Quote:
Originally Posted by pelathais
Go back and actually read my posts this time and see for yourself if the word "blithley" is appropriate.
And the "issues" I discussed are the very things that Steadfast himself called "the issues:" "shacking up" and "social drinking" in the UPC. I say it didn't happen the way he describes it.
At first he worded the "shacking up with young men" to make it sound as if openly homosexual men were being used on the platform. Everyone who responded to his post read the "homosexual" implication, myself included. I'm left to wonder - based upon Steadfast's response - if that wasn't intentional. But he clarified and said it was a "woman" who was "shacking up with young men."
How would you like it if someone made that accusation about yourself and your church? "Coonskinner can't be fellowshipped anymore because he is using a woman on his platform and he knows that she is openly 'shacking up' with the young men in the church."
I would think that you might appreciate it if someone a couple hundred miles away spoke up and said, "I don't think Coonskinner would allow that to happen. No, it didn't happen." Would you come to my defense then, or try and defend the one who accused you of allowing gross immorality on the very platform of your church? |
No individual was named.
And this is really neat--you becoming a defender of the UPC.
Who would have ever thought you would take off the critic's garb and go that route?
