|
Post by sharon on Jun 15, 2009 20:22:38 GMT -5
Since I was trying to be fair to Cherie earlier and tell her "mission statement", it is better if any reader is interested in that statement that you go to the link provided! Thank you!
"http://www.tellingthetruth.info/home/aboutttt.php"
|
|
|
Post by ilylo on Jun 15, 2009 21:36:23 GMT -5
You have presented some true and good information, and also some false and bad information. Lets hope that people are able to discern for themselves. hey, look. It's nathan part II. How quaint that you also accuse Cherie of being in error and then fail to substantiate your accusation. ...how vacuous.
|
|
|
Post by CherieKropp on Jun 15, 2009 21:44:14 GMT -5
Hi Cherie, could you, in your email banter with them, made mention of my request? I want to review these books on a future web site, and would like to be able to say whether this request was respected. They dont use email. One doesnt even type. Bert: in case you aren't aware, all the known books "out there" that are about or mention or use the 2x2s as background, etc. are listed in TTT's Basic Researchers Guide, located at: www.tellingthetruth.info/brg_guide/Also all the known newspaper articles, and everything in print about the 2x2 church. The BASIC RESEARCHER'S GUIDE is a list of all known available material written about the 2x2 sect, as well as historical documents written by members and non-members. The list and material are presented without prejudice for the readers' examination and evaluation, with no regard given to the orientation of the information; i.e. negative or positive. The Basic Researcher's Guide is a historical data base of the 2x2 sect, created to aid those who want to research this group. It is a researcher's tool. Inclusion of material in The Basic Researcher's Guide is based solely on the subject matter, with the criteria being that information (1) must be published or circulated and (2) must relate to The Church Without a Name, its history, founder and/or congregation. The TTT Editor makes no representations concerning the accuracy of the information presented in the references listed. CERTIFICATION: Telling The Truth certifies that its compiler has visually examined a copy of each and every item listed in this Basic Researcher's Guide, and holds a hard copy in its files to substantiate each item listed herein.
|
|
|
Post by todd on Jun 16, 2009 7:57:25 GMT -5
You have presented some true and good information, and also some false and bad information. Lets hope that people are able to discern for themselves. hey, look. It's nathan part II. Thank you. It is an honor. Oh, I didn't expect you to be one to worry about substantiating accusations. I can't really do much without quoting the website which is against the rules. Anyway I can help you with a couple that come to mind recently, and this is one that I did take the liberty to quote from the website purely because I was being accused of putting words into Cheries mouth, and I didn't see any other way but to show her own words to see how close they were to what I said. Here are the words I put in Cherie's mouth... Oh really? Putting words in my mouth again, Todd? I understand quite well-- Here are the words from her website.... There doesn't seem to be a whole lot of difference here, but I highlighted this one because there are times that she is happy to argue that WI could have started a sect while being part of the FM, and then the case from her book where she doesn't understand how it could be that Dora was the first to profess because of the fact that WI was in the FM. Just to throw some more recent comments of Cherie's here, compare these two..... WmI's group wasn't formed until in 1897; ....and then (regarding an event in 1999).... There was no cohesive movement, body or group of 2x2 missionaries at that time...not until WmI organzied them in 1901 As you can see, Cherie likes to change her "facts" to suit the particular point of view. Anyway, this is only a small example. What I would really love to do is quote lots of other things from her book. Could you kindly ask her for my permission? Thanks.
|
|
|
Post by ilylo on Jun 16, 2009 8:09:06 GMT -5
LOL.... what a totally vacuous post.
|
|
|
Post by Scott Ross on Jun 16, 2009 9:29:47 GMT -5
Hi Todd, for nearly 10 yrs Cherie and her buddies believed WI started/founder the 2x2 in 1897. Just read how many websites on the Internet got that information from her websiteI'm a bit curious as to what year you accept as when it was started /founded Nathan? I know you claim that the truth fellowship 'continues' what was started by Jesus, so maybe I should ask: Which year do you feel the truth fellowship was started/continued, and who started/continued it? Scott
|
|
|
Post by CherieKropp on Jun 16, 2009 10:03:53 GMT -5
Todd - one reason people on this board dont take you seriously is because you repeatedly use the Continum Fallacy (also called the Fallacy of the Beard) re founder and start date--as though vagueness, or inability to determine precisely of some small detail proves false all other information/facts about the subjects under discussion. It doesnt.
The Continuum Fallacy consists in arguing that a concept is useless or a debate is pointless because some of the key concepts in the discussion cannot be defined precisely. The phrase often heard in continuum fallacies is “Where do you draw the line?”
The Continuum Fallacy (also called the fallacy of the beard, line drawing fallacy, bald man fallacy, fallacy of the heap and the sorites fallacy) is a well known informal fallacy in logic. The fallacy causes one to erroneously reject a vague claim because it is not as precise as one would like it to be. However, vagueness alone does not necessarily imply invalidity.
Fallacy of the beard is this:
(a) that small or minor differences do not (or cannot) make a difference, or are not (or cannot be) significant, or
(b) arguing so as to find a definite point at which something can be named. For example, insisting that a few hairs lost here and there do not indicate anything about my impending baldness; or trying to determine how many chin hairs a person must have before he can be said to sport a beard
Where in the continuum of “number of chin hairs” does something called “beard” appear? Most would agree that it’s more than 1 hair. Does 30 chin hairs make a beard? What about 1,000 hairs? 1,001 hairs? Why not 999 hairs? Exactly how many hairs on the chin of a man does it take to become a bona fide beard? Will one brave hair make a beard? Two? Twenty? Several hundred? Would you really call just one hair on an otherwise baby-smooth chin a beard? (same thought process for the bald man fallacy)
An example of this fallacy: “I don’t see how you can argue for accommodating people with disabilities. Where do you draw the line between disabled and able-bodied people? You can’t draw the line precisely. So the whole debate about accommodating people with disabilities is invalid.”
A variant of the Continuum Fallacy is arguing that if you can’t draw the line precisely between X and non-X, then there’s no distinction at all between X and non-X. This is exemplified in the
Fallacy of the Beard. “If a man has one whisker on his face, he doesn’t have a beard. If he grows a second whisker, he still doesn’t have a beard. A third whisker won’t give him a beard either. So it doesn’t matter how many whiskers a man has: he still won’t have a beard.” A further conclusion is attempted by people using this fallacy to argue their point is that if their opponent doesn’t know exactly when something took place--then that renders any other points made by that person invalid. NOT!
Another example of the continuum fallacy: “Smoking one cigarette won’t harm my health. And two cigarettes is only one more than one. So the second cigarette won’t hurt me. And three cigarettes is only one more than two. So that third cigarette won’t hurt me either. Where do you draw the line? You can’t. So I can smoke as many cigarettes as I want and it won’t ever hurt me.”
People who commit the Continuum Fallacy often think they have won the argument by showing that a concept is open and not determinable. For example, people sometimes argue that all questions of obscenity or sexual harassment or date rape or disability are nonsense, because people can’t say in every case what counts as obscenity or sexual harassment or date rape or disability. These are open concepts with fuzzy borders, and as society changes, those borders can change.
So what if we can’t draw the line precisely? Sometimes this is pointed out. The person committing the Continuum Fallacy now thinks he/she has triumphed, saying, “Well, since you can’t draw the line precisely, you don’t really know what you’re talking about at all. You must define your terms, you know. We can’t begin to discuss something we can’t define.”
This is utter nonsense. We all can and do engage in meaningful debate about the application of open concepts. The answer is, “I am unable to draw the line precisely, and I don’t have to. An open concept is still meaningful!” It’s important to realize that open concepts are normal and useful, even if we can’t define them as precisely as we can define closed concepts.
|
|
|
Post by Dubious Disciple (xdc) on Jun 16, 2009 13:01:57 GMT -5
Thanks for the post, cherie. Fuzzy Logic rules!
That doesn't mean it isn't helpful sometimes to follow logic to its extreme in order to discard its fallacy. For example, how long should a Buddhist endure fiery torture in Hell? A year? Ten? A thousand? A million years? A million million million million? Not enough, according to the Bible.
|
|
H.A.S.
Senior Member
God loves us all. Yes, even you.
Posts: 705
|
Post by H.A.S. on Jun 16, 2009 15:04:09 GMT -5
Hi Cherie, could you, in your email banter with them, made mention of my request? I want to review these books on a future web site, and would like to be able to say whether this request was respected. I'm not sure I understand what it is you want. Are you asking for an advanced copy of the book to review, or do you want help with the research?
|
|
H.A.S.
Senior Member
God loves us all. Yes, even you.
Posts: 705
|
Post by H.A.S. on Jun 16, 2009 15:42:51 GMT -5
Hi Todd, for nearly 10 yrs Cherie and her buddies believed WI started/founder the 2x2 in 1897. Just read how many websites on the Internet got that information from her website.
It keeps on changing! just like the theory of Big Bang. She gets this part here, there, this, that and formed her opinion so this must be the answer. Could it be that more evidence was uncovered that pointed to 1901 being the year the group started? Isn't that kind of the point of doing research? As more facts get uncovered, don't you think opinions and theories are going to change?
|
|
H.A.S.
Senior Member
God loves us all. Yes, even you.
Posts: 705
|
Post by H.A.S. on Jun 16, 2009 16:00:48 GMT -5
Todd,
A couple of weeks ago, I asked the elder of my old meeting what he could tell me about the origins of the "Truth". This is what he sent me:
From what GW said, it seems the foundation didn't happen all at once, but took place over the course of several years. Perhaps that's what you're having trouble understanding. The founding of this church didn't happen overnight.
BTW - Have you tried asking your meeting elder about William Irvine? I'd be curious to hear if they were as straightforward with you as my elder was with me.
Peace, H.A.S.
|
|
|
Post by todd on Jun 16, 2009 16:39:35 GMT -5
LOL.... what a totally vacuous post. ...and then fail to substantiate your accusation. ....tehehe... Sorry... I just thought about something funny.
|
|
|
Post by ilylo on Jun 16, 2009 16:42:44 GMT -5
No doubt, because you rarely think about anything seriously.
|
|
|
Post by todd on Jun 16, 2009 17:09:05 GMT -5
Todd - one reason people on this board dont take you seriously is because you repeatedly use the Continum Fallacy (also called the Fallacy of the Beard) re founder and start date--as though vagueness, or inability to determine precisely of some small detail proves false all other information/facts about the subjects under discussion. It doesnt. Cherie, This is not Continuum Fallacy. You and many others will argue definitely that this was started in 1897 to explain one point, but then argue definitely that it didn’t start until 1901 to explain something else. It has nothing to do with Continuum Fallacy, because you are always certain about the dates, it’s just that you will change the dates to explain different things, when it is disproved by the other theory. I am not talking about the vagueness disproving anything. When you say something like… ” There was no cohesive movement, body or group of 2x2 missionaries at that time...not until WmI organzied them in 1901”… that is not a vague statement that gives any indication that the group existed in 1897. Anyway, it was nice to learn about Continuum Fallacy, but hopefully it doesn’t fool people into thinking that there is a reasonable excuse for changing the facts to try prove a particular point of view, because that has nothing to do with Continuum Fallacy.
|
|
|
Post by todd on Jun 16, 2009 17:38:30 GMT -5
Thanks for the post, cherie. Fuzzy Logic rules! Hey DC, it was interesting to learn about the continuum fallacy, but don't just accept that it gives a good excuse for people to use such contradicting arguments. Start to question these things for yourself rather than blindly agree with someone just because it sounds good, and a lot of information was provided. This has nothing to do with continuum fallacy. Another one that I have seen recently is the argument that WI had no idea that he was starting anything to prove one point, but then say that he was consciously starting something to prove something else. This can not be explained by continuum fallacy, because these have been concise arguments.
|
|
|
Post by CherieKropp on Jun 16, 2009 17:41:56 GMT -5
When did the New Covenant start? ...the NT church started when? ...the NT ministry started when?
|
|
|
Post by sharon on Jun 16, 2009 17:50:24 GMT -5
When did the New Covenant start? ...the NT church started when? ...the NT ministry started when? Awww, Cherie...you know Nathan has all that ready for answer, don't you?
|
|
|
Post by todd on Jun 16, 2009 18:02:38 GMT -5
From what GW said, it seems the foundation didn't happen all at once, but took place over the course of several years. Perhaps that's what you're having trouble understanding. The founding of this church didn't happen overnight. I have no trouble understanding that. In fact, it is what I have suspected all along. I have never asked the elder at our meeting, but I have every expectation that he wouldn't tell me that William Irvine was the founder, or any other lie.
|
|
|
Post by Scott Ross on Jun 16, 2009 18:18:52 GMT -5
I have never asked the elder at our meeting, but I have every expectation that he wouldn't tell me that William Irvine was the founder, or any other lie.Soooo.... What do you think of the workers who believe that Ol' Willie founded the truth fellowship? Are they lying? Are you implying that elders never lie, or just your elder?..... Scott
|
|
|
Post by Scott Ross on Jun 16, 2009 18:20:18 GMT -5
And by the way todd, I'm not trying to pick on you, you just seem to invite responses to the way you post. I still love ya bro, even if you only tolerate me.... Scott
|
|
|
Post by Scott Ross on Jun 16, 2009 18:42:25 GMT -5
Does that sound right to you? for William Irvine or anyone who says WI is the First or Founder of New Testament Church. Nope. it sure doesn't. Of course my question to todd said nothing about the new testament church...... My question was: Soooo.... What do you think of the workers who believe that Ol' Willie founded the truth fellowship?Not sure how you got that mixed up!!! Scott
|
|
|
Post by CherieKropp on Jun 16, 2009 19:08:30 GMT -5
Nate: ARE YOU SURE?
Are you sure it wasn't when God made His plan of redemption? Or when Jesus was conceived by the Holy Spirit? Or when Jesus was born on earth? Or when he was baptized? Or when he started preaching? Or when he announced he was Messiah? Or when he died on the cross? Or when the veil was rent in twain? Or when he rose again? Or when he ascended? Or when the Holy Spirit came to earth at Pentecost?
|
|
|
Post by sharon on Jun 16, 2009 19:16:59 GMT -5
Actually, I do believe that the old law was done away with when the veil was rent in twain, which I understand was when Jesus was on the cross...the darkest hours on the earth! And I also believe as Nathan said that is when the testator died and made his testament in force which is the new covenant, the new law of freedom for all mankind.
God's plan of redemption included the old law that was given to Moses....seems it perhaps was a stopgap measure and probably should have been the ringing of the bell in the children of Israel's head about the extended plan of salvation......God always used repentance and forgiveness in the OT and Jesus' death on the cross was the "seal of redemption" or so it seems to me!
|
|
|
Post by CherieKropp on Jun 16, 2009 19:36:02 GMT -5
Do you think the disciples realized this at the time--?? Wonder when they understood they were under the New Covenant? Some continued to go to the temple after Jesus died... Was there a transition period...? Actually, I do believe that the old law was done away with when the veil was rent in twain, which I understand was when Jesus was on the cross...the darkest hours on the earth! And I also believe as Nathan said that is when the testator died and made his testament in force which is the new covenant, the new law of freedom for all mankind. God's plan of redemption included the old law that was given to Moses....seems it perhaps was a stopgap measure and probably should have been the ringing of the bell in the children of Israel's head about the extended plan of salvation......God always used repentance and forgiveness in the OT and Jesus' death on the cross was the "seal of redemption" or so it seems to me!
|
|
|
Post by todd on Jun 16, 2009 19:39:51 GMT -5
I have never asked the elder at our meeting, but I have every expectation that he wouldn't tell me that William Irvine was the founder, or any other lie.Soooo.... What do you think of the workers who believe that Ol' Willie founded the truth fellowship? I suspect that they have just accepted whatever version of the history that they were told, because it really doesn't make any difference. Yeah I guess so though that seems a strong thing to say. They are not consciously trying to deceive anybody, but just relaying what they have been told. No different to those who taught that Thomas Edison was the founder of the light bulb. I'm not saying that they don't lie. They shouldn't, but who knows if they have or not. If they are anything like me they would have, but then I am not an elder either. Anyway, I don't see any reason for the elder that I was talking about, to lie about WI, and that's why i don't expect him to.
|
|
|
Post by todd on Jun 16, 2009 20:02:01 GMT -5
And by the way todd, I'm not trying to pick on you, you just seem to invite responses to the way you post. haha... I would rather you question everything I say, and correct me for every little thing that I say wrong. That's how I am going to learn. Don't just say that I am dumb and leave it at that (you don't do this by the way). You are one of the most tolerable people on this forum. You come up with some very normal and rational things at times I enjoy discussing things with you because it always tends to end up being a sensible conversation. Your bro
|
|
|
Post by Scott Ross on Jun 16, 2009 20:36:40 GMT -5
Hey todd! I suspect that they have just accepted whatever version of the history that they were told, because it really doesn't make any difference.What version of the history were you told? I would guess that most workers would have heard more than you would have just by the fact that they get around to a lot more places (at least I would imagine they would...) Yeah I guess so though that seems a strong thing to say. They are not consciously trying to deceive anybody, but just relaying what they have been told. No different to those who taught that Thomas Edison was the founder of the light bulb.Sooo.... you really feel that any worker regardless of their position in the fellowship is lying if they state that ol' Willie was the founder huh? Hmmm..... I'm not saying that they don't lie. They shouldn't, but who knows if they have or not. If they are anything like me they would have, but then I am not an elder either. Anyway, I don't see any reason for the elder that I was talking about, to lie about WI, and that's why i don't expect him to.Well... I asked because in your post you mentioned: I have never asked the elder at our meeting, but I have every expectation that he wouldn't tell me that William Irvine was the founder, or any other lie.It kinda seemed like you were saying that your elder would never tell a lie. No biggee.... I would hope they wouldn't! haha... I would rather you question everything I say, and correct me for every little thing that I say wrong. That's how I am going to learn. Don't just say that I am dumb and leave it at that (you don't do this by the way).Well now, I am not trying to say that the things you say are all WRONG, just that your experiences and thoughts may be different than mine, (or other posters here) and so I tend to dig at you a little bit. ya big dummie.... You are one of the most tolerable people on this forum. You come up with some very normal and rational things at times I enjoy discussing things with you because it always tends to end up being a sensible conversation.Why thank you todd! I'll be the first to admit that 'at times' I can be normal and rational, but don't expect it all the time 'cause it aint a gonna happen. Your bro Thanks for that also. (did you mean like in 'bro' in Christ?) Scott
|
|
|
Post by JO on Jun 16, 2009 22:59:20 GMT -5
I have never asked the elder at our meeting, but I have every expectation that he wouldn't tell me that William Irvine was the founder, or any other lie.Soooo.... What do you think of the workers who believe that Ol' Willie founded the truth fellowship? I suspect that they have just accepted whatever version of the history that they were told, because it really doesn't make any difference. Wasn't it Bill Carroll who said in court that William Irvine started the mission that he worked in? I see no reason why Bill would lie about that.
|
|