|
Post by snow on Feb 27, 2015 12:41:39 GMT -5
Some people have their head so deep into stuff like the Secret Sect they had no idea there was a large cadre of men and women in the NT preaching as Jesus preached. This just demonstrated to me they really believed we made all that ministry stuff up ourselves. Certainly D.Parker wants you to believe we made it all up, otherwise he would have done what I did - systematically look up the practices we claim are our inspiration. And not only Parker, there's this emotional and psychological investment in many of his readers to go along with Parker et al. And obviously, people WOULD SAY we made it all up, because (drum roll.....) if we didn't make it up then it must have come from the bible. Thus many are forced into this Irvine position. I think what is in question is an unbroken link between biblical preachers and when Irvine started the fellowship. It just isn't there or you would at least be able to list the workers names before him. So far I don't see any that can be listed. Why? Because 'workers' didn't exist before Irvine started that group.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 27, 2015 15:10:12 GMT -5
This "unbroken link" stuff is a strawman argument, ie people set up a position and argue against it, without asking us whether we accept that position.
I have never heard, as official Worker POV, that we are from an "unbroken line" from the Apostles. Certainly some of the friends believe that.
We say the "Truth" is an unbroken line. But "Truth" has two meanings. 1 - Truth is the revelation of God's will through the Gospel, and how it shows all what is not of God - our own human nature, false religion and the world. 2 - Truth is the living of it.
Personally I thought we could have gone back to the Reformation (1600's) We know from the Vatican archives that earlier groups of people who gathered and preached as we do were exterminated (or presumably, scattered)
But I have gone over this so-many-times on the TMB. And one of the points I raised was this - if I, in my research, DID FIND some archival evidence of a direct link to the Apostles then I would be sorely tempted to destroy it. The Gospel is not about "proving" or trying to "impress" people with a human story - it must stand on its own merits, lest you tempt the wrong sort of people into fellowship.
|
|
|
Post by placid-void on Feb 27, 2015 16:46:24 GMT -5
There is another perspective that I have mentioned on the board a couple of times in the past but the idea doesn’t seem to garner much interest or support. I would like to try it again.
The F&W community is a fellowship of faith and those who profess this faith believe in God. It is perfectly reasonable that they should hold their faith as they believe to be appropriate. A belief in God often includes a belief that God guides individuals. Often this guidance is thought to be mediated by an entity referred to as the “Holy Spirit”. My recollection is that the F&W Fellowship held beliefs similar to this.
“The workers” is a very specific cultural reference to a specific era (modern times) and specific context (the F&W community as they currently practice their faith).
Now consider Northern Africa in the year 527. It seems reasonable for “a person of faith” to embrace the opinion that the “Holy Spirit” touched the lives of individuals at that time in that place. How about the Balkans in 1312? Again, it seems reasonable for “a person of faith” to believe that the “Holy Spirit” touched the lives of individuals at that time in that place. Allowing for precise translation into the languages of those places at those times, it is unlikely that “the workers” was a phrase in common usage in this specific context.
Beginning to add and subtract calendar years around the randomly selected years of 527 and 1312, one could fill-in all history with similar reasoning, year by year, from 30 C.E. (?) up to and through 1897 C.E. (?).
{As an aside, I cannot imagine how any religious person (no matter what their chosen denomination of faith) would not go through this process as part of their profession of their own Christian faith. Perhaps many don’t, I am just saying it seems to me that if I were to follow a specific religious dogma, it would be important to me that I believed that my faith traced back to a “meaningful and authentic source”.}
I understand the downside of this argument for some. This argument renders William Irvine essentially irrelevant. I suspect that WI is important for many arguments advanced on these threads so a consideration that rendered him essentially irrelevant would not be well received.
Just because Manischewitz Concord Grape has not been available at the corner grocery since the beginning of Christianity, that doesn’t mean that “the emblems” have not been an important part of Christian religious practices since their inception. Similarly, because “the workers” may not have always been embodied in a specific interpretation of a specific faith does not necessarily support a contention that the specific faith practice could not have existed.
Is there a logical or spiritual flaw in this line of reasoning? I would be interested in a reasoned response as to why this line of thinking is unreasonable. (Note this is not an argument about the existence/nonexistence of God. This conversation has zero meaning if one begins from the premise that there is no God so we will have to restrict the conversation to the unproven assumption that they is a God, fair enough?)
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 27, 2015 16:59:23 GMT -5
Quote - "“The workers” is a very specific cultural reference to a specific era (modern times) and specific context (the F&W community as they currently practice their faith)."
That's the Doug Parker mentality. I have laid out e.x.p.l.i.c.i.t.l.y the Ministry as found in the New Testament. Parker et al did not do this. I believe for deliberate reasons. There's no "modern times" to it at all.
|
|
|
Post by placid-void on Feb 27, 2015 17:24:43 GMT -5
Quote - "“The workers” is a very specific cultural reference to a specific era (modern times) and specific context (the F&W community as they currently practice their faith)." That's the Doug Parker mentality. I have laid out e.x.p.l.i.c.i.t.l.y the Ministry as found in the New Testament. Parker et al did not do this. I believe for deliberate reasons. There's no "modern times" to it at all.From your research Bert, what is the earliest reference to "workers" that you can find? Also, sorry for my ignorance but is Doug Parker the author of a book back a good number of years ago? I do not follow this literature closely.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 27, 2015 17:29:09 GMT -5
Probably what Paul and his companion wrote, "We as workers with him..."
|
|
|
Post by placid-void on Feb 27, 2015 17:31:55 GMT -5
That's the Doug Parker mentality. I have laid out e.x.p.l.i.c.i.t.l.y the Ministry as found in the New Testament. Parker et al did not do this. I believe for deliberate reasons. There's no "modern times" to it at all.Also Bert would you mind expanding briefly on how what you have laid out explicitly about the Ministry differs in substance from my line of reasoning? Thanks.
|
|
|
Post by placid-void on Feb 27, 2015 17:36:23 GMT -5
Probably what Paul and his companion wrote, "We as workers with him..." Ok, that is reasonable. The quote suggests use of the word "workers" as a verb rather than a noun, but that may be hair splitting. Just for clarity, your position is that based on this quote the noun "workers" is an integral element of your faith, is that correct?
|
|
|
Post by snow on Feb 27, 2015 18:01:28 GMT -5
This "unbroken link" stuff is a strawman argument, ie people set up a position and argue against it, without asking us whether we accept that position. I have never heard, as official Worker POV, that we are from an "unbroken line" from the Apostles. Certainly some of the friends believe that. We say the "Truth" is an unbroken line. But "Truth" has two meanings. 1 - Truth is the revelation of God's will through the Gospel, and how it shows all what is not of God - our own human nature, false religion and the world. 2 - Truth is the living of it. Personally I thought we could have gone back to the Reformation (1600's) We know from the Vatican archives that earlier groups of people who gathered and preached as we do were exterminated (or presumably, scattered) But I have gone over this so-many-times on the TMB. And one of the points I raised was this - if I, in my research, DID FIND some archival evidence of a direct link to the Apostles then I would be sorely tempted to destroy it. The Gospel is not about "proving" or trying to "impress" people with a human story - it must stand on its own merits, lest you tempt the wrong sort of people into fellowship. In many ways I agree with you Bert. It really doesn't matter if it goes back to the shores of Galilee in an unbroken line of succession. It's what the group stands for now that matters. The thing that I don't agree with is the dishonesty. I know it was taught from the platform that we went back to the shores of Galilee. I heard it myself and definitely thought it was true and didn't really question it. So when you find out that it's not true it makes you wonder why a group that call themselves the truth were not truthful. It makes you wonder what else they have hidden, what else they may not be truthful about. So for me it's not the fact that they really did start in 1897 or thereabouts, it's the fact that at some point they decided to quit making that common knowledge and actually preaching the opposite. My grandparents were some of the first ones to profess and it makes me wonder if they knew the origins. I don't think so because I heard that line from them too. My grandfather professed in 1917.
|
|
|
Post by dmmichgood on Feb 27, 2015 18:17:13 GMT -5
Quote - "“The workers” is a very specific cultural reference to a specific era (modern times) and specific context (the F&W community as they currently practice their faith)." That's the Doug Parker mentality. I have laid out e.x.p.l.i.c.i.t.l.y the Ministry as found in the New Testament. Parker et al did not do this. I believe for deliberate reasons. There's no "modern times" to it at all. It isn't about Doug Parker's "mentality."
He did a lot of research & actually only affirmed in detail what I & others has known all along.
Whether you "laid out e.x.p.l.i.c.i.t.l.y the Ministry as found in the New Testament" or no has nothing to do with Parker's book.
His work was to document the beginning of what is known as the the 2x2 ministry as referred here on TMB.
Bert, he did a good job of finding out the details, whether you want to believe them or not.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 27, 2015 18:26:43 GMT -5
It's not a matter of "believing" It's more subtle than that, for the reasons outlined above.
|
|
|
Post by emy on Feb 27, 2015 19:02:44 GMT -5
Ok, that is reasonable. The quote suggests use of the word "workers" as a verb rather than a noun, but that may be hair splitting. Just for clarity, your position is that based on this quote the noun "workers" is an integral element of your faith, is that correct? Other words used in the Bible for those we usually call 'workers' are messengers, servants, and ambassadors. I'm wondering why you picked the years 527 and 1312? Were they random or specific? The historic possibility of tracing the church back to Jesus (which isn't all they way, since the plan was formed 'in the beginning') never occurred to me until I was in the hospital when our 2nd son was born (1974) and a priest stopped in to chat. He asked if we could trace back and I said not and why would that be important? I guess he thought I was too lightweight to bother explaining. Sometime after that a sister worker I had much respect for explained that bread would taste the same if the same recipe was used, even if it had been hidden for centuries. (At the time, I had no clue that she may have been referring to "beginnings" but the thought made sense.) Later I heard about and learned some about the 'Secret Sect,' but didn't give it much weight - probably largely because of the name. Even that didn't fit what I had experienced. Anyway.. .. your line of thought seems reasonable to me. Life comes from seed and the Bible says the seed is the Word of God. Also says it's sown in hearts. I suppose if one doesn't have opportunity to read it or can make no sense of it (as the eunuch from Ethiopia) then it must be heard or explained, but I am not completely a disciple of living witness doctrine. The Bible does say, the work of God's hands declare His word. Edit.. part of speech correction We are workers together with God, so we beg you: Do not let the grace that you received from God be for nothing. (not KJV) So workers is a noun, the verb of the sentence being 'are' (in this version - 'beseech' in KJV
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 27, 2015 19:24:44 GMT -5
Probably what Paul and his companion wrote, "We as workers with him..." Ok, that is reasonable. The quote suggests use of the word "workers" as a verb rather than a noun, but that may be hair splitting. Just for clarity, your position is that based on this quote the noun "workers" is an integral element of your faith, is that correct? Paul warned about "striving over words" No, I don't base my faith upon a "noun" found (or not found) in the bible.
Paul was a worker, noun. He also called himself an "apostle" and a few exes disputed that - reminding people of his origins (sound familiar?)
Paul left all (and counted it "but dung") and went out preaching. He was partnered with another preacher, and swapped partners every year or two. Often his partners were younger than he. He tutored them in the Ministry, and wrote to them when he was with new partners, in new areas. Paul helped establish home churches. He wrote what became scripture. He warned about those who left the ministry and left the faith to begin their own churches which were not sanctioned by the Apostolic Church. He warned about loving this evil world. He wanted the young people to consider going into the work as he had. He warned about people bringing back Old Testament style symbols. Half of what he wrote concerned Christian expectations (read "works.") He never mentioned a name for the church. He acted as an overseer. He warned that despite the enormous growth in the church, there would come a time when there would be a falling away. Does all this sound familiar?
|
|
|
Post by Mary on Feb 27, 2015 19:39:09 GMT -5
Seems as if the falling way started around 1897 when William Irvine broke away.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 27, 2015 20:03:30 GMT -5
Dmichgood, you American? If so do you get confused with Republicans and Democrats go head to head? I mean - which one is telling the truth and which one is telling lies?
|
|
|
Post by placid-void on Feb 27, 2015 21:14:36 GMT -5
Other words used in the Bible for those we usually call 'workers' are messengers, servants, and ambassadors. I'm wondering why you picked the years 527 and 1312? Were they random or specific? The historic possibility of tracing the church back to Jesus (which isn't all they way, since the plan was formed 'in the beginning') never occurred to me until I was in the hospital when our 2nd son was born (1974) and a priest stopped in to chat. He asked if we could trace back and I said not and why would that be important? I guess he thought I was too lightweight to bother explaining. Sometime after that a sister worker I had much respect for explained that bread would taste the same if the same recipe was used, even if it had been hidden for centuries. (At the time, I had no clue that she may have been referring to "beginnings" but the thought made sense.) Later I heard about and learned some about the 'Secret Sect,' but didn't give it much weight - probably largely because of the name. Even that didn't fit what I had experienced. Anyway.. .. your line of thought seems reasonable to me. Life comes from seed and the Bible says the seed is the Word of God. Also says it's sown in hearts. I suppose if one doesn't have opportunity to read it or can make no sense of it (as the eunuch from Ethiopia) then it must be heard or explained, but I am not completely a disciple of living witness doctrine. The Bible does say, the work of God's hands declare His word. Edit.. part of speech correction We are workers together with God, so we beg you: Do not let the grace that you received from God be for nothing. (not KJV) So workers is a noun, the verb of the sentence being 'are' (in this version - 'beseech' in KJV Hi Emy. The two years I picked 527 and 1312 were completely random numbers as I typed. They were totally made out of whole cloth as the expression goes. Trying to condense my POV: It seems to me that there are two ways to ask or think about the question of lineage. One is the straight forward literal approach and the other is the spiritual approach. The literal approach is to ask what was the name of the workers that preceded WI, then what is the name of the workers that preceded those workers, then what is the name of the workers that preceded them as far back as memories or records might permit. The Catholics, for example, have an very good written record of popes back at least as far as the first Council of Nicaea and a record of the Bishops of Rome prior to that. Their records even document the schisms along the way. I can only speak for myself, the literal approach is interesting from a historical and intellectual perspective but it is not an approach that influences my spiritual journey in any meaningful way. The genealogies in the OT are interesting and add to the gravitas of the cultural inheritance of the Jewish people but I have never had the sense that those genealogies substantively changed the faith of the Jewish people, perhaps I am wrong on this point. The second approach is the spiritual approach. This is not a literal approach. It is not an empirical approach. It is not an approach that can be proved or disproved. It is simply an approach dependent of faith. It seems to me that one either has faith that their religious beliefs are linearly traceable to a meaningful source or they must depend on a literal approach that requires evidence. In the literal approach WI, understandably, looms large. In my mind, and I may be the only one to hold this view, the out-sized devastation of the F&W Fellowship caused by the who, what, when, where and hows of WI demonstrate the folly of the literal approach for the justification or defense of one's faith. Of course theological and interpretive discussions and debates are meaningful and healthy for a person. But I believe that at the end of the day a simple statement of personal faith is all that ultimately matters in our search for purpose and meaning. A simple statement of personal faith will never satisfy critics, that is not it's purpose. It's purpose is to add direction and stability to one's own life. From my earliest memories, the F&W Fellowship was about meaning. What is meant by that? How can that be made meaningful to me. Of course the rules were there. Outside of anarchy, most civilized social groups have rules. Part of the maturing process is deciding what the rules mean to you. Do they enhance or inhibit. When I came to the point where the practices of the my community were in conflict with my personal convictions I made the choice to leave the community, but that is another story. Don't know if I answered you questions Emy, if not try again. Thanks for the "parts of speech" lesson, this old man is getting very rusty!
|
|
|
Post by placid-void on Feb 27, 2015 21:24:31 GMT -5
Paul warned about "striving over words" No, I don't base my faith upon a "noun" found (or not found) in the bible. Boy that shot hit right betwixt the eyes. Of course you are correct "striving over words" is a complete waste. My intent was otherwise. I was hoping we might both be striving for understanding. Understanding often (and I believe in this case) depends on communication. Communication on boards like this unfortunately depends on words (no non-verbals here, regretfully). So if I appeared to you to be striving over words, my intent was to facilitate communication in the hope that we might better understand each other a little better tomorrow than we do today. Guess it didn't work out so well today, perhaps tomorrow.
|
|
|
Post by dmmichgood on Feb 27, 2015 22:48:16 GMT -5
Dmichgood, you American? If so do you get confused with Republicans and Democrats go head to head? I mean - which one is telling the truth and which one is telling lies? Bert, yes, I'm an "American," as in a citizen of the USA.
As I'm sure you know, there are other "Americans" besides people from the USA.
Snow for instance is a Canadian but also an "American."
Why would you want my opinion on politics in the USA?
|
|
|
Post by emy on Feb 27, 2015 23:17:29 GMT -5
Paul warned about "striving over words" No, I don't base my faith upon a "noun" found (or not found) in the bible. Boy that shot hit right betwixt the eyes. Of course you are correct "striving over words" is a complete waste. My intent was otherwise. I was hoping we might both be striving for understanding. Understanding often (and I believe in this case) depends on communication. Communication on boards like this unfortunately depends on words (no non-verbals here, regretfully). So if I appeared to you to be striving over words, my intent was to facilitate communication in the hope that we might better understand each other a little better tomorrow than we do today. Guess it didn't work out so well today, perhaps tomorrow. Striving over words? Not at all what I read in your post, yknot. And further, I very much agree with what you said about literal lineage and spiritual lineage. I think you would find few, workers or friends, from the fellowship who are 'hung up' on literal lineage, but a spiritual lineage certainly exists, IMO.
|
|
|
Post by placid-void on Feb 28, 2015 10:11:17 GMT -5
Good morning Bert,
How are you this fine sunny morn? Was wondering if you might be interested in spending a little more time working toward mutual understanding?
I am unable to find great differences between my understanding of your point of view (even though it comes across a touch on the belligerent side) and some of the thoughts I was attempting to express. Perhaps you could take a moment or two and gently lead me through the significant errors in my thoughts as I have expressed them.
The reason I personally would like to move further down the path of understanding is two fold.
(1) Since I started participating on TMB I have been dumbfounded by the WI issue. It has always struck me as a tempest in a tea pot. It has struck me as a mask for some deeper break between the fellowship and the individual. I have read a fair number of posts and opinions and still remain mystified by this particular point of contention.
(2) Civilization is beginning to confront what appears to me to be a significant challenge. That challenge is being brought by another religion (Islam) and at least superficially is beginning to form lines of distinction based on "how literally" an individual believes one must adhere to the precise prescriptions of the ancient texts. Some sects of Islam seem to believe that all of humanity must return to the precise habits, behaviors and beliefs of 6th century Arabia, others take more moderate and temperate perspectives and some believe that the value of the ancient texts rests in the insight they provide for individual behavior.
I have difficulty understanding the more strident sects of Islam. And yet, I grew up and value the instruction of a Christian sect (F&W) that might be characterized as retrograde and strident in some of its views. I perceive value for myself in rethinking (re-understanding) how "my religion" worked its way through questions of strict literal interpretations, evolving cultural norms (trading in sandals for lace-up shoes) and spiritual convictions grounded solely in faith.
Perhaps if I better understand my kinsman, I will better understand my neighbor.
Would love to hear from whoever finds these types of questions to be useful or interesting.
|
|
|
Post by snow on Feb 28, 2015 16:20:04 GMT -5
Good morning Bert, How are you this fine sunny morn? Was wondering if you might be interested in spending a little more time working toward mutual understanding? I am unable to find great differences between my understanding of your point of view (even though it comes across a touch on the belligerent side) and some of the thoughts I was attempting to express. Perhaps you could take a moment or two and gently lead me through the significant errors in my thoughts as I have expressed them. The reason I personally would like to move further down the path of understanding is two fold. (1) Since I started participating on TMB I have been dumbfounded by the WI issue. It has always struck me as a tempest in a tea pot. It has struck me as a mask for some deeper break between the fellowship and the individual. I have read a fair number of posts and opinions and still remain mystified by this particular point of contention. (2) Civilization is beginning to confront what appears to me to be a significant challenge. That challenge is being brought by another religion (Islam) and at least superficially is beginning to form lines of distinction based on "how literally" an individual believes one must adhere to the precise prescriptions of the ancient texts. Some sects of Islam seem to believe that all of humanity must return to the precise habits, behaviors and beliefs of 6th century Arabia, others take more moderate and temperate perspectives and some believe that the value of the ancient texts rests in the insight they provide for individual behavior. I have difficulty understanding the more strident sects of Islam. And yet, I grew up and value the instruction of a Christian sect (F&W) that might be characterized as retrograde and strident in some of its views. I perceive value for myself in rethinking (re-understanding) how "my religion" worked its way through questions of strict literal interpretations, evolving cultural norms (trading in sandals for lace-up shoes) and spiritual convictions grounded solely in faith. Perhaps if I better understand my kinsman, I will better understand my neighbor. Would love to hear from whoever finds these types of questions to be useful or interesting. Yknot do you have a religion now? You are no longer a 2x2 are you? Do you feel that your childhood raised as a 2x2 was a good thing, or can you envision some other mindset that would have been more beneficial in the end? For me, I left quite early so I never kept up with the religion other than what I got from my parents and their elderly friends. I don't believe they knew about WI, but I can't say that for sure. If they did know, they either didn't care about it, or they denied that it was true. I do remember hearing that 'our religion' started on the shores of Galilee, so I don't think they knew about WI. However, it went underground pretty quick in Western Canada where my grandparents professed in 1917 if they didn't know about WI. I know when I found out about WI many years later and had left many years hence, it bothered me a lot. That surprised me really how much I felt lied to, betrayed and because my childhood wasn't good because of it, sad because of how it came between my parents and me. I had not been to a meeting in 35 years when I found out about WI and so that's why it surprised me how much that revelation upset me. I am okay with it now, but it took awhile actually. I think I still held the misguided belief that if any group was right it was likely my parents religion. I didn't believe in any religion or any God, but as an agnostic I thought the 2x2's lived better than most religions. Interesting when I really examine that thought. Certainly not one I hold now because I now know a lot more about the group than I knew as a child and my parents never discussed some of the more controversial aspects of the religion such as excommunication practices and CSA. I am not even sure they were aware of them, or just simply turned a blind eye. Who knows. They are both gone and were before I found TMB and all this new information, so I can't ask them anything. As far as religion in general and your comment about coming into challenges with Islam, for me it's just a repeat of the trouble that was caused by Christianity when it was in power and there was no separation of church and state. I think that is an important aspect of religions being more moderate, a secular group in government and religion kept to the personal beliefs that they cannot force on anyone else. It seems that religions have the tendency to want to force their beliefs on others if they have the power to do so. What do you think?
|
|
|
Post by Gene on Feb 28, 2015 17:20:35 GMT -5
There is another perspective that I have mentioned on the board a couple of times in the past but the idea doesn’t seem to garner much interest or support. I would like to try it again. The F&W community is a fellowship of faith and those who profess this faith believe in God. It is perfectly reasonable that they should hold their faith as they believe to be appropriate. A belief in God often includes a belief that God guides individuals. Often this guidance is thought to be mediated by an entity referred to as the “Holy Spirit”. My recollection is that the F&W Fellowship held beliefs similar to this. “The workers” is a very specific cultural reference to a specific era (modern times) and specific context (the F&W community as they currently practice their faith). Now consider Northern Africa in the year 527. It seems reasonable for “a person of faith” to embrace the opinion that the “Holy Spirit” touched the lives of individuals at that time in that place. How about the Balkans in 1312? Again, it seems reasonable for “a person of faith” to believe that the “Holy Spirit” touched the lives of individuals at that time in that place. Allowing for precise translation into the languages of those places at those times, it is unlikely that “the workers” was a phrase in common usage in this specific context. Beginning to add and subtract calendar years around the randomly selected years of 527 and 1312, one could fill-in all history with similar reasoning, year by year, from 30 C.E. (?) up to and through 1897 C.E. (?). {As an aside, I cannot imagine how any religious person (no matter what their chosen denomination of faith) would not go through this process as part of their profession of their own Christian faith. Perhaps many don’t, I am just saying it seems to me that if I were to follow a specific religious dogma, it would be important to me that I believed that my faith traced back to a “meaningful and authentic source”.} I understand the downside of this argument for some. This argument renders William Irvine essentially irrelevant. I suspect that WI is important for many arguments advanced on these threads so a consideration that rendered him essentially irrelevant would not be well received. Just because Manischewitz Concord Grape has not been available at the corner grocery since the beginning of Christianity, that doesn’t mean that “the emblems” have not been an important part of Christian religious practices since their inception. Similarly, because “the workers” may not have always been embodied in a specific interpretation of a specific faith does not necessarily support a contention that the specific faith practice could not have existed. Is there a logical or spiritual flaw in this line of reasoning? I would be interested in a reasoned response as to why this line of thinking is unreasonable. (Note this is not an argument about the existence/nonexistence of God. This conversation has zero meaning if one begins from the premise that there is no God so we will have to restrict the conversation to the unproven assumption that they is a God, fair enough?) yknot, I don't see anything illogical or unreasonable in your line of reasoning, nor do I see any spiritual flaw. Perhaps it's hasty to move on to another question, but here is it: Why, then, if the line of reasoning you lay out is not flawed, is there so much focus among some exes on pinning the "founding" of the F&W on W. Irvine? I think the answer is in this: The F&W have historically claimed that theirs is the only true church; that other Christian ministers are "false prophets" and if a person wanted to go to heaven one day, one would be well-advised to leave the other Christian denominations and join up with the F&W. ONE of their several points in support of their exclusivity was, historically, that unlike all those other Christian denominations that can trace their denomination to a founder (John Wesley, Alexander Campbell, Mary Baker Eddy, etc.), the F&W could not do so. The F&W was founded by Jesus, they said; other denominations were founded by men/women. I think it would be fair to say that the F&W was founded by a man no more nor less than other Christian denominations.
|
|
|
Post by snow on Feb 28, 2015 18:30:35 GMT -5
One of the chapters that I have reached in the 'Moral Arc' deals with how we are treating animals that can feel and suffer like us. Also dealing with how we 'farm' and 'slaughter' these animals that we eat. There has been an increasing trend towards a more humane way of thinking about and dealing with other species. This is a good thing imo and more needs to be done in that regard. I found it interesting to see how Europe is leading the world in making laws that give animals rights and in some countries they go as far as to say 'respect and dignity'. Just another way the moral arc is bending towards more humane actions.
|
|
|
Post by placid-void on Feb 28, 2015 19:51:40 GMT -5
Yknot do you have a religion now? You are no longer a 2x2 are you? Do you feel that your childhood raised as a 2x2 was a good thing, or can you envision some other mindset that would have been more beneficial in the end? Hi snow. Think I will try to respond in a couple of separate posts. I tend to get wordy so a couple of lengthy posts might be better that one interminable post, whatcha think? No, I do not have any religious affiliation. I left the F&W Fellowship something over 50 years ago. At the time I was a sophomore in college and once I made the decision not to go to meeting, my spiritual development arrested and I essentially went into “spiritual hibernation”. I retained good and friendly relationships with family and friends still in the Fellowship but felt no personal draw. My engagement with religion through most of my life was casual, superficial, intellectual coffee house type of involvement. I have never been what one would call anti-religion but I have always felt that the amount of other peoples baggage that one had to carry to be part of an organized religion significantly outweighed any benefit that might be derived from the association. I am not what you would consider anti-social but I am not a joiner either. I love to interact with people, learn new things and then wander the by-ways as I think about all the ways the pieces of the puzzle fit together. Most religions do not encourage that type of freedom. Yes, I feel like my childhood, being raised in the F&W Community was a very good thing and in all honesty I would have to say that I have not encountered a “child-rearing home environment” that I would have preferred over my own actual experiences. The definitive nature of my response must be tempered by no end of caveats. I came along late in Mom and Dad’s life, I had two older brothers and an older sister, so I was raised essentially as an only child. I got along well with my parents and respected them. I think of my parents as being enlightened, they had deep, strong and abiding faith but had an uncanny ability to accept people and life situations as they found them. They encouraged independence but emphasized the importance of meaningful boundaries. Dad and I listened to ball games on the car radio on the front lawn but with the knowledge that there is a time and a place for everything. We lived in a rural community and the workers would visit us from time to time and have gospel meetings where my Mom would play the organ. My life was the same whether or not they were there. Of course I got upset when a worker suggested that I give up the trombone and my participation in the school band. But if that is the worse that ever happens to me, I suspect I will survive. I was male, I think that made it much easier for me. I was a “good kid”, my rebellion came later in life. We got along well with friends next door, people at Dad’s business and people in the Fellowship. I had a dog, my friend and I played ball, played practical jokes and “chased girls” but I also knew that there was an inside and outside to the community that nurtured me and I had an awareness of where those boundaries were. I crossed the boundaries on occasion (went to the movies and say my first film “The Diary of Ann Frank”) but my relationship with my parents was such that I was able to come home and have a period of uncertainty, and then go and sit down and talk with them about what had happened. So all of this sounds like Polly Anna, rose colored glasses in La La Land but it is the life and times I remember. I still go back for high school reunions every few years. It all seems real enough to me. Hanging out with high school buddies doesn’t make me think about all I missed as a child. I still remember the one pretty witch in the Kraft Television Theater production of “Macbeth” that I watch next door at the neighbor’s house! So where is the damaged tissue? What I know for sure is that I have an incredible capacity for emotional detachment (genetic or upbringing? I don’t know). Much of my life has been conditioned by that detachment. Late in life I discovered I do not care for that detachment and that I crave connection. Here I am. More than you asked for, snow, my Mom was Irish, what can I say?
|
|
|
Post by snow on Feb 28, 2015 20:23:57 GMT -5
Thank you yknot. That was great, exactly what I was asking really. I think many people that were B&R likely had a better childhood than some of us with more intense parents. You are likely right about it being easier because you were male. You were allowed to play sports and be in the band at school. That is something that some of us either couldn't do or had to fight hard to do. I fought hard to compete in sports because I enjoyed them and I was good at them. After a few years of not professing I was finally allowed to play sports but only in my home town. No road trips. I also wanted to learn violin and that was okay because one of the friends that mom and dad admired played violin and so I got to do that also. I was allowed to join the school orchestra and perform with them as long as it was in town. So in that sense I was lucky. Those were the good things I finally got to do, but each victory was hard won. Made me a good negotiator, Also my challenges in childhood made me a pretty strong person. So in those ways it probably was a good thing looking back, but at the time it was just, well, challenging. You were lucky that you were able to talk to your parents about the things you did in the 'world' like the movie you went to. That is one of the things that makes me the saddest looking back on my childhood. Because I didn't profess after 12 years old, I was pretty much left to find friends in the world and do things with them. When I finally got permission to sleep at girlfriends houses, my world opened up somewhat and I got to do to shows, dances, hockey games etc. But I could never share anything with my parents because 'I never did these things'. It felt like I was living a double life. Doesn't make for close relationship with your parents. Like you, I was a pretty good kid, so didn't get into a lot of trouble thankfully. Now to tie this to the subject of morality. Is it moral to push your religious beliefs on your kids to the point of making them stand out as different from their peers? The stigma of looking different because of the way you are made to dress and wear your hair is something most of us females here do not remember fondly. That is just one thing that being female differed from being male in the group.
|
|
|
Post by dmmichgood on Feb 28, 2015 20:28:43 GMT -5
Bert, yesterday you asked me;
"Dmichgood, you American? If so do you get confused with Republicans and Democrats go head to head? I mean - which one is telling the truth and which one is telling lies?"
Why did you ask me that?
|
|
|
Post by placid-void on Feb 28, 2015 20:42:59 GMT -5
For me, I left quite early so I never kept up with the religion other than what I got from my parents and their elderly friends. I don't believe they knew about WI, but I can't say that for sure. If they did know, they either didn't care about it, or they denied that it was true. I do remember hearing that 'our religion' started on the shores of Galilee, so I don't think they knew about WI. However, it went underground pretty quick in Western Canada where my grandparents professed in 1917 if they didn't know about WI. I know when I found out about WI many years later and had left many years hence, it bothered me a lot. That surprised me really how much I felt lied to, betrayed and because my childhood wasn't good because of it, sad because of how it came between my parents and me. I had not been to a meeting in 35 years when I found out about WI and so that's why it surprised me how much that revelation upset me. I am okay with it now, but it took awhile actually. I think I still held the misguided belief that if any group was right it was likely my parents religion. I didn't believe in any religion or any God, but as an agnostic I thought the 2x2's lived better than most religions. Interesting when I really examine that thought. Certainly not one I hold now because I now know a lot more about the group than I knew as a child and my parents never discussed some of the more controversial aspects of the religion such as excommunication practices and CSA. I am not even sure they were aware of them, or just simply turned a blind eye. Who knows. They are both gone and were before I found TMB and all this new information, so I can't ask them anything. I am reasonably certain that my parents were familiar with developments in the Fellowship around the turn of the century. My Mom was born in Ireland in 1902 and grew-up in Ireland until she was 21 or 23. We lived in New York State so we knew George Walker pretty well (my sister and I loved him at convention, a real bible slapper, woke you up on a lazy, hazy August afternoon!). I. Weir was a relative. So I imagine my parents had a reasonably good grasp of the "early days". But sitting and trying to think back through my childhood, I have no recollection that those "early days" held much significance for anyone that I knew in the fellowship while I was still at home. The relevance of fellowship meetings, the workers, preaching the gospel, reading the bible, prayer, were all critically important in my home life but not to the exclusion of all else. We laughed, we sang (yes even Perry Como along with the hymns), we gossiped, we cried, we cared, we loved, we studied. We lived life, I don't know how else to say it. But there was an underlying religious faith that provided guidance, hope, security, purpose, and many other bed-rock values that I can't think to mention at the moment. When I look back at the rural community where I grew up there were all sorts of people. Rich people, poor people, kind people, ornery people, teachers, ne'er do well's and on an on but we all shopped at the same stores, went to the same schools, avoided the same cops and went to different churches. I cannot claim that I ever felt the smothering effect of my parents or my religion. I have zero meaningful knowledge of the F&W Fellowship after 1963. When I was a part of the community, I was intimately aware of a couple of "situations" than might have had the potential to end in "excommunication", they did not end that way. Why? Were things different then than they are now? In complete honesty, I do not know. I was never aware of CSA. Was it hidden? I wasn't aware of it so I cannot say. CSA (or any sexual abuse) is one of those horrible behaviors that is completely inexcusable under all circumstances without question. The only knowledge I have of CSA and the F&W is what I have read on this board. I feel unspeakable rage that any situation that arose was not dealt with immediately and summarily. In my opinion, failure to nip this issue in the bud is an inexcusable failure of leadership whether you are a religious organization, boy scouts or Penn State Football! I spent a day at a convention not far from here a few years ago. I still admire and respect the faith of that community. Interestingly, I do not feel a pull to return but I told my wife when I got home that evening; "If I was forced to choose one community that I would have to associate with and I was forced to make that choice, it would be with the community of individuals that I had just spent the day with." Not sure I can say why. My values and temperament have changed so much since I was last associated with that community, it does not make logical sense. The only thing I can think of is that when everything else is boiled down, that community attempts to live a wholesome life and they have an awareness of something greater than themselves. I find both qualities attractive.
|
|
|
Post by dmmichgood on Feb 28, 2015 20:47:27 GMT -5
Thank you both, snow & yknot, for allowing us to hear your stories.
I wonder who else out there would share their stores with us?
|
|