Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 9, 2011 11:11:12 GMT -5
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. Why dig your hole deeper when you are standing in it? Your reasoning for posting a "stand alone fact" is as unconvincing as saying that pigs fly. You made a comparison and you did it for a reason......to illustrate that the F&Ws are better than the exes.....no reader would have missed that pointed implication. Well, that's your straw man story and you're sticking to it I suppose.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 9, 2011 11:14:05 GMT -5
Hardly ironic. Wilson as an atheist places no value on any religion so it is perfectly logical that he would try to promote tolerance......after all, they are all wrong and not worth fighting over.
|
|
|
Post by Jesse_Lackman on Aug 9, 2011 11:20:26 GMT -5
Hardly ironic. Wilson as an atheist places no value on any religion so it is perfectly logical that he would try to promote tolerance......after all, they are all wrong and not worth fighting over. so much for reading anything at all about it condemnation without investigation is ignorance.
|
|
|
Post by Jesse_Lackman on Aug 9, 2011 11:29:31 GMT -5
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. Why dig your hole deeper when you are standing in it? Your reasoning for posting a "stand alone fact" is as unconvincing as saying that pigs fly. You made a comparison and you did it for a reason......to illustrate that the F&Ws are better than the exes.....no reader would have missed that pointed implication. Well, that's your straw man story and you're sticking to it I suppose. No not better, different. Don't get like ram thinking you know better what I think than I do. This all started with pinky making a great suggestion; "Dropping inflammatory language on both sides will go a long way to building bridges." So I pointed out observable objective facts about what the counter advocacy has said and says about us and where they say it which naturally begs the question; How likely is it that the counter advocates take pinky's advice? Will they read about themselves in the links I've provided and adopt a more productive approach - or not? Judging by Cherie's snarky post - not.
|
|
|
Post by Scott Ross on Aug 9, 2011 11:31:53 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. When you started using the apostate, counter advocacy statements here on the TMB I read several different articles about such Jesse. I hardly think that I would be one of those that can be labeled as purposely hunting for things that will harm your church, and yet going by your definition I am in the same category as ALL exes. I am an apostate (because I do not belong to the church I once did) I am also a counter advocate (because I do not belong to the church I once did)...... It doesn't matter whether I read the articles in depth Jesse, my belief in what an apostate is comes from the belief that it means someone has renounced their RELIGION (in our case Christianity) Now if you wish to believe that an apostate is anyone that leaves their church and then talks bad about it that is fine with me, and we will just have to realize that our definition of apostate is different from one another. Using your definition: WERE THE WORKERS WHO STARTED YOUR CHURCH APOSTATES? I think you missed that question earlier...... a couple of times.... Scott
|
|
|
Post by ScholarGal on Aug 9, 2011 11:32:18 GMT -5
Part of the difficulty in building bridges is identifying which language is considered inflammatory.
Apostate may be a neutral word for sociologists, but it is extremely negative for certain sects of Christianity and Islam.
To me, the words advocate and counter-advocate are neutral. I don't know if that is the case for Jesse or pinky.
I can't categorize myself as strictly advocate or strictly counter-advocate of the religious practices of the friends and workers. If someone asks me about my church, I explain what it is to me, then point them to Wikipedia, a couple pages on Cherie's website, and give them the web address of one of the extremely critical sites. I disagree with some of the workers I hear, but since I'm not seeking their approval, it's not a huge issue for me.
If you read some of my recent posts, you'll quickly see that I have a problem with people who declare that their own experiences in meetings are universal. I don't like posts presenting "facts" that are untrue or simply opinions. (Rational usually responds to those before I do.) I've also got a problem with friends and workers who say that the practices of the friends and workers haven't changed through the past 90 years. Things have changed, and continue to evolve. Am I a dog or a swine for pointing out dubious facts or saying that someone's story of life in meetings is true but not universal?
|
|
|
Post by imnx2 on Aug 9, 2011 11:34:45 GMT -5
Using your definition: WERE THE WORKERS WHO STARTED YOUR CHURCH APOSTATES? I think you missed that question earlier...... a couple of times.... Scott I asked Jesse this a little while ago. His answer was....yes. Yes to those that started the church and their first converts.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 9, 2011 11:42:12 GMT -5
Hardly ironic. Wilson as an atheist places no value on any religion so it is perfectly logical that he would try to promote tolerance......after all, they are all wrong and not worth fighting over. so much for reading anything at all about it condemnation without investigation is ignorance. STRAWMAN ALERT!! STRAWMAN ALERT!
|
|
|
Post by Jesse_Lackman on Aug 9, 2011 11:45:48 GMT -5
When you started using the apostate, counter advocacy statements here on the TMB I read several different articles about such Jesse. I hardly think that I would be one of those that can be labeled as purposely hunting for things that will harm your church, and yet going by your definition I am in the same category as ALL exes. I am an apostate (because I do not belong to the church I once did) I am also a counter advocate (because I do not belong to the church I once did)...... Apostate does not automatically mean atrocity story telling counter advocate, that is clear in the research. Scott you are not a counter advocate, you are an advocate of what's good and better, you illustrate the power of a good example; the difference between changing people though inspiration or criticism. You inpire. Yes.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 9, 2011 11:46:27 GMT -5
Of course they were, according to Jesse's definition.
Jesse's academic resource, the atheist Bryan Wilson (not of Beach Boy fame), claims that the witness of apostates are not valid. Therefore, Jesse's scholarly guidance would tell you that all the workers' preaching against "false religions" of the last century are invalid. That's actually a pretty good point though.
|
|
|
Post by Jesse_Lackman on Aug 9, 2011 11:53:02 GMT -5
"Their departure usually goes unnoticed because most of the individuals involved regard their past experience positively as one more step in their own spiritual journey. But in contrast to the above, among those who leave voluntarily are a few defectors who have gained great notoriety by publicly attacking their former religious associations and activities through the press and in the courts. As welcome sources of information for a public both curious and fearful about these unfamiliar new religions, such apostates are often treated as cause celebres rather than as social outcasts. But, as we shall see below, neither the quietly appreciative former member nor the vocally aggrieved apostate from a new religious movement can be taken as an objective and authoritative interpreter of the religious movement to which he or she formerly belonged."
|
|
|
Post by Jesse_Lackman on Aug 9, 2011 11:55:56 GMT -5
->IV.I.TYPES OF DEPARTUREexcerpt; "Contrary to public opinion, the overwhelming majority of defections from new religious movements are a matter of voluntary apostasy. Moreover, the clear majority of those who leave of their own free will speak positively of certain aspects of their past experience. While readily acknowledging the ways a given religious movement failed to meet their personal expectations and spiritual needs, many voluntary defectors have found ways of salvaging some redeeming values from their previous religious associations and activities.
But there are some voluntary apostates from new religious movements who leave deeply embittered and harshly critical of their former religious associations and activities. Their dynamics of separation from a once-loved religious group is analogous to an embittered marital separation and divorce. Both marriage and religion require a significant degree of commitment. The greater the involvement, the more traumatic the break-up. The longer the commitment, the more urgent the need to blame the other for the failed relationship. Long-term and heavily involved members of new religious movements who over time become disenchanted with their religion often throw all of the blame on their former religious associations and activities. They magnify small flaws into huge evils. They turn personal disappointments into malicious betrayals. They even will tell incredible falsehoods to harm their former religion. Not surprisingly, these apostates often appeal, after the fact, to the same brainwashing scenarios usually invoked to justify forcible disengagement from new religious movements."
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 9, 2011 11:57:32 GMT -5
"Their departure usually goes unnoticed because most of the individuals involved regard their past experience positively as one more step in their own spiritual journey. But in contrast to the above, among those who leave voluntarily are a few defectors who have gained great notoriety by publicly attacking their former religious associations and activities through the press and in the courts. As welcome sources of information for a public both curious and fearful about these unfamiliar new religions, such apostates are often treated as cause celebres rather than as social outcasts. But, as we shall see below, neither the quietly appreciative former member nor the vocally aggrieved apostate from a new religious movement can be taken as an objective and authoritative interpreter of the religious movement to which he or she formerly belonged." Now we know: the workers' preaching against "false religion" cannot be taken as objective or authoritative. "They magnify small flaws into huge evils. They turn personal disappointments into malicious betrayals. They even will tell incredible falsehoods to harm their former religion. "
Thanks for that Jesse. I agree. Most of us have been brought up under the sound of such techniques applied against mainstream Christian churches.
|
|
|
Post by CherieKropp on Aug 9, 2011 12:05:08 GMT -5
Seems that the "bridge building" theme has become a core theme on this thread--and then various actions are suggested as being for or against that theme...I question the theme.
"Building bridges" between F&W & Exes is not my goal--never has been. I try to provide help for the Friends and Exes who come to me. I direct them to sources of support and information. I dont go out seeking F&W to "lure" away from meetings...nor do I make a special attempt to be friends with the F&W. Last week I had 5 emails asking for info--people who found me via TTT. Having said that, I do have some friends whose friendships I value who are among the Friends...nearly all are non-exclusive - or are seriously questioning the 2x2 belief system.
Most exes are not into "building bridges." That is not their thing. Wouldnt even cross their minds. They have BURNED their bridges and just want to leave it all behind, like a bad dream. To recover and get on with their lives. And when life deals them some hard knocks - they know they can come back to TLC and lick their wounds and talk about it and find solace and empathy there.
The common denominator of all regular TLC members is that every member has rejected the meeting system...and that they no longer are members. They have made the break - divorced themselves and left the system behind. Some professed; some were B&R and never professed. No F&W can truly understand the effects that making this break has on someone--unless they make the break themselves.
And so TLCers do not want F&W on TLC...as they dont/cant truly understand. Most exes only feel safe letting down their hair with other exes...and TLC is a safe harbor where they feel protected and can talk about anything bothering them and they are treated with respect--which they didnt get on TMB. There would be no TLC if the TMBers had been treating the exes with respect prior to 2 years ago when TLC was launched.
The TLC common denominator is NOT rejecting the F&Ws belief in 2x2 Exclusivity. TLCers have a lot more issues than that. There are numerous reasons "Why We Left..." as will be seen soon in the new stories on the new TLC website when it launches. Exclusivity is just one reason among many.
So if my activities dont "build bridges" of the type being discussed here - so what? That's not my goal and never was.
|
|
|
Post by Jesse_Lackman on Aug 9, 2011 12:05:14 GMT -5
Now we know: the workers' preaching against "false religion" cannot be taken as objective or authoritative. Thanks for that Jesse. I agree. Using the same reasoning the counter advocates preaching against us cannot be taken as objective or authoritative either. The fact counter advocates do it sure is interesting in a pot calling the kettle black sort of way, isn't it? That's one problem with counter advocacy - it often becomes exactly what it criticises.
|
|
|
Post by sharonw on Aug 9, 2011 12:08:20 GMT -5
Beating us with casting pearls to swine and dogs thread is about as negative a thread as they get. However this thread title reminded me of this scripture: Gal 5:13 For, brethren, ye have been called unto liberty; only [use] not liberty for an occasion to the flesh, but by love serve one another. Gal 5:14 For all the law is fulfilled in one word, [even] in this; Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. Gal 5:15 But if ye bite and devour one another, take heed that ye be not consumed one of another. Sharon, here is the post where it started - it wasn't by those of us in the fellowship. professing.proboards.com/index.cgi?action=gotopost&board=truth&thread=14891&post=418212I'm not even talking about what started what mr concern is those verses Paul wrote. We can disagree with biting words but not to the devouring of one another.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 9, 2011 12:29:49 GMT -5
Now we know: the workers' preaching against "false religion" cannot be taken as objective or authoritative. Thanks for that Jesse. I agree. Using the same reasoning the counter advocates preaching against us cannot be taken as objective or authoritative either. The fact counter advocates do it sure is interesting in a pot calling the kettle black sort of way, isn't it? That's one problem with counter advocacy - it often becomes exactly what it criticises. That what Mr Wilson claims. I suppose that means that the only objective and authoritative criticisms come from those still inside. I just felt my standing move up a few notches!
|
|
|
Post by emy on Aug 9, 2011 14:39:16 GMT -5
That was Jesse's first statement - unless it was edited. What I see him saying is that no one even says, much less publishes, that ALL former members are atrocity-story-telling counter advocates. OTOH, calling the fellowship we are in a cult includes EVERYONE in it.
*************** I see Cherie has decided to be as upfront and honest as Nathan!
**************** Let's ask StAnne about apostate Catholics... are they no longer Christians (in their own eyes)? Or maybe just Google Catholic apostates, JW apostates or even Lutheran apostate. hmmmm?
|
|
|
Post by ronhall on Aug 9, 2011 15:04:27 GMT -5
I just don't get very worked up about the 'attacks'. It seems the attack says more about the attacker than about the attacked in most cases. Yet there is usually an element of truth in an event or series of events that triggered the attack. I think us "innies" would do well to search out the cause and make sure it isn't likely to happen again.
I've often thought that some of the subjects on TMB, TTT and whatever might be good for an occasional Wed night study meeting. Not that this would be a continuous thing, but it is good to be aware that all have been found short of the glory of God, even our leaders. To be aware via the distance of general terms is OK, but with it up-front with names and places puts a greater awareness and urgency on it.
Anyway, I intend no harm -- just my thoughts. The chance of this happening is about as good as Noels being ushered in as a 'card carrying' member of TLC with access to all the inner sanctums and privileges of the site. :>)
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 9, 2011 15:10:12 GMT -5
That was Jesse's first statement - unless it was edited. What I see him saying is that no one even says, much less publishes, that ALL former members are atrocity-story-telling counter advocates. OTOH, calling the fellowship we are in a cult includes EVERYONE in it . What is similar though is the well known wisdom that all the F&W internet information is lies.....therefore, ALL former members on the internet are liars. Which gets back to my original statement about this. Jesse gave all indications (although denied by him) that he was indicating that the F&Ws are better than the exes in this regard, just as you appear to be doing. We're no better about taking whacks at people, we just keep all the ugly stuff in-house and don't publish it so that makes it appear better I suppose, and we can boast about it.
|
|
|
Post by StAnne on Aug 9, 2011 15:10:59 GMT -5
That was Jesse's first statement - unless it was edited. What I see him saying is that no one even says, much less publishes, that ALL former members are atrocity-story-telling counter advocates. OTOH, calling the fellowship we are in a cult includes EVERYONE in it. *************** I see Cherie has decided to be as upfront and honest as Nathan! **************** Let's ask StAnne about apostate Catholics... are they no longer Christians (in their own eyes)? Or maybe just Google Catholic apostates, JW apostates or even Lutheran apostate. hmmmm? The New Catechism says ... Faith
2087 Our moral life has its source in faith in God who reveals his love to us. St. Paul speaks of the "obedience of faith"9 as our first obligation. He shows that "ignorance of God" is the principle and explanation of all moral deviations.10 Our duty toward God is to believe in him and to bear witness to him.
2088 The first commandment requires us to nourish and protect our faith with prudence and vigilance, and to reject everything that is opposed to it. There are various ways of sinning against faith:
Voluntary doubt about the faith disregards or refuses to hold as true what God has revealed and the Church proposes for belief. Involuntary doubt refers to hesitation in believing, difficulty in overcoming objections connected with the faith, or also anxiety aroused by its obscurity. If deliberately cultivated doubt can lead to spiritual blindness.
2089 Incredulity is the neglect of revealed truth or the willful refusal to assent to it. "Heresy is the obstinate post-baptismal denial of some truth which must be believed with divine and catholic faith, or it is likewise an obstinate doubt concerning the same; apostasy is the total repudiation of the Christian faith; schism is the refusal of submission to the Roman Pontiff or of communion with the members of the Church subject to him."11 www.scborromeo.org/ccc/p3s2c1a1.htm#2089
|
|
|
Post by JO on Aug 9, 2011 15:11:07 GMT -5
I pointed out observable objective facts about what the counter advocacy has said and says about us... Who is "us" Jesse? You seem to be taking criticism of the fellowship as a personal attack against you. Its better that we learn from the atrocity stories rather than try to deny them or try to condemn the messenger. Let's listen to what those who have been hurt have to say and try to learn from it.
|
|
|
Post by JO on Aug 9, 2011 15:14:21 GMT -5
...the well known wisdom that all the F&W internet information is lies.....therefore, ALL former members on the internet are liars. A friend once said "there's more in the bible to condemn the friends and workers than there is on the internet".
|
|
|
Post by JO on Aug 9, 2011 15:19:43 GMT -5
I've often thought that some of the subjects on TMB, TTT and whatever might be good for an occasional Wed night study meeting. I absolutely agree. It would be more real-world useful than trying to figure out why Samuel advocated genocide or why folks needed to be stabbed under the fifth rib.
|
|
|
Post by imnx2 on Aug 9, 2011 15:50:59 GMT -5
I've often thought that some of the subjects on TMB, TTT and whatever might be good for an occasional Wed night study meeting. I absolutely agree. It would be more real-world useful than trying to figure out why Samuel advocated genocide or why folks needed to be stabbed under the fifth rib. Seems the atrocity stories are sometimes lamentable stories? Seems the difficulty some had are with the rules/expectations and the degree to fulfilling them: - Thou shalt not have TV in your home. - Thou shalt not be friends with the world. - Thou shalt not have fun (certain entertainments and activities). The Lord is your joy. Perhaps there are few more. Perhaps there is more to the parenting than the obeying...and more to isolation (group population).
|
|
|
Post by emy on Aug 9, 2011 17:11:47 GMT -5
That was Jesse's first statement - unless it was edited. What I see him saying is that no one even says, much less publishes, that ALL former members are atrocity-story-telling counter advocates. OTOH, calling the fellowship we are in a cult includes EVERYONE in it . What is similar though is the well known wisdom that all the F&W internet information is lies.....therefore, ALL former members on the internet are liars. Which gets back to my original statement about this. Jesse gave all indications (although denied by him) that he was indicating that the F&Ws are better than the exes in this regard, just as you appear to be doing. We're no better about taking whacks at people, we just keep all the ugly stuff in-house and don't publish it so that makes it appear better I suppose, and we can boast about it. Therefore, it's only the innies on the net who are in a cult?? ;D ...just as you appear to be doingI'm not in the habit of believing the fellowship I am in makes me better than others, so no, that isn't what I am doing.
|
|
|
Post by emy on Aug 9, 2011 17:21:42 GMT -5
I pointed out observable objective facts about what the counter advocacy has said and says about us... Who is "us" Jesse? You seem to be taking criticism of the fellowship as a personal attack against you. Its better that we learn from the atrocity stories rather than try to deny them or try to condemn the messenger.Let's listen to what those who have been hurt have to say and try to learn from it. As I read it, Jesse never said it isn't a good thing to read the stories and have compassion for the ones who wrote them. What he's saying is to educate yourself about the reliability of atrocity stories in general. Isn't it fairly obvious that "us" refers to those in the fellowship?
|
|
|
Post by JO on Aug 9, 2011 17:43:45 GMT -5
Who is "us" Jesse? You seem to be taking criticism of the fellowship as a personal attack against you. Its better that we learn from the atrocity stories rather than try to deny them or try to condemn the messenger.Let's listen to what those who have been hurt have to say and try to learn from it. As I read it, Jesse never said it isn't a good thing to read the stories and have compassion for the ones who wrote them. What he's saying is to educate yourself about the reliability of atrocity stories in general. Isn't it fairly obvious that "us" refers to those in the fellowship? Jesse shouldn't take it personally when criticism is levelled at the fellowship. The criticism is towards the culture and beliefs that result in atrocities - not towards "us" personally. I've experienced enough atrocities off-line to not be surprised at anything I read on-line. Let's learn from the atrocities and change the ungodly culture and beliefs that cause them. As I've heard a management guru say: "work on the system, and leave the people alone".
|
|