|
Post by What Hat on Apr 14, 2012 0:46:31 GMT -5
I think emy and DD suggested using the name f&w, which I have used a lot on this board. We all understand what that means and that is fine. BUT I know an older gentleman who sincerely, without guile, used that term verbally speaking with " outsiders", who would look kinda surprised when they thought he was using the "f" word to describe a group of people. f -n w church. He was actually trying to speak respectfully or at least "neutral", but the "name" did not "translate" that way, so I suggest 2x2 would be more appropriate when spoken verbally? Alvin When you say it, you should always say "friends & workers", in full. Otherwise it sounds like the name of a grocery store, at best, and a curse, at worst.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 14, 2012 0:49:45 GMT -5
I think emy and DD suggested using the name f&w, which I have used a lot on this board. We all understand what that means and that is fine. BUT I know an older gentleman who sincerely, without guile, used that term verbally speaking with " outsiders", who would look kinda surprised when they thought he was using the "f" word to describe a group of people. f -n w church. He was actually trying to speak respectfully or at least "neutral", but the "name" did not "translate" that way, so I suggest 2x2 would be more appropriate when spoken verbally? Alvin When you say it, you should always say "friends & workers", in full. Otherwise it sounds like the name of a grocery store, at best, and a curse, at worst. Definitely. The F n Workers church doesn't sound very gracious at all.
|
|
|
Post by slowtosee on Apr 14, 2012 8:24:44 GMT -5
I agree,emy, what and Clearday, but for the people who are not well versed in the "inside language" of the group, it is quite likely they will inocently speak the "name" as they have read it on the net or wherever. Alvin addendum or whatever on "inside language" and the" problems" of communication as found on a church bulletin-
Ladies Bible Study will be held Thursday morning at 10 am. All ladies are invited to lunch in the Fellowship Hall after the B.S. is done.
Ladies- don't forget the rummage sale its a chance to get rid of those things not worth keeping around the house. Bring your husbands.
Low Self Esteen Group will meet ....... Please use the back door..
Weight watchers group will meet......... Please use large double door at the side entrance....
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 14, 2012 9:08:48 GMT -5
I agree,emy, what and Clearday, but for the people who are not well versed in the "inside language" of the group, it is quite likely they will inocently speak the "name" as they have read it on the net or wherever. Alvin I agree. The fact that our Fellowship does not have a name, as such, kind of complicates matters as far as identification for references purposes is concerned. I recall as a youngster growing up people outside the fellowship very often referred to our church fellowship as "The tent gathering'' because we held gospel meetings, special meetings and conventions in tents. In those days some folks also referred to the fellowship as "the long sleeves religion" because all the professing females wore long sleeves right down to their wrists. That was later modified to sleeves reaching to just below the elbows ( three quarter sleeves, I think they were called). All the professing females wore hats too and that practice has also virtually disappeared now. My guess is that the "black stockings" was also used as a form of identification in the absence of an official name because they wore black stockings at that time. I suppose professing people in those days kind of accepted those names from outsiders because it sort of identified their group as a church apart from any other church group. Personally I have no real deep-seated objection to being referred to as 2x2's, F&W's or F&W Fellowship as forms of identification; anyway what's in a name. God knows who we are and that is the most important thing.
|
|
|
Post by CherieKropp on Apr 14, 2012 13:30:13 GMT -5
Regarding objections that "Two by Two" and "2x2" aren't an accurate description of pairs...
Some need to look up the term in a dictionary. It is a common and ancient idiomatic phrase for "in pairs" or "a series or succession of pairs".
Young's Literal Translation gives "two by two" in Mark 6 and Luke 10.
The Greek in Mark is "two-two" ("duo duo"/δύο δύο).
In Luke it is "by two two" (ana duo duo"/ἀνὰ δύο δύο, ana can mean "between", "by", "among", "in the midst"), and it is NOT "two and two" in either verse.
Maybe they would prefer being called 2-2s or Two-Twos?? --------------------------------------------------- Mark 6:7 (NIV) Calling the Twelve to him, he sent them out two by two ... Calling the Twelve to him, he sent them out two by two and gave them authority over evil spirits. ...
Luke 10:1 (NIV) After this the Lord appointed seventy-two others and ... After this the Lord appointed seventy-two others and sent them two by two ahead of him to every town and place where he was about to go. ...
|
|
|
Post by What Hat on Apr 14, 2012 14:35:01 GMT -5
Regarding objections that "Two by Two" and "2x2" aren't an accurate description of pairs... Some need to look up the term in a dictionary. It is a common and ancient idiomatic phrase for "in pairs" or "a series or succession of pairs". Young's Literal Translation gives "two by two" in Mark 6 and Luke 10. The Greek in Mark is "two-two" ("duo duo"/δύο δύο). In Luke it is "by two two" (ana duo duo"/ἀνὰ δύο δύο, ana can mean "between", "by", "among", "in the midst"), and it is NOT "two and two" in either verse. Maybe they would prefer being called 2-2s or Two-Twos?? --------------------------------------------------- Mark 6:7 (NIV) Calling the Twelve to him, he sent them out two by two ... Calling the Twelve to him, he sent them out two by twoand gave them authority over evil spirits. ... Luke 10:1 (NIV) After this the Lord appointed seventy-two others and ... After this the Lord appointed seventy-two others and sent them two by two ahead of him to every town and place where he was about to go. ... An idiom is a phrase that "cannot be understood from the individual meanings of its elements". No confusion is caused by the term; we all know what it means. But when you pull it apart into its elements, two by two, it should mean two pairs or four people. If people going "two by two" means "in pairs", then "two by two" wood should be 2 inch by 1 inch or a "pair" of square inches. Instead, it's 2 inches by 2 inches or four square inches on the cross section. Although it's actually short of 2 inches on a side, but that's another story.
|
|
|
Post by todd on Apr 15, 2012 7:32:54 GMT -5
This discussion shows the foolishness of not having a name. The endless discussion that it causes is really not a valuable use of time. Then, even when there is no official name, multiple names are assigned anyway by insiders and outsiders.....and it all becomes a confusing mess to anyone not familiar with the nuances of the culture. Yes, names are assigned, you can't get away from it. An official name simplifies it so everyone uses the same terminology and people can then start talking about something meaningful rather than wrangle about the most popular current nicknames. It's not meaningful to have a name or not have a name, but having one eliminates a whole lot of useless discussion. My thots exactly, CD! And having a name also eliminates confusion and misunderstandings. Clearday and Cherie, You just don't get it do you? We are all just individuals that belong to God and not any earthly name. We are nothing but trying our best to be Christians. We don't WANT to be anything else. I am not about to pledge my allegiance to any earthly name. It's just not going to happen. There is only one name by which man are going to be saved and picking any other name is completely pointless as far as our salvation is concerned. There is only one true way. If there was to be a name picked, when a worker gets up and says that this is the true way, someone might accidently think they are talking about the earthly name. We don't need a name any more than the group of us who play footy every week needs a name. If anyone wants to play, giving them a name doesn't help them one little bit. We need to tell them where we play, and how to play, and what time we play etc. I have had many valuable conversations with people who have asked what religion I belong to. Giving them a name is not what they need. They need to know who I really belong to... who I really am a part of. This is not just about picking a particular religion that suits your lifestyle of beliefs. This is about having an individual and personal relationship with God, and having a name is only going to cloud the issue, not give it clarity as you and others are suggesting.
|
|
|
Post by todd on Apr 15, 2012 7:48:24 GMT -5
This very discussion shows me the wisdom of not having a name. Other people call pwgtm names, but pwgtm do not call themselves 2x2s or 2and2s. A cow and a racoon do not refer to themselves as cows or racoons because they don't speak English. Humans refer to themselves as humans because they are humans. 2x2s refer to themselve as 2x2s if they are 2x2 (smaller than a 2x4). People who go to meetings (pwgtm) are just called people if you tear the sentence down to nouns and verbs. Hey, I kind of like that. It's kind of heart-warming to be called 'people' This thread has created warm fuzzy feelings already, thanks! Deciding not to take an official name is a choice voluntarily made,and it is the right of your church. Just don't expect the outsiders and exes to feel sorry for you when you don't like/care for the nicknames your church and its followers get saddled with. You all but "asked" for it by taking the no-name stand. In other words, you brought on yourselves, and that's the price you pay for taking that stand...being assigned nicknames you dont like. Cherie if you really did want to at least try a little bit, you could use some of the official names that the group have given themselves if various parts. I find it funny how you sometimes insist that we do have a name and are quick to point out the official names used, but suddenly you change tack completely and are happy to talk like there is no name when you want to justify some other argument. Typical of you isn't it Typical of your whole method of authoring. People ask me why I don't find you credible. It's just that I don't get fooled by the old tricks you have used for way too long. Anyway, call us 2x2 if you insist... I'm sure Jesus and his crew were called much worse... but just don't go saying that we all but "asked" for it, as if you have no choice to call us something else. Each and every time you refer to us as 2x2, we will all know that you are doing it with the knowledge that you are offending some people, and also with the knowledge that you yourself are well able to come up with a list of official names that may not be so offensive.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 15, 2012 8:03:36 GMT -5
My thots exactly, CD! And having a name also eliminates confusion and misunderstandings. Clearday and Cherie, You just don't get it do you? We are all just individuals that belong to God and not any earthly name. We are nothing but trying our best to be Christians. Stop right there Todd and listen to yourself. You adamantly argue against a group name and you have just called yourself a group name that Jesus himself did not give anyone.....Christians. You don't get it Todd. You need a name, you use a name, but somehow you deny a name. Names are not evil. I would like you to point out a scripture that even suggests that. Names are common in the bible, starting with the "The Children of Israel". It identifies that group of people with a common heritage, nothing more, nothing less. Unfortunately, most F&Ws do not consider themselves "Christians". If they did, they would be part of the brotherhood of Christians. Instead they have chosen to be a sect of Christianity, and because of their idea of being the "only true Christians of the world", no name is necessary except "Christian". I get it Todd. Nobody says you have to be anything else. It's just an identifier of the Christian sect you associate with. Who told you that you have to "pledge allegiance" to a group identifier? Because your mum called you Todd, do you pledge allegiance to Todd daily? Why do you think people are saved by a sect name? That's a strawman argument Todd. It doesn't happen. No one says or believes they are saved by the name of Baptist, Presbyterian, Mormon or Catholic. Where do you come up with such odd ideas? It doesn't matter if you pick a sect name or not Todd. Already a large number of friends and workers think that the system of workers and meetings IS the Way and put Christ in second place. That has been achieved without a formal identifier. In fact, I suspect that no formal official name has made people even more committed to a religious system than it would have been had there been an official name. If you didn't need a name Todd, no one would have ever given you one, nor would The Friends use one. Around here, the Friends call the sect "The Truth". They have given it a name because it is essential to identify the group with which they associate. There is nothing wrong with that. They need to know if they are going to be playing footy with friends from The Truth or people of The World.....so it is important for them to use a name, and they do. There is nothing evil in it, it is a convenient and useful identifier. We have a group name, we have always had a group name, and we will always have a group name, no matter now much you try to convince yourself otherwise.
|
|
|
Post by slowtosee on Apr 15, 2012 8:04:14 GMT -5
Todd, Did you give your children names? Does your wife have a name? Why? For what purpose? They know who they are. The children know you are their father. Why would you give them a name? That's just TERRIBLE to name a human being. Simply wrong and no purpose in it. Alvin
|
|
|
Post by fred on Apr 15, 2012 8:25:20 GMT -5
Yeeap........ mostly true for all Christians. Now the next question you may be asked ..." Where do you gather for fellowship?". Answer: " Oh, we gather in homes. "
And then for follow-up you might get "Who do you meet with?" Answer: " We meet with others who believe the same as we do."
Next question: " I too, believe that I am saved by grace through faith and so I believe I am a Christian. I might come over and worship with you next Sunday."
HONEST answer: " well no you won't be allowed as you need to subscribe to the belief that meetings must be in a home, that our ministers must go out 2x2 and be unmarried, unsalaried and itinerant."
So you see, because we have separated ourselves from the body of Christianity there needs to be a way of identifying where we stand - it is confusing to merely claim we are Christians.
What better form of identification is there than to take one of the things we have added to Christ and call ourselves the 2x2's.
Overseers around the world have recognised this requirement and have added things like 'Conventions' to the word 'Christian' so that there would be no confusion.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 15, 2012 8:33:03 GMT -5
Fred, I think this calls for a poll.
Surely we could come up with a name more elegant than "2x2s" and less arrogant than "The Truth".
Any ideas?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 15, 2012 8:36:50 GMT -5
How about FOC? Friends of Christ.
Jesus called his disciples/apostles "Friends" (don't tell Todd they had a name) so that name wouldn't leave out the workers although it would bring them down to the same level as the Friends.
A name like that would still give plausibilty of name-denial to folks like Todd. Todd's new narrative could be: "it's not really a name, it's just a description of who we are. We still really don't have name, really, believe me."
|
|
|
Post by todd on Apr 15, 2012 8:40:22 GMT -5
Clearday and Cherie, You just don't get it do you? We are all just individuals that belong to God and not any earthly name. We are nothing but trying our best to be Christians. Stop right there Todd and listen to yourself. You adamantly argue against a group name and you have just called yourself a group name that Jesus himself did not give anyone.....Christians. Stop right there Clearday and listen to me... I didn't say that Christians was our name... I said Christians is what we are trying to be. I don't need a name. It only adds to the confusion and given people the impression that we are any more than individuals. I didn't say that names are evil. I meant that it wasn't neccessary for the group to have a collective name. That's really great. I don't think you do get it. There is only going to be Christian's and Non-Christian's. Belonging to some exclusive sub group is not going to mean a thing, and there is no need for it. And we have lots of identifiers (2x2's, F&W's etc), just like our footy group has identifiers, but if someone asked for the name of our footy group, we are going to have to honestly say that we have no name... that's just the cold simple truth of it and there is nothing that you can do to change the truth. Duh. This is the very reason people want us to have a name. What happens is people say, "I am a Catholic", or "I am a Bretheren" etc... that is who they are... no mention of who they REALLY are.... or maybe that is because they are not really serving God... maybe their belonging to the religion is the most defining and prominent par tof their lives which is why it is that they use to explain who they are... Sad really, at least for Jesus, who unfortunately doesn't get a mention when people are questioned about their "belonging". Yes, daily. I say, "I am Todd" which defines me. Tells people who I am. I didn't say that people are saved by a sect name. Where do you come up with such odd ideas? It was actually me who said that picking any other name is completely pointless as far as our salvation is concerned. Whew... thank you!!! Well that is sad. So imagine how bad it could be if there was a formal identifier that people could hook themselves too. Why do you think this? We have various "identifiers" for our footy group too, but that doesn't mean it has a name, or needs one. The reality is that it doesn't have a name. And there are many identifiers used, including offensive ones, but it still doesn't make it the name, nor does it need a name. So what is that name? If it has a name, what is all the song and dance about? I'm sorry to tell you, but there is no name.
|
|
|
Post by slowtosee on Apr 15, 2012 8:47:03 GMT -5
Hi Todd, Are you in approval or disapproval of the names used by the workers to identify your "group", on legal and other documents? Alvin
|
|
|
Post by todd on Apr 15, 2012 8:58:11 GMT -5
Todd, Did you give your children names? Alvin, I give my children names. It seperates them one from another. They are different. This is entirely different to what Jesus wants of his church though. As far as Jesus is concerned, we are all individuals, but also we are either a Christian or not a Christian. There is absolutely no point as far as Jesus is concerned in making up some name, because it is absolutely pointless as far as meaning anything to do with salvation. There is very likely non Christians amongst us (me included often) so it is completely irrelevant giving the group a name, if not all in the group are going to be saved, or are of the same mind. She was also once a child, with siblings who were seperate beings Well, they do now that they have a name. I have actually given all my children names the same as other children, that have different fathers. Their name has nothing to do with defining who their father is. You aren't thinking very rationally here are you? You definately aren't thinking very rationally here. It's not only you though, so don't feel bad.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 15, 2012 9:05:14 GMT -5
Hi Todd, Are you in approval or disapproval of the names used by the workers to identify your "group", on legal and other documents? Alvin To quote Todd: So to conclude Alvin, those aren't names, those are.......well, something, but they sure aren't names! Todd said so. Now for some reality: The first official name adopted was "The Go-Preachers". This was adopted by the early group of workers and established in the naming of the first hymn book: called "The Go-Preacher's Hymnbook", or something close to that. This effort was produced by one of the founding ministers, Edward Cooney. And that was the beginning of the official names which do not exist according to our friend Todd. And for some interesting history on the "Go-Preacher's" name which Cooney instituted, it was the flip side of a derogatory name he devised for all the other false preachers. His group were traveling, itinerant and working hard to find lost souls so he was a "Go-Preacher". All the false preaches who didn't go anywhere were named the "Squat Preachers". (This is a true story) And now you know "the rest of the story".
|
|
|
Post by todd on Apr 15, 2012 9:08:55 GMT -5
Next question: " I too, believe that I am saved by grace through faith and so I believe I am a Christian. I might come over and worship with you next Sunday." HONEST answer: " well no you won't be allowed as you need to subscribe to the belief that meetings must be in a home, that our ministers must go out 2x2 and be unmarried, unsalaried and itinerant." I have never given this answer, and I have never been told that I need to subscribe to this to go to the meetings. If they want to come along they can come and sit and listen to the Gospel which would be the same if they went to any church. As far as fellowship goes, I'm sure they will sit there and listen to a whole lot of things and decide one way or another if they can be in fellowship with those who believe these things.
|
|
|
Post by slowtosee on Apr 15, 2012 9:14:43 GMT -5
Cd, Interesting story. I had never heard that before about the "squat preachers". No wonder they know diddly squat. ~~~~ Alvin
|
|
|
Post by slowtosee on Apr 15, 2012 9:17:16 GMT -5
Todd, Thanks for reply. Still curious, about whether you approve or disapprove of the names the workers use on documents. Alvin
|
|
|
Post by todd on Apr 15, 2012 9:19:09 GMT -5
Hi Todd, Are you in approval or disapproval of the names used by the workers to identify your "group", on legal and other documents? Alvin I don't really care what names they have or will use to tell you the truth. As far as the governments are concerned they could have called it "The Pink Panther Parade" for all it would matter to those who just needed a name. Either way, I am not going to give it as the name of my spiritual service anyway. Maybe if there was a war on or something and the government wanted to know what group I was part of, I might use one of those names, or maybe even "Catholic" for all it would matter to the government, unless they checked up on me with the local Catholic preist.
|
|
|
Post by todd on Apr 15, 2012 9:23:01 GMT -5
Hi Todd, Are you in approval or disapproval of the names used by the workers to identify your "group", on legal and other documents? Alvin To quote Todd: So to conclude Alvin, those aren't names, those are.......well, something, but they sure aren't names! Todd said so. Clearday, they are definately names, but I thought we were talking about the name for the entire group. Isn't that what this is about. Please tell me if this discussion is not about a name for the entire group.
|
|
|
Post by CherieKropp on Apr 15, 2012 9:29:04 GMT -5
CD wrote: The basis for the name "Go-Preacher" is this verse: Matt 10:7: And as ye go, preach, saying, The kingdom of heaven is at hand. A Photo of the cover of the Go-Preacher Hymnbook is on the TTT homepage on the right sidebar: www.tellingthetruth.info/home/Attachments:
|
|
|
Post by emerald on Apr 15, 2012 9:31:18 GMT -5
Cherie if you really did want to at least try a little bit, you could use some of the official names that the group have given themselves if various parts. I find it funny how you sometimes insist that we do have a name and are quick to point out the official names used, but suddenly you change tack completely and are happy to talk like there is no name when you want to justify some other argument. Typical of you isn't it Typical of your whole method of authoring. People ask me why I don't find you credible. It's just that I don't get fooled by the old tricks you have used for way too long. Anyway, call us 2x2 if you insist... I'm sure Jesus and his crew were called much worse... but just don't go saying that we all but "asked" for it, as if you have no choice to call us something else. Each and every time you refer to us as 2x2, we will all know that you are doing it with the knowledge that you are offending some people, and also with the knowledge that you yourself are well able to come up with a list of official names that may not be so offensive. Um...what's so offensive about being called 2x2s? Doesn't offend me or anyone I know. We aren't keen on being called Dippers though. And surely it should be "pwgttm"?
|
|
|
Post by Scott Ross on Apr 15, 2012 10:54:30 GMT -5
Trying? Is that why there is a reluctance for some folks to identify themselves as Christians? Because they don't understand how to be one?
|
|
|
Post by sharonw on Apr 15, 2012 11:12:15 GMT -5
Clearday and Cherie, You just don't get it do you? We are all just individuals that belong to God and not any earthly name. We are nothing but trying our best to be Christians. Stop right there Todd and listen to yourself. You adamantly argue against a group name and you have just called yourself a group name that Jesus himself did not give anyone.....Christians. You don't get it Todd. You need a name, you use a name, but somehow you deny a name. Names are not evil. I would like you to point out a scripture that even suggests that. Names are common in the bible, starting with the "The Children of Israel". It identifies that group of people with a common heritage, nothing more, nothing less. Unfortunately, most F&Ws do not consider themselves "Christians". If they did, they would be part of the brotherhood of Christians. Instead they have chosen to be a sect of Christianity, and because of their idea of being the "only true Christians of the world", no name is necessary except "Christian". I get it Todd. Nobody says you have to be anything else. It's just an identifier of the Christian sect you associate with. Who told you that you have to "pledge allegiance" to a group identifier? Because your mum called you Todd, do you pledge allegiance to Todd daily? Why do you think people are saved by a sect name? That's a strawman argument Todd. It doesn't happen. No one says or believes they are saved by the name of Baptist, Presbyterian, Mormon or Catholic. Where do you come up with such odd ideas? It doesn't matter if you pick a sect name or not Todd. Already a large number of friends and workers think that the system of workers and meetings IS the Way and put Christ in second place. That has been achieved without a formal identifier. In fact, I suspect that no formal official name has made people even more committed to a religious system than it would have been had there been an official name. If you didn't need a name Todd, no one would have ever given you one, nor would The Friends use one. Around here, the Friends call the sect "The Truth". They have given it a name because it is essential to identify the group with which they associate. There is nothing wrong with that. They need to know if they are going to be playing footy with friends from The Truth or people of The World.....so it is important for them to use a name, and they do. There is nothing evil in it, it is a convenient and useful identifier. We have a group name, we have always had a group name, and we will always have a group name, no matter now much you try to convince yourself otherwise. HEY! I just learned something recently....people who think of themselves as Christ followers could easily still call themselves "children of Israel"....isn't that neat!
|
|
|
Post by What Hat on Apr 15, 2012 12:54:40 GMT -5
We're meeting with a few couples now in a study group. The only thing I dislike about it, is that one of the members of the group fancies himself as the leader of the group, and while we're happy to have him there, the group would function just as well without him .. as it would without any one of us. If he or anyone in the group decided that the group should have a name I think I would head for the hills. I don't know at what point a group takes a name. This morning I went to a church service, and the church has a name, not a denominational one, and I'm quite fine with that. I suppose that once you have a building, a mission and a mandate, whatever it is, it's probably good to have a name. But while I could support a group with a "name", I don't think I'll ever want to join or belong to a church with a name, and say that's my church, that's the one I belong to, and I don't belong to any other. I suppose the friends might have had that kind of feeling at one time, that I have about our study group, but now it just seems like any other denomination. You are in the friends' denomination or you are not in the friends' denomination, so it might just as well have a name as far as I'm concerned.
|
|
|
Post by déjà vu on Apr 15, 2012 14:03:03 GMT -5
your quote What
"But while I could support a group with a "name", I don't think I'll ever want to join or belong to a church with a name, and say that's my church, that's the one I belong to, and I don't belong to any other."
I hear this from so many who left the fellowship even though they could be an asset to any church. I wonder is a case of once burned twice shy?
|
|