Sad Observation of Threads: LET'S CHANGE DIRECTION!

[Sandra]

Originally Posted by Newman

Steadfast- Are you speaking as an owner?

Standard threads have always been a part of freedom to speak on these forums and as you may have noticed over 90% of voters didn't see the pants on women issue as a heaven or hell issue.

Consequently, I don't believe that standard threads are as Anti-Apostolic as some would like to think they are.

I object to linking divergent views of standards with anti-Apostolic threads and willful sin threads. I further object to characterizing standards as "traditional views of righteouness" as if all who hold a different view of standards are unrighteousness.

Owner... .........I thought that was a secret.

[berkeley]

Originally Posted by Newman

Steadfast- Are you speaking as an owner?

Standard threads have always been a part of freedom to speak on these forums and as you may have noticed over 90% of voters didn't see the pants on women issue as a heaven or hell issue.

Consequently, I don't believe that standard threads are as Anti-Apostolic as some would like to think they are.

I object to linking divergent views of standards with anti-Apostolic threads and willful sin threads. I further object to characterizing standards as "traditional views of righteouness" as if all who hold a different view of standards are unrighteousness.

Originally Posted by Newman

Steadfast- Are you speaking as an owner?

Standard threads have always been a part of freedom to speak on these forums and as you may have noticed over 90% of voters didn't see the pants on women issue as a heaven or hell issue.

Consequently, I don't believe that standard threads are as Anti-Apostolic as some would like to think they are.

I object to linking divergent views of standards with anti-Apostolic threads and willful sin threads. I further object to characterizing standards as "traditional views of righteouness" as if all who hold a different view of standards are unrighteousness.

I'm obviously not speaking as an 'owner' but as an Apostolic. The traditional views of righteousness included what some call 'outward standards'. I'm not against discussion of most subjects but I find it amazing that most every subject ends up in a 'Let's cut the UPC down while we're here' mentality.

Miss Newman, I'm on this forum more than the traditional 'preacher' forum because I actually enjoy seeing different views discussed. Discussed is the key word there... something you're very good at. However, we have some that are completely satisfied to say, "It's that nasty ole' UPC's fault".

That is what I'm against.

[Newman]

Originally Posted by Sandra

Owner... .........I thought that was a secret.

Pure speculation.... Is that a confirmation?

Originally Posted by Newman

Pure speculation.... Is that a confirmation?

Speculation is a good word... oloroid

[Subdued]

Originally Posted by Newman

Steadfast- Are you speaking as an owner?

Standard threads have always been a part of freedom to speak on these forums and as you may have noticed over 90% of voters didn't see the pants on women issue as a heaven or hell issue.

Consequently, I don't believe that standard threads are as Anti-Apostolic as some would like to think they are.

I object to linking divergent views of standards with anti-Apostolic threads and willful sin threads. I further object to characterizing standards as "traditional views of righteouness" as if all who hold a different view of standards are unrighteousness.

I completely agree and find it offensive that those who hold a different view of traditions are being categorized as unrighteous.

Also, It appears to me that most who post here (or at least those who voted on the church-going thread) are Apostolic or UPC. I don't see many posting who are "antiApostolic." Unless "Steadfast" is saying that he thinks those who do not stick to traditions are "antiApostolic," (to which I disagree).

[berkeley]

Originally Posted by Newman

Pure speculation.... Is that a confirmation?

Let's not go there.

[Malvaro]

Originally Posted by Sandra

So nothing negative about the UPC is permitted.... I understand now.

and anything negative about TBN...???

[Newman]

Originally Posted by Steadfast

I'm obviously not speaking as an 'owner' but as an Apostolic. The traditional views of righteousness included what some call 'outward standards'. I'm not against discussion of most subjects but I find it amazing that most every subject ends up in a 'Let's cut the UPC down while we're here' mentality.

Miss Newman, I'm on this forum more than the traditional 'preacher' forum because I actually enjoy seeing different views discussed. Discussed is the key word there... something you're very good at. However, we have some that are completely satisfied to say, "It's that nasty ole' UPC's fault".

That is what I'm against.

Steadfast- I find "Miss" offensive because I believe (right or wrong) that it implies that one is not accepted as member of the body of Christ. But hey! Truth spoken in love is more desirable from my point of view than hypocrissy.

The forum ebbs and flows. Bro. Epley can not be expected to hold the fort all by himself. Send in the reinforcements! It is better to light a single candle than to curse the darkness.

[BoredOutOfMyMind]

Originally Posted by Newman

Steadfast- Are you speaking as an owner?

Standard threads have always been a part of freedom to speak on these forums and as you may have noticed over 90% of voters didn't see the pants on women issue as a heaven or hell issue.

Consequently, I don't believe that standard threads are as Anti-Apostolic as some would like to think they are.

I object to linking divergent views of standards with anti-Apostolic threads and willful sin threads. I further object to characterizing standards as "traditional views of righteouness" as if all who hold a different view of standards are unrighteousness.

What do $400 lobsters have to do with standards?!? What do Charismatic Celebrites have to do with standards? Why are we all giddy when someone leaves a UPC church?

Ownership has no bearing on the degrade of topics recently.

90% of WHAT voters- How many voted. This is not 90% of Pentecost. Surely you are much smarter than to quote bad poll percentage as fact. Or do you do so simply to build your side only?
oloroid