Pete

No one I know of.

As none of the named links on the video lead me to the person's responsible I have written to the ULCHQ. It maybe they are expanding into Europe. If that is the case then I would be delighted. I have no problem with the genuine ulchq in Modesto using the logos. They have a site called ULC Europe at :- https://sites.google.com/site/universallifechurcheurope/home Let you know if I find out more.

If its legit, then I may turn a blind eye but I would like to have been asked and especially as they are asking for money because I do not want to be a party to being used to gain funds if it is not actually going to the church in Modesto or any charities concerned. I also note its using the ULC Blue shield too. I understand that is also copywritten to this forum and Brother Kevin. I just wish they had asked or inform me of what they are about first.

There is also a website. I tried to contact them but the site is difficult to track beyond the ULCiHQ and I am not going there and nor have I ever done. I wish they had asked our permission first. If I had known that it was the ulcihq I would not of given it. Please do not confuse the ulcihq with the ulchq. The later is the genuine one. I think they are using our UK site to promote their own and despite their swearing loyalty to Modesto the ulcihq is not at Modesto and has no connections with it..

I got a shock when I saw a You Tube vid about the ULC in the UK. Saying we are there brothers and sisters in the UK and calling their site ULC Europe. When I clicked on their coat of arm I traced it back to the ULCiHQ and someone called Kanaal Van ulcuinfogate. What bothers me is they say they are loyal to Modesto and describe themselves as a charity. This video has nothing to do with the ULC in the UK forum and neither has the ULCiHQ. We only recognise the ULCHQ in Modesto. I recommend that no one sends them money and also they are using copywrite material belonging to the ULC in the UK forum without permission in what I believe is a scam.

Do not give up Lordie. The fact that women ministers get so much difficulties means we need more women ministers, not less. Society needs to change its attitude to women. I work as a nurse. I remember the teasing I got when I first started 40 years ago. People said I must be gay; I should not enter a women's profession; and even some employers would not offer me work, but it is what I believe I was called to do. Yet, its not unusual to find a nurse who is male today. Things change when there is a will to change them. Stay strong my friend. You will overcome them or win them over. I do not know if you like Mr Obama or not but 50 years ago the idea of a black president was seen as unthinkable in the USA. I think there is real inspiration there. If you think this is what your called to do then stay with your goals. Do not give in and the next women minister that comes along will get it easier thanks to you. I believe you can and will be successful. Be proud of every step you make no matter how little it seems at the time. It is one more step to your achievement and a changing of society for the better. Bless you.

I go with much of that underlined but I personally do not believe I have left the faith. I just see it differently. I say this to voice my opinion but I know it will not be something that Dan's take on things is in any way likely to agree with me. That said I am sure what Dan believes what is right for him. I know that this is something that will offend some but I personally believe all religions are opinions as all scripture is opinion. We may believe something and we may believe it strongly but none of us were there to verify that things are just so or it happened as said or that the writer gave an unbiased or unadulterated account of what is said to have occurred or said. We may go by trust or faith but it still stands that what you believe in a religion is not always self evident or agreeable to all. So what do I believe sets scripture apart from any other writings. For me first and foremost is that what is written has to have meaning. Meaning that gives us a greater understanding of the experience of life and what it is to be alive and who we are and also that meaning stands the test of time. Now if I tell of the Good Samaritan (Luke 10:25-37) or the women caught in adultery (John 8:2-11) then it matters little to me whether this occurred as said or not but it still has meaning for me. It has lessons that I treasure. For me to look upon the Great commandment to love God and to love my neighbour (Matt 22:36-39) has meaning for me. I know that many do not believe in God as I do but there are things that still may have meaning in scripture and not believing in God does not (IMO) invalidate the lessons or the spirit of the ideal presented in these things. In my opinion God speaks in the spiritual and mankind interprets in our own understanding and puts this into words. Words and understandings are often personal viewpoints. One can be moved by something but how it is described will be determined by how we describe our experiences. Which is what I believe those in the past who wrote about their experiences did (IMO). They wrote things rightly or wrongly according to how they saw the world. Likewise I believe God (IMO) speaks in that inner voice inside each of us and I personally understand this in terms of my faith in Jesus' teachings. It is a given that others will interpret this according to their understanding and may see it other than the voice of God, but that does not mean that what they have to say has no meaning for them or indeed for ourselves. When these understandings are shared then I believe we can grow spiritually from the lessons we have learned but when one resorts to dogma and insistence that it is their way or no way then I believe we often miss the point of the lesson and narrow the meanings that can be gleaned from such writings or events. We say that another person has nothing to offer further than what we already personally believe. Once we presume we know something then we stop listening to the views of others and close our ears to them. In my opinion what is the ULC about if not that we have a common ground in which we can share our experience and spiritual endeavours with others so that we can all grow. The issue is that I find is that so much is given to saying that it's this way or no way. I know I have got into such talks but I really do not enjoy them. The reason that I get into them is I often see an attempt to dictate what others should believe or not and I feel a need to defend my right to my view as being as legitimate as theirs. Statements like "Christians believe this" suggest to me that if I do not agree with the said statement then I am not a Christian. The fact that Christianity is a very diverse religion and has been so from the beginning does not seem to enter such statements. They appear to me more about control tactics than intended for spiritual growth. They leave little leeway for people to make their own judgement (IMO). So bringing this back to Rainclouds point of faith being eroded. I would ask what is being eroded? Is it the belief that Christian scripture cannot be literally supported or something of the like. If so, then I would recommend that too much is given to labels like Christian which may have many meanings to many people. I personally would therefore recommend that one looks for what has meaning in one's own life rather getting hung up on what others think you should believe or how you should be. My personal faith has grown since I did this. However, what you do is up to you. I have only given you my opinion with no strings attached. Whether this has meaning for you and what label you attached to your faith is up to you (IMO) and more importantly than labels (IMO) I hope sincerely it brings you many blessings and your road is fruitful and perhaps I may share the road with you sometimes. Bless you Raincloud. Pete

We come to God because we sense God is there.We come to God because God comes to us. The bible is not the door to God. God spoke to man long before it was ever written.

I would go with communication. Without communication I doubt many things would of been able to be achieved.

Historical evidence verses Theology evidence are two things. :- http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=twX5HlBDZEI Yet, beliefs are important to many people because many people think they are. I would say (IMO) therefore they are whether we agree on them or not.

Thanks RevRainbow. I know this is a theological statement of what you believe. I also note that none of that relies upon whether Isaiah 53 is about Jesus or not.

One thing you continue to do Dan (IMO) is to by pass Jewish Culture and tradition and the cultural way it describes itself. You quote verses from an English translation without looking in to the meaning they were given and assuming that the English translation is reliable enough to play with the words. Even my own Bible foot notes (NRSV) says Isaiah 53 is about the people of Israel and not Jesus. I gave you links to check what I am saying but I do not think you read them or wanted to listen to them. As for your point above:- I repeat for a third time the link and I will cut and paste what it says on the point you raised:- "(5) He was wounded as a result of our transgressions, and crushed as a result of our iniquities. The chastisement upon him was for our benefit; and through his wounds we were healed.וְהוּא מְחלָל מִפְּשָׁעֵנוּ מְדֻכָּא מֵעֲוֽנתֵינוּ מוּסַר שְׁלוֹמֵנוּ עָלָיו וּבַחֲבֻרָתוֹ נִרְפָּא לָנוּ This verse describes how the humbled world leaders confess that Jewish suffering occurred as a direct result of “our iniquities” – i.e., depraved Jew-hatred, rather than, as previously claimed, the stubborn blindness of the Jews. Isaiah 53:5 is a classic example of mistranslation: The verse does not say, “He was wounded for our transgressions and crushed for our iniquities,” which could convey the vicarious suffering ascribed to Jesus. Rather, the proper translation is: “He was wounded because of our transgressions, and crushedbecause of our iniquities.” This conveys that the Servant suffered as a result of the sinfulness of others – not the opposite as Christians contend – that the Servant suffered to atone for the sins of others. Indeed, the Christian idea directly contradicts the basic Jewish teaching that God promises forgiveness to all who sincerely return to Him; thus there is no need for the Messiah to atone for others (Isaiah 55:6-7, Jeremiah 36:3, Ezekiel chapters 18 and 33, Hoseah 14:1-3, Jonah 3:6-10, Proverbs 16:6, Daniel 4:27, 2-Chronicles 7:14)." from :- http://www.aish.com/sp/ph/Isaiah_53_The_Suffering_Servant.html If Isaiah 53 is not about Jesus does not in my opinion change one iota what Christians believe about their relationship with God. It does not even change what Jesus taught . Only what Paul taught. It may change what some churches are saying about the meaning of prophesy in the OT but that does not mean there is no further revelation from God. Jews very often do not argue that God gives differing revelations to differing people, only that the OT is a revelation about them. It was written that way and It was understood that way for years. It only became something else when the church and Paul put their boot in. I know you will not agree because it undermines what you have believed for so long. I am sorry about that and I know it undermines what I used to believe too but if the truth has any value (IMO) then sometimes what makes us uncomfortable is what has to be.

I do not want or need converting from Judaism or even Paganism. I will seek truth wherever it is to be found. I see myself as a Universal Christian, indeed a liberal Christian. I am not interesting in justifying text if I disagree with it or defending the church if I believe it is wrong. I suggest looking at :- The Bible uses a mis-translation of Isaiah.

No Jewish apologists are needed to describe what has always been the interpretation of their own Jewish scripture. I refer you back to my link :- http://www.aish.com/sp/ph/Isaiah_53_The_Suffering_Servant.html The Jews have not changed how they see these quotes. The church who would not listen to the Jews and persecuted them for years changed the meaning of these quotes to suite their own end. Now I know we are not going to agree Dan and we seldom do but I think if you want to understand a given scripture like the OT then consulting the people who wrote it would seem a rightful step. The church failed to do this because they did not want to allow the possibility that the Jews may have something to say on the matter and that Jews may then be seen as significant like they were in the beginning with the "new way group" or as we call it today Christianity. Lets not forget that Jesus and his disciples were Jews and not Christians. It was (IMO) Paul who made the change and he even reports that he had arguments with the disciples for acting like Jews. The split grew from there leaving groups like the Jewish Christians such as the Ebonites out in the cold.

It maybe your opinion but I think it bares out much of what I think too. Interestingly Justin Martyr was one of the main persons who looked for verses to justify Jesus as being prophesied in the OT (Jewish scriptures). I understand he claimed to have consulted Jewish teachers but I also understand there is little evidence he actually did and none of the verses were originally about prophesing Jesus who arrived 800yrs later than Isaiah. They were about the struggles of the time. Just like the much used Isaiah 9 was not about prophesing someone coming as much as saying as long as there was a new generation of Jews there was hope. I also think Paul's idea of dying with Jesus to be born again with him was also taken from pagan teachings, as was the communion of the body and blood. There is no way you could persuade a follower of Judaism to eat human flesh and blood either in reality or symbolic form. Duet 12:23. As I have said before that is right up their with eating pork. I just cannot see how this could of become accepted by the early followers who were Jews. I am certain in my opinion that this came from helonised sourses and adopted by the church. If you read the Didache you will also see that that there was a Jewish ceremony of taking bread and wine but it had nothing to do with symbolising the body and blood of Jesus. Didache (50-120 AD) chapter 9 " Chapter 9. The Eucharist. Now concerning the Eucharist, give thanks this way. First, concerning the cup: We thank thee, our Father, for the holy vine of David Thy servant, which You madest known to us through Jesus Thy Servant; to Thee be the glory for ever.. And concerning the broken bread: We thank Thee, our Father, for the life and knowledge which You madest known to us through Jesus Thy Servant; to Thee be the glory for ever. Even as this broken bread was scattered over the hills, and was gathered together and became one, so let Thy Church be gathered together from the ends of the earth into Thy kingdom; for Thine is the glory and the power through Jesus Christ for ever.. But let no one eat or drink of your Eucharist, unless they have been baptized into the name of the Lord; for concerning this also the Lord has said, "Give not that which is holy to the dogs." from:- http://earlychristianwritings.com/text/didache-roberts.html As one can see this was a Jewish ceremony to celebrate the teachings of Jesus and not about the body and blood of Jesus.

The clearly shown in Isaiah 53 is not so clear (IMO). From Judaic understanding the suffering servant is the Jewish people and not Jesus. I believe many have grasped these verses in an attempt to pull Jesus into Jewish prophesy and the gospels largely written to accomadate this understanding but it is not what the original meaning of these texts had in mind. See:- http://www.aish.com/sp/ph/Isaiah_53_The_Suffering_Servant.html

If you read in the previous posts Dan described Raincloud as not sounding much of a Christian and then in a later post talked about his not being able to understand liberal Christianity picking and choosing which parts of the bible they accepted or not. If you read the previous posts you will see what that led into. Further to Raincloud's position - the far right (Christian or otherwise) scares me too.

So Dan your saying that God gave the Jews the law and punished people for not obeying them and also gave instructions that some should be killed for not obeying it and then did not expect them to obey it. That God just gave the law to trip people up. Plus I do not see the law as perfect and we have discussed problems with some of the things the law says many times before.

11 Now what I am commanding you today is not too difficult for you or beyond your reach. 12 It is not up in heaven, so that you have to ask, “Who will ascend into heaven to get it and proclaim it to us so we may obey it?” 13 Nor is it beyond the sea, so that you have to ask, “Who will cross the sea to get it and proclaim it to us so we may obey it?” 14 No, the word is very near you; it is in your mouth and in your heart so you may obey it.

I also support Dan's place on the forum. Dan has his beliefs and yes they are not mine but he has a right to them. He may not be universal in his viewpoint but I have never known Dan to ever say that someone who disagreed with him has no place on the forum. I have never known Dan say that people are not free to believe as they will even if they he disagrees with them. Dan just quotes things from his belief in how he sees the bible. People are then free to agree, ignore, or disagree as they will. I for one would be sad if Dan left the forum.

Pity no one then told the poor Jews who were expected to follow these laws for many years. Sorry Dan I think again this is just a Paulian interpretation but I do not think Jesus had the same view or even the Jews whose law it was. It also puts God in the position of making people follow laws just to trip them up. That makes no sense to me.

Solid advice (IMO). Even in a hospital there are times when confidentiality is broken. You tell me in confidence that you have OD on something, or your planning a murder or you have been abusing children then I am duty and legally bound to report the issue.

I doubt any teenager would make it to adulthood if Lev 20:9 was strickly adhered to. I knew you would try and justify the qoute but somethings do not appear at all righteous or loving and I do not believe God would think so either. We continue to disagree sadly Dan.

I would also go to the word Christ. It is the Greek equivalent to Messiah. Messiah means anointed one of God (perhaps not the one the Jews were expecting, but still Messiah). Now I can accept that Jesus was anointed by the Holy Spirit but that still does not mean I have accept Paul's interpretation on things or that I should believe all so called scripture as God given. I believe God speaks to the heart of people as God did before any so called scripture was written and before anyone in the bible story was told about. I still think God's Spirit speaks to people today. I also believe that there is a spirit of Christianity found in Jesus' teaching. Yet, because I do not accept Paul's view on things or believe his teachings have anything to do with that of the man Jesus it does not mean I should throw all the teachings of the bible away just like throwing the baby out with the bathwater. The bible in my opinion was written by people inspired by God but interpreted in the understandings of the men who wrote parts of it. I believe there is nothing wrong in interpreting things with today's understanding and I am sure tomorrow that may seem flawed as does many of the things said in the bible but there is no doubt in my mind that God inspires but mankind who cannot grasp the totality of God can only describe that understanding in terms that have meaning in mankind terms. I believe mankind will develop more understandings of God but just as that can be said to be inspired by the Glory of God it is also flawed by the understanding of mankind. This leads (IMO) to inconsistencies in scripture because people at differing times described God differently. Hence we have parts of the bible describing God as love and other parts as anything other than love. i.e. 1 John 4:7-8 "7 Dear friends, let us love one another, for love comes from God. Everyone who loves has been born of God and knows God. 8 Whoever does not love does not know God, because God is love Now compare that with God said to say:- You should not let a sorceress live. (Exodus 22:17 NAB) Anyone arrogant enough to reject the verdict of the judge or of the priest who represents the LORD your God must be put to death. Such evil must be purged from Israel. (Deuteronomy 17:12 NLT) All who curse their father or mother must be put to death. They are guilty of a capital offense. (Leviticus 20:9 NLT) I just do not see the love. I know you will as always try to justify things like this but I just do not see that this can be of God if indeed God is love as 1 John says.

That is the problem Dan. You mention that the word is preserved (if indeed the bible is the word of God which I doubt) but it has change many times and it took nearly four hundred years to decide what to put into it and even then there were versions that differed. There is no evidence that Paul's take on things had any connection to the views of the disciples and then there is all the edits put in by the scribes. You can mock the liberal view from your perspective all you like but I do not believe you have any more of a firm basis to stand you view upon. You have to justify the horrific verses of the bible by saying that you see no wrong in them and I do not. You know I am happy to quote a few if you want.