Do you see AFF and former-NFCF as being any different?

[Nahum]

solamahondatiemytie

[The Mrs]

Originally Posted by Pastor Poster

solamahondatiemytie

Can I quote you on that sir?

[Nahum]

Originally Posted by The Mrs

Can I quote you on that sir?

Say it ten times fast.

[The Mrs]

Actually...you've got it wrong...

It's sellamahondawannabuyakawasaki

and

seemytietiemytiewhataprettybowtie

[Nahum]

Originally Posted by The Mrs

Actually...you've got it wrong...

It's sellamahondawannabuyakawasaki

and

seemytietiemytiewhataprettybowtie

I'll try to do better from now on. How's this?

sellamahondawannabuyakawasaki

seemytietiemytiewhataprettybowtie

[The Mrs]

Originally Posted by Pastor Poster

I'll try to do better from now on. How's this?

sellamahondawannabuyakawasaki

seemytietiemytiewhataprettybowtie

GREAT! Now say those 10 times fast!

[CC1]

Originally Posted by Malvaro

Do you see AFF and former-NFCF as being any different?


If so, in what ways? Are these reasons turning AFF for better or worse?
If not, what do you feel should change for AFF to become better?


Just a sincere question coming from a fellow AFF family member....

I see AFF carrying on the vision of Jim Yohe that NFCF also did. It remains to be seen if that will include open discussion or not on controverseal issues.

I know there has been declared no "preacher bashing" which is fine with me unless that is a code word for no open discussion of controverseal subjects in Oneness Pentecost / Apostolic circles.

[HeavenlyOne]

Originally Posted by Steadfast

Come to think of it, LadyRev is incredibly quiet. Maybe there's no need to be on as LadyRev is you're also The Dean. He's a minister but I don't know for sure if she's UPC.

Anybody know? We may have our other UPC (female) owner.

LOL! She'll crack up seeing this!

[timlan2057]

I see this forum eventually becoming another GNC.

It's already a good bit down that road.

This forum isn't 42nd cousin relative to carrying on Jim Yohe's vision.

First is the anonymous owner thing.

It reminds me of the want-ads in the paper: "Come down to such-and-such-address to hear about an exciting, rewarding career!"

Well, the "career" was selling vacuum cleaners

Those guys knew if they put "selling vacuum cleaners" in the advertisement, no one would show up so they had to use a "bait-and-switch."

If owners have to be anonymous, they know that people would be unhappy with the situation if they were revealed.

Jim Yohe had a vision of an open forum and open discussion. He was willing to pay the price for it.

It cost him revivals and income.

These guys, in contrast, have to remain anonymous because they are afraid of getting caught in something "controversial"?

It reminds me of Richard Nixon saying that some men sought political office to make a difference. Others sought it just to "be somebody."

These present anonymous owners are definitely the latter, stroking their egos with being a "forum owner" with their hands on the ban button.

And then we of course have some crowing that on here there is no "preacher bashing" like on NFCF.

I challenge someone to give me a specific example of "preacher bashing" on NFCF.

And most posters are like those little fish in aquariums that swim in groups; flitting from one side of the aquarium to the other, following the lead fish.

Now everyone is talking about "preacher bashing."

I'll tell you what it was a "code word" for on NFCF - when those espousing typical "ole time pentecostal" rhetoric and postions and the same tired old assumptions got their heads handed to them in argument, they then retreated behind the shield that anyone opposing their point-of-view was "preacher bashing."

I said it on the other forum and I'll say it here.

You have a majority of UPC preachers owning this forum and remaining anonymous with a few "libs" as moderators for window-dressing and you'll see bannings for "preacher-bashing" and the owners and such can convince themselves that they are "right" when they can't prove their positions with any substance.

It would be interesting to know what the financial split of paying the bills are among the supposed "owners" and we'd see how much some of the libs are there just for window dressing.

So no.

This forum is not close to NFCF.

I find it laughably ironic that BOOMM and others are on here talking about "preacher bashing" and others following their lead; herd-like, when the root problems at NFCF leading to its closure were caused by a preacher who was a big part of the forum.

If someone has to remain anonymous, it's the same principle, the same "bait-and-switch" as the vaccuum cleaner sales ad.

Of course none of this will bother some; they just need to get their internet fix so they'll post anywhere.

As for me, I don't think I'll be around here long.

[HeavenlyOne]

Originally Posted by CC1

I see AFF carrying on the vision of Jim Yohe that NFCF also did. It remains to be seen if that will include open discussion or not on controverseal issues.

I know there has been declared no "preacher bashing" which is fine with me unless that is a code word for no open discussion of controverseal subjects in Oneness Pentecost / Apostolic circles.

No offense, but NFCF was nothing about Jim's vision. That vision died with him. Others have tried to carry it on, but in the end, that failed.

I think this board should have it's own 'vision'. We'll be more successful that way.

Most of the people on this forum never even knew him and have no idea what his vision was.

That being said......

Jim is gone and I miss him, but it's time to move on.