|
Post by ii on Jul 28, 2007 4:42:55 GMT -5
there is no such thing as cyber space. we are all real. we are all speaking. maybe he could say, you are spaced out then ;D
|
|
|
Post by gloryintruth on Jul 28, 2007 5:06:49 GMT -5
[Someone Wrote] there is no such thing as cyber space. we are all real. we are all speaking.
No such thing as cyberspace? I am afraid I strongly disagree. Before I became a teacher, I trained for a while as a Network Engineer - I was never very good at it (in fact, I'm not very good at anything, really) - so I went into education.
But I did learn a few things in my shortlived career as a techie. When I speak of cyberspace, I mean the electronic nature of all internet activites. All the coding; the network addresses; even the scripts that make the TMB work, are all electronic. When we communicate it is not in a verbal way. We communicate by preparing text, which we then send to a server, where it is stored and accessed by people all over the world. This is cyberspace.
Please do not imagine that I fail to recognise that my interlocutors are human beings. This understanding is something that I occassionally need to renew from time-to-time, but I do try to remain objective, cool and courteous as I would if I was addressing someone face-to-face.
|
|
thanks for answering leaflet
Guest
|
Post by thanks for answering leaflet on Jul 28, 2007 17:42:31 GMT -5
thanks for answering the leaflet
|
|
|
Post by ditto on Jul 28, 2007 21:21:53 GMT -5
thanks for answering the leaflet yes thanks but next time spare us all the 2x2 bul lshit
|
|
|
Post by sounds like on Jul 28, 2007 21:24:24 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). GIT, if it weren't for nathan and bert on here I'd say you are the biggest bullsh-ter on this forum. Sorry, you're still in 3rd place. Keep trying.
|
|
|
Post by gloryintruth on Jul 29, 2007 5:45:50 GMT -5
[Someone Wrote] GIT, if it weren't for nathan and bert on here I'd say you are the biggest bullsh-ter on this forum. Sorry, you're still in 3rd place. Keep trying.
I wish you would point out where I am in error, or how my original assertions about the leaflet were incorrect. Have I mis-cited scripture when I say that the authors establish unbiblical "rules" regarding works and so on? Or have I actually made a personal attack on an ex-2x2, or the collective ex-2x2 community? If so, where?
Unfortunately, on forums such as this, one becomes accustomed to being subjected to reactionary hostility, in which one is badgered not for one's comments, but rather for what one represents.
|
|
|
Post by to GIT on Jul 29, 2007 8:52:40 GMT -5
I wish you would point out where I am in error, or how my original assertions about the leaflet were incorrect. I'm really confused because I read your explanation and it seemed to be addressing a different leaflet. Which leaflet were you responding to?
|
|
|
Post by to GIT on Jul 29, 2007 10:12:34 GMT -5
GIT, You asked to have your errors pointed out. Here we go... 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. You make the error of assuming that this is "against professing people." You know better than that yet you twisted it to make it appear to be a personal attack when it is not. You are a deceiver. 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. The leaflet is not a personal attack. You pretend it is. You pretend that nobody can engage you, yet it is YOU who is unable to actually engage. You are no different than natebert in that you cannot respond to the actual point without twisting your words. You are a deceiver. Survey of arguments in leafletOne 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. Because there are none. The leaflet merely states facts, ie William Irvine started the 2x2 church (aka the church you attend). That is a documented fact. Pointing out this fact does not constitute an accusation or a condemnation. You have twisted your words to make it appear otherwise. In doing so, you are a deceiver. 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. Speaking of anti-social behavior.... hello jason. 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. This paragraph is not even worth responding to because it has nothing to do with the leaflet. This is just rhetoric coming out of you. 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. ...more time-wasting rhetoric that has nothing to do with the leaflet. 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. I agree. It speaks volumes about the unwillingness of 2x2s such as yourself to engage in meaningful dialogue without twisting your words. Points Raised - casting out devilsI 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). I find it disengenuous for you to pretend that the leaflet says things that it does not. Your rhetoric fools no one. 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. ...ditto to above comment. 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". Salvation is the gift of God, not of works should any man boast. 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. Once you add the "but...." you have added to scripture. 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. You have no good works. 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. The facts were not presented in a deceptive or misleading way. The leaflet very plainly states documented facts. There was no spin on that leaflet. The spin taking place here is YOURS. 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. Again, you are attempting to be deceitful by pretending that the content of the leaflet is false in some manner. Yet you failed to point out anything on the leaflet as being false. You spoke "just enough truth" about the leaflet... 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. The leaflet is not an attack on the Lord. How crafty and evil of you to give such an implication. The world should now see your wickedness for what it is! 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. GIT speaks just enough truth to cover his deception.... don't you Jason? Citing Pharisees as an authorityRemember 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. What are you on about? This paragraph is pointless. 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. And the leaflet is true and speaks nothing but plain documented facts. Depressing ReadingYes, 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. There is no substance within your vainly repeated writings. You are full of lies and deceit. No thinking man would ever see your words as containing any worth. You lie and call it truth. So naturally it is empty and sad; a faith that relies for its source of strength on the very object of its hatred. Speaking of your own faith, are you? 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. Good thing you stopped, finally. This post was so long that Guinness Book called. But when they read your sad antics, they said they don't print lies. Guess you're just going to have to return to whatever mental institution you came from. Your 15 minutes of fame never happened.
|
|
|
Post by janet on Jul 29, 2007 13:53:51 GMT -5
Humm that hole must be really deep. ;D You would think that some would want to climb out of it at some point. Oh wait I forget. It is too dark down there. They can not find the ladder. Humm I once did sentence disconstruction in middle school. I in short time found more productive methods than paste and cut. The straight bullets of many thoughts enter in one ear, ricocheting about on the hard walls of the inner brain, absent, they fell out the other ear not finding their target.
|
|