|
Post by matisse on Aug 15, 2015 19:18:28 GMT -5
This is what I find interesting: Ross can excuse the foibles of the Anglican churches elsewhere because it's NIMOBY, but if any from the fellowship say that things reported here are unknown in our region, we are told, That's no excuse. :-/ Do the Anglican churches claim to be "the same the world over?" It seems clear that "The Way" has changed over the years and that there are regional differences. I was brought up to believe that would not be the case. What hook might you want to get GW, JC and WJ off of?
|
|
timber
Senior Member
Posts: 249
|
Post by timber on Aug 15, 2015 20:05:06 GMT -5
Yes - there is the love of the brethren within the way. As long as you "fit the mold" Otherwise, conversations tend to be a bit short. But I expect its that way with many different sects. Its convention time in this part of the country - and if you are not there - you are not THERE. Its always all about convention convention convention convention and then when there isn't convention there is sadness until gospel meeting rounds start and then there is that. I prayed in the middle of the day that God would help me with a temptation. He did, and I wasn't even sitting on a folding chair when I asked Him for help! Amazing!
|
|
hberry
Senior Member
Posts: 743
|
Post by hberry on Aug 15, 2015 20:26:21 GMT -5
Yes - there is the love of the brethren within the way. As long as you "fit the mold" Otherwise, conversations tend to be a bit short. But I expect its that way with many different sects. Its convention time in this part of the country - and if you are not there - you are not THERE. Its always all about convention convention convention convention and then when there isn't convention there is sadness until gospel meeting rounds start and then there is that. I prayed in the middle of the day that God would help me with a temptation. He did, and I wasn't even sitting on a folding chair when I asked Him for help! Amazing! I've found that folding chairs are over-rated when it comes to obtaining Divine assistance!
|
|
|
Post by BobWilliston on Aug 15, 2015 20:49:27 GMT -5
We're not speaking past each other -- you're not answering my question. Let me ask it this way. Is abuse an acceptable reason to leave the 2x2s? The question calls for a yes or no answer. Then if you want to explain the answer, you can't use the word "but". I'm always wary of demands for yes or no answers. Which means you don't have a moral principle to regarding the matter. Which suggests to me that you have a tolerance for bulling. That's because you reserve the option to condone bullying, so you don't want to be tripped up when you need an exception to the moral rule. You shouldn't -- you have to learn to answer "I don't know" instead of working the question so you can say something you want to say. I didn't ask that. I asked what YOU thought about the matter. See how easy that was. That's all I asked. Now I want to know what you would do about unacceptable abuse. Not necessary -- you've answered the question. Next question: What do you do about unacceptable abuse?
|
|
|
Post by emy on Aug 15, 2015 20:59:06 GMT -5
" the same the world over". Know what is the same the world oveer? Not the culture of the fellowship, but the Way - and I don't mean the fellowship method (though most of that is pretty uniform afaik)'
Here are a few things that are in the Way: *Jesus died for sinners and God raised him up. *Jesus intercedes for us in heaven. *He will return and gather his faithful. *Love is the banner *The Holy Spirit, directly or indirectly, is our teacher. *Obeying (doing) what we are taught (keeping the commandments) through the HS will win God's favor. *God is faithful. *Jesus has created his church and the Apostles carried through with it. *Our bodies are the temple of God.
Feel free to add anything else that fits.
|
|
|
Post by Mary on Aug 15, 2015 21:04:44 GMT -5
All churches teach preach and believe those principles emy so why not fellowship with Christians who attend other churches?
Careful you are not writing a statement of faith there emy. The workers won't like it.
|
|
|
Post by matisse on Aug 15, 2015 21:26:22 GMT -5
" the same the world over". Know what is the same the world oveer? Not the culture of the fellowship, but the Way - and I don't mean the fellowship method (though most of that is pretty uniform afaik)' Here are a few things that are in the Way: *Jesus died for sinners and God raised him up. *Jesus intercedes for us in heaven. *He will return and gather his faithful. *Love is the banner *The Holy Spirit, directly or indirectly, is our teacher. *Obeying (doing) what we are taught (keeping the commandments) through the HS will win God's favor. *God is faithful. *Jesus has created his church and the Apostles carried through with it. *Our bodies are the temple of God. Feel free to add anything else that fits. When did "the Fellowship" and "the Way" stop being one and the same? Or am I misunderstanding your words. Would you call the concept of the "Living Witness Doctrine" part of the "culture" of the "Fellowship"? Does it still apply, or is it flexible? I was brought up to believe that hearing the Gospel from 2x2 Workers was required as part of God's Perfect Way. Are these examples of things you might say that GW, WJ and WC need to be "let off of the hook" for?
|
|
|
Post by fixit on Aug 15, 2015 21:35:42 GMT -5
Next question: What do you do about unacceptable abuse? I speak out about it and support the abused. Is there more I should be doing?
|
|
|
Post by Roselyn T on Aug 15, 2015 22:28:31 GMT -5
Ross, you condemn F&W for inconsistencies in doctrine yet you won't acknowledge the inconsistencies (and unbiblical doctrine) in the Anglican Communion. I think one difference is that the anglicans talk and discuss about the inconsistencies and the F&W's don't. Not all anglicans are as frothy as the american branch and when there are issues it can take time for tens of thousands of people to discuss and resolve such things but still they are talking about those things. Quickest way to end a conversation among F&W's is to disagree with something a worker said - often just talking about the bible at all will have people changing the subject or suddenly finding an appointment they need to get to and thats not hearsay but observation and any observant person gets the message real quick that there are lots of stuff that its not our place to bring up or even think about. Doctrine should be important and open to discuss and to answer questions and to examine for a fellowship that really thinks it has the truth and that its a matter of eternal fate but even when things go bad here on earth like CSA or incest or mental illness or financial abuse or a worker or elder who is sleeping around or any of the rest - its not to be discussed or be honest about for the sake of the kingdom and is often dismissed and shut-down with things like that 'the way is perfect even if some of the people aren't' line. Exactly !
|
|
|
Post by BobWilliston on Aug 15, 2015 22:43:58 GMT -5
Next question: What do you do about unacceptable abuse? I speak out about it and support the abused. Is there more I should be doing? I don't know. Has it ever changed anything?
|
|
|
Post by BobWilliston on Aug 15, 2015 22:47:17 GMT -5
You obviously have lno knowledge of the Anglican communion and how it works and is structured. Important to get out and do some real-life research like Doug Parker and Cherie Kropp and others have done than just trying to work it out from a computer. ah but I noticed you didn't answer the other 4 points fixit made you wouldn't be in a 2x2 denial phase would ya? FWIW -- Anglicans (thus Episcopalians) are not required to believe all recognized church doctrine.
|
|
|
Post by BobWilliston on Aug 15, 2015 22:50:29 GMT -5
Not sure by what you mean by 4 other points? The things that fixit raised - apart from ordination of woman - are so far removed from the Sydney Anglican Church that I've never thought about them in that context! Re ordination of woman, woman are ordained but do not lead a church - similar position to 2x2's. Why would I be in 2x2 denial. It exists as an organised church and I know plenty of workers and friends and have a fair amount to do with them? What am I in denial about? Anglicans all around the world are moving in the direction of same sex marriage and such things the Sydney Anglican church won't be far behind...perth Anglican church recently voted 2-1 vote for same sex marriage Actually that's not the case. The Episcopal church is seriously at odds with much of the Anglican communion. Even in the US come Episcopal congregations have divorced themselves from the US Episcopal church and joined overseas congregations -- primarily over the gay acceptance issue.
|
|
|
Post by BobWilliston on Aug 15, 2015 22:53:56 GMT -5
Such an infant would be a miracle in and of itself. Any church should take such an infant for their own. Look what the last miracle birth did for the christians. Women seem able to make babies even when they're in same-sex relationships. And in the 2x2s even a virgin can have a baby.
|
|
|
Post by BobWilliston on Aug 15, 2015 22:59:41 GMT -5
Very interesting question. I really haden't considered Planned Parenthood until the investigative videos came out. And the more I look the worse it gets, for instance check out this site; blackgenocide.org/planned.htmlJesselackman, that site really has nothing to do with either religion or morality -- it's all about POLITICS IN AMERICA.
|
|
|
Post by BobWilliston on Aug 15, 2015 23:04:32 GMT -5
And you continue to have only negative things to say about the organization! You and Ilylo have something in common! I asked but you didn't answer - what does Planned Parenthood provide that isn't available elsewhere in the health care industry? What does an interstate highway provide that a state route doesn't? What does Safeway provide that 7-11 doesn't?
|
|
|
Post by BobWilliston on Aug 15, 2015 23:05:17 GMT -5
I asked but you didn't answer - what does Planned Parenthood provide that isn't available elsewhere in the health care industry? It depends on what part of the country you are talking about. But your question is yet another sidestep on your part. If you think some of the services Planned Parenthood provides are good, then why not just say it? Maybe he's a teabag republican.
|
|
|
Post by BobWilliston on Aug 15, 2015 23:13:53 GMT -5
Eugenics was the prevailing attitude and consensus in the US in the early 30s? Do you have links to Sanger publishing reversals of what she said in the 20s and 30? Of course. Where do you think Hitler learned how it was carried out? Virginia was one of the states -- I forget which the others were. exhibits.hsl.virginia.edu/eugenics/
|
|
|
Post by BobWilliston on Aug 15, 2015 23:20:04 GMT -5
Yes - there is the love of the brethren within the way. As long as you "fit the mold" Otherwise, conversations tend to be a bit short. But I expect its that way with many different sects. Its convention time in this part of the country - and if you are not there - you are not THERE. Its always all about convention convention convention convention and then when there isn't convention there is sadness until gospel meeting rounds start and then there is that. I prayed in the middle of the day that God would help me with a temptation. He did, and I wasn't even sitting on a folding chair when I asked Him for help! Amazing! I've found that folding chairs are over-rated when it comes to obtaining Divine assistance! I never could get in the right spirit when my bunns were flattened and pinched.
|
|
|
Post by BobWilliston on Aug 15, 2015 23:22:52 GMT -5
OK. I'm done for a while.
|
|
|
Post by rational on Aug 17, 2015 14:22:35 GMT -5
Of course, the minority of churches that either do these things or highlight them as part of their value proposition are few and far between. They grab the headlines of newspapers but are largely irrelevant after that. Are they far and few between? Here is a quick list: The Metropolitan Community Church United Church of Christ Evangelical Lutheran Church in America Presbyterian Church (USA) Episcopal Church (USA) the Christian Church (Disciples of Christ) Church of Scotland Church of Sweden Church of Denmark Evangelical Church in Germany Protestant Church in the Netherlands Swiss Reformed Church United Protestant Church of France Old Catholic Church United Church of Christ in Japan
|
|
|
Post by Jesse_Lackman on Aug 17, 2015 18:30:15 GMT -5
Sanger's own words are not misinformation; Jesse_Lackman, but if you edit the words as you have it does become misinformation. You are as misleading as the producers of the edited videos you have been posting.Actually she said: (e) to insure the country against future burdens of maintenance for numerous offspring as may be born feeble-minded parents, the government would pension all persons with transmissible disease who voluntarily consent to sterilization.
You have completely missed the point. There would be no additional generations. The state would care for these individuals, as they already were, until they died. I didn't miss the point, you missed my point. I learned something interesting about Sanger;
|
|
|
Post by rational on Aug 17, 2015 20:06:17 GMT -5
Despite her eugenic leanings, generally drew the line at abortion. She taught clients at her first clinic "that abortion was the wrong way—no matter how early it was performed it was taking a life" [An Autobiography, 1938] and termed "the killing of babies—infanticide—abortion" the "most barbaric method" of birth control. [My Fight for Birth Control, 1931] She referred to abortionists as "The blood-sucking men with M.D. after their names who perform operations for the price of so-and-so." [The Woman Rebel, March 1914] frederica.com/writings/suffragists-at-the-abortion-march.htmlAnd the MDs were able to demand a high price for abortions because abortions had been declared illegal. As I have said - no one is pro-abortion - not the founders of planned parenthood and not the people who defend the rights of women.
|
|
|
Post by Jesse_Lackman on Aug 17, 2015 21:06:56 GMT -5
Despite her eugenic leanings, generally drew the line at abortion. She taught clients at her first clinic "that abortion was the wrong way—no matter how early it was performed it was taking a life" [An Autobiography, 1938] and termed "the killing of babies—infanticide—abortion" the "most barbaric method" of birth control. [My Fight for Birth Control, 1931] She referred to abortionists as "The blood-sucking men with M.D. after their names who perform operations for the price of so-and-so." [The Woman Rebel, March 1914] frederica.com/writings/suffragists-at-the-abortion-march.htmlAnd the MDs were abortions wereable to demand a high price because people had made declared illegal. e rights of As I have said - no one is pro-abortion - not the founders of planned parenthood and not the people who defend the rights of women. You got two likes on that and I'm not even sure what you were trying to say in the first and second sentences. I'm kind of dumb though... Sanger estimated the number of abortions in the US in 1920 at 1-2 million per year. It's so interesting that "no one is pro-abortion - not the founders of planned parenthood and not the people who defend the rights of women" yet the number of abortions since 1973 is about what the entire world population was in 1920.
|
|
|
Post by rational on Aug 17, 2015 21:22:44 GMT -5
And the MDs were abortions wereable to demand a high price because people had made declared illegal. e rights of As I have said - no one is pro-abortion - not the founders of planned parenthood and not the people who defend the rights of women. You got two likes on that and I'm not even sure what you were trying to say in the first and second sentences. 8-) I'm kind of dumb though... :P And I have a new system with an overly sensitive touchpad! I rearranged the parts to hopefully make more sense. You should include spontaneous abortions and you could get some really big numbers. As Sanger said, abortion is a poor solution to a problem that should never have happened. It is odd that many of the anti-abortion side are also against readily available birth control information and materials.
|
|
|
Post by dmmichgood on Aug 17, 2015 21:24:40 GMT -5
And the MDs were abortions wereable to demand a high price because people had made declared illegal. e rights of As I have said - no one is pro-abortion - not the founders of planned parenthood and not the people who defend the rights of women. You got two likes on that and I'm not even sure what you were trying to say in the first and second sentences. I'm kind of dumb though... Sanger estimated the number of abortions in the US in 1920 at 1-2 million per year. It's so interesting that "no one is pro-abortion - not the founders of planned parenthood and not the people who defend the rights of women" yet the number of abortions since 1973 is about what the entire world population was in 1920. There is no way to determine how many abortions there were prior to 1973.
No one knows how many women attempted to do abortions on themselves or how many back alley abortions were done. (nor how many women died from both)
Making abortion illegal again will not stop abortions, it will only kill women.
|
|
|
Post by howitis on Aug 17, 2015 21:29:05 GMT -5
It's an age old problem, an old lady I used to live with had a favourite saying...'people seem to think the bull is ok, but the calf poses problems!' Perhaps we need to cut the bull!!!!
|
|
|
Post by Jesse_Lackman on Aug 17, 2015 21:34:55 GMT -5
You got two likes on that and I'm not even sure what you were trying to say in the first and second sentences. I'm kind of dumb though... And I have a new system with an overly sensitive touchpad! I rearranged the parts to hopefully make more sense. You should include spontaneous abortions and you could get some really big numbers. As Sanger said, abortion is a poor solution to a problem that should never have happened. It is odd that many of the anti-abortion side are also against readily available birth control information and materials. What's a "spontaneous abortion"? One that's not deliberately performed by blood-sucking men (and women) with M.D. after their names? Birth control has been readily available to anyone who wants it for many decades now. There aren't too many people against birth control - it's so few that mentioning them in an abortion discussion is a red herring.
|
|
|
Post by howitis on Aug 17, 2015 21:41:33 GMT -5
Jesse the term 'spontaneous abortion' refers to the expelling of a foetus before a certain amount of weeks (the prescribed number of weeks often changes depending on the med school, university, book read), most women prefer the word miscarriage. I believe I had a miscarriage at 20 weeks however it was labelled 'spontaneous abortion'......such a comforting term!!!!
|
|