Ya know...that little "FISH" sign on the back of your car

[CC1]

Carp,

Thanks for the kind words.

One of the things that really helped my wife and ourself through that period of time in our lives was the wonderful spirit and attitude our pastor, Kenneth Phllips, had towards those kinds of things.

When we expressed our hurt and disappointment to him over how we were being treated he counseled us to not become bitter or hold anything against folks. He said words that have stuck in my mind these past 24 years. It was simply that we were "flying with the eagles" and not to let things like this get us down.

I realized then that I could live in my past and be hurt by it or I could look forward and move on. I chose to move on. If I had gotten bitter and developed a bad attitude at my mistreatment by those in my past I would have been in no better of a place than they were.

Over time I have also come to understand that even when exhibiting this type behaviour people are not trying to be mean. They are simply operating within the religous culture they are in.

That is why I can genuinely enjoy getting together with people from all the different stripes of Pentecost for personal fellowship and to worship together in services.

I know that fundamentally we all share a love of God and desire to serve him to our best. We also share some fundamental doctrinal basics such as the same general understanding of the godhead, baptism in Jesus name, Holy Spirit baptism,etc.

[Praxeas]

Originally Posted by Carpenter

Pal, I only get upset when people compare me to Cooper.

Typical, you resort to insults when your point is lost in truth and logic.

People are people and some are more paranoid and see the debbil behind every rock and tree than others.

So be it.

If the shoe fits

Im still waiting to see that you can read that I wasn't even replying to you to begin with. That it was Barb that assumed they were unkind

[Praxeas]

Originally Posted by CC1

Praxes,

It is easy for you to say it is a sweeping generalization. I can assure you that it is in fact something that happens a lot. Over and over again.

Let me educate some of you on what a sweeping GENERALIZATION is. That's when you apply something that is true of a portion of a group to the WHOLE GROUP.

It is endemic in old time Pentecost. People are immeresed in legalism and misapplication of scriptures and it becomes the barometer by which they judge all others. That is only nautral within that kind of culture and belief system.

It is NOT true of the ENTIRE group...ie NOT every UPCer does this. When one becomes honest and objective or at least wearing the shoe on the other foot, they can see there are other attitudes to be had NOT by members of that group but by those that LEFT that group.

However I would not be making a blanket statement about that entire group based on the attitudes of a portion of that group. That is a SWEEPING GENERALIZATION.

I learned this the hard way. Way back in the beginning of 1983 when I moved my young family to Austin Texas to attend Kenneth Phillips church I was shocked at the response we got.

I quickly discovered that many folks I thought were friends were merely acquaitances because once we lost the common bond of being UPC they treated us like pariah.

Did EVERY member of the UPC do that? EVERY MEMBER you can be sure of, without meeting them, had that attitude?????? Really???? If you say no, then you are proving my point. These sweeping generalizations get annoying. That's my point. You don't need to convince me with your testimony that attitudes exist. I have been around long enough to see them myself from both sides.

My wifes home church that had always been so welcoming, having her sing and me testify every time we visited suddenly ignored our presence when we visited. People all around us would be acknowledged and recognized but not us. After service of course the pastor was his usual friendly self. (footnote - after being at KP's for about seven years my wifes pastor finally decided we were not "coming home" to the UPC and actually started recognizing us again when we visited.

So how does that prove EVERY UPCER does this? EVERY UPCER! I never denied there are no attitudes at all. I never denied it does not happen. I get tired of the SWEEPING GENERALIZATIONS Need I define it again?

What I am describing is something that is hard to see when you are immeresed in the culture but once you are out of it and ostracized you start seeing things objectively and in a whole new light.

Excuse me...you clearly have no idea who you are speaking with. I have seen it happen to some good friends of mine, but again NOT EVERYONE DID IT. A SWEEPING GENERALIZATION for those that are uninformed, is when you apply...or in this case...accuse the entire group of doing what only a part of that group are doing.

I have heard the process of dealing with all of this as deprogramming and I agree. I found myself for years instinctively judging peopole I met by how they looked. Did the guy have hair over his ears? Oh, then he must be backslid or not in church! This was long after intellectually and spiritually I came to an understanding that the UPC dress code was not biblical.

Im sorry you had that problem but not everyone has that problem. Again, I raised the issue of a sweeping generalization and you have done nothing to prove me wrong.

It can be denied all day and night long but if you don't think psychological conditioning is a huge part of old time Pentecost you are deluded.

Either you are deluded yourself, can't read or just don't understand what a Sweeping Generalization is. I suspect you it might be a combination of things. Sorry, but I disagree that such a view is or can be applied to EVERY member of the UPC. People that hate the UPC and Apostolics can try to convince me all day long how evil every UPCer is or every Apostolic is based on the experiences they have with only a portion of the whole, but I prefer to use my brain when looking at these things...

And I still say a "weird look" should not be assumed to mean anything negative other than simple perplexity in light of the circumstances

[CC1]

Praxes,

No one has said what I wrote applied to 100% of the group that is the UPC. I said that it is endemic. It is pervasive. It is a part of the UPC culture. It is a part of the UPC religious identity.

Of course there are exceptions as there is with almost anything. However my personal experience and that of many other exUPCers I have communicated with over the last 24 years is the same.

No one likes to have their group criticized in any way so I understand where you are coming from. However just because there are exceptions to what I have stated does not negate the fact it is pervasive.

I have spoken with Xer's from all over the nation and the experience is pretty much universal with few exceptions.

*cough* strawman *cough*

The culture seems to have taken the, "Shoot the messenger" tactic and changed it to "Discredit the messenger".

[CC1]

Originally Posted by Sheltiedad

*cough* strawman *cough*

LOL!!! Exactly. I love these ridiculous defenses based on parsing words in a Bill Clintonish manner.

I am taken to task because I have said "all" UPC folks are the way I described. Any intelligent person knows when you are speaking of a phenomena, set of behaviours within a group, etc there are always exceptions.

Those exceptions do not negate the observation that fits the vast majority of the group.

We do have to give kudos to Praxes for a nice attempt at diversion.

[Praxeas]

Originally Posted by CC1

Praxes,

No one has said what I wrote applied to 100% of the group that is the UPC. I said that it is endemic. It is pervasive. It is a part of the UPC culture. It is a part of the UPC religious identity.

Of course there are exceptions as there is with almost anything. However my personal experience and that of many other exUPCers I hae communicated with over the last 24 years is the same.

No one likes to have their group criticized in any way so I understand where you are coming from. However just because there are exceptions to what I have stated does not negate the fact it is pervasive.

I have spoken with Xer's from all over the nation and the experience is pretty much universal with few exceptions.

CC1 let's revisit..I see I have to do this a lot. I was NOT responding to you when you decided to butt in over my use of the term SWEEPING GENERALIZATION and then pretended at act as though I said NO such attitude exists at all anywhere. What's wrong with that?

You don't under stand where I am coming from because my problem is not that I deny an attitude exists my problem is 1) someone making this something ALL UPCers do and 2) you coming along and pretending as though I ever denied it exists at all just because I am tired of sweeping generalizations and giving me 3 lessons on how this happened to you.

Trust me, I have been around the block! Ok, you guys have no clue who you are talking to on this matter. But the simple truth is NOT all of us do this and I get tired of someone applying the sweeping generalizations and then someone else coming along and condescending to me as though I have no clue.

The mere fact that there are exceptions SHOULD have had you agreeing with me rather than allowing those exceptions to be lumped into the whole

[Barb]

Originally Posted by Praxeas

You have a reading comprehension problem?.....I was NOT posting to you. I was posting to someone else and you butted in...what does that make you? A typical ____ ____?

Go read what Barb said. She said "unkind"..good grief. That's twice now I have told you I was not replying to you. I said SHE was assuming that when I pointed out YOU said they thanked you.

They didn't call you crazy lunatic. They thanked you and according to you they looked at you weird....what is weird? Well Barb assumed it meant they were unkind.

I think it's idiotic to assume because they were not jumping up and down like a lap dog that they were being unkind. Unkind people don't bother to thank someone for opening the door. Unkind people would ignore you or just say "What's it to you"

If you walked up to a baptist that never met you and said "Hey brother" and to his wife "Good to see you sister", I bet they'd look at you funny too, but I bet they would be cordial as well and not nasty.

Originally Posted by Praxeas

And for the 10th time BARB said your story shows THEY were unkind and for the 10th time I was telling BARB that SHE, not you but SHE assumed the worst, but now I am do wonder about your motives also considering your subsequent replies

Originally Posted by Praxeas

Bump for Carp

BTW the early church used that fish sign to identify themselves to each other.

I wonder, just how often would a total stranger walk up to you and assume you were a brother or sister? You said you said "Praise the Lord" to a baptist, but did you already know he was a baptist? Was there a reason in his mind for a total stranger to just say "Praise the Lord"? To some people that might catch them off guard for a moment wondering why a total stranger knows them or knows they are Christians. And in fact I have seen it many times. I have see other Apostolics and walked up to them to talk and at first they looked "weird" too until I explained that I could tell THEY were Apostolics. That does not mean or imply anything other than what is in the mind of the one that wants to draw an accusation.

Originally Posted by Praxeas

If the shoe fits

Im still waiting to see that you can read that I wasn't even replying to you to begin with. That it was Barb that assumed they were unkind

LOL!! Prax, how many pages back did I say that "unkind" may have been the wrong word...that was just how I first read Carp's post.

I am not in the habit of being judgmental...at least not anymore, nor do I assume the worst or make sweeping generalizations.

I am nicely asking, how many times must I say this?! Can we not move on?!

I have been to church, out to supper, downtown to see what the movie makers are doing in town, and still this is being talked about...*sigh*

[Barb]

Originally Posted by Praxeas

CC1 let's revisit..I see I have to do this a lot. I was NOT responding to you when you decided to butt in over my use of the term SWEEPING GENERALIZATION and then pretended at act as though I said NO such attitude exists at all anywhere. What's wrong with that?

You don't under stand where I am coming from because my problem is not that I deny an attitude exists my problem is 1) someone making this something ALL UPCers do and 2) you coming along and pretending as though I ever denied it exists at all just because I am tired of sweeping generalizations and giving me 3 lessons on how this happened to you.

Trust me, I have been around the block! Ok, you guys have no clue who you are talking to on this matter. But the simple truth is NOT all of us do this and I get tired of someone applying the sweeping generalizations and then someone else coming along and condescending to me as though I have no clue.
The mere fact that there are exceptions SHOULD have had you agreeing with me rather than allowing those exceptions to be lumped into the whole

But whom did you accuse of making the sweeping generalization?! ME!! I did no such thing...I was referring to myself...mercy, Prax...

[Praxeas]

Originally Posted by CC1

LOL!!! Exactly. I love these ridiculous defenses based on parsing words in a Bill Clintonish manner.

I am taken to task because I have said "all" UPC folks are the way I described. Any intelligent person knows when you are speaking of a phenomena, set of behaiours within a group, etc there are always exceptions.

Those exceptions do not negate the observation that fits the vast majority of the group.

We do have to give kudos to Praxes for a nice attempt at diversion.

I had this same thing happen with Carp...I replied to Barb who said those people were unkind and Carp assumed I was saying HE said those people were unkind...after several posts of pointing out I was not even replying to him he has yet to acknowledge that fact.

You seem to have the same problem CC1.

And as for strawman arguments, of which I am sure most of you have no clue what that is, please show me where I denied such an attitude exists at all or is even pervasive. That was your contribution as far as strawmen arguments go and diversions from the truth.

All I did was point out sweeping generalizations exist and you act as though that means "aha, he is clueless and denies such attitudes exist in the UPC"