When our fear is the RCC and being affiliated with them, and not solely on the impact of the collar it's bad and can lead to worse. To NOT comment on what some trains of thought on this could lead too, is irresponsible and against the tradition of the church and scripture. I don't think anyone on here was called a bigot. There is a warning about bigotry, and it directly applies to what the OP had brought up. It's the WHY he might be wary of the collar. It's also some thoughts on what can happen if we don't get grips on the why. UNDERLINING MINE.
IMO you have assumed the why of the question and, in that action, are acting irresposibly and quite judgmental. Dave, in his origional post, commented on his being "uncomfortable" with wearing the collar but he never clearly stated why. To go on this rant about "bigotry" (which has been a conclusion irrationally jumped too)reveals more about the individual jumping than any denominational issues or whatever. IMO, I posted the question as a question to start with. More like a warning, we were dangerously close there, and probably stepped over in some cases. My comment wasn't based on so much of the question as the comments after. I don't see the fear in addressing the issue to keep FROM going there. YOU have reacted to that. Why are you so hypersensitive to it? Clearly there were concerns in the posts of being affiliated with RCC's silly rules. etc... my RANT wasn't a rant, but I'll give you diagrammed sentences of the original post if you'd like to help you understand what WAS said, and not what you are scared was said.
The only rant is defending the bigotry through denial. <<<< <said HYPER exagerrated to mimic your posture here.
It was I that proposed that some protestants are "touchy" about seeming to be Catholic because of the confusion that it would pose to those being ministered too. So why do you defend your comments here? I never challenged you personally. Why are you set on defending where YOU weren't challenged. I think the point is made you are defending against a concern you have within you more than what I said.
I proposed that in response to Gymbo as an argument that his conclusion and reply was IMO a bit too harsh. I also gave an example of a possible situation which I wish to avoid because of the unneccesary harm it would do to those being ministered too.
Whether we like it or not there are some differences between a few of the denominations and, as things currently are, we ministers should do our ministries trying to avoid confusion as much as possible. I think it was in here, if not in PM that the comments about the collar misleading catholics was a great point. HOWEVER that wasn't the motivation behind most of the responses now was it? NOPE. didn't think so.
Do we really take the posture that bigotry isn't important? Or will we just deny we are there, IF we cross over to it? If we address it before we approach it dangerously we can avoid it perhaps. If no one here crosses that line, but we become aware of it, maybe we can help others when they get to it.
No one said bigotry is unimportant nor would it be ignored if it were present. The trouble is assuming it is present when it isn't
.Or pointing out when you are close to crossing the line before you do? or do you prefer to let them drop over the cliff first?
If no one crosses the line, then we do best not to ASSUME they have or will
.I'm not gifted with redefining the line powers like you are Randy. Nor on redefining the dictionary's intrepretation of word's meanings... Bigotry is basing your opinion on someone totally on your beliefs of some group they belong to. <<< brad version since dictionary fails. Do you mean to tell me I can't scroll back through this and show you comments that fit that?
We cannot meet out correction for a "percieved" offense.And what offenses aren't perceived? Ezekial 3 says you make a call based on your perceptions. If you were offended but didn't perceive it, would it be an offense? I didn't mete out correction either. At least not that I can recall, seems i made observance of the issue, said it seems we are there some, and gave warning.
When we do that we play God and cross the line of LEGALISM. I'm not the one redefining words to meet my needs regarding legalism.
I would rather think the best of my brother and try to understand his discomfort
and his reasons for it.If he has a discomfort based solely on the fact someone is catholic, that's bigotry. OF COURSE you are to bear his burden. But from what you've said, you can't mention it, point it out, or comment on it. Ezekial 3 says if there is a rock for a brother to stumble and you don't help them past it, and they fail they will die their blood ison your hands. What say we just PRETEND it's ok to observe when we might be getting close to bigotry and put it on the table as a warning to avoid it...
If his shared reasons are wrong we lovingly
address them and encourage him in his ministry.
I assume that Xian will see this and ivite a PM if further discussion is needed. I saw it today. I h ave no issue with going to PM or anywhere else.... Your reaction is more telling than the words. Perhaps my reaction/observance is the same. I can't learn if I don't listen. But that doesn't all I hear is worthy of changing my views.
My apologies to the Moderators if I've strayed too far from the topic at hand.