The Rev. Vosper Again

[chansen]

John, that's a long post, and I've already killed enough of my day here.

Let me sum up my response like this:

As you wrote, "The COC was really a one trick pony. It existed, primarily to prevent the possibility of homosexual ordination."

Okay, so the Community of Concern was a bigoted UCCan-related organization. As it folded, or while it floundered, it gave some money to Cruxifusion. No idea how much. Don't really care.

I agree I am not part of Cruxifusion, but I claim the right to speak in hypotheticals. *If* I were a member of Cruxifusion, the only way I accept that money from the CoC, is to turn around and give it immediately to a pro-LGBT organization. Otherwise, I wouldn't touch it with a 10 foot pole. If Cruxifusion did that, tell me, and I'm right there with them.

I also think they are trying to steer the UCCan in the wrong direction, toward a oversaturated market, in which the UCCan has little credibility. So great, work on that credibility, but I think you're ignoring the overchurched. I think there are other directions the UCCan could go, possibly simultaneously. I think some people in the UCCan are already there, and will be turned off by Cruxifusion.

That about sums up my beefs with Cruxifusion. But my posts about it generate the longest responses I get here. I don't understand that.

 

[revjohn]

John, that's a long post, and I've already killed enough of my day here.

I respect that. One of the things I am known for is the long post.

I agree I am not part of Cruxifusion, but I claim the right to speak in hypotheticals.

Which is fair. So long as there is no confusion between the hypothetical and the factual.

*If* I were a member of Cruxifusion, the only way I accept that money from the CoC, is to turn around and give it immediately to a pro-LGBT organization. Otherwise, I wouldn't touch it with a 10 foot pole. If Cruxifusion did that, tell me, and I'm right there with them.

We have not done that. At the same time we have members who identify with the LGBT community. Why would they join if we were the enemy? Please try to avoid the self-loathing angle.

I also think they are trying to steer the UCCan in the wrong direction, toward a oversaturated market, in which the UCCan has little credibility. So great, work on that credibility, but I think you're ignoring the overchurched. I think there are other directions the UCCan could go, possibly simultaneously. I think some people in the UCCan are already there, and will be turned off by Cruxifusion.

I can accept that you think it is the wrong direction. I'm not forced to agree with your assessment.

But my posts about it generate the longest responses I get here. I don't understand that.

You yourself have noted that I am a patient man. I find much of your allegations about Cruxifusion to be figments of your imagination and widely off the mark. So I attempt to correct those errors.

And, as noted above I do the long post well. Exceeded the forum's limits responding to a thread from somebody else about nothing at all related to Cruxifusion. I don't think you are looking at the big picture of my involvement here at WonderCafe.ca and WC2.

 

[chansen]

It would make a very large picture, I'm sure.

My point is that we do not trade long posts. Over Cruxifusion, you write long responses to my shorter posts where you insist I don't know what I'm talking about. I think my points are straightforward, and I stand by them. That is my position. Those are what I think would have been the right things to do. That is the direction I see for the survival of the UCCan.

My bias, and it's obvious, is that I don't care about the faith. I actually, somehow, care about the organization and the people. I think Cruxifusion is on a path to extinction, entering into fierce competition over a dwindling supply of believers instead of adapting to the new realities of faith in Canada.

 

[revjohn]

It would make a very large picture, I'm sure.

Probably not productive to attempt to dwell on it overly much.

My point is that we do not trade long posts.

You are right. Ordinarily we don't and I will admit my responses tend to be longer.

I'm willing to attribute that to my thoughtfulness and your emotiveness. It also takes less time to make an allegation than it does to defend against one.

Over Cruxifusion, you write long responses to my shorter posts where you insist I don't know what I'm talking about. I think my points are straightforward, and I stand by them.

And where you make valid points it is not like me to invest much time or energy in arguing them. Where I direct most of my energy are not to the points you make but rather the allegations you make which have been patently false.

Those are what I think would have been the right things to do. That is the direction I see for the survival of the UCCan.

Which is all fair according to the rules of civilized conversation. I don't have to agree with you.

When you invent rumour and I can correct it I will. Particularly when your rumour smears me as well.

My bias, and it's obvious, is that I don't care about the faith.

I don't think that comes as a surprise to any.

I actually, somehow, care about the organization and the people.

This may surprise some. I'm probably more confused about why that is than whether or not it actually is. I'm not surprised that you do care, your participation in ongoing conversation sells that claim. While you and I are at odds with respect to the Christian faith I don't think one of us cares more for the people or the denomination than does the other. We will care differently.

I think Cruxifusion is on a path to extinction, entering into fierce competition over a dwindling supply of believers instead of adapting to the new realities of faith in Canada.

Here we disagree but I'm not going to invest much time and energy convincing you why I believe you are wrong in your evaluation. You have the right to hold that opinion.

That said, you know squat about Cruxifusion, who participates in it and what any of us are doing in any moment. Why you need to invest time in making us responsible for what others have done/are doing is beyond me. We aren't holding you responsible for the Reverend Vosper just because you are an atheist.

And again, boiling it all down to a simple Christianity, revsdd and I have given you far more respect than the "born-again" crowd and we are both revsdd and I belong to Cruxifusion. Maybe you need to rethink what you believe you know about Cruxifusion or what you think you know about us.

 

[revsdd]

Possibly. Revsdd has proven to be a similar bridge. As far as I know the only thing polarizing about him is his sunglasses.

Excuse me. My sunglasses are cool. They are the height of fashion. Your statement is untrue, and I may well write a letter to somebody asking for you to be reviewed. Maybe Hamilton Conference. Maybe your wife. Somebody.

Now, my selection of fedoras my be polarizing. That I'll concede. Some love'em and some don't. My Ascension Day tie - which pictures Jesus rising heavenward - has been known to get diverse reactions. Some find it cheesy; others creative. But not the sunglasses. They're cool.

 

[chansen]

I have many positive things to say about you. Not one involves the word "cool". It's not that I know cool, but being uncool, I can spot that a mile away. And you're not cool.

 

[Waterfall]

Just don't wear socks with your Jesus sandals.

 

[chansen]

That's about the only thing I don't do that's sacreligious.

 

[revsdd]

Just don't wear socks with your Jesus sandals.

Actually, I've noticed increasing numbers of teenagers wearing socks with sandals. I'm starting to wonder if that fashion sense is starting to reverse as the young'uns take over and reject the wisdom of their elders.

 

[revsdd]

I have many positive things to say about you. Not one involves the word "cool". It's not that I know cool, but being uncool, I can spot that a mile away. And you're not cool.

chansen, I beg to differ. It is your state of uncoolness that blinds you to my coolness. Everybody thinks I'm cool. Well, except for my daughter. And those who actually know me. But at 12 my daughter isn't yet mature enough to recognize real coolness when she sees it, and as for others who know me, well, it's clear that they're just jealous of my coolness. Anybody who's never met me thinks I'm cool.

 

[revjohn]

Excuse me. My sunglasses are cool. They are the height of fashion. Your statement is untrue, and I may well write a letter to somebody asking for you to be reviewed. Maybe Hamilton Conference. Maybe your wife. Somebody.

Don't they do that opaquing thing when it is really bright out? That is polarizing. What did you think I was talking about.

You can FB Kimberly. I promise that sometimes that is much more effective than writing a letter of complaint.

Now, my selection of fedoras my be polarizing. That I'll concede. Some love'em and some don't. My Ascension Day tie - which pictures Jesus rising heavenward - has been known to get diverse reactions. Some find it cheesy; others creative. But not the sunglasses. They're cool.

I was sweating until you thought it necessary to bring up the Fedora.

Now I'm laughing.

 

[revsdd]

Don't they do that opaquing thing when it is really bright out? That is polarizing. What did you think I was talking about.

A classic example of why we need to be careful with language, lest interpretation be incorrect and understanding suffer.

 

[Waterfall]

Actually, I've noticed increasing numbers of teenagers wearing socks with sandals. I'm starting to wonder if that fashion sense is starting to reverse as the young'uns take over and reject the wisdom of their elders.

No it's probably due to sock and sandal indoctrination.

 

[chansen]

Insocktrination?

Sandalous.

 

[Mendalla]

I think we should add a "groan" button next to the "like" button. Something to properly celebrate our puns.

 

[Jaebius]

I think we should add a "groan" button next to the "like" button. Something to properly celebrate our puns.

Fb now offers a choice of reactions beyond, and including, "like." Any reason why this place can't do the same?

 

[Mendalla]

Fb now offers a choice of reactions beyond, and including, "like." Any reason why this place can't do the same?

Because, unlike FB, we don't write our own software. If Xenforo themselves or one of the developers who write plug-ins for it don't do it, we won't have it. I'm an IT administrator and manager, not a programmer.

 

[chansen]

Fb now offers a choice of reactions beyond, and including, "like." Any reason why this place can't do the same?

High levels of disinterest would be the first obstacle.

 

[Jaebius]

High levels of disinterest would be the first obstacle.

 

[paradox3]

TANGENT ALERT

@Pr. Jae

Have you recently become a cat lover or is this something we didn't know about you?