JP Don't Forget

[Ron]

Originally Posted by Pressing-On

I do understand your point and I know you are standing where you believe you need to be standing in what you believe. I respect that.

I respect that on both sides.

What I don't respect is either side taking potshots - "you're gonna burn" and "your'e a cult". Both are wrong. We can only digress from there.

As I know where I stand, it would still bother me - not because it shakes my beliefs, it's just sooooooooo hateful and rude!! Those are the discussions that make me feel ill.

Amen! You said it better than I could & all it does is divide.

JMHO

[commonsense]

Originally Posted by rgcraig

Those that posted with Jim Yohe - do you think he would be disappointed in AFF?

No. I think he'd be pleased it's still going.

[Pressing-On]

Originally Posted by rgcraig

I sure wish Rhoni hadn't posted that! LOL!!!!

And, BTW, I do want to address this. I was not referring to Rhoni. Her comment may have been the straw that broke the camel's back that day, but I was in no way referring to her comments alone - for the record.

[Pressing-On]

Originally Posted by Ron

Amen! You said it better than I could & all it does is divide.

JMHO

Yes, it divides and has people, on other forums, talking about the fussing and laughing at the immaturity.

[Michael Phelps]

Originally Posted by Pressing-On

I do understand your point and I know you are standing where you believe you need to be standing in what you believe. I respect that.

I respect that on both sides.

What I don't respect is either side taking potshots - "you're gonna burn" and "your'e a cult". Both are wrong. We can only digress from there.

As I know where I stand, it would still bother me - not because it shakes my beliefs, it's just sooooooooo hateful and rude!! Those are the discussions that make me feel ill.

I don't respect ANYONE who says I'm "lost" because of something I believe if they can't back it up with scripture.

I respect anyone who says they believe it a different way, and I even respect them if they say they don't have scripture and verse, but rather a personal conviction.

I repeat, I do NOT respect anyone who says that I'm going to hell for something I believe or do not believe if there is no Word to back it up.

In my opinion, they are in MUCH more danger of eternal damnation, simply because they are adding to the Word, which has very explicit consequences.

[rgcraig]

Originally Posted by Pressing-On

Exactly! And where do you draw the line without have a Nanny state?

THANK YOU!!!!

It's a self-moderated board too. If someone is out of line, report it. We discuss and come to a conclusion and no matter what some think our admin team is fair and balanced. If you don't believe me - check out who's been banned -- there is NO special treatment of one "side" over the other.

I just wish we could completely lose the "side" term.

[Esther]

Originally Posted by Pressing-On

Esther,
I think when someone reads any portion of scripture and stands on what they believe it means - we can't keep pushing and pushing and pushing them as though you want to back them in a corner so that they will admit they are in error. That's what appears to happen many times. Both ways, to be fair.

For instance:

I Tim. 2:9-10 "In like manner also, that women adorn themselves in modest apparel, with shamefacedness and sobriety; not with broided hair, or gold, or pearls, or costly array; But (which becometh women professing godliness) with good works."

Some read this passage as no wearing of jewelry and others as moderation - I think we should respect each person's view and stop badgering them, calling them a cult, putting out heresy, etc. It just doesn't make for the type of conversation that we all so desire.

When we go there - it's trashing and belittling other's beliefs. Bad form, IMO.

And what you say has merit. That is why we have the report button for when someone does in fact cross the line.

And both sides have been guilty. No question on that either.

Emotions sometimes runs rampart. But for the most part I don't think this board is out to slam the ultrcon. I hate they feel they have been ganged upon, but I think the feeling is that way because so many of them have left. Who is going to stay and defend their beliefs if they all run away?

Any issue should be able to be discussed without insult to either side, and especially from Christians.

JMO

[Cindy]

Originally Posted by Maple Leaf

Jim Yohe was in the vanguard of a new era of open communication among Oneness Pentecostals. The reality for all of us is that the world in which we live and serve God has been dramatically altered by the Internet, for the better and for the worse.

As Silent Service as said, Jim wanted a place for open discussion; in that respect Jim was a leader in dragging Oneness people into the Internet era. FCF was the first forum that I participated in, and had the privilege of posting with Jim Yohe there, but FCF wasn’t Jim’s first forum. My understanding was that Jim Yohe had started FCF because of the lack of opportunity for open discussion on other forums (I think that he held the “ban record” before he became Mr. FCF.)

In that respect, AFF is the forum that Jim Yohe began. Jim Yohe set out to challenge the status quo, to challenge preachers and saints alike to discuss, debate, and defend their views. I think that he had a passion to see the movement he loved move into the post modern era, and to provide a viable faith for the countless Jesus Name people that were and are struggling with traditions that don’t do well under Scriptural scrutiny.

Having said that, I think that FCF was not a sustainable experiment, due to several factors: one being that it challenged traditions that are much loved but that lack strong Scriptural foundations; and another being that it challenged preachers to meet questioners on equal footing without the weight of the pulpit or position. In the beginning, because it was new, people from every part of the spectrum of Oneness Pentecost joined the conversation with gusto, confident that they would convince others of their view of correct doctrine.

Although my saying so will probably be dismissed as merely partisan rhetoric, the traditional positions, particularly concerning standards, have not fared well in forum discussions. The lines of reasoning and theological grounds for many of the standards that Jim Yohe set out to challenge have not been successful in convincing questioners. This has caused many who hold to the traditional positions to withdraw from open discussion, believing that the end result of open conversation is to see people depart from standards.

It has somehow become popular to claim offence as a reason for withdrawing from this forum. In reality, neither side of the lib/con divide has any right to claim the high moral ground in terms of attitude and posting style, and the claim of “offence” as a reason for leaving looks like a smokescreen to those left behind. There is undeniable peer pressure among the more conservative brethren not to post here, and those who have posted have felt compelled to justify their being here to their peers.

In conclusion (Don’t you hate long posts? I rarely read them), the conservatives are doing their cause and the seekers who show up here a disservice by withdrawing into their closed forums. I feel, as did Jim Yohe, that it is important that there be a strong Acts 2:38 voice on the Internet. Young people in this day look to the Internet as one of their primary sources of information, and, when they ask questions, their first response is to click for answers. If the Acts 2:38 message is only proclaimed behind impenetrable barriers young people will be the first to miss the message. The reality of this day is that many people, and they’re not all young, are questioning standards, and they are going to show up here with their questions. If the conservatives withdraw from the conversation, the only answers that the questioners are going to find are going to be liberal opinions.

This forum, and the twenty first century, may not be a comfortable place for conservatives, but an important part of the battle for the heart and mind of this generation is going to be fought on the bandwidth battlefield. I would appeal to the conservative brethren not to abandon the battleground.

(Please excuse any typos and the garbled syntax. This post is too long for me to proofread without being put to sleep through the monotonous cadence of my own laboured and belaboured sentences.)

I enjoy reading all your posts, long or not.

[LadyCoonskinner]

Originally Posted by Pressing-On

I do understand your point and I know you are standing where you believe you need to be standing in what you believe. I respect that.

I respect that on both sides.

What I don't respect is either side taking potshots - "you're gonna burn" and "your'e a cult". Both are wrong. We can only digress from there.

As I know where I stand, it would still bother me - not because it shakes my beliefs, it's just sooooooooo hateful and rude!! Those are the discussions that make me feel ill.

I agree with this post. I don't tell people that they are going to Hell. I'm not the judge. I have my OPINIONS, but living in the state I do, the MOST CONSERVATIVE state in the union, I understand about having certain beliefs "crammed down your throat" (FYI.....this is not the current administration or the one before, either)

What I object, violently, to is that, at times, people can say HARSH things and get away with it, but then when someone comes in defends what they believe just as harshly, they are crucified. Because they've been hurt by the machinery, they think that they are justified in "TRASHING" the things others hold dear.

I understand about people standing up for what they believe. I hope they do. I encourage it, but don't trash and bash and broad brush (I know have been guilty of this, but being here has taught me to weigh my words carefully!!! ) That goes for either side.

I literally HATE the labels. Let's all just be friends and have some lively discussions. Let's stop the bashing on BOTH sides of the coin.

[Pressing-On]

Originally Posted by Michael Phelps

I don't respect ANYONE who says I'm "lost" because of something I believe if they can't back it up with scripture.

I respect anyone who says they believe it a different way, and I even respect them if they say they don't have scripture and verse, but rather a personal conviction.

I repeat, I do NOT respect anyone who says that I'm going to hell for something I believe or do not believe if there is no Word to back it up.

In my opinion, they are in MUCH more danger of eternal damnation, simply because they are adding to the Word, which has very explicit consequences.

I agree a person could be in much more danger for making the judgment call.

But, the real issue at hand is this - you are saying you don't respect their view or how they interpret scripture to say you are lost.

If we have two opposing views - who is right? Do we only respect your view and that you don't agree with their interpretation? Or do we also respect their view and interpretation? What do we do in this case?