Back with some new perspective

[tv1a]

Sorry you had to experience the evil of upci politics. You don't need people like that trying to run your life. I promise if you keep looking forward, you won't miss the garbage.

Originally Posted by Roxanne Murphy

Hello Harmony, yes we do live in the same "neighborhood". You are very aware of the attitude towards those who leave the 'ark of safety', the UPC. It has been rough sometimes hearing the things that have been said about our church by some that I very much respected and believed to be godly people. Our church is in a big metro area in the midst of several UPC churches. So it is interesting to run into folks we know from those other churches. The reaction is varied, to be sure. They are mostly surprised to discover that I don't look any different than I did before we 'backslid', unless I happen to be wearing capris/culottes that day. I am not a person to change things for change sake. I can still go to any UPC church and look like I am a member.

[KeptByTheWord]

Originally Posted by ILG

I guess I was looking more at when doctrines themselves produce certain outcomes. Let's look at the Mormons as an example since that would not probably have much bias from either one of us since neither of us is Mormon, nor has a stake in Mormonism.

Mormonism teaches polygamy is not only fine, but from my understanding, fundamental Mormonism teaches that polygamy is essential for salvation. Keep in mind the word fundamental.

Mormonism has a number of branches to it. The mainstream Mormon church as I see it, is more like "Mormon-lite". They teach the Mormon faith, and, how exactly they get around the fundamental teaching of polygamy, I am not quite sure, but I understand that some of their latter day prophets lifted the requirement.

So, the more conservative churches practice polygamy as a central tenet and they break away from the mainstream Mormon church for not "being true" to the Mormon faith.

The reason I bring this up is to show that doctrines have outcomes. In the Apostolic faith, since polygamy is not a tenet or doctrine, we have no arguments over it. In the Mormon faith, they swing from one extreme to the other. The bottom line is that in the more extreme Mormon churches, the doctrine of polygamy takes on a life of it's own, in scary ways. This does not mean that the individual Mormons that practice this are "bad". However, people looking in from the outside may point to the polygamist doctrines and the other doctrines the Mormon faith has and show how it weaves a tapestry that should be avoided.

In the same way, all groups doctrines and beliefs weave tapestries. This doesn't say anything about the individuals that are a part of those groups.

However, when someone rejects the tapestry, those inside the group can become offended, because it is their tapestry. There is a difference between criticizing the tapestry and criticizing the individual that has that tapestry as a part of their life.

Some people are always chasing the tapestry, thinking if they only find the perfect tapestry, they will be whole. Or they constantly defend their own imperfect tapestry. All tapestries are imperfect. We should all strive to change our own personal tapestries and make them as whole as possible.

So, I am not talking about individuals at all. I am talking about doctrines and the outcomes they produce, the tapestries that they weave.

You have made your point very well. The doctrine that the group espouses becomes the focal point, more than anything else. If you are a part of the group, you are a part of the central doctrine they espouse, whether you really agree or not. Because you are a part of the group, it is a part of you.

I think the way you put it makes so much sense in trying to highlight what happens with "group" thinking.

Originally Posted by ILG

I have the sense that I may have lost some people on my long post there.

To sum up, I think that when standards are taught as salvational, it brings about some very negative outcomes. When they are taught as applications of scriptural principles, a life choice, and nobody has a heart attack and worries too much when a girl puts on a pair of pants because they know it is their beliefs and not a heaven/hell doctrine, the ramifications of living a life with standards may have some benefit.

The reason I left the OP movement was because I believe there are more in the movement that practice these beliefs as heaven/hell rather than lifestyle choices of applications of scriptural principles so there is therefore a toxin in the movement that is larger than the benefit that standards bring. What individuals in the movement practice, I don't judge. But I strongly am opposed to these principles taught as salvational.

Right, having "standards" is not wrong. Every place of business has a standard of which those who they employ must follow, whether it be a moral, ethical or clothing standard. That is not the problem, which is why this point must be belabored.

The problem is when the "standard" is taught as SALVATIONAL. Your statement "The reason I left the OP movement was because I believe there are more in the movement that practice these beliefs as heaven/hell rather than lifestyle choices of applications of scriptural principles" sums it up for me too.

The salvational application of these standards is where the waters are muddied... and where the term "Pharisaical" comes into play.

Being a part of a group whose base and central belief is this.... and you stay, and "play in the pigpen" (as FlamingZword already said) .... then it defines you too... if you stay and continue play...

[ILG]

You have made your point very well. The doctrine that the group espouses becomes the focal point, more than anything else. If you are a part of the group, you are a part of the central doctrine they espouse, whether you really agree or not. Because you are a part of the group, it is a part of you.

I think the way you put it makes so much sense in trying to highlight what happens with "group" thinking.

Thank you, KBTW, I was beginning to wonder if anyone even read what I wrote!

Right, having "standards" is not wrong. Every place of business has a standard of which those who they employ must follow, whether it be a moral, ethical or clothing standard. That is not the problem, which is why this point must be belabored. The problem is when the "standard" is taught as SALVATIONAL. Your statement "The reason I left the OP movement was because I believe there are more in the movement that practice these beliefs as heaven/hell rather than lifestyle choices of applications of scriptural principles" sums it up for me too.

The salvational application of these standards is where the waters are muddied... and where the term "Pharisaical" comes into play.

Being a part of a group whose base and central belief is this.... and you stay, and "play in the pigpen" (as FlamingZword already said) .... then it defines you too... if you stay and continue play...

Yes, I never had any problem with living the standards at all. Sometimes, I even miss certain aspects of them. However, I feel that teaching them as salvational is a poison in the OP church and an extreme danger in any other church that teaches them as well. I do believe people can stay in the OP church and not teach them as salvational but it is extremely difficult, especially if a person is a pastor.

[Sasha]

What I'm hearing and seeing are people who speak about education and how that seems to come into play when 'seeing the light' and reading the scriptures for themselves and finding out they don't say what they thought or have been told they said.

Funny thing is, those same people said the same thing when they did believe what they had been told and said they read those scriptures that way also.

Do you really know what you believe? Do any of us?

I have been on forums and such for 15 years now. I remember when I discovered 'newsgroups' and was heavily involved in standards discussions. Although I didn't believe in standards, I lived them and wanted to believe them, so I argued on the side of the 'right' for a couple years. I quoted scripture and parable and all kinds of anecdotes to prove my point, but when I did that, I was met with 'where is that in scripture' or 'where do you see examples of that'.

Billy Jones (some of you may know him...UPC for 40 years until he 'backslid') was very instrumental in showing me many things, and the more I sought scripture, the more I realized what I wanted to believe in wasn't even there. I was wanting to believe in a false holiness and false salvation.

In the years since, I, as well as others who believe as I do, have had ad nauseum conversations with people who also read scripture in an effort to make it say what it doesn't, and I have watched as some eventually have come to the same conclusions I did while others want to continue using human logic to explain their beliefs about what they believe scripture is really saying.

This thread is an example of what I'm saying. I watched Roxanne for a long time 'beat down' people who didn't believe as she did, and did so while claiming to read the scriptures for herself and so sure her interpretation was correct. Time after time, person after person would try to tell her to read them in context and not add to scripture, share anecdotes and such...and she would do the same. And the 'beat down' was on both sides...sadly, there are people who can't just have a discussion of a disagreement without adding insults and injury.

And that isn't to say anything negative about Roxanne. Many people here did the same, including myself. It's just funny to me how we can believe something so wholeheartedly while claiming to read the scriptures and insist that scripture agrees with us, and when we change our beliefs, we continue to claim that same premise.

Do we really believe what we say we believe?

[KeptByTheWord]

Good questions Sasha, for all of us to ponder... which is why I say this.... I believe I am constantly learning, and growing, and certainly have not attained all, and would never claim to know it all.... that is dangerous, dangerous ground.

I too agree that attacking anyone on either side of the argument is not Christ-like either. My duty is to walk out my faith, as best as the spirit is leading, and guiding me now, and continue praying, and following the Lord as best I know how, and leave the rest up to the Lord.

[ILG]

Good points...

[Praxeas]

Originally Posted by houston

This is simple, really.

Why study to find BIBLICAL answers for educated people? (Notice that I left out "well.")



THIS IS NOT TEACHING AGAINST MAKEUP.
2 Kings 9:30 And when Jehu was come to Jezreel, Jezebel heard of it; and she painted her face, and tired her head, and looked out at a window.

Context, context. Context is hard to get passed educated people. Heck, I was 15 and knew better.

Im not really into standards and I'd agree this is not teaching against makeup, however we should notice some obvious things.

Who was this? What was her character?

Why did she put on the face paint?

How come this action is not regularly or even rarely ever used of normal Hebrew women?

Perhaps it was just because she was affluent and could afford it. However I doubt the only hebrew woman in the bible to be affluent was Jezebel.

Commentary Notes







Notes for 9:30

62 tn Heb “she fixed her eyes with antimony.” Antimony (פּוּךְ, pukh) was used as a cosmetic. The narrator portrays her as a prostitute (see Jer 4:30), a role she has played in the spiritual realm (see the note at v. 22).

Biblical Studies Press. (2006). The NET Bible First Edition Notes (2 Ki 9:30). Biblical Studies Press.

There are a LOT of different views of her and why she did this in the commentaries. One suggested she did not put the makeup on in order to try to seduce Jehu but rather did it as an act of being the Queen and head of the religious cult she brought into Jerusalem.

Others claim it was a common practice in the east, and it may well have been at the time but it's also true there is little to no biblical evidence anyone did this other than harlots and Jezebel.

If it was a common practice in the east but not with Hebrew women, it's hard to sell the idea that universally it was a sign of prostitution or evil. As far as I can see the Law of Moses does not mention makeup in either good or bad light.

I'd like to see some scholar really dig into this and explain these things but I've yet to find much as far as indepth

[Praxeas]

Originally Posted by ILG

God doesn't want us to look out windows.

Yep and had ol Jezzy had a screen like she was supposed to, this might not have happened.

[Praxeas]

Originally Posted by tv1a

Accusation doesn't work both ways. More oneness based ministers are speaking in trinitarian churches than ever. TF Tenney has ministered in more charismatic churches. Global Network affiliated ministers have shared the stage with prominent trinitarians at major conference events. Trinitarian preachers do not get the same consideration in oneness circles because they are considered heretics. For every John McArthur, Hank Hanagraaf, there hundreds of trinitarians who believe oneness people are saved. For every TF Tenney, there are hundreds of oneness people who believe trinitarians are lost.

It's Politics. Please don't broad brush all Oneness. The fact is more and more OP churchs in the UPC WOULD invite some to speak but the UPCI passed stupid rules to block such things without "special permission".

And I do believe your numbers are subjective (and biased). In MY experience for every John Doe and John Smith that believe Oneness are saved there are Hundreds of Trinitarians that do not.

The Majority I have encountered say OPs are lost, not Christians, cult, heretics and will burn in hell. I even had one once tell me he wished we were still in John Calvin's day so he can watch me burn alive at the stake. This is a nearly 2000 year attitude beginning with Nicea.

[tv1a]

Most people interpret scripture bases on personal preference. When I stopped trying looking at the Bible as an UPCI apologist and began to look at the Bible as a search for truth and accept the evidence presented, I found very little matches in line with the Bible. There isn't much objective truth in the UPCI. It's agenda driven.

Originally Posted by Sasha

What I'm hearing and seeing are people who speak about education and how that seems to come into play when 'seeing the light' and reading the scriptures for themselves and finding out they don't say what they thought or have been told they said.

Funny thing is, those same people said the same thing when they did believe what they had been told and said they read those scriptures that way also.

Do you really know what you believe? Do any of us?

I have been on forums and such for 15 years now. I remember when I discovered 'newsgroups' and was heavily involved in standards discussions. Although I didn't believe in standards, I lived them and wanted to believe them, so I argued on the side of the 'right' for a couple years. I quoted scripture and parable and all kinds of anecdotes to prove my point, but when I did that, I was met with 'where is that in scripture' or 'where do you see examples of that'.

Billy Jones (some of you may know him...UPC for 40 years until he 'backslid') was very instrumental in showing me many things, and the more I sought scripture, the more I realized what I wanted to believe in wasn't even there. I was wanting to believe in a false holiness and false salvation.

In the years since, I, as well as others who believe as I do, have had ad nauseum conversations with people who also read scripture in an effort to make it say what it doesn't, and I have watched as some eventually have come to the same conclusions I did while others want to continue using human logic to explain their beliefs about what they believe scripture is really saying.

This thread is an example of what I'm saying. I watched Roxanne for a long time 'beat down' people who didn't believe as she did, and did so while claiming to read the scriptures for herself and so sure her interpretation was correct. Time after time, person after person would try to tell her to read them in context and not add to scripture, share anecdotes and such...and she would do the same. And the 'beat down' was on both sides...sadly, there are people who can't just have a discussion of a disagreement without adding insults and injury.

And that isn't to say anything negative about Roxanne. Many people here did the same, including myself. It's just funny to me how we can believe something so wholeheartedly while claiming to read the scriptures and insist that scripture agrees with us, and when we change our beliefs, we continue to claim that same premise.

Do we really believe what we say we believe?