Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 26, 2007 22:46:35 GMT -5
This thread carries on from the "Leaflets dropped off in the convention shed KS&MO" thread, which had an oversized image effecting the readability of the thread. [/img] [/center] Firstly, many would have seen that the laugh was on the people who posted this leaflet, rather than on its recipients. 1 - WI is the Truth's founder - Apparently Jesus witnessed the Truth, and Irvine founded it ;D 2 - Calling something truth doesn't make it Jesus - that's truth! the bible says to "try the spirits" 3 - Jesus loves us because we are individuals - it can't be any other way! 4 - The narrow way is defined by Jesus - true, and we wouldn't say anything contrary. Does the author of this polemic worship in a narrow or a broad way? 5 - "... forbid him not.... is on our part." - Are you saying, in posting offending material, that you are on Jesus part? 6 - Jesus ...Lord first... our pattern of living second... - Can you take the first without the second 7 - works are done within our heart and not by our own hands... - that's ambiguous 8 - ... and never done for show - That good, I like that. ;D 9 - Salvation is a gift, not something we earn - And if were otherwise, none of us would know God. ;D 10 - It is not a sin to examine your religious beliefs - We agree on much! ;D 11 - try the spirits... - I think most of us have tried the spirits, or observed them carefully in the world around us. 12 - Facts aren't of satan - Certainly can be, and usually are! Satan certainly proffered facts to Adam and Jesus! Think how Satan reminded the Jews of Jesus' background! 13 - If this council be of men it will come to nought - I have been to conventions for about 60 years, I hardly recognize the churches now. Must have shrunk ten fold in that time, amalgamated or vanished. And they do things now we would have been thrown in jail for once. 14 - If it be of God you cannot overthrow it - have you overthrown my church yet? It will be around when you, and probably your own church, are long gone. 15 - pray, read, research these things.... Yes, do that. 16 - Fools despise wisdom and instruction - Answer critic's questions on the TMB and they usually move onto something else, or get personal. 17 - Let no man take thy crown - I don't see too many crowns in the churches around me, something about "don't judge us" and "not perfect, but forgiven" and "things have changed" and "Paul wasn't really the true Christian" and "other ways lead to God, too." 18 - Choosing blindness... - I think the author chose that. 19 - Wikipedia URL - hope the nice folks at this convention get to see our web sites, too! They will appreciate how faithful to the teachings and example of that First Church they really are. p.s. Is there a copyright on this leaflet? Can I use it in the Wikipedia?
|
|
|
Post by simple on Jul 26, 2007 22:48:55 GMT -5
once again bert is under the illusion that his websites (which the workers do not endorse) are about the church he attends.
It must suck to be ignored by the workers, right bert?
|
|
|
Post by simple on Jul 26, 2007 22:54:54 GMT -5
Hey everyone, don't forget to go read bert's website, which is not about 2x2ism.
|
|
|
Post by Brad Lewis on Jul 26, 2007 22:56:53 GMT -5
Is Bert starting YAR (Yet Another Religion)? Brad
|
|
|
Post by to bert on Jul 26, 2007 23:08:42 GMT -5
bert, the workers don't care for your website.
|
|
I dont think Bert cared
Guest
|
Post by I dont think Bert cared on Jul 27, 2007 3:32:57 GMT -5
I don't think Bert cared for them reading this thread, either. They wouldn't know who he was!
|
|
|
Post by janet on Jul 27, 2007 7:24:26 GMT -5
I don't think Bert cared for them reading this thread, either. They wouldn't know who he was! Bert is an anyomous registered gutter snipe like all the rest. registered or not. You know I thought I read a thread where some people who supported nat gave up on him. Maybe they are trying to start a new relegion. It should be called BURNIT foolowers ;D
|
|
|
Post by gloryintruth on Jul 27, 2007 8:25:52 GMT -5
[Janet Wrote] Bert is an anyomous registered gutter snipe like all the rest. registered or not.
The rank smell of hypocrisy. You are just as anonymous as any other poster, and a good deal more, since you do not list your geographic location. If you want to set the standard for full disclosure, you can tell us your last name and your state of origin.
You come across as a poisonous individual indeed. Here not for any reason but to cause dissention and trouble.
|
|
|
Post by ii on Jul 27, 2007 16:32:45 GMT -5
I don't think Bert cared for them reading this thread, either. They wouldn't know who he was! Bert is an anyomous registered gutter snipe like all the rest. registered or not. You know I thought I read a thread where some people who supported nat gave up on him. Maybe they are trying to start a new relegion. It should be called BURNIT foolowers ;D bout time you learnt to smell ;D ooops meant spell ;D
|
|
|
Post by the norrow way on Jul 27, 2007 18:32:32 GMT -5
- The narrow way is defined by Jesus - true, and we wouldn't say anything contrary. Does the author of this polemic worship in a narrow or a broad way?
There is only one way to worship Jesus, it is in spirit and truth. All who worship Jesus in spirit and truth are part of the narrow way. Those who do not accept Jesus and do not worship him are part of the broad way. Christians are the narrow way. The world is the broad way. So if the person Bert is referring to is a Christian then they are worshiping in what Jesus terms the narrow way.
When Jesus referred to the narrow way I am sure he did not mean a narrow minded way which the workers seem to think it refers to. Being narrow minded and being ignorant is what the workers seem to consider the narrow way. NO!! Narrow minded and the narrow way are 2 different things.
|
|
professingalongtime
Guest
|
Post by professingalongtime on Jul 27, 2007 19:05:19 GMT -5
There are some professing people who are 100% according to the workers. No rules broken, etc., then there are those who break all the rules. Have TVs, radios, go to movies, women wear pants, hair short and down, jewelry and so on. They are not considered "xs" because they still go to meetings. Could someone please explain why?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 27, 2007 19:32:21 GMT -5
Maybe they are wannabe exes. They are exes of the heart, or people who don't understand a lot. Anyone who says "no rules broken" needs to understand what is this "rules" business. If you love a person and want to spend your life with them, then it should be an unspoken rule that no other person is to come between you and the one you love. If it has to be a RULE then perhaps you don't really love that person. This is Jesus' First Commandment. If you love the world, and the things of the world, then you will indulge yourself in its thinking, fashions, entertainment, way of speech and friendship.
|
|
To professingalongtime
Guest
|
Post by To professingalongtime on Jul 27, 2007 19:38:16 GMT -5
The workers' group is a group OF workers, BY workers, FOR workers.
The workers make the rules.
Any who wish to keep the workers' rules are free to do so.
Any who wish to not keep the worker's rules are free to not do so.
The workers decide who stays and who goes.
It is not a matter of honesty or consistency or confomity or willingness but up to the discretion of the workers as to whom they wish to keep their club up and running.
They will not let go any who "break the rules" if those doing so are the hands who feed them so to speak.
|
|
|
Post by a believer on Jul 27, 2007 21:15:24 GMT -5
Maybe they are wannabe exes. They are exes of the heart, or people who don't understand a lot. Anyone who says "no rules broken" needs to understand what is this "rules" business. If you love a person and want to spend your life with them, then it should be an unspoken rule that no other person is to come between you and the one you love. If it has to be a RULE then perhaps you don't really love that person. This is Jesus' First Commandment. If you love the world, and the things of the world, then you will indulge yourself in its thinking, fashions, entertainment, way of speech and friendship. who defines what the world is? The workers or God. Love not the world or the things in the world,.... so Bert, do you won a house, farm, do you work? Do you consider these things of the world? or is it just wrong to own and watch a TV, dress nicely, etc. Just because a person has them does not mean that they love them. because you won a car or house, does it automatically mean you love them more than God?
|
|
|
Post by a believer on Jul 27, 2007 21:16:54 GMT -5
ok ......... blame the spell check.... not won, but own.......
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 27, 2007 21:22:14 GMT -5
quote - who defines what the world is? The workers or God. Love not the world or the things in the world,.... Its a bit like defining porn. You know it when you see it. In Australia we have this Christina Aguilera concert - would you say that is the World, or of God?
quote - so Bert, do you (own) a house, farm, do you work? Do you consider these things of the world? Yeah, we have a farm ;D But no, I don't consider them to part of the "world" in this context.
quote - or is it just wrong to own and watch a TV, dress nicely, etc. Just because a person has them does not mean that they love them. because you won a car or house, does it automatically mean you love them more than God? When the bible said not to love the world, nor the things in the world - it meant things which are anti-God, or could distract from God.
|
|
_
Junior Member
Posts: 71
|
Post by _ on Jul 27, 2007 21:29:02 GMT -5
some in your fellowship use to think wearing a red dress or wearing a wedding ring was being part of the world... do you agree bert?
and I doubt Christina will be coming to your farm bert...
|
|
|
Post by a saint on Jul 27, 2007 21:54:34 GMT -5
There are some professing people who are 100% according to the workers. No rules broken, etc., These are saints. They are going to heaven. These are weak saints. We hope they get stronger so they can go to heaven too. But it's not our place to judge. If a weak saint stops coming to meeting then they are an ex, which means they are an outsider, aka lost. Because this is what Jesus taught. It's in the bible. Look it up. If you can't find it they you aren't willing.
|
|
|
Post by question for bert on Jul 27, 2007 21:57:58 GMT -5
Anyone who says "no rules broken" needs to understand what is this "rules" business. If you love a person and want to spend your life with them, then it should be an unspoken rule that no other person is to come between you and the one you love. If it has to be a RULE then perhaps you don't really love that person. This is Jesus' First Commandment. If you love the world, and the things of the world, then you will indulge yourself in its thinking, fashions, entertainment, way of speech and friendship. bert, in the 50's my Grandpa had a television when he professed and refused to get rid of it so the workers un-professed him and told him he couldn't take part. He protested and was told he was no longer welcome in the meetings. Why do you think this was?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 27, 2007 22:17:03 GMT -5
quote - some in your fellowship use to think wearing a red dress or wearing a wedding ring was being part of the world... do you agree bert? Depends on the social context. Remember, context is everything. What does red mean to what society in what time period? These days it doesn't mean much at all - lots of young ladies, and not so young, wear red to meetings. But in a future time the colour might take on a new meaning, and people will have to think long and hard about whether they can wear what their mothers or grandmothers once freely wore.
quote - and I doubt Christina will be coming to your farm bert... And as for Christina Aguilera. I didn't know how to spell her name so looked her up in Google - whoa... one hot babe! Now I know who is on all these bimbo magazines down under! Maybe I ought to offer my property to her for a free concert ;D ;D ;D ;D
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 27, 2007 22:19:50 GMT -5
quote - bert, in the 50's my Grandpa had a television when he professed and refused to get rid of it so the workers un-professed him and told him he couldn't take part. He protested and was told he was no longer welcome in the meetings. I don't know the full context to this story. If someone loves television, frequents "nudey bars" or goes to Christine Aguilera concerts then there are other issues involved that are more pressing for the workers than the actual "entertainment."
|
|
|
Post by gloryintruth on Jul 27, 2007 23:05:10 GMT -5
I must thank Bert for reproducing this text on the TMB because it gives us all a valuable insight into the arguments being advanced against professing people, and also the opportunity to evaluate the current methodology of "attack" being used. I further thank Bert for his comments - valuable points raised - although I am sure Bert, like myself, was somewhat disappointed by the inability of many posters to actually engage with the material presented. The old ad hominem attack rears its ugly head, and, as I have maintained in the past, when someone feels it necessary to make a personal insult in lieu of counterpoint, it is usually the sign of a failed argument.
Survey of arguments in leaflet One of the things I first noticed when I looked at this leaflet was the absence of the sorts of accusations and condemnations we routinely experience on the TMB. It would seem that the authors of this text recognise that anti-social behaviour is not an effective witnessing tool, and is unlikely to inspire any of the friends to depart from the wicked, serpentine cult, that has twisted its way around their souls and minds in leathery coils. Such rhetoric does not have the desired effect. Barracking hell and damnation does not a tender soul create, nor a wayward soul return.
In my experience, apologists appeal to an authority they know is respected by the individuals they are addressing. Those who seek to convert Jehovah's Witnesses will use WatchTower Magazine publications and the New World Translation because these are texts which, to the mind of the adherent, are authoritative. And, one who wants to convert a Muslim, for instance, will have little success unless they learn to tackle the Koran and Muhammad's life first. Going at it like a bull in a china-shop will only harden the Muslim's resolve, and cause them to lean more heavily on their learned dogmatic teachings designed to seal their thinking process within a tight circuit. I know this from personal experience of talking to many, many Muslims, whom I love and long for their conversion to Christianity. Muslims are lost souls indeed! We need to have a passion for their conversion.
Likewise, apologists to the Mormons will often start with Joseph Smith and the Book of Mormon in their address. When witnessing with Mormons directly, they will wear suits and ties, because Mormons value personal grooming and a tidy appearance. They will speak quietly and in modulated tones, because Mormons are innately suspicious of loud demonstrations. I have seen the futility of the "gospel proclaimation" of street fundamentalists on camera footage, and likewise the effectiveness of those who demonstrate a little sensitivity to their audience.
Bearing this in mind, to whom do the authors of this polemic appeal in order to extricate the friends from the Church? Do they appeal to William Irvine and his copious body of writings; showing contradiction and error? Of course not. This would be wasted effort because Irvine has no credibility or authority within the Church, and his heterodox writings are (rightly) forgotten by everyone except the ex-2x2s who preserve and treasure them. Irvine is considered but an early apostate from the Faith, totally lacking any kind of meaningful connection to the friends.
Well then! Do the authors appeal to Edward Cooney, as the supposed, second man, and his attempt to revive apostolic signs and work miracles? Do the authors demonstrate Cooney's extremist behaviour and point out how inconsistent this is with a sound knowledge of the scriptures? Or, do the authors mention some of Cooney's outrageous comments - as one might mention Muhammad's comments or Joseph Smith's comments to a Muslim or Mormon? No! Because like Irvine, Cooney also has no credibility within the Church, and no one could care less whether he tried to perform miracles or not. He is not considered authoritative in the church at all.
Instead the authors appeal to two main sources of authority in order to work their conversion: the words of the Lord Jesus Christ, and the Gospel itself. I think this speaks volumes about the friends, and when properly deconstructed, tells us volumes about the innate understanding of some ex-2x2 apologists.
Points Raised - casting out devils I find it disingenuous for the authors to cite the instance of a man who believed Christ, and recieved for his faith, the power of the Holy Spirit to cast out devils in a tangible way. The authors seem to be suggesting that such a man represents pastors and ministers of other churches - also following Christ, also casting out devils, also effective - but sadly unrecognised by the apostles of Christ (that is to say, the friends).
It is a classic case of anachronism to read back into the text a modern situation removed from the actual events by almost two millenia. These were individuals, not churches. The issue was the extent of the gift of the Holy Spirit to followers of Christ. The point revolved around the apostles somewhat self-centred desire to retain the spiritual powers unto themselves. It is not applicable to the situation to which the authors of this leaflet have applied it.
Works in the heart? The middle paragraph concerning works is a complete nonsense. In its dogmatic expression (so as to oppose the friend's beliefs) it also contradicts the scriptures. The authors claim that "works are done within the heart, not by our own hands". Assuming they are refering to works which lead to salvation, they find themselves in direct disagreement with the Apostle Paul who defines "works" as more of a theological position than anything else. When Paul speaks of "works" he usually speaks of what is done with the natural abilities in order to secure heaven: "A workman's wages are his right, but salvation is the gift of God".
Nevertheless, works are part of salvation. The Apostle Paul insists that: "God predestinated us from before the foundation of the world to salvation and good works". The Apostle James teaches us, saying, "Faith without works is dead". And Paul again says, "Nothing matters but faith through love working". We of course believe in salvation through faith in Christ, by grace, but we do not neglect or dispise the place of works - though we never imagine they bring us credit before God. Having recieved faith and life through the grace of God alone, we are not to remain passive, but to be workmen for God.
The authors claim that works are never done for show, but this contradicts the teachings of none other than the Lord Jesus Christ who said, "Let your good works so shine before men that they may see them and glorify your Father which is in heaven". Therefore, we permit our works to be seen because it brings God glory, and that is our task and function as Christian people. We do things in order to "recieve the praise which comes from God, and not from men". Obviously the Pharisaic way of finding in public recognition of works a reward is sinful.
Satanic facts? Can facts not be presented in such a way as to be deceptive or misleading? If the authors believe such a thing, then they are clearly newborn babes to the world of politics. Spin is the native language of all false teachers, and the ambitious.
A false teacher - whether Satan or man - never speaks unfettered lies. False teachers simply do not function this way. Rather they speak just enough truth, just enough fact, to give their stories plausability, for it is from the truthful element of their message that they derive their authority.
Clearly these authors have not read in scripture the cunning craft of Satan in Eden, or of his machinations during the Temptation of Christ, when he cited scripture (doubtless chapter and verse), yet very carefully gave it a tilt in order to attack the Lord.
Let me say it again. Satan does not speak only lies, for it is not in his interests to do so. He speaks just enough truth to cover the deception - for it is from the truth that even an evil creature as the fallen angel derives his limited authority and plausability.
Citing Pharisees as an authority Remember it was a Pharisee who spoke concerning God's work. And although there is an element of truth to this - God's work cannot be undone by man, any more than any physical element can be destroyed - yet it is not altogether applicable to denominational religion, is it? For by the author's logic, the Roman Catholic Church has validity simply by that fact that it has survived for so long, despite blatant heterodox teachings. The Mormon Church goes on strong, preaching that God was once a man who dwelt on a planet circling the star of Kolob. And every year, the WatchTower reports numerical growth.
One must be careful blindly following a principle established by a Pharisee, even if it is found in the pages of scripture. Rather, we know that we who have recieved an unction of the Lord, we "know" as if by instinct, what is true and what is not.
Depressing Reading Yes, it makes for depressing reading because there is so little of substance found within this text, so little that is actually meaingful (and much which is contradictory to sound teaching). It reminds me afresh, that besides a few genuine concerns, many ex-2x2s have no case against the fellowship besides unthinking hostility, and hatred. They have come to a place where their chief motive is to be different from the friends in every possible way, thereby proving their own existence. "I am not like them, therefore I am". It is a philosophy based wholly on the negation of something else.
So naturally it is empty and sad; a faith that relies for its source of strength on the very object of its hatred.
I now blink, turn around the room. My two retriever pups are asleep by my chair, noses twitching; it is windy and overcast; and there is promise in the new day. So turning from this leaflet to my blessings, I let these sad antics moulder in the unreality of cyberspace, where they belong.
|
|
_
Junior Member
Posts: 71
|
Post by _ on Jul 27, 2007 23:15:51 GMT -5
GIT, The leaflet is very poorly written in my opinion, and I would not use it to describe or challenge the point of view held by many of the exes on these boards... If you want to challenge writings sent to the Friends, perhaps you should read the letter to the friends from back in 1997... It can be found at www.thelyingtruth.net/vot/ltr-sm97.htmI have not read the letter in some time and do not recall exactly what it says... however, there is no doubt that the letter give better context and depth into the viewpoints of many former members then the above leaflet...
|
|
|
Post by to GIT on Jul 28, 2007 1:06:25 GMT -5
GIT,
Nice job of prefacing your anti-personal attack post with a personal attack on exes in general.
|
|
|
Post by janet on Jul 28, 2007 1:43:46 GMT -5
For one who Glorys in truth, GIT does not have much to lean on.
Oh Well Such is another one. That is life. Boy there are so many who have fallen away from the Real TRUTH. You think they will lose out? ;D
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 28, 2007 2:01:39 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by gloryintruth on Jul 28, 2007 3:26:49 GMT -5
[Someone Wrote] Nice job of prefacing your anti-personal attack post with a personal attack on exes in general.
My object was to interrogate the text which had been distributed around a convention shed, which purported to explain why the friends have "got it wrong". I made no ad hominem attacks against the authors, or against the ex-2x2 community in general. For instance, calling someone "a waste of space" which is what I was called prior to leaving several months ago. Or, Janet's comment that I do not "have much to lean on". These are remarks directed at or to (ad) the man (hominem).
Moreover, I take issue with your comment that I made a "personal attack" on the exes in general. "Exes" is a collective noun, and the last time I checked, it was awfully difficult to make a personal attack on a collective noun (eg. personally attacking a government; personally attacking society etc).
|
|
|
Post by ranman77007 on Jul 28, 2007 3:31:42 GMT -5
there is no such thing as cyber space. we are all real. we are all speaking.
|
|