UPC - "Apostolic" Wesleyan Holiness Standards - Page 7

#61 03-24-2007, 11:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rrford

Hold on there Elroy!

Only if you can get the man to say that he is actually calling Sam a liar. Who don't we give him a chance to respond? (Or at least to show up on the Forum and see the post? BTW, did anyone send him a PM letting him know that he needs to respond?

Pfft... he's guilty! It don't matter what he says now!

Us truth haters have spoken.

rrford · #62 03-24-2007, 11:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by AtlantaBishop

You know good and well what the issue is here and your skirting it. The issue is - They DID NOT make an issue out of the clothes and you do. You have seen the pictures and you guys just cannot deny that your forefathers and their wives wore jewelry and dressed the fashions of the day. They Haney's did it, The Stars did it, the Urshans did it and most of those that came out of the A/G did it and then the Conservatives took over the movement and now you have all these silly rules that most of you can't live by past the city limits you pastor in. Wanna know how I know - I lived with you guys for 20 years - I KNOW you!

Whatever. More of your twisted dribble. Can you now go back and coherently read my post? Is that too much to ask?

True or false? The early 1900's found the majority of society dressing conservatively?

Tru or false? The Wesleyan holiness taught drab dress?

True or false? Goss had no issue with fashionable dress?

I'll still guarantee you that Goss dressed fashionable but modest.

The biggest difference I see is that those in the early 1900's wore jewlery.

And why don't you refrain from telling me I am skirting the issue, please? That is the same school of thought, by your own definitions on the Sam ordeal, as calling me a liar.

(Try that one on for size.)

ThePastorsCoach · #63 03-24-2007, 11:08 PM

Well- You know all us Compromisin' Crusymatics don't believe Fat meat is greasy anyhow! We don't have NO Standards and just allow anythang and any ole body to come in and its all just for the money anyway - you all know how we are!

rgcraig · #64 03-24-2007, 11:09 PM

I have always wondered why the change in the jewerly thing.

rrford · #65 03-24-2007, 11:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by AtlantaBishop

You know good and well what the issue is here and your skirting it. The issue is - They DID NOT make an issue out of the clothes and you do. You have seen the pictures and you guys just cannot deny that your forefathers and their wives wore jewelry and dressed the fashions of the day. They Haney's did it, The Stars did it, the Urshans did it and most of those that came out of the A/G did it and then the Conservatives took over the movement and now you have all these silly rules that most of you can't live by past the city limits you pastor in. Wanna know how I know - I lived with you guys for 20 years - I KNOW you!

Say, be sure you copy this to rgcraig's post where she agreed with me. Wouldn't want her left out of your diatribe telling us both how we are skirting the issue.

ThePastorsCoach · #66 03-24-2007, 11:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rrford

Whatever. Mor eof your twisted dribble. Can you now go back and coherently read my post? Is that too m uch to ask?

True or false? The early 1900's found the majority of society dressing conservatively?

Tru or false? The Wesleayan holiness taught drab dress?

True or false? Goss had no issue with fashionable dress?

I'll still guarantee you that Gos dressed fashionable but modest.

The biggest difference I see is that those in the early 1900's wore jewlery.

And why don't you refrain from telling me I am skritng the issue, please? That is the same school of thought, by your own definitions on the Sam ordeal, as calling me a liar.

(Try that one on for size.)

You know - It is not even worth me spending the time to reply to you - you know more than everyone else already so - have at it. And - I did not say, think or insinuate that you were a liar.
Mr. Blacksher bold faced said I lied - that is what I was referring to and then called attention to the fact that he basically said that SAM did too - if you will follow the thread.

rrford · #67 03-24-2007, 11:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rgcraig

I have always wondered why the change in the jewerly thing.

Good question. Not sure who would really have a "good" and "correct" and "proveable" answer. I have a feeling it was for more of a separation. Not sure.

rrford · #68 03-24-2007, 11:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by AtlantaBishop

You know - It is not even worth me spending the time to reply to you - you know more than everyone else already so - have at it. And - I did not say, think or insinuate that you were a liar.
Mr. Blacksher bold faced said I lied - that is what I was referring to and then called attention to the fact that he basically said that SAM did too - if you will follow the thread.

I did follow the thread. Obviously you do not follow the Forum. I do not come across as a know-it-all. Actually, you seem to lead in that department when it comes to these issues. You seem to think it important to keep stating what you "know" from your years in the UPC.
You then tell anyone who is in the UPCI how wrong they are and how they "skirt" the issue. Go figure...