DamnYankee
Loyal to the end
Summarize it in three sentences or less, Preacher.
What's a Preacher to do?
- Thread starter DamnYankee
- Start date
maineman
Banned
Summarize it in three sentences or less, Preacher.
no. do your own reading.
DamnYankee
Loyal to the end
Not much of a preacher, are you? Perhaps you're lying about that as well.
The purpose of the thread was to attempt to continue busting MM's chops over some internet "slight" that he feels he needs to obsess about.
DamnYankee
Loyal to the end
Actually, it was to find out how a supposed preacher condones homosexuality.
maineman
Banned
I just know when someone has no real desire to carry on a cordial conversation...
you have your mind made up about homosexuality and the church... I am not going to change it... and I am not going to place any value on your opinion of my church, or me.
you are an obsessive petty little man. I really have little patience for the likes of you.
DamnYankee
Loyal to the end
I'm not asking you to change my mind, since homosexuality is so obviously a sin. I'm simply giving you the opportunity to explain why you think it's not.
maineman
Banned
I do not feel compelled to explain my beliefs to YOU in any way.
As I said, if you don't like the tenets of the UCC, PUHLEESE feel free to stay away from our churches.
DamnYankee
Loyal to the end
I did what you asked and searched the UCC web site, and asked it the specific question: "Is homosexuality a sin?" It returned 100 responses, which I assume is the default maximum, because when I searched simply "homosexuality" by itself I got the same number. I clicked on the most relevant one and it didn't answer my question whatsoever.
http://www.ucc.org/search.jsp?query=Is+homosexuality+a+sin?
*shrug*
So Preacher, perhaps you can explain your church's position.
DamnYankee
Loyal to the end
The word "sin" doesn't even appear on this page. http://www.religioustolerance.org/hom_ucca5.htm
Its a simple question. You stated earlier that homosexuality isn't a sin. How do you justify this apparently twisted interpretation of the Bible?
Cancel 2018. 3
<-- sched 2, MJ sched 1
no wonder that pesron accepts lying as not being a sin
the bible is unequivocal that to lay with mankind as with womankind is a sin and abomination
the bible is unequivocal that to lay with mankind as with womankind is a sin and abomination
maineman
Banned
it is apparently twisted to your way of thinking. It is not twisted to mine, nor to my denomination.
sorry.
DamnYankee
Loyal to the end
How do you justify your interpretation of the Bible?
maineman
Banned
the neat thing is, I feel ZERO need to "justify" my interpretation of the Bible to anyone, and certainly not to YOU.
Again...if you disagree with the UCC, there are lots of other denominations for you.
DamnYankee
Loyal to the end
Some preacher. You can't summarize your position, and you can't point to a link where the UCC position is summarized.
W
WinterBorn
Guest
What is the old saying? "Love the sinner, hate the sin"?
Wouldn't that apply here?
Wouldn't that apply here?
W
WinterBorn
Guest
Isn't that from Leviticus? Have you read all the rules in Leviticus? That book says a lot of things that we ignore today.
DamnYankee
Loyal to the end
Apparently not, otherwise the UCC's position wouldn't be to enable the sin.
It always depends.
The "New Covenant" removed restrictions placed on you to keep yourself "holy" enough to go to the temple. Like staying away from your woman during her period, etc. However it did not take away one single "sin". Those things that were sinful in the Old Testament, remained so in the New Testament. Christ even spoke directly to that when he said he took nothing away, but came to fulfill the prophecy.
People often confuse these things and start in on whether or not you can wear a shirt that is a polyester/cotton mix (which was a purity requirement, not a "sin"), or whether it's okay to pleasure your spouse with your mouth (sin). While some Christians today often ignore "sins", much of what Christians ignore are the requirements for purity, like not eating Pork.