*d-day: September 28th, 2007 - Conservatives Will Take The Hill*

Originally Posted by Felicity

Excellent post TB!

Excellent post TB???

Wow!

What an honest and non-partial critique! Couldn't be any more non-prejudiced than THAT!

[tbpew]

Originally Posted by Brother Strange

Excellent post TB???

Wow!

What an honest and non-partial critique! Couldn't be any more non-prejudiced than THAT!

what's good for the gander is good for the goose.

[Felicity]

Originally Posted by Brother Strange

Excellent post TB???

Wow!

What an honest and non-partial critique! Couldn't be any more non-prejudiced than THAT!

Originally Posted by tbpew

what's good for the gander is good for the goose.

I post without bias and give a thumbs up wherever it is merited or considered meritable (is that a word?) Especially when it seems it's being given a pass. It might could even be viewed as meant to be encouraging?

[chaotic_resolve]

Originally Posted by Charlie Brown

What a skewed view you have. It is all the conservatives fault ain't it??

And advertising is not ALL they are asking for. Remember that the 2004 resolution asked for advertising and programming to be utilized (advertising, tv shows, etc.). This was defeated. It was brought back up again in 2006 for "advertisement only" and was tabled.

It is obvious to see that the liberal mindset is to get something passed that opens a door. At that point all is fair in love and war. We have already had several here state they would do what they wanted to do regardless of what is passed. Why not get on out of the UPC where one can fellowship with likeminded folks that are for the tv.

I'm not saying it's the conservatives fault. Yes, I do have a biased view, as do you.

My biased view is that local churches should be able to conduct their business without interference from another church a thousand miles away who may not like how it's being run.

My biased view believes that local churches should have the CHOICE whether or not to place ads on television . . . not be dictated and forced not to because HQ won't allow them to.

My biased view states that the organization would be better unified by preaching the doctrine of salvation and not rules and regulations through force.

Regardless of whether it's advertising or actual programming - that doesn't matter . . . the issue here is the freedom to choose. And like it or not, the UC's are voting against this FREE CHOICE. That's about as simple as you can make it. Am I wrong? You know I'm not wrong here.

A vote yes is to allow the freedom to choose . . . [you can still vote yes and not vote, it does not force one party's belief on everyone.]

A vote no is to restrict that freedom to choose and force one party's beliefs on the whole organization.

If passed, Res 4 does NOT force or attempt to coerce anyone to place ads on television. It does not mean HQ will be creating and sending out commercials - though I concede, if there's a profit to be made, HQ will end up producing commercials.

[OP_Carl]

Originally Posted by chaotic_resolve

I'm feeling the same way, unfortunately. I have several premier UPC churches that I can see leaving the organization if not allowed the choice to place ads on television.

Ta ta. Let them go.

I've always thought a split not only would occur, but should occur. By having one fringe group leave, it keeps an organization somewhat united.

Until next season's set of issues, whatever they might be.

You've got the moderates and libs who have been upset since the AS of 1992. They've been pushed down long enough with rules and regulations, now they want the choice to place ads on television . . . that's all they're asking for - the free choice to be able to place ads on tv. They're not asking for HQ to publish and mandate ads for every church. It's about a simple choice.

Yes, the poor little innocent liberals are the victims every time. "All" the liberals want is just one little eensy weensy thing. All the while knowing full well that it would be impossible to ever get all the snakes back into the box, once they're loosed.

On the other side, you've got the conservatives and UC's who are dead-set against any free-choice in the matter. They'd rather add more rules and regulations to the manual in order to force the libs and moderates to be more conservative or UC.

And of course, we all know that conservatives are never led to their positions on issues by firm convictions, divine revelation, or God's spirit. It's all bully politics for conservatives, and mostly they just want to meet their quota of people to whom they've been mean.

They hate choice and don't want any part of it. Free choice for them is equal to sin.

Wow. This is funny. Until one considers the possibility that you sincerely believe this toad offal. It couldn't possibly be that conservatives see some danger there and want to prevent the organization from jumping off a cliff. And it certainly isn't that the liberals have already planned their next issue for compromise. Nobody has the market cornered on closed-mindedness. I was ready to call you stupid but I think you just did it for me.

Either way, one side is going to lose . . . and if the loser of this resolution really feels strongly either for/against it, they'll most likely leave the organization.

The losers are the ones that die believing they're saved but go to hell anyway. People need fewer distractions from God, not more. This TV thing is all about generating de facto acceptance for everybody to own TV and watch the ungodly filth it emits. Help us Lord, we might miss the next episode of Jackass.

They can have my television-free living room when they pry it from my cold, dead hands! Well, you get the idea.

[chaotic_resolve]

Originally Posted by OP_Carl

Ta ta. Let them go.

I'm sure the yippy attitude will lose its appeal with you if these churches do end up leaving . . . seeing as they give the most in offerings to keep the UPC going. Hope you're prepared to take up the slack. *grin* The first to go will be Harvestime, since it bloats the budget anyway. Next will not be just a $25 registration fee for GC . . . but possibly up to $100 or more . . . and gone will be the arenas - hello Hotel Convention Center!

Originally Posted by OP_Carl

Until next season's set of issues, whatever they might be.

This is funny, as though the only one's with issues are moderates/liberals. Let's flip the coin and consider what the C/UC's will try to push once Res 4 goes down to defeat . . . like a resolution of standards to be adopted by all churches in order to make everyone believe/look identical.

Originally Posted by OP_Carl

Yes, the poor little innocent liberals are the victims every time. "All" the liberals want is just one little eensy weensy thing. All the while knowing full well that it would be impossible to ever get all the snakes back into the box, once they're loosed.

Did I say anything about being a victim. You equate television to snakes . . . tell me what do you equate internet to? And yet you have no problem with that . . . I'd use the word hypocrite here, but I'd rather not have to edit the post later.

Originally Posted by OP_Carl

And of course, we all know that conservatives are never led to their positions on issues by firm convictions, divine revelation, or God's spirit. It's all bully politics for conservatives, and mostly they just want to meet their quota of people to whom they've been mean.

You speak of conservatives being led by conviction, divine revelation or God's Spirit . . . as though they and only they have a corner on the market. What about AM's comments. Wouldn't you agree that he has firm convictions on the issue. And quite possibly he feels led by God's Spirit to put ads on television.

Oh, I forget . . . only C/UC's have convictions. The moderates and libs have none.

Dumb.

Originally Posted by OP_Carl

Wow. This is funny. Until one considers the possibility that you sincerely believe this toad offal. [Err . . .WHAT?] It couldn't possibly be that conservatives see some danger there and want to prevent the organization from jumping off a cliff. And it certainly isn't that the liberals have already planned their next issue for compromise. Nobody has the market cornered on closed-mindedness. I was ready to call you stupid but I think you just did it for me.

A lot of words . . . but you didn't say anything to prove my statement wrong. And then you ended the usual UC way . . . with a personal attack. Utterly predictable.

Originally Posted by OP_Carl

The losers are the ones that die believing they're saved but go to hell anyway. People need fewer distractions from God, not more. This TV thing is all about generating de facto acceptance for everybody to own TV and watch the ungodly filth it emits. Help us Lord, we might miss the next episode of Jackass.

*sigh* Then why you wasting your time on AFF?

Originally Posted by OP_Carl

They can have my television-free living room when they pry it from my cold, dead hands! Well, you get the idea.

And you wanted to call me stupid!? Again, show me where anyone is trying to force anything on you! Good grief!

[OP_Carl]

Originally Posted by chaotic_resolve

I'm sure the yippy attitude will lose its appeal with you if these churches do end up leaving . . . seeing as they give the most in offerings to keep the UPC going. Hope you're prepared to take up the slack. *grin*

This is important to me, because religion is about money, right?

Did I say anything about being a victim.

Frankly, I was just having some fun with wordplay. You were my unwitting accomplice.

You equate television to snakes . . . tell me what do you equate internet to?

Komodo dragons and giant millipedes

And yet you have no problem with that . . . I'd use the word hypocrite here, but I'd rather not have to edit the post later.

Go ahead and use it. That wouldn't bother me one bit.

You speak of conservatives being led by conviction, divine revelation or God's Spirit . . . as though they and only they have a corner on the market. What about AM's comments. Wouldn't you agree that he has firm convictions on the issue. And quite possibly he feels led by God's Spirit to put ads on television.

There is a literary device known as sarcasm, in widespread employment in my post . . .

Oh, I forget . . . only C/UC's have convictions. The moderates and libs have none.

NOW you're getting it!

Dumb.

""

A lot of words . . . but you didn't say anything to prove my statement wrong. And then you ended the usual UC way . . . with a personal attack. Utterly predictable.

*sigh* Then why you wasting your time on AFF?

Having a little fun . . . . apparently at your expense. I hope you don't mind too awful badly. By the way - nice sigh! Did you get that sigh from Al Gore?

And you wanted to call me stupid!?

Yeah. If we turned that one inside out and backwards, so that it made a broad sweeping accusation toward liberals, then suddenly you would find reasons to question its lucidity (you'd thunk it stupid.)

Again, show me where anyone is trying to force anything on you! Good grief!

We all know that the liberals, led by Benny Hinn and Hillary Clinton, want to force communism, candy, and carnality on the UPC. Their program includes mandatory mixed bathing and a list of required TV shows we have to watch. Failure to own a TV results in excommunication!

I've got that link that proves it around here somewhere . . .

Originally Posted by CC1

I think Suber leaving the UPC while he was at his peak in it may encourage some other major or medium / major mods or libs to go ahead and leave when it does not pass.

IMHO....I wish all the like minded folk as Suber, would take his lead and leave.

Just get it over with and begin their own organization and leave the original alone.

[Charlie Brown]

Originally Posted by chaotic_resolve

I'm not saying it's the conservatives fault. Yes, I do have a biased view, as do you.

My biased view is that local churches should be able to conduct their business without interference from another church a thousand miles away who may not like how it's being run.

My biased view believes that local churches should have the CHOICE whether or not to place ads on television . . . not be dictated and forced not to because HQ won't allow them to.

My biased view states that the organization would be better unified by preaching the doctrine of salvation and not rules and regulations through force.

Regardless of whether it's advertising or actual programming - that doesn't matter . . . the issue here is the freedom to choose. And like it or not, the UC's are voting against this FREE CHOICE. That's about as simple as you can make it. Am I wrong? You know I'm not wrong here.

A vote yes is to allow the freedom to choose . . . [you can still vote yes and not vote, it does not force one party's belief on everyone.]

A vote no is to restrict that freedom to choose and force one party's beliefs on the whole organization.

If passed, Res 4 does NOT force or attempt to coerce anyone to place ads on television. It does not mean HQ will be creating and sending out commercials - though I concede, if there's a profit to be made, HQ will end up producing commercials.

I would agree that we ALL have a biased view.

I disagree that each church does not have the freedom to choose. The point is that they have the choice to continue in the organization that has specific rules, or move on to other places. So there IS freedom to choose, as no one is making anyone do anything.

If passed, Res 4 would make a lot of conservatives have to choose between staying in the organization they too have worked hard to build, and walking in integrity knowing they in good conscience cannot walk with those that are ok with tv.

[StillStanding]

*Just released*

Ultra-con buttons to be worn to rally the troops at GC!