Gay Pastor's(xupc)recent Letter to the UPCI ! ! !

This discussion board is for Apostolic Pentecostal Christians who believe that the Bible, in it's entirety, is the word of God, is without error, and that it is completely relevant today. We welcome and encourage visitors of other faiths to post and ask sincere questions in their honest search to learn more of our faith and about our wonderful Lord, Savior, and God whose name is Jesus Christ. We do not, however, give place for the tearing down, or destruction of, the christian faith in any form. The propagation of atheism is not welcome here. No tearing down of Ministers.

We do not allow any rebuking, hatefulness, name calling, or verbal attacks by any person or group of people, toward any person or group of people. Content that is unseemly, using bad language or any form of insinuating bad language (i.e. one letter and ****), name calling, or offensive slang is not permitted. Debate is encouraged, bad attitudes are not.

This administration knows that God's word allows for rebuking under certain conditions, but because of the lack of understanding by some,as well as the differing views by a multitude of readers here, and forthe sake of peace, we will not permit it under any circumstances.

I fail to see where I violated this in anyway. In fact, I would say that others violated the above rules for their inappropriate "rebuking."

Originally Posted by Jeanie

Brad this would make a great argument if it the opposing view was pro homosexuality.

Homosexuality is a sin period.

There is no opposing view, there is nothing to argue about.

If you are looking to drum up some support this probably isn't the place for you.

How is there no opposing view when my article, which was posted by one of your Admins by the way, was just as much "pro homosexual" then as it is now? I have simply been defending my article (which I again remind you was posted by one of your admins). I never initiated a pro-homosexual debate but only argued an opposing view. At no time have I encouraged anyone to participate in homosexual behavior and/or lifestyle.

[Elizabeth]

Originally Posted by brad2723

How is there no opposing view when my article, which was posted by one of your Admins by the way, was just as much "pro homosexual" then as it is now? I have simply been defending my article (which I again remind you was posted by one of your admins). I never initiated a pro-homosexual debate but only argued an opposing view. At no time have I encouraged anyone to participate in homosexual behavior and/or lifestyle.

Brad I will get back to you on this, I need to go. But will review this thread for myself later.

thanks.

[Tina]

Originally Posted by brad2723

How is there no opposing view when my article, which was posted by one of your Admins by the way, was just as much "pro homosexual" then as it is now? I have simply been defending my article (which I again remind you was posted by one of your admins). I never initiated a pro-homosexual debate but only argued an opposing view. At no time have I encouraged anyone to participate in homosexual behavior and/or lifestyle.

WHERE did you get the idea that this article was posted by an ADMIN??? It was not posted by an Admin.

Originally Posted by Tina

WHERE did you get the idea that this article was posted by an ADMIN??? It was not posted by an Admin.

Thad posted it. He may have thought Thad was an Admin.

Originally Posted by Tina

WHERE did you get the idea that this article was posted by an ADMIN??? It was not posted by an Admin.

You are correct. I apologize. I thought THAD was an admin but I now realize he is not. I have had a couple different admins respond to me in this thread and I apparantly was confused who they were. I stand corrected.

I would point out, however, that certain admins who were participating in the discussion were responding to the letter that THAD posted. I still stand by my comment that my responses/comments in this thread are no more pro-homosexual than the actually posted letter that initiated the thread in the first place.

I also want to openly apologize for openly questioning the administration. I only was responding in the format in which I was initially addressed (openly). Any communication directed to me via my private messages will be responded to privately and any communication directed to me via an open thread will be resonded to openly. To me, this is the only way to maintain honesty and integrity.

Thanks,

Brad

Originally Posted by Jeanie

Brad I will get back to you on this, I need to go. But will review this thread for myself later.

thanks.

I appreciate your willingness to review the thread. The truth is, I had respectfully bowed out of the dialogue because I knew it was only creating strife. My initial motive was to simply defend a letter I had written.

My only reason for returning to the thread was because I had been informed that I had been edited/censored and I did not know why I would have been. I simply returned out of curiosity.

Most of the individuals in this forum have been extremely respectful but some have told me that I'm going to hell, etc. Though some offered “rebuking” language, I do not feel that anything I said in this thread broke any of the forum rules other than the fact that I was defending my position (which was known to be pro-homosexual from the beginning).

I realize that what I had to say was disliked by many, if not most, in the room and, as I already stated, I had already decided to respectfully bow out of the discussion.

I would like to be able to share my point of view on other issues as they present themselves in this forum and would hope that this unfortunate event will not cause me to be banned or silenced in the future.

Yours,

Brad

[IAintMovin]

Originally Posted by Jeanie

Brad this would make a great argument if it the opposing view was pro homosexuality.

Homosexuality is a sin period.

There is no opposing view, there is nothing to argue about.

If you are looking to drum up some support this probably isn't the place for you.

Totally agree.....great post.....ditto

[Praxeas]

Originally Posted by HeavenlyOne

Prax, while I understand what you are saying, he didn't say anything IN THAT POST about homosexuality. I was addressing his words in that post alone. That post cannot be answered scripturally, therefore I didn't feel it relevant to ask for scripture.

That is beside the point, when the discussion gets away from being a discussion strictly on what the bible says it goes in the direction we did not want this discussion go to, part of which is a promotion of Homosexuality

[Praxeas]

We will not allow the promotion of false doctrines and in this case will not allow a promotion of Homosexuality and homosexual confirming ministries

It is for this reason this discussion MUST remain about scriptures.