|
Post by Linford Bledsoe on Nov 3, 2010 8:24:31 GMT -5
I'm not choosing sides, but no lies ever told here?
|
|
|
Post by Scott Ross on Nov 3, 2010 8:45:46 GMT -5
I'm not choosing sides, but no lies ever told here? That was the trouble with VOT... they were constant liers (as harsh as that sounds). I caught them out way too many times. They had 2 choices... either admit they were wrong, or kick me out so that they could continue to wallow in their anguish without anyone correcting the false statements and assumptions. I got kicked out. Well Lin and todd..... I am sure that there are 'lies' told here. The difference between the VOT and the TMB is that here people are free to express their views in any manner they see fit, as long as they do not attack each other but rather attack the message that is posted. HOWEVER..... I also believe that many times when people are accused of 'telling a lie', that really isn't true. For an example, I certainly remember being taught that the truth fellowship had an unbroken succession of workers that went back to the shores of Galilee. That isn't a lie from me, that is the truth. That is exactly how it was said from what I remember. An unbroken line of workers. Someone else that was told early in life that the truth fellowship started in the late 1800's could hear the same message spoken that I did, and they would say that they were NOT taught that there was an unbroken line of workers, but rather there was a SPIRITUAL direct line back to the shores of Galilee. Does that mean I am lying? Nope. Does it mean that they are lying? Nope. I see it as a deliberate lie on the part of the workers talking, but the other person sees it as if the workers were speaking in a figurative manner. Scott
|
|
|
Post by Linford Bledsoe on Nov 3, 2010 9:04:26 GMT -5
I'm not defending either. I'm just saying VOT had it's reason for existing. Just the same as TMB has it's reason for existing. I don't feel it's a good thing to rejoice in it's demise. I've had pm from Byron and he wasn't unreasonable.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 3, 2010 9:21:34 GMT -5
I don't think rejoicing in the struggles of others is ever a good idea. If what I've been told is true, it can't be a pleasant situation for them.
|
|
|
Post by alexander on Nov 3, 2010 9:42:49 GMT -5
I'm not choosing sides, but no lies ever told here? That was the trouble with VOT... they were constant liers (as harsh as that sounds). I caught them out way too many times. They had 2 choices... either admit they were wrong, or kick me out so that they could continue to wallow in their anguish without anyone correcting the false statements and assumptions. I got kicked out. Well Lin and todd..... I am sure that there are 'lies' told here. The difference between the VOT and the TMB is that here people are free to express their views in any manner they see fit, as long as they do not attack each other but rather attack the message that is posted. HOWEVER..... I also believe that many times when people are accused of 'telling a lie', that really isn't true. For an example, I certainly remember being taught that the truth fellowship had an unbroken succession of workers that went back to the shores of Galilee. That isn't a lie from me, that is the truth. That is exactly how it was said from what I remember. An unbroken line of workers. Someone else that was told early in life that the truth fellowship started in the late 1800's could hear the same message spoken that I did, and they would say that they were NOT taught that there was an unbroken line of workers, but rather there was a SPIRITUAL direct line back to the shores of Galilee. Does that mean I am lying? Nope. Does it mean that they are lying? Nope. I see it as a deliberate lie on the part of the workers talking, but the other person sees it as if the workers were speaking in a figurative manner. Scott Great explanation, Scott. And it is much more granular then that. Our own experiences with various workers and friends will greatly influence how we view them. If one hasn't been treated unfairly or harshly by the workers, as some have, then one would have a warmer feeling regarding the workers and their "Christlikeness". Those that are currently being treated unfairly by the workers would beg to disagree. And both perspectives would be honest and true. Regarding your example. This is where it would be helpful if the workers would write up the doctrine. The friends that post here are "all over the place" in regards to what they believe. Some believe that this is the only right way and the workers are the only true preachers, but some don't. This isn't a matter of opinion- it is a matter of doctrine. Some say that there is a dress code. Others say that there isn't. And all of these friends must be telling the truth from their perspective, which indicates that there isn't a understanding on doctrine or a unity in the doctrine. The friends and workers preach that there is a "oneness" and no divisions in the fellowship because it is the same Spirit that leads. Based on even the divisions of understanding of doctrine in this small sampling of friends, would it help for the workers to publish what they believe? But could the workers work in unity on publishing such a document? What about the rules for divorce and remarriage. We know that there is a split among the workers in regards to that topic. What about dress code? We know that there is a split there. What about TVs and other "gadgets"? We know that there is a split in opinion. What about the friends attending college? We know that some workers are against young friends going o college- it seems that one worker will usually preach on that at convention. What about women working outside of the home? We know that some workers are against it. What about the friends kids playing sports? Some workers are OK with it but others highly dissaprove of it. What about the friends going to a library? I know of an overseer that is against the friends going to a library. I know, I will be accused of lying or making things up or distorting the truth or whatever. But here is the thing- why get mad at me for telling the truth? I have heard and seen all of these things from the workers!!! I personally think that on some of these subjects the workers are full of hot air and that it isn't any of their business. But according to the professing folks here, I am "broad brushing" all of the workers. I'm not so much concerned with these workers statements as much as I am concerned about the friends that continue to give blind obedience to whatever a worker says without any regards to the truth or the spirit of what is being said. The idea that we don't have "rules" or "laws" within the Truth is a farce. We have rules imposed upon us by the whims of whomever may be speaking at convention in a given year. Or whomever may be the overseer . Or whomever may be the workers in our field. The Truth system is one of the most legalistic, Christian fundamentalist organization of which I am aware. The rules are not only oppressive, they are arbitrary. Friends can be arbitrarily punished because a worker doesn't like the fact that one isn't given them blind obedience. Therefore, because their kids play sports, they can be punished via loss privileges or by some other manner. When these friends protest, other friends are apt to say, "My kids play sports and the workers went with us to his football games." Situations like this are expounded upon daily on this message board. Both sides of the fence are telling the truth as much as I can discern. This board is literally made up, in a large measure, of brethren separated by many offenses that probably could have been averted by honesty, agreement, fairness, and clarity from the workers on their policies and enforcement of those policies.
|
|
|
Post by rational on Nov 3, 2010 9:47:44 GMT -5
That was the trouble with VOT... they were constant liers (as harsh as that sounds). I caught them out way too many times. They didn't even get up to urinate or defecate? Oh well, some people work better reclining! Now, when you caught them, was it in flagrante delicto?!? And what was the offense?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 3, 2010 9:55:24 GMT -5
That was the trouble with VOT... they were constant liers (as harsh as that sounds). I caught them out way too many times. They didn't even get up to urinate or defecate? Oh well, some people work better reclining! Now, when you caught them, was it in flagrante delicto?!? And what was the offense? The offense illustrated by Todd is what happens when someone doesn't proofread their posting.
|
|
|
Post by Linford Bledsoe on Nov 3, 2010 9:55:42 GMT -5
I like the spirit of David when speaking of the death of his enemy Saul. 2 Samuel 1:19-27
|
|
|
Post by ronhall on Nov 3, 2010 10:02:20 GMT -5
I'm not choosing sides, but no lies ever told here? That was the trouble with VOT... they were constant liers (as harsh as that sounds). I caught them out way too many times. They had 2 choices... either admit they were wrong, or kick me out so that they could continue to wallow in their anguish without anyone correcting the false statements and assumptions. I got kicked out. Well Lin and todd..... I am sure that there are 'lies' told here. The difference between the VOT and the TMB is that here people are free to express their views in any manner they see fit, as long as they do not attack each other but rather attack the message that is posted. HOWEVER..... I also believe that many times when people are accused of 'telling a lie', that really isn't true. For an example, I certainly remember being taught that the truth fellowship had an unbroken succession of workers that went back to the shores of Galilee. That isn't a lie from me, that is the truth. That is exactly how it was said from what I remember. An unbroken line of workers. Someone else that was told early in life that the truth fellowship started in the late 1800's could hear the same message spoken that I did, and they would say that they were NOT taught that there was an unbroken line of workers, but rather there was a SPIRITUAL direct line back to the shores of Galilee. Does that mean I am lying? Nope. Does it mean that they are lying? Nope. I see it as a deliberate lie on the part of the workers talking, but the other person sees it as if the workers were speaking in a figurative manner. Scott I must state that I heard that teaching the same as you, Scott, and have wondered how others professing in this general area responded. My impression is that just about all who aren't internet savvy have this belief as I did. I've gotten over my initial shock and period of wondering if the whole thing wasn't just a hoax. What has come from all my consideration and introspection is that the fellowship is like the chaff that protects the kernel of grain as it grows. While it is not truly grain, yet it is necessary, and the kernel would not mature without it. At first I felt a need to tell others but realized it was more of a 'hot button' subject than I am equipped to deal with. Again after a lot of consideration and introspection, I believe I am not the right person to go around educating others on this issue. So I don't. The only time I have to really bite my tongue, in a bit of sadness, is when someone refers to the fellowship as 'The Truth' in no uncertain terms. A time or two when I didn't do this, it didn't go well.
|
|
|
Post by rational on Nov 3, 2010 10:11:29 GMT -5
HOWEVER..... I also believe that many times when people are accused of 'telling a lie', that really isn't true. Do you mean that the original statement was actually the truth so that the statement accusing the poster of lying actually was the one that was untrue?!?
|
|
|
Post by Scott Ross on Nov 3, 2010 10:12:13 GMT -5
I must state that I heard that teaching the same as you, Scott, and have wondered how others professing in this general area responded. My impression is that just about all who aren't internet savvy have this belief as I did.I am guessing that we probably heard that from the same workers since I grew up in the state you reside in. This also points out the regional/area differences in what is taught from the platform. The further the workers are from the 'old country' the more apt they are to speak a history of their own making it appears. We read here of those that live in Ireland for the most part understood that the truth fellowship started there, whereas those in other countries seem to have heard a slightly different variation. I do remember the excitement when one of those old original workers were speaking at a convention. I even heard them referred t as having come from Ireland, although at that age I had no idea why that was significant. Scott
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 3, 2010 11:12:08 GMT -5
I must state that I heard that teaching the same as you, Scott, and have wondered how others professing in this general area responded. My impression is that just about all who aren't internet savvy have this belief as I did.I am guessing that we probably heard that from the same workers since I grew up in the state you reside in. This also points out the regional/area differences in what is taught from the platform. The further the workers are from the 'old country' the more apt they are to speak a history of their own making it appears. Scott I think the "state you reside in" is probably WA. My Mom professed in the 30's in WA (Seattle mostly). She was raised a Catholic but met the Truth through her husband's family who had professed earlier and then dropped out for awhile. Interestingly enough, she never thought there was an unbroken line back to Galilee--because everything she heard indicated that Ireland in the late 1890's was "ground zero." However, her MIL believed there was an unbroken line of workers going all the way back. they both heard the same workers at the same time and neither grew up in the truth and yet both reached different conclusions. Mom may have heard things differently because she came out of the Catholic church but at any rate, when Mom heard about Wm Irvine she said "well that makes sense." I always assumed there was an "unbroken" line but I don't remember I ever hearing that said specifically: I just assumed that statements like "this is the way Jesus started" presupposed that it had continued on down through the ages and never gave it any thought until one day I wondered what hymnbook the folks in the Dark Ages used and started looking about.
|
|
|
Post by ScholarGal on Nov 3, 2010 11:45:46 GMT -5
My Mom professed in the 30's in WA (Seattle mostly). She was raised a Catholic but met the Truth through her husband's family who had professed earlier and then dropped out for awhile. Interestingly enough, she never thought there was an unbroken line back to Galilee--because everything she heard indicated that Ireland in the late 1890's was "ground zero." However, her MIL believed there was an unbroken line of workers going all the way back. they both heard the same workers at the same time and neither grew up in the truth and yet both reached different conclusions. Mom may have heard things differently because she came out of the Catholic church but at any rate, when Mom heard about Wm Irvine she said "well that makes sense." Interesting to hear the contrast between your mom's view and her MIL's view. My brother and are are close in age, grew up in the same house, and listened to the same workers. He thought there was an unbroken line, I was aware of the history. I'm still baffled about that difference in views. When people learn about the history as adults--after growing up thinking there is an unbroken line--they are probably more likely to feel betrayed and leave meetings. (At least, that has been my observation.)
|
|
|
Post by Scott Ross on Nov 3, 2010 12:02:57 GMT -5
When people learn about the history as adults--after growing up thinking there is an unbroken line--they are probably more likely to feel betrayed and leave meetings. (At least, that has been my observation.) I agree Scholargal. There have been several people contact me after reading on-line about the history. For some of them, finding out the history made them question everything that meetings meant to them. They felt deceived and spiritually abused. Some of these folks were able to work through it and stay in meetings, but their perception of what the workers teach has been tainted by their earlier belief of being the church that (physically) went all the way back to Christ. Others struggled with being able to stay in a church that (they believed) lied to them, and have since quit the meetings and found Christian fellowship elsewhere, or now have such a distrust of all churches and try to go it on their own. Interesting about your brother. My sister and I (who also quit meetings and goes to a different church) talked about what we learned growing up and how it affected us each in different ways. I have mentioned before how after inviting a few of her friends to gospel meetings she later heard it preached to us how if someone heard the gospel message and didn't accept it from the workers, were then destined for a lost eternity. She felt that anyone she invited to meetings that didn't subsequently profess would be going to hell.....and that it would be her fault.... In fact she was quite devastated for having invited anyone ever to gospel meetings. Pretty sad..... Scott
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 3, 2010 12:17:24 GMT -5
When people learn about the history as adults--after growing up thinking there is an unbroken line--they are probably more likely to feel betrayed and leave meetings. (At least, that has been my observation.) I agree Scholargal. There have been several people contact me after reading on-line about the history. For some of them, finding out the history made them question everything that meetings meant to them. They felt deceived and spiritually abused. Some of these folks were able to work through it and stay in meetings, but their perception of what the workers teach has been tainted by their earlier belief of being the church that (physically) went all the way back to Christ. Others struggled with being able to stay in a church that (they believed) lied to them, and have since quit the meetings and found Christian fellowship elsewhere, or now have such a distrust of all churches and try to go it on their own. Interesting about your brother. My sister and I (who also quit meetings and goes to a different church) talked about what we learned growing up and how it affected us each in different ways. I have mentioned before how after inviting a few of her friends to gospel meetings she later heard it preached to us how if someone heard the gospel message and didn't accept it from the workers, were then destined for a lost eternity. She felt that anyone she invited to meetings that didn't subsequently profess would be going to hell.....and that it would be her fault.... In fact she was quite devastated for having invited anyone ever to gospel meetings. Pretty sad..... Scott It seems like among the friends this has become a point to "tip toe around" as you don't know who might not know and I'll be glad when that is over. My husband and I were both in our mid-50's when we found out, but for both of us, when reviewing what we thought we had heard we realized we had heard it through a "filter" and didn't feel deceived, just naive. It was funny in going through his folks stuff when they passed away that we found an old yellow clipping about WI--but I'm sure they didn't tell us because they weren't sure how we would take it. My FIL had been in the work for 20 years and I doubt that he knew anything about WI until receiving that clipping. However, it didn't unseat their faith. Nonetheless I agree with Scholargal--I suspect the more entrenched your belief is in the "unbroken line" and the longer you have believed it, the harder it is when you hear otherwise. For me, it was a greater miracle that anyone would decide to sell all and go out and peach on faith if they had never seen it done before than if it was simply something that had "always" been that way. This does not mean that I don't appreciate what Nathan posts nor do I disbelieve them--but it wasn't something that I used when mulling over what I learned. I'll be glad when this sticky wicket is forever behind us.
|
|
|
Post by What Hat on Nov 3, 2010 12:30:20 GMT -5
Right, which is why reasonable people do not care for Fox News. (Wow, what a loaded statement. Did I just write that? ;D) Many reasonable people like Fox News! Let's re-state that: Right, which is why reasonable liberal people do not care for Fox News. ;D There's a difference between "reasonable" and "liberal"? I thought that was the same thing.
|
|
|
Post by What Hat on Nov 3, 2010 12:31:29 GMT -5
Thanks emy because I think I'm reasonable and I like Fox News. But for sure a liberal wouldn't` If they'd just name it Fox Opinions, or Fox Editorials, or Fox The Way We See It, I'd be happier. Unfortunately, they have not yet asked me what would make me happy. Jesus was a liberal. And a socialist. Actually he was a gay black hippie Jew.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 3, 2010 12:34:02 GMT -5
Many reasonable people like Fox News! Let's re-state that: Right, which is why reasonable liberal people do not care for Fox News. ;D There's a difference between "reasonable" and "liberal"? I thought that was the same thing. What's the difference? the spelling!
|
|
|
Post by What Hat on Nov 3, 2010 12:37:11 GMT -5
You know Gene, those of use who are conservatives feel like CNN and the rest of the world should be called News the Way I See It also. See the thread on news bias in the secular section. That's the problem with we human folk: we think our views are correct and whatever substantiates that position is unbiased. Bet there's no news in Heaven! The real concern with Fox is corporate ownership of the media, and concentration of ownership in the media in general. This is a structural issue more than an ideological one. Rupert Murdoch, and his globally warming, polluting, war-mongering cartel of corporate buddies, directly controls an unbelievable amount of what you read, see and hear, and by consequence what you think.
|
|
|
Post by What Hat on Nov 3, 2010 12:44:25 GMT -5
I don't think so. Truthful things may hurt, but falsehoods hurt far worse. Yes, because man's pride allows it to....IF things are truely false, in all reality it should just bounce off our backs simply BECAUSE we know that it IS false! It seems to me when people respond to false allegations then that tends to give them credence...but yet I'm well aware through my own self, that it is nigh unto impossible NOT to respond! Maybe this is where God tells us to turn the other cheek...don't give it credence! God KNOWs the truth even though mankind thinks He doesn't! Well, how well does your advice work with someone in jail because of a false accusation or someone being burned at the stake, say, for accusations of being a witch. I'm just arguing that false accusations have tangible, hurtful consequences that cannot be blown off, and the sting is that much greater if you know you are innocent. We have had a terrible time here with a highly respected chief coroner who sent many innocent people off to jail for crimes they did not commit. This included men accused of rape, and mothers accused of killing their own babies. All the evidence introduced through his expert testimony over many years turned out to be totally false. How would a mother feel, sitting in jail, falsely accused of killing her child, and her own family won't even talk to her! (I know you weren't thinking of this kind of stuff, sharon, but it's amazing what is generated from a falsehood.)
|
|
|
Post by What Hat on Nov 3, 2010 12:50:44 GMT -5
There's a way to do criticism properly, and they don't do it. There's probably right and wrong ways to excommunicate ppl, deal with CSA, treat people, minister to the flock etc etc etc. Criticism from the hurt, shamed, shunned, and mistreated, and even their self appointed spokespeople is likely to seem a little harsh and bitter. I'm not excusing anyone, just suggesting that a natural balance often requires extremes at both ends - kind of a bell curve, if you like. There's a different standard for those who have been hurt compared to those running a website. Anyone running a website is a journalist, and should abide by a professional standard and code of ethics. If the web site authors don't know what those are, they shouldn't be doing what they're doing. Whereas the testimony of someone who has been hurt is not held to that kind of a standard. We don't read or process such documents as objective news, so allowances can be made. First, because they don't even know the standard. Second, because we automatically process such testimonies as one side of the story, knowing there is probably another side as well. Third, because we have sympathy for the pain the person has endured or is experiencing.
|
|
|
Post by What Hat on Nov 3, 2010 13:05:42 GMT -5
That was the trouble with VOT... they were constant liers (as harsh as that sounds). I caught them out way too many times. They had 2 choices... either admit they were wrong, or kick me out so that they could continue to wallow in their anguish without anyone correcting the false statements and assumptions. I got kicked out. Well Lin and todd..... I am sure that there are 'lies' told here. The difference between the VOT and the TMB is that here people are free to express their views in any manner they see fit, as long as they do not attack each other but rather attack the message that is posted. HOWEVER..... I also believe that many times when people are accused of 'telling a lie', that really isn't true. For an example, I certainly remember being taught that the truth fellowship had an unbroken succession of workers that went back to the shores of Galilee. That isn't a lie from me, that is the truth. That is exactly how it was said from what I remember. An unbroken line of workers. Someone else that was told early in life that the truth fellowship started in the late 1800's could hear the same message spoken that I did, and they would say that they were NOT taught that there was an unbroken line of workers, but rather there was a SPIRITUAL direct line back to the shores of Galilee. Does that mean I am lying? Nope. Does it mean that they are lying? Nope. I see it as a deliberate lie on the part of the workers talking, but the other person sees it as if the workers were speaking in a figurative manner. Scott Great explanation, Scott. And it is much more granular then that. Our own experiences with various workers and friends will greatly influence how we view them. If one hasn't been treated unfairly or harshly by the workers, as some have, then one would have a warmer feeling regarding the workers and their "Christlikeness". Those that are currently being treated unfairly by the workers would beg to disagree. And both perspectives would be honest and true. Regarding your example. This is where it would be helpful if the workers would write up the doctrine. The friends that post here are "all over the place" in regards to what they believe. Some believe that this is the only right way and the workers are the only true preachers, but some don't. This isn't a matter of opinion- it is a matter of doctrine. Some say that there is a dress code. Others say that there isn't. And all of these friends must be telling the truth from their perspective, which indicates that there isn't a understanding on doctrine or a unity in the doctrine. The friends and workers preach that there is a "oneness" and no divisions in the fellowship because it is the same Spirit that leads. Based on even the divisions of understanding of doctrine in this small sampling of friends, would it help for the workers to publish what they believe? But could the workers work in unity on publishing such a document? What about the rules for divorce and remarriage. We know that there is a split among the workers in regards to that topic. What about dress code? We know that there is a split there. What about TVs and other "gadgets"? We know that there is a split in opinion. What about the friends attending college? We know that some workers are against young friends going o college- it seems that one worker will usually preach on that at convention. What about women working outside of the home? We know that some workers are against it. What about the friends kids playing sports? Some workers are OK with it but others highly dissaprove of it. What about the friends going to a library? I know of an overseer that is against the friends going to a library. I know, I will be accused of lying or making things up or distorting the truth or whatever. But here is the thing- why get mad at me for telling the truth? I have heard and seen all of these things from the workers!!! I personally think that on some of these subjects the workers are full of hot air and that it isn't any of their business. But according to the professing folks here, I am "broad brushing" all of the workers. I'm not so much concerned with these workers statements as much as I am concerned about the friends that continue to give blind obedience to whatever a worker says without any regards to the truth or the spirit of what is being said. The idea that we don't have "rules" or "laws" within the Truth is a farce. We have rules imposed upon us by the whims of whomever may be speaking at convention in a given year. Or whomever may be the overseer . Or whomever may be the workers in our field. The Truth system is one of the most legalistic, Christian fundamentalist organization of which I am aware. The rules are not only oppressive, they are arbitrary. Friends can be arbitrarily punished because a worker doesn't like the fact that one isn't given them blind obedience. Therefore, because their kids play sports, they can be punished via loss privileges or by some other manner. When these friends protest, other friends are apt to say, "My kids play sports and the workers went with us to his football games." Situations like this are expounded upon daily on this message board. Both sides of the fence are telling the truth as much as I can discern. This board is literally made up, in a large measure, of brethren separated by many offenses that probably could have been averted by honesty, agreement, fairness, and clarity from the workers on their policies and enforcement of those policies. Personally, I like the full liberality that is offered through grace and through God's Word, whereas written doctrine always comes with strings attached. If you look at the Chalcedonian Creed, for example, it asks you to accept something that is 'way out there' in terms of what either reason, common sense, or the Holy Bible actually states. I don't mind written doctrine, as long as we always see it as one man's opinion, and remain free to think about it however we wish. And I personally would not favour any one individual or group of individuals writing down their version of the f&w doctrine as binding on everyone else. At the same time, I don't deny that the problems you describe either have occurred or do occur.
|
|
|
Post by What Hat on Nov 3, 2010 13:28:01 GMT -5
My Mom professed in the 30's in WA (Seattle mostly). She was raised a Catholic but met the Truth through her husband's family who had professed earlier and then dropped out for awhile. Interestingly enough, she never thought there was an unbroken line back to Galilee--because everything she heard indicated that Ireland in the late 1890's was "ground zero." However, her MIL believed there was an unbroken line of workers going all the way back. they both heard the same workers at the same time and neither grew up in the truth and yet both reached different conclusions. Mom may have heard things differently because she came out of the Catholic church but at any rate, when Mom heard about Wm Irvine she said "well that makes sense." Interesting to hear the contrast between your mom's view and her MIL's view. My brother and are are close in age, grew up in the same house, and listened to the same workers. He thought there was an unbroken line, I was aware of the history. I'm still baffled about that difference in views. When people learn about the history as adults--after growing up thinking there is an unbroken line--they are probably more likely to feel betrayed and leave meetings. (At least, that has been my observation.) We have been guilty of believing that because we all trust in Christ, that we are by consequence immune from sin, and that the normal safeguards and suspicions that exist in society at large, do not pertain to us. And when there has been evidence to the contrary there has been a wall of silence so that we can maintain our sense of having achieved a Utopian ideal. This has been the case with the history, child sexual abuse, and all kinds of other problems, great and small, which we face. With the history I've never felt that anyone acted out of overt maliciousness and deception so hesitate to use the "L" word. But small lies grow into bigger ones. All it took perhaps was a desire to erase the bad taste of William Irvine around 1915 ... "we won't let that name cross our lips, or spit facing away from Jerusalem if we do" ... and then with so many swallowing the Only Way hypothesis and extrapolating the substantiation that that requires, at some point the workers must have found that the actual history would be corrosive to peoples' faith. So those that knew the history kept silent about it as much as possible, not wanting to erode anyone's faith, and thinking that the history did not really matter. And so the contradiction between what people wished to believe and the actual tale of events grew and grew. It's the same now with the 'child abuse' issue. I'm finding my immediate acquaintances in the fellowship are quite resistant to taking the same steps that every Boy Scout, church and educational institution has taken because somehow we are different. And we are different: we operate under the illusion that we're all a family. But the vipers that have been among us mean that we can't just operate as a family anymore. Same as if an uncle abuses or a co-worker .. then the family or the company is no longer the same.
|
|
|
Post by emy on Nov 3, 2010 20:23:38 GMT -5
Many reasonable people like Fox News! Let's re-state that: Right, which is why reasonable liberal people do not care for Fox News. ;D There's a difference between "reasonable" and "liberal"? I thought that was the same thing. Not usually, but I'll make an exception for you, and a few others!
|
|
|
Post by emy on Nov 3, 2010 20:25:02 GMT -5
The real concern with Fox is corporate ownership of the media, and concentration of ownership in the media in general. This is a structural issue more than an ideological one. Rupert Murdoch, and his globally warming, polluting, war-mongering cartel of corporate buddies, directly controls an unbelievable amount of what you read, see and hear, and by consequence what you think. You are going to have to explain this to me.
|
|
|
Post by DumSpiroSpero on Nov 3, 2010 20:30:31 GMT -5
The real concern with Fox is corporate ownership of the media, and concentration of ownership in the media in general. This is a structural issue more than an ideological one. Rupert Murdoch, and his globally warming, polluting, war-mongering cartel of corporate buddies, directly controls an unbelievable amount of what you read, see and hear, and by consequence what you think. You are going to have to explain this to me. When the majority of the media is controlled by right wing capitalists, that will be the flavour of the news
|
|
|
Post by emy on Nov 3, 2010 20:31:00 GMT -5
Personally, I like the full liberality that is offered through grace and through God's Word, whereas written doctrine always comes with strings attached. If you look at the Chalcedonian Creed, for example, it asks you to accept something that is 'way out there' in terms of what either reason, common sense, or the Holy Bible actually states. I don't mind written doctrine, as long as we always see it as one man's opinion, and remain free to think about it however we wish. And I personally would not favour any one individual or group of individuals writing down their version of the f&w doctrine as binding on everyone else.At the same time, I don't deny that the problems you describe either have occurred or do occur. I agree. I find it amazing that we can so freely fellowship with each other among the f&w even if there are some pretty definite discrepancies in how we interpret the scripture. I find it part of the beauty of the fellowship and I tend to think that is how God has it planned. We are called to an individual service and He guides and deals with us in our individual needs, yet we find fellowship together.
|
|
|
Post by What Hat on Nov 3, 2010 22:16:43 GMT -5
The real concern with Fox is corporate ownership of the media, and concentration of ownership in the media in general. This is a structural issue more than an ideological one. Rupert Murdoch, and his globally warming, polluting, war-mongering cartel of corporate buddies, directly controls an unbelievable amount of what you read, see and hear, and by consequence what you think. You are going to have to explain this to me. In oppressive states the government controls all the media outlets. Obviously, that's make criticism of the government impossible. Now, if Rupert Murdoch controls TV networks, newspapers and radio stations around the world, which he now does, are the employees going to criticize his business dealings. Or the dealings of his "friends". That's the problem. Ten or twenty years ago there was much more diversity of ownership. The TV stations, newspapers and radio stations in your town or city would have all been owned by different people instead of by a few media conglomerates. Fortunately, we live in a free country, so anyone can start a newspaper, web site or whatever. And they do. But it takes big bucks to build something people actually will use, so it's not quite as free as it should be. The solution is not too allow too much concentration of media ownership, in a similar way to not allowing any company to monopolize a market. However, in media the laws need to be much more stringent.
|
|