Apostolic Friends Forum
Tab Menu 1
Go Back   Apostolic Friends Forum > The Fellowship Hall > Fellowship Hall
Facebook

Notices

Fellowship Hall The place to go for Fellowship & Fun!


Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #301  
Old 05-24-2007, 11:51 AM
Steve Epley's Avatar
Steve Epley Steve Epley is offline
Registered Member


 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 11,903
[QUOTE=Daniel Alicea;125970]
Quote:
Originally Posted by Steve Epley View Post

You've seen YouTube clips here ....
NO I haven't sorry.
Reply With Quote
  #302  
Old 05-24-2007, 11:52 AM
SDG SDG is offline
Guest


 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: H-Town, Texas
Posts: 18,009
Quote:
Originally Posted by "GL" View Post
Trust me, it is a huge exaggeration. Most of us understand that a minister having a TV in his/her home is prohibited in the AOF.

Sorry Dan and Dan, but most UPC ministers are not liars. The number that choose to abide by the AOF in this area is far greater than the number who choose to be deceitful...
Really ... as the Fundamental Doctrine presently reads IN THE AOF only water baptism remits sin .... not repentance and water baptism ... MOST IN THE FELLOWSHIP ARE TEACHING AND PREACHING SOMETHING DIFFERENT.
Reply With Quote
  #303  
Old 05-24-2007, 11:53 AM
Nahum Nahum is offline
Registered User


 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 8,102
[QUOTE=Steve Epley;125956]
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pastor Poster View Post
For the Elder[/QUOTE

"The use of video must be strickly limited to those areas in which motion cameras and projectors are traditionally permitted to be used namely in taking pictures of family, friends, church activities and the veiwing of educational films which are consistent with WHOLESOME CHRISTIAN principles."

HOME PORN certainly would NOT qualify under this and I think the UPC has the same article?

One man's wholesome is another man's sin.

Slippery slope.
Reply With Quote
  #304  
Old 05-24-2007, 11:53 AM
SDG SDG is offline
Guest


 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: H-Town, Texas
Posts: 18,009
[quote=Steve Epley;125972]
Quote:
Originally Posted by Daniel Alicea View Post

NO I haven't sorry.
We'll have to look into the matter further ....
Reply With Quote
  #305  
Old 05-24-2007, 11:54 AM
chaotic_resolve chaotic_resolve is offline
Registered Member


 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 1,243
Quote:
Originally Posted by Daniel Alicea View Post
The clause from the AOF that all UPCI ministers attest to in the AS:

We wholeheartedly disapprove of our people indulging in any activities which are not conducive to good Christianity and godly living, such as theaters, dances, mixed bathing or swimming, women cutting their hair, make-up, any apparel that immodestly exposes the body, all worldly sports and amusements, and unwholesome radio programs and music. Furthermore, because of the display of all these evils on television, we disapprove of any of our people having television sets in their homes. We admonish all of our people to refrain from any of these practices in the interest of spiritual progress and the soon coming of the Lord for His church
Quote:
Originally Posted by Daniel Alicea View Post
This is the kicker ... here is the purpose of the ban on TV ....

Are these evils not displayed on the internet???? There isn't a ban because of a tuner ... or a receiver that receives television frequencies ...

the purpose of the ban is because that it displays THESE EVILS ... yet the logic doesn't apply to a tv type program transmitted on a DVD player or a computer...????
DA - I agree. If the internet had been around when the television prohibition was passed, it too would have been banned along with television.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Steve Epley View Post
Ain't NOTHING gonna happen wait-watch and see. If it does I will be shocked.
From what I understand something already happened . . . the minister in question removed the offending comments from off the website. Not sure if he got rid of his television or handed in his resignation though.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Coonskinner View Post
This kind of thing is utterly disappointing to those who try to be honorable and make their word worth something.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Coonskinner View Post
Make all the excuses you want.

A lie is a lie is a lie.

You are looking at the difference between what is clearly an interpretation vs. a blatant violation.
Coonskinner . . . You never answered a post of mine from way back in the early pages of this thread.

You know that recently there was a certain DS in a district not far from your own who wrote a grandios story about a Jewish Revival. It kept getting bigger and bigger. Then people started asking questions because of contradictions. It ended up Bishop Haney had to send a committee to investigate this minister's claims and found out he was flat out LYING.

The committee caught this minister in several lies during their investigation, yet he STILL, to this day, is adamant and refuses to admit any wrongdoing; refuses to apologize for the lies he's been caught in; has rebelled against the leadership at HQ; is unrepentant and refuses any offers of help given him.

Bishop Haney even recently sent out a letter, already mentioned in another thread a few weeks ago, that had a paragraph calling the report a lie (in effect also calling the DS a liar).

Yet just last week, this ex-DS was voted in as a Presbyter.

How is it that this man is able to keep his license, continue pastoring and was able to be voted back into office after all this?

And yet this honest minister from Texas is being raked over the coals over something to stupid as owning a television and being open about it.

And before anyone says anything about signing the AS and still having one . . . no one knows for sure what he included with the signature. I know many ministers who sign the AS, but include a statement of protest over the television clause. So it could very well be that this minister has been very open about having the television and has not lied about it.

It burns me . . . we'll yank a ministers license over television; prohibit them from license over adultery or divorce . . . yet this recent well-documented minister is still allowed to hold license and district office.

I know, this could be deemed as "tearing down of the ministry." But I disagree. The ministry is being torn down, not from my statements bringing this in the open, but by the hypocrisy of accepting lying ministers like this while yet unjustly bashing and condemning honest ministers over television.

JMO
Reply With Quote
  #306  
Old 05-24-2007, 11:55 AM
ILG's Avatar
ILG ILG is offline
Registered Member


 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Wisconsin
Posts: 11,467
Quote:
Originally Posted by Daniel Alicea View Post
Really ... as the Fundamental Doctrine presently reads IN THE AOF only water baptism remits sin .... not repentance and water baptism ... MOST IN THE FELLOWSHIP ARE TEACHING AND PREACHING SOMETHING DIFFERENT.
The AOF are interesting when it comes to repentance and baptism. It says that forgiveness happens at repentance. Well forgiveness and remission are interchangeable words in the greek.
Reply With Quote
  #307  
Old 05-24-2007, 11:57 AM
SDG SDG is offline
Guest


 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: H-Town, Texas
Posts: 18,009
Quote:
Originally Posted by ILG View Post
The AOF are interesting when it comes to repentance and baptism. It says that forgiveness happens at repentance. Well forgiveness and remission are interchangeable words in the greek.
That's in the Repentance article ... the Water Baptism article makes no reference to forgiveness or remisssion ... while the Fundamental Doctrine article which ministers must affirm states only baptism remits sin.
Reply With Quote
  #308  
Old 05-24-2007, 11:58 AM
ILG's Avatar
ILG ILG is offline
Registered Member


 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Wisconsin
Posts: 11,467
Quote:
Originally Posted by Daniel Alicea View Post
That's in the Repentance article ... the Water Baptism article makes no reference to forgiveness or remisssion ... while the Fundamental Doctrine article which ministers must affirm states only baptism remits sin.
Yeah, I think that part was added in 1973.
Reply With Quote
  #309  
Old 05-24-2007, 11:59 AM
SDG SDG is offline
Guest


 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: H-Town, Texas
Posts: 18,009
Quote:
Originally Posted by ILG View Post
Yeah, I think that part was added in 1973.
Do we bring up those that have affirmed something different from what they preach and teach on charges???
Reply With Quote
  #310  
Old 05-24-2007, 12:02 PM
ILG's Avatar
ILG ILG is offline
Registered Member


 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Wisconsin
Posts: 11,467
Quote:
Originally Posted by Daniel Alicea View Post
Do we bring up those that have affirmed something different from what they preach and teach on charges???
The districts allow preachers to write disclaimers on some AS. So, I guess those preachers are probably honest.
Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks


Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
85% of Kansas town destroyed by tornado. IBCrazier2 The Newsroom 9 05-06-2007 09:36 AM
Tornados in Texas! Rhoni Fellowship Hall 13 04-14-2007 04:43 PM
What A Time In Texas! NLYP Fellowship Hall 8 04-02-2007 09:39 PM
If EVERYTHING is Bigger in Texas....... Nahum Fellowship Hall 30 03-13-2007 03:10 PM
Has anyone Heard of an AMF church in Texas...... Thad Fellowship Hall 8 03-12-2007 10:13 PM

 
User Infomation
Your Avatar

Latest Threads
- by jfrog
- by Salome
- by Amanah

Help Support AFF!

Advertisement




All times are GMT -6. The time now is 11:35 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.5
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.