|
Post by matisse on May 5, 2015 13:22:54 GMT -5
So are we 2x2's condemned to hell? Answer with a yes or no. No. Neither am I.
|
|
|
Post by faune on May 5, 2015 13:25:55 GMT -5
So are we 2x2's condemned to hell? Answer with a yes or no. Jesse ~ I remember the 2x2's condemning everybody else to Hell EXCEPT themselves and even that was conditional upon being a loyal follower of the workers until the end? Most folks in outside churches don't make such rash statements, because are aware that it's their personal relationship and acceptance of Jesus into their hearts that gives them assurance of God's approval at the end of life. It has nothing to do with joining some "one and only way of salvation" group to save them from any such a fate. In fact, most outside church members also realize that we are in no position to judge anybody else, since we don't know their heart ~ only God does. Hopefully, that answers your question, Jesse? Also, I don't condemn you or anybody to Hell. I'm sure we all get a good taste of Hell here on earth, if we live long enough?
|
|
|
Post by faune on May 5, 2015 13:46:00 GMT -5
Below is a description of a healthy church and what is apparent in such a surrounding. In the case of an aberrant church, there is a description of exiting such a group and recovery being similar to getting over a "powerful addiction" in your life. This excerpt comes from the article I referenced for Review to come back with an answer as to how he defines a cult himself, since he didn't appear to be cognizant of what it resembled? I'm still awaiting his response, by the way. "Hallmarks of a Healthy Church:
1) Stresses authority of Scripture, not special revelations 2) Leads by strong and gentle example, gentle encouragement 3) Teaches Godly relationship with larger society 4) Keeps the focus on Jesus, not on the leader 5) Maintains high standards of purity 6) No additional requirements for salvation 7) Allows members to hear from God for themselves 8) Teaches biblical principles allowing individuals to grow and make decisions for themselves 9) Fosters relationships with the larger community are more than self-serving From Cult to Christ... LEAVING A DESTRUCTIVE CULT
Some people simply decide to leave when the cult no longer fulfills their needs. These are known as "walkaways." Since the decision to leave was of their own volition, they demonstrate the ability to make at least some healthy decisions. It is quite possible they will eventually resume a normal life. Unfortunately, there is always the risk that they will simply fall into another abusive situation. A few members are "throwaways". The leaders excommunicate them when they ask too many questions or become too ill or mentally unstable to do the fundraising and recruitment that the cult requires. The pain of this rejection, combined with the physical effects of the cult's abusive practices, can make it extremely difficult for these members to recover without significant outside help. In "exit counseling" the focus is not on psychological or emotional counseling, as the name may suggest. Exit counselors seek to provide accurate information so the member can make an informed decision whether to leave the group. There is no coercion or forced detainment and the member is free to end at any time. At least one person on the counseling team is a former member of that cult and therefore has an inside track into the language, history and content of the cult's teachings. Exit counseling relies heavily on the rapport and trusting relationship that can be developed during the counseling sessions. In sharp contrast to the cult experience, free discussion is encouraged. The member and the team talk openly about the cult, its leaders and the systematic social and psychological influences that have been used to convince the member to give up his freedom and distrust the world. Exit counseling takes a great deal of time and there are no guarantees it will be successful." —Sandy Blank
|
|
|
Post by Jesse_Lackman on May 5, 2015 13:47:42 GMT -5
Matisse - no. Faune - no.
Anyone else?
PS. It really isn't necessary to explain a no answer.
|
|
|
Post by faune on May 5, 2015 14:05:44 GMT -5
Now I would like to post a question to Review, since he was so critical of Elizabeth Coleman's for the title of her book. What I would like to know is there anything on this list of Characteristics of Cults within this article that he would honestly take objection to deny it's relevance to the 2x2's system of belief? www.ptm.org/uni/resources/PDFs/FromCultToChrist.pdf All cults exhibit at least some of the following: CHARACTERISTICS OF CULTS Authoritarian Leadership: A charismatic or messianic leader rules with absolute authority. Often he is a dominant, paternal male who claims to be omniscient, infallible and the only agent of God on earth today. Followers are expected to demonstrate unquestioning loyalty to this leader. Esoteric: Secrecy and deception about the group's purpose, beliefs, leaders and history are used to recruit or keep members. There is a vast difference between the image projected to the world and the reality of the inner workings of the group. Oppositional: The group places itself in an adversarial role against another dominant group and promotes an "us" versus "them" mentality that accuses the outside culture of ignorance, hostility and/or persecution. Exclusivistic: The cult is the only group that knows the truth. All others are considered deceived, so leaving the group places the defector in danger of losing his salvation. Legalistic: Rules and regulations are established not only for spiritual matters but also for the details of everyday life. In most Bible-based cults, the leaders determine the correct way to handle any circumstance the Bible does not directly address. Members gradually lose the ability to think and feel independently or make decisions for themselves. Sanctioned Oriented: Members who do not conform to the practices and beliefs of the cult are threatened with punishment or excommunication. Rebellion, breaking the rules or simply asking too many questions can result in severe physical or emotional abuse. Destructive cults generally prosper when they exert strong control over their people. Fast growing cults typically attribute their apparent success to their divine origin and God's continuing favor. Such claims make it difficult for members to leave. Those who do manage to leave experience lingering guilt, sometimes for many years, and feel an obligation to return to the cult. Ironically, cults tend to lose members rapidly if its leaders loosen their iron grip. The members leave—not because of the abuses they have endured—but because they are discontent with the cult's apparent weakness. Many cults do not survive for more than one or two generations. The ones that do endure can attribute their longevity to their ability to exert control and promote fear among their members. In her book, Out of the Cults and Into the Church, Janet Hutchinson writes, "a movement will always prosper without God if it: • Changes structure and leadership at crucial points • Meets the sociological needs of its general membership • Maintains tight control • Makes periodic accommodations to society.” —Sandy Blank
|
|
|
Post by SharonArnold on May 5, 2015 14:22:22 GMT -5
Matisse - no. Faune - no. Anyone else? PS. It really isn't necessary to explain a no answer. No.
|
|
|
Post by faune on May 5, 2015 14:34:43 GMT -5
Although some may disagree with me, I feel this is the best description in laymen's terms as to what constitutes a Christian Bible cult, which is highlighted in BLUE at the conclusion of this descriptive paragraph below. Sorry, but I gave up on waiting for Review to answer my earlier inquiry regarding this topic other than by a diversion tactic from the question. WHAT IS A CULT?
"Everybody knows what cults are, right? They’re the Moonies or the Jim Jones type groups that brainwash their followers into doing weird things. Their beliefs are so strange that only a few really unstable people ever become involved with them. Right? Well, not exactly.
The dynamics of a cult are much more complicated than that. The term "cult" can be traced to the Latin word "cultus." It is a very broad term referring to the rituals and liturgy associated with worship in general. Cult is often used interchangeably with sect. However, there are some important distinctions between the two.
A sect is a subgroup of a religious body that continues to maintain its identity within the larger group.
For instance, evangelicals are a sect within Christianity. However, a genuine cult usually isolates itself as much as possible from the rest of the world.
Cults have existed for thousands of years and tend to flourish in times of social unrest. Many of these groups manage to operate well below the radar for decades until a disgruntled member calls in the media. The publicity received by destructive cults is often shocking and gruesome, thus the public's perception of cults is overwhelmingly negative. Unfortunately, many of the standards used to evaluate these groups are subjective at best.
To complicate the matter even more, society has a tendency to view emerging movements as cultic and dangerous but then later chooses to embrace them if and when they become part of the mainstream culture. Mormons were once persecuted as a destructive cult but are now widely accepted by secular society. Journalists don’t necessarily view cults as a religious phenomenon, but see them as any sort of destructive organization operating outside of the acceptable standards of society.
While it is true that most cults do have strong religious overtones, not all of them are of the pagan variety. A significant number of cults claim to be Christian.
Dr. Alan W. Gomes, in Unmasking the Cults, defines a Christian cult as:
"A cult of Christianity is a group of people, which claiming to be Christian, embraces a particular doctrinal system taught by an individual leader, group of leaders, or organization, which (system) denies (either explicitly or implicitly) one or more of the central doctrines of the Christian faith as taught in the sixty-six books of the Bible."
Christian cults promote a theology that minimizes sin, misinterprets Scripture and raises humanity to a place of equality with God. In Christian cults the writings of leaders are considered to be as authoritative as the Bible.
—Sandy Blank
|
|
|
Post by mdm on May 5, 2015 14:43:06 GMT -5
Matisse - no. Faune - no. Anyone else? PS. It really isn't necessary to explain a no answer. NO
|
|
|
Post by faune on May 5, 2015 14:57:08 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by faune on May 5, 2015 14:58:37 GMT -5
People in cults everywhere seem to take offense to their cults being called cults.... Keen observation!
|
|
|
Post by Mary on May 5, 2015 15:12:43 GMT -5
From a Christian perspective salvation is based on your relationship with Christ not your relationship with the group.
The group is man made. The ministry is man made.Especially the 2x2s who admit to trying to copy the ministry. Man's effort to try and reach or please God based on what we can do rather than based solely on what Christ has done.
Christ within is your hope of glory. Someone else's sacrifice will not save you.
|
|
|
Post by faune on May 5, 2015 15:20:05 GMT -5
I didn’t expect to like this book, as I have a profound disagreement with the “c” word of the title being used in this context. (We ALL have tribal roots – it’s not always a bad thing.) But I did like it. I really did. It was creatively written and generously shared. Worth reading. Yep. Loved the Crocodile Dundee story. (I saw it too, and I was still a member.) The appendix story is beyond poignant. I identified with the author’s husband about the porridge and the stew – though I have come to appreciate both in recent years. Holy cow – the author found “The Secret Sect” on her grandparents bookshelves? I also know what it is to be “Kate in disguise” – invisible and anonymous. I also strongly identified with “The Truman Show”. I agree that people are more important than the “system” - but, in my case, even outside of “Christianity”. (Ummmm… Christians don’t see people as “in” or “out” ??) A lot of Truth in the anecdotes. However, from my personal experience, I feel sorry that the author does not have more feelings of peace and acceptance about all of this being part of her past. The tempers (from both sides) that flared so quickly at the grandfather’s funeral. What was that all about? Really? There are current members who I have profoundly superficial relationships with. I don’t have a problem with that. It speaks to who they are, and who I am. But there are a number, not all blood relatives, but who are “family” nevertheless. Some of these have known me, ever since my mom would have brought me in her arms to my first meeting, my first special meetings, my first convention. People who have known me all my life. (In a weird way, I feel more “real”, because they have been witnesses to so much of my life.) All I feel from them is a deep and abiding love. And, as I watch more and more of them go through the end-of-life challenges, I feel nothing but love and a deep respect for who they are. The author writes: “There they will be satisfied to remain as long as they are content to live out their lives without questioning the status quo with too much rigour. As long as they are willing to relinquish responsibility for their spiritual welfare to those who seem to know best, and feed only upon what they are given, life in the nest will seem like the only logical and safe place to be. They are permanent nest dwellers, held safely aloft from the world, their wings stunted and clipped into conformity, lest they ever learn to soar for themselves and gain autonomy from mother bird.” I would suggest that you may have redrawn the boundaries, and that you may live in a larger world. But there is a whole other world out there, waiting to be explored. I dare you. I double dare you. Sharon Arnold ~ I appreciated reading your review and feel we both appreciated the same things within the book. I also saw "a lot of truth within the anecdotes" throughout the book. I was impressed that she could see the humorous side of things as well as the negative characteristics within the fellowship that stood out to her from personal experience. Honestly, there's usually good and bad mixed together in any group setting. What becomes offensive and objectionable is when manipulation and control of the membership exceeds healthy boundaries and infringes upon your personal identity as an individual. Making folks conform to modes of conduct and dress to be found acceptable by leadership is pretty "over the top" in my estimation along with all the exclusivity associated with the 2x2's.
|
|
|
Post by faune on May 5, 2015 15:24:12 GMT -5
From a Christian perspective salvation is based on your relationship with Christ not your relationship with the group. The group is man made. The ministry is man made. Especially the 2x2s who admit to trying to copy the ministry. Man's effort to try and reach or please God based on what we can do rather than based solely on what Christ has done.
Christ within is your hope of glory. Someone else's sacrifice will not save you. Mary ~ I definitely agree with your assessment, which I highlighted in above! Christ within is our "hope of glory" and NOT some manmade system of rules to conform to be acceptable to God, which also claims to be the "one and only way of salvation." That is a crock in itself!
|
|
|
Post by faune on May 5, 2015 15:24:32 GMT -5
From a Christian perspective salvation is based on your relationship with Christ not your relationship with the group. The group is man made. The ministry is man made. Especially the 2x2s who admit to trying to copy the ministry. Man's effort to try and reach or please God based on what we can do rather than based solely on what Christ has done.
Christ within is your hope of glory. Someone else's sacrifice will not save you. Mary ~ I definitely agree with your assessment, which I highlighted in above! Christ within is our "hope of glory" and NOT some manmade system of rules to conform to be acceptable to God, which also claims to be the "one and only way of salvation." That is a crock in itself!
|
|
|
Post by faune on May 5, 2015 15:37:05 GMT -5
I didn’t expect to like this book, as I have a profound disagreement with the “c” word of the title being used in this context. (We ALL have tribal roots – it’s not always a bad thing.) But I did like it. I really did. It was creatively written and generously shared. Worth reading. Yep. Loved the Crocodile Dundee story. (I saw it too, and I was still a member.) The appendix story is beyond poignant. I identified with the author’s husband about the porridge and the stew – though I have come to appreciate both in recent years. Holy cow – the author found “The Secret Sect” on her grandparents bookshelves? I also know what it is to be “Kate in disguise” – invisible and anonymous. I also strongly identified with “The Truman Show”. I agree that people are more important than the “system” - but, in my case, even outside of “Christianity”. (Ummmm… Christians don’t see people as “in” or “out” ??) A lot of Truth in the anecdotes. However, from my personal experience, I feel sorry that the author does not have more feelings of peace and acceptance about all of this being part of her past. The tempers (from both sides) that flared so quickly at the grandfather’s funeral. What was that all about? Really? There are current members who I have profoundly superficial relationships with. I don’t have a problem with that. It speaks to who they are, and who I am. But there are a number, not all blood relatives, but who are “family” nevertheless. Some of these have known me, ever since my mom would have brought me in her arms to my first meeting, my first special meetings, my first convention. People who have known me all my life. (In a weird way, I feel more “real”, because they have been witnesses to so much of my life.) All I feel from them is a deep and abiding love. And, as I watch more and more of them go through the end-of-life challenges, I feel nothing but love and a deep respect for who they are. The author writes: “There they will be satisfied to remain as long as they are content to live out their lives without questioning the status quo with too much rigour. As long as they are willing to relinquish responsibility for their spiritual welfare to those who seem to know best, and feed only upon what they are given, life in the nest will seem like the only logical and safe place to be. They are permanent nest dwellers, held safely aloft from the world, their wings stunted and clipped into conformity, lest they ever learn to soar for themselves and gain autonomy from mother bird.” I would suggest that you may have redrawn the boundaries, and that you may live in a larger world. But there is a whole other world out there, waiting to be explored. I dare you. I double dare you. Sharon, while you are a very nice person, are you sure that you should take all the credit for the close relationships you have maintained with the fellowship members? It seems that at least several factors would be at play, like the character of your professing family members and friends and their exclusivity level, your age at leaving the meetings/how long you were professing, the reason why you left the meetings, the circumstances of your leaving the meetings. I haven't read the book (yet), but could it be that Elizabeth's circumstances were at least somewhat different? Maja ~ You make a very valid point here that some family situations are different from others who leave the 2x2's and that it depends on a number of factors as you outlined above. I can honestly say that Elizabeth spoke from her own experience which undoubtedly was different from Sharon's, so her conclusions would also be different as a result. I know some families personally who remained on good terms with their children who left the group and others who ostracize them for doing so and the children still feel the "wall" between them. Myself, I was shunned inside and outside the 2x2's, so I didn't find much difference at all in that respect. Perhaps it all has to do with the area in which you were raised and the condition of folks hearts within that meeting? I can say from experience that some meeting experiences are more friendly than others from being in those shoes!
|
|
|
Post by faune on May 5, 2015 15:44:04 GMT -5
Thanks Sharon. Quotes like the one in your second to last paragraph kill any desire I might have had to read the story. They are so untrue, yet are always stated as if they are universal bed rock truths. I don't see why so many authors critical of fellowship do that. In doing it so many of them become as judgmental as they portray the fellowship to be. I myself see the quoted paragraph as describing the general professing culture (not every single friend or worker). My personal conclusion is that most professing folks just want to "fit in" and would not stand up for what is right if it would cause them to be seen as trouble-makers by the rest of the fellowship. Sorry. I don't know how to say it in a more palatable way. I have found out that people either blindly accept whatever the workers say, or if they disagree with the workers, they don't say it openly. There is a fear of independent thinking and contradicting the workers that is very evident. Why, even we ourselves were told that they are "the anointed ones," so how could we dare contradict and openly disagree with them? Before anyone tells me how wrong I am, please describe a time you openly stood up for something you believed was right in opposition to the workers and how it was received. If there was never a need in your life for such an action, let me know and I can give you some material to research and inquire about from the workers. I would love to know what answers you get and how your questions were received.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 5, 2015 15:49:40 GMT -5
Matisse - no. Faune - no. Anyone else? PS. It really isn't necessary to explain a no answer. NO, NO, NO, NO, NO, NO, etc.
|
|
|
Post by Jesse_Lackman on May 5, 2015 15:50:26 GMT -5
Mary, a simple yes or no will work.
Matisse - no. Faune - no. SharonArnold - no. Maja - no Redback - no, no, no, no, etc
Anyone else?
|
|
|
Post by blacksheep on May 5, 2015 16:20:30 GMT -5
So are we 2x2's condemned to hell? Answer with a yes or no. Not condemned, but I'm sure you'd be welcome!
|
|
|
Post by Jesse_Lackman on May 5, 2015 16:25:51 GMT -5
Matisse - no. Faune - no. SharonArnold - no. Maja - no Redback - no, no, no, no, etc Blacksheep - not condemned
Anyone else?
Elizabeth? Roselyn? Cherie?
|
|
|
Post by What Hat on May 5, 2015 16:49:59 GMT -5
Thanks Sharon. Quotes like the one in your second to last paragraph kill any desire I might have had to read the story. They are so untrue, yet are always stated as if they are universal bed rock truths. I don't see why so many authors critical of fellowship do that. In doing it so many of them become as judgmental as they portray the fellowship to be. I myself see the quoted paragraph as describing the general professing culture (not every single friend or worker). My personal conclusion is that most professing folks just want to "fit in" and would not stand up for what is right if it would cause them to be seen as trouble-makers by the rest of the fellowship. Sorry. I don't know how to say it in a more palatable way. I have found out that people either blindly accept whatever the workers say, or if they disagree with the workers, they don't say it openly. There is a fear of independent thinking and contradicting the workers that is very evident. Why, even we ourselves were told that they are "the anointed ones," so how could we dare contradict and openly disagree with them? Before anyone tells me how wrong I am, please describe a time you openly stood up for something you believed was right in opposition to the workers and how it was received. If there was never a need in your life for such an action, let me know and I can give you some material to research and inquire about from the workers. I would love to know what answers you get and how your questions were received. I'm not sure you can read too much in to what you observe. Do people stand up for their principles in the following situations: 1) Their boss at work tells a disgusting joke. 2) A close relative or a parent makes a racial slur. 3) A client on the golf course makes obscene, objectifying remarks about a female colleague. People often just let things go, especially when there is a power relationship involved: boss, parent, client. In these situations most people simply do not call out the offence because there is a cost involved. And as far as those who have some authority over you, workers are probably the easiest and least harmful to entreat. I don't think that a worker mis-speaking on a doctrinal issue compares with any of the other three situations I have described in terms of requiring courage to speak out. As far as the challenge in your last paragraph, that did happen to us and I believe to you also. I was a bit surprised with the result, but, oh well.
|
|
|
Post by What Hat on May 5, 2015 16:53:15 GMT -5
People in cults everywhere seem to take offense to their cults being called cults.... Such truth spoken by the Black Sheep within the Flock!&n The ones who aren't actually in a cult react even worse.
|
|
|
Post by CherieKropp on May 5, 2015 17:01:09 GMT -5
So are we 2x2's condemned to hell? Answer with a yes or no. No
|
|
|
Post by What Hat on May 5, 2015 17:06:02 GMT -5
I'm always curious what are the personal motivations that cause people to write books on their negative spiritual or religious experiences? In this case, I mean.
|
|
|
Post by blacksheep on May 5, 2015 17:21:44 GMT -5
The ones who aren't actually in a cult react even worse. There are two types of cultists: Those who say they are, and those who say they aren't....
|
|
|
Post by Roselyn T on May 5, 2015 17:31:41 GMT -5
Mary, a simple yes or no will work. Matisse - no. Faune - no. SharonArnold - no. Maja - no Redback - no, no, no, no, etc Anyone else? No !
|
|
|
Post by Roselyn T on May 5, 2015 17:33:14 GMT -5
Matisse - no. Faune - no. SharonArnold - no. Maja - no Redback - no, no, no, no, etc Blacksheep - not condemned Anyone else? Elizabeth? Roselyn? Cherie? NO !
|
|
|
Post by fixit on May 5, 2015 17:35:20 GMT -5
Although some may disagree with me, I feel this is the best description in laymen's terms as to what constitutes a Christian Bible cult, which is highlighted in BLUE at the conclusion of this descriptive paragraph below. Sorry, but I gave up on waiting for Review to answer my earlier inquiry regarding this topic other than by a diversion tactic from the question. WHAT IS A CULT?
"Everybody knows what cults are, right? They’re the Moonies or the Jim Jones type groups that brainwash their followers into doing weird things. Their beliefs are so strange that only a few really unstable people ever become involved with them. Right? Well, not exactly. The dynamics of a cult are much more complicated than that. The term "cult" can be traced to the Latin word "cultus." It is a very broad term referring to the rituals and liturgy associated with worship in general. Cult is often used interchangeably with sect. However, there are some important distinctions between the two. A sect is a subgroup of a religious body that continues to maintain its identity within the larger group. For instance, evangelicals are a sect within Christianity. However, a genuine cult usually isolates itself as much as possible from the rest of the world. Cults have existed for thousands of years and tend to flourish in times of social unrest. Many of these groups manage to operate well below the radar for decades until a disgruntled member calls in the media. The publicity received by destructive cults is often shocking and gruesome, thus the public's perception of cults is overwhelmingly negative. Unfortunately, many of the standards used to evaluate these groups are subjective at best. To complicate the matter even more, society has a tendency to view emerging movements as cultic and dangerous but then later chooses to embrace them if and when they become part of the mainstream culture. Mormons were once persecuted as a destructive cult but are now widely accepted by secular society. Journalists don’t necessarily view cults as a religious phenomenon, but see them as any sort of destructive organization operating outside of the acceptable standards of society. While it is true that most cults do have strong religious overtones, not all of them are of the pagan variety. A significant number of cults claim to be Christian. Dr. Alan W. Gomes, in Unmasking the Cults, defines a Christian cult as: "A cult of Christianity is a group of people, which claiming to be Christian, embraces a particular doctrinal system taught by an individual leader, group of leaders, or organization, which (system) denies (either explicitly or implicitly) one or more of the central doctrines of the Christian faith as taught in the sixty-six books of the Bible."
Christian cults promote a theology that minimizes sin, misinterprets Scripture and raises humanity to a place of equality with God. In Christian cults the writings of leaders are considered to be as authoritative as the Bible.
—Sandy BlankThe blue highlighted text is a very poor definition of cult and highlights the reason the word "cult" has become confusing and meaningless. To any objective onlooker it would be seen as bickering between Christians.
|
|