An Open Invitation
An Open Invitation
spot wrote: It depends on the setting, Bronwen. John Wesley refused during his lifetime to ordain ministers in the UK, maintaining that Methodism was a Society within the Church of England and that he had no authority to ordain. When he sent his first preacher to America, Francis Asbury, Wesley named him first Bishop of the American Methodist church so that ordination would be possible abroad and Methodism had a means to grow on the continent. After his death, the preaching contingent in the UK decided to declare ordination for the circuit riders, but they granted authority for recognition to the national annual Conference rather than setting up a heirarchy that involved Bishops. UK Methodism consequently has none. The vocation of Methodist Minister is still tested and recognised by Conference, while elsewhere in the world Methodism has Bishops. It's a historical artifact, not a dogmatic distinction.I appreciate that information. I'm familiar only with the ME Church in the USA.
An Open Invitation
Bronwen wrote: One thing I hope we can agree on is that we are fortunate to live in countries where freedom of worship is guaranteed. So much of the world, particularly the Islamic countries, have no such freedom.The Universal Declaration of Human Rights defines freedom of religion and belief:"Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion; this right includes freedom to change his religion or belief, and freedom, either alone or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief in teaching, practice, worship, and observance."Arguably, depending on the spread of your net, China actively suppresses certain denominations. Arguably, proselytising is prosecuted in some countries like India and Saudi Arabia. The area where some Islamic countries under Sharia law might fail to meet the standard of the declaration is the freedom to change his religion or belief, but I don't know of any where it is illegal to worship as a Christian. Which parts of "so much of the world" have no such freedom?
Nullius in verba ... ☎||||||||||| ... To Fate I sue, of other means bereft, the only refuge for the wretched left.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
An Open Invitation
SweetDarlin wrote: [Unaffiliated Christians do] not need a priest or pope to intervene for us... SD, I replied to your post briefly yesterday as you know; I should have added, however, that we don't see the role of the clergy (and that would extend in the case of Catholics even to the pope) as 'intervention' but rather as service, and I think lots of Protestants would agree with that. I have a very good friend who is a United Presbyterian minister; he told me once, "You can talk about 'saving souls' all you want. A big part of my job is just helping people get through life day to day right here on earth."
That doesn't mean we shouldn't pray to God for His help and His grace, but the clergy have their place also.
That doesn't mean we shouldn't pray to God for His help and His grace, but the clergy have their place also.
An Open Invitation
Bronwen wrote: SD, I replied to your post briefly yesterday as you know; I should have added, however, that we don't see the role of the clergy (and that would extend in the case of Catholics even to the pope) as 'intervention' but rather as serviceOn what basis, then, does the Roman Catholic church reserve to the priesthood the right of administering the Sacraments? Surely that's an aspect of intervention by the priesthood between the congregation and the Almighty?
As background, in Methodism we are taught that the Mass was chiefly instituted as a memorial to represent the sufferings of Christ which are past, as a means to convey the firstfruits of these sufferings in present graces and as an infallible pledge to assure us of glory to come. I hope that fits well with the understanding of your own church.
As background, in Methodism we are taught that the Mass was chiefly instituted as a memorial to represent the sufferings of Christ which are past, as a means to convey the firstfruits of these sufferings in present graces and as an infallible pledge to assure us of glory to come. I hope that fits well with the understanding of your own church.
Nullius in verba ... ☎||||||||||| ... To Fate I sue, of other means bereft, the only refuge for the wretched left.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
An Open Invitation
spot wrote: Which parts of "so much of the world" have no such freedom?I think you just answered that yourself, though other examples can no doubt be found.
And by the way, the situation in Saudi Arabia is much more repressive than you present it; it goes far beyond a ban on proselytizing. A Saudi Muslim who converts to Christianity is hunted down and killed, period. No proselytizing need be involved.
And by the way, the situation in Saudi Arabia is much more repressive than you present it; it goes far beyond a ban on proselytizing. A Saudi Muslim who converts to Christianity is hunted down and killed, period. No proselytizing need be involved.
An Open Invitation
Bronwen wrote: I think you just answered that yourself, though other examples can no doubt be found.
And by the way, the situation in Saudi Arabia is much more repressive than you present it; it goes far beyond a ban on proselytizing. A Saudi Muslim who converts to Christianity is hunted down and killed, period. No proselytizing need be involved.And I said as much in my post. Your claim didn't refer to a right to change religion, it refered to a right to worship as a Christian. Which parts of "so much of the world" have no such freedom? I think you exaggerate.
And by the way, the situation in Saudi Arabia is much more repressive than you present it; it goes far beyond a ban on proselytizing. A Saudi Muslim who converts to Christianity is hunted down and killed, period. No proselytizing need be involved.And I said as much in my post. Your claim didn't refer to a right to change religion, it refered to a right to worship as a Christian. Which parts of "so much of the world" have no such freedom? I think you exaggerate.
Nullius in verba ... ☎||||||||||| ... To Fate I sue, of other means bereft, the only refuge for the wretched left.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
An Open Invitation
spot wrote: Your claim didn't refer to a right to change religion, it refered to a right to worship as a Christian. That is, I believe, what logicians call 'a distinction without a difference'.
An Open Invitation
Bronwen wrote: That is, I believe, what logicians call 'a distinction without a difference'.On the contrary, it makes a huge difference as to whether I accept an invitation to spend time in Saudi Arabia or not. The practical consequences of the distinction are life and death to me.
Nullius in verba ... ☎||||||||||| ... To Fate I sue, of other means bereft, the only refuge for the wretched left.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
An Open Invitation
spot wrote: On what basis, then, does the Roman Catholic church reserve to the priesthood the right of administering the Sacraments? Surely that's an aspect of intervention by the priesthood between the congregation and the Almighty?It's certainly a thoughtful question, but I would still put that under service rather than intervention. In replying to SD I was referring more to clergy as personal spiritual advisors.
I don't think that the Bible supports a universal priesthood. One can, of course, quote isolated verses, taken out of context, but following Peter's confession of faith, Christ gave the power of the priesthood to His apostles, not to His followers in general, and at the same time established a hierarchy which continues today in Roman Catholicsm, Eastern Orthodoxy, and certain parts of Protestantism, notably the Churches of the Anglican communion. Churches which cut themselves off from this succession obviously try to minimize its importance.
Nor is all sacramental administration reserved to the clergy. In an emergency, any Christian can and should baptize. And the RC Church considers the bride and groom to be the ministers of the sacrament of Matrimony, with the priest as the Church's official witness. Eastern Orthodoxy considers the priest as the minister of Matrimony; that's why, when a Catholic and an Orthodox marry, the wedding is nearly always held at the Orthodox Chruch. That way, ev'rybody's happy!
I don't think that the Bible supports a universal priesthood. One can, of course, quote isolated verses, taken out of context, but following Peter's confession of faith, Christ gave the power of the priesthood to His apostles, not to His followers in general, and at the same time established a hierarchy which continues today in Roman Catholicsm, Eastern Orthodoxy, and certain parts of Protestantism, notably the Churches of the Anglican communion. Churches which cut themselves off from this succession obviously try to minimize its importance.
Nor is all sacramental administration reserved to the clergy. In an emergency, any Christian can and should baptize. And the RC Church considers the bride and groom to be the ministers of the sacrament of Matrimony, with the priest as the Church's official witness. Eastern Orthodoxy considers the priest as the minister of Matrimony; that's why, when a Catholic and an Orthodox marry, the wedding is nearly always held at the Orthodox Chruch. That way, ev'rybody's happy!
An Open Invitation
Bronwen wrote: In an emergency, any Christian can and should baptize.My understanding is that in an emergency, any person can and should baptize, whether they're Christian or not. I thought that baptism was equally valid if performed by, for example, a parsee or an atheist, but that the generality of baptisms are performed by Christian Ministers to be more certain that the form is correctly followed.
Nullius in verba ... ☎||||||||||| ... To Fate I sue, of other means bereft, the only refuge for the wretched left.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
An Open Invitation
spot wrote: My understanding is that in an emergency, any person can and should baptize, whether they're Christian or not. I thought that baptism was equally valid if performed by, for example, a parsee or an atheist, but that the generality of baptisms are performed by Christian Ministers to be more certain that the form is correctly followed.Interesting point, I never thought of that.
The RC requires that the Baptism be with FLOWING water (immersion is fine, pouring is OK, sprinkling is not) and in the name of the Trinity. Some of the more fundamentalistic Protestant denoms baptize in the name of Jesus only, and that is why when a baptized non-Catholic converts to Catholicism, s/he is usually baptized conditionally.
spot, I gotta go, I'll gladly continue the discussion tomorrow mornig, God willing.
The RC requires that the Baptism be with FLOWING water (immersion is fine, pouring is OK, sprinkling is not) and in the name of the Trinity. Some of the more fundamentalistic Protestant denoms baptize in the name of Jesus only, and that is why when a baptized non-Catholic converts to Catholicism, s/he is usually baptized conditionally.
spot, I gotta go, I'll gladly continue the discussion tomorrow mornig, God willing.
-
chonsigirl
- Posts: 33633
- Joined: Mon Mar 07, 2005 8:28 am
An Open Invitation
Bronwen wrote:
Eastern Orthodoxy considers the priest as the minister of Matrimony; that's why, when a Catholic and an Orthodox marry, the wedding is nearly always held at the Orthodox Chruch. That way, ev'rybody's happy!
But is the bride considered married in the eyes of the Catholic Church if it is not officiated by a Catholic priest? I do not think so, and therefore, the children cannot be baptized as Catholics either. They must be baptized in another denomination.
I know this is true, my first husband was Catholic, and we were married in a Protestant church. The priest told me that my marriage was not recognized by the Catholic Church, and my children were not legitimate, and could not be baptized by them. (this was in the early 1970s)
Eastern Orthodoxy considers the priest as the minister of Matrimony; that's why, when a Catholic and an Orthodox marry, the wedding is nearly always held at the Orthodox Chruch. That way, ev'rybody's happy!
But is the bride considered married in the eyes of the Catholic Church if it is not officiated by a Catholic priest? I do not think so, and therefore, the children cannot be baptized as Catholics either. They must be baptized in another denomination.
I know this is true, my first husband was Catholic, and we were married in a Protestant church. The priest told me that my marriage was not recognized by the Catholic Church, and my children were not legitimate, and could not be baptized by them. (this was in the early 1970s)
An Open Invitation
chonsigirl wrote: But is the bride considered married in the eyes of the Catholic Church if it is not officiated by a Catholic priest? I do not think so, and therefore, the children cannot be baptized as Catholics either. They must be baptized in another denomination.
I know this is true, my first husband was Catholic, and we were married in a Protestant church. The priest told me that my marriage was not recognized by the Catholic Church, and my children were not legitimate, and could not be baptized by them. (this was in the early 1970s)You were obviously being pressured by an extremely unethical priest then, chonsi. The Roman Catholic church has happily baptised bastards since its inception. Illigitimacy has never been a bar to heaven - I could go and dig out a list of Popes born out of wedlock, if that makes any difference. How can you get baptised if your parents were heathen, if a legitimate marriage of the parents were required?
I know this is true, my first husband was Catholic, and we were married in a Protestant church. The priest told me that my marriage was not recognized by the Catholic Church, and my children were not legitimate, and could not be baptized by them. (this was in the early 1970s)You were obviously being pressured by an extremely unethical priest then, chonsi. The Roman Catholic church has happily baptised bastards since its inception. Illigitimacy has never been a bar to heaven - I could go and dig out a list of Popes born out of wedlock, if that makes any difference. How can you get baptised if your parents were heathen, if a legitimate marriage of the parents were required?
Nullius in verba ... ☎||||||||||| ... To Fate I sue, of other means bereft, the only refuge for the wretched left.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
-
chonsigirl
- Posts: 33633
- Joined: Mon Mar 07, 2005 8:28 am
An Open Invitation
Oh, I know the history of the Catholic Church, Spot. I just wanted to illustrate they do not always affirm marriages performed in other churches.
I think they have changed over the last few decades, but I definitely never again thought of the Catholic Church as possibly my church of choice. I am happy to remain as I am.................
I think they have changed over the last few decades, but I definitely never again thought of the Catholic Church as possibly my church of choice. I am happy to remain as I am.................
An Open Invitation
Bronwen:-6
I do think that we agree more than we disagree. I would respectfully suggest that you not call an Anglican a protestant. LOL
I agree that the very word Churh and its "members" are the body of Christ and that the idea of community is very important. It is a source of strength for all Christians. I cannot agree with others on the negativity of "organization". Without it there would only be chaos.
The differences that we have were there at the very beginning and have continues ever since. It is also interesting to note that at the time of Jesus there was no one Judaism but many. Thus there were differences even back then. Viva la difference! I believe it is necessary as some folks like one form of service while others like another kind.
To those who would denigrate the OT one should remember that it must be read in the light of the NT and the teachings of Jesus.
We should also bare in mind that Luther's intent was to reform the existing church, not create another branch.
Shalom
Ted:-6
I do think that we agree more than we disagree. I would respectfully suggest that you not call an Anglican a protestant. LOL
I agree that the very word Churh and its "members" are the body of Christ and that the idea of community is very important. It is a source of strength for all Christians. I cannot agree with others on the negativity of "organization". Without it there would only be chaos.
The differences that we have were there at the very beginning and have continues ever since. It is also interesting to note that at the time of Jesus there was no one Judaism but many. Thus there were differences even back then. Viva la difference! I believe it is necessary as some folks like one form of service while others like another kind.
To those who would denigrate the OT one should remember that it must be read in the light of the NT and the teachings of Jesus.
We should also bare in mind that Luther's intent was to reform the existing church, not create another branch.
Shalom
Ted:-6
An Open Invitation
chonsigirl wrote: 1a. But is the bride considered married in the eyes of the Catholic Church if it is not officiated by a Catholic priest?
1b. I do not think so, and therefore, the children cannot be baptized as Catholics either. They must be baptized in another denomination.
2. I know this is true, my first husband was Catholic, and we were married in a Protestant church.
3. The priest told me that my marriage was not recognized by the Catholic Church...
4. ...and my children were not legitimate, and could not be baptized by them. (this was in the early 1970s)1a. Absolutely. The RCC considers the marriage valid because they regard the Orthodox priest, who IS a validly ordained priest, since the Orthodox Churches are 'merely schismatic' and retain valid sacraments and valid orders, as being the official witness. The Catholic partner would have applied to his/her bishop for permission (a 'dispensation'), which would be very easily obtained, and the Catholic partner's parish priest would, we assume, be invited to attend, but that would not be necessary for the validity of the marriage.
1b. With regard to the Baptism of the children, since the Church recognizes the marriage as completely valid, there would be no problem with baptizing the children as Catholics. Of course, RC and Orthodox baptisms are equally valid, as is any Protestant baptism which is with flowing water in the name of the Trinity.
2. Ah, that is entirely different, at least it used to be. The RCC has, however, recently shown more leniency here and in some cases will give permission for a mixed marriage to be held in a Protestant Church. It would depend on the circumstances, and in this case, it WOULD be necessary for a Catholic priest to be in attendance as the Church's official witness.
3. As far as I know, that is still the case, with the exception that I just noted, but...
4. ...the RCC, at least in modern times, has always regarded the children of such marriages as legitimate, so you may have misunderstood him, or perhaps he mis-spoke. He probably would not baptize the children unless he knew that you were intending to raise them as Catholics. If that was not your intention then you could, of course, have them baptized elsewhere, and since we are on the subject of mixed marriages, let me comment briefly on two other posts from earlier in the thread:Clancy wrote: I walked into the house and found my wife upset because this priest who paid her a visit {She's Catholic, I'm not}. to tell her that according to the Catholic faith, she wasn't really married because the service was not performed within the Catholic church, (we were married in a Church of Scotland)The Snoozer wrote: Oh that's right! I heard that from my mother when I was married by a judge.My only response here, not wishing to stick my nose too deeply into other people's private lives, is that life is all about making choices. Many Catholics, including myself, think that our Church's teachings and policies with regard to marriage, as well as other issues of human sexuality, are SOMEWHAT unreasonable and unrealistic. Each Catholic has the choice of complying with these norms and remaining in full communion with the Church or not. Unlike the Muslims, we don't send hit squads to murder those who leave. Also, regardless of the denomination, partners with divergent religious beliefs are just going to have one more potential impediment to a happy marriage. That's why MOST religions discourage mixed marriages. That they will continue to occur nonetheless is certain. Hopefully the partners in such unions will pray to the Lord for His guidance.
1b. I do not think so, and therefore, the children cannot be baptized as Catholics either. They must be baptized in another denomination.
2. I know this is true, my first husband was Catholic, and we were married in a Protestant church.
3. The priest told me that my marriage was not recognized by the Catholic Church...
4. ...and my children were not legitimate, and could not be baptized by them. (this was in the early 1970s)1a. Absolutely. The RCC considers the marriage valid because they regard the Orthodox priest, who IS a validly ordained priest, since the Orthodox Churches are 'merely schismatic' and retain valid sacraments and valid orders, as being the official witness. The Catholic partner would have applied to his/her bishop for permission (a 'dispensation'), which would be very easily obtained, and the Catholic partner's parish priest would, we assume, be invited to attend, but that would not be necessary for the validity of the marriage.
1b. With regard to the Baptism of the children, since the Church recognizes the marriage as completely valid, there would be no problem with baptizing the children as Catholics. Of course, RC and Orthodox baptisms are equally valid, as is any Protestant baptism which is with flowing water in the name of the Trinity.
2. Ah, that is entirely different, at least it used to be. The RCC has, however, recently shown more leniency here and in some cases will give permission for a mixed marriage to be held in a Protestant Church. It would depend on the circumstances, and in this case, it WOULD be necessary for a Catholic priest to be in attendance as the Church's official witness.
3. As far as I know, that is still the case, with the exception that I just noted, but...
4. ...the RCC, at least in modern times, has always regarded the children of such marriages as legitimate, so you may have misunderstood him, or perhaps he mis-spoke. He probably would not baptize the children unless he knew that you were intending to raise them as Catholics. If that was not your intention then you could, of course, have them baptized elsewhere, and since we are on the subject of mixed marriages, let me comment briefly on two other posts from earlier in the thread:Clancy wrote: I walked into the house and found my wife upset because this priest who paid her a visit {She's Catholic, I'm not}. to tell her that according to the Catholic faith, she wasn't really married because the service was not performed within the Catholic church, (we were married in a Church of Scotland)The Snoozer wrote: Oh that's right! I heard that from my mother when I was married by a judge.My only response here, not wishing to stick my nose too deeply into other people's private lives, is that life is all about making choices. Many Catholics, including myself, think that our Church's teachings and policies with regard to marriage, as well as other issues of human sexuality, are SOMEWHAT unreasonable and unrealistic. Each Catholic has the choice of complying with these norms and remaining in full communion with the Church or not. Unlike the Muslims, we don't send hit squads to murder those who leave. Also, regardless of the denomination, partners with divergent religious beliefs are just going to have one more potential impediment to a happy marriage. That's why MOST religions discourage mixed marriages. That they will continue to occur nonetheless is certain. Hopefully the partners in such unions will pray to the Lord for His guidance.
An Open Invitation
Ted wrote: I would respectfully suggest that you not call an Anglican a protestant. LOLFrom the 'LOL' I take it that the suggestion is tongue-in-cheek. Most American Episcopalians consider themselves both Catholic and Protestant; in fact, the original name of the US Church of the Anglican Communion was 'The Protestant Catholic Church'. That name was, however, ultimately considered too confusing, and as far as I know, the official name is now the Protestant Episcopal Chruch.
An Open Invitation
Bronwen wrote: gmc, it sounds to me like YOU are in the right Church for YOU, and God knows, I'm not trying to convert you.
Some of the rest of us feel that the traditionalism, including the pomp and cermony, of Anglicanism, Eastern Orthodoxy, and Roman Catholicism is one of the most attractive aspects of our religion and that it gives great glory and honor to the Lord.
One thing I hope we can agree on is that we are fortunate to live in countries where freedom of worship is guaranteed. So much of the world, particularly the Islamic countries, have no such freedom.
You haven't read all my post. I'm not a christian or a follower of any other faith.
A christian is someone who believes in Jesus Christ as a saviour. Religon is arguing about how you worship. It gets really ludicrous when you all start killing each other about whether you pray to statues and if you believe the pope in Rome is infallable or not.
If you do not accept the authority of the catholic church and the eminence of the pope in Rome then you are a protestant. If you worship idols you are a pagan-oops sorry that's the wee free coming out.
Since you all agree in the main tenet of faith i.e. that JC did exist and is the saviour why worry about petty differences.
Looking at the posts all the arguements of sectarian divide are being regurgitated. If you are not married in the right church you are not married in the eyes of god-If you are not baptised in the right way you are not really baptised
who cares, religon is ridiculous and has nothing to do with faith-you either believe in god or you don't. You believe in JC or you don't, keep your faith just far away from me.
People used to set fire to each other over debates like this, we had centurues of religious wars about just this kind of thing. Catholic and protestants taking turn about to burn each other in order to save the soul. All around the world people get killed for being in the wrong sect now we've got muslim fighting muslim in the middle east. The whole thing is completely and utterly irrational.
When someone supposedly representing the church moans about the moral decline of society then I feel we should ignore them completely on the grounds they are irrational. As a society we far too much weight to what religious leaders have to say and people who worry about such petty differences and who would impose their view shpould be ignored.
posted by spot
I do think that we agree more than we disagree. I would respectfully suggest that you not call an Anglican a protestant. LOL
poor dears-they get condenmned by catholics as being heretics and condemned by the rest of the protestants as being too close to rome prabably without being asked if they are high or low church. Course some of the sectarian knuckle draggers would be puzzled as to whether they were christian in the first place.
Some of the rest of us feel that the traditionalism, including the pomp and cermony, of Anglicanism, Eastern Orthodoxy, and Roman Catholicism is one of the most attractive aspects of our religion and that it gives great glory and honor to the Lord.
One thing I hope we can agree on is that we are fortunate to live in countries where freedom of worship is guaranteed. So much of the world, particularly the Islamic countries, have no such freedom.
You haven't read all my post. I'm not a christian or a follower of any other faith.
A christian is someone who believes in Jesus Christ as a saviour. Religon is arguing about how you worship. It gets really ludicrous when you all start killing each other about whether you pray to statues and if you believe the pope in Rome is infallable or not.
If you do not accept the authority of the catholic church and the eminence of the pope in Rome then you are a protestant. If you worship idols you are a pagan-oops sorry that's the wee free coming out.
Since you all agree in the main tenet of faith i.e. that JC did exist and is the saviour why worry about petty differences.
Looking at the posts all the arguements of sectarian divide are being regurgitated. If you are not married in the right church you are not married in the eyes of god-If you are not baptised in the right way you are not really baptised
who cares, religon is ridiculous and has nothing to do with faith-you either believe in god or you don't. You believe in JC or you don't, keep your faith just far away from me.
People used to set fire to each other over debates like this, we had centurues of religious wars about just this kind of thing. Catholic and protestants taking turn about to burn each other in order to save the soul. All around the world people get killed for being in the wrong sect now we've got muslim fighting muslim in the middle east. The whole thing is completely and utterly irrational.
When someone supposedly representing the church moans about the moral decline of society then I feel we should ignore them completely on the grounds they are irrational. As a society we far too much weight to what religious leaders have to say and people who worry about such petty differences and who would impose their view shpould be ignored.
posted by spot
I do think that we agree more than we disagree. I would respectfully suggest that you not call an Anglican a protestant. LOL
poor dears-they get condenmned by catholics as being heretics and condemned by the rest of the protestants as being too close to rome prabably without being asked if they are high or low church. Course some of the sectarian knuckle draggers would be puzzled as to whether they were christian in the first place.
An Open Invitation
gmc wrote: posted by spotGood lord, I've been mistaken for Ted - I never thought to see the day.
Nullius in verba ... ☎||||||||||| ... To Fate I sue, of other means bereft, the only refuge for the wretched left.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
An Open Invitation
Hick wrote: Many people call themselves "Christian" because it's convenient, not because they are convicted. Then of course there are also those like Watergate arch-criminal Chuck Colson, who call themselves Christian AFTER they've been convicted!:D
An Open Invitation
gmc wrote: 1. You haven't read all my post. I'm not a christian or a follower of any other faith.
2. If you do not accept the authority of the catholic church and the eminence of the pope in Rome then you are a protestant. 1. Actually, I read every word of it, but I may have misunderstood. You said that you had been raised in the Church of Scotland, and I assumed that you still considered that your affiliation.
Some of the statements you posted (your own and from other sources) about the Church and the Reformation were basically accurate, others were absolute nonsense, and I'd like to try to sort those out later in a separate thread, to which I hope you'll contribute.
2. Here you are incorrect. None of the Eastern Orthodox Churches consider themselves Protestant, nor do several other Christian denoms such as the Mormons.
2. If you do not accept the authority of the catholic church and the eminence of the pope in Rome then you are a protestant. 1. Actually, I read every word of it, but I may have misunderstood. You said that you had been raised in the Church of Scotland, and I assumed that you still considered that your affiliation.
Some of the statements you posted (your own and from other sources) about the Church and the Reformation were basically accurate, others were absolute nonsense, and I'd like to try to sort those out later in a separate thread, to which I hope you'll contribute.
2. Here you are incorrect. None of the Eastern Orthodox Churches consider themselves Protestant, nor do several other Christian denoms such as the Mormons.
An Open Invitation
Bronwen wrote: 1. Actually, I read every word of it, but I may have misunderstood. You said that you had been raised in the Church of Scotland, and I assumed that you still considered that your affiliation.
Some of the statements you posted (your own and from other sources) about the Church and the Reformation were basically accurate, others were absolute nonsense, and I'd like to try to sort those out later in a separate thread, to which I hope you'll contribute.
2. Here you are incorrect. None of the Eastern Orthodox Churches consider themselves Protestant, nor do several other Christian denoms such as the Mormons.
Not the Church of Scotland but one of the more austere offshoots. I rejected it a long time ago.
I must admit the nuances of debate on the subject tend to lose my interest a bit, especially when it gets to the I am more protestant than thou and you haven't read the bible properly arguements or the you're not a christian unless you're catholic, baptist, jehovah's witness and you're all going to hell type of debate. Most of the fundamentalists of all stamps just can't agree to leave it alone and most of all leave everyone else out of it.
Since I don't regard the bible as the word of god anyway or JC as the son of god I manage to antagonise everyone equally.
Must admit I forgot all about the eastern orthodox church and the mormons.
The last Burns supper i was at was in a staunchly protestant part of scotland where the entermainment was from belfast and the jokes sectarian to put it mildly, listened to in a kind of appalled horrifed silence broken by stifled laughter since some of them were actually quite funny. Then the local catholic priest stood up to speak. It would be fair to say he held his own.
maybe the best way to deal with religious differences is take belief seriously but laugh heartily at those who worry about the outward show and trappings.
What made it unbearably funny was trying to explain sectarian humour to a couple of mormon from Utah ( we have a very active chapel situated between the pentecostal church and a church of scotland). Maybe it was all the broad scots accents but they clearly thought they were on a different planet.
Some of the statements you posted (your own and from other sources) about the Church and the Reformation were basically accurate, others were absolute nonsense, and I'd like to try to sort those out later in a separate thread, to which I hope you'll contribute.
2. Here you are incorrect. None of the Eastern Orthodox Churches consider themselves Protestant, nor do several other Christian denoms such as the Mormons.
Not the Church of Scotland but one of the more austere offshoots. I rejected it a long time ago.
I must admit the nuances of debate on the subject tend to lose my interest a bit, especially when it gets to the I am more protestant than thou and you haven't read the bible properly arguements or the you're not a christian unless you're catholic, baptist, jehovah's witness and you're all going to hell type of debate. Most of the fundamentalists of all stamps just can't agree to leave it alone and most of all leave everyone else out of it.
Since I don't regard the bible as the word of god anyway or JC as the son of god I manage to antagonise everyone equally.
Must admit I forgot all about the eastern orthodox church and the mormons.
The last Burns supper i was at was in a staunchly protestant part of scotland where the entermainment was from belfast and the jokes sectarian to put it mildly, listened to in a kind of appalled horrifed silence broken by stifled laughter since some of them were actually quite funny. Then the local catholic priest stood up to speak. It would be fair to say he held his own.
maybe the best way to deal with religious differences is take belief seriously but laugh heartily at those who worry about the outward show and trappings.
What made it unbearably funny was trying to explain sectarian humour to a couple of mormon from Utah ( we have a very active chapel situated between the pentecostal church and a church of scotland). Maybe it was all the broad scots accents but they clearly thought they were on a different planet.
An Open Invitation
I'm a Presbyterian...we're cool with everything and everybody! 
All the world's a stage and the men and women merely players...Shakespeare
-
SweetDarlin
- Posts: 1121
- Joined: Thu Aug 18, 2005 10:53 am
An Open Invitation
Jives wrote: I'm a Presbyterian...we're cool with everything and everybody! :Dyep,... that must be our motto...
[FONT=Georgia]
[/FONT]
[/FONT]
-
Celtic Thunder
- Posts: 55
- Joined: Wed Mar 15, 2006 4:09 am
An Open Invitation
SOJOURNER wrote: IWhile I believed then, as I do now, that there is but one God no matter in what ritual you may worship him,
I totally agree..........I just wish others would realise this and it might stop a few wars
I totally agree..........I just wish others would realise this and it might stop a few wars
-
chonsigirl
- Posts: 33633
- Joined: Mon Mar 07, 2005 8:28 am
An Open Invitation
spot wrote: Good lord, I've been mistaken for Ted - I never thought to see the day.
Not TedHutchinson I hope, have you had your Vitamin D today, spot!
Not TedHutchinson I hope, have you had your Vitamin D today, spot!
An Open Invitation
chonsigirl wrote: Not TedHutchinson I hope, have you had your Vitamin D today, spot!No no no - different fellow altogether. I'm the one who writes in relative terms and equivocates a lot. Ted's the one who states facts.
If you've seen Underworld Evolution, I'm with the chaps who blister when the sun comes out. Vitamin D has never flowed in my veins.
If you've seen Underworld Evolution, I'm with the chaps who blister when the sun comes out. Vitamin D has never flowed in my veins.
Nullius in verba ... ☎||||||||||| ... To Fate I sue, of other means bereft, the only refuge for the wretched left.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
An Open Invitation
SnoozeControl wrote: Spot! I wouldn't have taken you for a horror fan. :)But it had Sir Derek Jacobi playing Alexander Corvinus. I almost thought, as he expired in the closing reel, that he muttered "finally!" under his breath.
Nullius in verba ... ☎||||||||||| ... To Fate I sue, of other means bereft, the only refuge for the wretched left.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
An Open Invitation
Bronwen wrote: One thing I have noticed on religious discussion boards is that Jews, Roman Catholics, Eastern Orthodox, and Anglicans/Episcopalians are nearly always very open about their affiliations.
In the case of Protestants, however, this does not always seem to be the case. And the more fundamentalistic the Protestant, the less readily s/he seems to be willing to identify denomination or specific church.
Well - with chapel it overlaps so much so I'll call it Methodist with Wesleyan overtones.
Nothing fundamental about it, just good, old fashioned, low church.
In the case of Protestants, however, this does not always seem to be the case. And the more fundamentalistic the Protestant, the less readily s/he seems to be willing to identify denomination or specific church.
Well - with chapel it overlaps so much so I'll call it Methodist with Wesleyan overtones.
Nothing fundamental about it, just good, old fashioned, low church.
An Open Invitation
Bronwen wrote: Spot, with all due respect to both yourself and your 'Christians of good repute', I cannot see how ANY Christian, Catholic, Protestant or otherwise, could find that opinion compatible with their Christianity. Christianity is COMPLETELY about organization, about brother/sisterhood in the community of believers that Christ founded on His original disciples, and which He left here on earth as His Mystical Body after His human body was taken up.
Christianity is surely about your belief in Christ.
Each of the major organised churches has, at one time or another, strayed so far from the path and committed so many crimes against humanity in the name of Christ that most people COULD find them unacceptable.
Christianity is surely about your belief in Christ.
Each of the major organised churches has, at one time or another, strayed so far from the path and committed so many crimes against humanity in the name of Christ that most people COULD find them unacceptable.
An Open Invitation
Bryn Mawr wrote: Well - with chapel it overlaps so much so I'll call it Methodist with Wesleyan overtones.I almost hesitate to ask... What's Methodist without Wesleyan overtones?
Nullius in verba ... ☎||||||||||| ... To Fate I sue, of other means bereft, the only refuge for the wretched left.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
An Open Invitation
Bronwen wrote: Very well put, spot, and of course, Methodism is in some ways as hierarchical as Catholicism, and Methodist ministers take vows of obedience to their bishops just as Catholic priests do.
The big difference being that neither the Minister nor the Bishop comes between you and God.
That being so, it is possible to have a community of believers without an organised Church
The big difference being that neither the Minister nor the Bishop comes between you and God.
That being so, it is possible to have a community of believers without an organised Church
-
telaquapacky
- Posts: 754
- Joined: Fri Oct 01, 2004 3:00 pm
An Open Invitation
I am a Seventh-day Adventist. Why? Ask God. It was His idea- He led me into it supernaturally. My parents did not have a church affiliation at the time.
We believe there are saved people in EVERY church (in fact, they greatly outnumber us). We relate to all other Christians as brothers and sisters in Christ regardless of denomination. But we do think we are the only ones who understand some key concepts to understanding last days events- particularly the Book of Revelation. We think we are the only ones who understand the issues at stake in the Mark of the Beast, or know what it really will be. Consequently, we think that there will come a time when it will not be good not to know what we know.
We think we are one of the few remaining true Protestant denominations. We think we have a solidarity with the burning and torture victims of the Inquisition of the Middle Ages- its a wallpaper in the subconscious of every Seventh-day Adventist. We love Roman Catholics as people and respect the service they have always performed for humanity. It's the Pope, and many of the teachings of RC that we take exception to. We think some of those teachings, which have been embraced by other "protestant" denominations, defame God, mix Paganism with Christianity, and dangerously mix Church and State. Sorry if I am being too frank.
We're different, not for the sake of being different, but because God's people have never shrunk away from being different, living in a world that is out of step with God's values. We are one of the most misunderstood denominations by other Christians because we are very foreign from the traditions most people are accustomed to.
Of course, members born into the Seventh-day Adventist Church usually don't have as intense attitudes as converts do. I have been in this for 26 years. I was a missionary in Africa for seven and a half years. I'm as committed as they come.
I've told you more than I should have because you wouldn't have it any other way.
Here are a few of my favorite SDA sites:
http://www.amazingfacts.org/
http://www.btlministries.org
http://pineknoll.org
We believe there are saved people in EVERY church (in fact, they greatly outnumber us). We relate to all other Christians as brothers and sisters in Christ regardless of denomination. But we do think we are the only ones who understand some key concepts to understanding last days events- particularly the Book of Revelation. We think we are the only ones who understand the issues at stake in the Mark of the Beast, or know what it really will be. Consequently, we think that there will come a time when it will not be good not to know what we know.
We think we are one of the few remaining true Protestant denominations. We think we have a solidarity with the burning and torture victims of the Inquisition of the Middle Ages- its a wallpaper in the subconscious of every Seventh-day Adventist. We love Roman Catholics as people and respect the service they have always performed for humanity. It's the Pope, and many of the teachings of RC that we take exception to. We think some of those teachings, which have been embraced by other "protestant" denominations, defame God, mix Paganism with Christianity, and dangerously mix Church and State. Sorry if I am being too frank.
We're different, not for the sake of being different, but because God's people have never shrunk away from being different, living in a world that is out of step with God's values. We are one of the most misunderstood denominations by other Christians because we are very foreign from the traditions most people are accustomed to.
Of course, members born into the Seventh-day Adventist Church usually don't have as intense attitudes as converts do. I have been in this for 26 years. I was a missionary in Africa for seven and a half years. I'm as committed as they come.
I've told you more than I should have because you wouldn't have it any other way.
Here are a few of my favorite SDA sites:http://www.amazingfacts.org/
http://www.btlministries.org
http://pineknoll.org
Look what the cat dragged in.
An Open Invitation
I have been on an investigating journey through the many protestant denominations that came my way.
I started out as a small child in the Lutheran (German tradition) Church. Then the family moved to a small town and we attended a United Methodist Church until I was a teen, when I rejected it all, basically.
I felt a call to "find God" but didn't know where to look, so I looked everywhere I could. I looked at Hinduism, Buddhism, Satanism (Anton LeVey), Spiritisn, etc. I settled into New Age Spiritualism, somewhat faintly subscribing to the ideas presented in the "readings" of the psychic Edgar Cayce.
Still, God did not give up drawing me. As a young adult, the gospel was presented to me anew. I read the Bible diligently, wanting to "know" the truth. Well, God has a way of getting your attention, which he did me in no uncertain terms! Too many events occurred to post now, but I spent the first 18 years of my BORN AGAIN life as a Fundamental Independant Baptist. Crazy for the "rapture" and all. Subsequently, God caused me to flee that error and I have since been moving around getting to know as much about all the church as I can. I have been a Quaker for several years. Visited many Pentecostal Churches. Studied Roman Catholicism deeply. I am currently fellowshipping as a Presbyterian, only because they basically will leave you alone, and you wont hear the word "rapture" from them.
I believe that people need to forget denominations and should just get close to God before the antichrist appears and you fall into his deception.
d:-5
I started out as a small child in the Lutheran (German tradition) Church. Then the family moved to a small town and we attended a United Methodist Church until I was a teen, when I rejected it all, basically.
I felt a call to "find God" but didn't know where to look, so I looked everywhere I could. I looked at Hinduism, Buddhism, Satanism (Anton LeVey), Spiritisn, etc. I settled into New Age Spiritualism, somewhat faintly subscribing to the ideas presented in the "readings" of the psychic Edgar Cayce.
Still, God did not give up drawing me. As a young adult, the gospel was presented to me anew. I read the Bible diligently, wanting to "know" the truth. Well, God has a way of getting your attention, which he did me in no uncertain terms! Too many events occurred to post now, but I spent the first 18 years of my BORN AGAIN life as a Fundamental Independant Baptist. Crazy for the "rapture" and all. Subsequently, God caused me to flee that error and I have since been moving around getting to know as much about all the church as I can. I have been a Quaker for several years. Visited many Pentecostal Churches. Studied Roman Catholicism deeply. I am currently fellowshipping as a Presbyterian, only because they basically will leave you alone, and you wont hear the word "rapture" from them.
I believe that people need to forget denominations and should just get close to God before the antichrist appears and you fall into his deception.
d:-5
An Open Invitation
Far Rider wrote: I'm kinda seeing the reason you started this thread bronwen.... Ya fooled me at first! I had a notion you wanted an open invitation... now I see you really wanted to toot your own religion above others.FR, I'm not sure what you object to in any of the posts that you quoted, nor do I see how you arrived at such a conclusion. The purpose of the thread was to give an opportunity for Christians of various denoms to do some free advertising of an informational rather than proselytizing nature, and to that extent I think I was mostly successful, and I thank everyone who contributed wholeheartedly.
There were only a few posts that sought to state what they thought was wrong with other people's beliefs rather than, or in addition to, stating their own, and to those posts I responded as best I could while trying to stay within the parameters of the thread.
Someone (I think it was either Kant or Edd 'Kookie' Byrnes) once compared different religions to different mothers in that we all love our own and should respect everyone else's. I respect other religions and their members to the extent that they respect mine. No more, no less. Fair?
There were only a few posts that sought to state what they thought was wrong with other people's beliefs rather than, or in addition to, stating their own, and to those posts I responded as best I could while trying to stay within the parameters of the thread.
Someone (I think it was either Kant or Edd 'Kookie' Byrnes) once compared different religions to different mothers in that we all love our own and should respect everyone else's. I respect other religions and their members to the extent that they respect mine. No more, no less. Fair?
An Open Invitation
telaquapacky wrote: I am a Seventh-day Adventist. Tel, I would LOVE to discuss your objections to Roman Catholicism in a separate thread. You can start or I will.
By the way, when is the SDA's latest date for the end of the world (as we know it)?
By the way, when is the SDA's latest date for the end of the world (as we know it)?
-
Accountable
- Posts: 24818
- Joined: Mon May 30, 2005 8:33 am
An Open Invitation
Bronwen wrote: FR, I'm not sure what you object to in any of the posts that you quoted, nor do I see how you arrived at such a conclusion. The purpose of the thread was to give an opportunity for Christians of various denoms to do some free advertising of an informational rather than proselytizing nature, and to that extent I think I was mostly successful, and I thank everyone who contributed wholeheartedly.
There were only a few posts that sought to state what they thought was wrong with other people's beliefs rather than, or in addition to, stating their own, and to those posts I responded as best I could while trying to stay within the parameters of the thread.
Someone (I think it was either Kant or Edd 'Kookie' Byrnes) once compared different religions to different mothers in that we all love our own and should respect everyone else's. I respect other religions and their members to the extent that they respect mine. No more, no less. Fair?
Sounds like Do unto others as they do unto you, to me.
There were only a few posts that sought to state what they thought was wrong with other people's beliefs rather than, or in addition to, stating their own, and to those posts I responded as best I could while trying to stay within the parameters of the thread.
Someone (I think it was either Kant or Edd 'Kookie' Byrnes) once compared different religions to different mothers in that we all love our own and should respect everyone else's. I respect other religions and their members to the extent that they respect mine. No more, no less. Fair?
Sounds like Do unto others as they do unto you, to me.
An Open Invitation
Accountable wrote: Sounds like Do unto others as they do unto you, to me.Or maybe before they...
-
chonsigirl
- Posts: 33633
- Joined: Mon Mar 07, 2005 8:28 am
An Open Invitation
Bronwen wrote: FR, I'm not sure what you object to in any of the posts that you quoted, nor do I see how you arrived at such a conclusion. The purpose of the thread was to give an opportunity for Christians of various denoms to do some free advertising of an informational rather than proselytizing nature, and to that extent I think I was mostly successful, and I thank everyone who contributed wholeheartedly.
If I remember, you starrted this thread because:
"One thing I have noticed on religious discussion boards is that Jews, Roman Catholics, Eastern Orthodox, and Anglicans/Episcopalians are nearly always very open about their affiliations.
In the case of Protestants, however, this does not always seem to be the case. And the more fundamentalistic the Protestant, the less readily s/he seems to be willing to identify denomination or specific church."
It was not an invitation to promote our denominations or beliefs, but a condemnation of Protestants, insinuating that we do not identify what church we attend. I think the replies in this thread speak otherwise.
If I remember, you starrted this thread because:
"One thing I have noticed on religious discussion boards is that Jews, Roman Catholics, Eastern Orthodox, and Anglicans/Episcopalians are nearly always very open about their affiliations.
In the case of Protestants, however, this does not always seem to be the case. And the more fundamentalistic the Protestant, the less readily s/he seems to be willing to identify denomination or specific church."
It was not an invitation to promote our denominations or beliefs, but a condemnation of Protestants, insinuating that we do not identify what church we attend. I think the replies in this thread speak otherwise.
-
SweetDarlin
- Posts: 1121
- Joined: Thu Aug 18, 2005 10:53 am
An Open Invitation
chonsigirl wrote: It was not an invitation to promote our denominations or beliefs, but a condemnation of Protestants, insinuating that we do not identify what church we attend. I think the replies in this thread speak otherwise.
Nice. Way to cut through the fog, Chonsi!:wah:
Nice. Way to cut through the fog, Chonsi!:wah:
All the world's a stage and the men and women merely players...Shakespeare
-
telaquapacky
- Posts: 754
- Joined: Fri Oct 01, 2004 3:00 pm
An Open Invitation
Bronwen wrote: Tel, I would LOVE to discuss your objections to Roman Catholicism in a separate thread. You can start or I will.Brother, do you mind if I politely decline that offer? I can tell you are a competent debater and know all the objections. I can't argue them more smartly than anyone else. You and I have in common that we are solid as rock in our beliefs. We would benefit most by rejoicing in what we agree about. I'm sure the opportunity for spirited dialog will present itself in other threads. Bronwen wrote: By the way, when is the SDA's latest date for the end of the world (as we know it)?I'm glad you asked. You have us mistaken for another offshoot of the Millerite movement (William Miller thought Jesus was coming on October 28, 1844). Our particular offshoot, which eventually became the Seventh-day Adventist church learned that the date was correct but the event was wrong. 1844 wasn't when Jesus was coming to earth, but when He entered the final phase of His ministry in heaven. Seventh-day Adventists never have set dates for the second coming of Christ, for "no man knoweth the day or the hour" (Matthew 24:36).
Look what the cat dragged in.
-
telaquapacky
- Posts: 754
- Joined: Fri Oct 01, 2004 3:00 pm
An Open Invitation
Far Rider wrote: Fair huh? So when you asked this question to Tele, were you seriously asking or was this a disrespectful slam?Hiya, Rider. Don't worry about it. I think Bronwen's thread is interesting, and he can do with it whatever he wants to. We take offense too easily.
Believe it or not, Pope Benedict said something I really agreed with. He complained how nowadays it is out of fashion to believe in anything. A lot of people are turned off to "organized religion" because they are too mentally or spiritually lazy to commit their loyalty to a distinct set of beliefs, and a fellowship of believers. In some ways I can more identify with a strong sectarian believer with whom I disagree than someone who tries to be non-sectarian in order to agree (or disagree) with everybody. You may not agree with Bronwen, but you can't fault his conscientiousness.
Believe it or not, Pope Benedict said something I really agreed with. He complained how nowadays it is out of fashion to believe in anything. A lot of people are turned off to "organized religion" because they are too mentally or spiritually lazy to commit their loyalty to a distinct set of beliefs, and a fellowship of believers. In some ways I can more identify with a strong sectarian believer with whom I disagree than someone who tries to be non-sectarian in order to agree (or disagree) with everybody. You may not agree with Bronwen, but you can't fault his conscientiousness.
Look what the cat dragged in.
-
Accountable
- Posts: 24818
- Joined: Mon May 30, 2005 8:33 am
An Open Invitation
Far Rider wrote: By bronwen from the first post...
By bronwen post number 47, same thread.
By bronwen post number 49, same thread.
Im kinda seeing the reason you started this thread bronwen.... Ya fooled me at first! I had a notion you wanted an open invitation... now I see you really wanted to toot your own religion above others.
I called it way back in post #19
http://www.forumgarden.com/forums/showp ... stcount=19
By bronwen post number 47, same thread.
By bronwen post number 49, same thread.
Im kinda seeing the reason you started this thread bronwen.... Ya fooled me at first! I had a notion you wanted an open invitation... now I see you really wanted to toot your own religion above others.
I called it way back in post #19
http://www.forumgarden.com/forums/showp ... stcount=19