|
Post by Need to know on Oct 11, 2007 16:04:39 GMT -5
What are the differences between hardcore & softcore 2x2s?
Thank you.
|
|
|
Post by the difference on Oct 11, 2007 16:21:29 GMT -5
The molecular weight of the hardcore 2x2s is much "denser."
|
|
|
Post by recentarriver on Oct 11, 2007 16:27:30 GMT -5
LOL!!!
RA
|
|
|
Post by gloryintruth on Oct 11, 2007 20:05:29 GMT -5
What are the differences between hardcore & softcore 2x2s? Thank you.
To begin, I would object to the terms "hardcore" and "softcore" as descriptors of people's convictions in the Fellowship on the same basis that I would object to devout Roman Catholics being called "hardcore" or liberal Anglicans being called "softcore". Because it implies that holding a certain corpus of beliefs makes one hard, fanatical and like steel at the soul - for these are the first thoughts that come to mind (mine, anyway) when this adjective is applied to a person's convictions.
Likewise, "softcore" suggests something weak and deficient. A little mushy, perhaps, and something on the fairy-floss side of the theological spectrum. Does a "softcore" Roman Catholic or professing saint demonstrate compassion and love in excess of the "hardcore" Roman Catholic or professing saint?
Actually, the more devout a man is in relation to his beliefs, the more earnestly and sincerely he examines himself and his connectedness to the rest of mankind. A devout man may well be a loveless zealot - such as John and James when asking the Lord to bring fire from heaven down upon a city. But a devout man may equally be a compassionate succorer of the poor and outcast, as the great Apostle John became when he was brought to understand that our entry into the magnitude of Love - real love, not the sentimental and weak variety on sale in the world - that is God, the Lord of Israel and of the entire world.
If you really want to classify people like insects, and say, "Well, over here we have the hardcores, and over there we have the softcore believers", and you wish to persevere with these terms, despite their unfair and imprecise connotations, then I would suggest the difference between them is that those with stronger convictions tend to be more exclusive. I point out that the same phenomena applies with the faithful of many churches.
But a classic example of the unrealistic character of these categories would be my own self. I have been described as many on this forum as a hardcore 2x2. Yet, ironically, my frequent statements about salvation being possible outside of the Church (though not outside of Christ) have largely been ignored. This is certainly a more "inclusivistic" position than others hold.
|
|
|
Post by CherieKropp on Oct 11, 2007 21:21:14 GMT -5
Rather than "hardcore and softcore... How about the terms "liberal" and "conservative"? One finds these two categories in most groups. Do you take issue with these terms GIT? Original Poster - do these terms describe what you meant?
In my past as a 2x2, I was definitely a liberal. A rebel in fact. And I went about trying to connect with others of like mind.
CK
|
|
|
Post by juliette on Oct 11, 2007 22:26:14 GMT -5
I guess my husband and I would have always been "soft core" because we didn't do the outward appearance thing very well and were on the "fringes" in many ways before we left. I'm curious about your terms "liberal" and "conservative", Cherie, because they come with a political connotation. So in our case, we were both liberal politically and liberal in terms of not buying into to exclusive doctrine and appearances focus. But then there's my friend, Brick. He's politically conservative, but seems to be "liberal" in terms of his approach within the 2x2 fellowship (non-exclusive, etc). I guess it's no surprise that my closest friends in the 2x2 fellowship were and are "softcore". But they are not at all softcore about their faith, in fact I would argue that their faith in GOD is stronger than those who seem very hardcore. Enough rambling for now....
|
|
|
Post by Need to know on Oct 11, 2007 22:29:03 GMT -5
Yes, I think I would have done better to have used the terms "liberal" & "conservative", rather than "hardcore, or softcore".
To possibly try and answer my own question....the liberals simply enjoy the meetings in the home; they find in it a sort of cozy familial atmosphere. They also are attracted to the way the ministry is conducted...prefering it to the ways that mainstream ministries are run. However the liberal is not "closed minded" to the possibility or likelihood that there are saved Christians in other churches.
The conservatives, however, are the "old guard" of 2x2ism (both workers & friends), which embraces and encourages the "closed mindedness" attitude. For them... their's is the Kingdom, standing true & nearly unknown amongst a world full of false churches & heathenous religions. Once one is part of the true way, it is unwise to consider any possibilities that might cause the very elect to begin having (and asking) pesky question that might stir up trouble and doubt.
|
|
|
Post by wingsofaneagle on Oct 11, 2007 22:35:24 GMT -5
I was "hardcore" for many many years. I was very piously devout. Which brings me to GITS statement:
"Actually, the more devout a man is in relation to his beliefs, the more earnestly and sincerely he examines himself and his connectedness to the rest of mankind. A devout man may well be a loveless zealot - such as John and James when asking the Lord to bring fire from heaven down upon a city. But a devout man may equally be a compassionate succorer of the poor and outcast, as the great Apostle John became when he was brought to understand that our entry into the magnitude of Love - real love, not the sentimental and weak variety on sale in the world - that is God, the Lord of Israel and of the entire world."
Yes GIT, that is how a devout man of God SHOULD be but it is not the general rule of every person who is "devout". One can be DEVOUTLY WRONG and be pompous about it at the same time!
|
|
lizzy
Senior Member
Posts: 530
|
Post by lizzy on Oct 12, 2007 0:23:30 GMT -5
And then there are those of us that are moderates.
|
|
|
Post by gloryintruth on Oct 12, 2007 2:09:09 GMT -5
Rather than "hardcore and softcore... How about the terms "liberal" and "conservative"? These terms are probably kinder on the nervous system! Yes, this is what I was trying to get across, Cherie. I tend to get spitting chips (or at least my cornflakes) with the other terms. One finds these two categories in most groups. Do you take issue with these terms GIT?No. This is good. In my past as a 2x2, I was definitely a liberal. A rebel in fact. And I went about trying to connect with others of like mind.Whereas I have always sought to comply to the teaching of the Church, believing that following it's guidance is incredibly important to my life and spiritual welfare.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 12, 2007 7:34:21 GMT -5
I often use the terms "traditional" and "non-traditional". More commonly though I use "system" and "non-system". Most of the "non-system" friends I discuss matters with know exactly what I mean when referring to a system person, most have been there too.
|
|
|
Post by predictable on Oct 12, 2007 17:31:17 GMT -5
What are the differences between hardcore & softcore 2x2s? Thank you.To begin, I would object to the terms "hardcore" and "softcore" as descriptors of people's convictions in the Fellowship on the same basis that I would object to devout Roman Catholics being called "hardcore" or liberal Anglicans being called "softcore". Because it implies that holding a certain corpus of beliefs makes one hard, fanatical and like steel at the soul - for these are the first thoughts that come to mind (mine, anyway) when this adjective is applied to a person's convictions. Likewise, "softcore" suggests something weak and deficient. A little mushy, perhaps, and something on the fairy-floss side of the theological spectrum. Does a "softcore" Roman Catholic or professing saint demonstrate compassion and love in excess of the "hardcore" Roman Catholic or professing saint? Actually, the more devout a man is in relation to his beliefs, the more earnestly and sincerely he examines himself and his connectedness to the rest of mankind. A devout man may well be a loveless zealot - such as John and James when asking the Lord to bring fire from heaven down upon a city. But a devout man may equally be a compassionate succorer of the poor and outcast, as the great Apostle John became when he was brought to understand that our entry into the magnitude of Love - real love, not the sentimental and weak variety on sale in the world - that is God, the Lord of Israel and of the entire world. If you really want to classify people like insects, and say, "Well, over here we have the hardcores, and over there we have the softcore believers", and you wish to persevere with these terms, despite their unfair and imprecise connotations, then I would suggest the difference between them is that those with stronger convictions tend to be more exclusive. I point out that the same phenomena applies with the faithful of many churches. But a classic example of the unrealistic character of these categories would be my own self. I have been described as many on this forum as a hardcore 2x2. Yet, ironically, my frequent statements about salvation being possible outside of the Church (though not outside of Christ) have largely been ignored. This is certainly a more "inclusivistic" position than others hold. Typical 2x2 rhetoric - pick apart the question and the terminology used and avoid the question like the plague.
|
|
|
Post by more of the same on Oct 12, 2007 17:33:12 GMT -5
Rather than "hardcore and softcore... How about the terms "liberal" and "conservative"? These terms are probably kinder on the nervous system! Yes, this is what I was trying to get across, Cherie. I tend to get spitting chips (or at least my cornflakes) with the other terms. One finds these two categories in most groups. Do you take issue with these terms GIT?No. This is good. In my past as a 2x2, I was definitely a liberal. A rebel in fact. And I went about trying to connect with others of like mind.Whereas I have always sought to comply to the teaching of the Church, believing that following it's guidance is incredibly important to my life and spiritual welfare. GIT will you ever answer the question and address the issue or will you opt for this eternal bickering over terminology?
|
|
3
Senior Member
Posts: 206
|
Post by 3 on Oct 14, 2007 10:47:28 GMT -5
My husband and I have always used the term 'pillar' to denote one who is heavily embedded in the 2x2 way.
A 'pillar' likely has more than one generation in the way. A 'pillar' exemplifies all the correct outward appearances required in the way. A 'pillar' attends all meetings and uses his vacation time to attend more than one convention per year. A pillar's home address is often used by the workers in the field for their mail drop and has a room set aside specifically for the workers. A pillar loans a car to the workers in the field.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 14, 2007 11:13:49 GMT -5
quote - "In my past as a 2x2, I was definitely a liberal. A rebel in fact. And I went about trying to connect with others of like mind."
Cherie. Once on the TMB I posed the question, "do we all weigh the relevance of texts and facts upon who we are, and what we want for ourselves?" Or words to that effect. Someone asked me to back this statement up, but I never got around to doing so.
|
|
|
Post by wanttobewithGod on Oct 14, 2007 16:08:53 GMT -5
;D M.
|
|
|
Post by Wondering on Oct 14, 2007 19:32:51 GMT -5
Softcores are sometimes referred to as "exes".
|
|
shushy
Royal Member
Warning
50%
Posts: 8,009
|
Post by shushy on Oct 15, 2007 2:38:52 GMT -5
|
|
3
Senior Member
Posts: 206
|
Post by 3 on Oct 15, 2007 9:07:46 GMT -5
Shushy:
In the 90'2 in the pacific northwest, we were told to only attend one convention, too.
Since we live in a town that hosts a convention, we were 'allowed' to go to one of the conventions and Sunday of the other convention since no Sunday a.m. meeting was held in the town during convention.
I've been told that 'they' have lifted this rule and allow folks to attend any number of conventions.
Speculation has it that the rule was lifted because the number of friends is dwindling and overcrowding at convention is no longer an issue.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 15, 2007 9:17:52 GMT -5
3, you have it right. In the early 90's, one convention was requested of people in the West because of severe crowding at overcapacity levels. Today, most of the conventions are operating at about 60-70% capacity and multiple convention attendance is no longer an issue except for undesirables. A couple of years ago, one of the friends was ushered out of Mountain Ranch convention and given a one way bus ticket to Vegas because he was perceived as freeloading on multiple conventions. Shushy: In the 90'2 in the pacific northwest, we were told to only attend one convention, too. Since we live in a town that hosts a convention, we were 'allowed' to go to one of the conventions and Sunday of the other convention since no Sunday a.m. meeting was held in the town during convention. I've been told that 'they' have lifted this rule and allow folks to attend any number of conventions. Speculation has it that the rule was lifted because the number of friends is dwindling and overcrowding at convention is no longer an issue.
|
|