PROVE IT or SHOVE IT
Guest
|
Post by PROVE IT or SHOVE IT on Aug 20, 2007 22:45:22 GMT -5
It's no secret that Truth's history is not well known among the F&W.
The question is: Why?
Is it ignorance due to a lack of interest in communicating the matter?
Or is it ignorance due to a coordinated effort by a minority to keep information from the majority?
What proof is there that workers of days gone by deliberately set about to conceal the history of Truth?
What proof is there that present day workers are deliberately concealing the history of Truth?
|
|
|
Post by jh62 on Aug 20, 2007 22:54:08 GMT -5
I guess it may depend on what you consider proof? I have my own proof. I was told by a worker that if I knew how it got started, I shouldn't mention it to others because it may be a stumbling block to them. Would you consider that proof that workers today are deliberately concealing the truth of the history?
|
|
|
Post by wingsofaneagle on Aug 20, 2007 23:00:53 GMT -5
Since when could TRUTH be a stumbling block? ?
|
|
oh oh oh i know this one
Guest
|
Post by oh oh oh i know this one on Aug 20, 2007 23:08:11 GMT -5
Since when could TRUTH be a stumbling block? ? since someone named a religion after it
|
|
|
Post by wingsofaneagle on Aug 20, 2007 23:08:47 GMT -5
Since when could TRUTH be a stumbling block? ? since someone named a religion after it GOOD one!!! ROFL
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 20, 2007 23:13:54 GMT -5
quote - "It's no secret that Truth's history is not well known among the F&W. The question is: Why?" Depends what you mean by Truth. Some say that Jesus brought the Truth. But Truth was before Jesus' coming to this earth.
quote - Is it ignorance due to a lack of interest in communicating the matter? Lack of interest. I am not interested in hearing about the history of the Workers, the daily lives of my church in other countries, lists of preachers, history of the hymns - I am interested in how the Gospel effects my own life.
quote -Or is it ignorance due to a coordinated effort by a minority to keep information from the majority? Yes, there could be a problem. I mean, in the early days of the 19th century preachers we had a lot more converts.
quote -What proof is there that workers of days gone by deliberately set about to conceal the history of Truth? Depends what you mean by "history of the truth." Are you referring to the early work in the UK?
quote -What proof is there that present day workers are deliberately concealing the history of Truth? None. I asked and they said the current church first began preaching in the late 1800's. But what has that got to do with the message they bring?
|
|
|
Post by diet coke on Aug 20, 2007 23:24:02 GMT -5
Since when could TRUTH be a stumbling block? ? If you weild the truth in a manner that is hurtful, it is a stumbling block. If your purpose is simply to degrade someone else's faith, you can bet it isn't beneficial. Who said, "A man convinced against his will is of the same mind still." I believe everyone in the Truth should know the story of its beginnings. I also believe every Christian should also know the many places where the Bible contradicts science and historical study. We should be allowed to build our own faith, with a full knowledge of the contradictions that a fact-finding study will reveal. But such topics should be addressed very carefully and helpfully.
|
|
|
Post by to bert on Aug 20, 2007 23:39:32 GMT -5
quote - "It's no secret that Truth's history is not well known among the F&W. The question is: Why?" Depends what you mean by Truth. Some say that Jesus brought the Truth. But Truth was before Jesus' coming to this earth. "Truth" was capitalized and as such was intended to be interpreted as a PROPER NOUN. Of course you already knew this but your faith is such that you think this kind of thing is appropriate - selectively mis-interpret the words of others to advance your own agenda. This straw-man approach is obvious. You'll have to do better than this if you want to be taken seriously here. Yet you are here. Does being here help you with this? Another straw-man. Would you like to take another shot at the question or is this all you have? Yet another straw-man. Is this all you have anymore? Not all of them are honest about it. Many in the USA (1) do not know, (2) pretend they do not know, (3) avoid the question with diversion, and/or (4) claim the rumor of a founder to be a hoax. If a messenger will lie about one thing, how are we to know he won't lie about another.
|
|
|
Post by gloryintruth on Aug 20, 2007 23:51:43 GMT -5
If you weild the truth in a manner that is hurtful, it is a stumbling block. If your purpose is simply to degrade someone else's faith, you can bet it isn't beneficial.
Agreed. It is one thing to cite scripture (which is truth - I'll agree to disagree with diet coke regarding the reliability of the scriptures, since we both take differing positions on this issue) or facts in order to illuminate, enlighten, or support a point.
But to do it to watch someone cower, or to take pleasure in bullying them, is wrong. Better a kind-hearted and God-loving heretic, than an orthodox bully.
|
|
|
Post by oic on Aug 20, 2007 23:56:59 GMT -5
Better a kind-hearted and God-loving heretic, than an orthodox bully. Personal creed GIT? One out of two ain't bad.
|
|
|
Post by ghost on Aug 21, 2007 2:10:10 GMT -5
There are sins by commission and sins by omission - half the truth is a lie.
I would challenge GIT, bert and the rest of the preachers of The Truth to mention at the beginning of each of their gospel meetings the following:
«A lot of information about the way we are following can be found on the internet. Just Google two by two and read the sites and the threads».
|
|
|
Post by gloryintruth on Aug 21, 2007 6:28:20 GMT -5
I would challenge GIT, bert and the rest of the preachers of The Truth to mention at the beginning of each of their gospel meetings the following: A lot of information about the way we are following can be found on the internet. Just Google two by two and read the sites and the threads.
It is statements like this that cause the exes to loose credibility in my opinion (and in the esteem of others, I'm sure). Tell me: what church in existence would open a service by announcing, "Well, you know what folks, there's a lot of websites on the internet these days, run by cranks and bigots, with plenty of rhetoric denouncing our church. Why don't you go look at it?"
I don't see Roman Catholic priests starting Mass that way. I don't see Church of England priests starting Evensong that way. I don't see Baptist-ol'-time-religion-preachers firing up the Sunday morning service that way - and I can tell you for fact that these days you can google Roman Catholicism, Anglicanism and the Baptist Denomination and find oodles of "sites and threads" about them too.
Fact of the matter, you can find any perspective, any opinion, and any viewpoint on the internet. I regard the many "sites and threads" to which you refer as opinion pages - they amount to amateur blogs - and I think I can speak for many in the Fellowship (perhaps most) when I say - with all due respect - that I don't give a flying hooha what exes think about the Church.
So if your point is that we should start our meetings by directing people to the writings of unbelievers, or to those who express objections to our faith, then doubtless your impartial and fair-minded pastor will be leading by example next Sunday, by starting his next service by directing his flock to the website of the Church of Satan.
I mean honestly! This suggestion is utterly absurd. What do you take us for? Idiots who want to pluck our own eyes out?
|
|
|
Post by mirror on Aug 21, 2007 6:30:28 GMT -5
Which other church proudly calls itself THE TRUTH?
|
|
|
Post by mirror on Aug 21, 2007 6:37:08 GMT -5
Your best post GIT. YOUR BEST. It shows beyond any doupt that you are similar with all the nice churches workers and friends have been vilifying for decades as being the churches of Satan.
But in a certain way they ARE BETTER than your miserable cult. They have a name GIT and people, if they want, can search the internet and the libraries for reference works on their wrongdoings. YOU COVER-UP your name, the sect with no name, the truth, Christians, Christian conventions.
If you could only be honest with yourselves people. Honest when you see yourselves in the mirror every day. Honest when you kneel to pray. Honestly ...
|
|
|
Post by mirror on Aug 21, 2007 6:39:03 GMT -5
So, honestly, start your meeting with your official name and your bank accounts. This would be honest enough for me.
|
|
|
Post by gloryintruth on Aug 21, 2007 6:45:26 GMT -5
So, honestly, start your meeting with your official name and your bank accounts. This would be honest enough for me.
A question: are you saying that any church that does not begin its Mass \ Service \ Worship by announcing its "official name" and handing out copies of its budget is not an honest church?
|
|
|
Post by Ken Coolidge on Aug 21, 2007 6:48:47 GMT -5
Bert One word for your coments/answers to real questins OBFUSCATION -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- GIT How can be finding the truth about a group calling themselves the TRUTH be a stumbling block. I would call it a revelation.
|
|
|
Post by mirror on Aug 21, 2007 6:51:59 GMT -5
So, honestly, start your meeting with your official name and your bank accounts. This would be honest enough for me.A question: are you saying that any church that does not begin its Mass \ Service \ Worship by announcing its "official name" and handing out copies of its budget is not an honest church? I am saying that YOUR church is not honest. The others have a name, offices and keep accounts. YOURS doesn't and this makes it worse than the others, whatever bad you say about them.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 21, 2007 7:14:01 GMT -5
quote - "One word for your coments/answers to real questins - OBFUSCATION"
Thank you. I am clearly in Good Company: Those who came to John the Baptist, asking about the name of his church, and those who came to Jesus wanting specifics such as his background, seeing God or witnessing miracles, got loads of what they thought was "obfuscation." Please note: The Truth is about YOUR OWN PLACE in God's plan of salvation. Those who sought a name, background or signs got OBFUSCATION. Why? BECAUSE THEY THEMSELVES WERE OBFUSCATING THE REAL ISSUE.
|
|
|
Post by because on Aug 21, 2007 7:35:57 GMT -5
It is statements like this that cause the exes to loose credibility in my opinion (and in the esteem of others, I'm sure). Tell me: what church in existence would open a service by announcing, "Well, you know what folks, there's a lot of websites on the internet these days, run by cranks and bigots, with plenty of rhetoric denouncing our church. Why don't you go look at it?" Yes, there are a lot of websites out there ran by cranks and bigots. Bert is very cranky and quite bigoted towards other churches, just like you. But then there are websites such as Telling The Truth, which are not run by cranks and bigots and are far more truthful about your church than you or your workers. Incidentally, it is always enlightening to hear one who has no credibility complaining about the lack of same in others.
|
|
|
Post by ANDREW M on Aug 21, 2007 7:43:26 GMT -5
Jesus at the beginning og his sermon CALLED his future followers "THE CHILDREN OF GOD." This NAME or its abbreviation CHILDREN" was used regularly by the early church to describe themselves amongst themselves.
When Jesus started to build HIS church he put God's name to it. The CHURCH of the CHILDREN OF GOD became known as THE CHURCH OF GOD, or by it's abbreviated version "CHURCH" amongst the members of the early church.
However, as can be understood, outsiders were not going to call the early believers the CHILDREN OF GOD or the CHURCH OF GOD and to begin with they referred to it by terms such as "this way," or "that way" etc. It was OUTSIDERS who first started using terms such as "way" to describe the felowship since they did not accept it as the "church of god."
At Antioch non-believers first coined the name "CHRISTIANS." This term became commonly accepted and used by BOTH outsiders AND members of the fellowship which bridged the verbal gap between the two groups.
|
|
|
Post by mirror on Aug 21, 2007 8:12:43 GMT -5
Since Antioch, a great lot of water went under the bridges of Rome. Christians have been separated in many denominations, sects and groups. Each, got its own name and uses it (Orthodox=Right Belief, Catholic=Universal, Protestant=Protesting, Evangelical=Promoting the Gospel, etc. etc.). And when you ask them they say «I am a Christian, a Catholic», «I am Christian, I follow the Orthodox church» etc.
Using generic names like Christian, Truth, Church, etc. is only helping the confusion and promotes the cover up. I would be happy if the F&W were honest enough to say «I am Christian and follow the 2x2s» or any other non-generic name (sect-without-a name, Christian conventions, Cooneyite, Irvinite, whatever) that could better identify them. Else they continue being deceitful and crooky and their only objective - like any other cult - is to take control of the lives of people who are of good faith or in need and will believe them.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 21, 2007 8:21:35 GMT -5
quote - "identify them"
Questions: Identify themselves to whom? Why? Did Jesus identify Himself?
|
|
|
Post by mirror on Aug 21, 2007 8:32:42 GMT -5
1. Evidently to the people they try to convert.
2. To show they are honest about themselves and that they are just another religion, like so many others. Of course this anuls the argument of uniqueness but I think your friend GIT shattered this argument very nicely.
3. I do not know what Jesus really did or said, even if he really existed. He never wrote something himself, all we have are officially edited copies made hundreds of years after he passed away to ensure the official dogma of the Roman Empire.
I believe however that someone (or maybe more than one) realised sometime during these hard times that loving and compassion is better than hatred and vilification. That we are all sons (and daughters) of man before being sons of god. And this was his identification Son of Man.
|
|
|
Post by wingsofaneagle on Aug 21, 2007 10:06:32 GMT -5
So, honestly, start your meeting with your official name and your bank accounts. This would be honest enough for me.A question: are you saying that any church that does not begin its Mass \ Service \ Worship by announcing its "official name" and handing out copies of its budget is not an honest church? The church that I go to does. The pastor starts out by welcoming everyone to "Grace Community Church" and the budget (monthly and weekly) is in the bulletin. I have approached the pastor with many questions and have received honest answers in return. I have never experienced that with the workers.
|
|
|
Post by mirror on Aug 21, 2007 10:10:37 GMT -5
Quod erat demonstrandum.
Thanks wingsofaneagle !
|
|
|
Post by mirror on Aug 21, 2007 10:13:51 GMT -5
And a last comment.
GIT wrote:
No I consider you to be utterly evil and dangerous people, trying to take other peoples eyes out.
|
|
|
Post by HelenGreene on Aug 21, 2007 10:48:28 GMT -5
Bert, if you are such an honest person, why do you accept it is okay to "lie" like the workers are doing? How does God feel about liars?? HUH
|
|