|
|
Post by ilylo on Oct 31, 2009 21:25:36 GMT -5
Former members of the 2x2 church are invited to come share their liberty in Christ. The Liberty Connection - galatians5.proboards.comWe talk about joy here, we talk about pain, We talk about loss and we talk about gain. We talk about bondage; how we became free, In "Truth" we were blind, but now we can see. EDITED TO ADD 'TLC' TO THE THREAD TITLE-scott |
|
|
|
Post by ronhall on Nov 3, 2009 18:59:30 GMT -5
Would you be interested in my joining your group?
Or are you too exclusive?
Just asking.
|
|
|
|
Post by CherieKropp on Nov 3, 2009 20:58:43 GMT -5
Would you be interested in my joining your group? Or are you too exclusive? Just asking. Ron: If you can honestly state (1) that you have left the meetings and are not a part of the 2x2 church; and (2) someone we know will verify this is true, then yes, you would qualify to join TLC. The TLC members have requested that no 2x2s be allowed to join TLC, and so applicants are carefully screened to make sure they meet this cardinal requirement. |
|
|
|
Post by ronhall on Nov 3, 2009 21:58:56 GMT -5
Sorry. I am in no sense qualified to join TLC.
Are you exclusive? You'd better believe it!
(Where have I seen something of that nature written before?) :>)
|
|
|
|
Post by ilylo on Nov 4, 2009 0:02:57 GMT -5
TLC is exclusive in that 2x2s cannot join. TLC is not exclusive in that we don't make judgment calls about your chances at salvation (unlike a certain church I know).
Your stupid trivial word games say more about you than us and are part of the reason that our membership numbers are skyrocketing.
Have a nice day.
|
|
|
|
Post by CherieKropp on Nov 5, 2009 15:07:27 GMT -5
Just curious...If there was a single 2x2 allowed to join TLC - would that make TLC "not exclusive"?
|
|
|
|
Post by eyedeetentee on Nov 5, 2009 15:54:05 GMT -5
I can think of one right off the bat who is fair, open-minded, and probably a good candidate. Whether or not she would join is another thing.
|
|
|
|
Post by ronhall on Nov 5, 2009 16:08:55 GMT -5
Just curious...If there was a single 2x2 allowed to join TLC - would that make TLC "not exclusive"? Why would you want to make TLC non-exclusive? Apparently TLC is becoming a safe haven for former 2x2 members with skyrocketing membership numbers as reported by ilylo. If this helps to satisfy the void in fellowship and friendship ex 2x2 members experience, that is good. Why mess with success? In many cases, exclusiveness is good. |
|
|
|
Post by CherieKropp on Nov 5, 2009 16:40:10 GMT -5
You're assuming things...I did not imply I wanted or was contemplating making TLC non-exclusive...
I'm just wanting to know your definition of the term "exclusive"...
To me, the word seems to be an all inclusive term--and so just ONE exception to the rule would make it non-exclusive...do you agree?
|
|
|
|
Post by ilylo on Nov 5, 2009 16:48:46 GMT -5
Who is experiencing a void in fellowship and friendship? Not I.
Your suggestion that we were experiencing a void in fellowship and friendship is symbolic of the kind of thinking that goes on in the heads of 2x2-ist mind-numbed robots. Hilda Hansen comes to mind.
TLC was created in order to have a place to gather away from 2x2-ist comments, such as the above, which are the norm around here.
|
|
|
|
Post by ronhall on Nov 6, 2009 0:49:28 GMT -5
You're assuming things...I did not imply I wanted or was contemplating making TLC non-exclusive... I'm just wanting to know your definition of the term "exclusive"... To me, the word seems to be an all inclusive term--and so just ONE exception to the rule would make it non-exclusive...do you agree? I've always viewed it as a conditional word with a range of severity, e.g. ranging from mildly exclusive to totally exclusive. Similar conditional words might be: acidic solution -- any solution of a pH less than 7 professing person -- mildly professing to hard core democratic congress -- more than 50% on the democratic party So yes, defining exclusive as you do, in black or white terms, allowing one 2x2 person to participate in TLC would make it conditionally inclusive. Sometimes those of us who view life in a shades of gray get a rude awakening from those who see things in more of a black/white palate. It's nothing to worry about or become offended by, it's just our nature! Just a thought -- even the color 'white' has a range of temperatures on the Kelvin scale. :>) |
|
|
|
Post by CherieKropp on Nov 7, 2009 0:01:18 GMT -5
Ron's definition:
Then, according to Ron, TLC is "conditionally inclusive."
|
|
|
|
Post by ilylo on Nov 7, 2009 0:07:33 GMT -5
Ron's definition: Then, according to Ron, TLC is "conditionally inclusive."Well shucks. There goes the neighborhood. So much for the "lack of diversity" we keep hearing about. |
|
|
|
Post by degem on Nov 7, 2009 0:21:40 GMT -5
ilylo, are you the administrator of the TLC board ?
|
|
|
|
Post by rational on Nov 7, 2009 8:11:15 GMT -5
Ron's definition: Then, according to Ron, TLC is "conditionally inclusive."So you are admitting that your statement: CARDINAL REQUIREMENT: TLC members share a common background. All have spent some time in their life in the 2x2 church and have chosen to leave that church. All members of TLC must either be (1) an Ex-2x2; or (2) born and raised in meetings but did not profess.is not true and the decision to admit or exclude people is arbitrary and not based on any written rules. Maybe the TLC needs a written doctrine that explains all of these things. It is sounding like the administration is running the message board more and more like the workers run the 2X2 group. But maybe there is a TLCboardspeak that redefined the words CARDINAL and MUST and those definitions are only known to members. |
|
|
|
Post by rational on Nov 7, 2009 8:18:11 GMT -5
So much for the "lack of diversity" we keep hearing about. The problem was that we believed what was posted about the rules governing acceptance and based our comments on those rules. Now it has been shown that those rules are more for show than actually governing who is admitted and who is not. Sort of like those unwritten rules that you have complained about that another group has in place. |
|
|
|
Post by ilylo on Nov 7, 2009 14:22:49 GMT -5
yada yada yada...
next?
|
|
|
|
Post by Annan on Nov 7, 2009 17:50:20 GMT -5
(2) born and raised in meetings but did not profess.That is the reason I was given for not being allowed to be a member...  Not that I mind as I'm fine over here. 
|
|
|
|
Post by rational on Nov 7, 2009 19:18:36 GMT -5
(2) born and raised in meetings but did not profess.That is the reason I was given for not being allowed to be a member... Not that I mind as I'm fine over here. As you have pointed out, Annan, the rules that are posted are not necessarily the actual rules that are followed. And if the question is asked of the administrators/overseers/rulers/managers (or whatever they might be known as) you get an answer like "yada yada yada... ". What is surprising is this is the response from a poster who has complained in the past that the workers would not answer questions when asked. That they would not state their doctrine. So we have an exclusive organization with a set of rules that are not followed by the leaders, leaders who impose random rules not supported by the group's stated rules, and whose leaders refuse to respond to questions about the discrepancies. But wait - this is also the group that is known as the 2X2s. Or is it the group known as the Ex-2X2s? Hard to tell them apart. |
|
|
|
Post by ronhall on Nov 7, 2009 20:54:15 GMT -5
(2) born and raised in meetings but did not profess.That is the reason I was given for not being allowed to be a member... Not that I mind as I'm fine over here. As you have pointed out, Annan, the rules that are posted are not necessarily the actual rules that are followed. And if the question is asked of the administrators/overseers/rulers/managers (or whatever they might be known as) you get an answer like "yada yada yada... ". What is surprising is this is the response from a poster who has complained in the past that the workers would not answer questions when asked. That they would not state their doctrine. So we have an exclusive organization with a set of rules that are not followed by the leaders, leaders who impose random rules not supported by the group's stated rules, and whose leaders refuse to respond to questions about the discrepancies. But wait - this is also the group that is known as the 2X2s. Or is it the group known as the Ex-2X2s? Hard to tell them apart. None of this much matters to us shades of gray type of folks. Rules are made to be bent, fences are made to be tested and places where we are not wanted, we wouldn't like it there if we got there. Tomorrow is Sunday, so have a nice meeting, folks. |
|
|
|
Post by ilylo on Nov 7, 2009 22:53:16 GMT -5
(2) born and raised in meetings but did not profess.That is the reason I was given for not being allowed to be a member... Not that I mind as I'm fine over here. As you have pointed out, Annan, the rules that are posted are not necessarily the actual rules that are followed. And if the question is asked of the administrators/overseers/rulers/managers (or whatever they might be known as) you get an answer like "yada yada yada... ". What is surprising is this is the response from a poster who has complained in the past that the workers would not answer questions when asked. That they would not state their doctrine. So we have an exclusive organization with a set of rules that are not followed by the leaders, leaders who impose random rules not supported by the group's stated rules, and whose leaders refuse to respond to questions about the discrepancies. But wait - this is also the group that is known as the 2X2s. Or is it the group known as the Ex-2X2s? Hard to tell them apart. LOL... this is rich. Keep it up. I've lost count of the membership requests in the past 48 hours. |
|
|
|
Post by CherieKropp on Nov 7, 2009 23:20:41 GMT -5
The real question that should be asked is:
Exactly when does an ex become an ex?
|
|
|
|
Post by ilylo on Nov 8, 2009 0:26:42 GMT -5
Good question. I became an ex before I stopped attending meetings, and from what I'm learning that's not at all uncommon.
|
|
|
|
Post by jason on Nov 8, 2009 6:34:14 GMT -5
LOL... this is rich. Keep it up. I've lost count of the membership requests in the past 48 hours. Then you must not count too high. According to my source, the number of people applying to join are far from the avalanche your hyperbole implies, and my previously stated figure of a membership between 150 and 200, of whom only about 50 regularly post is correct. You denied the factuality of this, if I recall. |
|
|
|
Post by jason on Nov 8, 2009 6:36:21 GMT -5
The real question that should be asked is: Exactly when does an ex become an ex? I should think this question is pure sophistry. The term "ex" derives from the Latin meaning "out of" or "from". One becomes an ex when they cease normative interaction with, and thus, come "out of" the Fellowship to which they belonged. |
|
|
|
Post by jason on Nov 8, 2009 7:23:53 GMT -5
RE: the TLC
I can well recall back in 2002 the angry, angry, angry posts that used to appear here, on the defunct PMB, and various listservs. They were the days when being an ex was, in many ways, a form of social activism barely distinguishable from a kind of Reformation; the Internet was the equivalent of the printing press, the Workers the established church which regularly preached against it and the materials being circulated on it. I guess they were heady days.
Since that time things have changed. A lot more Friends are on the Internet and are discovering that learning about Irvine - the great Ace of Spades in the deck - does not necessitate ditching the church. Learning about the past does not mean the present is impossibly corrupt and needs to be abandoned. This in turn strengthens the resolve of those of us online, and allows us to put a viewpoint across that did not exist before: it allows for the possibility of a new middle ground. Perhaps I am impossibly grandiose, but I see myself occupying some of this new territory: I am a dedicated Calvinist, a believer in the study of theology, and someone who openly disapproves of some of the teaching of the church, yet I am not an ex.
This change is ironic, for it was not too many years ago there were people online criticising the Fellowship for not being open, not being transparent, and not willing to come to the table in discussion and debate. We were caricatured as furtive. We were secretive. Many hard and hurtful things were written, but that was then, and things were different. The Alberta excommunications were on, and there was a lot of sin and pain to go around.
Now, I cannot help wonder whether the inverse is true, that something is beginning to bloom in the dungheap of all of this... stuff. I seem to see many people change. I observe a growing realisation that keeping the anger alive - "maintaining the rage" - is not good for anyone, not good for their families and relationships, and not good for eternity. Anger and hardness are deadly poisons in all of their forms.
In recent times perhaps the "healing" really has begun in earnest. And it has begun through dialogue; through friendship; through making peace with the Fellowship and the past, not making mincemeat of it. The process has also begun to work in reverse: those of us who have been badly hurt by exes have also started to make peace, to change our perspective, and to grow in unity and compassion. Has it been an overnight alteration? Hardly. Those who have known me for a long time will doubtless recall the anger, rage, venom and bitterness with which I first boiled out of nothing and onto the Internet. Sometimes this still overflows.
What has changed me? I think the making of friends; and the dedicated patience of people who love and accept me, and who forgive me over and over again. This, I think, reminds me that we are people with differences, but people for whom love can still bridge whatever gulf human tradition and thought raises between us. The marks of Christ in our opponents are powerful arguments in favour of peace and compassion.
And much of this proves what we should all have known for a long time: the evils of the human spirit do not survive for long. You can call anger, hatred, gossip, and slander different names, and allege that it's all about "healing" - though this strikes me as a particularly naturalistic psychologic device - and when people write hard things against the Friends, the Workers, and Exs with whom they disapprove, not just the occassional post, but frequently for years and years on end, one can claim that this is repairing the wounds, but I don't think it makes anyone really feel better. It just legitimises anger and victimhood, and locks people into a static place. True healing, in all sincerity, comes through the peace that flows from forgiveness as demonstrated on the cross of Calvary.
It is one thing to talk of healing (some people have been healing for thirty years), it is another thing to actually achieve it. I have someone in my family, someone I deeply care about, who was sexually abused by a person in her life for a span of four of five years without respite. The abuse destroyed her self-esteem, self-image, education, and even her ability to form relationships. This person has struggled with those issues for decades. Yet when I ask about the man who did it (now dead), this person harbours no hatred, no anger, no aminosity. She wept at his funeral. She places flowers on his grave. Anger, she tells me, and hatred can repair nothing, but love is the presence of God.
The hardest thing in the world, when thirsting for justice (so easily confused with revenge), is to find mercy. "I will have mercy and not justice" said God, describing the character of the New Testament dispensation. Mercy is the antithesis of the human mind and heart. Mercy is living on God's grace and dealing with the fallout of another person's evil, whilst still showing that person undeserved respect and kindness. Mercy is turning away, and not lashing out even through tears, blood and pain. Mercy is the man who forgives the drunken driver for the death of his daughter; mercy is the woman who prays for her rapist; mercy is the teenager who seeks out the father who abandoned him. People have done this, and greater things in the pursuit of mercy.
Mercy is not popular because it is impossible. At least as far as the human will and soul is concerned; it is made possible only through the work of God. It cuts far more deeply to forgive than it does to hurt. Mercy is when we take upon ourselves the hurt that by rights should fall upon another. It is the way of Christ, precisely because this was Christ's way.
I hope the TLC may accomplish some of this, I truly do, but I have no confidence left in human groups. The only source of healing, hope, peace, and change is the brightness of the mercy and love of the One True God, and Jesus Christ whom he has sent.
To all who persevere in the Lord,
Peace.
|
|
|
|
Post by CherieKropp on Nov 8, 2009 9:38:06 GMT -5
RE: A 2x2s exodus. There is first a mental exit; which is often followed by a physical exit. Some who have experienced mental exits still attend meetings; some briefly and others for an indefinite length of time. Some who have mentally exited continue to attend meetings in an attempt to help others there get free in Christ. Others are mentally out and in touch with the exes but intend to continue to attend meetings until their parents die. The real question that should be asked is: Exactly when does an ex become an ex?[/quote] I should think this question is pure sophistry. The term "ex" derives from the Latin meaning "out of" or "from". One becomes an ex when they cease normative interaction with, and thus, come "out of" the Fellowship to which they belonged. |
|
|
|
Post by ilylo on Nov 8, 2009 10:23:39 GMT -5
LOL... this is rich. Keep it up. I've lost count of the membership requests in the past 48 hours. Then you must not count too high. According to my source, the number of people applying to join are far from the avalanche your hyperbole implies, and my previously stated figure of a membership between 150 and 200, of whom only about 50 regularly post is correct. You denied the factuality of this, if I recall. Whew... for a moment I thought I was not going to be granted the pleasure of yet another hyperbolic lecture on hyperbole. What a relief. |
|
