|
Post by jondough on Aug 15, 2015 0:08:42 GMT -5
I'm not sure exactly how to respond to all this because I don't have an exact answer as to why all this cannot just be thrown out in the open and talked about. The only thing that I can say is its not because these people are bad people that want to deceive. Hberry, did your mom ever want to just talk about it in the open? My mom won't. My dad will - he wasn't B&R, but my mom was, and just doesn't think its important. When my dad and I are alone, we talk openly about it all, like I do here. Then He'll tell me "please don't talk to mom about all this because it really upsets her". I really think that they feel like they have something unique and special that no-one else has, and to hear that they are not the only ones, threatens their core beliefs. Maybe they are insecure. They are dependent on the fellowship they have always called "Truth", or the "Way". Something about that exclusivity gives them security and comfort. They would rather just die with their hands over their ears. It is people like my mom that are continuing to pass this on. Not flat out lie about it, but just refuse to talk about it, and definitely think they are the only way. OK now I'm rambling on and guessing again which I will definitely be challenged for again . All I can say is they are not bad deceitful people. I feel like even many of the early Workers that got roped in by Irvine were really good people caught up in this movement. They were more worried about spreading the gospel than worrying about the fact that Irvine was the founder of this movement. Here I go again... Its just the way I see it. I think now that its out, everyone should be willing to talk about it. Clearly, not evasively. This is one of my frustrations. I see no threat in it. I don't know why they do....but again...look at Nathan and how many hours he has spent trying to prove otherwise.....
|
|
|
Post by Mary on Aug 15, 2015 0:45:16 GMT -5
Yes they thought they had met God's true servants as they would have been told like all our ancestors that these workers they have just met are a continuation of the apostles. The workers have portrayed themselves as God's true servants and that other servants of God are hirelings. You have not disputed that you are not a modern day apostle, review.
|
|
|
Post by Lee on Aug 15, 2015 0:51:25 GMT -5
Did you have the same feeling that you had as a child when you learned that Santa Clause didn't live in the North Pole? This is especially true if you were taught by your parents that the meetings had continued in an unbroken chain going back to the New Testament days. My parents believed it stayed in Europe after the New Testament era and slowly moved into England. Then the workers came to the US. I don't know how they felt about those who died before the first workers landed in the US around 1903. The emotional pull of my parents to trot out the party 2x2 line always gave me a dirty feeling. I had already concluded the group was a fleshy-partisanship by age thirteen. When I turned thirty I devoted myself to my emancipation by asking my parents when the group started. They said it started with Jesus, of course. I asked them to elaborate on what they meant from a historical perspective. I asked them about 'The Secret Sect', a book I hadn't read but my dad had, a book that signified to my growing mind the kind of perspective I was asking from them. They were evasive about the book. When I asked them where I might get a copy, they shrugged. I like my dad but at this juncture he became the boy in my eyes and I the man.
|
|
|
Post by fixit on Aug 15, 2015 1:01:53 GMT -5
Review, Hopefully you won't have missed my post in which I suggested that it was the policy of some senior workers in some (geographical) areas to deliberately misrepresent the history of the sect at one time. Do you accept that this is a fair and accurate statement? Matt10 Matt10, in your experience growing up in Ireland do you think there was any attempt to hide the beginnings of the church? Did Irish 2x2ers know to avoid discussing the history with visitors from other countries?
|
|
|
Post by joanna on Aug 15, 2015 2:01:24 GMT -5
The more recent examples of belief systems which have been proven to originate from creative humans provide a wonderful opportunity for believers of all denominations to learn that man creates god(s) in an attempt to provide solutions to the myriad of human problems and to explain natural phenomenum. The consequence of these beliefs forming communities of like-minded people is another appealing factor.
Irvine and Cooney are just two of many who decided there was a future in manipulating people's minds. These experts of deceit (though it is incorrect to label members of earlier civilisations as deceitful when they were just seeking to understand their environment) can be traced back through the ages and include:
Ron Hubbard (scientology); John Darby (exclusive brethren); Joseph Smith (book of mormon); Charles Taze/Joseph Rutherford (jehovah's witness); Lesslie Newbegin (uniting churches); John Knox (presbytarian); John Wesley (methodist); Mohammed (islam); ?Linus (roman catholicism); Jesus (jewish christians); Israelites (Yahweh, the local god and his wife, the fertility god Asherah. Asherah was later eliminated from the stories and yahweh or the god of the old testament remained); people of the Indus valley (hinduism); Grecians (hundreds of gods from agrius to zelos).
If the implications were not so serious it would be humorous to read of the con Joseph Smith's claims of him being visited by an angel named Moroni; the buried golden plates, incredible linguistic interpretations behind closed curtains and voila: a heavenly revelation. Like really? However these claims are no more unbelievable than those made by the originators of all the many other beliefs. Just to know that the mormon religion continues to expand and has over 15 million followers should identify the propensity for humans to seek meaning and patterns for self-placation.
All it takes is to link the dots and the complete picture is then one which spells 'fooled you'.
|
|
hberry
Senior Member
Posts: 743
|
Post by hberry on Aug 15, 2015 9:06:32 GMT -5
I'm not sure exactly how to respond to all this because I don't have an exact answer as to why all this cannot just be thrown out in the open and talked about. The only thing that I can say is its not because these people are bad people that want to deceive. Hberry, did your mom ever want to just talk about it in the open? My mom won't. My dad will - he wasn't B&R, but my mom was, and just doesn't think its important. When my dad and I are alone, we talk openly about it all, like I do here. Then He'll tell me "please don't talk to mom about all this because it really upsets her". I really think that they feel like they have something unique and special that no-one else has, and to hear that they are not the only ones, threatens their core beliefs. Maybe they are insecure. They are dependent on the fellowship they have always called "Truth", or the "Way". Something about that exclusivity gives them security and comfort. They would rather just die with their hands over their ears. It is people like my mom that are continuing to pass this on. Not flat out lie about it, but just refuse to talk about it, and definitely think they are the only way. OK now I'm rambling on and guessing again which I will definitely be challenged for again . All I can say is they are not bad deceitful people. I feel like even many of the early Workers that got roped in by Irvine were really good people caught up in this movement. They were more worried about spreading the gospel than worrying about the fact that Irvine was the founder of this movement. Here I go again... Its just the way I see it. I think now that its out, everyone should be willing to talk about it. Clearly, not evasively. This is one of my frustrations. I see no threat in it. I don't know why they do....but again...look at Nathan and how many hours he has spent trying to prove otherwise..... JD, my Mom was perfectly comfortable with the history, and she read John Long's journal with interest. However, she also acknowledged that none of the friends we knew were willing to believe the history or to discuss it at all. No way, no how, and that included the workers. The friends we know preferred to think that some long-dead grandmother's sister's great aunt had a letter that has disappeared from someone who was in fellowship with folks just like this in a country that no longer exists. My Dad passed away before I learned about WI, so I never talked to him about it. Based on what Mom said though, he felt JackC taught that it "went all the way back" because Dad and his Mom never heard otherwise from JackC and likely Dad would have been devastated to learn the true history. Not so much because there was a WI, but because my Dad was a stickler about honesty in all things. He was a 'swear to your own hurt and change not' kind of guy. I really do understand that if your faith rests in believing this way was "not started by any man" and a man who started it pops up, that can be tough to sort out. I see no threat in it myself, so I'm with you there.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 15, 2015 10:02:20 GMT -5
Review, Hopefully you won't have missed my post in which I suggested that it was the policy of some senior workers in some (geographical) areas to deliberately misrepresent the history of the sect at one time. Do you accept that this is a fair and accurate statement? Matt10 Matt10, in your experience growing up in Ireland do you think there was any attempt to hide the beginnings of the church? Did Irish 2x2ers know to avoid discussing the history with visitors from other countries? 1. Yes. Indeed this is the basis on which I am participating on this thread. I provided a concrete example of this on page 1. 2. I'm not sure I understand this question. If you are asking me were Irish 2x2ers actively discouraged from discussing the history of the sect with visitors from other countries, I would say (a) that I am not aware of any such thing ever being suggested by anyone during my time associated with the group, (b) the history was never discussed in my presence by anyone; I got the impression that such things just weren't discussed in social settings (c) my first attempt to discuss the history with anyone is recorded on page 1 (d) it would likely be difficult for any who were unaware of the history to discuss it with anyone. I trust that review will like my answers as much as he liked your questions. He certainly appears to like your questions more than the one I put to him. Matt10
|
|
|
Post by placid-void on Aug 15, 2015 10:07:09 GMT -5
I am always interested in the appearance, disappearance and use of memes in social groups.
Suppose there were a jury of objective, non-involved, impartial, thoughtful and rational jurors with absolutely no "ax to grind" but a willingness to engage a faith-based disagreement.
Suppose further that there were a competent, articulate and convincing prosecuting attorney and an equally competent, articulate and convincing defense attorney.
Both attorney's have access to all historical records, all "theological" records and all personal testimonies.
The prosecuting attorney presents the case that a particular faith was "started by a man in the late 1800's". The defense attorney counters that the faith was "continued by a man in the late 1800's" and argues the case that a faith need not have a specific human progenitor and need not be "started by any man" and offers a "spiritually-plausible" case for the continuous passage of specific religious beliefs through time from the origin of Christianity until the present.
What would be the findings of the impartial jury?
|
|
|
Post by blacksheep on Aug 15, 2015 11:20:57 GMT -5
Blacksheep, what do you think your father should have done differently? I don't think he should have done anything differently, as he stated what he believed. It would be a pointless exercise to project what we think another person should believe, don't you agree? A little history: My father was second generation professing. His family was previously Lutherans. Poor dirt farmer Lutherans. According to him, the Lutheran minister seemed to be jealous of the Catholics' wealth, and would harangue the congregation for more donations so as to improve the church building, etc.. Then along comes the workers, and the message that resounded was "You don't need a Church building at all!" The time was right, and my grandparents professed. Then along comes WWII. Dad was drafted and was in for the duration. He witnesses unimaginable slaughters, and yet escaped with his life. Who knows what battlefield promises were made, but when he returned he was committed to spending the rest of his life trying to live a life approved by God. But he needed to be reassured that he was living an approved life, and the workers could provide that reassurance. He believed that the workers knew what God wanted from people better than they could themselves.. Nowdays, they call it PTSD or survivor guilt, but back then a man had to work things out best way he knew how, and Dad knew the workers. Dad's answer of "not being a stumbling block" made sense to him, since he believed that the workers were the equivalents of Paul..... but if a person does not believe that, then its just allowing other unqualified persons to run your life for you... Dad NEEDED to believe.
|
|
|
Post by snow on Aug 15, 2015 11:27:45 GMT -5
Yes and I was a kid born in the 50's. I never questioned it's truth which just shows you how well indoctrinated I was. Doesn't say much for my bs detector working well does it... lol But seriously, why say things like that if you are not trying to spread a misrepresentation of the beginnings? It never occurred to me to question it. I once argued with a young classmate that MY church was older than the RCC she attended. I also told a Lutheran friend that the bible said ministers had to be unmarried. Oh my, little pitchers have big ears....and big mouths! Of course, I couldn't back up either claim, but I knew I was right! Well that's the thing isn't it? Many who defend what was said say people could figure it out that they meant that Jesus started the way. But then there are children in the group B&R who don't have the same analytical skills to decipher what the workers meant and they will take it literally, grow up thinking that's the truth and never question it. I never questioned their origins, and I'd probably still be there if I hadn't questioned the fact of whether there was a God at all. Scary really.
|
|
|
Post by snow on Aug 15, 2015 11:35:12 GMT -5
No, I said the workers who started the story and those who continued to say it even when they knew it was not true intended to deceive. I also believed and said it, and so did my mother and there were plenty, in fact most who truly did not know that it was not true. You cannot intend to deceive if you truly believed it to be true. The intent to deceive is when you know it is not true but say it anyway. I and many others on here believed it was true, there was no intention to deceive on our part. I can understand how liberating it must have been for you to find out the truth but for me I could not continue in something where the leaders who knew it not to be true said it anyway. What I was taught was the truth was not the truth. Would you/they also agree that Irvine and those who tried to deceive others by claiming they went back to the shores of Galilee were also false prophets? And then there were those had to have known about the beginnings and hid it, dissembled about the truth, and actively 'discouraged' any questioning. Were these men liars? Those following on may have believed the deceit and perpetuated it. As other posters have claimed, there must have been the odd one here and there who knew and were not afraid to tell the truth when asked the question. The problem is that many would not have known who to ask, and never asked anyway for fear of reprisal. And there is another side to this, humans that want something to be true, don't ask questions that might make it not true. They choose to ignore the warning signs because they really really want something to be true. The psychology of the whole thing is actually pretty interesting. I imagine it started innocently enough. One of the founders said they came from Jesus and someone took that to mean their group went all the way back to Jesus and they just didn't correct the misunderstanding because they were smart enough to see just how they could use that misunderstanding in their favor. And, as they say, the rest is history.
|
|
|
Post by jondough on Aug 15, 2015 11:38:26 GMT -5
Blacksheep, what do you think your father should have done differently? I don't think he should have done anything differently, as he stated what he believed. It would be a pointless exercise to project what we think another person should believe, don't you agree? A little history: My father was second generation professing. His family was previously Lutherans. Poor dirt farmer Lutherans. According to him, the Lutheran minister seemed to be jealous of the Catholics' wealth, and would harangue the congregation for more donations so as to improve the church building, etc.. Then along comes the workers, and the message that resounded was "You don't need a Church building at all!" The time was right, and my grandparents professed. Then along comes WWII. Dad was drafted and was in for the duration. He witnesses unimaginable slaughters, and yet escaped with his life. Who knows what battlefield promises were made, but when he returned he was committed to spending the rest of his life trying to live a life approved by God. But he needed to be reassured that he was living an approved life, and the workers could provide that reassurance. He believed that the workers knew what God wanted from people better than they could themselves.. Nowdays, they call it PTSD or survivor guilt, but back then a man had to work things out best way he knew how, and Dad knew the workers. Dad's answer of "not being a stumbling block" made sense to him, since he believed that the workers were the equivalents of Paul..... but if a person does not believe that, then its just allowing other unqualified persons to run your life for you... Dad NEEDED to believe. And that is my point. Your Dad seemed to work things out for himself to some extent on what he felt was right, and this is the way he ran his household. He didn't however want to "offend" the workers or Friends by some of the stuff he allowed you to do. I'm sure that this is during the time when the Workers were much more controlling over the Friends. Remember, your dad firmly believed that this was the one true way, and the Workers had the power to remove you from the only way to salvation. I can completely understand why he was afraid to "offend". I WISH my parents would have worked things out for themselves as your dad did. Instead, it was just follow the unwritten rulebook.
|
|
|
Post by snow on Aug 15, 2015 11:40:42 GMT -5
It's wild actually that they got away with it as long as they did and still do with some. I am reading a book right now called the God Virus and it explains how religions start and grow, how the infection takes over and people just ignore the truth as though it doesn't even exist once they are infected. Obviously it is written on the same lines as how a biological virus takes over the human body, so the analogy is there. Basically it does everything to preserve the life of the virus and strengthens against other viruses/religions. The real successful ones use a lot of different techniques ritual, music etc. which are actually quite effective. Seems it worked for the 2x2's for a long time but now that the truth about the Truth is leaking some are leaving. I don't think that will mean that they will go extinct though because their will likely be people who like that they aren't special or the only true way because that level of exclusivity made them uncomfortable. They will stay because it is possible for other Christians to be saved now and they like the idea of home meetings. I think that aspect of the Truth is one of the better things and one that is attractive enough today that other churches are doing it more and more. Home studies etc in the traditional churches, and some actual Sunday morning home meetings in other religions. Snow ~ Is "The God Virus" anything like the book entitled, "The Religious Virus" ~ Why We Believe in God" by Craig A. James? www.amazon.com/God-Virus-The-Religion-Infects/dp/0970950519 The God Virus
www.amazon.com/The-Religion-Virus-Why-Believe/dp/1482371006 The Religious Virus
Maybe a little. It doesn't go into the history of religion as much as it looks at how religion works to infect certain groups and make them blind to the beliefs they hold but see clearly the strange rituals of other groups or religions. It is very interesting and is based on explaining it like a viral infection works. I'm not finished it yet but I agree with a lot of it so far. You see it on here daily actually. Those who have left the Truth for another church see all the things the Truth does that are now wrong to them and yet those in the Truth still only can see the wrongness of the churches the exes went to. Likewise with the 2 largest religions Islam and Christianity. Each can see the 'error of each other's ways', and still defend the errors and strange beliefs within their own religions. He states that the God virus has the ability to blind people to the inconsistencies of their own beliefs/group and not other groups.
|
|
|
Post by snow on Aug 15, 2015 11:45:23 GMT -5
And then there were those had to have known about the beginnings and hid it, dissembled about the truth, and actively 'discouraged' any questioning. Were these men liars? Those following on may have believed the deceit and perpetuated it. As other posters have claimed, there must have been the odd one here and there who knew and were not afraid to tell the truth when asked the question. The problem is that many would not have known who to ask, and never asked anyway for fear of reprisal. I can only speak for the US, and specifically to the West Coast, but Jack Carroll absolutely knew the truth about the beginnings, and so did Geo Walker. How could they not as they were part of it. However, "somehow" that little bit of information was deemed irrelevant. And I don't buy the "we don't want anyone to worship the men who began it" line either, and here's why. Ireland has always known the truth about the beginning of the fellowship and as far as I can tell, no one is making a big whoopee do about the founding fathers over there. I don't blame those who didn't know, myself included, who believed what they were told was factual and passed it on as such. However, once the news started spreading here in SoCa, the damage control wasn't to present the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth but rather "burn the book, don't believe what people are saying, we don't keep records, etc." As my Mom said at the time all the odd bits of preaching started happening, "it sure makes me wonder what we aren't supposed to know." That's the part that bothered me, not the history itself. (And I feel for the workers who really didn't know; it had to be a rough shock.) I think the biggest thing people really should be concerned about is the fact that it happened, however innocently it might have started. That makes everything else they say open to speculation. What else did they just decide to let people believe by not correcting them? You can't trust them after you find out they could do such a thing about one thing. You have to wonder about the rest of it too.
|
|
|
Post by snow on Aug 15, 2015 12:01:21 GMT -5
I'm not sure exactly how to respond to all this because I don't have an exact answer as to why all this cannot just be thrown out in the open and talked about. The only thing that I can say is its not because these people are bad people that want to deceive. Hberry, did your mom ever want to just talk about it in the open? My mom won't. My dad will - he wasn't B&R, but my mom was, and just doesn't think its important. When my dad and I are alone, we talk openly about it all, like I do here. Then He'll tell me "please don't talk to mom about all this because it really upsets her". I really think that they feel like they have something unique and special that no-one else has, and to hear that they are not the only ones, threatens their core beliefs. Maybe they are insecure. They are dependent on the fellowship they have always called "Truth", or the "Way". Something about that exclusivity gives them security and comfort. They would rather just die with their hands over their ears. It is people like my mom that are continuing to pass this on. Not flat out lie about it, but just refuse to talk about it, and definitely think they are the only way. OK now I'm rambling on and guessing again which I will definitely be challenged for again . All I can say is they are not bad deceitful people. I feel like even many of the early Workers that got roped in by Irvine were really good people caught up in this movement. They were more worried about spreading the gospel than worrying about the fact that Irvine was the founder of this movement. Here I go again... Its just the way I see it. I think now that its out, everyone should be willing to talk about it. Clearly, not evasively. This is one of my frustrations. I see no threat in it. I don't know why they do....but again...look at Nathan and how many hours he has spent trying to prove otherwise..... Jon if I had talked about the beginnings with my parents it would have really upset them too. We really need to ask why it would be so upsetting for them I think. What is there about the need to believe it went all the way back to Jesus in an unbroken line of workers? Why is that such an important aspect that people will downplay what happened or outright not believe it's truth? It's an interesting question actually. For some people it doesn't matter because they like the system of meetings in the home and see it as the best fit for them and that's a valid response of course. But then you have some that defend it totally with statements that they never intentionally meant to deceive. Not correcting the belief with intention is intending to deceive as far as I can see. For you it brought relief because you didn't like the exclusivity being the only true way implied. For others it felt like betrayal by people they loved and respected. That's a deal breaker for most people. You break the trust of people and it's a hard road to earn it back unfortunately. I think the system of meetings in the home, conventions etc is a good system, gives a sense of community and allows people to participate a bit more rather than just sitting listening to someone preach. But it's not worth it if the system becomes more important than the message imo
|
|
|
Post by snow on Aug 15, 2015 12:07:38 GMT -5
I am always interested in the appearance, disappearance and use of memes in social groups. Suppose there were a jury of objective, non-involved, impartial, thoughtful and rational jurors with absolutely no "ax to grind" but a willingness to engage a faith-based disagreement. Suppose further that there were a competent, articulate and convincing prosecuting attorney and an equally competent, articulate and convincing defense attorney. Both attorney's have access to all historical records, all "theological" records and all personal testimonies. The prosecuting attorney presents the case that a particular faith was " started by a man in the late 1800's". The defense attorney counters that the faith was " continued by a man in the late 1800's" and argues the case that a faith need not have a specific human progenitor and need not be "started by any man" and offers a "spiritually-plausible" case for the continuous passage of specific religious beliefs through time from the origin of Christianity until the present. What would be the findings of the impartial jury? What do you think they would find?
|
|
|
Post by snow on Aug 15, 2015 12:17:39 GMT -5
I don't think he should have done anything differently, as he stated what he believed. It would be a pointless exercise to project what we think another person should believe, don't you agree? A little history: My father was second generation professing. His family was previously Lutherans. Poor dirt farmer Lutherans. According to him, the Lutheran minister seemed to be jealous of the Catholics' wealth, and would harangue the congregation for more donations so as to improve the church building, etc.. Then along comes the workers, and the message that resounded was "You don't need a Church building at all!" The time was right, and my grandparents professed. Then along comes WWII. Dad was drafted and was in for the duration. He witnesses unimaginable slaughters, and yet escaped with his life. Who knows what battlefield promises were made, but when he returned he was committed to spending the rest of his life trying to live a life approved by God. But he needed to be reassured that he was living an approved life, and the workers could provide that reassurance. He believed that the workers knew what God wanted from people better than they could themselves.. Nowdays, they call it PTSD or survivor guilt, but back then a man had to work things out best way he knew how, and Dad knew the workers. Dad's answer of "not being a stumbling block" made sense to him, since he believed that the workers were the equivalents of Paul..... but if a person does not believe that, then its just allowing other unqualified persons to run your life for you... Dad NEEDED to believe. And that is my point. Your Dad seemed to work things out for himself to some extent on what he felt was right, and this is the way he ran his household. He didn't however want to "offend" the workers or Friends by some of the stuff he allowed you to do. I'm sure that this is during the time when the Workers were much more controlling over the Friends. Remember, your dad firmly believed that this was the one true way, and the Workers had the power to remove you from the only way to salvation. I can completely understand why he was afraid to "offend". I WISH my parents would have worked things out for themselves as your dad did. Instead, it was just follow the unwritten rulebook. Me too Jon, it was quite the unwritten rule book also. I was very athletic and it was so hard to not be allowed to participate in sports until I quite professing and just ignored them. I was on teams and could play games that were in town because my parents didn't know about it. But I had to not be involved with out of town games because my parents then would have found out I was on a team. It just made no sense that exercise in the form of a team member was taboo. The double life I lived after I quit professing was so stressful, but it was necessary if I wanted to do anything other than go to school, visit with the friends or 2 approved school friends, or go to meeting. That was my 'allowed' life. Thankfully I had 2 approved friends that were not 'the friends' that I could spend time with and they made it possible for me to play on teams because I was just going over to their house. I still don't understand the rationale behind not being able to take part in sports.
|
|
|
Post by jondough on Aug 15, 2015 12:29:34 GMT -5
And that is my point. Your Dad seemed to work things out for himself to some extent on what he felt was right, and this is the way he ran his household. He didn't however want to "offend" the workers or Friends by some of the stuff he allowed you to do. I'm sure that this is during the time when the Workers were much more controlling over the Friends. Remember, your dad firmly believed that this was the one true way, and the Workers had the power to remove you from the only way to salvation. I can completely understand why he was afraid to "offend". I WISH my parents would have worked things out for themselves as your dad did. Instead, it was just follow the unwritten rulebook. Me too Jon, it was quite the unwritten rule book also. I was very athletic and it was so hard to not be allowed to participate in sports until I quite professing and just ignored them. I was on teams and could play games that were in town because my parents didn't know about it. But I had to not be involved with out of town games because my parents then would have found out I was on a team. It just made no sense that exercise in the form of a team member was taboo. The double life I lived after I quit professing was so stressful, but it was necessary if I wanted to do anything other than go to school, visit with the friends or 2 approved school friends, or go to meeting. That was my 'allowed' life. Thankfully I had 2 approved friends that were not 'the friends' that I could spend time with and they made it possible for me to play on teams because I was just going over to their house. I still don't understand the rationale behind not being able to take part in sports. Thats two of us Snow. I too am very athletic. I too snuck to play sports when I was older. But when I was younger, all my friends were playing Little league, and Pop Warner, and I didn't get to. I think Sports would have kept me out of a lot of trouble that I got into because I instead had to fill this time with something else. The funny thing is, my parents are my kids biggest fans now. They LOVE watching all my kids games . They DO work things out for themselves now....darn! Only about 30 years too late .
|
|
|
Post by snow on Aug 15, 2015 12:38:16 GMT -5
Me too Jon, it was quite the unwritten rule book also. I was very athletic and it was so hard to not be allowed to participate in sports until I quite professing and just ignored them. I was on teams and could play games that were in town because my parents didn't know about it. But I had to not be involved with out of town games because my parents then would have found out I was on a team. It just made no sense that exercise in the form of a team member was taboo. The double life I lived after I quit professing was so stressful, but it was necessary if I wanted to do anything other than go to school, visit with the friends or 2 approved school friends, or go to meeting. That was my 'allowed' life. Thankfully I had 2 approved friends that were not 'the friends' that I could spend time with and they made it possible for me to play on teams because I was just going over to their house. I still don't understand the rationale behind not being able to take part in sports. Thats two of us Snow. I too am very athletic. I too snuck to play sports when I was older. But when I was younger, all my friends were playing Little league, and Pop Warner, and I didn't get to. I think Sports would have kept me out of a lot of trouble that I got into because I instead had to fill this time with something else. The funny thing is, my parents are my kids biggest fans now. They LOVE watching all my kids games . They DO work things out for themselves now....darn! Only about 30 years too late . Well I'm glad that they have been able to do it even if it was too late for you. Your children will have better memories. It's not pleasant to have to live a double life. I felt a lot of stress about getting caught. And for what? Going out and playing sports? I found out I was good at it in school gym phys ed classes and then teachers noticed and wanted me on school teams. I never was able to play outside of school teams until I was about 14 and I was approached after a game by a baseball coach. He wanted me as back catcher for his team and I said I would try and explained to him my problem. So he worked with me as much as he could knowing I couldn't go on out of town games and sometimes not even in town games depending on circumstances. Wednesday night games for example I couldn't attend.
|
|
hberry
Senior Member
Posts: 743
|
Post by hberry on Aug 15, 2015 13:10:15 GMT -5
I am always interested in the appearance, disappearance and use of memes in social groups. Suppose there were a jury of objective, non-involved, impartial, thoughtful and rational jurors with absolutely no "ax to grind" but a willingness to engage a faith-based disagreement. Suppose further that there were a competent, articulate and convincing prosecuting attorney and an equally competent, articulate and convincing defense attorney. Both attorney's have access to all historical records, all "theological" records and all personal testimonies. The prosecuting attorney presents the case that a particular faith was " started by a man in the late 1800's". The defense attorney counters that the faith was " continued by a man in the late 1800's" and argues the case that a faith need not have a specific human progenitor and need not be "started by any man" and offers a "spiritually-plausible" case for the continuous passage of specific religious beliefs through time from the origin of Christianity until the present. What would be the findings of the impartial jury? What do you think they would find? (I meant to post this on yknot's question, but I guess I'll leave it here as it relates to his posting and doesn't preclude my buddy yknot from answering.) My thoughts are that the jury would find that some people, on and off through history, have felt that Matt 10 was necessary and so went out in an attempt to follow it as best they could, but that the faith in this type of ministry has not continued in an unbroken succession through time (Nathan's ideas notwithstanding)--while the basic Christian faith, as a faith in the person and work of Jesus, has.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 15, 2015 13:29:35 GMT -5
Review are you comfortable talking about what you spoke at Ronan MT??
|
|
|
Post by snow on Aug 15, 2015 13:37:22 GMT -5
What do you think they would find? (I meant to post this on yknot's question, but I guess I'll leave it here as it relates to his posting and doesn't preclude my buddy yknot from answering.) My thoughts are that the jury would find that some people, on and off through history, have felt that Matt 10 was necessary and so went out in an attempt to follow it as best they could, but that the faith in this type of ministry has not continued in an unbroken succession through time (Nathan's ideas notwithstanding)--while the basic Christian faith, as a faith in the person and work of Jesus, has. I tend to agree with that. There were many Gnostic groups that the RCC shut down and labelled heretics and some of them were pretty similar to the 2x2's in beliefs. Some were pretty far fetched, like the Cathars, but even they believed in ministers in pairs. Their idea of who God was didn't match too many other sects though. I'm sure people tried to get back to the basics after the RCC took it to beyond recognizable and that makes sense that there are groups out there that are similar.
|
|
|
Post by jondough on Aug 15, 2015 14:13:59 GMT -5
I am always interested in the appearance, disappearance and use of memes in social groups. Suppose there were a jury of objective, non-involved, impartial, thoughtful and rational jurors with absolutely no "ax to grind" but a willingness to engage a faith-based disagreement. Suppose further that there were a competent, articulate and convincing prosecuting attorney and an equally competent, articulate and convincing defense attorney. Both attorney's have access to all historical records, all "theological" records and all personal testimonies. The prosecuting attorney presents the case that a particular faith was " started by a man in the late 1800's". The defense attorney counters that the faith was " continued by a man in the late 1800's" and argues the case that a faith need not have a specific human progenitor and need not be "started by any man" and offers a "spiritually-plausible" case for the continuous passage of specific religious beliefs through time from the origin of Christianity until the present. What would be the findings of the impartial jury? Good question. So if their attempt is to determine "Faith", which I believe in, I would suggest that William Irivine or no man started it. If their attempt is to determine when a particular "denomination" started, then I would suggest that our particular denomination that I am a part of (F&W) started with WI around 1897, with the help of John Long, Cooney and then others. I would like to believe, and do, that our denomination was a result of the workings of God, and was inspired and led by the HP.
|
|
hberry
Senior Member
Posts: 743
|
Post by hberry on Aug 15, 2015 14:22:01 GMT -5
I would like to believe, and do, that our denomination was a result of the workings of God, and was inspired and led by the HP. Just out of curiousity, you've twice used the phrase "the HP," so now I have to ask.... I assume you are referring to the Holy Spirit, but do you use the P to stand for paraclete? Sure, use Greek is you want!
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 15, 2015 14:27:11 GMT -5
I personally speak in gospel meetings and convention meetings of the time when men and women disappointed in their lifeless spiritual experience in the churches of the time in raw courage and faith stepped out from that and sought to get back to the teachings and practice of the New Testament church. I am quite happy and open to discuss William Irvine, Eddie Cooney or anyone else. ******** Review 005, what about what you spoke at Ronan MT? ?
|
|
|
Post by jondough on Aug 15, 2015 14:31:05 GMT -5
I would like to believe, and do, that our denomination was a result of the workings of God, and was inspired and led by the HP. Just out of curiousity, you've twice used the phrase "the HP," so now I have to ask.... I assume you are referring to the Holy Spirit, but do you use the P to stand for paraclete? Sure, use Greek is you want! Thanks for pointing that out. You're right I did mean the Holy Spirit, but didn't mean to type HP . Glad you pointed it out, cause it would have probably happened again if you hadn't .
|
|
hberry
Senior Member
Posts: 743
|
Post by hberry on Aug 15, 2015 14:48:35 GMT -5
Just out of curiousity, you've twice used the phrase "the HP," so now I have to ask.... I assume you are referring to the Holy Spirit, but do you use the P to stand for paraclete? Sure, use Greek is you want! Thanks for pointing that out. You're right I did mean the Holy Spirit, but didn't mean to type HP . Glad you pointed it out, cause it would have probably happened again if you hadn't . I kind of liked the HP, because back when I was just entering my career, an HP scientific calculator was The Only One to have....
|
|
|
Post by jondough on Aug 15, 2015 14:51:26 GMT -5
Thanks for pointing that out. You're right I did mean the Holy Spirit, but didn't mean to type HP . Glad you pointed it out, cause it would have probably happened again if you hadn't . I kind of liked the HP, because back when I was just entering my career, an HP scientific calculator was The Only One to have.... OK Hberry, rub it in . hehe, I type on this little i-pad most of the time and make many embarassing mistakes when I go back and read it later. Oh well, I need people like you to keep me humble .
|
|