gpatton@bayou.com wrote:
> Gary McNees wrote:
>
>
>
>>What "church?" You claim that the "true" church is
>>the Lutheran. Matthew claims it is the Orthodox.
>>Just about anyone can claim that "their" church
>>is the only real or correct church.
>
>
> In my opinion only the stupid think their denomination makes up the
> complete church.
>
> I, and most Presbyterians, look upon all the Christians in the world to
> be the church. We demonstrate this in that we accept any baptism of
> any denomination as valid, which means we recognize people of your
> denomination as Christians just as we are Christians. We think those
> who think that only those in their denomination are members of "the
> true church" to the exclusion of others to be a bid stupid, but stupid
> Christians, not unchristian. We don't say that those who can't have a
> meaningful worship service unless somebody brings a snake, are not
> Christian. They are just confused Christians. A Christian of one of
> the off-brand denominations, is just as Christian as those of the main
> line denominations.
>
> Let us not have any of that "my church is the true church, and other's
> are not" bigotry. Of course us Presbyterians are very fortunate to be
> what we are, but other Christians are just as much loved and valued by
> God as are us Presbyterians ;-).
>

I agree. Except for the one part about Presbyterians being "fortunate." :)

Gary

((( s.r.c.b-s is a moderated group. All posts are approved by a moderator. )))
((( Read http://srcbs.org for details about this group BEFORE you post. )))

"Stephen M. Adams" wrote in message
news:D0B105AF-96F5-BE1E-6666-414AD38DA265@srcbs.org...
> "Gary" writes:
> >"Stephen M. Adams" wrote:
> >> "Gary" writes:
> >> >"Al Smith" wrote:
>
> >>>I don't see any advantage of Chaos Theory. It is just
> >>>Chaotic! And absurd to boot.
> >>
> >>The 'advantage' is that it accurately describes a
problem that science
> >>must deal with - that determining the long-term results
of a complex
> >>system is very difficult, if the system's initial (or
current) state
> >>cannot be accurately measured. It's not 'chaos' in the
common sense
> >>of the term (random or out of control) - chaotic systems
can lead to
> >>very ordered results.
> >
> >What you have written makes a little sense, but to define
it
> >as "chaos" theory seems a misnomer to me.
>
> I didn't make the definition. :-)
>
> >I would prefer "complexity" theory or something else.
>
> I would agree that 'complexity'