|
Post by asking on Oct 14, 2007 21:09:01 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by nitro on Oct 14, 2007 21:55:44 GMT -5
Just get the address and Google earth and you will get even your own house ;D
|
|
|
Post by gloryintruth on Oct 15, 2007 8:07:15 GMT -5
This is just sick. I logged onto the "Lying Truth" website, which, even back in the days when I considered exiting the Fellowship (for various personal reasons), struck me as poorly-written, poorly-reasoned and shrill in tone. It did not impress me, even when I was impressionable.
Now I find the latest gimmick in the "Lying Truth's" armoury - satellite shots of convention grounds. Oh, you can argue that the images come from a free online service and anyone can track it down, but frankly, I don't give a damn. It is sick. It is simply psychologically sick.
I find the activities of many exes to be wickedness itself. There is a blunt denial of evident abuses among denominational religions. There is an utter inability to engage in formal, scrutinised, moderated debate on biblical matters pertaining to the Fellowship - a good way to demonstrate light. There are large numbers of people who are simply abusive and unkind while maintaining the pretense to being a Christian. And there are numerous perverted and perverse gimmicks like this one. It is an evil movement indeed, and one I find thoroughly repugnant.
I half considered for a moment doing a spoof site about TLT - a bit of a send up of those folks over there at the TLT. But I could not be bothered. It was too depressing to consider.
What I will say, however, is that if TLT folks are truly (in the sense of, honestly before God) concerned about the truth, I would challenge them to a debate on any aspect of the Fellowship's theology in which it is proved entirely consistent with the Bible. Let them publish a full and open exchange of fresh dialogue on their website. Let's turn on the lights! Let's open the shutters to the truth!
But I shake myself. It is only a dream.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 15, 2007 8:36:59 GMT -5
I honestly don't know what you're getting yourself worked up about GIT. These photos are neither sick nor psychologically sick. They are just photos taken from satellite. They are not of Area 51.
Try looking at things this way and it might change your outlook.
These photos are of hallowed ground. They represent a Heavenly viewpoint of gathering places for the Saints. They give a God's eye view. Now we know what the hosts of Heaven see when we come together at convention.
Try this and you might even appreciate these photos. I've got a very small number of photos of the convention grounds I used to attend. However, they were taken from a terrestrial standpoint. They are neither sick, nor psychologically sick. They are what they are. Photos of convention grounds.
|
|
|
Post by las logged out on Oct 15, 2007 8:44:33 GMT -5
This is just sick. I logged onto the "Lying Truth" website, which, even back in the days when I considered exiting the Fellowship (for various personal reasons), struck me as poorly-written, poorly-reasoned and shrill in tone. It did not impress me, even when I was impressionable. Now I find the latest gimmick in the "Lying Truth's" armoury - satellite shots of convention grounds. Oh, you can argue that the images come from a free online service and anyone can track it down, but frankly, I don't give a damn. It is sick. It is simply psychologically sick. I find the activities of many exes to be wickedness itself. There is a blunt denial of evident abuses among denominational religions. There is an utter inability to engage in formal, scrutinised, moderated debate on biblical matters pertaining to the Fellowship - a good way to demonstrate light. There are large numbers of people who are simply abusive and unkind while maintaining the pretense to being a Christian. And there are numerous perverted and perverse gimmicks like this one. It is an evil movement indeed, and one I find thoroughly repugnant. I half considered for a moment doing a spoof site about TLT - a bit of a send up of those folks over there at the TLT. But I could not be bothered. It was too depressing to consider. What I will say, however, is that if TLT folks are truly (in the sense of, honestly before God) concerned about the truth, I would challenge them to a debate on any aspect of the Fellowship's theology in which it is proved entirely consistent with the Bible. Let them publish a full and open exchange of fresh dialogue on their website. Let's turn on the lights! Let's open the shutters to the truth! But I shake myself. It is only a dream. I believe GIT that there have always been protestant groups existing along side the Catholic church anonymously due to fear of the Catholic Church.. remember to be differant meant death eh?
|
|
|
Post by to git on Oct 15, 2007 9:00:45 GMT -5
Speaking of sick, the child molesters in your church need to be dealt with. When is this going to happen? Just because the writing style doesn't suit you doesn't make the facts behind the content any less real. I found it interesting. It obviously bothers you. I wonder why. Could it be that the photos show that your church does indeed have church buildings (quite a few too) even though many of you claim it doesn't? Could it be that you prefer the hidden nature of your church and these photos violate the secrecy you enjoy? Hiding your candle under a basket eh? Just what are you afraid of, other than satellite photos and the light of day? Keep complaining. You may motivate me to acquire a worldwide list of conventions, grab a satellite photo of each, and send them to the owner of that website. Well they do. Good for you. Frankly, I don't give a damn that you object to it. Well, I take that back... I find it freaking hilarious. LOL! Oh please! Do elaborate! Please tell us more! LOL! I find the activities of many 2x2s to be wickedness itself. This is true for some denominational religions but not all and it is true for some denominational religions more than others. One denominational religion comes to mind. It is commonly known as "Truth" and less commonly known as "Christian Conventions" or any of a dozen other names, frequently changed and used interchangeably to avoid detection. Evident abuses in this denominational religion include, among other things, child molestation, child abuse, financial fraud, cover-up regarding the groups beginning, and spiritual abuse. Great Job, Sir. You've managed to describe your own religion (Truth) very well. Every last word applies. Please do. I find your posts so amusing. An entire website dedicated to your bilge would be a hilarious must-read, and a great escape from the seriousness of life in general. Oh, I'm breathless with anticipation. I know who he is and if he came back here to take you on, it would be worth watching. He'd ride you hard and put you away wet before you knew what hit you. Your only chance at getting the best of him would be that you would bore him to death with your long drawn-out essays on, and undue complication of, the simplest of matters. I doubt he has the time to take on every mind-numbed like yourself that comes along. We already have and it's about to drive you crazy that everyone can see but you. Take your blinders off already. It's been done and you've been fighting it since. Speaking of dreams, I had a dream too. The workers came out in full disclosure mode and released a statement of faith to clearly tell the world what their church believes, owned up to the role of William Irvine in their church, established and publicized a zero-tolerance policy with regard to sexual abuse within their church, and fully disclosed to the public all of their church financial records. Whew. By far the craziest dream I'd ever had!
|
|
|
Post by you cannot on Oct 15, 2007 14:56:56 GMT -5
Let's turn on the lights! Let's open the shutters to the truth! But I shake myself. It is only a dream. Yes! Let the world know the truth about the so-called "Truth" church in which GIT places his faith. And then watch him scatter back to the shadows like the little cockroach that he is.
|
|
|
Post by gloryintruth on Oct 15, 2007 17:53:22 GMT -5
Try looking at things this way and it might change your outlook. These photos are of hallowed ground. They represent a Heavenly viewpoint of gathering places for the Saints. They give a God's eye view. Now we know what the hosts of Heaven see when we come together at convention.
This is absolutely amazing, Ram! Thanks for writing this. It changes my perspective completely on this issue - I didn't really think of it as "heaven's point-of-view".
Your post really touched my heart. Thank you. I needed it.
|
|
|
Post by gloryintruth on Oct 15, 2007 18:19:14 GMT -5
Speaking of sick, the child molesters in your church need to be dealt with. When is this going to happen?
Look up "child abuse pastor" on the Internet and a plethora of websites will appear. We will solve the problem when denominational religion solves the problem. I find it plain wrong that you would throw this in my face as an argument - using these people, both the predators and the victims, as fodder.
I have been very open in denouncing those who perpetrate such sins. And frankly I do not see the relevance of this to the issue of satellite shots of convention grounds.
Just because the writing style doesn't suit you doesn't make the facts behind the content any less real.
Are you a writer for TLT? My problem is that the writing is so patently biased and subjective, and so clearly loaded that I cannot take it seriously - and I know others do not either. That's the problem with being hostile and bitter - people become very sceptical of any claims made thereby.
Could it be that the photos show that your church does indeed have church buildings (quite a few too) even though many of you claim it doesn't?
The Church cannot own church buildings. The Church is not an incorporated body - it is not a "legal person". As such it is functionally impossible for the church to own any property at all.
The convention grounds are registered to private folks. We do not deny there are functional buildings there for use by the church. But when we speak of not having buildings, we speak of not having fixed church buildings for weekly worship.
Could it be that you prefer the hidden nature of your church and these photos violate the secrecy you enjoy? Hiding your candle under a basket eh?
I delight when the Church is promoted and it brings more people into a true relation with Jesus, the Saviour of the World.
You may motivate me to acquire a worldwide list of conventions, grab a satellite photo of each, and send them to the owner of that website.
Go forth and conquer, O Caesar! You may do all your mortal strength enables to damage the Church, but the Church will be triumphant because she is the possession of God.
Frankly, I don't give a damn that you object to it. Well, I take that back... I find it freaking hilarious.
Do you indeed?
One denominational religion comes to mind. It is commonly known as "Truth" and less commonly known as "Christian Conventions" or any of a dozen other names, frequently changed and used interchangeably to avoid detection.
It is not a denomination. There are several necessary characteristics for a church to become a denomination, and the Church does not demonstrate those characteristics.
Evident abuses in this denominational religion include, among other things, child molestation, child abuse, financial fraud, cover-up regarding the groups beginning, and spiritual abuse.
I hope you passionately confront these things in other churches and denominations too. Mega-Church financial scandals, child-abusing priests, and secrecy within Roman Catholicism and Anglicanism regarding historical events and clerical synods. You see, you can judge us for our sins; but such sins are clearly in every church and every place. To stand upon a foundation which has problems, and to condemn us for those same problems is itself a sin. It is called hypocrisy.
Please do. I find your posts so amusing. An entire website dedicated to your bilge would be a hilarious must-read, and a great escape from the seriousness of life in general.
I wonder whether you realise that your tone and nastiness is poster-boy pinup material for "bitter exes".
I know who he is and if he came back here to take you on, it would be worth watching. He'd ride you hard and put you away wet before you knew what hit you. Your only chance at getting the best of him would be that you would bore him to death with your long drawn-out essays on, and undue complication of, the simplest of matters.
Where is this master of rhetoric and logic? I am frequently promised that out there are any number of capable and expert prosecutors and debaters, but no one ever shows up with these knock-out boxers.
My long drawn out essays are an effort to comprehensively deal with important issues. I don't believe in the soundbite culture for a society with atrophied concentration spans and limited patience for study and discussion. In my opinion, it is not "simple" answers some people are seeking, but "simplistic". It is not an in-depth demonstration of the truth some people seek, but a superficial, prepacked ideology.
For years exes have criticised the Friends for not responding online, and for not responding in a meaningful fashion. When I do so, I am mocked and attacked - not for my content (unread), but for how it is presented. Is it any wonder that among the Friends, exes have a reputation for being unstable, unlearned individuals, wrestling with the scriptures to their own destruction; bitter, hypocritical, and changeable?
I doubt he has the time to take on every mind-numbed like yourself that comes along.
For the sake of the truth? For the sake of people's salvation? For the sake of letting the light shine more brightly? Ironic that in this very post you condemn me for wanting to hide my light under a bushel, yet when I ask for a public opportunity to demonstrate my position - to allow the light to radiantly beam for all to see - it goes unanswered.
It seems the exes cannot engage with the "enemy". Their swords are rusted. They can survive within a monoculture; within a framework in which only their side ever gets published and where they can simply lay out their opinion unchallenged. They cannot survive when asked to demonstrate the truth of their theology; to be active with their beliefs!
If you only get one perspective, you only get half the story. And like it or lump it, the TLT is telling only half the story.
I bless you and sincerely hope the best for you. I truly, from the depth of my heart, hope you rejoice and experience abundant joy in all you do.
|
|
|
Post by gloryintruth on Oct 15, 2007 18:22:49 GMT -5
Yes! Let the world know the truth about the so-called "Truth" church in which GIT places his faith. And then watch him scatter back to the shadows like the little thingyroach that he is.
I bless you with all my heart. You are a human being made in the image of God, and so it does not behoove me to treat you lightly. I sincerely hope that life rewards you with joy and rich delights for soul, mind and even body. You are loved by the LORD.
I sincerely and truly wish you all the best - peace and joy and hope and life. May these things follow you your whole life through.
Peace be unto you.
|
|
|
Post by las logged out on Oct 15, 2007 19:30:09 GMT -5
To GIT The two-by-two group is not open about it's involvement with gov't not open with it's members concerning founders role
|
|
|
Post by guest5 on Oct 15, 2007 20:28:06 GMT -5
Yep, GIT. Hallowed ground. The pictures are no different than any others you might want to save from Google Earth. I do know the latest version of Google Earth is pretty much right up to date compared to the old one.
|
|
terry
Senior Member
Posts: 328
|
Post by terry on Oct 15, 2007 22:19:00 GMT -5
GIT--
Why do the "evil demonational" churches need to get their child molestors in check when the 2x2's continue to protect theirs? I really find your post offensive. I wasn't a victim, because I refused to be--I fought back--my account was dismissed and I became the perpertrator of evil rather than the victim.
How are aerial photos so offensive? Because they show the hypocrisy of the 2x2's? We don't worship in buildings made with hands (don't know who builds the homes Sunday mtgs are in--I know the elder where I went to Sun mtg growing up built a major addition to his home--called it the mtg room. But it was his home so it was acceptable and blessed.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 15, 2007 23:18:55 GMT -5
quote - "Why do the "evil demonational" churches need to get their child molestors in check when the 2x2's continue to protect theirs? I really find your post offensive. I wasn't a victim, because I refused to be--I fought back--my account was dismissed and I became the perpertrator of evil rather than the victim." Well I am pleased for you. But I wouldn't judge whatever church you now might belong to on the basis of what an offender did or didn't do. quote - "How are aerial photos so offensive?" Big issue in our country is the presence of cameras in courts. It is agreed that cameras can effect public perceptions of courts. Same with cameras in war zones. Cameras enhance certain perceptions, and destroy others. Cameras can manipulate. Cameras can control.
But, I have been to a convention on a sheep station. Half a day after we cleaned up, it became a sheep station again. Take all the photos you like, I suppose. quote - "Because they show the hypocrisy of the 2x2's? We don't worship in buildings made with hands (don't know who builds the homes Sunday mtgs are in--I know the elder where I went to Sun mtg growing up built a major addition to his home--called it the mtg room. But it was his home so it was acceptable and blessed." Do you think we hide having a tent or dining shed? We can worship in buildings made with hands, just as Jesus and his disciples did. But those buildings are not dedicated points of contact with God, as brick and mortar churches are. There are subtle differences here I don't think you grasp.
|
|
|
Post by to GIT on Oct 15, 2007 23:23:05 GMT -5
Speaking of sick, the child molesters in your church need to be dealt with. When is this going to happen?Look up "child abuse pastor" on the Internet and a plethora of websites will appear. True. I've noticed some churches manage to cover-up much of the sexual abuse in their church. How sad that your church has decided to play follow the leader in this matter. What must your church's guiding force be that it is not motivated to correct a wrong rather than wait for others to act first. I suppose you'll stop cheating on your taxes as soon as everyone else does. I have to admit that I thought that moral relativism this extreme was beneath even you. So you don't like it. Tough. It illustrates the point very well. I haven't said otherwise. You claimed it to be sick. I simply gave you an example of something I think is far sicker. Take your pick on the sin-meter: sexual abuse vs. convention photos. No. I feel the same way about 95% of what you write. I'm sure there are others here who do as well. I'll take your word for it. I'm fortunate to be one of the more passive folks around. Yes it can. Many churches do. This includes yours. Many are. This may include yours. They certainly tried in Canada and the USA. (Or are you disowning your ties with them?) Regardless, short your tendency to resort to semantics here, your church controls, if not owns, a lot of property. Incorporated bodies own property all the time. Flesh and blood is not required to own property. You need to do a bit of research on this subject. I have a feeling you will employ semantics to the end of the earth here to continue believing what you want to believe. Yes but many of these buildings built with church funds given by the workers. Also, many of these buildings are built for one purpose and one purpose only. Why would a farmer build a "horse shed" with professional cooking equipment in it? Why would a farmer build a "hay barn" with 8 human toilets, a 15 foot urinal, 8 shower stalls, and 10 sinks? Don't fool yourself. Your church owns buildings. So the frequency of use is what determines whether or not it is considered a church building? LOL! Now THAT is bunk. I'm curious. When you say "the Church", do you mean your church, the Truth, or do you mean the total body of Christians on earth? Please tell me just what about such an action on my part would damage the total body of Christians on earth? Or would the damage be restricted to your little group? Yes I do indeed! dictionary.reference.com/browse/denominationIt fits. Pull your head out, Sir. Thanks you for saying this. Yes. I do passionately confront these things in other churches/denominations. I developed a distaste for them when I was in your church and am now acutely aware of them in all churches, including your own. Actually, other than bert and yourself, nobody else can bring that out in me. Say what you want about me. I could have been more rude, but I tempered what I wrote as much as possible, choosing my words very carefully. I'm sorry if it offends you, but I sincerely meant every word. Is that why you are here? To meet your match in the arena of debate? Suit yourself. It's too bad that the thrill of the fight, rather than the substance of the debate, is your motivation. Keep in mind that word count isn't everything. This is idealistic, rooted in perfectionism and obsessive compulsive behavior. You will bore people and drive them away before you will comprehensively cover all conceivable bases. Then you are a man out of your time. You might as well not believe in electronic debates. Keep bucking the system and you'll be talking to yourself in the corner. Maybe you already are? Folks looking for simplistic answers are just looking for something to pick apart; They want an argument. What's the point in discussing anything with them? Folks looking for simple answers simply want to get to the point and move on with the discussion. Wouldn't you rather discuss matters with these folks? Unless your in it for the argument, I see no point in long essays to address two or three points. Well do you want a discussion or not? Publishing an essay is hardly engaging in a discussion. Posting an essay is similar to telling someone to read a book to understand your viewpoint. (At least bert and nathan have done this to some extent by creating their own website.) Two phrases come to mind (sorry for the crudeness): "Keep it short and sweet." or "Baffle 'em with bullshiit." I'm sorry GIT, but with all due respect, you do not respond in a meaningful fashion. Your specialty seems to be dancing around direct questions. Try the direct approach for a while. See the difference. I think you'll be surprised. Is it any wonder? No. I was once a 2x2 and I believed these very things about exes, not because of my own observations, but because I put faith in what the workers told me about exes. When I began to objectively investigate for myself, I discovered the opposite to be true. These things are important but you have to remember that time stands still for no man or agenda. Most of us here have lives, jobs, families, and other responsibilities. If your position is so complex that it requires an essay to explain, something is wrong. This is a great example of the problems with your writings. *Sigh* Maybe someday when I am retired and have countless hours to waste I will revisit the above paragraph and respond. The same is true with your posts. Do you know someone stupid enough to think that TLT is telling them both sides of the story? Well said. Ditto.
|
|
|
Post by yourself on Oct 16, 2007 1:00:24 GMT -5
Are you a writer for TLT? My problem is that the writing is so patently biased and subjective, and so clearly loaded that I cannot take it seriously - and I know others do not either. That's the problem with being hostile and bitter - people become very sceptical of any claims made thereby. And likewise, nobody takes you seriously since you are 99% hot air and 1% bullshiit.
|
|
|
Post by do your homework on Oct 16, 2007 1:07:57 GMT -5
The Church cannot own church buildings. The Church is not an incorporated body - it is not a " legal person". As such it is functionally impossible for the church to own any property at all. The convention grounds are registered to private folks. We do not deny there are functional buildings there for use by the church. But when we speak of not having buildings, we speak of not having fixed church buildings for weekly worship. ROFL! What a noob ignoramus!! :-) You need to do your homework. Look up KNAGGS OAKLAND REALTY INC. You just might learn something. And then you'd have to retract this entire quote.
|
|
|
Post by gloryintruth on Oct 16, 2007 4:01:57 GMT -5
ROFL! What a noob ignoramus!! :-) You need to do your homework. Look up KNAGGS OAKLAND REALTY INC. You just might learn something. And then you'd have to retract this entire quote.
I always love these sorts of posts. The Bible speaks of a fool as one who mocks that which he does not understand, and although I am cautious of calling anyone "fool" (he who says "thou fool" is in danger of the hellfire), I classify the above writings as foolish. A truly classic example of someone without understanding of the issues, laughing (indeed, rolling on the floor) because of someone else's understanding of those issues.
I quote:
Stewart Kyd, the author of the first treatise on corporate law in English, defined a corporation as "a collection of many individuals united into one body, under a special denomination, having perpetual succession under an artificial form, and vested, by policy of the law, with the capacity of acting, in several respects, as an individual, particularly of taking and granting property, of contracting obligations, and of suing and being sued, of enjoying privileges and immunities in common, and of exercising a variety of political rights, more or less extensive, according to the design of its institution, or the powers conferred upon it, either at the time of its creation, or at any subsequent period of its existence."
This is precisely what I have maintained. A corporation - an incorporated body - is a legal person. It functions as an individual, as this quote proves.
the term corporation often is used to specifically refer to such business corporations. Corporations may also be formed for local government (municipal corporation), political, religious, and charitable purposes (not-for-profit corporation), or for government programs (government-owned corporation). As a generic legal term, 'corporation' means any group of persons with a legal personality.
Again, exactly as I have maintained. Because the Fellowship is not an incorporated body, it cannot function as a legal person with a legal personality. Hence it cannot own property, for only persons may own property under law.
But this will make no impact on these exes because they already confess they do not read what I say, yet still reserve the right to criticise, judge and condemn.
|
|
|
Post by IllinoisGal on Oct 16, 2007 6:10:49 GMT -5
Try looking at things this way and it might change your outlook. These photos are of hallowed ground. They represent a Heavenly viewpoint of gathering places for the Saints. They give a God's eye view. Now we know what the hosts of Heaven see when we come together at convention.This is absolutely amazing, Ram! Thanks for writing this. It changes my perspective completely on this issue - I didn't really think of it as "heaven's point-of-view". Your post really touched my heart. Thank you. I needed it. There is a great song c alled "Heavens Point of View" by Priscilla McGruder. Ya ought to listen to it sometime. Im sure it can be found on the net.
|
|
|
Post by gloryintruth on Oct 16, 2007 7:09:45 GMT -5
I detect the hand of Bryan in these posts. The same structure, the same technique of sandwitching yellow quote boxes between soundbites, and the same method of starting with a sentence of presumption and then building a case atop it. I could be wrong, but my suspicions are certainly raised. I suppose you'll stop cheating on your taxes as soon as everyone else does. I have to admit that I thought that moral relativism this extreme was beneath even you.A classic case of misinterpretation. I never said that "we'll fix it when they do", I said "we'll solve the problem when churches in the world solve it", meaning that we are all working to find solutions to an incredibly complex problem; a sin that is often hard to detect and which has immeasurable impact on people's lives for many generations. So you don't like it. Tough. It illustrates the point very well.What point? Where [eyes darting suspiciously]? There never was a point! You say you were giving me a "sicker" issue than the one I identified - fine, however I think it goes without saying that any sane person would accept that sexual abuse is far worse than an image being displayed on a website of convention grounds. As an issue it's a non-event. I just don't see what you're trying to achieve with your example. You claimed it to be sick. I simply gave you an example of something I think is far sicker. Take your pick on the sin-meter: sexual abuse vs. convention photos.Okaay... we're, like, right in the twilight zone just now. I feel the same way about 95% of what you write. I'm sure there are others here who do as well.I always find such claims amusing. On the one hand you say my writings are so long you can't be bothered reading them, but here you say that "95%" of what I write is so biased you can't be bothered reading it. Am I the only one who sees the logical disconnect between these two statements - both of which cancel each other out. Either you DO read what I say and conclude that 95% is biased, or you don't read what I say in which case you are jumping to conclusions. On the other hand, I have actually read the claims of exes on all the websites - in full. So I can actually represent the general exe position fairly, even though it is not mine. Unfortunately the same cannot be said for many exes who I do not believe have the skills to be able to interact with such positions. It's interesting the similaries between exe commentary and Muslim apologist methodologies. At the moment my most recent project is examining textual varients between the Byzantine Majority text and the Textus Receptus against a Critical Text. I am doing so in order to rebutt three Muslim apologists who claim the Bible is corrupted on the basis of textual criticism. In my research I have come across the ramblings of Ahmed Deedat and other famous "apologists" and every time I see the sorts of outrageous and outlandish claims made, I think, "Exe!" The same lack of understanding of the issues and the same inability to grasp what is meant by dialogue, discussion or debate is evident between the online Muslim apologist community, and the online exes. Yes it can. Many churches do. This includes yours.No it cannot! Under law - and this applies the United States as well as anywhere else - ownership of property can only be invested in a person. In terms of ventures comprised of more than one agent, incorporation occurs in which the corporate body is given the status of a legal personality. Until the Fellowship becomes a corporate body, it cannot legally own property because it is not a legal person. Many are. This may include yours. They certainly tried in Canada and the USA. (Or are you disowning your ties with them?) Regardless, short your tendency to resort to semantics here, your church controls, if not owns, a lot of property.Resorting to semantics by seeking to define terms? I am trying to point out to you - apparently with as much success as raming my head through a brick wall - that a church needs to be incorporated before it can own property. When it becomes a corporate entity, then it recieves status as a legal person by law and can own property. A church that is not incorporated simply cannot have property registered against it because under property law it does not exist as an entity. I find it hard to believe that "they" would try to incorporate the church in the United States, Canada or anywhere else in the world for that matter, since to do so would run so fundamentally contrary to the basic teaching we have been taught. I think this is one of those hearsay stories we get so often on this forum. Incorporated bodies own property all the time. Flesh and blood is not required to own property.[Sigh]. As I have repeatedly pointed out. I have a feeling you will employ semantics to the end of the earth here to continue believing what you want to believe.Did you know I studied semantics at college? I took 4 six-month units when I was studying linguistics and the theory behind the parts of spoken and written language. I can tell you that the cliche "employing semantics" does not apply to my pointing out a simple fact: the Church does not exist as a property-owning entity recognised by law. It cannot own property because the Church needs to enter legal existence - be incorporated ("recieve a body") - and recieve a legal personhood capable of owning property. Yes but many of these buildings built with church funds given by the workers. Also, many of these buildings are built for one purpose and one purpose only.So what? Don't fool yourself. Your church owns buildings.Okay. We'll not thrash the issue anymore. You can believe as you choose, friend. I'm curious. When you say "the Church", do you mean your church, the Truth, or do you mean the total body of Christians on earth?I mean the Church, my church. Please tell me just what about such an action on my part would damage the total body of Christians on earth?Now who's playing semantics? dictionary.reference.com/browse/denomination It fits. Pull your head out, Sir.I thought this was one of the most mindless exhibitions of pure, hardheaded inability to accept reality that I have come across on this forum. The original point was that the Church is not a denomination; it is not registered by a universal name and it is not an incorporated body. It bears none of the characteristics of a denominational organisation. This person posts a link to a definition of "denomination". I read through the various definitions thinking, " Did this guy even read what definitions the dictionary presented? Does he have any concept how simply silly this is?" a religious group, usually including many local churches, often larger than a sect: the Lutheran denomination. Lots of exes point out that the Fellowship is miniscule. "How can you believe that 5 ministers could reach the 1 billion people in China etc, etc, etc. How can God reside in this tiny group". Hence this definition does not apply - we are not larger than a sect. A large group of religious congregations united under a common faith and name and organized under a single administrative and legal hierarchy. If you can seriously maintain that this definition applies to the Fellowship you are quite frankly, simply delusional. Whilst there may be a common faith (disputed by exes), there is no common name and no single administrative or legal organisation. 1398, "a naming," from L. denominationem (nom. denominatio) "a calling by anything other than the proper name, metonymy," from denominare "to name," from de- "completely" + nominare "to name." Monetary sense is 1660; meaning "religious sect" is 1716.A name is precisely what we reject, for the express reason of avoiding the errors and sins of denominationalism. a group of religious congregations having its own organization and a distinctive faith Okay. Maybe this applies! But by this definition ANY religious movement with more than one assembly is a denomination. Now we get down to the Multilingual Dictionary: a group of people with the same religious beliefsYep! We're a denomination! Along with every other shade of religious belief. Actually, other than bert and yourself, nobody else can bring that out in me. Say what you want about me. I could have been more rude, but I tempered what I wrote as much as possible, choosing my words very carefully. I'm sorry if it offends you, but I sincerely meant every word.I am not that easily offended, friend. Is that why you are here? To meet your match in the arena of debate? Suit yourself. It's too bad that the thrill of the fight, rather than the substance of the debate, is your motivation.Totally incorrect. There are things about which I am passionate and which I defend because they are extremely important to the Christian faith. This is idealistic, rooted in perfectionism and obsessive compulsive behavior. You will bore people and drive them away before you will comprehensively cover all conceivable bases.Oh, is that what it is? No, it is an effort to be thorough. I cannot abide loose ends. Then you are a man out of your time. You might as well not believe in electronic debates. Keep bucking the system and you'll be talking to yourself in the corner. Maybe you already are?I am a man who is used to academia, and existing within a research-oriented system where it is important to prove and defend through demonstration. This is not a dead art. The internet is alive with it, and I have had some excellent discussions with likeminded people. I have found many intelligent Muslims, Pagans, Atheists, Agnostics and Liberal Christians. It is only among exes that meaingful theology, source materials, study and research are maligned and considered too above them. I find it hard to explain this anti-intellectualism and anti-knowledge mentality. Publishing an essay is hardly engaging in a discussion.Not an essay. I see post length as an excuse by exes motivated by anti-intellectualism and anti-Professing feelings to avoid having to actually think and engage in issues, so as to maintain raw hatred, bitterness and nastiness. I'm sorry GIT, but with all due respect, you do not respond in a meaningful fashion. Your specialty seems to be dancing around direct questions.I have answered MOST direct questions on this forum. I have not danced around the question - this is a matter of highly-subjective personal interpretation. If your position is so complex that it requires an essay to explain, something is wrong.Then something is wrong with seminaries, right? I could almost bring myself to love you, friend. I just wish you'd concede a little ground on issues that obviously run contrary to your position.
|
|
|
Post by ow on Oct 16, 2007 8:08:40 GMT -5
ow....another blasted headache from reading all that self-righteous prose.
|
|
|
Post by guest5 on Oct 16, 2007 8:57:03 GMT -5
GIT - I thought you said you were leaving these boards some time back. When is that really going to take place. Between you and one other person on other boards who likes to expound on everything, please let us know.
|
|
|
Post by Sylvestra on Oct 16, 2007 10:12:10 GMT -5
Quote by GIT:
On the other hand, I have actually read the claims of exes on all the websites - in full. So I can actually represent the general exe position fairly, even though it is not mine. Unfortunately the same cannot be said for many exes who I do not believe have the skills to be able to interact with such positions.
Yes, GIT, I guess I'm one of those stupid plebs that just can't keep up with your elevated intellect! The more I've compared my understanding to your writings the more I'm amazed that I can even function day-to-day in this world!
Who pays your salary anyway? I'll bet it is a bunch of plebs, but because of your higher intellect you are obviously "the elite" that knows best for the rest of us! GAG!
|
|