Forum is Ex-Pentecostal??

[SDG]

Originally Posted by Pastor Poster

Is it okay if I say your view is biased and reminiscent of a famous bird from Australia?

Is Renda a dodo bird?

[SDG]

PP for someone who is obsessed w/ IQ?

Why can't you separate fact from fiction?

No seriously.

[Nahum]

Originally Posted by Daniel Alicea

CC1 ... we will agree to disagree on this issue.

I make the following two observations as my last words w/ you about this ... until it's brought up again.

1. You are enamored w/ a forum FCF that has gone and past. Your feelings of nostalgia, as in common, may be blurring you to the realities of the past and presents situations. I lurked at NFCF ... and that drag outs there were second to none.

2. The former owners of this forum had an agenda of censorship and coersion. Many of us saw it rear it's head on many issues ... and other breaches of confidentiality proved that this was not the forum of Yohe ....

3. There was a blatant double standard that you have helped to perpetuate. The cons in the form of vigilante justice and wolf-pack mentality ostracized and ridiculed divergent thought for years .... See Posse and pulpits.

You, like our European allies (France) would rather appease these attacks ... for the sake of a fictional utopia.

Some of us decided to step up and face these accusations of having false doctrine, being ungodly and compromisers.

PP for all his antagonism towards my views ... would have to admit that this agenda even affected him personally.

Nuff said.

Your post is truth, and I appreciate the gesture.

I sincerely hope what I am about to post is taken sincerely. This will be my attempt at substance tonight.

Look, everyone from admin to those with two posts always whine about the fighting. They all say they want peace on earth, goodwill to men, Christian love, cooperative spirits and all sorts of other pretty little things.

I'm here to tell you it's a lie.

They don't really want that.

Forums do not thrive on agreement. (See Synadelfos).

Forums thrive on debate, argument, and good old-fashioned gossip.

C'mon you'all, you know it's true.



That being said, CC1 is right, AFF is a shadow of its former self.

Why?

Because we do not disagree properly.

Words like sacrementalist, voodoo baptisms, incantations and all sorts of other lingo are virtual nuclear bombs. They stink up the whole joint. No one wants to hang around that sort of pollution.

The trouble is, when some of us whine about that junk, and devolve to responding in kind, we are censored, infracted and banned.

And please, don't tell me personalities don't play a part in that.

Don't tell me agendas don't play a part in that.

I disagreed with the ultracon way of running AFF. I was hurt in a very real way by it.

But I also disagree with the ultralib garbage that is allowed as well.

It's one thing to post ideas. Another to paint our heritage (please don't think standards) as evil.

[rgcraig]

Originally Posted by Pastor Poster

Is it okay if I say your view is biased and reminiscent of a famous bird from Australia?

Sure.

You can say anything you want, doesn't make it so.

[Nahum]

Originally Posted by rgcraig

Sure.

You can say anything you want, doesn't make it so.

No, I can't say anything I want.

[Nahum]

Originally Posted by Pastor Poster

Your post is truth, and I appreciate the gesture.

I sincerely hope what I am about to post is taken sincerely. This will be my attempt at substance tonight.

Look, everyone from admin to those with two posts always whine about the fighting. They all say they want peace on earth, goodwill to men, Christian love, cooperative spirits and all sorts of other pretty little things.

I'm here to tell you it's a lie.

They don't really want that.

Forums do not thrive on agreement. (See Synadelfos).

Forums thrive on debate, argument, and good old-fashioned gossip.

C'mon you'all, you know it's true.



That being said, CC1 is right, AFF is a shadow of its former self.

Why?

Because we do not disagree properly.

Words like sacrementalist, voodoo baptisms, incantations and all sorts of other lingo are virtual nuclear bombs. They stink up the whole joint. No one wants to hang around that sort of pollution.

The trouble is, when some of us whine about that junk, and devolve to responding in kind, we are censored, infracted and banned.

And please, don't tell me personalities don't play a part in that.

Don't tell me agendas don't play a part in that.

I disagreed with the ultracon way of running AFF. I was hurt in a very real way by it.

But I also disagree with the ultralib garbage that is allowed as well.

It's one thing to post ideas. Another to paint our heritage (please don't think standards) as evil.

Wow, I can't believe this masterpiece didn't get a response.

I'm hurt.

[DanielR]

Originally Posted by Pastor Poster

Wow, I can't believe this masterpiece didn't get a response.

I'm hurt.

I can.

[rgcraig]

Originally Posted by Pastor Poster

No, I can't say anything I want.

Sure you can.

Might have some consequences.

[Hoovie]

Originally Posted by Pastor Poster

Your post is truth, and I appreciate the gesture.

I sincerely hope what I am about to post is taken sincerely. This will be my attempt at substance tonight.

Look, everyone from admin to those with two posts always whine about the fighting. They all say they want peace on earth, goodwill to men, Christian love, cooperative spirits and all sorts of other pretty little things.

I'm here to tell you it's a lie.

They don't really want that.

Forums do not thrive on agreement. (See Synadelfos).

Forums thrive on debate, argument, and good old-fashioned gossip.

C'mon you'all, you know it's true.



That being said, CC1 is right, AFF is a shadow of its former self.

Why?

Because we do not disagree properly.
Words like sacrementalist, voodoo baptisms, incantations and all sorts of other lingo are virtual nuclear bombs. They stink up the whole joint. No one wants to hang around that sort of pollution.

The trouble is, when some of us whine about that junk, and devolve to responding in kind, we are censored, infracted and banned.

And please, don't tell me personalities don't play a part in that.

Don't tell me agendas don't play a part in that.

I disagreed with the ultracon way of running AFF. I was hurt in a very real way by it.

But I also disagree with the ultralib garbage that is allowed as well.

It's one thing to post ideas. Another to paint our heritage (please don't think standards) as evil.

The question is, do we have to choose from extremes?

Why can we not disagree (even strongly) and debate the word of God and our various interpretations without disparaging our brothers and sisters?

IF our theology is such that we can't give "brotherly recognition" then what is wrong with an acknowledgement that we may be mistaken (a remote possibility even) in the view we contend for?

[Nahum]

Originally Posted by rgcraig

Sure you can.

Might have some consequences.

Exactly.

I know you're just sitting there at your desk with your finger on the big red ban button.