Why all the anger?

[Alpine]

I just read Did's amusing closed thread obviously aimed at this forum. What I find strange is that people who don't have wof icons are not allowed to post in their little ghetto. Yet, I've noticed they cannot resist coming in here and causing trouble. Also, I noticed in one of their threads referring to people in here as "goofs" and "non-faith."


Hmm.

Elitist Christians anyone?

Anyway, why all the anger? I don't see what the big deal is. Why do a couple people feel so threatened? So, people have differing views...


...life goes on...

Jesus is still Lord! :)

[JAS4Yeshua]

1 John 4:20-21 NIV
20 If anyone says, "I love God," yet hates his brother, he is a liar. For anyone who does not love his brother, whom he has seen, cannot love God, whom he has not seen. 21 And he has given us this command: Whoever loves God must also love his brother.

[JAS4Yeshua]

I suppose I should clarify my last post. I think we should all evaluate ourselves based on those verses, and others that say the same. We shouldn't be treating our brothers and sisters harshly, simply because we disagree.

But, Alpine, you are correct, Jesus is still Lord. Praise the Lord! :)

[robbymac]

I just read Did's amusing closed thread obviously aimed at this forum. What I find strange is that people who don't have wof icons are not allowed to post in their little ghetto. Yet, I've noticed they cannot resist coming in here and causing trouble. Also, I noticed in one of their threads referring to people in here as "goofs" and "non-faith."


Hmm.

Elitist Christians anyone?

Anyway, why all the anger? I don't see what the big deal is. Why do a couple people feel so threatened? So, people have differing views...


...life goes on...

Jesus is still Lord! :)
I'm also really disappointed that the mods have no problem with letting WOF people come into this sub-forum and violating its rules. We respect their boundaries for their sub-forum, yet they refuse to respect ours, and are apparently allowed to do so with no consequences.

[jeolmstead]

I'm also really disappointed that the mods have no problem with letting WOF people come into this sub-forum and violating its rules. We respect their boundaries for their sub-forum, yet they refuse to respect ours, and are apparently allowed to do so with no consequences.
Robby,

I think the problem is that we want to prove to radical WOF folks (a small minority by the way) that we are not the people they make us out to be.

So, some here bend over backwards to accommodate them. At one point I was convinced that it could be done myself. I have learned however that for a couple of people there is no way to accommodate them.

I do not wish to debate them or try to change their mind. I try to focus on the board it my own eye and I’ve added some of these people to my ignore list.

I hope that this sub forum can survive. We have people show up here looking for honest answers to honest questions. A lot of people are looking for relevance in their faith. They aren’t finding it in the other arena.

If we turn our focus to spending all our time fighting back those who are attacking us we are falling into the trap they have laid for us. That’s what they want.

There is a lot of good stuff posted here about what we do believe. I’m going to try and focus my energy on that. (as difficult as that is for me sometimes)

John O.

[Tamara224]

I'm puzzled about it too Alpine. The only thing I can think is that they aren't as secure with their beliefs as they pretend. Otherwise, they'd let bygones be bygones and let us have our own space. In fact, most of the WoFers are doing just that. And I'm grateful to them for it.

But, you know, it's been mostly Dids that is causing strife over this issue. And he has a few "followers" (for lack of a better word) that lap up everything he says (IMO, that's what it looks like) and so join in to agree with him.

What never ceases to amaze me is that none of the WoF people will tell him he's gone too far with things. No one had a problem with him comparing us to Hitler. Not one word-faither takes the position that he is wrong to demean other Christians like that.

IMO, it speaks volumes about where their heart is, what their goals really are.

[didaskalos]

I just read Did's amusing closed thread obviously aimed at this forum. What I find strange is that people who don't have wof icons are not allowed to post in their little ghetto. Yet, I've noticed they cannot resist coming in here and causing trouble. Also, I noticed in one of their threads referring to people in here as "goofs" and "non-faith."


Hmm.

Elitist Christians anyone?

Anyway, why all the anger? I don't see what the big deal is. Why do a couple people feel so threatened? So, people have differing views...


...life goes on...

Jesus is still Lord! :)
Wow....
talk about anger!

[Trish1947]

I'm puzzled about it too Alpine. The only thing I can think is that they aren't as secure with their beliefs as they pretend. Otherwise, they'd let bygones be bygones and let us have our own space. In fact, most of the WoFers are doing just that. And I'm grateful to them for it.

But, you know, it's been mostly Dids that is causing strife over this issue. And he has a few "followers" (for lack of a better word) that lap up everything he says (IMO, that's what it looks like) and so join in to agree with him.

What never ceases to amaze me is that none of the WoF people will tell him he's gone too far with things. No one had a problem with him comparing us to Hitler. Not one word-faither takes the position that he is wrong to demean other Christians like that.

IMO, it speaks volumes about where their heart is, what their goals really are.
We're not angry. But disappointed. Here's a scenerio for you..what if there was a subforum titled..Charismatic, Non Baptist, or Chrismatic, Non-Assembly of God, or Charismatic, Non- Catholic? Would any of these "non" groups feel less important as a brother or sister just by the title? Why is it even necessary since this wouldn't even be allowed before, but it's o.k. to spacificly state "Non-Wof. We're more interested in your reasonings for spacificly making points against anothers belief. Where's the forum to discuss other denominations you don't agree with? This is nothing but a bashing WOF forum, and very little discussion of the differences. Where's your forgiveness if we have hurt you in anyway? If you feel you have to have it, by all means have it.

[Tamara224]

We're not angry. Here's a scenerio for you..what if there was a subforum titled..Charismatic, Non Baptist, or Chrismatic, Non-Assembly of God, or Charismatic, Non- Catholic? Would any of these "non" groups feel less important as a brother or sister just by the title? Why is it even necessary since this wouldn't even be allowed before, but it's o.k. to spacificly state "Non-Wof. We're more interested in your reasonings for spacificly making points against anothers belief. Where's the forum to discuss other denominations you don't agree with? This is nothing but a bashing WOF thread, and very little discussion of the differences. Where's your forgiveness if we have hurt you in anyway. If you feel you have to have it, by all means have it.

Come on Trish. You guys regularly call us "anti-faith" people over in your neck of the woods. How is calling ourselves non-WoF any more of an insult than that?

You bash us on a regular basis. You specifically, I have seen complain and gripe about those of us who are not word-faith.

Do you really expect us to not think anger is behind Dids' words when he compares us to Hitler and to racist white supremecists?

Why is it okay for you guys to vent about us, but when we vent a little you jump all over our case?

Here's a hint... We will continue to think badly about WoF as long as WoFers continue to demean and defame us. How could you expect anything else? You reap what you sow.

You only confirm my first point in this thread... You refuse to see the error, the hatred, the unloving, unchristian like attitude as long as it is coming from a WoF person. If Dids compares us to Hitler, you conveniently ignore it, never calling him to forgive us. But if we complain that anger is being directed at us, we're supposed to forgive. I'm sorry, but this hypocrisy is the last thing likely to "correct" any of us.

We're not perfect and we've never claimed to be. But you are in no position to correct us.

[Alpine]

We're not angry. But disappointed. Here's a scenerio for you..what if there was a subforum titled..Charismatic, Non Baptist, or Chrismatic, Non-Assembly of God, or Charismatic, Non- Catholic? Would any of these "non" groups feel less important as a brother or sister just by the title? Why is it even necessary since this wouldn't even be allowed before, but it's o.k. to spacificly state "Non-Wof. We're more interested in your reasonings for spacificly making points against anothers belief. Where's the forum to discuss other denominations you don't agree with? This is nothing but a bashing WOF forum, and very little discussion of the differences. Where's your forgiveness if we have hurt you in anyway? If you feel you have to have it, by all means have it.


Is not a WOF forum saying you are are different than pentecostals and charismatics? (truth is most WOF people are in one of those two camps actually)

Aren't you essentially saying you are unlike something yourself by clumping yourselves into your own forum?

[Trish1947]

Come on Trish. You guys regularly call us "anti-faith" people over in your neck of the woods. How is calling ourselves non-WoF any more of an insult than that?

You bash us on a regular basis. You specifically, I have seen complain and gripe about those of us who are not word-faith.

Do you really expect us to not think anger is behind Dids' words when he compares us to Hitler and to racist white supremecists?

Why is it okay for you guys to vent about us, but when we vent a little you jump all over our case?

Here's a hint... We will continue to think badly about WoF as long as WoFers continue to demean and defame us. How could you expect anything else? You reap what you sow.

You only confirm my first point in this thread... You refuse to see the error, the hatred, the unloving, unchristian like attitude as long as it is coming from a WoF person. If Dids compares us to Hitler, you conveniently ignore it, never calling him to forgive us. But if we complain that anger is being directed at us, we're supposed to forgive. I'm sorry, but this hypocrisy is the last thing likely to "correct" any of us.

We're not perfect and we've never claimed to be. But you are in no position to correct us.
The WOF forum existed even before I arrived. But here's the difference. It states WOF Forum. Our forum doesn't say NON anything.

[Tamara224]

The WOF forum existed even before I arrived. But here's the difference. It states WOF Forum. Our forum doesn't say NON anything.


So, you're all hot and bothered by a mere semantical distinction.

If that's the case, then it should put your fears to rest to simply look to a dictionary to determine the meaning of the word "non". "used with many words to change their meanings to the opposite; not". That's all it means. So, when we add the prefix "non" to a word, it changes the meaning of the word to the opposite. From WoF (denoting someone who adheres to Word of faith doctrines) to Non-WoF (denoting someone who does not adhere to word of faith doctrines). Now tell me... what is so offensive about the fact that we do not adhere to word of faith doctrines. Surely, you already knew that some people don't?

Let's look at some other usages of that prefix, non:

nonclassical - Is this offensive to classical? Or merely a description?

noncomercial (or noncomercial trader) - Is this offenseive to commercial traders? Or is it merely an accurate description?

nonbeliever - Is this offensive to believers? Or merely a description? In fact, we call people unbelievers (meaning the same thing) all the time... we don't get offended that someone might call themselves the opposite of a believer.


In fact, if you guys are so committed to WoF, you would consider it an offense to US to be called non-WoF.

So, you see, your semantical problems disappear once you resort to a dictionary.

[jeolmstead]

We're not angry. But disappointed. Here's a scenerio for you..what if there was a subforum titled..Charismatic, Non Baptist, or Chrismatic, Non-Assembly of God, or Charismatic, Non- Catholic? Would any of these "non" groups feel less important as a brother or sister just by the title? Why is it even necessary since this wouldn't even be allowed before, but it's o.k. to spacificly state "Non-Wof. We're more interested in your reasonings for spacificly making points against anothers belief. Where's the forum to discuss other denominations you don't agree with? This is nothing but a bashing WOF forum, and very little discussion of the differences. Where's your forgiveness if we have hurt you in anyway? If you feel you have to have it, by all means have it.
There are many threads here outlining what we believe. It’s not a mystery. We do not set around and plot against anyone.

The name of our forum reflects what we believe. We do not agree with the WOF viewpoint on many things and we would like to have a place of fellowship with one another and a platform from which we can answer honest questions from our viewpoint.

You are correct in that we do not need to be about bashing others. But, the only “bashing” that has taken place here has been the result of folks coming here and attacking us.

I hope sincerely that no one from this camp goes to another sub forum and acts in the appalling way some have here.

John O.

[Trish1947]

So, you're all hot and bothered by a mere semantical distinction.

If that's the case, then it should put your fears to rest to simply look to a dictionary to determine the meaning of the word "non". "used with many words to change their meanings to the opposite; not". That's all it means. So, when we add the prefix "non" to a word, it changes the meaning of the word to the opposite. From WoF (denoting someone who adheres to Word of faith doctrines) to Non-WoF (denoting someone who does not adhere to word of faith doctrines). Now tell me... what is so offensive about the fact that we do not adhere to word of faith doctrines. Surely, you already knew that some people don't?

Let's look at some other usages of that prefix, non:

nonclassical - Is this offensive to classical? Or merely a description?

noncomercial (or noncomercial trader) - Is this offenseive to commercial traders? Or is it merely an accurate description?

nonbeliever - Is this offensive to believers? Or merely a description? In fact, we call people unbelievers (meaning the same thing) all the time... we don't get offended that someone might call themselves the opposite of a believer.


In fact, if you guys are so committed to WoF, you would consider it an offense to US to be called non-WoF.

So, you see, your semantical problems disappear once you resort to a dictionary.
Oh please Tamara.. even those that aren't WoF sees the title as exclusionary of a spacific groups belief. No matter how you cut it, it looks the way it looks, and by some of the posts it fits.

[Trish1947]

There are many threads here outlining what we believe. It’s not a mystery. We do not set around and plot against anyone.

The name of our forum reflects what we believe. We do not agree with the WOF viewpoint on many things and we would like to have a place of fellowship with one another and a platform from which we can answer honest questions from our viewpoint.

You are correct in that we do not need to be about bashing others. But, the only “bashing” that has taken place here has been the result of folks coming here and attacking us.

I hope sincerely that no one from this camp goes to another sub forum and acts in the appalling way some have here.

John O.
No matter how you see the title, you have chosen to spacificly name WOF, now I'm sure you don't agree with other denominations, so give us the benefit of the doubt, by naming all those others you don't agree with..IN ALL FAIRNESS.

[jeolmstead]

Oh please Tamara.. even those that aren't WoF sees the title as exclusionay of a spacific groups belief. No matter how you cut it, it looks the way it looks, and by some of the posts it fits.
If we were the people you claim we are, we would be in the WOF forum right now having this discussion tiring to tear down and stir up trouble.

The fact is, we are not there, we are here, where others come attempting to do the just that.

Actions speak louder then words.

I’m sorry but that is the way it appears to me.

After you finish your turn is someone else lined up for an attack?

John O.

[Deba]

-Pentecostals have there own forum
-WoF have there own forum
-All Other Charismatics should be able to have their own forum also.

Just a friendly pentecostal neighbor stopping by.

[jeolmstead]

No matter how you see the title, you have chosen to spacificly name WOF, now I'm sure you don't agree with other denominations, so give us the benefit of the doubt, by naming all those others you don't agree with..IN ALL FAIRNESS.
Actually it was Pete (I think) who originally suggested the name. I personally thought we should be called Post Charismatic. As I recall BenAdam lobbied hard for that but it was shot down by the same little foxes attempting their work now.

Personally, I think no matter what we called it, it would have produced the same result because it is not what we call ourselves that offends you, it is what we believe.

John O.

[Tamara224]

Oh please Tamara.. even those that aren't WoF sees the title as exclusionay of a spacific groups belief. No matter how you cut it, it looks the way it looks, and by some of the posts it fits.

Whatever Trish. Just as many people see no problem with the name as do see a problem. IMO, you're pushing an agenda to prevent us from having a place to go where you can't combat us. All the while still refusing to admit that just as much anti-non-wof bashing goes on in your own subforum. If you really wanted fair, you'd be over there correcting people for calling us "anti-faith."

No matter how you see the title, you have chosen to spacificly name WOF, now I'm sure you don't agree with other denominations, so give us the benefit of the doubt, by naming all those others you don't agree with..IN ALL FAIRNESS.

You're forgetting that our full name is "Charismatic - Non Word of Faith." By including the term Charismatic, we have already excluded all denominations/doctrines that are nonCharismatic. Expressio unius est exclusio alterius. By the very nature of language, when you label yourself one thing, you are excluding all other labels. Additionally, we felt it was necessary to make sure that this subforum is understood to be Charismatic but not word of faith because WoFers are also Charismatic (if we had said we were simply 'Charismatic' with no further distinction, it would have included all under that umbrella). Hence, the prefix non.

No matter what you claim, you cannot change the plain meaning of words. Your assertions are founded on nothing more than a hyper-sensitive misunderstanding of language wherein you look for offense where none is intended. IMHO.

[Trish1947]

Whatever Trish. Just as many people see no problem with the name as do see a problem. IMO, you're pushing an agenda to prevent us from having a place to go where you can't combat us. All the while still refusing to admit that just as much anti-non-wof bashing goes on in your own subforum. If you really wanted fair, you'd be over there correcting people for calling us "anti-faith."



You're forgetting that our full name is "Charismatic - Non Word of Faith." By including the term Charismatic, we have already excluded all denominations/doctrines that are nonCharismatic. Expressio unius est exclusio alterius. By the very nature of language, when you label yourself one thing, you are excluding all other labels. Additionally, we felt it was necessary to make sure that this subforum is understood to be Charismatic but not word of faith because WoFers are also Charismatic (if we had said we were simply 'Charismatic' with no further distinction, it would have included all under that umbrella). Hence, the prefix non.

No matter what you claim, you cannot change the plain meaning of words. Your assertions are founded on nothing more than a hyper-sensitive misunderstanding of language wherein you look for offense where none is intended. IMHO.
Oh, really? I have had more than one new member ask me..why do they hate you? And none of them were WOF. Only the smart can figure its meaning I guess.

[jeolmstead]

Oh, really? I have had more than one new member ask me..why do they hate you? And none of them were WOF. Only the smart can figure its meaning I guess.
Your reply to them should have been “they don’t hate us, we just differ on some doctrinal points”

What if they then asked:

“Why do you hate them?”

(As demonstrated by folks coming here and calling us Nazis)

John O.

[Trish1947]

Actually it was Pete (I think) who originally suggested the name. I personally thought we should be called Post Charismatic. As I recall BenAdam lobbied hard for that but it was shot down by the same little foxes attempting their work now.

Personally, I think no matter what we called it, it would have produced the same result because it is not what we call ourselves that offends you, it is what we believe.

John O.
Good night Hannah!!, what you believe is between you and God. I'm discussing the title, and all of a sudden, I'm against what you believe. It was quite a stretch to come to that conclusion.

[pdudgeon]

thank you all for voicing your concerns in this thread.
We'll try to do a better job at keeping the bashing out of our forum.

FYI the post that Tamara mentioned earlier was edited by staff to take out that remark, re-edited by the OP, and subsequently the whole thread was trashed, so it is no longer visable.

[jeolmstead]

Good night Hannah!!, what you believe is between you and God. I'm discussing the title, and all of a sudden, I'm against what you believe. It was quite a stretch to come to that conclusion.
If it is a stretch, forgive me, I do not want to offend.

John O.

[Tamara224]

Oh, really? I have had more than one new member ask me..why do they hate you? And none of them were WOF. Only the smart can figure its meaning I guess.


Which means you should have no problem understanding as you are plenty smart.

I don't assume that anyone on here is too stupid to look things up in a dictionary and I don't play to the least common denominator. If I can understand it, so can anyone else.

IMO, the only people really upset by this title are simply being too stubborn to see our point of view. In short, those with an agenda.

[Trish1947]

Which means you should have no problem understanding as you are plenty smart.

I don't assume that anyone on here is too stupid to look things up in a dictionary and I don't play to the least common denominator. If I can understand it, so can anyone else.

IMO, the only people really upset by this title are simply being too stubborn to see our point of view. In short, those with an agenda.
And sometimes we need to take into consideration of appearances, because some won't understand intent in a forum setting. It's important.

[Tamara224]

And sometimes we need to take into consideration of appearances, because some won't understand intent in a forum setting. It's important.


So is the truth. If you insist on believing evil of us, when no evil is intended, then nothing we say or do will change that. We can't appease everyone. Someone will always be offended.

[JAS4Yeshua]

I'm finding this thread very ironic at the moment. Look at the subject of the thread, and look at what is happening here. Remember, we're all brothers and sisters in Christ. We should all treat each other accordingly.

[Trish1947]

So is the truth. If you insist on believing evil of us, when no evil is intended, then nothing we say or do will change that. We can't appease everyone. Someone will always be offended.
And you are refusing to understand the intent of my post. I am not offended. I said I was disappointed. If you want to interpret that I think your evil, I guess it's necessary for you to go to this extent. Why? It's anybodys guess.

[Alpine]

I'm finding this thread very ironic at the moment. Look at the subject of the thread, and look at what is happening here. Remember, we're all brothers and sisters in Christ. We should all treat each other accordingly.


:wave:

[Tamara224]

And you are refusing to understand the intent of my post. I am not offended. I said I was disappointed. If you want to interpret that I think your evil, I guess it's necessary for you to go to this extent. Why? It's anybodys guess.

Ah the irony. Why? Because that's how you're coming across.

Disappointed? The only way you would be disappointed is if you had certain expectations for us which we failed to live up to.

So where have we failed? We've failed to name our subforum a name you like. And instead of accepting our explanation of it, you continue to harass us about it.

Big deal. Move on. Your disappointment means nothing to me. I don't know you. The only way your disappointment could mean anything is if I knew you and you knew me and we respected one another. As it is, as Jimbeaux says, you are a nameless faceless person on the internet. For all I know, you get disappointed when the grocer names his establishment a name you don't like.

If all you suffered from was a mild "disappointment" then, IMO, you wouldn't be wasting your time and effort trying to browbeat us into changing our forum name. That is how I see your actions, btw.

If it doesn't offend you, then you really shouldn't care.

[didaskalos]

LOL....
perhaps you should change the name to the "non-dids" forum.

[Trish1947]

Ah the irony. Why? Because that's how you're coming across.

Disappointed? The only way you would be disappointed is if you had certain expectations for us which we failed to live up to.

So where have we failed? We've failed to name our subforum a name you like. And instead of accepting our explanation of it, you continue to harass us about it.

Big deal. Move on. Your disappointment means nothing to me. I don't know you. The only way your disappointment could mean anything is if I knew you and you knew me and we respected one another. As it is, as Jimbeaux says, you are a nameless faceless person on the internet. For all I know, you get disappointed when the grocer names his establishment a name you don't like.

If all you suffered from was a mild "disappointment" then, IMO, you wouldn't be wasting your time and effort trying to browbeat us into changing our forum name. That is how I see your actions, btw.

If it doesn't offend you, then you really shouldn't care.
This too is a disappointment. When we don't care anymore how things are perceived. Then we all have alot of disappointment in our lives. I meant no harm to anyone.

[Tamara224]

I'm finding this thread very ironic at the moment. Look at the subject of the thread, and look at what is happening here. Remember, we're all brothers and sisters in Christ. We should all treat each other accordingly.


Jason, you know I love you, but I hate vagueness like this. "Look at what is happening here" - what exactly do you mean by that? What is happening? Who is doing it? What is wrong with it?

IMO, I am treating people with kindness... that doesn't mean I don't get to have and state my opinion on the matter. We've refrained from flaming one another, which, imo, is all you can really ask for when people have such differing opinions.

[Tamara224]

This too is a disappointment. When we don't care anymore how things are perceived. Then we all have alot of disappointment in our lives. I meant no harm to anyone.

:scratch: Trish, if I don't care I can't be disappointed. Only people with expectations are disappointed.

But I see that we've ceased to discuss anything close to the OP.

I stand by my opinions. I don't believe our name is offensive, I don't believe we have evil intentions here. I believe that you are being disingenuous. I'm sorry if that is offensive, but it is the impression I have gotten from you.

[Tamara224]

Oops... double post.

[JAS4Yeshua]

I simply find the whole debate ironic considering the point of the thread. I'm not accusing anyone of anything.

[Trish1947]

:scratch: Trish, if I don't care I can't be disappointed. Only people with expectations are disappointed.

But I see that we've ceased to discuss anything close to the OP.

I stand by my opinions. I don't believe our name is offensive, I don't believe we have evil intentions here. I believe that you are being disingenuous. I'm sorry if that is offensive, but it is the impression I have gotten from you.
Well your impression of my intent was wrong. But your entitled to them.

[Tamara224]

Well your impression of my intent was wrong. But your entitled to them.

And your impression of our intent was likewise wrong.

Maybe we can just agree to give each other a little bit of grace and not assume that the other is doing something wrong, with wrong motives and not be disappointed with one another?

Shake hands? Let bygones be bygones?

[probinson]

I posted this in the WoF forum, but I think it's relevant in this discussion as well. If you do not want the post here, just let me know and I'll remove it.

_______________________________

I support the name "non-WoF". I think it makes a clear break, which is what the membership wanted. If you consider one your "home" forum, then you can not post in the other. That is as far as my support of the name goes.

What I don't support is the "ANTI"-WoF mentality being portrayed there, but it's only being done by a very few vocal posters. Like JAS said, not everyone there is anti-WoF. But some are, and unfortunately, it only takes a few obnoxious vocal posters to spoil the whole bunch.

To put a scriptural backing to it;Matthew 5:44-45 (AMP)
44 But I tell you, Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, 45 To show that you are the children of your Father Who is in heaven; for He makes His sun rise on the wicked and on the good, and makes the rain fall upon the upright and the wrongdoers [alike].

John 13:35 (AMP)
By this shall all [men] know that you are My disciples, if you love one another [if you keep on showing love among yourselves].
And the one that really has spoken to me lately;1 Corinthians 13:5 (AMP)
It is not conceited (arrogant and inflated with pride); it is not rude (unmannerly) and does not act unbecomingly. Love (God's love in us) does not insist on its own rights or its own way, for it is not self-seeking; it is not touchy or fretful or resentful; it takes no account of the evil done to it [it pays no attention to a suffered wrong].
I can't tell you how much 1 Corinthians 13:5 has changed my life in the past few years. It's my desire to walk in that kind of Love, God's Love, towards EVERYONE. It's easy to walk in Love towards someone who is reciprocating that Love. It's a lot harder when people are speaking evil of you or persecuting you. But when we do, we shine forth God's Love in us.
______________________________

I'll be the first to admit I fall short in this. But it does answer the OP, "Why all the anger?" Because we ALL fail to demonstrate God's Love in us.

[Trish1947]

And your impression of our intent was likewise wrong.

Maybe we can just agree to give each other a little bit of grace and not assume that the other is doing something wrong, with wrong motives and not be disappointed with one another?

Shake hands? Let bygones be bygones?
Sure Tamara...and I'm looking forward to reading some of the differences we do have, instead of getting sidelined by posts who they blame for those differences.

[pdudgeon]

Pete, if you please, your post was taken from a thread that i began and have since trashed due to multiple reports. i would appreciate it if this post had not been resurrected, especially here in this forum.

[probinson]

Pete, if you please, your post was taken from a thread that i began and have since trashed due to multiple reports. i would appreciate it if this post had not been resurrected, especially here in this forum.
True, but my post is still my post and my thoughts, regardless of whether another thread that the same post was in was trashed or not. What I will do is remove the portion that I quoted from you.

The post did not violate any rules when it was posted, and it does not violate any rules now. It is my attempt to reach out the olive branch and say, I am sorry that I have not demonstrated God's Love to those that I disagree with, and I will try to do better.

[Tamara224]

True, but my post is still my post and my thoughts, regardless of whether another thread that the same post was in was trashed or not.

The post did not violate any rules when it was posted, and it does not violate any rules now. It is my attempt to reach out the olive branch and say, I am sorry that I have not demonstrated God's Love to those that I disagree with, and I will try to do better.


*Throws up hands*.

Why don't we just trash this subforum then. If WoF people are free to come in and judge us as "obnoxious" and "anti-WoF" with impugnity. Sorry, Pete, but that doesn't strike me as an olive branch at all. Especially considering the fact that only about 6 people regularly post in this forum, it's hard to understand what you mean by "vocal minority". Would that be one person? Or two?

We don't go to the WoF forum and call anyone obnoxious for calling us "anti-faith" people. Can't you do us the same courtesy?

[probinson]

*Throws up hands*.

Why don't we just trash this subforum then. If WoF people are free to come in and judge us as "obnoxious" and "anti-WoF" with impugnity. Sorry, Pete, but that doesn't strike me as an olive branch at all. Especially considering the fact that only about 6 people regularly post in this forum, it's hard to understand what you mean by "vocal minority". Would that be one person? Or two?

We don't go to the WoF forum and call anyone obnoxious for calling us "anti-faith" people. Can't you do us the same courtesy?
I said a very small vocal minority were "obnoxious and anti-WOF".

It may come as a shock to you to know that I also believe that there is a very small but vocal minority of WoF posters that is "obnoxious and anti-nonWoF" for doing the very things you describe in your post (calling people "anti-faith", etc.) I think we ALL should stop. I'm not pointing the finger one way. We all need to do better. That was the point of my post. If it came across any differently, I apologize, for it was not my intent.

[Tamara224]

I said a very small vocal minority were "obnoxious and anti-WOF".

It may come as a shock to you to know that I also believe that there is a very small but vocal minority of WoF posters that is "obnoxious and anti-nonWoF" for doing the very things you describe in your post (calling people "anti-faith", etc.) I think we ALL should stop. I'm not pointing the finger one way. We all need to do better. That was the point of my post. If it came across any differently, I apologize, for it was not my intent.


You're right. I'm a bit jumpy at the moment and jumped all over you. I apologize.

It's never wrong to point out the obvious (that we all need to work on this area).

[probinson]

It's OK Tamara. I accept your apology, and I apologize if my post came across differently than I intended.

But let's not just talk. Let's DO something! Let's work on tearing down these barriers. I have a suggestion, and you all can call me crazy if you think it's a bad idea, but here it is.

What if we create a thread in each forum, both the Word of Faith forum and this one, where we can fellowship with each other? We can cross lines, so to speak, and all of us could post in these threads specifically designed for WoF and non-WoF to share testimonies, fellowship, have fun, get to know each other better, sharing in what the Lord has done for us, and we start to fellowship with each other in an attempt to tear down some walls?

Whaddaya think?

[Tamara224]

It's OK Tamara. I accept your apology, and I apologize if my post came across differently than I intended.

But let's not just talk. Let's DO something! Let's work on tearing down these barriers. I have a suggestion, and you all can call me crazy if you think it's a bad idea, but here it is.

What if we create a thread in each forum, both the Word of Faith forum and this one, where we can fellowship with each other? We can cross lines, so to speak, and all of us could post in these threads specifically designed for WoF and non-WoF to share testimonies, fellowship, have fun, get to know each other better, sharing in what the Lord has done for us, and we start to fellowship with each other in an attempt to tear down some walls?

Whaddaya think?

It's not a bad idea... but why wouldn't we just create it in the main forum where we all regularly attempt to do that to some extent anyway?

I know I'm particularly encouraged when I see, for example, a request for prayer that everyone jumps in to pray about - WoF and Non-WoF and everyone in between.

[probinson]

It's not a bad idea... but why wouldn't we just create it in the main forum where we all regularly attempt to do that to some extent anyway?
Well, my logic for placing 2 threads, one here and one in the WoF forum, was symbolic, in that it's almost like we're inviting each other over for a cup of tea (OK, that's really cheesy), but you get the idea. Anyway, that was my thought process.

[LeadWorship]

I think its a great idea!

Remember, if we desire to improve, we must change.

[Alpine]

The truth is we have way more in common than not.

[lismore]

The truth is we have way more in common than not.

Aye!

:wave:

[Girly3302]

There seem to be more WoF people posting here than in the WoF forum. Maybe we should just rename this forum,"The other WoF Forum":)

[ANM29]

The WOF forum existed even before I arrived. But here's the difference. It states WOF Forum. Our forum doesn't say NON anything.

Why would the terminology of your Christian sisters and brothers offend you all to this level? This says a lot about where your own hearts are...it really does!.....:)

[Tenebrae]

:ebil: :ebil: :ebil: :ebil: :ebil: :ebil: :ebil: :ebil: :ebil: :ebil: :ebil: :ebil: :ebil: :ebil: :ebil: :ebil: :ebil: :ebil: :ebil: :ebil: :ebil: :ebil: Did you know if one was to add a whole lot of these smilies all at once, it looks like they are doing a mexican wave

[synger]

Because that's nothing close to the reason why the forum is named the way it is. It has nothing to do with anger, or hatred, or attack.

It has to do with taxonomy, and the lack of a collective name for "all the charismatics who don't believe A" that isn't more upsetting.

[Tenebrae]

Because that's nothing close to the reason why the forum is named the way it is. It has nothing to do with anger, or hatred, or attack.

It has to do with taxonomy, and the lack of a collective name for "all the charismatics who don't believe A" that isn't more upsetting.
I know that, you know that

Apparently other people would rather play the "Oh poor us, they hate us" card

[jeolmstead]

I just try to love everybody. I do not think I have anything to gain by living down to other’s low expectations of me. I would rather surprise them.

I am glad we have this place where we can explore ideas and doctrines from the point of view we have described here as to what we believe.

If we spend all our time tearing down other groups are we not justifying our critics?

John O.

[Tenebrae]

I just try to love everybody. I do not think I have anything to gain by living down to other’s low expectations of me. I would rather surprise them.

I am glad we have this place where we can explore ideas and doctrines from the point of view we have described here as to what we believe.

If we spend all our time tearing down other groups are we not justifying our critics?

John O.
John

This is me in caustic sarcasm mode. Nothing i say should be taken seriously

[jeolmstead]

John

This is me in caustic sarcasm mode. Nothing i say should be taken seriously
I'm not pointing fingers at anyone but myself.....(I'm the worst offender here)

John O.

[Trish1947]

Why would the terminology of your Christian sisters and brothers offend you all to this level? This says a lot about where your own hearts are...it really does!.....:)
No. I'm sorry you see it that way. I have been WOF too many years to get offended. I have heard it all. I'm more interested in those that know nothing about our forum or yours, coming to the conclusion that it's your forum against anothers beliefs. Which is easy to interpret by the unknowing by the title. It's hard to understand what a heart is getting at, by titles. But I was told already by a few, "I don't care how it appears." But this is old discussion. We can only hope the new ones that come to either forum, can read a heart, if they don't read our SOF's.