|
Post by maryhig on May 18, 2015 3:48:12 GMT -5
Hi, DMG firstly, the entire Jewish nation aren't necessarily the Jews. I spoke to a Jewish person once who told me that only the Jewish nation will receive revelation from God, I asked him "what about the Jewish unbelievers and the Jewish people who don't live right, you can't say they're going to receive revelation from God?" And they couldn't answer me. The true Jews include all those circumcised of the heart! Romans 2:28 For he is not a Jew, which is one outwardly; neither is that circumcision, which is outward in the flesh. But he is a Jew, which is one inwardly; and circumcision is that of the heart, in the spirit, and not in the letter; whose praise is not of men, but of God. And you will be able to tell anyone who is circumcised in the heart, because they will be following Jesus and they will be "suffering servants" denying the sins of the world just as Jesus did. Jesus came as a suffering servant to show Gods people how to live to please God. To suffer, and deny Satan in the heart and the sins of the flesh! And follow him. Jesus did come as a suffering servant, so will all the Jews of the circumsised heart that follow him! Which includes Christians! That isn't the point, Maryhig. It isn't about who is, or isn't, a Jew.
It is that piece of OT scripture has nothing to do with any prophecy concerning Jesus. It was a prophecy about the Jewish people, not Jesus. "After his death, the promoters of Christianity retroactively looked into the Bible and “applied” – through mistranslation and distortion of context – these biblical verses as referring to Jesus."
I believe it is about the prophecy of Jesus. Its just the messiah didn't come as the Jewish leaders expected him too! They expected him to come as a leader in their religion. And to free them from their enemies (I.e the Romans). But he came as a suffering servant of the people, giving everyone a chance including the gentiles. Suffering and denying Satan in his flesh, taking all that people and authorities threw at him and showed them love. Showing them all how to remove their enemies from within their hearts through self denial. Thus separating them from Satan! This is how Jesus suffered, and came to save the Jews from their enemies. Gods ways are different to man's ways! His mind is different to ours. What we expect to happen may not be the way God has planned it! Jesus is the messiah, he is the son of God! Messiah definition the promised deliverer of the Jewish nation prophesied in the Hebrew Bible. He is the deliverer, and if we follow him, he will deliver all of us, out of the hand of Satan, and into the hand of God! By helping us overcome Satan in our hearts by circumcision of the heart! Because those circumsised of the heart are the Jewish nation!
|
|
|
Post by Greg on May 18, 2015 4:29:03 GMT -5
Bring the lawyer on. I'll be glad to sit with him and present the facts to him. Pssst , , , ,, hey Bert , , , ,whatcha think?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 18, 2015 4:30:23 GMT -5
Ross, please give up. You are fighting a loosing battle. It is becoming annoying, we should all get back to the thread, " Cult to Christ", Elizabeth's book.
|
|
|
Post by Greg on May 18, 2015 4:33:05 GMT -5
Ross, please give up. You are fighting a loosing battle. It is becoming annoying, we should all get back to the thread, " Cult to Christ", Elizabeth's book. Is that suppose to happen? Admin will move or non-book related posts?
|
|
|
Post by whyisitso on May 18, 2015 4:53:42 GMT -5
professing.proboards.com/thread/22909/percy-watkins-funeral-notes?page=25This is where it all started - with the "dear father" post. But as indicated in the link you've deleted your post just as you deleted the post where you stated that I posted that my Dad died in a cult. And of course the post where you stated that my family members are in a cult is there for all to see. But you are not man enough to withdraw them. Instead you lie and deny that you ever posted them - a lie that remains on this Board. As you know the issue is not whether I've stated that the 2x2 church exhibits cult-like behaviour. Of course I've stated that and I've given examples. Why would I want to deny that? Why would I be worried if my family members read my posts - I post under the name of Ross Bowden - I don't have to live a double life. My family would be horrified at your deceitful behaviour of stating that I have posted something which I haven't. I'll tell them it's a worker and who it is. I'm sure my mother would be delighted that a senior worker has fraudulently posted that her son wrote that her husband died in a cult. Given the relationship I have with my Mum I know who she will believe and it won't be you. Likewise, my family members will be delighted that a senior worker has fraudulently posted that their brother has written that they are members of a cult. I know who they will believe and it won't be you. Likewise, your boss I'm sure will be delighted that you have fraudulently stated that I said something I didn't say. I'm sure he'll also be interested in how you target people and their families - not just ex-members but current members in some cases. I'm sure he would be delighted with what you call people - a list of which was compiled previously by myself and Dmmg. Ross. For someone who said the next communication with me would be off-line you are doing well for yourself online yet! It must 6-8 posts at least since then. Your accusation regarding a posting I deleted with mention of your father in it is just another of the false, baseless statement that I reject outright. You exercised your freedom of speech and made 'cult like behaviour ,etc statements' in your posts about the church.... The church your family still belong to and the one in which your dear father lived and died. You then have the audacity to frame an allegation that I am targeting your family! I was simply seeking to awaking you to the reality; the full implication of the posts you thoughtlessly and carelessly made. Your comment about my boss is noted. That tactic is known as coercion. I don't bow to your threats, your coercion, your attempt to shame or insult me nor I am troubled by the false baseless your multiple allegations which are baseless and without truth or substance. Your problem is this....You have no compunction is speaking about the church using the word cult/cult like behaviour. You are quite happy as long as your baseless insult using the 'cult' word is aimed at a general audience of whoever may read on this forum of friends and workers. You then 'squeal like a stuck pig' and make false accusations when you are reminded that the church you are giving cult labels to is also the church of your family....not just the general audience you so lightly thought you were casting it at. Quit yourself like a man and 'suck up' the quagmire you have got yourself into with your own foolish postings. Understanding you have reaped according to your sowing.
|
|
hberry
Senior Member
Posts: 743
|
Post by hberry on May 18, 2015 8:58:34 GMT -5
LOL: it looks like no one will be editing a certain post now; the picture's been taken!
|
|
|
Post by Jesse_Lackman on May 18, 2015 10:04:54 GMT -5
Ross I think you are getting mad because you know you can't defend posting things like you did about heresy and "deserve the nomenclature of cult". You know it's broad-brushing subjective nasty judgment, even if your family isn't reading the post. You know it's hard to reconcile that kind of nasty judgment with "one professing Godliness". You know that you can hardly write a post without some sort of subjective and judgmental dig about 2x2s. You know you are a better person than that. These things are true, and you know it. Don't get mad at others because of things you wrote! Jesse, why don't you quote all of what Ross said instead of what suits your argument ! "If they teach this about Jesus they deserve the nomenclature of a sect or cult. I prefer the former." You seem to have missed the words " I PREFER THE FORMER" I quoted the entire thing twice, and commented on "I PREFER THE FORMER". If the former "sect" is preferred why write the word cult at all?? Especially knowing your professing friends and family members are offended by the phrase "your church"? I can't reconcile that.
I never comment on family or those close to me here on TMB - a number of whom are professing. With my family I tend to use the term "your church". When I first left anything I used was offensive (particularly if I said your group) but I think they are roughly okay with "church".
|
|
|
Post by Jesse_Lackman on May 18, 2015 10:15:17 GMT -5
"Your church" is offensive because it's an inherently exclusive term. Interesting that people who leave because of exclusivity will use exclusive terms like that, let alone words like heresy, cult etc. People like that become what they criticize and never seem to realize it. I'm confused about how "your church" is an inherently exclusive term...if it isn't person A's church and it is person B's church, it seems appropriate...I would say "your church" in speaking with neighbors or most anyone, and they would say the same to me. What is a better term? It is especially tricky because there is no one official name that everyone agrees on. I'm really not trying to be antagonistic or defensive here. Actually want to know what would be the least offensive term to use, although I understand not everyone will agree, but would like to hear your thought, Jesse. I have never said "your church" to anyone, have you? It implies a clear separation, i.e. your church is NOT my church, like there is a great gulf between you and I. Separation is exclusive. If you need a phrase say "the friends". What is especially bad is saying "your church" to friends and family members in person then coming here and posting nasty stuff like this; I hold the strong view that 2x2 teaching on Jesus is heresy and increasingly becoming so. It is not that they just refute Jesus as God (which is heresy in itself) but they bring Jesus down even further by (over) emphasising His humanity at the expense of His divinity. While there is an element of truth in this (like there is in most heresies) when you look at it in the overall sense of who Christ is, it is absolute heresy. If they teach this about Jesus they deserve the nomenclature of a sect or cult. I prefer the former. The single biggest improvement that the F&W fellowship could make is what they teach - if you can't get it right on core Christian doctrine - you have nothing. How is that not saying those professing friends and family members are in a cult, sect, and have nothing??
|
|
|
Post by Lee on May 18, 2015 10:38:34 GMT -5
Here's what a cult is like: Resembles 2x2 separations.
|
|
|
Post by Lee on May 18, 2015 10:39:16 GMT -5
Can you accept that what Maryhig said is also true for a majority of the f&w? No
|
|
|
Post by Jesse_Lackman on May 18, 2015 11:05:28 GMT -5
I think the post Ross took exception to, was the same post I referred to comments I made to Review saying he was a nasty piece of work went something like this: (please note Review has since edited his post and it doesn't include these words anymore) Blah blah blah your dear dad in the church you call a cult blah blah blah I think it was incredibly insensitive for Review to say that about Ross's dad given that he'd passed away not even six months before as can be read in the 'funeral & death notice' section of this board. The use of those words by Review was only used to cut Ross down. It was completely disrespectful of Review and clearly hit a nerve with Ross, as it would for most people who'd just lost a parent. Regardless of what Review thinks of Ross personally this comment was absolutely uncalled for. I'm only sorry that that wasnt the comment I quoted as opposed to the one I did (Edited: page 4 on Percy Watkins thread) I felt shocked when I read it as I was aware Review was a worker and could not believe that would be how he would want to represent himself & the 'truth' on a public forum. Anyway, that's basically what started the back & forth with Ross & Review as far as I can gather. There was probably niggily stuff going on before then tho. (Also note, I don't know Ross, I met him once in Sydney back in the day, but I did read his notice about his dad's passing and obviously took from his words the great respect he had/has for his dad... That all got shat on by Reviews insensitivity...) This is amazing. Ross can say things like this; I hold the strong view that 2x2 teaching on Jesus is heresy and increasingly becoming so. It is not that they just refute Jesus as God (which is heresy in itself) but they bring Jesus down even further by (over) emphasising His humanity at the expense of His divinity. While there is an element of truth in this (like there is in most heresies) when you look at it in the overall sense of who Christ is, it is absolute heresy. If they teach this about Jesus they deserve the nomenclature of a sect or cult. I prefer the former. The single biggest improvement that the F&W fellowship could make is what they teach - if you can't get it right on core Christian doctrine - you have nothing. And gets a pass. What an awesome example of double standard. How is that post not "incredibly insensitive" - especially when Ross has posted about friends and family still in the fellowship?? People who were offended by the phrase "your church"? What Ross posted says those friends and family and members of the fellowship are in a cult, sect, are being taught absolute heresy, and have nothing. I find that quite disrespectful towards any who are in the fellowship.
|
|
|
Post by Jesse_Lackman on May 18, 2015 11:33:16 GMT -5
I agree with Brick, this post is as true today as it was in 2008; Almost a whole page of OH NO NO my church is not a cult --- You can't say that Oh No Oh, by all means, you can say that. And in saying it, you know that the term is offensive to members of the fellowship, whether it fits or not. Now with all that said, I get the distinct impression that the objective of those who openly call the 2x2 fellowship a "cult" is to cause offense and in some way, elevate their status above those brainwashed simpletons who are still in the "cult." This brainwashed simpleton offers you a simple reminder: Matthew 18:6But whoso shall offend one of these little ones which believe in me, it were better for him that a millstone were hanged about his neck, and that he were drowned in the depth of the sea.And also, Matthew 12:33-35 Either make the tree good, and his fruit good; or else make the tree corrupt, and his fruit corrupt: for the tree is known by his fruit. O generation of vipers, how can ye, being evil, speak good things? for out of the abundance of the heart the mouth speaketh. A good man out of the good treasure of the heart bringeth forth good things: and an evil man out of the evil treasure bringeth forth evil things.So you believe our fellowship is a cult, eh? You know the term is offensive to those who participate, but you deign to share your derision for us by posting insulting commentary. Well, thank you for sharing your enlightenment. You have provided a label for yourself as well. I'd include the rest of the verses in Matthew 18; Woe unto the world because of offences! for it must needs be that offences come; but woe to that man by whom the offence cometh! Wherefore if thy hand or thy foot offend thee, cut them off, and cast them from thee: it is better for thee to enter into life halt or maimed, rather than having two hands or two feet to be cast into everlasting fire. And if thine eye offend thee, pluck it out, and cast it from thee: it is better for thee to enter into life with one eye, rather than having two eyes to be cast into hell fire.
|
|
|
Post by withlove on May 18, 2015 12:51:51 GMT -5
I'm confused about how "your church" is an inherently exclusive term...if it isn't person A's church and it is person B's church, it seems appropriate...I would say "your church" in speaking with neighbors or most anyone, and they would say the same to me. What is a better term? It is especially tricky because there is no one official name that everyone agrees on. I'm really not trying to be antagonistic or defensive here. Actually want to know what would be the least offensive term to use, although I understand not everyone will agree, but would like to hear your thought, Jesse. I have never said "your church" to anyone, have you? It implies a clear separation, i.e. your church is NOT my church, like there is a great gulf between you and I. Separation is exclusive. If you need a phrase say "the friends". You're right. It does sound awkward. Only because I was once part of it...saying "your church" about a church you've never been a part of sounds totally different. Also because the friends don't prefer the word church. Thanks for your answer. I will try that. Although I'm worried it will sound too direct when I'm speaking about systematic things and not all the people...What is especially bad is saying "your church" to friends and family members in person then coming here and posting nasty stuff like this; I hold the strong view that 2x2 teaching on Jesus is heresy and increasingly becoming so. It is not that they just refute Jesus as God (which is heresy in itself) but they bring Jesus down even further by (over) emphasising His humanity at the expense of His divinity. While there is an element of truth in this (like there is in most heresies) when you look at it in the overall sense of who Christ is, it is absolute heresy. If they teach this about Jesus they deserve the nomenclature of a sect or cult. I prefer the former. The single biggest improvement that the F&W fellowship could make is what they teach - if you can't get it right on core Christian doctrine - you have nothing. How is that not saying those professing friends and family members are in a cult, sect, and have nothing?? This is really twisting things up.
If anyone who had family still in refrained from posting their views...there probably wouldn't be a message board. Ross can say how he feels about theology without it being a direct personal insult to any person, related or not.
He did say "if" twice. I take it to mean that there are teachings that could be corrected to make the word cult not apply. I said similar things myself while I was still in, although not about trinity and divinity.
|
|
|
Post by withlove on May 18, 2015 13:05:14 GMT -5
I agree with Brick, this post is as true today as it was in 2008; Oh, by all means, you can say that. And in saying it, you know that the term is offensive to members of the fellowship, whether it fits or not. Now with all that said, I get the distinct impression that the objective of those who openly call the 2x2 fellowship a "cult" is to cause offense and in some way, elevate their status above those brainwashed simpletons who are still in the "cult." This brainwashed simpleton offers you a simple reminder: Matthew 18:6But whoso shall offend one of these little ones which believe in me, it were better for him that a millstone were hanged about his neck, and that he were drowned in the depth of the sea.And also, Matthew 12:33-35 Either make the tree good, and his fruit good; or else make the tree corrupt, and his fruit corrupt: for the tree is known by his fruit. O generation of vipers, how can ye, being evil, speak good things? for out of the abundance of the heart the mouth speaketh. A good man out of the good treasure of the heart bringeth forth good things: and an evil man out of the evil treasure bringeth forth evil things.So you believe our fellowship is a cult, eh? You know the term is offensive to those who participate, but you deign to share your derision for us by posting insulting commentary. Well, thank you for sharing your enlightenment. You have provided a label for yourself as well. I'd include the rest of the verses in Matthew 18; Woe unto the world because of offences! for it must needs be that offences come; but woe to that man by whom the offence cometh! Wherefore if thy hand or thy foot offend thee, cut them off, and cast them from thee: it is better for thee to enter into life halt or maimed, rather than having two hands or two feet to be cast into everlasting fire. And if thine eye offend thee, pluck it out, and cast it from thee: it is better for thee to enter into life with one eye, rather than having two eyes to be cast into hell fire. I never use the word cult to hurt people--the opposite. I deeply feel for people in and people who might consider joining. I use it because I think it is a helpful label. Message boards create a dynamic very different from a one-on-one conversation...I wouldn't be throwing the word cult around when addressing an individual. Lots of touchy subjects and terms come up here, which is healthy. Jesus said lots of things that offended people, and he didn't sin in that. He had to say those things for their benefit and for the benefit of others. He loved their souls. We can take saving peoples' feelings too far when we withdraw important criticism. The petty insults are needless and unkind, of course.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 18, 2015 13:12:35 GMT -5
I never use the word cult to hurt people--the opposite. I deeply feel for people in and people who might consider joining. I use it because I think it is a helpful label. Message boards create a dynamic very different from a one-on-one conversation...I wouldn't be throwing the word cult around when addressing an individual. Lots of touchy subjects and terms come up here, which is healthy. Jesus said lots of things that offended people, and he didn't sin in that. He had to say those things for their benefit and for the benefit of others. He loved their souls. We can take saving peoples' feelings too far when we withdraw important criticism. The petty insults are needless and unkind, of course. Jesus spoke the truth and there were people offended by his words. How can you possibly compare that to offending people by speaking against truth, calling the way established by Jesus on earth a cult? That is not "rightly dividing the word of truth". And I'm saying that for your benefit, not to offend you in any way.
|
|
|
Post by Jesse_Lackman on May 18, 2015 13:24:06 GMT -5
This is really twisting things up.
If anyone who had family still in refrained from posting their views...there probably wouldn't be a message board. Ross can say how he feels about theology without it being a direct personal insult to any person, related or not.
He did say "if" twice. I take it to mean that there are teachings that could be corrected to make the word cult not apply. I said similar things myself while I was still in, although not about trinity and divinity. It's twisting nothing. Read the words in context. Ross is NOT using "if" in the sense of may or may not - he flatly states he holds the strong view 2x2 teaching on Jesus is "absolute" heresy, no "if" about it whatsoever. Then "if" [meaning "since it is"] heresy the 2x2s "deserve the nomenclature of a sect or cult", no doubt about that either. If [since it is] not getting core doctrine right, they have nothing. There is no twisting out of what the post actually says.
I hold the strong view that 2x2 teaching on Jesus is heresy and increasingly becoming so. It is not that they just refute Jesus as God (which is heresy in itself) but they bring Jesus down even further by (over) emphasising His humanity at the expense of His divinity. While there is an element of truth in this (like there is in most heresies) when you look at it in the overall sense of who Christ is, it is absolute heresy. If they teach this about Jesus they deserve the nomenclature of a sect or cult. I prefer the former. The single biggest improvement that the F&W fellowship could make is what they teach - if you can't get it right on core Christian doctrine - you have nothing.
|
|
|
Post by snow on May 18, 2015 13:37:45 GMT -5
I agree with Brick, this post is as true today as it was in 2008; I'd include the rest of the verses in Matthew 18; Woe unto the world because of offences! for it must needs be that offences come; but woe to that man by whom the offence cometh! Wherefore if thy hand or thy foot offend thee, cut them off, and cast them from thee: it is better for thee to enter into life halt or maimed, rather than having two hands or two feet to be cast into everlasting fire. And if thine eye offend thee, pluck it out, and cast it from thee: it is better for thee to enter into life with one eye, rather than having two eyes to be cast into hell fire. I never use the word cult to hurt people--the opposite. I deeply feel for people in and people who might consider joining. I use it because I think it is a helpful label. Message boards create a dynamic very different from a one-on-one conversation...I wouldn't be throwing the word cult around when addressing an individual. Lots of touchy subjects and terms come up here, which is healthy. Jesus said lots of things that offended people, and he didn't sin in that. He had to say those things for their benefit and for the benefit of others. He loved their souls. We can take saving peoples' feelings too far when we withdraw important criticism. The petty insults are needless and unkind, of course. It is completely possible Jesus was also wrong, ever think of that? Is it really worth the risk of hurting people's feelings for something no one can even prove it the truth?
|
|
|
Post by Jesse_Lackman on May 18, 2015 13:38:00 GMT -5
I agree with Brick, this post is as true today as it was in 2008; Almost a whole page of OH NO NO my church is not a cult --- You can't say that Oh No Oh, by all means, you can say that. And in saying it, you know that the term is offensive to members of the fellowship, whether it fits or not. Now with all that said, I get the distinct impression that the objective of those who openly call the 2x2 fellowship a "cult" is to cause offense and in some way, elevate their status above those brainwashed simpletons who are still in the "cult." This brainwashed simpleton offers you a simple reminder: Matthew 18:6But whoso shall offend one of these little ones which believe in me, it were better for him that a millstone were hanged about his neck, and that he were drowned in the depth of the sea.And also, Matthew 12:33-35 Either make the tree good, and his fruit good; or else make the tree corrupt, and his fruit corrupt: for the tree is known by his fruit. O generation of vipers, how can ye, being evil, speak good things? for out of the abundance of the heart the mouth speaketh. A good man out of the good treasure of the heart bringeth forth good things: and an evil man out of the evil treasure bringeth forth evil things.So you believe our fellowship is a cult, eh? You know the term is offensive to those who participate, but you deign to share your derision for us by posting insulting commentary. Well, thank you for sharing your enlightenment. You have provided a label for yourself as well. I'd include the rest of the verses in Matthew 18; Woe unto the world because of offences! for it must needs be that offences come; but woe to that man by whom the offence cometh! Wherefore if thy hand or thy foot offend thee, cut them off, and cast them from thee: it is better for thee to enter into life halt or maimed, rather than having two hands or two feet to be cast into everlasting fire. And if thine eye offend thee, pluck it out, and cast it from thee: it is better for thee to enter into life with one eye, rather than having two eyes to be cast into hell fire. I never use the word cult to hurt people--the opposite. I deeply feel for people in and people who might consider joining. I use it because I think it is a helpful label. Message boards create a dynamic very different from a one-on-one conversation...I wouldn't be throwing the word cult around when addressing an individual. Lots of touchy subjects and terms come up here, which is healthy. Jesus said lots of things that offended people, and he didn't sin in that. He had to say those things for their benefit and for the benefit of others. He loved their souls. We can take saving peoples' feelings too far when we withdraw important criticism. The petty insults are needless and unkind, of course. We are NOT Jesus. So you use the word cult withlove? How nice. It doesn't matter though. If in so doing you cause others to be offended, you are the person Jesus is talking about; "but woe to that man by whom the offence cometh!" It doesn't matter if you intended to offend or not. If what you want to say might cause someone to be offended - don't say it. If your hand might cause you to offend someone - don't type. If what your eyes see might cause you to offend someone - stop looking. That is how to really live the two commandments Jesus left.
|
|
|
Post by snow on May 18, 2015 13:58:37 GMT -5
Withlove : Why did you choose a poster name that is the antithesis of your posts? Review, she is loving and many of her posts reflect this. This one is an example, at least to me, of the negatives of believing in a God that could send you to hell for worshiping him the wrong way. In a round about crazy way, withlove thinks she is being loving because she cares about your souls and it's a serious issue for her that you get it right and not go to a lost eternity. My family tell me I'm going to hell and I need to give me life to Jesus etc., and they think they are being loving in doing this. And, in their own minds they are doing it out of love because they truly believe I am 'lost'. I imagine you believe that too but it's possible you'll just say 'you will leave it up to God to judge' if asked outright. But anyone who does not believe like someone else knows beyond a shadow of a doubt what the person with a different belief is thinking, right or wrong. Some are just more honest about it. One thing I respect about Withlove and Nathan is that they are at least honest about where they think those who do not believe as they do are going. Nathan tells me regularly I'm doomed and while it's rather frustrating at least it's honest. It's what he believes. Withlove obviously believes her doctrine is necessary and it shows that she loves those she doesn't respect the feelings of because there are more important things than protecting people's feelings in her opinion. She's being honest and loving in the way she knows how to be. As an atheist, I hear it all the time, think it's unfortunate, but it's what believers believe.
|
|
|
Post by withlove on May 18, 2015 13:58:51 GMT -5
I never use the word cult to hurt people--the opposite. I deeply feel for people in and people who might consider joining. I use it because I think it is a helpful label. Message boards create a dynamic very different from a one-on-one conversation...I wouldn't be throwing the word cult around when addressing an individual. Lots of touchy subjects and terms come up here, which is healthy. Jesus said lots of things that offended people, and he didn't sin in that. He had to say those things for their benefit and for the benefit of others. He loved their souls. We can take saving peoples' feelings too far when we withdraw important criticism. The petty insults are needless and unkind, of course. Jesus spoke the truth and there were people offended by his words. How can you possibly compare that to offending people by speaking against truth, calling the way established by Jesus on earth a cult? That is not "rightly dividing the word of truth". And I'm saying that for your benefit, not to offend you in any way. We just have different ideas of what truth is, Felicity. I feel I am speaking the truth. No offense taken.
|
|
|
Post by withlove on May 18, 2015 14:16:01 GMT -5
Withlove : Why did you choose a poster name that is the antithesis of your posts? Review, she is loving and many of her posts reflect this. This one is an example, at least to me, of the negatives of believing in a God that could send you to hell for worshiping him the wrong way. In a round about crazy way, withlove thinks she is being loving because she cares about your souls and it's a serious issue for her that you get it right and not go to a lost eternity. My family tell me I'm going to hell and I need to give me life to Jesus etc., and they think they are being loving in doing this. And, in their own minds they are doing it out of love because they truly believe I am 'lost'. I imagine you believe that too but it's possible you'll just say 'you will leave it up to God to judge' if asked outright. But anyone who does not believe like someone else knows beyond a shadow of a doubt what the person with a different belief is thinking, right or wrong. Some are just more honest about it. One thing I respect about Withlove and Nathan is that they are at least honest about where they think those who do not believe as they do are going. Nathan tells me regularly I'm doomed and while it's rather frustrating at least it's honest. It's what he believes. Withlove obviously believes her doctrine is necessary and it shows that she loves those she doesn't respect the feelings of because there are more important things than protecting people's feelings in her opinion. She's being honest and loving in the way she knows how to be. As an atheist, I hear it all the time, think it's unfortunate, but it's what believers believe. Thank you, snow. I didn't mean to imply that people in cults are going to hell. I do think there is a line leaders cross when they become more of a false prophet than a victim, and those people would be more likely candidates. I don't have an exclusive view as far as between Christian although I know so little about anything outside of the friends at this point. I do believe that Christians are the ones heaven will accept but there is SO MUCH I don't understand and I know God loves a tender, honest heart and that is what I see in people who are in, out, and in between. I really do love. That's what drives me here. I imagine that the friends who post here are driven by their love also. Same with exes. We are standing up for our causes because they mean something to us and we hope to make a difference and share truths. Love makes people angry and protective and defensive sometimes.
|
|
|
Post by dmmichgood on May 18, 2015 14:21:06 GMT -5
Ross. For someone who said the next communication with me would be off-line you are doing well for yourself online yet! It must 6-8 posts at least since then. Your accusation regarding a posting I deleted with mention of your father in it is just another of the false, baseless statement that I reject outright. You exercised your freedom of speech and made 'cult like behaviour ,etc statements' in your posts about the church.... The church your family still belong to and the one in which your dear father lived and died. You then have the audacity to frame an allegation that I am targeting your family! I was simply seeking to awaking you to the reality; the full implication of the posts you thoughtlessly and carelessly made. Your comment about my boss is noted. That tactic is known as coercion. I don't bow to your threats, your coercion, your attempt to shame or insult me nor I am troubled by the false baseless your multiple allegations which are baseless and without truth or substance. Your problem is this....You have no compunction is speaking about the church using the word cult/cult like behaviour. You are quite happy as long as your baseless insult using the 'cult' word is aimed at a general audience of whoever may read on this forum of friends and workers. You then 'squeal like a stuck pig' and make false accusations when you are reminded that the church you are giving cult labels to is also the church of your family....not just the general audience you so lightly thought you were casting it at. Quit yourself like a man and 'suck up' the quagmire you have got yourself into with your own foolish postings. Understanding you have reaped according to your sowing. Hey! What a great idea, whyisitso! By just copying review005's whole post there is now a record of what he says and he can't go back & delete it!
I noted that Ross did the same.
|
|
|
Post by withlove on May 18, 2015 14:31:03 GMT -5
We are NOT Jesus. So you use the word cult withlove? How nice. It doesn't matter though. If in so doing you cause others to be offended, you are the person Jesus is talking about; "but woe to that man by whom the offence cometh!" It doesn't matter if you intended to offend or not. If what you want to say might cause someone to be offended - don't say it. If your hand might cause you to offend someone - don't type. If what your eyes see might cause you to offend someone - stop looking. That is how to really live the two commandments Jesus left. I don't think Jesus is the only one who should call out false prophets or problems in the temple, etc. Paul didn't think so either. At some point there is a decision to be made--will there be more hurt cause by exposing or hiding? Maybe I will stop using the c word in the presence of believers so that I don't hurt their feelings. I have heard from cult experts that it doesn't help to use that kind of language with someone who is in. I'm surprisingly nice and not into tough love. However my feeling is that people who might be researching the friends before they join should be aware of the things that the friends don't like to hear but are true. Can you see my dilemma?
|
|
|
Post by snow on May 18, 2015 14:35:12 GMT -5
Review, she is loving and many of her posts reflect this. This one is an example, at least to me, of the negatives of believing in a God that could send you to hell for worshiping him the wrong way. In a round about crazy way, withlove thinks she is being loving because she cares about your souls and it's a serious issue for her that you get it right and not go to a lost eternity. My family tell me I'm going to hell and I need to give me life to Jesus etc., and they think they are being loving in doing this. And, in their own minds they are doing it out of love because they truly believe I am 'lost'. I imagine you believe that too but it's possible you'll just say 'you will leave it up to God to judge' if asked outright. But anyone who does not believe like someone else knows beyond a shadow of a doubt what the person with a different belief is thinking, right or wrong. Some are just more honest about it. One thing I respect about Withlove and Nathan is that they are at least honest about where they think those who do not believe as they do are going. Nathan tells me regularly I'm doomed and while it's rather frustrating at least it's honest. It's what he believes. Withlove obviously believes her doctrine is necessary and it shows that she loves those she doesn't respect the feelings of because there are more important things than protecting people's feelings in her opinion. She's being honest and loving in the way she knows how to be. As an atheist, I hear it all the time, think it's unfortunate, but it's what believers believe. Thank you, snow. I didn't mean to imply that people in cults are going to hell. I do think there is a line leaders cross when they become more of a false prophet than a victim, and those people would be more likely candidates. I don't have an exclusive view as far as between Christian although I know so little about anything outside of the friends at this point. I do believe that Christians are the ones heaven will accept but there is SO MUCH I don't understand and I know God loves a tender, honest heart and that is what I see in people who are in, out, and in between. I really do love. That's what drives me here. I imagine that the friends who post here are driven by their love also. Same with exes. We are standing up for our causes because they mean something to us and we hope to make a difference and share truths. Love makes people angry and protective and defensive sometimes. I know you probably don't see it the way I do, but if you don't see people with different doctrine as 'not going to hell', then is it really necessary to change their beliefs by going to the lengths of using the word 'cult'? That's what I have not been understanding about this whole conversation really. Jesse outright asked everyone if he was going to hell for believing what he believes and everyone said 'no'. So why is it necessary to change his belief at all if hell is not a threat? That is what I don't understand about all this. If they are happy in their church believing what they believe and there is no threat to their final destination being heaven, then why is it necessary to call what they believe cult like behaviors or outright 'cult'? I could understand why Christians might believe all other religions are 'lost' and going to hell, but denominations within Christianity still follow the Christian God and Jesus and worship them or at least feel they are divine. Anyway, it's not for me to understand.
|
|
|
Post by snow on May 18, 2015 14:38:40 GMT -5
Snow appreciate your post, I see now what you and withlove understand as love. I notice this is common to some but thankfully just a small number of ex members.....each to their own! Well, I recognize it as them thinking it's loving. For me I don't find it all that loving. But I do accept that it is being done with the best of intentions.
|
|
|
Post by Jesse_Lackman on May 18, 2015 14:50:34 GMT -5
We are NOT Jesus. So you use the word cult withlove? How nice. It doesn't matter though. If in so doing you cause others to be offended, you are the person Jesus is talking about; "but woe to that man by whom the offence cometh!" It doesn't matter if you intended to offend or not. If what you want to say might cause someone to be offended - don't say it. If your hand might cause you to offend someone - don't type. If what your eyes see might cause you to offend someone - stop looking. That is how to really live the two commandments Jesus left. I don't think Jesus is the only one who should call out false prophets or problems in the temple, etc. Paul didn't think so either. At some point there is a decision to be made--will there be more hurt cause by exposing or hiding? Maybe I will stop using the c word in the presence of believers so that I don't hurt their feelings. I have heard from cult experts that it doesn't help to use that kind of language with someone who is in. I'm surprisingly nice and not into tough love. However my feeling is that people who might be researching the friends before they join should be aware of the things that the friends don't like to hear but are true. Can you see my dilemma? I can see your dilemma. I know how good it feels to judge others thinking we are so much better, "The Pharisee stood and prayed thus with himself, God, I thank thee, that I am not as other men are". That's an all too common human failure. And it is a failure. I think the safest thing to do is not judge, follow what Jesus said about offending others, and live the two commandments he left. Neither commandment includes calling others a cult, their teaching absolute heresy, and stating that because of the heresy they have nothing. God will judge - we are not God. Love 'em all and let God sort 'em, out.
|
|
|
Post by Jesse_Lackman on May 18, 2015 14:56:02 GMT -5
I know you probably don't see it the way I do, but if you don't see people with different doctrine as 'not going to hell', then is it really necessary to change their beliefs by going to the lengths of using the word 'cult'? That's what I have not been understanding about this whole conversation really. Jesse outright asked everyone if he was going to hell for believing what he believes and everyone said 'no'. So why is it necessary to change his belief at all if hell is not a threat? That is what I don't understand about all this. If they are happy in their church believing what they believe and there is no threat to their final destination being heaven, then why is it necessary to call what they believe cult like behaviors or outright 'cult'? I could understand why Christians might believe all other religions are 'lost' and going to hell, but denominations within Christianity still follow the Christian God and Jesus and worship them or at least feel they are divine. Anyway, it's not for me to understand. I would never call you "unjust" or a "child of the world" but...
|
|
|
Post by withlove on May 18, 2015 14:57:18 GMT -5
Thank you, snow. I didn't mean to imply that people in cults are going to hell. I do think there is a line leaders cross when they become more of a false prophet than a victim, and those people would be more likely candidates. I don't have an exclusive view as far as between Christian although I know so little about anything outside of the friends at this point. I do believe that Christians are the ones heaven will accept but there is SO MUCH I don't understand and I know God loves a tender, honest heart and that is what I see in people who are in, out, and in between. I really do love. That's what drives me here. I imagine that the friends who post here are driven by their love also. Same with exes. We are standing up for our causes because they mean something to us and we hope to make a difference and share truths. Love makes people angry and protective and defensive sometimes. I know you probably don't see it the way I do, but if you don't see people with different doctrine as 'not going to hell', then is it really necessary to change their beliefs by going to the lengths of using the word 'cult'? That's what I have not been understanding about this whole conversation really. Jesse outright asked everyone if he was going to hell for believing what he believes and everyone said 'no'. So why is it necessary to change his belief at all if hell is not a threat? That is what I don't understand about all this. If they are happy in their church believing what they believe and there is no threat to their final destination being heaven, then why is it necessary to call what they believe cult like behaviors or outright 'cult'? I could understand why Christians might believe all other religions are 'lost' and going to hell, but denominations within Christianity still follow the Christian God and Jesus and worship them or at least feel they are divine. Anyway, it's not for me to understand. I understand what you mean. Yeah, it's not about theology for me with the friends (that is subject to change, I suppose, as I learn more of other forms of Christianity). I am concerned about the behavior, information, thinking and emotion control (which are present in non-religious cults). I wouldn't try to hound any one person about seeing the issues but this is a message board where the information should be freely presented. I don't think the denomination is without God. If the bad parts can be fixed, that's great.
|
|