Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 25, 2015 13:04:48 GMT -5
I liked Grey's book. ... Grey rightly assails the workers for proffering a works-based-righteous of their own invention. The works based righteousness you refer to is a fabrication of the opposition. When people continue to say that and repeat it often then it is eventually passed on as something true. We believe in salvation by the blood of Christ as our only redeeming hope. What we also believe is that good works will follow those who profess to have salvation... Well said christianburg. It has always amused me that the '...they're a works based religion...' crowd is somehow blind to or has nothing to say to the '... the 2x2's aught to do this or not do that...' crowd.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 25, 2015 13:22:32 GMT -5
One of the saddest comments I got was from a former worker who said, 'after reading your book I had difficulty sleeping when I thought of all the people I had misled over the years as to the Scriptural way of Salvation, the workers preach 'another gospel.' NOT all former workers think like the ex-worker you mention in your post. I read your book, which you sent it to me. Thanks, for doing that. From a scale 1 to 5 stars, I give it a two stars reviewed.
Thanks for your evaluation Nathan. I suspect my evaluation might perhaps be about the same, for about the same reasons; especially if what invinegrey has brought forth as a particularly poignant comment reflects his mindset in his creation.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 25, 2015 14:05:46 GMT -5
... Grey nailed down the beliefs so that this will become the book of record for those beliefs. Since the 2x2s wouldn't write down their beliefs, someone has done it for them. I can see that being a great service to the group in the long run. Well, let's remember it's irvine's opinion of "...the beliefs...", however considered he may think he is about it. It's a slippery task. One of the beauties I like about testimonies and opinions of the friends and workers, is that there is no written doctrine as some here would like the 2x2's to have. (And if they don't, then make one for them...) It allows for a lot of freedom, and maybe more importantly, personal freedom to change. One of the things I have appreciated from forums like this, is coming to better understand how differently people think. I must say one of the most interesting and glorious conventions I remember going to was hearing all the testimonies with a better understanding of what a diversity of beliefs and opinions there are! It's a strength.
|
|
|
Post by Mary on Jan 25, 2015 15:26:23 GMT -5
There is plenty of spoken doctrine and plenty of notes written in meeting in which the doctrine is well recorded. Diversity of beliefs and opinions? First that was forbidden in meetings to believe other than what the workers preached. People were put out if they believed different from the workers. They pride themselves in having the same beliefs the world over equating that with Jesus is the same yesterday, today and forever. It was a theme in which they claimed they were different from other churches. If you accept different beliefs then you would accept other Christians but because they have different beliefs you do not even accept that they are saved.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 25, 2015 16:32:22 GMT -5
There is plenty of spoken doctrine and plenty of notes written in meeting in which the doctrine is well recorded. Diversity of beliefs and opinions? First that was forbidden in meetings to believe other than what the workers preached. People were put out if they believed different from the workers. They pride themselves in having the same beliefs the world over equating that with Jesus is the same yesterday, today and forever. It was a theme in which they claimed they were different from other churches. If you accept different beliefs then you would accept other Christians but because they have different beliefs you do not even accept that they are saved. A bunch of half truth beliefs, on which you hang your arguments. Well, considering the confirmation I'm sure you've found to your liking here, what else should I expect? Plenty of spoken doctrine... notes... etc...? Well, amen to your ears, and pen then. Too bad. Personally I find them to be expressions of belief. But you must be one confused ... Christian? And now I am talking about various Christian church's published doctrines. For example the two Lutheran synod believers who cross in front of my driveway going in opposite directions on Sunday mornings. It's nice that one is at 10:00 and the other at 10:30. We won't talk about the Catholics who also have their separate school for the kids. "Diversity of beliefs and opinions ... was forbidden in meetings to believe other than what the workers preached." What else can I say but, Baloney. What a distorted view you have. Like what proceeded it in your commentary, your judgment of me is just as imaginary. Boo!
|
|
|
Post by Mary on Jan 25, 2015 16:46:44 GMT -5
Expression of belief is doctrine.
People being moved from one meeting and put into another because they cannot fellowship together. Plenty of people going in different directions and leaving your church. People in meetings going past plenty of churches on the way.
|
|
|
Post by irvinegrey on Jan 25, 2015 17:11:55 GMT -5
NOT all former workers think like the ex-worker you mention in your post. I read your book, which you sent it to me. Thanks, for doing that. From a scale 1 to 5 stars, I give it a two stars reviewed.
Thanks for your evaluation Nathan. I suspect my evaluation might perhaps be about the same, for about the same reasons; especially if what invinegrey has brought forth as a particularly poignant comment reflects his mindset in his creation. What you think of me and what you think of by book, Two by Two the Shape of a Shapeless Movement, whether you give in zero stars or five stars matters little. But what does matter is, what think you of Christ?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 25, 2015 17:44:29 GMT -5
Expression of belief is doctrine. People being moved from one meeting and put into another because they cannot fellowship together. Plenty of people going in different directions and leaving your church. People in meetings going past plenty of churches on the way. First, thanks for responding. I've got to think that even you must smile at "Expression of belief is doctrine" If you expect anyone to swallow that! Sheesh People going past one another...etc. Ain't Christianity, in general, just Grand! Fwiw, I find it is helpful to look at what the workers or my fellow friends say, as being their opinions. I have mine too after all. I respect their sincerity. Now if some people really feel really strong and convinced about something, can you blame them for expressing honestly about it? Would you want to shut them up? I hope not. How you or I take such things though, or how you or I act on them, is directly on us, isn't it. Perhaps how we react is what God is interested in finding out. And showing us. Yes, people are shut out, shut off, kicked out, or quit having fellowship with people they once did, and pass each other figuratively if not actually on the road Sunday morning. (remember how we used to say Every day is Sunday! Be at rest..) The circumstances that bring ugly things about, are what I like calling character builders. I do believe all things work out for the good for those who are His. Non Christians would maybe say I've drunk the cool aid. But imo, I'm complaining about God if I don't like the way God is bringing about things where He's trying to help me. Regards Ettu
|
|
|
Post by irvinegrey on Jan 25, 2015 17:51:45 GMT -5
What you think of me and what you think of by book, Two by Two the Shape of a Shapeless Movement, whether you give in zero stars or five stars matters little. But what does matter is, what think you of Christ? What a person thinks of Irvine Grey's book and what a person thinks of Christ are separate unrelated matters. This thread is a discussion on Grey's book. I find the way Irvine Grey responds to a less than complementary evaluation of his book both 'interesting' and 'revealing'. Maybe you would care to expand on your usage of 'interesting' and 'revealing' since in the context you placed them, they are rather meaningless.
|
|
|
Post by fixit on Jan 25, 2015 22:12:54 GMT -5
Is it like a preacher feeling that criticism of him is like criticising Christ?
|
|
|
Post by Roselyn T on Jan 25, 2015 23:13:18 GMT -5
So you are back review !
|
|
|
Post by Lee on Jan 26, 2015 1:16:43 GMT -5
What evidence do you have to support your conclusion that Jesus was a cult leader? You sure do leap frog about don't you. A cult leader? Well I guess technically he could be called that as all new religions are considered cults until they are about 100 years old. That used to be the definition anyway. And he was a leader of a new religion. However, I certainly never said anything about Jesus being a cult leader, so I don't see any reason to support a conclusion I never made in the first place. Theists will never persuade atheists and agnostics on their terms. While the former declare the faith of their propositions, the latter posit nothing at all.
|
|
|
Post by dmmichgood on Jan 26, 2015 3:07:39 GMT -5
You sure do leap frog about don't you. A cult leader? Well I guess technically he could be called that as all new religions are considered cults until they are about 100 years old. That used to be the definition anyway. And he was a leader of a new religion. However, I certainly never said anything about Jesus being a cult leader, so I don't see any reason to support a conclusion I never made in the first place. Theists will never persuade atheists and agnostics on their terms. While the former declare the faith of their propositions, the latter posit nothing at all. So Lee, you talk to snow about something she never said, then now when she answers you are saying as an agnostic she "posits nothing at all?"
|
|
|
Post by snow on Jan 26, 2015 10:39:57 GMT -5
You sure do leap frog about don't you. A cult leader? Well I guess technically he could be called that as all new religions are considered cults until they are about 100 years old. That used to be the definition anyway. And he was a leader of a new religion. However, I certainly never said anything about Jesus being a cult leader, so I don't see any reason to support a conclusion I never made in the first place. Theists will never persuade atheists and agnostics on their terms. While the former declare the faith of their propositions, the latter posit nothing at all. How would you know that since you are not that and would have no clue what I think, what I have done etc. I have just as much worth as you. My thoughts and feelings are just as important as your's. I believe in love. I believe that makes a huge difference. You seem to hate anyone who doesn't think as you do. You seem to want to divide people into little boxes of your chosen label. You negate a whole segment of population because you can't see the beauty in everyone.
|
|
|
Post by irvinegrey on Jan 26, 2015 17:24:46 GMT -5
Maybe you would care to expand on your usage of 'interesting' and 'revealing' since in the context you placed them, they are rather meaningless. At this point, until you explain and enlighten us further I'm finding your response to Nathan's evaluation of your book 'interesting'; you change the subject from your book to Nathan's thought of Christ! (I don't see the connection). I find it 'revealing' that this is how you respond to and deflect a less than favourable evaluation of your book. You are obviously not familiar with my research and my motivation. Theological research that is not carried out in defence of biblical truth and for the glory of God is a waste of time. From the outset of my research I always wanted to complete a thesis that would be for God’s glory. Whether one evaluates my book favourably or otherwise matters little. My research covered the history, sociology and theology of the two by two movement. I amassed sufficient evidence to satisfy the university supervisors and examiners to justify my final conclusion. My thesis and subsequent book, Two by Two the Shape of a Shapeless Movement concluded that the movement is cult of Christianity and a particularly dangerous one. I believe my thesis and subsequent book shows that the substitutionary work of Jesus Christ alone is sufficient for our salvation and that God alone gets the glory. Therefore, the question, what think you of Christ, is not deflecting criticism of my work but gets to the core of what matters in the light of eternity.
|
|
|
Post by snow on Jan 26, 2015 17:35:52 GMT -5
At this point, until you explain and enlighten us further I'm finding your response to Nathan's evaluation of your book 'interesting'; you change the subject from your book to Nathan's thought of Christ! (I don't see the connection). I find it 'revealing' that this is how you respond to and deflect a less than favourable evaluation of your book. You are obviously not familiar with my research and my motivation. Theological research that is not carried out in defence of biblical truth and for the glory of God is a waste of time. From the outset of my research I always wanted to complete a thesis that would be for God’s glory. Whether one evaluates my book favourably or otherwise matters little. My research covered the history, sociology and theology of the two by two movement. I amassed sufficient evidence to satisfy the university supervisors and examiners to justify my final conclusion. My thesis and subsequent book, Two by Two the Shape of a Shapeless Movement concluded that the movement is cult of Christianity and a particularly dangerous one. I believe my thesis and subsequent book shows that the substitutionary work of Jesus Christ alone is sufficient for our salvation and that God alone gets the glory. Therefore, the question, what think you of Christ, is not deflecting criticism of my work but gets to the core of what matters in the light of eternity. What did you base your definition of a cult on? Dangerous to whom and why?
|
|
|
Post by Lee on Jan 26, 2015 21:24:13 GMT -5
Theists will never persuade atheists and agnostics on their terms. While the former declare the faith of their propositions, the latter posit nothing at all. How would you know that since you are not that and would have no clue what I think, what I have done etc. I have just as much worth as you. My thoughts and feelings are just as important as your's. I believe in love. I believe that makes a huge difference. You seem to hate anyone who doesn't think as you do. You seem to want to divide people into little boxes of your chosen label. You negate a whole segment of population because you can't see the beauty in everyone. I'm glad you believe in love. Its important that we believe that something is transcendent. I have a hope that the transcendent is also intelligent. Indeed, our fate depends on it.
|
|
|
Post by bubbles on Jan 26, 2015 23:54:48 GMT -5
So you are back review ! You took the words right out of my mouth! Did u miss us review005?
|
|
|
Post by dmmichgood on Jan 27, 2015 0:53:37 GMT -5
How would you know that since you are not that and would have no clue what I think, what I have done etc. I have just as much worth as you. My thoughts and feelings are just as important as your's. I believe in love. I believe that makes a huge difference. You seem to hate anyone who doesn't think as you do. You seem to want to divide people into little boxes of your chosen label. You negate a whole segment of population because you can't see the beauty in everyone. I'm glad you believe in love. Its important that we believe that something is transcendent. I have a hope that the transcendent is also intelligent. Indeed, our fate depends on it. I really don't think that love is something transcendent. transcendent
1) beyond or above the range of normal or merely physical human experience. surpassing the ordinary; exceptional. 2) (of God) existing apart from and not subject to the limitations of the material universe. I think love is physical human experience and doesn't need to be any kind of existence outside of a material universe.
Love for others is necessary for the evolution of humankind in order for humans to survive as a species.
|
|
|
Post by Lee on Jan 27, 2015 21:46:28 GMT -5
I'm glad you believe in love. Its important that we believe that something is transcendent. I have a hope that the transcendent is also intelligent. Indeed, our fate depends on it. I really don't think that love is something transcendent. transcendent
1) beyond or above the range of normal or merely physical human experience. surpassing the ordinary; exceptional. 2) (of God) existing apart from and not subject to the limitations of the material universe. I think love is physical human experience and doesn't need to be any kind of existence outside of a material universe.
Love for others is necessary for the evolution of humankind in order for humans to survive as a species.
So love is a law, albeit an intelligent one, just as you've stated. From whence comes such transcendence? By definition, a materially-closed system is not intelligent, and your insistence that reality is entirely comprised of such a system is why I insist atheists are zombies. You imagine you are, anyway.
|
|
|
Post by irvinegrey on Jan 28, 2015 2:02:03 GMT -5
You are obviously not familiar with my research and my motivation. Theological research that is not carried out in defence of biblical truth and for the glory of God is a waste of time. From the outset of my research I always wanted to complete a thesis that would be for God’s glory. Whether one evaluates my book favourably or otherwise matters little. My research covered the history, sociology and theology of the two by two movement. I amassed sufficient evidence to satisfy the university supervisors and examiners to justify my final conclusion. My thesis and subsequent book, Two by Two the Shape of a Shapeless Movement concluded that the movement is cult of Christianity and a particularly dangerous one. I believe my thesis and subsequent book shows that the substitutionary work of Jesus Christ alone is sufficient for our salvation and that God alone gets the glory. Therefore, the question, what think you of Christ, is not deflecting criticism of my work but gets to the core of what matters in the light of eternity. What did you base your definition of a cult on? Dangerous to whom and why? In my research I used the definition that defines a cult of Christianity: I quoted Enroth and Sire who both use similar definitions: Sire writes that a cult is, ‘Any religious movement that is organizationally distinct and has doctrines and/or practices that contradict those of the Scriptures as interpreted by traditional Christianity as represented by major Catholic and Protestant denominations, and as expressed in such statements as the Apostles’ Creed.’ One simple and important definition of a cult of Christianity is, ‘therefore for orthodox Christianity, cults of Christianity are groups that while claiming to be Christian deny central doctrinal tenets such as the Trinity and the deity of Jesus Christ. They deviate from the doctrinal norms set forth in the Bible and historical creeds of Christendom.’ Why dangerous and to whom? Any movement that pretends to Christianity and fails to preach the way of salvation as found in Scripture alone is dangerous. A movement that calls men and women to professing without first calling them to repentance as Peter did in his first sermon on the Day of Pentecost gives a misleading picture as to the way of salvation. Saving faith in Scripture is faith that is by grace alone, through Christ alone. Nowhere in Scripture do we find way of salvation preached or taught, except through Christ alone: [11] This Jesus is the stone that was rejected by you, the builders, which has become the cornerstone. [12] And there is salvation in no one else, for there is no other name under heaven given among men by which we must be saved.” (Acts 4:11-12 ESV)
|
|
|
Post by dmmichgood on Jan 28, 2015 2:55:38 GMT -5
I really don't think that love is something transcendent. transcendent
1) beyond or above the range of normal or merely physical human experience. surpassing the ordinary; exceptional. 2) (of God) existing apart from and not subject to the limitations of the material universe. I think love is physical human experience and doesn't need to be any kind of existence outside of a material universe.
Love for others is necessary for the evolution of humankind in order for humans to survive as a species.
So love is a law, albeit an intelligent one, just as you've stated. From whence comes such transcendence? By definition, a materially-closed system is not intelligent, and your insistence that reality is entirely comprised of such a system is why I insist atheists are zombies. You imagine you are, anyway. Except, Lee, that is NOT what I stated.
As usual you reword it to mean something that I didn't say.
How well do you sleep at night after making such distortions of what other people say?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 28, 2015 3:00:53 GMT -5
What did you base your definition of a cult on? Dangerous to whom and why? In my research I used the definition that defines a cult of Christianity: I quoted Enroth and Sire who both use similar definitions: Sire writes that a cult is, ‘Any religious movement that is organizationally distinct and has doctrines and/or practices that contradict those of the Scriptures as interpreted by traditional Christianity as represented by major Catholic and Protestant denominations, and as expressed in such statements as the Apostles’ Creed.’ One simple and important definition of a cult of Christianity is, ‘therefore for orthodox Christianity, cults of Christianity are groups that while claiming to be Christian deny central doctrinal tenets such as the Trinity and the deity of Jesus Christ. They deviate from the doctrinal norms set forth in the Bible and historical creeds of Christendom.’ Why dangerous and to whom? Any movement that pretends to Christianity and fails to preach the way of salvation as found in Scripture alone is dangerous. A movement that calls men and women to professing without first calling them to repentance as Peter did in his first sermon on the Day of Pentecost gives a misleading picture as to the way of salvation. Saving faith in Scripture is faith that is by grace alone, through Christ alone. Nowhere in Scripture do we find way of salvation preached or taught, except through Christ alone: [11] This Jesus is the stone that was rejected by you, the builders, which has become the cornerstone. [12] And there is salvation in no one else, for there is no other name under heaven given among men by which we must be saved.” (Acts 4:11-12 ESV)
i have noticed that not once have said that you have spoken to God about this, but you have used mans comments and ideas to form you ideas. sad isn't it when you know what God things of mans ideas
|
|
|
Post by Mary on Jan 28, 2015 4:31:57 GMT -5
Perhaps you don't think the Bible is God's ideas virgo. You said not once. If all we had to do was ask God then do you think God tells everyone something different as there are lots of different answers to things and all claim to be from God.
|
|
|
Post by Lee on Jan 28, 2015 10:27:07 GMT -5
"Love for others is necessary for the evolution of humankind in order for humans to survive as a species."
Sounds like a transcendent concept to me. Rings a little bit like theistic evolution. Either love is just an affect of evolution or love is acting independently upon it, as you seemed to be saying. You say it is necessary. But evolution doesn't have any necessities within itself, so how can love be necessary? If love is only an affect .... then I think my charge of "zombie" is well taken.
BTW I don't want to hijack the thread so any more replies on this will be on another thread.
|
|
|
Post by snow on Jan 28, 2015 12:16:32 GMT -5
What did you base your definition of a cult on? Dangerous to whom and why? In my research I used the definition that defines a cult of Christianity: I quoted Enroth and Sire who both use similar definitions: Sire writes that a cult is, ‘Any religious movement that is organizationally distinct and has doctrines and/or practices that contradict those of the Scriptures as interpreted by traditional Christianity as represented by major Catholic and Protestant denominations, and as expressed in such statements as the Apostles’ Creed.’ One simple and important definition of a cult of Christianity is, ‘therefore for orthodox Christianity, cults of Christianity are groups that while claiming to be Christian deny central doctrinal tenets such as the Trinity and the deity of Jesus Christ. They deviate from the doctrinal norms set forth in the Bible and historical creeds of Christendom.’ Why dangerous and to whom? Any movement that pretends to Christianity and fails to preach the way of salvation as found in Scripture alone is dangerous. A movement that calls men and women to professing without first calling them to repentance as Peter did in his first sermon on the Day of Pentecost gives a misleading picture as to the way of salvation. Saving faith in Scripture is faith that is by grace alone, through Christ alone. Nowhere in Scripture do we find way of salvation preached or taught, except through Christ alone: [11] This Jesus is the stone that was rejected by you, the builders, which has become the cornerstone. [12] And there is salvation in no one else, for there is no other name under heaven given among men by which we must be saved.” (Acts 4:11-12 ESV)
Thank you for your response. My definition of a cult is different from the one you have outlined, and because I'm agnostic and not a Christian, your definition doesn't sound overly dangerous to me at all. When I think of a cult I think of an organization that is dangerous to their members physical, emotional and mental health, not whether they believe one aspect of Christianity over another. But it gives me a clearer understanding of what you mean so that's good.
|
|
|
Post by snow on Jan 28, 2015 12:19:38 GMT -5
Perhaps you don't think the Bible is God's ideas virgo. You said not once. If all we had to do was ask God then do you think God tells everyone something different as there are lots of different answers to things and all claim to be from God. But that is exactly what has happened, hasn't it? The bible contradicts itself so often and is open to individual interpretations that we see so many definitions of what people think God is, wants etc. from just about every individual who tries to figure it all out. There are some common beliefs, but even they are interpreted uniquely in most cases. The Bible is not a clear indication of who God is or what he wants from people.
|
|
|
Post by Mary on Jan 28, 2015 14:49:32 GMT -5
I don't believe the Bible contradicts itself. I believe it is imperfect man who does not understand. I believe God planned it that way. What I love about humans is that we are all different, within reason. There are some similarities. Who can understand the mind of God? We only see through a glass darkly. God put us on earth to learn to live with each other, in spite of our differences. Learning to tolerate one another. The desire to debate is how God made us. Imagine if we were a bunch of robots all with the same beliefs and opinions. Even all looking the same. What a boring place this world would be.
Cults try and take away that uniqueness and tell us how to dress, play, live etc. God gave man a free will. Life is a learning experience. No one knows it all. The reason I think virgo's statements "to just ask God" is that is where error comes in. We all THINK we know what God is saying when in fact it is all mixed up with our own understanding and our own beliefs. We are part human and part spirit. We are not 100% so spiritual that our human understanding and conditioning does not come into play. Like Paul said to pray with the spirit and prays with the understanding. I also notice virgo has nothing spiritual to offer. The spirit reveals things to us but as I said it becomes mixed up with our own experiences.
|
|