Gay stuff, not saying which way to judge, but hear the person before you judge

Actually you didn't say the above, you asserted the scenario on me.

No, I said a lot of conservative people do...

I hate myself so I probably will check it out, just out of interest. Im a curious individual.

I'm going to bow out of the thread at this time because I think I've said what I have to say and to continue on would evolve into endless repeats.

The main points I wanted to communicate was that it is good to hear someone personally as opposed to secondhand reports,

And that if one desires a strict, literal reading of the Bible that is good as long as it is consistent. Meaning that one doesn't look for workarounds on subjects like women being silent in the church or learning with quietness and all submission or what an abused person is to do in regards to biblically directed obedience.

I know the Wilde commercial you're talking about. It's great. "I'm thinking about taking that bridge."
At least they don't show any croc's catching their friends during the crossing.

I use to think that probably every generation since the invention of radio and TV said the same thing I have. The world's going to Hell faster now than ever before.
And I figured that would have been the case because of all the new technology and social more's that changed or arrived every generation since the invent of radio & TV. Boy was I wrong. I met a woman at the laundry that was 104. No kidding. You gotta talk to someone who's over a century old. Ya know?
We got to talking about society's woes and politics. I told her my thoughts about every generation saying the same thing. Not in the least.

In her generation when she was but a child the changes were spectacular and positive for society. The telephone, the car, that you could buy from Mr. Ford in any color....as long as the color of choice was black.
Sure, it got dicey with the civil rights stuff and what with the not that long removed history of slavery. Though free blacks did fight for the north. But it was nothing like today, she said.
Never would a parent bring a suit against a school so that her little boy could pretend to be a girl and have access to all the girl facilities there. Gay marriage wasn't even imagined because in her day being gay was being happy go lucky and thrilled with life.
One didn't sue the baker because he refused to make a cake for personal reasons. One simply baked their own. Or went to another baker if the town was big enough.

I loved this part. No, she said, today's world of people are turning back into babies. A new century and we're not moving forward. We're moving into boxes, playpens, so we can whine and scream until someone gives us our pacifier of choice. And what do you mean there's no constitutional right guaranteeing we're not to be offended by someone else's beliefs?
Warning, whiner on board! Don't say something that may upset me. It could stunt my growth.

Oh, this woman was great. Then she said that today's newborn, that one brought into the world precisely at that moment, likely would never see 104 years of age. At least not as a mature independent free thinking self sustaining American.

One nation under a thumb.
That's the new American dream. Give it to me! So I don't have to think.

Love her. May she live another 104 just to be the perfect example of what America use to be.

The wolf killings really irk me. I'm glad I don't live in those zones or I'd likely camouflage and do some ground to air wolf-defense with a high powered rifle.
The rancher idiots are the real tisser. THEY'RE WOLVES! What ? You put an all you can eat walk through in their territory where they lived first and then get mad that they come to eat? Mutton anyone? Beef? Here you go.

It would be like someone bringing a Wendy's to a starving village in sub-Saharan Africa and getting all bent out of shape because they're robbed for their food regularly. They're starving! And your address has food. What's the big surprise?

I met a wolf hybrid once. North Carolina wolfie.
Enormous! He was 99%, near as you can get to full wolf. His dad bred wolf-hybrids to any percent anyone wanted. But he had a veterinarian that would work the paperwork so as to make the higher blood line within the legal limits for high wolf percentages.
I was so enthralled. This wolf was a big puppy. And all his mates at the dad's property howled when I walked in.
I felt right at home.

Lots of good points! Of course we judged by God standards. But as to the thing being considered for judgment, it seems wise to go buy a person's actual words as opposed to hearsay, for example.

I'm glad you watched the video, of course form whatever judgment or opinion seems right to you in light of God's word.

Gay welcoming was simply a shorthand way of saying a church which regards the Bible as having been written in a particular culture and needing to be translated from one culture to another as well as from one language to another.

a church or person who wishes to regard the scriptures as having been written much as an instruction manual for all time and all placesis fine as long as they're willing to do strict readings of things like about women's role in the church as well

I didn't assert that you had no regard for cultural situations, I said if one takes that position.

I haven't met any Christians today, even very conservative ones, that would return a slave to an abusive master, or require and abused child to be obedient to their parents.

I do not see anywhere in the word of God where the church is to openly support a sexual perversion. When a church makes one comfortable in their sin and supports the false narrative of the sin, they are doing a great disservice to the Very power which can and will set them free. that is abuse.

a church which regards the Bible as having been written in a particular culture and needing to be translated from one culture to another as well as from one language to another.

I'm going to bow out of the thread at this time because I think I've said what I have to say and to continue on would evolve into endless repeats.

The main points I wanted to communicate was that it is good to hear someone personally as opposed to secondhand reports,

And that if one desires a strict, literal reading of the Bible that is good as long as it is consistent. Meaning that one doesn't look for workarounds on subjects like women being silent in the church or learning with quietness and all submission or what an abused person is to do in regards to biblically directed obedience.

Lot was what the Apostle Paul would have called "carnal"

Yet the Apostle Peter called Lot "righteous" and said that he was vexed in his soul by the lawless deeds he saw around him day after day.

the above is a link to a gay welcoming Church.

I post it neither as an endorsement nor the opposite.

I think somewhere in the Gospels it talks about it's not good to judge a person before you hear what he has to say.

the preacher was saying something about wanting the people in the congregation to hear something from God that morning.


something I heard that I'd never thought of before was that apparently in UCC churches, probably other liturgical churches such as Catholic or Episcopal, the book they read the gospel out of is left open after the reading.
he talks about this at about 33:45
he says that the symbolizes that God is still speaking to his people. an interesting thought, I thought.

It is interesting that nothing is ever said about the command 'Thou shalt not commit adultery' yet in Matthew 5:27-28;

You have heard that it was said by them of old time, Thou shalt not commit adultery: but I say unto you, That whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart.

Yet the Gospel continues in Matthew 5:31-32

It hath been said, Whosoever shall put away his wife, let him give her a writing of divorcement: But I say unto you, That whosoever shall put away his wife, saving for the cause of fornication, causeth her to commit adultery: and whosoever shall marry her that is divorced committeth adultery.

However one can't help but notice that whosoever divorces his wife, except for adultery causes he to be an adultress. And whosoever should married the divorced woman commits adultery even though she is given a writing of divorcement. That doesn't seem like a fair balance, or equity in judgement IMO.