|
FOUNDER
Feb 12, 2009 19:43:37 GMT -5
Post by Dubious Disciple (xdc) on Feb 12, 2009 19:43:37 GMT -5
dc! I'm under the impression that the majority of the workers have taught the idea that the Jews are God's chosen people and the Gentiles that believe in Christ Jesus are the Jews' adopted brethren! Oh. Well, remember, anybody that wants into the New Jerusalem is going to have to choose one of the twelve tribes and enter through their door. There are only twelve doors. I wanna be adopted by Gad, I always liked that name.
|
|
|
FOUNDER
Feb 13, 2009 10:24:22 GMT -5
Post by Sharon on Feb 13, 2009 10:24:22 GMT -5
dc! I'm under the impression that the majority of the workers have taught the idea that the Jews are God's chosen people and the Gentiles that believe in Christ Jesus are the Jews' adopted brethren! Oh. Well, remember, anybody that wants into the New Jerusalem is going to have to choose one of the twelve tribes and enter through their door. There are only twelve doors. I wanna be adopted by Gad, I always liked that name. AWWWW, dc! Most of us want adopted through the tribe of Judah! It's such a royal tribe! BTW, watch the adopting through the tribe of Dan...he isn't mentioned in Rev.
|
|
|
FOUNDER
Feb 14, 2009 18:00:10 GMT -5
Post by ClayRandall on Feb 14, 2009 18:00:10 GMT -5
I was thinking tonight about this great debate that is raging about WI.I think the debate is very murky and the reason is, there are two sides to a church... The "murkiness" is because of the lack of a formal declaration of faith. 2x2s claim certain aspects of Christian belief but there is no official establishment of beliefs. Perversely, the more specific and explicit the article the faith the less it has to do with actual faith; for example, you'll get 5 different arguments about salvation by grace from 5 different workers, but the message about what kind of building you should meet in is never in doubt. Women's style of dress, TVs, etc all have fairly explicit guidelines but spiritual matters do not. This is convenient when trying to claim apostolic succession because they can point to generic similarities and say, "See? The apostles loved Jesus and so do we; therefore, we are in direct, generational succession from them.? It is as ridiculous as it is pathetic.
|
|
|
FOUNDER
Feb 14, 2009 18:19:32 GMT -5
Post by september on Feb 14, 2009 18:19:32 GMT -5
dc! I'm under the impression that the majority of the workers have taught the idea that the Jews are God's chosen people and the Gentiles that believe in Christ Jesus are the Jews' adopted brethren! This is absolutely NOT taught in Ireland. Tommie Gamble and others have repeatedly dismissed the Jews as God's chosen people and that Jews no longer mean anything to God. God's chosen people are those in the fellowship and none other.
|
|
|
FOUNDER
Feb 14, 2009 19:05:32 GMT -5
Post by Sharon on Feb 14, 2009 19:05:32 GMT -5
dc! I'm under the impression that the majority of the workers have taught the idea that the Jews are God's chosen people and the Gentiles that believe in Christ Jesus are the Jews' adopted brethren! This is absolutely NOT taught in Ireland. Tommie Gamble and others have repeatedly dismissed the Jews as God's chosen people and that Jews no longer mean anything to God. God's chosen people are those in the fellowship and none other. This is a sad thing then! The Jews are God's chosen people from early on....there will yet be a remnant to be gathered in with those who believe in Christ Jesus...the Bible tells it is so... The workers that I've questioned about the remnant of Jews say that this remmant is being steadily chosen all along...maybe that's where TG and others think that the Jews are lost and out in the dark? But I really think that this is wrong or as much wrong as to exclude others who profess to believe in Christ Jesus REGARDLESS of their church affiliation and even those who have NO church affiliation. Church affiliation isn't the way to salvation, it is only a disciplinary measure to keep us much like a schoolmaster keeps his students minds upon their school work!
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
FOUNDER
Feb 18, 2009 12:49:29 GMT -5
Post by Deleted on Feb 18, 2009 12:49:29 GMT -5
It's amazing the distance some will go to argue against reality. The founder of the 2x2's are the ex's. The friends and workers I know declare that their God is the founder and Jesus their foundation.
|
|
|
FOUNDER
Feb 18, 2009 15:05:28 GMT -5
Post by ilylo on Feb 18, 2009 15:05:28 GMT -5
The founder of the 2x2's are the ex's. This is an example of how you announce that you don't wish to be taken seriously on this forum.
|
|
|
FOUNDER
Feb 18, 2009 17:05:59 GMT -5
Post by Sharon on Feb 18, 2009 17:05:59 GMT -5
It's amazing the distance some will go to argue against reality. The founder of the 2x2's are the ex's. The friends and workers I know declare that their God is the founder and Jesus their foundation. To be totally factual...the 2X2's are the Cooneyites! And I am not making aspersions against EC or his followers at all! They have their right to worship as they choose! The F&W's are just that, also known as the truth's fellowship, the truth.....
|
|
White Knight
Senior Member
THE SHADOW KNOWS. In the shadow of the highest is a refuge from all fear.
Posts: 510
|
FOUNDER
Feb 28, 2009 13:30:36 GMT -5
Post by White Knight on Feb 28, 2009 13:30:36 GMT -5
Please tell me; if WmI was no longer accepted, nor EC, How does that make us his/there followers. Last count I found was WmI's 20-30, EC's 100, The Truth, the Way, 2x2's 260,000. That was back several yrs ago.
|
|
|
FOUNDER
Feb 28, 2009 15:12:58 GMT -5
Post by september on Feb 28, 2009 15:12:58 GMT -5
Please tell me; if WmI was no longer accepted, nor EC, How does that make us his/there followers. Last count I found was WmI's 20-30, EC's 100, The Truth, the Way, 2x2's 260,000. That was back several yrs ago. People in the fellowship are not followers of WM, EC or any other mortal except maybe St. Paul, if the some workers are to be taken at face value. What they are participating in is a fellowship formed by WM and EC (primarily)and others. Some may call this a founding or beginning of the fellowship but the essence is the same.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
FOUNDER
Feb 28, 2009 15:24:26 GMT -5
Post by Deleted on Feb 28, 2009 15:24:26 GMT -5
Please tell me; if WmI was no longer accepted, nor EC, How does that make us his/there followers. Last count I found was WmI's 20-30, EC's 100, The Truth, the Way, 2x2's 260,000. That was back several yrs ago. White Knight, do you regard the spiritual progeny of William Irvine and Co. as the only true messengers of God ? Do you believe in the ministry without a home and the church in the home as set up by Irvine and Co. as being the only true way to serve God ? If you answer "yes" to one or both of these questions then you have been influenced by the beliefs which Irvine and Co. created. Even if a person has never heard of Irvine and Cooney et al and believes the Apostolic Succession historical over-ride, if they answer "yes" to these questions then there we have an "Irvinist !" Irvinism isn't about numbers. It is about beliefs.
|
|
White Knight
Senior Member
THE SHADOW KNOWS. In the shadow of the highest is a refuge from all fear.
Posts: 510
|
FOUNDER
Feb 28, 2009 16:27:39 GMT -5
Post by White Knight on Feb 28, 2009 16:27:39 GMT -5
Please keep to the whole of the subject and stop the possum game of confusions.
|
|
|
FOUNDER
Feb 28, 2009 18:44:41 GMT -5
Post by september on Feb 28, 2009 18:44:41 GMT -5
Please keep to the whole of the subject and stop the possum game of confusions. To whom do you direct your question?
|
|
White Knight
Senior Member
THE SHADOW KNOWS. In the shadow of the highest is a refuge from all fear.
Posts: 510
|
FOUNDER
Feb 28, 2009 19:16:35 GMT -5
Post by White Knight on Feb 28, 2009 19:16:35 GMT -5
To whom it may concern.
|
|
|
FOUNDER
Feb 28, 2009 19:29:50 GMT -5
Post by Sharon on Feb 28, 2009 19:29:50 GMT -5
The subject is "Founder"...I personally have no problem with "Founder" but feel perhaps that there should be more then one to be credited. If the Impartial Reporter is to be believed, EC was at least a first leutenant to WI.
|
|
|
FOUNDER
Feb 28, 2009 20:17:23 GMT -5
Post by placid-void on Feb 28, 2009 20:17:23 GMT -5
Ram, the “logical” construct you set up in reply #538 above really confuses me. Here is how I break it down:
Let a = the spiritual progeny of William Irvine and Co. and b = the only true messengers of God.
Then
Let c = those who believe in the ministry without a home and the church in the home as set up by Irvine and Co. and d = the only true way to serve God.
Then you state;
If a = b and/or c = d then you are an Irvinist even if you have no knowledge of either a or c.
Did I break-down your logical construct correctly?
Now, isn’t ‘a’ approximately equivalent to ‘c’ and isn’t ‘b’ similar to ‘d‘? If so, then what difference does it make if one selects a = b or c = d or both. Further if you are unaware of ‘a’ and unaware of ‘c’ how can one select either a = b or c = d?
It seems that you are saying: If ‘b’ or If ‘d’ then you are an Irvinist even if you are clueless as to what an Irvinist is.
I am not a student of formal logic but I am not sure that your construct even qualifies as circular reasoning, I am just uncertain as to what type of reasoning it represents.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 1, 2009 7:52:13 GMT -5
I'm not sure how to classify ram's logic either, but it makes sense.
It's like someone joining the Communist Party because of its ideals. One way or another, that would make you at least partly a Marxist, whether you ever heard of Karl Marx or not. So many of his Socialist ideas would be embedded in a 21st century Communist Party that a member's connection to Marx would be inevitable. Even if you tried to distance yourself from Marx or deny his founding status, you are still, to some degree, a Marxist.
Certain things that Irvine formulated and strongly espoused remain a feature of the 2x2 fellowship today. We can't escape Irvine no matter how hard we try to deny him or cover him up. We would have to make fundamental changes to the fellowship and most people wouldn't stand for that.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 1, 2009 8:19:44 GMT -5
Ynot, sorry maths wasn't my subject. That's my failing, not yours. Clearday gives a better account as far as my understanding goes. Thanks Clearday.
ps perhaps I'm reading too much Todd lately ?
|
|
|
FOUNDER
Mar 1, 2009 10:37:43 GMT -5
Post by placid-void on Mar 1, 2009 10:37:43 GMT -5
No problem at all, Ram. Actually, even though I used symbols like ‘a = b’, I was trying to capture the logic of your argument not the mathematics thereof.
Indeed, Clearday, you have developed a powerful analogy.
Let’s explore the analogy a little further. Just as an aside, isn’t it interesting that someone who joined the Communist Party would be considered a Marxist but they would not be referred to as an Englesist, even though the manifesto was the product of their combined creativity. Sort of like Irvinist and Cooneyite, I guess. Except Marx and Engles didn’t have a falling out like Irvin and Cooney, huh?
But back to your main point. It intrigues me that Marx was influenced by people like Engles, Hegel and Fauerbach. Now these folks had also been influenced by others. For example, Hegel was apparently strongly influenced by Kant and a fellow named Bohme. Bohme, in turn had been strongly influenced by kaballists and neoplatonists. For awhile, I understand that the neoplatonists had some influence on Augustine of Hippo. A significant influence on the neoplatonists had been a fellow named Origen. And we know that Origen was definitely influenced by Christ.
So just stopping to catch our breath for a moment, doesn’t that imply that Communists can trace their roots back to Christ? Seems like that might set up somewhat of a conundrum for some Communists since they see themselves as atheists, but at least worthy of a moment of reflection.
Of course this line of reasoning is fraught with error, misunderstanding and misinterpretation, but I offer it to suggest an idea that has been useful for me. No matter how strong the urge or how strong the data, I think that it is unwise to force the ideas, convictions and beliefs of others into neatly labeled little boxes.
My wife introduced me to a simple concept some time ago that I really like.
She says “Nobody is just one thing”.
Rather, I think we are all the product of all of our experiences.
As I have said many times before, I have no bone to pick with either the Irvinist nor the non-Irvinist. If the people and experiences I enjoyed in the 2X2 fellowship were the product of one man’s ideas or the consequence of a cascade of ideas flowing back into the mists of history, it matters little to me, my experiences are just as real to me in either case.
Similarly, in your analogy, if I were a Communist, it would not be of particular importance to me if you called me a Communist, a Marxist or Trotskyite. The labels may be important to you so that you can classify me in your mind, but I would still subscribe and hold to the same tenets and beliefs about Communism, no matter how you chose to classify me.
Do you see things differently from this?
|
|
|
FOUNDER
Mar 1, 2009 13:10:33 GMT -5
Post by placid-void on Mar 1, 2009 13:10:33 GMT -5
Ah, Clearday, once again you have lit my fires (or perhaps ‘lit my fuse’ would be more apt).
Your Marxist analogy is truly powerful. It keeps me thinking (always a dangerous thing).
Consider the following:
Many people today use the 3-4-5 Rule.
Can’t say for sure, but I would wager that some significant proportion of those using the 3-4-5 Rule have never heard of Pythagoras. Now if I understand your logic correctly, even if a person is not familiar with Pythagoras, if that person uses the 3-4-5 Rule then that person is in fact a Pythagorian.
Now Pythagorians believe in the transmigration of the soul. By this logic, then, last summer when I was laying out the footprint for a deck and used the 3-4-5 Rule, I was practicing Pythagoras’ Theorem which by your logic means that I am by definition a Pythagorian which means that I also believe in the transmigration of the soul. Is this correct?
I know this example is silly, but does it not suggest some caution in the application of the logic you are proffering?
|
|
|
FOUNDER
Mar 1, 2009 17:38:45 GMT -5
Post by placid-void on Mar 1, 2009 17:38:45 GMT -5
Clearday, I continue to be captivated by your analogy.
Consider the number of Marxist in Eastern Europe in 1984 and compare that with the number of Marxist there in 1994.
You say “Even if you tried to distance yourself from Marx or deny his founding status, you are still, to some degree, a Marxist.”
So all of those who were born in Eastern Europe after WWII and joined the Communist Party perhaps because their Mommy and Daddy belonged to the Communist Party, are they all Marxist, in your opinion? And how do you classify them after the Wall came Tumbling Down?
How much do you suppose the Marxist at the Paris Commune in 1871 have in common with the Marxists on a soup-line in Moscow in 1943 or a Marxist in the Cultural Revolution in 1970 or a Marxist in a Beijing Bank today in 2009. They all would have a common label (Marxist), but do you suppose that they all have a common Belief Structure?
What concerns me about the logic you espouse is that the consequence of labeling individuals is not to improve communications/interactions but rather, in my view, such labeling tends to condemn, marginalize and/or deligitimize individuals’ beliefs and views.
We have a case of this going on right now in this country. There is a whole spectrum of ideas as to what should be done about insolvent banks. But citizens cannot participate in an honest debate about these options because some of the ideas get bundled up into a concept called “Nationalization”. As soon as that word is uttered all rational conversation ends. So we have conveniently labeled some ideas but we have stopped constructive debate.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
FOUNDER
Mar 1, 2009 17:58:33 GMT -5
Post by Deleted on Mar 1, 2009 17:58:33 GMT -5
In a F&W's sense the workers today are still influenced by what Irvine taught and believed all these years ago, even if they have neither heard of him or agree with/recognise him. They are still influenced by him to one degree or another.
|
|
|
FOUNDER
Mar 1, 2009 20:20:11 GMT -5
Post by Sharon on Mar 1, 2009 20:20:11 GMT -5
In a F&W's sense the workers today are still influenced by what Irvine taught and believed all these years ago, even if they have neither heard of him or agree with/recognise him. They are still influenced by him to one degree or another. The apparent handing-down of the exclusive factor is strong and the effects of it on minds and egos are becoming so very apparent. A religion that based itself on "humility" is losing any trace of that in spite of the "form" dictated as in appearance....that is so sad. But so human
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
FOUNDER
Mar 1, 2009 20:42:45 GMT -5
Post by Deleted on Mar 1, 2009 20:42:45 GMT -5
Hey yknot, your prolific thought process is wearing me out....I can't keep up! Maybe go read an Archie comic to slow your brain down. Anyway, what we are really talking about on this thread and in your posts is the process of labelling, and the challenge we are having in labelling Irvine. I disagree with you that labelling is done to condemn and marginalize, although that has been a long time usage of labeling. We are inclined to label as a shortcut method of describing something unique or outstanding about someone without having to go into a long dissertation about it. If we label WI as founder or co-founder, that label tells a huge story all by itself. If our group is going to have a future, we must first begin to understand the past. I thought the Marxist parallel was nice and clean but you muddied it up on me. You have lots of interesting thoughts on it. I remember a good high school friend of mine, class valedictorian, went to the left after leaving high school. I noticed him being involved in some far left demonstrations at university and ran into him on campus one day, and began inquiring as to his developing philosophy. I asked him if he was Marxist, and he said no, his political philosphy came from Russia. So, Leninist then? Definitely not, he was a Trotskyist! For him, there was a big distinction but to me, by then firmly in the Adam Smith camp, it all seemed the same. Similarly, labels are significantly different to different people. For a non-2x2 individual, Irvinists, Cooneyites, 2x2's, Go Preachers, The Truth etc. are all the same to them and effectively indistinguishable to them. However, to those of us with intimate experience in the meetings, each label will have a unique meaning because of our detailed knowledge of the system and its history. You make an interesting projection of Marxism back to Christ as an example of stretching things. Actually, I have no doubt that there was a Living Witness connection of Irvine back to Christ, but not in the 2x2 format of course. Sorry I haven't responded to all your thoughts, but will get this one out there now anyway.
|
|
|
FOUNDER
Mar 1, 2009 20:46:24 GMT -5
Post by Sharon on Mar 1, 2009 20:46:24 GMT -5
clearday! Please expound on this " Actually, I have no doubt that there was a Living Witness connection of Irvine back to Christ, but not in the 2x2 format of course." Thank you!
|
|
|
FOUNDER
Mar 1, 2009 22:01:15 GMT -5
Post by placid-void on Mar 1, 2009 22:01:15 GMT -5
Clearday, I am heading in to get my Archie comics in just a minute. . . . . . .
Thanks for your comments. The story about your high school friend is both interesting and relevant. As you proceeded through the list (Marx, Lenin and Trotsky) your friend knew all along what he actually believed, you were the one looking for a place to put him in your mind. Arbitrarily assigning him a label other than the label he associated with himself would not have been appropriate for either him or yourself.
Now, lets look at the real question for this thread as you express it:
"If we label WI as founder or co-founder, that label tells a huge story all by itself. If our group is going to have a future, we must first begin to understand the past."
I agree, labeling WI as founder or co-founder tells a huge story. Now there is some fraction of "your group" that does NOT believe (perhaps based only on faith) that it is appropriate or proper to put WI in the founder/co-founder box. What is to be done with these folks?
In order for the group to have a future what must be done with those who use a filing system different from your own? - must these people be convinced of their "error", - must you wait for them to die out or leave the fellowship, - must these people be marginalized, - must their faith be ignored, - must they be ridiculed.
I guess my question is, how do you avoid a schism? Just wait and hope that the problem goes away as it did with black stockings and as it might with TV's in the home? Or do you face the problem head-on and say; "Sorry, after a thorough and complete review of all available secular historical documents, we have concluded that our religous practice was started by a man named William Irvine. If your faith instructs you otherwise, then we will have to ask you to reject your faith and accept our dogma or leave this particular religous practice."
I know it sounds harsh and cruel but at least this later approach would put an end to the trauma of individuals being adsorbed into the group under the auspices of a faith/belief that is no longer held by "most?" and then being traumatized later when they must confont the "lie" as taught by others.
Look out Archie, here I come!!!!!!
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
FOUNDER
Mar 1, 2009 23:17:38 GMT -5
Post by Deleted on Mar 1, 2009 23:17:38 GMT -5
clearday! Please expound on this " Actually, I have no doubt that there was a Living Witness connection of Irvine back to Christ, but not in the 2x2 format of course." Thank you! Your questions are easier that yknot's! What I meant was that WI became a believer after hearing RevMcNeil, Presbyterian minister. McNeil would have heard from someone else in the Presbyterian Church and so on back a few centuries to a priest in the RCC, then back a few centuries, eventually to the first century church and eventually to Christ. I wouldn't be surprised if we all couldn't physically trace back our faith connection to Christ if we have enough information.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
FOUNDER
Mar 1, 2009 23:33:29 GMT -5
Post by Deleted on Mar 1, 2009 23:33:29 GMT -5
The assignment of a label was useful. By saying he was a Trotskyist (assuming I was knowledgeable enough about the distinctions) he wouldn't have had to explain anything further. It's very efficient. I suppose we could put the holdouts in a concrete room with a single light bulb, deprive them of sleep, then brainwash the truth into them. Seriously though, I expect most people to come around to the truth. Basically, I think most human beings want the truth although other factors such as pride often divert that desire. Friends and workers are vastly good people and will eventually do the right thing. In its present form, the regular membership is very supportive of the ministry group. If the ministry group were to make a serious examination of the history, agree on a basic story, then the regular friends will fall behind the story almost immediately. So a quick, non-schism solution can occur if the worker group had the collective will to fix it. Most of them, particularly the leadership of them already know the truth. The good news is that apostolic succession idea is rarely, if at all, being used as a key doctrine to convince people to enter the church. So, few new people would be traumatized by the truth. However, if they do ask, they usually get a fuzzy answer and that is often a red flag for them not to get involved in the first place. If you run out of issues, we have a hundred or so we can lend you!
|
|