Dear Kansas Preacher,

[BobDylan]

Originally Posted by pelathais

And the longer the list, the more likely it will be that you are "offended" again and again. Some people learn to actually feed off the offenses. Others wise up and grow spiritually. Still others are morose or embittered for years.

There is no offense on my part indicated in my last post. I am not offended at all... moreso, I am disconcerted. Disconcerted in the fact that conservatives, for whatever reason, cannot find the common thread to unite them. Not that they have no common thread, but that they cannot seem to find it. As has been stated time and time again, liberals can disagree on 9 out of 10 issues, but they will rally about the one issue that they agree on. Conservatives, on the other hand, can agree on 9 out of 10 issues, and divide over the one issue they disagree on. This is all I was pointing out P. I have no problem with conservative positions as long as they are consistent. In fact I truly appreciate them. What I cannot appreciate is the intolerance in many cases that is demonstrated from conservatives toward the slight variations of interpretations and applications.

P.S. I am rereading your post here... and think I have not fully understood what you are trying to say. But I think after having reread it a couple of times, I am getting the gist. Are you saying that the UC's introduce the lists of rules in their own subconsciense to ensure that someone will "offend" at some point? Thus giving them fodder for "preaching"? (or something like that)... but other actually learn to grow past that mentality?

[BobDylan]

Originally Posted by pelathais

We are dealing with a lot of ignorance in our movement. Of course when you point out the errors in the "hair part" and the "cowboy pianoman" they and their ilk will immediately respond with some nonsense about how your position is "really pro-homosexual."

Miscreants often end up with a spectrum mindset. They put themselves on a spectrum as far from what they hate as they can. Anyone else who comes along and sees the world as being complex and 3 dimensional- well it's because they're on the "homo" side of the spectrum.

Thing is, if you've studied human behavior from a clinical perspective- these guys and their male dominance hierarchies are really patterned after the more ancient forms of homosexuality. They give me the willies when I'm around them - that same sick to my stomach feeling I get from the "gay pride" advocates.

I so long to be a part of something "normal." Something that I don't have to be ashamed of. Something truly Christian.

IOW, what you are suggesting is that this ultra sensitivity toward "homosexuality" really arises from insecurities in their own heterosexualtiy?

[Thad]

This is bound to stir up a bee's Nest!

everyone grab some popcorn and pull up a chair

[Thad]

**** announcement ***

! Just want everyone to know that KS and I worked things out. It went public so i'm making this known -we had a falling out but everything's cool now. KS is a good man

[pelathais]

Originally Posted by Thad

WOW i can't believe you posted that! are you sure you are ready for this??

Originally Posted by Thad

BTW, I've never heard this before- can you expound in "laymen's terms" ha! i will say this, in my observation, the ones who sometimes preach the hardest against something are strugging themselves. preaching hard against it perhaps gives them a sense of assuarance or something not sure

Just to take one example- let's consider the ancient Greeks. And folks, this is a grown up discussion. We will be trying to make polite references to things that most people find unseemly and that I candidly find uncomfortable, to say the least.

A little background, first...

In today's society the "Gay" agenda people have been trying to gain acceptance through a "we're just like everybody else..." approach. They insist that "boy-loves-boy" is the same as "boy-loves-girl" and etc. They make an appeal to ancient societies and the practice of homosexuality there. Recently, a movie was released which purportedly showed Alexander the Great having a "better" gay relationship than he had marriage. (I couldn't bring myself to watch that one even for academic purposes- so I must lean upon the written reviews). The Greek govt was understandably upset about this movie's obvious agenda.

The question that is presented to us: is "gay love" just like "regular heterosexual love?" I would answer "no." Important differences- not just the mechanics, but the psychology as well. Another question: Was "gay love" practiced in antiquity and could that be a reason for accepting the homosexual agendas today? Again, I answer "no."

For space we will restrict ourselves to the ancient Greek culture. In ancient Greece homosexuality abounded. But it wasn't "Love." It was all a part of the way in which the warrior society organized itself and later the urban society as well. Only the male who was in the submissive role was even thought of as being "feminine." The dominant male was always considered “a man's man" and his masculinity was never questioned- in fact by assuming the dominant role he elevated his masculinity in the group.

A person of higher class was never submissive to a person of lower class. A person of greater age was never submissive to a younger person. A soldier of higher rank was always dominant with a soldier of lower rank. The place you took was determined by social ranking. The "sex" (often an assault) was just a way of emphasizing your place in that ranking. To refuse to participate in this hierarchy meant you were an outcast. That's the way men sorted themselves out in antiquity - literally, "Who's your daddy?" We see the similar things in prisons today.

The same patterns are also present whenever you have an exclusively male grouping of humans. The presence of the fairer sex really does make us act better. But it seems that unrengerated men will always be looking for a way to get “a leg up on” another. And often supposedly regenerated men will as well.

The "gays" have got it wrong. It's wrong to try and divide human beings into their "gay," "straight," "bi," and "other" catagories. Human beings are sexual creatures, period. We're all the same (taking into account the obvious male/female dichotomy).

Thad, I've already alarmed many on this board with similar discussions, I guess you missed my post describing a board meeting I was forced to attend once. I likened it to a gang assault of a bunch of guys against a weaker guy.

For myself, I can honestly say that I have never had any sexual relations with any other human being than my wife. Today we may have to add woodland creatures, space aliens and farm animals. But my experience is one of total monogamy.

As a teenager I was accused once by a "friend" because I didn't take advantage of a drunken girl. That kind of shook me up. I wasn't living for God at all at the time, but I just couldn't bring myself to do that to a helpless person. In my teenaged mind I even wondered if what held me back was "gay?" I mentally ran the whole thing through my mind and played with my feelings and finally came away convinced that I "liked girls" but I wanted them at least kind of sobered up. As a kid I was confused, as an adult I'm convinced I did the right thing.

*** I wanted to add here- this is a touchy issue. In many ways I am generalizing, that's unavoidable. Like in that earlier discussion- I am not saying that "Pentecostal preachers" are "queer" or anything like that. I am saying that there are some human behaviors that are disturbing and that the way to stop those behaviors is to talk about it openly. ******

But I have always been alarmed by the ways in which people will try and gain a dominant position over another. It really bothers me. I find a lot of evidence from history and from scripture that there are things playing out in the emotions of some of these power mad people that are worse than unseemly- they can be dangerous.

Our society has laws in place that restrict sexual relations between people in dominant/submissive roles. No sex in the military with others in your chain of command. Doctors, psychologists, educators and police officials all have either legal or professional guidelines to follow because this sort of thing is so prevalent- and so harmful.

[pelathais]

Originally Posted by BobDylan

There is no offense on my part indicated in my last post. I am not offended at all... moreso, I am disconcerted. Disconcerted in the fact that conservatives, for whatever reason, cannot find the common thread to unite them. Not that they have no common thread, but that they cannot seem to find it. As has been stated time and time again, liberals can disagree on 9 out of 10 issues, but they will rally about the one issue that they agree on. Conservatives, on the other hand, can agree on 9 out of 10 issues, and divide over the one issue they disagree on. This is all I was pointing out P. I have no problem with conservative positions as long as they are consistent. In fact I truly appreciate them. What I cannot appreciate is the intolerance in many cases that is demonstrated from conservatives toward the slight variations of interpretations and applications.

Originally Posted by BobDylan

P.S. I am rereading your post here... and think I have not fully understood what you are trying to say. But I think after having reread it a couple of times, I am getting the gist. Are you saying that the UC's introduce the lists of rules in their own subconsciense to ensure that someone will "offend" at some point? Thus giving them fodder for "preaching"? (or something like that)... but other actually learn to grow past that mentality?

I of course, didn't really have you in mind, B.D. I was just throwing a thought out there. And, no to that last question.

What I have seen is that there are people who actually want to feel "offended" when they are around other Apostolics. They seem to get a spiritual high by saying, "Don't stand near me for I am holier than thou...." These are the ones I had in mind. They want to be mad and offended all the time.

Once at a Youth Camp we had a musical group that was sing after the kids all had prayed around a bon fire outside. It was one of those "We're out after curfew but that's okay...." kinds of things. Going through the choruses they got to "Stand by Me." This was about the time that a movie of that name had come out- I never saw the movie but I was aware that a lot of kids liked the song. "Whatever," I thought. At the time I actually thought that the song itself was based upon an old "Negro Spiritual" like "Swing Low Sweet Chariot" and others. A couple of boys from a new preacher's family came to me and immediately protested. "That's not a Christian song!" and all that. Based upon the way that they were raised, their parents actually rewarded them when they showed such antagonism.

I observe people simply get off on behaving like that. By putting other people down they seem to think that they are earning "merits" in the Kingdom of God. Sort of like "points to get out of Purgatory." Run down the camp preacher- you get points. Run down the NAYC and you get points. Slam UPC leaders and you get points. He with the most points wins God's favor.

Originally Posted by BoredOutOfMyMind

I wonder what the name recognition of the United Pentecostal Church is?

I am gonna venture less than 10%.

I agree. I learned at an early age to identify the church I went to by how the people look and not the name of it.

ME: "I'm Apostolic and go to a United Pentecostal Church"

EVERYONE ELSE: blank stare...

ME: "You know, Pentecostal"

EVERYONE ELSE: blank stare...

ME: "You know, then one where women wear long dresses and hair buns and no make-up or jewelry"

EVERYONE ELSE: "Oh! Now I know what you are talking about."

That conversation was repeated over and over again growing up and even now when I try to tell people what church I was raised in.

Try going into a Barnes & Noble, or Borders Bookstore and look in all the religious books. I have done it many times. You would be extremely lucky to even find "United Pentecostal" listed anywhere in ANY book in the entire book store. I have tried this several times, with very limited success.

If you look up "Apostolic" or "Pentecostal", it points you to the "Assembly of God" references. So where is the success of the movement, if no one knows who they are? They haven't even made it into most reference books on Christianity (except for the ones that are actually produced by Oneness groups)? But no worries, I'm sure the "Good News" is being spread somehow... (probably in the "Church Directory" of the local paper that most Pentecostal churches do not even bother to list themselves in).

[Sister Alvear]

praying for you folks.

[Sister Alvear]

Sometimes I don´t know just the right words to say. Learned a long time ago prayer helps us all. I feel a deep burden for KP he is very sincere along with many others on both sides.
Which ever way we stand does not mean those that take a different opinion are worng or right and our ministry is not involved either way for we are not UPC but we pray for God to help each one do what is right in the fear of the Lord. Blessings to all this morning and please remember my sister Sherry Childress in your prayers.

[mizpeh]

Originally Posted by Thad

WOW i can't believe you posted that! are you sure you are ready for this??
BTW, I've never heard this before- can you expound in "laymen's terms" ha! i will say this, in my observation, the ones who sometimes preach the hardest against something are strugging themselves. preaching hard against it perhaps gives them a sense of assuarance or something not sure

LOL, Pelathais posted this opinion before on another thread and received alot of flack for it. He might not want to go that path again so soon. Pelathais, I hope you don't mind me posting this link.

http://www.apostolicfriendsforum.com...7&postcount=42