|
Post by What Hat on Nov 1, 2011 9:25:35 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! From all the evidence so far, co-operating with Mr. Grey is likely to help him attack the friends, and will not convince him otherwise as you suggest. That's because his evaluation is done on the basis of his religious views, not out of any impartial weighing of pros- and cons-. You can see that bias at work in his definition of the word 'cult'.
|
|
|
Post by Sylvestra on Nov 1, 2011 10:11:08 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 Irvine, One of the things that we "exes" complain about is the issue of not being able to actually pin down what the 2x2's believe. Here is a good example (re: the "back to the shores of Galilee"). There are a number of issues that most of us born and raised "oldsters" were taught and believed, that many of the current 2x2's on this board deny vehemently. I will start another thread entitled "What I Believed" and maybe we exes can add a few of those for your consideration. Best regards, Edy
|
|
|
Post by What Hat on Nov 1, 2011 10:16:44 GMT -5
I would like to invite Mr. Grey to defend his use of the word 'cult' against my concerns, on this thread, before I launch a complaint about this particular branch of his research.
|
|
|
Post by Sylvestra on Nov 1, 2011 10:27:45 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. It is also interesting to think back to one of (I believe, but may be wrong) posts that stated the "press" make the word "cult" into something nasty when reporting one the Jones, Moon, Davidian, etc. cults. I find it interesting that the general population of academia (did what call it a "language theory") and the press are the ones that now define a term that was wholly about religion in these cases? I call this a culture war at the least! E
|
|
|
Post by What Hat on Nov 1, 2011 10:48:56 GMT -5
“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. It is also interesting to think back to one of (I believe, but may be wrong) posts that stated the "press" make the word "cult" into something nasty when reporting one the Jones, Moon, Davidian, etc. cults. I find it interesting that the general population of academia (did what call it a "language theory") and the press are the ones that now define a term that was wholly about religion in these cases? I call this a culture war at the least! E No one "owns" the definition of a word. You have to work with what the word "means". Grey is very naive to think he can define a loaded word like "cult" in a non-derogatory way. I believe everyone is clear about what the word "cult" means today, in the common imagination. There's no one in academia or the press who sits and writes out what words are supposed to mean, as you imply. Meanings evolve according to what the great mass of people think. Of course, the media has a tremendous influence over this process, but it's not an explicit strategy. In common parlance the word cult is always used in connection with harmful and destructive groups independent of any theological considerations. Few people understand the archaic definition of "cult" in theological terms, as it was used in the past. But even in its archaic use, the word "cult" was not an innocent and non-derogatory word. "Cult" has always been a word for people who wish to live in an "us and them", "black and white" world. People who want or need to decide who is included and who is excluded. Inclusion and exclusion is the basis of strife between groups.
|
|
|
Post by rnstrbnsn on Nov 1, 2011 10:53:42 GMT -5
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 exactly like what people like VIA gray, -----------, 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. Great post, Jesse. Please keep that one handy. It may prove useful again. I would not be a bit surprised if two of you together might compile a list of names of people who hold the very same views of Scripture that might fill the entire Internet. And it might even be possible for both of you if you work real hard together to find one or two of those people who actually use the very same words as each other, at least once or twice now and then. But whoever what is clearly does not hold any expressed view of any gospel at all, along with JL. But they are both clearly biased in favor of the workers’ gospel. And that is perhaps very useful information given that workers clearly do not teach the same gospel as Scripture does. But one might be careful if quoting any of their hard to get information to be sure to credit JL’s information to an alias to protect his identity from all those dangerous Bible-believers all over the planet these days. By the way, Melton is well known in Christian circles as THE "cult" apologist, who has publicly admitted that he has no idea where to draw the theological line between Christians and "cultists" because he knows nothing about theology (and evidently does not want to learn any either). A very good reference, JL. And if the others in your list are of the same or close to the same perspectives on the topic of people who have testified of their past miseries brought about in "cults," I would not be surprised at your inclusion of their names in your list. And Wikipedia is generally a very good quick online source of generally secular information that is written by contributions from anyone who wants to contribute; which contributions are often argued over behind the scenes, and the entries very often point out "citations needed" for a lot of the information provided. But I am not the least surprised that both of you think it a good source of information that involves theology. Edit for more accurate info; Bryan Ronald Wilson, (25 June 1926, Leeds – 9 October 2004, Middleton Stoney, Oxfordshire), was Reader Emeritus in Sociology at the University of Oxford and President of the International Society for the Sociology of Religion 1971-75. Wikipedia So Bryan R. Wilson is a Sociologist, not a theologian. And in terms of Sociology of Religion, he may be one of the better authors. But Sociology deals with sociology, the study of social systems, not theology, the study of God. And, yes irvingrey, Bryan R. Wilson is the Sociologist who edited The Secret Sect. And as such, I must say that I am surprised that what and JL included him in their list of “cult” alology. Bryan Wilson wrote a book named The Social Impact of New Religious Movements, First Edition, 1981 (ISBN 0-932894-09-7), which is quoted in The Secret Sect. So what and JL, not to worry that this post of both of you might get lost; I'll keep it right handy for both of you - minus JL's public smear on a personal name which I have blanked out in my copy, of course.
|
|
|
Post by emerald on Nov 1, 2011 11:29:00 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. Who cares. Seriously. Why care about the use of the word "cult" then? Seriously.
|
|
|
Post by rnstrbnsn on Nov 1, 2011 12:00:42 GMT -5
Why care about the use of the word "cult" then? Seriously. A very good point.
|
|
|
Post by What Hat on Nov 1, 2011 12:29:27 GMT -5
Why care about the use of the word "cult" then? Seriously. That's a good question, emerald. I have been asking myself why I do care. I don't care about creating a good impression. It will be what it will be, and as an ex-member it's no longer a direct concern of mine. I do care that in the process of creating an impression, whatsoever it may be, that the players play fair, and the impression is an honest and truthful one. Using a "back door" archaic definition of the word 'cult', then telling all the world under the imprimatur of Queen's University Belfast, that the friends and workers are a 'cult', strikes me as misguided at best, malevolent at worst.
|
|
|
Post by Sylvestra on Nov 1, 2011 12:40:37 GMT -5
Why care about the use of the word "cult" then? Seriously. That's a good question, emerald. I have been asking myself why I do care. I don't care about creating a good impression. It will be what it will be, and as an ex-member it's no longer a direct concern of mine. I do care that in the process of creating an impression, whatsoever it may be, that the players play fair, and the impression is an honest and truthful one. Using a "back door" archaic definition of the word 'cult', then telling all the world under the imprimatur of Queen's University Belfast, that the friends and workers are a 'cult', strikes me as misguided at best, malevolent at worst. So, what I'm understanding you to say is that the word cult is passe' and should no longer be used in discourse. What then? Shall we just call the people who 'set the standard' in the 2x2 (workers) liars and charletans, or something? (Or are those words passe' also?)
|
|
|
Post by sharonw on Nov 1, 2011 12:44:38 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 Jesse's been sharpening up, I see!
|
|
|
Post by What Hat on Nov 1, 2011 13:14:15 GMT -5
That's a good question, emerald. I have been asking myself why I do care. I don't care about creating a good impression. It will be what it will be, and as an ex-member it's no longer a direct concern of mine. I do care that in the process of creating an impression, whatsoever it may be, that the players play fair, and the impression is an honest and truthful one. Using a "back door" archaic definition of the word 'cult', then telling all the world under the imprimatur of Queen's University Belfast, that the friends and workers are a 'cult', strikes me as misguided at best, malevolent at worst. So, what I'm understanding you to say is that the word cult is passe' and should no longer be used in discourse. What then? Shall we just call the people who 'set the standard' in the 2x2 (workers) liars and charletans, or something? (Or are those words passe' also?) No that is not what I said at all. You're capable of straighter thinking than that, so take a deep breath, and let's start over. I have no objection to the use of the word "cult" with respect to its modern or current definition. I do have an objection to the use of the archaic definition in theological terms which basically defines any non-Trinitarian Christian group as a 'cult'. Why? Because that definition was made by one very powerful group of centrist Christians as a smear word to marginalize people who disagree with them in ideological terms. If you wish to define 'cult' in line with how the word is commonly understood, I have no objection to its use. If there is mass suicide, murder, kidnapping, bloody rites and incest, then by all means call it a cult. I am all in favour of accurate functional terminology, negative or positive. Terms loaded with all kinds of negative associations, which label everyone within a group, are the least useful of all. One could hardly argue with, or find a sentence more critical than this one: "Five former workers are currently serving prison terms for child sexual abuse". It's accurate, it's to the point, it doesn't make a blanket generalization. And yet if every one of the friends knew that, it would cause a sea change in attitude toward the problem of child sexual abuse.
|
|
|
Post by What Hat on Nov 1, 2011 13:38:44 GMT -5
Edie, you might find the following interesting.
Does this strike you as fair commentary? It comes from a quack-pot ministry, but how would you feel if you saw this in an academic essay? Let's say you saw it in a journal of academic papers containing material from several leading universities.
|
|
|
Post by irvinegrey on Nov 1, 2011 14:00:50 GMT -5
I am astonished at What's ballistic response to the straightforward question I posed on this thread. Shakespeare comes to mind, 'I think thou doth protest too much'! By your reaction one would think that I had stated a conclusion and not a question.
Perhaps you may not like the word cult and its connotations but the word stays and here is why. In my first post I stated that I am asked this question when I tell those outside the 2x2s of my research. Since this is obviously a question of interest to those outside and perhaps some inside the 2x2s it would be remiss and unprofessional not to address it.
Perhaps it would help to read Steve Bruce's definition of cult in Religion in the Modern World published by Oxford Press. He even mentions the 2x2s in this book. David Legge in his book, 'Strongholds Shaken' published in 2007 uses the term Cooneyite and two by two as interchangeable and makes this comment: Like other cults underneath the umbrella of 'Christendom', the Cooneyites believe they are the only true descendants of New Testament Christianity. They claim exclusivity; a theological trait of all cults. In their preaching this can be detected in their strong condemnation of all other expressions of Christianity. Cooneyites maintain that their itinerant Tramp Preachers are the only true servants of the Lord today. Cults are renowned for insisting that salvation can only be obtained within their ranks and through their preachers'.
Let me make it clear this is not where I stand and I will not come to any conclusions until I am examined all of the evidence and I have given you the opportunity to help with this. I will not stand on other writers' shoulders and use their conclusions as a shortcut.
As emerald as pointed out, I have an excellent relationship with many 2x2s in Ireland and in the area which I live as well as having many relatives in the movement. Thanks to all for your contributions so far and some have been more relevant to the question than others!
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 1, 2011 14:05:33 GMT -5
I have no objection to the use of the word "cult" with respect to its modern or current definition. Eh? It sure makes one wonder what on earth the hissy fit was all about. Matt10
|
|
|
Post by Jesse_Lackman on Nov 1, 2011 14:13:24 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. Just to show how wrong your are Irvine contacted me via PM, was happy I was participating on the thread, asked questions, I answered, twice. That was in the last 12 hours. I have no problem being forthcoming, the problem I have is with the many who defend the use of the word cult and in the same breath blast me for using words like counter advocacy, apostate, and atrocity story. If "cult" is objective and harmless enough to use in this discussion so are the others, especially since academia has used them in the study of apostate counter advocacy. Apostate counter advocacy blowing up real and perceived events into atrocity stories to broad brush the innocent along with the perceived guilty is a very real psychological phenomena - and one Irvine would do well to include in his research. When people are beaten with that over and over they will learn to answer not a word - and still get crucified by their tormentors anyway. Irvine has a tough job ahead of him - weeding through all the highly subjective counter advocacy dogma and doctrine out there. Some of those counter advocates exhibit just as many signs of being a cult as any other religious fellowship does.
Irvine, if you would like more back ground on this let me know. I think it is pertinent because it reveals real reasons why there is reluctance from workers and friends to be forthcoming.
|
|
|
Post by What Hat on Nov 1, 2011 14:13:52 GMT -5
I have no objection to the use of the word "cult" with respect to its modern or current definition. Eh? It sure makes one wonder what on earth the hissy fit was all about. Matt10 My objection turns entirely on the point of the archaic definition of the word "cult". Thus Grey's question is a loaded one, and the answer is pre-ordained. He will find it to be a "cult" using his definition. Sheesh, have you even read my posts, Matt? I feel like a broken record here.
|
|
|
Post by Jesse_Lackman on Nov 1, 2011 14:21:51 GMT -5
Irvine, I think part of the reaction is due to the fact word meanings are different in different parts of the world. For instance "liberal" and "conservative" have nearly the exact opposite meanings here in the US when compared to the UK. Along with that is the fact North America is young - we still have a lot of redneck blood. You use the word cult here and you will get a different reaction than in the UK. The ratio of atheists to theists might play into the reaction as well. Percentage wise there are far fewer atheists/agnostics in N America then in Europe.
|
|
|
Post by What Hat on Nov 1, 2011 14:22:36 GMT -5
I am astonished at What's ballistic response to the straightforward question I posed on this thread. Shakespeare comes to mind, 'I think thou doth protest too much'! By your reaction one would think that I had stated a conclusion and not a question. Perhaps you may not like the word cult and its connotations but the word stays and here is why. In my first post I stated that I am asked this question when I tell those outside the 2x2s of my research. Since this is obviously a question of interest to those outside and perhaps some inside the 2x2s it would be remiss and unprofessional not to address it. Perhaps it would help to read Steve Bruce's definition of cult in Religion in the Modern World published by Oxford Press. He even mentions the 2x2s in this book. David Legge in his book, 'Strongholds Shaken' published in 2007 uses the term Cooneyite and two by two as interchangeable and makes this comment: Like other cults underneath the umbrella of 'Christendom', the Cooneyites believe they are the only true descendants of New Testament Christianity. They claim exclusivity; a theological trait of all cults. In their preaching this can be detected in their strong condemnation of all other expressions of Christianity. Cooneyites maintain that their itinerant Tramp Preachers are the only true servants of the Lord today. Cults are renowned for insisting that salvation can only be obtained within their ranks and through their preachers'.Let me make it clear this is not where I stand and I will not come to any conclusions until I am examined all of the evidence and I have given you the opportunity to help with this. I will not stand on other writers' shoulders and use their conclusions as a shortcut. As emerald as pointed out, I have an excellent relationship with many 2x2s in Ireland and in the area which I live as well as having many relatives in the movement. Thanks to all for your contributions so far and some have been more relevant to the question than others! Again, it would help if you would understand the substance of the objection. It lies entirely with how you have framed the question of determining whether the group is a cult. You know and I know that in the terms you have specified, you will find the 2x2s to be a cult. Here again is the definition you insist on using - 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.How could the 2x2s possibly avoid being labelled a cult in terms of that definition. And, another small bone to pick, you still haven't told us where that definition came from. Or is it to be Steve Bruce now?
|
|
|
Post by rational on Nov 1, 2011 14:23:14 GMT -5
Eh? It sure makes one wonder what on earth the hissy fit was all about. Matt10 My objection turns entirely on the point of the archaic definition of the word "cult". Thus Grey's question is a loaded one, and the answer is pre-ordained. He will find it to be a "cult" using his definition. Sheesh, have you even read my posts, Matt? I feel like a broken record here. "...if you believe in it, it is a religion or perhaps 'the' religion; and if you do not care one way or another about it, it is a sect; but if you fear and hate it, it is a cult." Leo Pfeffer
|
|
|
Post by What Hat on Nov 1, 2011 14:29:48 GMT -5
David Legge? www.preachtheword.com/I'm quite surprised that he would be considered an academic-quality source.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 1, 2011 14:35:05 GMT -5
My objection turns entirely on the point of the archaic definition of the word "cult". Thus Grey's question is a loaded one, and the answer is pre-ordained. He will find it to be a "cult" using his definition. Sheesh, have you even read my posts, Matt? I feel like a broken record here. It is not your objection that concerns me. It is the manner in which you have raised it. One could be forgiven for thinking that Mr Grey had cut off your privates with a blunt instrument. Matt10
|
|
|
Post by Jesse_Lackman on Nov 1, 2011 14:41:58 GMT -5
One more point Irvine since you just mentioned Legge, when evaluating what's been published about the friends and workers pay attention to what clearly has an apostate-turned-counter-advocate flavor vs what's written from a more unbiased point of view. Watch how much the obvious counter advocates cross quote each other, note how much of the counter advocacy doctrine can be traced back to the root of 2x2 counter advocacy, the Impartial Reporter or the article in Heresies Exposed. Endless quoting, cross quoting, and re-quoting something like "they claim" "they believe" etc does not make what's being quoted, cross quoted, and requoted objectively true. Case in point is the Through the Desert in a Cult with No Name article. It was so bad that one of the most vehement protesters was an exe! The counter advocacy does itself no favors by preaching a dogma that is that far removed from reality. And now you are running in to the side effects - friends and workers who won't be bothered to contact you.
|
|
|
Post by rnstrbnsn on Nov 1, 2011 14:43:26 GMT -5
So, what I'm understanding you to say is that the word cult is passe' and should no longer be used in discourse. What then? Shall we just call the people who 'set the standard' in the 2x2 (workers) liars and charletans, or something? (Or are those words passe' also?) No that is not what I said at all. You're capable of straighter thinking than that, so take a deep breath, and let's start over. I have no objection to the use of the word "cult" with respect to its modern or current definition. I do have an objection to the use of the archaic definition in theological terms which basically defines any non-Trinitarian Christian group as a 'cult'. Why? Because that definition was made by one very powerful group of centrist Christians as a smear word to marginalize people who disagree with them in ideological terms. If you wish to define 'cult' in line with how the word is commonly understood, I have no objection to its use. If there is mass suicide, murder, kidnapping, bloody rites and incest, then by all means call it a cult. I am all in favour of accurate functional terminology, negative or positive. Terms loaded with all kinds of negative associations, which label everyone within a group, are the least useful of all. One could hardly argue with, or find a sentence more critical than this one: "Five former workers are currently serving prison terms for child sexual abuse". It's accurate, it's to the point, it doesn't make a blanket generalization. And yet if every one of the friends knew that, it would cause a sea change in attitude toward the problem of child sexual abuse. “No that is not what I said at all. You're capable of straighter thinking than that, so take a deep breath, and let's start over. I have no objection to the use of the word "cult" with respect to its modern or current definition. I do have an objection to the use of the archaic definition in theological terms which basically defines any non-Trinitarian Christian group as a 'cult'. Why? Because that definition was made by one very powerful group of centrist Christians as a smear word to marginalize people who disagree with them in ideological terms.” According to what anyway, but; The definition given by irvoinegrey is “its modern or current” theological definition. So very obviously, after pages of your attempts to ignore the definition in irvinegrey’s opening post and insert your non-theological and controversial modern definition in its place clearly shows that you simply reject historical Christian theology, just as the workers have for the entire history of their church. And that is YOUR choice to make. Yet pages of your efforts also clearly show that you use your own insertions to excuse your refusal to give any of those secret worker teachings to a researcher; and perhaps to even bully others who know the workers’ teachings into likewise keeping their mouths shut about what workers and people in meetings believe too. Tell us something, do you get lots of pleasure from all of your self insertions? Please don’t mind my humor; since you already know that I am very entertained trying to help you get yourself all worked up all over again. It makes for a real fine “don’t care” show on this board that others have obviously noticed too. Was all of your self-work up and anger also based upon shifting sand that is “blowin in the wind” any old direction that seems sensible to just you and JL. Classic.
|
|
|
Post by What Hat on Nov 1, 2011 14:44:00 GMT -5
My objection turns entirely on the point of the archaic definition of the word "cult". Thus Grey's question is a loaded one, and the answer is pre-ordained. He will find it to be a "cult" using his definition. Sheesh, have you even read my posts, Matt? I feel like a broken record here. It is not your objection that concerns me. It is the manner in which you have raised it. One could be forgiven for thinking that Mr Grey had cut off your privates with a blunt instrument. Matt10 Okay, show me the post or posts where you think that would hold. If I have done wrong I will address it.
|
|
|
Post by What Hat on Nov 1, 2011 14:49:35 GMT -5
No that is not what I said at all. You're capable of straighter thinking than that, so take a deep breath, and let's start over. I have no objection to the use of the word "cult" with respect to its modern or current definition. I do have an objection to the use of the archaic definition in theological terms which basically defines any non-Trinitarian Christian group as a 'cult'. Why? Because that definition was made by one very powerful group of centrist Christians as a smear word to marginalize people who disagree with them in ideological terms. If you wish to define 'cult' in line with how the word is commonly understood, I have no objection to its use. If there is mass suicide, murder, kidnapping, bloody rites and incest, then by all means call it a cult. I am all in favour of accurate functional terminology, negative or positive. Terms loaded with all kinds of negative associations, which label everyone within a group, are the least useful of all. One could hardly argue with, or find a sentence more critical than this one: "Five former workers are currently serving prison terms for child sexual abuse". It's accurate, it's to the point, it doesn't make a blanket generalization. And yet if every one of the friends knew that, it would cause a sea change in attitude toward the problem of child sexual abuse. “No that is not what I said at all. You're capable of straighter thinking than that, so take a deep breath, and let's start over. I have no objection to the use of the word "cult" with respect to its modern or current definition. I do have an objection to the use of the archaic definition in theological terms which basically defines any non-Trinitarian Christian group as a 'cult'. Why? Because that definition was made by one very powerful group of centrist Christians as a smear word to marginalize people who disagree with them in ideological terms.” According to what anyway, but; The definition given by irvoinegrey is “its modern or current” theological definition. So very obviously, after pages of your attempts to ignore the definition in irvinegrey’s opening post and insert your non-theological and controversial modern definition in its place clearly shows that you simply reject historical Christian theology, just as the workers have for the entire history of their church. And that is YOUR choice to make. Yet pages of your efforts also clearly show that you use your own insertions to excuse your refusal to give any of those secret worker teachings to a researcher; and perhaps to even bully others who know the workers’ teachings into likewise keeping their mouths shut about what workers and people in meetings believe too. Tell us something, do you get lots of pleasure from all of your self insertions? Please don’t mind my humor; since you already know that I am very entertained trying to help you get yourself all worked up all over again. It makes for a real fine “don’t care” show on this board that others have obviously noticed too. Was all of your self-work up and anger also based upon shifting sand that is “blowin in the wind” any old direction that seems sensible to just you and JL. Classic. I have no idea what you are saying here, so I'm afraid that I can't respond.
|
|
|
Post by Happy Feet on Nov 1, 2011 14:54:53 GMT -5
Why care about the use of the word "cult" then? Seriously. That's a good question, emerald. I have been asking myself why I do care. I don't care about creating a good impression. It will be what it will be, and as an ex-member it's no longer a direct concern of mine. I do care that in the process of creating an impression, whatsoever it may be, that the players play fair, and the impression is an honest and truthful one. Using a "back door" archaic definition of the word 'cult', then telling all the world under the imprimatur of Queen's University Belfast, that the friends and workers are a 'cult', strikes me as misguided at best, malevolent at worst. How about all the books and websites that list it under a cult, or is it just Grey who you are obsessed with?
|
|
|
Post by Sylvestra on Nov 1, 2011 14:58:51 GMT -5
Edie, you might find the following interesting. Does this strike you as fair commentary? It comes from a quack-pot ministry, but how would you feel if you saw this in an academic essay? Let's say you saw it in a journal of academic papers containing material from several leading universities. 'Haven't a clue. I'm not that smart.
|
|