Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 27, 2015 3:24:12 GMT -5
Sorry, I have heard those two names also, just didn't realise they were Australian. However, nobody is backing up your claim that there is an active homosexual in the work in Australia at the present time. Felicity do you really think that anyone who still goes to meeting is going to say there is an active homosexual in the work !! Most definitely, if it were true. I mightn't post it on a public forum, but if I believed it was true of any worker in this country I'd contact our overseer.
|
|
|
Post by dmmichgood on May 27, 2015 4:20:54 GMT -5
Felicity do you really think that anyone who still goes to meeting is going to say there is an active homosexual in the work !! Most definitely, if it were true. I mightn't post it on a public forum, but if I believed it was true of any worker in this country I'd contact our overseer. You surely are jesting, right?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 27, 2015 4:30:48 GMT -5
Most definitely, if it were true. I mightn't post it on a public forum, but if I believed it was true of any worker in this country I'd contact our overseer. You surely are jesting, right?
No, not jesting. I'm pretty sure my grandmother would have said nothing if it happened in her day, but you wouldn't find many people around here who'd sit quiet if something like that was going on nowadays. If kittens had been able to back up Roselyn's claim I'm sure she would have said so.
|
|
|
Post by fixit on May 27, 2015 5:08:01 GMT -5
I don't know where you got that from. Sorry - I think I confused yours with something Wally said. Dale Schultz believes that it is always right to do what a worker says, whether it is the right thing to do or not. Yes, the Shultz doctrine is really scary. Hopefully he's moderated his position as he's matured.
|
|
|
Post by rational on May 27, 2015 7:03:16 GMT -5
Ah -- so even when god orders something that's not right, it is moral that god ordered it?? You're sounding like Dale Shultz now. Sin, common definition, is a knowledgeable act against the will of god. However, is the actor is god the action is never against the will of god so god cannot sin. Murder is illegal homicide. But if god commands it, the act is legal. Still homicide but now within the guideline of the ten commandments. So god commanding the killing of the woman and children is not against the commandment god gave earlier. Realistically, the commandment against killing is pretty far down the list - just before adultery!
|
|
|
Post by matisse on May 27, 2015 12:00:25 GMT -5
It was a fringe group, at best. Not representative of any "mainstream" LGBT movement or "agenda". Are they disbanded? Never said they were associated with LGBT. They actually were "shunned" by them for fear they would taint that group. Maybe they went 'underground' due to some "rumors" but I am thinking they are probably still working behind scenes. What is your point in bringing up NAMBLA?
|
|
|
Post by bubbles on May 27, 2015 12:05:56 GMT -5
This is no help whatsoever though to workers who practice homosexuality and can't marry. Yes but that is a secret. You are not supposed to know about curly!
|
|
|
Post by rational on May 27, 2015 14:47:36 GMT -5
Are they disbanded? Never said they were associated with LGBT. They actually were "shunned" by them for fear they would taint that group. Maybe they went 'underground' due to some "rumors" but I am thinking they are probably still working behind scenes. What is your point in bringing up NAMBLA? NAMBLA is often brought up just as Hitler is when the person can no longer thing of actual verifiable facts that support their premise. Susan Clancy was accused of supporting NAMBLA for presenting the data she found while researching her book, The Trauma Myth: The child betrayed.When Rind, Tromovitch, Bauserman, et al published their Meta-analytic examination of assumed properties of child sexual abuse they too were accused of pandering to child abusers and enabling child abuse. Because NAMBLA or any other group uses data to support their goals does not mean that the data should not be presented.
|
|
|
Post by SharonArnold on May 27, 2015 15:36:49 GMT -5
Sorry - I think I confused yours with something Wally said. Dale Schultz believes that it is always right to do what a worker says, whether it is the right thing to do or not. Yes, the Shultz doctrine is really scary. Hopefully he's moderated his position as he's matured. Hmmmm. He was pretty "mature" already when he expressed the above. Scarily enough. Even so, from my personal dealings with him, I still have a special spot in my heart for him. Go figure. I know a lot of people (including current members) who don't agree with me. If I was to attach a single label to him, I would choose "complex".
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 27, 2015 16:17:21 GMT -5
Today Irish voters voted overwhelmingly to legalise same sex marriage striking a blow against inequality and against those who claim God is on their side on this one. Now one can marry their partner irrespective of what gender they are. No longer can the state insist that gay people can only marry people of the gender they are not attracted to but not marry people of the gender they are attracted to. However one part of the island of Ireland (the North) continues to deny same sex couples the legal right to marry. Here the biggest political party continues to claim, somewhat absurdly, that God is opposed to homosexuality and therefore by denying gay couples the same rights as heterosexual couples they are doing the will of God. If God really does oppose same sex marriage then He was clearly not powerful enough to prevent the move to legalise it in that part of Ireland which voted overwhelmingly for it today. Another example of the diminishing power of God or perhaps God really doesn't give a hoot after all? Of course the big question for us is that if a legally married same sex couple attend a 2x2 mission in Ireland next year and feel moved to 'profess' what will the official 2x2 position on this be? Will they be accepted into the 2x2 fold as they are or will they be required to divorce prior to being baptised? Will they be allowed to remain married but required to take a vow of celibacy? Will they be prevented from 'professing' altogether and therefore condemned to a lost eternity? Perhaps this is an issue that 2x2 Workers participating on the board will be best placed to advise upon or, if unable to advise, will be well placed to obtain the views of their Irish co-workers on. Does the 2x2 church have a policy on same sex married couples wanting to profess or will they just make it up as they go along? Matt10 "Somewhat absurdly, that God is opposed to homosexuality". Do you think that God finds it acceptable? Read your Bible and you'll see that God finds it abhorrent. As for God preventing moves to legalise gay marriage, why would He prevent it? There's much He can prevent and doesn't because He gave mankind free will. Diminishing power of God? I'd hate to be the person that thinks that. And of course, there's your spiky little question about same sex couples being welcome in the meetings. If you ever attended the meetings, you'd know the answer. Openly practising gay people will not be allowed to profess in the meetings. Married same sex couples will not be allowed to profess in the meetings. Of course there are gay people professing in the meetings but they claim not to be practising and if they are secretly, then that's between them and God. Just because the state recognises same sex marriage, churches are not required to follow the ruling. Simple really and I'd have thought you would have known that. Now that I've finally got round to responding as I said I would ..... First, do I think God finds it acceptable? Personally I don't think God gives a hoot what anyone's sexual orientation is nor what one gets up to with one's partner in the bedroom. Do I think it bothers God one bit that two people who love each other and are committed to each other and who plan to live together and have sexual relations with each other and wish to get a little piece of paper from the state which says they are married and confers on them certain rights ... just like the two people who live in the house next door have a little piece of paper from the state which says they are married and confers on them certain rights? No. I don't. Secondly I don't believe that the bible really contains the views of God. I believe it merely contains the views of the men who ascribed their own views to their own God in their writing, views which reflected the customs and prejudices of the writers at the time. I actually find many of the views expressed in the bible a lot more abhorrent than the idea of two women I've never met signing a marriage register somewhere and having a nice day out. Thirdly, I would suggest that a reason God might prevent gay marriage could be that (according to many who post here) He finds it so abhorrent that he might wish to prevent such evil taking place. God has a history of ridding the earth of evil if one believes what is written in the bible. However I don't share their views and happen to believe that God would not wish to prevent gay marriage happening even if He could. As I said earlier, I don't believe God gives a hoot. I think 'free will' is merely a convenient way to explain away God's astonishing failure to intervene to prevent the worst evils in the world. He's either a good God and an all-powerful God or He's not. I see little to persuade me that he is therefore I have come to realise that he is not. Finally my spikey little question wasn't intended to be a spikey little question but rather was an attempt to highlight what is now a possible scenario, albeit an unlikely one. So thank you for providing a response. However I am aware of a gay couple continuing to profess while openly engaged in a relationship (albeit it not a blatantly open one) so the issue may not be quite as clear cut as you think. And of course things change over time. Only this week the Roman Catholic Archbishop of Dublin said the Catholic Church 'needs to take a reality check' following the referendum. I know they're not there yet, but who'd have thought? And of course the 2x2 Church changes its views on moral issues too. Who would have believed twenty years ago that television accessible iPads and iPhones would become standard issue equipment in a worker's suitcase? In my day having access to a telly in your home got you booted out. Matt10
|
|
|
Post by fixit on May 27, 2015 16:17:44 GMT -5
Yes, the Shultz doctrine is really scary. Hopefully he's moderated his position as he's matured. Hmmmm. He was pretty "mature" already when he expressed the above. Scarily enough. Even so, from my personal dealings with him, I still have a special spot in my heart for him. Go figure. I know a lot of people (including current members) who don't agree with me. If I was to attach a single label to him, I would choose "complex". I expect he means well, but he needs people who will question what he is saying. When he says people are to obey him and his colleagues even when they are wrong he has become a cult leader.
|
|
|
Post by SharonArnold on May 27, 2015 16:26:05 GMT -5
Hmmmm. He was pretty "mature" already when he expressed the above. Scarily enough. Even so, from my personal dealings with him, I still have a special spot in my heart for him. Go figure. I know a lot of people (including current members) who don't agree with me. If I was to attach a single label to him, I would choose "complex". I expect he means well, but he needs people who will question what he is saying. When he says people are to obey him and his colleagues even when they are wrong he has become a cult leader. Yeah. I know. Kinda like when Dale and Marlene Jordan were being excommunicated and Marlene raises the question of weren't they supposed to be "spirit-led". The answer was "Spirit-led, by us". That, to me, is a bit of an oxymoron. In lieu of that, just plain moronic.
|
|
|
Post by emy on May 27, 2015 17:26:07 GMT -5
Are they disbanded? Never said they were associated with LGBT. They actually were "shunned" by them for fear they would taint that group. Maybe they went 'underground' due to some "rumors" but I am thinking they are probably still working behind scenes. What is your point in bringing up NAMBLA? Why is it so difficult for people like you to understand that homosexuality is between consenting adults while a paedophile is a person who is sexually attracted to children, children which aren't able to give their consent? Ever heard of NAMBLA? The wheels are turning... The underlined is the reason I brought up NAMBLA. That group, what I know of it, DOES believe children can give consent, and if a child is not assaulted, no damage is done.
|
|
|
Post by fixit on May 27, 2015 17:58:13 GMT -5
I expect he means well, but he needs people who will question what he is saying. When he says people are to obey him and his colleagues even when they are wrong he has become a cult leader. Yeah. I know. Kinda like when Dale and Marlene Jordan were being excommunicated and Marlene raises the question of weren't they supposed to be "spirit-led". The answer was "Spirit-led, by us". That, to me, is a bit of an oxymoron. In lieu of that, just plain moronic. Can we be both Spirit-led and man-led? Can we rely on the men leading us to be 100% in line with the Spirit? If we're man-led by folks who are 100% in line with the Spirit, does that supersede being Spirit-led? Paul had a better approach: 1 Corinthians 7:39 A woman is bound to her husband as long as he lives. But if her husband dies, she is free to marry anyone she wishes, but he must belong to the Lord. 40 In my judgment, she is happier if she stays as she is—and I think that I too have the Spirit of God.
|
|
|
Post by matisse on May 27, 2015 17:59:27 GMT -5
What is your point in bringing up NAMBLA? Ever heard of NAMBLA? The wheels are turning... The underlined is the reason I brought up NAMBLA. That group, what I know of it, DOES believe children can give consent, and if a child is not assaulted, no damage is done. ...and you think this belief/practice is unique to NAMBLA and not to be found among heterosexual predators of children?
|
|
|
Post by emy on May 27, 2015 18:39:43 GMT -5
The underlined is the reason I brought up NAMBLA. That group, what I know of it, DOES believe children can give consent, and if a child is not assaulted, no damage is done. ...and you think this belief/practice is unique to NAMBLA and not to be found among heterosexual predators of children? I'm not aware that NAMBLA is limited to gay men. Is it? edit: Well, duh... I suppose man/boy should have given me a clue!
|
|
|
Post by snow on May 27, 2015 19:32:02 GMT -5
Yes, the Shultz doctrine is really scary. Hopefully he's moderated his position as he's matured. Hmmmm. He was pretty "mature" already when he expressed the above. Scarily enough. Even so, from my personal dealings with him, I still have a special spot in my heart for him. Go figure. I know a lot of people (including current members) who don't agree with me. If I was to attach a single label to him, I would choose "complex". Most people are 'complex'. I have worked with what many people consider the dregs of society and some of the things they have done have been horrific, but I have found out that isn't' only' who they are. Everyone has some redeeming qualities and most come with a lot of baggage.
|
|
|
Post by BobWilliston on May 28, 2015 1:07:25 GMT -5
Sorry - I think I confused yours with something Wally said. Dale Schultz believes that it is always right to do what a worker says, whether it is the right thing to do or not. Yes, the Shultz doctrine is really scary. Hopefully he's moderated his position as he's matured. Who said he matured? It was his discovery of the "doctrine" that got him promoted. He's at the top of the West Coast food chain now.
|
|
|
Post by BobWilliston on May 28, 2015 1:08:56 GMT -5
Felicity do you really think that anyone who still goes to meeting is going to say there is an active homosexual in the work !! Most definitely, if it were true. I mightn't post it on a public forum, but if I believed it was true of any worker in this country I'd contact our overseer. And do you know what would happen to you then?
|
|
|
Post by BobWilliston on May 28, 2015 1:13:32 GMT -5
Hmmmm. He was pretty "mature" already when he expressed the above. Scarily enough. Even so, from my personal dealings with him, I still have a special spot in my heart for him. Go figure. I know a lot of people (including current members) who don't agree with me. If I was to attach a single label to him, I would choose "complex". I expect he means well, but he needs people who will question what he is saying. When he says people are to obey him and his colleagues even when they are wrong he has become a cult leader. All abusers believe it is for the good of the abused. It means their ego is too active.
|
|
|
Post by BobWilliston on May 28, 2015 1:22:07 GMT -5
Yeah. I know. Kinda like when Dale and Marlene Jordan were being excommunicated and Marlene raises the question of weren't they supposed to be "spirit-led". The answer was "Spirit-led, by us". That, to me, is a bit of an oxymoron. In lieu of that, just plain moronic. Can we be both Spirit-led and man-led? Can we rely on the men leading us to be 100% in line with the Spirit? If we're man-led by folks who are 100% in line with the Spirit, does that supersede being Spirit-led? No. That doesn't supersede being Spirit-led. How are we to know that the man leading us is 100% in line with the Spirit if we are not ourselves 100% in line with the Spirit? The only prevention against being led astray is to be 100% spirit-led ourselves.
|
|
|
Post by BobWilliston on May 28, 2015 1:24:57 GMT -5
Ah -- so even when god orders something that's not right, it is moral that god ordered it?? You're sounding like Dale Shultz now. Sin, common definition, is a knowledgeable act against the will of god. However, is the actor is god the action is never against the will of god so god cannot sin. Murder is illegal homicide. But if god commands it, the act is legal. Still homicide but now within the guideline of the ten commandments. So god commanding the killing of the woman and children is not against the commandment god gave earlier. Realistically, the commandment against killing is pretty far down the list - just before adultery! The Nuremberg defense -- I like that.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 28, 2015 3:30:49 GMT -5
Paul had a better approach: 1 Corinthians 7:39 A woman is bound to her husband as long as he lives. But if her husband dies, she is free to marry anyone she wishes, but he must belong to the Lord. 40 In my judgment, she is happier if she stays as she is—and I think that I too have the Spirit of God. These are also Paul's words: "Be ye followers of me, even as I also am of Christ. " - 1 Cor 11 v 1
|
|
|
Post by fixit on May 28, 2015 4:24:40 GMT -5
Paul had a better approach: 1 Corinthians 7:39 A woman is bound to her husband as long as he lives. But if her husband dies, she is free to marry anyone she wishes, but he must belong to the Lord. 40 In my judgment, she is happier if she stays as she is—and I think that I too have the Spirit of God. These are also Paul's words: "Be ye followers of me, even as I also am of Christ. " - 1 Cor 11 v 1 I think what he was saying was "follow me, insomuch as I am following Christ" or "follow me, to the extent that I am following Christ".
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 28, 2015 4:27:54 GMT -5
These are also Paul's words: "Be ye followers of me, even as I also am of Christ. " - 1 Cor 11 v 1 I think what he was saying was "follow me, insomuch as I am following Christ" or "follow me, to the extent that I am following Christ". Yes, I would agree with that.
|
|
|
Post by snow on May 28, 2015 10:06:52 GMT -5
Paul had a better approach: 1 Corinthians 7:39 A woman is bound to her husband as long as he lives. But if her husband dies, she is free to marry anyone she wishes, but he must belong to the Lord. 40 In my judgment, she is happier if she stays as she is—and I think that I too have the Spirit of God. These are also Paul's words: "Be ye followers of me, even as I also am of Christ. " - 1 Cor 11 v 1 So that's how Christianity became more about what Paul said than what Christ said! Always wondered how that happened. Paul never met Christ and the apostles that did didn't agree with what Paul had to say for the most part.
|
|
|
Post by rational on May 28, 2015 11:02:25 GMT -5
Did you even notice that I have stated that I do not believe there is a lesbian slant that could be supported? You seemed to want to continue discussing it though so I decided to go along. Consider it practice! Yes I did, so why bring it up in the first place then. If you don't believe there is a lesbian slant in it? Because there are those who argue that there is a homosexual slant to it. You can't ignore the beliefs people might have just because you don't agree with them. Besides, you can learn a lot about a subject by taking the opposite side and trying to defend it.
|
|
|
Post by rational on May 28, 2015 11:11:05 GMT -5
Feels like you're really reaching here. You may have missed this part of one of my posts awhile back: This has been debated for centuries. I doubt there is a lesbian slant that could be supported.And then the following exchange: rational -> maryhig Did you even notice that I have stated that I do not believe there is a lesbian slant that could be supported? You seemed to want to continue discussing it though so I decided to go along. Consider it practice!maryhig -> rational Yes I did, so why bring it up in the first place then. If you don't believe there is a lesbian slant in it?Which I responded to minutes ago.
|
|