|
Post by sharonw on Nov 5, 2010 14:40:40 GMT -5
There is a way of taking criticism and the workers do not take it at all. If the workers took criticism, there would be none of this falling out that we have experienced. The normal means of making changes (in order to stop abuse) have broken down because the workers are not approachable. The abusers in power were put there by other abusers and they stay there by fear and intimidation. They have the friends convinced that the way to handle it is to sit passively by while the abusers police themselves. Some did not agree with that approach so they started these sites which gave the abused people a voice. Being heard is an essential part of the human experience. By what measure you mete, you should also be measured. Whatever standard the VOT exacts from the workers they should also apply to themselves, and they don't. Well, it fulfilling the scripture it says with what judgement ones gives out, it will be measured back to you....This thread alone does that to VOT, doesn't it seem like?
|
|
|
Post by emy on Nov 5, 2010 15:58:25 GMT -5
www.tellingthetruth.info/bible_topics/www.tellingthetruth.info/bible_topics/closestway.phpThe biggest point of contention is concerning Grace. Leaving aside those who plainly misunderstand the function of Grace, the friends are closer to the concept of prevenient grace, as taught by John Wesley, grace which has to be accessed, whereas Calvinists believe in irresistible grace that comes only to those who are predestined to receive it, that is, the elect. The kind of grace taught here www.tellingthetruth.info/bible_topics/grace.php, which emphasises being born again into irresistible grace leads into the idea of pre-destination. Teaching leaning toward prevenient grace, in which it is thought that God has made grace available to all, requires something of us in order to access that grace and obtain salvation. It is also thought that we could lose our salvation along the way, whereas Calvinists tend to believe that one cannot "lose out". Prevenient grace is closer to worker teaching. Unfortunately, prevenient grace is often distorted by its opponents into "salvation by works", which it is not. It should be stated though that it can also be more easily misunderstood by its proponents, because there tends to be less constant "saved by grace" drilling in the teaching. While these two teachings on Grace do not differ greatly, the prevenient grace camp is seen by the irresistible grace camp as emphasizing works to a fault, while the prevenient grace camp often sees irresistible grace believers as moral reprobates using grace as an excuse to sin. Interesting comments. Which 'grace' displays the mercy of God more accurately? It seems that irresistible grace would leave out many people. Is it true that God is not willing that any should perish?
|
|
|
Post by todd on Nov 6, 2010 7:32:23 GMT -5
Yes it makes sense Todd. Scott, the "if I see you blatantly contradicting yourself and do not have an explanation for the contradiction but continue on with it regardless, especially to prove a point that can't be proven any other way, then yes, I will call you a liar," is in reference to a hypothetical you, NOT Scott Ross. It's in reference to the thread Todd linked, and VOT. Now go lie down, breath slowly, and let it soak in. I will say I think using the word liar is not very edifying no matter who uses it.... because of the difference between how intercession/inspiration and accusation/criticism works. But that was the subject of the other post, no need to repeat it here. Well..... It sure looks as if todd is insinuating that I am a liar. Yeah..... It pisses me off, because he goes out of his way to try and show everyone that they are wrong or misguided if they do not accept what he says as being true. I'm sorry that it looks that way to you, but I wasn't insinuating that one small bit. I hope you now understand why I sometimes wonder that a person has misunderstood a worker. I put it down to them expecting to hear a particular message, so they will read that into what is being said regardless of what has really been said. I don't want to give away a free psychology lesson here but, this does actually happen. Just look at the accounts of where 2 people from the same family, listening to the same preacher, got a different message. Maybe you expected me to tell you that you were lying so that is what you read into it regardless of the fact that I didn't say that. It is an issue because of the fact that everyone is happy to say that he is the founder, but no one can explain why... well at least not without contradicting themselves to prove it. It sounds to me like people aren't being honest about it, and that is an issue. No, I didn't say or agree that you were taught that there was an unbroken line of workers back to the shores of Galilee, and your continuing misreading is strengthening my case Nope. I didn't accept that. I don't really know what the workers are teaching in another country other than the fact that some of them also come here to preach. I didn't say that they were liars for teaching something different in meetings. Misreading again. I didn't acknowledge anything of the like. Can you see now how a person can believe some thing was definitely said when it wasn't. And I am not going to call you a liar because you are saying that this is what I said, because it seems like you genuinely believe that this is what I said. Badly!!!
|
|
|
Post by todd on Nov 6, 2010 8:01:37 GMT -5
I mean, look what the words liar, lies, lying did to the spirit of this thread. Like Todd said we all need to pray, and need the prayers of others, to overcome our own human faults and failures - ts has been pointing some out. Sow the God given seeds of edification, exhortation, and comfort... Maybe I shouldn't have used the word "liars", and at the time I could barely bring myself to say it (which is why I included the words in brackets to indicate that I knew how harsh it sounded), but the fact is that they were lying. Maybe I should have said "deliberately being dishonest", which may not be as bad, and meant the same thing. Anyway, I guess the reaction to the word "liar" was as serious as it needs to be for the sort of offence.
|
|
|
Post by todd on Nov 6, 2010 8:40:02 GMT -5
I mean, look what the words liar, lies, lying did to the spirit of this thread. Like Todd said we all need to pray, and need the prayers of others, to overcome our own human faults and failures - ts has been pointing some out. Sow the God given seeds of edification, exhortation, and comfort... I sure do agree with you Jesse. As soon as one person posted a blanket statement accusing everyone on the VOT as being constant liars: That was the trouble with VOT... they were constant liers (as harsh as that sounds)No wiggle room on that one is there? todd's statement means that there was no truth to anything they posted. Ok I should clarify that when I said VOT, that I didn't mean everyone on VOT, because I wasn't able to read everything that was written there, but I meant those that represented VOT. Sorry about that. Can we still be friends? What exactly is wrong with this? If 2 people have contradicting facts, there is no possible way that the both can be right. If one person says it is a blue bucket and one person says it's a red bucket, it's possible that they are both wrong, but it's not possible that they are both right. Well DUH... of course and you are exactly the same. In fact everyone is. It goes without saying that if a person believes something, anyone who doesn't believe it is wrong. How can it be any other way. You say this as if I am at fault for being this way yet you and every other living person is exactly the same. If you are convicted that the bucket is red then you are going to think the other person is wrong if they think it is blue. Otherwise you don't really believe that it is red. Do you recall telling me recently that I was wrong in saying that a person can't know for sure if they will be saved when Jesus returns. It seems I aren't the only one who thinks that others are wrong if they don't believe what I believe. Yes, every is like that. Yes I have often admitted that I could be wrong in some respects, but that doesn't stop me from putting up my case for why I believe a certain way. I'm sorry that you take offense at me thinking that others are wrong for not believing what I believe, but because you do the same thing, surely you understand You have seen me say it often that I am happy to be shown that I am wrong, and for someone to explain what William Irvine did that he is considered to be the founder, but nobody does, and other than some historical documents, this is one thing that makes me suspect that it isn't true. Oh yes, I have had people respond to this question and say "William Irvine started the church you are in". That doesn't explain anything. I have also had people give me dates too. It started in 1897, but not any little bit of it existed until 1901. Surely you can see that this isn't an answer about even when it started, let alone what WI did that he is called the founder. And getting back to what I said about... "So, who is wrong and who is right? Someone is wrong because there is a contradiction", isn't it fairly basic logic to see that either 1897 or 1901 is wrong?
|
|
|
Post by todd on Nov 6, 2010 8:48:55 GMT -5
And I actually got todd to growl at me!! Grrrr Scott, you are misreading me again. I actually think that is quite humorous! He has made me growl here on the board several times because has he this way of twisting my words to try to discredit or diminish what I have posted. Payback usually sucks doesn't it? And I still think of you as a brother todd. Scott My appologies for any word twisting and growl prompting, bro.
|
|
|
Post by Gene on Nov 6, 2010 8:50:07 GMT -5
You have seen me say it often that I am happy to be shown that I am wrong, and for someone to explain what William Irvine did that he is considered to be the founder, but nobody does, and other than some historical documents, this is one thing that makes me suspect that it isn't true. Oh yes, I have had people respond to this question and say "William Irvine started the church you are in". That doesn't explain anything. I have also had people give me dates too. It started in 1897, but not any little bit of it existed until 1901. Surely you can see that this isn't an answer about even when it started, let alone what WI did that he is called the founder. And getting back to what I said about... "So, who is wrong and who is right? Someone is wrong because there is a contradiction", isn't it fairly basic logic to see that either 1897 or 1901 is wrong? Todd, your mother told me that you had light brown hair when you were born. Contradicting her, your father told me your hair was dark blond. Other than a historical document called your birth certificate, I've seen no proof that you even exist. The fact that your mother and father contradict each other regarding your hair color is a telling fact, IMO. I don't believe you were ever born.
|
|
|
Post by sharonw on Nov 6, 2010 9:14:51 GMT -5
You have seen me say it often that I am happy to be shown that I am wrong, and for someone to explain what William Irvine did that he is considered to be the founder, but nobody does, and other than some historical documents, this is one thing that makes me suspect that it isn't true. Oh yes, I have had people respond to this question and say "William Irvine started the church you are in". That doesn't explain anything. I have also had people give me dates too. It started in 1897, but not any little bit of it existed until 1901. Surely you can see that this isn't an answer about even when it started, let alone what WI did that he is called the founder. And getting back to what I said about... "So, who is wrong and who is right? Someone is wrong because there is a contradiction", isn't it fairly basic logic to see that either 1897 or 1901 is wrong? Todd, your mother told me that you had light brown hair when you were born. Contradicting her, your father told me your hair was dark blond. Other than a historical document called your birth certificate, I've seen no proof that you even exist. The fact that your mother and father contradict each other regarding your hair color is a telling fact, IMO. I don't believe you were ever born.
|
|
|
Post by todd on Nov 6, 2010 9:23:25 GMT -5
Todd, do I have this right? You say that as long as a person is preaching what he believes to be true, then he isn't a liar? Ahh, yes finally someone is getting it. Could you drop around to Scott's place on the way home and explain this to him Ha, it's not as if I am keenly observant. It was happening blatantly in front of my eyes. Hmmm, maybe you don't really get what my description of a liar is. Skip Scott's place on the way home. You might only confuse the matter Oh I don't doubt that one bit. What lies? What are you saying here? So, are you saying that a worker could teach that the ministry is unbroken succession from Galilee, and that will result in child abuse? Yes I agree that the workers are trusted, but whether that is only because of the unbroken succession from Galilee theory, has me doubting very much, and therefore makes me think that this is a long shot to say that this "lie" linked to child abuse. The truth is that some people get trusted, and it isn't only the workers who are trusted. Look at the many CSA cases that were committed by a close family friend or relative. Even out there in the big bad world where they don't have these nasty workers spruiking unbroken succession, there is still a lot of CSA going on, and far more than what is going on within. Exactly what specific lies are you taking about here that is causing such emotional, spiritual and financial ruin? If it is just the WI/unbroken succession thing you are talking about, why don't you first prove that lies have been told and then we might start getting somewhere. Are you still talking about CSA here?
|
|
|
Post by todd on Nov 6, 2010 9:50:07 GMT -5
You have seen me say it often that I am happy to be shown that I am wrong, and for someone to explain what William Irvine did that he is considered to be the founder, but nobody does, and other than some historical documents, this is one thing that makes me suspect that it isn't true. Oh yes, I have had people respond to this question and say "William Irvine started the church you are in". That doesn't explain anything. I have also had people give me dates too. It started in 1897, but not any little bit of it existed until 1901. Surely you can see that this isn't an answer about even when it started, let alone what WI did that he is called the founder. And getting back to what I said about... "So, who is wrong and who is right? Someone is wrong because there is a contradiction", isn't it fairly basic logic to see that either 1897 or 1901 is wrong? Todd, your mother told me that you had light brown hair when you were born. Contradicting her, your father told me your hair was dark blond. As far as I know, dark blonde and light brown are exactly the same, in which case this is not a contradiction. Tell me exactly why you need anything other than a simple document that spells out clearly without any contradiction, that I was born? Isn't that all you need? But they didn't, did they? They described the same thing in different ways, but they didn't contradict each other. It's no different to saying that the glass is half full or half empty. Even though the words are opposites, if you describe the same thing, there is no contradiction. Quite a bit different to the type of contradictions used to prove various different things around here, and I am surprised that so many people can't see it. They can't see it so much to the point that they even come on here, just like you have done, trying to explain a way that justifies the contradiction. If it doesn't make sense or if there is no explanation, it could be that it isn't true. Ha, wishful thinking!!
|
|
|
Post by What Hat on Nov 6, 2010 9:59:56 GMT -5
www.tellingthetruth.info/bible_topics/www.tellingthetruth.info/bible_topics/closestway.phpThe biggest point of contention is concerning Grace. Leaving aside those who plainly misunderstand the function of Grace, the friends are closer to the concept of prevenient grace, as taught by John Wesley, grace which has to be accessed, whereas Calvinists believe in irresistible grace that comes only to those who are predestined to receive it, that is, the elect. The kind of grace taught here www.tellingthetruth.info/bible_topics/grace.php, which emphasises being born again into irresistible grace leads into the idea of pre-destination. Teaching leaning toward prevenient grace, in which it is thought that God has made grace available to all, requires something of us in order to access that grace and obtain salvation. It is also thought that we could lose our salvation along the way, whereas Calvinists tend to believe that one cannot "lose out". Prevenient grace is closer to worker teaching. Unfortunately, prevenient grace is often distorted by its opponents into "salvation by works", which it is not. It should be stated though that it can also be more easily misunderstood by its proponents, because there tends to be less constant "saved by grace" drilling in the teaching. While these two teachings on Grace do not differ greatly, the prevenient grace camp is seen by the irresistible grace camp as emphasizing works to a fault, while the prevenient grace camp often sees irresistible grace believers as moral reprobates using grace as an excuse to sin. Interesting comments. Which 'grace' displays the mercy of God more accurately? It seems that irresistible grace would leave out many people. Is it true that God is not willing that any should perish?That last question supports the idea of prevenient grace. We'll have to ask a Calvinist how they would answer that question. I don't really know, but maybe later I'll try and look it up.
|
|
|
Post by What Hat on Nov 6, 2010 10:02:53 GMT -5
What, Nice description on Grace. I usually refer people to Cherie's website with just a comment to be careful of the editorial doctrine. However, I appreciate the easily accessed history and pictures and find it easy to navigate around--which was not the case with VOT. Nothing all that wrong with doctrinal critique of the friends either if given in the spirit of seeking Truth and not purely finding fault.
|
|
|
Post by Jesse_Lackman on Nov 6, 2010 10:16:23 GMT -5
Todd, there's bound to be communication breakdowns between engineers and everyone else. Engineers are required to deal in absolutes, not opinions and feelings. Can you imagine an engineer; I feel solder would be a great material for this race engine connecting rod... it's so easily formed into shape... Generally people who don't have an engineering/math background tend to be way to casual and emotional with their opinions/feelings. The devil is in the details, and in more ways than one - and you're right - things are what they are.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 6, 2010 10:38:32 GMT -5
Todd, there's bound to be communication breakdowns between engineers and everyone else. Generally people who don't have an engineering/math background tend to be way to casual and emotional with their opinions/feelings. Well, I would agree that people tend to be emotional about their feelings
|
|
|
Post by Scott Ross on Nov 6, 2010 11:01:07 GMT -5
And I actually got todd to growl at me!! Grrrr Scott, you are misreading me again. I actually think that is quite humorous! He has made me growl here on the board several times because has he this way of twisting my words to try to discredit or diminish what I have posted. Payback usually sucks doesn't it? And I still think of you as a brother todd. Scott My appologies for any word twisting and growl prompting, bro. No problem. I think it was a 'victory' to get you to growl at me. You can be very annoying ya know, but I still love you bro....... Scott
|
|
|
Post by alexander on Nov 6, 2010 11:16:56 GMT -5
Todd, there's bound to be communication breakdowns between engineers and everyone else. And that is why engineers are generally kept locked up in the back room whenever clients are around.
|
|
|
Post by Jesse_Lackman on Nov 6, 2010 11:17:33 GMT -5
Here's my engineering analysis of the back to Galilee/lier discussion snafu; 1) Worker(s) speak about a linage without qualifying whether it is a carnal linage or a spiritual linage. - Linage is the pail, but we don't know if it's red or blue.
- Todd and others think the pail is red; (linage is spiritual)
- Scott, Ron and others think the pail is blue. (carnal linage)
- Todd previously posted about liers on VOT, and the need to pray.
- Scott Ross finally sees red but isn't looking at the pail, he's looking
at Todd thinking Todd called *him* a lier.
- the pail is red or blue.
Notes to self; - Take heed how you hear; (not *what* you hear but *how* you hear what you hear.) - Let brotherly love continue - by this shall all men know that you are my disciples that you have love one for another - love you neighbor as yourself - Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you...
|
|
|
Post by todd on Nov 6, 2010 11:19:19 GMT -5
My appologies for any word twisting and growl prompting, bro. No problem. I think it was a 'victory' to get you to growl at me. You can be very annoying ya know, but I still love you bro....... Scott Oh, you should be thankful that I am only growling this time. Usually you send me to the next level of shaking my head, which I guess you don't know about seeing it doesn't make any noise... except for the time I read your post while balancing a 3 tier crystal vase on my head. I have learnt not to do both those things at the same time. It's got to be one or the other. Sorry to annoy you. What exactly is it that annoys you?
|
|
|
Post by CherieKropp on Nov 7, 2010 11:24:12 GMT -5
Thank you all for your constructive criticisms for ways to make TTT better. (starting with Reply #129 on this thread)
I will start a new thread for this.
Please keep the suggestions coming. I am pausing and considering...
|
|
|
Post by open mind on Nov 8, 2010 21:11:40 GMT -5
Todd, there's bound to be communication breakdowns between engineers and everyone else. And that is why engineers are generally kept locked up in the back room whenever clients are around. HEY! We engineers have feeling s too
|
|
|
Post by healing on Nov 9, 2010 9:09:59 GMT -5
I am surprised the VOT site is down i believe a lot of effort and hard work went into building it up the way it was...so it might be back pending court huh ? I know there was much to learn and glean from the site...I do not know a lot of Bryons stuff on his site was documented evidence...it will be interesting to C how things go and what the out come will be ....from time to time we get a hot subject like this & I want to be part of the thread IC it is being hit bigtime
|
|
|
Post by Scott Ross on Nov 9, 2010 9:31:28 GMT -5
I am surprised the VOT site is down i believe a lot of effort and hard work went into building it up the way it was...so it might be back pending court huh ? I know there was much to learn and glean from the site...I do not know a lot of Bryons stuff on his site was documented evidence...it will be interesting to C how things go and what the out come will be ....from time to time we get a hot subject like this & I want to be part of the thread IC it is being hit bigtime Where you been hiding out??
|
|
|
Post by rational on Nov 9, 2010 9:33:38 GMT -5
Hmmm, maybe you don't really get what my description of a liar is. Did you inform us of your description? As with any written communication it is needful that everyone knows the definition of the words used to avoid confusion. If you want to apply a different definition of the word liar as a courtesy you should inform the readers of your spacial definition up front.
|
|
|
Post by healing on Nov 9, 2010 10:25:08 GMT -5
I am surprised the VOT site is down i believe a lot of effort and hard work went into building it up the way it was...so it might be back pending court huh ? I know there was much to learn and glean from the site...I do not know a lot of Bryons stuff on his site was documented evidence...it will be interesting to C how things go and what the out come will be ....from time to time we get a hot subject like this & I want to be part of the thread IC it is being hit bigtime Where you been hiding out?? been listening to blogtalkradio Kevin Annetts site
|
|
|
Post by healing on Nov 9, 2010 10:27:41 GMT -5
Hmmm, maybe you don't really get what my description of a liar is. Did you inform us of your description? As with any written communication it is needful that everyone knows the definition of the words used to avoid confusion. If you want to apply a different definition of the word liar as a courtesy you should inform the readers of your spacial definition up front. when somebody calls another a liar then they need to explain and show that...it is kinda like scripture if one says the scriptures have been changed then show indicate what is changed so folks can relate
|
|
|
Post by healing on Nov 9, 2010 10:39:20 GMT -5
I agree with Sharonarnold i am glad i am a ex2x2 i don't regret it..i will not run after the 2x2's nor argue with any over the churches history or try and change any...i have had some great experiences while a 2x2 all isn't lost i will admit now christian doctrines suffered thou while a 2x2
|
|
H.A.S.
Senior Member
God loves us all. Yes, even you.
Posts: 705
|
Post by H.A.S. on Nov 9, 2010 12:28:46 GMT -5
You have seen me say it often that I am happy to be shown that I am wrong, and for someone to explain what William Irvine did that he is considered to be the founder, but nobody does, and other than some historical documents, this is one thing that makes me suspect that it isn't true. Oh yes, I have had people respond to this question and say "William Irvine started the church you are in". That doesn't explain anything. I have also had people give me dates too. It started in 1897, but not any little bit of it existed until 1901. Surely you can see that this isn't an answer about even when it started, let alone what WI did that he is called the founder. And getting back to what I said about... "So, who is wrong and who is right? Someone is wrong because there is a contradiction", isn't it fairly basic logic to see that either 1897 or 1901 is wrong? Todd, your mother told me that you had light brown hair when you were born. Contradicting her, your father told me your hair was dark blond. Other than a historical document called your birth certificate, I've seen no proof that you even exist. The fact that your mother and father contradict each other regarding your hair color is a telling fact, IMO. I don't believe you were ever born. ;D
|
|
|
Post by healing on Nov 10, 2010 13:36:05 GMT -5
hard to believe Bryans site is gone here today gone tomorrow
|
|