Forum is Ex-Pentecostal?? - Page 23

Cindy · #**221** 06-01-2008, 01:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Michael Phelps

I must agree with Cneasttx here, I had a feeling this thread was heading down this path when it was started.

Once again, the issue is not the issue, it's personal........I haven't read the entire thread, so if something changed toward the end, someone PM me, otherwise, I'm not wasting my time.

Same song, different verse.

Rico · #**222** 06-01-2008, 01:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by CC1

You read the question wrong then. The poll is NOT whether it is an exUPC forum.

It is whether it is even a Pentecostal one! Absurd poll.

It is an absurd poll, started because of an absurd comment made by someone. On another thread, someone claimed this is an ex-pentecostal site. I wanted to show that person that his assessment was wrong. I expected an overwhelming majority of people to vote "no" and am a bit surprised at how close the votes are. Then again, I didn't consider that "pentecostal" would be defined as anything other than speaking in tongues.

Cindy · #**223** 06-01-2008, 01:14 PM

The better question might be, is this forum ex-Christian?

Rico · #**224** 06-01-2008, 01:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pianoman

Very prophetic, bald-headed one!

To continue Jim's vision would require a UPC preacher to offer himself as a martyr. The price is too heavy!

You said a mouthful, Pianoman.

Rico · #**225** 06-01-2008, 01:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Daniel Alicea

Rico ... would you categorize this site as being anti-Pentecostal ... or that most here are anti-Oneness Pentecostal?

Do you believe the forum is stupid? Or that the bulk of the readers are dumb and gullible?

Absolutely not. However, I will say that I believe this forum is starting to lean heavily towards a one-stepper version of Christianity (in spite of the other poll I started).

Nahum · #**226** 06-01-2008, 02:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Daniel Alicea

Rico ... would you categorize this site as being anti-Pentecostal ... or that most here are anti-Oneness Pentecostal?

Do you believe the forum is stupid? Or that the bulk of the readers are dumb and gullible?

Sometimes this forum is stupid. Matter of fact, a lot of the time it is.

Of course, the IQ goes up when I start posting again.

Nahum · #**227** 06-01-2008, 02:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rico

Absolutely not. However, I will say that I believe this forum is starting to lean heavily towards a one-stepper version of Christianity (in spite of the other poll I started).

Oh boy.

Danny's gonna wet his britches when he reads that one!

All his hopes and dreams are coming true!

SDG · #**228** 06-01-2008, 02:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pastor Poster

Here is my conspiracy theory for the evening.

Daniel, for you to have any street cred on this site, you cling (very loosely) to the generic titles of Apostolic and/or Oneness Pentecostal.

Now, mind you, 4395% of your posts are anti-Oneness Pentecostal, but you know how to do the deal. You just claim to be OP and Apostolic (whatever that means) and most people are gullible enough, and dumb enough, to buy it.

This helps you in your agenda to convert most lurkers.

Let me compliment you.

You are the best I've seen at it.

Love ya Man!

PP, let's not tell any tall tales.

Nahum · #**229** 06-01-2008, 02:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Daniel Alicea

PP, let's not tell any tall tales.

Whadda ya mean?

CC1 · #**230** 06-01-2008, 02:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Daniel Alicea

Totally agree. The foundation was built on quick sand. What CC1 fails to realize was that this was the agenda from the beginning. Although he waxed nostalgic for a forum of old .... he perhaps was duped into thinking that FCF or NFCF would be cloned here. With these men at the helm it was a genetic impossibility.

What transpired, I believe, was when controversy hit and they could not keep the appearance of "openness"... and, boy, did it from many sides .... they had to bail. The pressure from their peers .... or the perceived pressure ... was too much. Remaining "Apostolic", based on their definition, was vital.

It would have been nice to keep this "balanced" dynamic but it was a farce from the get-go as you so aptly predicted and the events that played out in January proved it. Once AFF proved to be a liability ... they could not stay.

Thank God for Renda Craig who kept this thing afloat.

If it makes you feel better to deny that poor judgement and a lack of wisdom in posting for the most part blew things up here then go for it. The truth is still the truth.

A little maturity in how one posts their views and a little respect for differing views is what kept FCF, NFCF and AFF going with that elusive dynamic I so miss.

All it took was some Johnny come lately's ( or mostly singular - A Johnny come lately) to come here with guns blazing with crude, rude words to make the more conservative leave in disgust.

It is silly to say they couldn't stand the heat and the other such garbage I see posted. They just could not stand the way in which the discussion was being handled with what they consider precioius truth being trashed in an insensitive way.

No one disagrees more with cons and ultra cons that I do but I and many more libs managed to have intelligent discourse and friendships with them on these forums. It can be done.

I wish this whole subject had not come up again because it disgusts me. A lot of good people were run off because of just plain stupidity and imaturity in posting.