|
|
Post by What Hat on Jun 24, 2013 11:18:59 GMT -5
Edgar, the problem I have with your analysis is that the kinds of behaviour we mutually abhor, present to greater or lesser degree in every church and religion. So why single out certain groups as cults on the basis of their theology? Do you have a level of intimate knowledge of any other church or religious group? I do, and I can tell you that the issues that plague the 2x2 fellowship, plague other churches as well. The only difference I can perceive is that some churches dealt sooner and more effectively with the severe effects of socially conforming pressures, effects such as persecution of GLBT, hiding child sexual abuse, emotional and spiritual abuse. These effects were present in every single church 50 and more years ago. The fact that other groups make some of the mistakes 2x2ism makes is absolutely no justification -- Especially serious for 2x2ism when they actively claim to be the ONLY way to heaven. The documented trail of misery, grief and corruption 2x2ism leaves behind is proportionatly far greater than any other group I have been able to find. Disgruntled and dissapointed ex-membership seems to me to be a greater group than of active and supportive membership so it is hard to deny the seriousness of countless 2x2 blunders in policy enforcement -- We have to also realize that the documented ills of 2x2ism are only the tip of the iceberg. I'm not trying to justify anything. I am questioning the selective and arbitrary use of a label in diagnosing issues. I think critiques are more credible and powerful when they avoid labels and name calling, don't you? If the workers cover up CSA, then say they are covering up CSA. If you say that they are a "cult" because they cover up CSA, then what about the Catholic church and the Baptist church when they cover up CSA (and they have). Why is it that only the small movements, and those outside the mainstream, get the "cult" label for negative behaviours that every church has? |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 24, 2013 11:35:31 GMT -5
What hat
Just a reminder, that finding a positive way to describe 2x2ism isn't our goal here. My goal is to use a word that accurately describes what it is -- so the fact that the word is negative isn't in itself enough reason not to use it. 2x2ism has always tried to put a positive twist even on the ugly aspects of their religion. This is not my aim.
|
|
|
|
Post by fixit on Jun 24, 2013 14:51:41 GMT -5
If you say that they are a "cult" because they cover up CSA, then what about the Catholic church and the Baptist church when they cover up CSA (and they have). Why is it that only the small movements, and those outside the mainstream, get the "cult" label for negative behaviours that every church has? WH has asked a question I would like answered as well: Why is it that only the small movements, and those outside the mainstream, get the "cult" label for negative behaviours that every church has?This book is endorsed by prominent Baptist and Methodist theologians, and is clearly about larger groups ganging up on a smaller group. An "adult" version of school-yard bullying. Type the following terms into Google and see what you get: methodist child sexual abuse
baptist child sexual abuseHere's an interesting one: stopbaptistpredators.org/ |
|
|
|
Post by fixit on Jun 24, 2013 14:57:48 GMT -5
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 24, 2013 15:01:27 GMT -5
The potential is in them all Jim, to a greater or lesser degree. Don't get emotional about the label, keep alert for any practices. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 24, 2013 15:06:54 GMT -5
What hat Just a reminder, that finding a positive way to describe 2x2ism isn't our goal here. My goal is to use a word that accurately describes what it is -- so the fact that the word is negative isn't in itself enough reason not to use it. 2x2ism has always tried to put a positive twist even on the ugly aspects of their religion. This is not my aim. I think accuracy should be the goal. Too many people react to a positive spin by trying to put a negative spin on it (by using the emotive "cult" word for instance). Accuracy, precision, and factuality are the best way to go. |
|
|
|
Post by What Hat on Jun 24, 2013 15:07:48 GMT -5
The potential is in them all Jim, to a greater or lesser degree. Don't get emotional about the label, keep alert for any practices. You know the interesting thing is that by Grey's definition the Westboro Baptist church is a church, and Mahatma Gandhi is the leader of a cult. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 24, 2013 15:08:03 GMT -5
The potential is in them all Jim, to a greater or lesser degree. Don't get emotional about the label, keep alert for any practices. Yep. But let's not call the Baptists a cult......no no. |
|
|
|
Post by What Hat on Jun 24, 2013 15:10:06 GMT -5
But do they believe in the Trinity, the Apostles Creed, and that Jesus is God? That's the important question. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 24, 2013 15:10:18 GMT -5
The potential is in them all Jim, to a greater or lesser degree. Don't get emotional about the label, keep alert for any practices. Yep. But let's not call the Baptists a cult......no no. If you are referring to myself Clearday, I already have. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 24, 2013 15:32:40 GMT -5
Yep. But let's not call the Baptists a cult......no no. If you are referring to myself Clearday, I already have. It was a rhetorical "let's". You don't count.....neither do I. I am referring to authoritative experts and academics. Some have certified the 2x2's as a non-cult like the Baptists. Others call the 2x2's a cult but not the Baptists. They are wrong, do you agree? |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 24, 2013 16:02:30 GMT -5
If you are referring to myself Clearday, I already have. It was a rhetorical "let's". You don't count.....neither do I. I am referring to authoritative experts and academics. Some have certified the 2x2's as a non-cult like the Baptists. Others call the 2x2's a cult but not the Baptists. They are wrong, do you agree? I have explained many times now that in my opinion, based upon simple dictionary definitions (which keeps the matter very simple for me), that "every" religious sect and denomination is a cult within the basic, benign meaning of the term. Also that every one of them has the potential to indulge, even unwittingly in adverse cultic practices which can harm certain individuals, eg children and the vulnerable. This includes the Baptist church. However, the term cult does not stir up any emotions for me. I regard it much the same way as I would sect or denomination, perhaps with a tad more caution, but since I recognise that I worship in a cult, within the basic meaning of the word, the term really does not put me up nor down. I do appreciate that it is quite incendiary for some, but that is another matter. I am more, in fact much more, concerned about any adverse cultic affects ongoing anywhere. I have argued several times here that I think it is unwise to lump all the bad guys (the extreme ones) together under the category of cult. That leaves 95% under the impression they are not a cult, when collectively most of the adverse cultic activity will continue to take place in that "innocent" 95%, simply by adding all the small percentages together. In this scenario adverse cultic behaviour can be buried under the banner of "we are NOT a cult." Defences may be lowered? What I will say about the Baptist Church that I attend is that I personally have not experienced anything like the cult-like conformity that I experienced in the F&W's sect and have yet to hear of any stories of the psychological or emotional nature that I experienced and have learned about in the F&W's sect. I really don't think there is a realistic danger of this within my church generally, however I do hear of small groups of certain worshipers gathering for practices, with people from other churches as well, for the purpose of indulging in speaking in tongues, slaying in the spirit, healing, etc. I have spoken to several women who were invited along to these things and they were quite frightened by their experiences. However, I do believe the hierarchy in the church do not promote these things, nor do they support them, but allow those involved to continue. I have heard our Pastor speak against such things. I tend to lead a quiet life in the church. There are a number of spiritual refugees like myself who feel the same way as I do because of their backgrounds with the Jo Wits, brethren and other sects, all of which had similar experiences to myself. We tend to avoid the limelight and consequently it is possible I may not be exposed to or be aware of other adverse cultic practices if they exist, but to be quite honest I do not think so. In many ways the fellowship is not unlike the F&W's sect, but there is a far greater sense of freedom, where you are not having to watch your words or are worried what people think about the activities you are involved in, what you are wearing, saying things pleasing to the professing ear, etc. The danger anywhere is in the practice, not the label. I have no doubt my background in which I had to put all emotions that people were feeling to one side (not in an uncompassionate sense) but in a legal sense in order to get to the truth of a matter, has enabled me to disregard emotional hype, at least some of the time. Oh, I nearly forgot about your question. Yes I agree, but the foregoing will give some insight into the differences. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 24, 2013 16:23:41 GMT -5
It was a rhetorical "let's". You don't count.....neither do I. I am referring to authoritative experts and academics. Some have certified the 2x2's as a non-cult like the Baptists. Others call the 2x2's a cult but not the Baptists. They are wrong, do you agree? I have explained many times now that in my opinion, based upon simple dictionary definitions (which keeps the matter very simple for me), that "every" religious sect and denomination is a cult within the basic, benign meaning of the term. Also that every one of them has the potential to indulge, even unwittingly in adverse cultic practices which can harm certain individuals, eg children and the vulnerable. This includes the Baptist church. However, the term cult does not stir up any emotions for me. I regard it much the same way as I would sect or denomination, perhaps with a tad more caution, but since I recognise that I worship in a cult, within the basic meaning of the word, the term really does not put me up nor down. I do appreciate that it is quite incendiary for some, but that is another matter. I am more, in fact much more, concerned about any adverse cultic affects ongoing anywhere. I have argued several times here that I think it is unwise to lump all the bad guys (the extreme ones) together under the category of cult. That leaves 95% under the impression they are not a cult, when collectively most of the adverse cultic activity will continue to take place in that "innocent" 95%, simply by adding all the small percentages together. In this scenario adverse cultic behaviour can be buried under the banner of "we are NOT a cult." Defences may be lowered? What I will say about the Baptist Church that I attend is that I personally have not experienced anything like the cult-like conformity that I experienced in the F&W's sect and have yet to hear of any stories of the psychological or emotional nature that I experienced and have learned about in the F&W's sect. I really don't think there is a realistic danger of this within my church generally, however I do hear of small groups of certain worshipers gathering for practices, with people from other churches as well, for the purpose of indulging in speaking in tongues, slaying in the spirit, healing, etc. I have spoken to several women who were invited along to these things and they were quite frightened by their experiences. However, I do believe the hierarchy in the church do not promote these things, nor do they support them, but allow those involved to continue. I have heard our Pastor speak against such things. I tend to lead a quiet life in the church. There are a number of spiritual refugees like myself who feel the same way as I do because of their backgrounds with the Jo Wits, brethren and other sects, all of which had similar experiences to myself. We tend to avoid the limelight and consequently it is possible I may not be exposed to or be aware of other adverse cultic practices if they exist, but to be quite honest I do not think so. In many ways the fellowship is not unlike the F&W's sect, but there is a far greater sense of freedom, where you are not having to watch your words or are worried what people think about the activities you are involved in, what you are wearing, saying things pleasing to the professing ear, etc. The danger anywhere is in the practice, not the label. I have no doubt my background in which I had to put all emotions that people were feeling to one side (not in an uncompassionate sense) but in a legal sense in order to get to the truth of a matter, has enabled me to disregard emotional hype, at least some of the time. Sooo, that's a yes, right, sort of? My wife and I attended a social event not long ago, it was a 40th wedding anniversary. We have known this family for 25 years, and they are members of the local Presbyterian church. There were maybe 30 or 40 people there and they were all church members of that church, except us. What was interesting is that the whole gathering seemed almost identical to a friends' potluck. Similar conversation, similar conservative sort of dress and lifestyle, similar sense of brotherhood. The local pastor said grace in a manner that would not sound out of place at all among the 2x2's. I could list a few differences but they were all minor in the big picture. Now if the 2x2's are a cult, then the Presbyterians are too. If the Presbyterians are not, then the 2x2's are not. I could see some "cultic" tendencies among them (such as the tight knit sense of brotherhood) but nothing particularly alarming. We did feel accepted as fellow Christians there, whereas the friends would project friendliness but not acceptance if our friends attended a pot luck. The pastor was game for some difficult questions (I can't help myself!) whereas a worker might have been uncomfortable in that situation. All in all, same same but different. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 24, 2013 16:51:37 GMT -5
I have explained many times now that in my opinion, based upon simple dictionary definitions (which keeps the matter very simple for me), that "every" religious sect and denomination is a cult within the basic, benign meaning of the term. Also that every one of them has the potential to indulge, even unwittingly in adverse cultic practices which can harm certain individuals, eg children and the vulnerable. This includes the Baptist church. However, the term cult does not stir up any emotions for me. I regard it much the same way as I would sect or denomination, perhaps with a tad more caution, but since I recognise that I worship in a cult, within the basic meaning of the word, the term really does not put me up nor down. I do appreciate that it is quite incendiary for some, but that is another matter. I am more, in fact much more, concerned about any adverse cultic affects ongoing anywhere. I have argued several times here that I think it is unwise to lump all the bad guys (the extreme ones) together under the category of cult. That leaves 95% under the impression they are not a cult, when collectively most of the adverse cultic activity will continue to take place in that "innocent" 95%, simply by adding all the small percentages together. In this scenario adverse cultic behaviour can be buried under the banner of "we are NOT a cult." Defences may be lowered? What I will say about the Baptist Church that I attend is that I personally have not experienced anything like the cult-like conformity that I experienced in the F&W's sect and have yet to hear of any stories of the psychological or emotional nature that I experienced and have learned about in the F&W's sect. I really don't think there is a realistic danger of this within my church generally, however I do hear of small groups of certain worshipers gathering for practices, with people from other churches as well, for the purpose of indulging in speaking in tongues, slaying in the spirit, healing, etc. I have spoken to several women who were invited along to these things and they were quite frightened by their experiences. However, I do believe the hierarchy in the church do not promote these things, nor do they support them, but allow those involved to continue. I have heard our Pastor speak against such things. I tend to lead a quiet life in the church. There are a number of spiritual refugees like myself who feel the same way as I do because of their backgrounds with the Jo Wits, brethren and other sects, all of which had similar experiences to myself. We tend to avoid the limelight and consequently it is possible I may not be exposed to or be aware of other adverse cultic practices if they exist, but to be quite honest I do not think so. In many ways the fellowship is not unlike the F&W's sect, but there is a far greater sense of freedom, where you are not having to watch your words or are worried what people think about the activities you are involved in, what you are wearing, saying things pleasing to the professing ear, etc. The danger anywhere is in the practice, not the label. I have no doubt my background in which I had to put all emotions that people were feeling to one side (not in an uncompassionate sense) but in a legal sense in order to get to the truth of a matter, has enabled me to disregard emotional hype, at least some of the time. Sooo, that's a yes, right, sort of? Here's the last line of my quote.
Oh, I nearly forgot about your question. Yes I agree, but the foregoing will give some insight into the differences.
My wife and I attended a social event not long ago, it was a 40th wedding anniversary. We have known this family for 25 years, and they are members of the local Presbyterian church. There were maybe 30 or 40 people there and they were all church members of that church, except us. What was interesting is that the whole gathering seemed almost identical to a friends' potluck. Similar conversation, similar conservative sort of dress and lifestyle, similar sense of brotherhood. The local pastor said grace in a manner that would not sound out of place at all among the 2x2's. I could list a few differences but they were all minor in the big picture. Now if the 2x2's are a cult, then the Presbyterians are too. If the Presbyterians are not, then the 2x2's are not. I could see some "cultic" tendencies among them (such as the tight knit sense of brotherhood) but nothing particularly alarming. We did feel accepted as fellow Christians there, whereas the friends would project friendliness but not acceptance if our friends attended a pot luck. The pastor was game for some difficult questions (I can't help myself!) whereas a worker might have been uncomfortable in that situation. All in all, same same but different. I agree with virtually all of that from my experience, except the people have much more liberty. I wish it had been like that in the F&W's. I think you are having difficulty viewing "cult" through my eyes? They are all cults from a benign starting point. For cult so far, read "sect!" I believe there are such things as good cultic practices and I believe that Jesus was the best at teaching them. It is the potential for and the actual practicing of "adverse" cultic practices which have the potential to damage or even destroy lives that is my main concern. The term "cult" really does not make much impression on me. Our Pastor also is willing to be put under the microscope and is willing for awkward questions. He often says "I don't know" but will seek out an answer in due course. He will even pray with some of the elders for an answer. He will readily accept chastisement and answers from the congregation. He even asked me if I would like to preach on a subject in which during conversation I had given him answers or viewpoints which impressed him. I chickened out. Me? A hireling? Never! |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 24, 2013 17:10:50 GMT -5
Sooo, that's a yes, right, sort of? Here's the last line of my quote.
Oh, I nearly forgot about your question. Yes I agree, but the foregoing will give some insight into the differences.
My wife and I attended a social event not long ago, it was a 40th wedding anniversary. We have known this family for 25 years, and they are members of the local Presbyterian church. There were maybe 30 or 40 people there and they were all church members of that church, except us. What was interesting is that the whole gathering seemed almost identical to a friends' potluck. Similar conversation, similar conservative sort of dress and lifestyle, similar sense of brotherhood. The local pastor said grace in a manner that would not sound out of place at all among the 2x2's. I could list a few differences but they were all minor in the big picture. Now if the 2x2's are a cult, then the Presbyterians are too. If the Presbyterians are not, then the 2x2's are not. I could see some "cultic" tendencies among them (such as the tight knit sense of brotherhood) but nothing particularly alarming. We did feel accepted as fellow Christians there, whereas the friends would project friendliness but not acceptance if our friends attended a pot luck. The pastor was game for some difficult questions (I can't help myself!) whereas a worker might have been uncomfortable in that situation. All in all, same same but different. I agree with virtually all of that from my experience, except the people have much more liberty. I wish it had been like that in the F&W's. I think you are having difficulty viewing "cult" through my eyes? They are all cults from a benign starting point. For cult so far, read "sect!" I believe there are such things as good cultic practices and I believe that Jesus was the best at teaching them. It is the potential for and the actual practicing of "adverse" cultic practices which have the potential to damage or even destroy lives that is my main concern. The term "cult" really does not make much impression on me. Our Pastor also is willing to be put under the microscope and is willing for awkward questions. He often says "I don't know" but will seek out an answer in due course. He will even pray with some of the elders for an answer. He will readily accept chastisement and answers from the congregation. He even asked me if I would like to preach on a subject in which during conversation I had given him answers or viewpoints which impressed him. I chickened out. Me? A hireling? Never! Do women speak and teach equally in your church? That is one area when liberty is much higher among the 2x2's as compared to a lot of churches......although that has been changing in the last 20 years. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 24, 2013 17:17:16 GMT -5
I agree with virtually all of that from my experience, except the people have much more liberty. I wish it had been like that in the F&W's. I think you are having difficulty viewing "cult" through my eyes? They are all cults from a benign starting point. For cult so far, read "sect!" I believe there are such things as good cultic practices and I believe that Jesus was the best at teaching them. It is the potential for and the actual practicing of "adverse" cultic practices which have the potential to damage or even destroy lives that is my main concern. The term "cult" really does not make much impression on me. Our Pastor also is willing to be put under the microscope and is willing for awkward questions. He often says "I don't know" but will seek out an answer in due course. He will even pray with some of the elders for an answer. He will readily accept chastisement and answers from the congregation. He even asked me if I would like to preach on a subject in which during conversation I had given him answers or viewpoints which impressed him. I chickened out. Me? A hireling? Never! Do women speak and teach equally in your church? That is one area when liberty is much higher among the 2x2's as compared to a lot of churches......although that has been changing in the last 20 years. Yes they do. Recently one woman took the whole service. She is part of the house group that I attend. Our pastor welcomes contributions from either sex. However the previous Baptist Church that I attended (10 miles away), which operated the same way, had a change of Pastor who came from the US Deep South. He was a very nice guy and I got on great with him, but he caused a lot of grief amongst a small congregation which relied on having female deacons, etc. He was against women occupying such roles in the church, esp woman preachers. He got his butt kicked after a couple of years and went back to the US. David Norczyk was his name. I can't remember exactly where he originated from. During each service where I am now there are two women, different every Sunday, who are there for prayer ministry. Of course there are also womens' groups set up for different pastoral, social and ministry needs of the church. Obviously having a hireling minister, he takes up a large slice of leading the service, but he is very happy to cede some of the participation to others, which funnily enough is usually women. I think it would be more relevant to compare the house groups with the home meetings of the F&W's. In these the women certainly have at least an equal role as the men. Of course we have mixed house groups, men only and women only. You can choose which one you want to go to. I got kicked out the women only one! Here is a link to David Norczyk. If any of you guys come across him say Hi to him from me! www.zoominfo.com/p/David-Norczyk/1216390861 |
|
|
|
Post by BobWilliston on Jun 24, 2013 19:22:33 GMT -5
So Mr Grey gives an explanation for his conclusion of "dangerous sect," which all things considered is a very benign explanation at that. The moral of the story IS READ THE BOOK to assess what he has written and is meaning. To fail to do so makes us puppets of our own imagination, emotions ans not least of all "biases," especially when these matters have been clearly pointed out. Rather than Mr Grey being made out to be an ogre here, hell bent on attacking the 2X2 church, it is myself who should be the real target of abuse on account of my own description of dangerous cult. The operative word is "if". I don't know what all IG has said about the 2x2s. What I did say was that if his concluding remarks are the essence of his conclusion that the 2x2s are a dangerous cult, then he has a questionable definition of "dangerous", not "cult." Did you read something into something I wrote? |
|
|
|
Post by BobWilliston on Jun 24, 2013 19:27:12 GMT -5
Would the following suggest that the book IS his research thesis? Irvine Grey was awarded the degree of Master of Philosophy by Queen's University for this research thesis.No. |
|
|
|
Post by fixit on Jun 24, 2013 20:02:52 GMT -5
Would the following suggest that the book IS his research thesis? Irvine Grey was awarded the degree of Master of Philosophy by Queen's University for this research thesis.No. Then the poster advertising the book is telling whoppers. The book is a study of the history, sociology and theology of a religious movement started in Nenagh, Co Tipperary in 1897 by William Irvine and Edward Cooney. In December 2012 Irvine Grey was awarded the degree of Master of Philosophy by Queen's University for this research thesis. |
|
|
|
Post by BobWilliston on Jun 24, 2013 20:11:41 GMT -5
Yes, its amazing how some people can see nothing wrong with the fellowship. And its equally amazing that some people can see nothing right with the fellowship. I like to think that I sit somewhere in the middle. Bert, that's a fair enough position, BUT, my dear friend...................in the sitting position you can comfortably accommodate everything nice and cozy about the sect,however, you need to stand up to address the things that are not right in the sect. Jesus demands nothing less. The best way to get rid of justifiable labels such as "dangerous cult" is to get rid of the dangers and the things that are adversely cultic. Does this make sense? It does make sense -- but it doesn't work. Such efforts more often result in the creation of a new sect. |
|
|
|
Post by BobWilliston on Jun 24, 2013 20:25:57 GMT -5
Why is it that only the small movements, and those outside the mainstream, get the "cult" label for negative behaviours that every church has? Bastardizing a term and then using it to put smaller people down is the classic technique of the big bully who has nothing better to say about himself. |
|
|
|
Post by BobWilliston on Jun 24, 2013 20:39:00 GMT -5
Then the poster advertising the book is telling whoppers. The book is a study of the history, sociology and theology of a religious movement started in Nenagh, Co Tipperary in 1897 by William Irvine and Edward Cooney. In December 2012 Irvine Grey was awarded the degree of Master of Philosophy by Queen's University for this research thesis.I also took note of that when I read it. But there is no conjunction between the two sentences, so the second sentence may be added simply to recommend himself as an authoritative writer. The statement actually says nothing about the similarity of the book to his thesis. |
|
|
|
Post by Happy Feet on Jun 24, 2013 21:03:38 GMT -5
Why is it that only the small movements, and those outside the mainstream, get the "cult" label for negative behaviours that every church has? Bastardizing a term and then using it to put smaller people down is the classic technique of the big bully who has nothing better to say about himself. This is not correct. Are you saying the workers do not put the bigger churches down? The smaller sects put the bigger people down. I heard with my own hears many times throughout the 30 years of sitting in meetings. The JW's, 2x2s, and all these sects put the bigger people down. So who are the bullies? Little to do with size it seems. |
|
|
|
Post by fixit on Jun 24, 2013 21:22:16 GMT -5
Then the poster advertising the book is telling whoppers. The book is a study of the history, sociology and theology of a religious movement started in Nenagh, Co Tipperary in 1897 by William Irvine and Edward Cooney. In December 2012 Irvine Grey was awarded the degree of Master of Philosophy by Queen's University for this research thesis.I also took note of that when I read it. But there is no conjunction between the two sentences, so the second sentence may be added simply to recommend himself as an authoritative writer. The statement actually says nothing about the similarity of the book to his thesis. The first sentence says nothing about the thesis. The second sentence says nothing about the book? So the word this refers to his thesis and not the book? If the advertising poster is an indication of the standard of Mr Grey's work it doesn't say much for his academic ability. |
|
|
|
Post by snow on Jun 24, 2013 21:53:53 GMT -5
Clearly Irvine Grey started his research with a bias and finished with the same bias. Is he a great salesman, or does he have friends in high places at Queens University? Imagine if a homophobic person (e.g a Westbro Baptist Church member) started research in the area of homosexuality. Could the research results have any value at all? People with biases conduct research all the time -- but the researcher has to defend his findings. And the validity of his findings has to do with their methods of research and the objectivity of their conclusions -- not whether any of the examiners "appreciate" (for lack of a better word) the conclusion. IG's research appears to rely very heavily on anecdotal evidence -- which can be manipulated in a variety of ways. But you are right -- his concluding statement doesn't sound like one that would impress a group of university examiners. On second thought, I can think of a few colleges (certainly not public colleges) where it might pass. I'm wondering how his published book compares with the text of his thesis. One thing I thought about in this was the lack of other documentation out there about the group. It's a pretty obscure group and anyone evaluating the thesis would have nothing to even compare it to. How would they know if it was a good paper or not if it was the first real research done on the group in the first place. They probably weren't looking so much at the content but more on how the research was done because there is nothing to 'disprove' what he says that they could refer to. I too wonder if the conclusion is the same in the paper as the book. |
|
|
|
Post by snow on Jun 24, 2013 21:57:39 GMT -5
OK -- they do make very good convention stew -- and they do do a marvelous job of detail organization of the special meetings rounds -- they are not completely without their merits. I hope Mr Grey made a favorable mention of convention stew in his thesis. I hope he gave us the recipe!! |
|
|
|
Post by BobWilliston on Jun 24, 2013 22:48:22 GMT -5
Bastardizing a term and then using it to put smaller people down is the classic technique of the big bully who has nothing better to say about himself. This is not correct. Are you saying the workers do not put the bigger churches down? The smaller sects put the bigger people down. I heard with my own hears many times throughout the 30 years of sitting in meetings. The JW's, 2x2s, and all these sects put the bigger people down. So who are the bullies? Little to do with size it seems. The question was why the big ones do it -- so I said why the big ones do it. If I were asked why the little ones called the big ones "cults", I would give the same answer.  |
|
|
|
Post by BobWilliston on Jun 24, 2013 22:49:43 GMT -5
I also took note of that when I read it. But there is no conjunction between the two sentences, so the second sentence may be added simply to recommend himself as an authoritative writer. The statement actually says nothing about the similarity of the book to his thesis. The first sentence says nothing about the thesis. The second sentence says nothing about the book? So the word this refers to his thesis and not the book? If the advertising poster is an indication of the standard of Mr Grey's work it doesn't say much for his academic ability. Well, that's your judgment call. |
|
