|
Post by fixit on Sept 8, 2014 17:27:26 GMT -5
In 1816 Jefferson wrote, “I am a real Christian, that is to say, a disciple of the doctrines of Jesus".
He believed that if the gospel were preached in their purest form, “the whole civilized world would now have been Christian."
|
|
|
Post by dmmichgood on Sept 8, 2014 18:48:24 GMT -5
In 1816 Jefferson wrote, “I am a real Christian, that is to say, a disciple of the doctrines of Jesus". He believed that if the gospel were preached in their purest form, “the whole civilized world would now have been Christian." I'm sure that you know about the Jefferson Bible.
The Jefferson Bible, or The Life and Morals of Jesus of Nazareth as it is formally titled, was a book constructed by Thomas Jefferson in the latter years of his life by cutting and pasting with a razor and glue numerous sections from the New Testament as extractions of the doctrine of Jesus.
Jefferson's condensed composition is especially notable for its exclusion of all miracles by Jesus and most mentions of the supernatural, including sections of the four gospels which contain the Resurrection and most other miracles, and passages indicating Jesus was divine. [1][2] [3][4]
from wiki
|
|
|
Post by fixit on Sept 8, 2014 20:44:08 GMT -5
Yes, I do know about the Jefferson Bible.
|
|
|
Post by dmmichgood on Sept 8, 2014 23:39:03 GMT -5
I said "on the religious front..." and I stand by my comment.I am not worried by your comments but I believe feedback is useful. Your comments regularly treat Christians as if they are simple and sub-intelligent, mentally disabled (ie in need of some kind of crutch), uninformed and somehow unfulfilled in life.I am sure you believe this but give some credit to folk who believe: - that this amazing universe, with all its complexity, intricacy, and beauty just didn't come about by itself - that God, based on much evidence, entered humanity, lived, died and rose again - that God, just like he has always delivered on His promises in Scripture, will keep his promise and come back again and reign forever with His people We are just folks who: - have faith and have reason and evidence for that faith. We are not deluded or sub-intelligent and we understand science and the quest for knowledge. Many Christians are at the forefront of it. - have been created to be relational and we really enjoy the living relationship that we have with our Creator. - know God's presence every day and we appreciate all that He, by His grace, has done for us in Christ. - feel life is complete with God. - have sure hope for the future because we know God keeps His promises. I thought that was what we were discussing, "on the religious front..." about the "enlightenment" I had asked you if you had ever read anything about the Enlightenment?You answered: "Yes - I've read a reasonable amount. On the religious front, there was definitely a move back to more simple/straightforward Christianity and a focus on moral teaching."
My comment back was: "I doubt that you have read much of anything about the period known as the "Enlightenment." If you had, you would certainly know it had nothing to do with a move back to more simple/straightforward Christianity !"
Did I insinuate in any way that I thought you be "worried by your comments ?" Why should you be worried about what I comment?
Where have I ever had , "comments regularly treat Christians as if they are simple and sub-intelligent, mentally disabled (ie in need of some kind of crutch), uninformed and somehow unfulfilled in life?"
Why are you assuming things I never said?
Then You say , "I (you) am sure you believe this"
That is assuming a lot about me !
It would seem that you are the one feeling "simple and sub-intelligent, mentally disabled (ie in need of some kind of crutch), uninformed and somehow unfulfilled in life!"
If that is the way you feel, acknowledge it to yourself but don't lay the blame for your feeling that way at my feet! You state what you believe, I state that I believe!
|
|
|
Post by fixit on Sept 9, 2014 1:10:59 GMT -5
Yes - I've read a reasonable amount. On the religious front, there was definitely a move back to more simple/straightforward Christianity and a focus on moral teaching.While there were pockets of different thinking I don't get the sense that there was any wholesale move against God the Creator....? I doubt that you have read much of anything about the period known as the "Enlightenment." If you had, you would certainly know it had nothing to do with a move back to more simple/straightforward Christianity !
If the Enlightenment had nothing to do with a move back to more simple/straightforward Christianity, then Thomas Jefferson was inspired by something other than the Enlightenment.
|
|
|
Post by dmmichgood on Sept 9, 2014 1:33:27 GMT -5
I doubt that you have read much of anything about the period known as the "Enlightenment." If you had, you would certainly know it had nothing to do with a move back to more simple/straightforward Christianity !
If the Enlightenment had nothing to do with a move back to more simple/straightforward Christianity, then Thomas Jefferson was inspired by something other than the Enlightenment. Thomas Jefferson was inspired by many ideas. He was a complicated man. Historians themselves have a difficult time putting Jefferson into any one pigeon hole. Most have sense enough to not attempt to try.
Perhaps you & I should take an lesson from them.BTW, fixit, How much have you read about the "Enlightenment?"
|
|
|
Post by dmmichgood on Sept 9, 2014 3:20:31 GMT -5
I thought that was what we were discussing, "on the religious front..." about the "enlightenment" I had asked you if you had ever read anything about the Enlightenment?You answered: "Yes - I've read a reasonable amount. On the religious front, there was definitely a move back to more simple/straightforward Christianity and a focus on moral teaching."
My comment back was: "I doubt that you have read much of anything about the period known as the "Enlightenment." If you had, you would certainly know it had nothing to do with a move back to more simple/straightforward Christianity !"
Did I insinuate in any way that I thought you be "worried by your comments ?" Why should you be worried about what I comment?
Where have I ever had , "comments regularly treat Christians as if they are simple and sub-intelligent, mentally disabled (ie in need of some kind of crutch), uninformed and somehow unfulfilled in life?"
Why are you assuming things I never said?
Then You say , "I (you) am sure you believe this"
That is assuming a lot about me !
It would seem that you are the one feeling "simple and sub-intelligent, mentally disabled (ie in need of some kind of crutch), uninformed and somehow unfulfilled in life!"
If that is the way you feel, acknowledge it to yourself but don't lay the blame for your feeling that way at my feet! You state what you believe, I state that I believe!
Wow, that's a 180! You clearly don't know how you come across to Christians. It isn't I who have done 180.
Perhaps it is you.? Perhaps you may be beginning to feel something within your own thinking of what you accuse me of saying?
Perhaps I just make a convenient scape-goat?
Please try & remember that I was a Christian once on a time, for 40 -50 years in fact.
|
|
|
Post by emy on Sept 9, 2014 20:27:01 GMT -5
[/i]
Can you unequivocally say that you don't have that opinion of some Christians, because they ARE Christian? If you think that, it will come across in your writing. No need to openly state those words or similar ones.
|
|
|
Post by dmmichgood on Sept 9, 2014 22:47:05 GMT -5
Emy, I can absolutely, unequivocally say , just because someone is a Christian, it is NOT my opinion that Christians are "simple and sub-intelligent, mentally disabled (ie in need of some kind of crutch), uninformed and somehow unfulfilled in life!"
Those are Ross Bowden's words that he put into my mouth that I never said nor claim is true!
All the 40-50 years that I was a Christian I didn't then & still don't consider myself to have been any one of those descriptions. I know that I was hardly "sub-intelligent'" as I was valedictorian of my class.
I would say that Ross Bowden, who considers himself a Christian, should watch himself about how he lies about people.
My humble impression was that was wasn't how Jesus said we were to behave toward others.
|
|
|
Post by magpie on Sept 11, 2014 5:26:32 GMT -5
Yes sounds like 2x political parties. But about lying and truth,why did Leitch support Barry in his csa case? Knowing Barry had 12 other victims known to the Warrigul Police..Paid $5000.oo a day for the underworld used Psychologist to plead for a stay of jail sentence as it was only one victim (presented to court)It is a crime to not declare knowlege of acriminal act,so what does this make Lietch? Has Barry got a hold or some knowlege over him?
|
|
|
Post by dmmichgood on Sept 11, 2014 17:00:28 GMT -5
Emy, I can absolutely, unequivocally say , just because someone is a Christian, it is NOT my opinion that Christians are "simple and sub-intelligent, mentally disabled (ie in need of some kind of crutch), uninformed and somehow unfulfilled in life!"
Those are Ross Bowden's words that he put into my mouth that I never said nor claim is true!
All the 40-50 years that I was a Christian I didn't then & still don't consider myself to have been any one of those descriptions. I know that I was hardly "sub-intelligent'" as I was valedictorian of my class.
I would say that Ross Bowden, who considers himself a Christian, should watch himself about how he lies about people.
My humble impression was that was wasn't how Jesus said we were to behave toward others.
Here you go again.
I state an impression of your posts and your response is that "Ross Bowden lies about people". You then conveniently use the Jesus card (who you don't acknowledge) to chide me (and others in previous posts) about how they should behave! Let me state very clearly again - and please don't twist my words.My view is that "Your comments regularly treat Christians as if they are simple and sub-intelligent, mentally disabled (ie in need of some kind of crutch), uninformed and somehow unfulfilled in life". I stand by that view. I haven't formed the view lightly nor from one post, but many. Others may have different views but that is my view. However, just because I formed a view about your posts and express it does not mean that "Ross Bowden lies about people". Please don't attack my character (ad hominem) and make a sweeping generalisation about me because I give you feedback about how I view your posts. Do you always call a person who disagrees with you or gives you feedback that you don't like "a liar"? NO, ROSS. You did not just "state an impression" of my posts. Here is your post Your comments regularly treat Christians as if they are simple and sub-intelligent, mentally disabled (ie in need of some kind of crutch), uninformed and somehow unfulfilled in life.Your comments regularly treat Christians as if they are simple and sub-intelligent, mentally disabled (ie in need of some kind of crutch), uninformed and somehow unfulfilled in life.
You stated it as if it were true; -not just your "impression!"
I'm telling you that it is NOT true, therefore it is a lie.
I didn't have to "twist your words."
You can call it an (ad hominem) attack if you like but I was only using your own words to indict you.
|
|
|
Post by dmmichgood on Sept 11, 2014 17:27:38 GMT -5
Emy, I can absolutely, unequivocally say , just because someone is a Christian, it is NOT my opinion that Christians are "simple and sub-intelligent, mentally disabled (ie in need of some kind of crutch), uninformed and somehow unfulfilled in life!"
Those are Ross Bowden's words that he put into my mouth that I never said nor claim is true!
All the 40-50 years that I was a Christian I didn't then & still don't consider myself to have been any one of those descriptions. I know that I was hardly "sub-intelligent'" as I was valedictorian of my class.
I would say that Ross Bowden, who considers himself a Christian, should watch himself about how he lies about people.
My humble impression was that was wasn't how Jesus said we were to behave toward others.
Here you go again.
I state an impression of your posts and your response is that "Ross Bowden lies about people". You then conveniently use the Jesus card (who you don't acknowledge) to chide me (and others in previous posts) about how they should behave!Let me state very clearly again - and please don't twist my words.My view is that "Your comments regularly treat Christians as if they are simple and sub-intelligent, mentally disabled (ie in need of some kind of crutch), uninformed and somehow unfulfilled in life". I stand by that view. I haven't formed the view lightly nor from one post, but many. Others may have different views but that is my view. However, just because I formed a view about your posts and express it does not mean that "Ross Bowden lies about people". Please don't attack my character (ad hominem) and make a sweeping generalisation about me because I give you feedback about how I view your posts. Do you always call a person who disagrees with you or gives you feedback that you don't like "a liar"? Hurts when the shoe is on the other foot, doesn't it?
|
|
|
Post by dmmichgood on Sept 11, 2014 17:32:01 GMT -5
We had about 5" of water in the basement yesterday.
I have a clean up job that will take a lot of my time.
I'm so sorry, I KNOW everyone is going to miss me so much
|
|
|
Post by emy on Sept 11, 2014 22:03:35 GMT -5
Sorry about the water. That is SUCH a mess!! What caused it?
|
|
|
Post by dmmichgood on Sept 12, 2014 14:04:08 GMT -5
NO, ROSS. You did not just "state an impression" of my posts. Here is your post Your comments regularly treat Christians as if they are simple and sub-intelligent, mentally disabled (ie in need of some kind of crutch), uninformed and somehow unfulfilled in life.Your comments regularly treat Christians as if they are simple and sub-intelligent, mentally disabled (ie in need of some kind of crutch), uninformed and somehow unfulfilled in life.
You stated it as if it were true; -not just your "impression!"
I'm telling you that it is NOT true, therefore it is a lie.
I didn't have to "twist your words."
You can call it an (ad hominem) attack if you like but I was only using your own words to indict you. Again you twist words which is unfortunate. Because you pride yourself on logic, let me state it logically for you. Of course, it was my view/impression/feeling/belief about your posts. I, and I alone, formed that view and I stated it. For the sake of clarity, it wasn't an opinion stated on behalf of others - simply my view. You may think that it is entirely inaccurate. You may think that it is a lie (which is an odd way to react to feedback but so be it). T o then state to another Board member that "Ross Bowden lies about people" doesn't even pass first order logic.Not only is it a hasty generalisation or red herring or association fallacy or ad hominem - call it what you will. But please stand by your tag line of "Prove it!" Again I ask "Do you always call a person who disagrees with you or gives you feedback that you don't like "a liar"?" I stated YOUR name, "Ross Bowden," to (another Board member) emy, because she was quoting what YOU, "Ross Bowden!" had said in your exact words!
I wouldn't have named YOU had it been otherwise
Post by emy on 9 Sep 2014 at 20:27 "Where have I ever had , "comments regularly treat Christians as if they are simple and sub-intelligent, mentally disabled (ie in need of some kind of crutch), uninformed and somehow unfulfilled in life?"
"Can you unequivocally say that you don't have that opinion of some Christians, because they ARE Christian? If you think that, it will come across in your writing. No need to openly state those words or similar ones."[/i] You can try to change what you said but your own words quoted by another member show otherwise.[/b][/font]
|
|
|
Post by dmmichgood on Sept 12, 2014 14:26:10 GMT -5
Hurts when the shoe is on the other foot, doesn't it? It doesn't hurt at all! And by the way, I didn't set out to hurt, just to give you feedback on how you come across to Christians. I'm also simply saying that I find it surprising that you trot out the Jesus card (which you have done before) when you don't believe in Him.
You wrote to Emy, "My humble impression was that wasn't how Jesus said we were to behave toward others". Reading this it sounds like you are a Christian, but then in other posts you ridicule Him.You can't have it both ways. That premise of why do you use references to Jesus and Christianity when we aren't believers. It is often used by people when they can't back up there own argument. I've heard it many times.
When people who we are addressing believe in Jesus and call themselves Christians; how else can we address their views if we don't use their language?
MY posts do NOT RIDICULE JESUS. POINT OUT ANY POSTS WHERE I HAVE!
|
|
|
Post by dmmichgood on Sept 12, 2014 21:39:26 GMT -5
That premise of why do you use references to Jesus and Christianity when we aren't believers. It is often used by people when they can't back up there own argument. I've heard it many times.
When people who we are addressing believe in Jesus and call themselves Christians; how else can we address their views if we don't use their language?
MY posts do NOT RIDICULE JESUS. POINT OUT ANY POSTS WHERE I HAVE!
Good to hear that you don't ridicule Him. I don't have the time to trawl through your posts but from memory he has been variously referred to as a God of the gaps, a con, a bogeyman, and something that we might conjure up when we are smoking something funny. From my viewpoint He is God and Lord of all and One that deserves all our love, worship and respect. Come on!
You post something about a person, Jesus.
When I respond & post on that person, Jesus -then you switch to to another entity, a paranormal being!
You seem to enjoy using such con games, like the old trick, " bait & switch ."
When I refer to a "god of the gaps" it is the paranormal entity. But I'm quite sure you know that.
|
|
|
Post by grieving on Jan 20, 2015 17:32:15 GMT -5
It is now 12 months since Graham Thompson took his decision on conscience grounds to leave the ministry.
Now that conventions are over, I decided to revisit my opening post to see if I felt the same way about things. Sadly the same failings that caused Graham’s resignation still exist today with no apparent effort being made to address them. It is also likely, that with Graham departed from the ministry , the matters he highlighted may be much less on the overseers’ radar, and less in people’s minds. It’s important that we do not forget.
I still feel disappointed because
• The apathy of many ‘friends’ in the fellowship means that they appear to shrug their shoulders and show little interest in the cause of Graham’s leaving.
• The vast majority of workers (except the few who have the same concerns) appear reluctant to discuss the matter in any depth at all. In some ways it is understandable –his leaving on ‘conscience grounds’ will be embarrassing. And as one person said this past year, as they began to understand the reason behind Graham’s decision, 'The ministry is now compromised’.
While many in the ministry and fellowship seem apathetic, there have been some who have raised their concerns with the overseers in Australasia. I have heard on first-class authority (from one of the workers involved ) that a letter was written from a number of workers and friends to these overseers highlighting a number of issues including some of those Graham had previously highlighted. I have been assured that the letter has been written in a constructive, non-combative style with the aim of genuinely helping the overseers to understand and deal with some of the issues they face.
I hope that the overseers answer the letter that was written to them by the workers and friends. It was signed by one of their group so is not anonymous, and deserves a meaningful response.- maybe after the next overseers meeting in the next few months?? I certainly hope that these people’s deeply held concerns are not simply put to the side and ignored.
I should mention one or two points about Graham that I think people here may be interested in. He has adapted well to his new way of life. He is based in Christchurch, he is working and he is as helpful and caring as he always was in ministering to those in need. He has chosen to no longer persist in actively raising the matters where the overseers have failed and are failing to uphold ‘right or truth’ (he tried this in vain for 10 years plus), but he is very open when people approach him to specifically ask him about it. As ever, Graham’s accounts are always told clearly and openly, and ooze with integrity.
I have recently become aware of other people who have left the work in the past ‘for conscience sake’ though keeping that reason to themselves at the time. We should have thoughts and prayers towards those still in the work , some of whom will likely have similar conflict of soul , that they too may have the courage to step out and be true to their conscience.
|
|
|
Post by fixit on Jan 20, 2015 22:20:32 GMT -5
The first step toward change is awareness.
The second step is acceptance.
A big thank you to Graham for his efforts on step one.
|
|
|
Post by bubbles on Jan 27, 2015 22:15:30 GMT -5
Ross Graham had courage and boldness to speak out. Putting his ministry on the line to stand up for truth and defending the innocent for what is right. Speaking against the injustice. if I was still apart of the group I would have backed him 100 percent. He is a man of good standing. Honest. (I wouldnt know him if I saw him) The more I learn about under handed, dishonest, perverted workers the more I see the good decent workers diminishing. They also are victims. By association with corrupted minds. I fear for this group of people. The mess is very grave and covered over with a cloak of outward godliness. Reality and truth while glaring in the face of opposition, is ignored, brushed under the carpet while those who are innocent suffer.
|
|
simon
New Member
Posts: 33
|
Post by simon on Jan 28, 2015 17:43:06 GMT -5
Looking at the minimal amount of interest in this thread, it is confirmation of something I heard recently. One of the workers at the workers meeting in NZ this month was very put out that no mention was made at all, either of Graham, or the reasons for him leaving.
It is acceptable for a worker to leave ‘for health reasons’, because they have fallen in love with someone of their own sex, or even of the same sex. But to leave ‘for conscience grounds’ causes great unease, and will be swept under the carpet as soon as possible. When have we ever heard of anyone leaving ‘for conscience grounds”?
Either the NZ overseer is very confident that there is no need to shore up support for himself, or else he realizes he is on dodgy ground, and doesn’t have scripture to justify the current stance on hierarchy.
If any progress was ever going to be made, it would surely have had to be made in those early months after Graham left. And while Review 005, Noels and their type maintain they understand the issues, they can rest easy, knowing nothing is going to happen to change things now. They can continue in their shallow existence, labouring under the impression that they are part of a perfectly structured ministry. They have seen out the worst of the ‘storm’. As for the overseers though, the old axiom remains true: ‘Uneasy lies the head that wears the crown’. They cannot rest easy. If only they could realize they could have rest if they were honest and open, and indeed, face up to the problems that they acknowledge exist. They alone can mend them.
|
|
|
Post by bubbles on Jan 28, 2015 18:10:19 GMT -5
Something shuts the friends up. Loyalty? Fear of man? My family every time I bring this topic up deny any knowledge of CSA, etc. Makes me look the trouble maker. The workers have a responsiblity.
What if a worker reports another worker for any reason? What then do they get shunned? Ostrasized?
Simon Im sure this thread is being read. By many. Too afraid to speak.
As for AR. While he is responsible in some areas. I cant condone his behaviour. And who am I? Just a mouthy with too much info.
|
|
|
Post by fixit on Jan 28, 2015 21:31:40 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by fixit on Jan 29, 2015 21:38:59 GMT -5
Talking about workers "shutting up", it seems like review005 has either decided to take that course of action or has been asked to do that by AR... I suspect it may be the latter. He's made the effort to participate and I respect that.
|
|
|
Post by bubbles on Jan 29, 2015 22:26:07 GMT -5
Talking about workers "shutting up", it seems like review005 has either decided to take that course of action or has been asked to do that by AR... I suspect it may be the latter. He's made the effort to participate and I respect that. I second that.
|
|
|
Post by snow on Jan 29, 2015 22:48:33 GMT -5
He is back and responding on the 2x2 Irvine Grey book thread. I agree with others that at least he makes the effort and you have to give him that. Not many come here and interact. When I first found this forum I had a lot of questions and went to the thread questions for the workers. Had lots of answers ranging from antagonistic to supportive, but not one of them was a worker. I was quite angry at that time because I had just found out about William Irvine and felt my parents had been lied to. They were dead and I really felt they had wasted their entire lives in a religion they gave everything to and it was a farce. It didn't go back to the shores of Galilee like they believed. It still makes me sad to think of it even now though I have come a long way at laying the anger to rest.
|
|
|
Post by curlywurlysammagee on Jan 30, 2015 13:49:42 GMT -5
For a long time I have had difficulty understanding why some people still go the meetings. If one is convinced that certain aspects of the "Truth" are wrong and of such moment that it destroys the integrity of the Truth then surely the best course would be to leave. GT tells us he stopped preaching because of his conscience. But he still associates. Fixit has issues but still associates. Surely the proper course is to find somewhere to meet with people of like mind who worship God in spirit and in truth. It seems to me that the truth may be just a social club. And because of upbringing and brainwashing about the evils of the world then socializing with other people or groups may be difficult. So these people stay because of the social connections. Many have taken this course and have been rewarded with hearing the Gospel and a rich relationship with God.
|
|
|
Post by fixit on Jan 30, 2015 14:42:04 GMT -5
For a long time I have had difficulty understanding why some people still go the meetings. If one is convinced that certain aspects of the "Truth" are wrong and of such moment that it destroys the integrity of the Truth then surely the best course would be to leave. GT tells us he stopped preaching because of his conscience. But he still associates. Fixit has issues but still associates. Surely the proper course is to find somewhere to meet with people of like mind who worship God in spirit and in truth. It seems to me that the truth may be just a social club. And because of upbringing and brainwashing about the evils of the world then socializing with other people or groups may be difficult. So these people stay because of the social connections. Many have taken this course and have been rewarded with hearing the Gospel and a rich relationship with God. Do you agree with everything your church teaches, and everything the members of your church do?
|
|