The Wild, Wild MidWest - All things Great Lakes Area and Canada

[Cassidy]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Nothing personal, my friend, but based on every event I have witnessed and studied in my 30+ years inside the LC, and almost a decade outside the LC since I left, this conclusion of yours is pure and unadulterated gobbledygook, which M-W defines as "wordy and generally unintelligible jargon." It may make sense to you, but not one instance provides it with the stamp of validity. Take your explanation of events to a thousand learned Christians on the street, and not one will understand what you are talking about.

No one has ever excluded themselves from the fellowship because they were not standing on the ground of oneness. It just has not happened that way.

Ohio,

There are several fallacies in your argument. Your first fallacy of argumentation is that you have been there and I have not therefore you are the expert and I am not. Then, you've layered that with a second fallacy in argumentation that goes along the line of "I don't understand, it's all gobbledygook to me, therefore it can't possibly be true". You have used that with at least one other poster recently. Your third is that you suggest that you could know what a "thousand learned Christians on the street" think. Since that is not possible it is a fallacy to introduce this to shore up your case.

It would be equally fallacious for me to argue that I have been there longer than you so I won't go down that path and neither of us know what a "thousand learned Christians on the street" would think so we can ignore that one too.

However, I'll will clarify the point about the ground of oneness. The ground of oneness does not embrace those who take just any basis for fellowship. Rather the ground or stand or basis, pick your term, is oneness. Your notion that Paul N. would need to embrace everyone on your reconciliation list regardless of their stand to prove your idea of the ground of oneness is fanciful. It is not even logical. The reason it is not logical because either you choose to take that particular ground, stand, or basis, or you don't. If you don't you exclude yourself from that basis, that is, you have a different basis for fellowship. This is not hard to understand so I do not accept your argument that it is gobbledygook, on the contrary, that just seems like you are unable or unwilling to make a compelling argument.

I would say the ground of oneness is a narrow way and not the broad one you suggest.