|
Post by MildlyCurious on May 15, 2006 11:15:43 GMT -5
For Example.
We are assailed on this post from two positions - a) you have changed b) you haven't changed.
I cannot think of a steeper slippery slope than saying we can change what Christ has given us. From this idea came the Crusades, Monasteries, Inquisitions, religious wars, sectarian strife and the on-going collapse of western Christianity.
Peter summed it up nicely, "Christ also suffered for us, leaving us an example, that ye should follow his steps: " And Jesus said "I have given you an example, that ye should do as I have done to you." Jesus here wasn't just speaking of washing people's feet, but how to live by the two commandments He gave - to love God, and our treatment of others.
There are only two positions to hold in this world today. Either we care more about how the first church lived, or we care less.
There is no more powerful commandment than example. If you seriously love a person for what they hold to, then you want to be like that person.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 15, 2006 11:29:28 GMT -5
MC,
what IS this Example of what the church is or should be in our time?
Give a list of what the church's Characteristics should be based on the example given to us by the Holy Scripture.
|
|
|
Post by bonnie unlogged on May 15, 2006 14:45:15 GMT -5
I applaud the Canadian workers who had the guts to get rid of the deadbeats that were just causing trouble in the church.You have to cut the cancer out.I WISH WE HAD MORE WORKERS IN THE USA THAT WOULD DO THIS.THE WORKERS IN THE USA ARE AFRAID TO OFFEND SOMEONE!! Organized religions do this... the management (man) makes the rules and enforces them by, among other means, purging the system of those that insist on breaking the rules. The workers in Canada were simply doing their job as management. A little strong handed? Yes, but strong handed management is nothing new. Perhaps the management in the USA is simply not as forceful as its counterpart in Canada. Management can run this thing straight into the ground to the point where there is not one Worker-sanctioned-friend left on the face of earth... and it simply won't matter. God won't vanish, and neither will those who love him. The Pizza Hut here in town went out of business a few years ago. Now I get my Pizza from a Ma and Pa's Pizza shop nearby. You may not like this, but tough! God cannot be bound by the pathetic chains of man and his rube-goldberg religious systems. Quit worshipping the system and focus on God himself, not the cloak man keeps trying to throw over him. Management? There is no such thing in the worker hierarchy. At least that was what I was told.
|
|
|
Post by Alberta girl on May 15, 2006 14:54:37 GMT -5
Hey everyone,
Being from Alberta I guess you could say I have a certain affiliation with this topic so would like to share my two cents:
Close relatives of mine were among those excommunicated, so knowing the true facts I find it highly objectionable to read people's posts about it being a "necessary thing" and just the workers duty as "managment". That is the biggest and most offensive pile of horsesh- I have ever stepped in!!! The basic gist of the real story, sparing exact details and names because I do have a certain sense of propriety, but also want the truth to be heard, even if very few will listen, is that some of the friends knew of some improper and unlawful things that were going on amongst some of the other friends and the workers as well (sexual misconduct and abuse, bribery and framing), and so they went to the workers with their concerns but rather than getting the kind and helpful reception that they had hoped for they were booted from the church. End of story. How is that necessary or just the workers duty? I guess if they are so corrupt and indoctrinated that they can't sit down and so proud that they won't back down, then maybe it is necessary... Like "as i c it" said, it was God's will, those people were freed from the cultish ties that had bound them for so long and their peril was an eye-opener for others both inside and out, so it was God's will, but that does not make the arrogant and power-hungry actions of the workers right, not by a long shot, it's just what is typical of the group and their whole philosophy. I agree with Llloyd that the whole issue really did give new insight on the 2x2s, it certainly did that for me, that is actually what really got me thinking about how a system that could do such a thing could be the only right way, a train of thought that eventually lead to me leaving. I'm sorry for all the stress and pain that those who were excommunicated went through, but I am grateful that their trials opened my eyes and made me see the truth. I find what "MildlyCurious" had to say about crying to God interesting because it sounded like he/she was trying to draw a parallel between that verse and those who were axed crying out in repentence... the verse says "crying out to GOD" though, not to the WORKERS which seems to be the point of view of some on this board, that those who were kicked out should cry out and repent and be let back into the fold... what a crock... but then I guess when you're as tangled up and roped into something as some folks are with "the truth", you've gotta tell yourself a lot of things to keep your common sense in the background and keep plugging along in the way... have fun!
|
|
|
Post by ss on May 15, 2006 14:59:10 GMT -5
MC,
have you listened to the taped excom over the phone?
|
|
|
Post by Nathan Jesup on May 15, 2006 15:33:36 GMT -5
MC,
have you listened to the taped excom over the phone?
To quote Nathan Jesup from the movie A Few Good Men......he "CAN"T HANDLE THE TRUTH".
|
|
|
Post by as i c it on May 15, 2006 16:11:48 GMT -5
Alberta girl
I'm confused. I thought it "the mess" was over the incorporation issue. And over individuals going to meetings at those who'd been excommunicated.
Also: how were the workers able to keep all that quiet?
(The word "homosexual" did come up on the tape...but..I'm still confused as to how all that didn't make the rounds) and whether the workers just wanted to keep the friends shielded: or if you're saying the workers were guilty of those events.
|
|
|
Post by MildyCurious on May 15, 2006 20:07:00 GMT -5
To df The web site home.iprimus.com.au/pruephillip/ covers this, so I will copy and past from it... What name did they have? Their Ministry Their education What was their standard of dress? What was their moral code? Home worship Conventions Festivities How many Christians were there? Were they all the same? Their doctrine Who else was there? Why weren’t they more open? Did they defend themselves? When those Jews were asked who was neighbour to the Samaritan, and they replied correctly, Jesus said, "You go and do likewise"
|
|
|
Post by MildlyCurious on May 15, 2006 20:24:07 GMT -5
To Albert girl You wrote "sexual misconduct and abuse, bribery and framing." Simply, I don't believe it. I am not saying such things would never happen - they happened to the saints in the bible.
But pointing out someone's fault to the ministry is totally scriptural, so long as you have first approached that person.
You are telling us that the workers kicked someone out for reporting someone who wasn't living right? Come on, that was not my take of the tapes.
This homosexuality accusation. You can accuse, yes, and it might be right (kind of hard to tell, though, isn't it?) But did the workers themselves actually say they believed it, or accepted homosexuality? The worker in question wanted the accuser to look past what he claimed someone else was doing/not doing, and make up their mind where THEY stand. That is precisely what Jesus did in the temple with the adulterous woman.
You are saying there is something crude and underhand with these people - the only thing crude and underhand you manged to prove in your posting was your own language, and by extension, yourself.
|
|
|
Post by Rob O on May 15, 2006 20:26:35 GMT -5
MC wrote:
What scripture would that be?
|
|
|
Post by to MC on May 15, 2006 20:31:07 GMT -5
mildlycurious...
if you are remotely curious, then you should investigate the matters rather than continuing to judge the victims of the circumstances (aka those excommunicated) and those who discuss it. You have done well to slam those here in this thread rather than demonstrate even the remotest sense of curiousity.
You, sir or ma'am (whichever you are) deserve a mirror to assist you with your long overdue introspection.
What exactly do you wish to cover up by refusing others the space to discuss the Alberta situation?
|
|
|
Post by MildlyCurious on May 15, 2006 20:41:13 GMT -5
Hi Rob. Don't have my bible where I am. But you should remember, wasn't it Paul who said that if you have an issue with someone you first go to that person. If they will not hear you take witnesses so every word will be established. And if they still don't hear, let them be as the apostates.
|
|
|
Post by About MC on May 15, 2006 20:42:50 GMT -5
MC has proven to be a classic 2x2 standard bearer. Deny any of the multitude of problems, errors, false doctrines, etc, etc, etc and defend the system with issues of form. Not even remotely interested in the truth.
|
|
|
Post by Rob O on May 15, 2006 20:45:50 GMT -5
MC,
It was Jesus, but He didn't say anything about pointing out people's faults to the ministry so long as you have approached them first and got nowhere.
The actual teaching:
"“If your brother sins against you, go and tell him his fault, between you and him alone. If he listens to you, you have gained your brother. But if he does not listen, take one or two others along with you, that every charge may be established by the evidence of two or three witnesses. If he refuses to listen to them, tell it to the church. And if he refuses to listen even to the church, let him be to you as a Gentile and a tax collector." (Matthew 18:15-17, ESV)
|
|
|
Post by MildlyCurious on May 15, 2006 20:46:34 GMT -5
To Guest. Who said I am refusing other the space to discuss? Any serious, honest discussion begins with the facts, and proceeds through logic and scripture. Not much of that here...
Start with a) so and so did such and such... which leads to b) someone else responded by ...
I have yet to see a full account of what happened here from the workers point of view.
I am reminded of what a priest once said about the media - they never portray us unless there is a scandal.
|
|
|
Post by MildlyCurious on May 15, 2006 20:54:42 GMT -5
You wrote “MC has proven to be a classic 2x2 standard bearer. “ That is true
You wrote “Deny any of the multitude of problems, errors, false doctrines, etc, etc, etc “ I wrote “I am not saying such things would never happen - they happened to the saints in the bible.”
You wrote “and defend the system with issues of form. Not even remotely interested in the truth.” I wrote “But pointing out someone's fault to the ministry is totally scriptural, so long as you have first approached that person. “ And “I am not saying such things would never happen” And “You can accuse, yes, and it might be right” And “The worker in question wanted the accuser to look past what he claimed someone else was doing/not doing, and make up their mind where THEY stand. “
|
|
|
Post by About MC on May 15, 2006 21:42:45 GMT -5
I'm talking about your collective posts and the picture they paint of someone vastly more interested in blindly defending the system than searching for the truth. I've found it interesting that you have the defense of the form and traditions of the system down pat, but get you off of your rabbit track and onto doctrine and you are lost.
|
|
|
Post by to MC on May 15, 2006 22:17:46 GMT -5
I have yet to see a full account of what happened here from the workers point of view. Facts don't depend on point of view. Facts are facts. I guess you prefer that the 2x2 cover up continues...
|
|
|
Post by StopAlready on May 15, 2006 23:31:04 GMT -5
STOP IT! All of you. You endlessly beat around the bush and try to say it nicely. It can't be done. Let me be the bad guy...
"Mildly Curious" is a brain-washed robot steeped in the traditions of his man-made religious system. He'll never see it this way; that's why they call it brain-washed. You won't change his mind; its closed.
|
|
Walter
Junior Member
Posts: 108
|
Post by Walter on May 16, 2006 1:10:37 GMT -5
MildlyCurious Posted: « Reply #42 on Yesterday at 9:46pm » ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- To Guest. Any serious, honest discussion begins with the facts, and proceeds through logic and scripture. Not much of that here...
I have yet to see a full account of what happened here from the workers point of view. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- TO MC
Thanks for admitting you do NOT have the facts or any real knowledge of the Alberta Situation. You will be a long time waiting to see any real full account by the Workers. Why ?
Using your own words:
"Any serious, honest discussion begins with the facts, and proceeds through logic and scripture."
The Workers simply realize that if they talk or are forced to tell the facts, they come out not only looking bad, they come out smelling of corruption and deception as well. They cannot and don't, and will not talk and tell the truth of the matter. Talking would seriously tarnish their image of being honest and truthful. The only workers that should be talking are those that where involved and they don't dare on advise from council, and some no longer reside in Canada. Anytime the workers wish to step up and take responsibility for their actions in court I'll be there with the hand written notes taken by my father (deceased) regarding their worker meetings and treatment by workers and friends.
Any info you receive from workers not directly involved is only worker spin, or in your own slant ( view) gossip, as it is not from those involved and from the source.
Serious, honest discussion with the facts, were presented to the workers with concern and logic, following scriptural guide lines.
Thats more than the workers can say or did in return.
|
|
|
Post by Greg Lee unplugged on May 16, 2006 4:07:54 GMT -5
MildlyCurious your posts have alot of truth in them. OK what I get from this whole Alberta thing was issues brought to the minstry, and yes it was badly handled... BUT there is always two sides to the story.. and in this case it seems that everyone is turning a blind eye to the other side. That does not mean I stand here and say YES they should have been exed... but one does need the other side as well. We likely will never hear the workers' accounts, but that does not mean we don't know what they did and said. Nathan barker said he would ask a worker or two what happened. Then he backed out. Makes me wonder if he asked and was told "do not concern yourself with this matter".
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 16, 2006 4:10:19 GMT -5
The Alberta excommunications is one of the best documented series of events in 2x2 history -- There are litterally hundreds and hundreds of pages, of letters legal documents, government register printouts - legal -- documented meetings -- recorded phone calls etc etc. -- and as an added bonus, the years have gone by have given us the advantage of real-time development.
It is pretty crushing documentation for any 2X2 even remotely involved -- but 2x2 leadership still chooses to blatently stick their heads in the sand -- and stand by their story -- "we are God -- and God doesn't make mistakes"!!!!
|
|
|
Post by MildlyCurious on May 16, 2006 5:36:00 GMT -5
Hi Walter. Yes, again, I don't have the facts. Do you?
From my experience with controversies they seem to revolve around just two things 1 - moral impropriety 2 - doctrinal issues (usually leading to number 1)
Probably both these issues above are involved, complicated with issues of principle, loyalty and personality. That is usually how it goes.
I smell the usual rat in the way the issue is presented on this board. If someone has an issue to present then you present both sides of the story. Otherwise you are taking sides, and are biased.
Your hostility towards the workers tells me you have an entrenched bias.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 16, 2006 5:42:48 GMT -5
Your hostility towards the workers tells me you have an entrenched bias. Is ANYTHING that cult leadership promotes and markets, based on ANYTHING else than bias? It is definately not based on scripture -- and it is definately not based on moral virtue!
|
|
|
Post by MildlyCurious on May 16, 2006 6:08:27 GMT -5
Edgar, (sorry, I called you Walter for some reason.) What do you think was the reason the workers in Alberta acted against some of the church members? I know nothing about it - I live on the other side of the planet.
There are plenty of places in scripture where it says to remove those who are not obedient to your faith. In the OT they were told to just killed them.
|
|
|
Post by to MC on May 16, 2006 6:37:45 GMT -5
RE MC: smell the usual rat in the way the issue is presented on this board. If someone has an issue to present then you present both sides of the story. Otherwise you are taking sides, and are biased.
MC: This is how YOU think issues should be presented--with both sides, etc. This is YOUR ideal. But it is not how things are done here. You need to accept how the boards work. Deal with it your unrealistic expectations of fairness on the boards. We're glad to have you here, but "We never promised you a rose garden" when you came here.
EVERYONE is prejudiced or biased and has a side they prefer. No one can be absolutely neutral--its impossible. You can stop telling us now to write and present things...it aint going to happen you way. We're here to have our say about how we feel and think and see things...regardless of the other side. The workers and friends COULD present the other side, but they choose not to--that's their choice. Thus you get the one-sidedness. It's not our fault--that's not our burden of proof. It's theirs. And they refuse to step up to the plate, so there you have it.
|
|
|
Post by to MC on May 16, 2006 6:41:11 GMT -5
Hi Walter. Yes, again, I don't have the facts. Do you? MC, you seriously don't know enough about the situation even to know how involved Walter was in the Alberta situation. What gives you the right to insist he doesn't know what he's talking about. You yourself admitted you don't have the facts, therefore, you cannot judge who else does or does not have more information about the Alberta mess than yourself. But, I guess you prefer that the 2x2 cover up continues...
|
|
|
Post by Wrong question on May 16, 2006 7:20:03 GMT -5
Hi Walter. Yes, again, I don't have the facts. Do you?
You just asked the wrong person the wrong question. He does have the facts, the documentation (both legal and personal), the bird's eye view. You, however, are obviously unprepared to deal with the truth. A word to the wise....drop it or be prepared to have your world turned upside down.
|
|