Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 25, 2015 8:07:42 GMT -5
Ok lets talk about this a bit. Doug Parker publishes and circulates statements like these, and others of their ilk, in a article titled A Spiritual Fraud Exposed; " Any belief that requires domination, cruelty, deliberate lies and fraud in order that it may be preserved, IS NOT OF GOD, and the sooner it is dissolved the better." " No religious craze of modern times was so unscriptural, so unnatural, so revolting and so unholy." Those statements and others of their ilk essentially condemn everyone in the fellowship to hell. A few points here in response to your offer to talk about this a bit. I think the thread could benefit from some discussion on actual issues rather than focussing on personalities. 1. I don’t see how these two statements condemn everyone in the entire fellowship to hell. I’m not saying they don’t, I’m simply saying I don’t see how they do. It would be useful therefore if you could set out clearly how you come to your conclusion that they essentially condemn everyone in the fellowship to hell. 2. Re statement 1 – “ Any belief that requires ....etc ” – do you accept that the leadership of the 2x2 sect was involved at some time in ‘deliberate lies and fraud’ either in relation to the provision of information, or any failure to provide information, regarding the events relating to the formation of the sect in the early 20th century? 3. Re statement 1– “Any belief that requires ....etc ” – is it your view that it is unreasonable for a person to claim that a religious organisation which is shown to have been deliberately less than truthful about its origins is 'not of God'? 4. Re statement 2 – “No religious craze ......etc ” – do you accept that the events of the early days of the 2x2 sect as reported in the press can reasonably be described as those of a 'religious craze' 5. On the subject of hell, do you find direct or indirect insinuations by others that you are going to hell offensive? 6. What in your view is the 2x2 church's (i.e. the senior workers’) position on the eternal destiny of those who once professed and have subsequently forsaken the 2x2 church, God, the Christian gospel and their belief in Jesus? Matt10 Here's a classic example of questions not being responded to. Matt10
|
|
|
Post by emy on Jul 25, 2015 14:43:38 GMT -5
Matt 10, that's just 2 days ago. Maybe Jesse is back to his demanding job now. Have you not noticed he only contributes here sporadically? Or maybe he's off on a long weekend!
|
|
|
Post by Jesse_Lackman on Jul 25, 2015 18:26:27 GMT -5
A few points here in response to your offer to talk about this a bit. I think the thread could benefit from some discussion on actual issues rather than focussing on personalities. 1. I don’t see how these two statements condemn everyone in the entire fellowship to hell. I’m not saying they don’t, I’m simply saying I don’t see how they do. It would be useful therefore if you could set out clearly how you come to your conclusion that they essentially condemn everyone in the fellowship to hell. People in the fellowship believe they are of God and the fellowship is blessed and guided by God. So when Parker says bluntly the fellowship "IS NOT OF GOD" and "so unscriptural, so unnatural, so revolting and so unholy" how can anyone in it escape hell? This shouldn't be too hard to understand. If they don't condemn to hell, and 2x2s are worthy of a place in heaven, then what is the point of uttering them?
I never heard deliberate lies or saw fraud in relation to early workers, Irvine etc. from workers, parents or friends. It would be hard to prove "deliberate lies and fraud", I know people speculate there were "deliberate lies and fraud", but speculation is speculation. If "deliberately less than truthful" is what the person thinks then of course it is not unreasonable for them to say it "IS NOT OF GOD" and "so unscriptural, so unnatural, so revolting and so unholy". No. People (not professing) who have actually read "The Impartial Reporter" laughed when I asked if it was impartial in that reporting. It was very biased reporting, what has went over the dynamics behind the biased reporting. Trimble is on record stating his willingness and purpose to use his paper as a bully pulpit.Not really, instead they make me curious. As Christians professing to be following the person who said to a woman about to be stoned for adultery "neither do I condemn you" I find their condemnation interesting. Then I think about what Paul said "Who is he that condemneth?" and realize their condemnation has no effect whatsoever on me, It might on them though. I can't speak for people other than myself. For me I don't know anyone's eternal destiny and don't think about others in those terms. Thinking of others that way is not a good way to go though life. I treat everyone I meet as if they are just as saved as I am.
|
|
|
Post by Jesse_Lackman on Jul 25, 2015 18:29:43 GMT -5
How is it that someone won't respond to any of my posts? I guess that's just how it is. Did you want a response from me? If so about what?
|
|
|
Post by Roselyn T on Jul 25, 2015 18:59:28 GMT -5
2. Re statement 1 – “Any belief that requires ....etc ” – do you accept that the leadership of the 2x2 sect was involved at some time in ‘deliberate lies and fraud’ either in relation to the provision of information, or any failure to provide information, regarding the events relating to the formation of the sect in the early 20th century? Jesse said : I never heard deliberate lies or saw fraud in relation to early workers, Irvine etc. from workers, parents or friends. It would be hard to prove "deliberate lies and fraud", I know people speculate there were "deliberate lies and fraud", but speculation is speculation. So because YOU never heard deliberate lies, they didn't happen !
|
|
|
Post by elizabethcoleman on Jul 26, 2015 0:41:12 GMT -5
How is it that someone won't respond to any of my posts? I guess that's just how it is. Did you want a response from me? If so about what? Hi Jesse, thanks, but no, I would have quoted you.
I'd specifically quoted Howitis a number of times, and asked questions, but seem to have been studiously ignored.
I seem to have been a little subtle, in saying "that's just how it is". (That's just Howitis).
For the record: Post by elizabethcoleman on Jul 23, 2015 at 10:18pm
howitis Avatar
Jul 23, 2015 at 5:21pm howitis said: So sorry if you Ross and others feel my questions were loaded, I did not feel that way and have just reread them and still don't feel that way. Why is it that its ok to question the workers but not ok to question the motives of one who wrote such things about the workers? I feel that with some here asking any questions about Doug are taboo and you'd be penalised!
____________________________ Hi Howitis,
Sorry if you feel jumped on for questions you asked, but I have re-read your posts several times, and there is definitely some loading in there.
You indicated several times that you have done your own research, discovered things about Doug that others don't generally know (and you aren't willing to share) which would seem - by your comments - to make people think less of him. You seem to indicate you think less of him because of what you discovered. Asking questions is one thing. Making sketchy insinuations which you aren't prepared to clarify is another. It does cast a shadow on his character which cannot be investigated (for better or worse). Perhaps my back is up a little because I knew the man Doug was, although I only knew him in his later life.
You also said he was "supposedly" going into the work. This clearly insinuates a question over the truth of Doug's statements that he was going into the work. Again, loaded. Not trying to pick on you, just noting. It would be useful to explain your reasons for expressing it this way.
I don't think Doug has ever tried to hide his motives. He felt completely deceived. Further investigation into the deception led to anger from the workers, abuse of his family, and his character assassinated. The further he dug, the more rotten the core. He felt it should be exposed, lest others were deceived in the same way.
_____________________
I'd still really like a response from Howitis on this - why she said Doug was "supposedly going in to the work", or words very close to that.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 26, 2015 3:06:59 GMT -5
A few points here in response to your offer to talk about this a bit. I think the thread could benefit from some discussion on actual issues rather than focussing on personalities. 1. I don’t see how these two statements condemn everyone in the entire fellowship to hell. I’m not saying they don’t, I’m simply saying I don’t see how they do. It would be useful therefore if you could set out clearly how you come to your conclusion that they essentially condemn everyone in the fellowship to hell. People in the fellowship believe they are of God and the fellowship is blessed and guided by God. So when Parker says bluntly the fellowship "IS NOT OF GOD" and "so unscriptural, so unnatural, so revolting and so unholy" how can anyone in it escape hell? This shouldn't be too hard to understand. If they don't condemn to hell, and 2x2s are worthy of a place in heaven, then what is the point of uttering them?
I never heard deliberate lies or saw fraud in relation to early workers, Irvine etc. from workers, parents or friends. It would be hard to prove "deliberate lies and fraud", I know people speculate there were "deliberate lies and fraud", but speculation is speculation. If "deliberately less than truthful" is what the person thinks then of course it is not unreasonable for them to say it "IS NOT OF GOD" and "so unscriptural, so unnatural, so revolting and so unholy". No. People (not professing) who have actually read "The Impartial Reporter" laughed when I asked if it was impartial in that reporting. It was very biased reporting, what has went over the dynamics behind the biased reporting. Trimble is on record stating his willingness and purpose to use his paper as a bully pulpit.Not really, instead they make me curious. As Christians professing to be following the person who said to a woman about to be stoned for adultery "neither do I condemn you" I find their condemnation interesting. Then I think about what Paul said "Who is he that condemneth?" and realize their condemnation has no effect whatsoever on me, It might on them though. I can't speak for people other than myself. For me I don't know anyone's eternal destiny and don't think about others in those terms. Thinking of others that way is not a good way to go though life. I treat everyone I meet as if they are just as saved as I am. Thank you for your response. A few observations in no particular order. (6) You appear to be avoiding answering the question. I think it's worth pointing out that you were not being asked what anyone's eternal destination was. You were being asked to give your view on what your church's position is on an important doctrinal issue based on your [x] years of experience as a member. In my view the possible answers to the question are (a) I don't know what my church's position is on this, (b) my understanding is that my church doesn't have a position on this (c) my understanding is that my church's position on this is that (i) such persons are going to hell, (ii) such people are not going to hell or (iii) such persons may or may not go to hell - believing in the Lord Jesus Christ is not a factor. You appear to me to have gone for (d) I have a view on what my church's position is on this but I am not going to publicly acknowledge it here. Anyone exposed to the teachings of the 2x2 sect for a significant period of time could not fail to have a view on what its position is on this. (2) Perhaps the question which I should have asked is ... do you accept that the leadership of the 2x2 sect has been consistent in telling the 'whole truth' in relation to the events relating to the formation of the sect in the early 20th century. (4) It would be helpful if you would provide the reference for your point about Mr. Trimble's 'willingness and purpose to use his paper as a bully pulpit'. (1) I'm still struggling to see your point. You seem to be taking issue with the conclusion which YOU have drawn rather than directly refuting Mr Parker's claims. I don't like the term 'revolting' nor do I understand the term 'unholy' while the term 'unnatural' seems entirely inappropriate in relation to the description of a religious movement. I would therefore tend to refute these. Which just leaves 'unscriptural' which is much more your territory rather than mine. However it is worth noting that I have witnessed the 2x2 church condemn other churches for being 'unscriptural' many times. 'Unwilling to walk the lowly way of Jesus' is a phrase often used to so describe them with the strong insinuation being that their unwillingness will cause them to miss out on salvation. Is it fair to say that you appear to be criticising Mr Parker for something which your own church often does? (5) I'm interpreting this as a no. This is the approach I take. Sticks and stones will break your bones and all that. Of course (according to Christian teaching) the only one who literally condemns people to hell is God himself which may help explain why those who claim to follow him are taken up with condemning to hell those who disagree with them. Here's my favourite quote from the Impartial Reporter's reporting of the early days of the 2x2 sect (reference included). January 22, 1903, p. 8 THE IMPARTIAL REPORTER Established 1808 Newspaper for Enniskillen, Northern Ireland
There is a hot simmering time ahead for Enniskillen folk in hell, anyway! This Mr. Irwin (sic), who uses our streets, and blocks our thoroughfares with meetings, and pays no rates for their upkeep, leaving that to ‘the ungodly’, says Enniskillen is (with only a few exceptions) going to hell headlong. He says that the Enniskillen merchant, going to Church on Sunday morning with his Bible under his arm, is going to hell. Speaking a few nights ago on the parable of Dives and Lazarus, which some people interpret as a reality, he spoke of the rich people in Enniskillen, and said—‘If you believe the rich people in this town are going to heaven I don’t, for I think they are nearly all going to hell.’ Mr. Tom Betty said the people of Water-street are going to hell which nearly tempted one resident to fight it out with Mr. Betty. Various speakers at the meetings say the townspeople are going to hell. They are all very cock-sure about it. No Pope ever claimed the power of loosing and binding in hell and heaven stronger than these Pilgrims or Tramps claim to know those who will go to the hot place. They do not know of such a passage evidently as ‘Judge not, that ye be not judged,’ nor of God’s great mercy or patience, nor of the repentance of the dying thief in his last moments; for they are always judging their neighbours severely, and scarcely ever in charity; their preaching is invariably of hell; and as to God’s mercy and His infinite compassion it is so seldom dwelt on that it is not remembered. Every other sentence almost of Mr. Irwin’s (sic) oration one night had hell mentioned in it.
|
|
|
Post by SharonArnold on Jul 26, 2015 17:22:59 GMT -5
How is it that someone won't respond to any of my posts? I guess that's just how it is. I understand how you feel. This happens to me a lot. So much so that I now wear it as a badge of honour. My conclusion is that people who refuse to respond often do so to prevent the folly of their position being exposed. Matt10 Well, that is certainly one possibility. But it does not preclude other possibilities, such as "I didn't see your post", "I don't wish to engage with the kind of energy you are presenting" or "I see where this discussion is headed, and I do not wish to be swept into THAT vortex". Bottom line - NO ONE owes you a reply. (Gotta love online communication.)
|
|
|
Post by fixit on Jul 26, 2015 20:11:06 GMT -5
How is it that someone won't respond to any of my posts? I guess that's just how it is. Which post would you like an answer to?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 27, 2015 1:41:12 GMT -5
I understand how you feel. This happens to me a lot. So much so that I now wear it as a badge of honour. My conclusion is that people who refuse to respond often do so to prevent the folly of their position being exposed. Matt10 Well, that is certainly one possibility. But it does not preclude other possibilities, such as "I didn't see your post", "I don't wish to engage with the kind of energy you are presenting" or "I see where this discussion is headed, and I do not wish to be swept into THAT vortex". Bottom line - NO ONE owes you a reply. (Gotta love online communication.) Of course I didn't say that it precluded other possibilities. Or that anyone owed me a reply. But you knew that. Matt10
|
|
|
Post by elizabethcoleman on Jul 27, 2015 4:00:08 GMT -5
How is it that someone won't respond to any of my posts? I guess that's just how it is. Which post would you like an answer to? Hi Fixit, See the very bottom of page 5 of this thread. Howitis felt unfairly treated over questions she asked about Doug, and claimed that none of her statements or questions about Doug were loaded. I disagree. howitis has responded to most other posters on this topic, but none of my posts. I'm probably flogging a dead horse, but would still appreciate a response. Forgive my strong feeling, but Doug is not an abstract to me.
|
|
|
Post by fixit on Jul 27, 2015 4:45:47 GMT -5
Which post would you like an answer to? Hi Fixit, See the very bottom of page 5 of this thread. Howitis felt unfairly treated over questions she asked about Doug, and claimed that none of her statements or questions about Doug were loaded. I disagree. howitis has responded to most other posters on this topic, but none of my posts. I'm probably flogging a dead horse, but would still appreciate a response. Forgive my strong feeling, but Doug is not an abstract to me. Thanks. I wanted to make sure it wasn't something we all ignored. I agree - it's frustrating having a discussion left up in the air. I'll try to go out and do better!
|
|
|
Post by Jesse_Lackman on Jul 27, 2015 11:36:01 GMT -5
I understand how you feel. This happens to me a lot. So much so that I now wear it as a badge of honour. My conclusion is that people who refuse to respond often do so to prevent the folly of their position being exposed. Matt10 Well, that is certainly one possibility. But it does not preclude other possibilities, such as "I didn't see your post", "I don't wish to engage with the kind of energy you are presenting" or "I see where this discussion is headed, and I do not wish to be swept into THAT vortex". Bottom line - NO ONE owes you a reply. (Gotta love online communication.) Actually it's that I don't understand why an atheist would care, except if all they want to do is argue about it for the sole sake of argument.
|
|
|
Post by Jesse_Lackman on Jul 27, 2015 13:48:18 GMT -5
Thank you for your response. A few observations in no particular order. (6) You appear to be avoiding answering the question. I think it's worth pointing out that you were not being asked what anyone's eternal destination was. You were being asked to give your view on what your church's position is on an important doctrinal issue based on your [x] years of experience as a member. In my view the possible answers to the question are (a) I don't know what my church's position is on this, (b) my understanding is that my church doesn't have a position on this (c) my understanding is that my church's position on this is that (i) such persons are going to hell, (ii) such people are not going to hell or (iii) such persons may or may not go to hell - believing in the Lord Jesus Christ is not a factor. You appear to me to have gone for (d) I have a view on what my church's position is on this but I am not going to publicly acknowledge it here. Anyone exposed to the teachings of the 2x2 sect for a significant period of time could not fail to have a view on what its position is on this. (4) It would be helpful if you would provide the reference for your point about Mr. Trimble's 'willingness and purpose to use his paper as a bully pulpit'. I don't understand why you care about Parker and all this unless it's a pillar or foundation stone for your subsequent conversion to atheism/agnosticism. If Parker doesn't have that kind of meaning to your atheism/agnosticism is your purpose just to argue? Interesting Mogowan's concern #1 about Parker's crusade seems to apply to you; You don't like the way I answered your question about "your church's position". If there is one thing I hate it is others presuming they know better what I think than I do myself. I really hate that. We are a fellowship not a rigid organization with lots of published rules and dogma. We as individuals have an amazing amount of freedom to come to our own conclusions and beliefs. There is NO WAY I would give you what I think the felloswhip's position is on anything, that would be me thinking I know better what someone else is thinking than they do themselves. So I will reject all questions aimed at group think about "your church" and "your churches position". Now about Trimble - readers can form their own conclusions; While what you say about the Trimble family is likely correct, the Impartial Reporter reports are "hostile" to the friends and workers. Many of the sources that document the f&w are hostile to them. But on the other hand, parties friendly to the f&w haven't defended or documented anything countermanding the various hostile sources. So anyone documenting the friends' history really only has hostile sources to work with. The exception might be John Long's journal, but even though his attitude is not hostile, it's still an outside view. The newspaper was biased against the fellowship. They posted stories so that people would run from the fellowship as fast as they could. There is no doubt in my mind about that. Is what the Impartial Reporter wrote, true? I think so. But they slanted the news to make the workers look crazy. Probably not unlike a Boston Globe article against the Catholic Church. Or a St. Petersburg Times article against Scientology. Are the articles true? Yep. Are they slanted? Yep. Is that fair and impartial reporting? It depends on point of view. Excerpt from Impartial Reporter August 5, 1909, p. 8: "Mr. Cooney than said it might be the last time he might be able to address them. He had sacrificed his home without the possibility of ever having a hearth of his own, but he WARNED THEM AGAINST THE CLERGY WHO were making money by damning them, and he said that because he loved them. ‘I love my dear old father, ‘ said he, ‘and my dear old mother, and I took a run in this week to see them, and it makes the blood boil hot in me when I see them sticking up to the clergy who are making fortunes by damning their souls. Of course, the IMPARTIAL REPORTER makes me out some sort of a brute, with a brute character, without any human affection for parents or relatives. I am not a brute; I am a man, and I love my father, and mother, and sisters, and brother, and all my fellow-men. Is it fair representing a man like that as a brute? (We fail to find one line in the IMPARTIAL REPORTER of any description as warrant for this statement.—ED. I.R.)[ Of course they wouldn't! No big surprise there.] As I spoke to my mother, she said she had not read the IMPARTIAL REPORTER yet, because ‘I knew’ she said, ‘it would misrepresent you.’ She believes in me despite what is said about me. The dirty, filthy way that Trimble has of representing me as some of you know—and those of you are here today will perhaps see another report of the same mean horrible character in next Thursday’s REPORTER, as perhaps there’s a secret reporter in the tent again today. I don’t know." CD wrote: Usually when we see this level of opposition, there is more than a philosophical reason. Maybe the Tramps emptied out Trimble's church in Enniskillen.....or something along that line. A lot of friends professed in Enniskillen so there would have been at least some sort of personal connection between Trimble and the Tramps.
William Trimble (1802-1886), a native of Pomeroy, County Tyrone, Ireland, was the first editor-proprietor of The Impartial Reporter and Farmers' Journal. It is based in Enniskillen, County Fermanagh, Norther Ireland. He was succeeded by his second son, William Copeland Trimble (1851-1941), who wrote a pamphlet titled The Tramps or Go-Preachers, (Sometimes called Pilgrims), 1910 under the initials W.C.T. Wm C. Trimble was married twice. First, on October 3, 1881, to Letitia Jane Weir, born May 18, 1854. Their marriage was registered in South Dublin. They had 5 children and she died eleven years later on January 8, 1892, being 38 years old. Letitia Jane Weir was the daughter of John Weir, and was related to the William Weir family who owned a store on Baggot Street in Dublin, where the first Sunday morning meeting was held. Perhaps this is why W.C. Trimble took a keen interest in the activities and beliefs of the Tramp Preachers. His second marriage was to Lily Reilly on May 8, 1893. They had 3 children. Letitia Jane Weir was the daughter of John Weir, and was related to the William Weir family who owned a store on Baggot Street in Dublin, where the first Sunday morning meeting was held. Perhaps this is why W.C. Trimble devoted so much time and energy into reporting about the activities and beliefs of the Tramp Preachers. His second marriage was to Lily Reilly on May 8, 1893. They had 3 children. In Fermanagh, many call it the "Partial Reporter". It's loosely aimed at the Protestants of Fermanagh and would often carry snippets of news about Gospel missions from other churches but probably not since the flurry of excitement from the early days of the meetings, has there been such extensive coverage of a particular church or denomination.
|
|
|
Post by howitis on Jul 27, 2015 15:00:39 GMT -5
So sorry, appears there is some angst that I've not answered, especially Elizabeth, whom I suspect could well make an issue whether I answer or not, so here goes ......there's only one dead horse you're flogging.........I on the other hand am well and truly alive, and oh so glad of it and pleased to celebrate my life, my hope and joy, God has given me so, so much answered so many prayers, revealed Himself in so many ways that each day I rejoice in all He has given me.....yes even the bad bits because through them He was able to increase my faith!!! Yes my answer will be another question to you Why is itok for DP to have gone across to another country to check out what he'd heard about another man and his church and then draw his own conclusions, when its not ok for me to have travelled in my own country doing much the same? I expect you'll say he published what he found out and let people know, yet if I do this now I'd be speaking against one who gas passed this scene of life and cannot refute what I say and I would be condemned for that! Next question Why is it that you people don't know where to look? Has DP omitted to tell in his writing where this all happened? Where was that church in his parents home? Why then is that information not given? You see I was brought up knowing about this man, no one hid it........so obviously if you people felt the truth aas hid from you and DP didn't divulge certain items of the story..........shouldn't that immediately tell you.....'there's something not quite right here' Maybe its my psychologist brain or my lawyer one, but something tells me that anything I post would be condemned here......the workers et a bad wrap for having technological devices, yet if they are behind in current affairs (as suggested in the underdeveloped countries thread) they are condemned. If they have a bank account or insurance policy(of which they would need in some instances because of the law) oh dear they shouldn't because that's making them an organisation, but because they don't produce booklets on dealing with CSA or DV, then they're not fulfilling their obligations, however then they'd be labelled an organisation all over again. Lastly, Where is your joy?, Your thankfulness?, Your outpouring of annoitedness?.....remember you people have supposedly got it all right the 2x2's are all wrong!!
|
|
|
Post by dmmichgood on Jul 27, 2015 15:52:00 GMT -5
So sorry, appears there is some angst that I've not answered, especially Elizabeth, whom I suspect could well make an issue whether I answer or not, so here goes ..... You see I was brought up knowing about this man, no one hid it........so obviously if you people felt the truth was hid from you and DP didn't divulge certain items of the story..........shouldn't that immediately tell you.....'there's something not quite right here' Maybe its my psychologist brain or my lawyer one, but something tells me that a nything I post would be condemned here......the workers get a bad rap for having technological devices, yet if they are behind in current affairs (as suggested in the underdeveloped countries thread) they are condemned. What man are you talking about? "I was brought up knowing about this man,"
Doug Parker or Wm Irvin?
If you mean Wm. Irvine, would you please designate that? Because my "lawyer" brain wants to know.
If I were to put on my "psychologist brain" I would say that this statement of yours; "something tells me that anything I post would be condemned here..." I might conclude that you were suffering from paranoia.
|
|
|
Post by howitis on Jul 27, 2015 16:06:52 GMT -5
I have only ever mentioned Doug Parker! Paranoia indeed, check through the posts how could any 2x2 person say something agreeable if they say nothing they are wrong, say something they are wrong it even seems should they dare to believe God speaks to them.....that is also wrong.......yet can I not rejoice so long as Jesus does not condemn me........so blessed I have become a fool!!!
|
|
|
Post by dmmichgood on Jul 28, 2015 0:15:18 GMT -5
I have only ever mentioned Doug Parker! Paranoia indeed, check through the posts how could any 2x2 person say something agreeable if they say nothing they are wrong, say something they are wrong it even seems should they dare to believe God speaks to them.....that is also wrong.......yet can I not rejoice so long as Jesus does not condemn me........so blessed I have become a fool!!! I have only ever mentioned Doug Parker!Paranoia indeed, check through the posts how could any 2x2 person say something agreeable if they say nothing they are wrong, say something they are wrong it even seems should they dare to believe God speaks to them.....that is also wrong.......yet can I not rejoice so long as Jesus does not condemn me........so blessed I have become a fool!!! Than what did this post of yours mean: "Instead I went to where Doug Parker had his business interests, lived and worked amongst those people who were once his people, At the time I did it for my own purpose( I could say God 'placed me there, but I know I persued it), my findings were for me, my future family and are now for my grandchildren, and they are recorded only for them. What is done with it after I die will be up to them." "You see I was brought up knowing about this man, no one hid it........so obviously if you people felt the truth was hid from you and DP didn't divulge certain items of the story..........shouldn't that immediately tell you.....'there's something not quite right here'"
I have on idea what you are trying to saying that last paragraph.
PS: it was you who mentioned the psychologist brain.
|
|
|
Post by elizabethcoleman on Jul 28, 2015 1:01:18 GMT -5
So sorry, appears there is some angst that I've not answered, especially Elizabeth, whom I suspect could well make an issue whether I answer or not, so here goes ......there's only one dead horse you're flogging.........I on the other hand am well and truly alive, and oh so glad of it and pleased to celebrate my life, my hope and joy, God has given me so, so much answered so many prayers, revealed Himself in so many ways that each day I rejoice in all He has given me.....yes even the bad bits because through them He was able to increase my faith!!! Yes my answer will be another question to you Why is itok for DP to have gone across to another country to check out what he'd heard about another man and his church and then draw his own conclusions, when its not ok for me to have travelled in my own country doing much the same? I expect you'll say he published what he found out and let people know, yet if I do this now I'd be speaking against one who gas passed this scene of life and cannot refute what I say and I would be condemned for that! Next question Why is it that you people don't know where to look? Has DP omitted to tell in his writing where this all happened? Where was that church in his parents home? Why then is that information not given? You see I was brought up knowing about this man, no one hid it........so obviously if you people felt the truth aas hid from you and DP didn't divulge certain items of the story..........shouldn't that immediately tell you.....'there's something not quite right here' Maybe its my psychologist brain or my lawyer one, but something tells me that anything I post would be condemned here......the workers et a bad wrap for having technological devices, yet if they are behind in current affairs (as suggested in the underdeveloped countries thread) they are condemned. If they have a bank account or insurance policy(of which they would need in some instances because of the law) oh dear they shouldn't because that's making them an organisation, but because they don't produce booklets on dealing with CSA or DV, then they're not fulfilling their obligations, however then they'd be labelled an organisation all over again. Lastly, Where is your joy?, Your thankfulness?, Your outpouring of annoitedness?.....remember you people have supposedly got it all right the 2x2's are all wrong!! The very funny thing is, Howisit, that so far you have divulged nothing we didn't already know about Doug, so to us there aren't "certain items of the story missing". At the moment, we don't feel that truth has been hidden to us (except by the workers, but we now all know about that!). Doug never claimed his book was about himself, so there was never any mandate to write his own life story into it. He claimed to write a book about the history of the Two-by-Twos. I hope you can tell the difference. To recap - 1) Doug investigates church and writes a book on it, taking care to ensure historical accuracy in copious footnotes and references; 2) Anonymous poster on TMB suggests they have unknown details about Doug but refuses to elaborate in any way. I can tell you who has more credibility to my mind. And any lawyer mind. I'll hold my tongue on the psychological bit. Joy? Thankfulness? In abundance. Read my book. I just take no joy in any of your writings, which so far have done nothing to edify. But thank you for responding.
|
|
|
Post by Jesse_Lackman on Jul 28, 2015 8:24:42 GMT -5
Joy? Thankfulness? In abundance. Read my book. I just take no joy in any of your writings, which so far have done nothing to edify. But thank you for responding. I'm surprised you went there. Edifying and joyful to who?? Cult to Christ Who finds "joy" in that? Who finds edification in that? Your book does the same thing you accuse howitis of.
|
|
|
Post by elizabethcoleman on Jul 28, 2015 8:39:01 GMT -5
Joy? Thankfulness? In abundance. Read my book. I just take no joy in any of your writings, which so far have done nothing to edify. But thank you for responding. I'm surprised you went there. Edifying and joyful to who?? Cult to Christ Who finds "joy" in that? Who finds edification in that? Your book does the same thing you accuse howitis of. Read it, have you? If not, please do so before coming back to me about it. There's some old adage about judging a book by its cover.
|
|
|
Post by Jesse_Lackman on Jul 28, 2015 8:53:54 GMT -5
I'm surprised you went there. Edifying and joyful to who?? Cult to Christ Who finds "joy" in that? Who finds edification in that? Your book does the same thing you accuse howitis of. Read it, have you? If not, please do so before coming back to me about it. There's some old adage about judging a book by its cover. The title is a deal breaker, I have absolutely no desire to buy and read the book. I'm happy and satisfied, why should I spend the money to read something I've probably already read here on TMB many times over? This is what I mean when I say the hypocrisy is stunning - and so is the way so many people who leave the fellowship become exactly what they criticize. Especially the ones that feel moved to become active counter-advocates. It's amazing to see people build a spiritual experience that's substantially predicated on judgment and criticism of their previous spiritual experience. If you subtracted the judgment and criticism there would be silence. I'm sorry but it really doesn't look too joyful, edifying, or appealing to me.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 28, 2015 11:51:54 GMT -5
Thank you for your response. A few observations in no particular order. (6) You appear to be avoiding answering the question. I think it's worth pointing out that you were not being asked what anyone's eternal destination was. You were being asked to give your view on what your church's position is on an important doctrinal issue based on your [x] years of experience as a member. In my view the possible answers to the question are (a) I don't know what my church's position is on this, (b) my understanding is that my church doesn't have a position on this (c) my understanding is that my church's position on this is that (i) such persons are going to hell, (ii) such people are not going to hell or (iii) such persons may or may not go to hell - believing in the Lord Jesus Christ is not a factor. You appear to me to have gone for (d) I have a view on what my church's position is on this but I am not going to publicly acknowledge it here. Anyone exposed to the teachings of the 2x2 sect for a significant period of time could not fail to have a view on what its position is on this. (4) It would be helpful if you would provide the reference for your point about Mr. Trimble's 'willingness and purpose to use his paper as a bully pulpit'. I don't understand why you care about Parker and all this unless it's a pillar or foundation stone for your subsequent conversion to atheism/agnosticism. If Parker doesn't have that kind of meaning to your atheism/agnosticism is your purpose just to argue? Interesting Mogowan's concern #1 about Parker's crusade seems to apply to you; You don't like the way I answered your question about "your church's position". If there is one thing I hate it is others presuming they know better what I think than I do myself. I really hate that. We are a fellowship not a rigid organization with lots of published rules and dogma. We as individuals have an amazing amount of freedom to come to our own conclusions and beliefs. There is NO WAY I would give you what I think the felloswhip's position is on anything, that would be me thinking I know better what someone else is thinking than they do themselves. So I will reject all questions aimed at group think about "your church" and "your churches position". Now about Trimble - readers can form their own conclusions; A few observations on your response. 1. I'm not particularly interested in Parker. However I am interested in the details of the history of the 2x2 sect. My first introduction to the (true) history of the 2x2 sect was through The Secret Sect book and for that reason I am grateful to Parker for writing it. I'd encourage all professing people (and potential professing people) to read it. 2. As I frequently point out to others here, I do not classify myself either as an atheist or an agnostic nor was I converted to become one. I generally resist attempts by others to put me in a religious box, particularly a badly labelled one. However I suggest that if anyone really does wish to label me that they use the term 'non-believer in the Christian God'. 3 My purpose here is certainly not to argue. I have very clear reasons for participating here which I have set out before and will gladly set out again for anyone who may be interested. You'll also recall that it was you who presented the open invitation to 'talk about this a bit'. 4. To be honest I am struggling to understand what exactly Mr Magowen is saying here. FWIW I think that doubt can be a good thing and I firmly reject the idea that unbelief in the Christian God is some kind of desert. I actually think that the journey to unbelief in the Christian God can be very liberating, particularly for a person raised in the 2x2 church. 5. It's not a case of liking or not liking the way in which you answered my question. I think my point was that I didn't think you HAD answered my question. But there you go. I still don't think it unreasonable to ask a member of a church what in their view is their church's position on what most people would consider to be an important doctrinal matter. I actually asked my neighbour today what his church's view was on women priests and he had no issues whatsoever in telling me. I should point out that when I was a member I had a very clear understanding of what the 2x2 church's position was on professing people who subsequently ceased professing. 6) I'm still looking for the reference to the 'bully pulpit'. It doesn't appear to appear in the link provided. 7) (You can't fault me for effort) Of course you are at liberty to reject all questions from me but I will likely continue to ask them. I think questions are a great way of helping to expose any flaws in religious beliefs systems. That's mainly why I hang out here. Matt10
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 28, 2015 12:18:32 GMT -5
Thank you Matt10 for your post. Personally, I have difficulty with the expression "Christian God." what defines that expression?
You see, I believe in a God-Savior, by whom all that which is, was created. I believe in a Spirit God, who is a singular Being capable of a plural existence far beyond my finite mind is able to fully comprehend, except as "Father, Son, and Holy Ghost." Is such a God the "Christian God" to which you refer and in which you do not or cannot believe? My God, outside of this time continuum, is not subject to its rules. Nor is my God a sort of super human.
Will you please attempt to define the "Christian God" in which you do not believe? As you know, I appreciate your continutions to this forum, and am merely curious about this issue. Thank you.
|
|
|
Post by Jesse_Lackman on Jul 28, 2015 12:28:05 GMT -5
3 My purpose here is certainly not to argue. I have very clear reasons for participating here which I have set out before and will gladly set out again for anyone who may be interested. You'll also recall that it was you who presented the open invitation to 'talk about this a bit'. That reply was to Mary, it wasn't an open invitation, it was a response to what she said. I didn't expect you to come roaring in from the sidelines to defend Parker. There are many links, it's there if you read carefully and think about it a bit.
|
|
|
Post by howitis on Jul 28, 2015 15:34:33 GMT -5
DMG Perhaps if you read posts previous to the ones reposted it will be a little clearer to you. It was never my intent to divulge any items to any of you but rather to ask questions of yourselves and perhaps incite your senses enough to want to question what may not have been divulged! Elizabeth, After reading an excerpt from 'The Age', which had a couple of pics of you and a little about you and the 2x2's, written in 2013, and finding some of the 'facts' there not quite factual..........why would I read your book? Call it journalistic privilege if you wish, however when things aren't quite right many wrong conclusions can be drawn. When Doug Parker did his 'research', wasn't much of it done from old newspaper columns? I rest my case.......
|
|
|
Post by CherieKropp on Jul 28, 2015 15:41:50 GMT -5
DMG Perhaps if you read posts previous to the ones reposted it will be a little clearer to you. It was never my intent to divulge any items to any of you but rather to ask questions of yourselves and perhaps incite your senses enough to want to question what may not have been divulged! Elizabeth, After reading an excerpt from 'The Age', which had a couple of pics of you and a little about you and the 2x2's, written in 2013, and finding some of the 'facts' there not quite factual..........why would I read your book? Call it journalistic privilege if you wish, however when things aren't quite right many wrong conclusions can be drawn. When Doug Parker did his 'research', wasn't much of it done from old newspaper columns?I rest my case....... Howitis: Have you read the newspaper articles Doug quoted from? There were libel laws in effect when these articles were written. They can be read on the TTT website here: www.tellingthetruth.info/newspapers/newsprold.phpMany of the facts can be verified by other sources and I have done so in many cases. I even went to visit some of the places mentioned in the UK and verified their existence. When I first read Doug's book, I set out to prove or disprove it. That evolved into my book which I am still writing. The errors I found were 4-5 errors in dates in his quotes--nothing major and nothing that changed his message--just made it harder for me to track down the item he was quoting, but this was not impossible when you are determined like me. I confirmed the facts in Doug's book and found many more sources that support his book. Have YOU personally checked out the facts Doug uncovered and wrote about? A talking donkey can tell the truth.....
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 28, 2015 15:49:51 GMT -5
Thank you Matt10 for your post. Personally, I have difficulty with the expression "Christian God." what defines that expression?
You see, I believe in a God-Savior, by whom all that which is, was created. I believe in a Spirit God, who is a singular Being capable of a plural existence far beyond my finite mind is able to fully comprehend, except as "Father, Son, and Holy Ghost." Is such a God the "Christian God" to which you refer and in which you do not or cannot believe? My God, outside of this time continuum, is not subject to its rules. Nor is my God a sort of super human.
Will you please attempt to define the "Christian God" in which you do not believe? As you know, I appreciate your continutions to this forum, and am merely curious about this issue. Thank you. Dennis, a good searching question ...... I would stop short of claiming that this is a definition ... I don't think it is possible to provide a definition of something which in my view is merely a concept, a concept which I don't believe in .... this is more of an attempt at a description hastily cobbled together on the back of a fag packet ....... the Christian God in which I no longer believe is the God who is commonly referred to as the God of the Bible, the God who (according to those who claim to believe in Him) loves and cares for each one of us, who is all seeing, all knowing and all powerful, who can heal the sick, raise the dead and who watches (and cares about) what we get up to in the bedroom, the great, almighty, forgiving God who sent His son to earth to save us from our sins and who will judge us all on the last day, saving the souls of some and casting into hell the souls of the unsaved. That's pretty much it. Matt10
|
|