WoF debate

[JAS4Yeshua]

This is just a question, from another member.

Is this what this forum is about? Is it going to be about attacking WoF teachings, teachers or members who might post here in fellowship, or giving testimonies? I thought it was a way of getting united in what we believe, not what we disagree with. I thought the restrictions for non members were debate on subjects listed in the Wiki, not forbidding them completely.

In this case, I completely agree with LeadWorship's post, and am saddened by this. :(

[jeolmstead]

This is just a question, from another member.

Is this what this forum is about? Is it going to be about attacking WoF teachings, teachers or members who might post here in fellowship, or giving testimonies? I thought it was a way of getting united in what we believe, not what we disagree with. I thought the restrictions for non members were debate on subjects listed in the Wiki, not forbidding them completely.

In this case, I completely agree with LeadWorship's post, and am saddened by this. :(
Jas,

As you are well aware, we have had several WOF’ers pop in here do a drive by and leave. I know what WOF teaches. I come here to get away from it. I do not go to their site and start sharing things I know will conflict with their belief system. (I hope that no one here does)

I do not challenge WOF’ers in the main forum because it’s the main forum. I will challenge them when they come here. They know who we are and what we believe. I do not use this as a forum to blast WOF doctrine except when someone comes here promoting it. (as in this case).

John O.

[JAS4Yeshua]

I'm going to take quotes from this thread, from various people. This isn't meant to put anyone on the spot, nor to accuse anyone of anything. I'm using it to simply show the "us" vs. "them" mentality we may or may not be aware of.

Listened to a WoF preacher recently, over several days, and was fascinated that he only described God as a God of love.
Couldn't this have been better phrased "Listened to a preacher..."?

It occurred to me that the preacher's one sided view must be from his WoF association. WoF seem to believe God wants you to be wealthy and healthy, and not to suffer. So I suppose an unbalenced 'God of love' only, fits with this.
Isn't this a direct attack against WoF? The point had already been made, did it have to become personal?

Like the Gnostics of old, they see themselves “enlightened” with secret special knowledge that empowers their prayers above and beyond those who lack their special level of faith.

To them God is love, and love is demonstrated by blessings .. It can be no other way. If it doesn’t work for you that just proves you don’t have enough faith.
Again, this is attacking the WoF. Was it necessary to prove the point?

WOF'ers seem to have a unhealthy approach to life overall. ( This is my opinion and I am sticking to it and not apologizing for it )

If you say anything 'negative' according to their definition of negative some of them believe that can actually cause God to back off from you in a sense. You can lose your blessings, etc. It is some crazy stuff when I listen to some of it.

A seriously unbalanced and unhealthy approach to God and life overall.

I really wonder have any of these people had any sufferings in life since they are born of a woman like the rest of us, I really do. No joke.
Do all WoF members think this way? I'm sure there are many that do, but isn't this post just a attack against WoF again?

The bottom line is, WOF’ers can not produce the goods they promise even in their own ranks. Everyone knows it, but they can’t say it, that would be a “negative confession”
Against the WoF again. This might apply to some, but not necessarily all, and didn't apply to the post it was in response to.

WOFer’s do put faith in “positive confession”, to the point of lying.
Accusing them of lying? Isn't that going too far?

They say “I’m healed” when in fact they are sick. When Jesus healed people they were healed , they were not “speaking things that are not as if they were”
WOFer’s teach that you are already healed, all you have to do is receive it through this mysterious ethereal force called “faith” Apparently however, most (including the WOF’ers) never ascend to that level for anything beyond headaches and colds.
Is there anything wrong with saying the opposite of what you feel? Is there anything wrong with claiming the promises of God while you are sick or struggling? Or is it just because WoF does it that it suddenly becomes wrong?

WOFer’s teach that “unbelief” (especially in their doctrine) is a negative ethereal force. It cancels out faith. It ties God’s hands and keeps Him from doing what He wants to do.
Some of the big teachers may do that, but that certainly doesn't apply to all WoF teachers.

And yes, I read through every thread, looking for references to WoF or their teachings. Again, the purpose wasn't to accuse anyone of anything (hence why I went through to remove formatting and names). You might be able to pick out what you wrote, but my intention isn't pointing fingers, but highlighting what people may or may not be aware of.

[probinson]

I do not use this as a forum to blast WOF doctrine except when someone comes here promoting it. (as in this case).

I''m hesitant to post this, but I just wanted to point something out here in agreement with JAS. The above statement is not true.

If you go back to your very first post in this thread, post #4 (http://foru.ms/showpost.php?p=38688926&postcount=4), you lashed out, completely and totally unprovoked, at WoF doctrine. If that's what you want to do in this forum, more power to you, but don't falsely and innocently claim that you were responding to someone "promoting" WoF doctrine here, because that simply is not true.

[Tamara224]

I''m hesitant to post this, but I just wanted to point something out here in agreement with JAS. The above statement is not true.

If you go back to your very first post in this thread, post #4 (http://foru.ms/showpost.php?p=38688926&postcount=4), you lashed out, completely and totally unprovoked, at WoF doctrine. If that's what you want to do in this forum, more power to you, but don't falsely and innocently claim that you were responding to someone "promoting" WoF doctrine here, because that simply is not true.


Lashed out at WoF doctrine? Where did he ever say "WoF" in that post of his? He "lashed out" (if lashing it is, which is highly debatable) at what he (and others, including myself) see as false doctrine but he never said "WoF". The fact that it is WoF doctrine is just a fact.

And, Pete, if you don't have a problem with anyone doing it... Then why don't you just ignore it? What's with this "selective rebuke"?

Respectfully, I think you should MYOB.

[jeolmstead]

I''m hesitant to post this, but I just wanted to point something out here in agreement with JAS. The above statement is not true.

If you go back to your very first post in this thread, post #4 (http://foru.ms/showpost.php?p=38688926&postcount=4), you lashed out, completely and totally unprovoked, at WoF doctrine. If that's what you want to do in this forum, more power to you, but don't falsely and innocently claim that you were responding to someone "promoting" WoF doctrine here, because that simply is not true.
Let me point out the WOF doctrine promoted in Lead’s post.

“We didn't accept that, because that was not what we believe God would bring to her. We stood on God's healing scriptures and believed the tumor would be miraculously removed.”

(WOF) God only wants health and wholeness period.

(WOF) God’s word is magic, stand on his “healing scriptures”

“Did we allow people to talk negatively about the situation around us? No, we even stopped medical staff from doing such.”

“we didn't let negativity creep in….. because to us it's like spreading seeds”


(WOF) beware the ethereal power of “negativity” and unbelief

“That followup showed that the tumor was growing back, fast …We were already standing firm, thanking God for her healing and recovery”

(WOF) Calling things that are not as if they are. (My mother is not sick she is healed)

Until lead (a WOFer by his own admission) posted in this thread I had not used the term (WOF) in this thread (Although others had) My response was based of the WOF principles he was promoting here.

John O.

[probinson]

Since you asked;
Lashed out at WoF doctrine? Where did he ever say "WoF" in that post of his? He "lashed out" (if lashing it is, which is highly debatable) at what he (and others, including myself) see as false doctrine but he never said "WoF". The fact that it is WoF doctrine is just a fact.
From John's own words, in reference to his first post;

Yes, this was an attack on WOF doctrine, you did not misunderstand me (I stand by it) John O.

And, Pete, if you don't have a problem with anyone doing it... Then why don't you just ignore it? What's with this "selective rebuke"?
Not a selective rebuke at all. Just the facts. John said;

I do not use this as a forum to blast WOF doctrine except when someone comes here promoting it. (as in this case).
But that's just not true. By John's own admission, he attacked WoF doctrine in his very first post, post #4 (http://foru.ms/showpost.php?p=38688926&postcount=4), completely unprovoked. He was not responding to anyone "promoting" WoF doctrine. Not a rebuke. Just the facts (m'aam).

Respectfully, I think you should MYOB.Respectfully, anything that falls under the heading SF/PC is my business as a supermoderator.

[jeolmstead]

you are correct Pete,

I said:
I do not use this as a forum to blast WOF doctrine except when someone comes here promoting it. (as in this case).

I stll stand by it

(here being the Non-WOF sub forum)

John O.

[jeolmstead]

"Until Lead (a WOFer by his own admission) posted in this thread I had not used the term (WOF) in this thread (Although others had) My response was based of the WOF principles he was promoting here."



Pete you also missed this quote, (and truth) in your attempt to defame me.

John O.

[probinson]

Until lead (a WOFer by his own admission) posted in this thread I had not used the term (WOF) in this thread (Although others had) My response was based of the WOF principles he was promoting here.

The comment about "gnostics" that you call a "response" to lead that JAS pointed out were made in post #4, far before Lead made his post. The thread title was "WoF God of Love". I think it's pretty obvious to anyone that can read what you were referring to, even if you were clever enough to not actually say "WoF"...

In any event, I apologize for butting in. I just wanted to agree with JAS' post (http://foru.ms/showpost.php?p=38816248&postcount=25) (who is a member of your forum). I've done that, so now I'll go. I have noted that I am not welcome here, so I will try to remember that in the future.

:wave:

[jeolmstead]

Just to point out Pete:

When you said:”

“But that's just not true. By John's own admission, he attacked WoF doctrine in his very first post, post #4 (http://foru.ms/showpost.php?p=38688926&postcount=4), completely unprovoked. He was not responding to anyone "promoting" WoF doctrine. Not a rebuke. Just the facts (m'aam).”


That is a lie, (Or were you just calling things that re not as if they are)


John O.

[probinson]

Just to point out Pete:

When you said:”

“But that's just not true. By John's own admission, he attacked WoF doctrine in his very first post, post #4 (http://foru.ms/showpost.php?p=38688926&postcount=4), completely unprovoked. He was not responding to anyone "promoting" WoF doctrine. Not a rebuke. Just the facts (m'aam).”

That is a lie, (Or were you just calling things that re not as if they are)

In what way is that a lie?

The underlined portion of this comment can be found in post #4 (http://foru.ms/showpost.php?p=38688926&postcount=4) (before Lead or any WoF poster posted) to which your response was (in red);

“Like the Gnostics of old, they see themselves “enlightened” with secret special knowledge that empowers their prayers above and beyond those who lack their special level of faith.

To them God is love, and love is demonstrated by blessings .. It can be no other way. If it doesn’t work for you that just proves you don’t have enough faith.”


Yes, this was an attack on WOF doctrine, you did not misunderstand me (I stand by it) John O.
So by your own admission, you attacked WoF doctrine in your post #4, long before Lead posted anything and without provocation.

So how did I "lie" or "defame" you?

[Tamara224]

I'm going to take quotes from this thread, from various people. This isn't meant to put anyone on the spot, nor to accuse anyone of anything. I'm using it to simply show the "us" vs. "them" mentality we may or may not be aware of.

I'm sorry Jason, but when I read this I got :mad: at you. Do you realize how arrogant you are coming across?

So what if there is a bit of "us vs. them"? Like it or not, Jason, agree with it or not, a lot of people have that mentality (on both sides) and want this sub-forum to get away from it. I know you want to placate WoFers, but the rest of us are sick of it. We're sick of hearing their stories, we're sick of them defending WoF doctrine to us and inciting argument. That is exactly what LeadWorship did in this thread. In fact, I came very close to reporting him for it when I read it this morning. I would have, except I saw Diatheke's post - who, btw, is a WoFer who thought that it was inappropriate as well.


Couldn't this have been better phrased "Listened to a preacher..."?

Where do you get off? Is someone paying you to be a PR rep or editor or something? Let people choose their own words and quit trying to force everyone to be politically correct. Please.


Isn't this a direct attack against WoF? The point had already been made, did it have to become personal?

How was that personal? He spoke of WoF as a doctrine, personal requires a person be insulted.

It's simply a factual statement which is either true or false. WoFers have certainly doctrinal positions - is it wrong to call it what it is? A WoF doctrine?

And again... who do you think you are? Should we all run our posts by you for editing before we post them from now on to make sure they're politically correct?

Again, this is attacking the WoF. Was it necessary to prove the point?

How was that attacking WoF when WoF wasn't even mentioned?

You know, this is really making me angry with you. What is your purpose here? Defending WoF doctrine?

I agree that WoF is, in some ways, similar to gnosticism. I should be allowed to say that without a WoFer debating it because this sub-forum is for those who hold beliefs other than WoF. If that is what we honestly believe, then we have a right to state it. John said it in a very non-offensive manner. What I find offensive is your attack on him because you are afraid WoFers are going to get offended.

IMO, you should back off and give people a bit of room to state their beliefs in the way they believe is appropriate.

Do all WoF members think this way? I'm sure there are many that do, but isn't this post just a attack against WoF again?

It's called a generalization for a reason, Jason. Of course there are some that don't think that way. But it's not an attack to point out that, generally speaking, WoF believe that.


Against the WoF again. This might apply to some, but not necessarily all, and didn't apply to the post it was in response to.

So what?! Geez. Again, generalizations are called that for a reason. And, IMO, whether it strictly applies to the post it was in response to is irrelevant. Again, I ask, should we have you edit our posts before hitting submit - just to make sure they pass your muster?

Sorry Jason, I like you, but you've really made me mad here.


Accusing them of lying? Isn't that going too far?

What if they did lie? If they are feeling ill and they say "I'm not ill" - that's a lie. That was John's point. And again... It's not your place to police us like this.


Is there anything wrong with saying the opposite of what you feel? Is there anything wrong with claiming the promises of God while you are sick or struggling? Or is it just because WoF does it that it suddenly becomes wrong?

Oh, I see... So it's not okay for anyone else to say anything against WoF here, Jason, but it's okay for you to insinuate that John doesn't really think what he thinks but is just acting out of bias. Really balanced.


Some of the big teachers may do that, but that certainly doesn't apply to all WoF teachers.

So what? WoF is represented by its "big teachers." Just ask them all about "Dad Hagin".

And yes, I read through every thread, looking for references to WoF or their teachings. Again, the purpose wasn't to accuse anyone of anything (hence why I went through to remove formatting and names). You might be able to pick out what you wrote, but my intention isn't pointing fingers, but highlighting what people may or may not be aware of.

No, your intention is to try and force us all to have the sub-forum that you want. You want us to change the name, you want us to not say what we believe. You want us to tip-toe around the truth because the WoFers can't manage to limit themselves to their own exclusive sub-forum and have to come in here and argue with us.

IMO, you are out of line. It is not your place to try and get us all in lock-step with the PC "let's not say anything that might offend" mentality.

You don't have to agree with everything people have said... but you don't get to tell us what to think or say.


For the record, John O. is THE most humble, non-offensive man I've met on these boards. He bends over backwards to not argue, to turn the other cheek when people offend him. Just because he speaks his convictions doesn't mean he's "attacking" anyone. You should be taking advice from him, not lecturing him.

[Tamara224]

Since you asked;

From John's own words, in reference to his first post;


Not a selective rebuke at all. Just the facts. John said;

But that's just not true. By John's own admission, he attacked WoF doctrine in his very first post, post #4 (http://foru.ms/showpost.php?p=38688926&postcount=4), completely unprovoked. He was not responding to anyone "promoting" WoF doctrine. Not a rebuke. Just the facts (m'aam).

Well, since John has now called this a lie... I agree with him. His first post never said nothing about WoF.

Respectfully, anything that falls under the heading SF/PC is my business as a supermoderator.

That's crap and you know it. Your "business" in this forum is enforcing rules. You have no business whatsoever coming into our sub-forum and making posts which rebuke other members over doctrinal issues. The posts you make are governed by the same rules as all other members of this forum. That is to say, unless you hold to the doctrinal beliefs set forth in our Wiki, you are not welcome to debate in here. You are welcome to fellowship, but you know as well as I do that the posts you've made in this thread are not fellowship posts.

[probinson]

Well, since John has now called this a lie... I agree with him. His first post never said nothing about WoF.
That's why you make a good lawyer... ;)

That's crap and you know it. Your "business" in this forum is enforcing rules. You have no business whatsoever coming into our sub-forum and making posts which rebuke other members over doctrinal issues.
That's crap and you know it. http://i63.photobucket.com/albums/h128/petesarah/Smilies/rolleyes.gif

Where did I rebuke John over "doctrinal issues"? John said that the only time he attacks WoF doctrine is when someone comes in here promoting them. By his own admission, he attacked WoF doctrines in post #4. Fine. But don't try to convince anyone that it was because someone was "promoting" WoF doctrine. It was completely and totally unprovoked.

NONE of that has anything to do with "rebuking" someone over "doctrinal issues".

The posts you make are governed by the same rules as all other members of this forum. That is to say, unless you hold to the doctrinal beliefs set forth in our Wiki, you are not welcome to debate in here. You are welcome to fellowship, but you know as well as I do that the posts you've made in this thread are not fellowship posts.
Am I welcome to post my agreement with JAS (who is a member of this forum)?

In any event, JAS is one of the most level headed people I've met on these here forums. Though he and I don't agree doctrinally on much, we don't attack each other either. That's why I posted. Because JAS is one I would consider a "friend" here, and I wanted to show him my support of what he had said, since I knew people would not receive it well. Nothing more, nothing less.

[jeolmstead]

For Clarification:

I my first post I was not even thinking about WOF doctrine. I was thinking about a person I know who thinks that all things of God will fit in his own head.

I do not classify this person as WOF as I do not even think they would take him.

My focus shifted to WOF after Lead’s post because I perceived he was promoting that agenda.

I realize this may not have been his intent. I did a post outlining the WOF doctrinal points he promoted (in this thread
previously) in his post. (Intentionally or not)

John O.

[Tamara224]

That's why you make a good lawyer... ;)

That's crap and you know it. http://i63.photobucket.com/albums/h128/petesarah/Smilies/rolleyes.gif

I thought you were going to butt out now?

Where did I rebuke John over "doctrinal issues"? John said that the only time he attacks WoF doctrine is when someone comes in here promoting them. By his own admission, he attacked WoF doctrines in post #4. Fine. But don't try to convince anyone that it was because someone was "promoting" WoF doctrine. It was completely and totally unprovoked.

Fine, let me reword. Your business in this forum is to enforce the rules, not point the finger at people when you think you've caught them in an inconsistency.

NONE of that has anything to do with "rebuking" someone over "doctrinal issues".

Okay, whatever. Whether it was a doctrinal issue or a rebuke over someone saying something that you think is inconsistent with something else they've said... It's not a fellowship post and you are technically breaking the rules you're supposed to enforce. Your position as supermoderator doesn't give you the right to do that. In fact, it seems to me that it was you who thinks that moderators should be held to a higher standard. Appearance of impropriety only applies when it isn't about you, huh?

Am I welcome to post my agreement with JAS (who is a member of this forum)?

No. Not by me, anyway. You're certainly not welcome to come in here and attack others and derail threads.

In any event, JAS is one of the most level headed people I've met on these here forums. Though he and I don't agree doctrinally on much, we don't attack each other either. That's why I posted. Because JAS is one I would consider a "friend" here, and I wanted to show him my support of what he had said, since I knew people would not receive it well. Nothing more, nothing less.

I'm sure Jason appreciates your defense of him, counselor, but no one was attacking him. (Sound familiar?)

[JAS4Yeshua]

Tamara, I'm sorry you became upset by it.

First, I never accused anyone of anything. Never said John wasn't humble. John stated that there were no attacks, and I quoted several from different people. I removed the names and the font styles to put everyone who commented equally. Unless someone points ut their posts, a person will have to go back and read the thread to find out where I took it from.

Does it come off as arrogant? I don't think so, because I'm not putting myself higher than anyone else. I know I have my faults, and that I jump and say the wrong things at times. Who doesn't? But the point of my post was, John made a statement in Post #28 (http://foru.ms/showpost.php?p=38816721&postcount=28) to which I responded, giving proof to back up my statements.

Regarding John saying he didn't attack, and you believing him, that is fine. I'm not saying he is lying, but let me ask you, does this come off as an attack against WoF or not? If the topic of the thread was what you believed in your church, would you not consider this an attack?

Like the Gnostics of old, they see themselves “enlightened” with secret special knowledge that empowers their prayers above and beyond those who lack their special level of faith.

To them God is love, and love is demonstrated by blessings .. It can be no other way. If it doesn’t work for you that just proves you don’t have enough faith.

Now, do I care if you edit your posts? No, but again, I was told that attacks weren't happening, and I was showing that they were, whether we realized it or not. I was pointing out something I was seeing, and giving evidence to back up my claims. I wasn't accusing anyone of anything, otherwise I wouldn't have bothered removing the names or the font styles that easily identified people.

Is this happening in other forums? Yes, I agree, it is. But this isn't about other forums. This is about what we said about our forum. From my understanding, from what we've both said in defending the name of the forum, is that it was only about our beliefs, not about what WoF does that is wrong. You and I, among others, have been hard pressed to tell the naysayers that it isn't about WoF, but now, when I call us all to live up to that statement, I'm seen as arrogant.

Tamara, I respect you. We agree on many things, and we disagree on others. I also respect John's opinions on matters. I'm simply asking "Where do we stand?" and "What are we going to stand for?" Is it going to be about what we believe, or what we don't agree with?

[probinson]

I thought you were going to butt out now?
You're right. I'm sorry for pointing out inconsistencies and showing support to a friend. http://i63.photobucket.com/albums/h128/petesarah/Smilies/rolleyes.gif

I'll leave you be now unless I have to action a report.

:wave:

[flaglady]

Please folks, remember the cardinal rule

1.8 Flaming of members or groups of members is not allowed. Flaming is defined as the posting of inflammatory or unsubstantiated accusations or the use of rude, hurtful, insulting, or belittling language. Criticism should be directed at posts, not people.

Please confine your posts to debating the issue and not slanging each other.
There is no excuse for that.

Thank you.

[Tamara224]

Tamara, I'm sorry you became upset by it.

Don't apologize for my response, it's nothing you can be responsible for. If you want to apologize, apologize for your own actions. If you feel no apology is necessary, then don't apologize.

First, I never accused anyone of anything. Never said John wasn't humble.

I never said you did.

John stated that there were no attacks, and I quoted several from different people. I removed the names and the font styles to put everyone who commented equally. Unless someone points ut their posts, a person will have to go back and read the thread to find out where I took it from.

Waste of time and energy. I did go back and look at those things to see who said what. I felt it was important to do so because the way you chopped everything out of context could have been very dishonest. IMO, you should give links to where people said what you say they said so people can check the context. But that's just my opinion.

Does it come off as arrogant? I don't think so, because I'm not putting myself higher than anyone else.

:D Jason, think about this for a second. You can't possibly judge how your tone sounds to other people. If it does or does not "come off as arrogant" you are the last person to tell us. IMO, it came across as arrogant because it seemed you were saying that 1) you would have worded it better and 2) your ideal of this subforum is better than everyone elses and 3) you have the right to correct everyone else for their opinions and how they state them.

I know I have my faults, and that I jump and say the wrong things at times. Who doesn't? But the point of my post was, John made a statement in Post #28 (http://foru.ms/showpost.php?p=38816721&postcount=28) to which I responded, giving proof to back up my statements.

So, your "proof" was a bunch of posts which you purposely cleaned of names (and have suggested were from more than one person) to prove that John was "attacking" WoF? How does that work exactly?

Regarding John saying he didn't attack, and you believing him, that is fine.

He said that he wasn't talking about WoF in his first post. Of course I believe him because the post is self-explanatory - he never once mentioned "WoF" until LeadWorship came in here and started promoting WoFish doctrines.

I'm not saying he is lying, but let me ask you, does this come off as an attack against WoF or not? If the topic of the thread was what you believed in your church, would you not consider this an attack?

Perhaps. But I'll tell you this as well... I've lurked the WoF subforum and I've seen much much worse directed at me. Shoot... I've read QC's threads in the main forum and seen much worse.

But, IMO, John is not bound by the phraseology of the OP. IMO, his post responded to the topic question. And, if you'll note in post #10, John agreed with Synger who said "It is not any one denomination." So, any supposed "attack" in Post #4 by reason of the implication carried over from the OP was mitigated by the agreement with Synger for the same reason.

Now, do I care if you edit your posts? No, but again, I was told that attacks weren't happening, and I was showing that they were, whether we realized it or not. I was pointing out something I was seeing, and giving evidence to back up my claims. I wasn't accusing anyone of anything, otherwise I wouldn't have bothered removing the names or the font styles that easily identified people.

Sorry, but if John was attacking, then you were definitely accusing. And it's obvious from reading the thread who posted the ones you quoted.

Is this happening in other forums? Yes, I agree, it is. But this isn't about other forums. This is about what we said about our forum. From my understanding, from what we've both said in defending the name of the forum, is that it was only about our beliefs, not about what WoF does that is wrong. You and I, among others, have been hard pressed to tell the naysayers that it isn't about WoF, but now, when I call us all to live up to that statement, I'm seen as arrogant.

Jason, your tone was arrogant. I stand by that. I think it is still arrogant. That is my opinion and others may disagree.

What bothers me is that you seem to think we've all been in perfect 100% agreement about what exactly this sub-forum is all about. But you keep forgetting that plenty of us disagree with your stance on how we treat WoF topics. I still think our subforum is best defined by what we are... but part of what we are is best defined by what we are not. Just like "Protestant" - I protest WoF doctrine.

What I am having a problem with you about is... You seem to be extending more grace to those who do not agree with our statement of beliefs and come in here "defending" WoF doctrine than you do to those who actually call this forum their own.

Tamara, I respect you. We agree on many things, and we disagree on others. I also respect John's opinions on matters. I'm simply asking "Where do we stand?" and "What are we going to stand for?" Is it going to be about what we believe, or what we don't agree with?

Why does it have to be one or the other? As with all things, definitions are as often about what the thing is not as they are about what it is.

But more importantly, why do we all have to agree on this and why do you think you have the right to enforce one over the other?

If someone comes to this subforum who defines their personal beliefs by saying "I'm not Word of Faith", who are you to tell them they are not allowed to do that? Would it not give you a pretty good idea what they believe? It would me.

I'm sorry if I've come across as highly confrontational and arrogant myself. Like I said, your post angered me because it seemed to me like you were attempting to dictate to the rest of this subforum what we are allowed to say and think about WoF. IMO, your harrying of John was out of line.

[jeolmstead]

Thanks T for your support,

(I’m not really the most humble guy in the world, but I do have a lot to be humble about)

Lead: Sorry if I offended you.

Jaz: I’m not sure where you are coming from but I’m sorry if all this caused you grief.

Pete: My words are there in black and white, I did say I was referring to WOF in my heated response to Jaz. By my own words I am convicted you were not lying. Forgive me for inferring that you were.

John O.

[JAS4Yeshua]

Waste of time and energy. I did go back and look at those things to see who said what. I felt it was important to do so because the way you chopped everything out of context could have been very dishonest. IMO, you should give links to where people said what you say they said so people can check the context. But that's just my opinion.
In context or out of context didn't change those statements at all. If the context would have, then the entire statement would have been kept. These statements, from my POV, appeared to be fully in context when I read and copied them.

:D Jason, think about this for a second. You can't possibly judge how your tone sounds to other people. If it does or does not "come off as arrogant" you are the last person to tell us. IMO, it came across as arrogant because it seemed you were saying that 1) you would have worded it better and 2) your ideal of this subforum is better than everyone elses and 3) you have the right to correct everyone else for their opinions and how they state them.
I didn't say I was any more right than anyone else. I was simply addressing John's point, and explaining why I viewed things the way that I did, in full support of my statements.

So, your "proof" was a bunch of posts which you purposely cleaned of names (and have suggested were from more than one person) to prove that John was "attacking" WoF? How does that work exactly?
It wasn't about John. It never was. I apologize if that is the way it seemed. From my very first post, to which John replied to, it was about the forum itself, and the attitudes that I was seeing from several people. Not blaming anyone or accusing anyone, just bringing to light what I see.

He said that he wasn't talking about WoF in his first post. Of course I believe him because the post is self-explanatory - he never once mentioned "WoF" until LeadWorship came in here and started promoting WoFish doctrines.
That is fine, as I said, I'm not accusing him of anything. I'm simply pointing out what I have read.

Perhaps. But I'll tell you this as well... I've lurked the WoF subforum and I've seen much much worse directed at me. Shoot... I've read QC's threads in the main forum and seen much worse.
I agree with you, but this has never been about the others, unless you wish to make it that way. Haven't you ever heard, "Just because someone else is doing it doesn't mean you can do it." Or perhaps, "Two wrongs don't make a right."

But, IMO, John is not bound by the phraseology of the OP. IMO, his post responded to the topic question. And, if you'll note in post #10, John agreed with Synger who said "It is not any one denomination." So, any supposed "attack" in Post #4 by reason of the implication carried over from the OP was mitigated by the agreement with Synger for the same reason.
He isn't, if he makes it clear who the "they" are. In the context of the thread, it appears that "they" are WoF. He has since clarified that, and I have no issues with it. My only reason for quoting it was in response to things being said, not to accuse anyone.

Sorry, but if John was attacking, then you were definitely accusing. And it's obvious from reading the thread who posted the ones you quoted.
Yes, it is obvious, and anyone can go back and read. But again, my point was never about any one individual, but about the subforum ideology in general. The idea that we presented originally was that we were a safe place to discuss what we believe, without having WoF tell us we are wrong. Both you and I had told people numerous times that is where we stood. We said it wasn't about the WoF teachings, just a way to set ourselves apart. I simply quoted statements that said the opposite of it, without trying to accuse anyone of anything.

Jason, your tone was arrogant. I stand by that. I think it is still arrogant. That is my opinion and others may disagree.

What bothers me is that you seem to think we've all been in perfect 100% agreement about what exactly this sub-forum is all about. But you keep forgetting that plenty of us disagree with your stance on how we treat WoF topics. I still think our subforum is best defined by what we are... but part of what we are is best defined by what we are not. Just like "Protestant" - I protest WoF doctrine.
It is obvious that we have not, but then I was going with what we've been telling people when we discussed it with others who disagreed with the name. Both you and I have stated things a certain way, and that is what I have been coming from.

What I am having a problem with you about is... You seem to be extending more grace to those who do not agree with our statement of beliefs and come in here "defending" WoF doctrine than you do to those who actually call this forum their own.
I have been doing the same when defending what we believe. The point is, I'm not treating anyone any differently. I have said the same things in others defense, including members of this forum. It isn't about extending grace, because I do extend grace. Think about my debates that you've been involved with. Is there anything in what I'm saying that differs? Am I showing preferential treatment to one over another? While it may appear that way at this point, the point is, I would be saying the same thing regardless of who or what was on the receiving end.

Why does it have to be one or the other? As with all things, definitions are as often about what the thing is not as they are about what it is.

But more importantly, why do we all have to agree on this and why do you think you have the right to enforce one over the other?
I'm not talking about enforcing anything. I'm talking about the statement we are making. Are we standing for our beliefs or not? It is one thing to point out what we believe to be false doctrines, it is quite another to treat the entire belief system or those who believe in it with contempt (intentionally or unintentionally).

If someone comes to this subforum who defines their personal beliefs by saying "I'm not Word of Faith", who are you to tell them they are not allowed to do that? Would it not give you a pretty good idea what they believe? It would me.
I never said that. I have no problem with saying that I'm not Word of Faith. I have no problem with others saying that. My point is, and always has been, what we believe that sets us apart.

I'm sorry if I've come across as highly confrontational and arrogant myself. Like I said, your post angered me because it seemed to me like you were attempting to dictate to the rest of this subforum what we are allowed to say and think about WoF. IMO, your harrying of John was out of line.
And I apologize as well. Just to reiterate, it was never about John, nor was it intended to be. It was simply about where we stand, and responding to John's criticism of my statement, not to John himself.

[JAS4Yeshua]

Thanks T for your support,

(I’m not really the most humble guy in the world, but I do have a lot to be humble about)

Lead: Sorry if I offended you.

Jaz: I’m not sure where you are coming from but I’m sorry if all this caused you grief.

Pete: My words are there in black and white, I did say I was referring to WOF in my heated response to Jaz. By my own words I am convicted you were not lying. Forgive me for inferring that you were.

John O.
John, I apologize if you thought I was picking on you. That was never my intent. I was simply responding to your post, in defense of my original post in this thread. It was never intended to be about any one person, which is why I went to great lengths to quote several people.

[Tamara224]

In context or out of context didn't change those statements at all. If the context would have, then the entire statement would have been kept. These statements, from my POV, appeared to be fully in context when I read and copied them.

Please don't think I was accusing you of taking things out of context. You'll note, I said "could have been" - which was meant to explain exactly why I went back and checked who had said stuff... because anytime someone is quoted like that it could be out of context.


I agree with you, but this has never been about the others, unless you wish to make it that way. Haven't you ever heard, "Just because someone else is doing it doesn't mean you can do it." Or perhaps, "Two wrongs don't make a right."

Of course, but my point is that it is the nature of doctrine to point out the errors in other people's doctrines. Even the apostles "attacked" false doctrines. My point is that people band together on common dis-beliefs as often as they do on common beliefs and IMO, it's not an invalid commonality.


Yes, it is obvious, and anyone can go back and read. But again, my point was never about any one individual, but about the subforum ideology in general. The idea that we presented originally was that we were a safe place to discuss what we believe, without having WoF tell us we are wrong. Both you and I had told people numerous times that is where we stood. We said it wasn't about the WoF teachings, just a way to set ourselves apart. I simply quoted statements that said the opposite of it, without trying to accuse anyone of anything.

Um... maybe I said something similar, but I don't recall it. I recall saying that this forum was not made to exclude WoF people but it certainly has always been, in my mind, an exclusion of WoF teachings/doctrine. That is why we don't allow debate or teaching from people who don't agree with our belief statements.


It is obvious that we have not, but then I was going with what we've been telling people when we discussed it with others who disagreed with the name. Both you and I have stated things a certain way, and that is what I have been coming from.

Jason, I appreciate your view-point on this... But I don't appreciate the fact that you seem to be suggesting that I've changed my stance. Respectfully, I have never agreed with you 100% on this topic, more like 90%. I fear that perhaps you have misremembered my exact words on this subject.


I have been doing the same when defending what we believe. The point is, I'm not treating anyone any differently. I have said the same things in others defense, including members of this forum. It isn't about extending grace, because I do extend grace. Think about my debates that you've been involved with. Is there anything in what I'm saying that differs? Am I showing preferential treatment to one over another? While it may appear that way at this point, the point is, I would be saying the same thing regardless of who or what was on the receiving end.

Okay, if you say so.:)


I'm not talking about enforcing anything. I'm talking about the statement we are making. Are we standing for our beliefs or not? It is one thing to point out what we believe to be false doctrines, it is quite another to treat the entire belief system or those who believe in it with contept (intentionally or unintentionally).

So, we're supposed to respect false teachings? I don't understand what you're saying here.

Well, I haven't seen anyone (not anyone you quoted) treat people (i.e. WoFers) with contempt, IMO. I have seen a certain amount of contempt for the teachings/doctrines. But IMO, contempt for false doctrine is not a bad thing. If someone believes that an "entire belief system" is false doctrine, then contempt for that system is natural and right, IMO.


I never said that. I have no problem with saying that I'm not Word of Faith. I have no problem with others saying that. My point is, and always has been, what we believe that sets us apart.

I just don't see the distinction you are making here. Sets us apart from what? What we don't believe. So to identify as something we are not is, by definition, setting us apart from that thing. So... I really don't understand what your point is.


And I apologize as well. Just to reiterate, it was never about John, nor was it intended to be. It was simply about where we stand, and responding to John's criticism of my statement, not to John himself.

Okay. Thanks.:)

[JAS4Yeshua]

I can tell we don't agree, and never intended to imply that you were changing your stance. For that, I apologize. What I was trying to say was that I was going under what appeared to be agreement, to which I was obviously mistaken. That is not stated as intended disrespect, just acknowledging that you and I don't agree.

I agree we should speak up against teachings we disagree with. I have never said any differently. But to say we disagree with the "WoF teaching" making the focus "WoF teaching" as opposed to the teaching itself, is where I make the distinction. It is separating the people from the teaching. It is letting a person share a testimony, which is fellowship, and not worrying about their icon.

Take the subject for an example only. "WoF God of Love. What about fearing God?" By adding "WoF," the OP (either intentionally or unintentionally) singled out the WoF when this teaching isn't exclusive to WoF, and may not even include all WoF members. Again, this isn't an attempt to point fingers at anyone, just an example to support what I'm saying.

[flaglady]

This thread has been created by cleaning another thread of a derailment. and is therefore closed