Non SJW churches near downtown?

wargograw
How long do you want to ignore this user?
fig96 said:

So for the most part you're avoiding churches that want to actively help disadvantaged or marginalized people.

Seems pretty biblical.
Actively helping is different than celebrating them as members of the church.
Federale01
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
wargograw said:

fig96 said:

So for the most part you're avoiding churches that want to actively help disadvantaged or marginalized people.

Seems pretty biblical.
Actively helping is different than celebrating them as members of the church.
How are disadvantage and marginalized people not worthy of being celebrated in the church, though? It is exactly what Jesus calls Christians to do. I understand the biblical issues with homosexuals (although other sins seem to be forgotten when it comes to kicking people out of congregations) or other religions, but I don't understand how helping marginalized people and bringing them into the fold shouldn't be the focus of your church.

This idea that Christians should be biblical scholars but otherwise silent in easing the pain and suffering of others in the world is a bit of an odd one to me. I think Christ would ask what would be the point of learning what he says if you aren't going to practice it.
expresswrittenconsent
How long do you want to ignore this user?
wargograw said:

fig96 said:

So for the most part you're avoiding churches that want to actively help disadvantaged or marginalized people.

Seems pretty biblical.
Actively helping is different than celebrating them as members of the church.

This is the kind of clarification only someone "real real smart" can make.
AgGrad99
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Not really.

Using the same example, as a Christian I can, and should, help my Hindu neighbors.

But if they are Hindu, they aren't going to be a member of a Christian church.
expresswrittenconsent
How long do you want to ignore this user?
That's not the example at all. A Hindu isnt going to try and join your church.
AgGrad99
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Well, I used that as an example, because it's happened at my church (more than once). It's also a very clear example (that I thought wouldn't derail the discussion).

But insert whichever group you want for Hindu. A church, in the biblical sense of the word, can/should still minister to people...even if those same people choose not to follow scripture.

Potcake
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
My church is full of sinners.
AgGrad99
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
arent they all....
wargograw
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Federale01 said:

wargograw said:

fig96 said:

So for the most part you're avoiding churches that want to actively help disadvantaged or marginalized people.

Seems pretty biblical.
Actively helping is different than celebrating them as members of the church.
How are disadvantage and marginalized people not worthy of being celebrated in the church, though? It is exactly what Jesus calls Christians to do. I understand the biblical issues with homosexuals (although other sins seem to be forgotten when it comes to kicking people out of congregations) or other religions, but I don't understand how helping marginalized people and bringing them into the fold shouldn't be the focus of your church.

This idea that Christians should be biblical scholars but otherwise silent in easing the pain and suffering of others in the world is a bit of an odd one to me. I think Christ would ask what would be the point of learning what he says if you aren't going to practice it.
I was referring to homosexuals (and LGBT folks, who were brought up by another poster) and non-Christians. I thought my statement was broad enough to be understood that way. Of course God saves a weak people (1 Corinthians 1).

And yes, I'm in favor of biblical church discipline for any known, unrepented of sins as well.

This should cover expresswrittenconsent's snark too.
fig96
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
wargograw said:

Federale01 said:

wargograw said:

fig96 said:

So for the most part you're avoiding churches that want to actively help disadvantaged or marginalized people.

Seems pretty biblical.
Actively helping is different than celebrating them as members of the church.
How are disadvantage and marginalized people not worthy of being celebrated in the church, though? It is exactly what Jesus calls Christians to do. I understand the biblical issues with homosexuals (although other sins seem to be forgotten when it comes to kicking people out of congregations) or other religions, but I don't understand how helping marginalized people and bringing them into the fold shouldn't be the focus of your church.

This idea that Christians should be biblical scholars but otherwise silent in easing the pain and suffering of others in the world is a bit of an odd one to me. I think Christ would ask what would be the point of learning what he says if you aren't going to practice it.
I was referring to homosexuals (and LGBT folks, who were brought up by another poster) and non-Christians. I thought my statement was broad enough to be understood that way. Of course God saves a weak people (1 Corinthians 1).

And yes, I'm in favor of biblical church discipline for any known, unrepented of sins as well.

This should cover expresswrittenconsent's snark too.
Felt like the OP intentionally listed the policies of several Methodist churches which have a more liberal LGBT policy than most.

I'd hope that a non-Christian would be welcome at service, whatever their belief might be. If not that church is kinda missing the point.
expresswrittenconsent
How long do you want to ignore this user?
My snark is more around the hypocrisy of people like the OP blatantly trolling and then trying to act like it was a serious request.
This thread would have about 10 replies (with 90% being serious and helpful) if the original request was simply asking for church recos.
wargograw
How long do you want to ignore this user?
fig96 said:

wargograw said:

Federale01 said:

wargograw said:

fig96 said:

So for the most part you're avoiding churches that want to actively help disadvantaged or marginalized people.

Seems pretty biblical.
Actively helping is different than celebrating them as members of the church.
How are disadvantage and marginalized people not worthy of being celebrated in the church, though? It is exactly what Jesus calls Christians to do. I understand the biblical issues with homosexuals (although other sins seem to be forgotten when it comes to kicking people out of congregations) or other religions, but I don't understand how helping marginalized people and bringing them into the fold shouldn't be the focus of your church.

This idea that Christians should be biblical scholars but otherwise silent in easing the pain and suffering of others in the world is a bit of an odd one to me. I think Christ would ask what would be the point of learning what he says if you aren't going to practice it.
I was referring to homosexuals (and LGBT folks, who were brought up by another poster) and non-Christians. I thought my statement was broad enough to be understood that way. Of course God saves a weak people (1 Corinthians 1).

And yes, I'm in favor of biblical church discipline for any known, unrepented of sins as well.

This should cover expresswrittenconsent's snark too.
Felt like the OP intentionally listed the policies of several Methodist churches which have a more liberal LGBT policy than most.

I'd hope that a non-Christian would be welcome at service, whatever their belief might be. If not that church is kinda missing the point.
I think you're the one missing the point. I doubt you can find any church in America that is restricting anyone at the door. That's different than actually having them on the membership rolls and part of the church.

Those lines are blurred because people don't know what a healthy church is supposed to be.
wargograw
How long do you want to ignore this user?
expresswrittenconsent said:

My snark is more around the hypocrisy of people like the OP blatantly trolling and then trying to act like it was a serious request.
This thread would have about 10 replies (with 90% being serious and helpful) if the original request was simply asking for church recos.
We were all supposed to get all that out of "This is the kind of clarification only someone "real real smart" can make"?
fig96
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
wargograw said:

fig96 said:

wargograw said:

Federale01 said:

wargograw said:

fig96 said:

So for the most part you're avoiding churches that want to actively help disadvantaged or marginalized people.

Seems pretty biblical.
Actively helping is different than celebrating them as members of the church.
How are disadvantage and marginalized people not worthy of being celebrated in the church, though? It is exactly what Jesus calls Christians to do. I understand the biblical issues with homosexuals (although other sins seem to be forgotten when it comes to kicking people out of congregations) or other religions, but I don't understand how helping marginalized people and bringing them into the fold shouldn't be the focus of your church.

This idea that Christians should be biblical scholars but otherwise silent in easing the pain and suffering of others in the world is a bit of an odd one to me. I think Christ would ask what would be the point of learning what he says if you aren't going to practice it.
I was referring to homosexuals (and LGBT folks, who were brought up by another poster) and non-Christians. I thought my statement was broad enough to be understood that way. Of course God saves a weak people (1 Corinthians 1).

And yes, I'm in favor of biblical church discipline for any known, unrepented of sins as well.

This should cover expresswrittenconsent's snark too.
Felt like the OP intentionally listed the policies of several Methodist churches which have a more liberal LGBT policy than most.

I'd hope that a non-Christian would be welcome at service, whatever their belief might be. If not that church is kinda missing the point.
I think you're the one missing the point. I doubt you can find any church in America that is restricting anyone at the door. That's different than actually having them on the membership rolls and part of the church.

Those lines are blurred because people don't know what a healthy church is supposed to be.
I think you're reading a lot into it assuming that these churches are actively looking to make non-Christians members. What I'm reading says they're welcoming everyone to service and want to work to help the marginalized, which sounds pretty biblical.
Buck Nasty
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
fig96 said:

So for the most part you're avoiding churches that want to actively help disadvantaged or marginalized people.

Seems pretty biblical.

I'm down for helping those in need. What I'm seeing is a bunch of leftist buzzwords like MuH mArGiNaLiZeD pEoPlE!
Buck Nasty
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
expresswrittenconsent said:

My snark is more around the hypocrisy of people like the OP blatantly trolling and then trying to act like it was a serious request.
This thread would have about 10 replies (with 90% being serious and helpful) if the original request was simply asking for church recos.

I wasn't asking for church recos. I was asking for non-leftist church recos.
rather be fishing
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Buck Nasty said:

expresswrittenconsent said:

My snark is more around the hypocrisy of people like the OP blatantly trolling and then trying to act like it was a serious request.
This thread would have about 10 replies (with 90% being serious and helpful) if the original request was simply asking for church recos.

I wasn't asking for church recos. I was asking for non-leftist church recos.


Try Williamson County.
wargograw
How long do you want to ignore this user?
fig96 said:

wargograw said:

fig96 said:

wargograw said:

Federale01 said:

wargograw said:

fig96 said:

So for the most part you're avoiding churches that want to actively help disadvantaged or marginalized people.

Seems pretty biblical.
Actively helping is different than celebrating them as members of the church.
How are disadvantage and marginalized people not worthy of being celebrated in the church, though? It is exactly what Jesus calls Christians to do. I understand the biblical issues with homosexuals (although other sins seem to be forgotten when it comes to kicking people out of congregations) or other religions, but I don't understand how helping marginalized people and bringing them into the fold shouldn't be the focus of your church.

This idea that Christians should be biblical scholars but otherwise silent in easing the pain and suffering of others in the world is a bit of an odd one to me. I think Christ would ask what would be the point of learning what he says if you aren't going to practice it.
I was referring to homosexuals (and LGBT folks, who were brought up by another poster) and non-Christians. I thought my statement was broad enough to be understood that way. Of course God saves a weak people (1 Corinthians 1).

And yes, I'm in favor of biblical church discipline for any known, unrepented of sins as well.

This should cover expresswrittenconsent's snark too.
Felt like the OP intentionally listed the policies of several Methodist churches which have a more liberal LGBT policy than most.

I'd hope that a non-Christian would be welcome at service, whatever their belief might be. If not that church is kinda missing the point.
I think you're the one missing the point. I doubt you can find any church in America that is restricting anyone at the door. That's different than actually having them on the membership rolls and part of the church.

Those lines are blurred because people don't know what a healthy church is supposed to be.
I think you're reading a lot into it assuming that these churches are actively looking to make non-Christians members. What I'm reading says they're welcoming everyone to service and want to work to help the marginalized, which sounds pretty biblical.
Well then saying "I'd hope that a non-Christian would be welcome at service" is a meaningless statement, since absolutely no one is turning away non-Christians.
rather be fishing
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
FWIW, there are a lot of LGBT people at our church that are a better representation of Christian values than what I've seen in this thread.
wargograw
How long do you want to ignore this user?
rather be fishing said:

FWIW, there are a lot of LGBT people at our church that are a better representation of Christian values than what I've seen in this thread.
Then I suppose it's a good thing that's not the standard.
Federale01
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
It just seems like "marginalized people" got distilled down to gay people somehow.

As far as the unrepentant sinner church discipline ideal, I have to laugh a bit. No one is checking at the door to see if the single people are banging out of wedlock or some guy is watching porn all the time. Unrepentant sinners really just seem to perpetrate the sins everyone can see in public for some strange reason.
Federale01
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
wargograw said:

rather be fishing said:

FWIW, there are a lot of LGBT people at our church that are a better representation of Christian values than what I've seen in this thread.
Then I suppose it's a good thing that's not the standard.
This is a confusing statement. Do you mean it's good more gay people don't portray Christian values or it's a good thing the Christians in this thread that seem to have lost sight of Christ's teachings are not the standard?

Btw, Christ said a lot more about being kind and helping each other than he ever did about gay people. I not saying he would have condoned it, but I think he definitely thought one was more important than the other.
wargograw
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Federale01 said:

It just seems like "marginalized people" got distilled down to gay people somehow.

As far as the unrepentant sinner church discipline ideal, I have to laugh a bit. No one is checking at the door to see if the single people are banging out of wedlock or some guy is watching porn all the time. Unrepentant sinners really just seem to perpetrate the sins everyone can see in public for some strange reason.
People aren't as good at hiding those things as you think they are. You have to foster a culture where people are involved in each other's lives and would know those things. Unrepentant people tend to distance themselves from their church families and that is the cue to check on them and see what's going on.

No one's arguing things don't slip through the cracks, but I'd rather follow Jesus' command on this issue over that of the world.
wargograw
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Federale01 said:

wargograw said:

rather be fishing said:

FWIW, there are a lot of LGBT people at our church that are a better representation of Christian values than what I've seen in this thread.
Then I suppose it's a good thing that's not the standard.
This is a confusing statement. Do you mean it's good more gay people don't portray Christian values or it's a good thing the Christians in this thread that seem to have lost sight of Christ's teachings are not the standard?

Btw, Christ said a lot more about being kind and helping each other than he ever did about gay people. I not saying he would have condoned it, but I think he definitely thought one was more important than the other.
Neither. It's a good thing representing "Christian values" is not what it means or takes to be a Christian.

Regularly unkind people should be rebuked too. Where did I defend being unkind? Nowhere. But being kind isn't a license for immorality, is it?
Federale01
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Me too. I think some Christians just emphasize certain aspects of Christ's teachings and forget about others.

And Christ's church on earth will never be perfect as it is formed of fallible men. Thinking one way is the only way is the height of folly and arrogance, IMHO.
Federale01
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Millions of people have been fleeced by corrupt ministers. Thousands of Christian leaders have abused their position for sexual lust, power, and wealth. I disagree with you completely on this issue.
wargograw
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Federale01 said:

Me too. I think some Christians just emphasize certain aspects of Christ's teachings and forget about others.

And Christ's church on earth will never be perfect as it is formed of fallible men. Thinking one way is the only way is the height of folly and arrogance, IMHO.
No idea what this is referring to. Jesus commanded his church to do it this way. That's how we do it.
wargograw
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Federale01 said:

Millions of people have been fleeced by corrupt ministers. Thousands of Christian leaders have abused their position for sexual lust, power, and wealth. I disagree with you completely on this issue.
To switch back to the other topic......and that's why church discipline is critical.
Federale01
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Jesus or Paul?
wargograw
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Federale01 said:

Jesus or Paul?
1. Both (see Matthew 18)
2. If Paul did, Jesus did, so it's a moot question
Federale01
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Is there a difference between sinning against another person and sinning against God? In Matthew 18 Jesus is commenting how to handle a manner when one man sins against another, is he not?

And I know it's not a common Christian belief, but Paul's writings do not equal Jesus' words for me.
Federale01
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Sorry, I don't want to turn this to the R and P board. I'll stop now.
wargograw
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Federale01 said:

Is there a difference between sinning against another person and sinning against God? In Matthew 18 Jesus is commenting how to handle a manner when one man sins against another, is he not?

And I know it's not a common Christian belief, but Paul's writings do not equal Jesus' words for me.
No. See Psalm 51:4. And besides, Jesus says that if the brother does not listen after being rebuked one on one and then by 2-3, "tell it to the church. And if he refuses to listen even to the church, let him be to you as a Gentile and a tax collector." (Matthew 18:17). Jesus then states that God will affirm the decision made by the church if this process is gone through properly.

In Matthew 22:31 Jesus refers to Moses' writings as "God speaking." Paul's writings are Scripture just the same. They're God's Word. Christ's Word. etc.
Automated Chatbot
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Potcake said:

If a church, or religion, is based on political platforms, it isn't a Christian church.
hence his inquiry on non-SJW churches. you mighty triggered, son.
Automated Chatbot
How long do you want to ignore this user?
expresswrittenconsent said:

wargograw said:

fig96 said:

So for the most part you're avoiding churches that want to actively help disadvantaged or marginalized people.

Seems pretty biblical.
Actively helping is different than celebrating them as members of the church.

This is the kind of clarification only someone "real real smart" can make.
you gave yourself the laughing so hard you're crying icon for that? mmmmmmkay.
Page 2 of 2
 
×
Verify your student status
See Subscription Benefits
Trial only available to users who have never subscribed or participated in a previous trial.