|
Post by What Hat on Jan 5, 2012 11:17:57 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. In that sense the question is valid. But my answer to those people is the same answer I gave to Irvine Grey. It comes in two variations depending on what I'm feeling about the person's motive. Variation 1. What do you mean by the term "cult", and is it not a meaningless label? Variation 2. Why are you using racist terminology? The other issue here is the validity of a term colloquially and its validity academically. People use all kinds of terms colloquially, but I assume Irvine Grey is seeking to use the term academically. The term has no usefulness in an academic study, and further, its use is harmful.
|
|
|
Post by What Hat on Jan 5, 2012 11:31:04 GMT -5
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! Your view of word usage history is quite scrambled. "Cult" has always been a dirty word, and its history is not noble. The fact is that "cult" was part of the arsenal in getting Roman Catholics to think certain ways about Protestants, Protestants to think certain ways about Roman Catholics, and both of these groups to think certain ways about Mormons or Jehovah's Witnesses. The idea is to get people to believe that Mormons, say, engage in abhorrent behaviour and the reason they do is because they don't properly understand, for example, the grace of God, or whatever your own group's doctrine may be. The other part of the picture is to then link Mormon's lack of proper understanding with certain behaviours found in that group. As a social animal we all naturally think along these kinds of lines. We think are own group is superior, and all other groups are inferior. Language perpetuates that kind of thinking through word association, not through logical reasoning. Simple people are easily manipulated along these lines. What has happened in the modern era is to disassociate the word "cult" from its old ideological framework. To most people the word "cult" refers to a group with negative, even criminal behaviours, like a Jim Jones group. However, some people still use the word in its old meaning, and in its old ways, which should go the way of the dodo bird. You do find religious quacks, also within the Southern Baptist conference ranks I might add, who insist on the old ideological reference points for the word "cult".
|
|
|
Post by jhjmr on Jan 5, 2012 11:46:21 GMT -5
Cult definition refers to salvation by works. Any doctrine that denies salvation by grace, teaching eternal life is merited, earned and conditoned or maintined through human effort, religious ritual, financial donations and obedience to laws and commandments, church membership and moral behavior. Cults do not refer to salvation by grace.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 5, 2012 12:00:34 GMT -5
Being raised in the 40's I was taught we were not a denomination, but a sect or cult of Jesus' followers from the time He walked on the earth. I grew up accepting and believing that, along with all the other aspects of teaching by the group.Mr. Grey has taken on a huge task. I admire him for it. Please don't grow discouraged nor give up, sir. I understand why you take the position you do, and personally think it is wise despite the flack and opposition to it. To me, any group which choses to adhere to the doctrine taught by another human as being from GOD and who does not point to the Holy Spirit as the teacher for any with unanswered questions are assuming the position belonging ONLY to God.
Thus, to my mind they are classifying themselves as being a "cult," unworthy of any other identification. Does that mean they are not sincere people, dedicated to their beliefs and group? Not to how thoughts arrange themselves in my brain!
Is "cult" now derogatory, as "what" proclaims? Probably. The word certainly has derogatory connotations in this era. It did not to such an extent when I was a child, rather it was to identify an otherwise unidentifiable group of people with a common cause who even gave everything to the group and became part of it as do workers.
|
|
|
Post by What Hat on Jan 5, 2012 14:14:19 GMT -5
Being raised in the 40's I was taught we were not a denomination, but a sect or cult of Jesus' followers from the time He walked on the earth. I grew up accepting and believing that, along with all the other aspects of teaching by the group.Mr. Grey has taken on a huge task. I admire him for it. Please don't grow discouraged nor give up, sir. I understand why you take the position you do, and personally think it is wise despite the flack and opposition to it. To me, any group which choses to adhere to the doctrine taught by another human as being from GOD and who does not point to the Holy Spirit as the teacher for any with unanswered questions are assuming the position belonging ONLY to God.
Thus, to my mind they are classifying themselves as being a "cult," unworthy of any other identification. Does that mean they are not sincere people, dedicated to their beliefs and group? Not to how thoughts arrange themselves in my brain!
Is "cult" now derogatory, as "what" proclaims? Probably. The word certainly has derogatory connotations in this era. It did not to such an extent when I was a child, rather it was to identify an otherwise unidentifiable group of people with a common cause who even gave everything to the group and became part of it as do workers.
The actual history and treatment of groups deemed "cults" belies your personal experience. You could look at how Mormons were treated in Missouri, JW's during World War II, or even the workers in various places to see how "cult" branding was used to justify discrimination against these groups. Another interesting take - religion.blogs.cnn.com/2011/04/17/my-take-rethinking-the-word-cult/
|
|
|
Post by What Hat on Jan 5, 2012 14:16:53 GMT -5
Cult definition refers to salvation by works. Any doctrine that denies salvation by grace, teaching eternal life is merited, earned and conditoned or maintined through human effort, religious ritual, financial donations and obedience to laws and commandments, church membership and moral behavior. Cults do not refer to salvation by grace. I rest my case. (See my reply # 666 and 668).
|
|
|
Post by irvinegrey on Jan 5, 2012 15:27:23 GMT -5
Cult definition refers to salvation by works. Any doctrine that denies salvation by grace, teaching eternal life is merited, earned and conditoned or maintined through human effort, religious ritual, financial donations and obedience to laws and commandments, church membership and moral behavior. Cults do not refer to salvation by grace. I rest my case. (See my reply # 666 and 668). Does this mean you are acting as judge and jury or just attorney for the defence?
|
|
|
Post by What Hat on Jan 5, 2012 18:40:58 GMT -5
I rest my case. (See my reply # 666 and 668). Does this mean you are acting as judge and jury or just attorney for the defence? Attorney for the defence. The point being that much of what defines cult versus sect versus church is just empty rhetoric based on "my belief" versus "your belief". That particular post was an object example of this.
|
|
|
Post by sharonw on Jan 5, 2012 18:56:43 GMT -5
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. In that sense the question is valid. But my answer to those people is the same answer I gave to Irvine Grey. It comes in two variations depending on what I'm feeling about the person's motive. Variation 1. What do you mean by the term "cult", and is it not a meaningless label? Variation 2. Why are you using racist terminology? The other issue here is the validity of a term colloquially and its validity academically. People use all kinds of terms colloquially, but I assume Irvine Grey is seeking to use the term academically. The term has no usefulness in an academic study, and further, its use is harmful. Seems to me you're binding yourself in a circle, What.....First you accuse someone using the word "cult" as a "racist terminology". And then you say that the term "cult" has no usefulness in an academic study! Come on, What! Why are academics not to research "racist terminologies" and how they pertain to a particular group of people? That is such a load of blahhh from you, that I am beginning to wonder if you're getting yourself into the same place that poor ole Paul got himself into when trying to testify before rulers that have little use of religion in their business...."Act 26:24 ¶ And as he thus spake for himself, Festus said with a loud voice, Paul, thou art beside thyself; much learning doth make thee mad. " Furthermore "colloquial" terminology would fit into the definitions of how the persons who are within that "colloquial" area see themselves and this is certainly "academic research"!
|
|
|
Post by What Hat on Jan 5, 2012 19:08:27 GMT -5
In that sense the question is valid. But my answer to those people is the same answer I gave to Irvine Grey. It comes in two variations depending on what I'm feeling about the person's motive. Variation 1. What do you mean by the term "cult", and is it not a meaningless label? Variation 2. Why are you using racist terminology? The other issue here is the validity of a term colloquially and its validity academically. People use all kinds of terms colloquially, but I assume Irvine Grey is seeking to use the term academically. The term has no usefulness in an academic study, and further, its use is harmful. Seems to me you're binding yourself in a circle, What.....First you accuse someone using the word "cult" as a "racist terminology". And then you say that the term "cult" has no usefulness in an academic study! Come on, What! Why are academics not to research "racist terminologies" and how they pertain to a particular group of people? That is such a load of blahhh from you, that I am beginning to wonder if you're getting yourself into the same place that poor ole Paul got himself into when trying to testify before rulers that have little use of religion in their business...."Act 26:24 ¶ And as he thus spake for himself, Festus said with a loud voice, Paul, thou art beside thyself; much learning doth make thee mad. " Furthermore "colloquial" terminology would fit into the definitions of how the persons who are within that "colloquial" area see themselves and this is certainly "academic research"! Sharon, when I took my degree at a secular Canadian university only a decade or so ago, a great deal of emphasis was placed on using civil language and proper discourse. Language which marginalized women, minorities or ethnic groups was not acceptable. I didn't take either religious studies or sociology, but I can safely tell you that many secular universities today prefer the term neutral term "new religious movements" instead of the word "cult". In fact, I posted an essay arguing for this in my initial reply on this thread. I've yet to see a counter-argument or refutation of what this essay states. So far as I know, Irvine Grey is not researching word usage or ideological frameworks, as you now claim. I believe he is doing an essay in the area of religious studies. It's very important in an academic study to use as precise a terminology as possible. On those grounds alone, colloquial expressions and terms are to be avoided. But the other reason is that racist and pejorative language has no place in today's academic world, nor in a multi-cultural world where it's necessary to display sensitivity to the beliefs of other individuals.
|
|
|
Post by sharonw on Jan 5, 2012 19:09:04 GMT -5
Being raised in the 40's I was taught we were not a denomination, but a sect or cult of Jesus' followers from the time He walked on the earth. I grew up accepting and believing that, along with all the other aspects of teaching by the group.Mr. Grey has taken on a huge task. I admire him for it. Please don't grow discouraged nor give up, sir. I understand why you take the position you do, and personally think it is wise despite the flack and opposition to it. To me, any group which choses to adhere to the doctrine taught by another human as being from GOD and who does not point to the Holy Spirit as the teacher for any with unanswered questions are assuming the position belonging ONLY to God.
Thus, to my mind they are classifying themselves as being a "cult," unworthy of any other identification. Does that mean they are not sincere people, dedicated to their beliefs and group? Not to how thoughts arrange themselves in my brain!
Is "cult" now derogatory, as "what" proclaims? Probably. The word certainly has derogatory connotations in this era. It did not to such an extent when I was a child, rather it was to identify an otherwise unidentifiable group of people with a common cause who even gave everything to the group and became part of it as do workers.
The actual history and treatment of groups deemed "cults" belies your personal experience. You could look at how Mormons were treated in Missouri, JW's during World War II, or even the workers in various places to see how "cult" branding was used to justify discrimination against these groups. Another interesting take - religion.blogs.cnn.com/2011/04/17/my-take-rethinking-the-word-cult/Awwww, what, so you've found something that agrees with your opinion of the term "cult"...you see it as a term that means battleground, eh? That said, isn't Mr. Irvine from another country and could it possibly be that the term "cult" is not a battleground in HIS country? Why are you fighting an American battle when the "ground" is not American? Americans can only win that battleground because the "freedoms" of the American governmental status.....one group has the freedom to worship howsoever they might wish and to call them "cults" simply because they do not worship in the same manner as the recognized religions worship brings the "cult" word to war! But does the word "cult" do so in other countries....perhaps you need to grant some leeway here because of the difference in interpretations of the battleground's reason for asking such things in such terminology!
|
|
|
Post by What Hat on Jan 5, 2012 19:24:42 GMT -5
The actual history and treatment of groups deemed "cults" belies your personal experience. You could look at how Mormons were treated in Missouri, JW's during World War II, or even the workers in various places to see how "cult" branding was used to justify discrimination against these groups. Another interesting take - religion.blogs.cnn.com/2011/04/17/my-take-rethinking-the-word-cult/Awwww, what, so you've found something that agrees with your opinion of the term "cult"...you see it as a term that means battleground, eh? That said, isn't Mr. Irvine from another country and could it possibly be that the term "cult" is not a battleground in HIS country? Why are you fighting an American battle when the "ground" is not American? Americans can only win that battleground because the "freedoms" of the American governmental status.....one group has the freedom to worship howsoever they might wish and to call them "cults" simply because they do not worship in the same manner as the recognized religions worship brings the "cult" word to war! But does the word "cult" do so in other countries....perhaps you need to grant some leeway here because of the difference in interpretations of the battleground's reason for asking such things in such terminology! It's really difficult to know what you're defending here, because Mr. Irvine [sic] hasn't said much about his work. I've been speaking in very general terms about the use of the word "cult", but we don't know whether Irvine is in abrogation of those points in terms of his research or work. He might be just fine. My posts have mainly been in response to this particular thread inquiry, and then to those posters who feel they need creative licence to throw the cult word around, and also to certain "dinosaur" Baptist preachers. I have no idea to tell truth if there's any problem with Irvine's research or not. Maybe there isn't. He has stated that this subject would be scarcely a line in his essay.
|
|
|
Post by emy on Jan 5, 2012 19:48:53 GMT -5
... That is such a load of blahhh from you, that I am beginning to wonder if you're getting yourself into the same place that poor ole Paul got himself into when trying to testify before rulers that have little use of religion in their business...."Act 26:24 ¶ And as he thus spake for himself, Festus said with a loud voice, Paul, thou art beside thyself; much learning doth make thee mad. " ... Do you consider that a valid criticism of Paul? All of us who have posted here for any length of time know that What is not inclined to write any "load of blahhh"!!!
|
|
|
Post by sharonw on Jan 5, 2012 19:57:51 GMT -5
... That is such a load of blahhh from you, that I am beginning to wonder if you're getting yourself into the same place that poor ole Paul got himself into when trying to testify before rulers that have little use of religion in their business...."Act 26:24 ¶ And as he thus spake for himself, Festus said with a loud voice, Paul, thou art beside thyself; much learning doth make thee mad. " ... Do you consider that a valid criticism of Paul? All of us who have posted here for any length of time know that What is not inclined to write any "load of blahhh"!!! Emy! According to what Paul was doing, he was casting his pearls before swine...for that particular man was not interested in learning of "this new" religion! I was talking about the response that Paul got about his "learning". What has posted and posted and posted negatively against the word "cult" in this thread....saying much the same thing over and over again....he may have Mr. Irvine convinced by now that the term "cult" is a BATTLEGROUND word! I've NEVER know What to be so incensed against any other thing in over what is it 4 years or more? Or at least 2.....
|
|
|
Post by rational on Jan 5, 2012 20:52:10 GMT -5
he may have Mr. Irvine convinced by now that the term "cult" is a BATTLEGROUND word! Are you still talking about the original poster of this thread?
|
|
|
Post by Lee on Jan 5, 2012 21:24:13 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. I beg to differ. In fact Christianity has articulated the mother of all cult-busters: The salvation that is a free gift of God. That the people of mainstream Christianity are coopted by various latent and ambient political machinery is a separate issue from the theological orthodoxy (and I mean orthodoxy) of Christianity proper. 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. Agreed. 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. Presently I'm so fed up with the political-religious complex of my country I would rejoice to learn the worst thing my religion community did was deny a blood transfusion to a terminal patient. But of course, such a glaring display of moral turbidity would determine her to be as spiritually bankrupt as her contemporaries.
|
|
|
Post by What Hat on Jan 5, 2012 22:42:17 GMT -5
Do you consider that a valid criticism of Paul? All of us who have posted here for any length of time know that What is not inclined to write any "load of blahhh"!!! Emy! According to what Paul was doing, he was casting his pearls before swine...for that particular man was not interested in learning of "this new" religion! I was talking about the response that Paul got about his "learning". What has posted and posted and posted negatively against the word "cult" in this thread....saying much the same thing over and over again....he may have Mr. Irvine convinced by now that the term "cult" is a BATTLEGROUND word! I've NEVER know What to be so incensed against any other thing in over what is it 4 years or more? Or at least 2..... Who's incensed? I've just been responding to other people's posts. Actually, I haven't been on the forum much lately, until today, anyway. Lots of other stuff going on.
|
|
|
Post by What Hat on Jan 6, 2012 9:38:41 GMT -5
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. I beg to differ. In fact Christianity has articulated the mother of all cult-busters: The salvation that is a free gift of God. That the people of mainstream Christianity are coopted by various latent and ambient political machinery is a separate issue from the theological orthodoxy (and I mean orthodoxy) of Christianity proper. Agreed. 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. Presently I'm so fed up with the political-religious complex of my country I would rejoice to learn the worst thing my religion community did was deny a blood transfusion to a terminal patient. But of course, such a glaring display of moral turbidity would determine her to be as spiritually bankrupt as her contemporaries. Perhaps I should refrain from commenting at all. 2/3 of agreement on a post of mine these days seems like more than I could ask for. At the same time it can be invigorating to swim upstream so I'm not complaining here. But in terms of your comment on the first part, I don't really disagree. When we begin to pull apart the sayings and teachings of Jesus into individual things my cynicism and negativity rapidly disappears. I suppose that unlike you I do not equate orthodoxy with the essential Christ. Orthodoxy has layered on all kinds of exclusive trappings, most notably the Trinity doctrine. I like to attend (occasionally) one particular church in our local community but the first thing I read on their web site is this: We believe the following statements to be true as affirmed in scripture and embraced by God’s people through the years:
God in Trinity
God exists eternally in three persons: the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. These three are co-equal and are one God. Well actually I don't, but I'm happy to worship God in your church. Fortunately, no-one seems to care that I might dissent on one or two points of doctrine, so I appreciate them letting me work out my own salvation. The point of this is that doctrine itself can foster the "us versus them" attitudes I disdain. We do both agree that "co-opting by various latent and ambient political machinery" is at work in the churches and in religion in general. The extent to which this has permeated or corrupted orthodox doctrine is a difficult and arguable point, and where we appear to disagree. But I won't lay claim to a definite answer on that one. There is an essential element within orthodoxy that is incorruptible and many people do lay claim to it and that is good. The problem is that many groups and many people claim to have "perfect knowledge". No one has "perfect knowledge", neither orthodoxy, neither the friends and workers. When we begin to pull apart the various omnibus editions of doctrine that exist around us, there are good elements and bad. We shouldn't just accept everything that is presented to us by our church of choice. But for some reason oftentimes a particular party needs to believe that their knowledge, their set of doctrine, is the perfect and right way. I would venture that the rigid acceptance of the Trinity doctrine is sometimes used to point away from Christ as our Redeemer. That is not to say the Trinity doctrine is right or wrong, but we should feel free to doubt it, be skeptical about it, and accept or not accept pieces of it as new information comes to light. Belief in the Trinity doctrine is not essential to salvation as some would think. Nor is it essential to not believe that doctrine. For some reason the human animal tends to polarize into camps around points of doctrine, and they soon begin to act like red and black ants, substituting points of doctrine for skin colour. Most of these doctrinal questions, I'm now convinced, simply do not matter.
|
|
|
Post by sharonw on Jan 6, 2012 9:43:59 GMT -5
What wrote: "the rigid acceptance of the Trinity doctrine is sometimes used to point away from Christ as our Redeemer"
How can the Trinity doctrine be used to point awa from Christ as our Redeemer? I find that totally strange, What!
|
|
|
Post by sharonw on Jan 6, 2012 9:47:35 GMT -5
he may have Mr. Irvine convinced by now that the term "cult" is a BATTLEGROUND word! Are you still talking about the original poster of this thread? I'm sure Not Even What could change William Irvine's mind on anything at this late date!
|
|
|
Post by What Hat on Jan 6, 2012 9:53:54 GMT -5
What wrote: "the rigid acceptance of the Trinity doctrine is sometimes used to point away from Christ as our Redeemer" How can the Trinity doctrine be used to point awa from Christ as our Redeemer? I find that totally strange, What! It points away when a church insists that its acceptance is necessary to salvation. Then the whole question becomes one of "belonging to the right group" instead of working out one's salvation on a day-to-day basis. And the doctrine is then used to divide people instead of working together as Christ wanted. You can accept Christ without accepting the Trinity doctrine in its entirety. (The Trinity doctrine is actually 10 or so individual points of doctrine, any of which the realistic person may have cause to doubt.) I know you've indicated in the past that you believe this to be true. It's not about the Trinity doctrine. It's about taking a doctrine, any doctrine, which is an interpretation, and saying you must believe this or you will not attain salvation. True story. A denominational church college in the US opened their dormitories to Muslim students some years ago. The Muslim students were in the habit of praying several times a day, and always left their shoes in the hallway while they prayed. A few of the college boys, as a joke, threw the shoes into a pond. If you were a young foreign Muslim man what would that say about the respect that is being taught, in that school, for other religions, for spirituality in general? Could that make you, as a young ill-tempered Muslim man, hate the country, hate the culture, and hate the Christian religion. Well, it did. One of those young Muslim men became the mastermind of the 9/11 plot.
|
|
|
Post by Lee on Jan 6, 2012 10:21:01 GMT -5
I beg to differ. In fact Christianity has articulated the mother of all cult-busters: The salvation that is a free gift of God. That the people of mainstream Christianity are coopted by various latent and ambient political machinery is a separate issue from the theological orthodoxy (and I mean orthodoxy) of Christianity proper. Agreed. Presently I'm so fed up with the political-religious complex of my country I would rejoice to learn the worst thing my religion community did was deny a blood transfusion to a terminal patient. But of course, such a glaring display of moral turbidity would determine her to be as spiritually bankrupt as her contemporaries. Perhaps I should refrain from commenting at all. 2/3 of agreement on a post of mine these days seems like more than I could ask for. At the same time it can be invigorating to swim upstream so I'm not complaining here. But in terms of your comment on the first part, I don't really disagree. When we begin to pull apart the sayings and teachings of Jesus into individual things my cynicism and negativity rapidly disappears. I suppose that unlike you I do not equate orthodoxy with the essential Christ. Orthodoxy has layered on all kinds of exclusive trappings, most notably the Trinity doctrine. I like to attend (occasionally) one particular church in our local community but the first thing I read on their web site is this: We believe the following statements to be true as affirmed in scripture and embraced by God’s people through the years:
God in Trinity
God exists eternally in three persons: the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. These three are co-equal and are one God. Well actually I don't, but I'm happy to worship God in your church. Fortunately, no-one seems to care that I might dissent on one or two points of doctrine, so I appreciate them letting me work out my own salvation. The point of this is that doctrine itself can foster the "us versus them" attitudes I disdain. We do both agree that "co-opting by various latent and ambient political machinery" is at work in the churches and in religion in general. The extent to which this has permeated or corrupted orthodox doctrine is a difficult and arguable point, and where we appear to disagree. But I won't lay claim to a definite answer on that one. There is an essential element within orthodoxy that is incorruptible and many people do lay claim to it and that is good. The problem is that many groups and many people claim to have "perfect knowledge". No one has "perfect knowledge", neither orthodoxy, neither the friends and workers. When we begin to pull apart the various omnibus editions of doctrine that exist around us, there are good elements and bad. We shouldn't just accept everything that is presented to us by our church of choice. But for some reason oftentimes a particular party needs to believe that their knowledge, their set of doctrine, is the perfect and right way. I would venture that the rigid acceptance of the Trinity doctrine is sometimes used to point away from Christ as our Redeemer. That is not to say the Trinity doctrine is right or wrong, but we should feel free to doubt it, be skeptical about it, and accept or not accept pieces of it as new information comes to light. Belief in the Trinity doctrine is not essential to salvation as some would think. Nor is it essential to not believe that doctrine. For some reason the human animal tends to polarize into camps around points of doctrine, and they soon begin to act like red and black ants, substituting points of doctrine for skin colour. Most of these doctrinal questions, I'm now convinced, simply do not matter. I believe the Trinitarian doctrine is essential to salvation and I was reminded why I believe that while reading some of Kiwi's recent posts. To summarize his view quickly (because I have to run to work) . .. his view is one of a high God and a low man, whereas the Trinity reveals man (if one man, then on principle, potentially all men and women) complementing and cooperating with God as if they were God. Now based upon what you know about the affairs of mankind, as a species shall we take responsibility for our actions or shall we defer everything upon "God"? If our father has no intention to dissolve the epiphenomenon of the created, we can expect much work lies ahead for us. Curiously, Christendom is divided into two hemispheres or the two views I've delineated above, the contradiction did not start with the F&W.
|
|
|
Post by sharonw on Jan 6, 2012 10:30:33 GMT -5
What wrote: "the rigid acceptance of the Trinity doctrine is sometimes used to point away from Christ as our Redeemer" How can the Trinity doctrine be used to point awa from Christ as our Redeemer? I find that totally strange, What! It points away when a church insists that its acceptance is necessary to salvation. Then the whole question becomes one of "belonging to the right group" instead of working out one's salvation on a day-to-day basis. And the doctrine is then used to divide people instead of working together as Christ wanted. You can accept Christ without accepting the Trinity doctrine in its entirety. (The Trinity doctrine is actually 10 or so individual points of doctrine, any of which the realistic person may have cause to doubt.) I know you've indicated in the past that you believe this to be true. It's not about the Trinity doctrine. It's about taking a doctrine, any doctrine, which is an interpretation, and saying you must believe this or you will not attain salvation. True story. A denominational church college in the US opened their dormitories to Muslim students some years ago. The Muslim students were in the habit of praying several times a day, and always left their shoes in the hallway while they prayed. A few of the college boys, as a joke, threw the shoes into a pond. If you were a young foreign Muslim man what would that say about the respect that is being taught, in that school, for other religions, for spirituality in general? Could that make you, as a young ill-tempered Muslim man, hate the country, hate the culture, and hate the Christian religion. Well, it did. One of those young Muslim men became the mastermind of the 9/11 plot. I understood right after the 9/11 horrors, that those Muslim men had been sent here specifically to "train" and "learn" what they had to in order to do what they did....so I wouldn't say that that little episode of childish pranks CAUSED the terror but certainly would not have done anything to change those young Muslims' minds about America either.....It just shows that we can never be too careful how we use or abuse another...IF we show acceptance of them as a person and love them as a person, knowing that God loved them first, then there will be perhaps a small percentage who will turn away from such avenues of destruction. I know that at the time of 9/11 or just before that, I had had to go to Iowa State University Hospital to have a rare optic nerve tumor taken care of...when I first went there, there were Muslim doctors all over the place and then AFTER 9/11 they weren't there anymore...of course some had finished their residency in the Opthalmic fields of expertise and had gone home or elsewhere but one has to wonder how many of them were encouraged to return to home for awhile? Then about 2 years later I moved back to my home state and had that particular health issue care transferred to the state university opthalmology department and lo and behold again I see a lot of Muslim drs. and a considerable number of nurses that were of Muslim descent! Perhaps those Muslims at the Iowa university just were moved to different parts of the US...kind of a safety dispersal since anti-Muslim emotions were the flavor of that day.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 6, 2012 10:59:44 GMT -5
For me, and has been ever since discovering what I believed true simply was not, that people I loved and admired not only attacked their own but sought to literally proclaim them spiritually dead and unworthy of the spiritual provision made for them by their Creator, use "spun" appearances as basis for condemnation judgment, the conclusion of the whole matter is this:
When I sold all, with others, I did not KNOW I was supposed to bring the proceeds to the workers, as other workers were TOLD to do and so I gave those funds to the poorest of the members of the church who I knew personally. Later, I found out that was "sinful" because I did not give it to the "workers." From that point on, however, I was one of the "cult of workers," and even told I had become of rank among the chosen of God, and "above" the mere lay congregation which I accepted as truth coming from "workers" with age and experience.
In the foregoing paragraph I used "CULT (of workers)" in every current connotation, denotation, usage of the word, good and bad. It is what I believe even more today than when I discovered one would lie (attempt to deceive) and another swear to that lie attempt to deceive), and have even presently seen the same in this forum.
"Workers" believe they alone are the true servants of God. Most believe ONLY those in fellowship with them accepting them as such are saved. Most believe themselves largely outside any jurisdiction of judgment other than their appointed overseers. Most believe that overseer judgments are infallible.
Are ALL of them and those who follow them believing them true servants of God aware of the deceit and deceptions (LIES!)? No. Once, when I was still blinded by things I tried NOT to see but were ever before me, someone asked me two questions.
1. Was everything I had been told about "the truth" by the workers "THE TRUTH?"
In all honesty I had to answer "No."
Knowing I knew it well, the next question my dear older now deceased friend asked me was: 2. What is the origin of deception, deceit and lies according to the Holy Bible?
No other answer than, "the human heart is deceitful and desperately wicked" and "Satan, the father of all lies." (Knowing I had done nothing for GOD to send me a delusion, despite the many proclamations to later follow regarding me) I simply quoted those two sources. No verbal response (none) came from my friend who later told me it was clear I had a vision.
THE RESULT was explosively shocking in my mind! In an instant things that had been unanswered questions were orderly answered. Clear vision of what I had been praying for occurred spontaneously. My GOD! My God! Everything fell into place. I found my eyes back on Christ as I thought they had had been from the beginning.
A USCG experience here illustrates what can happen. We were sent to rescue someone broken down with green buoy 3 at the mouth of the Columbia in sight. When we finally found them they were 26 miles at sea, next stop Asia. The "captain" of that vessel had taken HIS eyes off the buoy, and put them on a green drifting boat some distance away When that boat headed for home, they had no idea where they were.
When my late wife died, and all seemed as if I even had no way of living, my dear cousin Brian came and kept me from staying in the house that night. He took me to a Red Lion Hotel. I was lying on one of the huge kingsize beds, weeping, filled with despair, he sitting on the other.
Suddenly this HUGE even terrifying being who's head almost reached the 10' ceiling was standing over me with what looked like a horn of plenty slung over his immense shoulders ending in a tray held too high for me to see into lying down. Asking "WHAT is this?" I sat up and saw what it was, which was gone in an instant.
When I asked Brian what had just happened, who was there in the room with us, He answered, "you just had a vision, you sat up, Looked toward the ceiling, peered at something lower and asked, 'what is this?'"
Why relate these experiences again? Because you have all heard from 2&2ism and other skeptics that such things are not from God, that there are all these "other" answers, which to me are pure humorous self serving statements from non-believing cultists of one form or another. Now, please don't get me wrong, if any of you were to begin following me because of MY experiences, I would be horrified, and beg you to turn to your LORD, Creator and Savior and BEG Him to fill you with the Holy Ghost who will prove to you all such things in due season.
The moment anyone began following me, they would be cult followers, not believers in the Living God I worship and serve. John the Baptist held the same conclusion, and sent those following HIM on to the Lord. My conclusion of this matter and answer is no, the movement is not a cult. Rather the Workers are the cult, and many follow them believing they are following Christ.
In the Greek usage of "follow" in the NT in words attributed to my Lord, my conclusion is it means "accompany" as in, "I'm going to the store, wanna follow along?" not "imitate" as in "follow the leader." Do I expect anyone to agree with me? Well, let's put it this way, I expect more to disagree than to take the same 47 years of Greek study which has resulted in my conclusion.
Does that make me, or am I a Greek expert? Nope. Neither in modern Greek nor Ancient Greek. Biblical Greek in my opinion is best understood by the usage of Greek in the NT, itself. May all accompany Yehu'shuah (God Savior), the Messiah knowing HIS presence as they live/walk in life!
|
|
|
Post by sharonw on Jan 6, 2012 11:09:22 GMT -5
For me, and has been ever since discovering what I believed true simply was not, that people I loved and admired not only attacked their own but sought to literally proclaim them spiritually dead and unworthy of the spiritual provision made for them by their Creator, use "spun" appearances as basis for condemnation judgment, the conclusion of the whole matter is this:
When I sold all, with others, I did not KNOW I was supposed to bring the proceeds to the workers, as other workers were TOLD to do and so I gave those funds to the poorest of the members of the church who I knew personally. Later, I found out that was "sinful" because I did not give it to the "workers." From that point on, however, I was one of the "cult of workers," and even told I had become of rank among the chosen of God, and "above" the mere lay congregation which I accepted as truth coming from "workers" with age and experience.
In the foregoing paragraph I used "CULT (of workers)" in every current connotation, denotation, usage of the word, good and bad. It is what I believe even more today than when I discovered one would lie (attempt to deceive) and another swear to that lie attempt to deceive), and have even presently seen the same in this forum.
"Workers" believe they alone are the true servants of God. Most believe ONLY those in fellowship with them accepting them as such are saved. Most believe themselves largely outside any jurisdiction of judgment other than their appointed overseers. Most believe that overseer judgments are infallible.
Are ALL of them and those who follow them believing them true servants of God aware of the deceit and deceptions (LIES!)? No. Once, when I was still blinded by things I tried NOT to see but were ever before me, someone asked me two questions.
1. Was everything I had been told about "the truth" by the workers "THE TRUTH?"
In all honesty I had to answer "No."
Knowing I knew it well, the next question my dear older now deceased friend asked me was: 2. What is the origin of deception, deceit and lies according to the Holy Bible?
No other answer than, "the human heart is deceitful and desperately wicked" and "Satan, the father of all lies." (Knowing I had done nothing for GOD to send me a delusion, despite the many proclamations to later follow regarding me) I simply quoted those two sources. No verbal response (none) came from my friend who later told me it was clear I had a vision.
THE RESULT was explosively shocking in my mind! In an instant things that had been unanswered questions were orderly answered. Clear vision of what I had been praying for occurred spontaneously. My GOD! My God! Everything fell into place. I found my eyes back on Christ as I thought they had had been from the beginning.
A USCG experience here illustrates what can happen. We were sent to rescue someone broken down with green buoy 3 at the mouth of the Columbia in sight. When we finally found them they were 26 miles at sea, next stop Asia. The "captain" of that vessel had taken HIS eyes off the buoy, and put them on a green drifting boat some distance away When that boat headed for home, they had no idea where they were.
When my late wife died, and all seemed as if I even had no way of living, my dear cousin Brian came and kept me from staying in the house that night. He took me to a Red Lion Hotel. I was lying on one of the huge kingsize beds, weeping, filled with despair, he sitting on the other.
Suddenly this HUGE even terrifying being who's head almost reached the 10' ceiling was standing over me with what looked like a horn of plenty slung over his immense shoulders ending in a tray held too high for me to see into lying down. Asking "WHAT is this?" I sat up and saw what it was, which was gone in an instant.
When I asked Brian what had just happened, who was there in the room with us, He answered, "you just had a vision, you sat up, Looked toward the ceiling, peered at something lower and asked, 'what is this?'"
Why relate these experiences again? Because you have all heard from 2&2ism and other skeptics that such things are not from God, that there are all these "other" answers, which to me are pure humorous self serving statements from non-believing cultists of one form or another. Now, please don't get me wrong, if any of you were to begin following me because of MY experiences, I would be horrified, and beg you to turn to your LORD, Creator and Savior and BEG Him to fill you with the Holy Ghost who will prove to you all such things in due season.
The moment anyone began following me, they would be cult followers, not believers in the Living God I worship and serve. John the Baptist held the same conclusion, and sent those following HIM on to the Lord. My conclusion of this matter and answer is no, the movement is not a cult. Rather the Workers are the cult, and many follow them believing they are following Christ.
In the Greek usage of "follow" in the NT in words attributed to my Lord, my conclusion is it means "accompany" as in, "I'm going to the store, wanna follow along?" not "imitate" as in "follow the leader." Do I expect anyone to agree with me? Well, let's put it this way, I expect more to disagree than to take the same 47 years of Greek study which has resulted in my conclusion.
Does that make me, or am I a Greek expert? Nope. Neither in modern Greek nor Ancient Greek. Biblical Greek in my opinion is best understood by the usage of Greek in the NT, itself. May all accompany Yehu'shuah (God Savior), the Messiah knowing HIS presence as they live/walk in life! WOW! Dennis....visions and dreams sure can help one to understand things better and often move one into the way in which one should go!
|
|
|
Post by What Hat on Jan 6, 2012 11:42:54 GMT -5
It points away when a church insists that its acceptance is necessary to salvation. Then the whole question becomes one of "belonging to the right group" instead of working out one's salvation on a day-to-day basis. And the doctrine is then used to divide people instead of working together as Christ wanted. You can accept Christ without accepting the Trinity doctrine in its entirety. (The Trinity doctrine is actually 10 or so individual points of doctrine, any of which the realistic person may have cause to doubt.) I know you've indicated in the past that you believe this to be true. It's not about the Trinity doctrine. It's about taking a doctrine, any doctrine, which is an interpretation, and saying you must believe this or you will not attain salvation. True story. A denominational church college in the US opened their dormitories to Muslim students some years ago. The Muslim students were in the habit of praying several times a day, and always left their shoes in the hallway while they prayed. A few of the college boys, as a joke, threw the shoes into a pond. If you were a young foreign Muslim man what would that say about the respect that is being taught, in that school, for other religions, for spirituality in general? Could that make you, as a young ill-tempered Muslim man, hate the country, hate the culture, and hate the Christian religion. Well, it did. One of those young Muslim men became the mastermind of the 9/11 plot. I understood right after the 9/11 horrors, that those Muslim men had been sent here specifically to "train" and "learn" what they had to in order to do what they did....so I wouldn't say that that little episode of childish pranks CAUSED the terror but certainly would not have done anything to change those young Muslims' minds about America either.....It just shows that we can never be too careful how we use or abuse another...IF we show acceptance of them as a person and love them as a person, knowing that God loved them first, then there will be perhaps a small percentage who will turn away from such avenues of destruction. I know that at the time of 9/11 or just before that, I had had to go to Iowa State University Hospital to have a rare optic nerve tumor taken care of...when I first went there, there were Muslim doctors all over the place and then AFTER 9/11 they weren't there anymore...of course some had finished their residency in the Opthalmic fields of expertise and had gone home or elsewhere but one has to wonder how many of them were encouraged to return to home for awhile? Then about 2 years later I moved back to my home state and had that particular health issue care transferred to the state university opthalmology department and lo and behold again I see a lot of Muslim drs. and a considerable number of nurses that were of Muslim descent! Perhaps those Muslims at the Iowa university just were moved to different parts of the US...kind of a safety dispersal since anti-Muslim emotions were the flavor of that day. The incident with the shoes happened some years before Al Qaeda sent 20 or so young men into America with a specific mission to crash planes in to key targets. The mastermind of that mission was the young man who had had his shoes thrown into the water while a student in America. A number of those young men, especially the pilots, had had previous highly negative experiences in Western society; it was that experience as much as Muslim indoctrination that motivated them. Atta, the key operative, came from a well-to-do Egyptian family whose animus against the West was moulded while he went to school to study Engineering in Hamburg, Germany.
|
|
|
Post by StAnne on Jan 6, 2012 12:23:02 GMT -5
I believe the Trinitarian doctrine is essential to salvation and I was reminded why I believe that while reading some of Kiwi's recent posts. Ditto - with some of jetmech's recent posts - 'What is God's name?' thread.
|
|
|
Post by rational on Jan 6, 2012 12:31:16 GMT -5
WOW! Dennis....visions and dreams sure can help one to understand things better and often move one into the way in which one should go! This sort of reminds me of patients who made up dreams to tell their therapists to trick them. It didn't really matter to the therapists because the dreams and the fabricated dreams had the same source.
|
|