Tulsa Report Day 2 - Page 70

RevBuddy · #**691** 01-29-2008, 10:10 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Coonskinner

I didn't look at the forum after about midmorning yesterday until this morning.

I read this thread and saw a good man's word and integrity dragged through the mud, and a bunch of folks who have banned people for doing similar things acting like they don't care.

yada, yada, yada, yada...etc., etc. etc.

CC1 · #**692** 01-29-2008, 10:12 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Coonskinner

Oh no. There is an Aunty or two out there that is happy to claim me.

Could I be your honorary "black sheep cousin"? The lib relative that nobody talks about but just knowingly nods their heads and "tsks,tsks,tsks," under their breath when his name comes up? You know, that relative who has "gone charismatic"!!!!!

mizpeh · #**693** 01-29-2008, 10:14 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rgcraig

I thought Pel cleared things up when he explained that he thought Steadfast was talking about men shacking up with men and that's why he said it didn't happen.

Yesterday, once Steadfast explained that wasn't what he meant at all - that he meant young ladies shacking up with men. I thought that cleared matters up.

I agree. I had been confused by some of the things Steadfast wrote. I think Pelathais brings out some interesting inferences in his last post that he bumped about Steadfast's accusation that some UPC churches that are lax on shacking up and social drinking make it difficult for Steadfast to find a fellowship where the principles he has taught his youth will not be corrupted (a little leaven). This being one of the reasons used by Steadfast for conservative brethren looking for another fellowship.

Although I do agree with Pelathais that Steadfast took it to extremes. I find it hard to believe and have NEVER seen social drinking nor a tolerance of fornication in UPC churches! I would lean more to the reason the brethren looking to fellowship with the Tulsa folks is more along the lines of TV and dress standards.

CC1 · #**694** 01-29-2008, 10:15 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Coonskinner

I didn't look at the forum after about midmorning yesterday until this morning.I read this thread and saw a good man's word and integrity dragged through the mud, and a bunch of folks who have banned people for doing similar things acting like they don't care.

Shame on your for not having your priorities right! You know good and well that AFF and Community Coffee early in the morning are the only way to start the day! (yeah I know it is 10:14 am and I am just now checking in and I am drinking Folgers Gourmet blend coffee, but do as I say not as I do!!!)

Esther · #**695** 01-29-2008, 10:15 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Coonskinner

When a man reports a happening that he has personal knowledgeof, and you say it didn't happen, you most certainly are disputing the character of the informant.

A man is no better than his word.

That is 1,000 miles removed from disputing a belief.

We are discussing a man's honesty here.

Please don't tell me you don't see a big difference in questioning someone's word vs. their belief system.

They aren't the same and you can't make them the same.

No I don't think it automatically says you are disputing the Character of the person but the CONTENT of the information.

I have never seen this person slander Steadfast in the past. Most folks around here that I can tell respect Steadfast as he justly deserves. That in itself doesn't mean they have to agree with everything that is said.

Again, I don't see this as him calling him a liar, but stating the INFORMATION is wrong.

Same thing happens to Thad all the time. He reports something he is told. It is disputed by others. Doesn't mean Thad is a liar, just his information is disputed.

mizpeh · #**696** 01-29-2008, 10:17 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Coonskinner

We are not talking about a doctrinal dispute where someone questions another posters opinion or belief. That is a totally different matter from Steadfast saying "This _______ happened," and another poster saying, "No, it didn't. I don't believe you."

Huge difference.

What is the hesitance in calling this for what it is, Esther?

Why the defense of the indefensible?

Did you read what Pelathais wrote later? Surely you can see there is a misunderstanding going on here. Pelathais thought Steadfast was saying homosexuality was being allowed in a UPC church.

chseeads · #**697** 01-29-2008, 10:19 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mizpeh

Although I do agree with Pelathais that Steadfast took it to extremes. I find it hard to believe and have NEVER seen social drinking nor a tolerance of fornication in UPC churches! I would lean more to the reason the brethren looking to fellowship with the Tulsa folks is more along the lines of TV and dress standards.

There may not be any tolerance for it, but it doesn't mean it won't be/isn't done, and not just in UPC churches, any org or GIB across the board.

People do things pastor doesn't know about all the time.

RevBuddy · #**698** 01-29-2008, 10:36 AM

Ohhhhhhhhh, the continuing drama. I suggest we move on...but if not, we can linger here indefinitely....

rgcraig · #**699** 01-29-2008, 10:45 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by RevBuddy

Ohhhhhhhhh, the continuing drama. I suggest we move on...but if not, we can linger here indefinitely....

Good suggestion.

I think that's why it's so hard for me to even try to read that into what was said because of my opinion of Steadfast - he's a steadfast and honest person!

Apprehended · #**700** 01-29-2008, 10:46 AM

Brother Steadfast's heart is pure as are his intentions, in my opinion Yet, if you have followed brother Pelathais' account of his history and experiences, you can easily see his perspective. The sum of the discussion on the matter is a great misunderstanding.

Nevertheless, brother Steadfast's steadfast defense of the actions of the "walking away" bretheren is indefensible, in my opinion. These bretheren really need to take a page out of the history of one of the great reformers.

Further remarks moved to another thread...