Agenda Driven or Accepting of Diversity?

Originally Posted by StMark

I have friends who are Baptist. We just try not to discuss doctrine cuz we start yelling and talking over each other lol
So, i can be friends and believe a different doctrine.

I think the Cons are more aggressive by nature. libs usually have more laid back personalities. cons are black and white

Perhaps it's just the 'view' from my perspective but, in my opinion, the 'libs' are somewhat more 'agenda' driven. So many times they make your spiritual disciplines, your organization or your convictions a target to make light of.

Again, it may just be from my perspective, but I find the 'libs' much less 'laid back' when pushing their differences. Some have an attitude that says, "I'm living less and going to berate you for not joining me." You are right, though, that 'cons' are pretty much 'black or white' oriented and, granted, some do have a beligerant attitude that stinks.

I would say that, whether 'con' or 'lib', nobody wants others to make light of things precious to their soul.

[StMark]

Originally Posted by Steadfast

Perhaps it's just the 'view' from my perspective but, in my opinion, the 'libs' are somewhat more 'agenda' driven. So many times they make your spiritual disciplines, your organization or your convictions a target to make light of.

Again, it may just be from my perspective, but I find the 'libs' much less 'laid back' when pushing their differences. Some have an attitude that says, "I'm living less and going to berate you for not joining me." You are right, though, that 'cons' are pretty much 'black or white' oriented and, granted, some do have a beligerant attitude that stinks.

I would say that, whether 'con' or 'lib', nobody wants others to make light of things precious to their soul.

just take their different preaching styles for instance -listen to a con preach then listen to a lib.the lib walks around with one hand in the pocket and sort of preaches like he's at a fireside chat. the cons hit it hard and aggressive, spitting, shouting, walking the pews lol
I think we make fun of each other equally

Originally Posted by StMark

just take their different preaching styles for instance -listen to a con preach then listen to a lib.the lib walks around with one hand in the pocket and sort of preaches like he's at a fireside chat. the cons hit it hard and aggressive, spitting, shouting, walking the pews lol
I think we make fun of each other equally

You know the 'old' mentality about that was "Those who preach against nothing have nothing to really take a stand over."

I can't say I agree with that 100% but I do think that some, especially among the extreme liberal crowd, are WAY too politically correct. It might do them good to 'blow out the carburator' from time to time!

hehehe

[Joseph Miller]

Originally Posted by StMark

just take their different preaching styles for instance -listen to a con preach then listen to a lib.the lib walks around with one hand in the pocket and sort of preaches like he's at a fireside chat. the cons hit it hard and aggressive, spitting, shouting, walking the pews lol
I think we make fun of each other equally

That group needs some anointing plain and simple.



I am not a con, I am a moderate, but I like the spitting, shouting, and walking pews. Why should we change who and what we are? That is the kind of preaching I grew up on and the kind of preaching I have done for 15 years now.

[rgcraig]

Originally Posted by Steadfast

Perhaps it's just the 'view' from my perspective but, in my opinion, the 'libs' are somewhat more 'agenda' driven. So many times they make your spiritual disciplines, your organization or your convictions a target to make light of.

Again, it may just be from my perspective, but I find the 'libs' much less 'laid back' when pushing their differences. Some have an attitude that says, "I'm living less and going to berate you for not joining me." You are right, though, that 'cons' are pretty much 'black or white' oriented and, granted, some do have a beligerant attitude that stinks.

I would say that, whether 'con' or 'lib', nobody wants others to make light of things precious to their soul.

I think the answer for this will always be the opposite of what you are because of your own thought processes.

I feel that liberals are more tolerant because they usually have "been there" and understand the mindset.

I feel that conservatives are more intolerant because they feel you are lost for not being like them. The intolerance could be out of concern for your soul or just plain upset that you have left the mother ship.

Originally Posted by rgcraig

I think the answer for this will always be the opposite of what you are because of your own thought processes.

I feel that liberals are more tolerant because they usually have "been there" and understand the mindset.

I feel that conservatives are more intolerant because they feel you are lost for not being like them. The intolerance could be out of concern for your soul or just plain upset that you have left the mother ship.

I always get tickled when I hear that term 'the mothership'. It's been my observation that most of the successful Churches / ministries seldom ever mention the UPC or make an issue out of being a part of it.

I think that's one of the things that I like about the UPC: It is, for the most part, an unintrusive element. If you promote it - fine. If you don't - fine.

Again, most people I know who are prominent in our organization are pretty much 'non-organizational' as it pertains to Church structure. I'm not sure many of them would work well in an organizational 'mothership' that made a lot of demands on the Church structure locally.

Allowing the Church to be autonomous is probably the only thing that makes the UPC work like it does... and it has worked very well.

More to your point, Renda, I think there are some that do get weirded out when someone leaves the UPC for any reason. Fortunately, I have always had friends both in and out of the UPC so my view is much broader than thinking the UPC alone is the 'bride'.

[rrford]

One defines tolerance based upon what they have been taught and indoctrinated to be tolerant of. The Pharisees had incredible intolerance but it was due in large part ot being raised and trained in a system that promoted exclusivity in the name of a relationship with God. They had the right God but the wrong approach. When the approach is wrong the relationship with God will never stay right.

Even the most rigid of standards need some tolerance built into them. Doctrine is not a standard. It is a doctrine. Doctrines need not allow for tolerance because they come from God and are set for time and eternity. Lifestyle, practice and interraction really do not rise to the level of doctrine per se, and therefore need tolerances built into them.

Engineers have what they call "acceptable tolerances" built into what they design and manufacture. So long as the tolerance does not endanger the safety of the consumer then it is an acceptable tolerance. So, redefining our tolerances is a good thing. So long as the difference does not endanger the spiritual well-being of the believer then I have a good bit of room for tolerance. But if our differences affect eternity, then the tolerance has left it's acceptable level and I move on for the sake of safety.

[rgcraig]

Originally Posted by rrford

One defines tolerance based upon what they have been taught and indoctrinated to be tolerant of. The Pharisees had incredible intolerance but it was due in large part ot being raised and trained in a system that promoted exclusivity in the name of a relationship with God. They had the right God but the wrong approach. When the approach is wrong the relationship with God will never stay right.

Even the most rigid of standards need some tolerance built into them. Doctrine is not a standard. It is a doctrine. Doctrines need not allow for tolerance because they come from God and are set for time and eternity. Lifestyle, practice and interraction really do not rise to the level of doctrine per se, and therefore need tolerances built into them.

Engineers have what they call "acceptable tolerances" built into what they design and manufacture. So long as the tolerance does not endanger the safety of the consumer then it is an acceptable tolerance. So, redefining our tolerances is a good thing. So long as the difference does not endanger the spiritual well-being of the believer then I have a good bit of room for tolerance. But if our differences affect eternity, then the tolerance has left it's acceptable level and I move on for the sake of safety.

Very powerful words, grasshopper!

[mizpeh]

Originally Posted by rgcraig

Very powerful words, grasshopper!

I feel my IQ went up a level for reading and understanding RR's post.

[rgcraig]

Originally Posted by mizpeh

I feel my IQ went up a level for reading and understanding RR's post.

Your IQ was already there if you understood it. He did say it very well.