Ministerial Ethics, Dropping Out and TV: Did You Forget You Agreed to This? - Page 17

ILG · #**161** 10-05-2007, 07:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rrford

Uhm, and this is important because? Regardless of majority/minority the difference lies in weakening or strengthening.

You mean it lies in whether you are geared towards the liberal view or the conservative view and "strengthening" or "weakening" it to your own viewpoint. The point is, the 70's vote strengthened the conservative viewpoint and the '07 one weakened it. Therefore the "07 one is evil and the 70's one is good in the mind of conservatives. The thing is that it's all the the view and perspective of the one rating the outcome of the vote. The bottom line is that the 70's vote took the UPC away from the unification that the UPC originally instituted between the two views.

SDG · #**162** 10-05-2007, 07:05 PM

Spin ...

the commitment of ministers is plain to see when they agree to the terms on their application.

Ministers commit to other the teachings of the org .found also in their position papers... such as anti-Preterism and Divine flesh doctrine .... these position papers have been used against those not in lock w/ the org.

but the code of ethics is just a nice little adornment to the manual???

rrford · #**163** 10-05-2007, 07:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ILG

The original UPC tolerated both views on salvation. They also tolerated jewels and trimmed hair in some pockets without calling those folks heretics. Don't make me start quoting books.

"Until we all come into the unity of the faith" was not speaking of when we get to heaven IMO. It meant "we have differing beliefs at this point of merger but will continue to pray and study until we come to a unified doctrine."

We (the UPCI) did that and embraced the PAJC view as "unity of the faith." That really is not so hard to understand. Especially when, for a time after the merger, room was given in publications to express bith views.

ILG · #**164** 10-05-2007, 07:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Daniel Alicea

Spin ...

the commitment of ministers is plain to see when they agree to the terms on their application.

Ministers commit to other the teachings of the org .found also in their position papers... such as anti-Preterism and Divine flesh doctrine .... these position papers have been used against those not in lock w/ the org.

but the code of ethics is just a nice little adornment to the manual???

Well, even though the signers are also agreeing that they are taking a definite position against the bearing of arms in war that's just winked at. It's very much about interpretation.

rrford · #**165** 10-05-2007, 07:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Daniel Alicea

This discussion can be closed by admin ... if they so choose ...

but these guidelines are also part of the written agreement and commitments found in the application for ministers.

Hey, imagine that. Wonder why you couldn't find those when defending lib friends of yours who were violating them also?

stmatthew · #**166** 10-05-2007, 07:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ILG

You mean it lies in whether you are geared towards the liberal view or the conservative view and "strengthening" or "weakening" it to your own viewpoint. The point is, the 70's vote strengthened the conservative viewpoint and the '07 one weakened it. Therefore the "07 one is evil and the 70's one is good in the mind of conservatives. The thing is that it's all the the view and perspective of the one rating the outcome of the vote. The bottom line is that the 70's vote took the UPC away from the unification that the UPC originally instituted between the two views.

You know, I here cries about this all the time, but it seems to be that the majority wanted this to happen, and continued on, just as now the majority wanted tv, and will continue on. Those that can stay will stay. Those that can't will go on.

ILG · #**167** 10-05-2007, 07:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rrford

"Until we all come into the unity of the faith" was not speaking of when we get to heaven IMO. It meant "we have differing beliefs at this point of merger but will continue to pray and study until we come to a unified doctrine."

We (the UPCI) did that and embraced the PAJC view as "unity of the faith." That really is not so hard to understand. Especially when, for a time after the merger, room was given in publications to express bith views.

Is that why people like Truly Blessed left because he basically felt pushed out?? Because everyone had supposedly come into the "unity of the faith"?? Is that why hoards leave every year? You can't vote an organization into unity of faith.

SDG · #**168** 10-05-2007, 07:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rrford

"Until we all come into the unity of the faith" was not speaking of when we get to heaven IMO. It meant "we have differing beliefs at this point of merger but will continue to pray and study until we come to a unified doctrine."

We (the UPCI) did that and embraced the PAJC view as "unity of the faith." That really is not so hard to understand. Especially when, for a time after the merger, room was given in publications to express bith views.

OMG!!! Are you serious??? Do you think those w/ a PCI or PAJC view were joining on this condition???

Are they now teaching this revisionist history in Bible Schools?

Do you think Paul wrote these words in Ephesians because they too had differing views on salvation.

RR ... let's be intellectually honest.

Darcie · #**169** 10-05-2007, 07:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rrford

Hey, imagine that. Wonder why you couldn't find those when defending lib friends of yours who were violating them also?

Also? So we agree there's been a violation?

ILG · #**170** 10-05-2007, 07:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by stmatthew

You know, I here cries about this all the time, but it seems to be that the majority wanted this to happen, and continued on, just as now the majority wanted tv, and will continue on. Those that can stay will stay. Those that can't will go on.

I won't disagree with that.