|
Post by apple on Oct 31, 2011 19:54:50 GMT -5
"Cult" and "Sect" are twin words. In the King James the first church was referred to as a 'Sect'. The Apostolic church had no name, and took any reproachful name given to it in its stride. In fact that is where "christian" came from. Acts 24:5, "sect of the Nazarenes"
and Acts 28:22, "concerning this sect, we know that every where it is spoken against."
So if the word "cult" confers as much (or more) reproach as "sect" then we are happy to bear it. The word "cult" has changed over time. The word "gay" used to mean to be happy and it's got a very different meaning now. Plus I don't think that the word "sect" means "cult".
|
|
|
Post by sharonw on Oct 31, 2011 20:21:55 GMT -5
Well, it got you worked up anyway! ;D You're right though. Usage of the word cult practically guarantees that the user has ill intent toward his subject. Sorry, but it's a major bone of contention with me. Nothing personal, Irvine; anyone who has read my posts on the forum will know that this subject always gets me worked up.
|
|
|
Post by sharonw on Oct 31, 2011 20:29:13 GMT -5
When I explain to those outside the 2x2 movement that I am researching the history, sociology and theology of this movement the question is usually asked, ‘Are they a cult’. Since this is a question I will address in my research I would appreciate the views of those who may support and those who reject the idea that the 2x2 movement is a cult. Well-reasoned and rational comments are what I am after. To help focus your mind I am quoting the following as generally accepted definitions of a cult from writers on the subject: ‘ By the term cult I mean nothing derogatory to any group so classified. A cult, as I define it. Is any religious group which differs significantly in some one or more respects as to belief or practice from those religious groups which are regarded as normative expressions of religion in our total culture. I may also add to this that a cult might also be defined as a group of people gathered about a specific person or person’s misinterpretation of the Bible.’
‘The term is more generally used by evangelicals of groups whose teachings are so heretical as to remain outside historic Christianity’.Apart from asking for clarification from time to time should that be necessary I shall make no other comments. Yes, by a loose definition of the word cult, I do consider the 2x2 fellowship to be a cult- however- based on the same loose definition of the word cult- I also consider most main stream Christian denominations to be cults. I also believe, that to try and label complex social organizations with a one word label is a sign of laziness is akin to a writer using cliches. I read some stories that were set back in the 17-1800's and there was something in that book that talked about what "cult" meant in those days and I think we can agree that in the mid-late 1800's there was a definite movement of "cult" growth. The definition given for "cult" in that day and age was a "beginning culture"...otherwords a new way of living, believing brought about a new culture to be born and that beginning was called a cult until it was well established.
|
|
|
Post by sharonw on Oct 31, 2011 20:31:31 GMT -5
When we think of cults, we think of the most extreme cults but just because a group does not require members to never see their outsider family members or to share wives or to have as many wives as possible, does not mean it is not a cult. All cults share certain traits in common, and as it happens the meetings have several of these traits: - exclusive (we are the "only, true way") - slandering & vilifying other churches ("false hirelings" in it for the money) - former members must be avoiding as they are a bad influence - isolation from friends & family unless they show an interest in the group - there are never any legitimate reasons to leave - those who do leave are slandered for doing so (he is "bitter", she wanted to leave "the truth for the world", they have "nerve problems") - no accountability expected of those in charge - followers feel they can never be "good enough" - interefence in families (those with a spouse who is not in the meetings or who has left the meetings are encouraged through shame, fear for their spouse's eternal security & guilt to pressure him/her into professing) - ordinary members kept in the dark (being taught the group was started by Jesus all those years ago when the group was actually started by an uneducated man just over a century ago) - anything a leader does, no matter how harsh, can be justified - totalitarian rulers who cannot be challenged (workers) - fake friendships based on group membership (leave the meetings and the majority of "friends" in the meetings drop contact with you) - minority in control of majority (workers) - interference in private life (workers dropping in on people unannounced, sometimes even just walking in the back door, workers authority in family matters given higher priority over parents authority) - obligation to be at all services, and if not, having a reason why (phone calls for missing meetings) - hiding details & lying about things to outsiders, then only revealing these things when the outsider joins - veneration of those in control (workers are the standart to which we must adhere to if we want to reach heaven, workers are personally chosen by God, workers are carrying on Jesus's "unfinished work", photos of workers in homes & bibles, feeling honoured by a visit from the workers) - if a Christian group, the teaching of unbiblical teachings (denial of trinity, placing workers higher than Jesus, Jesus lowered to standard of a mere man) - if Christian focus on only a small part of scripture while ignoring the rest of scripture - little or no charity to outsiders - secretive - submission expected of members - members expected to publicly confess their sins as public humilation ("testimonies" at conventions, promises to "do better") - taboo topics. certain issues which cannot be questioned or even mentioned - encouraged feelings of guilt and shame ("think of testimonies at convention") - "us" versus "them" attitude towards outsiders - discouraging contact with outsiders - discouraging any modern media that would lead members to leave (the radio & Internet once banned, TV banned) - double standards tolerated amongst those higher up but condemned in ordinary members - the use of double-speak (using the terms "the truth" & "the way" to meaning the meetings when it actually means Jesus) - legalistic rules on all aspects of life right down to the minor details (hair must be in buns, black stockings used to be obligatory &c...) - excusing unethical behaviours on the grounds that the group is above the law(workers not paying tax on their salaries, workers covering up the abuse of children by their colleagues) All of these things are found within the meetings, so therefore I would be lying if I said that I do not believe the meetings to be a cult. The signs are certainly there. I hate these checklist approaches to determining whether someone is in a cult, or something is a cult. The word is an attack word to begin with so it puts people on the defensive. It is insulting, derisive and derogatory. All you have done here is list a number of purported features of the friends, which you dislike, and write the words CHECKLIST FOR CULT at the top of it. There is no actual value in doing this, other than to attack.
|
|
|
Post by What Hat on Oct 31, 2011 20:33:00 GMT -5
Sorry, but it's a major bone of contention with me. Nothing personal, Irvine; anyone who has read my posts on the forum will know that this subject always gets me worked up.LOL. You got it. That's mois today.
|
|
|
Post by sharonw on Oct 31, 2011 20:36:33 GMT -5
"Cult" and "Sect" are twin words. In the King James the first church was referred to as a 'Sect'. The Apostolic church had no name, and took any reproachful name given to it in its stride. In fact that is where "christian" came from. Acts 24:5, "sect of the Nazarenes"
and Acts 28:22, "concerning this sect, we know that every where it is spoken against."
So if the word "cult" confers as much (or more) reproach as "sect" then we are happy to bear it.
|
|
|
Post by Sylvestra on Oct 31, 2011 20:39:26 GMT -5
I don't understand why what gets so worked up about calling the 2x2's a cult anyway!!! He is an EX! But what is HIS ax to grind? irvinegrey defined his terms (and what refuses to acknowledge the terms of the author). And, by the terms spelled out in the OP, I believe the 2x2's to be a cult.....no more, no less! I understand those terms. That is how cult was defined 100 years ago, not today. Grey is in good company, as there are still many theologians that define the word in this way. Basically, they are in an ivory tower, and know not of the impact of their words. Anyone who has taken contemporary language theory will understand 'cult' for the derogatory smear word that it is. Attackers of the fellowship want to lump the friends and workers in with Doomsday Cults, Jim Jones and the like. I am an ex-, but I have always hated bigotry and it still arouses my ire. As a kid in the first grade I was bullied solely for the reason that I couldn't speak English, so any hint of racism or prejudice gets me worked up. Sorry, but there's nothing worse than bullying Christians. And while we're on this, Irvine Grey has not disclosed his sources. I'd like to know who else at QUB endorses this term, because I would like to kick all their butts into the Irish Sea. Bastardizing the language is a fact in your world isn't it, what? I think when people take a perfectly wonderful word like "gay" or "cult" or "pimp" and make it so no one else can use it in the old ways, it causes a divide of generations and leaves the "olders" unable to communicate in the current world so many (as you seem to be) are worried about. I had an extensive conversation with an ex-son-in-law about the word "aggresive". I believe it is negative and hurtful to be aggressive and he believes it is MOST positive. My husband's son thinks things "pimp" are the best possible! I've asked him not to use the term in my home unless he's talking about a prostitute's boss, and he gets mad about it! I use the word "cult" here, and you wig out! I prefer the old world and I'm not changing to fit the "contemporary language theory" you mention. By-the-way, what is your first language?
|
|
eh?
Senior Member
Posts: 714
|
Post by eh? on Oct 31, 2011 20:43:48 GMT -5
‘ By the term cult I mean nothing derogatory to any group so classified. A cult, as I define it. Is any religious group which differs significantly in some one or more respects as to belief or practice from those religious groups which are regarded as normative expressions of religion in our total culture. I may also add to this that a cult might also be defined as a group of people gathered about a specific person or person’s misinterpretation of the Bible.’
‘The term is more generally used by evangelicals of groups whose teachings are so heretical as to remain outside historic Christianity’. Regarded as 'normative' by whom? Who gets to set 'normal?' IS THE 2X2 MOVEMENT A CULT?Yes ... IMO, any religion I disagree with is a 'cult.' ;D
|
|
|
Post by rational on Oct 31, 2011 21:10:58 GMT -5
Those who get worked up over the word “cult” never allow the user of the word the definition the user places upon his/her use of the word. This is clearly seen already on this thread – and using your own definition in place of that given by the poster merely shows that you want to work yourself up to use THAT as a bully-tool. What is irvinegrey to do, beg YOUR pardon and stop using English words because YOU don’t allow his definition of the words he uses? The subject line asked the question. The answer is an unqualified "Yes". I am certain the word cult could be defined to make this so.
|
|
|
Post by What Hat on Oct 31, 2011 21:23:21 GMT -5
I understand those terms. That is how cult was defined 100 years ago, not today. Grey is in good company, as there are still many theologians that define the word in this way. Basically, they are in an ivory tower, and know not of the impact of their words. Anyone who has taken contemporary language theory will understand 'cult' for the derogatory smear word that it is. Attackers of the fellowship want to lump the friends and workers in with Doomsday Cults, Jim Jones and the like. I am an ex-, but I have always hated bigotry and it still arouses my ire. As a kid in the first grade I was bullied solely for the reason that I couldn't speak English, so any hint of racism or prejudice gets me worked up. Sorry, but there's nothing worse than bullying Christians. And while we're on this, Irvine Grey has not disclosed his sources. I'd like to know who else at QUB endorses this term, because I would like to kick all their butts into the Irish Sea. Bastardizing the language is a fact in your world isn't it, what? I think when people take a perfectly wonderful word like "gay" or "cult" or "pimp" and make it so no one else can use it in the old ways, it causes a divide of generations and leaves the "olders" unable to communicate in the current world so many (as you seem to be) are worried about. I had an extensive conversation with an ex-son-in-law about the word "aggresive". I believe it is negative and hurtful to be aggressive and he believes it is MOST positive. My husband's son thinks things "pimp" are the best possible! I've asked him not to use the term in my home unless he's talking about a prostitute's boss, and he gets mad about it! I use the word "cult" here, and you wig out! I prefer the old world and I'm not changing to fit the "contemporary language theory" you mention. By-the-way, what is your first language? Oh, so now I'm responsible for your son's bad language! I'm not the one changing the language as you might know. No one consulted me, and it confuses me at times. Is it okay to say "happy" or not okay? This latest trend of re-claiming a term, or whatever they call it, has me baffled. Let's just take it one word at a time shall we? No one would argue that the effective prohibition on certain racist slurs is a bad thing, for example. And hey, it was Jim Jones and Waco that gave 'cult' a really bad name, not yours truly. So I think it should be used for Jim Jones and truly self-destructive groups. Obviously, I'm not the only one that thinks that way ... read the article I provided. My first language is Dutch. However, the quality of my Dutch has slipped noticeably since the first grade.
|
|
|
Post by rnstrbnsn on Oct 31, 2011 21:42:15 GMT -5
Bastardizing the language is a fact in your world isn't it, what? I think when people take a perfectly wonderful word like "gay" or "cult" or "pimp" and make it so no one else can use it in the old ways, it causes a divide of generations and leaves the "olders" unable to communicate in the current world so many (as you seem to be) are worried about. I had an extensive conversation with an ex-son-in-law about the word "aggresive". I believe it is negative and hurtful to be aggressive and he believes it is MOST positive. My husband's son thinks things "pimp" are the best possible! I've asked him not to use the term in my home unless he's talking about a prostitute's boss, and he gets mad about it! I use the word "cult" here, and you wig out! I prefer the old world and I'm not changing to fit the "contemporary language theory" you mention. By-the-way, what is your first language? Oh, so now I'm responsible for your son's bad language! I'm not the one changing the language as you might know. No one consulted me, and it confuses me at times. Is it okay to say "happy" or not okay? This latest trend of re-owning a term, or whatever they call it, has me baffled. Let's just take it one word at a time shall we? No one would argue that the effective prohibition on certain racist slurs is a bad thing, for example. And hey, it was Jim Jones and Waco that gave 'cult' a really bad name, not yours truly. So I think it should be used for Jim Jones and truly self-destructive groups. Obviously, I'm not the only one that thinks that way ... read the article I provided. My first language is Dutch. However, the quality of my Dutch has slipped noticeably since the first grade. "That explains a lot" I think you had to redefine the word "cult" by your own choice in order to get all up tight over it by your own choice. And I am smiling at your grandest show of cultic practices I have yet seen - on two threads already. Maybe you should soon start a third thread named "bloopers" so you can get angry and blame it on NZ humor?
|
|
|
Post by What Hat on Oct 31, 2011 21:49:00 GMT -5
Oh, so now I'm responsible for your son's bad language! I'm not the one changing the language as you might know. No one consulted me, and it confuses me at times. Is it okay to say "happy" or not okay? This latest trend of re-owning a term, or whatever they call it, has me baffled. Let's just take it one word at a time shall we? No one would argue that the effective prohibition on certain racist slurs is a bad thing, for example. And hey, it was Jim Jones and Waco that gave 'cult' a really bad name, not yours truly. So I think it should be used for Jim Jones and truly self-destructive groups. Obviously, I'm not the only one that thinks that way ... read the article I provided. My first language is Dutch. However, the quality of my Dutch has slipped noticeably since the first grade. "That explains a lot" Oooh, touche. A hit, a palpable hit. What does that first sentence even mean? Please let me know if and when you have something specific to bring to my attention.
|
|
|
Post by rnstrbnsn on Oct 31, 2011 22:11:53 GMT -5
Oooh, touche. A hit, a palpable hit. What does that first sentence even mean? Please let me know if and when you have something specific to bring to my attention. You initiated the personal attacks that show up on these threads, just as you initiated the attacks upon my person about a month ago - yoiu now ask me to help you understand - fine, I'll give it a try. Here is my suggestion, try after this topic has been diverted into its second page by that game, going all the way back and reading irvinegrey's opening post for just what it says and bar your own definition for the word "cult" from entering that process. I have been alienated from much human desire to help you in any way, but if you are going to make your own self angry by your own choice, I will help you if you will allow me to - any time you want to try out that same game all over again -- with pure human glee. Otherwise I'll just return to ignoring you.
|
|
|
Post by Happy Feet on Oct 31, 2011 22:18:16 GMT -5
Seems that those on here have largely referred to the religious aspects of cults rather than the psychological effects saying things to the effect that any religion I do not agree with is a cult.
Cults are psychologically distructive and we have read on this board how some have been affected psychologically growing up in this group.
Some people get all fired up when the word cult is mentioned and think about doomsday cults when the effects of cults can be on a sliding scale.
The word abuse is also a loaded word and puts some people on the defensive too but we still use it and rightly so. I think a checklist approach to determining whether a group is a cult is a good method. Check lists are used in the psychological world to determine ones psychological state. What do you suggest, what? Your anger is not going to shut others up if that is what you are hoping will happen.
This day and age we are more aware of the effects of controlling individuals or groups in society can have on ones emotional wellbeing and behavior. I think we are more aware these days, not less aware.
There must be a reason why you get so worked up about meetings being called a cult, what. Were you born and raised? Did you grow up believing this is the only true church and that all other Christians who did not belong to our group were going to hell. That alone isolates people (children) from their peers and is brain washing. Cults brain wash and I had plenty of it growing up in the group. The group determined our world view, which was an unhealthy world view.
FWIW
|
|
|
Post by What Hat on Oct 31, 2011 22:22:35 GMT -5
Oooh, touche. A hit, a palpable hit. What does that first sentence even mean? Please let me know if and when you have something specific to bring to my attention. You initiated the personal attacks that show up on these threads, just as you initiated the attacks upon my person about a month ago - yoiu now ask me to help you understand - fine, I'll give it a try. Here is my suggestion, try after this topic has been diverted into its second page by that game, going all the way back and reading irvinegrey's opening post for just what it says and bar your own definition for the word "cult" from entering that process. I have been alienated from much human desire to help you in any way, but if you are going to make your own self angry by your own choice, I will help you if you will allow me to - any time you want to try out that same game all over again -- with pure human glee. Otherwise I'll just return to ignoring you. Okay, return to ignoring me. Thank you.
|
|
|
Post by What Hat on Oct 31, 2011 22:36:46 GMT -5
Seems that those on here have largely referred to the religious aspects of cults rather than the psychological effects saying things to the effect that any religion I do not agree with is a cult. Cults are psychologically distructive and we have read on this board how some have been affected psychologically growing up in this group. Some people get all fired up when the word cult is mentioned and think about doomsday cults when the effects of cults can be on a sliding scale. The word abuse is also a loaded word and puts some people on the defensive too but we still use it and rightly so. I think a checklist approach to determining whether a group is a cult is a good method. Check lists are used in the psychological world to determine ones psychological state. What do you suggest, what? Your anger is not going to shut others up if that is what you are hoping will happen. This day and age we are more aware of the effects of controlling individuals or groups in society can have on ones emotional wellbeing and behavior. I think we are more aware these days, not less aware. There must be a reason why you get so worked up about meetings being called a cult, what. Were you born and raised? Did you grow up believing this is the only true church and that all other Christians who did not belong to our group were going to hell. That alone isolates people (children) from their peers and is brain washing. Cults brain wash and I had plenty of it growing up in the group. The group determined our world view, which was an unhealthy world view. FWIW I've stated my reason for getting worked up about the "cult" word above. I dislike seeing it applied not only to meetings, but also JWs, Mormons and so on. My dislike is general. I grew up in the Reformed Church believing that all non-Christians would go to Hell, just the same as you did. Probably Catholics would go too. So what gives "those" people the right to call other people of different persuasion, a "cult". There is no difference by your standard. But by Irvine Grey's definition there is a difference. Reformed, Baptists, Catholics: not a cult. Friends: a cult. Why? The friends beliefs are not "normative". Thanks, believer, for illustrating my point. You understand and use the word "cult" to try and stigmatize the friends for psychological abuse and so on. That is an honest and common use of the word. No one accepts Grey's definition of a cult; they accept something like yours.
|
|
|
Post by Happy Feet on Oct 31, 2011 22:45:49 GMT -5
Grey's is a theology research. not psychological. He has stated clearly his intentions as doing it on groups that fall outside historic Christianity from a historic, sociological and theological perspective.
I am saying the 2x2s falls in the realm of cult because of its psychological effects on people alone.
Grey has as much right to do his research on what ever perspective he wants. I gather the university he is a part of is a reputable university so they will decide if his research is of an acceptable standard or not.
I did not grow up believing all non-Christians were going to hell. I grew up believing that all Christians were going to hell. That is why it is a religious cult from a Christian perspective.
|
|
|
Post by Jesse_Lackman on Oct 31, 2011 23:08:12 GMT -5
rnstrbnsn your complaining about personal attacks is pathetic. For instance it's not a personal attack if I said what defines you as a person is your judgment and criticisms of workers and friends, no, that is objectively observable reality. You of your own volition choose to put that out there for all to see. If you couldn't use the words "worker" "2x2" etc. you would have nothing to say like the actor who struts and frets his hour upon the stage and then is heard no more. You are letting the workers and friends live in your head rent free. It is what it is, it's sad, and only you can change it. ~ Irvine Grey, I looked at your web site and the very first line states; "Although the movement claims that it had its beginnings in from New Testament times on the ‘shores of Galilee’,". You are in effect stating as fact that is a claim I make which is not true. So how you do you think that lie about me makes me feel about giving you any information for your research? That's just the first line on your site. I think part of your research should include the subjects of; click -> The Reliability of Apostate Testimony click -> Atrocity Story (as defined by Wilson, Kliever et al). There are a couple good articles about the psychology of Apostate's testimony and atrocity stories at the Religious Freedom Watch site, specifically; -> The Reliability of Apostate Testimony About New Religious Movements (the section on types of departure)-> Apostates and New Religious Movements
|
|
|
Post by Jesse_Lackman on Oct 31, 2011 23:13:55 GMT -5
Grey's is a theology research. not psychological. The psychology that drives the "research" (always of others, never of one's self) is quite often more interesting than research itself. The psychology is as predictable as the "research". It's nothing new - "I have made man upright but he has sought out many inventions."
|
|
|
Post by What Hat on Oct 31, 2011 23:23:38 GMT -5
Grey's is a theology research. not psychological. He has stated clearly his intentions as doing it on groups that fall outside historic Christianity from a historic, sociological and theological perspective. I am saying the 2x2s falls in the realm of cult because of its psychological effects on people alone. Grey has as much right to do his research on what ever perspective he wants. I gather the university he is a part of is a reputable university so they will decide if his research is of an acceptable standard or not. I did not grow up believing all non-Christians were going to hell. I grew up believing that all Christians were going to hell. That is why it is a religious cult from a Christian perspective. Of course, he has the right to do research from whatever perspective he wants. Where did you see me question his rights? You are correct also in saying that the friends are a "religious cult" from a Christian perspective. The Jews are "Christ killers" from a Christian perspective. The Muslims are "terrorists" from a Christian perspective. Language theorists will tell you that the marginalizing practices of Christians are wired right into the terms that are used. When this gets out of hand it has led to murder and genocide, not because some group thinks Christians are going to Hell ... (like, what difference does that make to them), but just because that group is different, not normal. There is an extensive marginalizing, un-empathetic literature about the friends and workers already from centrist Christianity. From where I sit, which is within neither camp, it's quite abysmal actually.
|
|
|
Post by rnstrbnsn on Nov 1, 2011 2:01:49 GMT -5
Seems that those on here have largely referred to the religious aspects of cults rather than the psychological effects saying things to the effect that any religion I do not agree with is a cult. Cults are psychologically distructive and we have read on this board how some have been affected psychologically growing up in this group. Some people get all fired up when the word cult is mentioned and think about doomsday cults when the effects of cults can be on a sliding scale. The word abuse is also a loaded word and puts some people on the defensive too but we still use it and rightly so. I think a checklist approach to determining whether a group is a cult is a good method. Check lists are used in the psychological world to determine ones psychological state. What do you suggest, what? Your anger is not going to shut others up if that is what you are hoping will happen. This day and age we are more aware of the effects of controlling individuals or groups in society can have on ones emotional wellbeing and behavior. I think we are more aware these days, not less aware. There must be a reason why you get so worked up about meetings being called a cult, what. Were you born and raised? Did you grow up believing this is the only true church and that all other Christians who did not belong to our group were going to hell. That alone isolates people (children) from their peers and is brain washing. Cults brain wash and I had plenty of it growing up in the group. The group determined our world view, which was an unhealthy world view. FWIW I've stated my reason for getting worked up about the "cult" word above. I dislike seeing it applied not only to meetings, but also JWs, Mormons and so on. My dislike is general. I grew up in the Reformed Church believing that all non-Christians would go to Hell, just the same as you did. Probably Catholics would go too. So what gives "those" people the right to call other people of different persuasion, a "cult". There is no difference by your standard. But by Irvine Grey's definition there is a difference. Reformed, Baptists, Catholics: not a cult. Friends: a cult. Why? The friends beliefs are not "normative". Thanks, believer, for illustrating my point. You understand and use the word "cult" to try and stigmatize the friends for psychological abuse and so on. That is an honest and common use of the word. No one accepts Grey's definition of a cult; they accept something like yours. “No one accepts Grey's definition of a cult” If you want me to ignore you, you had best knock off with such popular misinformation. All you are making of yourself in that process is a mere parrot wearing particularly ugly (angry) feathers. The entire historic Christian church in all of it denominations accept irvinegrey’s definition of the word “cult” and have done so for longer than you have been able write “cult” let alone another definition for “cult.” Before “cult” was in used widely by that definition the churches referred to non-biblical theology as “heresies” and the adherents of heresies as “heretics.” And that takes in account of the definition irvinegrey used right back into the very early church in Jerusalem in which a different gospel than the apostles taught was referred to as “damnable heresies.” And, while the difference between the gospel of Scripture and the gospel of the workers continues to be ignored on this board, that obvious heresy of workers’ theology has not disappeared from this board. You may redefine the word “cult” and even quote all those minds who also redefine the word “cult” right along or before you in order to anger yourself if you like, and I will be pleased to help you anger yourself if you like. And you can attempt to redefine the word “Christianity” to include the heresies of Mormonism, Watch Tower and even 2x2ism,. But redefining “Christianity” only shows your own rejection of the words “cult,” “heresies” and “heretic,” as well as showing your own rejection of the Lord who bought (redeemed) by making Him into a mere man who exemplified the path to heaven, while He clearly claimed to be that path. 2 Peter 2:1 But there were false prophets also among the people, even as there shall be false teachers among you, who privily shall bring in damnable heresies, even denying the Lord that bought them, and bring upon themselves swift destruction.
|
|
|
Post by rnstrbnsn on Nov 1, 2011 2:13:54 GMT -5
rnstrbnsn your complaining about personal attacks is pathetic. For instance it's not a personal attack if I said what defines you as a person is your judgment and criticisms of workers and friends, no, that is objectively observable reality. You of your own volition choose to put that out there for all to see. If you couldn't use the words "worker" "2x2" etc. you would have nothing to say like the actor who struts and frets his hour upon the stage and then is heard no more. You are letting the workers and friends live in your head rent free. It is what it is, it's sad, and only you can change it. ~ Irvine Grey, I looked at your web site and the very first line states; "Although the movement claims that it had its beginnings in from New Testament times on the ‘shores of Galilee’,". You are in effect stating as fact that is a claim I make which is not true. So how you do you think that lie about me makes me feel about giving you any information for your research? That's just the first line on your site. I think part of your research should include the subjects of; click -> The Reliability of Apostate Testimony click -> Atrocity Story (as defined by Wilson, Kliever et al). There are a couple good articles about the psychology of Apostate's testimony and atrocity stories at the Religious Freedom Watch site, specifically; -> The Reliability of Apostate Testimony About New Religious Movements (the section on types of departure)-> Apostates and New Religious Movements Well now, if it ain't the other parrot that parrots every chosen author he can find except Christian authors or even Scripture, all plumed out in nice "cult" dress -- "pathetic" in full bloom. I have never heard of a path e tic, please define one fer me. Do you like angering yourself too? Fun ain't it.
|
|
|
Post by rnstrbnsn on Nov 1, 2011 2:31:09 GMT -5
How many times are you going to edit that post? Just as many times as I like -- especially when you strut your real stuff by deleting your embarrassing posts. "Please, don't go away angry. Just go away."
|
|
|
Post by kiwi on Nov 1, 2011 2:54:41 GMT -5
You initiated the personal attacks that show up on these threads, just as you initiated the attacks upon my person about a month ago - yoiu now ask me to help you understand - fine, I'll give it a try. Personal attacks? where where, can I join in? Please please ;D
|
|
|
Post by Jesse_Lackman on Nov 1, 2011 3:59:20 GMT -5
Just as many times as I like. Just as many times as I like -- especially when you strut your real stuff by deleting your embarrassing posts. "Please, don't go away angry. Just go away." I'm embarassed for you, not me. I'm happy to stand with "what" on this issue.
"The Validity of the Formula
Scholars such as David G. Bromley, Anson Shupe, and Brian R. Wilson challenge the testimonies of apostates, who crying the word “cult” with stories often so compelling and frightening are just accepted as true by society and the media without question. One can almost imagine a similar situation centuries ago when a disgruntled former affiliate could conduce a woman before the establishment by simply accusing her of being a “witch”, and immediately bring upon her a terrible stigma—being able to use a known effective social weapon even for their own personal ends.
Wilson found that hostile ex-members would invariably shade the truth and blow out of proportion minor incidents, turning them into major incidents. Bromley and Shupe discuss “captivity narratives” that depict the time in the group as involuntary and point out that the apostate is likely to present a caricature of his former group. Massimo Introvigne, president of CESNUR, found in his study of the New Acropolis in France, that public negative testimonies and attitudes were only voiced by a minority of the ex-members, who he describes as becoming “professional enemies” of the group they leave.[1]
Wilson states “Neither the objective sociological researcher nor the court of law can readily regard the apostate as a creditable or reliable source of evidence. He must always be seen as one whose personal history predisposes him to bias with respect to both his previous religious commitment and affiliations, the suspicion must arise that he acts from a personal motivation to vindicate himself and to regain his self-esteem, by showing himself to have been first a victim but subsequently to have become a redeemed crusader.” [2]
“Others may ask, if the group is as transparently evil as he now contends, why did he espouse its cause in the first place? In the process of trying to explain his own seduction and to confirm the worst fears about the group, the apostate is likely to paint a caricature of the group that is shaped more by his current role as apostate than by his actual experience in the group”—David G. Bromley, Anson D. Shupe, Jr. and J.C. Ventimiglia, “The Role of Anecdotal Atrocities in the Social Construction of Evil,” in Bromley and Richardson, Brainwashing Deprogramming Controversy, p. 156
In a 1997 interview with Time Magazine, Gordon Melton (a research specialist with the Department of Religious Studies at the University of California) asserts that anti-cult figures give too much credence to the horror stories of “hostile” former cult members, which he says is “like trying to get a picture of marriage from someone who has gone through a bad divorce.” [4]
References
1. Wikipedia’s page on Cults: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cult
2. Wilson, Bryan R. (1994). Apostates and New Religious Movements. Oxford, England, UK.
3. Wilson, Bryan R. (1992). The Social Dimensions of Secretarianism: Sects and New Religious Movements in Contemporary Society. USA: Oxford University Press. p.19. ISBN-13: 978-0198278832.
4. Bonfante, Jordan (1997). ‘Apologist’ Versus ‘Alarmist’. Santa Barbara, USA. Time Magazine Vol. 149 No. 4: www.time.com/time/magazine/1997/int/970127/religion.apologist.html"
Kind of looks like what people like VIA gray, TLT, RIS, Lewis, Cooper, Fortt, Massey, and a few others are doing. Looking past the beam in their own eye at the moat they see in *everyone else*, and in so doing become exactly what they criticise. There's a word for that - projection. Sad to say, it is what it is.
|
|
|
Post by rnstrbnsn on Nov 1, 2011 4:14:45 GMT -5
With this thread now neatly and completely diverted off topic onto the topic of personal attacks by the pro-diversion crew on this board, let me bring it all the way back on topic.
The workers’ gospel is themselves and meetings in homes.
The gospel of Scripture is the death of Christ for our sins, His burial and resurrection on the third day according to Scripture (in fulfillment of OT Scripture)
And the difference between gospel spell out very clearly that the workers are heretics, which is the same by definition as a “cult.”
|
|
|
Post by Jesse_Lackman on Nov 1, 2011 4:17:46 GMT -5
"For the most part, 2x2 preachers have been deceived by their teachers, who were deceived by their teachers and so on rifght back to the founder of 2x2ism. And in like manner present day 2x2 Workers deceive their adherents into the reversology of historical 2x2ism -- i.e., they teach primarily that the Biblical identity of Jesus Christ as God in human flesh as well as the very clear gospel of 1 Cor. 15: 3-4 are both 'damnable heresies.' And this deception is the cornerstone of 2x2ism -- a theological cult that is no more Christian than the devil is." I rest my case.
|
|
|
Post by rnstrbnsn on Nov 1, 2011 4:23:25 GMT -5
"For the most part, 2x2 preachers have been deceived by their teachers, who were deceived by their teachers and so on rifght back to the founder of 2x2ism. And in like manner present day 2x2 Workers deceive their adherents into the reversology of historical 2x2ism -- i.e., they teach primarily that the Biblical identity of Jesus Christ as God in human flesh as well as the very clear gospel of 1 Cor. 15: 3-4 are both 'damnable heresies.' And this deception is the cornerstone of 2x2ism -- a theological cult that is no more Christian than the devil is." I rest my case. Good. And the workers' words quoted all over this board now confirm the quotation you have made. So your case was rested before you rested it. They teach a different gospel than Scripture teaches to everyone who will listen to them. So being heretics, their church is not really a Christian church, but falls under the definition of a theological "cult." Notwithstanding, for those in their church who do not listen to them but instead believe the gospel and teachings of Scripture, these will be Christians, in spite of the heretics that rule over them.
|
|