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?

[JehovahsWitness]

..Taking the written canon as an absolute rule of faith (let alone the 'word of God') is pretty much as irrational as it gets not only because of the bible's own oversights, atrocities and contradictions but because the bible itself seems to teach otherwise in the descriptions of the 'new covenant' and attitude towards the 'old' by Jeremiah, Jesus, Paul and John.

Your opinion is based on your subjective interpretation of the contents if the bible. Where one man sees "oversights, atrocities and contradictions" another sees "Insight, justice and harmony". I hazard a guess you have never and never will, present a definition of what the biblical concept of a 'new covenant' actually is, and if you did I am confident there would be disagreement on that as well.


In short you are not presenting fact you are presenting opinion based on belief - in this case the sincere belief that your interpretation if scripture is true. Nothing wrong with that, but lets not pretend you have not done anything more than is done in churches round the earth every Sunday.





JW

[Mithrae]

..Taking the written canon as an absolute rule of faith (let alone the 'word of God') is pretty much as irrational as it gets not only because of the bible's own oversights, atrocities and contradictions but because the bible itself seems to teach otherwise in the descriptions of the 'new covenant' and attitude towards the 'old' by Jeremiah, Jesus, Paul and John.

Your opinion is based on your subjective interpretation of the contents if the bible. Where one man sees "oversights, atrocities and contradictions" another sees "Insight, justice and harmony". I hazard a guess you have never and never will, present a definition of what the biblical concept of a 'new covenant' actually is, and if you did I am confident there would be disagreement on that as well.

In short you are not presenting fact you are presenting opinion based on belief - in this case the sincere belief that your interpretation if scripture is true. Nothing wrong with that, but lets not pretend you have not done anything more than is done in churches round the earth every Sunday.

As always, you're more than welcome to point out any problem you see in my posts. A 'definition' of the biblical concept of a new covenant would be "a covenant from God which is new," and I suppose you're right that I have never posted that in the past and never thought I would need to But I have posted the relevant biblical references regarding the terms of this new covenant numerous times, including in discussion with you. Specifically pertinent to this current topic, we can note the purported word of the Lord to Jeremiah:
"I will put my laws in their minds, and write them on their hearts, and I will be their God, and they shall be my people. And they shall not teach one another or say to each other, ‘Know the Lord,’ for they shall all know me, from the least of them to the greatest." ~ Hebrews 8:8-12 quoting Jeremiah 31:31-34

Since this isn't the first or even second time I've brought this passage to your attention, and since you note that other subjective interpretations than mine are available, perhaps you might indulge a couple of questions on how to best interpret this passage (however subjectively). We might even make it a multiple-choice quiz to make things easier. Under the new covenant:

1. Where are God's laws to be written?
   a) On tablets of stone
   b) In a collection of writings deemed canonical by later meetings of rabbis and bishops
   c) In his people's hearts and minds
   d) Other (please explain)
2. Who are to be the teacher/s of God's people?
   a) Moses and other holy Prophets and Apostles
   b) Priests, bishops, elders or overseers
   c) They won't teach each other, for they will all know Him
   d) Other (please explain)

[nobspeople]

[Replying to Mithrae in post #30]

Taking the written canon as an absolute rule of faith (let alone the 'word of God') is pretty much as irrational as it gets not only because of the bible's own oversights, atrocities...their [churches are you described] emphasis on 'love' over rules, rituals and the written canon would be considerably closer to the core of Jesus' message I think.

Agreed. That may be why these types of churches spring up here-n-there. It seems to me, many churches adhere strictly to the rules of condemnation and less to the rules about love. Granted one can say 'love has rules' (or the like) and, while absolutely true, it seems, to me at least, some of these rules' end results (aka eternal hell, as taught in many churches) seems to be overly extreme coming from a loving god.

It's hard to imagine that Jesus would have much respect for us folk who have luxuries that ancient kings couldn't even dream of, even while we know that there are people starving and dying of preventable diseases elsewhere in the world (if not in our own countries!).

Good point! That right there may be why so many churches tend to adhere more strictly to the rules about 'do this and you go to hell' than anything else.
I once attended a church next to low income apartments. Parents would send their kids over just to get them out of their hair for a couple hours on Sundays. The kids typically weren't as 'clean' as the other church attendees (but it wasn't as if they haven't bathed in days or anything like that). One day, one of the older, more conservative people in the church, turned a group of kids away for that very reason. When the pastor heard about it...my word...it was like he brought hell itself to church that day! He was FURIOUS that anyone would be turned away from the church for something so petty. I still remember that afternoon's spontaneous sermon!

[Difflugia]

I'm not sure the conflict is quite that irreconcilable. In his third chapter John continues
"19 And this is the judgment, that the light has come into the world, and people loved darkness rather than light because their deeds were evil. 20 For all who do evil hate the light and do not come to the light, so that their deeds may not be exposed. 21 But those who do what is true come to the light, so that it may be clearly seen that their deeds have been done in God."

The ones who "come into the light" are those whose deeds have been done in God. Of course most Christians - having obvious concerns about Jesus' teaching to give all their possessions to the poor - leap onto John 3:16 as proof text that all they need is to 'believe'... but can you really believe in Jesus whilst ignoring the teaching and example that he set?

The people that "loved darkness" here and in John 8 (which you mention below) are "the Jews" who have rejected Jesus as a matter of course. Though the modern consensus is somewhat loose, it's usually accepted that Johannine Christians were a Jewish sect that were kicked out of the synagogues and "the Jews" that didn't believe were the ones that did the kicking, contrasted with those "Jews" that believed (8:31).

Even according to John, apparently not:

• John 14:15 "If you love me, you will keep my commandments."
  John 15:10-14 "If you keep my commandments, you will abide in my love, just as I have kept my Father’s commandments and abide in his love. I have said these things to you so that my joy may be in you, and that your joy may be complete. This is my commandment, that you love one another as I have loved you. No one has greater love than this, to lay down one’s life for one’s friends. You are my friends if you do what I command you."
  1 John 3:16-18 "We know love by this, that he laid down his life for us—and we ought to lay down our lives for one another. How does God’s love abide in anyone who has the world’s goods and sees a brother in need and yet refuses help? Little children, let us love, not in word or speech, but in truth and action."

In fact arguably John is the least inclusive of the evangelists in the end; the synoptics emphasize 'love your neighbour' and have parables like the good Samaritan and the sheep and the goats, whereas John in the gospel and even moreso in the epistle speaks mostly about loving one another (fellow believers) or loving your brother, with a pretty stark contrast between 'light' and 'the darkness' or between the children of God and the children of Satan (1 John 3:10, John 8:44 etc.)

John never ties eternal life to loving him, keeping the commandments, or being a loyal Christian, but only to belief in him. Those that love Jesus and keep the commandments are counted as disciples, will be able to perform miraculous deeds, and have the comfort of the Paraclete, but Jesus came to remove the sin of the whole world. Mere belief in Jesus is enough to secure everlasting life. John explicitly makes that point by comparing Jesus himself to the serpent staff that Moses made in the wilderness. Those afflicted by sin must believe (3:16) in the same way that those bitten by the fiery serpents only needed to look upon the staff to be saved (3:14, Numbers 21:8). If one turns the "believe in" of 3:16 into some sort of active discipleship, then I don't think the analogy with the serpent makes sense.

[JehovahsWitness]

...I have posted the relevant biblical references regarding the terms of this new covenant numerous times

Perhaps you count link me to one of these numerous times. I'm interested in then following terms (and conditions)

- who and the parties of the new convenant?
- what are the terms/conditions subject to fulfilment of said parties?
- what was promise upon fulfilment of said conditions?
- when were the said terms fulfilled?
- and when were said promises delivered?
- when did this agreement go into effect?

I must have missed your answer to the above?


WHAT WAS THE LAW COVENANT ?

The law covenant was the former agreement between God and the Israelites later to be replaced by the "New Covenant" refered to by the Prophet Jeremiah:

- The parties of Law covenant were Jehovah (YHWH)God and the natural born descendants of Abraham (the Israelites).

- The terms of the Law covenant were that the Israelites had to keep the 613 laws and statues written by Moses

- The promises were that if said conditions were honoured is they would be a kingdom of priests and a holy nation. And enjoy blessings as a consequence (Ex 19:5, 6; De 28:1-14). Conversely if they violated the law they would be cursed and suffer hardship.

- The agreement went into effect in 1513 B.C.E. (Ex 19:1).

- The terms were fulfilled on an ongoing basis from 1513 to 33 CE

WHAT IS THE NEW COVENANT ?

... "a covenant from God which is new,"

JW

To learn more please go to other posts related to ...

BIBLICAL LAW, THE MOSAIC LAW COVENANT and ...THE ABRAHAMIC CONVENANT

[Mithrae]

John never ties eternal life to loving him, keeping the commandments, or being a loyal Christian, but only to belief in him. Those that love Jesus and keep the commandments are counted as disciples, will be able to perform miraculous deeds, and have the comfort of the Paraclete, but Jesus came to remove the sin of the whole world. Mere belief in Jesus is enough to secure everlasting life. John explicitly makes that point by comparing Jesus himself to the serpent staff that Moses made in the wilderness. Those afflicted by sin must believe (3:16) in the same way that those bitten by the fiery serpents only needed to look upon the staff to be saved (3:14, Numbers 21:8). If one turns the "believe in" of 3:16 into some sort of active discipleship, then I don't think the analogy with the serpent makes sense.

Does it make sense to "believe in" the Jesus the Word of God while ignoring all of his teaching and example... or that in John's binary world of darkness and light, there was nevertheless a big group in the middle who "believe in" Jesus but don't love him or one another? If we're forced to choose between a nonsensical analogy of the serpent or a nonsensical theology as a whole, I'm thinking it's the analogy which would have been flawed. But the Israelites who were saved by looking at the serpent weren't then free to go off and do whatever they pleased, were they? They were bound to obey; in fact it was because of their reluctance to obey - not even active disobedience but mere complaints - that the serpents were sent in the first place!

Seems to me that John simply starts at the beginning (very much so at the beginning, in his prologue) first with the invitation to "come and see" (ch1), then with believing, then with commitment, obedience and love. If we applied the approach that most Christians (and it seems you) are taking towards John 3:16 elsewhere - say to the story in which Jesus exclaims "salvation has come to this house" after Zacchaeus' declaration of intent - we might conclude that merely saying you'll give a bunch of money to the poor and those you've wronged is sufficient for salvation... no need to actually follow through. Presumably Zacchaeus' declaration would be meaningless without follow-through even though Luke doesn't explicitly describe the follow-through. John's gospel does emphasize the follow-through of love and obedience, so how can anyone imagine that he taught salvation through some kind of empty 'belief'?

Edit to add:

John never ties eternal life to loving him, keeping the commandments, or being a loyal Christian, but only to belief in him.

Just thought I'd better fact-check this a little more specifically:

• 3:36 Whoever believes in the Son has eternal life; whoever disobeys the Son will not see life, but must endure God’s wrath.
  6:54 Those who eat my flesh and drink my blood have eternal life, and I will raise them up on the last day;
  12:25 Those who love their life lose it, and those who hate their life in this world will keep it for eternal life.
  12:47 I do not judge anyone who hears my words and does not keep them, for I came not to judge the world, but to save the world. 48 The one who rejects me and does not receive my word has a judge; on the last day the word that I have spoken will serve as judge, 49 for I have not spoken on my own, but the Father who sent me has himself given me a commandment about what to say and what to speak. 50 And I know that his commandment is eternal life. What I speak, therefore, I speak just as the Father has told me.

#####
#####

...I have posted the relevant biblical references regarding the terms of this new covenant numerous times

Perhaps you count link me to one of these numerous times. I'm interested in then following terms (and conditions)

- who and the parties of the new convenant?
- what are the terms/conditions subject to fulfilment of said parties?
- what was promise upon fulfilment of said conditions?
- when were the said terms fulfilled?
- and when were said promises delivered?
- when did this agreement go into effect?

Since you apparently don't want to answer my (very short) quiz, maybe you should answer your own questions first. One of the more recent occasions this has been discussed in a thread with you was in post #194 and post #197 of a thread about whether homosexual relations are 'sinful.' As one of the points raised in that latter post, we reminisced that although Paul specifically cites the covenant of Genesis 17 as applying to Christians in that the newly-named Abraham was to be the "father of many nations" (Rom. 4:17) and although that chapter explicitly declares that this "everlasting covenant" was to be sealed by circumcision in the flesh (Gen. 17:13-14), like Paul you were quite reluctant to acknowledge these facts and instead opted for the obfuscation of demanding a list of answers like the above... as if it were incumbent on me to force some kind of coherency onto the bible

Unless you want to deny that Jesus (Luke 22:20), Paul (2 Cor. 3:3-6) and the author of Hebrews all affirmed the applicability of the new covenant to Christians, all of this just seems like more obfuscation in an effort to avoid the obvious conclusion that according to the biblical authors Christians should be looking for God's law primarily in their own hearts and minds; not in the pages of a written canon or from the teachings of self-proclaimed prophets, apostles, bishops and elders.

WHAT WAS THE LAW COVENANT ?

The law covenant was the former agreement between God and the Israelites later to be replaced by the "New Covenant" refered to by the Prophet Jeremiah:

- The parties of Law covenant were Jehovah (YHWH)God and the natural born descendants of Abraham (the Israelites).

- The terms of the Law covenant were that the Israelites had to keep the 613 laws and statues written by Moses

- The promises were that if said conditions were honoured is they would be a kingdom of priests and a holy nation. And enjoy blessings as a consequence (Ex 19:5, 6; De 28:1-14). Conversely if they violated the law they would be cursed and suffer hardship.

- The agreement went into effect in 1513 B.C.E. (Ex 19:1).

- The terms were fulfilled on an ongoing basis from 1513 to 33 CE

Which passage of the Torah leads you to believe that the 'law covenant' was to be later replaced? Quite the opposite, there are dozens of passages which specifically declare their provisions to be eternal or "for all generations," such as in Leviticus 16:29-34 explaining that atonement for sins was to be made by the sacrifice of a bull and two goats; "This shall be a statute to you forever.... it is a statute forever.... This shall be an everlasting statute."

Which passage of the Torah leads you to believe that the 'law covenant' was for natural born descendants of Abraham? Quite the opposite, the Torah makes numerous provisions for resident foreigners up to and including sacrifice (Lev. 17:8, 22:18), and allows that descendants of Moab and Ammon may be fully admitted to the assembly of the Lord after ten generations, Egyptians and Edomites after three generations (Deut. 23:3-8) and other resident foreigners could apparently be regarded as native Israelites after circumcision (Ex. 12:43-48), which you will recall was the sign of God's covenant with Abraham the "father of many nations." Conversely - adding insult to injury - even natural born descendants of Abraham would be excluded if they'd had the misfortune of suffering crushed or removed genitals (perhaps due to removal or fear of damage to that all-important foreskinectomy) or being born of an 'illicit' union.

Where in the Torah does it enumerate observance of "613 laws and statutes" as terms of a covenant? Yet again, quite the opposite seems to be the case in that the 'book of the covenant' and its confirmation by blood are to be found in Exodus 24, after only four chapters (125 verses) of laws given at Sinai. The book of Deuteronomy purports to outline an additional covenant made while across the Jordan (Deut. 29), with its rules of kings and warfare and so on making it look like a sort of constitution for the new nation... but it's the Sinai covenant which Jeremiah, the author of Hebrews and so on consistently contrast against the 'new covenant.'

With all of these (sometimes quite obvious) mistakes in your description of the 'law covenant,' maybe there's a good reason why you are so reluctant to outline your understanding of the new covenant or coherently critique mine!

WHAT IS THE NEW COVENANT ?

• Answers so far:
  Mithrae: ... "a covenant from God which is new," as outlined in Jeremiah 31/Hebrews 8 etc.
  Jehovah's Witness: Ask Mithrae

[Realworldjack]

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?

Where I live, there are several churches (non-denominational) whose doors are open to everyone and preach love and acceptance.

The Church I was raised in, (denominational) whose doors were open to everyone, and it preached the "Gospel", which is the "Good News" that God hads taken care of sin, through the work of Jesus Christ.

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.

The Church I was raised in, did not preach on particular sins, but did in fact preach on the "bad news" of sin, and that we were all sinners, but it went on to preach the "good news" of the Gospel, which is that God, through the work of Christ has taken care of our problem.

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.

Again, the Church I was raised in, had "opened doors" to all the same folks who were interested in hearing the preaching of the Gospel. I never witnessed anyone ever being denied, and cannot imagine this would have ever happened.

They do teach sins like stealing, hating, killing, etc are bad/sinful, however.

What a minute? Who is it that determines things like, "stealing, hating, killing, etc. are bad/sinful behavior? I mean, how were they able to determine these sort of things would be bad/sinful behavior, while seeming to eliminate other behaviors? Who is it, who would determine this?

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).

I really do not know what the building would have to do with it, but I can assure you the Church I was raised in, was not a "mega Church". In fact, we had less than 100, (far less), and we did not have a lot of money.

They seem to be very much like Jesus is said to have been in the current Christian bible.

Exactly what Bible are you reading? The Bible I am reading has Jesus as saying, "you have heard it said, do not commit adultery, but I tell you, anyone who looks lustfully at another women has already committed adultery." You see, if Jesus would have simply left it at "adultery" I could proudly, and boldly proclaim, "I have never done such a thing"! However, when Jesus goes on to add in lust????????? Well, I am not faring well at all.

So while the Churches you are talking about, seem to evaluate certain behaviors below others, Jesus seems to condemn all of us? Unless of course, you do not lust?

What's you personal opinion of churches like this?

Well, according to the way in which you describe them, they seem to want to condemn certain behavior, while being accepting of other behaviors, and I am kinda wondering, where they get this sort of authority?

Are they biblically correct in their teachings?

Well, does what is contained in the Bible address other behaviors besides, "stealing, hating, killing, etc" as being sinful? Or, is this all that would be on the list? When the Bible talks about sin, is it explaining to us that certain behaviors causes us to be sinners? Or, does it explain to us, we all have (including myself) a condition, and it is this condition which causes us to sin? In other words, I am not a sinner, because I sin. Rather, I sin, because I am a sinner?

Have you been to any and if so, did you like it?

I am not sure the question should be, "did you like it"? In other words, I am not thinking, "did you like it" would equal, is it truly Christian?

[JehovahsWitness]

WHAT IS THE NEW COVENANT ?

Answers so far:

Mithrae: ... "a covenant from God which is new," as outlined in Jeremiah 31/Hebrews 8 etc.

Why do you say so far? Are you going to add more later?









JW


RELATED POSTS

What was the (Mosaic) Law Covenant?
viewtopic.php?p=1027280#p1027280

To learn more please go to other posts related to ...

BIBLICAL LAW, THE MOSAIC LAW and ...ABRAHAM

[nobspeople]

[Replying to Realworldjack in post #38]

Who is it that determines things like, "stealing, hating, killing, etc. are bad/sinful behavior? I mean, how were they able to determine these sort of things would be bad/sinful behavior, while seeming to eliminate other behaviors? Who is it, who would determine this?

I assume the churches based on the bible. At least that's what was taught at all the ones I attended.

I really do not know what the building would have to do with it, but I can assure you the Church I was raised in, was not a "mega Church". In fact, we had less than 100, (far less), and we did not have a lot of money.

I was referring to elaborately decorated and built churches much like you can see from very old Catholic churches in major American cities.

Exactly what Bible are you reading?

I was referring to Jesus's teaching of love, as many claim.

according to the way in which you describe them, they seem to want to condemn certain behavior, while being accepting of other behaviors, and I am kinda wondering, where they get this sort of authority?

I suppose you'd have to ask those church leaders. I'm sure they could reference some biblical passage to prove their point.

Well, does what is contained in the Bible address other behaviors besides, "stealing, hating, killing, etc" as being sinful?

Surely. The point I was making is that some churches seem to 'ignore' some aspects of 'what the bible says' while focusing on others. Is that right? That's debatable, but it doesn't negate the fact that some churches do this.

Or, is this all that would be on the list?

Probably church dependent I suspect

I am not sure the question should be, "did you like it"? In other words, I am not thinking, "did you like it" would equal, is it truly Christian?

If that's what it means to you, sure. But for those who attended those types of churches, and no longer do, did you like it?

[historia]

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.