Actively helping is different than celebrating them as members of the church.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.fig96 said:
So for the most part you're avoiding churches that want to actively help disadvantaged or marginalized people.
Seems pretty biblical.
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.wargograw said:Actively helping is different than celebrating them as members of the church.fig96 said:
So for the most part you're avoiding churches that want to actively help disadvantaged or marginalized people.
Seems pretty biblical.
wargograw said:Actively helping is different than celebrating them as members of the church.fig96 said:
So for the most part you're avoiding churches that want to actively help disadvantaged or marginalized people.
Seems pretty biblical.
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).Federale01 said: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.wargograw said:Actively helping is different than celebrating them as members of the church.fig96 said:
So for the most part you're avoiding churches that want to actively help disadvantaged or marginalized people.
Seems pretty biblical.
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.
Felt like the OP intentionally listed the policies of several Methodist churches which have a more liberal LGBT policy than most.wargograw said: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).Federale01 said: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.wargograw said:Actively helping is different than celebrating them as members of the church.fig96 said:
So for the most part you're avoiding churches that want to actively help disadvantaged or marginalized people.
Seems pretty biblical.
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.
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.
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.fig96 said:Felt like the OP intentionally listed the policies of several Methodist churches which have a more liberal LGBT policy than most.wargograw said: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).Federale01 said: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.wargograw said:Actively helping is different than celebrating them as members of the church.fig96 said:
So for the most part you're avoiding churches that want to actively help disadvantaged or marginalized people.
Seems pretty biblical.
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.
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.
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.
We were all supposed to get all that out of "This is the kind of clarification only someone "real real smart" can make"?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 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.wargograw said: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.fig96 said:Felt like the OP intentionally listed the policies of several Methodist churches which have a more liberal LGBT policy than most.wargograw said: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).Federale01 said: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.wargograw said:Actively helping is different than celebrating them as members of the church.fig96 said:
So for the most part you're avoiding churches that want to actively help disadvantaged or marginalized people.
Seems pretty biblical.
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.
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.
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.
Those lines are blurred because people don't know what a healthy church is supposed to be.
fig96 said:
So for the most part you're avoiding churches that want to actively help disadvantaged or marginalized people.
Seems pretty biblical.
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.
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.
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.fig96 said: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.wargograw said: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.fig96 said:Felt like the OP intentionally listed the policies of several Methodist churches which have a more liberal LGBT policy than most.wargograw said: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).Federale01 said: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.wargograw said:Actively helping is different than celebrating them as members of the church.fig96 said:
So for the most part you're avoiding churches that want to actively help disadvantaged or marginalized people.
Seems pretty biblical.
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.
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.
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.
Those lines are blurred because people don't know what a healthy church is supposed to be.
Then I suppose it's a good thing that's not the standard.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.
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?wargograw said:Then I suppose it's a good thing that's not the standard.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.
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.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.
Neither. It's a good thing representing "Christian values" is not what it means or takes to be a Christian.Federale01 said: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?wargograw said:Then I suppose it's a good thing that's not the standard.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.
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.
No idea what this is referring to. Jesus commanded his church to do it this way. That's how we do it.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.
To switch back to the other topic......and that's why church discipline is critical.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.
1. Both (see Matthew 18)Federale01 said:
Jesus or Paul?
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.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.
hence his inquiry on non-SJW churches. you mighty triggered, son.Potcake said:
If a church, or religion, is based on political platforms, it isn't a Christian church.
you gave yourself the laughing so hard you're crying icon for that? mmmmmmkay.expresswrittenconsent said:wargograw said:Actively helping is different than celebrating them as members of the church.fig96 said:
So for the most part you're avoiding churches that want to actively help disadvantaged or marginalized people.
Seems pretty biblical.
This is the kind of clarification only someone "real real smart" can make.