|
|
Post by jason on Nov 9, 2009 8:19:36 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. The term "mental exit" is a problematic one for me. There really is no such thing; the Fellowship is not a metaphysical entity one can exit in thought alone. So, then, what is meant by this rather novel term "mental exit"? In my opinion, it is a lack of conviction in stated or professed beliefs, or the formation of new convictions which are not followed by action. If you really do not approve of the Fellowship but remain within it, you can call that a "mental exit", but I call it something else. Either way, it is still a form of sophistry. To see this in action, consider the inverse: "they are mentally professing but not actually practicing". Would anyone credit that for an instant? What about "they are mentally Catholics but not baptised or confirmed"? If the inverse is untenable, then the principle is likewise untenable. Faith involves open life choices, and people living according to the courage of their stated convictions. |
|
|
|
Post by CherieKropp on Nov 9, 2009 10:38:48 GMT -5
At what point does a Christian become a Christian?
IMO, it is at the time they mentally submit to Jesus as their Lord. It is the second they make up their mind (mentally decide) that it is Jesus they want to serve in their lifetime.
Perhaps mentally in private prayer, as Edward Cooney did in his bedroom long ago.
Perhaps openly in a setting where they indicate their desire to the one telling them about Jesus and they accept Christ as their Lord and personal saviour on the spot.
Perhaps when they indicate they have already decided mentally, and then they outwardly confess/profess their choice before an audience.
Since God looks on the heart - IMO it is when they mentally accept Jesus as their Lord.
In much the same way, some ex-2x2 first become mentally free before they physically break away and become an outward ex. There are many stages to exiting the role of a 2x2. However, I wouldnt expect very many 2x2s would be able to comprehend this, since they have never have walked in those mocassins
|
|
|
|
Post by jason on Nov 9, 2009 13:30:58 GMT -5
At what point does a Christian become a Christian? IMO, it is at the time they mentally submit to Jesus as their Lord. It is the second they make up their mind (mentally decide) that it is Jesus they want to serve in their lifetime. Perhaps mentally in private prayer, as Edward Cooney did in his bedroom long ago. Perhaps openly in a setting where they indicate their desire to the one telling them about Jesus and they accept Christ as their Lord and personal saviour on the spot. Perhaps when they indicate they have already decided mentally, and then they outwardly confess/profess their choice before an audience. Since God looks on the heart - IMO it is when they mentally accept Jesus as their Lord. In much the same way, some ex-2x2 first become mentally free before they physically break away and become an outward ex. There are many stages to exiting the role of a 2x2. However, I wouldnt expect very many 2x2s would be able to comprehend this, since they have never have walked in those mocassins The assumption that other people are unable to understand another point-of-view is not particularly helpful to facilitating greater dialogue. I also think you might be surprised if you looked into this: I very much doubt anyone in the Fellowship believes that exiting is a snap decision; it is recognised that there are stages in which a person tapers off their involvement and then goes elsewhere. This is not to say that those stages are not interpreted in very different ways. I find your argument regarding the point at which a person becomes a Christian to be interesting on several levels: firstly, I would not accept the premise that a person "accepts Jesus"; as a good Calvinist I believe in predestination and the operation of the Holy Spirit. I also believe that both Arminians and Calvinists would agree that the biblical answer is that a person becomes a Christian when they have been "born from above" or "born again" by God. However, I think you are clouding the issue. When a person first comes to faith, as you have pointed out, it is demonstrated with action, openness and even boldness. When a person later makes conscious changes of doctrine and theology - which is essentially what an exit involves - yet does not demonstrate this conviction in any practical, open or meaningful way, that is the "mental exit". They are officially "in"; but it is not a sincere "in". You are therefore comparing two different things: one is a sincere belief manifested in action, the other is an insincere belief manifested in inaction. |
|
|
|
Post by eyedeetentee on Nov 9, 2009 13:33:42 GMT -5
Cherie, I'm sure you know that what you write may be for the benefit of others, not for Jason. He will argue till he's dead even though his arguments make no logical sense most of the time and he is obviously young and unlearned. If you are writing to prove Jason wrong, don't bother. He has never been wrong. Even when he's wrong, he's right.
|
|
|
|
Post by ilylo on Nov 9, 2009 18:02:53 GMT -5
Out of curiosity... I wonder if Jason could tell us how many exes he has spoken with in-depth regarding their exit from the 2x2 church?
I'll hazard an informed guess that Jason's number is a single-digit percentage of how many Cherie has talked to.
|
|
|
|
Post by jason on Nov 9, 2009 18:25:39 GMT -5
Cherie, I'm sure you know that what you write may be for the benefit of others, not for Jason. He will argue till he's dead even though his arguments make no logical sense most of the time and he is obviously young and unlearned. If you are writing to prove Jason wrong, don't bother. He has never been wrong. Even when he's wrong, he's right. Perhaps you might like to show or explain where my "argument" breaks down, or at what point a logical fallacy has been used. |
|
|
|
Post by sharon on Nov 10, 2009 11:59:42 GMT -5
It seems age and experience does add color to what is known. It's kind of like a nursing student learns the "classical" signs and symptoms of particular diseases and diagnoses...but with time and experience they learn that the patients are individuals and not likely to hold to any "classical" sign or symptom in particular. It becomes the fact a good assessor of signs and symptoms can more or less estimate what disease or diagnoses is truly in that individual patient and thus render due nursing care.
So it is with the spiritual realm of mankind, esp. our own....we learn our weaknesses, our strengths and mostly our own lacks, then we know what, where, when, how and why we need to do any certain thing.
Otherwords our way of dealing with issues would be totally different then when we were about 30-40 yrs younger!
|
|
|
|
Post by ilylo on Nov 11, 2009 20:10:13 GMT -5
Cherie, I'm sure you know that what you write may be for the benefit of others, not for Jason. He will argue till he's dead even though his arguments make no logical sense most of the time and he is obviously young and unlearned. If you are writing to prove Jason wrong, don't bother. He has never been wrong. Even when he's wrong, he's right. Perhaps you might like to show or explain where my "argument" breaks down, or at what point a logical fallacy has been used. Don't worry yourself, Jason. Even when you're wrong, you're right. Don't lose any sleep over it. |
|
|
|
Post by rational on Nov 12, 2009 20:17:20 GMT -5
Perhaps you might like to show or explain where my "argument" breaks down, or at what point a logical fallacy has been used. Don't worry yourself, Jason. Even when you're wrong, you're right. Don't lose any sleep over it. It seems like a simple request. Instead of meaningless remarks why not point out the errors in his statements? |
|
|
|
Post by eyedeetentee on Nov 13, 2009 1:06:44 GMT -5
If they are meaningless, why did he respond to my post? Why did anyone respond? I'm not here.
|
|
shushy
Royal Member
Warning
50%
Posts: 8,009
|
Post by shushy on Nov 13, 2009 20:06:00 GMT -5
I see him here, I see him there...
|
|
|
|
Post by Annan on Nov 14, 2009 9:54:23 GMT -5
I don't see anyone. Hello. Anyone out there? Shhh... I think I hear something... Nah.  |
|
|
|
Post by kiwi on Nov 17, 2009 1:48:27 GMT -5
I don't see anyone. Hello. Anyone out there? Shhh... I think I hear something... Nah. Boo ;D |
|
|
|
Post by emy on Nov 17, 2009 20:52:17 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. Had missed this post before. Another one deserving of post of the week. |
|
|
|
Post by CherieKropp on Mar 22, 2010 6:14:14 GMT -5
Bump for Bert who asked what is TLC.
|
|
|
|
Post by eyedeetentee on Mar 23, 2010 19:28:39 GMT -5
Or is it TLJ?
|
|
|
|
Post by Scott Ross on Jun 28, 2010 14:04:39 GMT -5
As info: Not everyone who applies to join TLC is accepted.
The chief considerations for TLC membership are:
Is the applicant an Ex-2x2?
Are they a risk to either the Peace or Privacy of TLC.
Is there a conflict of interest?TLC PEACE & PRIVACY POLICYThe Liberty Connection (aka TLC) strives to be a “Safe Haven” for members who share the common background of being Ex-2x2s. The TLC Forum is committed to privacy, peaceful discussion, respectful expression, support, recovery and healing. 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. Not all who are qualified on the basis of these two points are accepted. Some other relevant factors considered when evaluating Applicants are:
PEACE & TRANQUILITY: Would this Applicant be a risk to the Peace of TLC? How would this prospective member affect the Safe Haven environment of TLC? Does this Applicant have a history of being hard to get along with? Has the Applicant been known to be disrespectful or disruptive in past situations? PRIVACY: Would this Applicant be a risk to the Privacy of TLC? Confidentiality is of the utmost importance to the survival and effectiveness of TLC, and members place a high value on this feature of TLC. How likely is this Applicant to reveal to non-members any personal disclosures made by TLC members? Has this Applicant betrayed confidences in the past?
CONFLICT OF INTEREST: A Conflict of Interest occurs when a member has an interest that might compromise their actions. What is the potential for this Applicant to promote their own interests over the interests of TLC? Would advancing outside interests be more important to this Applicant than following the TLC rules and guidelines? The presence of a Conflict of Interest is not evidence of wrongdoing, and it is possible that no improper acts would result from it. The TLC Administration does its utmost to carefully screen Applicants and accepts only those who are Ex-2x2s and who do not pose obvious risks to the Peace or Privacy of TLC. However, the TLC Administrators are fallible human beings, and therefore, we can make no guarantees. We thoroughly screen Applicants and make the best possible decision. We cannot afford to take new security risks at the expense our current members. The long term and overall good of The Liberty Connection and its entire membership is of prime importance, and we reserve the right to make arbitrary decisions to protect the best interests of TLC. I was wondering if these rules are still in effect. I was discussing the TLC with someone, and understand that it has been proposed that professing folks be allowed to join the TLC, at least as far as access to portions of it. Could you post the revised requirements here and how one goes about being recommended by exes now? Does it require a statement of any sort as to why they should be allowed to join? I know of some folks that might be interested if it is open to professing folks. Thanks, Scott  |
|
|
|
Post by damselfly on Jul 13, 2010 14:35:22 GMT -5
As info: Not everyone who applies to join TLC is accepted.
The chief considerations for TLC membership are:
Is the applicant an Ex-2x2?
Are they a risk to either the Peace or Privacy of TLC.
Is there a conflict of interest?So how is it determined if someone meets these criteria? |
|
|
|
Post by rational on Jul 13, 2010 22:57:45 GMT -5
As info: Not everyone who applies to join TLC is accepted.
The chief considerations for TLC membership are:
Is the applicant an Ex-2x2?
Are they a risk to either the Peace or Privacy of TLC.
Is there a conflict of interest?So how is it determined if someone meets these criteria? Good question. I asked for an explanation but was never given an answer. I think I may have asked too many questions. |
|
|
|
Post by ronhall on Jul 14, 2010 22:05:35 GMT -5
As info: Not everyone who applies to join TLC is accepted.
The chief considerations for TLC membership are:
Is the applicant an Ex-2x2?
Are they a risk to either the Peace or Privacy of TLC.
Is there a conflict of interest?So how is it determined if someone meets these criteria? All you need to do is answer the questions when you apply. In my case I gave an answer to the question "Is the applicant an Ex-2x2" that resulted in rejection of my application. Nothing wrong with an entity being exclusive and rejecting applications of folks who are considered to have nothing to offer. |
|
|
|
Post by happyjules on Aug 3, 2010 23:11:37 GMT -5
It really saddens me that so much time and energy has been wasted on silly arguments and questions on this page. Hopefully everyone will learn that this is an opportunity for support and understanding.
|
|
|
|
Post by Jesse_Lackman on Aug 4, 2010 11:00:26 GMT -5
As info: Not everyone who applies to join TLC is accepted.
The chief considerations for TLC membership are:
Is the applicant an Ex-2x2?
Are they a risk to either the Peace or Privacy of TLC.
Is there a conflict of interest?So how is it determined if someone meets these criteria? Hello. I noticed how it went for you on VOT; -> Mind-boggling damages on display. And freedom888's thoughts on it; -> VOT's purpose I noticed that was freedom888's last post there. I wonder if your reception on TLC or here at TMB will be quite different than it was on VOT. I'm not a member of TLC and probably never will be, unless what Scott says is true, but there are some pretty nice level-headed people here on TMB.  |
|
|
|
Post by Gene on Aug 14, 2010 7:29:06 GMT -5
As info: Not everyone who applies to join TLC is accepted.
The chief considerations for TLC membership are:
Is the applicant an Ex-2x2?
Are they a risk to either the Peace or Privacy of TLC.
Is there a conflict of interest?So how is it determined if someone meets these criteria? Hello. I noticed how it went for you on VOT; -> Mind-boggling damages on display. And freedom888's thoughts on it; -> VOT's purpose I noticed that was freedom888's last post there. I wonder if your reception on TLC or here at TMB will be quite different than it was on VOT. I'm not a member of TLC and probably never will be, unless what Scott says is true, but there are some pretty nice level-headed people here on TMB. Oh my, what a sad exchange that was on VOT. Damselfly, I hope you stick around TMB a bit - I think you'll find it a refreshing mix of points of view, nearly all with some kind of 2x2 connection. Gene |
|
lauri
Senior Member
Posts: 324
|
Post by lauri on Aug 14, 2010 11:40:16 GMT -5
It is sad. It seems that there are ex's that still like to feel exclusive or superior. I just left a site because I felt there was some Christian Bullying going on. I know longer consider myself Christian but I don't feel the need to insult those that are. Too bad the respect isn't very mutual.
|
|
|
|
Post by mrleo on Aug 14, 2010 13:43:03 GMT -5
I wish I could recommend TLC. I initially found it very welcoming and a positive place, but ultimately I realized I was checking my integrity at the door and that wasn't a price I was willing to pay to be 'inside'.
|
|
lauri
Senior Member
Posts: 324
|
Post by lauri on Aug 14, 2010 18:56:03 GMT -5
I'd say TLC is very welcoming to fellow Christians, but my issue is with some of the very insensitive remarks to people of different or no faith. It is odd to me that the same respect isn't shown to all. I try to watch my words so I don't offend but much of what I was reading there was just so not me- it was time to go.
|
|
|
|
Post by Gene on Aug 15, 2010 7:31:23 GMT -5
You know, a fascinating thing about VOT's attitude toward non-Christians (using their definition of Christian) is that, like it or not, they are true to Christian teaching -- e.g., only Christians are saved (and of course, that means [again] Christians by their definition.) Being true to that tenet, one can understand why they would not allow non-'Christian' teaching on their website. On the discussion board within VOT, they will allow just enough non-'Christian' discussion to establish whether the poster is, in their opinion, a seeking soul - and if not, the shutters come down rapidly and securely, and any non-'Christian' point of view is summarily silenced.
How can you fault that?
To answer my own question, one can fault the VOT approach (imo) if one is prepared to fault the basic premise under which they operate: That Christianity is the only true religion.
|
|
|
|
Post by CherieKropp on Aug 6, 2011 20:18:13 GMT -5
Today, August 6, 2011 is TLC's 2nd Birthday.
And soon it will give birth to a new TLC Website which the public will be able to view.
"It was a great experiment!"
|
|
