This Is Why We Get a Bad Rap!!

[Michlow]

Originally Posted by Monkeyman

So, Pastor Sherri, I think DG's and Michlows posts help contribute to the Bad Rap theory, no?

Nothing is a sin, and standard keeping churches may not even live "in" Christ, sheeesh

Ummm...to be fair, I didn't mention the UPC or standards' keeping churches in my post at all. And I certainly didn't say that nothing is sin. I simply said that words in and of themselves aren't necessarily sin, but it is all about how they are used.

The following words are not swear words, but I doubt you would disagree that they can be used sinfully:

fat, stupid, ugly, moron, idiot, imbecile, cow, loser, retarded....etc...

[Monkeyman]

Originally Posted by revrandy

Your an angry monkey...

And you're a giant hillbilly, what's your point, he he he

[deltaguitar]

Originally Posted by Monkeyman

You said, This is TYPICAL of those who are in works-based churches (churches who hold to standards)...then continued on to say that their relationship is all askew and possibly not "in" Christ....broad-brushing?? How about taking the whole paint can and dumping it on me?

This is so typical of legalism in any denomination. Most of the standards that the UPC folks hold to don't bother me at all if people can follow them without the standards becoming the central focus of the church. I just hated trying to explain them to new folks or converts.

But I maintain that it is very easy to lose proper focus of God and possibly never have true faith in God in an environment where the focus is not on Christ. I know you go to a progressive church that probably has none of these issues.

[Monkeyman]

Originally Posted by Michlow

Ummm...to be fair, I didn't mention the UPC or standards' keeping churches in my post at all. And I certainly didn't say that nothing is sin. I simply said that words in and of themselves aren't necessarily sin, but it is all about how they are used.

The following words are not swear words, but I doubt you would disagree that they can be used sinfully:

fat, stupid, ugly, moron, idiot, imbecile, cow, loser, retarded....etc...

And Randy is a giant hillbilly, whats your point? LOL
I really need a starbucks!

[Monkeyman]

Originally Posted by deltaguitar

This is so typical of legalism in any denomination. Most of the standards that the UPC folks hold to don't bother me at all if people can follow them without the standards becoming the central focus of the church. I just hated trying to explain them to new folks or converts.

But I maintain that it is very easy to lose proper focus of God and possibly never have true faith in God in an environment where the focus is not on Christ. I know you go to a progressive church that probably has none of these issues.

True..and Randy is a giant hillbilly...going to get my starbucks now

[revrandy]

I like angry monkeys...

[SOUNWORTHY]

Originally Posted by Monkeyman

And then we get this...sheesh, come on my lib friends, please defend us who are still in the ark!!!!!!

DG, this post was garbage

I agree completely!! I don't understand why it seems to be open season on UPC by so many people on AFF. Could it be that when some people leave UPC that God turns them over to reprobate minds. Don't get me wrong, I don't agree with everything that happens in the Org but neither do I agree with everything my wife, my friends and my children do or say but I will defend them. I have always been considered middle of the road UPC.

One more thing. I see no need to use bad language even if I smash my finger! OUCH that hurts is enough!!

[n david]

Originally Posted by Dordrecht

You are right, and I also do not mean any offense, but I classify this as useless gossip.

It's absurd to accuse someone without coming out with proof.

This thread boils down to the tongue.
The Bible is very clear about these kind of issues.

Proverbs 25:23 and Romans 1:30 make mention of a backbiting tongue. A backbiter is someone who uses their tongue against you when you aren't present, yet they will not face you with their charges when you are present. This is a cowardly backbiter who would rather stir up problems than solve problems.

A backbiter would much rather talk ABOUT someone than talk TO the person. A backbiter would much rather talk ABOUT some weak Christian in the church than offer some words of encouragement TO them. A backbiter is of no use to anyone, and no one has ever been strengthened or edified through backbiting. Beware of the backbiters, especially the ones who sow discord among brethren (Pro. 6:19)!

While I agree with some of this post, I don't believe Sherri meant any malice or had ill will against the individual. Furthermore, to describe her as cowardly is to reveal your novice with this forum. The lady is not a coward.

I don't agree with the decision to post without a source, but I wouldn't dare accuse her of any ill malice or of being a coward.

Originally Posted by MissBrattified

Since Sherri didn't link to the blog, or actually name the author, she hasn't slandered anyone, despite requests from you and at least one other person for the details.

Slander is spoken, libel is written; neither would apply here.

Originally Posted by MissBrattified

So which is it? Do you want her to actually gossip about someone and give you the personal details? Or do you want to discuss the topic generically, without names, numbers and addresses, so as to NOT gossip, slander or backbite about anyone in particular?

It is perfectly acceptable, for example, to start a thread about stealing. "I know a person who shoplifts, who claims to be a Christian. What do you think about that?" THAT is not gossiping about someone behind their back. Gossiping would be saying, "Sis. __________ shoplifts when she goes to Target every week, and I think we need to talk about that."

Hmmm... regardless of using a name or not, if you're speaking of an idividual with or without revealing the name, it's gossiping. LoL Doesn't matter if there's a name and source included ... it's about a specific individual.

Originally Posted by MissBrattified

Furthermore, when someone posts something publicly, for all the world to read, it isn't private. It's no different than taking out an ad in the newspaper, posting your opinions for all the world to see--and discuss. Is it backbiting to talk about an article in a newspaper, and what the author meant by it?

As in any blog, book or open letter, the author has no expectation of privacy, which includes both positive and negative comments about what was written.

Originally Posted by MissBrattified

I agree that it's hard to discuss something effectively without being able to independently review the source. However, admin would probably remove any link because of the language, and if we start getting into specific names and churches, other problems arise.

There have been plenty of threads that name both the minister and location, so that arguement has no feet to stand on.

Magic Hair ...

Lawsuits or criminal proceedings against ministers ...

I'm sure there are other instances that could be found on AFF.

As far as what's allowed by admin, any youtube links could contain comments from individuals with swear words.

[Sherri]

Wow, I didn't mean to open a whole ugly can of worms! LOL! I was just venting because this disturbed me alot. I didn't realize that people would want names, addresses, church names, SS#'s, etc.

[n david]

Originally Posted by SOUNWORTHY

Could it be that when some people leave UPC that God turns them over to reprobate minds.

Uhmm.... wow. To be diplomatic with my response, I'd say I disagree with your statement here.