|
Post by snow on Jan 14, 2015 15:12:16 GMT -5
Morality and law were around long before the Hebrew God was chosen for primary worship. There is no need to believe in God to be moral. In a lot of cases belief in God is the reason why people do some pretty horrifically immoral things.
|
|
|
Post by fixit on Jan 14, 2015 16:10:02 GMT -5
I think it was with sadness and reluctance that the workers parted ways with William Irvine. Where do you get the accusation that early workers demeaned William Irvine? I suppose someone speaking about immoral acts plus being quite out of one's mind is not being demeaning? If you remember back in those days any reference to someone not being mentally sound would be an insult at the very least and at the most a way of dispensing with that person's presence in the running of something so important to others as the 2x2 itinerant ministry and meetings in the home had become to the beginning workers! From what I've read I think it was with sadness and reluctance that the workers parted ways with William Irvine. Assuming that he was mentally unsound and/or sexually immoral, how do you think the early workers should have dealt with the situation?
|
|
|
Post by fixit on Jan 14, 2015 16:17:19 GMT -5
Where is the morality in supporting the invasion of Iraq, for example? Has the Middle East been better off with Obama in the White House?
|
|
|
Post by What Hat on Jan 14, 2015 16:36:19 GMT -5
Where is the morality in supporting the invasion of Iraq, for example? Has the Middle East been better off with Obama in the White House? No, Bush created a debacle that will last for decades.
|
|
|
Post by snow on Jan 14, 2015 16:52:14 GMT -5
Has the Middle East been better off with Obama in the White House? No, Bush created a debacle that will last for decades. But Bush said God told him to do it. Scary that!
|
|
|
Post by fixit on Jan 14, 2015 16:57:26 GMT -5
Has the Middle East been better off with Obama in the White House? No, Bush created a debacle that will last for decades. I don't buy the notion that everything that's wrong with the Islamic world is the fault of the West. They have a problem, and they've had it for centuries. Nothing the West does will appease them, except a world-wide caliphate enforcing Sharia Law. I think we'll have to agree to differ on world politics.
|
|
|
Post by dmmichgood on Jan 14, 2015 17:41:31 GMT -5
You know, I really don't think that is what happened, -that the "followers exalted workers as a requirement for salvation rather than Jesus."
I don't think that they did that then nor do they do that now.
I know it is a kind of rationalization that some ex- 2x2's would like to believe. However, I don't think that was the problem.
The workers preached that they were going back to the teachings of the apostles. They weren't alone.
There were many of the "back to the bible" movements of the time. It was a revolt against the organized wealthy religions of the period who ignored the poor & other citizens.
Of course each movement tried to distinguish themselves from the others.
With the workers came the belief that only they had the "correct interpretation of the gospels." It was their interpretation of the gospels that they exalted.
That led to the belief that since they were the only ones that had the correct interpretation, it was only through them that one could receive salvation.
Bang on. But isn't it odd how deeply religious people exalt their interpretation, as you put it. No one ever says, I think it is like this or like that but I can't be 100% sure. No, they're 100% positive about 100% of what they believe. In my own case, I'm 99% positive on about 10% of it, and 80% positive on the next 20%, and then it kinda keeps dropping off from there. But I'm quite certain about which things I'm unsure about. Most all religious people simply don't think that their belief could be even 10% wrong.
They reject the idea that their religious belief might be only something totally created by the human mind. That it was created in order to answer humanity's questions about themselves & their environment .
They won't even consider that other religions & the myths of history mirror their own ideas & have just been modified to suit their needs at the time & place.
|
|
|
Post by dmmichgood on Jan 14, 2015 18:03:31 GMT -5
I suppose someone speaking about immoral acts plus being quite out of one's mind is not being demeaning? If you remember back in those days any reference to someone not being mentally sound would be an insult at the very least and at the most a way of dispensing with that person's presence in the running of something so important to others as the 2x2 itinerant ministry and meetings in the home had become to the beginning workers! From what I've read I think it was with sadness and reluctance that the workers parted ways with William Irvine. Assuming that he was mentally unsound and/or sexually immoral, how do you think the early workers should have dealt with the situation? I wonder if William Irvine really was so "mentally unsound " or just one of those charismatic people who can charm people & make them believe what he says without question?
I tend to wonder if the other workers could see that characteristic in him & realized that if they allowed him to continue he would set himself as a little god.
|
|
|
Post by What Hat on Jan 14, 2015 22:21:09 GMT -5
No, Bush created a debacle that will last for decades. I don't buy the notion that everything that's wrong with the Islamic world is the fault of the West. They have a problem, and they've had it for centuries. Nothing the West does will appease them, except a world-wide caliphate enforcing Sharia Law. I think we'll have to agree to differ on world politics. I don't buy that notion either. Wherever did you get that idea? I just don't believe that carpet bombing is a good way to solve an issue, generally speaking.
|
|
|
Post by fixit on Jan 14, 2015 22:33:34 GMT -5
I don't buy the notion that everything that's wrong with the Islamic world is the fault of the West. They have a problem, and they've had it for centuries. Nothing the West does will appease them, except a world-wide caliphate enforcing Sharia Law. I think we'll have to agree to differ on world politics. I don't buy that notion either. Wherever did you get that idea? I just don't believe that carpet bombing is a good way to solve an issue, generally speaking. Who has been carpet bombing? Assad has been barrel bombing his fellow Muslim civilians for a few years now.
|
|
|
Post by Lee on Jan 15, 2015 3:27:38 GMT -5
Morality and law were around long before the Hebrew God was chosen for primary worship. There is no need to believe in God to be moral. In a lot of cases belief in God is the reason why people do some pretty horrifically immoral things. Belief in God is a prerequisite to being relevant. As an ontological hierarchy goes, surely relevance is a precursor to morality.
|
|
|
Post by Lee on Jan 15, 2015 3:44:24 GMT -5
I'm 100 percent positive that Jesus put law and morality into perspective, by subjecting these to the imperative of life, as well as the salvation of the saints. But from your posts one might think humankind could do away with both mores and law and improve themselves. This alone appears to be the reason you reject evangelicals and their cruci-centrism. There is a huge gap between basic mores and common law versus evangelicals and their crucicentrism. I would venture to say that where the two overlap is almost entirely a co-incidence. Where is the morality in supporting the invasion of Iraq, for example? Sometime after Operation Iraqi Freedom began, I made a remarkable discovery. I had gone to one of my local Christian bookstores to find a Bible for my goddaughter. On a whim, I also decided to look for a Holy Spirit lapel pin, in the symbolic shape of a dove, the kind that had always been easy to find in the display case in the front. Many people in my church and in the places where I traveled had been wearing the American flag on their lapel for months now. It seemed like a pretty good time for Christians to put the Spirit back on.
But the doves were nowhere in sight. In the place near the front where I once would have found them, I was greeted instead by a full assortment of patriotic accessories -- red-white-and-blue ties, bandanas, buttons, handkerchiefs, "I support our troops" ribbons, "God Bless America" gear, and an extraordinary cross and flag button with the two images interlocked. I felt slightly panicked by the new arrangement. I asked the clerk behind the counter where the doves had gone. The man's response was jarring, although the remark might well be remembered as an apt theological summation of our present religious age. "They're in the back with the other discounted items," he said, nodding in that direction. See - www.boston.com/news/globe/ideas/articles/2007/07/08/god_and_country/?page=fullI liked the article. You know though, that if the Iraqis had critically embraced a liberal, western form of democracy after Saddam Hussein's regime was terminated, Bush and his evangelicals would have been roundly praised.
|
|
|
Post by dmmichgood on Jan 15, 2015 4:24:29 GMT -5
Morality and law were around long before the Hebrew God was chosen for primary worship. There is no need to believe in God to be moral. In a lot of cases belief in God is the reason why people do some pretty horrifically immoral things. Belief in God is required to be relevant. Surely relevance precedes morality. What are you saying?
Why does a belief in God is be required to be "relevant' or have any bearing at all on the matter of morality? Why do think that relevance must precede morality?
There is NO relevance, NO significant and demonstrable evidence at all that shows one must have a belief in a god before one can be a moral person.
|
|
|
Post by snow on Jan 15, 2015 12:26:57 GMT -5
Morality and law were around long before the Hebrew God was chosen for primary worship. There is no need to believe in God to be moral. In a lot of cases belief in God is the reason why people do some pretty horrifically immoral things. Belief in God is a prerequisite to being relevant. As an ontological hierarchy goes, surely relevance is a precursor to morality. I disagree. I don't believe in God and I am relevant. To say I am not relevant is ignorant. I have just as much worth as you do.
|
|
|
Post by sharingtheriches on Jan 15, 2015 13:56:21 GMT -5
Throughout the past years, there have been people who also have called the 2x2 religion a "cult"....however, there was a designation between harmful cults and benign cults. At the time, it was considered the 2x2 religion was one of the "benign cults". "Generally, if a religious organization follows Jesus Christ, but denies or distorts essential Christian doctrines such as the Trinity, the resurrection, or salvation by grace alone, that organization is considered a cult. - See more at: www.allaboutcults.org/religious-cults.htm#sthash.tU6UXb6Z.dpuf" This is a "general" observation made from the auspices of a more organized, established church or denomination. I feel perhaps this is why Dr. Grey came to the conclusion that the 2x2 religion is a dangerous cult for it preaches a gospel of Jesus Christ plus. "Actually, contrary to their historical foundations of deeming Christendom to be misguided, evil or apostate, most of the aforementioned cults are now claiming to be Christian themselves. They declare the Divine authority of the Bible, but they manipulate the scriptures to suit their own purposes. Although they claim to serve Jesus Christ, and may use Christian terminology, their doctrines are dangerously different. Why is this an issue? Why can't we all just get along? Because these organizations don't lead to the Jesus Christ of the Bible, but to another Jesus and another gospel message altogether. If these religious groups are based on bad history, or bad doctrine, or bad motives, then we must respectfully expose these shortcomings. If these religious cults are presenting false teachings, then multitudes of people are being led astray. - See more at: www.allaboutcults.org/religious-cults.htm#sthash.tU6UXb6Z.dpuf" There was a study of different cults and I'm not able to find that now, but in the long run, the researches did come to the conclusion that the 2x2 cult was a benign cult. Though many have made a point of telling of the pain of the fierceness of the demands of being someone raised and expected to profess and/or be a worker. One elderly man spoke about how it had changed his father's way of dealing out discipline. Before he had professed this father had been pretty much like any loving father with a large family....strict but loving, never physically or emotionally abusing any of his children. But after professing this man began to beating his children, trying to make them do and be as he thought they should...It became so bad that when their mother tried to intervene one day, the young adult son stepped between his mother and father...and whatever ensued after that was the beginning of the end for this young man to stay and live at home. Being almost too young to get a job to keep himself, he still do whatever he could find to do so. He never went back to any of the mtgs. until he was retirement age...and since that time I understand he is out again due to the horrible secrets and the way the overseers have handled the CSA issues! If cults can be dangerous and benign, then I would have to say all religions are cults to one degree or another. Some more benign than others, but all of them dangerous to a certain degree because they ask you to believe in things that cannot be seen and have to believed through faith alone. Most religions also promote shame and guilt and the Christian religion even promotes that all are sinners at birth because someone else sinned, which is really a horrible concept for self esteem or self worth. In fact, self worth is not something anyone wants to admit to in that religion because it's only by the grace one has any worth. Dependence on a being no one can prove exists for our self worth does not seem healthy to me. People having faith in Jesus Christ should be able to obtain more confidence in their worth...I mean after all...it took Jesus' blood and his stripes to cleanse them and to heal them and then to gain them grace from the Father....then once that is all in the bag so to speak, they become "joint heirs" with Christ...WOW! Jesus said that the Father had given him all things....so to join with Christ in owning all things that should make people realize that they are well worth a lot through the blood of Christ.....seriously! Faith in something isn't just to say that someone believes something, it is to have faith in something that has value to the believer in which they develop a sense of eternal worth!
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 15, 2015 14:26:34 GMT -5
Morality and law were around long before the Hebrew God was chosen for primary worship. There is no need to believe in God to be moral. In a lot of cases belief in God is the reason why people do some pretty horrifically immoral things. Belief in God is a prerequisite to being relevant. Presumably you're going to set out clearly for the benefit of the rest of us how you came to this rather ludicrous conclusion. Matt10
|
|
|
Post by snow on Jan 15, 2015 14:33:51 GMT -5
If cults can be dangerous and benign, then I would have to say all religions are cults to one degree or another. Some more benign than others, but all of them dangerous to a certain degree because they ask you to believe in things that cannot be seen and have to believed through faith alone. Most religions also promote shame and guilt and the Christian religion even promotes that all are sinners at birth because someone else sinned, which is really a horrible concept for self esteem or self worth. In fact, self worth is not something anyone wants to admit to in that religion because it's only by the grace one has any worth. Dependence on a being no one can prove exists for our self worth does not seem healthy to me. People having faith in Jesus Christ should be able to obtain more confidence in their worth...I mean after all...it took Jesus' blood and his stripes to cleanse them and to heal them and then to gain them grace from the Father....then once that is all in the bag so to speak, they become "joint heirs" with Christ...WOW! Jesus said that the Father had given him all things....so to join with Christ in owning all things that should make people realize that they are well worth a lot through the blood of Christ.....seriously! Faith in something isn't just to say that someone believes something, it is to have faith in something that has value to the believer in which they develop a sense of eternal worth! I can understand what you are saying STR. Truly I can. I am also very glad that it does have that kind of impact on people. It didn't have that kind of impact on me. I always felt the shame and guilt side of religion and had no self worth because of it. Then when I left I faced the huge stigma from parents and friends of 'being such a disappointment' to everyone. I grew up feeling like such a loser and a disappointment, feeling like I had let everyone down. That's how religion effected me. When I finally let go of it all, it was such a relief, but I still struggle with all those old negatives of not being worthy, good enough and a huge disappointment.
|
|
|
Post by dmmichgood on Jan 15, 2015 18:17:07 GMT -5
If cults can be dangerous and benign, then I would have to say all religions are cults to one degree or another. Some more benign than others, but all of them dangerous to a certain degree because they ask you to believe in things that cannot be seen and have to believed through faith alone. Most religions also promote shame and guilt and the Christian religion even promotes that all are sinners at birth because someone else sinned, which is really a horrible concept for self esteem or self worth. In fact, self worth is not something anyone wants to admit to in that religion because it's only by the grace one has any worth. Dependence on a being no one can prove exists for our self worth does not seem healthy to me. People having faith in Jesus Christ should be able to obtain more confidence in their worth...I mean after all...it took Jesus' blood and his stripes t o cleanse them and to heal them and then to gain them grace from the Father....then once that is all in the bag so to speak, they become "joint heirs" with Christ...WOW! Jesus said that the Father had given him all things....so to join with Christ in owning all things that should make people realize that they are well worth a lot through the blood of Christ.....seriously! Faith in something isn't just to say that someone believes something, it is to have faith in something that has value to the believer in which they develop a sense of eternal worth! No one should ever have to feel that they are only worth something if someone had to die for them.
No one should have to depend on their sense of worth by needing to be "cleansed" by someone having to be brutally killed.
That doctrine is only because they are made to feel that they aren't worth anything, & are actually born sinful & unworthy.
That whole doctrine is is only a control mechanism.
|
|
|
Post by What Hat on Jan 15, 2015 20:19:23 GMT -5
I don't buy that notion either. Wherever did you get that idea? I just don't believe that carpet bombing is a good way to solve an issue, generally speaking. Who has been carpet bombing? Assad has been barrel bombing his fellow Muslim civilians for a few years now. We've been down this road several times, fixit, and my point was not to re-argue the Middle East situation. My point is that the strongest pro-war faction in the USA were the Bible-belt evangelicals. This is demonstrably true. Whether Bush was justified in invading for non-existent weapons of mass destruction or not is fairly irrelevant to my main point here.
|
|
|
Post by fixit on Jan 15, 2015 20:34:44 GMT -5
We've been down this road several times, fixit, and my point was not to re-argue the Middle East situation. My point is that the strongest pro-war faction in the USA were the Bible-belt evangelicals. This is demonstrably true. Whether Bush was justified in invading for non-existent weapons of mass destruction or not is fairly irrelevant to my main point here. Its demonstrably true that Iraq used WMD against both Iran and the Kurds, and he tried hard to develop nuclear weapons. It's true though that faulty intelligence led to the decision to liberate Iraq. I agree that fanatical Christians can be as dangerous as any religion when it comes to world politics.
|
|
|
Post by xna on Jan 15, 2015 20:54:37 GMT -5
Morality and law were around long before the Hebrew God was chosen for primary worship. There is no need to believe in God to be moral. In a lot of cases belief in God is the reason why people do some pretty horrifically immoral things. Belief in God is a prerequisite to being relevant. As an ontological hierarchy goes, surely relevance is a precursor to morality. I would say Andy had it about right.
|
|
|
Post by sharingtheriches on Jan 15, 2015 22:31:47 GMT -5
People having faith in Jesus Christ should be able to obtain more confidence in their worth...I mean after all...it took Jesus' blood and his stripes to cleanse them and to heal them and then to gain them grace from the Father....then once that is all in the bag so to speak, they become "joint heirs" with Christ...WOW! Jesus said that the Father had given him all things....so to join with Christ in owning all things that should make people realize that they are well worth a lot through the blood of Christ.....seriously! Faith in something isn't just to say that someone believes something, it is to have faith in something that has value to the believer in which they develop a sense of eternal worth! I can understand what you are saying STR. Truly I can. I am also very glad that it does have that kind of impact on people. It didn't have that kind of impact on me. I always felt the shame and guilt side of religion and had no self worth because of it. Then when I left I faced the huge stigma from parents and friends of 'being such a disappointment' to everyone. I grew up feeling like such a loser and a disappointment, feeling like I had let everyone down. That's how religion effected me. When I finally let go of it all, it was such a relief, but I still struggle with all those old negatives of not being worthy, good enough and a huge disappointment. I can understand what you felt for I felt that all my young days...I think when I married outside the fellowship and I was outside the fellowship when I married him...he was able to help me understand that all this stuff and nonsense of beating people down into guilt or some such thought of "humility" wasn't anything that God wanted anyway! So I finally learned while married to him, just who I was and it took me some years to get comfortable with that.....and then when I left the fellowship the second time, I did so with such confidence that I knew about as much about what God wanted out of me as any body would and I wasn't going to have people knocking my feet out from under me any more! And I had some struggles to keep that attitude going, but eventually it all came about because I finally realized that if I was worth salvation unto eternal life and I understand that anybody is welcome to that, then I had to be somebody worthwhile! I'm not perfect, don't expect to ever be perfect...but I don't have to be made to feel like an inferior insect!
|
|
|
Post by Lee on Jan 16, 2015 1:41:15 GMT -5
Belief in God is a prerequisite to being relevant. Presumably you're going to set out clearly for the benefit of the rest of us how you came to this rather ludicrous conclusion. Matt10 We're irrelevant if at the end of the day the soul of man, the we and the I are just disassociated, arbitrary animations.
|
|
|
Post by Lee on Jan 16, 2015 1:46:19 GMT -5
Belief in God is a prerequisite to being relevant. As an ontological hierarchy goes, surely relevance is a precursor to morality. I disagree. I don't believe in God and I am relevant. To say I am not relevant is ignorant. I have just as much worth as you do. We're irrelevant if at the end of the day the soul of man, the we and the I are just disassociated, arbitrary animations. How did we get on to this? Because you reject the Creator-imperative in the Jew narrative.
|
|
|
Post by Lee on Jan 16, 2015 1:52:08 GMT -5
Belief in God is required to be relevant. Surely relevance precedes morality. What are you saying?
Why does a belief in God is be required to be "relevant' or have any bearing at all on the matter of morality? Why do think that relevance must precede morality?
There is NO relevance, NO significant and demonstrable evidence at all that shows one must have a belief in a god before one can be a moral person.
Ecc 9:4 Anyone who is among the living has hope --even a live dog is better off than a dead lion!How were you born? In your answer, expand a little from egg and sperm and mom and pop. If you have time, explain how electrical attraction results in the human being's experience of 'mind' and 'soul'. Don't tell us 'mind' is an illusion. Most of us won't believe you.
|
|
|
Post by snow on Jan 16, 2015 12:21:33 GMT -5
I disagree. I don't believe in God and I am relevant. To say I am not relevant is ignorant. I have just as much worth as you do. We're irrelevant if at the end of the day the soul of man, the we and the I are just disassociated, arbitrary animations. How did we get on to this? Because you reject the Creator-imperative in the Jew narrative. First of all, we don't even know if we have a soul. Why is it so important to you that you live forever? That you have a soul? Why isn't it enough to know that you exist now, love, are compassionate, contributing to life. That is relevant. Wishful thinking that you might be something more seems to take away from the amazing life we live. It somehow downplays what our experience is right now and makes it some day in the future when you die and live forever. I have never understood how this is a better concept. We don't know what happens after death so it makes sense to me to live life to the fullest now.
|
|
|
Post by sharingtheriches on Jan 16, 2015 21:15:04 GMT -5
We're irrelevant if at the end of the day the soul of man, the we and the I are just disassociated, arbitrary animations. How did we get on to this? Because you reject the Creator-imperative in the Jew narrative. First of all, we don't even know if we have a soul. Why is it so important to you that you live forever? That you have a soul? Why isn't it enough to know that you exist now, love, are compassionate, contributing to life. That is relevant. Wishful thinking that you might be something more seems to take away from the amazing life we live. It somehow downplays what our experience is right now and makes it some day in the future when you die and live forever. I have never understood how this is a better concept. We don't know what happens after death so it makes sense to me to live life to the fullest now. I have wondered some about reincarnation...after all, if the creator of all things reclaims the "souls" of the animals, birds, etc that he has given them the breath of life to and made them living souls...could he or would he not also have the right to recycle some of those breath of life "souls"? Of course, I talking about other forms of life...not man! But some people believe even humans are reincarnated, but I haven't met any particular one who felt that ALL humans were reincarnated, but some were!
|
|
|
Post by dmmichgood on Jan 17, 2015 0:12:36 GMT -5
First of all, we don't even know if we have a soul. Why is it so important to you that you live forever? That you have a soul? Why isn't it enough to know that you exist now, love, are compassionate, contributing to life. That is relevant. Wishful thinking that you might be something more seems to take away from the amazing life we live. It somehow downplays what our experience is right now and makes it some day in the future when you die and live forever. I have never understood how this is a better concept. We don't know what happens after death so it makes sense to me to live life to the fullest now. I have wondered some about reincarnation...after all, if the creator of all things reclaims the "souls" of the animals, birds, etc that he has given them the breath of life to and made them living souls...could he or would he not also have the right to recycle some of those breath of life "souls"? Of course, I talking about other forms of life...not man! But some people believe even humans are reincarnated, but I haven't met any particular one who felt that ALL humans were reincarnated, but some were! It would seem to me that re-incarnation is just another wishful thinking on our part to expect to go on living forever.
I know it is hard to realize that all we have here is just one life, however, I agree with snow that we have an "amazing life" to enjoy now!
When one realizes that & settles for that, it is so freeing!
No more trying to jump over a bunch of religious hurdles & through hoops to have an afterlife of which there is absolutely evidence! Live the fullest life that you can now.
|
|