|
Post by Alana on Apr 18, 2008 22:08:04 GMT -5
Dearest Oot, I'm sorry but I would strongly disagree that within the fellowship your conscience must guide you in a way that meets the approval of the Holy Spirit (i.e. moreso than the approval of the workers) and that it is this which produces the unity. I can only speak from my own experiences, observations and discussions with other people. In my opinion much of the perceived unity is brought about by members conforming to the expected standards within the group. This even goes for friends and workers who habitually tend to speak or pray about professing friendly/acceptable topics. There is much about Jesus and his teachings which are avoided because it does not sit with the professing mindset. There is very much a tendency to converse socially and worship in a way which meets with the approval of the workers and friends rather than the leadings of the spirit. In saying this I am not denying the spirit intervenes and controls whenever it can, but the unwritten controls within the fellowship do regularly hinder the spirit and produce many of the side effects we read about on this board. It is the acceptance of Christ in our lives which cleanses us inside. In doing so we produce the outward cleanness of Jesus by showing our love towards others, both inside and outside our fellowship group. It is NOT outward appearances that Jesus is talking about, but rather the manifestation of his spirit through us towards others. I like this last paragraph. I wish this view could be shared by all I wish the effect of Jesus in our lives could override the man-made controls and sweep them away. How beautiful would life be were we to be free of man's constant condemnation and imposed mistakes (rules, prohibitions) upon our lives. We would then be free to follow the Spirit and sacrifice would again have meaning.
|
|
|
Post by calleduntoliberty on May 3, 2008 2:45:24 GMT -5
There is evidently no policy against hypocrisy in the 2x2 fellowship at least -- even if it seems a little unclear as to the policy on TVs. There's our policy against hypocrisy right there. That does NOT mean that all follow it perfectly. Nonsense. I know a family who has a TV which they keep in their garage (I think) most of the time because they have no interest in watching TV regularly, so there's no reason to have it out and in the way. The lack of desire to watch TV 10 hours a day does not equal submission to man-made rules.
|
|
|
Post by calleduntoliberty on May 3, 2008 2:50:20 GMT -5
while (person_alive) do { if (TRUE == 2x2) result = complex_calculation_involving_this_and_that (soul_id); else result = LostEternity (soul_id); } Ugh, you're one of those people who puts opening brackets on a new line...
|
|
One of those people
Guest
|
Post by One of those people on May 3, 2008 10:48:31 GMT -5
What do you mean by" one of those people"?
You appear to have nothing on your mind by the revealing trivial, nit-picking comments you make and you've a particular mindset that is familiar!
|
|
alana
Senior Member
Posts: 267
|
Post by alana on May 3, 2008 10:54:09 GMT -5
There is evidently no policy against hypocrisy in the 2x2 fellowship at least -- even if it seems a little unclear as to the policy on TVs. There's our policy against hypocrisy right there. That does NOT mean that all follow it perfectly. Nonsense. I know a family who has a TV which they keep in their garage (I think) most of the time because they have no interest in watching TV regularly, so there's no reason to have it out and in the way. The lack of desire to watch TV 10 hours a day does not equal submission to man-made rules. So what is your point? I know many people who have never heard of 2x2 who don't have a TV, do have and watch controlledly, but don't hide it from their pastors or priests. The issue with 2x2 is the hypocrisy of the rule upheld by workers and broken in a sneaky hidden way by certain of the followers. There is a further issue with those who pretend that the rule never existed when several people have been forcedout of fellowship by the viewing of and /or possessing a TV.
|
|
|
Post by calleduntoliberty on May 3, 2008 18:19:26 GMT -5
So what is your point? I know many people who have never heard of 2x2 who don't have a TV, do have and watch controlledly, but don't hide it from their pastors or priests. The issue with 2x2 is the hypocrisy of the rule upheld by workers and broken in a sneaky hidden way by certain of the followers. There is a further issue with those who pretend that the rule never existed when several people have been forcedout of fellowship by the viewing of and /or possessing a TV. So how do you know anyone is hiding their TVs? A lot of non-"2x2"s keep their TVs in a cabinet and keep the cabinet door closed when they're not using the TV. Some people who use their TVs infrequently enough just don't keep the TV out in the main room regularly, but get it out when there's something they want to watch, like a particular movie, or a weather report or somesuch. Why do you call that "hiding"? Do you know their motives? Or maybe they don't get the TV out when the 'workers' come is because when the 'workers' are visiting they want to spend time talking to the workers, not watching TV, because TV is not the most important thing in their lives. Give me a particular example where someone was "forced out" for having a TV. Provide location and date. Preferably, provide first-person testimony rather than hearsay. Also, describe the particular manner of the "forcing out", and show that the person "forced out" corrected the erroneous 'workers' and admonished them that what they were saying was legalistic and not necessary. Also show that they were "forced out" just for having a TV or for just for watching it, and that they did not spend excessive amounts of time watching TV. Then you might have a credible point, but you still don't have a rule. You have particular people with particular errors who made mistakes due to their sinful nature. Also, as for your claim that there is a problem with those of us who say that no such rule ever existed, that fact merely proves again that we have not been under an influence of any such rule and indeed that the idea is completely foreign and contrary to our understanding and experience of how things are done.
|
|
Claire
Senior Member
Posts: 489
|
Post by Claire on May 5, 2008 1:39:42 GMT -5
while (person_alive) do { if (TRUE == 2x2) result = complex_calculation_involving_this_and_that (soul_id); else result = LostEternity (soul_id); } Ugh, you're one of those people who puts opening brackets on a new line... guilty as charged ;D
|
|
|
Post by aileen on May 5, 2008 13:55:58 GMT -5
"The issue with 2x2 is the hypocrisy of the rule upheld by workers and broken in a sneaky hidden way by certain of the followers. There is a further issue with those who pretend that the rule never existed when several people have been forcedout of fellowship by the viewing of and /or possessing a TV. "
Does this "rule" exist for those to whom it has never been communicated by a worker?
I have a TV. Workers know if it (even watch it at times). No worker has indicated I should obey a rule and get rid of it.
So, am I a hypocryte for not obeying a rule that (for me ) doesn't exist?
|
|
|
Post by juliette on May 5, 2008 14:58:50 GMT -5
So what is your point? I know many people who have never heard of 2x2 who don't have a TV, do have and watch controlledly, but don't hide it from their pastors or priests. The issue with 2x2 is the hypocrisy of the rule upheld by workers and broken in a sneaky hidden way by certain of the followers. There is a further issue with those who pretend that the rule never existed when several people have been forcedout of fellowship by the viewing of and /or possessing a TV. So how do you know anyone is hiding their TVs? A lot of non-"2x2"s keep their TVs in a cabinet and keep the cabinet door closed when they're not using the TV. Some people who use their TVs infrequently enough just don't keep the TV out in the main room regularly, but get it out when there's something they want to watch, like a particular movie, or a weather report or somesuch. Why do you call that "hiding"? Do you know their motives? Or maybe they don't get the TV out when the 'workers' come is because when the 'workers' are visiting they want to spend time talking to the workers, not watching TV, because TV is not the most important thing in their lives. Give me a particular example where someone was "forced out" for having a TV. Provide location and date. Preferably, provide first-person testimony rather than hearsay. Also, describe the particular manner of the "forcing out", and show that the person "forced out" corrected the erroneous 'workers' and admonished them that what they were saying was legalistic and not necessary. Also show that they were "forced out" just for having a TV or for just for watching it, and that they did not spend excessive amounts of time watching TV. Then you might have a credible point, but you still don't have a rule. You have particular people with particular errors who made mistakes due to their sinful nature. Also, as for your claim that there is a problem with those of us who say that no such rule ever existed, that fact merely proves again that we have not been under an influence of any such rule and indeed that the idea is completely foreign and contrary to our understanding and experience of how things are done. The examples I have of people being "forced out" or severely reprimanded for having a TV are decades old, and I will not give their names or the name of the worker (it was the same in both cases) for obvious reasons. The family that was "forced out" was given a choice, and they made it. They kept their TV and left the fellowship. They are relatives of mine. I would personally be surprised to learn of anyone lately in our area who would be "forced out" because of having a TV, or even given a severe reprimand. I would guess that there would be an oblique discussion of priorities, outside influences, etc. We are still in the homes of people in the fellowship, and there is not sign of a TV. Before we left the fellowship a few years ago, our TV was given slightly surprised looks by friends and workers, but nothing was ever said. I have heard sermons from the platform in the past 5 years against TV's, going to movies, sporting events, etc. Some were just cautionary, some verged on forbidding some of these activities. I think this entire issue is changing because of the many ways people can access programming these days, and due to the fact that most workers (in our area at least) have laptop computers and cell phones. Also, I think the baby boomer parents of the current generation of young people were less likely to enforce some of these rules, and thus the cats out of the bag... too many people have abandoned some of the rules to enforce them outrightly at this time. Just my two cents.
|
|
|
Post by calleduntoliberty on May 5, 2008 22:14:02 GMT -5
So, am I a hypocryte for not obeying a rule that (for me ) doesn't exist? Not at all.
|
|