An Evangelical Unitarian service

[Goryani]

To be clear about how my church and I view sin and lukewarmness:

Sin is sin. There is no small or large sin. There is no "size" of sin that is tolerable.

everyone in our church struggles with sin, of course that is why we have Jesus to forgive them.

We do not support or accept homosexual behavior in any way at our church. however we do have homosexuals that attend our church. We love every person the same as we all sin in different ways. It is not our job to judge.

Sin isn't always sin. To be more specific: What might be completely acceptable to one person and church may be considered sins to another person and another church. For every church that considers homosexuality to be sinful there is a church that considers judging homosexuality to be sinful is itself sinning.

Homosexuality isn't the only topic like that. Alcohol. Tobacco. Proselytizing. Condoms. Divorce. Visiting other churches or denominations. Not giving money to the poor. Giving money to the poor instead of your congregation (someone has to pay for the preacher's $4k suit). Speeding. Dressing up for Halloween. Telling children about Santa Claus. Allowing women to become ministers and preachers.

Each are considered sins by more than one denomination. Each are considered non-sins by more than one denomination. If you care about a particular issue but your denomination doesn't, then you might say your denomination is lukewarm.

[Leopold Stotch]

Rimshot, for those (Leo) who don't know what it is:

thank God there is an appropriate clip because my mind was in the gutter. again. >.>

Homosexuality isn't the only topic like that. Alcohol. Tobacco. Proselytizing. Condoms. Divorce. Visiting other churches or denominations. Not giving money to the poor. Giving money to the poor instead of your congregation (someone has to pay for the preacher's $4k suit). Speeding. Dressing up for Halloween. Telling children about Santa Claus. Allowing women to become ministers and preachers.

You forgot Pokemon, sweetface.

[kestegs]

Sin isn't always sin. To be more specific: What might be completely acceptable to one person and church may be considered sins to another person and another church. For every church that considers homosexuality to be sinful there is a church that considers judging homosexuality to be sinful is itself sinning.

Homosexuality isn't the only topic like that. Alcohol. Tobacco. Proselytizing. Condoms. Divorce. Visiting other churches or denominations. Not giving money to the poor. Giving money to the poor instead of your congregation (someone has to pay for the preacher's $4k suit). Speeding. Dressing up for Halloween. Telling children about Santa Claus. Allowing women to become ministers and preachers.

Each are considered sins by more than one denomination. Each are considered non-sins by more than one denomination. If you care about a particular issue but your denomination doesn't, then you might say your denomination is lukewarm.

Yes, of course there will always be issues with interpretation and such. I guess that's why we're not the judge

I do see what you're saying about being lukewarm though, it's more about perspective.

@Leo: Everything is relevant as a sermon illustration....trust me

[Leopold Stotch]

wut?

[kestegs]

I'm just saying that preacher's will often use dumb things in real life to make their sermon points. Not exactly what he is doing there, but close.

[Leopold Stotch]

oh, okay. thanks.

[Technomancer]

I have no right to complain about thread hijacking, that would be the definition of hypocritical

Yeah, I know, OTF and all that. It's just when people of faith who also happen to be people of reason talk about religion, I don't like to intrude too much. Now, you get me around people like this (also a great example of differing ideas on sin):



and imma gonna hafta crack my knuckles and get to work! :grin: I used to have to deal with people like that over Dungeons & Dragons!

[kestegs]

Wow!

Ummmm that's offensive even to me, being a christian

I never made this thread with the intention of reasoning the OTF to death, just wanted to start a conversation. Having debates about Christianity can often be rather pointless, as no one is likely going to change their mind. That's why it doesn't bother me to derail it a bit.

[jmervyn]

oh jeez, let's not go there. XD

I boldly go where others fear to tread.

but the other side of the coin is "We're not promoting it. We're showing how tough it is to be a teen mom and how real the situations are."

I believe you're correct, and I also am quite confident that not only are they making a dishonest statement, but IIRC they have been caught in confessing their knowing dishonesty. I don't think I bookmarked the link, though.

some people have heard of "kahn-damns" and some haven't. but sex education and how taboo it seems to be in this country is a different topic for a different day.

There's sex ed and condoms, and then there's shoving smut in the faces of our youth 24/7. The two ain't the same, no matter how much they want to claim so. Plus, I doubt any of my friends didn't know the fundamentals by age 10, and that was before sex ed.

i know, very bad Leo for thinking lustful thoughts in church,

Nothing that hasn't been done for millennia. Nothing you can imagine shocks God (though it might make Him sad).

But it's so uncomfortable. It's like the pastor/priest/whatever can see right into me and I don't like it

Thing is, that's inferiority and guilt. Some of the Enemy's best weapons to keep you from... wait for it... going to church. Hell forbid you go inside, talk with some people, and find that you aren't so uncomfortable after all.

*sigh* I guess I have to be 100% explicit about everything.

But of course.

I know you may disagree with that to a degree, but I know from direct personal experience to the contrary and will never be persuaded otherwise.

The role of religion in morality is one I've had some nasty arguments over, mostly because of the bias and ignorance of my opponents. Religion doesn't <cause> good morals, but it is the tool which society uses to <instill> good morals. Remove it, and the society has far less success doing so. This doesn't mean a particular atheist may be an absolutely vile person, but it does mean that vile people have less reason to restrain themselves.

That's just me.

If you view the Deity as one of the Old Ones, and our creation as accidental, I feel sorry for you. The characterization of God as a malevolent child with a magnifying glass zapping the ants is not a valid one IMO.

As for being left in a bucket, the individual wasn't happy that I confirmed her shocking story of inbreeding.

I disagree that society "needs" to habitually create "others" in order to function. People that covet power might create "others" in order to fulfill their desires but society will function just fine without such deconstructive ambition.

I suspect your rose colored glasses will dim over time. What other cause does the demonization of conservatives by liberals serve, if they're such tolerant harbingers of peace & harmony?

Evil and foulness are certainly a matter of opinion.

Sorry, but no. Having been to more than one concentration camp, that is an invalid belief.

Yet Hate is oft sanctioned as ritual or obeisance. Just ask "Reverend" Phelps. Satan's marketing indeed.

Oh, that's quite true. The "Religion of Peace" defines itself through hate.

I get the feeling that in Techno's example, the person(s) saying Techo had to worship in that manner directly benefited from Techno doing so. I imagine it was similar to the Televangelist that said I was a sinner doomed to hell unless I planted my "Seed of Faith" in his church. By the way, the Seed of Faith was bestowed upon receiving a $1000 donation.

Very possibly. Here's my favorite comment on that subject (starts about a minute in):

[Technomancer]

The role of religion in morality is one I've had some nasty arguments over, mostly because of the bias and ignorance of my opponents. Religion doesn't <cause> good morals, but it is the tool which society uses to <instill> good morals. Remove it, and the society has far less success doing so. This doesn't mean a particular atheist may be an absolutely vile person, but it does mean that vile people have less reason to restrain themselves.

Religion (in moderation imho ) can absolutely bestow good morals, that's why I lean towards "doing more good than harm". My point was just that some people believe it is the ONLY way to do so, and that's just patently false. On the flip side, I've found that the most vile atheists typically had strong religious backgrounds. I've concluded there are likely 2 reasons for this: 1.) Whatever caused them to lose their faith was probably somewhat traumatic (over a short or long term period) and they've decided to run amok in retaliation, and/or 2.) the 'good morals' they were instilled with were built upon nothing concrete, just "You better be good or the devil is gonna getcha!" or "God will be disappoint...", so when that carrot gets taken away (they stop buying it), there is no more reason for them to be moral beyond fear of the legal system. Many Christians witness these types (the 'squeaky wheels'), and conclude that THAT is what atheism is, and so atheism and good morals are contradictory terms. What they don't see are all the good, moral atheists out there that are not militant, hate-filled douchebags, but were instilled with morals in a way that didn't depend on fear of punishment of (from my own perspective) an imaginary daddy figure that's gonna kick your *** when he gets home.

The point of being a good person is being a good person and making life better for those around you, not to avoid punishment. I fear that many times young'ns might not get a clear sense of which is which in a strictly religious upbringing.

If you view the Deity as one of the Old Ones, and our creation as accidental, I feel sorry for you. The characterization of God as a malevolent child with a magnifying glass zapping the ants is not a valid one IMO.

Haha, no, I don't think there's anything sinister either, just vaguely indifferent to mildly proactive. Of course, thats assuming there is something. As a scientific person, I can't say absolutely no way, but I'm the next best thing to thinking there isn't.

To put it in Diablo terms (O_o), it's like me saying there is no secret unicorn level in D3, but if there somehow is, said unicorns wouldn't likely fart rainbows.