This forum needs a name change... - Page 33

pelathais · #**321** 02-02-2011, 01:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ferd

my friend, i did make a typo... it seems... so lets be clear.

debate is great. diversity does make a forum. you cannot have one without it.

but what it "means to be Apostolic" should NOT be up for debate.

NOT because I have a definition that I want used....I had no input on the forum rules that are clearly stated...

BUT because Apostolic needs to mean what it was intended to mean. the rules are clear enough and broad enough to include both you and I. And we ought to all be comfortable with that.

You and I dont agree on how one becomes saved, but by the defintion of the rules, I am perfectly fine with the idea that we are both Apostolic.

the forum has moved beyond this. that is the issue. it wont go back... at least I dont think it can.

Thanks Ferd. But we had a big "walk out" of "conservatives" NOT over the issues under discussion here, but over a disagreement between two pastors involving the discipline of an erring but repentant saint.

This is the kind of thing that shouldn't even be part of public discussion, but here it was - brought up by an "ultra-con" who complained that the "saint" "hadn't even bothered to backslide..." Whatever...

As far as what "Apostolic was intended to mean..." that's an historical development and will probably be something that continues to develop. In the beginning, it was a Trinitarian saying that "There's something more for you, the believer... and it is 'evidenced by speaking in other tongues.'"

Today, that wouldn't even pass muster with AFF due to our decidedly Oneness stance.

rgcraig · #**322** 02-02-2011, 02:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kyle Stout

seemed like a good day...

I scream, you scream, we all scream for Ice Cream!

Well, many might be snowed in so maybe we've provided entertainment.

pelathais · #**323** 02-02-2011, 02:02 PM

Okay... an open apology time.

I apologize for my earlier characterization of "Old Paths" and what I presumed to be his (now her?) posting style. This particular poster is NOT the same poster previously known "Old Paths" that we all called "Opie" for short. New guy (gal?).

I apologize for being so far behind the curve on this news. Carry on, and welcome to our world Old Paths.

Pressing-On · #**324** 02-02-2011, 02:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rgcraig

Well, many might be snowed in so maybe we've provided entertainment.

That's what lured me, although, it hasn't started snowing (tomorrow night), but it's too cold to do anything else today. LOL!

Cindy · #**325** 02-02-2011, 02:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kyle Stout

seemed like a good day...

A likely story.

MissBrattified · #**326** 02-02-2011, 02:03 PM

This forum doesn't need a name change; it needs an attitude change. And asking for an attitude change from one side of the coin doesn't give the other side carte blanche to take their place with name-calling and insults.

Here's a thought: Post your views with integrity sans personal attacks and disrespect and let the AFF admin address any bad behavior from your doctrinal and philosophical opponents.

A few posters in particular come to my mind when I think of those who can successfully present their views and argue a point without attacking others:

pelathais
AQuietPlace
rgcraig
A.W. Bowman
tstew
rrford (not that he posts anymore

)

If you want to know how to post respectfully and still have a spine in regard to your personal views, read through their serious posts.

It all depends on your desired outcome. If you truly want to seek to understand the views of others with appreciation for what each person contributes AND present your views in such a way that others might be persuaded to agree, you'll follow some of these good examples. If, however, all you want to do is provoke people, annoy them, get a rise out of them, insult them or downright hurt their feelings, then you will insult, flame, name-call, deride, mock and scorn. I thought the thread about Rob McKee's post was a terrible example of flaming at its worst, and at no point on that thread was he shown respect by those who were questioning his views. It was shameful.

So which is it? Do you want to actually have respectful discourse with your brothers and sisters, or even those who aren't a brother and sister? Or do you only seek to hurt and tear down others?

There are PLENTY of Apostolics on this forum, so there is absolutely no need for a name change, IMO. I do see the need to draw some boundaries around conversations so that people can get back to respectful debate and discussion that allows people to remain friends at the end of the day.

That's just my 2 cents.

Pressing-On · #**327** 02-02-2011, 02:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cindy

A likely story.

I have certainly missed you, Cindy!!

Cindy · #**328** 02-02-2011, 02:04 PM

This forum needs people to behave like adults, instead of whiny children when something doesn't go their way. Everyone doesn't agree with your viewpoint, so get over it.

Pressing-On · #**329** 02-02-2011, 02:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cindy

This forum needs people to behave like adults, instead of whiny children when something doesn't go their way. Everyone doesn't agree with your viewpoint, so get over it.

And they called Tom Delay the "Hammer"! LOL!

Cindy · #**330** 02-02-2011, 02:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MissBrattified

This forum doesn't need a name change; it needs an attitude change. And asking for an attitude change from one side of the coin doesn't give the other side carte blanche to take their place with name-calling and insults.

Here's a thought: Post your views with integrity sans personal attacks and disrespect and let the AFF admin address any bad behavior from your doctrinal and philosophical opponents.

A few posters in particular come to my mind when I think of those who can successfully present their views and argue a point without attacking others:

pelathais
AQuietPlace
rgcraig
A.W. Bowman
tstew
rrford (not that he posts anymore

)

If you want to know how to post respectfully and still have a spine in regard to your personal views, read through their serious posts.

It all depends on your desired outcome. If you truly want to seek to understand the views of others with appreciation for what each person contributes AND present your views in such a way that others might be persuaded to agree, you'll follow some of these good examples. If, however, all you want to do is provoke people, annoy them, get a rise out of them, insult them or downright hurt their feelings, then you will insult, flame, name-call, deride, mock and scorn. I thought the thread about Rob McKee's post was a terrible example of flaming at its worst, and at no point on that thread was he shown respect by those who were questioning his views. It was shameful.

So which is it? Do you want to actually have respectful discourse with your brothers and sisters, or even those who aren't a brother and sister? Or do you only seek to hurt and tear down others?

There are PLENTY of Apostolics on this forum, so there is absolutely no need for a name change, IMO. I do see the need to draw some boundaries around conversations so that people can get back to respectful debate and discussion that allows people to remain friends at the end of the day.

That's just my 2 cents.

Well said.