Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 1, 2009 3:11:09 GMT -5
Ram: I think you are "eager to believe" what this author has to say because in some measure it confirms your viewpoint. However, the article has gone so far off the deep end - i.e. associating the Workers with death cults - that it is impossible to regard it with anything but scholarly repudiation. Even the language that is used; at one point the Fellowship is likened to termites. When an author feels the need to use de-humanising language, much of his credibility surely is gone already. Ad hominem is the sign of a weak position. Whether Pastor Ken sought out exes or not is a mystery to me. I know he has not sought the viewpoint of those of us actually in the Fellowship whose experience is so far removed from what he portrays that he could be writing of a whole other religion. Why assume that he is justified in writing a collection of distortions and half-truths? Firstly, as all church groups - Catholic, Anglican, Baptist and even Professing etc. - have pointed out time and again, CSA is NOT something that is approved, and it has no place in our religion. Sexual deviancy is a clandestine behaviour that unfortunately is manifested by a very small handful of Workers, priests, ministers, and pastors. And yes, in the fellowship, as in all church groups that have needed to deal with CSA issues, the handling of these rogues have not always been up to standard. These points have been made time after time after time. Those people who are regrettably abused do carry deep psychological scars (not physical scars); however, CSA is not part of our religion or our beliefs or our practices. It is repudiated by all morally sound people in all church groups. And to even imply that it is a singularly professing phenomenon or that it is part of "what we do" is outrageous. As for women putting up with abusive husbands, or for strict corporal discipline - which was at one time urged by all church groups and was widely practiced even in the secular world (the WA Dept. of Education abolished the cane in 1988), are examples of an unfair perspective. One can link these social ills to the fellowship, and use that as the basis of one's repudiation of the fellowship. However, in doing so, for the sake of balance, one would have to repudiate every other church group on the same grounds and the government. Really, this strikes me as an example of grasping at straws. I am yet to understand what "physical scars" are being carried by people as a direct consequence of their involvement with meetings. All of this filler, and "burn the witch" kind of mentality has not yet demonstrated that. I do not see that at all. I you seldom exercise much generosity when analysing or discussing the fellowship, as your above remarks amply testify. Jason, You are far from the truth. I am not "eager" to believe this author. Yes in a number of points his article covers some of the things that I personally have "experienced." Rather than me being eager to believe him, if anything it shows that HE, having no personal experience with the sect, has been eager to believe the likes of me ! I invite you to re-read my post in question and all the comments posted here and elsewhere and tell me if I have not attempted to concisely represent the views of those responding. This means in general that innies to a great extent disagree with his article, whilst exes in general find much in common with it. I reckon my post was a fair and balanced report (albeit very brief) on the comments I'd read up to that time. Was my own personal opinions contained in that post? The essence of my opinions were based solely upon those things which I had experienced AND also those things which I had not, giving credence to both arguments. Perhaps it was your own biases and perceptions that were skewed here?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 1, 2009 3:26:10 GMT -5
I'm amazed that so many here care what Ken thinks. Why don't you just let him be happy in his little world? If you try to challenge and win the argument with every person out there with an axe to grind you will have a never ending and ultimately fruitless task.
Articles such as Ken's should be a comfort to the church. Jesus was insulted too, they said he had a devil and he cast out devils through Belzebub.
Also Matt 10:25 It is enough for the disciple that he be as his master, and the servant as his lord. If they have called the master of the house Beelzebub, how much more shall they call them of his household?
Acts 28:22 for we know that people everywhere are talking against this sect.
Luke 6:26 Woe unto you, when all men shall speak well of you! for so did their fathers to the false prophets.
|
|
|
Post by ithascome on Oct 1, 2009 3:38:40 GMT -5
;D ;D ;D overtherainbow the Bible is a wondrous book you can just about find any verse to justify your point... good verses.
|
|
|
Post by gloryintruth on Oct 1, 2009 5:27:35 GMT -5
RAM: Part of my last post was not edited correctly. In my concluding paragraph where I was giving my summation, my post should have read "it is my opinion that you seldom...etc". It came across as a statement of fact, and it was not intended in that way. What I intended was a presentation of my flawed and doubtless poor judgement.
I believe you. You are, after all, the expert on your own beliefs and I'm not going to tell you that you're wrong about your own beliefs! Perhaps what I should have written is that you sometimes come across in this way - sort of siding with the worst light angle. Personally, I'm trying to work on this side of myself: the "burn the witch" attitude I have about so many, many things, so maybe I'm being overly paranoid here.
I think you're close to the mark, although I point out - much to my amazement and great joy - that many of those stepping up to the plate to defend the fellowship from this article have been exes. I think more exes have responded than friends! It has been wonderful to behold the generosity of spirit.
Me biased? Never! ;D
|
|
|
Post by gloryintruth on Oct 1, 2009 5:31:00 GMT -5
;D ;D ;D overtherainbow the Bible is a wondrous book you can just about find any verse to justify your point... good verses. What? Outrageous! Burn the heretic! PHOTO: Professing friends in the medieval period engaging in persuasive evangelism.
|
|
|
Post by Lee on Oct 1, 2009 5:59:50 GMT -5
I can't think of a single instance where if one is being affected psychologically one is not at least being potentially affected physically as well.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 1, 2009 6:05:46 GMT -5
Good point Lee. Often physical effects are consequences of other traumas. Nevertheless, the author should have explained what he meant by "physical" which at face value conjures up direct actions such as physical assault.
|
|
|
Post by sharon on Oct 1, 2009 7:35:36 GMT -5
"The Bible tells us to let our light so shine... that is not only talking about an individual... it is also talking about the church. You read all the time in the news paper about churches that are doing this and that for the poor.. having special dinners to invite guest...sending people overseas etc. Why can't the 2x2s do that .... there is nothing wrong about it... it is what is thought of as the Great Commission. Also it is nothing more than good PR. "
I think the beginning workers had a problem that there wasn't much money to go around in the first days, the major issue was to get the workers to lands and people that did not know Christ.....but now I cannot answer why the monies are not used for relieving the troubles of mankind....it seems it's better to stockpile for future needs...but that isn't speaking of faith in God providing like the early workers and friends trusted in God to do. JMO
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 1, 2009 7:46:50 GMT -5
Great point Sharon. There's a good example of the early church doing just this in Acts and it led to the church being increased daily. They were real workers in those days. Acts 2 (42-47). It was encouraged and taught by the first century workers.
|
|
|
Post by ithascome on Oct 1, 2009 12:41:52 GMT -5
I would like to have some of the questions answered that I asked in my above post.. thanks for your answers Sharon.
Why does the 2x2/truth not use the media more (the GREAT LIGHT)?
Whats wrong with using church pamphlets?
Why do you prefer to remain hidden?
|
|
|
Post by Dubious Disciple (xdc) on Oct 1, 2009 13:01:05 GMT -5
I went to a Bible study tonight... the teacher was discussing in the book of Revelation where it talks about the end of times and when the devil will be chained... the question was asked about what will happen to those that never heard about Christ... say in the underdeveloped countries or when children died at an early age... would they have a chance to come back from the dead and hear Jesus' Word... the teacher said we do not know anything about that... but he was certain that God would be Just. But the thing that he added is the point that I want to make. He said that we in the US and other well developed countries do not have an excuse... because there is so much in books, on TV, and on the the Internet about Jesus.... He called it a GREAT LIGHT... no one can miss it... it shines so brightly. interesting perspective, ithascome. I have to disagree cuz my excuse for NOT believing literally in Revelation's horrors is this "great light." It gives me access to hoards of opinions, historical research, book sales, etc. that have helped me overcome blind belief in today's Dispensationalist interpretation of Revelation, by developing my own opinion of what John was writing about.
|
|
|
Post by lin on Oct 1, 2009 13:44:27 GMT -5
I'm amazed that so many here care what Ken thinks. Why don't you just let him be happy in his little world? If you try to challenge and win the argument with every person out there with an axe to grind you will have a never ending and ultimately fruitless task. Articles such as Ken's should be a comfort to the church. Jesus was insulted too, they said he had a devil and he cast out devils through Belzebub. Also Matt 10:25 It is enough for the disciple that he be as his master, and the servant as his lord. If they have called the master of the house Beelzebub, how much more shall they call them of his household? Acts 28:22 for we know that people everywhere are talking against this sect. Luke 6:26 Woe unto you, when all men shall speak well of you! for so did their fathers to the false prophets. I agree,ignoring him is the best policy.
|
|
|
Post by ithascome on Oct 1, 2009 13:51:48 GMT -5
What is your belief - opinion - interpretation of Revelation? You will notice that the teacher in my post above said that he did not know... but he had trust in God.... to me that was the best answer.
I would agree that this so called great light... has its problems. It is not the true light.. but it is at least some light in this world of darkness. He just might know more about the Bible than any of us... but it would be a very interesting contention.
|
|
|
Post by What Hat on Oct 1, 2009 15:11:43 GMT -5
I'm amazed that so many here care what Ken thinks. Why don't you just let him be happy in his little world? If you try to challenge and win the argument with every person out there with an axe to grind you will have a never ending and ultimately fruitless task. Articles such as Ken's should be a comfort to the church. Jesus was insulted too, they said he had a devil and he cast out devils through Belzebub. Also Matt 10:25 It is enough for the disciple that he be as his master, and the servant as his lord. If they have called the master of the house Beelzebub, how much more shall they call them of his household? Acts 28:22 for we know that people everywhere are talking against this sect. Luke 6:26 Woe unto you, when all men shall speak well of you! for so did their fathers to the false prophets. I think the point of those verses is not to worry when you are falsely accused and so on. But that certainly doesn't mean not to do anything. You will remember that Jesus knew the chief priests and rulers were against him and he walked straight into the breach! Jhn 8:20 These words spake Jesus in the treasury, as he taught in the temple: and no man laid hands on him; for his hour was not yet come. Jhn 8:59 Then took they up stones to cast at him: but Jesus hid himself, and went out of the temple, going through the midst of them, and so passed by. Jhn 10:31 Then the Jews took up stones again to stone him. Jhn 10:40 And went away again beyond Jordan into the place where John at first baptized; and there he abode. John 11 - he returns to Bethany, nigh unto Jerusalem. It's interesting to read the next chapter as Jesus leaves and re-enters Jerusalem, the high priests and rulers plotting against him all the while. I don't believe he put anyone on 'Ignore'.
|
|
|
Post by What Hat on Oct 1, 2009 15:18:58 GMT -5
Clearly, we don't earn our redemption. But the Bible (and our service to Jesus) do make many requirements of us. To say otherwise is a deception.I agree that there are many things we need to do as Christians. My point is it isn't based on any 'performance' criteria. There is no list of what we must accomplish during our lives. It is our own personal relationship with Christ that convicts us of how we are going to live our lives in His service, and that is going to be a 'unique to each of us service'. As Paul mentioned, he could do anything, but not everything was beneficial. I don't think we are judged by how many times we go to church, nor how often we read our bibles. We will be judged by how we love one another, and how we go about living a life dedicated to Christ. We each do that differently Even those in the same church do things differently don't they? Scott Which is all well and fine, and we have crossed this ground before. But I've never heard anyone openly solicit based on "lazy grace" before. Last night I watched the movie Saved www.imdb.com/title/tt0332375/ and it provides an excellent view of sleaze-ball US evangelical Christianity. There is a character in the movie, I think named Skip that made me think of Pastor Ken. Not casting aspersions here on all 'non-friends' denominations. But this movie is certainly an interesting commentary on a certain style of Christianity. The critique of the movie is that this brand of Christianity puts everyone in a box and if you don't conform pushes you to the periphery often using very mean spirited tactics. The issue is conformity, which is different than exclusivity. There's no standard or significant aspiration of any kind on the part of these people. Just conform to a certain kind of lifestyle, sexual orientation, race and politics and thank Jesus that you're a white, homophobic American who eats WonderBread every morning. One line in the movie relates to the Christian music which is just standard rock music, really. (One wag said that you just insert the word 'Jesus' wherever you normally say 'baby'.) So to extrapolate from what the movie clearly demonstrates - that if you're JW, Mormon, Unitarian, Pagan, 2x2 or anything other than Trinitarian Christian right down the middle of the road - you're positively evil. To put this in perspective, I don't view the movie as an outright condemnation of this style of Christianity. It is satire and satire takes certain tendencies and exaggerates them in order to make a statement (and also to make you laugh). It just goes to show that no social group, Christian or otherwise, is ideal in every respect, including ours.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 1, 2009 16:02:14 GMT -5
What, your above post sums up Ken and the like very well. It's all about painting themselves as mainstream Christianity and everyone else as extreme. Using the term 'cult' is a favorite. An old friend once told me that in his church a 'pastor' once ran a series of talks called 'cults of Satan'. Our fellowship featured in the series. It makes the listeners feel all good, warm and fuzzy inside.
|
|
|
Post by Scott Ross on Oct 1, 2009 17:20:12 GMT -5
Which is all well and fine, and we have crossed this ground before. But I've never heard anyone openly solicit based on "lazy grace" before.Not sure I am following your thought process on this one.... Grace isn't something that can be solicited or earned. If we had certain 'performance' standards we had to live up to then many would be left out. For example if our salvation were based on 'you must do xxxx so many times', or if you can never do xxxxx, then the guy that hasn't made his performance standards would be SOL when the piano falls from 10 stories up and squishes him before he has a chance to reach his 'quota' of good works. Again, I am not saying that we don't do good works. We MUST do good works if we are a disciple of Christ. We don't do them because we have to, we do them automatically if we are following the commandment to love. But that of course is just my opinion and how it works in my personal relationship with Christ. I do understand and accept that for others they may be convicted that they MUST meet certain requirements or they have 'lost out'. And if that is their conviction and how their relationship is with Jesus, then of course they WILL lose out if they don't meet those requirements. Scott
|
|
|
Post by What Hat on Oct 1, 2009 17:47:27 GMT -5
Which is all well and fine, and we have crossed this ground before. But I've never heard anyone openly solicit based on "lazy grace" before.Not sure I am following your thought process on this one.... Grace isn't something that can be solicited or earned. If we had certain 'performance' standards we had to live up to then many would be left out. For example if our salvation were based on 'you must do xxxx so many times', or if you can never do xxxxx, then the guy that hasn't made his performance standards would be SOL when the piano falls from 10 stories up and squishes him before he has a chance to reach his 'quota' of good works. Again, I am not saying that we don't do good works. We MUST do good works if we are a disciple of Christ. We don't do them because we have to, we do them automatically if we are following the commandment to love. But that of course is just my opinion and how it works in my personal relationship with Christ. I do understand and accept that for others they may be convicted that they MUST meet certain requirements or they have 'lost out'. And if that is their conviction and how their relationship is with Jesus, then of course they WILL lose out if they don't meet those requirements. Scott You've shifted from talking about no performance requirements on the part of Jesus to the individual to talking about performance standards invented by man. My objection to Pastor Ken and you can read again what he says, "the amazing grace Jesus offers with no performance requirements from you at all". So Ken is saying that Jesus has no performance requirements from me or from you ... at all. None of any kind. I perfectly understand what you're saying and your clarification but that's not what Pastor Ken is saying here.
|
|
|
Post by ithascome on Oct 1, 2009 21:09:02 GMT -5
What are the performance requirements 'WHAT' ?
I can only think of one word... thats all.
|
|
|
Post by sharon on Oct 1, 2009 21:15:55 GMT -5
Which is all well and fine, and we have crossed this ground before. But I've never heard anyone openly solicit based on "lazy grace" before.Not sure I am following your thought process on this one.... Grace isn't something that can be solicited or earned. If we had certain 'performance' standards we had to live up to then many would be left out. For example if our salvation were based on 'you must do xxxx so many times', or if you can never do xxxxx, then the guy that hasn't made his performance standards would be SOL when the piano falls from 10 stories up and squishes him before he has a chance to reach his 'quota' of good works. Again, I am not saying that we don't do good works. We MUST do good works if we are a disciple of Christ. We don't do them because we have to, we do them automatically if we are following the commandment to love. But that of course is just my opinion and how it works in my personal relationship with Christ. I do understand and accept that for others they may be convicted that they MUST meet certain requirements or they have 'lost out'. And if that is their conviction and how their relationship is with Jesus, then of course they WILL lose out if they don't meet those requirements. Scott You've shifted from talking about no performance requirements on the part of Jesus to the individual to talking about performance standards invented by man. My objection to Pastor Ken and you can read again what he says, "the amazing grace Jesus offers with no performance requirements from you at all". So Ken is saying that Jesus has no performance requirements from me or from you ... at all. None of any kind. I perfectly understand what you're saying and your clarification but that's not what Pastor Ken is saying here. A very talented Christian person wrote a poem/lyric some times ago and it was titled "The Little Required OF Me". I thought the poem/lyric was excellent in clarifying the title...but this person has said they're not handing this poem/lyric out because ti would be so easy for someone to take it wrong! And I suppose that is true....ti could be taken that "you must do some, though maybe little" in comparison to "Jesus has done it alll".
|
|
|
Post by gloryintruth on Oct 1, 2009 21:30:21 GMT -5
The critique of the movie is that this brand of Christianity puts everyone in a box and if you don't conform pushes you to the periphery often using very mean spirited tactics. The issue is conformity, which is different than exclusivity. Many participants on the TMB are - consciously or unconsciously - members of the emerging church movement in terms of their thinking. EC movement emphasises the decentralisation of Christianity, a disestablishmentarianism of the faith, where all of the usual elements of Christianity are seen are irrelevant, or no longer necessary. One might say it is the postmodern version of Christianity with a radical emphasis on non-conformity. There needs to be a happy medium between the kind of Christianity you describe above, and the EC movement. Or, as another commentator put it, the music of "Jesus is my boyfriend", often sung by rather dollty young women, or boys who sound suspiciously as though they've turned eunuch. As I have said in the past, so-called "praise music" or "worship music" (two cliches I abhor) would not be out of place in a Disney animated musical. Do you think the older view is more accurate: seeing people of other faiths on a spectrum rather than in an either\or set? There are faiths closer to the ultimate truth than others: Judasim must surely follow Christianity, followed by Islam (which affirms monotheism). Even the pagans have certain truths to teach us. To conclude that someone of another faith is 100% false and evil is a recipe for a "burn the witch" attitude.
|
|
|
Post by gloryintruth on Oct 1, 2009 21:35:11 GMT -5
WHAT: Thanks for the movie tip. I'm watching it on Youtube now. If anyone's interested in the link, you can PM me (or find it yourself!).
|
|
|
Post by Dubious Disciple (xdc) on Oct 2, 2009 0:40:49 GMT -5
What is your belief - opinion - interpretation of Revelation? Don't mean to derail the discussion, but the most logical interpretation is that John was writing a history book for the first half of Revelation, describing what he saw going on around him in the first century, things that so frighteningly corresponded to the promises he found written in the scriptures that he didn't stop where he should have, but continued writing and prophecied a pipe dream of traditional Jewish Messianic hopes. The first half of Revelation is absolutely fascinating, but the second half never came true, of course, and should not be taken seriously.
|
|
|
Post by ithascome on Oct 2, 2009 0:49:58 GMT -5
Never heard that before... I know some people get all bent out of shape over Revelations... I never have been able to get a handle on it... too many questions. So you might be right.
|
|
|
Post by gloryintruth on Oct 2, 2009 5:49:09 GMT -5
Don't mean to derail the discussion, but the most logical interpretation is that John was writing a history book for the first half of Revelation, describing what he saw going on around him in the first century, The entire document is revelation, and some of that is directed at the contemporary church of John's time. To suggest that John intended not to write apocrypha but rather to write history is to ignore what the author of the work himself says in his preamble. Not much of it has a distinctly Jewish character, I point out, and even if it does borrow from the Jewish messianic eschatology, that does not by default invalidate the eschatology. It is a fallacy to suggest that because we can find the source or origin of a certain belief, that the belief is therefore false. Ah, the authentic voice of scepticism! I would say it has not been fulfilled "yet", and given the magnitude of what is discussed about the "end of the age", one ought to take it very seriously indeed. For ultimately the question is not, "What will you do with God?", but rather, "What will God do with you?"
|
|
shushy
Royal Member
Warning
50%
Posts: 8,009
|
Post by shushy on Oct 2, 2009 8:47:00 GMT -5
[quote author=gloryintruth board=general thread=14669
Ah, the authentic voice of scepticism! I would say it has not been fulfilled "yet", and given the magnitude of what is discussed about the "end of the age", one ought to take it very seriously indeed. For ultimately the question is not, "What will you do with God?", but rather, "What will God do with you?"[/quote]
Im on the same page with this one GIT
|
|
|
Post by gloryintruth on Oct 2, 2009 8:54:13 GMT -5
Im on the same page with this one GIT Is this a once-in-a-lifetime occurence or what?! Love ya Shushy. ;D ;D
|
|
|
Post by sharon on Oct 2, 2009 9:01:30 GMT -5
[quote author=gloryintruth board=general thread=14669 Ah, the authentic voice of scepticism! I would say it has not been fulfilled "yet", and given the magnitude of what is discussed about the "end of the age", one ought to take it very seriously indeed. For ultimately the question is not, "What will you do with God?", but rather, "What will God do with you?" Im on the same page with this one GIT[/quote] I'm in agreement with Shushy and GIC....fact is there are the budding of the leaves on the fig tree as far as some of those things coming to pass. It is said that ALL nations will gather against Israel. Looks like after the Israeli prime ministers speech at the UN, it's well on its' way! He spoke about the things that even America is lining themselves up to do against Israel in the Iran situation! So yes, the leaves are budding on some of those prophecies and I'm not sure I want to still be alive when they all come about.
|
|