Perspectives Sounding Social Network Alarms

[Hoovie]

Originally Posted by NotforSale

Articles such as these are one sided and unopposed. Why not give someone a chance to do a rebuttal, and print that on the inside cover of the first page. That won’t happen, and we must ask ourselves, why?

True.

Honestly I would not expect a magazine like this to publish rebuttals to the publishers opinions. However, that is what is truly great about on-line forums such as AFF. We encourage free thought across the Apostolic Pentecostal spectrum.

[DAII]

In reading the entire Mooney article a few things stand out:


1. He points out the obvious when he points out the obvious that the internet especially through social networking has led to liikeminded men like the Motowners to connect and network.

2. The very man who chaired the Emerrgent Doctrine general board committee has abandoned the Emergent bogeyman tact and has resorted to the tried and true playbook labels like, charismatic, anti-bible, anti-bible.

While throwing his peers under the bus as cool preacher wannabes who seek to satisfy their selfish carnal lusts.

3. He really is out of touch or in denial if he thinks the present upheaval is still in the pre-revolution stage".

4. He is once again peacocking to the con base and maybe even fueling their radical threats of continuing to vote with their feet with his parallels to the separatist Puritans who chose to isolate themselves by an ocean from the mother Church.

5. It appears he is making an argument to local pastors to accept longtime saints in their churches as a "safe harbor" even if they transfer without the "proper UPC protocol" if they leave a wayward liberal church within the fellowship.

On March 31st Mooney tweets on twitter:

[NotforSale]

Originally Posted by Hoovie

True.

Honestly I would not expect a magazine like this to publish rebuttals to the publishers opinions. However, that is what is truly great about on-line forums such as AFF. We encourage free thought across the Apostolic Pentecostal spectrum.

Amen. And, it's not a coincidence that he doesn't seem to like these Forums, and much of the verbiage carries an “Attack Mode” course upon those who threaten what he and others have built. Religion always grabs for these straws of ridicule, and it doesn’t surprise me to see Hell in the last sentence.

Hell always becomes the Strong Arm!

[Jermyn Davidson]

Why do we have to ask ourselves why?


No other publication has to present the opposing view.


He is entitled to his opinion and those who want to read and think about it should be entitled to do just that without their minds being muddied with another conscience violating perspective.


Demanding that AM "Talk Radio" present "the other side" would do violence to their cause-- only for the likes of PM, I think he's genuinely concerned about the souls of men, realizing that the stakes are astronomically higher.


Let's publish our own publication pushing the AFF agenda!


If it happens that our publication chooses to embrace a higher standard of critical thinking, so be it. However, to demand that others rise to our standard would be just as wrong as others pushing their standards on us.


To criticize their decision not to embrace our standard makes us just like them.

[DAII]

Originally Posted by DAII

In reading the entire Mooney article a few things stand out:


1. He points out the obvious when he points out the obvious that the internet especially through social networking has led to liikeminded men like the Motowners to connect and network.

2. The very man who chaired the Emerrgent Doctrine general board committee has abandoned the Emergent bogeyman tact and has resorted to the tried and true playbook labels like, charismatic, anti-bible, anti-bible.

While throwing his peers under the bus as cool preacher wannabes who seek to satisfy their selfish carnal lusts.

3. He really is out of touch or in denial if he thinks the present upheaval is still in the pre-revolution stage".

4. He is once again peacocking to the con base and maybe even fueling their radical threats of continuing to vote with their feet with his parallels to the separatist Puritans who chose to isolate themselves by an ocean from the mother Church.

5. It appears he is making an argument to local pastors to accept longtime saints in their churches as a "safe harbor" even if they transfer without the "proper UPC protocol" if they leave a wayward liberal church within the fellowship.

On March 31st Mooney tweets on twitter:

"How sad when life long church members have to leave the churches they attended all their lives to find doctrinal holiness preaching . "

The solution he offers is coded in con speak is a "safe harbor".
What could be perceived as one man's sheep stealing is now a noble cause of protecting the vulnerable.


http://twitter.com/pauldmooney

[NotforSale]

Originally Posted by Jermyn Davidson

Why do we have to ask ourselves why?


No other publication has to present the opposing view.


He is entitled to his opinion and those who want to read and think about it should be entitled to do just that without their minds being muddied with another conscience violating perspective.


Demanding that AM "Talk Radio" present "the other side" would do violence to their cause-- only for the likes of PM, I think he's genuinely concerned about the souls of men, realizing that the stakes are astronomically higher.


Let's publish our own publication pushing the AFF agenda!


If it happens that our publication chooses to embrace a higher standard of critical thinking, so be it. However, to demand that others rise to our standard would be just as wrong as others pushing their standards on us.


To criticize their decision not to embrace our standard makes us just like them.

Good thoughts.

I'm not too sure the parallel of AM Radio Talk Show’s is a good one. They will hear an opposing view and argue it out with everyone listening.

[Jermyn Davidson]

Originally Posted by NotforSale

Good thoughts.

I'm not too sure the parallel of AM Radio Talk Show’s is a good one. They will hear an opposing view and argue it out with everyone listening.

It wasn't the best comparison, but I think folks will understand.

[NotforSale]

Originally Posted by Jermyn Davidson

Isn't that their way of contending for the faith?

Yes, agreed. I guess it would be interesting for someone such as Bro Mooney to appear on this Forum to see him contend. Or, to have his own program where we could call him and ask the hard questions, letting everyone listen in.

[Jermyn Davidson]

Originally Posted by NotforSale

Yes, agreed. I guess it would be interesting for someone such as Bro Mooney to appear on this Forum to see him contend. Or, to have his own program where we could call him and ask the hard questions, letting everyone listen in.

I'm not sure that's the best idea.

PM is already very well respected.

For him to be stumped publicly does nothing to encourage the folks who look up to him.

For us to be stumped publicly would maybe change the minds of a few who didn't already have their minds made up one way or another on any number of issues that would be discussed.

"Us" are those who have the questions that "could" stump PM, or those who think like him.

[NotforSale]

Originally Posted by Jermyn Davidson

I'm not sure that's the best idea.

PM is already very well respected.

For him to be stumped publicly does nothing to encourage the folks who look up to him.

For us to be stumped publicly would maybe change the minds of a few who didn't already have their minds made up one way or another on any number of issues that would be discussed.

"Us" are those who have the questions that "could" stump PM, or those who think like him.

Your point here is the exact thing I referred to in an earlier post. His FOLLOWING is at RISK. His Kingdom.

This is how Religion grows into something dark.

Did Jesus not question those of Faith, who were deemed Great, and, in front of everyone? Will we allow our Faith to be overrun by Scribes and Pharisees who lash out at those who corner them?