|
Post by What Hat on Sept 25, 2009 18:43:41 GMT -5
The problem isn't that people do or don't do these things. The problem is suggesting that these things are DOCTRINE. They are not doctrine. There is no "standard", no "rules" and no "enforcement" (except by the occasional renegade.) If you want to talk about "unwritten rules", "received wisdom", "notions" within the group that's another thesis.
|
|
|
Post by What Hat on Sept 25, 2009 18:45:49 GMT -5
Unless this is flying over my head, you're saying it never existed? Or just that it never existed for you? The dodo bird most definitely existed as did your particular experience at one point in time. I have a real problem with articles that universalize the experience of all people in the fellowship based on vocal ex's that make up a constituency of perhaps 1%.
|
|
|
Post by StAnne on Sept 25, 2009 18:47:27 GMT -5
The problem isn't that people do or don't do these things. The problem is suggesting that these things are DOCTRINE. They are not doctrine. There is no "standard", no "rules" and no "enforcement" (except by the occasional renegade.) If you want to talk about "unwritten rules", "received wisdom", "notions" within the group that's another thesis. Oh my goodness.
|
|
|
Post by sharon on Sept 25, 2009 18:54:34 GMT -5
I never wrote or had anything to do with the article, but it seems spot on to me. Some of the stuff about sport has changed in real life, but guess it wasn't written yesterday and yes there are still a lot of 2x2s who do not agree with sport. The remainder is spot on. The article seems well written in respect to having many references to back up the statements written. I consider passive phrasing to be very wise in writing this kind of article. It does not mean authoritarian as you suggest, but the opposite. I'm sorry what but the texts highlighted in red which you describe as 'total crap' were without doubt the position my parents taught me as a teenager growing up in the seventies, and I'm pretty sure my mother would subscribe to them even today. My brother (a worker) would probably just remain silent! It may not be the general position today but it was certainly my experience of the position then. I agree. Much of it is as I remember it--no sports, no movie theaters, all other religions are false, etc., Parts of it are new to me, as we read about now--i.e. has to come from the workers (I never knew that as a youth--my profession was at convention so I neither had nor knew to claim a specific worker for my profession).Believer and Stanne, this is how I was raised and how it is still pretty much here in the western part of the Midwest. Maybe our area is behind times from either east or west coast...but this is pretty much head on with what is reccommended or believed today. No joke about it.,..,.anything more or less is considered "false" teachings. As to the baptism, it is true that for baptism to be "recognized" it has to be done by a "worker" a sanctioned one at that....not just any worker would dare do baptism. Also it was told me not so many months ago, that "very seldom would someone come to Christ without the preaching by us workers."
|
|
|
Post by What Hat on Sept 25, 2009 18:55:47 GMT -5
The problem isn't that people do or don't do these things. The problem is suggesting that these things are DOCTRINE. They are not doctrine. There is no "standard", no "rules" and no "enforcement" (except by the occasional renegade.) If you want to talk about "unwritten rules", "received wisdom", "notions" within the group that's another thesis. Oh my goodness.That's eloquent! Try me on, on this one. Incidentally, the dodo bird did exist at one point in time, and as I recall died out in Mauritius in the 19th Century. Guess what, the following no longer exist in society: Victorian bathing suits, whipping children, and women who cannot vote. Things change. So, that's one problem. The second thing is that if everyone in the fellowship wore black shoes on Sunday, does that make it doctrine?
|
|
|
Post by sharon on Sept 25, 2009 18:55:55 GMT -5
The problem isn't that people do or don't do these things. The problem is suggesting that these things are DOCTRINE. They are not doctrine. There is no "standard", no "rules" and no "enforcement" (except by the occasional renegade.) If you want to talk about "unwritten rules", "received wisdom", "notions" within the group that's another thesis. What, I disagree...IT IS DOCTRINE when someone DOES NOT DO THEM that knows better and they're shunned at the least and corrected in the moderate and excommunicated in the extreme! That's a fact.
|
|
|
Post by StAnne on Sept 25, 2009 18:59:29 GMT -5
May not have been eloquent. But it was restrained.
|
|
|
Post by sharon on Sept 25, 2009 19:00:45 GMT -5
Just a rough estimate, but sports and theater have been acceptable for at least 20 years. Motion pictures have become increasingly common entertainment choices over the past 10 years. I think THIS IS the abnormal for the fellowship, not the normal...it still is pretty much "looked down on" and parents are often spoken to by the workers when they become "AWARE" that children under the age and even those still at home, are allowed to do this....they do not understand when parents tell them that there is nothing that they(the parents) can do about it!
|
|
|
Post by sharon on Sept 25, 2009 19:04:52 GMT -5
Well...for those of us who would have lost out for such, and as youth who were not allowed to participate in those activities, it was very real. No band for instance because of those band pants...and how wrong it would be for girls to wear pants. We well remember the stigma and the unnecessary denial. Gone with the dodo bird. Only in some parts of the world!
|
|
|
Post by sharon on Sept 25, 2009 19:11:37 GMT -5
As I sit here and read all this difference of opinion about this one article... all I can think is none of this would be taking place if the 2x2s had a written doctrine and they followed it. We might be talking about how we disagree with it but that is true of every faith... there will always be someone to disagree... this is why we have so many. If you want to improve the 2x2s this would be the first thing to do... agree on a doctrine.. and publish it... follow it.... but if you never do that people will always be making one up for you and it will be based on their own perspective... and that perspective may not be 100% truth. That's the point. An encyclopedia article should not make up things. We don't have a published doctrine because we are led by the Holy Spirit. The perspective offered in the article is entirely that of an ex-member. Most members recoil at the manner in which the article is written. No doubt I have led a "sheltered" existence, but so have most of those in the fellowship. The other factor is that many denominations were much more conservative and legalistic 30 or 40 years ago. Generally, a conservative religious movement will be slow adopters of new things: movies, novels, etc. Apparently, workers were reluctant to use microphones and computers when these first appeared on the scene. What, it wasn't but a few months ago, I overheard one young worker say to his older companion...now it maybe he was greasing his own wrench with his older companion, but his comment was this...."The friends are letting their young children particpate in too much. They're getting to hwere they can't keep their eyes open in mtgs. because they're so tired from all their extracurricular activities. They need to hold their children down from participating so much in games, and other things the worldly children participate in. That's why they don't get anything from the mtgs. they're poor tired bodies and minds just can't take anymore in!" Also, I've heard similar negative comments from workers in regards to the friends wearing worldly clothing when there is NO need for it...i.e. females wearing pants except when it is required for some job they must do. And most of that COULD be left up to their male family members. IF they have any! I also was told that there was hardly anyone ever come into salvation or an understanding of what salvation is all about WITHOUT THE WORKERS! Also, I know of those who've been baptized in other denominations who have been re-baptized by the "assigned" workers. Often the overseer and his companion and maybe another set of brothers will drive miles for a "baptism".....because not everyone within the state's workership can baptize.
|
|
|
Post by sharon on Sept 25, 2009 19:14:09 GMT -5
The problem isn't that people do or don't do these things. The problem is suggesting that these things are DOCTRINE. They are not doctrine. There is no "standard", no "rules" and no "enforcement" (except by the occasional renegade.) If you want to talk about "unwritten rules", "received wisdom", "notions" within the group that's another thesis. I think it is perceived as doctrine by the majority of workers who have anything to say about "controlling" their members and/or new converts. They "teach" it quite well. Course some who've been in other churches or out in the world bring to the fellowship different things they've learned to accomodate in their lives, but that doesn't keep the workers and some of the friends from criticizing NEW converts that "they're just not knowledgeable yet. The Holy Spirit will soon get them in line. He'll lead them down the path to "form" of our fellowship."
|
|
|
Post by StAnne on Sept 25, 2009 19:16:11 GMT -5
Try me on, on this one. Incidentally, the dodo bird did exist at one point in time, and as I recall died out in Mauritius in the 19th Century. Guess what, the following no longer exist in society: Victorian bathing suits, whipping children, and women who cannot vote. Things change. So, that's one problem. The second thing is that if everyone in the fellowship wore black shoes on Sunday, does that make it doctrine? I do now remember that the dodo bird existed. I admit, I was grasping for meaning.
Even though you refuse to call them what they are...there are doctrines, there are tenets, and there are lesser articles of teaching that are followed. Or not.
Your examples illustrate the long overdue need to define them so that they are applied in a consistent manner. You really can't say you're one in belief, or in the application of discipline, if you have D&R folks denied participation on one coast yet allowed to participate on the other coast (as an example).
Wearing black shoes may not have been required. I don't know. Wearing seamed stockings was required in the 60s in Kansas, long after seamless were available. If it didn't fit the doctrine category, I certainly wish someone would have told me. And told my mother.
I believe I'll stop there.
|
|
|
Post by ScholarGal on Sept 25, 2009 19:25:40 GMT -5
What, it wasn't but a few months ago, I overheard one young worker say to his older companion... "They need to hold their children down from participating so much in games, and other things the worldly children participate in. That's why they don't get anything from the mtgs. they're poor tired bodies and minds just can't take anymore in!" I think the workers are delusional if they really think they can control which activities modern kids do after school. Same with workers having any say in whether women wear pants outside of meetings. They might *think* they have control, but the professing people I know tend to have a lot of common sense--so they decide for themselves what to wear and what activities their children do.
|
|
|
Post by Happy Feet on Sept 25, 2009 19:39:50 GMT -5
Just a rough estimate, but sports and theater have been acceptable for at least 20 years. Motion pictures have become increasingly common entertainment choices over the past 10 years. but still frowned on by workers. Now i seem to recall hearing and still hear from professing people that Jesus is the same, yeterday today and forever, so this way never changes. And we all know what this way means. It means the church those on here call the 2x2s. Sharon wrote: Maybe our area is behind times from either east or west coast... This is how it pretty much is in Australia and New Zealand too....
|
|
|
Post by ScholarGal on Sept 25, 2009 19:48:24 GMT -5
Just a rough estimate, but sports and theater have been acceptable for at least 20 years. Motion pictures have become increasingly common entertainment choices over the past 10 years. but still frowned on by workers. Well, the last time I heard a worker talk about kids' sports she was very enthusiastic in saying it was wonderful that kids were participating in team sports these days! The sister worker had just attended soccer practice with a 10-yr-old girl. She was glad that this professing girl was getting exercise and an opportunity to build team skills. I've been told by people on TMB that my observations are abnormal, but I've seen that sports, band, and school activities are pretty common among professing kids.
|
|
|
Post by What Hat on Sept 26, 2009 0:13:46 GMT -5
The problem isn't that people do or don't do these things. The problem is suggesting that these things are DOCTRINE. They are not doctrine. There is no "standard", no "rules" and no "enforcement" (except by the occasional renegade.) If you want to talk about "unwritten rules", "received wisdom", "notions" within the group that's another thesis. What, I disagree...IT IS DOCTRINE when someone DOES NOT DO THEM that knows better and they're shunned at the least and corrected in the moderate and excommunicated in the extreme! That's a fact. You name a so-called doctrine or "group think" and I can think of a number of individuals that don't or haven't followed that practice, and I've never heard of anyone being excommunicated for that. This includes some of the base rock consensus points like having a television or long hair. Now I have spent a lot more time in Western Canada the last few years and there are more issues with legalism, I can tell you. There is a tension between those who understand what it means to be truly led by the Holy Spirit (and in response to one silly post up there, the first thing the Spirit should show to you is that the Bible is the divinely inspired word of God.) Anyway, a tension between those who are led by the Spirit and who think you can find holiness some other way. Anyway, having or not having a television is not a doctrine. "Laying aside weights" IS a doctrine. If you want to write fellowship doctrine summarize the key chapter teachings from the Bible. To my understanding the workers do not want to write a rule book. I'm all for bedrock doctrine and a clear understanding of principles but personally I don't think it's the workers job to wipe our noses. And I know for a fact that a lot of people agree with that. So where is that in the so-called Doctrine.
|
|
|
Post by What Hat on Sept 26, 2009 0:16:12 GMT -5
Just a rough estimate, but sports and theater have been acceptable for at least 20 years. Motion pictures have become increasingly common entertainment choices over the past 10 years. I think THIS IS the abnormal for the fellowship, not the normal...it still is pretty much "looked down on" and parents are often spoken to by the workers when they become "AWARE" that children under the age and even those still at home, are allowed to do this....they do not understand when parents tell them that there is nothing that they(the parents) can do about it! Wow. I know ALL young people in our area go to movies. Older ones generally don't.
|
|
|
Post by What Hat on Sept 26, 2009 0:21:50 GMT -5
Try me on, on this one. Incidentally, the dodo bird did exist at one point in time, and as I recall died out in Mauritius in the 19th Century. Guess what, the following no longer exist in society: Victorian bathing suits, whipping children, and women who cannot vote. Things change. So, that's one problem. The second thing is that if everyone in the fellowship wore black shoes on Sunday, does that make it doctrine? I do now remember that the dodo bird existed. I admit, I was grasping for meaning. Did you like the pun?
Even though you refuse to call them what they are...there are doctrines, there are tenets, and there are lesser articles of teaching that are followed. Or not.
Your examples illustrate the long overdue need to define them so that they are applied in a consistent manner. You really can't say you're one in belief, or in the application of discipline, if you have D&R folks denied participation on one coast yet allowed to participate on the other coast (as an example).
Wearing black shoes may not have been required. I don't know. Wearing seamed stockings was required in the 60s in Kansas, long after seamless were available. If it didn't fit the doctrine category, I certainly wish someone would have told me. And told my mother.
I believe I'll stop there. All denominations 100 years ago had dictates of this kind and required a high degree of conformity. "Conformity" was the buzz word of the Fifties you may recall. That doesn't make those things "doctrine". In any case, many people ... and also within the fellowship are more relaxed about these pointless kind of things. As you know many aspects of the Catholic service are highly ritualized. They have all kinds of rules about what to wear in a service, deportment and so on. I remember even touring the major cathedrals in Europe and a certain level of deportment was expected. Do you call that doctrine of the Catholic church? I didn't see it in the Catechism last time I checked.
|
|
|
Post by What Hat on Sept 26, 2009 0:31:01 GMT -5
That's the point. An encyclopedia article should not make up things. We don't have a published doctrine because we are led by the Holy Spirit. The perspective offered in the article is entirely that of an ex-member. Most members recoil at the manner in which the article is written. No doubt I have led a "sheltered" existence, but so have most of those in the fellowship. The other factor is that many denominations were much more conservative and legalistic 30 or 40 years ago. Generally, a conservative religious movement will be slow adopters of new things: movies, novels, etc. Apparently, workers were reluctant to use microphones and computers when these first appeared on the scene. What, it wasn't but a few months ago, I overheard one young worker say to his older companion...now it maybe he was greasing his own wrench with his older companion, but his comment was this...."The friends are letting their young children particpate in too much. They're getting to hwere they can't keep their eyes open in mtgs. because they're so tired from all their extracurricular activities. They need to hold their children down from participating so much in games, and other things the worldly children participate in. That's why they don't get anything from the mtgs. they're poor tired bodies and minds just can't take anymore in!" Also, I've heard similar negative comments from workers in regards to the friends wearing worldly clothing when there is NO need for it...i.e. females wearing pants except when it is required for some job they must do. And most of that COULD be left up to their male family members. IF they have any! I also was told that there was hardly anyone ever come into salvation or an understanding of what salvation is all about WITHOUT THE WORKERS! Also, I know of those who've been baptized in other denominations who have been re-baptized by the "assigned" workers. Often the overseer and his companion and maybe another set of brothers will drive miles for a "baptism".....because not everyone within the state's workership can baptize. If you've got a worker why wouldn't you be baptized by a worker. But it's a fact that baptisms have been performed by elders in countries where workers were not available. This is a good question for Nathan. Johnny Richards told me many years ago that he once thought you could only come to salvation through the workers but that he had changed his mind about that. However, I'm sure many workers might not agree. But let's look at what the article says, The Bible alone is held as insufficient for salvation, except that its words be made "alive" through preaching of its ministers."The Bible alone" is an important concept in all Protestant churches and the fellowship subscribes to this concept. I might accept, Knowledge of the Bible alone is held as insufficient for salvation, which comes only through having the Christ within, the seed of which is watered by the workers. That I could accept, or something along that line. The sentence in wiki is stupid.
|
|
|
Post by emy on Sept 26, 2009 0:58:08 GMT -5
... We don't have a published doctrine because we are led by the Holy Spirit. ... I agree. And the beauty of not having a doctrine is that the Spirit can shape the church (f&w) in many lands and many cultures, according to the need in that place. And yet those who visit the church worldwide have no trouble entering in to fellowship wherever they are. I have experienced that.
|
|
|
Post by emy on Sept 26, 2009 1:17:38 GMT -5
Thinking about the comment concerning over-participation in sports, etc and how it wears kids out. This is something that ALL parents, not just f&w should consider. Some of our children participated in just ONE sport per year, and I can vouch for how much is demanded by just one. We are some distance from town and the latest the kids could leave for school was 8:00 to 8:15. There were several times they had trouble making it home in time for 7:30 Bible study after practice. (No, they weren't lollygagging.) Many times on weekends they simply collapsed and slept for hours at a time during the day.
I am able to agree with pretty much everything What and Scholar Gal have reported in this thread. Life 30-40 years ago, in general, was more restrictive. While the f&w are still conservative concerning extracurricular participation, there is much more leeway. But it requires a lot of being careful to avoid overdoing it.
|
|
|
Post by ithascome on Sept 26, 2009 1:18:00 GMT -5
Other spirits can shape it also... a written doctrine... tends to tell people upfront what you believe and what you will not tolerate.... no questions about it.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 26, 2009 1:33:04 GMT -5
Ken, I'm sure you need no introduction to the fact there is a "spell" that many people fall under within this sect. I know it only too well. We are oblivious to the obvious and deny the directions of common sense, logic, sound reasoning and understanding, which are exorcised by the spell we come under. It can take many severe experiences to break this spell and cause the scales to fall from our eyes. Those who deny those things that we now see so clearly, by and large genuinely believe their position to be true. Once the scales fall away, they will then clearly see what they cannot yet see and will wonder how they did not see. It's all about convoluting facts, circumstances and indoctrinations to fit in with a current state of mind. How do I know this? I was top of the class at one time ! How do I know others are likewise afflicted? Because they have identical positions to that which I once had ! We really cannot argue with them. In my insufficient attempts to understand my former self, I do find that I can understand why they are the way they are, for that which I was and that which they are now, are like two peas in a pod. Lord I pray for a less confrontational heart and one that can extend love and understanding to those who have not yet crossed the Rubicon on their Damascan journey. It doesn't matter whether it's an employer, a religion, or a restaurant chain. When we're positive minded we see positive things, and negative minded we see negative minded. All of a sudden the half-full glass is half-empty. I challenge you to provide me one example of being under a spell. What, my reference was not personally to you, but was a general statement to a standard 2x2. However, in saying that I do cover you by the generalisation. Anyway, regarding your challenge. If I am correct in relation to yourself, then you will not see it, no matter how many examples I provide. Many who have turned the corner on the road to Damascus will clearly see what I am saying and understand. My words were for those people, not for those who have yet to get their feet wet in making the crossing. Much of it is hindsight. The "spell" creates a gulf which those on the wrong side can't see over. Please understand, my words were for people "on the other side." Perhaps some day, you too will see the spell more clearly. In my view very few people escape its power, that's why I include rather than exclude people in the generalisation. True some are more affected than others. Degrees differ. Some are affected slightly, some greatly. I do not agree with glasses half full and glasses half empty, unless you are meaning being under the influence of that which has been consumed.
|
|
|
Post by StAnne on Sept 26, 2009 2:00:19 GMT -5
Even though you refuse to call them what they are...there are doctrines, there are tenets, and there are lesser articles of teaching that are followed. Or not.
Your examples illustrate the long overdue need to define them so that they are applied in a consistent manner. You really can't say you're one in belief, or in the application of discipline, if you have D&R folks denied participation on one coast yet allowed to participate on the other coast (as an example).
Wearing black shoes may not have been required. I don't know. Wearing seamed stockings was required in the 60s in Kansas, long after seamless were available. If it didn't fit the doctrine category, I certainly wish someone would have told me. And told my mother.
I believe I'll stop there. All denominations 100 years ago had dictates of this kind and required a high degree of conformity. "Conformity" was the buzz word of the Fifties you may recall. That doesn't make those things "doctrine". In any case, many people ... and also within the fellowship are more relaxed about these pointless kind of things. I was a very young girl then. I knew nothing of conformity in other denominations. I only knew that I was required to wear dresses/skirts only, no jeans or shorts, no sandals in summer and on and on. That is true. There are rules for liturgical vestments. No, it isn't in the Catechism because it isn't doctrine. Dress code protocol is just that. Yes, expected, enforced. Written.
|
|
|
Post by sharon on Sept 26, 2009 8:31:27 GMT -5
I do now remember that the dodo bird existed. I admit, I was grasping for meaning. Did you like the pun?
Even though you refuse to call them what they are...there are doctrines, there are tenets, and there are lesser articles of teaching that are followed. Or not.
Your examples illustrate the long overdue need to define them so that they are applied in a consistent manner. You really can't say you're one in belief, or in the application of discipline, if you have D&R folks denied participation on one coast yet allowed to participate on the other coast (as an example).
Wearing black shoes may not have been required. I don't know. Wearing seamed stockings was required in the 60s in Kansas, long after seamless were available. If it didn't fit the doctrine category, I certainly wish someone would have told me. And told my mother.
I believe I'll stop there. All denominations 100 years ago had dictates of this kind and required a high degree of conformity. "Conformity" was the buzz word of the Fifties you may recall. That doesn't make those things "doctrine". In any case, many people ... and also within the fellowship are more relaxed about these pointless kind of things. As you know many aspects of the Catholic service are highly ritualized. They have all kinds of rules about what to wear in a service, deportment and so on. I remember even touring the major cathedrals in Europe and a certain level of deportment was expected. Do you call that doctrine of the Catholic church? I didn't see it in the Catechism last time I checked. What, the workers do NOT particularly call it "conforming"...I had an overseer tell me in regards to women putting up their hair...that when they do that it is a sign of being led by the Holy Spirit, being in submission to a higher power. I kid you not....that was about 3 months ago.
|
|
|
Post by sharon on Sept 26, 2009 8:34:39 GMT -5
What, it wasn't but a few months ago, I overheard one young worker say to his older companion...now it maybe he was greasing his own wrench with his older companion, but his comment was this...."The friends are letting their young children particpate in too much. They're getting to hwere they can't keep their eyes open in mtgs. because they're so tired from all their extracurricular activities. They need to hold their children down from participating so much in games, and other things the worldly children participate in. That's why they don't get anything from the mtgs. they're poor tired bodies and minds just can't take anymore in!" Also, I've heard similar negative comments from workers in regards to the friends wearing worldly clothing when there is NO need for it...i.e. females wearing pants except when it is required for some job they must do. And most of that COULD be left up to their male family members. IF they have any! I also was told that there was hardly anyone ever come into salvation or an understanding of what salvation is all about WITHOUT THE WORKERS! Also, I know of those who've been baptized in other denominations who have been re-baptized by the "assigned" workers. Often the overseer and his companion and maybe another set of brothers will drive miles for a "baptism".....because not everyone within the state's workership can baptize. If you've got a worker why wouldn't you be baptized by a worker. But it's a fact that baptisms have been performed by elders in countries where workers were not available. This is a good question for Nathan. Johnny Richards told me many years ago that he once thought you could only come to salvation through the workers but that he had changed his mind about that. However, I'm sure many workers might not agree. But let's look at what the article says, The Bible alone is held as insufficient for salvation, except that its words be made "alive" through preaching of its ministers."The Bible alone" is an important concept in all Protestant churches and the fellowship subscribes to this concept. I might accept, Knowledge of the Bible alone is held as insufficient for salvation, which comes only through having the Christ within, the seed of which is watered by the workers. That I could accept, or something along that line. The sentence in wiki is stupid. It may be stupid, What...I wish I'd kept that email that the overseer had sent to me when HE said that "It was mighty unusual and rare for someone to come to Salvation through just reading the Bible....that it most always had to be through preaching...by the workers. He said it, I'm not making it up.
|
|
|
Post by sharon on Sept 26, 2009 8:42:29 GMT -5
'What, my reference was not personally to you, but was a general statement to a standard 2x2. However, in saying that I do cover you by the generalisation.
Anyway, regarding your challenge. If I am correct in relation to yourself, then you will not see it, no matter how many examples I provide. Many who have turned the corner on the road to Damascus will clearly see what I am saying and understand. My words were for those people, not for those who have yet to get their feet wet in making the crossing. Much of it is hindsight. The "spell" creates a gulf which those on the wrong side can't see over.
Please understand, my words were for people "on the other side." Perhaps some day, you too will see the spell more clearly. In my view very few people escape its power, that's why I include rather than exclude people in the generalisation. True some are more affected than others. Degrees differ. Some are affected slightly, some greatly. I do not agree with glasses half full and glasses half empty, unless you are meaning being under the influence of that which has been consumed. "
Ram! This is so very true....I've been utterly amazed at how much I've begun to see that was there all the time but somehow someway, I'd been lulled into just not seeing it and was totally and utterly shocked when I did begin to see. And the most amazing part of it all is I did NOT begin to see it until I started studying and meditating on Jesus Christ and Jesus Christ ALONE. And I think there are 2 fold things going on there....I think the more I've learned about Jesus Christ, the MORE I see that is wrong, that isn't conducive to a Christ-filled life within the fellowship. Just this morning I read about the woes that Jesus pronounced against the scribes and Pharisees that sit in Moses' seat. About 10 months ago I saw that as telling us that regardless what workers tell us to do we must do it. But NOW I see it as a revelation to the phariseel part that is in the fellowship...the commandments of men made doctrine. Furthermore I see that what has come of the truth's fellowship is NOT what the beginning workers sought to bring about at all. It is sad that they didn't set down and write their intentions down for their intentions have gone out the door. I'm greatly saddened by this revelation...it hurts horribly to think that such a noble cause has become something so unnoble. People desiring to sit in the best seats in the house on the platform, eating the best foodstuffs in the convs. and in the homes and taking up the best bedrooms and beds in a home. Instead of "serving" as the master said. It is sad, very sad!
I forgot to add the 2nd point in this keeping to studying Jesus and only Jesus....while the onslaught of many things been revealed to me that I find NOT right or some such issues within the fellowship, that though I have great sorrow in finding out that a "way" that has been held up to be "the way to salvation" is less then what it is held up to be...it is nothing more then what you'll find when men are at the helm of anything.....there'll be human traits pop up frequently and often negatively. But having Jesus solidly within my mind and heart has enabled me not to be totally decimated and crushed by all these revelations. I can easily see how some have been hit so hard that there is anger and bitterness and even some have hatred for anything or anyone to do with the fellowship. I'm not upholding that such is right, but I can fully understand it.
|
|
|
Post by Jesse_Lackman on Sept 26, 2009 20:11:30 GMT -5
"Ken, I'm sure you need no introduction to the fact there is a "spell" that many people fall under within this sect. I know it only too well. We are oblivious to the obvious and deny the directions of common sense, logic, sound reasoning and understanding, which are exorcised by the spell we come under."
"If I am correct in relation to yourself, then you will not see it, no matter how many examples I provide. Many who have turned the corner on the road to Damascus will clearly see what I am saying and understand. "
Are you serious, or is that real dry joke?
|
|