How did AFF go Lib under Conservative Leadership?

[My Own Eyes]

Originally Posted by CC1

However it is the reality of the traditional UPC / OP view.

I know. It used to be mine. That makes me even sadder.

[TRFrance]

Originally Posted by Brother Price

This is the big deal with certain conservatives, and yes, some liberals. They believe they have it all figured out. One thinks because his life is rigid, he has all truth. One thinks because he is so liberal, he has all truth. Neither is right.

AFF is a place where spiritual paradigms meet and are challenged. It is where men and women can come together and discuss issues. When cons leave, it is because, sometimes, their ideas were challenged and they could not withstand the weight of the challenge. Instead of admitting their wrong, they leave and do not want to discuss things out.

I don't think the majority of the cons left because they "couldn't stand the weight of the challenge". Many of them, in my view, have enough depth, spiritually and theologically, to hold their own against the most biblically proficient libs on this forum.

As a moderate conservative myself, I have no problem with hearing all sides of various issues in the Apostolic movement. From my perspective, some of the liberal arguments have some merit, while some are just absurd and without foundation.

I don't pretend to speak for all the conservatives, but I think I do have a good sense of the sentiment a lot of cons feel who have left, or have been at the brink of leaving...

I think all rational minds understand that on a forum like this, there will be differences of views, and sometimes even a few skirmishes when we disagree. The problem has been the tone and spirit of some of the libs on this forum. Some libs have chosen to not just express their view, but have been very in-your-face and confrontational with it. Some of these have not chosen to simply post their opinion, but at times seemed to be just trolling the forum almost daily, practically looking to pick a fight with the cons, "3-steppers", etc... and seemed to be on a mission to dismantle traditional Acts 2:38 apostolic doctrine.

Some libs might object to my perception of this, as if I'm just blaming the lib side... but lets be real here; anyone who's been paying attention could see that the libs have done more attacking of the cons' position than cons have toward the libs. And Cons who've chosen to leave, or expressed disgust with the hyena-like attacks of some of these libs have been told they're "running away" from the debate. (taunting?)

Personally I've found it all to be quite distasteful.

Obviously, disagreements among saints is an unavoidable fact of life... but to me, there's something fundamentally wrong on the inside with someone who seems to relish getting into doctrinal fights with other people on message boards, and who seek out online clashes with other saints like it's some kind of bloodsport. I doubt that's what the founders of this forum had in mind when they started AFF.

Some have asked "why did the cons leave?", rather than hang around and continually "defend" their position. But that's the root of the problem right there. Obviously, if you're constantly feeling like you're on defense, its because your position is constantly under attack. I've seen quite a few cons here who are more than equipped to go toe-to-toe in any debate with the libs around here... but that gets really old after a while. People come here primarily for fellowship and edification, not to constantly "defend" their beliefs from other apostolics, former-apostolics, or anti-apostolics.

Instead of being a relatively civil discussion forum among apostolics with different views, this place in the recent past has seemed to degenerate into a virtual head-butting arena. Thank God, it's been less that way since about the beginning of the year, but I'm starting to wonder if that same spirit of divisiveness is beginning to creep back in among us. I guess we'll see.

[StMark]

Originally Posted by erikwebster

If your referring to Jim Yohe, i knew him personally and was a friend to him. He was a liberal. Flat out. Which is fine because some of what I am today came from him.

It was my belief that AFF was still sort of an off-shot of FCF in that many of us came from there.

The Idea of FCF was that all streams of Apostolic would come together for dialouge, debate, Discussion. Jim was the first to ever make this come to pass.

If that's not what AFF is about then I was mistaken

I am now under the impression that Steadfast and Boomm wanted this to be a conservative apostolic forum only??? just asking


.

[Amos]

Originally Posted by TRFrance

I don't think the majority of the cons left because they "couldn't stand the weight of the challenge". Many of them, in my view, have enough depth, spiritually and theologically, to hold their own against the most biblically proficient libs on this forum.

As a moderate conservative myself, I have no problem with hearing all sides of various issues in the Apostolic movement. From my perspective, some of the liberal arguments have some merit, while some are just absurd and without foundation.

I don't pretend to speak for all the conservatives, but I think I do have a good sense of the sentiment a lot of cons feel who have left, or have been at the brink of leaving...

I think all rational minds understand that on a forum like this, there will be differences of views, and sometimes even a few skirmishes when we disagree. The problem has been the tone and spirit of some of the libs on this forum. Some libs have chosen to not just express their view, but have been very in-your-face and confrontational with it. Some of these have not chosen to simply post their opinion, but at times seemed to be just trolling the forum almost daily, practically looking to pick a fight with the cons, "3-steppers", etc... and seemed to be on a mission to dismantle traditional Acts 2:38 apostolic doctrine.

Some libs might object to my perception of this, as if I'm just blaming the lib side... but lets be real here; anyone who's been paying attention could see that the libs have done more attacking of the cons' position than cons have toward the libs. And Cons who've chosen to leave, or expressed disgust with the hyena-like attacks of some of these libs have been told they're "running away" from the debate. (taunting?)

Personally I've found it all to be quite distasteful.

Obviously, disagreements among saints is an unavoidable fact of life... but to me, there's something fundamentally wrong on the inside with someone who seems to relish getting into doctrinal fights with other people on message boards, and who seek out online clashes with other saints like it's some kind of bloodsport. I doubt that's what the founders of this forum had in mind when they started AFF.

Some have asked "why did the cons leave?", rather than hang around and continually "defend" their position. But that's the root of the problem right there. Obviously, if you're constantly feeling like you're on defense, its because your position is constantly under attack. I've seen quite a few cons here who are more than equipped to go toe-to-toe in any debate with the libs around here... but that gets really old after a while. People come here primarily for fellowship and edification, not to constantly "defend" their beliefs from other apostolics, former-apostolics, or anti-apostolics.

Instead of being a relatively civil discussion forum among apostolics with different views, this place in the recent past has seemed to degenerate into a virtual head-butting arena. Thank God, it's been less that way since about the beginning of the year, but I'm starting to wonder if that same spirit of divisiveness is beginning to creep back in among us. I guess we'll see.

Excellent post.

Being heckled by rude, obnoxious, arrogant, and mocking voices gets old.

[rgcraig]

Originally Posted by My Own Eyes

This makes me so sad.

It would me too if I knew he really felt that way, but he doesn't.

Of course, there are many that do.

[Amos]

Originally Posted by StMark

It was my belief that AFF was still sort of an off-shot of FCF in that many of us came from there.

The Idea of FCF was that all streams of Apostolic would come together for dialouge, debate, Discussion. Jim was the first to ever make this come to pass.

If that's not what AFF is about then I was mistaken

I am now under the impression that Steadfast and Boomm wanted this to be a conservative apostolic forum only??? just asking


.

I don't think that is what those two men wanted at all.

I can't speak for them, obviously, but it might be that they felt as if the pendulum was hopelessly out of balance beyond repair.

That is strictly my own speculation. It might be far off base.

[My Own Eyes]

Originally Posted by rgcraig

It would me too if I knew he really felt that way, but he doesn't.

Of course, there are many that do.

I guess with Mark its hard to tell. I thought this was what he actually believed.

[rgcraig]

Originally Posted by StMark

It was my belief that AFF was still sort of an off-shot of FCF in that many of us came from there.

The Idea of FCF was that all streams of Apostolic would come together for dialouge, debate, Discussion. Jim was the first to ever make this come to pass.

If that's not what AFF is about then I was mistaken

I am now under the impression that Steadfast and Boomm wanted this to be a conservative apostolic forum only??? just asking

I believe AFF morphed from Jim's dream - not really our intent to be like FCF. However, some of the same players are still around so, of course, there will be some similarities.

I do not believe Steadfast and Boom wanted this to be a conservative Apostolic forum only. I know they didn't. They just wanted the conservatives to be respected for what they believed and not harassed for their beliefs.

[Elizabeth]

Originally Posted by Amos

Excellent post.

Being heckled by rude, obnoxious, arrogant, and mocking voices gets old.

Couldn't just ignore it? IDK just a thought-

[lovinglife]

Originally Posted by StMark

now you know i like list so let's work this.

Epley- rarely post anylonger and wont debate much anymore

Falla- non combative and too nice for anyone to mess with.

AG- would be considered a moderate by the right

ForeverB- Liberal - honestly, she would be considered as such and she knows it as well

Esther- a moderate and non combative

Ferd- combative but a moderate

haha...mark i think you are in the wrong business....you should have been a Psychologist....