Member vs Adherent

Welcome to Wondercafe2!

A community where we discuss, share, and have some fun together. Join today and become a part of it!

G Hinton expressed his feeling of AI outgrowing its position because ... it was a chimera of little care ... like a book unfeeling until processed ... causing the death of overly emotional examples of reality as we observe it! Is that exceptional as abstract side? Nonetheless generative ...
 
Ah, yes, similar to the people who don't vote and then complain ceaselessly that they don't understand how the government got elected.:rolleyes:

They don't complain in my presence. "My" rules - if you don't vote, I don't listen to you. And I will, actually, quite rudely, turn away from you in such a situation, should you persist.
 
They don't complain in my presence. "My" rules - if you don't vote, I don't listen to you. And I will, actually, quite rudely, turn away from you in such a situation, should you persist.
There is the old "the system is rigged" argument. They argue that there's no point in voting because the winner is foreordained and voting just supports that system so we are justified in not voting and still complaining about the government. Which, under FPTP, is kind of true. It is hard for anyone but a large national party like the Libs or CPC to win in our system. That said, did they vote when Ontario had the referendum on mixed member proportional, which might have partly fixed the system?
 
There are folx that believe nothing is rigged and the opposing that believe they should be the only ones to rig it ...
 
There is the old "the system is rigged" argument. They argue that there's no point in voting because the winner is foreordained and voting just supports that system so we are justified in not voting and still complaining about the government. Which, under FPTP, is kind of true. It is hard for anyone but a large national party like the Libs or CPC to win in our system. That said, did they vote when Ontario had the referendum on mixed member proportional, which might have partly fixed the system?

My children were raised to believe that, morally, in a democracy, it is one's civic duty to vote. Pretty well, period, full stop.
 
Funny, re adherents.

We had a congregational vote at our church, and adherents were allowed to vote.
It was whether or not the church should become Affirming, having gone through the formal process.

My parents took that process and vote seriously. They were adherents.
They belonged to a core group of the church that shall we say, was not affirming. Mom and dad may not have been at start, but they really listened

The votes were reported, and all adherents voted for the motion to be affirming.

Oops, they were "outed" for how they voted.

Mom said, even she knew her friends would not be happy re her vote, she only had to look at her grandkids and think, what if they are gay, and knew she would continue to love them and affirm them.

She and Dad held there heads up high.
 
Mom said, even she knew her friends would not be happy re her vote, she only had to look at her grandkids and think, what if they are gay, and knew she would continue to love them and affirm them.
And it is people like that, as much as hardcore pro- or anti- types, who are going to tip the balance in the end on an issue like this. The ones who decide that the heart matters more than catering to societies' prejudices.
 
And it is people like that, as much as hardcore pro- or anti- types, who are going to tip the balance in the end on an issue like this. The ones who decide that the heart matters more than catering to societies' prejudices.

My mother changed her mind in the end because I presented to her non-straight grandchildren. I don't kid myself that she was fair beyond that.
 
My parents lived it. Dad didn't always get it, but, he always tried to: Once was chatting with two dad's, and asking who changed the diapers, for example. just making family social as he did...but presuming gender-based segregation of duties, and wondering how that worked with males.

When the church called a female minister, they would often have her and her spouse to the house for coffee / tea and some cribbage. They were a couple, Mom & Dad were solid on the affirmation of that.

so....i think, the affirm process was good, as it allowed them the language to move forward and to ask questions.

I struggle with members who "own" the church because x generations of their families attended, come out for a vote, though they may not have graced the church's doorsteps for years and years, but were "called" to come and vote no on something like affirm.

gotta wonder, who ahs the best of the church at heart
 
I started my faith journey in a small country church (not United). Over the years, I came to learn that two individuals, daughters of regular church participants, were gay. It wasn't a big deal to anyone. When one of the daughters bought a house with her partner, we, as a church, were very happy for them, and many of us were invited to their housewarming party. I know this isn't part of the members vs adherents talk, but I just wanted to add that lots of churches believe in love and acceptance first, and do not judge on sexual preference or identity. I am happy that I grew up in such a church...one who didn't have to say they were affirming; they just were.
 
Some congregations are very affirming without taking the step to become Affirming officially.

There are pros and cons both ways, I think.
 
I think a big advantage of being formally Affirming/Welcoming is that people know it's a place they can go to and be open about who they are. If you walk into a church that is "affirming" informally but does not have the label, how do you know how safe a space it is until you've been there a while? How do you know if it is safe to hold hands with your same sex partner or ask people to use your preferred pronouns? IOW, I think it has some importance from the standpoint of new members/adherents from communities that might need the reassurance of that Affirming status.
 
Also, the Affirming process itself is very educational, partly because it asks you to consciously analyze what groups (including but not limited to LGBTQ2S+) you might be, as a congregation, leaving out. In our congregation, we recognized, for instance, that we were NOT serving those of limited literacy at all well
 
Back
Top