Churches that accept everyone

[nobspeople]

Where I live, there are several churches (non-denominational) whose doors are open to everyone and preach love and acceptance. They don't teach (again, as far as I can tell based on what those who have attended tell me) sins like many other churches do. For example, they are open to people who have changed genders, gay couples and singles, unwed mothers, those with substance abuse issues and those whom have been in prison and are out, trying to make their lives in to something more than being a felon for example.
They do teach sins like stealing, hating, killing, etc are bad/sinful, however. The churches themselves are in large, old, architecturally significant buildings, but the congregations are small and they bring in little money (aka not a mega church). They seem to be very much like Jesus is said to have been in the current Christian bible.

What's you personal opinion of churches like this?
Are they biblically correct in their teachings?
Have you been to any and if so, did you like it?

[nobspeople]

Where I live, there are several churches (non-denominational)

. . .

The churches themselves are in large, old, architecturally significant buildings, but the congregations are small

Are you certain these are non-denominational churches? It would be a bit unusual for several non-denominational churches in an area to be in large, old, architecturally-significant buildings.

The ones I've been to made that claim (note I wasn't a member, simply attended from time to time).

[historia]

What version/s would you recommend?

I actually like both your primary and secondary list, with the exception of the NKJV, which I have always seen as a gimmicky translation. Have you found the NKJV helpful in areas where the NRSV, NASB, NIV & NET are not?

the NIV (at least the newer edition on biblegateway.com) has "Jewish leaders" in John 19:7 etc.; the NET (which I briefly had high hopes of, and has excellent footnotes) has "fellow Christians" in 1 John 2:9 etc.

Why do you consider those problematic translations?

[Difflugia]

I actually like both your primary and secondary list, with the exception of the NKJV, which I have always seen as a gimmicky translation. Have you found the NKJV helpful in areas where the NRSV, NASB, NIV & NET are not?

I can't speak for Mithrae, but I started using the NKJV more when I started using the Orthodox Study Bible as a Septuagint translation. I'd like to have a set of English translations that use a consistent set of rules when translating the Hebrew and Old Greek together so that they can be meaningfully compared. The NRSV and NETS are supposed to be such a pair, but the NRSV already includes a number of OG readings that conflict with the Masoretic Hebrew (Deut. 32:8 is one I remember), making "comparison" useless for those readings. The NKJV and Orthodox Study Bible seemed a good pair because the NKJV sticks far more often to the MT. Unfortunately, it turns out that the Orthodox Study Bible often goes the other way and translates the Greek to match the NKJV translation of the Hebrew, even when this masks something interesting about the idiomatic Greek (in Gen. 25:22, for example, skirtao is normally translated as "leap" as it is in Luke 1:41, but the OSB translates it as "struggle" to match the Hebew).

the NIV (at least the newer edition on biblegateway.com) has "Jewish leaders" in John 19:7 etc.; the NET (which I briefly had high hopes of, and has excellent footnotes) has "fellow Christians" in 1 John 2:9 etc.

Why do you consider those problematic translations?

Again, I can't speak for Mithrae, but I agree. "Jewish Leaders" and "the Jews" are not the same thing. John may have meant "Jewish Leaders," but I don't want a translation that extrapolates meaning that far. Likewise, 1 John 2:9 says "...hates his brother...," which could be interpreted to mean "...hates a fellow Christian...," but it's not necessary to read it that way and isn't an interpretation that belongs in a translation.

[The Nice Centurion]

I find this a strange question in that all churches should be open to anybody and everybody who walks through their doors. After all, Jesus ate with prostitutes and tax collectors who were the lowest of the low in his day and age. We are all sinners. Nobody has the right to think more highly of himself than of others. In fact, the Bible makes a point of saying that in Rom. 12:3.

I Beg to Differ ;

Hello, my name is Mary. I hope to fellowship with you! That is, unless you don't listen to church authority (Deuteronomy 17:12); are a witch (Exodus 22:17); are a homosexual (Leviticus 20:13; Romans 1:24-32); or fortuneteller (Leviticus 20:27) or a snotty kid who hits their dad (Exodus 21:15); or curses their parents (Proverbs 20:20; Leviticus 20:9); an adulterer (Leviticus 20:10); a non-Christian (Exodus 22:19; Deuteronomy 13:7-12; Deuteronomy 17:2-5;Romans 1:24-32); an atheist (2 Chronicles 15:12-13); or false prophet (Zechariah 13:3); from the town of one who worships another, false god (Deuteronomy 13:13-19); were a non-virgin bride (Deuteronomy 22:20-21); or blasphemer (Leviticus 24:10-16), as God calls for your execution and will no doubt send you to Hell, and I have no interest developing a friendship with the Spiritually Walking Dead.
https://www.landoverbaptist.net/showthread.php?t=109027

[JehovahsWitness]

I find this a strange question in that all churches should be open to anybody and everybody who walks through their doors. After all, Jesus ate with prostitutes and tax collectors who were the lowest of the low in his day and age. We are all sinners. Nobody has the right to think more highly of himself than of others. In fact, the Bible makes a point of saying that in Rom. 12:3.

I Beg to Differ ;

Hello, my name is Mary. I hope to fellowship with you! That is, unless you don't listen to church authority (Deuteronomy 17:12); are a witch (Exodus 22:17); are a homosexual (Leviticus 20:13; Romans 1:24-32); or fortuneteller (Leviticus 20:27) or a snotty kid who hits their dad (Exodus 21:15); or curses their parents (Proverbs 20:20; Leviticus 20:9); an adulterer (Leviticus 20:10); a non-Christian (Exodus 22:19; Deuteronomy 13:7-12; Deuteronomy 17:2-5;Romans 1:24-32); an atheist (2 Chronicles 15:12-13); or false prophet (Zechariah 13:3); from the town of one who worships another, false god (Deuteronomy 13:13-19); were a non-virgin bride (Deuteronomy 22:20-21); or blasphemer (Leviticus 24:10-16), as God calls for your execution and will no doubt send you to Hell, and I have no interest developing a friendship with the Spiritually Walking Dead.
https://www.landoverbaptist.net/showthread.php?t=109027

God accepts all people but not all behaviours. Anyone, regardless of origins, nationality, colour, sexual orientation or religion can worship him IF they are willing to conform to his standards.



RELATED POSTS

Does God love us?
viewtopic.php?p=1049585#p1049585

[JoeyKnothead]

God accepts all people but not all behaviours. Anyone, regardless of origins, nationality, colour, sexual orientation or religion can worship him IF they are willing to conform to his standards.

Only don't it beat all, the only way we can know how to conform to his standards is to have religious busy bodies try to get us to conform to theirs.

[TRANSPONDER]

[Replying to JoeyKnothead in post #56]

I wasn't going to pick it up (I'm picking my battles even more carefully, these days) but you said it for me. "God" (or rather, a particular church) is willing to accept anybody, so long as they are willing to conform, and they aren't on a long list of unacceptable people and traits.

As I say,. using the Internet etiquette, I don'r leave a dislike or nasty comment, just stay out of the thread, but you said it for me.

[The Nice Centurion]

God accepts all people but not all behaviours. Anyone, regardless of origins, nationality, colour, sexual orientation or religion can worship him IF they are willing to conform to his standards.

Only don't it beat all, the only way we can know how to conform to his standards is to have religious busy bodies try to get us to conform to theirs.

What are his Standards?
Do his Standards necessarily include the raping of little kids?