pam
New Member
Posts: 3
|
Post by pam on Jun 16, 2006 8:07:40 GMT -5
I'm a long time reader, seldom a poster.
I read many posts where people generalise. for example:
someone posted that a worker or workers taught that ""We do not teach God Incarnate""
but the wording seemed to imply that ALL workers teach this.
someone else posted: "Why do the workers make such a fuss about this sin and ignore other sins? " They were speaking of divorce. As if ALL workers acted in the way described.
On trinity someone posts: "The workers would preach that Jesus was the son of God, and that he came to be our example and to give us the pattern ministry. But God... no!! The teaching of the trinity was a Catholic thing. " As if their experience is the only valid one.
Its clear fro this board that there is a wide range of experience that posters bring. Its clear that there's wide differences in teaching, doctrine, belief.
So why do people continue to post as if they think that their own experience is the only valid one>?
|
|
|
Post by nitro on Jun 16, 2006 8:49:03 GMT -5
Seldom post -----#3 ;D Your right the a big problem with 2x2 or "TRUTH" is why not one doctrine or like mind. Whats alright to do or say on one state or country is wrong, even in the next field. Some examples not by importance. 1. Divorce and remarriage 2. Trinity 3. Grace and mercy. 4 NO No's such as T.V and radio 5. Even extra hymn books 6. Womens dress 7. Taking of the bread wine If it is to be of one like mind why so different Maybe some can add to the list
|
|
|
Post by adding on Jun 16, 2006 8:55:36 GMT -5
Salvation---how "Outsiders" possibly saved/not baptism standards smoking/drinking accepted/not
"....Jesus is still the same and ever will remain...."
|
|
|
Post by glycerine on Jun 16, 2006 10:02:55 GMT -5
But most of these issues are not important.
Whats a pity is that people treat them as so.
And then moan about them as if their own treatment was the way all others are treated.
|
|
|
Post by Whoa on Jun 16, 2006 10:10:58 GMT -5
But most of these issues are not important. Whats a pity is that people treat them as so. And then moan about them as if their own treatment was the way all others are treated. Whoa there a second. It is very important in that there is no consistency in teaching of doctrine. This is the "ONLY WAY" then it should be consistent across the board. 2nd you believe that denial of Jesus as diety, Salvation by the Grace of God, Trinity, Salvation outside of the 2x2 fellowship are not important issue?
|
|
|
Post by Truth on Jun 16, 2006 10:15:42 GMT -5
But most of these issues are not important. Whats a pity is that people treat them as so. And then moan about them as if their own treatment was the way all others are treated. Whoa there a second. It is very important in that there is no consistency in teaching of doctrine. This is the "ONLY WAY" then it should be consistent across the board. 2nd you believe that denial of Jesus as diety, Salvation by the Grace of God, Trinity, Salvation outside of the 2x2 fellowship are not important issue? Everything, including truth, is relative.
|
|
|
Post by selah on Jun 16, 2006 10:48:48 GMT -5
Hi Pam and welcome here. You wrote:
You are right. I know I've done it.
I have generalized, simply because I write about the "general" or "usual" responses I have received from f&w. Maybe your "general" responses have been different. I believe that some of the f&w THINK the responses would be different, but they haven't really checked it out. Of course that's not ALL the f&w.
I did the "assume" thing, I guess, in thinking that most people here know there are exceptions.
I do try to post using qualifying words like, "not all, some, many or most", but sometimes I forget, and of course my references are drawn from the people I've actually talked to.
I've read enough on this message board to realize that f&w don't ALL agree on everything, which is perfectly normal. But my comments are based on the f&w I have spoken to, and I post the "general" view I have discovered.
I guess I just feel that people understand that...but again I shouldn't "assume", right?
I'm sorry, Pam. Thanks for bringing it to our attention. I will try to be more careful about generalizing.
Blessings, Linda
|
|
|
Post by Relativity on Jun 16, 2006 11:29:56 GMT -5
Everything, including truth, is relative.
This postmodern view of relativity is a very slippery slope. I suppose relativity may serve a limited purpose in today's culture (eg. communication with today's youth) - but God's truth is NOT relative. Our understanding of it may be, though.
|
|
Maggie
Senior Member
Posts: 347
|
Post by Maggie on Jun 16, 2006 12:03:46 GMT -5
.....someone posted that a worker or workers taught that ""We do not teach God Incarnate"" but the wording seemed to imply that ALL workers teach this. someone else posted: "Why do the workers make such a fuss about this sin and ignore other sins? " They were speaking of divorce. As if ALL workers acted in the way described. ................. Perhaps it would be useful if you understood how most people use generalizing in the English language today. In general , when a person makes a statement about "what workers do, what friends do, etc." it means that in this person's experience it applies to "many", "most", "a lot", "more than a few". It will rarely, if ever apply to ALL. Most people familiar with language knows that. It is just plain silly to suggest that making a generalized statement applies to ALL, EVERY LAST ONE, NONE EXCLUDED of the group mentioned. It doesn't even "imply" such a thing. Of course it is easy to over-generalize and we have to be careful to not include more in our sentences than we believe or is defensibly true.
|
|
|
Post by nitro on Jun 16, 2006 12:55:34 GMT -5
[/quote] Everything, including truth, is relative.[/quote] I'll have to disagree ---Truth is absolute!!
|
|
some are real important
Guest
|
Post by some are real important on Jun 16, 2006 13:21:32 GMT -5
But most of these issues are not important. Whats a pity is that people treat them as so. And then moan about them as if their own treatment was the way all others are treated. The divorice issue is of major importance to those who must deal with it. I recall a conversation in one of the chat rooms. A young divoriced woman was inquiring "In which states does the overseer allow divoriced folks to have a part in the Meeting?" She wanted to be able to have fellowship and partake of the Emblems, but wasn't allowed to do so in her home state. This meant so much to her that she was willing to relocate. Tell her that this issue is not important! It may not be important to you but.......
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 16, 2006 13:39:11 GMT -5
The real scandal is the inconsistancy. Every worker, indeed every member has their unique set of beliefs. Because of this, I can't take the group seriously as a religion, it is simply a social club of people who dress similar etc Real religions tend to have a set of beliefs written out for all to see here is what this church teaches and believes. In the truthers, they decided they would get more converts if everyone thought they agreed with them. Their strategy for recruiting 1 make use if any dissatisfaction with the persons curent church religious world etc 2 be a chameleon, agree with whatever the person says are their beliefs and criticize whatever beliefs they don't like. This strategy involves a lot of bald faced lying, and results in lot of confused souls. But it has brought a few into the fellowship, mostly the extremely gullible.
|
|
|
Post by Inconsistency on Jun 16, 2006 13:58:51 GMT -5
Well, here we have a read set of opposing views from similar people.
Some say there's no consistency, no organisation, even "simply a social club of people ".
Others however claim that there's tight strict centralised control.
It can't be both ways.
Its either a loose confederation of religious groups who are seperate, with their own rules and identity, or its a compact tightly knit, controlled group with little room for diversity.
|
|
|
Post by nitro on Jun 16, 2006 14:06:11 GMT -5
Inconsistency So which way do you lean on this "Generalizing" tight or loose.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 16, 2006 14:10:53 GMT -5
Who says a social group cannot be tightly controlled? Even though there are few consistantly held religious beliefs, the people are held together. The method? Constant meeting attendance. Workeres have realized that if they can get people tho commit to the system by giving lots of their time,that the more time they commit, then the less likely they are to leave. It works! They are bound to a system of methodology not one of belief. Your top workers know this very well. That is why I cannot give it the respect of calling it a religion. Without consistant religious belief system, no religion exists. Interstingly enough, the adherents are always quick to jump in with stories of how things are different in their field, and their set of workers teaches differently! Most of them don't have a clue that this is not a selling point, but a huge problem!
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 16, 2006 14:27:05 GMT -5
I'm a long time reader, seldom a poster. I read many posts where people generalise. for example: someone posted that a worker or workers taught that ""We do not teach God Incarnate"" but the wording seemed to imply that ALL workers teach this. someone else posted: "Why do the workers make such a fuss about this sin and ignore other sins? " They were speaking of divorce. As if ALL workers acted in the way described. On trinity someone posts: "The workers would preach that Jesus was the son of God, and that he came to be our example and to give us the pattern ministry. But God... no!! The teaching of the trinity was a Catholic thing. " As if their experience is the only valid one. Its clear fro this board that there is a wide range of experience that posters bring. Its clear that there's wide differences in teaching, doctrine, belief. So why do people continue to post as if they think that their own experience is the only valid one>?
|
|
|
Post by Absolute on Jun 16, 2006 14:27:41 GMT -5
Everything, including truth, is relative. I'll have to disagree ---Truth is absolute!! Pick a simple truth you believe to be absolute. Let's put it to the test.
|
|
|
Post by nitro on Jun 16, 2006 16:01:58 GMT -5
John 14:6 (KJV) Jesus saith unto Him I am the way, the truth, and the life; no man cometh unto the Father, but by me. I believe to be Absolute
|
|
|
Post by Problems on Jun 16, 2006 16:56:54 GMT -5
John 14:6 (KJV) Jesus saith unto Him I am the way, the truth, and the life; no man cometh unto the Father, but by me. I believe to be Absolute It is always good to have beliefs. But you were talking about truths. Even the belief that this is true is relative to religion. You would be hard pressed to find a Muslim or a Jew who would agree with you.
|
|
|
Post by nitro on Jun 16, 2006 17:21:31 GMT -5
John 14:6 (KJV) It is always good to have beliefs. But you were talking about truths. Even the belief that this is true is relative to religion. You would be hard pressed to find a Muslim or a Jew who would agree with you. No problem here, you just said what MY TRUTH was. As for them ask them.
|
|
|
Post by bowhunter on Jun 16, 2006 18:24:10 GMT -5
I'm a long time reader, seldom a poster. I read many posts where people generalise. for example: someone posted that a worker or workers taught that ""We do not teach God Incarnate"" but the wording seemed to imply that ALL workers teach this. someone else posted: "Why do the workers make such a fuss about this sin and ignore other sins? " They were speaking of divorce. As if ALL workers acted in the way described. On trinity someone posts: "The workers would preach that Jesus was the son of God, and that he came to be our example and to give us the pattern ministry. But God... no!! The teaching of the trinity was a Catholic thing. " As if their experience is the only valid one. Its clear fro this board that there is a wide range of experience that posters bring. Its clear that there's wide differences in teaching, doctrine, belief. So why do people continue to post as if they think that their own experience is the only valid one>?[/quote People can only post what they have experienced,right? Because incosistant policies and techings are common in the F/W group.Obviously it IS the experience of many posters even tho it isnt yours,the consistant experience is that the workers don't have a written consistant doctrine and seem to vascilate on issues and standards from region to region. They do have some consistant ideas that are belived throughout the group,so in fairness,there is some unity in the ranks on some things.
|
|
|
Post by tellingthetruth on Jun 16, 2006 19:35:19 GMT -5
The methodology of 2X2's is consistent. Form, organization, and purpose are definable.
The doctrinal substance is inconsistent and indefinable.
The F&W's are just a religion. Man's method of trying to reach God.
True Christianity is God's method of reaching man. God comes to man, God chooses man, God regenerates man and all the glory for saving man and keeping him saved goes to Him.
No one can be expected to know this or to believe it until they have experienced it.
|
|
|
Post by Rob O on Jun 16, 2006 20:22:15 GMT -5
You probably wouldn't find a Jew or Muslim who would agree. But that isn't relevant. The proposition is either true or false. It cannot be both. If it is true, then any negating proposition which holds the same senses is necessarily false.
It may be difficult to prove the truth of the proposition, but it is not relative to religion. It is just either true or false.
|
|