Visited a non UPC church

[RandyWayne]

Originally Posted by AreYouReady?

I once gave a diamond ring to the pastor, but I am not going to give up my wedding ring. I consider it more of an heirloom than of a monetary value, of which I am going to pass down to my daughter-in-law.

Ever wish you could get it back?

[KeptByTheWord]

Originally Posted by Titus2woman

I've also never heard of a church turning down gambling winnings... what's with that?

Ya, the issue of gambling money.... since it came to you in an unlawful way, to rid yourself of the sin... just give it all to the church

[Titus2woman]

Originally Posted by KeptByTheWord

Ya, the issue of gambling money.... since it came to you in an unlawful way, to rid yourself of the sin... just give it all to the church

Oh... that's what it is... smart....and crafty...

[seekerman]

Gaming...it's GAMING....sheesh!!

[Titus2woman]

Originally Posted by seekerman

Gaming...it's GAMING....sheesh!!

I bet it's not

[AreYouReady?]

Originally Posted by RandyWayne

Ever wish you could get it back?

No. I was looking to get rid of it. Bad memories.

[commonsense]

Originally Posted by Hoovie

Your point is noted. However, I did not infer that there weren't many conservatives and ultra conservatives in the UPC in the past 65 years. I would not only agree with that, but also think there were times when they were in the majority.

This does not negate the fact that men were elected into UPC office, even General Superintendent, who did not hold hard-line positions on things like jewelry and cut hair on women, not to even mention contrasting views of what constitutes the New Birth.

This speaks of tolerance we don't see today - in spite of the fact (as you accurately pointed out) many conservatives have now left the UPC.

For what it's worth your bias is showing when you state, "worldiness was permitted"...

Remember the UPC was formed in 1945_____________
Just to chime in....there were oneness saints that believed and practiced Acts 2:38 totally....but were not held to the "standards" insisted on today.
As in> hair trimmed, jewelry worn etc
Yes, there were those who did not cut their hair but it was not required in the sense it is today.

And my pastor in the 50's had a very well known name.

[returnman]

Originally Posted by NorCal

Who was a General Sup that did not hold a hard-line on those positions. Even the late Rev Kenneth Haney held a hard line on those positions. And he was considered Liberal on the UC's.

Rev Haney just believed in a different application of that. You do not run people off just because they will not submit to your view of a standard.

I put this out there, if you do not have people in your church with TV's, Rings, Tattoos, Cut Hair, pant wearing women, etc. Then you are not reaching the lost. Teaching like that needs to be done on a personal level, not blasted over the platform in a boasting manner.

Also, a conviction for one pastor may not be the same for another. Why, because that may not be a spirit that he, or his church is fighting. But believe you me, when you live here in California where the spirit of Homosexuality is rampant (even in our churches) you have to take a stand and say "This line will not be crossed!"

You have to learn to discern what is Bible Foundation, what is a Pastors Conviction, and what is your own conviction.

I have heard and think I have read where the first GS, Goss, was not "hardlined."

[Nitehawk013]

Originally Posted by NorCal

Who was a General Sup that did not hold a hard-line on those positions. Even the late Rev Kenneth Haney held a hard line on those positions. And he was considered Liberal on the UC's.

Rev Haney just believed in a different application of that. You do not run people off just because they will not submit to your view of a standard.

I put this out there, if you do not have people in your church with TV's, Rings, Tattoos, Cut Hair, pant wearing women, etc. Then you are not reaching the lost. Teaching like that needs to be done on a personal level, not blasted over the platform in a boasting manner.

Also, a conviction for one pastor may not be the same for another. Why, because that may not be a spirit that he, or his church is fighting. But believe you me, when you live here in California where the spirit of Homosexuality is rampant (even in our churches) you have to take a stand and say "This line will not be crossed!"

You have to learn to discern what is Bible Foundation, what is a Pastors Conviction, and what is your own conviction.

No offense to you Norcal, but the idea of Pastoral conviction is hogwash. Where in the NT does the scripture give a precedent for it? Where does scripture teach that a single man has a right to load his own convictions on everyone else?

Paul certainly didn't. He made it clear what was his own opinion and what was not. And when it was just his own opinion, the saints weren't bound to follow it or be considered sinful and rebellious.

Teach people how to love God and follow their own convictions, don't just heap your own issues and problems on all the church.

[Hoovie]

Originally Posted by Nitehawk013

No offense to you Norcal, but the idea of Pastoral conviction is hogwash. Where in the NT does the scripture give a precedent for it? Where does scripture teach that a single man has a right to load his own convictions on everyone else?

Paul certainly didn't. He made it clear what was his own opinion and what was not. And when it was just his own opinion, the saints weren't bound to follow it or be considered sinful and rebellious.

Teach people how to love God and follow their own convictions, don't just heap your own issues and problems on all the church.

yeah... what Nite said.