United With God

Welcome to Wondercafe2!

A community where we discuss, share, and have some fun together. Join today and become a part of it!

Register Log in
Hi dreamerman, Look back at my comments. I have said nothing on this thread and nothing on any thread that in any way is calling for a more "conservative" United Church of Canada. I am in essential agreement with what the United Church believes. This includes her ongoing work for social justice, gender equality, poverty eradication and the pursuit of reconciliation with our First Nations regarding the residential school tragedy. And I am also in agreement that our church is motivated and inspired in this work through God, Jesus and the Holy Spirit. Belief in the Triune God is neither conservative or liberal. It is what the United Church of Canada as a faith community states she belives.
 
Dave Henderson said:
Hi dreamerman, Look back at my comments. I have said nothing on this thread and nothing on any thread that in any way is calling for a more "conservative" United Church of Canada. I am in essential agreement with what the United Church believes. This includes her ongoing work for social justice, gender equality, poverty eradication and the pursuit of reconciliation with our First Nations regarding the residential school tragedy. And I am also in agreement that our church is motivated and inspired in this work through God, Jesus and the Holy Spirit. Belief in the Triune God is neither conservative or liberal. It is what the United Church of Canada as a faith community states she belives.
Click to expand...
But many within her don't, no matter what you or she states. Yes, even many ministers. You are reaching back, just as dreamerman notes, to a point when they pretty much all did.

Things have changed, no matter what the statements say.
 
Dave Henderson said:
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.[/QUOTE


Wish I could like this a few more times...I don't understand why so much crap is thrown at the UCC (not only on this thread), by those that don't even have a stake in it...
Click to expand...
 
chansen said:
But many within her don't, no matter what you or she states. Yes, even many ministers. You are reaching back, just as dreamerman notes, to a point when they pretty much all did.

Things have changed, no matter what the statements say.
Click to expand...
Once again Chansen, you are just throwing out abstract terms like "many." How many is many? Regardless, this shadowy "many" you refer to are simply recipients like all the others of the message I am proclaiming through United With God. I have been called, by God, to joyfully proclaim God in my life, the world and the United Church of Canada. I am simply doing what God has called me to do. I guess that doesn't score any debating points here on Wondercafe2, but scoring points isn't what I have been called to do.
 
Last edited:
chansen said:
But many within her don't, no matter what you or she states. Yes, even many ministers. You are reaching back, just as dreamerman notes, to a point when they pretty much all did.

Things have changed, no matter what the statements say.
Click to expand...

One note - there is the argument out there that throwing around phrases like "most believe this" or "many believe that" without really being able to cite who these "most" or "many" are is an attempt to bully others into silence by creating a possibly fictional and certainly undefined mass of people who oppose them.

Like "most scholars say" or "most ministers agree," etc., etc., when you actually have no clue at all what "most scholars say" or what "most ministers" believe.

I tend to tune out when people start using words like "most" or "many" without being able to identify them.
 
Fuzzy "many" ... thus defining the indefinite abstract that is something imaginary ... and staid sorts don't have much imagination as to how to get beyond battle ... some punitive diplomacy as banter?

Why creation gave us po' etics and many adhere to the moral majority that is determined to be chas't with ignorance of anything beyond that ... in virtue; an eternal struggle ... be prepared it get beta'n that as second cardinal! Not as dull as appears ... kind 've ochre ... shade changed when burnt! Pro sody, or sode 'M and Gom Aura ...
 
chansen said:
But many within her don't, no matter what you or she states. Yes, even many ministers. You are reaching back, just as dreamerman notes, to a point when they pretty much all did.

Things have changed, no matter what the statements say.
Click to expand...
We have covered this ground already.

We have discussed the clergywoman who makes the same claim at considerable length. And we have talked about the survey conducted by Richard Bott which suggests otherwise.
 
Are the other wizened up ... like in ethics over tacked down words of law and Loess?

Nothing beyond that? Someone stated that nothing was a state of passion when anything brilliant was foregone in the dark ...Lam D'ath, or behind theis attire? The depth 've IT is embarrassing ... as to what we don't know ... pointing to our overstated emotionalism ... with exempt shines ... leaves me feeling out 've 'eire and now ... the good-bye G'Ural hinting at love of knowledge lost! --- psyche-Sophetic ... now somnolent! Ever study psychosomatics? Approaching a dream or trance state ... somewhat stunned ... if the shue phitz ...

Lou Pin de Arc ...
 
The "many" have names. Bette is the obvious one here. Hermann would be another, though he hasn't been around in a while. Extrapolate just those two among the WC2 membership out to the entire UCCan population as a rough estimate. Richard Bott showed that a significant percentage of ministers do not believe in a "Triune God". There are going to be a larger precentage of members, and you know it.

Dismissing my point because I use the word "many" is ducking your heads in the sand because you don't like the view. I don't have firm numbers. You don't have numbers for those who do believe according to the statements. I'm not saying "no one believes on a Triune God anymore." I'm saying that beliefs about God vary a lot in the United Church, and many people don't believe like that. Suggesting I'm wrong simply alienates the people who see themselves among the "many". If your goal is to discourage them and make them feel invisible, then I can see why you would discount my point.

To me, that diversity of thought is a great thing, and makes you better than other churches who would not tolerate it. Circling the wagons and suggesting that old statements of faith be enforced again, making you like any other brainless church in town, is a step back. It moves you in the opposite direction from the shifting beliefs of the country, and it changes your market position to one that is already over-saturated with church options who all have either more credibility or more youthful exuberance than you posess.
 
chansen said:
Circling the wagons and suggesting that old statements of faith be enforced again, making you like any other brainless church in town, is a step back.
Click to expand...

The Song of Faith is one of those statements of faith and it is hardly old (2006) so this is NOT about going back to "old statements of faith". Dave and others are not suggesting going back to the 1925 Basis or even the 1940 Statement. Even the recent statements of faith (New Creed, Song of Faith) are explicitly theistic, even if they leave more wiggle room for alternative understandings of what "God" really is/means and what God's purpose is. The Song, in particular, leans more to a relational understanding of Deity rather than a supernatural "old guy in the sky". Were someone, even a minister, to express a process or similar view of God, no one would blink today. My pantheism would even probably fly under the Song but I'm not sure I could finesse "essential agreement" with the whole of it were I to seek ordination in the UCCan.

But to be an atheist in a church where all four accepted statements of faith are explicitly about God and our relationship to God requires some serious theological/semantic gymnastics. Even putting forward a metaphorical understanding of God could be finessed into "essential agreement" with some work, but to just say "f*** God and the horse God rode in on" isn't really an option.

(Yes, I'm back and re-engaging. Ignore my earlier rant. Cranky ape day.)

 
A church that has statements of faith, that allows people in the pulpit to reject those statements of faith is being dishonest.

Greta has come clean. Higher moral ground than the fakers who haven't and those who know the truth and support the lie.
 
I thought we had moved past Gretta Vosper's atheistic rejections of any god in this thread and we're now talking deistic, post-theistic or non-theistic ministers and the second class members who would not pass Dave's test. Though I do support Rev. Vosper, hers are not the sort of beliefs I was referring to, and I gave you member names as examples.

And maybe I'm wrong. Maybe you would be better served by ensuring all ministers were in "essential agreement" or better with at least one of the statements of faith. I don't think so, because the country, and especially the youth, don't seem to care about that any more. But perhaps demographics don't matter. Perhaps God exists and influenced a regrettably unpolished book, and gets really upset when people don't believe it. Maybe you need to reverse that trend of unbelief. And you guys can do it! With exciting people like...Dave...

PG13 makes a good point in his intolerant way that ministers other than Gretta don't believe and hide themselves among you. Like sleeper cells. Reading Hitchens under their blankets at night. What do you do about them?

I think you've gone too far down a road to turn back now. I could be wrong.
 
Pontifex Geronimo 13 said:
A church that has statements of faith, that allows people in the pulpit to reject those statements of faith is being dishonest.

Greta has come clean. Higher moral ground than the fakers who haven't and those who know the truth and support the lie.
Click to expand...
Who are the fakers that you are talking about PG? What is this truth that you speak of? Is it a belief that Jesus is God the Son and that you must accept him as your personal Lord and Saviour to be a true Christian? I wonder how many on WC2 would meet your requirements as a "true christian.".
 
dreamerman said:
Who are the fakers that you are talking about PG? What is this truth that you speak of? Is it a belief that Jesus is God the Son and that you must accept him as your personal Lord and Saviour to be a true Christian? I wonder how many on WC2 would meet your requirements as a "true christian.".
Click to expand...

A few, to be sure, at least IME. PG himself, unsafe, airclean, Jae. Perhaps Mystic, though I'm not as sure about him. Many more do to some degree. The question is where the line is drawn. To me, a Christian is anyone who follows Jesus in some way; who makes Jesus the centre/focus of their spiritual beliefs. So that is everyone from an evangelical accepting Christ in their heart to be saved to a person who sees Jesus as "just a guy" (to quote a line used in another thread) who is their primary spiritual teacher and guide. But there's a lot (a whole lot) of Christological ground in between those extremes.
 
If you get on a bus, you expect that the city has hired a licensed bus driver, not a kid who worked the bumper car ride over the summer.

If you go to the hospital, you expect to be seen by a doctor, not a plumber. If the hospital is using plumbers instead of doctors knowingly, they no longer have any integrity, and should have to take down the hospital sign or fire the plumbers. Nothing wrong with plumbers, but they are not substitutes for doctors.

If I am speaking to someone about God, and they as where I attend, I will tell them. If they live nearby, I will invite them. If they live far away, I will suggest they find a church near their home. I will let them know what I think they should look for in a church, and I will warn them off of churches that in all likelihood are not led by a Christian. I would tell them that in my experience UCC is not a safe bet.
Low regard for Jesus, the bible, God's moral laws, discipleship. Highly encourage rebellion against, God, men, family and biblical truth and anyone with those values.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top