|
Post by mdm on Jul 28, 2014 14:52:22 GMT -5
Wait a moment, now you have me confused! You started out by saying that: ...which I took to mean that our religious background (at the family or society level) affects how we think and relate to each other. So, from that perspective, we can talk about Judeo-Christian or Hindu or Muslim or whatever cultures/societies based on the religious traditions that permeate and influence them. I wasn't talking about types of government or politics. Hope that explains what I meant Ok, yes I see what you meant by culture/societies. I guess what I haven't understood is whether you agree that sacred scripture that makes a woman be submissive or inferior to men is dangerous to women in that society? I'm not sure I'm explaining myself very well. Yes. Interpretation of scriptures aside, I was saying that cultures with no sacred writings at all in their tradition can be even more abusive to their women, as well as cultures with some other religions in their tradition.
|
|
|
Post by snow on Jul 28, 2014 17:23:23 GMT -5
Ok, yes I see what you meant by culture/societies. I guess what I haven't understood is whether you agree that sacred scripture that makes a woman be submissive or inferior to men is dangerous to women in that society? I'm not sure I'm explaining myself very well. Yes. Interpretation of scriptures aside, I was saying that cultures with no sacred writings at all in their tradition can be even more abusive to their women, as well as cultures with some other religions in their tradition. Not too many if any cultures that don't have a sacred writing. Even the Chinese, which are currently considered atheist by the world, have sacred writings and beliefs. Every culture has a religious belief of some sort. When we do use scriptures to write our laws, like Islam for an extreme example, we see problems with not just women's issues, but humanitarian issues too.
|
|
|
Post by snow on Jul 28, 2014 17:23:52 GMT -5
Yup, sacred scriptures ruling the laws of the land.
|
|
|
Post by Gene on Jul 28, 2014 17:32:11 GMT -5
My kids' bio families happen to belong to a non Judeo-Christian culture that has no sacred writings AND is extremely repressive toward their women, while ignoring the laws and traditions of the surrounding Judeo-Christian culture. I sure am glad I live and am raising my daughter in a country and culture with Judeo-Christian traditions, not in say India or Egypt or South Africa or in my kids' bio families' culture. That speaks for itself. Now, if I could chose a better planet, for the lack of a more egalitarian culture on this one, I would. As it is, I am thankful for the Judeo-Christian culture I live in and I cannot but credit the legacy of its "sacred books" for the freedom we enjoy here. That's pretty much it. We cannot give credit to the sacred books for the freedom we have. Most of South America is a form of Christianity yet we see women's rights trampled on. So we know that just because a country is labeled Judeo-Christian it doesn't assure women of freedoms. India is another place where women have few rights, once again based on religious beliefs. North America is secular with Jews and Christians living among all the rest. We are not a Christian Nation and thank goodness for that. Those who want to bring back the Bible to rule are a scary bunch imo. The Golden Rule sure, the Bible, please no. At least not the way some of the ones like Pat Robertson interprets it. Snow, I think when Maja wrote above "... I am thankful for the Judeo-Christian culture I live in and I cannot but credit the legacy of its "sacred books" for the freedom we enjoy here" she was saying that she DOES give credit to the "sacred books."
|
|
|
Post by snow on Jul 28, 2014 18:10:23 GMT -5
That's pretty much it. We cannot give credit to the sacred books for the freedom we have. Most of South America is a form of Christianity yet we see women's rights trampled on. So we know that just because a country is labeled Judeo-Christian it doesn't assure women of freedoms. India is another place where women have few rights, once again based on religious beliefs. North America is secular with Jews and Christians living among all the rest. We are not a Christian Nation and thank goodness for that. Those who want to bring back the Bible to rule are a scary bunch imo. The Golden Rule sure, the Bible, please no. At least not the way some of the ones like Pat Robertson interprets it. Snow, I think when Maja wrote above "... I am thankful for the Judeo-Christian culture I live in and I cannot but credit the legacy of its "sacred books" for the freedom we enjoy here" she was saying that she DOES give credit to the "sacred books." Yes, I think you're right Gene. But she also says that she does not want the Bible to make the rules. I believe she said that?
|
|
|
Post by Gene on Jul 28, 2014 18:49:33 GMT -5
That's pretty much it. We cannot give credit to the sacred books for the freedom we have. Most of South America is a form of Christianity yet we see women's rights trampled on. So we know that just because a country is labeled Judeo-Christian it doesn't assure women of freedoms. India is another place where women have few rights, once again based on religious beliefs. North America is secular with Jews and Christians living among all the rest. We are not a Christian Nation and thank goodness for that. Those who want to bring back the Bible to rule are a scary bunch imo. The Golden Rule sure, the Bible, please no. At least not the way some of the ones like Pat Robertson interprets it. Snow, I think when Maja wrote above "... I am thankful for the Judeo-Christian culture I live in and I cannot but credit the legacy of its "sacred books" for the freedom we enjoy here" she was saying that she DOES give credit to the "sacred books." I'd best step back and let Maja speak for herself -- I've probably over-stepped already!
|
|
|
Post by snow on Jul 28, 2014 20:19:36 GMT -5
Snow, I think when Maja wrote above "... I am thankful for the Judeo-Christian culture I live in and I cannot but credit the legacy of its "sacred books" for the freedom we enjoy here" she was saying that she DOES give credit to the "sacred books." I'd best step back and let Maja speak for herself -- I've probably over-stepped already! That's okay. From my end anyway. In the end, whatever she feels about it is fine with me. We can always agree to disagree and carry on after all!
|
|
|
Post by mdm on Jul 29, 2014 3:41:31 GMT -5
That's pretty much it. We cannot give credit to the sacred books for the freedom we have. Most of South America is a form of Christianity yet we see women's rights trampled on. So we know that just because a country is labeled Judeo-Christian it doesn't assure women of freedoms. India is another place where women have few rights, once again based on religious beliefs. North America is secular with Jews and Christians living among all the rest. We are not a Christian Nation and thank goodness for that. Those who want to bring back the Bible to rule are a scary bunch imo. The Golden Rule sure, the Bible, please no. At least not the way some of the ones like Pat Robertson interprets it. Snow, I think when Maja wrote above "... I am thankful for the Judeo-Christian culture I live in and I cannot but credit the legacy of its "sacred books" for the freedom we enjoy here" she was saying that she DOES give credit to the "sacred books." Right. Or at least you can't blame Judeo-Christian sacred books for the state of affairs in the Judeo-Christian world, because things tend to be even worse in the parts of the world that are influenced by other traditions. Where I come from, some pre-Christian practices are well known, and the change that Christianity brought about is a great improvement in the quality of life. We know from the news of some current-day practices from other parts of the world that are based on traditions other than Judeo-Christian that could benefit from the same improvement.
|
|
|
Post by mdm on Jul 29, 2014 3:46:32 GMT -5
Snow, I think when Maja wrote above "... I am thankful for the Judeo-Christian culture I live in and I cannot but credit the legacy of its "sacred books" for the freedom we enjoy here" she was saying that she DOES give credit to the "sacred books." Yes, I think you're right Gene. But she also says that she does not want the Bible to make the rules. I believe she said that? Right Because Christianity should not be about power and because those in power cannot be trusted to interpret the scriptures for us.
|
|
colac
New Member
Posts: 17
|
Post by colac on Jul 30, 2014 21:31:24 GMT -5
Discribe what is the meaning of the ,word, you use to discribe the followers of the Irvine ministry interpretation. "TRUTH"...Why..."TRUTH". Is it a franchise name or registered?
|
|
|
Post by elizabethcoleman on Jul 31, 2014 7:46:48 GMT -5
Discribe what is the meaning of the ,word, you use to discribe the followers of the Irvine ministry interpretation. "TRUTH"...Why..."TRUTH". Is it a franchise name or registered? They call themselves "The Truth". They also call themselves "The Way". This is how they refer to themselves, but it is not a formal or registered name. Not that we know of, anyway. Maybe they did register under that name. Who would know? If they did, they would lie about it. Personally I think those titles belong only to Jesus. He called himself "The Way, The Truth and the Life". I think the two-by-twos should be more aptly referred to as "The Way, the Truth and the Lie." Given that their whole foundation (historically) is based on one big fraud, calling themselves the "Truth" is - well - irony?
|
|
|
Post by faune on Jul 31, 2014 8:27:51 GMT -5
Discribe what is the meaning of the ,word, you use to discribe the followers of the Irvine ministry interpretation. "TRUTH"...Why..."TRUTH". Is it a franchise name or registered? They call themselves "The Truth". They also call themselves "The Way". This is how they refer to themselves, but it is not a formal or registered name. Not that we know of, anyway. Maybe they did register under that name. Who would know? If they did, they would lie about it. Personally I think those titles belong only to Jesus. He called himself "The Way, The Truth and the Life". I think the two-by-twos should be more aptly referred to as "The Way, the Truth and the Lie." Given that their whole foundation (historically) is based on one big fraud, calling themselves the "Truth" is - well - irony? Elizabeth ~ It's also very ironic the common traits shared between "one and only churches," who feel they are the center of the universe when it comes to salvation? Those churches who feel they are part of some restorative ministry, like the 2x2's, should be especially noted here, IMHO. Ironically, the Mormons and Jehovah Witnesses, among some others, make the same 12 claims below and consider themselves to be the Truth and only means of salvation found within the world today.
www.theholdemans.com/Compare.htm
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 31, 2014 18:53:22 GMT -5
It's very SAD and a great lost that Gram T. left the work due to the overseer didn't know how to deal with CSA issue. As Fixit pointed out it isn’t correct that Graham “left the work due to the overseer didn't know how to deal with CSA issue”. Rather, it’s the overseers way of operating and their willingness to sacrifice ‘truth’ (even when pointed out) that caused Graham’s decision to leave on grounds of conscience. However your mentioning csa does remind me of Graham’s message on csa at Auckland Special meetings and the subsequent overseer response. After Graham gave his message, the NZ overseer made the comment that he did not like Graham saying that he felt that “the response of the ministry has not been adequate”. This was in regard to the csa issues that had taken place in Victoria Australia. This was a tailor-made opportunity for Alan R to stand for what’s right, to confirm the comment’s accuracy (which he knew was accurate) and thus help the church worldwide to get on the right track concerning csa . But instead Alan R said that Graham shouldn’t have made this comment. This is an example of not standing for what is right for the church.. Earlier this year Cassandra made a very perceptive post in one of the links Fixit provided in post 3 of this thread. The start of Cassandra’s post said “It appears that Graham Thompson has resigned from the ministry on the grounds of conscience, apparently because his repeated attempts to bring issues to the attention of the overseers have fallen on deaf ears.
The culture which he describes is one that we can recognise amongst the overseers of our fellowship all around the world, a culture of cronyism, sycophancy and defensiveness, that in the leadership group of any organisation, provides a breeding ground for corruption and abuse of power to flourish.”Alan R’s response to Graham’s csa message was an example of the ‘defensiveness’ that Cassandra referred to. It illustrates the importance to the overseers of not being shown up in a negative way in others eyes. I believe it also smacks of the ‘cronyism’ among the overseers that Cassandra describes. Cronyism between overseers then leads to the behaviour grieving referred to in his OP , where an overseer made it clear that it was unacceptable for Graham not to accept the rulings that NZ/Australian overseers made. (This regardless of whether their rulings were wrong) . It’s easy to understand Cassandra’s reference to having within such a leadership group a “breeding ground for corruption and abuse of power to flourish.”. Cassandra’s whole post is well worth a read if you haven’t read it previously. What also stood out was that Cassandra could grasp the essence of what had happened to Graham Thompson even though living on the other side of the world. It puts a lot of the rest of us in Australia/NZ to shame.
|
|
|
Post by fixit on Jul 31, 2014 20:02:17 GMT -5
It seems that Darrel Turner's opinion of Graham Thompson as "very unwise, very stupid and let's face it, dumb" is the opinion of the overseer group? Was the following the post you referred to Spencer? It appears that Graham Thompson has resigned from the ministry on the grounds of conscience, apparently because his repeated attempts to bring issues to the attention of the overseers have fallen on deaf ears. The culture which he describes is one that we can recognise amongst the overseers of our fellowship all around the world, a culture of cronyism, sycophancy and defensiveness, that in the leadership group of any organisation, provides a breeding ground for corruption and abuse of power to flourish. But it does not have to stay that way! It is devoutly to be wished that the overseers world-wide may learn some lessons from the resignation of a courageous man and prayerfully reflect on how they might challenge this prevailing and pernicious culture - one that is in such marked contrast to the honesty and openness we read about in the ministry of the New Testament (and for which Acts 15 and Galatians 2 provide some marvellous insights), where sharp disagreements could be brooked without being the end of the road and where an older apostle had the grace and humility to accept criticism from someone quite new to the work. It would be wonderful if this situation could inspire our overseers to seek to return to the spirit of the new testament ministry, where one overseer could challenge another freely (and even be encouraged to do so) and where the concerns of less experienced workers and friends could find a receptive and listening ear. We have never met Graham Thompson, but living half-way round the world from New Zealand, we feel indebted to him. It seems that alone amongst our fellowship in the whole world, he had the courage to stand up and state publicly what needed to be said about CSA. Our family has been affected by CSA and I can vouch for the fact that his message in Auckland in 2012, has brought some measure of healing to us - the assurance that concerns will be listened to in the future, not swept aside, and that this issue will be dealt with very differently in future, from how it has been dealt with in the past. For this alone, I believe that friends and workers world-wide owe him a great debt. "How far that little candle throws his beams" indeed! We do hope that very soon the overseers will address Graham, not as "very unwise, very stupid and let's face it, dumb", nor even "technically correct but with the wrong spirit", but rather as the apostle Peter once addressed Paul, having been given a very rough ride by him, as "our beloved brother Graham".
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 31, 2014 22:09:24 GMT -5
For some of us, we read the Bible to mean the way, truth, and life simply is "Jesus" (Yahu'shuah). For others it seems just too simple to either figure out or accept. However, by His words that is what He said of Himself..."I am..." not the "worker speak" that is frequently quoted to us.
As for me, I chose to believe Yahu'shuah as recorded in the Bible, and no other. Since I, too, have a brain, and also chose to use it, my opinions differ from how others use theirs as if people like me either lack such, or fail to use ours. Personally, I find such posts offensive, usually just letting their comments pass. Ahh, isn't life wonderful? Everyone gets to believe what they wanna?
|
|
jscc1
Junior Member
Posts: 175
|
Post by jscc1 on Aug 5, 2014 18:42:25 GMT -5
Hello Dennis,Frustrating arn't they. You have seen how many are arguing as to whether a paedophile worker (ex I hope)on a restraining order should be allowed into meetings where there is children? Some even sujesting if they break the order that is up to the law,not the o/seers or elders. For goodness sake those little kids are our adults of tomorrow,that beam in the secret sects eyes is getting bigger,and they blinder and dumber..
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 6, 2014 8:30:00 GMT -5
JSC, constantly I am reminded of the two questions put to me (decades ago now) that helped me see and understand as I do now, "...has everything told you as true by the workers proven true?" and, "where do such deceptions and lies come from?" Simple questions, yet revealing answers for me.
Surely "by their fruit you shall know them." There are many kind and loving workers. I believe I was once one of them. When deceived there simply was no alternative to the deception. None, for one is deceived. This remains true for everyone, myself included. Naturally each of us thinks those who do not perceive the elephant as ourselves are deceived while "we" are not. The sad part for me is that frequently people tend to think others do not use their brain, often stating or implying such in attempt to diminish what another thinks or believes, when it is really a matter of deception, our own or another's.
From that moment on U.S. Memorial Holiday, 1990, it has been my purpose to examine what I believe more carefully. Since I chose to believe in God, as Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, I accept Yahu'shuah ha Messiach's recorded words, believing my God has the power to preserve what the Word, made flesh, uttered when in human form. Personally, I believe the four presentations of His life and words comprise the four living "creatures" that constantly reveal Him as human, divine, king and servant, now and everlastingly.
It is what I have chosen to believe, and continue to chose to believe. It is the sole ingredient I find that makes me one with others for corporate worship, and for which constant thankfulness wells up within me. When I perceive the same in another, it brings untold joy, into my very inmost part of awareness.
It makes me complete (Biblical "perfect") as nothing else found in my 70+ years of life. Each one reading and understanding what I am trying to express will join into the rejoicing found within such a mindset, and the peace and appreciation it brings. Sure, others believing otherwise and in other things might find similar comfort, and I am glad for them, however that is not my source of this comfort and joy.
|
|
|
Post by bubbles on Aug 14, 2014 8:10:32 GMT -5
Shame the mess has not been dealt with by Alan. If he had had the courage to speak as openly and honestly as Graham. He would have earned respect from the people. It puts questions over his integrity. It also shows he doesnt have the power most expect an overseer to have. I think hes taken advice from the wrong source.
It doesnt matter how delicate the topic peoples lives, childrens are ruined robbed.
|
|
|
Post by fixit on Aug 16, 2014 22:50:25 GMT -5
Shame the mess has not been dealt with by Alan. If he had had the courage to speak as openly and honestly as Graham. He would have earned respect from the people. It puts questions over his integrity. It also shows he doesnt have the power most expect an overseer to have. I think hes taken advice from the wrong source. It doesnt matter how delicate the topic peoples lives, childrens are ruined robbed. Overseers seem focused on keeping in step with their fellow overseers. Graham was more focused on keeping true to his own conscience.
|
|
|
Post by bubbles on Aug 19, 2014 17:37:57 GMT -5
How many overseers are there in one country?
|
|
tom
Junior Member
Posts: 82
|
Post by tom on Aug 20, 2014 5:49:58 GMT -5
Shame the mess has not been dealt with by Alan. If he had had the courage to speak as openly and honestly as Graham. He would have earned respect from the people. It puts questions over his integrity. It also shows he doesnt have the power most expect an overseer to have. I think hes taken advice from the wrong source. It doesnt matter how delicate the topic peoples lives, childrens are ruined robbed. I guess it depends how you view things. From where I sit I think Alan does have the respect of most people - certainly the ones I mix with and speak to.(you will never please all people all the time). I have never seen or heard any reason why his integrity should be questioned.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 20, 2014 18:56:18 GMT -5
Shame the mess has not been dealt with by Alan. If he had had the courage to speak as openly and honestly as Graham. He would have earned respect from the people. It puts questions over his integrity. It also shows he doesnt have the power most expect an overseer to have. I think hes taken advice from the wrong source. It doesnt matter how delicate the topic peoples lives, childrens are ruined robbed. I guess it depends how you view things. From where I sit I think Alan does have the respect of most people - certainly the ones I mix with and speak to.(you will never please all people all the time). I have seen or heard any reason why his integrity should be questioned. i agree with you after hearing Alan 2 years ago in our special meetings speaking on children and how they should be treated i have a great regard for him how ever though i respect Graham and the choice he made i feel that he has let those who looked to him down by quitting i know i will certainly miss him at convention where he played such a valuable part
|
|
|
Post by fixit on Aug 20, 2014 18:58:58 GMT -5
I guess it depends how you view things. From where I sit I think Alan does have the respect of most people - certainly the ones I mix with and speak to.(you will never please all people all the time). I have seen or heard any reason why his integrity should be questioned. i agree with you after hearing Alan 2 years ago in our special meetings speaking on children and how they should be treated i have a great regard for him how ever though i respect Graham and the choice he made i feel that he has let those who looked to him down by quitting i know i will certainly miss him at convention where he played such a valuable part Graham was under enormous strain and I doubt that staying was an option.
|
|
|
Post by bubbles on Aug 20, 2014 21:05:29 GMT -5
Shame the mess has not been dealt with by Alan. If he had had the courage to speak as openly and honestly as Graham. He would have earned respect from the people. It puts questions over his integrity. It also shows he doesnt have the power most expect an overseer to have. I think hes taken advice from the wrong source. It doesnt matter how delicate the topic peoples lives, childrens are ruined robbed. I guess it depends how you view things. From where I sit I think Alan does have the respect of most people - certainly the ones I mix with and speak to.(you will never please all people all the time). I have seen or heard any reason why his integrity should be questioned. I do know him.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 21, 2014 4:50:16 GMT -5
how ever though i respect Graham and the choice he made i feel that he has let those who looked to him down by quitting I can’t imagine too many people thinking that Graham has let them down by leaving the work. More precisely, I can’t imagine many people who have thought a little about it, thinking he had any real choice in the matter once the matter came down to conscience.. Has a person of integrity got any real choice when a torn conscience comes into play?. He must then act. It’s important to him that he is true to God and not let Him down. He won’t let people down either, but that is secondary to a person with spiritual integrity If people do feel that way (ie that Graham has let them down), then as a minimum they should at least give him an opportunity to explain his ‘action based on conscience’ to them. Graham is not seeking out anybody in order to explain himself. But when anyone has approached him, he has been very open and orderly in explaining why he was left with no option in leaving the work. He certainly should be given that opportunity before making the suggestion he has let people down. While I know a number have spoken directly to Graham, I am also surprised that so few have been interested enough to seek him out in order to seek truth on this. It’s not as though Graham is not approachable and warm as a person. It’s such an obvious action to take.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 21, 2014 5:04:41 GMT -5
I have never seen or heard any reason why his integrity should be questioned. I am confident you could say the same about Graham Thompson. Would it not be a reasonable action to ask Graham directly why he felt he had no option but to leave the work (If you haven't got them, I know I can obtain email or phone numbers if you would like them). Perhaps with that information, and having meditated on it, you could then make a more informed judgment on the integrity and value sets of these 2 men, and then be able to reconcile why things have developed to the place they currently are.
|
|
|
Post by bubbles on Aug 21, 2014 6:29:20 GMT -5
I have never seen or heard any reason why his integrity should be questioned. I am confident you could say the same about Graham Thompson. Would it not be a reasonable action to ask Graham directly why he felt he had no option but to leave the work (If you haven't got them, I know I can obtain email or phone numbers if you would like them). Perhaps with that information, and having meditated on it, you could then make a more informed judgment on the integrity and value sets of these 2 men, and then be able to reconcile why things have developed to the place they currently are. Have all the friends in NZ been informed by the clergy?
|
|
tom
Junior Member
Posts: 82
|
Post by tom on Aug 21, 2014 19:51:02 GMT -5
I have never seen or heard any reason why his integrity should be questioned. I am confident you could say the same about Graham Thompson. Would it not be a reasonable action to ask Graham directly why he felt he had no option but to leave the work (If you haven't got them, I know I can obtain email or phone numbers if you would like them). Perhaps with that information, and having meditated on it, you could then make a more informed judgment on the integrity and value sets of these 2 men, and then be able to reconcile why things have developed to the place they currently are. My statement was not about GT but about Alan! Yes I am sure I could say the same thing about Graham, however I stand by my statement... I believe that generally Alan has the support of the majority of the people in NZ, and I have never seen or heard any reason why his integrity should be questioned.
|
|