United With God

[Luce NDs]

Gnoe Bull as Taurus? What goes on here ... pure schism ... fore funneling (as in the Greek Nous ... a intimate expression of the Gael Vous) that's you extended!

Is god as love buried in word? Sous-la! Is there a Surry gate with abstract fringes ... recall twill be Aria 'n experience ... some say spacy or Aryan ... for those beyond base wisdom ... extensive understanding of the conflicts probable ...

Tis a work that can tear the meat off you bones ... thus Job's myth in the collapse of Runes ... kind 've like creation in scrabble form ... down rite bog cling? Maas 'n about on the Bayou ... the business of Bayou'T of des ole thing ...

 

[dreamerman]

Thanks for asking Paradox3. From my perspective, the very act of proclaiming God in my life, the world and my church has been a wonderfully joyful experience. It is my hope and prayer that it will bring others to experience the same joy through proclaiming God in their lives. From that perspective it has been a personal blessing, and I hope will help create blessings for others. United With God can be found at www.unitedwithgod.org Facebook: United With God

I went to the website for United With God and looked up the Faith Statement and found it was from 1940. I also looked up the 20 Articles of Faith which I believe was from 1925. So my question is does the UCCan still use these as a guide? I also am wondering @Dave Hendersen is United With God looking to bring the UCCan back to what it was like in the 1940's?

 

[Luce NDs]

I went to the website for United With God and looked up the Faith Statement and found it was from 1940. I also looked up the 20 Articles of Faith which I believe was from 1925. So my question is does the UCCan still use these as a guide? I also am wondering @Dave Hendersen is United With God looking to bring the UCCan back to what it was like in the 1940's?

Perhaps that's where we should be if not in some dark time ... like the Shadow ... unconscious to what's going on ... can a mortal action bring this critter to cognizance? Then there is that tome: The Darkness of the Heart ... opposing the deep sleep of psyche?

 

[chansen]

I went to the website for United With God and looked up the Faith Statement and found it was from 1940. I also looked up the 20 Articles of Faith which I believe was from 1925. So my question is does the UCCan still use these as a guide? I also am wondering @Dave Hendersen is United With God looking to bring the UCCan back to what it was like in the 1940's?

I think he'd settle for the 1950s.

 

[paradox3]

I went to the website for United With God and looked up the Faith Statement and found it was from 1940. I also looked up the 20 Articles of Faith which I believe was from 1925. So my question is does the UCCan still use these as a guide? I also am wondering @Dave Hendersen is United With God looking to bring the UCCan back to what it was like in the 1940's?

You are correct, the articles of faith are from 1925 and form the doctrine section of basis of union.

A fairly recent church-wide remit expanded the doctrine section to include the 1940's statement of faith, the 1960's new creed and the relatively new song of faith.

So yes, these statements are still used as a guide. All of them.

 

[paradox3]

I think he'd settle for the 1950s.

Or maybe 2012? I believe that was the date of the remit which expanded the doctrine section of the basis of union.

@revsdd and @GordW can probably fill in more of the details.

 

[revsdd]

Or maybe 2012? I believe that was the date of the remit which expanded the doctrine section of the basis of union.

@revsdd and @GordW can probably fill in more of the details.

Yeah. It was around 2012. It made all four documents - the 1925 Articles of Faith, the 1940 Statement of Faith, the 1968 New Creed (as amended in 1984) and the Song of Faith o 2006 equal as statements of doctrine of the United Church of Canada. All are considered subordinate to the Bible. So all are intepretations of the Bible rather than as stand-alone documents; they need to be read in the context of Scripture. All make many of the same points, although doctrinal understanding does evolve over the period of time, which it should since - as I've said many times - doctrine is a starting point meant to lead us to a deeper understanding of faith rather than an end point which represents a full understanding of faith.

In theory, any future faith statements would likely eventually be declared as a part of the doctrine section of the Basis of Union, although it would require a remit - and so time - because that's an amendment to the Basis of Union, whereas a simple statement of faith isn't. A statement of faith would likely be approved and then a remit held to make it part of the Basis of Union.

 

[Mendalla]

The fact that you would put changes to your Basis of Faith to a vote (was it a congregational or presbytery remit?) is one of the great things about the UCCan. So many churches would leave something like that as the province of the clergy or have it handed down from on high.

 

[chansen]

....All make many of the same points, although doctrinal understanding does evolve over the period of time, which it should since - as I've said many times - doctrine is a starting point meant to lead us to a deeper understanding of faith rather than an end point which represents a full understanding of faith.

How is it that your "deeper understanding of faith" generally leads you to the same conclusions as non-believers? My outsider perspective is that you guys come to moral conclusions more quickly than other denominations, then look back to see where you can find scripture to fit.

 

[Luce NDs]

How is it that your "deeper understanding of faith" generally leads you to the same conclusions as non-believers? My outsider perspective is that you guys come to moral conclusions more quickly than other denominations, then look back to see where you can find scripture to fit.

It is time related ... sometimes staid and stuck ... like a Klein in German being similar to a thorn in Roman terms ... a prick of the conscience if it arouses curiosity! Can also burst a dream as a bubble or resolve it as a fickle swing to who wanted and needed what!

Some really staid people have no conscience as they are tremendously emotional ... with great demands their troop be better than another flock of monkeys ...

 

[revsdd]

How is it that your "deeper understanding of faith" generally leads you to the same conclusions as non-believers? My outsider perspective is that you guys come to moral conclusions more quickly than other denominations, then look back to see where you can find scripture to fit.

Is it surprising that there's a basic moral law imbedded in all humans. Believer - unbeliever - from my perspective we're all created in God's image. Paul speaks of it as the law written on our hearts. In other words - believer or non-believer - we all know right from wrong. We just don't always choose to do it. Murder was illegal in Nazi Germany - but it didn't stop the Nazis from killing 6 million Jews. They understood the principle. They just warped it to serve their own ends. Something most people do from time to time - although not usually with such a tragic outcome. In any event, becoming a Christian really hasn't made that much of a difference to my moral or ethical positions. I became a Christian because I became a believer in Jesus. I have come to deeper understandings of the nature of God.

 

[revsdd]

The fact that you would put changes to your Basis of Faith to a vote (was it a congregational or presbytery remit?) is one of the great things about the UCCan. So many churches would leave something like that as the province of the clergy or have it handed down from on high.

It went to the congregations as well as the Presbyteries. I remember walking my church Council through the remit and the documents.

 

[chansen]

Is it surprising that there's a basic moral law imbedded in all humans. Believer - unbeliever - from my perspective we're all created in God's. Paul speaks of it as the law written on our hearts. In other words - believer or non-believer - we all know right from wrong. We just don't always choose to do it. Murder was illegal in Nazi Germany - but it didn't stop the Nazis from killing 6 million Jews. They understood the principle. They just warped it to serve their own ends. Something most people do from time to time - although not usually with such a tragic outcome. In any event, becoming a Christian really hasn't made that much of a difference to my moral or ethical positions. I became a Christians because I became a believer in Jesus. I have come to deeper understandings of the nature of God.

There are some basics, but they seem more based on, "I don't want that happening to me, so I won't do it." Empathy is taught, not necessarily pre-wired.

The problem is not that your deeper understanding leads you to where people who don't understand and don't believe, already are. The problem is that people who also claim a deep understanding, let that understanding lead them to some pretty dark conclusions. Or rather, keep them rooted in an already dark place.

 

[revsdd]

There are some basics, but they seem more based on, "I don't want that happening to me, so I won't do it." Empathy is taught, not necessarily pre-wired.

The problem is not that your deeper understanding leads you to where people who don't understand and don't believe, already are. The problem is that people who also claim a deep understanding, let that understanding lead them to some pretty dark conclusions. Or rather, keep them rooted in an already dark place.

I don't disagree with you on that.

 

[Dave Henderson]

I went to the website for United With God and looked up the Faith Statement and found it was from 1940. I also looked up the 20 Articles of Faith which I believe was from 1925. So my question is does the UCCan still use these as a guide? I also am wondering @Dave Hendersen is United With God looking to bring the UCCan back to what it was like in the 1940's?

Hello dreamerman, Just let me get this straight. I belong to a faith community, Christianity, that is more than 2,000 years old. Christianity came from Judaism, which is, arguably 3,800 years old. And because my denomination uses a document that is 92 years old (less than 100- years old!) as a spiritual guidepost, I am questioned about my desire to "bring the United Church of Canada back to what it was like the in 1940s?" Your question is as ludicrous as it is insulting. But it did give Chansen an opening to sneer at me with his ad hominem remark about me settling for the 1950s. Thanks for providing him that opening...thanks a lot. Look at the United Church of Canada's website dreamerman. It's at http://www.united-church.ca/community-faith/welcome-united-church-canada It talks about the church's four statements of faith. If you read "What We Believe", http://www.united-church.ca/community-faith/welcome-united-church-canada/what-we-believe our church goes on to say, "membership in the church is based on a profession of faith, not on adhering to a particular creed." Yes, the Twenty Articles of Faith are from 1925. The Statement of Faith is from 1940. Yes, we use both those documents as guideposts in our spiritual journey as a Christian faith community. How does that translate into me wanting a church from the 1940s? I look forward to your explanation dreamerman.

 

[Dave Henderson]

I have enjoyed my short time here very much. But I am also growing very weary of rude people making snide and ad hominem comments, both to me and to others. It does nothing to move conversations forward and is upsetting, I'm sure, for many.

 

[Dave Henderson]

I went to the website for United With God and looked up the Faith Statement and found it was from 1940. I also looked up the 20 Articles of Faith which I believe was from 1925. So my question is does the UCCan still use these as a guide? I also am wondering @Dave Hendersen is United With God looking to bring the UCCan back to what it was like in the 1940's?

Hello again dreamerman. I forgot to mention our United Church website acknowledges our Reformation Heritage and the Nicene Creed (a.d. or c.e. 325)
and the Apostle's Creed (a.d. or c.e. 390). Using your logic, I should have refused to take the antibiotics that cured my pneumonia this month, since I'm hoping to go back to the third century.

 

[Mendalla]

Hello again dreamerman. I forgot to mention our United Church website acknowledges our Reformation Heritage and the Nicene Creed (a.d. or c.e. 325)
and the Apostle's Creed (a.d. or c.e. 390). Using your logic, I should have refused to take the antibiotics that cured my pneumonia this month, since I'm hoping to go back to the third century.

Another great thing about the UCCan is it's proliferation of creeds. When I was UCCan, the New Creed was about right. Loose enough that I could say it without mentally contradicting it (much) but still gave a framework through which one could talk about faith. I still have a vague plan for a sermon on the opening lines "We are not alone; We live in God's world.".

We did recite the Apostle's (I think, maybe it was the Nicene) at times and I couldn't say that without flinching even in my most Christian phase.

 

[Dave Henderson]

Another great thing about the UCCan is it's proliferation of creeds. When I was UCCan, the New Creed was about right. Loose enough that I could say it without mentally contradicting it (much) but still gave a framework through which one could talk about faith. I still have a vague plan for a sermon on the opening lines "We are not alone; We live in God's world.".

We did recite the Apostle's (I think, maybe it was the Nicene) at times and I couldn't say that without flinching even in my most Christian phase.

A New Creed is about right for me also at this moment in my journey. The Apostle Creeds and Nicene Creeds are certainly formulaic...like all sacred writing, they speak to me, but I enter into it them through the lens of my current journey (and always with a sizable grain of salt in my pocket!) ;-)

 

[dreamerman]

Hello dreamerman, Just let me get this straight. I belong to a faith community, Christianity, that is more than 2,000 years old. Christianity came from Judaism, which is, arguably 3,800 years old. And because my denomination uses a document that is 92 years old (less than 100- years old!) as a spiritual guidepost, I am questioned about my desire to "bring the United Church of Canada back to what it was like the in 1940s?" Your question is as ludicrous as it is insulting. But it did give Chansen an opening to sneer at me with his ad hominem remark about me settling for the 1950s. Thanks for providing him that opening...thanks a lot. Look at the United Church of Canada's website dreamerman. It's at http://www.united-church.ca/community-faith/welcome-united-church-canada It talks about the church's four statements of faith. If you read "What We Believe", http://www.united-church.ca/community-faith/welcome-united-church-canada/what-we-believe our church goes on to say, "membership in the church is based on a profession of faith, not on adhering to a particular creed." Yes, the Twenty Articles of Faith are from 1925. The Statement of Faith is from 1940. Yes, we use both those documents as guideposts in our spiritual journey as a Christian faith community. How does that translate into me wanting a church from the 1940s? I look forward to your explanation dreamerman.

Dave I wasn't trying to be antagonistic with my question. I had this gut feeling that you would prefer that the UCCan become more for a lack of a better word conservative in their belief. Maybe it had something to do with the triune God. I am still technically a member of the UCCan even though I no longer attend. I for one am not trying to change the church to become more secular. Changing what the church believes would not be the deciding factor for me to return. Anyway all the best with your return to the UCCan. Ps I think I am from the same area as you so from all I know you could be sitting in my seat.