Forum is Ex-Pentecostal?? - Page 22

Brother Price · #**211** 06-01-2008, 07:51 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Stephen Hoover

You're alright Brother, now that you are Born Again, again you are solid as a rock... well... sort of.

timlan2057 · #**212** 06-01-2008, 08:23 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by CC1

The very nature of conservative old time Oneness Pentecostalism does not lend itself to much introspection and certainy not public debate of it's doctrines, traditions, issues ,etc.

.

CC1, I miss the old dynamic of FCF too. I wasn't there QUITE in the beginning. I came along around February 2004.

But you yourself quoted above the very reason for that dynamic to be gone ... NOT Dan or anyone else being "divisive."

It's plain as day that this forum was founded as a perversion of Jim Yohe's goals ... from Day One AFF was to give the illusion that "ole time pentecost"'s extra-biblical positions and mindsets were winning intellectually and by repartee with the help of censorship and coercion.

I never say "I told you so" but I had that one pegged from the very beginning.

http://www.apostolicfriendsforum.com...=7761#post7761

SDG · #**213** 06-01-2008, 08:37 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by timlan2057

CC1, I miss the old dynamic of FCF too. I wasn't there QUITE in the beginning. I came along around February 2004.

But you yourself quoted above the very reason for that dynamic to be gone ... NOT Dan or anyone else being "divisive."

It's plain as day that this forum was founded as a perversion of Jim Yohe's goals ... from Day One AFF was to give the illusion that "ole time pentecost"'s extra-biblical positions and mindsets were winning intellectually and by repartee with the help of censorship and coercion.

I never say "I told you so" but I had that one pegged from the very beginning.

http://www.apostolicfriendsforum.com...=7761#post7761

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.

Michael Phelps · #**214** 06-01-2008, 09:34 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mizpeh

If we go by the poll, there are 12 lib/mods to 1 ultracon. There is no balance!

Au contraire, Sis!

The poll asks who thinks the forum is ex-Pentecostal, not who's conservative and who is liberal!

I think Rico pretty clearly stated that in his opening post.....

Michael Phelps · #**215** 06-01-2008, 09:36 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pastor Poster

Look, I don't think a poll is the proper method of determination here.

Many people will vote who won't post.

The fact is, the majority of those who post are exOP, anti-OP or headed for the door.

AFF draws them like flies.

Here, Rico.......my theory is proven masterfully.

"THE MAJORITY" of those who post are exOP, anti-OP, or headed for the door."

Just curious, PP, how do you quantify this statement? Or, is this just your perception?

StillStanding · #**216** 06-01-2008, 09:40 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by timlan2057

CC1, I miss the old dynamic of FCF too. I wasn't there QUITE in the beginning. I came along around February 2004.

But you yourself quoted above the very reason for that dynamic to be gone ... NOT Dan or anyone else being "divisive."

It's plain as day that this forum was founded as a perversion of Jim Yohe's goals ... from Day One AFF was to give the illusion that "ole time pentecost"'s extra-biblical positions and mindsets were winning intellectually and by repartee with the help of censorship and coercion.

I never say "I told you so" but I had that one pegged from the very beginning.

http://www.apostolicfriendsforum.com...=7761#post7761

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!

Michael Phelps · #**217** 06-01-2008, 09:42 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by cneasttx

Nope. Just sad and pitiful.

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.

Rico · #**218** 06-01-2008, 12:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mizpeh

Timlan, How do you know that the internet is truly having an impact on the minds of those who come and lurk? Have you objective proof? Have you met or talked to "ole time pentecostals" who have changed their point of view regarding dress standards and salvation doctrine from reading something here of on the internet? Or is this something you are saying because of what you read on this little microcism called AFF?

Without a doubt the internet is having an impact on the apostolic church's viewpoint. It has given a voice to those who previously had no voice in the Church. It's given people the opportunity ask questions they've never been able to ask from their church leaders (out of fear). It has also opened the door for them to find other people with the same views. There is strength in numbers. It is still too early to know what the impact this new and open form of discussion is going to have on the Church, but I definitely believe it is going to have a lasting impact.

Rico · #**219** 06-01-2008, 01:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ron

Rico, wrong question posed.
Now some other questions could be asked but they would be hitting a few more Bulls Eyes!

1. Is AFF filled with people having Agendas?
2. Is AFF filled with ex UPC'ers who are bitter?

That would be interesting.

Had I done that, the firestorm would probably result in heads rolling. Not my intention whatsoever. I just wanted to show the person who claimed that this is an ex-pentecostal site that it most certainly is not. I can tell how some people have defined "pentecostal" by the posts they have made in this thread. I didn't want to define "pentecostal" for everyone. To me it simply means those who believe in speaking in tongues, apart from other beliefs on salvation, standards, etc., etc. It is plain to see that, for others, other beliefs factor in to defining "pentecostal."

SDG · #**220** 06-01-2008, 01:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rico

Had I done that, the firestorm would probably result in heads rolling. Not my intention whatsoever. I just wanted to show the person who claimed that this is an ex-pentecostal site that it most certainly is not. I can tell how some people have defined "pentecostal" by the posts they have made in this thread. I didn't want to define "pentecostal" for everyone. To me it simply means those who believe in speaking in tongues, apart from other beliefs on salvation, standards, etc., etc. It is plain to see that, for others, other beliefs factor in to defining "pentecostal."

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?