s/o catholic/protestant thing - SOF issue

[Carol in Cal.]

Which we were trying to have. But instead people want to make a mountain out of a molehill. So you don't like the term Protestant. It's not offensive, it's accurate and correct. Certain people have CHOSEN to take it offensively. If it's not being done to paint a prettier picture, then perhaps it's being done to simply wreck the discussion.

 

I tell you what. Why don't YOU list ALL the groups that YOU want under "Protestant" and we'll go with YOUR personal definition. Then please give me a general term for the other groups that generally fall under "Protestant" (this is reminding me of Asta's "you" vs "you"). We'll use the Carol Dictionary.

 

My dear, you are missing my point entirely. The point is that it's carrying inaccuracies, lots of them, extreme ones. And that's troubling. Let's talk about a real issue, and stop getting bogged down in inaccurate semantics. The real issue is not people taking offense at something inoffensive. The point is being accurate.

 

Refusing to call people by a name they request and insisting on another one that carries severe inaccuracies could be construed as wrecking a discussion. Requesting a term is not.

 

I don't intend to discuss the term protestant, because it's not really all that germane to the discussion or topics here. I just don't want anyone to accuse me of having a whole bunch of views that I don't...that's not conducive to any reasonable discourse at all, and it's very uncivil.

[mommaduck]

Like I said, go ahead and tell me who YOU THINK is in what category. Break it down for me. I've been in a lot of churches, have friends in even more, and know what the break down is. For the sake of discussion, it's not lucrative to list them all. But please, go ahead, since that seems to be your issue. You break it down and I'll copy and paste the list every time I would typically type "Protestant".

[Carol in Cal.]

Like I said, go ahead and tell me who YOU THINK is in what category. Break it down for me. I've been in a lot of churches, have friends in even more, and know what the break down is. For the sake of discussion, it's not lucrative to list them all. But please, go ahead, since that seems to be your issue. You break it down and I'll copy and paste the list every time I would typically type "Protestant".

 

Nope, I'm not really interested in the term. I just don't want you to use it for me, because it carries a lot of implications that are not accurate about me. That's my issue. Hope it's clear this time.

[mommaduck]

Nope, I'm not really interested in the term. I just don't want you to use it for me, because it carries a lot of implications that are not accurate about me. That's my issue. Hope it's clear this time.

 

 

 

What term do you want me to use for you (I forget if you are the one that is Lutheran or not...and if your are, what type of Lutheran and what are your distinctions). I can be sure to specify just for you.

[Carol in Cal.]

What term do you want me to use for you (I forget if you are the one that is Lutheran or not...and if your are, what type of Lutheran and what are your distinctions).

 

Confessional Lutheran is fine.

[mommaduck]

Confessional Lutheran is fine.

 

I know more than one "Confessional Lutheran" that would not agree with other "Confessional Lutherans". Might I not offend them? Are you WELS, LCMS, ELC, etc?

[Carol in Cal.]

I know more than one "Confessional Lutheran" that would not agree with other "Confessional Lutherans". Might I not offend them? Are you WELS, LCMS, ELC, etc?

 

Baiting is uncivil.

[mommaduck]

Baiting is uncivil.

No, I'm not baiting. I'm making a point. The point is that this entire "issue" with being called Protestant is ridiculous. I could understand if you had an issue with being called Reformed; that would be inaccurate. But since we are aiming for accuracy, let's be very accurate. "Confessional" isn't specific enough since there are "Confessional" Lutherans that don't agree. It would be like tossing the Presbyterian Reformed Church folk in with the Presbyterian Church of America folk....the cows that would be had! (I know, because I've been in both)

 

Do you see how ridiculous it is now? You don't like a general term, but you want to be called by a general term.

[FaithManor]

But what does the term imply? Does it imply, as is often alleged, lack of familiarity with church history? If so, it's inaccurate. Does it imply, as is often alleged, lack of belief in infant baptism? If so, it's inaccurate. Does it imply, as is often alleged, lack of the Real Presence in Holy Communion? If so, it's inaccurate. Does it imply, as is often alleged, Solo Scriptura? If so, it's inaccurate. Does it imply, as is often alleged, lack of historical liturgical worship and the church year? If so, it's inaccurate. Does it imply, as is often alleged, rejection of all tradition? If so, it's inaccurate. Does it imply, as is often alleged, an eagerness to divide? If so, it's inaccurate.

 

It's not necessarily a pejorative term, although some here are clearly using it that way, but it's a pretty non-descriptive and useless one.

 

 

 

Carol in CA,

 

:001_smile: Thank you sooooo much for posting this because I am really, really tired of church history being used as an excuse for continuously berating me with a term being used as a perjorative that is completely INaccurate in describing my beliefs.

 

And for the record, 400+ years ago the term may have been an inclusive term referring to any group protesting specific practices within the established chuch or branching off from that church, but it is no longer an accurate representation of non-Catholics, non-Orthodoxy NOW. Except for the Westboro club that NO group of believers I know will even claim as their own, nobody is protesting now or attempting to "reform" anybody else. I can think of a lot of terms for groups that are no longer used because they've been deemed an inappropriate label, inaccurate label, or completely derogatory and offensive in modern times. The term is accurate for the 1500-1600's and from there becomes less and less representative of Christian belief outside of Catholicism and Orthodoxy. At some point, if you want to be accurate, non-offensive, and have productive conversations about things like SOF's, church belief systems, creeds, worship practices, etc., then you do have to educate yourself and use terms such as "Baptist, Methodist, Episcopal, Anglican, Lutheran, Nazarene, Presbyterian, etc." to describe Christian belief and practice, just as I do not call Orthodox believers "Catholic" nor do I call Catholic believers "Orthodox".

 

Of course, all of that said, my family, Jesus loving, Trinity believing, Apostle's Creed adhering believers, has no one from any group or any label that wants us except one little body of local Christians that chooses to look the other way on our beliefs and even allow us to participate in ministry so long as we keep our philosophies to ourselves. I can't tell you what label to hang around our necks though I suspect that if we simply adopted "Jesus Followers", others would become slightly uncomfortable using this as a perjorative! LOL :D

 

I hope no one takes this as angry. I'm not...just weary of being called something that no longer applies to me and for that matter, many, many people I know within Christiandom. Though we are no longer members of a Methodist church, for the purpose of discussion if Jesus Follower, Believer, or Christian is too broad for understanding, then for the record Faithmanor is very comfortable with the term Methodist (Arminian interpretation of salvation and actually closer to Catholic/Orthodox belief than one might think on the surface, liturgical as well, though not completely inclusive of our personal beliefs), but I am not Protestant as the term has historically traced it's linguistic lineage to Luther and the first 100 years of reformers after him and I do not trace my salvation beliefs nor my worship practices back to those reformers nor do I seek to protest or reform any other group of Christians. Protestant has become a catch-all term whose coverage is so broad that it almost has NO meaning anymore except as a perjorative term.

 

Faith, the pseudo-Methodist Jesus follower at the bottom of the pecking order amongst Christians

[8circles]

Carol in CA,

 

:001_smile: Thank you sooooo much for posting this because I am really, really tired of church history being used as an excuse for continuously berating me with a term being used as a perjorative that is completely INaccurate in describing my beliefs.

 

And for the record, 400+ years ago the term may have been an inclusive term referring to any group protesting specific practices within the established chuch or branching off from that church, but it is no longer an accurate representation of non-Catholics, non-Orthodoxy NOW. Except for the Westboro club that NO group of believers I know will even claim as their own, nobody is protesting now or attempting to "reform" anybody else. I can think of a lot of terms for groups that are no longer used because they've been deemed an inappropriate label, inaccurate label, or completely derogatory and offensive in modern times. The term is accurate for the 1500-1600's and from there becomes less and less representative of Christian belief outside of Catholicism and Orthodoxy. At some point, if you want to be accurate, non-offensive, and have productive conversations about things like SOF's, church belief systems, creeds, worship practices, etc., then you do have to educate yourself and use terms such as "Baptist, Methodist, Episcopal, Anglican, Lutheran, Nazarene, Presbyterian, etc." to describe Christian belief and practice, just as I do not call Orthodox believers "Catholic" nor do I call Catholic believers "Orthodox".

 

Of course, all of that said, my family, Jesus loving, Trinity believing, Apostle's Creed adhering believers, has no one from any group or any label that wants us except one little body of local Christians that chooses to look the other way on our beliefs and even allow us to participate in ministry so long as we keep our philosophies to ourselves. I can't tell you what label to hang around our necks though I suspect that if we simply adopted "Jesus Followers", others would become slightly uncomfortable using this as a perjorative! LOL :D

 

I hope no one takes this as angry. I'm not...just weary of being called something that no longer applies to me and for that matter, many, many people I know within Christiandom. Though we are no longer members of a Methodist church, for the purpose of discussion if Jesus Follower, Believer, or Christian is too broad for understanding, then for the record Faithmanor is very comfortable with the term Methodist (Arminian interpretation of salvation and actually closer to Catholic/Orthodox belief than one might think on the surface, liturgical as well, though not completely inclusive of our personal beliefs), but I am not Protestant as the term has historically traced it's linguistic lineage to Luther and the first 100 years of reformers after him and I do not trace my salvation beliefs nor my worship practices back to those reformers nor do I seek to protest or reform any other group of Christians. Protestant has become a catch-all term whose coverage is so broad that it almost has NO meaning anymore except as a perjorative term.

 

Faith, the pseudo-Methodist Jesus follower at the bottom of the pecking order amongst Christians

 

Go Faith!!! :D

[Carol in Cal.]

No, I'm not baiting. I'm making a point. The point is that this entire "issue" with being called Protestant is ridiculous. I could understand if you had an issue with being called Reformed; that would be inaccurate. But since we are aiming for accuracy, let's be very accurate. "Confessional" isn't specific enough since there are "Confessional" Lutherans that don't agree. It would be like tossing the Presbyterian Reformed Church folk in with the Presbyterian Church of America folk....the cows that would be had! (I know, because I've been in both)

 

Do you see how ridiculous it is now? You don't like a general term, but you want to be called by a general term.

 

I want to be called by an accurate term that reflects my Faith, and I told you which one. Arguing with me about it is kind of like arguing about what my name is...ridiculous not to take my word for it.

[mommaduck]

Faith, actually my husband would tell you that he has no problem being called "catholic", because the name of the Eastern Orthodox is also the Orthodox Catholic Church, but to use it would confuse people as there is a group calling themselves that as well, and then you have the Eastern Rites and Western Rites of the EO and RC, etc. And I know Catholics that have no problem with the term Orthodox, because they consider themselves to be orthodox ;) But for simplicity's sake, we use EO and RC to avoid confusing the rest of the world around us and to make discussion much easier on everyone else, unless we are specifically discussing only EO or RC.

 

You know, I was raised Protestant, have been in many Protestant churches of various sorts (many not wanting to be associated with the others), etc, and this is the first time I've EVER run into ANYONE that has an issue with the term Protestant or claimed that it was an out dated term. Wow. I'll toss out my dictionary.

[mommaduck]

I want to be called by an accurate term that reflects my Faith, and I told you which one. Arguing with me about it is kind of like arguing about what my name is...ridiculous not to take my word for it.

 

It's not that I don't believe that you consider yourself that. I agree that that is what you call yourself.

 

Again, I find it strange that you have a problem with a general term, but want me to use a general term, and won't say what church group you are specifically. Whatever.

[asta]

You know, I was raised Protestant, have been in many Protestant churches of various sorts (many not wanting to be associated with the others), etc, and this is the first time I've EVER run into ANYONE that has an issue with the term Protestant or claimed that it was an out dated term. Wow. I'll toss out my dictionary.

 

That's because you weren't living in hot-Lanta with me, silly!

 

 

a

[Carol in Cal.]

It's not that I don't believe that you consider yourself that. I agree that that is what you call yourself.

 

Again, I find it strange that you have a problem with a general term, but want me to use a general term, and won't say what church group you are specifically. Whatever.

 

No one could reasonably call 'confessional Lutheran' a general term. I've said what church group I'm in many times on this board. That's not the point, and I'm not going to be deflected by it. The point is:

 

1. The term Protestant is used pejoratively here pretty often.

2. It is also used in such a way as to carry significant implications that are completely inaccurate. I don't reject the term utterly, but would prefer to avoid the inaccurate assumptions and also to avoid having to describe, over and over, the extent to which they are completely inaccurate. Thus I prefer that people either stop making the assumptions or stop using the term for me.

3. I have every right to choose a reasonable name for myself--this hardly needs saying. As long as I pick one that is accurate, no one should have any issue with it.

 

I would add...

You seem ... angry beyond reason in this whole conversation, as do several others. It's not reasonable, in an inclusive board, to be angry that people disagree with you.

 

We are all Christians together, and have much in common--my view is that that should transcend our differences. It is my desire to have a civil conversation, and to have our conversation reflect Christian love. Where I may have strayed in that, I ask your forgiveness.

[8circles]

We are all Christians together, and have much in common--my view is that that should transcend our differences. It is my desire to have a civil conversation, and to have our conversation reflect Christian love. Where I may have strayed in that, I ask your forgiveness.

 

:iagree:& admit that at times my end of the conversation has not reflected Christian love. For that I sincerely apologize. Thank you Carol for the reminder. :grouphug:

[mommaduck]

No one could reasonably call 'confessional Lutheran' a general term. I've said what church group I'm in many times on this board. That's not the point, and I'm not going to be deflected by it. The point is:

 

1. The term Protestant is used pejoratively here pretty often.

2. It is also used in such a way as to carry significant implications that are completely inaccurate. I don't reject the term utterly, but would prefer to avoid the inaccurate assumptions and also to avoid having to describe, over and over, the extent to which they are completely inaccurate. Thus I prefer that people either stop making the assumptions or stop using the term for me.

3. I have every right to choose a reasonable name for myself--this hardly needs saying. As long as I pick one that is accurate, no one should have any issue with it.

 

I would add...

You seem ... angry beyond reason in this whole conversation, as do several others. It's not reasonable, in an inclusive board, to be angry that people disagree with you.

 

We are all Christians together, and have much in common--my view is that that should transcend our differences. It is my desire to have a civil conversation, and to have our conversation reflect Christian love. Where I may have strayed in that, I ask your forgiveness.

 

You know, I didn't mean to come across unkindly either, and I apologise for that and ask your forgiveness as well. I will say that I find the issue perplexing to say the least...logically following through with it, it becomes a no-win situation and detracts from the discussion all around. I really don't get it. If someone mentions their issues with Christians and describes a particular type and I don't fall into that type, I don't let it bother me. I do recognise that those issue exist in parts of Christianity, but I don't go out of my way to insist that another term be used outside of "Christian".

 

There are also many members here and I don't always remember who is what (that's why I asked). I'm not going to go hunt down posts, but in the bigger picture, I also don't think it really matters :) (I do understand the gist of "Confessional" in Lutheranism).

 

:)

[mommaduck]

That's because you weren't living in hot-Lanta with me, silly!

 

 

a

 

Good grief. Now I'm feeling sorry for a friends of mine there. You know, there are things I love about the South and things that make me glad I don't live there anymore.

[hollyandab]

This whole thread started with a conservative, supposedly "fundamentalist-type, BJU-type" group requiring their members to sign their SOF. The majority of posts here have been extremely mean-spirited calling these Christians, brothers and sisters in Christ, bigots, ugly, divisive, etc... And I have, without success, tried to say that while most of us do not agree with their isolationism, we can still love them as brothers and sisters in Christ. That did not seem to go over well. I did grow up in a bubble, went to Bob Jones University myself, and this forum has actually been my first experience with those outside of my doctrinal faith. (Our current church is Christian Missionary Alliance, while doctrinally the same as BJ, it is extremely non-divisive with other groups of Christians. We believe through Christ that it is possible to get along!) So, this being my first experience with other denominations, I am extremely saddened by the spirit of this conversation. It is nothing but labels and divisiveness. The very people who criticize BJU and others like them (Pensacola Christian College -- Abeka) for being divisive, are the very people that I have seen the most divisiveness from. Say what you may about BJU, they have their faults, but if you were to go onto their campus, you would be amazed at the friendliness of their students. I was fed up with their petty rules (I like jeans and contemporary music!), and I don't like their isolationism, but they are still my brothers and sisters in Christ, and I love them.

 

Holly, who is really saddened by all of this

[Scarlett]

This whole thread started with a conservative, supposedly "fundamentalist-type, BJU-type" group requiring their members to sign their SOF. The majority of posts here have been extremely mean-spirited calling these Christians, brothers and sisters in Christ, bigots, ugly, divisive, etc... And I have, without success, tried to say that while most of us do not agree with their isolationism, we can still love them as brothers and sisters in Christ. That did not seem to go over well. I did grow up in a bubble, went to Bob Jones University myself, and this forum has actually been my first experience with those outside of my doctrinal faith. (Our current church is Christian Missionary Alliance, while doctrinally the same as BJ, it is extremely non-divisive with other groups of Christians. We believe through Christ that it is possible to get along!) So, this being my first experience with other denominations, I am extremely saddened by the spirit of this conversation. It is nothing but labels and divisiveness. The very people who criticize BJU and others like them (Pensacola Christian College -- Abeka) for being divisive, are the very people that I have seen the most divisiveness from. Say what you may about BJU, they have their faults, but if you were to go onto their campus, you would be amazed at the friendliness of their students. I was fed up with their petty rules (I like jeans and contemporary music!), and I don't like their isolationism, but they are still my brothers and sisters in Christ, and I love them.

 

Holly, who is really saddened by all of this

 

Just a word to help you as you wade into this VAST on line community. WTM forums has over 33,000 members, with 1072 actively viewing or posting as I type this. It is usually wise to hold off on the deep and volitale subjects until you have some familiarity with the board in general.

 

It is disheartening and sad to realize that others see you and your faith in such a different way than you see yourself. I have experienced that many many times on this board. I have been especially shocked when I've seen my religion referred to as 'non Christian' by posters who appear to be so knowledgeable about so many historical and Biblical subjects. I have learned it is best to just not get into those discussions with people that I will likely never even meet in person.

 

I hope you will enjoy the good parts of this board and ignore the rest.

[mommaduck]

This whole thread started with a conservative, supposedly "fundamentalist-type, BJU-type" group requiring their members to sign their SOF. The majority of posts here have been extremely mean-spirited calling these Christians, brothers and sisters in Christ, bigots, ugly, divisive, etc... And I have, without success, tried to say that while most of us do not agree with their isolationism, we can still love them as brothers and sisters in Christ. That did not seem to go over well. I did grow up in a bubble, went to Bob Jones University myself, and this forum has actually been my first experience with those outside of my doctrinal faith. (Our current church is Christian Missionary Alliance, while doctrinally the same as BJ, it is extremely non-divisive with other groups of Christians. We believe through Christ that it is possible to get along!) So, this being my first experience with other denominations, I am extremely saddened by the spirit of this conversation. It is nothing but labels and divisiveness. The very people who criticize BJU and others like them (Pensacola Christian College -- Abeka) for being divisive, are the very people that I have seen the most divisiveness from. Say what you may about BJU, they have their faults, but if you were to go onto their campus, you would be amazed at the friendliness of their students. I was fed up with their petty rules (I like jeans and contemporary music!), and I don't like their isolationism, but they are still my brothers and sisters in Christ, and I love them.

 

Holly, who is really saddened by all of this

An acquaintance of mine used to teach at BJU until recently. Some of us have experienced spiritual abuse in the churches that are associated with those institutions or at those institutions...or have friends and acquaintances that have. Criticism is not always negative and without love. Many times, it's out of concern for others.

[Carol in Cal.]

So, this being my first experience with other denominations, I am extremely saddened by the spirit of this conversation. It is nothing but labels and divisiveness. The very people who criticize BJU and others like them (Pensacola Christian College -- Abeka) for being divisive, are the very people that I have seen the most divisiveness from. Say what you may about BJU, they have their faults, but if you were to go onto their campus, you would be amazed at the friendliness of their students. I was fed up with their petty rules (I like jeans and contemporary music!), and I don't like their isolationism, but they are still my brothers and sisters in Christ, and I love them.

 

Holly, who is really saddened by all of this

 

I agree with you that Christian love should transcend differences. It really is very sad when it doesn't. Thankfully, Christian repentance and forgiveness gives us a fresh start!

[Scarlett]

I thought for sure this thread was headed for lock up. I was pleased to see the posters with the most ruffled feathers calm down and take a few deep breaths.

[asta]

No one could reasonably call 'confessional Lutheran' a general term. I've said what church group I'm in many times on this board. That's not the point, and I'm not going to be deflected by it. The point is:

 

1. The term Protestant is used pejoratively here pretty often.

2. It is also used in such a way as to carry significant implications that are completely inaccurate. I don't reject the term utterly, but would prefer to avoid the inaccurate assumptions and also to avoid having to describe, over and over, the extent to which they are completely inaccurate. Thus I prefer that people either stop making the assumptions or stop using the term for me.

3. I have every right to choose a reasonable name for myself--this hardly needs saying. As long as I pick one that is accurate, no one should have any issue with it.

 

I would add...

You seem ... angry beyond reason in this whole conversation, as do several others. It's not reasonable, in an inclusive board, to be angry that people disagree with you.

 

We are all Christians together, and have much in common--my view is that that should transcend our differences. It is my desire to have a civil conversation, and to have our conversation reflect Christian love. Where I may have strayed in that, I ask your forgiveness.

 

Actually, we're not.

 

This is a very diverse board. There are Muslims, athiests, Jews, agnostics, witches, Bhuddists, wiccans, deists, pastafarians - you name it. Oh, and there is Bill.

 

At any given time, any member of the board will wade into a discussion.

 

 

asta

[mommaduck]

I thought for sure this thread was headed for lock up. I was pleased to see the posters with the most ruffled feathers calm down and take a few deep breaths.

 

Gasping, but breathing :lol:

 

It's kinda like tennis, where the coach says, "you have a problem, take it out on the ball!" I have to be careful that I'm not making the thread my ball *blush*

[mommaduck]

Actually, we're not.

 

This is a very diverse board. There are Muslims, athiests, Jews, agnostics, witches, Bhuddists, wiccans, deists, pastafarians - you name it. Oh, and there is Bill.

 

At any given time, any member of the board will wade into a discussion.

 

 

asta

 

:lol::tongue_smilie:

[Scarlett]

Actually, we're not.

 

This is a very diverse board. There are Muslims, athiests, Jews, agnostics, witches, Bhuddists, wiccans, deists, pastafarians - you name it. Oh, and there is Bill.At any given time, any member of the board will wade into a discussion.

 

 

asta

 

Ok, now that is funny. I don't care who ya are.

[Carol in Cal.]

Actually, we're not.

 

This is a very diverse board. There are Muslims, athiests, Jews, agnostics, witches, Bhuddists, wiccans, deists, pastafarians - you name it. Oh, and there is Bill.

 

At any given time, any member of the board will wade into a discussion.

 

 

asta

 

True, but I was referring to MommaDuck's posts about various flavors of those who are part of Christianity. That's why I was replying to it...quoting

[Carol in Cal.]

I thought for sure this thread was headed for lock up. I was pleased to see the posters with the most ruffled feathers calm down and take a few deep breaths.

 

"A harvest of righteousness is sown in peace by those who make peace."

 

....somewhere in the Bible, I forget where. New Testament, toward the back...

[mommaduck]

"A harvest of righteousness is sown in peace by those who make peace."

 

....somewhere in the Bible, I forget where. New Testament, toward the back...

 

What version? (I'm teasing! :D )

[Scarlett]

"A harvest of righteousness is sown in peace by those who make peace."

 

....somewhere in the Bible, I forget where. New Testament, toward the back...

 

James 3:18 I think.

[Scarlett]

What version? (I'm teasing! :D )

 

:D

 

Funny

[Carol in Cal.]

I have read recently that during the 1960's or so, Francis Schaeffer made the argument that a non-RC/EO Christian with a very conservative view of the Bible had more in common with others like him than with liberals in his own denomination. That idea started to float around quite a bit. It was somewhat in reaction to the liberal historical critical views of the Bible that had become completely dominant in American Christianity. And he certainly had a point.

 

I remember being in a denomination that was kind of heading that way, and how helpless people felt about it. (Of course, it turned out to be one of the few that went back again, but that's kind of beside the point right now.) I remember attending a university that had quite a few significantly, aggressively, crusadingly anti-Christian professors. It was kind of exciting in both of those contexts to find someone else who was more conservative and Christian as I was. Of course, in my case that was not just conservative Lutherans but Coptic and Syrian Orthodox people, and liberal Lutherans, and all kinds of other Christians. We all had some things in common and other things not in common, but we were brothers and sisters in Christ, and that was our bond (as it should have been.)

 

I think that out of those kinds of experiences, plus the concern with the need to be able to speak about Christianity to a wider variety of people, arose both the theoretically non-denominational churches and also the kinds of groups with SOF's. I think that people are appropriately careful about what their children hear when they are young. Personally, I have been in secular homeschooling groups and in one (formerly) inclusive Christian one, but I also made sure that I was watching out for my daughter's spiritual exposure along the way. I can respect, although I disagree with, some people setting up exclusive, very conservative homeschooling groups. However, I feel very strongly that they should label them appropriately.

 

For instance, coopting the term 'Christian' is quite offensive when it is the only or main label on a group that ends up excluding most Christians.

 

However, remembering that relief when we felt sort of alien and alone for whatever reason, I can understand people wanting their children to grow up in an environment where they themselves can control the timing of their children's being exposed to beliefs that they don't hold. For many, that is a key reason to homeschool.

 

I choose to think of the SOF's of some of those groups as an extension of their descriptions about themselves. They are a clue to me of what kind of people they are eager to associate themselves with. There is nothing to be gained by me joining, for instance, a Christian homeschooling group where everyone only uses Abeka and the females are not allowed to wear pants. I'm just never going to have enough in common with those people to have fruitful fellowship. I would rather know in advance that that's the 'culture' of the group, and the SsOF make it easier and faster to figure that out.

 

I would hope that people in Christian homeschooling groups would be biased in favor of being inclusive rather than exclusive, as Christ was (is).

[Carol in Cal.]

What version? (I'm teasing! :D )

 

Too funny!

[Carol in Cal.]

James 3:18 I think.

 

Wow, ding ding ding you win the speedy citation prize!

[8circles]

I thought for sure this thread was headed for lock up. I was pleased to see the posters with the most ruffled feathers calm down and take a few deep breaths.

 

Unfortunately some posters have taken the ridicule & disrespect to other threads.

[asta]

Unfortunately some posters have taken the ridicule & disrespect to other threads.

 

It appears that all of the active posters are still here, momoflaw.

 

 

a

[8circles]

It appears that all of the active posters are still here, momoflaw.

 

 

a

 

Did I say they weren't? :confused:

[mommaduck]

Did I say they weren't? :confused:

 

Would you really have rathered The List be posted in this thread?!

[Scarlett]

Unfortunately some posters have taken the ridicule & disrespect to other threads.

 

I don't see the other thread as ridicule or disrespectful...just...making a point of the information overload we are blessed with here in the virtual world.

[8circles]

Would you really have rathered The List be posted in this thread?!

 

I would rather the ridicule be entirely absent from adult conversation. It seems that some posters aren't actually interested in conversation but only in ridicule. I've mentioned a couple times that if denomination isn't clear, then identify the doctrine in question. Surely, that's possible at least the majority of the time.

[mommaduck]

I would rather the ridicule be entirely absent from adult conversation. It seems that some posters aren't actually interested in conversation but only in ridicule. I've mentioned a couple times that if denomination isn't clear, then identify the doctrine in question. Surely, that's possible at least the majority of the time.

 

It wasn't ridicule. It was an attempt to make a point, by both sides and both sides participated. You may wish to read back a bit...truce was called in a sense. You really want to sling more mud?

[8circles]

It wasn't ridicule. It was an attempt to make a point, by both sides and both sides participated. You may wish to read back a bit...truce was called in a sense. You really want to sling more mud?

 

Where is my mud-slinging? Good grief. I haven't insulted anyone here. Our position has been described as "absurd" & another thread was started to illustrate the supposed absurdity. I call that ridicule. Is it un-Christlike to point out when I think something is unfairly being ridiculed?

[asta]

Where is my mud-slinging? Good grief. I haven't insulted anyone here. Our position has been described as "absurd" & another thread was started to illustrate the supposed absurdity. I call that ridicule. Is it un-Christlike to point out when I think something is unfairly being ridiculed?

 

No. It is passive-aggressive.

 

 

asta

[mommaduck]

Where is my mud-slinging? Good grief. I haven't insulted anyone here. Our position has been described as "absurd" & another thread was started to illustrate the supposed absurdity. I call that ridicule. Is it un-Christlike to point out when I think something is unfairly being ridiculed?

And you didn't notice that the list was posted before the truce?

 

Time out...it's over. Honest.

[Scarlett]

Where is my mud-slinging? Good grief. I haven't insulted anyone here. Our position has been described as "absurd" & another thread was started to illustrate the supposed absurdity. I call that ridicule. Is it un-Christlike to point out when I think something is unfairly being ridiculed?

 

I will admit to not reading enough of this thread to really know what position you have that is being called absurd.

 

I find it absurd that there are 33,000 denominations listed on that site....

 

I find it absurd that he calls the same religion in different countries different denominations.

 

But hey, I find it all interesting.

 

And it keeps me from cleaning my house.

[WishboneDawn]

Where is my mud-slinging? Good grief. I haven't insulted anyone here. Our position has been described as "absurd" & another thread was started to illustrate the supposed absurdity. I call that ridicule. Is it un-Christlike to point out when I think something is unfairly being ridiculed?

 

Honestly, the discussion is getting back on the rails. Could we not let that happen?

[8circles]

No. It is passive-aggressive.

 

 

asta

 

There's nothing passive about it. I'm stating exactly what I think is wrong.

[TechWife]

If it's a homeschooling group I don't see a disconnect. You're there because of the homeschooling, no? All homeschoolers are welcome. If you want to talk religion go out for coffee with some of the ladies afterwards. Really, sex is intrinsic to most of our lives but if we decided to talk about it at a homeschooling meeting and were told it wasn't really appropriate I don't think it would be seen as an issue of inclusivity.:)

 

 

I think I go to different support groups than you do. I tend towards casual mom support groups. At various times I have talked w/women who share the same faith as I, those who don't and those whom I have no idea what their beliefs are. Our conversations have ranged from being all about homeschooling to being more personal in nature, even including matters of faith. It really depends on the people I am with. I've had no issues with others in these settings and as far as I know, they have had no issues with me. Perhaps people feel more freedom to talk about spiritual matters in our region of the country.

[asta]

There's nothing passive about it. I'm stating exactly what I think is wrong.

 

Oh.