|
Post by Lee on Jun 26, 2015 21:21:26 GMT -5
I don't understand your response. My position is that the counter cult movement offers a useful criteria to determine a cult, or what is cult-like, irrespective of their religious persuasion or bias. Right, so you're not prepared to use your own dictum, "to ask questions to assess the power dynamics of the organization", why would you expect anyone else to? I am prepared. Throughout the ages God has used imperfect organizations to judge other organizations including his own, i.e. the nation of Israel.
|
|
|
Post by What Hat on Jun 26, 2015 21:27:57 GMT -5
Whathat, it is rather hard for me to understand why you ever left the group, or why you do not return and reprofess. In fact, it is amazing to me that you have left and have not returned, but then how does anyone know for sure? (Shrug.) Well I was pushed out as much as I left, Dennis. But do you think a universalist Christian like myself would do well among the friends?
|
|
|
Post by What Hat on Jun 26, 2015 21:30:26 GMT -5
Right, so you're not prepared to use your own dictum, "to ask questions to assess the power dynamics of the organization", why would you expect anyone else to? I am prepared. Throughout the ages God has used imperfect organizations to judge other organizations including his own, i.e. the nation of Israel. Of the counter-cult movement, I mean.
|
|
|
Post by Lee on Jun 26, 2015 22:03:41 GMT -5
I am prepared. Throughout the ages God has used imperfect organizations to judge other organizations including his own, i.e. the nation of Israel. Of the counter-cult movement, I mean. I know how, by and large, they have everyone damned to hell. I know roughly, that can equate to unholy politics. Nevertheless, the inquiries/questions they suggest asking of a cult or possible, cult-structure are universally helpful.
|
|
|
Post by What Hat on Jun 26, 2015 23:34:03 GMT -5
Of the counter-cult movement, I mean. I know how, by and large, they have everyone damned to hell. I know roughly, that can equate to unholy politics. Nevertheless, the inquiries/questions they suggest asking of a cult or possible, cult-structure are universally helpful. Did you see the list I provided a few posts back? Quite different, IMO. I'll try to add a link here when I get back on my computer.
|
|
|
Post by dmmichgood on Jun 27, 2015 0:04:18 GMT -5
Religious exclusivism is the doctrine or belief that "only one particular religion or belief system is true."
The whole of Christianity is about being the "only one particular religion or belief system is true!" and every other religion is false!
Yet each denomination of Christianity believes that they are "only one particular religion or belief system that is true! and looks at the other denominations as false.
(2x2's looks at all other churches as false, and all other churches looks at them as false, as well as they also look at one another as "false")
Geeze! what a great big happy (but exclusive) family of god!
"-eh, sorry? I didn't hear, - which god did you say that was?"
"Oh, yeh, -right ! You mean that cult!"
|
|
|
Post by Lee on Jun 27, 2015 0:47:02 GMT -5
I know how, by and large, they have everyone damned to hell. I know roughly, that can equate to unholy politics. Nevertheless, the inquiries/questions they suggest asking of a cult or possible, cult-structure are universally helpful. Did you see the list I provided a few posts back? Quite different, IMO. I'll try to add a link here when I get back on my computer. I briefly looked at gotanswers.org Looks like they're offering coke there over a full meal.
|
|
|
Post by magpie on Jun 27, 2015 4:18:55 GMT -5
Dear Dmmichgood---You are so so wrong,we worship in a great ecumenical fellowship. We integrate with most other churches in our suburb and city
|
|
|
Post by What Hat on Jun 27, 2015 5:04:14 GMT -5
Religious exclusivism is the doctrine or belief that "only one particular religion or belief system is true."
The whole of Christianity is about being the "only one particular religion or belief system is true!" and every other religion is false!
Yet each denomination of Christianity believes that they are "only one particular religion or belief system that is true! and looks at the other denominations as false.
(2x2's looks at all other churches as false, and all other churches looks at them as false, as well as they also look at one another as "false")
Geeze! what a great big happy (but exclusive) family of god!
"-eh, sorry? I didn't hear, - which god did you say that was?"
"Oh, yeh, -right ! You mean that cult!"
A lot of what people believe is at best a guess, and then we write books, build universities and even kill and fight wars about things that are at best a guess.
|
|
|
Post by fixit on Jun 27, 2015 5:13:26 GMT -5
Exclusivsm is a CULT. .Go to "worker friend and ex board" site and read the "Letter of Concern",a judgement written by "Leroy Lerwick". Read "ALL" the following comments as one put it He has in his own words condemned "Seven Billion to Hell" . A judgemental ignorant teaching as it's founder William Irvine. Compassionless selfrightousness. Do you support such as Leroy's letter,if you do you are supporting condemning "Seven Billion" to an eternity in "Hell",you are then of the judgemental "Secret Sect",Christian Conventions (as registered here),"CULT". If exclusivism is a cult, then most Christians are in a cult. Where do most Christians expect the seven billion people on earth to spend eternity?
|
|
|
Post by Mary on Jun 27, 2015 5:16:56 GMT -5
WhatHat many churches have democraticly elected ministers. Many churches choose a pastor and ask him if he would like to come. I say him because I do not believe that women pastors are Biblical. I was put off women preachers in meetings. They were so boring, dead and dowdy. No credit to the God they profess to serve.
|
|
|
Post by What Hat on Jun 27, 2015 5:18:14 GMT -5
Did you see the list I provided a few posts back? Quite different, IMO. I'll try to add a link here when I get back on my computer. I briefly looked at gotanswers.org Looks like they're offering coke there over a full meal. Sorry I can't link on my phone. Here is a reasonable schema providing sociological based evaluation criteria for a harmful social group. Each criteria can be ranked subjectively on a scale of 1 to 10. Although the author provides a framework for evaluation, he provides no point at which a harmful group is definitively a cult. 1. Internal Control: Amount of internal political and social power exercised by leader(s) over members; lack of clearly defined organizational rights for members. 2. External Control: Amount of external political and social influence desired or obtained; emphasis on directing members’ external political and social behavior. 3. Wisdom/Knowledge Claimed by leader(s); amount of infallibility declared or implied about decisions or doctrinal/scriptural interpretations; number and degree of unverified and/or unverifiable credentials claimed. 4. Wisdom/Knowledge Credited to leader(s) by members; amount of trust in decisions or doctrinal/scriptural interpretations made by leader(s); amount of hostility by members towards internal or external critics and/or towards verification efforts. 5 Dogma: Rigidity of reality concepts taught; amount of doctrinal inflexibility or “fundamentalism;” hostility towards relativism and situationalism. 6 Recruiting: Emphasis put on attracting new members; amount of proselytizing; requirement for all members to bring in new ones. 7 Front Groups: Number of subsidiary groups using different names from that of main group, especially when connections are hidden. 8 Wealth: Amount of money and/or property desired or obtained by group; emphasis on members’ donations; economic lifestyle of leader(s) compared to ordinary members. 9 Sexual Manipulation of members by leader(s) of non-tantric groups; amount of control exercised over sexuality of members in terms of sexual orientation, behavior, and/or choice of partners. 10 Sexual Favoritism: Advancement or preferential treatment dependent upon sexual activity with the leader(s) of non-tantric groups. 11 Censorship: Amount of control over members’ access to outside opinions on group, its doctrines or leader(s). 12 Isolation: Amount of effort to keep members from communicating with non-members, including family, friends and lovers. 13 Dropout Control: Intensity of efforts directed at preventing or returning dropouts. 14 Violence: Amount of approval when used by or for the group, its doctrines or leader(s). 15 Paranoia: Amount of fear concerning real or imagined enemies; exaggeration of perceived power of opponents; prevalence of conspiracy theories. 16 Grimness: Amount of disapproval concerning jokes about the group, its doctrines or its leader(s). 17 Surrender of Will: Amount of emphasis on members not having to be responsible for personal decisions; degree of individual disempowerment created by the group, its doctrines or its leader(s). 18 Hypocrisy: amount of approval for actions which the group officially considers immoral or unethical, when done by or for the group, its doctrines or leader(s); willingness to violate the group’s declared principles for political, psychological, social, economic, military, or other gain. (Source - www.neopagan.net/ABCDEF.html ) On some of these points the friends will score high, but it's the overall picture that is important. Actually, a group that scores very low in aggregate probably has issues of another kind.
|
|
|
Post by What Hat on Jun 27, 2015 5:25:02 GMT -5
WhatHat many churches have democraticly elected ministers. Many churches choose a pastor and ask him if he would like to come. I say hin because I do not believe that women pastors are Biblical. I was put off women preachers in meetings. They were so boring, dead and dowdy. No credit to the God they profess to serve. Yes I know how the 'call' process works. They are not voted to become minister, they already are ministers before being called. It would be akin to the Prime Minister appointing 400 MPs, letting the electorate decide which appointment represents their riding, and then calling that a democracy.In Canada our Senate works on this basis, and what a farce that is. But I digress. The elders should have more power. According to Acts 6 they should administer the natural needs of the church while the ministers look after spiritual needs. Men can be just as boring as the women preachers, in any church. A really tough call, that one.
|
|
|
Post by Greg on Jun 27, 2015 5:27:21 GMT -5
WhatHat wrote: And I appreciate also from hearing testimonies over the years, that many friends were like us, not really feeling at home in any other church. What, the majority of the friends have never had any thing to do with other churches. They were born and raised in the fellowship. They all started outside at some point. And children of the third and fourth generation will re-tell the testimony of their forefathers (and mothers). I think Mary is correct. The first generation started outside the F&W church because it was just beginning, of course. Subsequent generations really did not start out side of the F&W church and likely had little to no involvement with other churches. What they know or think they know most probably came from their parents and the workers and what little study a few might have done (including conversations with people they know in other churches). Indoctrination likely will make certain things more comfortable, easier to accept and certain things less comfortable, harder to accept. There is "Give me a child for his first seven years and I'll give you the man". And I am reminded of reading that for years after World War II Russian mothers would take their children to cemeteries and tell their children "The Germans did this."
|
|
|
Post by Mary on Jun 27, 2015 5:29:11 GMT -5
WhatHat, it is the same as when someone applies for a job. The people choose who they want.
Some churches do not have trained ministers but people with the gifts that are needed.
|
|
|
Post by What Hat on Jun 27, 2015 5:38:09 GMT -5
They all started outside at some point. And children of the third and fourth generation will re-tell the testimony of their forefathers (and mothers). I think Mary is correct. The first generation started outside the F&W church because it was just beginning, of course. Subsequent generations really did not start out side of the F&W church and likely had little to no involvement with other churches. What they know or think they know most probably came from their parents and the workers and what little study a few might have done (including conversations with people they know in other churches). Indoctrination likely will make certain things more comfortable, easier to accept and certain things less comfortable, harder to accept. There is "Give me a child for his first seven years and I'll give you the man". And I am reminded of reading that for years after World War II Russian mothers would take their children to cemeteries and tell their children "The Germans did this." This is absurd in terms of our experience and that of many friends in recent decades who professed through the gospel mtg experience. Read my response to Nathan.
|
|
|
Post by What Hat on Jun 27, 2015 5:48:11 GMT -5
WhatHat, it is the same as when someone applies for a job. The people choose who they want. Some churches do not have trained ministers but people with the gifts that are needed. Correct. Businesses are not democracies and ministries are not either. Many churches do have elected boards and I have commented favourably on its value from a governance perspective previously. At this point we're going around in circles, and I may not comment on all posts at the risk of repeating myself. I know the repetition is inadvertent as there is now a lot of reading on this thread and posters can't be expected to read what has come before when the greatest urge is to write, not read. I don't wish to compound the problem by making the thread even longer and more repetitive and resistant to reading, so I may not answer every post if the issue is a repeat.
|
|
|
Post by magpie on Jun 27, 2015 7:19:29 GMT -5
Dmmich Wow i mucked that one up. I missread your entry I was so angry by the time I got to yours. Please forgive me for this blunder. Sorry again Magpie
|
|
|
Post by magpie on Jun 27, 2015 7:30:31 GMT -5
Hitler was responsable for millions and millions of physical deaths. Now is exclusivism better or worse? Seven billion people as Leroy lerwick stated in the letter, posted on Worker friends and ex board,are going to a spiritual death,all,yes all going to hell.I hope all suporters of 2x2s realise he has dropped them into this judgement. (though shall not jugde,lest you be judged).
|
|
|
Post by Greg on Jun 27, 2015 7:31:25 GMT -5
I think Mary is correct. The first generation started outside the F&W church because it was just beginning, of course. Subsequent generations really did not start out side of the F&W church and likely had little to no involvement with other churches. What they know or think they know most probably came from their parents and the workers and what little study a few might have done (including conversations with people they know in other churches). Indoctrination likely will make certain things more comfortable, easier to accept and certain things less comfortable, harder to accept. There is "Give me a child for his first seven years and I'll give you the man". And I am reminded of reading that for years after World War II Russian mothers would take their children to cemeteries and tell their children "The Germans did this." This is absurd in terms of our experience and that of many friends in recent decades who professed through the gospel mtg experience. Read my response to Nathan. I think we cannot correctly imprint our personal experience on others who have joined the F&W, especially not the far more many that were born and raised in the church as opposed to the few in the last 30-40 years in the USA and Canada that professed from outside the influence of professing family and workers and all the meetings. Which response to Nathan?
|
|
|
Post by Greg on Jun 27, 2015 7:35:57 GMT -5
Ten reasons why some think the friends and workers are not a cult. 1 - They are one of the friends and workers. 2 - They wish they could be one of the friends and workers. 3 - They like the friends and workers. 4 - They just do not think they are. 5 - They like the meeting in the home. 6 - They like convention. 7 - They like the form of ministry. 8 - They like the low financial cost of belonging. 9 - They really, really like the friends and workers. 10 - They really, really wish they could be one of the friends and workers.
|
|
|
Post by Greg on Jun 27, 2015 7:41:47 GMT -5
Hitler was responsable for millions and millions of physical deaths. Now is exclusivism better or worse? Seven billion people as Leroy lerwick stated in the letter, posted on Worker friends and ex board,are going to a spiritual death,all,yes all going to hell.I hope all suporters of 2x2s realise he has dropped them into this judgement. (though shall not jugde,lest you be judged). I do not know if the citation above actually indicates a belief that seven billion people are condemned for a spiritual death because they do not profess. Even if it does, keep in mind . . . deniability. That belief is not a official position of the friends and workers, few if any things are. Easy to dismiss such a position as "that's just his opinion." And should you counter with "shouldn't the friends and workers be of one mind, be in agreement." There is always the response of "those of one mind in Christ did not always agree in the New Testamnet" and "some are further along on their spiritual journey than others."
|
|
|
Post by What Hat on Jun 27, 2015 13:02:08 GMT -5
Hitler was responsable for millions and millions of physical deaths. Now is exclusivism better or worse? Seven billion people as Leroy lerwick stated in the letter, posted on Worker friends and ex board,are going to a spiritual death,all,yes all going to hell.I hope all suporters of 2x2s realise he has dropped them into this judgement. (though shall not jugde,lest you be judged). Leroy is just the messenger, my friend. You are comparing Hitler and God, not Hitler and Leroy Lerwick. Just to make you feel a little better, I don't think God is going to act on the advice of the workers, or the Pope, either, for that matter,
|
|
|
Post by What Hat on Jun 27, 2015 13:06:13 GMT -5
Ten reasons why some think the friends and workers are a cult. 1 - They are one not of the friends and workers. 2 - They wish they were not one of the friends and workers. 3 - They do not like the friends and workers. 4 - They just do not think they are. 5 - They do not like the meeting in the home. 6 - They do not like convention. 7 - They do not like the form of ministry. 8 - They do not like the low financial cost of belonging. 9 - They really, really do not like the friends and workers. 10 - They really, really do not wish they could be one of the friends and workers. 11 - I do not like green eggs and ham. That's far below your usual calibre of post, Greg.
|
|
|
Post by What Hat on Jun 27, 2015 13:12:02 GMT -5
This is absurd in terms of our experience and that of many friends in recent decades who professed through the gospel mtg experience. Read my response to Nathan. I think we cannot correctly imprint our personal experience on others who have joined the F&W, especially not the far more many that were born and raised in the church as opposed to the few in the last 30-40 years in the USA and Canada that professed from outside the influence of professing family and workers and all the meetings. Which response to Nathan? I'm confused. What's your point? What did I write that you disagree with? Mary went off on a tangent about friends born and raised in reference to a conversation I had with Nathan. If you haven't read my conversation with Nathan, then I don't see the relevance of your post.
|
|
|
Post by Greg on Jun 27, 2015 14:42:43 GMT -5
I think we cannot correctly imprint our personal experience on others who have joined the F&W, especially not the far more many that were born and raised in the church as opposed to the few in the last 30-40 years in the USA and Canada that professed from outside the influence of professing family and workers and all the meetings. Which response to Nathan? I'm confused. What's your point? What did I write that you disagree with? Mary went off on a tangent about friends born and raised in reference to a conversation I had with Nathan. If you haven't read my conversation with Nathan, then I don't see the relevance of your post. What: And I appreciate also from hearing testimonies over the years, that many friends were like us, not really feeling at home in any other church. Mary: What, the majority of the friends have never had any thing to do with other churches. They were born and raised in the fellowship. What: They all started outside at some point. And children of the third and fourth generation will re-tell the testimony of their forefathers (and mothers). Greg: I think Mary is correct. The first generation started outside the F&W church because it was just beginning, of course. Subsequent generations really did not start out side of the F&W church and likely had little to no involvement with other churches. What they know or think they know most probably came from their parents and the workers and what little study a few might have done (including conversations with people they know in other churches). Indoctrination likely will make certain things more comfortable, easier to accept and certain things less comfortable, harder to accept. There is "Give me a child for his first seven years and I'll give you the man". And I am reminded of reading that for years after World War II Russian mothers would take their children to cemeteries and tell their children "The Germans did this." What: This is absurd in terms of our experience and that of many friends in recent decades who professed through the gospel mtg experience. Read my response to Nathan. Greg: I think we cannot correctly imprint our personal experience on others who have joined the F&W, especially not the far more many that were born and raised in the church as opposed to the few in the last 30-40 years in the USA and Canada that professed from outside the influence of professing family and workers and all the meetings. Which response to Nathan? What: I'm confused. What's your point? What did I write that you disagree with? Mary went off on a tangent about friends born and raised in reference to a conversation I had with Nathan. If you haven't read my conversation with Nathan, then I don't see the relevance of your post. Trying to connect the dots: not really feeling at home in any other church . . . the majority of the friends have never had any thing to do with other churches . . . They all started outside at some point . . . The first generation started outside the F&W church because it was just beginning, of course. Subsequent generations really did not start out side of the F&W church and likely had little to no involvement with other churches. And: This is absurd in terms of our experience and that of many friends in recent decades who professed through the gospel mtg experience . . . I think we cannot correctly imprint our personal experience on others who have joined the F&W
|
|
|
Post by fixit on Jun 27, 2015 16:36:32 GMT -5
And I am reminded of reading that for years after World War II Russian mothers would take their children to cemeteries and tell their children "The Germans did this." Sadly, the passing of hatred and bigotry from one generation to the next has been with us for thousands of years. If they'd said "the fascists did this" it would have been more accurate.
|
|
|
Post by What Hat on Jun 27, 2015 16:41:00 GMT -5
I'm confused. What's your point? What did I write that you disagree with? Mary went off on a tangent about friends born and raised in reference to a conversation I had with Nathan. If you haven't read my conversation with Nathan, then I don't see the relevance of your post. What: And I appreciate also from hearing testimonies over the years, that many friends were like us, not really feeling at home in any other church. This was responding to Nathan's comment of not feeling the Spirit in other churches. And that was in response to my post indicating it doesn't matter what church you attend. At this point I explain to Nathan that I did feel at home with the friends, and not so much in the church in which I was raised. The entire point of the dialogue was that we have a personal journey, but can not generalise about how the Spirit may affect others.Mary: What, the majority of the friends have never had any thing to do with other churches. They were born and raised in the fellowship. I don't disagree with Mary's statement, but I and others do not fit into that category. Whether that's 10% or 90% of the friends doesn't matter to me as I was expressing to Nathan my personal feelings and experience and knowledge of some others through their testimonies.What: They all started outside at some point. And children of the third and fourth generation will re-tell the testimony of their forefathers (and mothers). This is true; just because people didn't come in from outside doesn't mean they didn't make a choice for themselves, and didn't understand the experience of their forefathers. But this isn't meant to contradict Mary's observation.Greg: I think Mary is correct. The first generation started outside the F&W church because it was just beginning, of course. Subsequent generations really did not start out side of the F&W church and likely had little to no involvement with other churches. What they know or think they know most probably came from their parents and the workers and what little study a few might have done (including conversations with people they know in other churches). Indoctrination likely will make certain things more comfortable, easier to accept and certain things less comfortable, harder to accept. There is "Give me a child for his first seven years and I'll give you the man". And I am reminded of reading that for years after World War II Russian mothers would take their children to cemeteries and tell their children "The Germans did this." Okay.What: This is absurd in terms of our experience and that of many friends in recent decades who professed through the gospel mtg experience. Read my response to Nathan. And so it is. In other words, it might be true for some, but not for me, and not some of our close friends who also came in from outside.Greg: I think we cannot correctly imprint our personal experience on others who have joined the F&W, especially not the far more many that were born and raised in the church as opposed to the few in the last 30-40 years in the USA and Canada that professed from outside the influence of professing family and workers and all the meetings. Which response to Nathan? What: I'm confused. What's your point? What did I write that you disagree with? Mary went off on a tangent about friends born and raised in reference to a conversation I had with Nathan. If you haven't read my conversation with Nathan, then I don't see the relevance of your post. Trying to connect the dots: not really feeling at home in any other church . . . the majority of the friends have never had any thing to do with other churches . . . They all started outside at some point . . . The first generation started outside the F&W church because it was just beginning, of course. Subsequent generations really did not start out side of the F&W church and likely had little to no involvement with other churches. And: This is absurd in terms of our experience and that of many friends in recent decades who professed through the gospel mtg experience . . . I think we cannot correctly imprint our personal experience on others who have joined the F&W Greg, thanks for putting this together. Perhaps I can stick in a comment or two above to explain my point of view. I never was generalizing about all the friends.
|
|