Quote:
Originally Posted by Pastor Poster
From MOW's Thread:
I wonder if this new AFF Affirmation Statement had something to do with this?
BTW, I think Ferd is correct.
1. There is a whole lot of political spin from the admin, owners, and moderators on this thread. Fine by me. I just don't think MOW wanted to be pigeon-holed here.
2. Further, I get tired of hearing the conservatives whine about the content of AFF. I also am weary of hearing others say how much they miss the conservatives voice on AFF. Hello people! If the conservatives can't stand the heat, maybe they should leave the kitchen. The most telling sign of this idiotic drama was when a poster with new found "conservatism" lectured us, saying that "unity demands that less conservative Apostolics live conservatively, so as not to offend conservatives" (paraphrase).
Pardon me, but how insane is that? For you to keep posting on AFF I need to change what I believe and/or shut up? For you and I to have fellowship I must obey everyone of your silly pre-1950's rules? I am so sorry to disappoint my conservative friends, but I have no intention of capitulating to such dictatorial demands.
3. There are many internet options for all of us. There are opportunities to move on down the road if and when AFF morphs into something personally unacceptable.
4. With the advent of email, instant messages, chat rooms, and forums such as these, the idea that one can stop the flow of information is archaic and silly.
I'm gonna go crawl back under my bridge now.
PP
|
Well, paint a bullseye on me and call me a target.
I get the feeling that I am the supposed poster with "newfound conservatism." Nope. I am just as moderate as I have been for quite a long time. I have stated that it is impossible for the liberal or moderate to attempt to please the conservative in every way--but we had agreements and even unwritten rules as to what both sides could come together on and agree to, and that it is wise to abide by those agreements for the sake of unity.
Please, PP, don't spin it...the libs have plenty to shoot at on me if you just leave it straight.
As for the idea that conservatives whine about the content of AFF, I think some of it is founded. Some of it is just expecting what they shouldn't.
As for the new AFF affirmation statement, I agree with it in some points, but not in others. I look to guys like Reformed Dave, who disagree with the Pentecostal viewpoint, but respect it, and are cautious about how they treat the subject. I think that this kind of respectful debate is good for AFF, as it can be for any forum. I think Wordshare is even a little too strict on some of that, UPC affiliation required or no.
I miss it when MOW is not here. He adds something to the forum. I, for one, feel I have to call him brother because he has the Holy Ghost and is baptized in Jesus Name. I vehemently desire his return to standards--which I doubt is going to ever happen--but I have to let God sort that stuff out.
PP, AFF was founded, as I understood it as the sequel to NFCF, the sequel to FCF. It is called Apostolic, and there were certain agreements in place. It was always understood that debate was allowed so long as namecalling didn't take place. Debates on the doctrine were acceptable as well, so long as we did not debate whether Jesus Name baptism was valid, whether the Holy Ghost with tongues was real, and so long as we upheld the Oneness Doctrine. Seems to me that we can do that and get along on a forum. I don't know if we can go quite that far in an organization like the UPC and get along, though. In fact, I doubt it.
Threaded Mode
