How to destroy a thread

[El Predicador]

Originally Posted by noeticknight

The moral of the (Paul examples) was simply this: He was able to correctly distinguish truth from tradition.

With that said, I disagree with your assertion that assuming the stance of disagreement will “inevitably” label you as a divisive individual. It is true that everything cannot be inclusive, specifically with regards to morality issues, or there would be no cohesive force left to distinguish truth from untruth. Working from this viewpoint, we can make this more understandable by observing the laws of nature. We cannot naturally inhabit space (without advanced technology), because we are limited by gravity, extremely cold temperatures, the presence solar wind, lack of oxygen, distance, etc. So is it valid to adopt a contentious disposition because mankind is naturally restricted by these limitations? Shouldn’t we be able to do anything we want? Well, no, not necessarily. On the other hand, it is ridiculous to assume we should remain ignorant and stifled in our human existence, without ever exploring our surroundings. The more honorable attitude would cause us to objectively understand our surroundings and the forces that be, so that we can better function accordingly.

So if your “liberals” are the ones wanting no limits, and the “conservatives” are saying we should never jump higher than two feet off the Earth, which group deserves our utmost consideration? I say it is the third group who has worked through the truths of our environment and understands our human limitations and liberties. It is the voices of those unheard because they have been muted by our own lack of knowledge. Exlpaining these limitations in and of itself, is not being "divisive", but their revelations ought to be consistent with truth.

Interesting exercise in stream of consciousness posting.


Care to restate, summarize or translate?

In ATTEMPTING to cipher it seems you are addressing the cons as actually being contentious.

In MY post I was merely pointing out why they are perceived that way.

Using your example, if there is a faction, once again RIGHTLY OR WRONGLY, who believe jumping more than two feet off the ground will send you to hell. And a more “liberal” faction believes you can jump as high as ten feet. The con’s two feet jumping will be within the libs understanding of salvation therefore they can still fellowship with them since the cons, although in disagreement, are still saved. However, the libs jumping three or more will be condoning a message sending people to hell and therefore cannot be fellowshipped or supported by the cons.

When the cons withhold that fellowship they will be the ones perceived as being divisive.

Summary for the slow: (lol)

Whether or not you agree with or understand the “standard” being held as salvational, the one holding that standard cannot support those who do not feel that way, and will therefore be viewed as judgmental and divisive by those not believing that “standard” as being salvational

[noeticknight]

Originally Posted by El Predicador

Interesting exercise in stream of consciousness posting.


Care to restate, summarize or translate?

In ATTEMPTING to cipher it seems you are addressing the cons as actually being contentious.

In MY post I was merely pointing out why they are perceived that way.

Using your example, if there is a faction, once again RIGHTLY OR WRONGLY, who believe jumping more than two feet off the ground will send you to hell. And a more “liberal” faction believes you can jump as high as ten feet. The con’s two feet jumping will be within the libs understanding of salvation therefore they can still fellowship with them since the cons, although in disagreement, are still saved. However, the libs jumping three or more will be condoning a message sending people to hell and therefore cannot be fellowshipped or supported by the cons.

When the cons withhold that fellowship they will be the ones perceived as being divisive.

Summary for the slow: (lol)

Whether or not you agree with or understand the “standard” being held as salvational, the one holding that standard cannot support those who do not feel that way, and will therefore be viewed as judgmental and divisive by those not believing that “standard” as being salvational

I guess this is why truth is so important, especially when considering these analogous illustrations. I understand perfectly your statements. What I mean to say is that both positions of extreme are incorrect because they are unbalanced and not hinged on principled truth.

After reading your post (with all these descriptions of jumping going on), I jumped up suddenly to gauge my own spiritual condition. Seems I might be more “conservative” than I originally thought, as I didn’t make it off the ground more than two feet. (Also scared the life out of my two unsuspecting cats in the room)!

[El Predicador]

Originally Posted by noeticknight

I guess this is why truth is so important, especially when considering these analogous illustrations. I understand perfectly your statements. What I mean to say is that both positions of extreme are incorrect because they are unbalanced and not hinged on principled truth.

Thank you the translation, now I can say AMEN

After reading your post (with all these descriptions of jumping going on), I jumped up suddenly to gauge my own spiritual condition. Seems I might be more “conservative” than I originally thought, as I didn’t make it off the ground more than two feet. (Also scared the life out of my two unsuspecting cats in the room)!

Thanks for the laugh REALLY needed it today.

Be blessed

[pelathais]

Originally Posted by El Predicador

Pelethias,

I sorry that the nuance of what I was saying to Mizpeh was lost on a person of your intellect. No I am not being factious, I must not have communicated my point well enough. So let me try it like this.:

Mizpeh was commenting on how it is always the conversative seeking to separate or divide and the liberal was more live and let live.

I was trying to point out due to the sheer nature of the social interaction, that is the way it MUST be.

Point made by Mizpeh, in Romans Paul recognizes food sacrificed to idols not to be sin. But he will accommodate his less enlightened brethren so as not to be a point of contention. Conservative divisive, Liberal acquiescent. Yet in Corinthians Paul addresses a specific sexual sin which apparently the church is accommodating. Paul now in the conservative role demands the offending party to be marked and cast out of the church!

Same Paul different dynamic. But because his moral compass is now the one violated he becomes the one who simply cannot co-exist.

So the point is this, purely from the viewpoint of the social interaction of a given situation:

Regardless of what the topic is or whether a third party believes a standard to be picayune or paramount, the party who feels it to be a matter of salvation will inevitably be viewed as the one seeming to be divisive because if to them it is a matter of salvation, it is IMPOSSIBLE for them to accommodate. The one who does not believe the standard or manner of conduct a matter of salvation will be seen by the third party as accommodating. That is the true reason the “cons” are viewed as divisive and the “libs” or not. It is simply the nature of the beast within the group/social dynamics.

As I said before, I have enjoyed your posts here (and in general). I am a bit confused though. You seemed to be, while not really upset with me, you are at least disapponted with my "intellect."

I'm afraid I'm not able to help too much in the "intellect" department since, as I've been told, it's all pretty much down hill after 40.

Next, I didn't really respond to your posts but had engaged with my old friend Mizzie. I think you make and excellent point (above) about how someone who sees something as "salvific" almost can't help but be "divisive." I think you stated that very well.

It does make me wonder though, what about "that" point? Not, whether or not a woman should or can cut her hair (just to use one example) but whether it's right to even consider this a salvational issue? For example, perhaps I can't but help be divisive about this!

For me the cutting of the hair isn't really that big of a deal (this despite the fact that all of the women under my roof not only don't cut their hair, but they have never even had a single hair cut, trimmed, etc. in all of their lives). None of them, not one hair.

But like I said, maybe I can't help be divisive when I see someone adding to the Gospel of Jesus Christ and His salvation. Maybe I'm the "hard core conservative" here because I demand that this not be attached to the Gospel message! It's an innovation. No one before about the 1950's ever even dreamed of this being a salvational issue.

And I still demand that it NOT be! Return to the old paths! Return to a Gospel that is more than 50 or 60 years old. Go back to the teachings of the New Testament apostles if you want to be called "Apostolic!"

Sorry, but I can't help but be "divisive" on this issue. Haven't you read Matthew 15:6-9; 1 Corinthians 3:11-15; 2 Corinthians 10:7; Galatians 1:6-9; 1 Timothy 6:1-5; and Revelation 22:18?

DO NOT ADD TO THE WORD OF GOD.

[El Predicador]

Originally Posted by pelathais

As I said before, I have enjoyed your posts here (and in general). I am a bit confused though. You seemed to be, while not really upset with me, you are at least disapponted with my "intellect." I'm told, it's all pretty much down hill after 40.
.

ROFLOL yet another example of the difficulty of understanding when print is the medium.

Originally Posted by El Predicador

Pelethias,

I'm sorry that the nuance of what I was saying to Mizpeh was lost on a person of your intellect. No I am not being factious, I must not have communicated my point well enough.

Should have been taken at face value. I respect your intellect. I was not being facetious. Therefore I must not have communicated correctly.









However as to the rest of your post. Your words have condemned you. I can no longer communicate with you and will do everything in my power to see you expelled.

[toof]

Originally Posted by pelathais

I know at least one person did because a poster here on AFF found his name on the list - and he was the guy who first questioned the whole thing.

That's what I meant by "fun." Somebody was having fun. Some of the other names were also highly suspect. People were having fun with it and it was hard to take the whole thing seriously.

You call me a "liar" because we have a difference of opinion. You don't say that I'm wrong in my opinion - you say I'm a "liar" simply because we disagree. You do have an ethical problem, friend. And you need to do some soul searching.

Originally Posted by Tina

If I remember correctly, someone on this forum admitted to adding the name to the list as a joke.

Originally Posted by *AQuietPlace*

http://apostolicfriendsforum.com/sho...037#post811037

Post #35

Thank you Tina and AQP.

Now, pelathais, I will patiently wait for an apology.

Let's see if you're "ethical" enough to give it.....

[toof]

Originally Posted by Apocrypha

Its funny how the ultra-ultra-cons are already alluding to and building up the groundwork for DB as a comprimiser if he doesn't come out hard enough for them off the bat for being open to dialogue with others considering he...

A: Literally wrote the book(s) they use for advanced systematic theology
B: Is conservative in belief but was fairly moderate in operation as a District Superintendent in South Texas. Even I can't fault DB for how he ran the district, my uncle in S. Texas who pastors can't speak highly enough of him and how responsive he is to the pastors in that district, a real peace maker in real life no matter how his books come across depending on the person reading them.

Originally Posted by toof

Are you friends with any who started "We Declare"?

Originally Posted by toof

Who is doing this?

Still waiting for an answer or is it just easier to make accusations against people...

Anyone for a game of dodgeball?

[toof]

Originally Posted by pelathais

FWIW - I really don't think the "WellIDoDeclare!.ORG" guys had much influence on the election of the new GS, or much say.

Looking over the list I only found one guy who is really respected within his district - and then a long list of guys I never heard of. The "leaders" were mostly outcasts and rabble (with the exception of that 'one guy').

The whole "bifurcated" thing shows just what pinheads these guys are. I seriously doubt you'll be seeing any of those names on the new GS's speaking invitation lists.

FWIW - the new GS has a long history and reputation for being "boring." That's what I like most about the guy. He's not likely to have any of these drama queens at his side.

You seem to point out the fact that I called you a liar...did you look over the fact that you called good men "outcasts and rabbles"?

BTW, when one doesn't tell the truth the Word has a title for them.

[rgcraig]

Originally Posted by toof

Thank you Tina and AQP.

Now, pelathais, I will patiently wait for an apology.

Let's see if you're "ethical" enough to give it.....

Just exactly what is he suppose to apologize to you for? Have you apologized to HIM for calling him a liar?

My goodness.....

[toof]

Originally Posted by rgcraig

Just exactly what is he suppose to apologize to you for? Have you apologized to HIM for calling him a liar?

My goodness.....

I didn't lie.