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

[BrotherEastman]

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?

Even when the libs did, does that mean conservatives can? Two wrongs make a right?

[rrford]

Originally Posted by Darcie

That's right, it would only be a good arguement if it were directed towards the Libs.

Now why did I know this would be your response? Those poor libs, they don't have a chance...

[SDG]

Originally Posted by rrford

And surely we would agree that 2 differing views of eternal salvation will never find unity? Are you really that naive? If so why not become a universalist in the name of unity? (And yes, I realize that was an extreme comment. )

Yes it worked until radical zealots broke the compact. Speak to those there.

[Darcie]

Originally Posted by rrford

Point A: I am not RULE OF LAW. (But I don't expect you to accept that as you seem to be challenged in the arera of correct perceptions.)

Point B: Seems like you played the card first. And to paraphrase Darcie, you seem to now be agreeing that the libs did it first.

The Libs have been ACCUSED of doing it first.

[Darcie]

Originally Posted by rrford

Now why did I know this would be your response? Those poor libs, they don't have a chance...

And those cons are always right...


















even when they are wrong

[BrotherEastman]

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.

true dat, true dat.

[rrford]

Originally Posted by Daniel Alicea

Hilarious ... to hear those not in control now evading the rule of law.

Even more hilarious is to continue readinng your spin. It never ceases to amaze me. I disappear for a couple of months and return to the same old spin away. Do you ever tire of putting words in peoples mouths and assuming what they are saying?

[BrotherEastman]

Originally Posted by Daniel Alicea

Remember our little conversation about the "tyranny of the majority"?

When the two sides entered this compact they sought unity ... not uniformity.

exactly!

[SDG]

Originally Posted by rrford

Even more hilarious is to continue readinng your spin. It never ceases to amaze me. I disappear for a couple of months and return to the same old spin away. Do you ever tire of putting words in peoples mouths and assuming what they are saying?

It appears the manual is clear as is the ministerial application ... and even when it's in black and white ... it's SPIN.

A hearty ROFL.

[rrford]

Originally Posted by ILG

I forgot how illogical it can be to debate these issues. I have said my peace. Bottom line is that you can't hold libs and cons to two different sets of rules......disaffiliation is evil for libs but okay for cons.

Thanks for agreeing.

Actually ILG, I have always said that churches should not be affiliated except in cases where there is no good form of government.

Somehow it is incredible to me to see how you cannot see the difference between disaffiliating because you think a stance that has not changed since you took the church is too strong and because one is changed after you took a church is weakened.

I do think men who are disaffiliating now would have been much better served to have done so prior to any change in stance. Of course folks would have still questioned them on it.