How to destroy a thread

[EA]

Originally Posted by pelathais

I know at least one person did because a poster here on AFF found his name on the list - and he was the guy who first questioned the whole thing.

That's what I meant by "fun." Somebody was having fun. Some of the other names were also highly suspect. People were having fun with it and it was hard to take the whole thing seriously.

You call me a "liar" because we have a difference of opinion. You don't say that I'm wrong in my opinion - you say I'm a "liar" simply because we disagree. You do have an ethical problem, friend. And you need to do some soul searching.

Look, I guess I can see the humor in what TJJJ did with my name on wedeclare.org.

But I hope he understands that I had to send an email to that group asking that my name be removed. Further, I surely hope no one saw my name on that site and TRULY believed I agreed with those guys.

I think what TJJJ did, while humorous, was very unethical. The act involved deception and outright lying.

At any rate, my name is removed and all is well with the world.

[OneAccord]

Originally Posted by El Predicador

Is “holiness without which no man shall see the Lord”, philosophy and linguistics?

The verse you quote here has another part which seems to be ignored even more than the second part. "Follow peace with all men..." preceeds "...and holiness....". Without either one "no man shall see God". We draw our battle lines over holiness (standards) and "the kingdom suffereth violence" when brethren go to war over "standards". We seek debate and strife with our brother over "standards" rather than seeking peace with one another. The Apostle advises us to "follow peace with ALL men", yet we carefully choose those we seek peace with- usually our olive branch is extended only to those within the walls of our own little kingdoms. Its the Peacemakers who are called the children of God (Matt. 5:9). Yes, pursue holiness (rather than "standards"), but lets not forget to seek peace with all men, even with those with whom we may disagree.

[rgcraig]

Originally Posted by Edward Anglin

Look, I guess I can see the humor in what TJJJ did with my name on wedeclare.org.

But I hope he understands that I had to send an email to that group asking that my name be removed. Further, I surely hope no one saw my name on that site and TRULY believed I agreed with those guys.

I think what TJJJ did, while humorous, was very unethical. The act involved deception and outright lying.

At any rate, my name is removed and all is well with the world.

Exactly! I'm all for fun, but there's a line that should be drawn when it would require lying and being unethical.

[yisraelm]

" When Holiness is something to laugh at.... The Handwriting is on the Wall!"
Elder Carl Ballestero

[El Predicador]

Originally Posted by yisraelm

" When Holiness is something to laugh at.... The Handwriting is on the Wall!"
Elder Carl Ballestero

Now That Will PREACH !!!!!!

[Sam]

Originally Posted by OneAccord

The verse you quote here has another part which seems to be ignored even more than the second part. "Follow peace with all men..." preceeds "...and holiness....". Without either one "no man shall see God". We draw our battle lines over holiness (standards) and "the kingdom suffereth violence" when brethren go to war over "standards". We seek debate and strife with our brother over "standards" rather than seeking peace with one another. The Apostle advises us to "follow peace with ALL men", yet we carefully choose those we seek peace with- usually our olive branch is extended only to those within the walls of our own little kingdoms. Its the Peacemakers who are called the children of God (Matt. 5:9). Yes, pursue holiness (rather than "standards"), but lets not forget to seek peace with all men, even with those with whom we may disagree.

Agreed. Peace is very important. Sowing discord among brethren is something that God hates and He calls it an abomination ref Proverbs 6:16-19

It is my personal opinion that when individuals and/or groups separate from their brothers or sisters because those brothers and sisters don't "look" holy enough, that is sowing discord among brothers. And it is often accompanied by some of the other stuff listed there in Proverbs 6 like:
a proud look,
a lying tongue,
hands that shed innocent blood,
a heart that devises wicked imagination,
feet that are swift in running to mischief,
a false witness speaking lies,

Couldn't these apply to:
--some of the weird or outlandish clothing that fits the "holiness" standards,
--the rumors, gossip, innuendo,
--character assassination, attempts to destroy ministers and ministries,
--stories circulated about their brothers or sisters which have no basis in fact,
--the phone calls and meetings discussing their less spiritual brothers and the organizing efforts for their divisive organizations or fellowships,
--more defaming and inflammatory rhetoric at meetings, conventions, in phone calls, emails, etc?

Also, some of the above could apply to the events leading up to the proposing and adopting the Affirmation Statement.

[El Predicador]

To the three or four well meaning but redundant posters. Who have taken the following post:

"Is "holiness without which no man shall see the Lord", philosophy and linguistics?"


Which was a response to a post by Apocrypha, kindly read the post in its context and stop inferring bellicose intent because the whole verse was not quoted.

[Sam]

Originally Posted by yisraelm

" When Holiness is something to laugh at.... The Handwriting is on the Wall!"
Elder Carl Ballestero

Holiness is something sacred.
Holiness is Jesus in us as the Holy Spirit.
Holiness is imparted to us when we invite Jesus into our hearts.
God's people are holy positionally, they are growing in holiness practically, and will some day (at the first resurrection) obtain complete or potential holiness.
As such, holiness is not something to laugh at.

However,
some of the junk that passes as "standards" and "dress code" and the "touch not, taste not, handle not" and the other manipulative and ignorant stuff from pulpits, in Sunday School literature, pastoral counseling and what not that tries to present us all as "cookie cutter Christians" is silly and laughable and deserving of the chuckles, chortles, snickers, giggles, laughter and outright guffaws of those around us.

[El Predicador]

Pelethias,

I sorry that the nuance of what I was saying to Mizpeh was lost on a person of your intellect. No I am not being factious, I must not have communicated my point well enough. So let me try it like this.:

Mizpeh was commenting on how it is always the conversative seeking to separate or divide and the liberal was more live and let live.

I was trying to point out due to the sheer nature of the social interaction, that is the way it MUST be.

Point made by Mizpeh, in Romans Paul recognizes food sacrificed to idols not to be sin. But he will accommodate his less enlightened brethren so as not to be a point of contention. Conservative divisive, Liberal acquiescent. Yet in Corinthians Paul addresses a specific sexual sin which apparently the church is accommodating. Paul now in the conservative role demands the offending party to be marked and cast out of the church!

Same Paul different dynamic. But because his moral compass is now the one violated he becomes the one who simply cannot co-exist.

So the point is this, purely from the viewpoint of the social interaction of a given situation:

Regardless of what the topic is or whether a third party believes a standard to be picayune or paramount, the party who feels it to be a matter of salvation will inevitably be viewed as the one seeming to be divisive because if to them it is a matter of salvation, it is IMPOSSIBLE for them to accommodate. The one who does not believe the standard or manner of conduct a matter of salvation will be seen by the third party as accommodating. That is the true reason the “cons” are viewed as divisive and the “libs” or not. It is simply the nature of the beast within the group/social dynamics.

[noeticknight]

Originally Posted by El Predicador

Pelethias,

I sorry that the nuance of what I was saying to Mizpeh was lost on a person of your intellect. No I am not being factious, I must not have communicated my point well enough. So let me try it like this.:

Mizpeh was commenting on how it is always the conversative seeking to separate or divide and the liberal was more live and let live.

I was trying to point out due to the sheer nature of the social interaction, that is the way it MUST be.

Point made by Mizpeh, in Romans Paul recognizes food sacrificed to idols not to be sin. But he will accommodate his less enlightened brethren so as not to be a point of contention. Conservative divisive, Liberal acquiescent. Yet in Corinthians Paul addresses a specific sexual sin which apparently the church is accommodating. Paul now in the conservative role demands the offending party to be marked and cast out of the church!

Same Paul different dynamic. But because his moral compass is now the one violated he becomes the one who simply cannot co-exist.

So the point is this, purely from the viewpoint of the social interaction of a given situation:

Regardless of what the topic is or whether a third party believes a standard to be picayune or paramount, the party who feels it to be a matter of salvation will inevitably be viewed as the one seeming to be divisive because if to them it is a matter of salvation, it is IMPOSSIBLE for them to accommodate. The one who does not believe the standard or manner of conduct a matter of salvation will be seen by the third party as accommodating. That is the true reason the “cons” are viewed as divisive and the “libs” or not. It is simply the nature of the beast within the group/social dynamics.

The moral of the (Paul examples) was simply this: He was able to correctly distinguish truth from tradition.

With that said, I disagree with your assertion that assuming the stance of disagreement will “inevitably” label you as a divisive individual. It is true that everything cannot be inclusive, specifically with regards to morality issues, or there would be no cohesive force left to distinguish truth from untruth. Working from this viewpoint, we can make this more understandable by observing the laws of nature. We cannot naturally inhabit space (without advanced technology), because we are limited by gravity, extremely cold temperatures, the presence solar wind, lack of oxygen, distance, etc. So is it valid to adopt a contentious disposition because mankind is naturally restricted by these limitations? Shouldn’t we be able to do anything we want? Well, no, not necessarily. On the other hand, it is ridiculous to assume we should remain ignorant and stifled in our human existence, without ever exploring our surroundings. The more honorable attitude would cause us to objectively understand our surroundings and the forces that be, so that we can better function accordingly.

So if your “liberals” are the ones wanting no limits, and the “conservatives” are saying we should never jump higher than two feet off the Earth, which group deserves our utmost consideration? I say it is the third group who has worked through the truths of our environment and understands our human limitations and liberties. It is the voices of those unheard because they have been muted by our own lack of knowledge. Exlpaining these limitations in and of itself, is not being "divisive", but their revelations ought to be consistent with truth.