If you don't mind me asking, what was it that your uncle disagreed with? That the church would accept homosexuals as members, or that they would not conduct marriage ceremonies for same sex couples?My church has taken the same stance. They will continue to love and minster to homosexuals but will not be conducting same sex marriages. After this declaration, my uncle walked out and refuses to come back there.
we (the church I go to now) have been taught to love the sinner BUT hate the sin. While gays may attend our church (and in fact sometimes do)and they are very welcome WE do not and will not allow them to become membersChanges in the civil law do not, indeed cannot, change the moral law that God has established. God expects us to uphold and keep His commandments regardless of divergent opinions or trends in society.
I've heard from some articles and pastors is that the reason why some churches adapt to reflect more of the dictates of the world is because they fear losing members... and the tithing money and donations they bring. It is sad when church leaders view the accounting books as more important than the Good Book.It is very sad that unlike the quote above many mainline churches today have not only gave in to the dictates (new word I learned ) of the world but have embraced them willingly
This helps explain to me that why many mainline churches (here at least) are losing members, while the smaller denominations and non denominational churches are growing
Not to defend that or anything, but there's sort of another point of view, in that many of the small, local churches rely entirely on tithe or offerings from the members. In cases like this, there are two ways a church can be destroyed by the current political climate.I've heard from some articles and pastors is that the reason why some churches adapt to reflect more of the dictates of the world is because they fear losing members... and the tithing money and donations they bring. It is sad when church leaders view the accounting books as more important than the Good Book.
Actually, that seems to be the approach that my parents and grandparents (on my mother's side) took. They believed that all of the "organized" Christian faiths were just in it for the money, so they met in their houses to conduct worship services. It was essentially a small congregation of family and friends, really. But they believed in the Bible and in Jesus Christ. Not so much in pastors, preachers, missionaries, and what have you.A counterpoint might be that you don't need all that to preach the gospel, but I dunno... one could go around in circles thinking about it.
Isn't that the truth? It's no coincidence that Saul Alinsky credited Satan in "Rules for Radicals," which tends to be the handbook for left-wingers and radical progressives.However you look at it, the shutting down of thousands of churches is not an accident if it happens, and nobody's gonna convince me that isn't one of the goals of our more radical, left-leaning friends.
You also can't forget what Karl Marx's stance on religion is - and I've heard that he also attributed some of his philosophy as inspired by Satan (although I can't prove that one right now). Here is just one quote from Marx regarding religion:Lest we forget at least an over the shoulder acknowledgment to the very first radical: from all our legends, mythology and history (and who is to know where mythology leaves off and history begins - or which is which), the very first radical known to man who rebelled against the establishment and did it so effectively that he at least won his own kingdom - Lucifer.
So those that are inspired by Alinsky and Marx and believe their teachings as the best way to create a beneficial society have, at their subconscious at the very least, the destruction of religion and religious traditions as one of the "necessary evils" to obtain their goal.The first requisite for the happiness of the people is the abolition of religion.
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests