Church only wants White Greeters

[InTheLight]

Here ... let me give you a hand.

Like it! :thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup:

 

[Revmitchell]

Yall have to quit engaging that thing.

 

[thisnumbersdisconnected]

Yall have to quit engaging that thing.

Yeah, it's kinda like feeding the bears in the woods, isn't it?

 

[InTheLight]

Further assistance is given...

 

[Aaron]

Church only wants White Greeters

So? .......

 

[Don]

If I'm living in accordance with the word of God, it certainly should be.

However I didn't say anything about her actions being representative of the WHOLE of the church.

Her actions are representative of an undercurrent in the church that folks don't like to acknowledge, but it is indeed there.

Well, now we have a disconnect that I need you to explain further.

You see, you didn't specify which part of the church she's representing. You said, "THE" church. The implication is the entire church.

Second, you state that "if" you're living in accordance with the word of God, YOU'RE representative of the church; your implication is that YOU not living in accordance with the word of God is NOT representative of THE church. But you've condemned this woman of color (I believe the article mentioned that the lady who sent the e-mail was of a darker skin tone than others; please feel free to correct me if I'm wrong) because of her words, and indicated with your over-generalization that SHE'S representative of THE church.

How come if she's not living in accordance with the word of God, she's representative of the church; but if YOU'RE not living in accordance with the word of God, you're not representative of the church?

-----
Now, I know that this is not what Zaac intended to mean. See how important careful word choice can be?

 

[Revmitchell]

Its the same racbaiting garbage Mckinnsic is spouting off about.

 

[Zaac]

Well, now we have a disconnect that I need you to explain further.

You see, you didn't specify which part of the church she's representing. You said, "THE" church. The implication is the entire church.

Pick whichever part you want.

Second, you state that "if" you're living in accordance with the word of God, YOU'RE representative of the church; your implication is that YOU not living in accordance with the word of God is NOT representative of THE church.

Nope. Just what YOU want to imply.

But you've condemned this woman of color (I believe the article mentioned that the lady who sent the e-mail was of a darker skin tone than others; please feel free to correct me if I'm wrong) because of her words, and indicated with your over-generalization that SHE'S representative of THE church.

Sure did say that her actions were representative of the church. Where's the disconnect?

How come if she's not living in accordance with the word of God, she's representative of the church; but if YOU'RE not living in accordance with the word of God, you're not representative of the church?

That's kinda moot since it's based on your implication and not what I said.

 

[Zaac]

Its the same racbaiting garbage Mckinnsic is spouting off about.

Yep. The folks who cry racebaiting ain't got nothing on Al Sharpton.

 

[Don]

Pick whichever part you want.



Nope. Just what YOU want to imply.



Sure did say that her actions were representative of the church. Where's the disconnect?



That's kinda moot since it's based on your implication and not what I said.

Again, specificity of language. I'm not implying anything. Your lack of specific language leads to implications that are inferred as people attempt to understand your meaning. Incorrect inferences are a direct result of ambiguous language.

If you mean THE entire church, then by all means, please keep using all caps when you write THE church. If that's not what you mean, then please be more specific, so that people won't be constantly disagreeing with you because they can only draw inferences based on your implications.

 

[Revmitchell]

Yeah, it's kinda like feeding the bears in the woods, isn't it?

More like watching a train wreck.