|
Post by Mary on Sept 28, 2013 23:12:35 GMT -5
I agree with sharing the riches and Irvine about Mary and the virgin conception and birth of Jesus and that she did have children to Joseph. I also agree with them both in that this thread was about the book Irvine wrote and the thread has strayed from that. It was Irvine's book thread.
|
|
|
Post by fixit on Sept 28, 2013 23:41:32 GMT -5
I agree - virgin conception but Jesus was born in the normal way - there is nothing in Scripture to tell us differently. Thank YOU, Irvine...your other response made me wonder if you were going along with this idea that Jesus wasn't actually born like other humans but perhaps had passed like a light from Mary....that seems so preposterous in that IF that was the way he was meant to enter into the world, why put Mary through a pregnancy that made her large with child....also we read the acc ount of Jesus' birth was worded much like Elizabeth giving birth to John. I read last night the scripture all relating to the advent of Jesus entry into the world in human form and one of those scriptures mentioned that Jesus was "behooved" to be made like unto his brethren(speaking of humans). Once you start dehumanising Jesus the story grows like Pinocchio's nose.
|
|
|
Post by sharingtheriches on Sept 29, 2013 10:12:38 GMT -5
Thank YOU, Irvine...your other response made me wonder if you were going along with this idea that Jesus wasn't actually born like other humans but perhaps had passed like a light from Mary....that seems so preposterous in that IF that was the way he was meant to enter into the world, why put Mary through a pregnancy that made her large with child....also we read the acc ount of Jesus' birth was worded much like Elizabeth giving birth to John. I read last night the scripture all relating to the advent of Jesus entry into the world in human form and one of those scriptures mentioned that Jesus was "behooved" to be made like unto his brethren(speaking of humans). Once you start dehumanising Jesus the story grows like Pinocchio's nose. I think that this is very true even in most any aspect of life on earth....trying to make it to be more knowledgeable then the average joe could understand does take away the human aspect of anything. Jesus pointed out that the mysteries of God were revealed to the babes and humble folk not those of higher learning that want to make something out of nothing, I suppose. It IS hard for some very educated people to "get" anything humanly helpful from the bible, but then there are some very educated people who use that knowledge humbly and receive a hundredfold from the simple mysteries of God.
|
|
|
Post by What Hat on Sept 29, 2013 17:40:06 GMT -5
I agree with sharing the riches and Irvine about Mary and the virgin conception and birth of Jesus and that she did have children to Joseph. I also agree with them both in that this thread was about the book Irvine wrote and the thread has strayed from that. It was Irvine's book thread. What's the practical issue with that though, after hundreds of posts? You don't think anyone will ever read this far into the thread do you? I think the direct commentary on Grey's book rather petered out. I knew as soon as someone said "Trinity" we'd be off on that topic. Works every time. Of course, that is a major theme in Grey's book so it was bound to happen. I would agree with you if it went off topic in the early going, and in that case, the moderator can fork the thread (I think).
|
|
|
Post by fixit on Sept 29, 2013 19:39:18 GMT -5
Grey know long before he published his "work" that calling the F&W fellowship a "particularly dangerous cult" would create a lot of controversy.
He took a particularly provocative stance, as could be expected from a Northern Irish religious zealot.
|
|
|
Post by Greg on Sept 29, 2013 19:43:15 GMT -5
Grey know long before he published his "work" that calling the F&W fellowship a "particularly dangerous cult" would create a lot of controversy. He took a particularly provocative stance, as could be expected from a Northern Irish religious zealot. I wonder if making that statement was his greatest motivator in writing the book.
|
|
|
Post by Mary on Sept 29, 2013 21:07:33 GMT -5
At least we are back talking about the book.
Guess the Pharisees did not like Jesus calling them a generation of vipers or the such like either.
|
|
|
Post by fixit on Sept 29, 2013 21:27:42 GMT -5
At least we are back talking about the book. Guess the Pharisees did not like Jesus calling them a generation of vipers or the such like either. Do you consider friends and workers a generation of vipers? If so, why?
|
|
|
Post by BobWilliston on Sept 29, 2013 23:00:02 GMT -5
Once you start dehumanising Jesus the story grows like Pinocchio's nose. Some people think Jesus was divine.
|
|
|
Post by Lee on Sept 30, 2013 6:58:38 GMT -5
Concerning our passions to reject something is to hate it. I don't believe in the traditional hell but I do believe that humankind finds themselves in a "no-mans-land" for defiance to the holy spirit ... individually, corporately, and chronically. That is just a consciousness thing. Do you know of another kind of suffering? We can be passionate about something and reject it and not hate it. To passionately reject something is to hate it. It just simply is not in our belief system. ? I once believed in hell when I was a 2x2 and for a while after. Time and understanding have changed that. I am now completely sure there is no such place. I'm more or less sure. I'm not sure I fully know what reality is, my inquiry begins there. I don't see how experiencing and exercising free will is a 'defiance to the holy spirit'. Makes no sense to me. If you have free will and get punished for exercising it, that's not free will is it. Correct, we don't have free will, absolutely.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 30, 2013 7:01:44 GMT -5
Grey know long before he published his "work" that calling the F&W fellowship a "particularly dangerous cult" would create a lot of controversy. He took a particularly provocative stance, as could be expected from a Northern Irish religious zealot. I wonder if making that statement was his greatest motivator in writing the book. I think he states his prime motivation: " I always wanted my work to glorify God and lead to the extension of His kingdom." So, glorify God by destroying 2x2ism and bringing the 2x2 heathen into his particular cult of thought. Based on the huge list of errors in the book, I doubt that he succeeded on any of his goals.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 30, 2013 10:02:16 GMT -5
I wonder if making that statement was his greatest motivator in writing the book. I think he states his prime motivation: " I always wanted my work to glorify God and lead to the extension of His kingdom." So, glorify God by destroying 2x2ism and bringing the 2x2 heathen into his particular cult of thought. Based on the huge list of errors in the book, I doubt that he succeeded on any of his goals. Is this list of errors posted somewhere? (Maybe it was posted on this thread and I missed it. I only remember seeing a link to What Hat's review.)
|
|
|
Post by snow on Sept 30, 2013 10:30:53 GMT -5
That is just a consciousness thing. Do you know of another kind of suffering? We can be passionate about something and reject it and not hate it. To passionately reject something is to hate it. It just simply is not in our belief system. ? I once believed in hell when I was a 2x2 and for a while after. Time and understanding have changed that. I am now completely sure there is no such place. I'm more or less sure. I'm not sure I fully know what reality is, my inquiry begins there. I don't see how experiencing and exercising free will is a 'defiance to the holy spirit'. Makes no sense to me. If you have free will and get punished for exercising it, that's not free will is it. Correct, we don't have free will, absolutely. No, our consciousness, what we dwell on, is the cause of most of our suffering. I respectfully disagree that we need to hate anything to passionately reject it. It simply ceases to be a part of our belief structure. As far as free will goes, there is always cause and effect. However, that isn't some God judging and punishing us. We experience free will when we realize that the choices we make will have consequences. Then we can freely choose the consequences we wish to experience.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 30, 2013 11:05:03 GMT -5
I think he states his prime motivation: " I always wanted my work to glorify God and lead to the extension of His kingdom." So, glorify God by destroying 2x2ism and bringing the 2x2 heathen into his particular cult of thought. Based on the huge list of errors in the book, I doubt that he succeeded on any of his goals. Is this list of errors posted somewhere? (Maybe it was posted on this thread and I missed it. I only remember seeing a link to What Hat's review.) In addition to What Hat's review, check this one out: sites.google.com/site/2x2history/the-shape-of-a-shapeless-movement
|
|
|
Post by irvinegrey on Sept 30, 2013 11:32:27 GMT -5
Grey know long before he published his "work" that calling the F&W fellowship a "particularly dangerous cult" would create a lot of controversy. He took a particularly provocative stance, as could be expected from a Northern Irish religious zealot. A rather racist comment!
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 30, 2013 12:19:45 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by What Hat on Sept 30, 2013 12:23:01 GMT -5
At least we are back talking about the book. Guess the Pharisees did not like Jesus calling them a generation of vipers or the such like either. Are you suggesting that Irvine Grey thinks he is Jesus?
|
|
|
Post by What Hat on Sept 30, 2013 12:24:53 GMT -5
And that's where you can also link to my review. One stop shopping.
|
|
|
Post by What Hat on Sept 30, 2013 12:27:57 GMT -5
Grey know long before he published his "work" that calling the F&W fellowship a "particularly dangerous cult" would create a lot of controversy. He took a particularly provocative stance, as could be expected from a Northern Irish religious zealot. A rather racist comment! I think he meant the country? I don't believe the northern Irish are a race, and the country of northern Ireland does not have the best of reputations in the area of religious tolerance, certainly.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 30, 2013 12:41:07 GMT -5
Grey know long before he published his "work" that calling the F&W fellowship a "particularly dangerous cult" would create a lot of controversy. He took a particularly provocative stance, as could be expected from a Northern Irish religious zealot. A rather racist comment! So you mean he got the "religious zealot" part right?
|
|
|
Post by fixit on Sept 30, 2013 13:57:08 GMT -5
So you mean he got the "religious zealot" part right? According to Mr Grey friends and workers "apparently collude in wholesale corruption", are "ruthless and insensitive", and "have been brainwashed" in this "particularly dangerous cult". Grey asserts that friends and workers "have little or no interaction or contact with those outside the movement" and "no involvement in the wider community or wider world" and "never make any effort to witness to their faith". I think Mr grey means well though - he's just trying to straighten us out.
|
|
|
Post by breakingfree on Sept 30, 2013 15:32:38 GMT -5
I haven't read the book yet, but reading your quotes from the book, I think he describes my 30+ years in the "dangerous cult" accurately. I understood that to witness to others about our faith was what worldly Christians did and by no means would we want to be like them. We were told to witness quietly by being faithful in wearing skirts, buns and no make-up and jewelry. I was heavily discouraged from having contact/interaction, and god forbid relationships outside the movement. My husband was furious when I once invited non- 2x2's over for a meal. We were warned to only participate in the absolute minimum interaction required by work/school, etc. Involvement in the community was also discouraged. I see this has relaxed some in the last 15 years or so. Yet, some in my family still NEVER associate with outsiders if they can help it. I am on the receiving end of the "ruthless and insenstive" behavior on a regular basis from my 2x2 relatives in the form of shunning. Same story, different day from another ex 2x2 So you mean he got the "religious zealot" part right? The word "bigot" came to mind but I settled on "zealot". According to Mr Grey friends and workers "apparently collude in wholesale corruption", are "ruthless and insensitive", and "have been brainwashed" in this "particularly dangerous cult". Grey asserts that friends and workers "have little or no interaction or contact with those outside the movement" and "no involvement in the wider community or wider world" and "never make any effort to witness to their faith". I think Mr grey means well though - he's just trying to straighten us out.
|
|
|
Post by matisse on Sept 30, 2013 15:48:24 GMT -5
This critique is impressive. Thanks for sharing the link, Clearday.
|
|
|
Post by What Hat on Sept 30, 2013 16:00:03 GMT -5
I haven't read the book yet, but reading your quotes from the book, I think he describes my 30+ years in the "dangerous cult" accurately. I understood that to witness to others about our faith was what worldly Christians did and by no means would we want to be like them. We were told to witness quietly by being faithful in wearing skirts, buns and no make-up and jewelry. I was heavily discouraged from having contact/interaction, and god forbid relationships outside the movement. My husband was furious when I once invited non- 2x2's over for a meal. We were warned to only participate in the absolute minimum interaction required by work/school, etc. Involvement in the community was also discouraged. I see this has relaxed some in the last 15 years or so. Yet, some in my family still NEVER associate with outsiders if they can help it. I am on the receiving end of the "ruthless and insenstive" behavior on a regular basis from my 2x2 relatives in the form of shunning. Same story, different day from another ex 2x2 The word "bigot" came to mind but I settled on "zealot". According to Mr Grey friends and workers "apparently collude in wholesale corruption", are "ruthless and insensitive", and "have been brainwashed" in this "particularly dangerous cult". Grey asserts that friends and workers "have little or no interaction or contact with those outside the movement" and "no involvement in the wider community or wider world" and "never make any effort to witness to their faith". I think Mr grey means well though - he's just trying to straighten us out. The primary problem with Grey's account is in taking negative experiences such as yours and making general inferences about the entire population of the church, especially those that remain within the group and are quite content with their lives in it.
|
|
|
Post by snow on Sept 30, 2013 17:03:41 GMT -5
This critique is impressive. Thanks for sharing the link, Clearday. That was an interesting critique. Well put together. He points out some interesting things about the academic side of things.
|
|
|
Post by fixit on Sept 30, 2013 17:50:32 GMT -5
I haven't read the book yet, but reading your quotes from the book, I think he describes my 30+ years in the "dangerous cult" accurately. I understood that to witness to others about our faith was what worldly Christians did and by no means would we want to be like them. We were told to witness quietly by being faithful in wearing skirts, buns and no make-up and jewelry. I was heavily discouraged from having contact/interaction, and god forbid relationships outside the movement. My husband was furious when I once invited non- 2x2's over for a meal. We were warned to only participate in the absolute minimum interaction required by work/school, etc. Involvement in the community was also discouraged. I see this has relaxed some in the last 15 years or so. Yet, some in my family still NEVER associate with outsiders if they can help it. I am on the receiving end of the "ruthless and insenstive" behavior on a regular basis from my 2x2 relatives in the form of shunning. Same story, different day from another ex 2x2 The primary problem with Grey's account is in taking negative experiences such as yours and making general inferences about the entire population of the church, especially those that remain within the group and are quite content with their lives in it. It reminds me of some politicians. Instead of coming up with objective and constructive criticism they condemn everything, and it says more about the condemner than the condemned.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 30, 2013 18:04:53 GMT -5
The primary problem with Grey's account is in taking negative experiences such as yours and making general inferences about the entire population of the church, especially those that remain within the group and are quite content with their lives in it. It reminds me of some politicians. Instead of coming up with objective and constructive criticism they condemn everything, and it says more about the condemner than the condemned. Elect Irvine Grey for Prime Minister of Northern Ireland?
|
|
|
Post by Lee on Sept 30, 2013 20:48:16 GMT -5
No, our consciousness, what we dwell on, is the cause of most of our suffering. So self-loathing and self-rejection lies inside of the parameters of our free-will. Would that be a true statement? I respectfully disagree that we need to hate anything to passionately reject it. It simply ceases to be a part of our belief structure. That hardly explains why we spend so much time contending and exploring the good, the true, and the beautiful here on the TMB. Refining beliefs is a passion! As far as free will goes, there is always cause and effect. However, that isn't some God judging and punishing us. Then you don't believe in a sovereign creator but an unintelligent or maybe even a necrotic hypostatis to all things. Doesn't that let the wind out of your sails just a little? We experience free will when we realize that the choices we make will have consequences. So you agree we don't have [absolute] freewill then. Then we can freely choose the consequences we wish to experience. Or how we will react when things don't turn out like we plan. "Our hearts are restless until they rest in You". St Augustine
|
|