I rest my case...oh, yes...maybe you can find an even larger font...
What I meant was...let's get off the "what he said stuff" and discuss the bigger issue of the ramifications of the WPF versus UPCI split...
I'll start first...here's why I say it is a control-driven event...
1. Being unable to "control" the outcome of the GC voting, they needed an outlet to "control" their environment, i.e., form a new fellows.., I'm sorry, a new organization that will assist in "controlling" the issue, thereby its overall impact on them and their fellowship buddies.
2. Having said that, I believe that it is ALSO a "control" issue for those on the majority vote side. In the aftermath of the vote, they seek to "control" the hearts and minds of their constituency at large...those beyond the immediate influence of the "Tulsa 6."
So I think I'm being fair here to both sides...it is clearly a control issue for both. I'll even give you the point that I could have stated that upfront in the discussion.
I rest my case...oh, yes...maybe you can find an even larger font...
What I meant was...let's get off the "what he said stuff" and discuss the bigger issue of the ramifications of the WPF versus UPCI split...
I'll start first...here's why I say it is a control-driven event...
1. Being unable to "control" the outcome of the GC voting, they needed an outlet to "control" their environment, i.e., form a new fellows.., I'm sorry, a new organization that will assist in "controlling" the issue, thereby its overall impact on them and their fellowship buddies.
2. Having said that, I believe that it is ALSO a "control" issue for those on the majority vote side. In the aftermath of the vote, they seek to "control" the hearts and minds of their constituency at large...those beyond the immediate influence of the "Tulsa 6."
So I think I'm being fair here to both sides...it is clearly a control issue for both. I'll even give you the point that I could have stated that upfront in the discussion.
RevBuddy,
Your points generally have some merit. I've no problem with legitimate points. I have a problem with personal attacks.
And, as for my font, I've been around here a LONG time in these forums. My font has always been just as it is now.
I kind of like it. It makes it easier to see if someone is replying to a post.
As to you points? I can see how some think it's that way but, in all honesty, I just don't see it that way. I think that, at least with 95% of the people who are going to find their fellowship with the Tulsa crew, they just got tired of seeing issues that were valuable to them diminished further and further.
That was, before I was called a liar, my original point; I think that some are just tired of seeing the things they value compromised in front of their people. The television aspect was, in my gut honest opinion, just the 'final straw' that broke the camels back for most of them.
Your points generally have some merit. I've no problem with legitimate points. I have a problem with personal attacks.
And, as for my font, I've been around here a LONG time in these forums. My font has always been just as it is now.
I kind of like it. It makes it easier to see if someone is replying to a post.
As to you points? I can see how some think it's that way but, in all honesty, I just don't see it that way. I think that, at least with 95% of the people who are going to find their fellowship with the Tulsa crew, they just got tired of seeing issues that were valuable to them diminished further and further.
That was, before I was called a liar, my original point; I think that some are just tired of seeing the things they value compromised in front of their people. The television aspect was, in my gut honest opinion, just the 'final straw' that broke the camels back for most of them.
Steadfast, at the risk of banning I am going to address this again.
You were the one (back in October) who assured us that a new org wasn't in the works. When many, many posters affirmed otherwise - you body-slammed them and said their opinion was akin to wild speculation (paraphrase).
So Friend, I have some respect for you, but your credibility has taken a hit here.
Could it be that your bias clouded your judgement?
Again, I was banned over that whole conversation (a first for me), but I still feel just as strongly as I did back then that these men fully intended to do what they are doing now.
How else can you explain Kevin Prince as the only anti-tv speaker on the floor of GC this year.
Steadfast, at the risk of banning I am going to address this again.
You were the one (back in October) who assured us that a new org wasn't in the works. When many, many posters affirmed otherwise - you body-slammed them and said their opinion was akin to wild speculation (paraphrase).
So Friend, I have some respect for you, but your credibility has taken a hit here.
Could it be that your bias clouded your judgement?
Again, I was banned over that whole conversation (a first for me), but I still feel just as strongly as I did back then that these men fully intended to do what they are doing now.
How else can you explain Kevin Prince as the only anti-tv speaker on the floor of GC this year.
LB was silent.
JG was silent.
NW was silent.
If this issue was so important, why the silence?
The answer is clear.
They already had a plan.
It does sound like you already know the answer. Of course it depends on how one defines "fully intended" right?
__________________ "It is inhumane, in my opinion, to force people who have a genuine medical need for coffee to wait in line behind people who apparently view it as some kind of recreational activity." Dave Barry 2005
I am a firm believer in the Old Paths
Articles on such subjects as "The New Birth," will be accepted, whether they teach that the new birth takes place before baptism in water and Spirit, or that the new birth consists of baptism of water and Spirit. - THE PENTECOSTAL HERALD Dec. 1945
"It is doubtful if any Trinitarian Pentecostals have ever professed to believe in three gods, and Oneness Pentecostals should not claim that they do." - Daniel Segraves
Hybrid Mode
