Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 26, 2010 8:08:25 GMT -5
Lin, did you notice someone saying that my own websites have an "agenda." Hilarious. All I did was read the bible and itemize its beliefs and practices. That accusation is a Freudianism Slip if ever there was one.
|
|
|
Post by CherieKropp on Jan 26, 2010 8:09:56 GMT -5
I've said this before, and both wanderer and clearday have agreed:
No matter how I wrote the TTT content, or presented it, the F&W would be biased against reading TTT because I am an ex-2x2...EVEN if it were "stripped."
IMO, my stripping TTT would help very little - because those who know the website owner/compiler is an ex-2x2 would use that to taint the information to discourage F&W from reading it. They still wouldnt read it.
If a truther cares to attempt stripping TTT - I am willing to assist them.
BTW, you state the 2x2s are the ones who need to know the information on TTT.
However, there is another group who "need to know" also. Those who were B&R in it and left meetings. There is quite a number of former professing F&W who find and read TTT. This group is greatly relieved to find the information, no matter how late in life they find it --like Snow, for instance.
I would guess that in this world there are nearly as many who have left meetings as have stayed in it. No way to tell for sure. They have no problem with TTT being written as it is. IMO, TTT as it is is doing a good job in informing others of the history.
It also serves to help those who want to understand what their neighbors and relatives believe...since they wont post what they believe or be very forthcoming with it. Had one of those this week contact me... Cherie
|
|
|
Post by lin on Jan 26, 2010 8:45:27 GMT -5
I am in no way against the history of this way. I think for the most part it is a rich history,of individuals who made great sacrifices because of appreciation for the satisfaction they have received in their lives. What these individuals received was a revelation of what they should do with their lives. They did it with conviction. Is this everyones experience? No! why though disparage another's experience because it is not your own. Do we have to post what we believe? It isn't a big deal either way. I would like to see more openness, not just about a natural beginning but a spiritual openness about an individual satisfaction. It would be nice if your historical treatise would tell the positive side of this ways history as well.
|
|
|
Post by CherieKropp on Jan 26, 2010 9:28:38 GMT -5
It's obvious to me, Lin that you have not browsed TTT very extensively. Along with some others who paint/generalize/taine TTT as a negative 2x2 website, and thus, many others who havent researched and made their personal opinions, have jumped on the "netagive" soapbox/ bandwagon--which site many others have labeled as unbiased. There are very few comments on TTT that would qualify as "negative." Have you checked out the numerous pioneering stories of workers on TTT? They are written by F&Ws...and are exactly as the F&W presented the experiences of the first workers who went to various areas/countries for the first time...and I assure you the writers are EVERY SO positive in their presentations. www.tellingthetruth.info/history_pioneering/I am in no way against the history of this way. I think for the most part it is a rich history,of individuals who made great sacrifices because of appreciation for the satisfaction they have received in their lives. What these individuals received was a revelation of what they should do with their lives. They did it with conviction. Is this everyones experience? No! why though disparage another's experience because it is not your own. Do we have to post what we believe? It isn't a big deal either way. I would like to see more openness, not just about a natural beginning but a spiritual openness about an individual satisfaction. It would be nice if your historical treatise would tell the positive side of this ways history as well.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 26, 2010 11:16:56 GMT -5
I agree Cherie, the mere fact of your authorship (as an ex) of the TTT would diminish it's credibility in the eyes of the more traditional exclusivist F&Ws (which are most of them). However, it would have more credibility than it would today with the op/eds. As soon as inside traditionalists read something resembling Christian teaching/preaching, the whole site gets rejected.......that's just the way it is as I'm sure you are aware. I'm not sure if you were responding to me on this: I didn't state that myself unless you are referring to someone else's statement. I stated that 2x2s would benefit most and stand by that opinion. That said, there are huge numbers of exes out there who have lived outside the meetings in a vacuum of information, never really fully informed of what they were brought up in. The TTT certainly answers a lot of those questions and will help people reconcile their past and present. In that regard, the op/ed information would definitely be beneficial to them. I've said this before, and both wanderer and clearday have agreed: No matter how I wrote the TTT content, or presented it, the F&W would be biased against reading TTT because I am an ex-2x2...EVEN if it were "stripped." IMO, my stripping TTT would help very little - because those who know the website owner/compiler is an ex-2x2 would use that to taint the information to discourage F&W from reading it. They still wouldnt read it. If a truther cares to attempt stripping TTT - I am willing to assist them. BTW, you state the 2x2s are the ones who need to know the information on TTT. However, there is another group who "need to know" also. Those who were B&R in it and left meetings. There is quite a number of former professing F&W who find and read TTT. This group is greatly relieved to find the information, no matter how late in life they find it --like Snow, for instance. I would guess that in this world there are nearly as many who have left meetings as have stayed in it. No way to tell for sure. They have no problem with TTT being written as it is. IMO, TTT as it is is doing a good job in informing others of the history. It also serves to help those who want to understand what their neighbors and relatives believe...since they wont post what they believe or be very forthcoming with it. Had one of those this week contact me... Cherie
|
|
|
Post by What Hat on Jan 26, 2010 11:32:45 GMT -5
I also question the value of a written copy of anything presented verbally/ orally. Really, transcriptions of oral presentations, no matter the context, are of very limited value, especially when the presentation is extemporized. First of all, they're tiresome to read and to follow. Second, they are often of little value beyond the moment and context in which they're spoken. Third, the speaker has not considered the requirements of a reader in a time and place removed, who does not have the context leading up to the comments. Fourth, the Spirit's work is an important part of the immediate context, which may not translate well in a transcription. Fifth, an oral discourse in itself has limited value as an indicator of doctrine or teaching of the movement as a whole; it's just what one person said one time. According to what you say above, you would need to dismiss a large part of the New Testament writings then, as so much of it is made up of someone's recollections of what one person said at one particular time... Not at all. None of what I said applies to Scripture which is ordained by God, and God has assured its accuracy through the ages. That claim does not apply to convention notes.
|
|
|
Post by What Hat on Jan 26, 2010 11:42:14 GMT -5
I never said official was on your website. However the tenor of your unspoken attitude says loudly your own feeling of officialdom. In defense of Cherie, I would have to say that I have never got the impression from her or from her website that the work she has done constitutes any kind of "official" history of the group. However, I would guess that from an "outsider's" perspective, TTT would certainly be the most authoritative work on the historical subject. Personally I feel that the TTT would have a much more far-reaching impact if it did not have all of the negative editorial content but was instead strictly a historical study. Then, it would be read by a lot more 2x2s while now it is dismissed due to its negative slant. (I have brought this up to Cherie before but she prefers to include all of the editorial content; and of course it is her site and her choice to do so.) Perhaps a "mirror" site that is stripped of editorial content and thus "2x2 friendly" would be in order? (I am not saying in any way that I would like to silence Cherie's personal voice). Cherie has mentioned a "group" of 2x2 historians in the USA somewhere which has done a lot of historical research, however, apparently they currently have no plans to publish anything. The chapter in Jaenen's book is woefully barren considering the fact that it is the apparent climax of the book. I will eventually get links on the Truth Archive to documents on TTT such as Goodhand Pattison's "Accounts of the Early Days" and all of the other Early Workers' testimonies, etc. This may help the situation a little. Cherie could easily split her site between editorial and pure history. The historical part is complete, not selective and relatively free of bias. Certainly remains the best thing out there. A comment on your comment on Jaenen's book. It took me a while to understand what the book was attempting to do, which is place the development of the church in historical perspective from a Restorationist point of view. Jaenen looks at many movements which have attempted to do this, without judgement as to how successful those movements were. The details of the historical narrative of the F&W are not a primary focus of the book, although some are included. The first part of the book is a description of the character and practices or polity of the early church. The second part describes the development of the mainstream of Christianity away from its roots. The third part looks at various attempts to "restore" the early church. It's a very interesting book to read, once you understand what it is trying to show. (Okay, I admit I haven't read the whole thing yet.)
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 26, 2010 11:49:38 GMT -5
The bible contains many inaccuracies. Many of those inaccuracies have little importance but nevertheless they make me reluctant to claim God's accuracy or direct authorship. God himself would do a much better job if He had written it himself.
One example of serious bible inaccuracy is the Johannine comma, now widely considered to be a deliberate inaccuracy, perhaps even fraudulent.
It's sufficient for me to consider the bible as God-inspired, but that's as far as I can go in that regard.
|
|
|
Post by snow on Jan 26, 2010 11:50:40 GMT -5
I agree Cherie, the mere fact of your authorship (as an ex) of the TTT would diminish it's credibility in the eyes of the more traditional exclusivist F&Ws (which are most of them). However, it would have more credibility than it would today with the op/eds. As soon as inside traditionalists read something resembling Christian teaching/preaching, the whole site gets rejected.......that's just the way it is as I'm sure you are aware. I'm not sure if you were responding to me on this: I didn't state that myself unless you are referring to someone else's statement. I stated that 2x2s would benefit most and stand by that opinion. That said, there are huge numbers of exes out there who have lived outside the meetings in a vacuum of information, never really fully informed of what they were brought up in. The TTT certainly answers a lot of those questions and will help people reconcile their past and present. In that regard, the op/ed information would definitely be beneficial to them. I've said this before, and both wanderer and clearday have agreed: No matter how I wrote the TTT content, or presented it, the F&W would be biased against reading TTT because I am an ex-2x2...EVEN if it were "stripped." IMO, my stripping TTT would help very little - because those who know the website owner/compiler is an ex-2x2 would use that to taint the information to discourage F&W from reading it. They still wouldnt read it. If a truther cares to attempt stripping TTT - I am willing to assist them. BTW, you state the 2x2s are the ones who need to know the information on TTT. However, there is another group who "need to know" also. Those who were B&R in it and left meetings. There is quite a number of former professing F&W who find and read TTT. This group is greatly relieved to find the information, no matter how late in life they find it --like Snow, for instance. I would guess that in this world there are nearly as many who have left meetings as have stayed in it. No way to tell for sure. They have no problem with TTT being written as it is. IMO, TTT as it is is doing a good job in informing others of the history. It also serves to help those who want to understand what their neighbors and relatives believe...since they wont post what they believe or be very forthcoming with it. Had one of those this week contact me... Cherie I think that the TTT has a very important function. For me, an ex 2x2, I never knew any other ex's. I was out for over 40 years before I found this site and the origins of the "truth". Reading what Cherie compiled gave me a very concise and amazing look at the religion I left behind. I don't think there should be a problem within the "truth" regarding the experiences of those who left. After all those who left should have a voice and be able to tell why they left. Sometimes it isn't easy to read about your beliefs in a negative light, but in order for a system to "self correct" one does need to know what they might be doing wrong in order to do that. I would think that reading about ex's experiences would provide a place to go to see how the "truth" is perceived by others. No system is static that is made up of actual human beings. No system is perfect and needs constant corrections. I thank Cherie for the work she has done. It's good to know things. How does one make an informed decision without information?
|
|
|
Post by Scott Ross on Jan 26, 2010 11:50:43 GMT -5
Hey there Bert! Lin, did you notice someone saying that my own websites have an "agenda." Hilarious. All I did was read the bible and itemize its beliefs and practices. But you chose what you wanted to present, and then used it to justify your point. We argue these issues pretty regularly on the board now don't we? I too have read the bible, and I am pretty sure that while you and I agree on a LOT of what we read and how it pertains to us individually, we tend to disagree on quite a bit also. For example the meaning of: Acts 17:
24"The God who made the world and everything in it is the Lord of heaven and earth and does not live in temples built by hands.To you (and many others) this implies that the meetings in the homes are the only correct way to meet. That verse has been used to 'condemn' people whose church meets in buildings designed for fellowship and worship. To me (and many others) it is obvious that the temple is within each of us, just as it is obvious to us that 'your' interpretation would likewise pertain to meeting in homes and in farm buildings, and tents, and grange halls etc... all of which are all 'made by hands'. So..... Although you say that your web site itemizes the beliefs and practices from the bible, it is your interpretation of what those beliefs and practices are in many cases. Again, using buildings as an example, we all know that the early church met in homes. BUT we also know that Jesus, Paul and others also regularly went to the temples and synagogues. Matthew 4
23Jesus went throughout Galilee, teaching in their synagogues, preaching the good news of the kingdom, and healing every disease and sickness among the people.He also taught from a boat, in a home, on a mountain etc..... Scott
|
|
|
Post by What Hat on Jan 26, 2010 11:52:39 GMT -5
Developing a Statement of Beliefs wouldn't be particularly difficult. Regional overseers could accept submissions of overseers, breaking down beliefs by components and in order of importance. A half dozen or so regional overseers could then get together for a couple of days over prayer and discussion and produce the final statement. Sadly, the only thing clearly in common though is as wanderer says: meeting in the home and the homeless ministry. It's unfortunate we have become so base. Because of such disparate beliefs around the world, a Statement of Beliefs could be church suicide. There would be a lot of people of principle who would discover that the church was not what they thought it was, and would be compelled to leave.....it could be a death blow. It's difficult to know how many people out there don't really care what the church believes, there's other things they like about the church and would stay regardless. I look at this a different way. I'm glad we don't have a Central Statement of Beliefs. The history of such statements and creeds is politics, bloodshed and the marginalization of free thinkers. God gave us only the Bible. The idea of using only the Bible as a written statement of belief is novel and fraught with difficulties. Still, I personally believe it's the way things should be done. One of the difficulties is that some of the power hungry operate as if there is such a statement pertaining to the f&w, a 'de facto' statement and act accordingly. It has happened. Those who have authority have to operate on 'first principles', those they find in the Bible. Where I think there should be some wiggle room is that there should be more 'open letters'. Letters from workers, past and present, to the congregation, indicating this is what I think as a worker or what we think as workers on various matters. Such letters would not be binding on all the congregation in all the world for all time, but pertinent to particular situations in particular contexts. For example, addressing the D&R issue in North America and the inconsistencies. It's best if 'interpretation' is subject to constant revision. That no person make a claim they understand Scripture fully, or its implications.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 26, 2010 12:22:12 GMT -5
You make many good points. I look at it this way: we're all slaves one way or the other, and it's largely a matter of choosing which master(s) we serve. We all have to decide "who's yo' daddy?" What has emerged for me over the years as the reliable master is "the Spirit". One can argue for and against Statements of Beliefs, Bible only, Workers, or others or some combination of them as our reliable guides, but I always come back to that "Still small Voice" as being far more reliable and often cringe thinking of the many times I have ignored it at my peril. The Bible-only concept has many merits (particularly in comparison to a Statement of Beliefs), but I have been looking at some instances in history lately where Bible-only has gone horribly askew, to the detriment of thousands of people. The only explanation I can come up with for that is that the Bible-only believers ditched the Spirit in favour of well intentioned abuse of fellow human beings according to the dictates of the Bible. Developing a Statement of Beliefs wouldn't be particularly difficult. Regional overseers could accept submissions of overseers, breaking down beliefs by components and in order of importance. A half dozen or so regional overseers could then get together for a couple of days over prayer and discussion and produce the final statement. Sadly, the only thing clearly in common though is as wanderer says: meeting in the home and the homeless ministry. It's unfortunate we have become so base. Because of such disparate beliefs around the world, a Statement of Beliefs could be church suicide. There would be a lot of people of principle who would discover that the church was not what they thought it was, and would be compelled to leave.....it could be a death blow. It's difficult to know how many people out there don't really care what the church believes, there's other things they like about the church and would stay regardless. I look at this a different way. I'm glad we don't have a Central Statement of Beliefs. The history of such statements and creeds is politics, bloodshed and the marginalization of free thinkers. God gave us only the Bible. The idea of using only the Bible as a written statement of belief is novel and fraught with difficulties. Still, I personally believe it's the way things should be done. One of the difficulties is that some of the power hungry operate as if there is such a statement pertaining to the f&w, a 'de facto' statement and act accordingly. It has happened. Those who have authority have to operate on 'first principles', those they find in the Bible. Where I think there should be some wiggle room is that there should be more 'open letters'. Letters from workers, past and present, to the congregation, indicating this is what I think as a worker or what we think as workers on various matters. Such letters would not be binding on all the congregation in all the world for all time, but pertinent to particular situations in particular contexts. For example, addressing the D&R issue in North America and the inconsistencies. It's best if 'interpretation' is subject to constant revision. That no person make a claim they understand Scripture fully, or its implications.
|
|
|
Post by CherieKropp on Jan 26, 2010 13:26:29 GMT -5
Easily? An F&W could just as easily start a new site as I could. Websites are a lot of HARD work.
Easily? Sure, except that Cherie doesnt have the time or inclination to start a new project like this...and also, she doesnt feel the Spirit leading her to do so.
There WAS a time when I was looking for direction as to how to shape TTT. I asked various F&W and exes their thoughts as to if it were possible to make to make TTT a site the F&W would read, recommend or endorse...and I got very little input.
Then one day I woke up and realized - it could never be. As long as an ex owned it - the F&W would never endorse it...no matter what it contained or how the contents were presented. Period, end of story. Just like they will never endorse WINGS--not even Lyle.
As I said, the F&W can put up their own website, and I will assist them by providing documents, info, etc. that they would like to use on it. I will work with that person quite willingly.
Appears to me that some F&W want the exes (me in particular) to do your work for you. Wel, who doesnt and most try!
What F&W is going to step up to the plate and make a website in the way you want it done? You talk the talk--why not walk the walk? Put your time and effort where your mouth is? Instead of just moaning ("if only TTT did ...X, then...) because it doesnt meet YOUR particular needs/desires. It's working quite well for what I envisioned it would do.
My overall goal is for the historical information to become common knowledge. I reiterate, I will provide assistance if someone is working toward that goal (subject to a few restrictions.) I've done most of the hard work - thanks to much help from volunteers and sources - and I'm offering to allow some F&W to take advantage of it and create a site like you want.
[And, before anyone asks...no, I dont really think anybody on TMB will do so...]
CK
|
|
|
Post by JO on Jan 26, 2010 13:29:59 GMT -5
As long as your site didn't link to the others I might send people links to yours. [emphasis added]The Wikipedia article excepted? Cherie rightly pointed out that Wikipedia is subject to change. You might be happy with it today, but tomorrow it might be quite different. I've been accused of pointing young people to the anti 2x2 websites but I've never done that. I have however discussed the issues with those who have raised them with me. I refuse to contribute to the denial of our history. While I applaud Cherie's efforts to make the history of our church common knowledge, I won't point anyone to a website that links to other sites full of negativity. IMO the Truth Archive would be best to have no links to other websites. Cherie has kindly offered to make historical documents available so why not host them on the Truth Archive site?
|
|
|
Post by What Hat on Jan 26, 2010 14:11:06 GMT -5
Hey there Bert! Lin, did you notice someone saying that my own websites have an "agenda." Hilarious. All I did was read the bible and itemize its beliefs and practices. But you chose what you wanted to present, and then used it to justify your point. We argue these issues pretty regularly on the board now don't we? I too have read the bible, and I am pretty sure that while you and I agree on a LOT of what we read and how it pertains to us individually, we tend to disagree on quite a bit also. For example the meaning of: Acts 17:
24"The God who made the world and everything in it is the Lord of heaven and earth and does not live in temples built by hands.To you (and many others) this implies that the meetings in the homes are the only correct way to meet. That verse has been used to 'condemn' people whose church meets in buildings designed for fellowship and worship. To me (and many others) it is obvious that the temple is within each of us, just as it is obvious to us that 'your' interpretation would likewise pertain to meeting in homes and in farm buildings, and tents, and grange halls etc... all of which are all 'made by hands'. So..... Although you say that your web site itemizes the beliefs and practices from the bible, it is your interpretation of what those beliefs and practices are in many cases. Again, using buildings as an example, we all know that the early church met in homes. BUT we also know that Jesus, Paul and others also regularly went to the temples and synagogues. Matthew 4
23Jesus went throughout Galilee, teaching in their synagogues, preaching the good news of the kingdom, and healing every disease and sickness among the people.He also taught from a boat, in a home, on a mountain etc..... Scott Perhaps I'm quibbling, but the understanding of f&W and orthodoxy of that verse is exactly the same. The difference is how we put the verse into practice. You would believe that meeting in a church building does not interfere with God dwelling within each of us, while we'd argue that a church building creates an illusion that that is where God dwells. You have to admit that a lot of people do think that a church building is the "house of God". But, I have to admit, that it's common for the friends to talk about religious people in the world believing this or that, when it's not quite that simple. Straw man arguments. No different though from my experience in the Reformed church with what they said about Catholics, praying to Mary, idolatry, and so on. When I looked into it, it wasn't quite that simple. Things are never quite as simple when you look into them.
|
|
|
Post by What Hat on Jan 26, 2010 14:13:23 GMT -5
You make many good points. I look at it this way: we're all slaves one way or the other, and it's largely a matter of choosing which master(s) we serve. We all have to decide "who's yo' daddy?" What has emerged for me over the years as the reliable master is "the Spirit". One can argue for and against Statements of Beliefs, Bible only, Workers, or others or some combination of them as our reliable guides, but I always come back to that "Still small Voice" as being far more reliable and often cringe thinking of the many times I have ignored it at my peril. The Bible-only concept has many merits (particularly in comparison to a Statement of Beliefs), but I have been looking at some instances in history lately where Bible-only has gone horribly askew, to the detriment of thousands of people. The only explanation I can come up with for that is that the Bible-only believers ditched the Spirit in favour of well intentioned abuse of fellow human beings according to the dictates of the Bible. I look at this a different way. I'm glad we don't have a Central Statement of Beliefs. The history of such statements and creeds is politics, bloodshed and the marginalization of free thinkers. God gave us only the Bible. The idea of using only the Bible as a written statement of belief is novel and fraught with difficulties. Still, I personally believe it's the way things should be done. One of the difficulties is that some of the power hungry operate as if there is such a statement pertaining to the f&w, a 'de facto' statement and act accordingly. It has happened. Those who have authority have to operate on 'first principles', those they find in the Bible. Where I think there should be some wiggle room is that there should be more 'open letters'. Letters from workers, past and present, to the congregation, indicating this is what I think as a worker or what we think as workers on various matters. Such letters would not be binding on all the congregation in all the world for all time, but pertinent to particular situations in particular contexts. For example, addressing the D&R issue in North America and the inconsistencies. It's best if 'interpretation' is subject to constant revision. That no person make a claim they understand Scripture fully, or its implications. Can you be more specific on the last paragraph?
|
|
|
Post by What Hat on Jan 26, 2010 14:17:47 GMT -5
Easily? An F&W could just as easily start a new site as I could. Websites are a lot of HARD work. Easily? Sure, except that Cherie doesnt have the time or inclination to start a new project like this...and also, she doesnt feel the Spirit leading her to do so. There WAS a time when I was looking for direction as to how to shape TTT. I asked various F&W and exes their thoughts as to if it were possible to make to make TTT a site the F&W would read, recommend or endorse...and I got very little input. Then one day I woke up and realized - it could never be. As long as an ex owned it - the F&W would never endorse it...no matter what it contained or how the contents were presented. Period, end of story. Just like they will never endorse WINGS--not even Lyle. As I said, the F&W can put up their own website, and I will assist them by providing documents, info, etc. that they would like to use on it. I will work with that person quite willingly. Appears to me that some F&W want the exes (me in particular) to do your work for you. Wel, who doesnt and most try! What F&W is going to step up to the plate and make a website in the way you want it done? You talk the talk--why not walk the walk? Put your time and effort where your mouth is? Instead of just moaning ("if only TTT did ...X, then...) because it doesnt meet YOUR particular needs/desires. It's working quite well for what I envisioned it would do. My overall goal is for the historical information to become common knowledge. I reiterate, I will provide assistance if someone is working toward that goal (subject to a few restrictions.) I've done most of the hard work - thanks to much help from volunteers and sources - and I'm offering to allow some F&W to take advantage of it and create a site like you want. [And, before anyone asks...no, I dont really think anybody on TMB will do so...] CK LOL. I have to laugh at that because we have had this kind of conversation before. I guess when I said "easily" I meant that it would be fairly easy to determine what is editorial commentary and what is not. Just like a newspaper puts news on the first page and runs opinion on the opinion page. Sorry, I didn't meant to minimize the amount of work this might entail. It's your site and your prerogative to do whatever you wish. It's a darn good site anyway, and more friends "peek" at it than you might think.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 26, 2010 14:18:35 GMT -5
I agree JO. In fact, if wanderer wants to do this, I would be happy to volunteer to help. Plus, I nominate you and What to join the team!
What say you wanderer?
|
|
|
Post by Scott Ross on Jan 26, 2010 15:03:14 GMT -5
Hey what! Perhaps I'm quibbling, but the understanding of f&W and orthodoxy of that verse is exactly the same. The difference is how we put the verse into practice. You would believe that meeting in a church building does not interfere with God dwelling within each of us, while we'd argue that a church building creates an illusion that that is where God dwells. Yep you're quibbling! Perhaps some denominations feel that way about their church. I can understand that I suppose since Jesus himself referred to the tabernacle as: John 2:16
16To those who sold doves he said, "Get these out of here! How dare you turn my Father's house into a market!" And as long as we are quibbling, how about convention property being considered 'hallowed ground'? You know, I have been in several churches through the years but have stayed away from those that promoted their church as being 'better' or 'the right one' for the most part. Our church building is a place we gather to worship and fellowship. Perhaps you will be surprised to hear that I see your church as being one that because of its exclusive beliefs actually places more importance on the home one meets in then in a true relationship with Jesus/God. I think that it causes many people to lose some of that personal relationship with Jesus/God because of the focus on the home/worker/friends as being so important. You have to admit that a lot of people do think that a church building is the "house of God".Well... I think that all places of worship should really be considered to he the 'house of God'. He is with us no matter where we are, and everything belongs to Him. But, I have to admit, that it's common for the friends to talk about religious people in the world believing this or that, when it's not quite that simple. Straw man arguments.Yep. and scarecrow tactics! No different though from my experience in the Reformed church with what they said about Catholics, praying to Mary, idolatry, and so on. When I looked into it, it wasn't quite that simple.I am like the ol' cowboy when upon being surrounded by Indians yelled "every man to themselves'"!!! That is my outlook on everyone's relationship with Jesus/God. I can't rely on a group to determine how I worship or believe. Things are never quite as simple when you look into them.Actually..... I think things are a lot simpler than we make them out to be. I see the bible and the message of Jesus as being quite simple actually. Man has spent the last few thousand years making a simple message a lot more complicated...... Scott
|
|
|
Post by lin on Jan 26, 2010 15:46:05 GMT -5
Cherie: You are 100% right. There is no need for another website, because first of all there would be no purpose in it. What I have in God has no history other than I have found peace and satisfaction in my own individual experience. It says we are to work out our own salvation with fear and trembling. I have no poobah that I pray to or look to for spiritual life, Using your word for overseer. One question I have is, why did you compile your website in the first place when you have such a feeling against this way? I can't believe it was to promote it.
|
|
|
Post by CherieKropp on Jan 26, 2010 16:10:47 GMT -5
Cherie: You are 100% right. There is no need for another website, because first of all there would be no purpose in it. What I have in God has no history other than I have found peace and satisfaction in my own individual experience. It says we are to work out our own salvation with fear and trembling. I have no poobah that I pray to or look to for spiritual life, Using your word for overseer. One question I have is, why did you compile your website in the first place when you have such a feeling against this way? I can't believe it was to promote it. You just proved what I said earlier: You haven't browsed TTT very extensively. My Mission Statement prominently posted, and it states why TTT was created and its goals. The answer to your question is there. I'm not going to spoon feeding you, Lin.
|
|
|
Post by JO on Jan 26, 2010 16:26:50 GMT -5
What I have in God has no history other than I have found peace and satisfaction in my own individual experience. I think anyone who has found Christ could say the same thing. If an outsider said "I have found peace and satisfaction in my own individual experience" exclusive workers and friends would classify them as "too well saved". Their only hope would be for workers to "unsave" them and bring them into "God's way".
|
|
|
Post by someguy on Jan 26, 2010 18:22:14 GMT -5
What I have in God has no history other than I have found peace and satisfaction in my own individual experience. I think anyone who has found Christ could say the same thing. If an outsider said "I have found peace and satisfaction in my own individual experience" exclusive workers and friends would classify them as "too well saved". Their only hope would be for workers to "unsave" them and bring them into "God's way". Completely agree JO, especially about having to "unsave them" and bring them into God's "true way". Lin I was the same way. I left meetings not because I was upset about the history. Nah, I could care less. Actually the f&w have a great history. I left because of exclusivity, self righteousness, and other such problems. Wonderful lovely people, sketchy system.
|
|
|
Post by JO on Jan 26, 2010 18:46:19 GMT -5
I left because of exclusivity, self righteousness, and other such problems. Wonderful lovely people, sketchy system. Most who leave, do it because of exclusivity. Our leaders seem unable to fix that problem. There's nothing wrong with celibate ministers who dedicate their lives to serving Christ and their fellow man. However there's a lot wrong with forbidding married people to minister in the work of the gospel. Our leadership is entirely made up of people who have forgone marriage, career, and a settled lifestyle i.e. people who have invested a great deal in the ministry system. They can't imagine that God could work in any other way, and their reasoning is "if this is not essential, then why would we be living like this?" So the system has an inbuilt immune system that resists change, favoring the status quo. It looks as if it is destined to whither and die over time.
|
|
|
Post by Jesse_Lackman on Jan 26, 2010 18:54:20 GMT -5
Then one day I woke up and realized - it could never be. As long as an ex owned it - the F&W would never endorse it...no matter what it contained or how the contents were presented. Period, end of story. Just like they will never endorse WINGS--not even Lyle. CK Cherie don't feel bad because I don't think most friends and workers would endorse a web site done by friends and/or workers either - we must be way to independant, individualistic or something.
|
|
|
Post by JO on Jan 26, 2010 20:06:42 GMT -5
The exes websites have helped me/f&w to search our ours own faith, belief, relationship with God, many friends maybe have been going along for the ride like the 5 foolish virgins and don't know it. So we need to get our spiritual house and priority in the right order.... Jesus firsts. Yes, if folks think salvation is about belonging to the 2x2 church (or any other religious group) they are just like the foolish virgins.
|
|
|
Post by lin on Jan 26, 2010 20:37:21 GMT -5
The exes websites have helped me/f&w to search our ours own faith, belief, relationship with God, many friends maybe have been going along for the ride like the 5 foolish virgins and don't know it. So we need to get our spiritual house and priority in the right order.... Jesus firsts. Yes, if folks think salvation is about belonging to the 2x2 church (or any other religious group) they are just like the foolish virgins. The five wise were not a group Nathan9.Rather were classified with the wise because they were ready. Same with the foolish they were individually foolish.
|
|
|
Post by Gene on Jan 26, 2010 20:38:42 GMT -5
Say! How did you do that!? ps I won't be offended if you refuse to divulge trade secrets - avoiding questions is a trademark of this forum! pps I can read that inverted perfectly as I live in NSW Australia! Just flip your keyboard around and start typing! And, Bert, when did I ever avoid a question of yours? www.en.fliptext.net/
|
|