Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 8, 2016 13:15:44 GMT -5
There isn't any reason not to acknowledge abhorrent things that have been done. People who hold to a set of religious beliefs may do abhorrent things. If those abhorrent things are contrary to the beliefs they claim to hold ("love your neighbor" and "love your enemies", for instance), we should be careful not to think that the abhorrent things were done because of the teachings of Christianity. If the teachings of a group claiming to be Christian are abhorrent and the actions that follow from those teachings are abhorrent we should consider that these things were done because of the teachings of Christianity. The "supposed teachings of Christianity" which might have been misinterpreted, misunderstood or manipulated in the first place - and therefore transmitted contaminated and not genuinely pure. The result of that would indeed give Christianity a bad and tarnished name. IMO.
|
|
|
Post by rational on May 8, 2016 14:36:58 GMT -5
If the teachings of a group claiming to be Christian are abhorrent and the actions that follow from those teachings are abhorrent we should consider that these things were done because of the teachings of Christianity. The "supposed teachings of Christianity" which might have been misinterpreted, misunderstood or manipulated in the first place - and therefore transmitted contaminated and not genuinely pure. The result of that would indeed give Christianity a bad and tarnished name. IMO. :) And this, of course, would leave the people who want to be followers of Jesus no true story to follow. You could follow the teachings that are recorded in the bible to the letter but, if those were recorded incorrectly or if the message has been distorted, be doing nothing right.
|
|
|
Post by calleduntoliberty on May 8, 2016 18:23:24 GMT -5
Too much focus on groups. Individuals are Christians or not and true Christians will show the fruits of Christ. Christ is the standard for a 'Christian', which means essentially those who are 'of Christ'. When a group acts in concert to commit abhorrent acts, such as marching off to massacre thousands together, it is evident that their works are not the works of Christ. When an organization has official sanctioned doctrines, those can be compared against the standard. By that standard an organization like the Roman Catholic Church cannot be considered Christian. A problem IMO in using this definition of Christianity is (based on my guess of what you mean by Christ as the standard) I've not yet met one true Christian. Every person I've met claiming to be christian has at some point done something out of line with that standard. One thing I did not say is that all true Christians have a perfect understanding or a constant flawless implementation of obedience. Take for instance the modesty discussion. In my opinion, there are many Christians who love Christ and are committed to him and God has produced fruits in their lives through their faith but yet through misunderstanding or oversight, not intending to sin, they do not dress to the standard of modesty that would be proper for a Christian. This is nothing like devoting one's life to abhorrent acts such as mass murder. God knows we are weak and has no expectation that we obtain salvation through our own works, which would be impossible. The price of sin was paid by the blood of the holy lamb Jesus Christ. For those for those who would be his disciples, it is for us to walk humbly and seek to learn to serve him more fully. As James tells us, there is a sort of 'belief' which is not a true and faithful belief. It is not a true faith leading to salvation. If one believes that the facts concerning Christ's death and resurrection are true but yet desires to live for oneself and fulfill one's own fleshly desires, having no true repentance and no desire to obey God, one is not a disciple of Jesus. A true faith involves repentance and loving submission. And yes, Christians do at times stumble and sin, but they are called to acknowledge that sin before God and repent truly, desiring not to sin again. A Christian's life will not be a life of constant living in sin with no regard to the will of the Lord he claims to serve. We have a loving and merciful God who desires to help us up when we stumble and to lead us into all righteousness. None of us is perfect in this age, but yet we are called to edify one another and exhort one another to good works and purity in Christ while we yet walk in this world.
|
|
|
Post by Roselyn T on May 8, 2016 18:54:12 GMT -5
A problem IMO in using this definition of Christianity is (based on my guess of what you mean by Christ as the standard) I've not yet met one true Christian. Every person I've met claiming to be christian has at some point done something out of line with that standard. One thing I did not say is that all true Christians have a perfect understanding or a constant flawless implementation of obedience. Take for instance the modesty discussion. In my opinion, there are many Christians who love Christ and are committed to him and God has produced fruits in their lives through their faith but yet through misunderstanding or oversight, not intending to sin, they do not dress to the standard of modesty that would be proper for a Christian. This is nothing like devoting one's life to abhorrent acts such as mass murder. God knows we are weak and has no expectation that we obtain salvation through our own works, which would be impossible. The price of sin was paid by the blood of the holy lamb Jesus Christ. For those for those who would be his disciples, it is for us to walk humbly and seek to learn to serve him more fully. As James tells us, there is a sort of 'belief' which is not a true and faithful belief. It is not a true faith leading to salvation. If one believes that the facts concerning Christ's death and resurrection are true but yet desires to live for oneself and fulfill one's own fleshly desires, having no true repentance and no desire to obey God, one is not a disciple of Jesus. A true faith involves repentance and loving submission. And yes, Christians do at times stumble and sin, but they are called to acknowledge that sin before God and repent truly, desiring not to sin again. A Christian's life will not be a life of constant living in sin with no regard to the will of the Lord he claims to serve. We have a loving and merciful God who desires to help us up when we stumble and to lead us into all righteousness. None of us is perfect in this age, but yet we are called to edify one another and exhort one another to good works and purity in Christ while we yet walk in this world. calleduntoliberty, in regard to the modesty discussion, what you personally see as immodest is not necessarily immodest. You have stated that boys can be dressed immodestly, then said that boys in swimmers can be immodest, I personally do not see what is immodest about a boy swimming in board shorts. It is easy to dress the "part" and appear to be a Christian !
|
|
|
Post by calleduntoliberty on May 8, 2016 19:31:56 GMT -5
calleduntoliberty , in regard to the modesty discussion, what you personally see as immodest is not necessarily immodest. You have stated that boys can be dressed immodestly, then said that boys in swimmers can be immodest, I personally do not see what is immodest about a boy swimming in board shorts. That's what I was referring to in my first paragraph. I do not know whether or not you are a Christian but there are Christians who lack carefulness or understanding in this area and others. It fairly obvious if you listen to immature girls talking, for instance, that the way boys and men typically dress for swimming is generally considered immodest even by the world. Likewise for girls and women. Except by the world it's seen as a positive thing due to the perceived positive feelings and experiences involved. Those ways of dressing cater directly to the fleshly things that the world seeks. Then Christians should be careful not to dress like the world and appear to belong to the world.
|
|
|
Post by Roselyn T on May 8, 2016 19:36:36 GMT -5
calleduntoliberty , in regard to the modesty discussion, what you personally see as immodest is not necessarily immodest. You have stated that boys can be dressed immodestly, then said that boys in swimmers can be immodest, I personally do not see what is immodest about a boy swimming in board shorts. That's what I was referring to in my first paragraph. I do not know whether or not you are a Christian but there are Christians who lack carefulness or understanding in this area and others. It fairly obvious if you listen to immature girls talking, for instance, that the way boys and men typically dress for swimming is generally considered immodest even by the world. Likewise for girls and women. Except by the world it's seen as a positive thing due to the perceived positive feelings and experiences involved. Those ways of dressing cater directly to the fleshly things that the world seeks. Then Christians should be careful not to dress like the world and appear to belong to the world. The point I am trying to make is your perception of immodesty maybe very different to other peoples, so what makes you think your view of modesty is right. Also just to clarify what age boys are you talking about ?
|
|
|
Post by rational on May 8, 2016 19:53:12 GMT -5
Too much focus on groups. Individuals are Christians or not and true Christians will show the fruits of Christ. Instead of speaking in metaphors, it might be helpful to be explicit. What, exactly, are the 'fruits of Christ'? The phrase makes Jesus sound like a green grocer.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 8, 2016 20:08:49 GMT -5
Too much focus on groups. Individuals are Christians or not and true Christians will show the fruits of Christ. Instead of speaking in metaphors, it might be helpful to be explicit. What, exactly, are the 'fruits of Christ'? The phrase makes Jesus sound like a green grocer. Gal_5:22 But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, longsuffering, gentleness, goodness, faith,
|
|
|
New here
May 8, 2016 20:09:20 GMT -5
via mobile
Post by sharingtheriches on May 8, 2016 20:09:20 GMT -5
A problem IMO in using this definition of Christianity is (based on my guess of what you mean by Christine as the standard) I've not yet met one true Christian. Every person I've met claiming to be christian has at some point done something out of line with that standard. One thing I did not say is that all true Christians have a perfect understanding or a constant flawless implementation of obedience. Take for instance the modesty discussion. In my opinion, there are many Christians who love Christ and are committed to him and God has produced fruits in their lives through their faith but yet through misunderstanding or oversight, not intending to sin, they do not dress to the standard of modesty that would be proper for a Christian. This is nothing like devoting one's life to abhorrent acts such as mass murder. God knows we are weak and has no expectation that we obtain salvation through our own works, which would be impossible. The price of sin was paid by the blood of the holy lamb Jesus Christ. For those for those who would be his disciples, it is for us to walk humbly and seek to learn to serve him more fully. As James tells us, there is a sort of 'belief' which is not a true and faithful belief. It is not a true faith leading to salvation. If one believes that the facts concerning Christ's death and resurrection are true but yet desires to live for oneself and fulfill one's own fleshly desires, having no true repentance and no desire to obey God, one is not a disciple of Jesus. A true faith involves repentance and loving submission. And yes, Christians do at times stumble and sin, but they are called to acknowledge that sin before God and repent truly, desiring not to sin again. A Christian's life will not be a life of constant living in sin with no regard to the will of the Lord he claims to serve. We have a loving and merciful God who desires to help us up when we stumble and to lead us into all righteousness. None of us is perfect in this age, but yet we are called to edify one another and exhort one another to good works and purity in Christ while we yet walk in this world. But who sets "modesty" standards? All we know is men not to wear woman's garments and women not to wear men's garments. To say women are not to wear pants because they're men's garments is not really correct. Not anymore then in Jesus' day, men and women both wore robes. There was a difference...they were made for a man OR they were made for a woman. Some of the differences had to do with the expected normal actions of the sex they were made for. So modern day lends itself to women wearing pants usually due to their expected actions.
|
|
|
Post by rational on May 8, 2016 20:18:06 GMT -5
Instead of speaking in metaphors, it might be helpful to be explicit. What, exactly, are the 'fruits of Christ'? The phrase makes Jesus sound like a green grocer. Gal_5:22 But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, longsuffering, gentleness, goodness, faith, What about people that exhibit these qualities who are non-believers? Wouldn't that indicate that these may not be the fruit of the spirit but just the way some humans live?
|
|
|
Post by calleduntoliberty on May 8, 2016 20:36:56 GMT -5
That's what I was referring to in my first paragraph. I do not know whether or not you are a Christian but there are Christians who lack carefulness or understanding in this area and others. It fairly obvious if you listen to immature girls talking, for instance, that the way boys and men typically dress for swimming is generally considered immodest even by the world. Likewise for girls and women. Except by the world it's seen as a positive thing due to the perceived positive feelings and experiences involved. Those ways of dressing cater directly to the fleshly things that the world seeks. Then Christians should be careful not to dress like the world and appear to belong to the world. The point I am trying to make is your perception of immodesty maybe very different to other peoples, so what makes you think your view of modesty is right. Also just to clarify what age boys are you talking about ? I just explained how my perception maybe isn't so different after all. I do not believe modesty standards should vary by age. Young children should be dressed to the same modesty standards as Christian adults, for the following reasons and probably others: out of respect for them, to help them to learn modesty, and for safety (Some would call the last reason "blaming the victim". However, if a young child is abused, it's little comfort to be able to say "it's the attacker's fault!". I'd rather take what some might view as excessive and unnecessary precautions, even if this were the only reason for modest clothing.).
|
|
|
Post by Roselyn T on May 8, 2016 22:29:56 GMT -5
The point I am trying to make is your perception of immodesty maybe very different to other peoples, so what makes you think your view of modesty is right. Also just to clarify what age boys are you talking about ? I just explained how my perception maybe isn't so different after all. I do not believe modesty standards should vary by age. Young children should be dressed to the same modesty standards as Christian adults, for the following reasons and probably others: out of respect for them, to help them to learn modesty, and for safety (Some would call the last reason "blaming the victim". However, if a young child is abused, it's little comfort to be able to say "it's the attacker's fault!". I'd rather take what some might view as excessive and unnecessary precautions, even if this were the only reason for modest clothing.). calleduntoliberty, so you are saying that a child has to dress modestly (according to your view of modesty) to feel respect for themselves, and to feel safe ? Do you really think a person that abuses children is going to care how they are dressed? Also that is just blaming the victim and telling them that it was their fault because of how they were dressed ! That is just a cop-out ! The person that abuses children is the one with the problem not the child ! So yes the fault lies with the attacker not the victim. calleduntoliberty, do you have children ?
|
|
|
Post by calleduntoliberty on May 8, 2016 23:03:05 GMT -5
calleduntoliberty , so you are saying that a child has to dress modestly (according to your view of modesty) to feel respect for themselves, and to feel safe ? Do you really think a person that abuses children is going to care how they are dressed? Also that is just blaming the victim and telling them that it was their fault because of how they were dressed ! That is just a cop-out ! The person that abuses children is the one with the problem not the child ! So yes the fault lies with the attacker not the victim. Did you just say that as a joke because I predicted it? This is a serious matter. Do you believe that people concerned about child abuse should not ever consider or discuss anything they might do to attempt to reduce the risk of abuse occurring, because showing any concern whatsoever for risk factors, defense, or prevention would be "blaming the victim"?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 8, 2016 23:07:44 GMT -5
calleduntoliberty , so you are saying that a child has to dress modestly (according to your view of modesty) to feel respect for themselves, and to feel safe ? Do you really think a person that abuses children is going to care how they are dressed? Also that is just blaming the victim and telling them that it was their fault because of how they were dressed ! That is just a cop-out ! The person that abuses children is the one with the problem not the child ! So yes the fault lies with the attacker not the victim. Did you just say that as a joke because I predicted it? This is a serious matter. Do you believe that people concerned about child abuse should not ever consider or discuss anything they might do to attempt to reduce the risk of abuse occurring, because showing any concern whatsoever for risk factors, defense, or prevention would be "blaming the victim"? Sounds to me that you have some CSA experience in your background.
|
|
|
Post by howitis on May 8, 2016 23:47:55 GMT -5
We do not know what can trigger a pedophile to act what we know is that they can act and respond to different triggers or stimuli presented singularly or any variety or combination. Some see a child alone and that is enough for them to react, others will still respond when children are grouped. Removing possible stimuli, for example having children in groups, not identifying single children (so that perpetrators would know their names or whereabouts), as in school newsletters, having children not expose themselves either bodily or socially (like social media), having an adult with children, teaching children forms of self care and defence...... are some of the known ways to help reduce attack incidence. It is not saying anyone else is to blame, but the perpetrator, they are just some of the strategies used to help try to keep our children safe.
|
|
|
Post by curlywurlysammagee on May 9, 2016 1:01:30 GMT -5
Too much focus on groups. Individuals are Christians or not and true Christians will show the fruits of Christ. Instead of speaking in metaphors, it might be helpful to be explicit. What, exactly, are the 'fruits of Christ'? The phrase makes Jesus sound like a green grocer. Nope, he was a carpenter.
|
|
|
Post by Roselyn T on May 9, 2016 2:29:32 GMT -5
calleduntoliberty , so you are saying that a child has to dress modestly (according to your view of modesty) to feel respect for themselves, and to feel safe ? Do you really think a person that abuses children is going to care how they are dressed? Also that is just blaming the victim and telling them that it was their fault because of how they were dressed ! That is just a cop-out ! The person that abuses children is the one with the problem not the child ! So yes the fault lies with the attacker not the victim. Did you just say that as a joke because I predicted it? This is a serious matter. Do you believe that people concerned about child abuse should not ever consider or discuss anything they might do to attempt to reduce the risk of abuse occurring, because showing any concern whatsoever for risk factors, defense, or prevention would be "blaming the victim"? calleduntoliberty, I am well aware of how serious this issue is and how it is not being handled by the 2x2's in Australia. Exactly how will dressing a child modestly according to you opinion of modesty change anything? How about teaching children not to trust workers for a start? How about parents not leaving their children alone with workers. How about teaching children about their bodies and what is not appropriate touching. You didn't answer my question I noticed, do you have children ?
|
|
|
Post by kittens on May 9, 2016 4:40:45 GMT -5
calleduntoliberty , I am well aware of how serious this issue is and how it is not being handled by the 2x2's in Australia. Exactly how will dressing a child modestly according to you opinion of modesty change anything? How about teaching children not to trust workers for a start? How about parents not leaving their children alone with workers. How about teaching children about their bodies and what is not appropriate touching. You didn't answer my question I noticed, do you have children ?
|
|
|
Post by ellie on May 9, 2016 5:15:30 GMT -5
A problem IMO in using this definition of Christianity is (based on my guess of what you mean by Christ as the standard) I've not yet met one true Christian. Every person I've met claiming to be christian has at some point done something out of line with that standard. Awww, we have all come short of the glory of God. However I'm not of the impression that rends us non-Christian or lose our Christian status. I thought that meant we needed to get closer to Christ..etc. I don't really think it means a loss of Christian status. To me it means that we need a clearer definition for Christian. My point was to illustrate that nobody meets the 'Christ standard' perfectly. So if the 'Christ standard' is how we define christian that means either: 1) Nobody is a Christian because everybody failed the 'Christ standard'. OR 2) We stop judging others even really really bad people who say they are Christian to be something else just because they are not meeting the 'Christ standard' and come up with a better definition. To explain 2) a little more. A transgression of the standard is a transgression no matter how small. Just because we think someone else's transgression was bigger than ours we shouldn't say that they are not christian while saying we are christian. If we do that we are being very inconsistent with our definition of christian as meeting the 'Christ standard'. In addition we are taking the definition into our own hands and saying in our heads well this matters but that not so much... etc. So the definition of christian really becomes ellie's standard or sharingtheriches' standard etc rather than the 'christ standard' Once this happens the word ceases to define anything useful at all. There become as many definitions of Christian as there are people and anyone can say someone else is not a christian just to suit themselves or just because the didn't like what that person did. So if this can happen I think we need to go back to the drawing board for how we define Christian. Hopefully that makes sense
|
|
|
Post by ellie on May 9, 2016 5:49:39 GMT -5
Spong may not be an atheist but most believers would not regard him as a Christian. one reason for this is that amongst many other things he doesn't believe in the bodily resurrection. Some believers perhaps may not see Spong as Christian and they are entitled to an opinion. For others who don't and cannot believe in standard theology or in literal resurrections or other miracles Spong and others like him are a breath of fresh air in a tradition that otherwise might be dead to them. I personally feel that Spong has done a good job of keeping Christianity real, acknowledging things that were not right and attempting to propose a way forward without tossing out the tradition.
|
|
|
Post by calleduntoliberty on May 9, 2016 9:53:22 GMT -5
Did you just say that as a joke because I predicted it? This is a serious matter. Do you believe that people concerned about child abuse should not ever consider or discuss anything they might do to attempt to reduce the risk of abuse occurring, because showing any concern whatsoever for risk factors, defense, or prevention would be "blaming the victim"? calleduntoliberty, I am well aware of how serious this issue is and how it is not being handled by the 2x2's in Australia. Exactly how will dressing a child modestly according to you opinion of modesty change anything? How about teaching children not to trust workers for a start? How about parents not leaving their children alone with workers. How about teaching children about their bodies and what is not appropriate touching. Teaching deliberate active distrust of a group of people who have not individual earned it is problematic. Teaching caution and limiting trust of people who are not sufficiently known to have earned trust is appropriate. Teaching children about what is appropriate and what is not could also be appropriate. According to the logic you applied to teaching modesty, all of those precautions would constitute "blaming the victim". "It is NOT the fault of the child who trusted the attacker! The fault lies with the attacker!"
|
|
|
Post by jondough on May 9, 2016 11:44:05 GMT -5
Interesting to read here after being away for a while. This catches me a little late responding to the Original Post.
It’s ironic that my wife was just mentioning that her mother was telling her about some “couples” in their area that had “lost out” because of some stuff they were reading on the internet about the “Truth”.
Different people respond differently when learning about our history. I have said it before, but since it’s the topic, I’ll say it again. I embrace our history. I make no excuse for the deception that there is an unbroken succession of our fellowship that leads all the way back to the shores of Galilee……other than the fact that……the ones that told us this, were told this themselves, and 100 percent believed it. Probably still do today. So when they told us this, they were not intentionally lying to us.
How did this deception start? Here’s how I believe it started: William Irvine preaching fire and brimstone, about the one true way/fellowship (that he started), and everyone else going to Hell. We are still exclusive to this day (well most are still). So then…..what happened to the very first Workers of our Fellowship? John Long is ex-communicated. Cooney is put out. William Irvine thinking he's one of the Prophets we read about in Revelations, goes off the deep end and leaves. So the ones left are all products, or should I say "successors" of these three founders. So what to do but not talk about the first three. Keep it silent. Of course the void (silence) gets filled with something. That something is the vague story we were all told.
Again, I don’t believe it was a blatant lie by anyone. Thanks to John Long’s Journal, Cherie (TTT), and some others, we now know pretty accurately what our history is. Some still chose to believe fantasies such as the William Irvine sister story that has no facts behind it. But of course, the ones telling this rendition also believes there are underground tunnels below the earth in which Aliens live, and believe in some character named Commander Thor that resides amongst us today, along with other far fetched fantasies. I noticed Wally believes this rendition that is told. I wonder if he also believes the alien, and Commander Thor stuff as well.
Anyway, like I said, I embrace the history of our fellowship. What is left after learning the truth about the Truth will be something very solid. Your foundation will be the true Rock. The actual Truth (Christ), and you’ll simply have sweet fellowship with people whom many love Christ as you do. The internet has been good for our fellowship. It forces us to go back to the true foundation. The true rock. The actual Way, Truth, and Life (Christ). There is no need for a human succession of a certain fellowship if our Rock is Christ.
Of course, after knowing our true history, you may become non-exclusive as I did. Then being non-exclusive, and knowing the real truth, sometimes can be very frustrating when hearing preaching and testimonies that still preach exclusiveness, and the Shores of Galilee history. I deal with it mainly by knowing that we fellowship with really good, God loving, honest people who are trying to do what they feel is right for the most part. We are all imperfect. Our fellowship has wolves among sheep like the bible tells us we would. Like we just heard at convention "non of us can EVER affect the Kingdom". We may affect our "fellowship", but we cannot EVER affect "The Kingdom".
Hopefully you younger generation will just embrace our history and stay in our fellowship. Again, what will be left is something much more solid, and founded on THE true rock.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 9, 2016 13:39:52 GMT -5
Interesting to read here after being away for a while. This catches me a little late responding to the Original Post. It’s ironic that my wife was just mentioning that her mother was telling her about some “couples” in their area that had “lost out” because of some stuff they were reading on the internet about the “Truth”. Different people respond differently when learning about our history. I have said it before, but since it’s the topic, I’ll say it again. I embrace our history. I make no excuse for the deception that there is an unbroken succession of our fellowship that leads all the way back to the shores of Galilee……other than the fact that……the ones that told us this, were told this themselves, and 100 percent believed it. Probably still do today. So when they told us this, they were not intentionally lying to us. How did this deception start? Here’s how I believe it started: William Irvine preaching fire and brimstone, about the one true way/fellowship (that he started), and everyone else going to Hell. We are still exclusive to this day (well most are still). So then…..what happened to the very first Workers of our Fellowship? John Long is ex-communicated. Cooney is put out. William Irvine thinking he's one of the Prophets we read about in Revelations, goes off the deep end and leaves. So the ones left are all products, or should I say "successors" of these three founders. So what to do but not talk about the first three. Keep it silent. Of course the void (silence) gets filled with something. That something is the vague story we were all told. Again, I don’t believe it was a blatant lie by anyone. Thanks to John Long’s Journal, Cherie (TTT), and some others, we now know pretty accurately what our history is. Some still chose to believe fantasies such as the William Irvine sister story that has no facts behind it. But of course, the ones telling this rendition also believes there are underground tunnels below the earth in which Aliens live, and believe in some character named Commander Thor that resides amongst us today, along with other far fetched fantasies. I noticed Wally believes this rendition that is told. I wonder if he also believes the alien, and Commander Thor stuff as well. Anyway, like I said, I embrace the history of our fellowship. What is left after learning the truth about the Truth will be something very solid. Your foundation will be the true Rock. The actual Truth (Christ), and you’ll simply have sweet fellowship with people whom many love Christ as you do. The internet has been good for our fellowship. It forces us to go back to the true foundation. The true rock. The actual Way, Truth, and Life (Christ). There is no need for a human succession of a certain fellowship if our Rock is Christ. Of course, after knowing our true history, you may become non-exclusive as I did. Then being non-exclusive, and knowing the real truth, sometimes can be very frustrating when hearing preaching and testimonies that still preach exclusiveness, and the Shores of Galilee history. I deal with it mainly by knowing that we fellowship with really good, God loving, honest people who are trying to do what they feel is right for the most part. We are all imperfect. Our fellowship has wolves among sheep like the bible tells us we would. Like we just heard at convention "non of us can EVER affect the Kingdom". We may affect our "fellowship", but we cannot EVER affect "The Kingdom". Hopefully you younger generation will just embrace our history and stay in our fellowship. Again, what will be left is something much more solid, and founded on THE true rock. All good comments jondough, but until 2x2ism deals with its extremely unhealthy organizational structure, there continue to be problems, extremist doctrines, legalistic teachings, etc. If 2x2ism couldn't clean up the incredibly insane fake story of its origin by itself (ex-2x2s had to do this), then 2x2ism isn't going to fix any of its other problems by itself. You need to take a very hard look at why 2x2ism went for so long promoting such an incredibly insane fake origins story without it being cleaned up internally. There are structural reasons for this. Until 2x2ism acknowledges that it has organizational structure problems, it will never be proactive in fixing anything - it will only change by reaction to huge outside forces (ex-2x2s on the internet, criminal convictions of 2x2 ministers for sex crimes, etc). This is the mark of a very unhealthy organization. And you will never ever change anything in 2x2ism until you address the organizational structure problems. See here for more details professing.proboards.com/thread/24187/why-2x2ism-despotism
|
|
|
Post by jondough on May 9, 2016 13:55:26 GMT -5
Interesting to read here after being away for a while. This catches me a little late responding to the Original Post. It’s ironic that my wife was just mentioning that her mother was telling her about some “couples” in their area that had “lost out” because of some stuff they were reading on the internet about the “Truth”. Different people respond differently when learning about our history. I have said it before, but since it’s the topic, I’ll say it again. I embrace our history. I make no excuse for the deception that there is an unbroken succession of our fellowship that leads all the way back to the shores of Galilee……other than the fact that……the ones that told us this, were told this themselves, and 100 percent believed it. Probably still do today. So when they told us this, they were not intentionally lying to us. How did this deception start? Here’s how I believe it started: William Irvine preaching fire and brimstone, about the one true way/fellowship (that he started), and everyone else going to Hell. We are still exclusive to this day (well most are still). So then…..what happened to the very first Workers of our Fellowship? John Long is ex-communicated. Cooney is put out. William Irvine thinking he's one of the Prophets we read about in Revelations, goes off the deep end and leaves. So the ones left are all products, or should I say "successors" of these three founders. So what to do but not talk about the first three. Keep it silent. Of course the void (silence) gets filled with something. That something is the vague story we were all told. Again, I don’t believe it was a blatant lie by anyone. Thanks to John Long’s Journal, Cherie (TTT), and some others, we now know pretty accurately what our history is. Some still chose to believe fantasies such as the William Irvine sister story that has no facts behind it. But of course, the ones telling this rendition also believes there are underground tunnels below the earth in which Aliens live, and believe in some character named Commander Thor that resides amongst us today, along with other far fetched fantasies. I noticed Wally believes this rendition that is told. I wonder if he also believes the alien, and Commander Thor stuff as well. Anyway, like I said, I embrace the history of our fellowship. What is left after learning the truth about the Truth will be something very solid. Your foundation will be the true Rock. The actual Truth (Christ), and you’ll simply have sweet fellowship with people whom many love Christ as you do. The internet has been good for our fellowship. It forces us to go back to the true foundation. The true rock. The actual Way, Truth, and Life (Christ). There is no need for a human succession of a certain fellowship if our Rock is Christ. Of course, after knowing our true history, you may become non-exclusive as I did. Then being non-exclusive, and knowing the real truth, sometimes can be very frustrating when hearing preaching and testimonies that still preach exclusiveness, and the Shores of Galilee history. I deal with it mainly by knowing that we fellowship with really good, God loving, honest people who are trying to do what they feel is right for the most part. We are all imperfect. Our fellowship has wolves among sheep like the bible tells us we would. Like we just heard at convention "non of us can EVER affect the Kingdom". We may affect our "fellowship", but we cannot EVER affect "The Kingdom". Hopefully you younger generation will just embrace our history and stay in our fellowship. Again, what will be left is something much more solid, and founded on THE true rock. All good comments jondough, but until 2x2ism deals with its extremely unhealthy organizational structure, there continue to be problems, extremist doctrines, legalistic teachings, etc. If 2x2ism couldn't clean up the incredibly insane fake story of its origin by itself (ex-2x2s had to do this), then 2x2ism isn't going to fix any of its other problems by itself. You need to take a very hard look at why 2x2ism went for so long promoting such an incredibly insane fake origins story without it being cleaned up internally. There are structural reasons for this. Until 2x2ism acknowledges that it has organizational structure problems, it will never be proactive in fixing anything - it will only change by reaction to huge outside forces (ex-2x2s on the internet, criminal convictions of 2x2 ministers for sex crimes, etc). This is the mark of a very unhealthy organization. And you will never ever change anything in 2x2ism until you address the organizational structure problems. See here for more details professing.proboards.com/thread/24187/why-2x2ism-despotismAnd what do you think caused your own church to take a look at the corruption within? The statistics of how many of the Priest and upper hierarchy that were child molesters are staggering within the Catholic church. Was it not outside forces that caused them to take action? Do you feel that this is what also defines your church? Fortunately, the "wolves in sheep's clothing" is something we know will probably always be there, but we also know that it is NOT what defines our fellowship.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 9, 2016 14:19:44 GMT -5
All good comments jondough , but until 2x2ism deals with its extremely unhealthy organizational structure, there continue to be problems, extremist doctrines, legalistic teachings, etc. If 2x2ism couldn't clean up the incredibly insane fake story of its origin by itself (ex-2x2s had to do this), then 2x2ism isn't going to fix any of its other problems by itself. You need to take a very hard look at why 2x2ism went for so long promoting such an incredibly insane fake origins story without it being cleaned up internally. There are structural reasons for this. Until 2x2ism acknowledges that it has organizational structure problems, it will never be proactive in fixing anything - it will only change by reaction to huge outside forces (ex-2x2s on the internet, criminal convictions of 2x2 ministers for sex crimes, etc). This is the mark of a very unhealthy organization. And you will never ever change anything in 2x2ism until you address the organizational structure problems. See here for more details professing.proboards.com/thread/24187/why-2x2ism-despotismAnd what do you think caused your own church to take a look at the corruption within? The statistics of how many of the Priest and upper hierarchy that were child molesters are staggering within the Catholic church. Was it not outside forces that caused them to take action? Do you feel that this is what also defines your church? Fortunately, the "wolves in sheep's clothing" is something we know will probably always be there, but we also know that it is NOT what defines our fellowship. Let me first categorize your argument to show how your argument in no way invalidates my original argument: 1) Yes, we 2x2s have some troubles 2) RCC had some troubles also Therefore, why pick on us 2x2s. There are others at least as bad as us, so there is no reason for us to change. You do understand that your argument is a fallacy. Perhaps you can find another group worse than 2x2s, however that is completely irrelevant to the discussion of the particular aspects of the 2x2 org structure. I'm going to humor you though and ignore your fallacious reasoning. First off, I am not a member of the Roman Catholic Church. I am an Episcopalian - and we have a very open, transparent, and democratic org structure (actually based entirely on the org structure of the US federal gvmt). But let me address the RCC since that is what you are most concerned about. Do you realize that the Roman Catholic Church's organizational structure was originally based on the org structure of Roman Imperial Military? That does not mean it was all top-down with no official or unofficial channels for dissent though - because the RCC has a lot of mechanisms in place to allow dissent and discussion, albeit not as democratic as Episcopalians. Do you realize that the RCC is the ONLY institution which survived the fall of the Western Roman Empire? It was the only institution which maintained any of the knowledge capital of the Roman Empire well into the late Middle Ages. It takes a very special org structure to do that, and most certainly not a democratic one. As to your question about the sex crimes in the RCC, the sex crimes were (as a percentage of the total) mostly confined to RCC boarding schools or other places where there was unrestrained access and control by the perpetrator to the children. 2x2s do not have all boys boarding schools, so you have to ask yourself just how bad the 2x2 sex crime situation would be if 2x2s did have all boys boarding schools. The sex crimes in the RCC were/are abhorrent, and most certainly outside pressure was a big factor in forcing the RCC to deal with it - but the RCC did more than just clean out the perps, they made org changes to make sure it doesn't happen again. In any case, the RCC has taken drastic measure since the 1990s to change its org structure as it pertains to situations of interacting with children. 2x2ism has not made any org changes. All of this to say, 2x2ism has an org structure problem. It doesn't matter if other groups have org structure problems also. Furthermore, there are many groups which have very healthy org structures. Don't judge yourselves against the worst or second worst in the class. Judge yourselves against the best in the class, and then try to figure out what you can do to change for the better. Deal with the org structure problem of 2x2ism, or continue on the path of irrelevance and spiritual abuse.
|
|
|
Post by jondough on May 9, 2016 16:29:21 GMT -5
You missed my point.
You are correct, we shouldn't compare ourselves to other churches....bad, worse....or not so bad....
My only point was, do you scrutinize your own church the way you do our fellowship? You insinuate that our problems are what define us. Do you use this same philosophy for yourself? You have had plenty of problems of your own.
Please don't put words in my mouth that I don't think our problems need correcting. You will never find me claiming our fellowship is perfect, and I am one to acknowledge our problems. But the main point I was making is that our problems are not what define us.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 9, 2016 16:37:57 GMT -5
You missed my point. You are correct, we shouldn't compare ourselves to other churches....bad, worse....or not so bad.... My only point was, do you scrutinize your own church the way you do our fellowship? You insinuate that our problems are what define us. Do you use this same philosophy for yourself? You have had plenty of problems of your own. Please don't put words in my mouth that I don't think our problems need correcting. You will never find me claiming our fellowship is perfect, and I am one to acknowledge our problems. But the main point I was making is that our problems are not what define us. I am Episcopalian. I stated that clearly in my response to you. The Episcopal Church is noted for having an org structure modeled on the US Constitution - it is after all the unofficial Church of the USA. You are welcome to research it and learn about it. I dare say that the Episcopal org structure is the best, but it is leagues better than the 2x2 org structure. I hold my church to even higher standards than I hold 2x2ism to. And yes, despite your protests to the contrary, it is your 2x2 problems (particularly your org structure) which define you. Improve your org structure and alot of your other problems will solve themselves very quickly. You've had 2x2 ministers and laity running around for more than 100 years claiming that the Bible explicitly states that minsters must travel in pairs, something that even a 85 IQ could figure out was complete nonsense with one reading the the 4 Gospels. You tell me just how such a ridiculous claim was able to exist for so long (still does) in your organization as front and center doctrine. There is only one way, to have a despotic org structure which prohibits outside interaction and questioning. All of your problem, from the big to the small, are baked into your org structure. Build a house with a bad foundation, and your house will be full of problems - that's 2x2ism in a nutshell. You definitely did not build your house on the Rock of Peter.
|
|
|
Post by Roselyn T on May 9, 2016 19:12:54 GMT -5
calleduntoliberty, I am well aware of how serious this issue is and how it is not being handled by the 2x2's in Australia. Exactly how will dressing a child modestly according to you opinion of modesty change anything? How about teaching children not to trust workers for a start? How about parents not leaving their children alone with workers. How about teaching children about their bodies and what is not appropriate touching. Teaching deliberate active distrust of a group of people who have not individual earned it is problematic. Teaching caution and limiting trust of people who are not sufficiently known to have earned trust is appropriate. Teaching children about what is appropriate and what is not could also be appropriate. According to the logic you applied to teaching modesty, all of those precautions would constitute "blaming the victim". "It is NOT the fault of the child who trusted the attacker! The fault lies with the attacker!" calleduntoliberty, of course the fault is with the attacker NOT THE VICTIM ! No where have I said the fault was the victims ! My point was dressing a child modestly (according to your view of modesty) with not stop a person attacking a child . Growing up we believed that we could trust the workers, we were left with the workers alone because our parents trusted them, so yes children need to be taught that the workers are NOT PERFECT, people need to stop putting them on a pedestal, this is the parents job to teach their children that the workers are still human. I notice you have once again avoided my question, do you have children ?
|
|