Welch bashes bloggers, Burleson, over beverages

[TimW]

[Sandy]

[John Sneed]

[Ed Pettibone]

[Haruo]

[Haruo]

[T. D. Webb]

[Norm]

[Haruo]

[Sandy]

[Mark]

[T. D. Webb]

[Norm]

TD: Norm, in the future if you choose to reference what this Okie has said in another post, please simply quote the statement rather than distort and misrepresent what he said. It is one thing to play the role of chief curmudgeon of this message board. It is quite another to misconstrue and twist the remarks of others for the purpose of advancing your strawman arguments. Geesh!

TD, you were not quoted, but you cannot deny the following: This Okie doesn't think so, Norm. Do you have some evidence to support that assertion? Or the following: Respectfully, so far as the discussion in this thread goes, you appear to be doing your best to make a case for divisiveness, Norm. The unkind comment by Wade is in keeping with your words. Thus, there is no strawman argument here, TD.

TD, do you intend to answer my questions, or are you also going to ignore them and redirect the questions and your responses?

TD: Norm, this Okie has met Wade Burleson. . .Wade Burleson is a friend of mine. . .Norm, you are no Wade Burleson. (Respects to the late Senator Lloyd Bengston of Texas. )

Am I supposed to laugh, be angry, rearrange the furniture, put gas in my car, etc.? When, TD, are you going to address my posts?

[T. D. Webb]

[Haruo]

[Sandy]

[T. D. Webb]

[Mark]

WadeB and others will eventually realize that any newfound commitment to inclusiveness - no matter how sincere or encouraging - cannot be reconciled with one's parallel support of Baptist Faith & Message 2000, or the SBC's "conservative resurgence."
That idea may bear repeating in a new thread.

[Norm]

[Norm]

TD: ... This Okie has no problem with Norm asking questions of Wade, myself, or anyone for that matter. However, Norm does not appear to be "listening" to the answers to his questions. Consequently, it is the case that Norm is just as guilty of drawing a line in the sand over the matter of the doctrine of "errancy" and guaranteed "positions of power" before he will participate in making changes in the SBC. Respectfully, he has confused the "cart and the horse"

TD, WHO made errancy/inerrancy the issue that divides? In what way can reconciliation and restoration take place if those marginalized will continually be denied a place at the table? This line of thinking defies any concept of conflict resolution that I have ever encountered. There is a more cognitively developed way of doing this, but in doing so, the conflict resolves the parties, not the other way around. However, this way is inclusive, which is not consistent with the SBC way of doing things.

[Ed Pettibone]

[Grump]

[William Thornton]

[Haruo]

[Randy]