Tulsa Report Day 2 - Page 81

pelathais · #**801** 01-29-2008, 10:29 PM

I have just become aware of how some have chosen to silence themselves. I am only suspecting, but I feel that there is a high probability that I am correct that their choice has something to do with this thread. So I am bowing out.

An accusation was made against the UPC in general. I challenged that accustation. It seems that the accusation has been withdrawn, though I am met with silence and not a formal withdrawl.

If however, anyone feels that I have some accounting to do or if you just have questions, please feel free to PM me. I consider the thread now closed otherwise.

CC1 · #**802** 01-29-2008, 10:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rgcraig

For the most part I completely see what you are saying here. Where we might differ is that I think our uniqueness can be seen in our fruits, our example - - there is something different about a spirit filled person that has a close relationship with God and it's not their hair and skirt.
I also believe the focus is wrong - - shouldn't be on orgs and fellowships, but saving the lost.

Good post.

Renda, most times conservative and so called "lib" Pentecostals share the same concepts but differ so greatly in the application of the concept or principle that the two views then become unrecognizable as being similar.

The sentance in your post that I highlighted says it all.

A prime example is the sermon I listened to by Pastor Danny P from Colorado at the AMC conference. The first 45 minutes could have been preached at Christ Church. It was biblical and on the money. It was the last 1 1/2 hours were his application extended to not allowing people under 18 in his church to own cell phones or anybody in his church to be on the internet that I realized I had entered the Twilight Zone.

seguidordejesus · #**803** 01-29-2008, 10:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by CC1

Renda, most times conservative and so called "lib" Pentecostals share the same concepts but differ so greatly in the application of the concept or principle that the two views then become unrecognizable as being similar.

The sentance in your post that I highlighted says it all.

A prime example is the sermon I listened to by Pastor Danny P from Colorado at the AMC conference. The first 45 minutes could have been preached at Christ Church. It was biblical and on the money. It was the last 1 1/2 hours were his application extended to not allowing people under 18 in his church to own cell phones or anybody in his church to be on the internet that I realized I had entered the Twilight Zone.

Was that where he "quit preachin' and got to meddlin'"?

CC1 · #**804** 01-29-2008, 10:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by seguidordejesus

Was that where he "quit preachin' and got to meddlin'"?

I don't want to be offensive so I can't really say what I think he did once he left preaching!!!

(However in addition to the first 45 minutes being good he is an excellent singer and I enjoyed his singing greatly)

Barb · #**805** 01-30-2008, 12:32 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MissBrattified

PP, you were belaboring this point a few days ago, and its still moot. It is highly possible that their intent did change, OR its possible they did not share their full intent at the beginning.

If your point is (as it seemed to be on your other thread) that trusting in these men, respecting them, and thinking they are honorable even when evidence may indicate otherwise somehow taints the character of the man who trusts them, then I am going to strongly disagree with you.

I have a hard time believing ill of people I love, even if there is clear evidence that ought to persuade me, and if it turns out that I am wrong, I will not accept it until the evidence is irrefutable. Even then I am not happy about it.

Any reluctance on the part of CS, Steadfast and others to think badly of any of these men, or worse, to indicate that publicly...that doesn't speak ill of their personal character; it speaks well of it.

Quote:

Originally Posted by MissBrattified

I understand what you're saying.

But then, I am a little bit inconsistent in this way too. I will accept negative statements about a stranger (or about someone I don't like) a lot quicker than about someone I care about or admire. Human nature, I think.

Matter of fact, I've been known to defend people I care about even when I knew they were wrong, simply because I didn't want to hear them talked about.

Two great posts, Abi, and I am in total agreement...

Coonskinner · #**806** 01-30-2008, 03:40 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pastor Poster

But he has been mistaken before. He said that there would be no organization formed from the defectors - and here we are.

That's a lot of trust in hearsay.

(nothing against Steadfast)

PP, in one instance of which you speak, he reported accurately something he was told; this time, he is reporting something he personally knows about, not hearsay.

In neither case was he "mistaken." He was simply relating what he heard, and specified it as such, in the first instance.

This time, it is a matter of personal knowledge.

Fiyahstarter · #**807** 01-30-2008, 04:39 AM

I have a tongue twister for you. Repeat five times very quickly.

Tip Toeing thru the Tulips to Tulsa.
Tip Toeing thru the Tulips to Tulsa.
Tip Toeing thru the Tulips to Tulsa.
Tip Toeing thru the Tulips to Tulsa.
Tip Toeing thru the Tulips to Tulsa.

Be real, folks. What is this REALLY all about?

RevBuddy · #**808** 01-30-2008, 07:31 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pastor Poster

Miss B, I just have a hard time believing all the garbage about "they changed their mind since conference."

Where are all of those affirmation statement threads where these guys called for "the truce breakers" to be thrown out on their ear?

The inconsistency reeks.

Preach it, PP!!!!

Maybe, just maybe some of these guys will get the point...and then again, maybe not...