|
Post by ScholarGal on Aug 9, 2011 17:48:50 GMT -5
I find it rather offensive when someone tells me, "You can't possibly comprehend my situation, so I won't even try to explain it to you." If more people made attempts to build bridges between those who attend meetings and those who no longer attend meetings, I suspect there would be a lot fewer wounds requiring the support of TLC to recover. Just my 2 cents... Seems that the "bridge building" theme has become a core theme on this thread--and then various actions are suggested as being for or against that theme...I question the theme. "Building bridges" between F&W & Exes is not my goal--never has been. I try to provide help for the Friends and Exes who come to me. I direct them to sources of support and information. I dont go out seeking F&W to "lure" away from meetings...nor do I make a special attempt to be friends with the F&W. Last week I had 5 emails asking for info--people who found me via TTT. Having said that, I do have some friends whose friendships I value who are among the Friends...nearly all are non-exclusive - or are seriously questioning the 2x2 belief system. Most exes are not into "building bridges." That is not their thing. Wouldnt even cross their minds. They have BURNED their bridges and just want to leave it all behind, like a bad dream. To recover and get on with their lives. And when life deals them some hard knocks - they know they can come back to TLC and lick their wounds and talk about it and find solace and empathy there. The common denominator of all regular TLC members is that every member has rejected the meeting system...and that they no longer are members. They have made the break - divorced themselves and left the system behind. Some professed; some were B&R and never professed. No F&W can truly understand the effects that making this break has on someone--unless they make the break themselves. And so TLCers do not want F&W on TLC...as they dont/cant truly understand. Most exes only feel safe letting down their hair with other exes...and TLC is a safe harbor where they feel protected and can talk about anything bothering them and they are treated with respect--which they didnt get on TMB. There would be no TLC if the TMBers had been treating the exes with respect prior to 2 years ago when TLC was launched. The TLC common denominator is NOT rejecting the F&Ws belief in 2x2 Exclusivity. TLCers have a lot more issues than that. There are numerous reasons "Why We Left..." as will be seen soon in the new stories on the new TLC website when it launches. Exclusivity is just one reason among many. So if my activities dont "build bridges" of the type being discussed here - so what? That's not my goal and never was.
|
|
|
Post by emy on Aug 9, 2011 18:08:44 GMT -5
I find it rather offensive when someone tells me, "You can't possibly comprehend my situation, so I won't even try to explain it to you." If more people made attempts to build bridges between those who attend meetings and those who no longer attend meetings, I suspect there would be a lot fewer wounds requiring the support of TLC to recover. Just my 2 cents... AMEN
Seems that the "bridge building" theme has become a core theme on this thread--and then various actions are suggested as being for or against that theme...I question the theme. "Building bridges" between F&W & Exes is not my goal--never has been. I try to provide help for the Friends and Exes who come to me. I direct them to sources of support and information. I dont go out seeking F&W to "lure" away from meetings...nor do I make a special attempt to be friends with the F&W. Last week I had 5 emails asking for info--people who found me via TTT. Having said that, I do have some friends whose friendships I value who are among the Friends...nearly all are non-exclusive - or are seriously questioning the 2x2 belief system. Most exes are not into "building bridges." That is not their thing. Wouldnt even cross their minds. They have BURNED their bridges and just want to leave it all behind, like a bad dream. To recover and get on with their lives. And when life deals them some hard knocks - they know they can come back to TLC and lick their wounds and talk about it and find solace and empathy there. The common denominator of all regular TLC members is that every member has rejected the meeting system...and that they no longer are members. They have made the break - divorced themselves and left the system behind. Some professed; some were B&R and never professed. No F&W can truly understand the effects that making this break has on someone--unless they make the break themselves. And so TLCers do not want F&W on TLC...as they dont/cant truly understand. Most exes only feel safe letting down their hair with other exes...and TLC is a safe harbor where they feel protected and can talk about anything bothering them and they are treated with respect--which they didnt get on TMB. There would be no TLC if the TMBers had been treating the exes with respect prior to 2 years ago when TLC was launched. The TLC common denominator is NOT rejecting the F&Ws belief in 2x2 Exclusivity. TLCers have a lot more issues than that. There are numerous reasons "Why We Left..." as will be seen soon in the new stories on the new TLC website when it launches. Exclusivity is just one reason among many. So if my activities dont "build bridges" of the type being discussed here - so what? That's not my goal and never was.
|
|
|
Post by fred on Aug 9, 2011 18:12:13 GMT -5
Snarky ?........nah, just stand alone facts.
|
|
|
Post by emy on Aug 9, 2011 18:15:41 GMT -5
I think it may be important to make something clear here. This was not written by the atheist Bryan Wilson but by Lonnie Kliever from SMU. I don't really think Southern Methodist University has atheist professors teaching religion classes, but i could be wrong. ->IV.I.TYPES OF DEPARTUREexcerpt; "Contrary to public opinion, the overwhelming majority of defections from new religious movements are a matter of voluntary apostasy. Moreover, the clear majority of those who leave of their own free will speak positively of certain aspects of their past experience. While readily acknowledging the ways a given religious movement failed to meet their personal expectations and spiritual needs, many voluntary defectors have found ways of salvaging some redeeming values from their previous religious associations and activities.
But there are some voluntary apostates from new religious movements who leave deeply embittered and harshly critical of their former religious associations and activities. Their dynamics of separation from a once-loved religious group is analogous to an embittered marital separation and divorce. Both marriage and religion require a significant degree of commitment. The greater the involvement, the more traumatic the break-up. The longer the commitment, the more urgent the need to blame the other for the failed relationship. Long-term and heavily involved members of new religious movements who over time become disenchanted with their religion often throw all of the blame on their former religious associations and activities. They magnify small flaws into huge evils. They turn personal disappointments into malicious betrayals. They even will tell incredible falsehoods to harm their former religion. Not surprisingly, these apostates often appeal, after the fact, to the same brainwashing scenarios usually invoked to justify forcible disengagement from new religious movements."
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 9, 2011 18:22:02 GMT -5
I think it may be important to make something clear here. This was not written by the atheist Bryan Wilson but by Lonnie Kliever from SMU. I don't really think Southern Methodist University has atheist professors teaching religion classes, but i could be wrong. ->IV.I.TYPES OF DEPARTUREexcerpt; "Contrary to public opinion, the overwhelming majority of defections from new religious movements are a matter of voluntary apostasy. Moreover, the clear majority of those who leave of their own free will speak positively of certain aspects of their past experience. While readily acknowledging the ways a given religious movement failed to meet their personal expectations and spiritual needs, many voluntary defectors have found ways of salvaging some redeeming values from their previous religious associations and activities.
But there are some voluntary apostates from new religious movements who leave deeply embittered and harshly critical of their former religious associations and activities. Their dynamics of separation from a once-loved religious group is analogous to an embittered marital separation and divorce. Both marriage and religion require a significant degree of commitment. The greater the involvement, the more traumatic the break-up. The longer the commitment, the more urgent the need to blame the other for the failed relationship. Long-term and heavily involved members of new religious movements who over time become disenchanted with their religion often throw all of the blame on their former religious associations and activities. They magnify small flaws into huge evils. They turn personal disappointments into malicious betrayals. They even will tell incredible falsehoods to harm their former religion. Not surprisingly, these apostates often appeal, after the fact, to the same brainwashing scenarios usually invoked to justify forcible disengagement from new religious movements." Here is what Bryan Wilson says, which is almost identical to Kliever. I would say there is no important distinction. "Neither the objective sociological researcher nor the court of law can readily regard the apostate as a creditable or reliable source of evidence. He must always be seen as one whose personal history predisposes him to bias with respect to both his previous religious commitment and affiliations, the suspicion must arise that he acts from a personal motivation to vindicate himself and to regain his self-esteem, by showing himself to have been first a victim but subsequently to have become a redeemed crusader. As various instances have indicated, he is likely to be suggestible and ready to enlarge or embellish his grievances to satisfy that species of journalist whose interest is more in sensational copy than in a objective statement of the truth."Frankly I disagree with both of them. Facts are the facts whether they come from an apostate or an apologist or a blind man. Opinions are a different matter and neither apostates nor apologists can be trusted to give an objective or authoritative opinion.
|
|
|
Post by emy on Aug 9, 2011 19:43:39 GMT -5
I think it may be important to make something clear here. This was not written by the atheist Bryan Wilson but by Lonnie Kliever from SMU. I don't really think Southern Methodist University has atheist professors teaching religion classes, but i could be wrong. Here is what Bryan Wilson says, which is almost identical to Kliever. I would say there is no important distinction. "Neither the objective sociological researcher nor the court of law can readily regard the apostate as a creditable or reliable source of evidence. He must always be seen as one whose personal history predisposes him to bias with respect to both his previous religious commitment and affiliations, the suspicion must arise that he acts from a personal motivation to vindicate himself and to regain his self-esteem, by showing himself to have been first a victim but subsequently to have become a redeemed crusader. As various instances have indicated, he is likely to be suggestible and ready to enlarge or embellish his grievances to satisfy that species of journalist whose interest is more in sensational copy than in a objective statement of the truth."Frankly I disagree with both of them. Facts are the facts whether they come from an apostate or an apologist or a blind man. Opinions are a different matter and neither apostates nor apologists can be trusted to give an objective or authoritative opinion. Thanks for your comments. Interesting that there isn't significant difference between the research of an atheist and a professor of religious studies! In regard to exit letters from former f&w, would you say they are primarily fact or opinion?
|
|
|
Post by Jesse_Lackman on Aug 9, 2011 21:16:02 GMT -5
Facts are the facts whether they come from an apostate or an apologist or a blind man. Opinions are a different matter and neither apostates nor apologists can be trusted to give an objective or authoritative opinion. Clearday in spite of playing devil's advocate you must understand what I've tried to bring to the discussion because you recently did a slice and dice of exactly what I'm talking about, and what you obviously didn't think was very objective or authoritative; professing.proboards.com/index.cgi?action=display&board=general&thread=17985&page=1#417646The C&P you sliced and diced is a great example what Wilson and Kliever researched and wrote about. Wilson says that kind of apostate testimony is unreliable because, as you said, it's often extremist, i.e. atrocity story.
|
|
|
Post by Jesse_Lackman on Aug 9, 2011 21:42:37 GMT -5
Interesting that there isn't significant difference between the research of an atheist and a professor of religious studies! In regard to exit letters from former f&w, would you say they are primarily fact or opinion? Thanks for reading the links! Good observation. It's not really about facts vs opinion, it's about mixing facts with opinion and extrapolating the mix into an atrocity story. You probably remember Jim Greenfield saying an excuse is "the skin of a reason stuffed with a lie". Well an atrocity story is the skin of a fact stuffed with opinion. An example of that is what ScholarGal referred to as "people who declare that their own experiences in meetings are universal". That is the skin of a fact (their own experience) stuffed with the opinion their experience is universal. The more activist the person is the more likely the story turns into an atrocity story. The more opinion the atrocity story writer uses the more likely they are to state bizarre things in newspaper interviews like "the workers don't read newspapers and things like that".
|
|
|
Post by Jesse_Lackman on Aug 9, 2011 21:47:42 GMT -5
"Atrocity story" in the research is not telling a simple objective story about a factual atrocity, it is a story with a few facts blown up with lots of opinion into something so out of whack the telling of the story almost becomes an atrocity, or extremist like Clearday said.
|
|
|
Post by DumSpiroSpero on Aug 9, 2011 22:12:01 GMT -5
...the well known wisdom that all the F&W internet information is lies.....therefore, ALL former members on the internet are liars. A friend once said "there's more in the bible to condemn the friends and workers than there is on the internet". Good quote JO - what is on the net is fact and/or opinion, sometimes the facts may be shaky and the opinions biased, but hold everything up to the measuring stick of the Word and find the lumps and bumps... And it's the same measuring stick one should use for any denomination one is investigating/considering.
|
|
|
Post by faune on Aug 9, 2011 22:36:29 GMT -5
Cherie shared...Cherie ~ I appreciated what you shared here and agree with you entirely. Speaking for myself, I have BURNED my bridges behind me and have no desire to return to the 2x2's. I enjoy real fellowship today in a new church setting which uplifts my heart and soul. I find on TLC not just a place to vent, but to share experiences and encouragement for others going through the separation process. It wasn't easy for me and I know the same pertains to others who have just exited or left previously, but never got closure on things close to their heart. The solace and empathy found on TLC brings healing and helps a person to eventually move on with their life. It's like an "oasis" for those abused by the F&W's belief system and needing comfort and understanding. However, in addition to this healing element, TLC also provides some nice connecting elements found in the secular and praise music threads where everyone contributes along with the "Laugh for Today" thread where humorous antedotes and videos are shared. Also, the cooks among us, enjoy sharing recipes for holiday occasions. Cherie has been very obliging in this area with some great dishes to explore! This additional sharing of our likes and interests and humorous stories also adds to the attractiveness of TLC, making it a pleasant place to hang out and share and just be ourselves.
|
|
|
Post by emy on Aug 10, 2011 0:08:05 GMT -5
Well, just fyi, we do that here, too. There is more than one page to this site!
|
|
|
Post by someguy on Aug 10, 2011 9:22:42 GMT -5
Emy, I have a question. You state AMEN to scholar gals statement to which I agree but I can't help but wonder how you are about building bridges.
I for one would like to know how you go about trying to build bridges with those who have left and I still don't know if you believe if meetings are the only way. What I am asking is do you feel you could attend another church ie never attend meeting again today and your salvation is safe with Christ? Secondly, how do you personally go about building bridges with those of us who no longer attend?
|
|
|
Post by sharonw on Aug 10, 2011 10:58:07 GMT -5
Here is what Bryan Wilson says, which is almost identical to Kliever. I would say there is no important distinction. "Neither the objective sociological researcher nor the court of law can readily regard the apostate as a creditable or reliable source of evidence. He must always be seen as one whose personal history predisposes him to bias with respect to both his previous religious commitment and affiliations, the suspicion must arise that he acts from a personal motivation to vindicate himself and to regain his self-esteem, by showing himself to have been first a victim but subsequently to have become a redeemed crusader. As various instances have indicated, he is likely to be suggestible and ready to enlarge or embellish his grievances to satisfy that species of journalist whose interest is more in sensational copy than in a objective statement of the truth."Frankly I disagree with both of them. Facts are the facts whether they come from an apostate or an apologist or a blind man. Opinions are a different matter and neither apostates nor apologists can be trusted to give an objective or authoritative opinion. Thanks for your comments. Interesting that there isn't significant difference between the research of an atheist and a professor of religious studies! In regard to exit letters from former f&w, would you say they are primarily fact or opinion? I believe both....at least from the writer's viewpoint. And strangely enough. a lot of them perhaps sounds enough alike that the truth is within them.
|
|
|
Post by faune on Aug 10, 2011 11:19:05 GMT -5
Jesse shouldn't take it personally when criticism is levelled at the fellowship. The criticism is towards the culture and beliefs that result in atrocities - not towards "us" personally. I've experienced enough atrocities off-line to not be surprised at anything I read on-line. Let's learn from the atrocities and change the ungodly culture and beliefs that cause them. As I've heard a management guru say: "work on the system, and leave the people alone". Amen to that comment JO. This gets to the core of the problems that resulted in the exodus of many of us. I truly do not believe that any who are in the fellowship initiated the culture and beliefs - these unwritten things became part of them by osmosis (someone on this forum used that term....I like it). It is collectively up to the entire group of those who enjoy the fellowship they have with one another to work in unity to clean up the ungodly culture and beliefs that help to form the system. Some just don't know how to go about doing so or feel so insignificant and small in the scheme of things that they simply choose to stay and enjoy the things they like about the system(specifically the fellowship with those they love) and ignore the things that don't believe they can change(ungodly attitudes and beliefs of many within). Don't rock the boat so to speak. Personally, I feel most decide to leave when they learn the real gospel story found only in Jesus and the Cross and not found in belonging to some ministry centered around the workers. I read a testimony on line today that brought home this point that I share with you. I also came to the same realization of our need to put our faith in Christ, repentance towards God and acceptance of His blood sacrifice on our behalf for our salvation. Since this is not really taught in the Gospel Meetings, but rather acceptance of the workers as "God's Sent Ones" and "God in the flesh" ~ this concept of the gospel message is changed to believing in the 2x2 belief system for your salvation. Therefore, if somebody is putting their faith in this fact of belonging to this "Perfect Way" and not in Christ and the Cross, I feel they need to re-evaluate their beliefs in light of the Word of God?
|
|
|
Post by imnx2 on Aug 10, 2011 11:37:33 GMT -5
Personally, I feel most decide to leave when they learn the real gospel story found only in Jesus and the Cross and not found in belonging to some ministry around the workers. I read a testimony on line today that brought home this point that I share with you. I also came to the same realization of our need to put our faith in Christ, repentance towards God and acceptance of His blood sacrifice on our behalf for our salvation. Since this is not really taught in the Gospel Meetings, but rather acceptance of the workers as "God's Sent Ones" and "God in the flesh" ~ this concept of the gospel message is changed to believing in the 2x2 belief system for your salvation. Therefore, if somebody is putting their faith in this fact of belonging to this "Perfect Way" and not in Christ and the Cross, I feel they need to re-evaluate their beliefs in light of the Word of God. The workers' public meetings are not simply gospel meetings. The gospel is preached. So is the workers' ministry and church. There is teaching of what the gospel is and who Jesus is. There is teaching on what believing in and following Jesus is about. There is teaching about what the world is and what is acceptable to God. Worldly churches are out and the workers' church is in. The concept of denying one's self and accepting Jesus is attributed to almost everything about the operation and administration of the church.
|
|
|
Post by faune on Aug 10, 2011 12:31:14 GMT -5
Personally, I feel most decide to leave when they learn the real gospel story found only in Jesus and the Cross and not found in belonging to some ministry around the workers. I read a testimony on line today that brought home this point that I share with you. I also came to the same realization of our need to put our faith in Christ, repentance towards God and acceptance of His blood sacrifice on our behalf for our salvation. Since this is not really taught in the Gospel Meetings, but rather acceptance of the workers as "God's Sent Ones" and "God in the flesh" ~ this concept of the gospel message is changed to believing in the 2x2 belief system for your salvation. Therefore, if somebody is putting their faith in this fact of belonging to this "Perfect Way" and not in Christ and the Cross, I feel they need to re-evaluate their beliefs in light of the Word of God. The workers' public meetings are not simply gospel meetings. The gospel is preached. So is the workers' ministry and church. There is teaching of what the gospel is and who Jesus is. There is teaching on what believing in and following Jesus is about. There is teaching about what the world is and what is acceptable to God. Worldly churches are out and the workers' church is in. The concept of denying one's self and accepting Jesus is attributed to almost everything about the operation and administration of the church.Greg ~ And don't forget to add all the "unwritten rules" which qualify you for salvation that are added after you profess in these gospel meetings, as you outlined earlier in a post.
|
|
|
Post by faune on Aug 10, 2011 12:34:49 GMT -5
Emy, I have a question. You state AMEN to scholar gals statement to which I agree but I can't help but wonder how you are about building bridges. I for one would like to know how you go about trying to build bridges with those who have left and I still don't know if you believe if meetings are the only way. What I am asking is do you feel you could attend another church ie never attend meeting again today and your salvation is safe with Christ? Secondly, how do you personally go about building bridges with those of us who no longer attend? Emy ~ I don't believe I remember you answering this question by "someguy?" I'm especially curious about the one highlighted in blue? Would you feel you had lost out or lost your salvation if you ever departed the fellowship of the F&W's and attended another church? If so, please explain why?
|
|
|
Post by faune on Aug 10, 2011 13:50:37 GMT -5
Good explanation someguy. It is perfectly rational that a site like this would be more negative seeming than positive seeming. Negatives are not acceptable within the church, so the negatives get discussed here.....it's really that simple. There may be (but I don't know of this) some scheming conspirators out there trying to twist minds.... but so what? If a reader isn't good at discerning good from bad, they shouldn't be here until they do develop some discernment capabilities. This isn't a great place for children or people who need to be propped up by a steady stream of Pollyanna statements. Clearday ~ Great point! Also, some of those threads were initiated by yours truly and I noticed they got quite a lot of viewing and comments ~ especially the ones relating to William Irvine and the concept of Jesus viewed as God Incarnate. These threads I initiated are shown below: However, i noticed Jesse did forgot two other postings of mine: "Myths about Cults" and "What is the Trinity?" I feel these are issues that should be of concern among the friends, and not just passed over as negative statements, because their whole belief system hinges on these early teachings by its founder, William Irvine, who was opposed to Christian doctrine and his sermons and teachings reflect this fact! Personally, I would like to know that what's I'm following is based in the Word of God and not in some contrived notion of some man's take on the gospel message transformed into a belief system?
|
|
|
Post by placid-void on Aug 10, 2011 14:37:57 GMT -5
Emy, I have a question. You state AMEN to scholar gals statement to which I agree but I can't help but wonder how you are about building bridges. I for one would like to know how you go about trying to build bridges with those who have left . . . . . . ? I am not answering for Emy. I am responding as one who has "left" (many years ago). Emy has built a bridge to me by being warm, friendly and patient when I have asked questions or expressed an opinion. I don't believe that it betrays a trust to say that we have exchanged PMs from time to time. In the PMs (which are more focussed than exchanges on the board) she expresses herself clearly, answers questions directly and she "listens" to my point of view with both interest and compassion. On several points our beliefs and experiences are quite different. But I can honestly say that after a flurry of PM exchanges, I always feel that we both understand and respect each other's view even when we may not share the same point of view. I have never asked more, nor less, of friends or colleagues. I hope this response at least partially answers your question as to how Emy builds bridges, someguy.
|
|
|
Post by emy on Aug 10, 2011 15:11:19 GMT -5
Emy, I have a question. You state AMEN to scholar gals statement to which I agree but I can't help but wonder how you are about building bridges. I for one would like to know how you go about trying to build bridges with those who have left and I still don't know if you believe if meetings are the only way. What I am asking is do you feel you could attend another church ie never attend meeting again today and your salvation is safe with Christ? Secondly, how do you personally go about building bridges with those of us who no longer attend? What I am asking is do you feel you could attend another church ie never attend meeting again today and your salvation is safe with Christ? No, because God has not led me there. Yknot has answered some about how I build bridges. I do much more on a face-to-face (sometimes online ) basis than a open forum basis. I also welcome people I know personally who no longer have fellowship with us to my home, if there is occasion to do so. I encourage anyone who would be interested who hasn't been to meeting for awhile to join me in going to meeting. If they attend a church I will go with them, but (I think I have said this before) not at the expense of missing a convenient meeting. I keep in touch with more distant relatives who are not part of this fellowship. (Well, I'm not the greatest at keeping in touch with ANYONE, but I try!) OK?
|
|
|
Post by imnx2 on Aug 10, 2011 16:32:00 GMT -5
What if an apostate had a positive 'review' of their former religious group? Is that acceptable?
I have no atrocity stories, though there be things I rather would not have seen and heard, and for that matter, done. Nothing big or horrendous on either part....others or mine.
The first four years I perfessed were great. After I went into the work my joy started to decline. Eventually I left.
As 'what' has indicated and probably as many think, the church works for some, but is not for all.
I think it works for quite a few B&R, but is mostly unknown by perhaps 99%+ of the rest of the world.
|
|
|
Post by faune on Aug 10, 2011 19:55:15 GMT -5
Emy, I have a question. You state AMEN to scholar gals statement to which I agree but I can't help but wonder how you are about building bridges. I for one would like to know how you go about trying to build bridges with those who have left and I still don't know if you believe if meetings are the only way. What I am asking is do you feel you could attend another church ie never attend meeting again today and your salvation is safe with Christ? Secondly, how do you personally go about building bridges with those of us who no longer attend? What I am asking is do you feel you could attend another church ie never attend meeting again today and your salvation is safe with Christ? No, because God has not led me there. Yknot has answered some about how I build bridges. I do much more on a face-to-face (sometimes online ) basis than a open forum basis. I also welcome people I know personally who no longer have fellowship with us to my home, if there is occasion to do so. I encourage anyone who would be interested who hasn't been to meeting for awhile to join me in going to meeting. If they attend a church I will go with them, but (I think I have said this before) not at the expense of missing a convenient meeting. I keep in touch with more distant relatives who are not part of this fellowship. (Well, I'm not the greatest at keeping in touch with ANYONE, but I try!) OK? Emy ~ I'm impressed with your efforts to "build bridges" with departed friends. The fact that you have any contact at all with those who have left and even invite them into your home, is very admirable on your part! However, you are a "rare breed" within the F&W's, I'm sure, because most of the friends just write you off the minute you leave the fellowship. There is none if any effort to find out why or to express regret over your decision. It's as if you never attended meetings for most of your life once you leave. I speak this from my own experience and have heard the same from others who learned just how little anybody within the faith really cared about them afterall. The shunning that usually begins way before you exit is no longer necessary and another chapter is closed.
|
|
|
Post by imnx2 on Aug 10, 2011 20:13:50 GMT -5
Emy ~ I'm impressed with your efforts to "build bridges" with departed friends. The fact that you have any contact at all with those who have left and even invite them into your home, is very admirable on your part! However, you are a "rare breed" within the F&W's, I'm sure, because most of the friends just write you off the minute you leave the fellowship. There is none if any effort to find out why or to express regret over your decision. It's as if you never attended meetings for most of your life once you leave. I speak this from my own experience and have heard the same from others who learned just how little anybody within the faith really cared about them afterall. The shunning that usually begins way before you exit is no longer necessary and another chapter is closed. I think there are many like Emy in the fellowship, but I can't say either way if that be a majority or not. I wonder how many exes invited F&W for a visit after leaving. Pretty much the group seems to be just written off upon leaving. Some of the F&W might not be strong in 'faith' and obviously those that left were not. With whom would you want communication? Someone to strengthen your faith or weaken? Besides, you know that they expect learning to be done in the meetings. If you don't get it after being in the fellowship, what are you going to get in leaving? And if you are looking for fellowship and are non-exclusive, there plenty of those.
|
|
|
Post by placid-void on Aug 10, 2011 20:54:53 GMT -5
[Emy ~ I'm impressed with your efforts to "build bridges" with departed friends. The fact that you have any contact at all with those who have left and even invite them into your home, is very admirable on your part! However, you are a "rare breed" within the F&W's, I'm sure, because most of the friends just write you off the minute you leave the fellowship. There is none if any effort to find out why or to express regret over your decision. It's as if you never attended meetings for most of your life once you leave. I speak this from my own experience and have heard the same from others who learned just how little anybody within the faith really cared about them afterall. The shunning that usually begins way before you exit is no longer necessary and another chapter is closed. It makes me so very sad to hear of these types of experiences. I have never been able to understand why good people are abandoned by people who were once friends and particularily when the abandonment is related to religious convictions. I can only say that my personal experiences where completely different from some of the experiences related on this and other threads. Excommunication and shunning were not a part of my experience. I never felt estranged from either family or friends who were part of the F&W fellowship. I did "withdraw emotionally" from my own spiritual life for years, to my own detriment, but I have always felt welcomed and encouraged by both "friends" and "workers" whom I have interacted with throughout the intervening years. All of the choices that I have made in my spiritual life (to leave the fellowship, to marry outside the fellowship, to live my life independent of the fellowship) have always been accepted as my choices and I have always been treated with respect. On the few occasions that I have sought advice or guidance from those with whom I once had fellowship, the advice and guidance has always been given with compassion and understanding.
|
|
|
Post by pinky on Aug 12, 2011 0:59:25 GMT -5
What I am asking is do you feel you could attend another church ie never attend meeting again today and your salvation is safe with Christ? No, because God has not led me there. Here is how I view it. Our relationship with God, and what grants us salvation should be no different in our current life than if we were to find ourself stranded solo on a desert island for the remainder of our life (or even our entire lives). Nothing hinges on the denomination we are or are not a part of, nor the religion we call ourself. What meaning would this have on a desert island with no-one around to hear/see/know? It's just you, your mind, your heart, your soul, and God. You take Him and these parts of you everywhere that you go. And you either acknowledge Him and desire relationship from your very core, or you don't. And if you move from one desert island to another, or across to the other side, you don't and can't lose God. Because he is connected to what is inside of you. Your heart, your mind, your soul. The rest is just wrapping (or trapping). Hope I'm making sense.
|
|
|
Post by kencoolidge on Aug 12, 2011 5:32:13 GMT -5
What I am asking is do you feel you could attend another church ie never attend meeting again today and your salvation is safe with Christ? No, because God has not led me there. Here is how I view it. Our relationship with God, and what grants us salvation should be no different in our current life than if we were to find ourself stranded solo on a desert island for the remainder of our life (or even our entire lives). Nothing hinges on the denomination we are or are not a part of, nor the religion we call ourself. What meaning would this have on a desert island with no-one around to hear/see/know? It's just you, your mind, your heart, your soul, and God. You take Him and these parts of you everywhere that you go. And you either acknowledge Him and desire relationship from your very core, or you don't. And if you move from one desert island to another, or across to the other side, you don't and can't lose God. Because he is connected to what is inside of you. Your heart, your mind, your soul. The rest is just wrapping (or trapping). Hope I'm making sense. Pinky I believe exactly the same. We appreciate fellowship with those who have surrendered to God but our life and worship will go on without them if neccesary even in isolation. Its the personal connection with the Holy Spirit that is our life not a connection with anything else. Gal 2:20 I am crucified with Christ: nevertheless I live; yet not I, but Christ liveth in me: and the life which I now live in the flesh I live by the faith of the Son of God, who loved me, and gave himself for me. ken
|
|
|
Post by emy on Aug 12, 2011 11:04:00 GMT -5
What I am asking is do you feel you could attend another church ie never attend meeting again today and your salvation is safe with Christ? No, because God has not led me there. Here is how I view it. Our relationship with God, and what grants us salvation should be no different in our current life than if we were to find ourself stranded solo on a desert island for the remainder of our life (or even our entire lives). Nothing hinges on the denomination we are or are not a part of, nor the religion we call ourself. What meaning would this have on a desert island with no-one around to hear/see/know? It's just you, your mind, your heart, your soul, and God. You take Him and these parts of you everywhere that you go. And you either acknowledge Him and desire relationship from your very core, or you don't. And if you move from one desert island to another, or across to the other side, you don't and can't lose God. Because he is connected to what is inside of you. Your heart, your mind, your soul. The rest is just wrapping (or trapping). Hope I'm making sense. You are making sense and I believe the same thing. But since I do not live on an isolated desert island, I do choose to have fellowship with others who believe the same way. One belief I have may differ. We CAN lose God if we make a habit of ignoring Him (conscience seared). The Bible says some may do this and they depart from the faith.
|
|