|
Post by Persona non grata on Jun 23, 2013 15:04:07 GMT -5
PNG put forward: An objective, historically accurate account of the movement however would be of interest to me and well worth the few pounds expenditure.
Sometimes it pays to look at what we are inclined to consider as a negative factor, from a more positive standpoint. I really don't know whether or not Mr Grey was ever a member of the F&W's sect, but if it is the case that he wasn't and you seem to be considering same from a negative viewpoint, this factor might actually turn out to be positive one. Less likelihood of bias in assembling results, either for or against. The potential for an objectively fair, and bias free account obviously varies from person to person, but I would contend there is at least as good a chance of getting the standards you require from an outsider, where there is less risk of an axe to grind or an agenda to work to. That's exactly what I was hoping for Ram. I anticipated that Mr Grey's stance as an outsider would allow him to produce an objective view. I haven't portrayed his limited exposure as a negative - I simply drew a parallel with us commenting based on our limited exposure to his book - Something Mr Grey seems to object to. I don't object to the book, I haven't even read the book so I haven't developed an opinion, positive, negative or otherwise, on it. What I object to is the author refusing dialogue with those who haven't yet read the book.
|
|
|
Post by fixit on Jun 23, 2013 15:04:48 GMT -5
You can't justify IG's poor behaviour by pointing out someone else's poor behaviour. They are two separate issues. As a matter of fact, no they are not. You, among others, have accused IG of presenting twisted facts about the 2x2 fellowship based on his limited understanding. Basically you have accused him of presenting lies. What he has presented is a result of his exposure to those who have been closely associated with the group. I believe IG has as much, if not more validation for his conclusions than those in the 2x2 fellowship who have regularly presented all other churches as "false" and all other "preachers" as false because they do not line up with their own point of view. Most of them have never even attended churches services. So how are these 2 separate issues? So how are these 2 separate issues? If Mr Irvine's book was presented as a sectarian tract presenting opinions of the 2x2 church I'd be fine with that. But this effort has been supported not only by the Baptist College but by Queens University. I expected something more professional than a "dangerous cult" conclusion coming out of a British university.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 23, 2013 15:09:40 GMT -5
Fixit, what do you think Mr Grey means by 'dangerous cult' in his conclusion? And do you think the outcome of his research supports that conclusion? Matt10
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 23, 2013 15:30:54 GMT -5
PNG put forward: An objective, historically accurate account of the movement however would be of interest to me and well worth the few pounds expenditure.
Sometimes it pays to look at what we are inclined to consider as a negative factor, from a more positive standpoint. I really don't know whether or not Mr Grey was ever a member of the F&W's sect, but if it is the case that he wasn't and you seem to be considering same from a negative viewpoint, this factor might actually turn out to be positive one. Less likelihood of bias in assembling results, either for or against. The potential for an objectively fair, and bias free account obviously varies from person to person, but I would contend there is at least as good a chance of getting the standards you require from an outsider, where there is less risk of an axe to grind or an agenda to work to. That's exactly what I was hoping for Ram. I anticipated that Mr Grey's stance as an outsider would allow him to produce an objective view. I haven't portrayed his limited exposure as a negative - I simply drew a parallel with us commenting based on our limited exposure to his book - Something Mr Grey seems to object to. I don't object to the book, I haven't even read the book so I haven't developed an opinion, positive, negative or otherwise, on it. What I object to is the author refusing dialogue with those who haven't yet read the book. PNG I can well understand Mr Grey not entering in to dialogue, at least on this board, with those who have not read his book. Some have very clearly got their knives out and are in no mood for taking prisoners. I can easily see Mr Grey getting himself into an untenable situation if he were to be less wary. FWIW I am one of those who haven't read his book. I repeatedly asked openly on this forum what his basis for the "dangerous" conclusion was, but no one has answered me. I was not asking Mr Grey specifically, but I thought one or other of his critics may have supplied the answer. I well appreciate Mr Grey not taking up the challenge. What we have here is something akin to what workers are accused of by not wishing to participate on this forum. It is all very understandable, though the reasons will be different. If people have not read his book and are baying for his blood, any challenges to what he has written can only be based on assumption, emotion, imagination and speculation and that is before we consider any less savoury approaches.
|
|
|
Post by Persona non grata on Jun 23, 2013 15:59:59 GMT -5
That's exactly what I was hoping for Ram. I anticipated that Mr Grey's stance as an outsider would allow him to produce an objective view. I haven't portrayed his limited exposure as a negative - I simply drew a parallel with us commenting based on our limited exposure to his book - Something Mr Grey seems to object to. I don't object to the book, I haven't even read the book so I haven't developed an opinion, positive, negative or otherwise, on it. What I object to is the author refusing dialogue with those who haven't yet read the book. PNG I can well understand Mr Grey not entering in to dialogue, at least on this board, with those who have not read his book. Some have very clearly got their knives out and are in no mood for taking prisoners. I can easily see Mr Grey getting himself into an untenable situation if he were to be less wary. FWIW I am one of those who haven't read his book. I repeatedly asked openly on this forum what his basis for the "dangerous" conclusion was, but no one has answered me. I was not asking Mr Grey specifically, but I thought one or other of his critics may have supplied the answer. I well appreciate Mr Grey not taking up the challenge. What we have here is something akin to what workers are accused of by not wishing to participate on this forum. It is all very understandable, though the reasons will be different. If people have not read his book and are baying for his blood, any challenges to what he has written can only be based on assumption, emotion, imagination and speculation and that is before we consider any less savoury approaches. I can see the sense in what you write here Ram and tend to agree with you. In the past I've stood up for the individual who chose to remain silent in the face of aggressive questioning here on TMB. I guess I felt that Mr Grey was perhaps 'fair game' in that he openly uses the board to promote a commercial venture. As you point out Mr Grey would be in the same position (albeit on opposing teams) as any worker who made an appearance here. It's a pity but I guess that's the nature of the game.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 23, 2013 16:06:57 GMT -5
Hi Matt10, Firstly, let me start by answering your question: I based my conclusion upon the fact that his exposure has always been limited to that of an "outsider". By Mr Grey's own admission he has never been a member although he has always had an 'awareness' of the fellowship. Secondly, let me thank you for taking the time to list the extent of Mr Grey's exposure to the fellowship. I have never called into question Mr Grey's evident intelligence, which I appreciate, nor do I rebuke his right to investigate the movement and to publish the book. In fact, as a firm believer in the right of free speech I even support him in this. Mr Grey and myself share a lot in common, not least of which is an Irish Methodist heritage. What can not be denied is the fact that he does not have the 'inside' exposure to the movement that others (such as Cherie Kropp, Clearday, Sacerdotal, you, me and others) have experienced and I have simply drawn a parallel between this and the instance where some of us (including yourself) questioned the book based on our limited exposure to it. Mr Grey's attitude seems to be "buy the book first, then I'll answer your questions." (In which case, it must be awfully quiet at his book signings. ) This attitude is akin to that of the movement which he criticises. You see, herein lies my dilemma - I think I may be a potential customer for the book, however based upon reviews featured here (and your own chief amongst them Matt10), I have questions about its relevance to me. Mr Grey's reluctance to engage in discussion about the book doesn't alleviate any of those questions so in the mean time I'm forced to classify the book as a religious tract rather than as an objective historical account. Does the book have value as a persuasive religious tract? Probably. Merit as an objective historical account? Not so much. As is my practice regarding religious tracts, whether it be the Jehovah's Witnesses, the Mormons, the Christian Scientists, the Brethren, or the Baptists, I gladly accept them when offered and promise to read them thoroughly. I'm not inclined to offer monetary payment in exchange as I feel that the 'Gospel' should be offered on a "freely received, freely give" basis. An objective, historically accurate account of the movement however would be of interest to me and well worth the few pounds expenditure. Png PNG I welcome your reply. Perhaps I should start by saying that I thought your reference to very limited exposure was unfair. I think Mr G has had a lot of exposure to the 2x2 sect and I thought it was fair to point that out. If what you meant to say was that he had very limited exposure as an insider that would have been fairer. I believe that Mr Grey has gone to extreme lengths to make up for any lack of insider knowledge by meeting with as many people who had insider experience as possible. People undertake research into all sorts of organisations and the fact that they are not an insider does not generally devalue their work as far as I am aware. I also hope I didn’t come across as questioning the book. In my initial post I was merely intending to express my disappointment that it appeared to be so focussed on doctrine. Which brings me to the book. I have only read about half of it so far (plus the conclusion and parts which relate directly to that) and I have found it an interesting read. There is a lot of history in it although much of that also appears on various websites and newspapers etc. I have found it a particularly easy read, something which I think is important as much academic work does not always lend itself to general reading. I do welcome the fact the research is available in the form of a book. So much academic work merely sits on a shelf. The book moves into the deeper doctrinal stuff later on much of which I will likely skip over but so far there has been sufficient new material for me to keep me interested and it obviously has a particularly Irish angle with some interesting anecdotes. (I would be hopeless at attempting a book review so please don't interpret this as such!) I think it is great that there is now a contemporary publication which provides information on the sect. I also like the front cover. I should also say there is no evidence of what I would perceive as an anti 2x2 slant in what I have read to date. It certainly is not a religious tract. It is a piece of research which has been supervised and deemed by Queen’s University to be of PHD standard. One can do one's own research into Queen’s University’s academic reputation on the internet. Finally I have set out on another recent post what I believe Mr Grey’s objective is when he requests that people buy the book. Ram has also provided a good analysis for why Mr Grey may not be answering questions at this point. I think Mr Grey is acting entirely reasonably and I expect he will continue to do so. If you really don’t wish to give monetary payment for the book, there are copies right beside the door in the Faith Mission Bookstore in Belfast and there is very little security. I didn’t particularly want to expend my hard earned thirteen pounds fifty to help spread the Gospel of Jesus Christ either but I managed to get over it. Matt10
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 23, 2013 16:47:24 GMT -5
The problem with relying on surrogates to defend you is that you lose control of the agenda. The advantage, of course, is future plausible deniability.
Mr.Grey would be warmly received if he was prepared to answer questions openly and honestly, even if they are tough questions. There are no ogres here and nobody dislikes him as far as I can see as this is nothing personal. This is about the work he has produced and is now marketing to the world and whether it properly reflects reality. No one who produces PhD-level work through an esteemed university should ever expect cream puff questions, particularly from lesser mortals who are not theologians. It should be a breeze to answer this rabble. After all, he should know his subject matter better than anyone.
|
|
|
Post by What Hat on Jun 23, 2013 16:52:17 GMT -5
That's exactly what I was hoping for Ram. I anticipated that Mr Grey's stance as an outsider would allow him to produce an objective view. I haven't portrayed his limited exposure as a negative - I simply drew a parallel with us commenting based on our limited exposure to his book - Something Mr Grey seems to object to. I don't object to the book, I haven't even read the book so I haven't developed an opinion, positive, negative or otherwise, on it. What I object to is the author refusing dialogue with those who haven't yet read the book. PNG I can well understand Mr Grey not entering in to dialogue, at least on this board, with those who have not read his book. Some have very clearly got their knives out and are in no mood for taking prisoners. I can easily see Mr Grey getting himself into an untenable situation if he were to be less wary. FWIW I am one of those who haven't read his book. I repeatedly asked openly on this forum what his basis for the "dangerous" conclusion was, but no one has answered me. I was not asking Mr Grey specifically, but I thought one or other of his critics may have supplied the answer. I well appreciate Mr Grey not taking up the challenge. What we have here is something akin to what workers are accused of by not wishing to participate on this forum. It is all very understandable, though the reasons will be different. If people have not read his book and are baying for his blood, any challenges to what he has written can only be based on assumption, emotion, imagination and speculation and that is before we consider any less savoury approaches. Come on, give me a break. You want him to have a bully pulpit AND immunity from criticism? Incidentally, was it a Master's thesis or a doctorate?
|
|
|
Post by fixit on Jun 23, 2013 16:55:29 GMT -5
Fixit, what do you think Mr Grey means by 'dangerous cult' in his conclusion? And do you think the outcome of his research supports that conclusion? Matt10 I think his definition of a cult is an important clue: "One simple and important definition of a cult of Christianity is, 'therefore for orthodox Christianity, cults of Christianity are groups that while claiming to be Christian deny central doctrinal tenets such as the Trinity and the deity of Jesus Christ."
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 23, 2013 17:39:30 GMT -5
Fixit, Two questions, no answers and one attempt at deflection. I have no further questions. Matt10
|
|
|
Post by snow on Jun 23, 2013 18:11:42 GMT -5
At book signings authors do get into discussions re their books and their content. It is one way of making people want to read them. I don't think it is a bad thing to discuss your book with those who haven't read it. In fact, it's a common thing to do. So why would someone who asked for input from the people here be declining discussion after the book is published. Many authors send free books to those who have had input. In fact, some do it before the book is published to give them a chance to decline their name, correct anything that may have been misunderstood, etc.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 23, 2013 18:15:06 GMT -5
Fixit, Two questions, no answers and one attempt at deflection. I have no further questions. Matt10 Lol. I am sure fixit is relieved, the prosecution rests! First question. Same as fixit. IG defines cult with a modicum of clarity and leaps to the dangerous aspect right after that. So a "dangerous cult" is one which denies the Trinity. The 2x2's are it. Second question. No. It is impossible for any amount of research of his to support his conclusion since the definition of a "dangerous cult" is not one which denies the Trinity. The premise is false so the research cannot support it. A "dangerous cult" needs to meet most of the criteria in this article: altreligion.about.com/od/controversymisconception/a/dangerous_cult.htm A "dangerous cult" has to reach a high standard, of which the 2x2's are far from. This article cautions that "most religions – including mainstream, widely accepted ones – show at least a few of these traits, particularly in moderate degree, so care needs to be taken before denouncing an unfamiliar belief system as a dangerous cult."
|
|
|
Post by StAnne on Jun 23, 2013 18:25:19 GMT -5
The problem with relying on surrogates to defend you is that you lose control of the agenda. The advantage, of course, is future plausible deniability. Mr.Grey would be warmly received if he was prepared to answer questions openly and honestly, even if they are tough questions. There are no ogres here and nobody dislikes him as far as I can see as this is nothing personal. This is about the work he has produced and is now marketing to the world and whether it properly reflects reality. No one who produces PhD-level work through an esteemed university should ever expect cream puff questions, particularly from lesser mortals who are not theologians. It should be a breeze to answer this rabble. After all, he should know his subject matter better than anyone. Warmly. MmmHmmm. Very warmly most likely. The hot seat.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 23, 2013 18:33:31 GMT -5
The problem with relying on surrogates to defend you is that you lose control of the agenda. The advantage, of course, is future plausible deniability. Mr.Grey would be warmly received if he was prepared to answer questions openly and honestly, even if they are tough questions. There are no ogres here and nobody dislikes him as far as I can see as this is nothing personal. This is about the work he has produced and is now marketing to the world and whether it properly reflects reality. No one who produces PhD-level work through an esteemed university should ever expect cream puff questions, particularly from lesser mortals who are not theologians. It should be a breeze to answer this rabble. After all, he should know his subject matter better than anyone. Warmly. MmmHmmm. Very warmly most likely. The hot seat. From what I have seen there have been many attempts to seriously undermine Mr Grey, his thesis and the academic institution which awarded him his degree. And all that is without having read his final work! I know Mr Grey comes from Northern Ireland, but even over there they put the horse at the front of the cart.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 23, 2013 18:42:36 GMT -5
Warmly. MmmHmmm. Very warmly most likely. The hot seat. From what I have seen there have been many attempts to seriously undermine Mr Grey, his thesis and the academic institution which awarded him his degree. And all that is without having read his final work! I know Mr Grey comes from Northern Ireland, but even over there they put the horse at the front of the cart. Just wait ram. Your prediction that this will blow over and be forgotten in a couple of weeks will ruin all credibility of your predictive powers! Let's face it. You know and I both know that this book will be reduced to its last few pages of conclusions anyway, whether any of us like it or not. That's the way the world works.....sound bites.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 23, 2013 18:57:28 GMT -5
From what I have seen there have been many attempts to seriously undermine Mr Grey, his thesis and the academic institution which awarded him his degree. And all that is without having read his final work! I know Mr Grey comes from Northern Ireland, but even over there they put the horse at the front of the cart. Just wait ram. Your prediction that this will blow over and be forgotten in a couple of weeks will ruin all credibility of your predictive powers! Let's face it. You know and I both know that this book will be reduced to its last few pages of conclusions anyway, whether any of us like it or not. That's the way the world works.....sound bites. CD The last thing that I would claim to have is "credibility!" There is nothing to be ruined. My predictive powers can only gain in reputation. The sect has been through it all before, many times, from the Impartial Reporter to VOT and more. It has survived. The gates of Queens University will not prevail against it. Mark my words. The storm in the teacup will soon be over.
|
|
|
Post by Persona non grata on Jun 24, 2013 13:19:09 GMT -5
PNG I welcome your reply. Perhaps I should start by saying that I thought your reference to very limited exposure was unfair. In it's original context, I maintain that it was a fair statement to make. It is fairer to say that he has NO exposure as an insider. I totally agree. Again, I totally agree. And I shared that same disappointment with you. ...and by my account you've just written quite an excellent review - thank you. Are you suggesting the FM Bookstore Belfast is a good place to steal the book? Given your particular religious stance, that's commendable.
|
|