NationStates Jolt Archive

The United Church of Christ recently decided by a large majority (80%) to officially support gay marriages.

Now, I'm a liberal Christian, and the UCC is my favorite denomination. They seem pretty openminded, and I love their semi-new slogan "God is still speaking".


So, please take a look at www.ucc.org, and tell me your thoughts on the denomination.

Please, no Christian bashing, as I am one and it gets old really quick. If you disagree with Christianity, fine. But this thread isn't about that. Please stick to the topic.

Hey! Good for them. Bet they'll get plenty of death threats now.

I'll sit here with the popcorn and watch as all other denominations rush to say how they're lying and not really Christian etc....

Now before I voice my opinion, let me say that I am fully in support of gay marriage. That being said, I really am annoyed to hear that. The Bible is very clear on the issue of homosexuallity, and right or wrong, if you're christian you should accept that. The church's belief should never have to bow to public pressure or "get with the times".
Let me repeat however that I'm fully in support of a gay couples right to marriage. I just don't think a christian church has to be.

Now before I voice my opinion, let me say that I am fully in support of gay marriage. That being said, I really am annoyed to hear that. The Bible is very clear on the issue of homosexuallity, and right or wrong, if you're christian you should accept that. The church's belief should never have to bow to public pressure or "get with the times".
Let me repeat however that I'm fully in support of a gay couples right to marriage. I just don't think a christian church has to be.
Check some of the other threads and you will see that it really isn't. ;)

On the actually topic at hand: I'm glad that the Christian community has taken these steps. Unfortunately, the local media is reporting this as though the religious leaders of the United Church of Christ have been posessed by Satan. Oh, sure, they don't say that, but their tone and body language are make their right-wing slant painfully obvious.

Heh, I bet the new pope Ratzinger'll be Uber pissed at this

Dramatization of events to come:

"I HEREBY EXCOMMUNICATE ALL OF YOU!!!!111!!!111!"

Oh yeah, this is gonna be hilarious

I think that it is a bit more cohesive than a Divided Church of CHrist

They seem ok except for wanting Israel to tear down the anti-terrorist fence. That fence has saved lives.

Now before I voice my opinion, let me say that I am fully in support of gay marriage. That being said, I really am annoyed to hear that. The Bible is very clear on the issue of homosexuallity, and right or wrong, if you're christian you should accept that. The church's belief should never have to bow to public pressure or "get with the times".
Let me repeat however that I'm fully in support of a gay couples right to marriage. I just don't think a christian church has to be.

Neither did I. I'm actually officially Southern Baptist.

The UCC is just doing exactly what it has in the past. They were the first ones to... call for desegregation, call for an end to slavery, they were the first to have a black minister and woman minister, ordainded the first gay minister, and freed 10 civil rights activists right here in my own city after they were put in jail.

Yes, they are very political, but then again, almost all denominations are, and I'd rather be on their side that my own denomination, which boycotted Disney just because they hired gay workers.

Hmmph, I (and most other) Christians have never really considered them Christian anyway as they reject a good portion of the Bible. *goes off mumbling about false prophets and wolves in sheep's clothing*

Hmmph, I (and most other) Christians have never really considered them Christian anyway as they reject a good portion of the Bible. *goes off mumbling about false prophets and wolves in sheep's clothing*
10 minutes, Sanct. Might be a new record.

10 minutes, Sanct. Might be a new record.



Lol, it's true though. It was predicted by Paul and happens all the time.

Hmmph, I (and most other) Christians have never really considered them Christian anyway as they reject a good portion of the Bible. *goes off mumbling about false prophets and wolves in sheep's clothing*
Seems to me they kept the good portion of the bible and rejected the bad parts.

Then we need more of them not-real-Christians... they seem nicer, more loving and forgiving, as well as accepting of others.

Lol, it's true though. It was predicted by Paul and happens all the time.

In my opinion we're all fucked, due to a group of people a long time ago deciding the Bible should be closed and not be added to any more. God changed his mind a few times in the bible, who's to say he hasn't again since 100 AD?

Maybe he's decided the Macarena is a sin or something... And now we'll never know, because we've cut off all communication with him.

In my opinion we're all fucked, due to a group of people a long time ago deciding the Bible should be closed and not be added to any more. God changed his mind a few times in the bible, who's to say he hasn't again since 100 AD?

Maybe he's decided the Macarena is a sin or something... And now we'll never know, because we've cut off all communication with him.
Yes, the Macarena is a sin against sanity. :p

As a member of the United Church of Canada (representing 3 million Canadians), I am happy for them.

In my opinion we're all fucked, due to a group of people a long time ago deciding the Bible should be closed and not be added to any more. God changed his mind a few times in the bible, who's to say he hasn't again since 100 AD?

Maybe he's decided the Macarena is a sin or something... And now we'll never know, because we've cut off all communication with him.



His plan came to fruition and his new and final law was established, and, yes, macarena is inherently a sin because it...well...it's just annoying :p

His plan came to fruition and his new and final law was established,
Prove it. God told me that his plan hasn't even started yet. Why is your version better than mine?

10 minutes, Sanct. Might be a new record.
Hm, I didn't think it would happen on Ns.... daymn I'm good!:p

Prove it. God told me that his plan hasn't even started yet. Why is your version better than mine?



Because mine performed miracles, fulfilled prophecies, and rose from the dead ;)

Well, I believe like the UCC now does, and the Baptists USED to, that people have a personal connection with God. God talks to people personally, and that the overall church has no say over how people must believe or what God's final word is.


The United Church of Christ general synod does not control all of the UCC church decisions. All decisions are made in each church. Some churches are very conservative, whereas the head group is very liberal.

The Baptist churches, however, disown their churches when they don't agree, and have banned the ordination of women.

Therefore, my beliefs are more like the UCCs are now.

Interesting fact, the witch-hunters of old are now the UCC, and the people who were all about freedom of religion and such are now the Baptists.

Because mine performed miracles, fulfilled prophecies, and rose from the dead ;)
So did mine. Hell, he rose from the dead ten times.

So did mine. Hell, he rose from the dead ten times.



I'd like to see eyewitness accounts and miracles please :)

wouldn't the dali lahma trump both of you?

Because mine performed miracles, fulfilled prophecies, and rose from the dead ;)


I believe he asked for proof. Wheres the proof, because what you provided wasn't it? And don't say "it's in the pudding", cuz I'm hungry.

I'd like to see eyewitness accounts and miracles please :)
I witnessed it. Hell, just to prove it to you, he killed himself and rose from the dead about 10 seconds ago. As for miracles, he was the one that inspired Lucas to make a prequel that didn't suck. If that's not a miracle, nothing is.

wouldn't the dali lahma trump both of you?



Whenever I think of him, I think of a personified llama wearing a toga and sitting in a meditative position on a mountain-top in the Himalayas :D

I witnessed it. Hell, just to prove it to you, he killed himself and rose from the dead about 10 seconds ago. As for miracles, he was the one that inspired Lucas to make a prequel that didn't suck. If that's not a miracle, nothing is.



Several thousand witnesses please :) (and episodes 1 and 2 weren't THAT bad...)

Well, I believe like the UCC now does, and the Baptists USED to, that people have a personal connection with God. God talks to people personally, and that the overall church has no say over how people must believe or what God's final word is.
True!
The UC believes that a church should work from bottom to top (members to leadership)... that's part of the Congregational heritage. (Other roots of this church are Presbyterian, Methodist and to a lesser extent, French Huguenot)

Why whouldn't every human or group of humans have a connection with God?
He loves us all as individuals, as families, as groups, as societies, as humanity.
God's present at all levels.

It's pathetic/dangerous to believe that a priest/pastor has a "privileged channel" with God. Would we give away our spiritual life to others? A priest/pastor is just more educated with the moral and spiritual concepts of our religion. He/she can lead a group of believers through a religious celebration, or give advices (when asked), or preside meetings over religious matters (between humans)... but ultimately, a conversation with God is of personal matters.

I believe he asked for proof. Wheres the proof, because what you provided wasn't it? And don't say "it's in the pudding", cuz I'm hungry.



You can't prove something happened in the past, you have to put trust in the historians and records from the time documenting it. Same for us.

Several thousand witnesses please :)
The entire state of Rhode Island. However, he then wiped their minds with his magic powers. It's all detailed in The Holy Book of Total Awesomeness. With Ninjas.

(and episodes 1 and 2 weren't THAT bad...)
There goes all of your credibility.

You can't prove something happened in the past, you have to put trust in the historians and records from the time documenting it. Same for us.
The problem is that in past societies, guess who had control over recorded history? Religious leaders. Even if thousands of people all really did claim to witness any miracles, there is still the possibility that they saw what they wanted to see rather than what actually happened. Mass delusion.

You can't prove something happened in the past, you have to put trust in the historians and records from the time documenting it. Same for us.


Exactly - you can't prove it. Glad you recognize that.

You can't prove something happened in the past, you have to put trust in the historians and records from the time documenting it. Same for us.
No contemporaneous accounts even mention Yeshua ben Yosef. If there are, it's your job to show them to us.

The problem is that in past societies, guess who had control over recorded history? Religious leaders. Even if thousands of people all really did claim to witness any miracles, there is still the possibility that they saw what they wanted to see rather than what actually happened. Mass delusion.



The probability of thousands of individuals experiencing the same exact hallucination is so minute as to not be considered possible.

The probability of thousands of individuals experiencing the same exact hallucination is so minute as to not be considered possible.
I'm not even going to explore the scientific probablility of those thousands all halluncinating at once.

I didn't even say they hallucinated. Perhaps they saw something a little bit odd to them, and believed in to be some kind of magic, and as they told the story to others, they exaggerated some. Then their crowd told others while exaggerating more, and then that group told another, and that group told yet another... eventually, people believed that Jesus was a miracle worker.

I think they are great, When the revolution comes they will be the ones to suppourt it from the christain side (mostly joking, but thats what would happen if the revolution came) But in all seriousness, I think its cool that they are so open minded, yet still hang on to their beliefes.

(and episodes 1 and 2 weren't THAT bad...)

BLASPHEMER!

The probability of thousands of individuals experiencing the same exact hallucination is so minute as to not be considered possible.
Still can't answer my question, can you. If you can't provide contemporaneous accounts that Yeshua ben Yosef existed, there's no reason to talk about those thousands of people.

Still can't answer my question, can you. If you can't provide contemporaneous accounts that Yeshua ben Yosef existed, there's no reason to talk about those thousands of people.

Josephus, he was contemporary. I think.

Josephus, he was contemporary. I think.
The documents have been know to be falsified for years now. Josephus's actual writings did not mention Yeshua ben Yosef. They mentioned a man who claimed to be the Messiah, but there were dozens of them back then.

Then we need more of them not-real-Christians... they seem nicer, more loving and forgiving, as well as accepting of others.
A-fucking-men!

Odd, isn't it?

The UCC's are actually promoting 'love for fellow beings, no matter gender, age, race, etc. ' and they get called all sorts of nasty names for it. sigh.

What do I think of them byandlarge as a group? A fine bunch of folks. God keep 'em safe from the rest of its followers.

Is this true? A group of Christians who actually seem to fit the charecter of Christ. I can't believe it!

Is this true? A group of Christians who actually seem to fit the charecter of Christ. I can't believe it!



If they were attempting to emulate Christ, wouldn't they follow his commandments? ;)

Odd, isn't it?

The UCC's are actually promoting 'love for fellow beings, no matter gender, age, race, etc. ' and they get called all sorts of nasty names for it. sigh.

What do I think of them byandlarge as a group? A fine bunch of folks. God keep 'em safe from the rest of its followers.



I'm sorry, but you're misinformed. No Christian church (to my knowledge anyway) rejects people based upon their age, gender or race. Do they disfellowship those who continue to live in sin instead of repenting when they do err and reject the Bible's teachings? Yes.

If they were attempting to emulate Christ, wouldn't they follow his commandments? ;)

Yup. Things like "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you," or "Love your neighbor." And then, of course, there is the example he set by not rejecting any who came to hear his teachings.


I'm sorry, but you're misinformed. No Christian church (to my knowledge anyway) rejects people based upon their age, gender or race.

You don't live in the rural southern US, now do you?

If they were attempting to emulate Christ, wouldn't they follow his commandments? ;)
They are though: Love thy neighbour, all men are created equally et c.

Plus you know, the whole bit about tolerance...

There's nothing against loving homosexual relationships in the bible.

They are though: Love thy neighbour, all men are created equally et c.

Plus you know, the whole bit about tolerance...

There's nothing against loving homosexual relationships in the bible.

The bolded can be disputed. It's all a matter of interpretation.

And I agree--we should love our neighbors. The church should be obligated to let any who would come in. However, that doesn't mean we should condone sinful actions or lifestyles. If a member of the church has been found to have committed adultery more than once, it's the church's obligation to take away that person's membership. Same with any repeated action in sin, be that lying, stealing, or, to some, a homosexual/bisexual lifestyle. We let them in, as I said, but all must be repentant of their sins before they should be admitted membership.

EDIT: That's not to say that we shouldn't show our love to those outside the church. Far from it. It's our obligation as Christians to show Christ's love to all. I shake my head in dismay at groups like Fred Phelps's "God hates fags" and others. They should be loving them, not spitting venom.

EDIT: That's not to say that we shouldn't show our love to those outside the church. Far from it. It's our obligation as Christians to show Christ's love to all. I shake my head in dismay at groups like Fred Phelps's "God hates fags" and others. They should be loving them, not spitting venom.

Loving them by giving up on them and kicking them out of the church, rather than trying to convince them to repent?

Loving them by pretending superiority because some people's sins are actually out in the open?

Loving them by saying, "My interpretation of these texts are absolutely and infallibily correct, so you are sinning whether God leads you to believe you are or not"?

Methinks that your use of the word "love" is a bit skewed.

Loving them by giving up on them and kicking them out of the church, rather than trying to convince them to repent?

That's not to say we shouldn't give them a chance to repent. I should have been clearer and I apologize. Those who are unrepentant are the ones that need their membership taken away until they are convicted by God's Holy Grace to turn their back on sin and return. Once their membership is removed doesn't mean it has to be permanent.

This is why I said it's the multiple offenders that need to be stripped of membership. Everyone slips, and it's the church's duty to help them back to their feet. But when they start to drag down others for the sake of living in that sin, then it becomes something that only God can help with.

Loving them by pretending superiority because some people's sins are actually out in the open?

Nice of you to generalize about us. Some Christians actually make it a point to stay blemish free. However, when we do stumble, we're obligated to tell our bretheren with a repentant heart. The Church is a body. We're to work together as a whole. If part of the body turns gangrenous and begins to harm the rest of it, we're instructed to cut it off. There is no superiority. At the least, there shouldn't be. There's a difference between doing what is right for the whole and stomping on the individual. We make it a point to do the former.

Loving them by saying, "My interpretation of these texts are absolutely and infallibily correct, so you are sinning whether God leads you to believe you are or not"?

It depends on the denomination and it's interpretation of the word. If you apply for membership to a denomination, you are also accepting their interpretations of scripture, as well as their doctrines. Doing that, if you step out of those interpretations and disobey those doctrines, you are violating that which you have applied for and have willfully done so. If you remain unrepentant, why shouldn't the Church let you go?

Methinks that your use of the word "love" is a bit skewed.

Love is caring for others above yourself no matter what. We try to show this in all our doings. This also applies to the church, the Body. If we love the body we will take care of it, and rid it of anything harmful. If someone becomes harmful, living in sin without remorse, then would it not then be love to rid that part from the body before it hurts others?

I disagree with them on alot of things. But heck, their my brother in Christ, as long as they preach Christ, forgiveness and redemption, their alright by me.

Hey! Good for them. Bet they'll get plenty of death threats now.

Or they'll be picketed by the Anti-Christ, a.k.a. Fred Phelps.

That's not to say we shouldn't give them a chance to repent. I should have been clearer and I apologize. Those who are unrepentant are the ones that need their membership taken away until they are convicted by God's Holy Grace to turn their back on sin and return. Once their membership is removed doesn't mean it has to be permanent.

If you won't let them in to hear the teachings, how exactly are they to be convinced to repent?

This is why I said it's the multiple offenders that need to be stripped of membership. Everyone slips, and it's the church's duty to help them back to their feet. But when they start to drag down others for the sake of living in that sin, then it becomes something that only God can help with.

Are others so weak in their faith that simply being around someone who sins will "drag them down" into it?

Nice of you to generalize about us.

I didn't generalize about anyone. If you say "We should kick out sinners who repeat their sins," you are being a hypocrite. No matter how hard you try, you are not going to completely keep away from sin - even sins you have committed before. Suggesting that the rest of the church doesn't have similar problems to those you advocate kicking out is claiming superiority.

Some Christians actually make it a point to stay blemish free.

No, we make it a point to try to stay blemish free. None of us succeed.

However, when we do stumble, we're obligated to tell our bretheren with a repentant heart. The Church is a body. We're to work together as a whole. If part of the body turns gangrenous and begins to harm the rest of it, we're instructed to cut it off.

Is that why Christ was regularly seen saying, "Hey you, sinner, don't come listen to me speak. My teachings are only for those who already follow them!"

Wait, I don't remember that part.

It depends on the denomination and it's interpretation of the word. If you apply for membership to a denomination, you are also accepting their interpretations of scripture, as well as their doctrines.

And this is the problem. Why must you have faith in human beings, rather than in God, to be a part of a church? Luckily, some denominations have realized that no human being is infallible, and that disagreements will occur.

Doing that, if you step out of those interpretations and disobey those doctrines, you are violating that which you have applied for and have willfully done so. If you remain unrepentant, why shouldn't the Church let you go?

Well, for one thing, a church that follows Christ should be trying to offer salvation to all.

Love is caring for others above yourself no matter what. We try to show this in all our doings. This also applies to the church, the Body. If we love the body we will take care of it, and rid it of anything harmful. If someone becomes harmful, living in sin without remorse, then would it not then be love to rid that part from the body before it hurts others?

Again, you assume such weak faith on the part of the rest of the congregation.

When you get a cut on your arm, do you lob off the entire thing? No, of course not. You attempt to heal that cut. The only time amputation is even a question is if there is no way possible to save it. Of course, as humans, we are not capable of deciding that there is no way to save someone - only God can see into their hearts.

I find the denomination to be full of genuinely good hearted people who have some major doctrinal deficiencies.

I'm sorry, but you're misinformed. No Christian church (to my knowledge anyway) rejects people based upon their age, gender or race. Do they disfellowship those who continue to live in sin instead of repenting when they do err and reject the Bible's teachings? Yes.

Just because the ownership of a church denomination doesn't, doesn't mean a church itself doesn't. The SBC won't allow women to preach. Their little booklet on how churches should be run and how people should live says that women should be submissive to their husbands.

Some churches don't have youth groups or children's church. If it's mainly older people in the church, they may look down on a family that brings their kids. I've seen it happen before.

Oh, and since when do you have to live a clean life to be a Christian? According to the Bible, all you have to do is believe that Jesus died for you to get into heaven.

As Bruce Dickinson from Iron Maiden said in the song "Holy Smokes" about these holier than thou churches, "I've lived in filth, I've lived in sin, but I still smell cleaner than the sh*t you're in."