong here.

I think many atheists on sciforums love to see christians tearing each other apart over such a contraversial issue.

Gordon,
You are on some very thin ice. This is an issue of whether you believe the bible or not. If you do not believe the bible is true, then I'm sorry but you are not a christian. I really don't need to tell you that.

I am always puzzled by this - there are very few bible passages that condemn homosexuality, and none spoken by Jesus. There are MANY more passages that condemn the possession of wealth, spoken by Jesus himself, which go totally unheeded. Count the number of expensive cars outside church on a Sunday and you will see what I mean!

We ignore many other instructions in the Bible e.g. about wearing of hats and hair length, (1COR11:4-15) because they are obviously outdated. When Paul was writing Romans, the sexual depravities of Tiberius and then Caligula must have been uppermost in his mind. Clearly they were an 'abomination' of the time. However, the situation has changed. To label a modern long term gay relationship in the same way is inappropriate, to say the least.

I believe the "gay" issue is a TOTAL red herring. The Christian church is getting steamed up over Gene Robinson when it should be campaigning on much more pressing and important issues e.g. ecological damage, global inequality, establishing peace, to name a few. To the secular world, it makes the church into a reactionary, sex-obsessed and irrelevant joke. No wonder church attendance is falling.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2005/08/17/nrelig17.xml

 

[Woody]

DD said,

I am always puzzled by this - there are very few bible passages that condemn homosexuality, and none spoken by Jesus. There are MANY more passages that condemn the possession of wealth, spoken by Jesus himself, which go totally unheeded. Count the number of expensive cars outside church on a Sunday and you will see what I mean!

You know I'm puzzled about a lot of things. First of all, nobody talks about sin from the pulpit anymore becasue they are afraid they might offend someone. Yet, Jesus talked more about hell than he did about heaven. From a christian point of view, I don't want anyone going to a terrible place where they burn forever in torment and they are covered by worms. Jesus said that's what happens to people that go to hell.

Secondly, I am puzzled at the half understanding that people have of the bible. How many times have you heard the bible says that money is the root of all evil? This is not biblical, because the bible says the LOVE of money is the root of all evil. There is nothing wrong with God blessing his children with material wealth, wouldn't you do the same for your children and family if you were rich? I'll take anything the Lord wants to bless me with and I will thank Him for it, it's his anyway. Whose fancy car will it be when joe-blow christian dies?

The Lord has blessed many in the bible with awesome material wealth such as: David, King Solomon, Abraham, and Joseph. But with the gift of great wealth comes great accountability.

Jesus did not condemn the possession of wealth as you claim, he condemned the love of it, and he said it would be an obstical for those who want to come to him.

As far as the bible verses that condemn homosexuality, they are in there and they are clear. How many times does it have to be said anyway?

 

[craterchains (Norval]

Just the blind leading the blind.

ALL religions are of the demons, the fallen angels, those bad ET's now cast down and living amongst us.

My how far "they" have fallen.

Norval

 

[Diogenes' Dog]

I am puzzled at the half understanding that people have of the bible. How many times have you heard the bible says that money is the root of all evil? This is not biblical, because the bible says the LOVE of money is the root of all evil. There is nothing wrong with God blessing his children with material wealth, wouldn't you do the same for your children and family if you were rich? I'll take anything the Lord wants to bless me with and I will thank Him for it, it's his anyway. Whose fancy car will it be when joe-blow christian dies?

Woody, I think that is the 'convenient' interpretation for modern relatively wealthy soft-living Christians (like me), because Jesus also said:

MAT19:24 And again I say unto you, It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle, than for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of God.

...in fact just prior to that, to the young man who asked him what was needed to enter the Kingdom of Heaven:

MRK10:21 Then Jesus beholding him loved him, and said unto him, One thing thou lackest: go thy way, sell whatsoever thou hast, and give to the poor, and thou shalt have treasure in heaven: and come, take up the cross, and follow me.

and then when sending out his disciples...

MRK6:7-9 And he called unto him the twelve, and began to send them forth by two and two; and gave them power over unclean spirits; And commanded them that they should take nothing for their journey, save a staff only; no scrip, no bread, no money in their purse:But be shod with sandals; and not put on two coats.

because...

MAT6:25 Therefore I say unto you, Take no thought for your life, what ye shall eat, or what ye shall drink; nor yet for your body, what ye shall put on. Is not the life more than meat, and the body than raiment? Behold the fowls of the air: for they sow not, neither do they reap, nor gather into barns; yet your heavenly Father feedeth them. Are ye not much better than they?

and finally (before I get too much of a biblical bore)...

LUK9:23 And he said to them all, If any man will come after me, let him deny himself, and take up his cross daily, and follow me.

Jesus spoke a radical gospel about love, worldly wealth and spiritual wealth. He said not a word about homosexuality. Would Jesus get heated about gay bishops? I doubt it because it's irrelevant when there are such greater calls for love in the world!

 

[Woody]

DD said:

MAT19:24 And again I say unto you, It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle, than for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of God.

You got half of it. Here's the other half:

Mat 19:25,26 When his disciples heard it, they were exceedingly amazed, saying, Who then can be saved? But Jesus beheld them, and said unto them, With men this is impossible; but with God all things are possible.

"Who then can be saved?" is what the disciples asked. They did not ask, "How then can a rich man be saved?" If you were there, wouldn't you have asked that question?

...in fact just prior to that, to the young man who asked him what was needed to enter the Kingdom of Heaven:

Yes, indeed he did.

I'm sorry but I don't buy the gospel that all christians must be paupers. I've heard it before. To whom little is given little is asked, and to whom much is given much is aasked in return, and everyone is blessed with a different amount of wealth in this lifetime and each is expected to use it wisely. Take the parable of the talents (Matthew Chapter 25):

For the kingdom of heaven is as a man travelling into a far country, who called his own servants, and delivered unto them his goods.

And unto one he gave five talents, to another two, and to another one; to every man according to his several ability; and straightway took his journey.

Then he that had received the five talents went and traded with the same, and made them other five talents.

And likewise he that had received two, he also gained other two.

But he that had received one went and digged in the earth, and hid his lord's money.

After a long time the lord of those servants cometh, and reckoneth with them.

And so he that had received five talents came and brought other five talents, saying, Lord, thou deliveredst unto me five talents: behold, I have gained beside them five talents more.

His lord said unto him, Well done, thou good and faithful servant: thou hast been faithful over a few things, I will make thee ruler over many things: enter thou into the joy of thy lord.

He also that had received two talents came and said, Lord, thou deliveredst unto me two talents: behold, I have gained two other talents beside them.

His lord said unto him, Well done, good and faithful servant; thou hast been faithful over a few things, I will make thee ruler over many things: enter thou into the joy of thy lord.

Then he which had received the one talent came and said, Lord, I knew thee that thou art an hard man, reaping where thou hast not sown, and gathering where thou hast not strawed:

And I was afraid, and went and hid thy talent in the earth: lo, there thou hast that is thine.

His lord answered and said unto him, Thou wicked and slothful servant, thou knewest that I reap where I sowed not, and gather where I have not strawed:

Thou oughtest therefore to have put my money to the exchangers, and then at my coming I should have received mine own with usury.

Take therefore the talent from him, and give it unto him which hath ten talents.

For unto every one that hath shall be given, and he shall have abundance: but from him that hath not shall be taken away even that which he hath.

And cast ye the unprofitable servant into outer darkness: there shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth.

So the guy with the least money was punished for using his small blessing irresponsibly, and his blessing was given to the one that showed the most accountability, which was the man that accomplished the most with the wealth he was given.

If you aren't up to the task then you are better off with less money.

He said not a word about homosexuality. Would Jesus get heated about gay bishops? I doubt it because it's irrelevant when there are such greater calls for love in the world!

You are using argument from silence, from the Wiki:

The argument from silence (also called argumentum a silentio in Latin) is that the silence of a speaker or writer about X proves or suggests that the speaker or writer is ignorant of X. Whether such an argument is reasonable is subject to some interpretation or debate -- in general, the argument from silence does not offer a rigorous logical proof of a premise, although it may potentially offer some circumstantial evidence for a position.

It is a weak position, especially given that the Apostle Paul breaks this argument. It is a logical fallacy anyway as I can demonstrate:

Did Jesus save any homosexuals according to the scriptures? He saved everyone else, what about gays? Not from reading the bible. The bible never says Jesus saved a homosexual.

Do we therefore conclude that homosexuals can not be saved, whereas murderers, thieves, cheats and demoniacs were saved by Jesus?

Your argument from silence is incorrect because all sinners can be saved and that includes homosexuals. The apostle Paul made that clear. He said "as such were some of you" when he addressed the church body.

 

[craterchains (Norval]

, , , and the key word? Can. But, will they? Me thinks the door of salvation is about to be slam closed. (Big cheesy grins here.) It will be true that all had their chance to repent.

Norval

 

[Woody]

From the top 3 most read news story on the internet:

Liberal Christianity is paying for its sins

Some quotes:

three years ago, the Presbyterian Church USA, at its general assembly in Birmingham, Ala., was turning itself into the laughingstock of the blogosphere by tacitly approving alternative designations for the supposedly sexist Christian Trinity of Father, Son and Holy Spirit. Among the suggested names were "Mother, Child and Womb" and "Rock, Redeemer and Friend." Moved by the spirit of the Presbyterian revisionists, Beliefnet blogger Rod Dreher held a "Name That Trinity" contest. Entries included "Rock, Scissors and Paper" and "Larry, Curly and Moe."

The Presbyterian Church USA is famous for its 1993 conference, cosponsored with the United Methodist Church, the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America and other mainline churches, in which participants "reimagined" God as "Our Maker Sophia" and held a feminist-inspired "milk and honey" ritual designed to replace traditional bread-and-wine Communion.

The just-elected Episcopal presiding bishop, Katharine Jefferts Schori, is a one-woman combination of all these things, having voted for Robinson, blessed same-sex couples in her Nevada diocese, prayed to a female Jesus at the Columbus convention and invited former Newark, N.J., bishop John Shelby Spong, famous for denying Christ's divinity, to address her priests.

Looks like somebody agrees with my assessment, (I independently came to the same conclusion):

When a church doesn't take itself seriously, neither do its members. It is hard to believe that as recently as 1960, members of mainline churches — Episcopalians, Presbyterians, Methodists, Lutherans and the like — accounted for 40% of all American Protestants. Today, it's more like 12% (17 million out of 135 million). Some of the precipitous decline is due to lower birthrates among the generally blue-state mainliners, but it also is clear that millions of mainline adherents (and especially their children) have simply walked out of the pews never to return. According to the Hartford Institute for Religious Research, in 1965, there were 3.4 million Episcopalians; now, there are 2.3 million. The number of Presbyterians fell from 4.3 million in 1965 to 2.5 million today. Compare that with 16 million members reported by the Southern Baptists.

When your religion says "whatever" on doctrinal matters, regards Jesus as just another wise teacher, refuses on principle to evangelize and lets you do pretty much what you want, it's a short step to deciding that one of the things you don't want to do is get up on Sunday morning and go to church.

Same conclusion I came to.

Despite the fact that median Sunday attendance at Episcopal churches is 80 worshipers, the Episcopal Church, as a whole, is financially equipped to carry on for some time, thanks to its inventory of vintage real estate and huge endowments left over from the days (no more!) when it was the Republican Party at prayer. Furthermore, it has offset some of its demographic losses by attracting disaffected liberal Catholics and gays and lesbians. The less endowed Presbyterian Church USA is in deeper trouble. Just before its general assembly in Birmingham, it announced that it would eliminate 75 jobs to meet a $9.15-million budget cut at its headquarters, the third such round of job cuts in four years.

Now that ought to prove that churches aren't out to make money when they believe in what they are doing!

So this is the liberal Christianity that was supposed to be the Christianity of the future: disarray, schism, rapidly falling numbers of adherents, a collapse of Christology and national meetings that rival those of the Modern Language Assn. for their potential for cheap laughs. And they keep telling the Catholic Church that it had better get with the liberal program — ordain women, bless gay unions and so forth — or die. Sure.

 

[spidergoat]

Obviously, Church2.0 doesn't support renaming suggestions, and the programming has triple redundancy.

You guys are aware that the Roman Catholic Church created hybrid holidays with the native and far older European shamanic religions? They were very creative, almost... liberal you might say.

 

[Diogenes' Dog]

You got half of it. Here's the other half:
"Who then can be saved?" is what the disciples asked. They did not ask, "How then can a rich man be saved?" If you were there, wouldn't you have asked that question?

...and if you read on (the third half?):

MRK10:28-30 Then Peter began to say unto him, Lo, we have left all, and have followed thee. And Jesus answered and said, Verily I say unto you, There is no man that hath left house, or brethren, or sisters, or father, or mother, or wife, or children, or lands, for my sake, and the gospel's, But he shall receive an hundredfold now in this time, houses, and brethren, and sisters, and mothers, and children, and lands, with persecutions; and in the world to come eternal life.

Now clearly Peter and the others didn't all become very rich and start driving Porsche Carrerra's, so the hundredfold houses, bretheren etc. must be a new perception of the people who become your 'neighbours' once the insulation of personal wealth is abandoned. The Rich man and Lazarus parable is another illustration on the same theme. People like St Francis and St Anthony took these words literally and gave away all their (considerable) wealth!

The parable of the talents is about cultivating our abilities, rather than advocating sound financial investment on the stock market I suspect!

You are using argument from silence, from the Wiki:

I don't think so. I am arguing on the relative importance of two issues, based on the stress Jesus laid on them. That is why I have been contrasting the many, many things Jesus said about material wealth - which the church ignores, with the very few quotes from the OT and Paul about homosexuality by which the fundementalist church attempts to justify an inherent homophobia, which the secular world rightly sees as discriminatory!

So, why do I disagree with your view on gays? One more bible quote...

MAT22:36-40 Master, which is the great commandment in the law? Jesus said unto him, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind. This is the first and great commandment. And the second is like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets.

The acid test of any rule is whether it is compatible with the above. I don't believe sexual discrimination in the church is in any way compatible with what Jesus said about love. I see no reason why someone like Gene Robinson cannot love God with all his heart, love his neighbour too and serve as an effective bishop. His sexuality cannot be sinful if it:

a) Is based on love
b) Does not impair his relationship to God
b) Is not harmful (is beneficial?) to him and/or anyone else

The rest is between him and God. Meanwhile the church could more profitably expend the energy solving some of the REAL problems of the world today! Including the many economic inequalities.

 

[Giambattista]

People like St Francis and St Anthony....

...are probably better than Woody. I'm quite sure of that.

 

[Woody]

DD said,

Now clearly Peter and the others didn't all become very rich and start driving Porsche Carrerra's,

Neither did Julius Caesar, but he probably had a nice chariot.

I am arguing on the relative importance of two issues, based on the stress Jesus laid on them.

Jesus didn't say anything at all about homosexuals. That doesn't mean they are unimportant to Him though.

the very few quotes from the OT and Paul about homosexuality by which the fundementalist church attempts to justify an inherent homophobia, which the secular world rightly sees as discriminatory!

It's just a simple case of hell-phobia. All christians have it. We're scared of people going to hell. If we wanted them to go to hell, we'd tell them they don't need to change a thing, just be gay. If we didn't say anything then the church would rightfully see us as discriminatory toward gays through unconcern.

The acid test of any rule is whether it is compatible with:

MAT22:36-40 Master, which is the great commandment in the law? Jesus said unto him, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind. This is the first and great commandment. And the second is like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets.

Yes, loving your family is important.

MRK10:28-30 Then Peter began to say unto him, Lo, we have left all, and have followed thee. And Jesus answered and said, Verily I say unto you, There is no man that hath left house, or brethren, or sisters, or father, or mother, or wife, or children, or lands, for my sake, and the gospel's, But he shall receive an hundredfold now in this time, houses, and brethren, and sisters, and mothers, and children, and lands, with persecutions; and in the world to come eternal life.

There is a reward for a christian that is called to this kind of service, as Peter was called, and praise God for him. None of christ's disciples continued their employment after they went into His ministry.

However, the rest of us christians have an accountability to provide for our families.

Here's what the bible says:

But if any provide not for his own, and specially for those of his own house, he hath denied the faith, and is worse than an infidel.

How 'bout that DD, not the same as an infidel but worse than an infidel. Not just weak in faith but denying his own faith. Those are some pretty strong words from the apostle Paul.

I don't buy the hobo gospel, and neither did Paul.

The rest is between him and God. Meanwhile the church could more profitably expend the energy solving some of the REAL problems of the world today! Including the many economic inequalities.

My wife is ill and can't work. Pass some of the money our way. We could use it. Many christians have less money than other people anyway. It's because we give with an open heart. Perhaps, the secular world should be taxed to help re-distribute the wealth to us. Whatta you think DD? I know some poor missionaries that could use your dough.

 

[Provita]

hell-phobia for gays... more like homo-phobia...

 

[Diogenes' Dog]

Jesus didn't say anything at all about homosexuals. That doesn't mean they are unimportant to Him though.

How do you know? One would think he would have said something!

It's just a simple case of hell-phobia. All christians have it. We're scared of people going to hell. If we wanted them to go to hell, we'd tell them they don't need to change a thing, just be gay. If we didn't say anything then the church would rightfully see us as discriminatory toward gays through unconcern.

Oh dear, another doctrine I reject! I don't suffer from hell-phobia... It turns the 'good news' into the 'bad news'. Hell and Heaven is our state of mind. The Jesus I follow condemns no-one, but is the light that guides us out of the cave of shadows and into the sunlight. Love does not condemn, only we do that to ourselves and others!

How 'bout that DD, not the same as an infidel but worse than an infidel. Not just weak in faith but denying his own faith. Those are some pretty strong words from the apostle Paul. I don't buy the hobo gospel, and neither did Paul.

Do you not think Paul's speaking of someone who just deserts their family for an easy life! Not someone who gives up everything for the gospel?

I concede that Jesus's message was too radical for most of us (me included). Perhaps we don't all have to give everything up to follow him. We all fall short... Live and let live...

three years ago, the Presbyterian Church USA, at its general assembly in Birmingham, Ala., was turning itself into the laughingstock of the blogosphere by tacitly approving alternative designations for the supposedly sexist Christian Trinity of Father, Son and Holy Spirit. Among the suggested names were "Mother, Child and Womb" and "Rock, Redeemer and Friend." Moved by the spirit of the Presbyterian revisionists, Beliefnet blogger Rod Dreher held a "Name That Trinity" contest. Entries included "Rock, Scissors and Paper" and "Larry, Curly and Moe."

The Presbyterian Church USA is famous for its 1993 conference, cosponsored with the United Methodist Church, the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America and other mainline churches, in which participants "reimagined" God as "Our Maker Sophia" and held a feminist-inspired "milk and honey" ritual designed to replace traditional bread-and-wine Communion.

LOL, I loved this one. I'm glad the Presbyterian church has retained a sense of humour! Perhaps if things were run by a woman, the universe would not be in the mess it is! For my contribution I'd like to suggest having a unisex name for God such as Viv, Les or Jo (short for Jehovah), and a patriotic name for the trinity i.e. Red, White and Blue.

My wife is ill and can't work. Pass some of the money our way. We could use it. Many christians have less money than other people anyway. It's because we give with an open heart. Perhaps, the secular world should be taxed to help re-distribute the wealth to us. Whatta you think DD? I know some poor missionaries that could use your dough.

I'm sorry to hear that Woody. I don't think the atheists here would agree to an 'infidel tax', but you can try....

As for my cash - GETYERHANDSOFF! it's MINE!!

 

[Woody]

DD said,

How do you know? One would think he would have said something!

Must not have mattered, as you say.

Oh dear, another doctrine I reject! I don't suffer from hell-phobia... It turns the 'good news' into the 'bad news'. Hell and Heaven is our state of mind. The Jesus I follow condemns no-one, but is the light that guides us out of the cave of shadows and into the sunlight. Love does not condemn, only we do that to ourselves and others!

What do you think about these verses from Jesus?

And whosoever shall offend one of these little ones that believe in me, it is better for him that a millstone were hanged about his neck, and he were cast into the sea. And if thy hand offend thee, cut it off: it is better for thee to enter into life maimed, than having two hands to go into hell, into the fire that never shall be quenched: Where their worm dieth not, and the fire is not quenched.

Apparantly you reject the bible then. Jesus says hell is kind of wormy, and kinda hot, and lasts kinda long time. I guess you don't believe a bible. What do you believe, anyway DD, the universalist doctrine? It simply is not biblical. If there is no hell then there is no need for Jesus to die on a cross. Your version of Jesus is not needed.

Do you not think Paul's speaking of someone who just deserts their family for an easy life! Not someone who gives up everything for the gospel?

I concede that Jesus's message was too radical for most of us (me included). Perhaps we don't all have to give everything up to follow him. We all fall short... Live and let live...

DD, your excluding the sovereignty of God from the equation. God chooses who will be in ministry, and He doesn't choose everyone, only those whom He calls. Do you really think that everyone in ministry was called to be there?

Perhaps if things were run by a woman, the universe would not be in the mess it is!

Perhaps they could call it the "Church of Eve and the Serpent" LOL

As for my cash - GETYERHANDSOFF! it's MINE!!

Whoaa, but a minute ago you were saying the church should be philanthropic instead of evangelistic. I guess it depends on who is doing the giving.

In either case you don't live up to your own standard on the matter. How does that make you feel?