Forum is Ex-Pentecostal??

[Pressing-On]

Originally Posted by timlan2057

PO, I got a feeling that Dan wouldn't have done a thing or two MB did.

Now we're grasping at straws.

DA grew up in this and whatever he posts, he posts from the perspective of "been there, done that."

So this business of picking out posts and saying "So-and-so would NEVER have said THAT" is about as productive as - uh ... spitting up a rope.

"Been there,done that" doesn't qualify a person to make fun of and disqualify a person's response to the God they serve. It ain't his business.

I can ignore rude and condescending, mostly () but the other is unforgiveable in my book.

If you don't want to dance, then don't make fun of people who do. I don't care if they express themselves like a spasmodic chicken. And if they want to fall out, let them!

I used to attend a Baptist church - I ain't Baptist no mo!

Okay, I feel better for pointing that out. End of discussion for me.

[Praxeas]

Originally Posted by timlan2057

Now HERE is where we disagree vehemently.

This forum was founded with the idea the discussion was to be rigged and anything that the gang in charge didn't like would be censored under "preacher bashing."

That "doctrinal" statement sounds like the original FCF and we KNOW this forum wasn't anything like that one.

This is not true. Renda might have to chime in here. The Doctrinal statement stuff happened AFTER the forum started with the "complaints" of many of the forums Conservatives to officially make this an "Apostolic" board. It was also always the ideal that it be a diverse group that comes here and dialogues...that means the non conservatives. At some point they it seems they realized they did not like the idea of anyone arguing against their "truth" and they did not relish the idea of making counter arguments. I agree that perhaps...PERHAPS some of their REAL ideals for the forum were not vocalized or perhaps they just never realized how much they could not tolerate it. But what happened was an evolution in process. The ideal in the beginning was one forum for everyone of Apostolic background....regardless of whether they were one steppers or three and whether they were full blown standards or not. That was the original intention

Now HERE is where I think you're living in a dream world.

They "abandoned the place" when they realized that trying to rig the board and promote their agenda with censorhip and heavy-handed moderating wouldn't work.

Here I am inclined to agree with you.

Orthodoxy wasn't "trashed in a crude manner" any more here than on FCF.

Again I think you may be right. FCF was sort of a no bars hold forum. And I remember them posting an article by Robert Sabin arguing against the evidence doctrine.

People who couldn't meet the arguments got frustrated and LABELED it trashing.

Exactly. However it is my feelings that because many just don't care for debate like this that such topics should be out of the main fellowship area. This board was originally meant primarily as a place of fellowship. Not everyone has the stomach for that kind of stuff. However what because absurd to me was that they even complained about doctrines being argued on a separate area made just for debate. They could not tolerate the fact that this board was allowing discussion at all....they did not have to go to that area to read them. It was out of sight and out of mind...but they HAD to go looking for it so they can have something to complain about.

AND this "crude manner" stuff applied to the cons moreso than the reprobates and heathens.

I see it as being an equal opportunity offender. The libs and cons were both equally offensive. They had different methods for doing so which might make it hard for some to distinguish, but they were both guilty

Dan posts a bit more than some.

Wait till he gets married...his posts will be less and less :-)

But to blame him for "singlehandedly" destroying a forum and running off a bunch of good people who otherwise would have kissed the liberals on the cheek every morning is laughable, absurd, comical and the biggest myth I've ever heard in over four years of posting and reading pentecostal-themed message boards.

DA was banned permanently. This did not change a thing. He was only allowed back after certain owners decided to abandon ship. They no longer had a say in the matter, though we "heard" of their complaints after the fact...

Nobody has to leave. They can ignore Dan....if a topic is too much for the fellowship area we can move it to the debate area...out of sight and out of mind....but you know that never mattered. All that mattered was that it was being discussed here and that goes against their thinking...the same sort of thinking that brought in the famed Affirmation Statement.

[rgcraig]

Originally Posted by Praxeas

This is not true. Renda might have to chime in here. The Doctrinal statement stuff happened AFTER the forum started with the "complaints" of many of the forums Conservatives to officially make this an "Apostolic" board. It was also always the ideal that it be a diverse group that comes here and dialogues...that means the non conservatives. At some point they it seems they realized they did not like the idea of anyone arguing against their "truth" and they did not relish the idea of making counter arguments. I agree that perhaps...PERHAPS some of their REAL ideals for the forum were not vocalized or perhaps they just never realized how much they could not tolerate it. But what happened was an evolution in process. The ideal in the beginning was one forum for everyone of Apostolic background....regardless of whether they were one steppers or three and whether they were full blown standards or not. That was the original intention


Here I am inclined to agree with you.


Again I think you may be right. FCF was sort of a no bars hold forum. And I remember them posting an article by Robert Sabin arguing against the evidence doctrine.


Exactly. However it is my feelings that because many just don't care for debate like this that such topics should be out of the main fellowship area. This board was originally meant primarily as a place of fellowship. Not everyone has the stomach for that kind of stuff. However what because absurd to me was that they even complained about doctrines being argued on a separate area made just for debate. They could not tolerate the fact that this board was allowing discussion at all....they did not have to go to that area to read them. It was out of sight and out of mind...but they HAD to go looking for it so they can have something to complain about.


I see it as being an equal opportunity offender. The libs and cons were both equally offensive. They had different methods for doing so which might make it hard for some to distinguish, but they were both guilty


Wait till he gets married...his posts will be less and less :-)


DA was banned permanently. This did not change a thing. He was only allowed back after certain owners decided to abandon ship. They no longer had a say in the matter, though we "heard" of their complaints after the fact...

Nobody has to leave. They can ignore Dan....if a topic is too much for the fellowship area we can move it to the debate area...out of sight and out of mind....but you know that never mattered. All that mattered was that it was being discussed here and that goes against their thinking...the same sort of thinking that brought in the famed Affirmation Statement.

I have to agree with this - I don't believe it (AFF) was continued from NFCF with the idea that it was going to be "rigged". However, ONE incident set things into motion that changed the course of how AFF flowed. From then on there was a charge to "clean things up around here" which caused some ripples, which caused a few more, then some left.

[Michael Phelps]

Originally Posted by rgcraig

I have to agree with this - I don't believe it (AFF) was continued from NFCF with the idea that it was going to be "rigged". However, ONE incident set things into motion that changed to course of how AFF flowed. From then on there was a charge to "clean things up around here" which caused some ripples, which caused a few more, then some left.

So, how do we fix it?

[Praxeas]

Originally Posted by rgcraig

I have to agree with this - I don't believe it (AFF) was continued from NFCF with the idea that it was going to be "rigged". However, ONE incident set things into motion that changed the course of how AFF flowed. From then on there was a charge to "clean things up around here" which caused some ripples, which caused a few more, then some left.

Thanks

[timlan2057]

Originally Posted by Praxeas

This is not true. Renda might have to chime in here. The Doctrinal statement stuff happened AFTER the forum started with the "complaints" of many of the forums Conservatives to officially make this an "Apostolic" board. It was also always the ideal that it be a diverse group that comes here and dialogues...that means the non conservatives. At some point they it seems they realized they did not like the idea of anyone arguing against their "truth" and they did not relish the idea of making counter arguments. I agree that perhaps...PERHAPS some of their REAL ideals for the forum were not vocalized or perhaps they just never realized how much they could not tolerate it. But what happened was an evolution in process. The ideal in the beginning was one forum for everyone of Apostolic background....regardless of whether they were one steppers or three and whether they were full blown standards or not. That was the original intention


Here I am inclined to agree with you.


Again I think you may be right. FCF was sort of a no bars hold forum. And I remember them posting an article by Robert Sabin arguing against the evidence doctrine.


Exactly. However it is my feelings that because many just don't care for debate like this that such topics should be out of the main fellowship area. This board was originally meant primarily as a place of fellowship. Not everyone has the stomach for that kind of stuff. However what because absurd to me was that they even complained about doctrines being argued on a separate area made just for debate. They could not tolerate the fact that this board was allowing discussion at all....they did not have to go to that area to read them. It was out of sight and out of mind...but they HAD to go looking for it so they can have something to complain about.


I see it as being an equal opportunity offender. The libs and cons were both equally offensive. They had different methods for doing so which might make it hard for some to distinguish, but they were both guilty


Wait till he gets married...his posts will be less and less :-)


DA was banned permanently. This did not change a thing. He was only allowed back after certain owners decided to abandon ship. They no longer had a say in the matter, though we "heard" of their complaints after the fact...

Nobody has to leave. They can ignore Dan....if a topic is too much for the fellowship area we can move it to the debate area...out of sight and out of mind....but you know that never mattered. All that mattered was that it was being discussed here and that goes against their thinking...the same sort of thinking that brought in the famed Affirmation Statement.

Okay.

Acknowledged.

Unless I've missed something, you only find fault with my analysis as to WHEN the "rigging" started - not that it happened at all.

I think it plausible that the MOTIVE from the beginning was for things to turn out exactly like they did ... but the timing is not worth arguing about.

Praxaes, you're perceptive.

Now ... I guess you need to take it up with CC1 as to whether the "rigging" happened AT ALL.

[rgcraig]

Originally Posted by timlan2057

Okay.

Acknowledged.

Unless I've missed something, you only find fault with my analysis as to WHEN the "rigging" started - not that it happened at all.

I think it plausible that the MOTIVE from the beginning was for things to turn out exactly like they did ... but the timing is not worth arguing about.

Praxaes, you're perceptive.

Now ... I guess you need to take it up with CC1 as to whether the "rigging" happened AT ALL.

Yep.

[Praxeas]

Originally Posted by timlan2057

Okay.

Acknowledged.

Unless I've missed something, you only find fault with my analysis as to WHEN the "rigging" started - not that it happened at all.

I think it plausible that the MOTIVE from the beginning was for things to turn out exactly like they did ... but the timing is not worth arguing about.

Praxaes, you're perceptive.

Now ... I guess you need to take it up with CC1 as to whether the "rigging" happened AT ALL.

lol, thanks.

[SDG]

CC1 ... we will agree to disagree on this issue.

I make the following two observations as my last words w/ you about this ... until it's brought up again.

1. You are enamored w/ a forum FCF that has gone and past. Your feelings of nostalgia, as in common, may be blurring you to the realities of the past and presents situations. I lurked at NFCF ... and that drag outs there were second to none.

2. The former owners of this forum had an agenda of censorship and coersion. Many of us saw it rear it's head on many issues ... and other breaches of confidentiality proved that this was not the forum of Yohe ....

3. There was a blatant double standard that you have helped to perpetuate. The cons in the form of vigilante justice and wolf-pack mentality ostracized and ridiculed divergent thought for years .... See Posse and pulpits.

You, like our European allies (France) would rather appease these attacks ... for the sake of a fictional utopia.

Some of us decided to step up and face these accusations of having false doctrine, being ungodly and compromisers.

PP for all his antagonism towards my views ... would have to admit that this agenda even affected him personally.

Nuff said.

[Nahum]

Originally Posted by Daniel Alicea

CC1 ... we will agree to disagree on this issue.

I make the following two observations as my last words w/ you about this ... until it's brought up again.

1. You are enamored w/ a forum FCF that has gone and past. Your feelings of nostalgia, as in common, may be blurring you to the realities of the past and presents situations. I lurked at NFCF ... and that drag outs there were second to none.

2. The former owners of this forum had an agenda of censorship and coersion. Many of us saw it rear it's head on many issues ... and other breaches of confidentiality proved that this was not the forum of Yohe ....

3. There was a blatant double standard that you have helped to perpetuate. The cons in the form of vigilante justice and wolf-pack mentality ostracized and ridiculed divergent thought for years .... See Posse and pulpits.

You, like our European allies (France) would rather appease these attacks ... for the sake of a fictional utopia.

Some of us decided to step up and face these accusations of having false doctrine, being ungodly and compromisers.

PP for all his antagonism towards my views ... would have to admit that this agenda even affected him personally.

Nuff said.

Your post is truth, and I appreciate the gesture.

I sincerely hope what I am about to post is taken sincerely. This will be my attempt at substance tonight.

Look, everyone from admin to those with two posts always whine about the fighting. They all say they want peace on earth, goodwill to men, Christian love, cooperative spirits and all sorts of other pretty little things.

I'm here to tell you it's a lie.

They don't really want that.

Forums do not thrive on agreement. (See Synadelfos).

Forums thrive on debate, argument, and good old-fashioned gossip.

C'mon you'all, you know it's true.



That being said, CC1 is right, AFF is a shadow of its former self.

Why?

Because we do not disagree properly.

Words like sacrementalist, voodoo baptisms, incantations and all sorts of other lingo are virtual nuclear bombs. They stink up the whole joint. No one wants to hang around that sort of pollution.

The trouble is, when some of us whine about that junk, and devolve to responding in kind, we are censored, infracted and banned.

And please, don't tell me personalities don't play a part in that.

Don't tell me agendas don't play a part in that.

I disagreed with the ultracon way of running AFF. I was hurt in a very real way by it.

But I also disagree with the ultralib garbage that is allowed as well.

It's one thing to post ideas. Another to paint our heritage (please don't think standards) as evil.