|
Post by James Durston on Feb 11, 2007 21:47:12 GMT -5
I think you are really demonic Mr Observing, I dont really know why you keep trying to engage me in conversation. These posts are not for people like you. I dont have anything to say to you.
The thing is that you cannot help yourself, your compelled because your driven by evil powers that you allow to operate through you.
As Christians are fight is against the demonic powers above that manifest through human beings.
|
|
|
Post by Greg Lee Unplugged on Feb 11, 2007 22:41:50 GMT -5
Why are you keep on calling people names such as Jerk! :'(demonic! Evil! Unsaved! who are trying to help you with your belief and understanding. Please, take heed and pray about it. Too many have expressed their concerns and love for you on here, James. We are not Evil or demonics just caring people. Nathan, I think his thought is similar to the workers' teaching. You know the workers' teach that whatever is not of God is of Satan. You know that the workers teach only their ministry and their church is of God, so all else - all else - is of Satan, demonic, evil. So, if one sees the workers' ministry as of man and leading men and women and children only to the workers, then applies the same worker teaching, the workers' ministry/church must be of Satan, demonic, evil. Somewhat good for the goose, good for the gander.
|
|
|
Post by for James Durston on Feb 11, 2007 23:16:25 GMT -5
Please present your own personal cult belief system, James...
we are still waiting to hear what that is....
so far you have just passed the buck off....
thank you.
|
|
|
Post by Greg Lee Unplugged on Feb 11, 2007 23:18:46 GMT -5
Any doctrine is NOT align with the teachings of Jesus Christ and the apostles are NOT from God. Nathan, would you then say any teaching not of Jesus and not of the apostles and not of God is of: 1 - Satan? 2 - Man? 3 - either 1 or 2?
|
|
|
Post by funny lol on Feb 11, 2007 23:19:12 GMT -5
You know the workers' teach that whatever is not of God is of Satan. You know that the workers teach only their ministry and their church is of God, so all else - all else - is of Satan, demonic, evil. Somewhat good for the goose, good for the gander. I find it humorous that you find this teaching to be acceptable, as long as the roles are reversed. haha You are a hypocrite, Greg. haha roflol, good for you gandergoose greg
|
|
|
Post by Greg Lee Unplugged on Feb 11, 2007 23:47:11 GMT -5
I find it humorous that you find this teaching to be acceptable, as long as the roles are reversed. haha You are a hypocrite, Greg. haha roflol, good for you gandergoose greg Well, you found that humorous. Good. You were suppose to find humor in the post. (HaHaHaHa)
|
|
|
Post by James Durston on Feb 11, 2007 23:50:58 GMT -5
The bottom line is within the meetings it is understood (This is the second foundational understanding of the Friends and Workers...POINT No 2) that
you can not meet in church buildings because God does not dwell there!
This would explain why the Friends do not agree with so called faiths that dare to meet in the environment of a church building. If what they are saying is true I for one am in complete agreement with them. But is it true?
|
|
|
Post by James is cornfused on Feb 11, 2007 23:57:59 GMT -5
[/b] you can not meet in church buildings because God does not dwell there! This would explain why the Friends do not agree with so called faiths that dare to meet in the environment of a church building. But is it true?[/quote] Where is it taught in the bible that a building should be built and call it a church? You have mixed up doctrines and traditions of men. You are an evil teacher and blind as a bat to boot.
|
|
|
Post by Observing on Feb 12, 2007 0:25:15 GMT -5
James Durston: The bottom line is within the meetings it is understood (This is the second foundational understanding of the Friends and Workers...POINT No 2) that
I notice you continue to chant what you believe to be true without concern for facts.
James Durston: you can not meet in church buildings because God does not dwell there!
I think the message is that you do not need to meet in a church because that is not where God dwells. Look at the history. Jesus, a Jew, was raised to believe that God did dwell in the temple. Not having to worship in a synagogue was a huge change for the followers of Jesus.
James Durston: This would explain why the Friends do not agree with so called faiths that dare to meet in the environment of a church building.
I think the disagreement is that they feel they need to meet in a church.
As I said, I have gone to special meetings in a church. I know that this flies in the face of what you are trying to get people to spit back to you but you certainly wouldn't want people to lie just to please you. Would you - it was just a guess on my part?
|
|
|
Post by Observing on Feb 12, 2007 0:45:38 GMT -5
James is cornfused: You are an evil teacher and blind as a bat to boot.
I do not believe James is evil.
To be evil you have to morally bad and I do not believe that is why James is speaking out against people.
I believe that he is somewhat self-deluded into thinking that he, and in most cases, only he understands the Bible completely and sees God's will perfectly.
He is seeking a specific response to his questions and discounts and strikes out against those who do not fall into line. It is much like you would expect from a cult leader.
|
|
|
Post by Geoff on Feb 12, 2007 2:57:00 GMT -5
James
I note that you have ignored my plea for an answer.
Do you really claim that I am evil, unsaved?
You say that your concern is for getting people saved, yet you seem unable to address this at an individual level. Surely the first step in getting saved is to establish if a person is saved already?
|
|
|
Post by James Durston on Feb 12, 2007 3:32:59 GMT -5
Geoff. I have not forgotten you and will try and answer your questions, I promise. Right now I really want to go through a number of POINTS that show the Friends, Workers & Meetings to be a cult. It's hard enough as it is in getting involved with everyones statements and accusations. Just for the moment please try and see what I am trying to say. You are missing such a wonderful opportunity to get the scales removed from your eyes.
|
|
|
Post by James Durston on Feb 12, 2007 4:37:00 GMT -5
The only reason I am not evil is that Jesus Christ paid for my sins with His own life and I have accepted the undeserved gift of salvation by making Him my Lord and Saviour. We have all fallen short no matter how good we think we are and thus are evil, for all sin is evil. Jesus Christ bore our sin and only by repenting and accepting Him as our Lord and Saviour are we saved.
|
|
|
Post by Geoff on Feb 12, 2007 5:46:02 GMT -5
James I appreciate the difficulty in making any pronouncements on this board. You cannot avoid the hecklers and distractions, thats a part of the board you can't avoid.
But you said "You are missing such a wonderful opportunity to get the scales removed from your eyes. "
How do you know that I have scales, seeing you don't know me? How are you able to judge me in this way based on NO KNOWLEDGE.
Can't you see that any point you make, or are trying to make has been made subordinate to your direct judgements on me. I suspect this applies to others too.
In effect you're saying: "Shut up and listen you idiot, you evil, sightless, unsaved wretch, just listen to what I have to say".
Is that really what you mean?
|
|
|
Post by Scott Ross on Feb 12, 2007 5:58:37 GMT -5
James, I agree with Geoff on this. I haven't even been a part of this thread, and I also feel you making judgments on me based on what and how you have posted. While I can agree with some of your points, the fact that I don't agree with them all doesn't make me wrong, bad or unsaved. My relationship with Jesus/God is MY relationship and it is very personal. Only God knows if I am saved, and you have no right to try to tell me different. Yes, I feel the Holy Spirit at work within me so I feel I have connected in all areas. I am still a sinner, but I am a sinner under the protection of Gods Grace. I feel pretty good about that. Love in Christ Scott
|
|
|
Post by James Durston on Feb 12, 2007 6:42:30 GMT -5
At the end of the day Geoff you are in an enviroment that is contrary to Gods Word. Without a doubt you are in a false religion where 'their liveing' is against the written Word of God. No doubt about it!!!
At some point you need to acknoledge this because this in not an enviroment that you should be supporting.
Furthermore a time will come when a person needs to come before Jesus Christ and repent of being involved in the Friends, Workers & Meetings because this is contrary to Gods Word!! Its an abomination Geoff. It is serious stuff and I firmly believe at this point in time that you are deceived!!
If there is any one else that does agree with what I am posting (if only in part) why have you not spoken up earlier?
|
|
|
Post by Geoff on Feb 12, 2007 7:02:19 GMT -5
James
How do you KNOW that I'm in an environment thats contrary to Gods word?
You say this with words like "No doubt about that", but you know neither me nor my circumstances!
And to be in any environment doesn't dictate whats inside! A pig wallowing in mud still produces good pork. A social worker working amongst drug addicts and crime isn't bad just by association. Without getting into the argument about whether the 2x2s are right, wrong, misguided or whatever, you cannot judge a person by association and environment.
You've said that "...I firmly believe at this point in time that you are deceived.."
But you have not yet said what I'm deceived about. How can you make such a judgement without any specifics? Is this just a general "you're deceived about everything" ?
As all organisations of religion, denominations, churches, cults, whatever are man made not God made (God didn't draw up the arbitrary boundaries than man does), then following your reasonings everyone would be condemned because they associate with others who have faults. We all have faults ("There's none righteous, not one...", and "all have sinned and come short..."), so by association all are unsaved? (thats how I see your reasoning going)
|
|
|
Post by James Durston on Feb 12, 2007 7:08:12 GMT -5
The bottom line is within the meetings it is understood (This is the second foundational understanding of the Friends and Workers...POINT No 2) that you can not meet in church buildings because God does not dwell there!
This would explain why the Friends do not agree with so called faiths that dare to meet in the environment of a church building. If what they are saying is true I for one am in complete agreement with them. But is it true?
Jack Carrol wrote in 1945: The church in the home and the preacher without a home are two of the fundamentals of the faith of Jesus. One of the strangest things in the New Testament is that we never read of God's people building church buildings. We don't read about it until the third century, when there had been a turning away from that which Jesus lived and taught. In the first days there were no great church institutions, but God's people met together in every land in homes consecrated to God. The church in the home was the rule, and the preacher without a home.
The first thing is that Gods children are the church. In practicality ‘Church’ really means “called out of the world by the gift of Jesus Christ”. Of course God does not dwell in church buildings just as much as He does not dwell in residential buildings. He does not dwell in caves or on the planet Mars or in the back seat of your station wagon. He dwells within us!! So wherever we chose to meet up He will be there with His children!
There is nothing strange in the NT, that we don’t read of Gods children building physical churches. I mean you wouldn’t with all the persecution. You would meet up where other believers where and that was in their homes or maybe a barn or wherever! The church was being built as more and more people gave their lives to God.
It is common knowledge that the Greek word from which church was translated is "ekklesia." Further the word "church" is used in modern English to denote a local congregation or assembly as well as buildings and denominations. The problem is that word "ekklesia" would have been better translated "assembly" or "congregation" and in doing so the false teaching of a universal or invisible church would have been avoided. The reason for this explanation is to uphold the original meaning and use of the word as God intended.
|
|
|
Post by James Durston on Feb 12, 2007 7:11:16 GMT -5
Geoff, just answer yes or no.
Are you one of the Friends? In other words, "Do you fellowship with them?"
|
|
|
Post by Geoff on Feb 12, 2007 7:50:55 GMT -5
Straight questions deserve straight answers.
Yes
I'm sure though that you will not jump to the false conclusion that I must therefore believe doctrine that you think F&W have in your area.
|
|
|
Post by James Durston on Feb 12, 2007 16:08:45 GMT -5
Geoff, make no doubt about it, I know exactly what the doctrine is. Not just here in Tasmania but all overAustralia....All over USA..(I have lived in different parts there)....have lived in Montreal. I know Scotland where you come from very well as I have realations there including Jan De Fries....Ireland....Uk. ....I know the doctrine a lot better than you guys.
I have left this way 7 years ago and have found the true freedom that the Bible teaches... Absolutely no doubt about it!! Wether people like to accept it or not..I know what I am talking about....I know the pitfalls of the religion you are in.
I have another question for you Geoff. Is their anything that I have said that you agree with or get excited about?
|
|
|
Post by for James Durston on Feb 12, 2007 23:46:55 GMT -5
Well, James, we are still waiting to hear about your own cult belief system.
Or are you one that has no belief, just find it necessary to heckle others in what they believe?
|
|
|
Post by James Durston on Feb 13, 2007 0:14:52 GMT -5
I dont have my own cult belief system. There have been more than enough posts on TMB explaining acurately what a cult is. Look in the dictionary. I will at some stage post this again but for now it will not make any difference if I post or not. You guys need to know on a base level where you are all going wrong to understand it.
It is common knowledge that the Greek word from which church was translated is "ekklesia." Further the word "church" is used in modern English to denote a local congregation or assembly as well as buildings and denominations. The problem is that word "ekklesia" would have been better translated "assembly" or "congregation" and in doing so the false teaching of a universal or invisible church would have been avoided. The reason for this explanation is to uphold the original meaning and use of the word as God intended.
God's children are the church and not a building of any description.
|
|
|
Post by James dURSTON on Feb 13, 2007 0:17:50 GMT -5
God's children are the church and not a building of any description.
Therefore we are at total liberty to meet wherever we want as far as the physical location. Wether it is in a tent or a church building or in your best room at home or in a barn or a hall or a school or out in the open, the physical place is not of relevance – it does not matter!!
There is no where in the New Testament scripture that does not agree with the above. If you believe this is incorrect now is the time to Biblically prove different.
|
|
looks who is talking
Guest
|
Post by looks who is talking on Feb 13, 2007 1:20:00 GMT -5
Where is it taught in the bible that a building should be built and call it a church? You have mixed up doctrines and traditions of men. Look who's talking. 2X2ISM IS NOTHING BUT DOCTRINES AND TRADITIONS OF MEN.
|
|
|
Post by James Durston on Feb 13, 2007 1:22:21 GMT -5
What is this person talking about? Anyone!
|
|
|
Post by Observing on Feb 13, 2007 3:14:55 GMT -5
James Durston: I dont have my own cult belief system.
Well, James, it seems like you do. You said cults control and manipulate people. Youhave tried to do that with me since the start. You say a cult is exclusive. You refuse to listen to any other ideas. Your way is the only way you consider right.
That was point one of your cult tirade.
James, if you want readers to discuss this subject, you need to explain what you consider a cult.
|
|
|
Post by Geoff on Feb 13, 2007 3:20:29 GMT -5
James
Let me answer your last question to me first.
"Is their anything that I have said that you agree with or get excited about?"
There's 2 questions there. Agreement: Well, I have posted that I agree with you on several points. I wondered at the time if you read my posts, or merely saw them as a distraction to the message you are trying to get across. Excitement: Not really, not as in anticipation, or such. Now if I were not a Christian, then there are some things that would interest me as a non-Christian, but as a Christian there is excitement (if thats the right word) for the fact that others too might get to know the Saviour.
But let me address the rest of your post. You said "Geoff, make no doubt about it, I know exactly what the doctrine is...." (I know someone in Scotland with a name of similar but not the same spelling as you mentioned)
I don't think I disputed that you "know the doctrine", or suggested that you don't. Its not a point of difference. But I have been always addressing my personal situation. You have addressed my personal situation too... (unsaved, evil, silly... etc), but I fear you have made one large error of logic.
You have assumed that a person who chooses to worship in one denomination agrees in TOTAL with ALL the recognised doctrines. Now you'll know as well as me (if you're as experienced as you say) that there's a variety of doctrinal slants in all denominations, and that ours is not immune from that, perhaps suffers more than most while claiming not to. Scanning this board you'll find plenty of discussion about that point.
In my last post I said "I'm sure though that you will not jump to the false conclusion that I must therefore believe doctrine that you think F&W have in your area." I was premature in this - you did immediately jump to that conclusion despite the warning.
So my conclusion is that you think that a person cannot be saved, no matter what they believe, (or what prayer they have prayed), if they are in a denomination that you don't approve of. You've listed a couple of those (Mormons, JW, 2x2...), I wonder if you could either list some more, or if thats too much trouble, list the approved ones.
I thought that one of the main criticisms levelled against the 2x2s is exclusivity - the idea that one has to be in a certain denomination (or fellowship, or church or group) to be saved, and that there's no salvation outside that.
You seem to be applying a reverse of this to say: There are some denominations in which it is IMPOSSIBLE to be saved.
I may have misunderstood this, but in my personal case you are saying that I could not possibly be saved as I am in this fellowship of which you disapprove.
Now I hope that I've done you the courtesy of answering, directly, the questions you have put to me, but I note that most of my questions to you go unanswered.
Can I repeat one of them, in the hope that you might give me a straight answer?
Do you think that I am unsaved because of where I choose to fellowship?
|
|