Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 9, 2016 20:52:13 GMT -5
The 2x2 organizational structure was designed, setup, and maintained by human beings - you do admit that Workers/Overseers are human beings don't you? That means that your 2x2 org structure is just as worldly as the org structure of the Episcopal Church - both designed and implemented by human beings. And since they are human beings, then it naturally follows that they are fallible - that is they can make mistakes. Do you not think it would be in everyone's interest to have an organizational structure which provided checks and balances to mitigate those mistakes of the human beings? Here is your problem: 1) You assume that 2x2s, especially workers, are infallible - this is obviously wrong as given the evidence of all the workers caught diddling little kids. 2) You assume that God created the organizational structure of 2x2ism - check your Bible, Jesus never said a darn thing about how the church was to be organized. That's why you think there is no need for changing your org structure. But unfortunately you are dead wrong - just the child sexual abuse proves that, let alone all the other misdealings and crimes of the 2x2s. I'm not talking about an organizational structure to 'save your soul', I'm trying to help you change your org structure so that you 2x2s don't commit any more crimes, doctrine mistakes, and other spiritually abusive actions. Face it, you've had workers and friends running around for 100 years claiming that only ministers traveling in pairs is the right way, yet any idiot can read Matt:10 and see that this is complete nonsense. You tell me how this idiotic idea has been going around for 100 years - you are standing on very shaky ground. If 2x2s like their org structure so much, why don't they advocate it as the org structure for governing their country? The checks and balances that were expressly written into the US Constitution? Toss them out. The Constitution itself? Toss it out - no need for 'rule of law', let's have rule of the Overseers. Appeal Courts? Toss them out - the judges never make mistakes. Trial by Jury? Throw it out. Again, why involve the common people in the process, they don't know anything. Let's just get rid of courts altogether, better to just have informal meetings of the leaders to decide who should live or die. The meetings of the leaders? Definitely keep that secret, never print any meeting minutes or allow it to be recorded. Travel abroad? Prohibited. Visitors from abroad? Prohibited, except if paired with a 'minder'. Books, TV, Films, etc from abroad? Never, we have all we need here, do not need to learn from anyone else. What if someone gets asking questions that we don't like? Exile them. Seriously, this is exactly what the 2x2 organizational structure results in if it were used to govern a country. North Korea. And you think this is a good system? Whether at a country level, a state level, a municipal level, or a church level, this is a terrible system. Only a person would agree to live their lives with such a system. That's why I seriously wonder if 2x2s suffer from some sort of mental illness. One of your premises is that if all structures designed, setup, and maintained by human beings are equally worldly. That premise is false. You admit your organization was specifically modelled on a worldly kingdom and you think that's a good thing. What country? We're not the kingdom of the world. It's not for Christians to get involved in that sort of thing. Jesus could have become the emperor of the Roman empire if he'd wanted to. We're to follow the example of the master. His disciples belong to the kingdom of God. He said that his kingdom was not of this world. I haven't been advocating any particular organizational structure but I can see that a simple fellowship of believers with love is better than a dead formal structure. A large formal structure might be good at keeping an organization going but it doesn't have much if anything to do with keeping members faithful in serving Christ and it doesn't prevent any of the abuses you keep mentioning either. If anything, they tend to facilitate abuses as people seek power high up in the structure. The New Testament church (you can read about it in the New Testament, by the way, which is in the Bible) had local churches with elders. There was no large formal denominational structure. There was fellowship between the churches and there were some who travelled often preaching the gospel and building up the church in different places. There isn't any such thing as rule of overseers. Your internal mental picture of the group that you are attacking is nothing but a straw man. There may be faults within the group but they do not define the group as a whole. How are monetary decisions made in the 2x2 church? Who decides which minister is to be hired and who is to be fired? What is the process? Who decides what sort of personal behavior is not permissible by 2x2s (former examples included wearing makeup, pants on females, etc)? Who decides who will be an elder? Do the local 2x2 people vote? Who decides that a person is to be removed from the 2x2s? Who do the elders report to? Can they be fired? Who do the workers report to? How are decisions made at worker meetings? etc? All of the answers to these questions will tell you what the organizational structure of 2x2ism. And you do have a structure, otherwise you would have no answer to these questions. And the org structure of 2x2ism is exactly how I described it in my first post - despotism. Like i said, if you think it's such a great system, why do you use that same system for every organization in your daily life - your municipality, your state, your school, your community center, your country. Thank goodness there are smarter people than you around that don't let your ridiculous ideas about how to organize people spread. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 9, 2016 20:58:13 GMT -5
One of your premises is that if all structures designed, setup, and maintained by human beings are equally worldly. That premise is false. You admit your organization was specifically modelled on a worldly kingdom and you think that's a good thing. What country? We're not the kingdom of the world. It's not for Christians to get involved in that sort of thing. Jesus could have become the emperor of the Roman empire if he'd wanted to. We're to follow the example of the master. His disciples belong to the kingdom of God. He said that his kingdom was not of this world. I haven't been advocating any particular organizational structure but I can see that a simple fellowship of believers with love is better than a dead formal structure. A large formal structure might be good at keeping an organization going but it doesn't have much if anything to do with keeping members faithful in serving Christ and it doesn't prevent any of the abuses you keep mentioning either. If anything, they tend to facilitate abuses as people seek power high up in the structure. The New Testament church (you can read about it in the New Testament, by the way, which is in the Bible) had local churches with elders. There was no large formal denominational structure. There was fellowship between the churches and there were some who travelled often preaching the gospel and building up the church in different places. There isn't any such thing as rule of overseers. Your internal mental picture of the group that you are attacking is nothing but a straw man. There may be faults within the group but they do not define the group as a whole. How are monetary decisions made in the 2x2 church? Who decides which minister is to be hired and who is to be fired? What is the process? Who decides what sort of personal behavior is not permissible by 2x2s (former examples included wearing makeup, pants on females, etc)? Who decides who will be an elder? Do the local 2x2 people vote? Who decides that a person is to be removed from the 2x2s? Who do the elders report to? Can they be fired? Who do the workers report to? How are decisions made at worker meetings? etc? All of the answers to these questions will tell you what the organizational structure of 2x2ism. And you do have a structure, otherwise you would have no answer to these questions. And the org structure of 2x2ism is exactly how I described it in my first post - despotism. Like i said, if you think it's such a great system, why do you use that same system for every organization in your daily life - your municipality, your state, your school, your community center, your country. Thank goodness there are smarter people than you around that don't let your ridiculous ideas about how to organize people spread. yes an elder can be "fired" we had it happen in our field just a few years ago I believe that the overseer and a trust panel of elders(trustee's) handle the money
|
|
|
|
Post by matisse on May 9, 2016 20:58:18 GMT -5
In light of 2T2*, a decrease in Sunday attendance may be a good sign. * 2T2 = 2 Thessalonians 2:3 (not to be confused with I55) Let no one deceive you by any means; for that Day will not come unless the falling away comes first, and the man of sin is revealed, the son of perdition, I don't know what goes on exactly in the other parishes of the Episcopal church, we are after all quite autonomous. I know that our parish is very large and has been growing a lot. For major feast days we have to distribute tickets to the paying members as we don't have enough seats in our 1200 seating cathedral. It is widely believed that the fall in the other Episcopal parishes is due to the more liberal stances they took on female ordination and in particular on gay marriage - lots of people left after those decisions. Autonomous? At what level? The Episcopal parish near me is liberal at heart and is feeling very much stifled by the conservative diocese. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 9, 2016 21:03:38 GMT -5
How are monetary decisions made in the 2x2 church? Who decides which minister is to be hired and who is to be fired? What is the process? Who decides what sort of personal behavior is not permissible by 2x2s (former examples included wearing makeup, pants on females, etc)? Who decides who will be an elder? Do the local 2x2 people vote? Who decides that a person is to be removed from the 2x2s? Who do the elders report to? Can they be fired? Who do the workers report to? How are decisions made at worker meetings? etc? All of the answers to these questions will tell you what the organizational structure of 2x2ism. And you do have a structure, otherwise you would have no answer to these questions. And the org structure of 2x2ism is exactly how I described it in my first post - despotism. Like i said, if you think it's such a great system, why do you use that same system for every organization in your daily life - your municipality, your state, your school, your community center, your country. Thank goodness there are smarter people than you around that don't let your ridiculous ideas about how to organize people spread. yes an elder can be "fired" we had it happen in our field just a few years ago I believe that the overseer and a trust panel of elders(trustee's) handle the money
My goodness. I don't care what the answers are. I know what they are already. My point is that by asking these questions you can discover what the org structure of your organization is. And like i said a number of time, your org structure is despotism. |
|
|
|
Post by rational on May 9, 2016 21:07:32 GMT -5
Best in class would be the church closing the most parishes? Who has decreased their Sunday attendance by over 75%. Maybe you could put that B-School learning to good use and help out your church... Again with the red herrings. For someone who touts themselves are rational, you sure do throw out a lot of logical fallacies. A good org structure does not guarantee success, but it does remove a lot of unnecessary risks. But not the risk of members leaving or parishes suing for property control. Bridgewater is not the largest hedge fund in the world. Not even in the top 5. Do you just make these thhings up and assume no one will check? Or, worse, do you believe them? There is no doubt that Ray has done well. But then, he was a HBS graduate. You should be proud to belong to the richest church. Last time they were in the news it was about the $150+ millions they were collecting from that property. But then they did give $5 million to charity. Wow. And for all of their excellent organization you still had insiders suing insiders. And, of course, there was that time when half of the board resigned in protest to, among other things, the downplaying of charity and education. That excellent organization really paid off - they don't have to pass the plate! |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 9, 2016 21:07:59 GMT -5
I don't know what goes on exactly in the other parishes of the Episcopal church, we are after all quite autonomous. I know that our parish is very large and has been growing a lot. For major feast days we have to distribute tickets to the paying members as we don't have enough seats in our 1200 seating cathedral. It is widely believed that the fall in the other Episcopal parishes is due to the more liberal stances they took on female ordination and in particular on gay marriage - lots of people left after those decisions. Autonomous? At what level? The Episcopal parish near me is liberal at heart and is feeling very much stifled by the conservative diocese. Feeling 'stifled' is about the extent of the power the Diocese has over a particular parish - not much. The fact that there even is a liberal parish in a conservative diocese tells you how much latitude the parishes have. Parishes can do pretty much whatever they want as long as they use the bible and the Book of Common Prayer. Even the Book of Common prayer has two Rites in it - one for the liberals and one for the conservative parishes. In some ways some people say the Episcopal church is too accommodating, too democratic. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 9, 2016 21:10:05 GMT -5
Again with the red herrings. For someone who touts themselves are rational, you sure do throw out a lot of logical fallacies. A good org structure does not guarantee success, but it does remove a lot of unnecessary risks. But not the risk of members leaving or parishes suing for property control. Bridgewater is not the largest hedge fund in the world. Not even in the top 5. Do you just make these thhings up and assume no one will check? Or, worse, do you believe them? There is no doubt that Ray has done well. But then, he was a HBS graduate. You should be proud to belong to the richest church. Last time they were in the news it was about the $150+ millions they were collecting from that property. But then they did give $5 million to charity. Wow. And for all of their excellent organization you still had insiders suing insiders. And, of course, there was that time when half of the board resigned in protest to, among other things, the downplaying of charity and education. That excellent organization really paid off - they don't have to pass the plate! Take your meds. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_hedge_fundsI see you did some googling about Trinity Wall Street. What you read is how things are handled in a decent org structure. Notice that there was a disagreement about such and such, it was made public (in the papers no less), and it went to a vote by the elected representatives to settle the issue. That's a great example of the process working well. What's your point? I thought you were smarter than this. A good org structure mitigates against unnecessary risk - things such as claiming your church is the only one with apostolic succession when in fact there are mountains of easily available evidence that your church started by a madman in 1897. In other words, it mitigates against 'Don't do stupid S * * T ", as Obama says. I'm not going to bother responding to the rest of your nonsense. You can't even read properly. |
|
|
|
Post by matisse on May 9, 2016 21:17:08 GMT -5
Autonomous? At what level? The Episcopal parish near me is liberal at heart and is feeling very much stifled by the conservative diocese. Feeling 'stifled' is about the extent of the power the Diocese has over a particular parish - not much. The fact that there even is a liberal parish in a conservative diocese tells you how much latitude the parishes have. Parishes can do pretty much whatever they want as long as they use the bible and the Book of Common Prayer. Even the Book of Common prayer has two Rites in it - one for the liberals and one for the conservative parishes. In some ways some people say the Episcopal church is too accommodating, too democratic. They are not allowed to conduct gay marriages nor ordain female priests. In this region (somewhat liberal), these are things that would strengthen the parish and attract new members, both straight and gay. |
|
|
|
Post by calleduntoliberty on May 9, 2016 21:22:18 GMT -5
One of your premises is that if all structures designed, setup, and maintained by human beings are equally worldly. That premise is false. You admit your organization was specifically modelled on a worldly kingdom and you think that's a good thing. What country? We're not the kingdom of the world. It's not for Christians to get involved in that sort of thing. Jesus could have become the emperor of the Roman empire if he'd wanted to. We're to follow the example of the master. His disciples belong to the kingdom of God. He said that his kingdom was not of this world. I haven't been advocating any particular organizational structure but I can see that a simple fellowship of believers with love is better than a dead formal structure. A large formal structure might be good at keeping an organization going but it doesn't have much if anything to do with keeping members faithful in serving Christ and it doesn't prevent any of the abuses you keep mentioning either. If anything, they tend to facilitate abuses as people seek power high up in the structure. The New Testament church (you can read about it in the New Testament, by the way, which is in the Bible) had local churches with elders. There was no large formal denominational structure. There was fellowship between the churches and there were some who travelled often preaching the gospel and building up the church in different places. There isn't any such thing as rule of overseers. Your internal mental picture of the group that you are attacking is nothing but a straw man. There may be faults within the group but they do not define the group as a whole. How are monetary decisions made in the 2x2 church? I know nothing of any 2x2 church. But in general monetary decisions should be made by people who have money. We neither hire nor fire ministers. I don't know anything about 2x2s, but the personal behavior of Christians should be informed by Biblical principles and ruled by the Holy Spirit. I don't know, but I've never witnessed any quarrels over the issue. What's a 2x2 person? Whether or not to vote is an individual decision. Some people probably vote when elections are held that they're interested in. What are 2x2s and what do you mean by removed? If you're referring to removal of a member from a church, there are some passages you can refer to in Matthew and in some of the epistles. I don't know of anyone ever being removed from a church that you call "2x2" (except stories through this board and other websites), but if it were to be done I expect it would require the decision of the whole church. The church. No. They aren't employees. I don't know. I don't know. What kinds of decisions do you think they make there? Why do you assume not only that any of those systems are or should be part of the daily life of a Christian but that we should be actively involved in running them? Can you point to any verse in the New Testament that you believe directs Christians to seek political influence over other people or is that just a matter of following one's own desires? |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 9, 2016 21:24:53 GMT -5
Feeling 'stifled' is about the extent of the power the Diocese has over a particular parish - not much. The fact that there even is a liberal parish in a conservative diocese tells you how much latitude the parishes have. Parishes can do pretty much whatever they want as long as they use the bible and the Book of Common Prayer. Even the Book of Common prayer has two Rites in it - one for the liberals and one for the conservative parishes. In some ways some people say the Episcopal church is too accommodating, too democratic. They are not allowed to conduct gay marriages nor ordain female priests. In this region (somewhat liberal), these are things that would strengthen the parish and attract new members, both straight and gay. They can definitely hire female priests who have been ordained in other dioceses, as most are. That is certainly not something the diocese can stop. As for gay marriage, it's up for discussion right now at the national level to decide what to do about it. Not sure how it will fall out. Our parish is very conservative and we don't want to do it. Our diocese is very liberal and will most certainly do it. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 9, 2016 21:30:42 GMT -5
How are monetary decisions made in the 2x2 church? I know nothing of any 2x2 church. But in general monetary decisions should be made by people who have money. We neither hire nor fire ministers. I don't know anything about 2x2s, but the personal behavior of Christians should be informed by Biblical principles and ruled by the Holy Spirit. I don't know, but I've never witnessed any quarrels over the issue. What's a 2x2 person? Whether or not to vote is an individual decision. Some people probably vote when elections are held that they're interested in. What are 2x2s and what do you mean by removed? If you're referring to removal of a member from a church, there are some passages you can refer to in Matthew and in some of the epistles. I don't know of anyone ever being removed from a church that you call "2x2" (except stories through this board and other websites), but if it were to be done I expect it would require the decision of the whole church. The church. No. They aren't employees. I don't know. I don't know. What kinds of decisions do you think they make there? Why do you assume not only that any of those systems are or should be part of the daily life of a Christian but that we should be actively involved in running them? Can you point to any verse in the New Testament that you believe directs Christians to seek political influence over other people or is that just a matter of following one's own desires? Ok look, you are never going to convince me or anyone else on this forum that 2x2ism is a good thing. We've all been there, done that. We know a lot about it and we don't like it. If you are going to converse with me, at least have the decency to try to understand what I am offering you. I am trying to help you. I am trying to help your church. Your church is dying, it has a tiny fraction of the members it once had, and those will all be gone very soon. All of the problems that made people leave your church, all of them, are the result of having this horrible org structure that your church has. It would behoove you to stop trying to fight with me, and instead try to understand that your church has problems and try to figure out WHY it has those problems. |
|
|
|
Post by calleduntoliberty on May 9, 2016 21:33:01 GMT -5
I don't know what goes on exactly in the other parishes of the Episcopal church, we are after all quite autonomous. I know that our parish is very large and has been growing a lot. For major feast days we have to distribute tickets to the paying members as we don't have enough seats in our 1200 seating cathedral. It is widely believed that the fall in the other Episcopal parishes is due to the more liberal stances they took on female ordination and in particular on gay marriage - lots of people left after those decisions. In light of that, what exactly is the proof that majority rule voting is such a good way to decide doctrine and practice? |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 9, 2016 21:36:15 GMT -5
I don't know what goes on exactly in the other parishes of the Episcopal church, we are after all quite autonomous. I know that our parish is very large and has been growing a lot. For major feast days we have to distribute tickets to the paying members as we don't have enough seats in our 1200 seating cathedral. It is widely believed that the fall in the other Episcopal parishes is due to the more liberal stances they took on female ordination and in particular on gay marriage - lots of people left after those decisions. In light of that, what exactly is the proof that majority rule voting is such a good way to decide doctrine and practice? It's not majority rule. The Episcopal structure is basically a carbon copy of how the US is organized. |
|
|
|
Post by rational on May 9, 2016 21:37:56 GMT -5
I haven't been advocating any particular organizational structure but I can see that a simple fellowship of believers with love is better than a dead formal structure. A large formal structure might be good at keeping an organization going but it doesn't have much if anything to do with keeping members faithful in serving Christ and it doesn't prevent any of the abuses you keep mentioning either. If anything, they tend to facilitate abuses as people seek power high up in the structure. You are right again. As shown by your church, for which you did advocate, a large formal structure might be good at keeping an organization going but it doesn't have much if anything to do with keeping members faithful in serving Christ and it doesn't prevent any of the abuses you keep mentioning either. And even such an excellent organization can't prevent infighting and power grabbing. |
|
|
|
Post by rational on May 9, 2016 21:41:37 GMT -5
My goodness. I don't care what the answers are. I know what they are already. Interesting. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 9, 2016 21:44:18 GMT -5
My goodness. I don't care what the answers are. I know what they are already. Interesting. You are one sick puppy. Takes things out of context, then claims to have discovered something. I'm done with you. |
|
|
|
Post by calleduntoliberty on May 9, 2016 21:57:54 GMT -5
I know nothing of any 2x2 church. But in general monetary decisions should be made by people who have money. We neither hire nor fire ministers. I don't know anything about 2x2s, but the personal behavior of Christians should be informed by Biblical principles and ruled by the Holy Spirit. I don't know, but I've never witnessed any quarrels over the issue. What's a 2x2 person? Whether or not to vote is an individual decision. Some people probably vote when elections are held that they're interested in. What are 2x2s and what do you mean by removed? If you're referring to removal of a member from a church, there are some passages you can refer to in Matthew and in some of the epistles. I don't know of anyone ever being removed from a church that you call "2x2" (except stories through this board and other websites), but if it were to be done I expect it would require the decision of the whole church. The church. No. They aren't employees. I don't know. I don't know. What kinds of decisions do you think they make there? Why do you assume not only that any of those systems are or should be part of the daily life of a Christian but that we should be actively involved in running them? Can you point to any verse in the New Testament that you believe directs Christians to seek political influence over other people or is that just a matter of following one's own desires? Ok look, you are never going to convince me or anyone else on this forum that 2x2ism is a good thing. We've all been there, done that. We know a lot about it and we don't like it. If you are going to converse with me, at least have the decency to try to understand what I am offering you. I am trying to help you. I am trying to help your church. Your church is dying, it has a tiny fraction of the members it once had, and those will all be gone very soon. All of the problems that made people leave your church, all of them, are the result of having this horrible org structure that your church has. It would behoove you to stop trying to fight with me, and instead try to understand that your church has problems and try to figure out WHY it has those problems. I don't see you trying to help anyone. All you do here is focused on advancing your opinion that we're all terribly deluded members of a horrible cult and your strange theories for the root cause of all our problems, yet the stuff going on in your own church denomination proves just how wrong you are in your exalted estimation of the power of organizational structure. You claim that your parish is mostly autonomous so diocesan and national decisions have little impact on you, yet you're all affiliated into one whole, official organization. Does light have fellowship with darkness? Perhaps you could work on bringing the gospel to your fellow Episcopalians. Although with the focus of your posts, it's impossible for any reader of this board to be sure that you have any understanding of the gospel. God is the judge of that, but if you belong to him, please pray and consider carefully whether you are spending your time in a way that is profitable to the service of God and, further, whether your manner is one of charity. For what can be the value of all your words, if you don't have charity? Our local church is pretty autonomous, too. We have few enough members that voting and a complex structure are hardly necessary, noone's ever quarreled about who would be elder, and we all use the Bible so we have no need to debate and vote on new doctrines. I can't recall any significant conflicts occurring between members. |
|
|
|
Post by calleduntoliberty on May 9, 2016 21:59:35 GMT -5
In light of that, what exactly is the proof that majority rule voting is such a good way to decide doctrine and practice? It's not majority rule. The Episcopal structure is basically a carbon copy of how the US is organized. Alright, in light of said "liberalization" within the denomination, where is the proof that said carbon copy is a good way to decide church doctrine and practice? |
|
|
|
Post by calleduntoliberty on May 9, 2016 22:01:18 GMT -5
You are right again. As shown by your church, for which you did advocate, a large formal structure might be good at keeping an organization going but it doesn't have much if anything to do with keeping members faithful in serving Christ and it doesn't prevent any of the abuses you keep mentioning either. And even such an excellent organization can't prevent infighting and power grabbing. That was a misquote. Simpleton wasn't the one who said that. Quote tags got mixed up somehow. |
|
|
|
Post by dmmichgood on May 9, 2016 22:13:05 GMT -5
Autonomous? At what level? The Episcopal parish near me is liberal at heart and is feeling very much stifled by the conservative diocese. Feeling 'stifled' is about the extent of the power the Diocese has over a particular parish - not much. The fact that there even is a liberal parish in a conservative diocese tells you how much latitude the parishes have. Parishes can do pretty much whatever they want as long as they use the bible and the Book of Common Prayer. Even the Book of Common prayer has two Rites in it - one for the liberals and one for the conservative parishes. In some ways some people say the Episcopal church is too accommodating, too democratic.
Ah, now I see why they are so "rich" that they don't need to "pass the plate" because they can make all that money, -yet pay no property tax on their church property!
Your church obviously has the kind of "structure" that you are advocating.
Your church must have within the structure a cadre of parishioners with money making skills and are able to operate as they please as long as they pay the token obedience to "the bible and the Book of Common Prayer!"
You have a right to be proud to be a member of a church with the kind of structure that contains such a money savvy and shrewd organization!
I am beginning to see just why your church fits your own world view!
I am glad for you that you found your match. 
|
|
|
|
Post by rational on May 9, 2016 22:21:20 GMT -5
This is correct if you are looking at assets under management in 2011. It would also be true today. But since the discussion was regarding the benefit of organization wouldn't a better ranking be based on equity portfolio returns? But you are right, counting only size and not return on investment Bridgewater is the largest. My error. |
|
|
|
Post by dmmichgood on May 9, 2016 22:28:08 GMT -5
But not the risk of members leaving or parishes suing for property control. Bridgewater is not the largest hedge fund in the world. Not even in the top 5. Do you just make these thhings up and assume no one will check? Or, worse, do you believe them? There is no doubt that Ray has done well. But then, he was a HBS graduate. You should be proud to belong to the richest church. Last time they were in the news it was about the $150+ millions they were collecting from that property. But then they did give $5 million to charity. Wow. And for all of their excellent organization you still had insiders suing insiders. And, of course, there was that time when half of the board resigned in protest to, among other things, the downplaying of charity and education. That excellent organization really paid off - they don't have to pass the plate! Take your meds. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_hedge_fundsI see you did some googling about Trinity Wall Street. What you read is how things are handled in a decent org structure. Notice that there was a disagreement about such and such, it was made public (in the papers no less), and it went to a vote by the elected representatives to settle the issue. That's a great example of the process working well. What's your point? I thought you were smarter than this. A good org structure mitigates against unnecessary risk - things such as claiming your church is the only one with apostolic succession when in fact there are mountains of easily available evidence that your church started by a madman in 1897. In other words, it mitigates against 'Don't do stupid S * * T ", as Obama says. I'm not going to bother responding to the rest of your nonsense. You can't even read properly.
When you can't answer for fear of showing where you are in error, -just insult the person and use the old school yard juvenile chant, "I'm not going to bother responding to the rest of your nonsense." |
|
|
|
Post by calleduntoliberty on May 9, 2016 23:05:32 GMT -5
Your argument is essentially that the group is a despotic cult because they do not have a formal process devised by men for the self-regulation of the system. Yet history and common sense both tell us that formal systems devised by men do not prevent despotism and they often entrench it and give it a feeling of legitimacy in the eyes of many. Incredible! Have you actually read what you wrote? Do you realize that you are arguing in a circle? Here is your argument: 1) Men design organizational systems 2) Men are fallible Therefore all organizational systems designed by men produce bad results. Here is the other side of your argument 1) Men are fallible 2) Men design organizational systems Therefore the best system is one not designed by men. Fallible men can not produce an infallible organizational structure. There is no perfect body of men. Too much emphasis on organizational structure is unhealthy. You will never find a perfect organizational structure for governing the relations of corrupt men with one another. Even among Christians no organizational structure will avoid conflicts. What is needed is the love of God. That is certainly not designed by men. Your model for organizational structure reminds me of what God said when the Israelites wanted to imitate the organizational structure of the nations around them. Who do you believe set up what you would term the "organizational structure" of the first-century churches? Let us see whether you are willing to answer that question without attributing any beliefs to someone who has not professed them. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 10, 2016 8:18:28 GMT -5
Fallible men can not produce an infallible organizational structure. There is no perfect body of men. Too much emphasis on organizational structure is unhealthy. You will never find a perfect organizational structure for governing the relations of corrupt men with one another. Even among Christians no organizational structure will avoid conflicts. What is needed is the love of God. That is certainly not designed by men. Your model for organizational structure reminds me of what God said when the Israelites wanted to imitate the organizational structure of the nations around them. Who do you believe set up what you would term the "organizational structure" of the first-century churches? Let us see whether you are willing to answer that question without attributing any beliefs to someone who has not professed them. Why do you think the US has a constitution? We know it is not perfect, but it is much much better than to not have a constitution. Just so you know, the concept of a constitution is called 'the rule of law' as opposed to 'the rule of men'. Unfortunately, never ever has there been the rule of God on this earth, not even in your 2x2 group, not even in these 1st century churches you talk of. All organizations of people, are either governed by people or by law. The Rule of Law was a major advance in human civilization. Your 2x2 group has yet to grasp this, they continue to use the 'rule of men' - where the men are the Overseers. 2x2ism has an org structure. Even at your local meeting level, it has an org structure. Not everyone in your meeting is equal - there is an elder. Who decided that such and such would be the elder? What where the requirements for being the elder? Does the elder have the right to prohibit someone from drinking the wine/blood? The elder has authority over the rest of the people in the meeting in one way or another. Do the local workers have authority over the elder? Yes. Can the elder refuse entry to the workers? No. Who decides which workers will be in which fields? The head worker. And who decides who will be the head worker in each region? The overseers for the territory. Here is an org chart of 2x2ism www.thelyingtruth.info/?f=rsc&id=followthemoneyI don't care what the 1st century 'churches' org structure was. And you don't have a clue what they were either. So stop trying to pretend that you do. The reason people choose different org structures is so that their organization can operate to its maximum potential without taking on too many unecessary risks. Unfortunately 2x2ism chose a terrible org structure, and in the process took on a lot of unnecessary risks. The risks are obvious - william irvine fake story, pairwise ministers lies, lies about trinity, lies about grace, restrictions on clothing, restrictions on friendships, restrictions on careers, restrictions on entertainment, facilitation of child sexual assault, etc. These are all things which follow directly from having a bad org structure. These are all things which have discredited your 2x2ism - that's why your membership levels are sinking faster than the Titanic. If you had an open more democratic structure, many of these bonehead decisions would never have been made. And don't forget, it was men who made these bonehead decisions. Men - Overseers, Headworkers. Fix your structure, and you might have a chance. Continue with the same structure and you are headed for the dustbin of history. |
|
|
|
Post by rational on May 10, 2016 9:32:20 GMT -5
www.thelyingtruth.info/?f=rsc&id=followthemoneyThese are all things which follow directly from having a bad org structure. These are all things which have discredited your 2x2ism - that's why your membership levels are sinking faster than the Titanic. Isn't this the same trend that even a denomination with what you termed an "excellent organization" experiencing rapidly diminishing membership? In many areas parishes have had to be closed. The official church record shows a 75% decline in attendance in a year - 3 out of 4 people leaving seems to be a sharp decline. Of course, this could be attributed to the general decline in church membership seen across many denominations. I doubt it can be attributed to faulty organization in all the denominations. In denominations where there is property the churches have begun to sell or commercialize the properties to help cover the expenses. But as long as there are people who continue to contribute to the organizations there will be someone there to take that donation. Like any decline in product sales, at some point you have to step back and evaluate if your products are still meeting the needs of your customers. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 10, 2016 9:47:15 GMT -5
www.thelyingtruth.info/?f=rsc&id=followthemoneyThese are all things which follow directly from having a bad org structure. These are all things which have discredited your 2x2ism - that's why your membership levels are sinking faster than the Titanic. Isn't this the same trend that even a denomination with what you termed an "excellent organization" experiencing rapidly diminishing membership? In many areas parishes have had to be closed. The official church record shows a 75% decline in attendance in a year - 3 out of 4 people leaving seems to be a sharp decline. Of course, this could be attributed to the general decline in church membership seen across many denominations. I doubt it can be attributed to faulty organization in all the denominations. In denominations where there is property the churches have begun to sell or commercialize the properties to help cover the expenses. But as long as there are people who continue to contribute to the organizations there will be someone there to take that donation. Like any decline in product sales, at some point you have to step back and evaluate if your products are still meeting the needs of your customers. Again you remain confused about an underperforming business unit due to changing overall market conditions versus underperforming due to self-inflicted risk factors. But you don't actually want to understand this simple concept, do you? Just like you don't actually want to understand that a hedge fund's size is determined by its AUM, not by how many stocks it might own since many HFs don't even invest in stocks. Your hatred of me is amazing, yet you remain enamored by me - constantly trying to engage with me, constantly trying to track down every little thing I post to see if you can figure out who I am. It's just one fallacious statement after another from you. Red herrings, strawmen, non sequiturs, etc. I guess you don't like it when someone new comes and plays in what you think is your sandbox do you? Over 25,000 posts. What a joke. Do you realize how much of your life you've wasted on this forum? |
|
|
|
Post by rational on May 10, 2016 11:52:20 GMT -5
Again you remain confused about an underperforming business unit due to changing overall market conditions versus underperforming due to self-inflicted risk factors. No, I actually don't. You have two, shall we call them businesses, and they are both losing members. The number of new baptisms members are down in both. You are putting out the theory that for one it is the organization but foe the other it is changing market conditions. I am saying that it is changing market conditions that ir resulting in membership in all religions to be on the decline. Not ay 75% a year in all cases but the average is about a 1% decrease per year. And if I was still in the consulting business I would not advise they either change their organization to make a comeback. They need to look at their product.I worked in that industry for many years. I have a fair understanding.I don't believe I ever said they did own stocks. I said a better judge of a hedge fund would be based on an analysis of equity portfolio returns. How well the fund does for its investors. The assets under management is one way to judge the size of a hedge fund but its rate of return to investors is what I would focus on if I were investing. As far as owning stocks - Last I knew some of the funds managed by Bridgewater were composed of as high as 30% stocks. Vanguard also offers a number of funds that range from 0% stock to 100% stocks. I am sure there are some hedge funds that do not invest in stocks but I can't think of any of the major players that have no stocks. Can you name some? Actually, I think it is you whio is enamored by yourself. I don't know you, I don't hate you, I certainly am not enamored of you, don't really care if you engage in discussions or not, and don't care who you are or where you live. I read your posts, as I read the posts of many people, and question the veracity of posts that contain misinformation. |
|
|
|
Post by magpie on May 10, 2016 18:49:06 GMT -5
E.g. Christian Conventions of Victoria (Reg'd and incorporated DENOMINATION as Church and also seperately a DENOMINATIONAL Charity ) Must give balance sheets to Taxation (revenue) departments,each year. The three trustees (Named on registration documents)are responsable. And it is illegal "ILLEGAL" not to make these annual (or other nominated periods)balance sheets available to contributors and anyone else who may request them.Freedom of Information Laws come into this also. And WAMMO if media find out you don't release them on request or make a legal application to have them suppressed from view. As that ex Worker said "Masters of deceipt". And people still trust them to get them to heaven,pathetic?
|
|
