|
Post by sharonw on Jan 1, 2012 11:30:07 GMT -5
It really is not an "outward" appearance at all...it is a covenant between God and Abraham and became that covenant of faith that Abraham's righteousness was accounted to him by faith or through faith.....there is no where that says man has to stand in public and show his circumcision. It is a sign of that covenant. And if you were not circumcised you were outcast. If it was not visible how did people know who was in and who was out?Where did you get the idea that the priests (rabbi) did the circumcision? It was the job of the father. Of late there are mohels who preform the circumcision. Continuing to post incorrect information will not make it become true. What makes you think it was a health issue? If anything it caused health problems just like any other surgery. Although I read a piece promoting the idea that circumcision was ordered so man could engage in coitus longer and there was a greater chance that the woman would reach orgasm and that would increase the chance of offspring. www.abarim-publications.com/Bible_Commentary/Circumcision.html#.Tv9pe1awWNUGenesis 18:12 states that Sarah was looking forward to pleasure! I don't think that is very true...I think that such things that God required of His chosen people were all related to what was clean and healthy. This is the reason circumcisions are performed these days and it has been proven that circumcised males are a healthier risk for their female counterparts...genitalia diseases tend to pack up under the foreskin of uncircumcised men and thus the husgand or regular partner for a woman just keeps reinfecting her over and over again...of course, a man that is uncircumcised should have been taught as a small boy how to cleanse himself...but yes, I know many mothers and fathers might not know to do that! Also I think uncircumcised men will argue that "they" enjoy sex more then the circumcised men....how they measure that I'm not sure....and also to do with giving their partners more pleasure also....though perhaps partners could testify to the truth of one or the other IF they were active with both kinds of men!
|
|
|
Post by rational on Jan 1, 2012 12:24:02 GMT -5
I would be surprised IF they had modern day urinals, Emy...most men urinated outside and some pissed against the wall according to the bible and if a man needed to void, he would be apt to do it wherever he found a place where others would not step in it. You would think this, wouldn't you. Have you been to many third world cities?First, there was much less travel so there was not a lot of time spent traveling by the rank and file. Second, I think people spent more time talking with each other. And while I don't think people went to observe others micturate I think all was out there for people to see while bathing.I don't know how you arrived at this conclusion. Do you really think people have changed that much it that short a time? www.eroti-cart.com/images/categories/romanicon.jpg Think about the Chinese drawings from this time period!Look at the images on greek pottery from the time. It was not a spiritual sign it was a physical sign. A sign that people could see.And it was possible to tell if a male was jewish or not by looking at the physical sign that god commanded.
|
|
|
Post by emy on Jan 1, 2012 21:43:44 GMT -5
Thanks, rational!
|
|
|
Post by irvinegrey on Jan 3, 2012 12:41:42 GMT -5
I am not sure how this thread go onto circumcision but since it started it has certainly covered a lot of different topics but little that actually relates to the question!
|
|
|
Post by What Hat on Jan 3, 2012 12:47:49 GMT -5
I am not sure how this thread go onto circumcision but since it started it has certainly covered a lot of different topics but little that actually relates to the question! Now, Irvine, I mean this in the nicest way, but you yourself have offered little on this thread. Sure, some copy-paste's from other sources, but nothing in your own words. For example, Scholargal asked you a number of pointed questions, which you have blithely ignored. So, how about answering the question you've posed and show us all how it's done.
|
|
|
Post by irvinegrey on Jan 3, 2012 16:54:22 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, ‘Are they a cult’. Since this is a question I will address in my research I would appreciate the views of those who may support and those who reject the idea that the 2x2 movement is a cult. Well-reasoned and rational comments are what I am after. Apart from asking for clarification from time to time should that be necessary I shall make no other comments.What I do think my very first posting on this thread made it clear that apart from ME asking for clarification that I would not be making no other comments. I still think the question is valid and self-explanatory and those who have a genuine interest in either supporting that it is a cult or defending that it is not a cult should be capable of making a contribution in an intelligible manner.
|
|
|
Post by What Hat on Jan 3, 2012 20:26:27 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, ‘Are they a cult’. Since this is a question I will address in my research I would appreciate the views of those who may support and those who reject the idea that the 2x2 movement is a cult. Well-reasoned and rational comments are what I am after. Apart from asking for clarification from time to time should that be necessary I shall make no other comments.What I do think my very first posting on this thread made it clear that apart from ME asking for clarification that I would not be making no other comments. I still think the question is valid and self-explanatory and those who have a genuine interest in either supporting that it is a cult or defending that it is not a cult should be capable of making a contribution in an intelligible manner. I understand that you said that, but I have no idea why. It certainly doesn't engender trust, on my part anyway. Why won't you tell us what you think? Why so coy?
|
|
|
Post by irvinegrey on Jan 4, 2012 14:00:27 GMT -5
What I do think my very first posting on this thread made it clear that apart from ME asking for clarification that I would not be making no other comments. I still think the question is valid and self-explanatory and those who have a genuine interest in either supporting that it is a cult or defending that it is not a cult should be capable of making a contribution in an intelligible manner. I understand that you said that, but I have no idea why. It certainly doesn't engender trust, on my part anyway. Why won't you tell us what you think? Why so coy? What when I posted this thread you went ballistic or as Sharonw observed you 'went into orbit'. This is not about what I think so forget the coy bit. It is about collecting viewpoints so that I can establish what and why others think in a particular way and if there is any validity in the question.
|
|
|
Post by ScholarGal on Jan 4, 2012 14:05:22 GMT -5
I understand that you said that, but I have no idea why. It certainly doesn't engender trust, on my part anyway. Why won't you tell us what you think? Why so coy? What when I posted this thread you went ballistic or as Sharonw observed you 'went into orbit'. This is not about what I think so forget the coy bit. It is about collecting viewpoints so that I can establish what and why others think in a particular way and if there is any validity in the question. I think the point of our friend "what's" response is that he believes there is no validity in asking the question. His opinion is that the question "Is ______ a cult?" is invalid, no matter how you fill in the blank.
|
|
|
Post by irvinegrey on Jan 4, 2012 14:14:27 GMT -5
What when I posted this thread you went ballistic or as Sharonw observed you 'went into orbit'. This is not about what I think so forget the coy bit. It is about collecting viewpoints so that I can establish what and why others think in a particular way and if there is any validity in the question. I think the point of our friend "what's" response is that he believes there is no validity in asking the question. His opinion is that the question "Is ______ a cult?" is invalid, no matter how you fill in the blank. I think what has made this clear from the beginning. However, for a researcher to ignore this aspect of any religious movement, especially when he knows that others are asking this question and searaching for an answer would be less than dilligent.
|
|
|
Post by ScholarGal on Jan 4, 2012 14:17:09 GMT -5
I think what has made this clear from the beginning. However, for a researcher to ignore this aspect of any religious movement, especially when he knows that others are asking this question and searaching for an answer would be less than dilligent. No, you can't ignore the question. Personally, I think you should challenge the use of an imprecise word, and try to understand the true meaning behind the question. Then rephrase the question in a matter that has clear meaning without using a word that has connotations ranging from neutral to extremely negative.
|
|
|
Post by sharonw on Jan 4, 2012 14:21:41 GMT -5
I think what has made this clear from the beginning. However, for a researcher to ignore this aspect of any religious movement, especially when he knows that others are asking this question and searaching for an answer would be less than dilligent. No, you can't ignore the question. Personally, I think you should challenge the use of an imprecise word, and try to understand the true meaning behind the question. Then rephrase the question in a matter that has clear meaning without using a word that has connotations ranging from neutral to extremely negative. Like how, Scholargal? There ARE people who have been in the fellowship think that since learning different angles to the fellowship that it has many cult-like qualities and thus they're going to call it a cult. i.e. Myself is a good example...I agree that there are cult-like qualities within the fellowship but I would not call the grouping a cult but a variation of a religious calling. Something of that kind....
|
|
|
Post by ScholarGal on Jan 4, 2012 14:47:58 GMT -5
No, you can't ignore the question. Personally, I think you should challenge the use of an imprecise word, and try to understand the true meaning behind the question. Then rephrase the question in a matter that has clear meaning without using a word that has connotations ranging from neutral to extremely negative. Like how, Scholargal? There ARE people who have been in the fellowship think that since learning different angles to the fellowship that it has many cult-like qualities and thus they're going to call it a cult. i.e. Myself is a good example...I agree that there are cult-like qualities within the fellowship but I would not call the grouping a cult but a variation of a religious calling. Something of that kind.... Here are some examples of uses of the word cult: By some definitions, the "split-off" group of people from your former denominational church might even be considered a cult.
|
|
|
Post by What Hat on Jan 4, 2012 15:38:53 GMT -5
I think the point of our friend "what's" response is that he believes there is no validity in asking the question. His opinion is that the question "Is ______ a cult?" is invalid, no matter how you fill in the blank. I think what has made this clear from the beginning. However, for a researcher to ignore this aspect of any religious movement, especially when he knows that others are asking this question and searaching for an answer would be less than dilligent. A true academic does not resort to colloquial language. Not to imply that you are not a true academic; I'm just drawing a relation between an ideal and a characteristic. Since leaving the f&w I've run into a number of individuals who describe the group as a cult. Invariably, they are always religious and they arrive at their conclusion through their own religious optics. Those optics usually include the Trinity doctrine and a more mainstream interpretation of grace. By contrast, I have found that those individuals who are less acquainted or unacquainted with Christianity do not see the f&w group as being much different from any other Christian group, not without its faults, but neither better nor worse.
|
|
|
Post by What Hat on Jan 4, 2012 16:05:08 GMT -5
I understand that you said that, but I have no idea why. It certainly doesn't engender trust, on my part anyway. Why won't you tell us what you think? Why so coy? What when I posted this thread you went ballistic or as Sharonw observed you 'went into orbit'. This is not about what I think so forget the coy bit. It is about collecting viewpoints so that I can establish what and why others think in a particular way and if there is any validity in the question. You're imparting an emotional component to my words that I did not feel. I've been pretty consistent on this forum over the years regarding use of the 'cult' word so I don't actually get too worked up about it. I apologize if you or Sharon are taking that personally in some way. You won't be the first or last person that feels animosity from one of my posts that does not, in fact, exist. I understand that you are collecting viewpoints, but since the question is loaded with bias, it would behoove you to make some kind of comment about a) its meaning, on which you've been asked for clarification by scholargal, b) its validity, which I have questioned you on, and c) its relation to your thesis topic and the nature of your study. All these are valid questions to ask of any researcher, who in turn is asking others to contribute.
|
|
|
Post by irvinegrey on Jan 4, 2012 17:02:05 GMT -5
What when I posted this thread you went ballistic or as Sharonw observed you 'went into orbit'. This is not about what I think so forget the coy bit. It is about collecting viewpoints so that I can establish what and why others think in a particular way and if there is any validity in the question. You're imparting an emotional component to my words that I did not feel. I've been pretty consistent on this forum over the years regarding use of the 'cult' word so I don't actually get too worked up about it. I apologize if you or Sharon are taking that personally in some way. You won't be the first or last person that feels animosity from one of my posts that does not, in fact, exist. I understand that you are collecting viewpoints, but since the question is loaded with bias, it would behoove you to make some kind of comment about a) its meaning, on which you've been asked for clarification by scholargal, b) its validity, which I have questioned you on, and c) its relation to your thesis topic and the nature of your study. All these are valid questions to ask of any researcher, who in turn is asking others to contribute. Since we seem to have reached an impasse it looks as though I will have to base my conclusions (when I get that far) on the contributions received so far and other information and evidence that comes to hand
|
|
wanda
New Member
Posts: 29
|
Post by wanda on Jan 4, 2012 17:34:24 GMT -5
I disagree with What - a significant number of 'outsiders' who I have met all asked 'were the meetings 'a cult'? For an observer it is obvious that the 2x2s are very diffferent to other christian churches. Growing up in the church I was called a number of names (eg. Cooneyite) from my school mates which didnt bother me at the time and in a way we were made to feel proud of this because we were supposed to be 'different' not the same as other churches which were in the community. The feeling of being a 'peculiar people' is taken literally and outsiders do see the 2x2s as being peculiar, in fact a tad strange. Look on the meeting board here - no-one seems to really know what's going on in the church - only a few are aware of what the workers are up to and the decisions being made. In a normal church where everything is above board there would be none of this secrecy. In fact the details would probably be read in the daily newspaper.
For 'What' to attack the researcher Irvine Grey is a sign of insecurity and fear that IG will uncover and expose the 2x2s for what they are.
|
|
|
Post by Happy Feet on Jan 4, 2012 17:45:28 GMT -5
I also saw you go ballistic, what. All on this board could see.
But you are entitled to your opinion as we all have our pet peeves, and that is OK, but own it. You were pretty heated up about it. I get heated up about some things. That's OK and nothing wrong to admit it.
|
|
|
Post by ScholarGal on Jan 4, 2012 17:47:45 GMT -5
For 'What' to attack the researcher Irvine Grey is a sign of insecurity and fear that IG will uncover and expose the 2x2s for what they are. Irvine Grey is probably the first "outsider" to study the 2x2s in decades. (His status as a true "outsider" is still somewhat questionable because he does have family connections.) I've often wished there was an objectively written study of the movement, and I had high hopes when he started posting here. I'm not afraid that he will expose something bad about the 2x2s--there's plenty of bad stuff already written about them. Rather I'm afraid that his research will be devalued or discarded because he is asking poorly worded questions that can't be answered objectively.
|
|
|
Post by emy on Jan 4, 2012 18:05:29 GMT -5
It's true that I am not really up on what is going on in the church in MI, AL, VIC/TAS and other places distant. It's not likely to appear in anything other than local newspapers because newspapers make decisions according to how widespread the interest in a news item is.
Usually the complaint about the local meetings is that everybody knows everything about others - no privacy!
|
|
|
Post by rational on Jan 4, 2012 19:11:15 GMT -5
I disagree with What - a significant number of 'outsiders' who I have met all asked 'were the meetings 'a cult'? What does this mean - A significant number all asked...? What do you consider to be a significant number? What was the sample size?No question there! Off the top of your head - can you name a denomination that has not has a fiasco? As soon as they are caught - just like the CSA in the F&W. I do not think this was the concern that What expressed. It was the lack of/changing definition being used for cult. Words that are highly charged are used to attract attention/evoke emotion and the definitions frequently changes to meet the needs of the author. Over time the words become meaningless except for their ability to evoke emotion. Non-specific terms to not enlighten. Why would What be concerned? What could possibly be found out that has not been discussed ad infinitum?
|
|
|
Post by Lee on Jan 4, 2012 22:06:38 GMT -5
Pro . .. . of dubbing a quasi-cultural group a cult:
Arouses concern for the health and safety of the participants.
Con . . . of dubbing a quasi-cultural group a cult:
The implication that a cultural or religious normal is already in existence.
~~~
In the spirit in which the apostle Paul condemned would-be couriers of another 'Gospel' . . . Let him be accursed . . . I say to anyone who does not preach the Salvation that is by the grace and sovereign election of God . . .. Let him too be accursed.
|
|
|
Post by What Hat on Jan 5, 2012 10:21:58 GMT -5
I also saw you go ballistic, what. All on this board could see. But you are entitled to your opinion as we all have our pet peeves, and that is OK, but own it. You were pretty heated up about it. I get heated up about some things. That's OK and nothing wrong to admit it. It's impossible for you to actually know that. Nonetheless the words are on the record, you can impart whatever intonation that you wish. Let's take an example though. When I stated something like "Man, where are you going to school? That is a passe definition." I'm not the least bit upset. Take my word for it. Let's do an exercise. Show me where you think I "went ballistic".
|
|
|
Post by What Hat on Jan 5, 2012 10:26:53 GMT -5
I disagree with What - a significant number of 'outsiders' who I have met all asked 'were the meetings 'a cult'? For an observer it is obvious that the 2x2s are very diffferent to other christian churches. Growing up in the church I was called a number of names (eg. Cooneyite) from my school mates which didnt bother me at the time and in a way we were made to feel proud of this because we were supposed to be 'different' not the same as other churches which were in the community. The feeling of being a 'peculiar people' is taken literally and outsiders do see the 2x2s as being peculiar, in fact a tad strange. Look on the meeting board here - no-one seems to really know what's going on in the church - only a few are aware of what the workers are up to and the decisions being made. In a normal church where everything is above board there would be none of this secrecy. In fact the details would probably be read in the daily newspaper. For 'What' to attack the researcher Irvine Grey is a sign of insecurity and fear that IG will uncover and expose the 2x2s for what they are. Wanda, I'm not in the "2x2s" so I have nothing to be insecure about. I do however have a degree in language studies and I believe that using attack words like "cult" is harmful in the same way that we don't use words like "towelhead" or "kike" anymore. That's my insecurity. Please read the essay I posted in reply #1 at the top of the thread if you haven't already and tell me if you don't agree with the writer. I'm quite disappointed with Irvine Grey's response here. I hoped he would meet fire with fire, but I don't see any level of engagement with the reservations that have been expressed in academic terms.
|
|
|
Post by sharonw on Jan 5, 2012 10:42:46 GMT -5
Like how, Scholargal? There ARE people who have been in the fellowship think that since learning different angles to the fellowship that it has many cult-like qualities and thus they're going to call it a cult. i.e. Myself is a good example...I agree that there are cult-like qualities within the fellowship but I would not call the grouping a cult but a variation of a religious calling. Something of that kind.... Here are some examples of uses of the word cult: By some definitions, the "split-off" group of people from your former denominational church might even be considered a cult. Back before the word "cult" became a "dirty word" due to the Jones' town murders/suicides, "cult" WAS used frequently to identify a "new sect" of religion or any other beginning group as it mean simply a "new culture"....because it has been used as an ugly word, people can no longer look at the use of it in a logical fashion when it is the best word to be used regardless....that is said that decriptive words like that are given an ominous meaning!
|
|
|
Post by sharonw on Jan 5, 2012 10:48:54 GMT -5
It's true that I am not really up on what is going on in the church in MI, AL, VIC/TAS and other places distant. It's not likely to appear in anything other than local newspapers because newspapers make decisions according to how widespread the interest in a news item is. Usually the complaint about the local meetings is that everybody knows everything about others - no privacy! Emy does have a point...the comment bolded above IS what local meetings of the 2x2's can come to....there are many local mtg. people who get into the mode of being nosy...and then there ARE some local mtg. groups who love one another MORE than that and are willing to love their brethren and leave them alone and not even bother to find out all about them.....they accept one another for what they profess not what they are!
|
|
|
Post by sharonw on Jan 5, 2012 10:53:42 GMT -5
I also saw you go ballistic, what. All on this board could see. But you are entitled to your opinion as we all have our pet peeves, and that is OK, but own it. You were pretty heated up about it. I get heated up about some things. That's OK and nothing wrong to admit it. I think that we're judging Irvine's OP question in the wrong way...he has explained that there have been people who have asked the question is the 2x2's a cult? And I think he wants to come to some equation on that question then give the sum total of the equation in his research.....perhaps something like WHO are the people wanting to know if it's a cult and/or WHO accepts it is a cult or has cult-like qualities but continue to stay in it and WHO feels convicted it IS a cult and want nothing more to do with it. I find his question valid regardless of his relatives being 2x2's....he may not be that close to those relatives and maybe those relatives have asked that question...maybe those relatives are seeing some of the cult-like qualities but do not see great harm in the way the 2x2 mtgs. are carried out and also since there's been a considerable amount of CSA issues and sexual proclivities in the workership, more people are going to ask IF it is a cult. Come on guys, his question is valid.
|
|
|
Post by What Hat on Jan 5, 2012 11:00:49 GMT -5
Pro . .. . of dubbing a quasi-cultural group a cult: Arouses concern for the health and safety of the participants. Con . . . of dubbing a quasi-cultural group a cult: The implication that a cultural or religious normal is already in existence. ~~~ In the spirit in which the apostle Paul condemned would-be couriers of another 'Gospel' . . . Let him be accursed . . . I say to anyone who does not preach the Salvation that is by the grace and sovereign election of God . . .. Let him too be accursed. Now that we have hashed this through, I find myself far less concerned with a sociological definition of what makes a cult than with the standard theological definition of a cult. The theological definition is clearly designed to marginalize and stigmatize non-normative religious behaviour. The theological definition wires in an association between religious dissent and negative behaviours. An association is made in language within people's minds that if a group does not toe the line of orthodoxy then by consequence its behaviour will be abhorrent. One sees this kind of judgementalism by mainstream Christians on this forum constantly. It can't be avoided because those who need to leave the group for reasons of their own well-being often need the support of a new ideological framework in order to free themselves from the constraints of the old one. As they adopt the new framework they turn on the old one, because the new framework has been designed in this way to work on their minds. Personally, I don't see a whole lot of difference between the negative effects on individuals within any religious group which depends on a hierarchical power structure for its own perpetuation. All such social structures suffer from similar negative effects when it comes to dealing with dissent, and in fact, the centrist religious groups are in many cases far worse than the marginal ones. For one example, centrist religious groups are often co-opted by the State to send young men (and now women) to death in un-necessary wars. They thus place the perpetuation of their system and elite above the well-being of their congregants. Thus I find it absurd, that a Baptist or a Roman Catholic or a Russian Orthodox, all large state-endorsed churches, would point at a smaller religious group, of whatever stripe, and state 'cult' based purely on theological grounds. That's not to say that the friends& workers group does not have issues, but it's far more constructive to deal with specific issues than to use some archaic religious establishmentarian taxonomy to divide groups into cults, sects, and state-endorsed "church". I'm far less troubled by some of the attempts at sociological definitions of the word 'cult'. These, at least, can be applied somewhat objectively, and are less culturally conditioned than in the theological approach. I think that such definitions reduce to finding palpable, harmful behaviours, that can often be indicted as criminal ones. An example, would be JWs refusal to accept blood transfusions. Yet I would not call the JWs a cult on this item alone. Generally speaking, in the absence of evidence of any criminal behaviour, I don't think the label of "cult" is called for.
|
|