speaking of blindness
Guest
|
Post by speaking of blindness on Aug 21, 2007 10:09:26 GMT -5
the deciet of those who taped the call, blinds you of impartial vision. So...how long have you been in favor of Alberta-style excommunications?
|
|
|
Post by both bad on Aug 21, 2007 10:10:32 GMT -5
People without distorting glasses can read the article Cult from wikipedia at en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cult and will see that by most definitions the 2x2s are certainly one. WAKE UP PEOPLE WAKE UP ... I agree -- Here is wikipedias definition and it certainly fits the 2x2s. Cult inexactly refers to a cohesive social group devoted to beliefs or practices that the surrounding culture considers outside the mainstream, with a notably positive or negative popular perception. In common or populist usage, "cult" has a positive connotation for groups of artistic and fashion devotees, but a negative connotation for new religious and extreme political movements. For this reason, most, if not all, religious and political groups that are called cults reject this label.Edgar, I find cult practices revolting. But I find your attitude and smear-jobs equally revolting.
|
|
|
Post by how pathetic on Aug 21, 2007 10:12:17 GMT -5
Do you find GIT's smear jobs pleasant to the smell?
|
|
|
Post by poor means on Aug 21, 2007 10:13:25 GMT -5
the deciet of those who taped the call, blinds you of impartial vision. So...how long have you been in favor of Alberta-style excommunications? Does the means always justify the ends? I sure don't buy that. I don't know enough about the Alberta excommunications to know if it was right or not. Edgar's version of what happened is obviously slanted by his feelings towards 2x2's. However, even his slanted writing on his website makes me think that there was some justification for what those workers felt needed to be done.
|
|
|
Post by both bad on Aug 21, 2007 10:14:29 GMT -5
Do you find GIT's smear jobs pleasant to the smell? Nope, I'm not a big fan of some of his posts either. However, that is for a different thread and I've never been a big believer of "two wrongs make a right."
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 21, 2007 10:39:55 GMT -5
It is amazing how often anonymous posters turn threads into smear campaigns on my person. I have written very few posts on this thread, and none of them were particularly aggresive but there are at least 10 posts aimed at my personal integrity. Reminds me of Acts 7:54
Edgar
|
|
take some responsibility
Guest
|
Post by take some responsibility on Aug 21, 2007 11:00:06 GMT -5
It is amazing how often anonymous posters turn threads into smear campaigns on my person. I have written very few posts on this thread, and none of them were particularly aggresive but there are at least 10 posts aimed at my personal integrity. Reminds me of Acts 7:54 Edgar You have brought it on yourself Edgar. There are lots of us who post things that are not particularly complimentary of the 2x2 who are not "smeared." There are those who defend the 2x2 system who are not "smeared." Don't act all helpless and blameless in what gets put back at you.
|
|
|
Post by Its Clear on Aug 21, 2007 11:13:13 GMT -5
That you are just an anonymous gutter snipe who does not like Edgar. We have followed your posts for months on end where you just like to hack at Edgar every time he starts to post. I don't see anything in Edgars posts that are any worse then any others posts.
|
|
Edgar Edgar on the wall
Guest
|
Post by Edgar Edgar on the wall on Aug 21, 2007 11:25:08 GMT -5
You are not agressive!!!! In one of your FEW posts on this thread, you referred us to your site where you give "the way" a complete flogging. You are agressive, you want everyone to see your view and your view only. I too dont know all the facts about the Alberta doings. However, if Marge McGowan was on my team and she deliberatly acted against the my rules, then she would very soon be off my team; as she would be off your team if she acted against your wishes.
Lets face it, she didnt want to play be the team rules, you didnt want to play by team rules, your both better off not on the team. (for your own sakes as well as the teams).
When you get a bit less aggressive and less egoistical, then perhaps we may take more heed of your postings.
|
|
TO now an ex Praise God
Guest
|
Post by TO now an ex Praise God on Aug 21, 2007 12:01:43 GMT -5
To: now an ex Praise God, regarding your post # 102, is the worker who raped you still in the work? Post your story on the sex scandals and cover-ups thread on page 2.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 21, 2007 12:02:39 GMT -5
You are not agressive!!!! In one of your FEW posts on this thread, you referred us to your site where you give "the way" a complete flogging. You are agressive, you want everyone to see your view and your view only. I too dont know all the facts about the Alberta doings. However, if Marge McGowan was on my team and she deliberatly acted against the my rules, then she would very soon be off my team; as she would be off your team if she acted against your wishes. Lets face it, she didnt want to play be the team rules, you didnt want to play by team rules, your both better off not on the team. (for your own sakes as well as the teams). When you get a bit less aggressive and less egoistical, then perhaps we may take more heed of your postings. Whether or not you heed my postings is not all that relevant to either me personally or to any genuine presentation of the truth. The truth is the truth even if no one heeds it. Edgar Seems to me that the reaction of Acts 7 is alive and well today Acts 7:54 When they heard these things, they were cut to the heart, and they gnashed on him with their teeth. Recognise the feeling??
|
|
take some responsibility
Guest
|
Post by take some responsibility on Aug 21, 2007 12:37:07 GMT -5
Whether or not you heed my postings is not all that relevant to either me personally or to any genuine presentation of the truth. Recognise the feeling?? Genuine presentation of the truth? As anyone does, you always present your side of the story with all the biases that come along with someone who has left a group with hard feelings. When people point out that your "truth" may have some bias or that you are giving your side, you claim to be persecuted. Grow up.
|
|
|
Post by what a coincidence on Aug 21, 2007 12:39:13 GMT -5
Edgar's version of what happened is obviously slanted by his feelings towards 2x2's. What version? He told it exactly as happened. Looks like you are slanted by your feelings towards the 2x2s. But you make it sound like it's bad for Edgar to be slanted. ET TU??? However, even his slanted writing on his website makes me think that there was some justification for what those workers felt needed to be done. How does one respond to sheer stupidity?
|
|
|
Post by say what on Aug 21, 2007 12:46:53 GMT -5
What version? He told it exactly as happened. Looks like you are slanted by your feelings towards the 2x2s. But you make it sound like it's bad for Edgar to be slanted. Really? So we should all just accept all posts on here as if they are sheer truth? None of us let our experiences or friendships shape our views? That is the dumbest thing I've ever heard.
|
|
|
Post by your perspective on Aug 21, 2007 12:49:07 GMT -5
What version? He told it exactly as happened. Looks like you are slanted by your feelings towards the 2x2s. But you make it sound like it's bad for Edgar to be slanted. Really? So we should all just accept all posts on here as if they are sheer truth? None of us let our experiences or friendships shape our views? That is the dumbest thing I've ever heard. Are you willing to suggest that you were personally involved in the Alberta excommunications? If not, then what basis do you have to suggest that Edgar isn't telling the truth?
|
|
take some responsiblity
Guest
|
Post by take some responsiblity on Aug 21, 2007 13:14:35 GMT -5
Really? So we should all just accept all posts on here as if they are sheer truth? None of us let our experiences or friendships shape our views? That is the dumbest thing I've ever heard. Are you willing to suggest that you were personally involved in the Alberta excommunications? If not, then what basis do you have to suggest that Edgar isn't telling the truth? What I'm suggesting is that Edgar's story of what happened is tainted by his bias against the 2x2 system. I am not calling Edgar a liar because I don't think he is intentionally misrepresenting. I just think that he has so much resentment that it is impossible for him to discuss the 2x2's without injecting his usual bias and resentment into it. I'd be quite willing to be that if the other side of the story was presented, it would sound a lot different.
|
|
|
Post by Calvin on Aug 21, 2007 13:19:55 GMT -5
I think it's pretty obvious that Edgar's "story" has bias, just like GIT's does. If we can't see that those two see "their worlds" through their own tained glasses then we are as blind as any cult followers can be.
|
|
now an ex Praise God
Guest
|
Post by now an ex Praise God on Aug 21, 2007 14:09:04 GMT -5
to Hmmmmm No I don't know or pretend to know the condition of your soul..only that as one is drawn to Christ by the Holy Spirit..and that we receive life..the life of Christ in us..we don't receive a creed or a doctrine or a religion..but we will want to be found amongst true believers..those who adhere strictly to scripture... you sound as if you understand and agree with this..I'm sorry the 'system' is what it is...sorry I spent so many years there..sorry about a lot of things..was not easy for me to admit it but when faced with straight biblical teaching...I realized it was a 'new beginning' that had to happen in my life..
you said 'it is all about what Jesus did for me'..want to tell you something I enjoyed recently that our Pastor said.." the purpose of the work of Jesus Christ is something more than to cleanse us from our sin. That certainly meets one of the deepest needs that people have. However, man/woman does not just have a need for forgiveness, but also a hunger for goodness. A person's conciousness of guilt derives from his desire to be good, and it is the establishment of goodness that is the purpose of the work of Christ. Christ forgives us our sin, not because being clean is the end product of His work, but in order that He might come and live His life within us by the Holy Spirit. It is the coming of the Holy Spirit, on the basis of one's cleansing , that actually makes one Christian"
He further said ..'on Calvary, Christ dealt with our need for forgiveness when he died on the cross, but at Pentecost, He dealt with our need for power and godliness when the Holy Spirit was made freely available to anyone prepared to meet the conditons upon which the could receive Him'
'the Holy Spirit in the life of the forgiven person makes it possible for him/her to live the life of Jesus Christ within and reproduce the character of Jesus Christ through him or her'
just thought I'd add that to your thought..enjoyed his message so much and based on what you said ,thought you would also..he said so much more too much to write down..
no I'm not the least bit interested in stirring things up..only if at all possible helping someone ..because it is what it is..not my opinion...biblical fact..& actually I could be filled with 'hate' but am not at all...that is the amazing thing about all this..some sadness and regrets...some things to deal with as I said before..not a bitter ex, a very very happy one..my sadness is for so many good, kind, sincere people I know there..my regrets that I didn't leave prior to when I did..but God often, as our Pastor said to me,' brings us to a point of despair of 'religion' before we are ready to see beyond it to the real, living, Christ"
|
|
|
Post by out with it on Aug 21, 2007 16:56:12 GMT -5
To the person who claims to have been raped by a worker: Name this alleged offender; if the statutes of limitation are still extant then bring charges against him or her. Break this thing wide open...if indeed such an offense did occur.
|
|
now an ex Praise God
Guest
|
Post by now an ex Praise God on Aug 21, 2007 17:41:43 GMT -5
to out with it guest: yes indeed it happened...very much wish it didn't happen..was a memory I didn't need..as to what is his name..sorry, the fact that I will not put his name on here is my decision and I believe the right one...as I said I'm dealing with this just now...with professional help..trying to decide what path I should take..if you have been through something like this you would then understand , the fear, shame, terror, and yes unwarranted guilt you never dealt with then as you were unable..instead it was shoved down deep somewhere in the mind...and it is like you are that very young girl again...as silly as that may sound..so I spoke to a friend where I go for Bible study..actually one of the Pastor's wives...she immediately had me in touch with someone, a Pastor/Doctor there at the Church.. who has been such an immense help..so this is ongoing..dealing with the anger and more or less hatred of this person is taking more time than I thought..but I am and shall move on..
|
|
|
Post by look people on Aug 22, 2007 13:03:24 GMT -5
what is up with these nasty attacks on Edgar?! I love reading his posts- he is sensible and caring and I think he is a neat person.
|
|
|
Post by asking again on Aug 22, 2007 13:28:54 GMT -5
Are you willing to suggest that you were personally involved in the Alberta excommunications? If not, then what basis do you have to suggest that Edgar isn't telling the truth? What I'm suggesting is that Edgar's story of what happened is tainted by his bias against the 2x2 system. I am not calling Edgar a liar because I don't think he is intentionally misrepresenting. I just think that he has so much resentment that it is impossible for him to discuss the 2x2's without injecting his usual bias and resentment into it. I'd be quite willing to be that if the other side of the story was presented, it would sound a lot different. Asking again, since you didn't answer the first time.... What is YOUR involvement with the Alberta story? Are you more closely connected to these events than Edgar? Enlighten us.
|
|
|
Post by gloryintruth on Aug 23, 2007 3:07:33 GMT -5
I agree -- Here is wikipedias definition and it certainly fits the 2x2s.
I have pointed out in the past, that in my personal view, definitions of cults are self-refuting. My observations have shown me that definitions end up encompassing a fair amount of "religion" in general; are not universally accepted (someone will always have another definition); and differ in application depending on situation and context.
Cult inexactly refers to a cohesive social group devoted to beliefs or practices that the surrounding culture considers outside the mainstream
This definition would suggest that Christianity was a cult at its inception which has grown into an accepted form of religion.
Moreover, note that the definition of a "cult" is determined by contemporary culture, and not by any objective standard. As we all know, cultures change. This means that street-side evangelists devoted to the practice of public preaching in supermarkets and parks, are cultists.
This definition will take on new force, no doubt, when Christian churches lose so many adherents that no denomination can be justly characterised any longer as "mainstream". We see the perception of certain organisations changing over time. For instance, the Jehovah's Witnesses and Mormons were once classified as "cults". They are now quite respectable institutions. Mormons are even in government, and have a reputation for virtuous living.
but a negative connotation for new religious and extreme political movements.
I have pointed this out many times. The word "cult" is loaded with connotations and emotion. It does not tend to invite an intellectual response, but a subjective, emotive reaction.
I have said before that the term cult should be restricted to organisations that meet the following criteria:
1. Have a powerful, charismatic leader who is an object of devotion in his\her own right 2. Are difficult to leave due to loss of finances, tightly controlled personal lives, or extreme restrictions 3. Promote behaviours, lifestyles or practices that are extreme, and anti-social.
This is my position.
Interestingly the article contains at least six or seven different means of defining cults, none of which agree. There is this interesting excerpt:
Some anthropologists and sociologists studying cults have argued that no one has yet been able to define “cult” in a way that enables the term to identify only groups that have been identified as problematic. (This has long been one of my chief objections to the term.)
|
|
|
Post by gloryintruth on Aug 23, 2007 3:15:49 GMT -5
The truth is the truth even if no one heeds it. Seems to me that the reaction of Acts 7 is alive and well today Recognise the feeling??
Do not be too hasty to assume scripture to yourself! I have learned from harsh experience not to do this.
|
|
|
Post by gloryintruth on Aug 23, 2007 3:16:49 GMT -5
What version? He told it exactly as happened.
H'mmm. The world's first truly unbiased human being.
|
|
|
Post by gloryintruth on Aug 23, 2007 3:19:09 GMT -5
I think it's pretty obvious that Edgar's "story" has bias, just like GIT's does. If we can't see that those two see "their worlds" through their own tained glasses then we are as blind as any cult followers can be.
These days I try to be upfront about my bias. I don't deny it.
|
|
|
Post by GITBS on Aug 23, 2007 7:52:54 GMT -5
I think it's pretty obvious that Edgar's "story" has bias, just like GIT's does. If we can't see that those two see "their worlds" through their own tained glasses then we are as blind as any cult followers can be.These days I try to be upfront about my bias. I don't deny it. Quit lying to yourself, GIT. Nobody is fooled here but you.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 23, 2007 8:18:59 GMT -5
I think it's pretty obvious that Edgar's "story" has bias, just like GIT's does. If we can't see that those two see "their worlds" through their own tained glasses then we are as blind as any cult followers can be.These days I try to be upfront about my bias. I don't deny it. Actually I think that the recognizing our own bias is the begining of wisdom. None of us see the 'whole picture' as God sees it -- and seeing the 'whole picture' is nothing that we are held responsible for. What we are held responsible for in how we react to the things that we do know, see and the understanding we have been given. The good Samaritan was not responsible for a background check on the fellow laying on the side of the road. He acted on what he saw, and that is all God expects of any of us. Anyone claiming to understand the 'whole issue' is making themselves equal to God -- Hardly a virtue for a human being to make such claims. Edgar
|
|