|
Post by Sylvestra on Nov 8, 2011 12:44:26 GMT -5
words can mean what the author wants them to mean, the only person who knows what they really meant is the author of the statement. obviously , this can lead to confusion, when different people have different meanings of the words. And, the author of this thread appropriately defined the meaning he is working off of in his very first post!
|
|
|
Post by What Hat on Nov 8, 2011 14:36:31 GMT -5
words can mean what the author wants them to mean, the only person who knows what they really meant is the author of the statement. obviously , this can lead to confusion, when different people have different meanings of the words. And, the author of this thread appropriately defined the meaning he is working off of in his very first post! We've come full circle. Let's start over: (From http://www.religioustolerance.org) Cults (a.k.a. New Religious Movements)IntroductionQuotations about cults:"...one person's cult is another's religion; all religions begin life as cults. An alternative definition is that a cult is a religion which you happen to dislike." Anthony Campbell 1 "Cult is a word without much use outside the realm of religious mudslinging." Philip Kennicott2 "When someone uses the word 'cult,' it usually says more about them than the group," J. Gordon Melton, founder and director of The Institute for the Study of American Religion. 3 "It's easy to tell the difference - a cult is someone else's religion. Corollary: "A fanatic is someone who believes something more strongly than you do." Jim Heldberg 4 "I have often thought that the difference between a cult and a religion is an IRS ruling." Ron Barrier 4 Usage of the word "cult:"The term "cult" is generally used as a hateful snarl word that is intended to intentionally devalue people and the new faith groups that they have chosen to follow. It tends to associate thousands of benign religious groups with the handful of destructive religious groups that have caused loss of life. The term often creates fear and loathing among the public, and contributes greatly to religious intolerance in North America. The word "cult," particularly as used by the media, carries a heavy emotional content. The term suggests that this is a group that you should detest, avoid, and fear. Who are the true "cults?"In reality, the only "crime" of most "cults" is that they they hold different religious beliefs from whomever is doing the attacking. For example, many conservative Christian counter-cult groups consider The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (LDS; the main Mormon church) to be a cult that is tinged with Gnosticism and teaches beliefs which conflict with historic Christianity. Meanwhile, the LDS teaches the Christianity took a wrong turn in the second century CE and abandoned most of the teachings of Jesus and the apostles. They regard their own denomination as the true Christian church. Who is the cult and who is the mainline movement depends upon one's viewpoint.History:Fear and dislike of new religious movements, coupled with increased respect for established faith groups with a long history, has been with us for at least two millennia. - During the first century, many people in the Roman Empire rejected Christianity because it was new, and valued Judaism because of its ancient history. Today, some established religions criticize new religions simply because they are new and teach different beliefs.
- During the first century, some politicians spread rumors that Christians engaged in orgies during their love feasts, and sacrificed infants to their God. During the 1980s and early 1990s, many Christians believed that Pagans, Satanists, and other small religious groups engaged in orgies and ritual abuse and human sacrifice.
Meanings of the word "cult:"Individuals and organizations have assigned many meanings to the word "cult." The result is mass confusion: - The Counter-cult movement (CCM) classifies all non-traditional Christian faith groups as cults simply because their beliefs differ from historical Christian doctrine. The term "cult" has, in many ways, replaced "heretic" or "non-traditional," or "unconventional" within the CCM. Examples of commonly attacked "cults" are: Seventh Day Adventists and Mormons. In this website, we simply refer to these groups as denominations, or faith groups.
- Some Fundamentalist and other Evangelical Christians describe most non-Christian religions as cults or as Satanic religions, simply because they are non-Christian. Examples are religions as different as Wicca and Hinduism. We simply refer to these groups by name, as alternative religions or as faith groups.
- The largely secular Anti-Cult Movement (ACM) mainly targets religious groups that make high demands on their membership. They are accused of mind control or brainwashing techniques which reduce their members to near zombie-like status, who are unable to think clearly and become trapped within the group. Examples of religions targeted by the ACM are the Jehovah's Witnesses and the Two-by-twos. Studies by mental health researchers indicate that the charges of the ACM have little or no merit. We simply refer to these groups as high-intensity or high demand faith groups who expect great dedication from their members.
- Many information sources use the term "cult" to refer to the few destructive, doomsday religious groups whose members have been murdered or committed suicide. Examples are The Solar Temple and Heaven's Gate. We do refer to such groups as "cults"
Suggestions:We recommend that people develop a healthy skepticism when they hear someone refer to a religious groups as a "cult". A new faith group may be being attacked: - because they don't believe in the Trinity, or
- because they are non-Christian, like two thirds of the world's population, or
- because they expect a major commitment from their membership, or
- because they are one of those rare, destructive, doomsday groups that have shown themselves to be dangerous to their membership.
We recommend that people refer to religious groups by name. If a term is needed to characterize non-traditional religious groups, we suggest a neutral phrase, like "new religious movement," or "emerging faith group."References used to prepare this essay:These hyperlinks are not necessarily still active today. 1. Anthony Campbell, "David V. Barrett: THE NEW BELIEVERS, A survey of sects, cults and alternative religions," Book review, 2001, at: homepage.ntlworld.com/ 2. Philip Kennicott, in a Washington Post article that is no longer available online. 3. Rhonda Parks Manville, "UCSB research of 'new religions' returns surprises," Santa Barbara News-Press, 2004-JUL-30, at: news.newspress.com/ 4. Quotes extracted from "Heaven's Sake!," at: nowscape.com/ 5. Massimo Introvigne, " 'So many evil things:' Anti-cult terrorism via the Internet," Center for Studies on New Religions, 1999-AUG-5, at: www.cesnur.org/Copied from: www.religioustolerance.org/cultintro.htmLots more on cults, go to:www.religioustolerance.org/cultmenu.htmPlease copy this post in its entirety in any thread where this question comes up.
|
|
|
Post by 2 on Nov 8, 2011 14:40:12 GMT -5
When I explain to those outside the 2x2 movement that I am researching the history, sociology and theology of this movement the question is usually asked, ‘The term is more generally used by evangelicals of groups whose teachings are so heretical as to remain outside historic Christianity’ doesn't historic Christianity resemble a paired ministry, and meeting in the home>>? if it doesn't then, what exactly does historic Christianity resemble, ? and if there are more people that believe in the break-off teachings, than the historic teachings, does that mean that the historic Christian teachings are a cult, and the non-historic teachings are non-cult. enough , already!
|
|
|
Post by What Hat on Nov 8, 2011 14:57:12 GMT -5
When I explain to those outside the 2x2 movement that I am researching the history, sociology and theology of this movement the question is usually asked, ‘The term is more generally used by evangelicals of groups whose teachings are so heretical as to remain outside historic Christianity’ doesn't historic Christianity resemble a paired ministry, and meeting in the home>>? if it doesn't then, what exactly does historic Christianity resemble, ? and if there are more people that believe in the break-off teachings, than the historic teachings, does that mean that the historic Christian teachings are a cult, and the non-historic teachings are non-cult. enough , already! x There's considerable argument that Christianity itself originally was a cult. I'm not sure what that means, and it depends on definitions. Anyway, I thought the Baptist church had become less sectarian a long time ago, but apparently the wing nuts are alive and well and have plenty of influence: www.politico.com/news/stories/1011/65445.htmlwww.rightwingwatch.org/category/individuals/robert-jeffress
|
|
|
Post by rnstrbnsn on Nov 8, 2011 15:47:34 GMT -5
“We've come full circle. Let's start over:” “There's considerable argument that Christianity itself originally was a cult. I'm not sure what that means, and it depends on definitions.”
To start over then, here is some of the basic training in redefining within the 2x2 cut (misspelled purposely so as not to offend – it’s gotta be that “l”, so to l with it) from the very foundation ‘prophet’ himself;
Jesus preached until Mary broke the box of alabaster ointment. Judas turned up his nose at this. Jesus wants hungry, thirsty, half-clad preachers to show himself strong in them.
Tobiah = Jehovah is good. Sanballat = Moon gives life.
Pharisee always gives moonlight, promising to give life. Imitation light. Moon shine means Clergy reading the Bible. Moon stands for reflected light. Clearest & coldest theology is the Presbyterian. Moonlight clear and cold. Sunshine has heat, light & chemical effect. Dead man cold & stiff a man alive has heat. Heat stands for love, if a man has God dwelling in him will make him zealous for the things God was zealous for. Chemical effect taking the things that conforms us to the world out of us. Tobiah preached God is love, perhaps we would think that was not the place to build the wall because Tobiah & Sanballat was there to hinder. Every place you go to preach you will find either of those two there with the moonshine. Tobiah saying God is love, too good to send us to hell. Tell you about how good God is to him. If you wait until they get out of the way there will be no building done. Tobiah will be in the world until Jesus comes to reign. Nehemiah told Sanballat the God of heaven will help us in spite of you. The testimony of Jesus has been destroyed the same as the walls of Jerusalem. Lots of rubbish to get through. The wall to be built so it will fit in according to the old foundation pattern (Jesus ). It was always sacrifice, labor of love. Some too good and too big to work. If your hand is too nice & good to scratch your body what would you do with it. Every member of the body is controlled by the head Christ. God honors them that Honor Him. Nothing worth fighting more for than getting victory over selfishness & bringing all into subjection to God to let Him work through you. Sanballat or Clergy got indignant because they were building the wall.
Many a stone looks alright but it may be cracks in it and where you begin to shape it & chisel, it falls to pieces.
|
|
|
Post by Lee on Nov 8, 2011 21:22:02 GMT -5
If anyone is content to hear nonsense and infantilisms from prophets it's because they have retired themselves of their obligation to the world. Does this state signify blessing or curse?
|
|
|
Post by lazarus66 on Nov 10, 2011 2:24:49 GMT -5
There are definite specifics that define a cult. I don't have the list in front of me, but there are things that define a movement as a cult or not. As with all things, everything is subject to interpretation, and then it goes further to whom the interpretation is done by. I have to use the old saying, if it looks like a duck, walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, it most likely is a duck. In order to be a cult, the movement need not follow every aspect described as a cult, according to the description. If enough items are descriptive enough to have the group appear as a cult, then it must be given the label as a cult. I did some serious soul searching about certain aspects of whether or not this 2x2 group was to be considered a cult, and my conclusions at first were shaky. As I got further away from the influence and involvement with the group, I came to the conclusion that enough of the cult requirements had been met, and I was satisfied in my mind that it was a cult. I know this will be attacked as a negative statement, but I feel like the men and women that started this were trying to find a way to get and keep their members, and fear and mind control were two very important aspects that developed in the long run. Whether or not this was intentional or not, and whether of not the evolution of the ideas was meant to achieve this goal was intentional, or not, I feel like that line was established clearly enough for me. I was shocked when I realized I had been brainwashed, and held by the grip of fear, not from a scriptural point of view, but by "Men's" tweaking and twisting scriptures and making rules and I found that I was victim of these two things, intentional or not. If it was not intentional, it was picked up on and pushed to the limit by those that came after the Irvines, Cooney's, Longs, and others. As I always try to convey, that I have friends involved as active members in the group, and I feel like they are in a position that their lives are lived in a way that they are living in the fashion that God wants from them, so again, when I speak of these things, I am referring to the system, and not the people. Each person is an individual and as such, has a responsibility to God. The brainwashing, mind control and other negative aspects are, in my opinion to be those things that make it a cult, and affect a certain amount of people that are connected with the group, and can not be denied that they exist, and affect that part of the "population" of the group that is more than obvious. There may be what some may consider to be positive aspects from those tactics, to be 'good for certain individuals' and I can only state that whether or not they are positive will be determined on the other side of the life/death gate.
I agree that in general labeling this as a cult may seem harsh, and will definitely draw a negative response from some readers, but if not this, they would generally make them have to work a little harder to find other things that would render an negative connotation to the group. I am just being honest in what I see as a reality and as one that was there, and left because the tactics were too dishonest for me and I couldn't handle that methods of "getting me in line to tow the line".
I hope this will be viewed for what it really is, and not just a bash session. One man's trash is another man's treasure. One man's cult is another man's salvation. Just a saying that sums up my feelings, again not calling anything trash....Laz
|
|
|
Post by rational on Nov 10, 2011 9:47:07 GMT -5
There are definite specifics that define a cult. I don't have the list in front of me, but there are things that define a movement as a cult or not. Post the top five from your list of 'definite specifics' and I believe there will be others who can post their top 5 from their list of 'definite specifics' and there will be little overlap. But then, there is much more agreement as to what constitutes a duck than what constitutes a cult. And herein lies the problem. You list your 'definite specifics' and eliminate the ones that do not match the organization you are describing. How would you define 'definite specifics'? Is this based on a simple majority or a plurality of the 'definite specifics' from all list of cult definitions? Can you show us how you arrived at this conclusion of should we classify this as your belief? Not negative as much as not supported by data.Brainwashed? Should we assume you are using this term in the non-technical sense, to refer to any attempt to influence someone. Isn't there a touch of fear applied by most (all?) religious beliefs? There is the possibility of eternal damnation if you do not follow the rules? You can label it as you wish. The question is, can you support your claims. I think the use of terms like cult, brainwashing, mind control, etc. paint a clear picture for readers.
|
|
|
Post by What Hat on Nov 10, 2011 14:50:09 GMT -5
There are definite specifics that define a cult. I don't have the list in front of me, but there are things that define a movement as a cult or not. As with all things, everything is subject to interpretation, and then it goes further to whom the interpretation is done by. I have to use the old saying, if it looks like a duck, walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, it most likely is a duck. In order to be a cult, the movement need not follow every aspect described as a cult, according to the description. If enough items are descriptive enough to have the group appear as a cult, then it must be given the label as a cult. I did some serious soul searching about certain aspects of whether or not this 2x2 group was to be considered a cult, and my conclusions at first were shaky. As I got further away from the influence and involvement with the group, I came to the conclusion that enough of the cult requirements had been met, and I was satisfied in my mind that it was a cult. I know this will be attacked as a negative statement, but I feel like the men and women that started this were trying to find a way to get and keep their members, and fear and mind control were two very important aspects that developed in the long run. Whether or not this was intentional or not, and whether of not the evolution of the ideas was meant to achieve this goal was intentional, or not, I feel like that line was established clearly enough for me. I was shocked when I realized I had been brainwashed, and held by the grip of fear, not from a scriptural point of view, but by "Men's" tweaking and twisting scriptures and making rules and I found that I was victim of these two things, intentional or not. If it was not intentional, it was picked up on and pushed to the limit by those that came after the Irvines, Cooney's, Longs, and others. As I always try to convey, that I have friends involved as active members in the group, and I feel like they are in a position that their lives are lived in a way that they are living in the fashion that God wants from them, so again, when I speak of these things, I am referring to the system, and not the people. Each person is an individual and as such, has a responsibility to God. The brainwashing, mind control and other negative aspects are, in my opinion to be those things that make it a cult, and affect a certain amount of people that are connected with the group, and can not be denied that they exist, and affect that part of the "population" of the group that is more than obvious. There may be what some may consider to be positive aspects from those tactics, to be 'good for certain individuals' and I can only state that whether or not they are positive will be determined on the other side of the life/death gate. I agree that in general labeling this as a cult may seem harsh, and will definitely draw a negative response from some readers, but if not this, they would generally make them have to work a little harder to find other things that would render an negative connotation to the group. I am just being honest in what I see as a reality and as one that was there, and left because the tactics were too dishonest for me and I couldn't handle that methods of "getting me in line to tow the line". I hope this will be viewed for what it really is, and not just a bash session. One man's trash is another man's treasure. One man's cult is another man's salvation. Just a saying that sums up my feelings, again not calling anything trash....Laz One of the problems with labels, and your post illustrates this very well, is that no one knows exactly what the label means. It's just a label. From your post I have no idea what list of criteria you used, or whether the basis for your analysis was in theology or sociology/ psychology. There's no way I can ascertain whether the problem is you or the problem is the group. All we can conclude from the above is that you don't like the group. Basically I read three or four paragraphs of your analysis and I learned more about you than I learned about your experience in the group. Words like "cult" are words that divide. Some people here will agree with you, and some will disagree, but more as a matter of reinforcing their own prejudices than anything else. Your analysis validates the invective of those opposed to the group, and those in the group will see you as a whiner or angry or both. No problem is solved either for you, or for the group. No one's conviction is affected by what you have to say. You have played directly into the stereotype of a "bitter ex" with your words.
|
|
|
Post by Done4now on Nov 10, 2011 19:18:02 GMT -5
blah... To start over then, here is some of the basic training in redefining within the 2x2 cut (misspelled purposely so as not to offend ... bla.h So, if I deliberately mis-spelled Lloyd Fortt "Lloud Fartt" Lloyd would quit being offended and would stop reporting me for libel ( ) whenever I post his name? That's probably as dumb or dumber than the dumbest thing chirkham has ever read on TMB... LOL. I'm sure it would be appropriate for us to refer to him as LF (as we all know what LF stands for). I am considering starting a thread with a poll question "dumbest thing ever posted on TMB" and letting people vote it out.
|
|
|
Post by Lee on Nov 10, 2011 23:28:26 GMT -5
There are definite specifics that define a cult. I don't have the list in front of me, but there are things that define a movement as a cult or not. As with all things, everything is subject to interpretation, and then it goes further to whom the interpretation is done by. I have to use the old saying, if it looks like a duck, walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, it most likely is a duck. In order to be a cult, the movement need not follow every aspect described as a cult, according to the description. If enough items are descriptive enough to have the group appear as a cult, then it must be given the label as a cult. I did some serious soul searching about certain aspects of whether or not this 2x2 group was to be considered a cult, and my conclusions at first were shaky. As I got further away from the influence and involvement with the group, I came to the conclusion that enough of the cult requirements had been met, and I was satisfied in my mind that it was a cult. I know this will be attacked as a negative statement, but I feel like the men and women that started this were trying to find a way to get and keep their members, and fear and mind control were two very important aspects that developed in the long run. Whether or not this was intentional or not, and whether of not the evolution of the ideas was meant to achieve this goal was intentional, or not, I feel like that line was established clearly enough for me. I was shocked when I realized I had been brainwashed, and held by the grip of fear, not from a scriptural point of view, but by "Men's" tweaking and twisting scriptures and making rules and I found that I was victim of these two things, intentional or not. If it was not intentional, it was picked up on and pushed to the limit by those that came after the Irvines, Cooney's, Longs, and others. As I always try to convey, that I have friends involved as active members in the group, and I feel like they are in a position that their lives are lived in a way that they are living in the fashion that God wants from them, so again, when I speak of these things, I am referring to the system, and not the people. Each person is an individual and as such, has a responsibility to God. The brainwashing, mind control and other negative aspects are, in my opinion to be those things that make it a cult, and affect a certain amount of people that are connected with the group, and can not be denied that they exist, and affect that part of the "population" of the group that is more than obvious. There may be what some may consider to be positive aspects from those tactics, to be 'good for certain individuals' and I can only state that whether or not they are positive will be determined on the other side of the life/death gate. I agree that in general labeling this as a cult may seem harsh, and will definitely draw a negative response from some readers, but if not this, they would generally make them have to work a little harder to find other things that would render an negative connotation to the group. I am just being honest in what I see as a reality and as one that was there, and left because the tactics were too dishonest for me and I couldn't handle that methods of "getting me in line to tow the line". I hope this will be viewed for what it really is, and not just a bash session. One man's trash is another man's treasure. One man's cult is another man's salvation. Just a saying that sums up my feelings, again not calling anything trash....Laz One of the problems with labels, and your post illustrates this very well, is that no one knows exactly what the label means. It's just a label. From your post I have no idea what list of criteria you used, or whether the basis for your analysis was in theology or sociology/ psychology. There's no way I can ascertain whether the problem is you or the problem is the group. All we can conclude from the above is that you don't like the group. Basically I read three or four paragraphs of your analysis and I learned more about you than I learned about your experience in the group. Words like "cult" are words that divide. Some people here will agree with you, and some will disagree, but more as a matter of reinforcing their own prejudices than anything else. Your analysis validates the invective of those opposed to the group, and those in the group will see you as a whiner or angry or both. No problem is solved either for you, or for the group. No one's conviction is affected by what you have to say. You have played directly into the stereotype of a "bitter ex" with your words. You and Rational just can't stand it when someone delicately suggests the 2x2 might be a cult. Well what do you two have to say about the workers' reticence to confess something to the effect upon being asked, "Yep . ... . our way was first reconsidered by William Irvine and 'company' about the turn of the century in Ireland." Good Lord! If anyone has uncovered some rare-lost nuance of Christianty, pray-tell what is there to be ashamed of by those rediscovering it! On the contrary, this policy of the 2x2 to confuse and conceal it's historical advent just advertises some level of involvement with questionable motivations.
|
|
|
Post by kiwi on Nov 11, 2011 1:08:12 GMT -5
One of the problems with labels, and your post illustrates this very well, is that no one knows exactly what the label means. It's just a label. From your post I have no idea what list of criteria you used, or whether the basis for your analysis was in theology or sociology/ psychology. There's no way I can ascertain whether the problem is you or the problem is the group. All we can conclude from the above is that you don't like the group. Basically I read three or four paragraphs of your analysis and I learned more about you than I learned about your experience in the group. Words like "cult" are words that divide. Some people here will agree with you, and some will disagree, but more as a matter of reinforcing their own prejudices than anything else. Your analysis validates the invective of those opposed to the group, and those in the group will see you as a whiner or angry or both. No problem is solved either for you, or for the group. No one's conviction is affected by what you have to say. You have played directly into the stereotype of a "bitter ex" with your words. You and Rational just can't stand it when someone ;D ;D ;D got about as much delicacy as an elephant tip toeing through a corn field
|
|
|
Post by Lee on Nov 11, 2011 1:14:10 GMT -5
You and Rational just can't stand it when someone ;D ;D ;D got about as much delicacy as an elephant tip toeing through a corn field Ah hah! I'm inclined to agree with you. . . . there's no way to delicately say someone/thing's a cult. But he tried
|
|
|
Post by StAnne on Nov 11, 2011 2:06:48 GMT -5
blah... To start over then, here is some of the basic training in redefining within the 2x2 cut (misspelled purposely so as not to offend ... bla.h So, if I deliberately mis-spelled Lloyd Fortt "Lloud Fartt" Lloyd would quit being offended and would stop reporting me for libel ( ) whenever I post his name? That's probably as dumb or dumber than the dumbest thing chirkham has ever read on TMB...
|
|
|
Post by rnstrbnsn on Nov 11, 2011 8:50:14 GMT -5
blah... To start over then, here is some of the basic training in redefining within the 2x2 cut (misspelled purposely so as not to offend ... bla.h So, if I deliberately mis-spelled ----- ------ "Lloud Fartt" ----- would quit being offended and would stop reporting me for libel ( ) whenever I post his name? That's probably as dumb or dumber than the dumbest thing chirkham has ever read on TMB... Very interesting - do you always shoot yourself in both feet at once? I wondered why your posts and even whole threads where you smeared people by name left and right including LF were suddenly disappearing. I figured it was simply the mods quietly doing their job to enforce the board’s rules. But if what you are saying is true, then the mods were not doing their job after all. So, it seems that your post is either just more crap again, or else you are revealing that the mods were slack-----. Maybe Scott Ross will tell us all which one is the actual case?
|
|
|
Post by Scott Ross on Nov 11, 2011 9:26:15 GMT -5
Slack?
We try to make the board as self moderating as possible, and while we take action when needed by removing/altering posts, we also try to get those who made the posts to voluntarily make the changes whenever possible.
Usually our requests are honored, and we don't get beat up on for being board Nazis by deleting/altering posts. If someone is accused of posting libelous information then we normally contact that person and ask them to take care of the issue themselves.
|
|
|
Post by What Hat on Nov 11, 2011 11:45:16 GMT -5
One of the problems with labels, and your post illustrates this very well, is that no one knows exactly what the label means. It's just a label. From your post I have no idea what list of criteria you used, or whether the basis for your analysis was in theology or sociology/ psychology. There's no way I can ascertain whether the problem is you or the problem is the group. All we can conclude from the above is that you don't like the group. Basically I read three or four paragraphs of your analysis and I learned more about you than I learned about your experience in the group. Words like "cult" are words that divide. Some people here will agree with you, and some will disagree, but more as a matter of reinforcing their own prejudices than anything else. Your analysis validates the invective of those opposed to the group, and those in the group will see you as a whiner or angry or both. No problem is solved either for you, or for the group. No one's conviction is affected by what you have to say. You have played directly into the stereotype of a "bitter ex" with your words. You and Rational just can't stand it when someone delicately suggests the 2x2 might be a cult. Well what do you two have to say about the workers' reticence to confess something to the effect upon being asked, "Yep . ... . our way was first reconsidered by William Irvine and 'company' about the turn of the century in Ireland." Good Lord! If anyone has uncovered some rare-lost nuance of Christianty, pray-tell what is there to be ashamed of by those rediscovering it! On the contrary, this policy of the 2x2 to confuse and conceal it's historical advent just advertises some level of involvement with questionable motivations. I certainly have put in my 2 cents worth on the history issue over time, and you will see more from me on this soon. Incidentally, what do you think of Robert Jeffress "delicately suggesting" that Mitt Romney is in a cult? Should be no big deal according to you. Why would Mormons be upset about that?
|
|
|
Post by irvinegrey on Nov 11, 2011 12:28:25 GMT -5
As I have read these posts over the past few weeks I am reminded of Humpty Dumpty's response in Lewis Carroll's 'Through the Looking Glass': `When I use a word,' Humpty Dumpty said in rather a scornful tone, `it means just what I choose it to mean -- neither more nor less.'
`The question is,' said Alice, `whether you can make words mean so many different things.'
`The question is,' said Humpty Dumpty, `which is to be master - - that's all.'
There is not much evidence of good hermeneutics!
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 11, 2011 12:43:13 GMT -5
As I have read these posts over the past few weeks I am reminded of Humpty Dumpty's response in Lewis Carroll's 'Through the Looking Glass': `When I use a word,' Humpty Dumpty said in rather a scornful tone, `it means just what I choose it to mean -- neither more nor less.' `The question is,' said Alice, `whether you can make words mean so many different things.' `The question is,' said Humpty Dumpty, `which is to be master - - that's all.' There is not much evidence of good hermeneutics! The TMB is not the right place to come looking for scholarly hermeneutics.
|
|
|
Post by irvinegrey on Nov 11, 2011 13:17:19 GMT -5
As I have read these posts over the past few weeks I am reminded of Humpty Dumpty's response in Lewis Carroll's 'Through the Looking Glass': `When I use a word,' Humpty Dumpty said in rather a scornful tone, `it means just what I choose it to mean -- neither more nor less.' `The question is,' said Alice, `whether you can make words mean so many different things.' `The question is,' said Humpty Dumpty, `which is to be master - - that's all.' There is not much evidence of good hermeneutics! The TMB is not the right place to come looking for scholarly hermeneutics. They don't have to be scholarly - just use the correct principles of interpretation would be a start! Too much eisegesis and little evidence of exegesis.
|
|
|
Post by What Hat on Nov 11, 2011 13:24:00 GMT -5
The TMB is not the right place to come looking for scholarly hermeneutics. They don't have to be scholarly - just use the correct principles of interpretation would be a start! Too much eisegesis and little evidence of exegesis. I don't see how either eisegesis or exegesis are relevant on this thread. Perhaps you could elaborate as I don't see your point. Did you expect to perform some kind of exegesis based on the thread title?
|
|
|
Post by Lee on Nov 11, 2011 13:55:18 GMT -5
You and Rational just can't stand it when someone delicately suggests the 2x2 might be a cult. Well what do you two have to say about the workers' reticence to confess something to the effect upon being asked, "Yep . ... . our way was first reconsidered by William Irvine and 'company' about the turn of the century in Ireland." Good Lord! If anyone has uncovered some rare-lost nuance of Christianity, pray-tell what is there to be ashamed of by those rediscovering it! On the contrary, this policy of the 2x2 to confuse and conceal it's historical advent just advertises some level of involvement with questionable motivations. I certainly have put in my 2 cents worth on the history issue over time, and you will see more from me on this soon. Incidentally, what do you think of Robert Jeffress "delicately suggesting" that Mitt Romney is in a cult? Should be no big deal according to you. Why would Mormons be upset about that? No big deal at all. Mitt Romney is in a cult, a multi-faceted cult of false religion that would rather syncretize power-Capitalism than subject the power of capitalism to our Lord . . . the Mormon thing is window-dressing.
|
|
|
Post by Done4now on Nov 11, 2011 14:45:12 GMT -5
Vocabulary has power.
When I was in secondary school, a teacher asked a fellow classmate a question and she replied "it's on the tip of my tongue" and he retorted quite ascerbically, "there's no such thing, ideas are words, if you don't have the word you don't have the idea."
I've kicked that issue around in my head for years now, not sure if I agree or disagree. Sometimes finding the perfect expression for the vague notions in my head is a powerful experience. Sometimes, finding the "mot juste", just the right word, finally settles in my mind an idea of what I was trying to describe....
|
|
|
Post by irvinegrey on Nov 11, 2011 15:08:30 GMT -5
They don't have to be scholarly - just use the correct principles of interpretation would be a start! Too much eisegesis and little evidence of exegesis. I don't see how either eisegesis or exegesis are relevant on this thread. Perhaps you could elaborate as I don't see your point. Did you expect to perform some kind of exegesis based on the thread title? Yes I did. The question: 'Is the 2x2 movement a cult?' It is resonable to expect an exegesis of Scripture to support or disagree with this question. At the end of the day Scripture alone will be the final arbiter!
|
|
|
Post by ScholarGal on Nov 11, 2011 15:23:36 GMT -5
I don't see how either eisegesis or exegesis are relevant on this thread. Perhaps you could elaborate as I don't see your point. Did you expect to perform some kind of exegesis based on the thread title? Yes I did. The question: 'Is the 2x2 movement a cult?' It is resonable to expect an exegesis of Scripture to support or disagree with this question. At the end of the day Scripture alone will be the final arbiter! When people ask you if the 2x2 movement is a cult, are you sure they are asking about the "theological" definition of the word?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 11, 2011 16:02:02 GMT -5
If someone asked me if a particular group was a cult, I would understand them to be asking: "Is it dangerous or unusually harmful?"
|
|
|
Post by emy on Nov 11, 2011 16:07:26 GMT -5
You must be VERY good at serving. At my house the workers end up doing many things for themselves!
|
|
|
Post by emy on Nov 11, 2011 16:12:14 GMT -5
Vocabulary has power. When I was in secondary school, a teacher asked a fellow classmate a question and she replied "it's on the tip of my tongue" and he retorted quite ascerbically, "there's no such thing, ideas are words, if you don't have the word you don't have the idea." I've kicked that issue around in my head for years now, not sure if I agree or disagree. Sometimes finding the perfect expression for the vague notions in my head is a powerful experience. Sometimes, finding the "mot juste", just the right word, finally settles in my mind an idea of what I was trying to describe.... I definitely disagree with the teacher. And the older I get, the MORE I disagree!!
|
|