|
Post by Scott Ross on Aug 9, 2011 9:30:39 GMT -5
apostasy relinquishing of a religious belief. — apostate, n., adj.
Leaving a church (denomination) doesn't mean a person falls in to this category does it?
When someone leaves a church because they do not agree with the doctrines or traditions of that church, that doesn't mean that they are giving up their religious beliefs.
|
|
|
Post by Scott Ross on Aug 9, 2011 9:35:06 GMT -5
Do you know of any friends or workers anywhere who've published public data indicating any or all former members are atrocity story telling counter advocates, or anything at all about former members? Have any done that in a newspaper interview?? I have heard atrocity stories preached from the platform Jesse. Does that count as 'published'? I heard an atrocity story concerning one of my cousins who was killed in a car accident and wasn't professing. How about ANY of the stories where it is preached about someone that died tragically in an accident and weren't professing or had left the truth fellowship? Ever hear such in testimonies in Sunday morning meetings? I have..... Are those considered atrocity stories? (Personally, think that they are.) Scott
|
|
|
Post by Jesse_Lackman on Aug 9, 2011 9:36:06 GMT -5
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apostasy"The term is used by sociologists to mean renunciation and criticism of, or opposition to, a person's former religion, in a technical sense and without pejorative connotation. " en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apostasy#Sociological_definitions"The American sociologist Lewis A. Coser defines an apostate to be not just a person who experienced a dramatic change in conviction but “ a man who, even in his new state of belief, is spiritually living not primarily in the content of that faith, in the pursuit of goals appropriate to it, but only in the struggle against the old faith and for the sake of its negation." To me it's no more and no less than that. ~ Yes, friends and workers have told stories like you mention but technically they are not atrocity stories and in addition have they ever mentioned them in newspaper interviews, published them in books and on websites?
|
|
|
Post by Scott Ross on Aug 9, 2011 9:38:51 GMT -5
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apostasy"The term is used by sociologists to mean renunciation and criticism of, or opposition to, a person's former religion, in a technical sense and without pejorative connotation. " To me it's no more and no less than that. Do you mean denomination? (such as leaving the Methodist church to start a new church) Or do you mean religion (such as leaving Christianity to become a Budhist)? Scott
|
|
|
Post by imnx2 on Aug 9, 2011 9:39:30 GMT -5
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apostasy"The term is used by sociologists to mean renunciation and criticism of, or opposition to, a person's former religion, in a technical sense and without pejorative connotation. " To me it's no more and no less than that. Is Christianity the religion of denominations and sects or is the denomination and sect the religion?
|
|
|
Post by Scott Ross on Aug 9, 2011 9:45:39 GMT -5
This is from the article you linked to Jesse: ChristianityMain article: Apostasy in Christianity
See also: Apostata capiendo and Backslide
The Christian understanding of apostasy is "a willful falling away from, or rebellion against, Christian truth. Apostasy is the rejection of Christ by one who has been a Christian...."
[24] "Apostasy is the antonym of conversion; it is deconversion."[25] The Greek noun apostasia (rebellion, abandonment, state of apostasy, defection)[26] is found only twice in the New Testament (Acts 21:21; 2 Thessalonians 2:3).[27] However, "the concept of apostasy is found throughout Scripture."[28] The Dictionary of Biblical Imagery states that "There are at least four distinct images in Scripture of the concept of apostasy. All connote an intentional defection from the faith."[29] These images are: Rebellion; Turning Away; Falling Away; Adultery.[30]
Rebellion: "In classical literature apostasia was used to denote a coup or defection. By extension the LXX[31] always uses it to portray a rebellion against God (Joshua 22:22; 2 Chronicles 29:19)."[30] Turning away: "Apostasy is also pictured as the heart turning away from God (Jeremiah 17:5-6) and righteousness (Ezekiel 3:20). In the OT it centers on Israel's breaking covenant relationship with God though disobedience to the law (Jeremiah 2:19), especially following other gods (Judges 2:19) and practicing their immorality (Daniel 9:9-11). . . . Following the Lord or journeying with him is one of the chief images of faithfulness in the Scriptures. . . . The . . . Hebrew root (swr) is used to picture those who have turned away and ceased to follow God ('I am grieved that I have made Saul king, because he has turned away from me,' 1 Samuel 15:11). . . . The image of turning away from the Lord, who is the rightful leader, and following behind false gods is the dominant image for apostasy in the OT."[30] Falling away: "The image of falling, with the sense of going to eternal destruction, is particularly evident in the New Testament. . . . In his [Christ’s] parable of the wise and foolish builder, in which the house built on sand falls with a crash in the midst of a storm (Matthew 7:24-27) . . . he painted a highly memorable image of the dangers of falling spiritually."[32] Adultery: One of the most common images for apostasy in the Old Testament is adultery.[33] "Apostasy is symbolized as Israel the faithless spouse turning away from Yahweh her marriage partner to purse the advances of other gods (Jeremiah 2:1-3; Ezekiel 16). . . . 'Your children have forsaken me and sworn by god that are not gods. I supplied all their needs, yet they committed adultery and thronged to the houses of prostitutes' (Jeremiah 5:7, NIV). Adultery is used most often to graphically name the horror of the betrayal and covenant breaking involved in idolatry. Like literal adultery it does include the idea of someone blinded by infatuation, in this case for an idol: 'How I have been grieved by their adulterous hearts . . . which have lusted after their idols' (Ezekiel 6:9)."[30] Speaking with specific regards to apostasy in Christianity, Michael Fink writes:
Apostasy is certainly a biblical concept, but the implications of the teaching have been hotly debated.[34] The debate has centered on the issue of apostasy and salvation. Based on the concept of God's sovereign grace, some hold that, though true believers may stray, they will never totally fall away. Others affirm that any who fall away were never really saved. Though they may have "believed" for a while, they never experienced regeneration. Still others argue that the biblical warnings against apostasy are real and that believers maintain the freedom, at least potentially, to reject God's salvation.[35Not sure if those that leave one church for another are really apostates unless they renounce the RELIGION not just the DENOMINATION. Scott
|
|
|
Post by Scott Ross on Aug 9, 2011 9:51:50 GMT -5
Yes, friends and workers have told stories like you mention but technically they are not atrocity stories and in addition have they ever mentioned them in newspaper interviews, published them in books and on websites? Does having the friends post that they have heard these on various message boards count? Preaching such isn't considered the same as publishing them? I distinctly remember hearing such stories, and also they are then told, written about to others, notes taken, emails shared about them......... in other words, they are spread from the source to others. Scott
|
|
|
Post by Scott Ross on Aug 9, 2011 9:53:49 GMT -5
I'm thinking that when the word apostate or apostacy is used here on the board, one needs to understand just what definition the poster is using.
I haven't renounced Christ by leaving the truth fellowship, so I don't think that I am an apostate.
However, if it were to be agreed that the truth fellowship is NOT a Christian group then I suppose that I could be an apostate..... ;D
|
|
|
Post by Jesse_Lackman on Aug 9, 2011 9:59:17 GMT -5
Scott that is not the definition I'm using so don't condemn me for it. Read my edited post. Don't make it about leaving Christianity, it's not about that.If someone leaves the Catholic church they are an apostate of the Catholic church, if they leave the Lutheran church they are a apostate of the Lutheran church, if someone leaves the friends and workers fellowship they are an apostate of the Friends and workers fellowship. Pretty simple. The problems start when the leaving is taken beyond simply leaving to telling atrocity stories and engaging in active counter advocacy. It's changed with the changes in 21st century media which is why sociologists are taking a fresh look at the psychology of it. condemnation without investigation is ignorance... so investigate the psychology of it before you condom me. You can't do it in a few minutes, it will take some time, and will have to be done from an objective big picture point of view. Here's a couple of good articles to start with on the Religious Freedom Watch site; www.religiousfreedomwatch.org/religious-experts/credible-experts/the-reliability-of-apostate-testimony-about-new-religious-movements/ www.religiousfreedomwatch.org/religious-experts/credible-experts/apostates-and-new-religious-movements/
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 9, 2011 10:02:15 GMT -5
Yes, friends and workers have told stories like you mention but technically they are not atrocity stories and in addition have they ever mentioned them in newspaper interviews, published them in books and on websites? Does having the friends post that they have heard these on various message boards count? Preaching such isn't considered the same as publishing them? I distinctly remember hearing such stories, and also they are then told, written about to others, notes taken, emails shared about them......... in other words, they are spread from the source to others. Scott Of course you are right Scott. The F&Ws can't position themselves in the holier-than-thou place as we have all been brought up hearing about the atrocities of the world, the flesh and the devil.....and the biggie.....false religion. Just because these stories are told oh-so-softly and oh-so-humbly, that doesn't make them any less than atrocity stories. It all depends on one's point of view. For insiders, the atrocity stories are not atrocity stories, it's just telling it like it is. For "counter advocates" their stories are not atrocity stories, it's their personal experiences. Only when we can put ourselves in the other persons' shoes can we truly begin to understand one another, accept the truth, and be able to help one another.
|
|
|
Post by Jesse_Lackman on Aug 9, 2011 10:11:12 GMT -5
"The F&Ws can't position themselves in the holier-than-thou place"
Do you do that Clearday?
|
|
|
Post by Scott Ross on Aug 9, 2011 10:12:13 GMT -5
Don't make it about leaving Christianity, it's not about that. But that is what I am reading in the link you gave Jesse. I am not trying to condemn you, I am just trying to understand what you mean when you use the word 'apostate'. Were the early workers that left their churches to start the truth fellowship apostates in your belief? (They renounced those churches and called them false)If I switch from the Christian Missionary Alliance church and start going to a Lutheran church would you consider me an apostate? I believe that an apostate is one that denounces and renounces their RELIGION, not their denomination. Scott
|
|
|
Post by someguy on Aug 9, 2011 10:16:35 GMT -5
Yes, friends and workers have told stories like you mention but technically they are not atrocity stories and in addition have they ever mentioned them in newspaper interviews, published them in books and on websites? Does having the friends post that they have heard these on various message boards count? Preaching such isn't considered the same as publishing them? I distinctly remember hearing such stories, and also they are then told, written about to others, notes taken, emails shared about them......... in other words, they are spread from the source to others. Scott Of course you are right Scott. The F&Ws can't position themselves in the holier-than-thou place as we have all been brought up hearing about the atrocities of the world, the flesh and the devil.....and the biggie.....false religion. Just because these stories are told oh-so-softly and oh-so-humbly, that doesn't make them any less than atrocity stories. It all depends on one's point of view. For insiders, the atrocity stories are not atrocity stories, it's just telling it like it is. For "counter advocates" their stories are not atrocity stories, it's their personal experiences. Only when we can put ourselves in the other persons' shoes can we truly begin to understand one another, accept the truth, and be able to help one another. Bang on CD. It is all about point of view and it appears some posters seem to think everyone is attacking them without pausing to consider the hurt that has happened and yet is happening to some who have left. We aren't bad people and neither are those who yet remain. Different experiences have caused us to see the same church in a very different light. Are my experiences less important than Jesses or are his less important than mine? Nope. Do I think we can find common ground? Yep. Does it take work? Of course it does.
|
|
|
Post by Jesse_Lackman on Aug 9, 2011 10:19:09 GMT -5
Does having the friends post that they have heard these on various message boards count? Preaching such isn't considered the same as publishing them? I distinctly remember hearing such stories, and also they are then told, written about to others, notes taken, emails shared about them......... in other words, they are spread from the source to others. Scott I and many others stand and have stood as a firm advocates against doing that. And besides that Scott, you are honest enough to know it's is not even close to being in the same class as the websites, books, articles, and interviews that have been published, one example out of many, " Through the Desert in a Cult With No Name".
|
|
|
Post by Jesse_Lackman on Aug 9, 2011 10:21:57 GMT -5
Don't make it about leaving Christianity, it's not about that. But that is what I am reading in the link you gave Jesse. Scott Scott you can't read about this for two minutes then form a conclusion. Read more, like for a few days or weeks, then think about what you read. Investigate it...
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 9, 2011 10:22:06 GMT -5
"The F&Ws can't position themselves in the holier-than-thou place" Do you do that Clearday? I definitely have the T shirt for that one! Been there, done that. Here's a good example of positioning for a holier-than-thou place: "Yes, friends and workers have told stories like you mention but technically they are not atrocity stories and in addition have they ever mentioned them in newspaper interviews, published them in books and on websites?"Yessir, we're much better than those dastardly apostate-counter advocate-atrocity-tellers!
|
|
|
Post by Scott Ross on Aug 9, 2011 10:23:43 GMT -5
Scott that is not the definition I'm using so don't condemn me for it. Read my edited post. Don't make it about leaving Christianity, it's not about that.If someone leaves the Catholic church they are an apostate of the Catholic church, if they leave the Lutheran church they are a apostate of the Lutheran church, if someone leaves the friends and workers fellowship they are an apostate of the Friends and workers fellowship. Pretty simple. The problems start when the leaving is taken beyond simply leaving to telling atrocity stories and engaging in active counter advocacy. It's changed with the changes in 21st century media which is why sociologists are taking a fresh look at the psychology of it. condemnation without investigation is ignorance... so investigate the psychology of it before you condom me. You can't do it in a few minutes, it will take some time, and will have to be done from an objective big picture point of view. Here's a couple of good articles to start with on the Religious Freedom Watch site; www.religiousfreedomwatch.org/religious-experts/credible-experts/the-reliability-of-apostate-testimony-about-new-religious-movements/ www.religiousfreedomwatch.org/religious-experts/credible-experts/apostates-and-new-religious-movements/From your first link: CHRISTIAN CHURCH Many early Jewish and pagan converts to Christianity continued to observe Jewish ritual law or to participate in pagan religious festivals. In the beginning, the persistence of old religious customs was not regarded as apostasy. Apostasy only became a clear-cut issue when the Christian church had separated itself from Jewish and Gnostic forms of Christianity. Already in the New Testament, apostasy is associated with the false teachers and prophets whose appearance will signal the apocalyptic end of the age. In the early centuries, apostasy was largely an internal problem as orthodox Christianity separated itself from heretical and schismatic movements. But with the conversion of Constantine, apostasy became a civil offense punishable by law. Thus began more than a thousand years of mutual cooperation between Church and State. The State used the power of the sword to protect the Church against apostasy and the Church used the power of the scripture to protect the State against insurrection. Apostates were deprived of their civil as well as their religious rights. From your second link: Apostates and New Religious Movements Professor Bryan Ronald Wilson is the reader Emeritus in Sociology at the University of Oxford. For more than 40 years, Professor Wilson has conducted studies of Scientology, Christianity and many other beliefs. He is one of the most well-known British scholars of religion and provides here a thought provoking study on the subject of apostates and apostasy. Again, the emphasis is on different religions as opposed to different Christian groups. Guess I am not quite getting it yet Jesse. Maybe we will just have to accept that we use a different meaning when we use the word apostate. To you it doesn't have anything to do with leaving the body of Christ, (if speaking of Christians of course) and to me it means renouncing/denouncing one's belief in Christ. Does that work for you? Scott
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 9, 2011 10:27:11 GMT -5
Putting aside the dictionary for a moment, I think anyone (not just Jesse) using the word apostate to label someone is indicating that the person in question is hell bound and their current faith is invalid.
It's no different than someone using the word "cult" to indicate that a group is dangerous and eats babies.
|
|
|
Post by Jesse_Lackman on Aug 9, 2011 10:28:46 GMT -5
Bang on CD. It is all about point of view and it appears some posters seem to think everyone is attacking them without pausing to consider the hurt that has happened and yet is happening to some who have left. We aren't bad people and neither are those who yet remain. Different experiences have caused us to see the same church in a very different light. Are my experiences less important than Jesses or are his less important than mine? Nope. Do I think we can find common ground? Yep. Does it take work? Of course it does. I've never thought or said everyone is attacking, how could I think that with posters like you around? The posters that attack are attacking though, counter advocates clearly are counter advocates, those who are telling atrocity stories are telling atrocity stories, no reason to not get those issues out in the open too.
|
|
|
Post by Scott Ross on Aug 9, 2011 10:30:20 GMT -5
Does having the friends post that they have heard these on various message boards count? Preaching such isn't considered the same as publishing them? I distinctly remember hearing such stories, and also they are then told, written about to others, notes taken, emails shared about them......... in other words, they are spread from the source to others. Scott I and many others stand and have stood as a firm advocates against doing that. And besides that Scott, you are honest enough to know it's is not even close to being in the same class as the websites, books, articles, and interviews that have been published, one example out of many, " Through the Desert in a Cult With No Name". Well.... uh.... you aren't gonna like my answer, but I think that it is absolutely, positively 100% WORSE that such stories are preached to the church body by spiritual leaders than to have a website or book written by someone that has left the church. When such things are preached by a worker, then it becomes 'fact' in the minds of (many of) the church members. A book can simply be said to be the ravings of a lunatic that left the church, but it isn't politically correct to say that what was preached from the platform was the ravings of a lunatic. Scott
|
|
|
Post by Jesse_Lackman on Aug 9, 2011 10:35:33 GMT -5
"The F&Ws can't position themselves in the holier-than-thou place" Do you do that Clearday? I definitely have the T shirt for that one! Been there, done that. Here's a good example of positioning for a holier-than-thou place: "Yes, friends and workers have told stories like you mention but technically they are not atrocity stories and in addition have they ever mentioned them in newspaper interviews, published them in books and on websites?"Clearday that is a plain and simple fact, no friend or worker has publically published a critical web site, book, done an interview similar to what counter advocates have done. It's got nothing to do with who's better then who, it is simply objective and factual reality. You might bring up bert's web site, but it mentions no one by name, not even friends or workers!
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 9, 2011 10:40:26 GMT -5
I definitely have the T shirt for that one! Been there, done that. Here's a good example of positioning for a holier-than-thou place: "Yes, friends and workers have told stories like you mention but technically they are not atrocity stories and in addition have they ever mentioned them in newspaper interviews, published them in books and on websites?"Clearday that is a plain and simple fact, no friend or worker has publically published a critical web site, book, done an interview similar to what counter advocates have done. It's got nothing to do with who's better then who, it is simply objective and factual reality. You might bring up bert's web site, but it mentions no one by name, not even friends or workers! You don't quite get it yet Jesse so I'll try again. You made the statement to position the F&Ws in a holier-than-thou place. You effectively stated: "the counter advocates do this nasty stuff but WE don't because WE are so righteous". Get it? If you weren't positioning, you would never have mentioned that.....in fact you wouldn't have even thought of that.
|
|
|
Post by Jesse_Lackman on Aug 9, 2011 10:47:28 GMT -5
Putting aside the dictionary for a moment, I think anyone (not just Jesse) using the word apostate to label someone is indicating that the person in question is hell bound and their current faith is invalid. It's no different than someone using the word "cult" to indicate that a group is dangerous and eats babies. That's your choice Clearday, not mine. It's obvious no one is actually reading the articles in an investigatory, thoughtful, big picture way, you can't read them and understand the phenomena in the few minutes we've spent here commenting. I get the feeling no one wants to read the articles, and I wonder why. Why do you suppose those articles are on a site that advocates for religious freedom and tolerance? Isn't it interesting former members leave over intolerance then continue to practice intolerance? That is what professionals like Wilson (an atheist) have found interesting enough to study. And it is interesting to read - and think about - what they say. You can't do it in two minutes.
|
|
|
Post by CherieKropp on Aug 9, 2011 10:49:44 GMT -5
I don't get it. Where's any virtue in the F&W not publishing any books or websites? We all know they would likely get the ax if they did, and their reputations would be sure to suffer.
Bragging that your group doesnt do something when you know full well you will be shot down if you do - and possibly cast out to eternal damnation - isnt really anything to boast about in my book.
F&W are placed across a barrel on the publishing issue - and its of their own doing. Their problem is with their own rules and the rule makers - they are shooting themselves in the foot.
Chad Moore sure got shot down. "You take down this website/book or you are not welcome at meetings" was the message I understand he was given. Why does Bert not use his real name--DUH!
Unless you're someone like Dr. Janean, who entered his research with the workers blessing.
Besides: I have in my possession letters/notes etc. of F&W's messages/sermons containing critical, mocking, ridiculing statements about outsiders and/or exes. So what if the F&W dont publish websites (altho some do) - their superior grapevine via email and letters and phone calls distribute their critical opinions quite well.
I know a lady who told the F&W to take her off their email lists because they sickened her.
|
|
|
Post by imnx2 on Aug 9, 2011 10:51:56 GMT -5
Putting aside the dictionary for a moment, I think anyone (not just Jesse) using the word apostate to label someone is indicating that the person in question is hell bound and their current faith is invalid. It's no different than someone using the word "cult" to indicate that a group is dangerous and eats babies. That's your choice Clearday, not mine. It's obvious no one is actually reading the articles in an investigatory, thoughtful, big picture way, you can't read them and understand the phenomena in the few minutes we've spent here commenting. I get the feeling no one wants to read the articles, and I wonder why. Why do you suppose those articles are on a site that advocates for religious freedom and tolerance? Isn't it interesting former members leave over intolerance then continue to practice intolerance? That is what professionals like Wilson (an atheist) have found interesting enough to study. And it is interesting to read - and think about - what they say. You can't do it in two minutes. An atheist? The enemy of my enemy has become my friend? Not that there are enemies on here, you just have to have understanding.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 9, 2011 10:56:55 GMT -5
Raymond Reid faced a lot of opposition for publishing his book, a pro-F&W book. What about the worker Richard from near Jesse's part of the US who was forced to take down the nice blog he published? I know for a fact that many F&Ws from OR distanced themselves from Nathan after he put up his publication.
|
|
|
Post by Jesse_Lackman on Aug 9, 2011 10:59:15 GMT -5
Clearday that is a plain and simple fact, no friend or worker has publically published a critical web site, book, done an interview similar to what counter advocates have done. It's got nothing to do with who's better then who, it is simply objective and factual reality. You might bring up bert's web site, but it mentions no one by name, not even friends or workers! You don't quite get it yet Jesse so I'll try again. You made the statement to position the F&Ws in a holier-than-thou place. You effectively stated: "the counter advocates do this nasty stuff but WE don't because WE are so righteous". Get it? If you weren't positioning, you would never have mentioned that.....in fact you wouldn't have even thought of that. No I didn't make the statement "to position the F&Ws in a holier-than-thou place" - that is an imaginary straw man. That was not my purpose, no matter what you think. The statement is a simple stand alone fact, about something the counter advocates have done and the friends and worker have never done. pinky commented; "Dropping inflammatory language on both sides will go a long way to building bridges." The elephant in the room is the possibility the counter advocates will ever do that - because research shows doing what they do is inbred in the nature of a counter advocate. Or do you think they will follow pinky's advice?
|
|
|
Post by Jesse_Lackman on Aug 9, 2011 11:06:33 GMT -5
An atheist? The enemy of my enemy has become my friend? Not that there are enemies on here, you just have to have understanding. Yes, itn't it ironic an atheist would be one of the most respected modern advocates for religious tolerance? In Memoriam: Bryan Ronald Wilson, 1926-2004 www.cesnur.org/2004/mi_wilson.htm "A frequent participant in CESNUR conferences and initiatives, Wilson will also be remembered as one of the most prominent academic champions of religious liberty in the 20th century. He defended new religious movements and other minorities against the various waves of international anti-cult campaigns, for no other personal reason than his passionate love for freedom and justice, since he defined himself as an atheist."
|
|