[Trapped]

Originally Posted by Drake

Hi Trapped,

The second link (Anglican) is another example not related directly to the first (Beyoncé) article.

Thanks
Drake

Hi Drake,

Thanks for pointing that second link out; I missed it the first time around.

It is so interesting to me how different people can read the same thing and come to completely different conclusions. Upon reading it my immediate response was that that article is a great example of Christianity not being poor. I'm not saying that Christianity is 100% healthy without any problems. All I mean here is this seems to be a positive example of Christianity.

Even a healthy human body produces cancer cells. What determines whether the body remains healthy or degrades into a poor condition is whether or not it takes steps to eliminate those cancer cells and keep them from spreading. This article is an example of Christianity having a healthy immune system (or "having a Biblical backbone" as one of the comments said) and recognizing some cancerous non-Biblical actions within itself and taking the steps to help ensure that the cancer cells do not spread. It seems to me that is a healthy thing.

Could you explain what about you felt about the article that supports a poor Christianity viewpoint? Is it that Christianity had to suspend some from within? That happens in the recovery too. Is it that it led to a rift or a division? That also happens in the local churches. At the end of the article the author even states (of the aberrant group) that " It is also likely to become a more isolated and much smaller denomination as well", indicating that this is not representative of Christianity as a whole.

Do you have another example you could provide for discussion?

Trapped