The Rev. Vosper Again

[paradox3]

Believe me, you bring it up so much that everyone on every side of the spectrum is sick of it.

Ditto for his insistence that Met requested the review of Vosper.

 

[Mrs.Anteater]

Ditto for his insistence that Met requested the review of Vosper.[/QUOTE

Oh, come on, guys, if any intelligent person or group wanted the review to happen without taking a direct stand- that's exactly the kind of letter to write.

 

[Luce NDs]

Spectrum are like spectra ... mere ghosts of cognizance that some in religious institution would put down ... so you won't know ...
tis near traditional ... like fore getting what's a grace as given ... could be a thought ... but these are often denied and carved into an amulet ... like the I-tree ... a deep icon? In tote M's it ...

Thus alien intelligence ... it is strange to us ... near foreign ... and you know how we feel about that ...

 

[paradox3]

@Mrs.Anteater and @BetteTheRed

Yes, I understand that this could be the perception. Some of us read the letter quite differently. (i.e. as a request for clarification.)

From what I know about the process that unfolded, the letter from Met served as a final catalyst for Toronto Conference Exec. They had already received a great deal of correspondence (both pro and con) concerning Gretta Vosper's ministry & they sought guidance from the General Secretary.

Many have criticized the ruling Nora made but it was certainly her responsibility to rule on the question.

AFAIK no one actually filed a complaint about Vosper's leadership or pastoral care within her congregation. I know a large number of former members and none of us went that route for a variety of reasons.

 

[chansen]

From what I know about the process that unfolded, the letter from Met served as a final catalyst for Toronto Conference Exec

A letter requesting clarification was a "final straw" and kicked off a review.

lol

Imagine how many unhinged letters they've received about Gretta. But they can't disclose any of those, because that would show United Church members in a bad light. So they have to use some mild "clarification sought" letter as the justification.

I'd like to see them release *all* the letters they've received about Rev. Vosper. That would be very interesting.

 

[paradox3]

Interesting interpretation of the situation @chansen.

I would imagine the letters received run the gamut. Pretty much what we have seen on social media and in the Observer. Just a wild guess on my part.

lol

Glad to know we United Church folks are keeping you amused.

 

[crazyheart]

Because our church has a DIFFERENT way of governing, there are still congregations who

don't even know who Gretta is. There are also the churches who hide their heads in

the sand and still others who are insular and others who don't rock the boat over

anything. It deserves a "lol' at times @chansen , @paradox3

 

[revjohn]

Oh, come on, guys, if any intelligent person or group wanted the review to happen without taking a direct stand- that's exactly the kind of letter to write.

And if that was the strategy it would fail. Because any answer, even a poorly reasoned one, means that the question asked has been answered and there is nothing more that needs to be done.

Stop blaming Metropolitan. They can ask whatever they want.

Toronto Conference Executive was the only body with the ability to act and this is the action they decided to take.

And seriously, If the Reverend Vosper could not adequately defend how her position was in essential agreement with the doctrine of The United Church of Canada that is entirely on her.

 

[chansen]

Conference must have a stack of hilariously angry old-man-yells-at-cloud letters. Met's was just one they were willing to share.

Have they ever said how many letters they got?

If Gretta got more angry letters than I got angry Facebook flags, I shall blame it on illegal immigrants.

 

[paradox3]

Have they ever said how many letters they got?

Not that I heard.

 

[Delightful Life]

If you own a chain of Steakhouses and one of your chefs becomes a vegan, you have to make a choice. Fire the chef or have one of your locations serve no meat. Don't know why the two representatives of the steakhouse have not noticed that almost all of their steakhouses no longer serve meat. Yet they continue to insist they are a chain of steakhouses. Tofu is not steak.

The public know the difference, and just stop eating there.

How aboot vat grown meat?
Or I'm sure coming inna future 3d printed meat?
Vegan stuff that tastes like meat?
Meat made from illegal immigrants?

 

[Delightful Life]

Rev Wigglesworth is such a cool name
Man
I guess he was emgaged in Systemic Oppression?
Lol
Groups can be so funny...

 

[Delightful Life]

Because our church has a DIFFERENT way of governing, there are still congregations who

don't even know who Gretta is. There are also the churches who hide their heads in

the sand and still others who are insular and others who don't rock the boat over

anything. It deserves a "lol' at times @chansen , @paradox3

UCC should institute a weekly laugh out loud fest where they take something that makes them anxious or afraid and laugh?

Keep.at your genetic Birthright fellow Canadians; our ability to laugh at ourselves.

Wigglesworth Forever!!!

 

[Pontifex Geronimo 13]

How aboot vat grown meat?
Or I'm sure coming inna future 3d printed meat?
Vegan stuff that tastes like meat?
Meat made from illegal immigrants?

 

[Delightful Life]

Now a leetle more seriously
Yer anology (which is really a handy machine to help in thought):
Assuming that meat is something that all or most people can agree on is real unlike Jesus as g_d
Do you think someone can not believe* in Jesus as g_d and still follow Jesus' and g_d's Way?
How aboot if someone isn't concerned with being saved?

*do u believe that people actually have full conscious choice as to what they believe?

 

[Mendalla]

Do you think someone can not believe* in Jesus as g_d and still follow Jesus' and g_d's Way?
How aboot if someone isn't concerned with being saved?

I think I know the answer but I'll see what PG13 says. He might surprise me.

do u believe that people actually have full conscious choice as to what they believe?

No one has full conscious choice about anything IMO. Our beliefs, values, etc. are shaped by our upbringing, culture, friendships, etc. We have choice to some degree, but I think our options tend to be more limited than we realize. I'm still influenced by my Christian upbringing regardless of my choice to exit that tradition.

 

[Luce NDs]

No one has full conscious choice ...

Thus sub-con science? Tis subtle compared to super natural thoughts ...

 

[Mendalla]

Thus sub-con science?

Pretty much. Things in our makeup, the result of past events, learning, etc., that affect our thinking without us necessarily being aware of them.

 

[chansen]

I wonder why I'm so inclined to actively push back against religion. I'm definitely not built to believe in that for which no evidence exists. I can't even choose to be a Christian, and I'm not the type to join a group because it's popular or expected.

I don't have a history of being religiously oppressed. I wasn't even forced to go to Sunday School. I've always hated it when people are taken advantage of, and I guess that's part of it. I have an overactive sense of fairness, and that gets me in trouble. I also hate saying what everyone is supposed to say, because it's some social norm. And religion is just something you're not supposed to talk about or criticize. I don't understand why, and just like Jesus dying for my benefit, I never agreed to those terms.

 

[Luce NDs]

Yes, but ...

Do the religiously sure despise thoughts that are not possible to prove they exist as awareness? How would one know ... without the organ of cognizance ... the disposed psyche? From here on out we lose it ...