[Illbay]

That's not attacking "religious figures." It's criticism of church administrators.

Can you really not see the difference?

FWIW, I thought we had settled this question with the UMC thread earlier today.

[snerkel]

That's not attacking "religious figures." It's criticism of church administrators.

Can you really not see the difference?

I suppose it depends on the manner in which it is presented.

FWIW, I thought we had settled this question with the UMC thread earlier today.

WE didn't settle anything on the UMC thread earlier today. You avoided direct questions, just as you have here.

FWIW, it appears to be a double standard.

[fishtank]

"That's not attacking "religious figures." It's criticism of church administrators."

If you're not one already, you'd make a hat trick lawyer.

(Apologies to most of the lawyers out there.)

[computerjunkie]

Your #40: "Baptism must be done by one having authority. We believe only we have the authority."

Pretty exclusive, isn't it?

My pastor was called by God to be a pastor, "revelation", if you will. He was ordained to the ministry by those in the church having "authority", those called by God to have authority in the church. According to what you believe, does my pastor not have the authority to baptize anyone in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit?

What about weddings? He is licensed to perform weddings. According to what you believe, does he not have "authority" to perform weddings?

Just curious.