Bunny Trails

[ken_sylvania]

Do you remember the time you asked me to get out of your thread about refugees and walls because you didn't like what I was posting?

I don't remember it quite that way. I would have been happy with other views on the same topic and said so at the time. You kept asking me to prove something that wasn't the topic, and I didn't want to go there.

Happy to discuss this with you offline if you think there's more we need to talk about.

Exactly, you didn't want to go there. And that's fine. I don't feel bad about it at all.

I just think if you want others to graciously respect your parameters for your threads, it would be appropriate to graciously respect other folks' wishes as well. While I agree that I think temp seems to be asking for a one sided discussion, I see absolutely no benefit in insisting on your "right" to continue posting in her thread after she makes it clear she doesn't appreciate it. It reminds me somewhat of the folks that insist in parading around downtown with rifles strapped to their backs because "they have a right to bear arms."

[temporal1]

ken_s:
.. I just think if you want others to graciously respect your parameters for your threads, it would be appropriate to graciously respect other folks' wishes as well.

While I agree that I think temp seems to be asking for a one sided discussion, I see absolutely no benefit in insisting on your "right" to continue posting in her thread after she makes it clear she doesn't appreciate it.

It reminds me somewhat of the folks that insist in parading around downtown with rifles strapped to their backs because "they have a right to bear arms."

Yes, ken, it’s as simple as you describe.

i envisioned a resource thread, not a discussion thread, in that way, it could be viewed as one-sided. In the OP, i tried to make it clear i do not follow sports, i knew nothing of “the guy,” neither was i fond of his “quip!” - that’s beside the point.

some couldn’t handle RZehr’s “Good things about President Trump” thread, either.

this sports guy did not lie, use vile or profane speech, he did not name anyone, i believe it was a personal comment made on his own time. (profanity and vile speech are now normalized and commonly used, esp by libs, it’s profitable business.) i recently complained about it in another thread. Dennis Miller.

people are losing their jobs over “nothing,” Grace added an example of a man punished for his wife’s words/actions.

references to “PC” are not unusual on this forum, the definition i used is commonly used, the Urban Dictionary definitions i posted are dated 2005 and 2007, this is not news.

this is the first instance i recall a blowup over it. maybe people are afraid Biden’s not going to win. who knows?

[temporal1]

Page 2

I almost lost my job once because I refused to get a security clearance or teach workshops to help military and intelligence use our software. The only reason I did not lose my job was that I had once shared a little about my faith with a member of the board of directors, who called me and asked if I had refused for religious reasons. When I said "yes", he said he would tell the board that they could get in a lot of legal trouble if they fired me.

Of course, I wouldn't have sued. But I was happy to keep my job.

Fascinating. It has nothing to do with the OP.

Did the “Jobs lost” thread disappear??
I was beginning to appreciate it.

J.M. posted about someone who lost his/her employment over using the words, “colored people,” rather than “people of color.”

i wanted to ask the question, what happens to the NAACP in this sort of world??

This is an example of what happens when people attempt to make rules for others, not for self.
The more restrictive, the more potential for glitches.

Language should be free for all to use equally.

Allowing some people to freely use some words, while rigidly restricting others, is not going to work out. Hopefully, this will be a short-lived preoccupation/social experiment.

i hope J.M. sees this.

[ken_sylvania]

Page 2

I almost lost my job once because I refused to get a security clearance or teach workshops to help military and intelligence use our software. The only reason I did not lose my job was that I had once shared a little about my faith with a member of the board of directors, who called me and asked if I had refused for religious reasons. When I said "yes", he said he would tell the board that they could get in a lot of legal trouble if they fired me.

Of course, I wouldn't have sued. But I was happy to keep my job.

Fascinating. It has nothing to do with the OP.

Did the “Jobs lost” thread disappear??
I was beginning to appreciate it.

I do believe you got what you asked for.
Why are you sad about that?

[temporal1]

ken_s:
I do believe you got what you asked for.
Why are you sad about that?

Because i really like the mods and respect their decisions. i got the message to “just move on,” and decided that was best. Then J.M. added an interesting post, i decided, yes, it’s best to just continue ..

i do try to accept no for an answer, it often leads to better things than i imagined, anyway. i try to find the message or lesson i was meant to have ..

Do you recall the forum’s old days when General Error would occasionally visit?
Sometimes i might have been in the middle of a post, lose it all, be cut off, etc. - it happened to everyone, but we had no way of knowing in the moment what happened -

In response, i would just accept it as “it’s meant to be,” and, “what is the lesson here?”

It’s a really handy skill to be able to accept no for an answer and move on.
It’s wrapped up in faith, too. Accepting that, and wanting God’s will, not your own.

That doesn’t mean i don’t have questions, requests, opinions, passions, these are all important parts of human life. But being able to submit, even without understanding, or maybe esp when not understanding, is a sublime aspect of faith.

It’s hard to explain, i guess. Maybe i’ve never tried before.

But sometimes the best things happen when we don’t get our way. They just do.

[Bootstrap]

.. Jesus is the one and only Truth.
I believe to know Truth is getting to know Him better that will cause us to love one another despite our varied understandings of NT writings. The Truth sets us free from many things.

As i’ve wondered similarly, it dawned on me that Jesus Christ, Himself, was “the breakaway” that changed the world ever after. This makes me think that “breaking away” may be unavoidable on earth?

Question for you Catholics: if the Pope spoke in favor of gay marriage, would you consider leaving your church? Why or why not?

[HondurasKeiser]

Question for you Catholics: if the Pope spoke in favor of gay marriage, would you consider leaving your church? Why or why not?

That seems more apropos given the latest out of The Vatican.

[MaxPC]

Thanks for all the input regarding my post. I am not puzzled by the pursuit of following the bible more closely but rather that many of those who split off into the various groups in Christianity think they are more 'Spirit lead' and their interpretations of scripture are indisputable.

Seems to me Paul saw this occurring in the early church as some were following the teachings of one teacher over another and his word to them in 1 Cor 3 was that they were acting as 'babes in Christ' and were showing how 'worldly' they were in their dissensions. Imo, this human (as Paul put it) approach to becoming the 'true church' has done more harm than good in presenting Christianity to the world. Could it be that we all are remaining as 'babes' as we draw our lines and argue on what is Christian and what is not ? Is there such a thing as flawless fruit inspection ?

I don't know how all these early church teachings differed from one teacher to another and these in 1 Cor 3 would not have access to all the writings as we do after the NT was assembled and I think the warning Paul gave is one to keep in mind. Jesus knows His sheep and they follow Him. Not perfectly, as like sheep we are prone to wander. Nor do any of us understand clearly as we see through a glass darkly.

I think it is easy to use terms like the 'authority of the scriptures' to support our own interpretations as we see them as black and white instructions. But we can't get around the fact that those with opposing understandings of the same scriptures also refer to the 'authority of the scriptures' as they feel lead to believe. Personally, I don't need a local fellowship of believers to agree on anything but the core beliefs in Jesus that brings about salvation. Others believe to fellowship with other followers of Christ we need much more than this. I doubt I will ever 'sign on' to a 'statement of faith' or a 'church covenant' to become a 'member' of any local group of believers. That is, unless I hear better scriptural arguments supporting this need than I have received to date.

Anyway, as history has shown, I would not be surprised that this example of a break off into another stand on what the scriptures really means will someday break off again as is common amongst Anabaptists. Another one to add to the chart of Anabaptist splits. Is it scriptural to use words like 'Covenant' and 'Brethren' in a NT group title ?

Jesus is the one and only Truth. I believe to know Truth is getting to know Him better that will cause us to love one another despite our varied understandings of NT writings. The Truth sets us free from many things.

I agree that Jesus is the one and only TRUTH. As I see it, divisions occur when the leadership of any church or fellowship begins to add or subtract from that TRUTH and its teachings. I cannot assert that I know all the details of every split in every Christian denomination. I see patterns however. Splits occur when the Bible is demoted by the leadership as being authoritative and replaced with humanism or social justice initiatives. Splits occur when any part of the leadership refuses to listen to correction and accountability measures and continues to push the anti-Biblical agenda.

Case in point: the schisms within Catholic world often mirror the splits seen in other church fellowships. Leadership of any sub-group will begin to implement their own agenda instead of adhering to the Deposit of Faith (the core doctrine derived directly from the Bible and the early Church Fathers). It is the reason we make it clear that in order for the Pope or others to seek a change in church teaching it must go through a due process within the Magisterium. This may take centuries. Yet we also make it clear that some church teaching may never be changed: it is untouchable, non-negotiable and is called The Deposit of Faith and it includes the Bible within that Deposit. No withdrawals are permitted.

Regarding the latest rubbish in the media, it is important to remember that there will be off the cuff remarks taken out of context because of some political or social agenda. The best and most accurate explanation of the latest situation can be found here.

The Pope was not exercising the authority of his office when he was expressing personal opinions. He is allowed to do that but it is why we have procedures for identifying the difference between a personal opinion and an "ex cathedra" statement on matters of faith and morals. Ex cathedra statements are only considered legitimate if they are approved and endorsed by the Magisterium comprised of Bishops. 2 millenia of lessons from our mistakes in history have put into place a number of safeguards regarding these statements. As with anything in a church as old as ours, it is complicated and those procedurals are not readily understood by the media nor the average Catholic because of their lack of desire to learn about it.

[temporal1]

Question for you Catholics: if the Pope spoke in favor of gay marriage, would you consider leaving your church? Why or why not?

That seems more apropos given the latest out of The Vatican.

Considering the world as we know it today, post-Reformation, is grounded on Catholic priests, monks, etc., breaking away from their Church, at great cost, not a new question for Catholics.

Even before this latest from the Pope (which i’m not sure is exactly as reported) there are lots of variations within Catholicism. Too many for me to grasp.

[Heirbyadoption]

The Pope was not exercising the authority of his office when he was expressing personal opinions. He is allowed to do that but it is why we have procedures for identifying the difference between a personal opinion and an "ex cathedra" statement on matters of faith and morals. Ex cathedra statements are only considered legitimate if they are approved and endorsed by the Magisterium comprised of Bishops. 2 millenia of lessons from our mistakes in history have put into place a number of safeguards regarding these statements. As with anything in a church as old as ours, it is complicated and those procedurals are not readily understood by the media nor the average Catholic because of their lack of desire to learn about it.

With respect, this seems rather disingenuous, considering the reality of the effect of the Pope's "personal opinions" upon the millions who revere him as their spiritual father and the potential mouthpiece of God, even if his expressed opinion has not been legally sanctioned with an "ex cathedra" stamp... Lest we rabbit trail off too badly though, perhaps the question could be rephrased to make it easier for you to answer.

If the Pope spoke in favor of homosexual civil unions, and it was endorsed/approved to elevate it to the level of "ex cathedra", would you consider leaving your church? Why or why not?