"The Giant Sucking Sound"

[Old Paths]

Originally Posted by tbpew

SD,
I appreciate the positive tone and your confidence that "God is consistent". He did seem to be pretty clear when he included the inspiration that gave us the English words "For I the LORD, I change not"

What does strike me as a "head scratcher" is how you think an ORGANIZATION is anything other than a plurality of individuals.

Your post included:
If an organization claims to follow God, one would expect them to constantly be striving for that Godly consistency.
Consistency is only upheld by individuals. No organization that involves a plurality of minds and thoughts can act with consistency in all things.

The most consistent thing an organization does is act in a manner to perpetuate its existence. Beyond that, all bets for consistency are off.

Very good.

They are a plurality of individuals with written rules that are not consistent with one another. The very "mission statement" of the UPC conflicted with their stance on television. I do believe an organization has the ability to STRIVE to be consistent. I used the word STRIVE in the post you quoted on purpose... I agree that no individual or organization can be completely consistent, but they should be striving for it.

Originally Posted by Sheltiedad

On an even more primal level than "God is Love"... some of us have the assumption that "God is consistent".

If an organization claims to follow God, one would expect them to constantly be striving for that Godly consistency.

Some of us question those that do not strive for consistency. Either ALL technology is acceptable... or NONE of it is. The content currently available on a medium is irrelevent.

The UPC has done something that even I can respect. They took one step closer to consistency and I applaud them for it... and I also applaud the brave men who voted for it.

Sheltie,

While I understand what you are saying... it is theologically incorrect to assume that God is consistent... the correct assumption or assertion is that God is Sovereign. That is where most of us get into trouble as we question God and put logical limitations on a Sovereign creator.

[Elizabeth]

When read the title of this thread I thought it meant this kind of noise-

Originally Posted by philjones

Sheltie,

While I understand what you are saying... it is theologically incorrect to assume that God is consistent... the correct assumption or assertion is that God is Sovereign. That is where most of us get into trouble as we question God and put logical limitations on a Sovereign creator.

If He isn't, then He isn't what I am looking for... and that is a deal-breaker for me... are you saying that I am holding God to too high of a standard?

You just made my sig-line... (I know that is such an honor. lol)

[tbpew]

Originally Posted by philjones

Sheltie,

While I understand what you are saying... it is theologically incorrect to assume that God is consistent... the correct assumption or assertion is that God is Sovereign. That is where most of us get into trouble as we question God and put logical limitations on a Sovereign creator.

So Phil,
The Lord your God, changes?

Originally Posted by Sheltiedad

If He isn't, then He isn't what I am looking for... and that is a deal-breaker for me... are you saying that I am holding God to too high of a standard?

You just made my sig-line... (I know that is such an honor. lol)

You know that is not what I am accusing you of. I am saying that your definition of consistency may not fit with His absolute Sovereignty. False doctrines are usually born out of a failure to acknowledge that God and the written Testimony of God is ALWAYS right... even when it disagrees with our personal sensibilities or definitions of consistency.

Glad I could contribute to your sig... at least it might make some folks stop and think!

[HangingOut]

It goes like this: “True we don’t believe in the viewing of TV for moral purposes, however, we are doing our best to let the community know who we are what we believe.
Furthermore, if Hollywood can use this to captivate the minds of the public, surely we can use it to spread the gospel.”
This is how you explain the use of it and not viewing it.

Originally Posted by Old Paths

I do think that buying a car from a stranger and church leadership is a tad different.

Originally Posted by tbpew

So Phil,
The Lord your God, changes?

Nope but he is not subject to your definition of consistency either.

[Old Paths]

Originally Posted by HangingOut

It goes like this: “True we don’t believe in the viewing of TV for moral purposes, however, we are doing our best to let the community know who we are what we believe.
Furthermore, if Hollywood can use this to captivate the minds of the public, surely we can use it to spread the gospel.”
This is how you explain the use of it and not viewing it.

Have at it, if that's what you want to do, but I will remain the consistant, stick in the mud, anti Hellywood, non tv watcher.