Key

Thank you, Pastor Dave. That made for an interesting and fascinating read. I have often gotten people telling me that speaking of tongues and working of miracles were no more until the second coming, but I never felt agreeable to that. Your explanation and dissecting the verses for clarity was forward and understandable. Ah, I'm rambling now. Sorry. Thanks again.

That was only one example. I might consider it an "opinion that was less than flattering" if the individual, or group, had actually done some research and fact checking, yet still came to the same conclusion. No, I think this was a deliberate attempt to smear the ULC in a public theater. As there have been others, as naturally not everyone sees the ULC as a legitimate church as but one reason of many, still our members band together in unity and strength as the crosshairs draw closer. Each attack, or what you might consider harsh criticism, is met with keen resolve, and some tongue in cheek, as well as some light hearted proof reading. The stronger the attack, the more united our good brothers and sisters have been. At least that is the impression and experience I have witnessed. Not one doubts the ULC in these times, unlike other churches where seeds of doubt splinter the opinions of their own members. So, again begs the question, what makes the ULC so special to its members? What is it that draws us closer when we're the focus of uninformed bias and the like? (In your own personal perspective.)

Found title of previously mentioned thread. Look at "There Is Always One". (Located in forums of "The ULC, In General.") There will be a link in it that will direct to the website I was referring, if it's still up.

Thanks, Atwater. Well, there is that which my esteemed colleague mentioned about the "break off" factions. But my reference was more to a few recent articles, which didn't seem to have had much true research done to back their comments correctly. Probably the best, or worse, depending on your view, example of this can be seen in another thread, (wish I could figure how to place the link here), which brought our attention to a web site that presented a biased, ill informed, and malicious attack upon the ULC and its founder. The author's view may have been skewed due to a bad experience with one the "other" factions. We may never know. Nor could we ask as there was no contact information on the site. I know someone here may be familiar to the site or thread I am referring. Regardless, I found our member responses encouraging and supportive of our true ULC and each other. We are all of different faiths, occupations, race, ethnicity, and sexual identity, yet here, we truly are all one. This can't be said for a lot of other different churches, denominational or non, when faced with the same negativity. So, my question was to how we were different, or more precisely, what is it about the ULC that brings each of us together in strong show of support, in each member's perspective?

God doesn't need a book, but it seems He felt we did?

Sorry, brother, got tripped by "renewed". ULC is lifetime, so never need be renewed. Unless you got ordained by those other ULC guys. Nevertheless, glad you stood up for yourself. Your starting intentions were good, but you were taken for granted, and taken advantage of. Now you can do what does your heart the most good without the constraints of an orthodoxed religious church. Welcome home, friend.

I think I actually already answered this question earlier in this thread, Dan. LOL

Understanding can be limited if the communicator is exhausted with repetition of employing various examples to illustrate his meaning to no success of the inquiring party.

Saw the movie just recently. It lived up to its billing nicely. Didn't do 3D, but am aware of some of the complaints regarding the technology. BUT, you have to admit it has advanced tremendously in comparison to those made a few decades ago. (Inadvertently indicating my age range there, of course.) LOL

Actually, I think this would be a paradox that would render an android inactive on either point. As they would ponder the solution more logically, I would think, they may probably choose only to act as threat to self preservation becomes present or immediate. Flight or fight response may be much quicker than our own. Just speculating, of course.

Who's to say they, themselves, didn't alter in some way the principles that Jesus taught? As supposedly no one else was closer, no one outside the sphere of their group would really know what he said and taught them at the time. (Assuming, of course, they all existed. Which I am inclined to think.) We only have their words for it.

Congrats, brother! And I second your toast to the ULC, belatedly, of course.

At 62 years, at least, but don't think it's gonna retire then, anyway.

Hmm...wouldn't be many of our current religions as the androids original creators were mortal. So, perhaps with the belief in a soul, maybe, their deity would deal more in the spirit realm. Truth is universal, therefore their religion may seem quite similar to ours. Just thinking. Who would know?

True that. Today's believers may be more fickle than in days of past. Information is more widely shared, argued, believed, or disbelieved. Churches must accommodate for that and be clear and consistent with their message, while also acknowledging changes made by scientific discovery.

I think you may be confused. My argument was that unless a church changes its doctrine according to facts that reveal themselves through science or other means, it would lose its relevance to its followers. Not that God does, or doesn't exist. Example, and only that, many christian churches see homosexuality as a choice, whereas science has presented its case as it being genetic. Just so this thread doesn't now get bogged down on that issue, I'm certain there are many similar issues, this was just the most prevalent.

1. We agree. 2. Same as above. 3. Wasn't talking specifically about creationism, but okay. We still agree. Which also proves my point about followers being lost due to relevance. Would you continue to follow doctrine if facts prove against it? Just saying.

1. Perhaps you prefer logical conclusion based on partial knowledge? Still seems like faith to me without being definite on the results. 2. Theories would not be just that if there were proof. Black hole physics may be accurate based on all the laws of science, but we have yet to gather data from an actual black hole to know for certain. I question how we could if a black hole is supposed to suck everything in without possibility of escape. If light can't get out of it, as is suppose to be the case, then how can data from a probe do it? 3. Relevance of the church or religion to its followers. Based on what the believers may glean as truth versus what the church doctrine tells them.

Nothing quite so elaborate. (But I wish.) Since I don't have to work that night, I'll probably just sleep in a bit, then trudge around the house getting things cleaned up.

I call it Thursday.

Alas, science has to require "faith" that theories are correct depending on proven variables, but still unknown without proof of results for specifics. Science thinks it understands black holes, yet has no real proof on how they actually work. If a religion isn't willing to change it's views despite, or in spite of "new evidence", it's followers just might and it will lose it's relevance.

That's also a problem. There is no defined area for each. They are ever expanding. Science can be found to study everything. Religion can also cover everything. Only thing in common is faith in the results.

Depending on the religion, or belief, only God would be able to separate souls.

While I'm sorry to have irritated you, I merely pointed out it depends on whether a person believes or not. Faith requires no real proof, after all. Fundamentalist would debate if "God is within you" were a slogan, as it is in their scripture. But, slogans aside, it still boils down to an earlier statement I made. We will never know, as we can't experience things as androids do, nor they as we can. Thus, a soul may or may not be born or evolved within the shell.