What's the difference?

[Aquila]

Originally Posted by Evang.Benincasa

Really? Based on what?




Multibillion dollar industry? Elite doesn't want to make money?






Again, this is all based on what?



You ever grow weed? I don't mean one of two plants. I mean enough to be able to smoke. Chris, where do you get such information?

You are clearly not paying attention. Big Pharma, the private prison industry, and law enforce are the three biggest lobbyists lobbying to keep marijuana (including medical marijuana) illegal.

I could Google it in the news etc. and bore you with hundreds of links. But Big Pharma isn't pushing for cannabis. They can't patent it's growth or control its production. And, it would be a better alternative to some rather pricy prescription meds they want us to buy from them. The private prison industry makes money on how many people they have locked up. A significant number are incarcerated merely for being in possession of cannabis. If it were to be legalized, they'd lose a significant number of prisoners from that day forward. Keeping cannabis illegal protects a revenue stream. Law enforcement gets grants from the Federal government to assist them in the war on drugs. This frees up resources for raises for those higher up, to hire more officers, and to purchase additional equipment. All parties have a vested financial interest in keeping cannabis illegal. Trust me, they aren't being altruistic.

The one thing I did find interesting in studying this out was that the average law enforcement officer supports legalization. They don't like having to police people over a weed that is essentially nor more dangerous than whisky. However, on the management and director level opinions are different because, as I stated, they get money from the Fed to help them in the war on drugs. If cannabis was legalized, they could lose a great deal of that revenue that they play with.

Marijuana has bad side effects. Why on earth do you think we call it DOPE.

The side effects are no worse, and in fact they are often far less of a concern than those side effects produced by perfectly legal prescription drugs. You know this, I know this, almost everyone knows this now.

Which is wrong, which is unfair because they are not here to defend themselves. Also the stories are mostly fabricated and one sided.

I can sympathize with that. In fact, when I do roast a pastor, more times than not, I'm addressing pastors who do a thing in general. I'm not addressing a specific pastor or pastors. Also, when I am addressing a specific pastor, I try not to mention them by name. Those that I haven mentioned by name are strictly those that I've known personally. My posts are more of a "if the shoe fits, wear it" kinda thing. If it doesn't, then it clearly isn't directed at those pastors.

You don't have the right to roast em. You can roast me, because I'm here and ready to take on all players. But some brother who isn't available to defend himself is kinda cowardice on the part of the roaster. Don't you agree?

Yes and no. Anyone has the right to say whatever they wish and share their understanding and experience whether a pastor is present to defend himself or not. Now, is it always the right or ethical thing to name and roast a pastor who isn't present to defend themselves? Not always. It can depend on the topic.

I'm kinda confused here. Roast'em if they are not in the Word as you have interpreted it. Combined with he is within his bounds as he so desires? Which is which?

Both.

If a pastor isn't in the Word, he isn't in the Word. If someone roasts him over it, so be it. He should have stayed within the Word. Now, does a pastor have the right to choose to teach out of the Word? Of course! And those who don't have a high regard for the Word can feel free to follow him to their dying day if that is their choice.

Yet, he is still in his bounds to make you shave? Whatever.

But that's the thing. He doesn't "make" anyone shave. Nor does he "require" it. He has simply expressed his opinion. There aren't any negative repercussions for those who don't agree. He prefers that the platform team be clean shaven. But should one grow a beard, the pastor wouldn't yank the guy off the platform. The pastor might mention his preference for men being clean shaven in a leadership meeting and leave it at that.

Bro, no minister is threatening anyone in their congregation. That is the mantra of at www.LoisHatesYou.com.

Now, you know very well that some pastors have threatened Hell over beards. Sure, today we have many pastors who have a more moderate position on it, but that is because more and more believers want to see Scriptural support for such notions. That's a good thing. Hopefully, the believer's desire for Scriptural support for these silly standards will help eliminate them altogether one day.

[Aquila]

Originally Posted by Amanah

I like this new mellow Aquila

I'm more mellow? lol

Can you elaborate?

How am I being more mellow?

[Aquila]

Originally Posted by berkeley

Its the weed

Now, you know that isn't true. Besides, according to some here, if I were smoking weed, I'd hear voices, see hallucinations, be incapable of complex thought, and essentially be a zombie. lol

But, for the record, I'm not smoking. If anything, it is the CBDs I've tried from the local convenience store. They're over the counter and perfectly legal. However, they are a bit expensive. I haven't noticed if they are making a difference or not. I know I haven't had a PTSD attack or any serious anxiety attacks for a few weeks now.

[Aquila]

Originally Posted by n david

He has a vision...

He requests those who serve on the platform be clean shaven...

TOTALLY OKAY!

"as a pastor, he is within bounds to request what he desires."

Previously on "As Aquila Turns:"

Me: My current Pastor doesn't believe beards are a sin, and there are men in the congregation which have various types of facial hair. He just wants those who serve on the platform to be clean shaven.

Aquila: BAD! Man's traditions!

Explained in greater detail in post #166.

http://www.apostolicfriendsforum.com...&postcount=166

[Aquila]

Originally Posted by n david

Previously on "As Aquila Turns":








But making a "request" that "those who serve on the platform be clean shaven" is okay because "as a pastor, he is within bounds to request what he desires."

Explained in post #166.

http://www.apostolicfriendsforum.com...&postcount=166

[Aquila]

Originally Posted by Evang.Benincasa

If anyone had the time and willing to put in the effort. There could be threads created showing Aquila Vs Aquila. Marijuana does have an adverse effect on memory. Maybe Aquila's memory is fading due to his cannabis use?

Explained in post #166.

http://www.apostolicfriendsforum.com...&postcount=166

[n david]

Originally Posted by Aquila

That's a fair question.

I don't want to wax to radical, nor do I want to support that pastors can just legislate Heaven or Hell edicts from the pulpit.

Technically, a pastor can do anything they wish to do no matter who agrees or not. Those who wish to abide by any pastor's position, whatever it may be, will stay and serve in that church. Let me say that I personally do not support every position or approach a pastor might take.

Let's look at this as a gem with multiple facets. Some I don't agree with, some I do, and others I might tolerate if I feel it is approached ethically.

1.) Personally, I'm absolutely against pastors creating extra-biblical standards and proclaiming that it is a matter of Heaven or Hell. I see that as going way beyond the bounds of Scripture. This creates a "mini-pope" that has the power and authority to absolutely control a saint's life down to the very color of panty hose or sleeve length. I find this to be excessive and unbiblical control.

2.) I don't support pastors who would enforce a "platform standard", refusing anyone with a beard or who violates his opinion from serving on the platform. Why? Because it creates two classes of saints, when we are to be of equal value and service in the Kingdom. It unnecessarily divides the body without any biblical necessity to do so. If a man is born again and sanctified in the pew with a beard, then he's clearly saved and sanctified enough to serve on the platform with a beard.

3.) I have no issue with a pastor voicing his personal opinions or preferences, while allowing the saints to freely choose to honor those opinions or preferences or not. This pastor that I mentioned has stated that his preference is a ministry that is clean shaven. However, he doesn't prohibit men with beards from ever being on the platform. Nor does he condemn to Hell anyone who has a different preference. Out of love, the vast majority embrace his vision. But he will not deny the platform or condemn to Hell anyone who disagrees. This, I can support.

I guess when it comes to pastoral preferences, my support is given or denied based on how the pastor approaches it. Does he approach it in a forceful authoritarian manner, or as a gentle request without creating division or any repercussion if another is of a different opinion.

So, it's a fine line. The attitude and spirit of the pastor goes a long way with me.

You said he has allowed his brother and guest speakers with beards. You also said "he requests that the regular team on the platform be clean shaven" and "he requests that those who serve on the platform be clean shaven."

What would happen if one of the regular congregant men who isn't related and isn't a guest had a beard and wanted to serve on the platform? Because you said this Pastor has a vision for "his" ministry and that includes men being clean shaven.

I could see how that may not apply to siblings or guests occasionally serving on the platform. I just don't believe, given what you have claimed, this Pastor would allow his vision of clean shaven men be marred by beards every service.

[Aquila]

Originally Posted by n david

There are certainly enough contradictory posts to start a thread.

I remember this comic strip when I was growing up -- Spy vs Spy. This particular strip is pretty funny and accurate when comparing the Spy vs Spy to Aquila old post vs Aquila new post.

https://www.madmagazine.com/sites/de...5.15539289.jpg

Note To The Reader:

Post #166 in this thread clarifies my position. Had my detractors actual read what I said closely they wouldn't be having such a dialogue about it. Also note how they are making up the illusion of incongruency, running with it, and making insulting remarks like jabbering high school kids in a school yard.

[n david]

Originally Posted by Aquila

It's not entirely a 180. It's a multifaceted issue. I tried to iron it out in post #166. Maybe it will help clarify. (Link below.)

http://www.apostolicfriendsforum.com...&postcount=166

No, Aquila. Take ownership and be honest. You did a complete 180. Stop with this "multifaceted" trash. I can understand a person who makes a statement contradicting an earlier statement as long as they own it and admit it. I cannot stomach a person who makes a statement which clearly contradicts an earlier statement, then spends post after post claiming they didn't and that they're just being "multifaceted."

What I posted a few months ago about Pastors being able to (let's use your word) make "requests" and establish a "vision" of their ministry is no different than what you have posted about this Pastor.

Yet you condemned my post and the Pastors who would do such a thing.

[Aquila]

Originally Posted by 1ofthechosen

What if I told you God allows His man to set standards? And in so going against it even bickering and making fun as you and others do on here, you are really coming against God.

I have chapter and verse for this you ready?

Exodus 19:9-13 "the Lord said unto Moses, Lo, I come unto thee in a thick cloud, that the people may hear when I speak with thee, and believe thee for ever. And Moses told the words of the people unto the Lord. [10] And the Lord said unto Moses, Go unto the people, and sanctify them to day and to morrow, and let them wash their clothes, [11] And be ready against the third day: for the third day the Lord will come down in the sight of all the people upon mount Sinai. [12] And THOU SHALT SET BOUNDS UNTO ThE PEOPLE round about, saying, Take heed to yourselves, that ye go not up into the mount, or touch the border of it: whosoever toucheth the mount shall be surely put to death: [13] There shall not an hand touch it, but he shall surely bestoned, or shot through; whether it be beast or man, it shall not live: when the trumpet soundeth long, they shall come up to the mount."

Now let's start with verse 12, where does a a Mountain start? He clearly told Moses to set up boundaries for this by his discretion. And to execute judgement even.

Now look at 10-11 what did God tell Moses "And the Lord said unto Moses, Go unto the people, and sanctify d them to day and to morrow, and let them wash their clothes, [11] And be ready against the third day: for the third day the Lord will come down in the sight of all the people upon mount Sinai."

Now let's look at what Moses tells the people..
Go with me to verse 14-15 "And Moses went down from the mount unto the people, and sanctified the people; and they washed their clothes. [15] AND HE SAID UNTO THE PEOPLE, BE READY AGAINST THE THIRD DAY: COME NOT AT YOUR WIVES."

Now, Moses totally added that I'm verse 15. You would call that legalistic, but guess what Goes anointed man has that authority and right. It's the same as God saying it.

Ok New Testament example. Acts 15:24-29 "FORASMUCH AS WE HAVE HEARD, THAT CERTAIN WHICH WENT OUT FROM US HAVE TROUBLED YOU WITH WORDS, SUBVERTING YOUR SOULS, SAYING, YE MUST BE CIRCUMCISED, and keep the law: to whom we gave no such commandment: [25] It seemed good unto us, being assembled with one accord, to send chosen men unto you with our beloved Barnabas and Paul, [26] Men that have hazarded their lives for the name of our Lord Jesus Christ. [27] We have sent therefore Judas and Silas, who shall also tell you the same things by mouth. [28] For it seemed good to the Holy Ghost, and to us, to lay upon you no greater burden than these necessary things; [29] That ye abstain from meats aa offered to idols, and from blood, and from things strangled, and from fornication: ab from which if ye keep yourselves, ye shall do well. Fare ye well."

Now let's go ahead to the beginning of Chapter 16:1-3 "Then came he to Derbe and Lystra: and, behold, a certain disciple was there, named Timotheus, the son of a certain woman, which was a Jewess, and believed; but his father was a Greek: [2] Which was well reported of by the brethren that were at Lystra and Iconium. [3] HIM WOULD PAUL HAVE TO GO FORTH WITH HIM; AND TOOK AND CIRCUMCISED HIM because of the Jews which were in those a quarters: for they knew all that his father was a Greek."

Now do you see that? The Holy Ghost just decreed they didn't have to be Holy Ghost, but God's man in the very next Chapter took Tomothy and circumcised him. More extra bibical revelation, is Paul now a legalist, and needs to repent of going back to his pharaseeical ways?

I say it like this, I'd rather have to shave then be circumcised and you didn't see Timothy complaining. Sounds like to me he was the one truthfully under the gun or the knife if you will! There's standards Al through out the scripture, and when it comes to God's anointed man, to go against Him is Spiritually the same as going against God. To do that just to some guy who.leads a chrucb is a lot different then going against God's anointed in a place that is truthfully His church. Every place that says church, or Call's theirself Pentecostal, or even Apostolic for that matter, doesn't automatically fall under this category. But if it does, and that's Gods candlestick, and thats God's man His anointed messenger, then you are fighting against God Himself no ifs, and's,or but's. Beware!

Matter of fact I'm going to copy and paste this elsewhere while I'm here.!

It is important to not that the book of Acts was a transitional period.

Do you believe that the canon is complete?
If the canon is complete, do you believe that it contains all that we need to know to live a truly Christian life?
Do you believe that pastors are infallible as Catholics do the Pope?

And perhaps even more importantly...

Would an entire counsel of pastors have the authority to change or reinterpret the baptismal formula to establish unity within the body and excommunicate those in the error classical Modalism, Arainism, and Ebionitism, who were known to baptized in the name of Jesus?