It's Time to Head Down to Splitsville

[rrford]

Originally Posted by Brother Price

Could you be trying to start an argument with me? All of a sudden, I cannot speak on an issue without someone trying to bring past mistakes up. Too bad, cause I am not leaving. I am here, right now, and not moving. So, deal with it, and get out of my way.

I think TV is willing to get out of your way. Just needs to know which way you are going.

All in fun, Bro. All in fun.

[OGIA]

Originally Posted by Brother Price

There will be no splitsville, and if there is, it is because someone was looking for a way out and plans to use TV as an excuse. That is as plain and simple as one can get.

Brother Price,

That's not really as "plain and simple" as it gets. That's a very broad and opinionated statement, is all.

Have you spoken to EVERY minister out there who might be considering pulling out of the UPC? If you have, you'd not make the comment above. I KNOW men who are personally fighting with their last breath to stay in the UPC DESPITE decisions (TV advertising, for example) that go against what they've stood for for years! It blows my mind that you would accuse certain men of trying to justify their leaving, when all they're fighting for is what they believe or don't believe is good for the future of the only organization they've known their whole life.

Originally Posted by rrford

Perhaps not right away. But eventually it would affect the local assembly to a great degree. For a myriad of reasons. Such splits cause the pasotr to choose sides. He then promotes the party line of his side, and when he does the church is affected.

This is an interesting statement.

The organization commands uniformity? No room for varying opinions to be promoted at home church? That sounds very rigid and intolerant at first glance. Is that what you meant? If so, would you not agree that that intolerance promotes hipocricy in as much as the Pastor cannot promote what he inwardly truly belives?

Clarification needed.

[rrford]

Originally Posted by The Antagonist

This is an interesting statement.

The organization commands uniformity? No room for varying opinions to be promoted at home church? That sounds very rigid and intolerant at first glance. Is that what you meant? If so, would you not agree that that intolerance promotes hipocricy in as much as the Pastor cannot promote what he inwardly truly belives?

Clarification needed.

That is not at all what I meant. I am merely stating that usually the natural progression is that a man chooses sides and then promotes what his side believes. Usually, the team doesn't have to require him to do so. He does so just because he is part of the team.

[SDG]

Originally Posted by rrford

That is not at all what I meant. I am merely stating that usually the natural progression is that a man chooses sides and then promotes what his side believes. Usually, the team doesn't have to require him to do so. He does so just because he is part of the team.

Yet, prior to 1992, there seemed to be an attitude of tolerance, at least as it pertained to PAJC vs. PCI.

Prior to '92 ... this Articles statement had some weight ...

"We shall endeavor to keep the unity of the Spirit until we all come into the unity of the faith, at the same time admonishing all brethren that they should not contend for their different views to the disunity of the body."

Now it's being used by men like Bernard, ironically, to mend a fractured fellowship today.

The affirmation statement has made folks choose sides on various issues and they are now entrenched against one another.

What a monumental mistake ...

I also falter a system that is in place that allows for tyranny of the majority and promotes factionalism.

JMO

[Coonskinner]

Tyranny of the majority...expound on that one, please.

Interesting phrase.

Originally Posted by Coonskinner

Tyranny of the majority...expound on that one, please.

Interesting phrase.

LOL...

He has already confessed to passion of the moment when asked about the "UC clowns" statement. This is probably another example of momentary passion. Maybe the rest of us should be...er...tolerant.

Originally Posted by rrford

That is not at all what I meant. I am merely stating that usually the natural progression is that a man chooses sides and then promotes what his side believes. Usually, the team doesn't have to require him to do so. He does so just because he is part of the team.

This statement confuses me even further, but I'll not pursue it further. Your statement that it is not what you meant is accepted at face value.

Thank you.

[Coonskinner]

Originally Posted by Daniel Alicea

Yet, prior to 1992, there seemed to be an attitude of tolerance, at least as it pertained to PAJC vs. PCI.

Prior to '92 ... this Articles statement had some weight ...

"We shall endeavor to keep the unity of the Spirit until we all come into the unity of the faith, at the same time admonishing all brethren that they should not contend for their different views to the disunity of the body."

Now it's being used by men like Bernard, ironically, to mend a fractured fellowship today.

The affirmation statement has made folks choose sides on various issues and they are now entrenched against one another.

What a monumental mistake ...

I also falter a system that is in place that allows for tyranny of the majority and promotes factionalism.

JMO

Pretty regularly.

[Brett Prince]

If rrford confuses you, you should simply read again. The guy is one of the minds around, and his statements usually make more and more sense as the day goes on.