|
Post by Jesse_Lackman on Nov 1, 2011 4:32:57 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.” And because *you* say so it is absolute bedrock truth? You diverted the thread to personal attacks. My posts show the interesting psychology driving the need for some people to call others cults. If you took away the judgments and criticisms of of those critics they would vaporise, judgment and criticism seems to be all they are. They have become consumed by and thus defined by their judgments and criticisms of others. So consumed they don't realise what thin ice they are skating on - "a theological cult that is no more Christian than the devil is."
|
|
|
Post by irvinegrey on Nov 1, 2011 4:35:40 GMT -5
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 am having some difficulty in getting a handle on what you mean. My website states: 'Although the movement claims that it had its beginnings in from New Testament times on the ‘shores of Galilee’, evidence points to its beginnings with a Scotsman, William Irvine who was over to Ireland to work with the Faith Mission'So far, and I am open to examining new evidence, I have not read anything that points to a start date earlier than 1897 in County Tipperary, Ireland. This is not related to the topic on this thread.
|
|
|
Post by rnstrbnsn on Nov 1, 2011 4:41:06 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.” And because *you* say so it is absolute bedrock truth? You diverted the thread to personal attacks. My posts show the interesting psychology driving the need for some people to call others cults. If you took away the judgments and criticisms of of those critics they would vaporise, judgment and criticism seems to be all they are. They have become consumed by and thus defined by their judgments and criticisms of others. So consumed they don't realise what thin ice they are skating on - "a theological cult that is no more Christian than the devil is." The Bible claims of itself to be bedrock truth outside of which there is NO truth. And I don't mind you honoring me with believing what Scripture teaches well enough to restate those teachings in my own words -- in fact, thank you.
|
|
|
Post by irvinegrey on Nov 1, 2011 4:49:22 GMT -5
I have another thread running on UK/Ireland and European issues, 'Going into the Work' and would appreciate some input on this topic. Thanks
|
|
|
Post by Jesse_Lackman on Nov 1, 2011 4:49:39 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." 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. Do you realise you are proving the points Wilson et al have made about the cult accusation, atrocity stories, and the reliability of apostate testimony? Why would you let the workers and friends, that cult, define you as a person?? Why do you let it consume you the way it obviously has?? The more you criticise condem others the more treasure you lay up in heaven? Is that it? The Bible claims of itself to be bedrock truth outside of which there is NO truth. And I don't mind that you honor me with beliving what Scripture teaches well enough to restate those teachings in my own words -- in fact, thank you. What are you trying to say? I don't understand.
|
|
|
Post by rnstrbnsn on Nov 1, 2011 4:59:41 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." 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. Do you realise you are proving the points Wilson et al have made about the cult accusation, atrocity stories, and the reliability of apostate testimony? Why would you let the workers and friends, that cult, define you as a person?? Why do you let it consume you the way it obviously has?? The more you criticise condem others the more treasure you lay up in heaven? Is that it? The Bible claims of itself to be bedrock truth outside of which there is NO truth. And I don't mind that you honor me with beliving what Scripture teaches well enough to restate those teachings in my own words -- in fact, thank you. What are you trying to say? I don't understand. Absolutely, and who is Wilson but a man who writes his thoughts just like all kinds of other men do. And I am proud that I am proving that I rely on Scripture, not the writings of any men. Your second question is answered by simply stating that I cannot do your Bible study for you, nor can I make you understand Scripture either. That is between you and God, just as it was between me and God. But I can tell you that Scripture tells everyone who lacks understanding to pray to God, who gives to men liberally.
|
|
|
Post by Jesse_Lackman on Nov 1, 2011 5:01:09 GMT -5
I am having some difficulty in getting a handle on what you mean. My website states: 'Although the movement claims that it had its beginnings in from New Testament times on the ‘shores of Galilee’, evidence points to its beginnings with a Scotsman, William Irvine who was over to Ireland to work with the Faith Mission'So far, and I am open to examining new evidence, I have not read anything that points to a start date earlier than 1897 in County Tipperary, Ireland. This is not related to the topic on this thread. I was thinking about the discussion on page 7 of the "what we believe" thread. By saying "'Although the movement claims that it had its beginnings in from New Testament times on the ‘shores of Galilee’, " you include me as making that claim, the problem with that is I *don't* make that claim. So when you say something about me that isn't true is it any wonder why I might not be freely providing information for your research? Same with the word cult in the title of this thread, all semantic arguments aside using the word cult will not influence too many friends or workers to help you with your research. Doesn't take rocket science to understand why.
|
|
|
Post by rnstrbnsn on Nov 1, 2011 5:06:00 GMT -5
I am having some difficulty in getting a handle on what you mean. My website states: 'Although the movement claims that it had its beginnings in from New Testament times on the ‘shores of Galilee’, evidence points to its beginnings with a Scotsman, William Irvine who was over to Ireland to work with the Faith Mission'So far, and I am open to examining new evidence, I have not read anything that points to a start date earlier than 1897 in County Tipperary, Ireland. This is not related to the topic on this thread. I was thinking about the discussion on page 7 of the "what we believe" thread. By saying "'Although the movement claims that it had its beginnings in from New Testament times on the ‘shores of Galilee’, " you include me as making that claim, the problem with that is I *don't* make that claim. So when you say something about me that isn't true is it any wonder why I might not be freely providing information for your research? Same with the word cult in the title of this thread, all semantic arguments aside using the word cult will not influence too many friends or workers to help you with your research. Doesn't take rocket science to understand why. wow, why not divert all over the whole TMB to make a point. You apply what is stated on irvinegrey's website off onto another thread on TMB back here to insert yourself into irvinegrey's statement on his website. Talk about a world tour to make a rather obvious self insertion into what is not said anywhere except in your own post -- with that neat little smiley face thingy attached for good measure no doubt.
|
|
|
Post by Jesse_Lackman on Nov 1, 2011 5:08:06 GMT -5
Absolutely, and who is Wilson but a man who writes his thoughts just like all kinds of other men do. And I am proud that I am proving that I rely on Scripture, not the writings of any men. Your second question is answered by simply stating that I cannot do your Bible study for you, nor can I make you understand Scripture either. That is between you and God, just as it was between me and God. But I can tell you that Scripture tells everyone who lacks understanding to pray to God, who gives to men liberally So how do you justify the obvious broad brush judgement, the condemning of the innocent along with who you perceive to be guilty of what you charge?
|
|
|
Post by rnstrbnsn on Nov 1, 2011 5:13:07 GMT -5
Absolutely, and who is Wilson but a man who writes his thoughts just like all kinds of other men do. And I am proud that I am proving that I rely on Scripture, not the writings of any men. So how do you justify the obvious broad brush judgement, the condemning of the innocent along with who you perceive to be guilty of what you charge? I don't, God's word does all the judging and He will do all the judging Himself. I speak in as much accord with Scripture as I am able. But I grow weary of your simplistic repetitions and I am going to bed now. Good night to you JL.
|
|
|
Post by Jesse_Lackman on Nov 1, 2011 5:29:10 GMT -5
wow, why not divert all over the whole TMB to make a point. You apply what is stated on irvinegrey's website off onto another thread on TMB back here to insert yourself into irvinegrey's statement on his website. Talk about a world tour to make a rather obvious self insertion into what is not said anywhere except in your own post -- with that neat little smiley face thingy attached for good measure no doubt. Don't be petty, Irvine asked, I answered, I don't think he's having much of a problem with it and you shouldn't either. So how do you justify the obvious broad brush judgment, the condemning of the innocent along with who you perceive to be guilty of what you charge? I don't, God's word does all the judging and He will do all the judging Himself. I speak in as much accord with Scripture as I am able. But I grow weary of your simplistic repetitions and I am going to bed now. Good night to you JL. You judged, and judged openly before the globe; " the heretics that rule over them". I grow weary of that kind of opinionated condescending arrogance, no matter how it's cloaked. Good night to you too, rnst.
|
|
|
Post by apple on Nov 1, 2011 7:06:00 GMT -5
There is a point that needs to be made:
[glow=red,2,300]No researcher from the "outside" will ever approach research on us in a way that suits us[/glow]
The reason being we are a secretive, exclusivist group and that makes us appear cult-like in the eyes of almost all outsiders. We do not let outsiders know about our beliefs, doctrines, rules, places of worship or anything else so how then can an outsider write about us in a way that is pleasing to us when we are so secretive?
If folks like what feel that Irvine's research is unbalanced in the favour of the exes and too much from Irvine's religious perspecteive to be fair, honest or accurate, then those people should PM Irvine and give him their most positive view of the meetings, the workers &c.. and clear up the misconceptions Irvine may have on us.
|
|
|
Post by emerald on Nov 1, 2011 7:06:28 GMT -5
I am having some difficulty in getting a handle on what you mean. My website states: 'Although the movement claims that it had its beginnings in from New Testament times on the ‘shores of Galilee’, evidence points to its beginnings with a Scotsman, William Irvine who was over to Ireland to work with the Faith Mission'So far, and I am open to examining new evidence, I have not read anything that points to a start date earlier than 1897 in County Tipperary, Ireland. This is not related to the topic on this thread. I was thinking about the discussion on page 7 of the "what we believe" thread. By saying "'Although the movement claims that it had its beginnings in from New Testament times on the ‘shores of Galilee’, " you include me as making that claim, the problem with that is I *don't* make that claim. So when you say something about me that isn't true is it any wonder why I might not be freely providing information for your research? Same with the word cult in the title of this thread, all semantic arguments aside using the word cult will not influence too many friends or workers to help you with your research. Doesn't take rocket science to understand why. I don't think you ever had any intention of offering information Jesse so all that above is just posturing. If you were of a more accommodating disposition, you might merely have requested that Irvine Grey amend his sentence to read: "Many in the movement, particularly in the past..." or something to that effect. Such truculence from die-hard members of the organisation shows a very bad example to an outsider who is writing a thesis about us. It would be better that we showed off our best side, just like the friends and workers in Ireland have been doing. Irvine may have his reservations about us but you don't need to prove them in every post you make.
|
|
|
Post by Done4now on Nov 1, 2011 7:10:35 GMT -5
I was thinking about the discussion on page 7 of the "what we believe" thread. By saying "'Although the movement claims that it had its beginnings in from New Testament times on the ‘shores of Galilee’, " you include me as making that claim, the problem with that is I *don't* make that claim. So when you say something about me that isn't true is it any wonder why I might not be freely providing information for your research? Same with the word cult in the title of this thread, all semantic arguments aside using the word cult will not influence too many friends or workers to help you with your research. Doesn't take rocket science to understand why. I don't think you ever had any intention of offering information Jesse so all that above is just posturing. If you were of a more accommodating disposition, you might merely have requested that Irvine Grey amend his sentence to read: "Many in the movement, particularly in the past..." or something to that effect. Such truculence from die-hard members of the organisation shows a very bad example to an outsider who is writing a thesis about us. It would be better that we showed off our best side, just like the friends and workers in Ireland have been doing. Irvine may have his reservations about us but you don't need to prove them in every post you make. I doubt that this approach is the way to get respect/cooperation from people like Jesse.
|
|
|
Post by apple on Nov 1, 2011 7:10:54 GMT -5
Emerald, I agree. The meetings has an image of being a cult and the behaviour of some on this forum is adding to this image.Such people are showing themselves and the meetings in a poor light.
(Of course, I believe that the meetings is a cult but I understand that others may not feel that way)
|
|
|
Post by emerald on Nov 1, 2011 7:12:30 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 You should be careful with the language YOU use Jesse. You (and others) use the word apostate in a way that is intended to inflame. You use the words "atrocity stories" intending the devalue the experiences of others who have chosen to leave the meetings. By your measure, "cult" is an entirely appropriate description of our organisation.
|
|
|
Post by Barry G on Nov 1, 2011 7:19:26 GMT -5
There is a point that needs to be made: [glow=red,2,300] No researcher from the "outside" will ever approach research on us in a way that suits us[/glow] The reason being we are a secretive, exclusivist group and that makes us appear cult-like in the eyes of almost all outsiders. We do not let outsiders know about our beliefs, doctrines, rules, places of worship or anything else so how then can an outsider write about us in a way that is pleasing to us when we are so secretive? Being 'secretive, exclusive' has little to do with the above quote. Things just don't look the same from the outside as they do from the inside. (the 'Tea Party' in the US is a great example)
|
|
|
Post by emerald on Nov 1, 2011 7:20:15 GMT -5
I don't think you ever had any intention of offering information Jesse so all that above is just posturing. If you were of a more accommodating disposition, you might merely have requested that Irvine Grey amend his sentence to read: "Many in the movement, particularly in the past..." or something to that effect. Such truculence from die-hard members of the organisation shows a very bad example to an outsider who is writing a thesis about us. It would be better that we showed off our best side, just like the friends and workers in Ireland have been doing. Irvine may have his reservations about us but you don't need to prove them in every post you make. I doubt that this approach is the way to get respect/cooperation from people like Jesse. I don't expect it from Jesse. I do commend the friends and workers in Ireland however, for being helpful to Mr. Grey in allowing him access to conventions and the workers permitting the friends to talk to him. It may not change Mr. Grey's views of the doctrine that is preached but it may change his views on how secretive we are. I would hope that he hasn't come across too many in Ireland who are like Jesse although I don't doubt they are there.
|
|
|
Post by apple on Nov 1, 2011 7:42:10 GMT -5
There is a point that needs to be made: [glow=red,2,300] No researcher from the "outside" will ever approach research on us in a way that suits us[/glow] The reason being we are a secretive, exclusivist group and that makes us appear cult-like in the eyes of almost all outsiders. We do not let outsiders know about our beliefs, doctrines, rules, places of worship or anything else so how then can an outsider write about us in a way that is pleasing to us when we are so secretive? Being 'secretive, exclusive' has little to do with the above quote. Things just don't look the same from the outside as they do from the inside. (the 'Tea Party' in the US is a great example) Of course things look different from the outside to from the inside, especially when we only permit a limited number of outsiders "inside". An outsider with some experience of the "inside" like Irvine will have a good view of how things are (able to notice things that are the norm to us with a fresh mind). I do not attend meetings nor do keep to the worker's rules. I am of a different church and have huge differences in beliefs with those within the meetings, therefore I have had a few people talk about the meetings folks in my presence without realising my background within the meetings. There are 3 main opinions the others have about us: 1- we are harmless, simple folk 2- we are strange bunch, a cult 3- we are the Exclusive Brethren Some say our women are oppressed, some say our women wear big hats to our services, others say we don't even read newspapers & others claim we are like the Amish (not true at all). This is how outsiders view us Barry.Their lack of real information on us proves just how secretive we are.This isn't just a case of a tight-knit community but rather a closed community.
|
|
|
Post by What Hat on Nov 1, 2011 8:17:59 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"
Great post, Jesse. Please keep that one handy. It may prove useful again.
|
|
|
Post by What Hat on Nov 1, 2011 8:21:19 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.” You call any idea you dislike a "diversion". Meanwhile we are right on topic the whole time.
|
|
|
Post by irvinegrey on Nov 1, 2011 8:23:20 GMT -5
Is the Bryan R Wilson in these references the same person that wrote the introduction for Parkers The Secret Sect?
|
|
|
Post by What Hat on Nov 1, 2011 8:33:09 GMT -5
There is a point that needs to be made: [glow=red,2,300] No researcher from the "outside" will ever approach research on us in a way that suits us[/glow] The reason being we are a secretive, exclusivist group and that makes us appear cult-like in the eyes of almost all outsiders. We do not let outsiders know about our beliefs, doctrines, rules, places of worship or anything else so how then can an outsider write about us in a way that is pleasing to us when we are so secretive? If folks like what feel that Irvine's research is unbalanced in the favour of the exes and too much from Irvine's religious perspecteive to be fair, honest or accurate, then those people should PM Irvine and give him their most positive view of the meetings, the workers &c.. and clear up the misconceptions Irvine may have on us. Your rationale for working with Irvine Grey is unconvincing. If Grey wished to induce co-operation then I would suggest a) some evidence of credentials on the QUB web site indicating his current areas of interest and a thesis statement, b) a detailed CV, and c) a list of other faculty and his advisors so that the approach taken by QUB to research could be understood. Those represent my own misgivings about Grey's work. Of course, knowing the information I suggest might only serve to confirm my concerns.
|
|
|
Post by What Hat on Nov 1, 2011 8:35:11 GMT -5
I was thinking about the discussion on page 7 of the "what we believe" thread. By saying "'Although the movement claims that it had its beginnings in from New Testament times on the ‘shores of Galilee’, " you include me as making that claim, the problem with that is I *don't* make that claim. So when you say something about me that isn't true is it any wonder why I might not be freely providing information for your research? Same with the word cult in the title of this thread, all semantic arguments aside using the word cult will not influence too many friends or workers to help you with your research. Doesn't take rocket science to understand why. I don't think you ever had any intention of offering information Jesse so all that above is just posturing. If you were of a more accommodating disposition, you might merely have requested that Irvine Grey amend his sentence to read: "Many in the movement, particularly in the past..." or something to that effect. Such truculence from die-hard members of the organisation shows a very bad example to an outsider who is writing a thesis about us. It would be better that we showed off our best side, just like the friends and workers in Ireland have been doing. Irvine may have his reservations about us but you don't need to prove them in every post you make. Who cares. Seriously.
|
|
|
Post by What Hat on Nov 1, 2011 8:36:25 GMT -5
I doubt that this approach is the way to get respect/cooperation from people like Jesse. I don't expect it from Jesse. I do commend the friends and workers in Ireland however, for being helpful to Mr. Grey in allowing him access to conventions and the workers permitting the friends to talk to him. It may not change Mr. Grey's views of the doctrine that is preached but it may change his views on how secretive we are. I would hope that he hasn't come across too many in Ireland who are like Jesse although I don't doubt they are there. No one is being "secretive" here.
|
|
|
Post by sharonw on Nov 1, 2011 9:08:09 GMT -5
There is a point that needs to be made: [glow=red,2,300] No researcher from the "outside" will ever approach research on us in a way that suits us[/glow] The reason being we are a secretive, exclusivist group and that makes us appear cult-like in the eyes of almost all outsiders. We do not let outsiders know about our beliefs, doctrines, rules, places of worship or anything else so how then can an outsider write about us in a way that is pleasing to us when we are so secretive? If folks like what feel that Irvine's research is unbalanced in the favour of the exes and too much from Irvine's religious perspecteive to be fair, honest or accurate, then those people should PM Irvine and give him their most positive view of the meetings, the workers &c.. and clear up the misconceptions Irvine may have on us. Well Said!
|
|
|
Post by What Hat on Nov 1, 2011 9:08:30 GMT -5
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. We have a new definition. A "cult" is a religion that rn* does not like. I understand the "theological" definition of the word "cult". If you read my posts a little more carefully you'll also understand why that definition has no place in the world today. Basically that use of the word "cult" comes from the time that the church was part of the Establishment, and the language was used to marginalize any religious group that did not kow-tow to the established church. In other words, it was used to stigmatize JWs, Mormons and other groups. You may not know that JWs were persecuted during WWII by the established churches in the USA. The clergy tried to associate the JWs with the Nazis. You may also not know that the Mormons were kicked out of many states, again, the state acting with the church. The theological definition of JWs and Mormons as "cults" is implicit in the stigmatization and the persecution that the central church was trying to achieve, all to bolster and consolidate their power within society. It's surprising to me that anyone in academic circles would still try to use the word "cult" in this way.
|
|
|
Post by sharonw on Nov 1, 2011 9:21:41 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. To be fair, I have never heard any worker NOT preach about Jesus. Though sll of those I DID hear spoke about Jesus from a human Jesus point of view, never referring to the trinity concept at all. So I'd have to say that they are not teaching "heretics" as much as teaching "only a partial" gospel according to scriptures. That said, I feel, that on Judgment Day the Just Judge will judge all of us according to what we've done with what we know. So by that feeling, I have to say that the workers & friends will be judged according to what they've done with what they know. So if their knowledge does not cover or embrace the trinity concept, then I don't feel they're going to be lost for all eternity, but I do feel that they will be judged according to as Paul told some of his converts that they were still yet carnal, able only for the milk of the word and stressing external appearances over the inward heart of man. Is that going to be bad? I have no idea, but feel that those who could have done more and didn't then that will come into play. As someone mentioned in this thread, IF we'll pray to God for understanding of His Word and then pray for the ability to have that Word affect our lives, then that WILL be the gift of our God.
|
|