If you believe that the Northern Kingdom is mostly still dispersed among the nations and will one day return to join the Southern Kingdom to become one people, then you are a two houser. That is all that two house is. It is a single doctrine, like the virgin birth or trinity, not a theology that covers multiple doctrines.
The concept of doctrinal ideas being isolated is something that seems very difficult for a lot of people to understand at times.
Granted, it is often the case that, a single doctrine is never held in isolation from other doctrines, but rather is always part of a system or network of beliefs held by a person or group. ..with it being the case that sometimes that system of beliefs includes many doctrines which are orthodox as well as some which are heretical in a damaging sense. One example would be a religious group who might hold that the Bible is the Word of God, that there is only one God, that Jesus was born of a virgin and rose from the dead, and yet deny the deity of Jesus Christ. Such a group's belief
system is heretical, even though it contains many true beliefs....and a group's heretical beliefs generally lead them to misunderstand or misapply even those true beliefs they do confess, since the beliefs tend to be interdependent /mutually affect one another.
Thus, it is imperative to always seek to sort out which beliefs in a system are actually heretical, which are not, and how the nonheretical beliefs are misapplied because of the heretical system in which they are held. ..if that system is herectical at all. With Two House, many of them (As you already know) have ideologies that are in the extreme (i.e. claiming all Gentiles are Ephraim, not liking Judah, saying the Jews are not truly God's people the way the Israelites are, etc.) and those things do damage to whatever accurate points are in place like understanding that Hebrews were scattered all over the world - many assimilating into Gentile culture - while God is reuniting groups that were disconnected on a greater level.
But to respond by condemning all aspects of Two House - or do guilt by association ideology would be illogical.. In example, suppose you lived in L.A - home to many gangs/gang-related activities (especially with Latinos or Asians as well as African-Americans). Someone may've experienced a bad encounter with some Latino gangs - but imagine if they ended up in dialouge with others who either worked with gangs or were outside of them but Latino. The person with the negative encounter said "I can't stand how Latinos are so prone to violence!!!!" - and someone else would say in response "Dude, not all Latinos are into gangs or for violence"...
If the response was "Well, I agree - by the way, those who do as you note aren't really Latinos - they're just good people"...then there'd no surprise whatsoever that others would then address it by saying that it is still backward to do such since one essentially says that nothing in Latino culture is good - and that whatever is in Latino culture that is good isn't really something that DEFINES them. The person arguing against that would be betraying themselves everytime they spoke in protest of others assuming more than what's present. And it'd be ludicrous for anyone to say "Oh - but I didn't mean YOU weren't a good person - I just meant the rest of your people."
Whenever one chooses to fail in researching/showing claims correct of ALL in a movement, they end up dealing in presenting bias already determined to show anything of a movement as a negative....the
No true Scotsman fallacy where one, if faced with a counterexample to a universal claim, chooses to not deny the counterexample or reject the original universal claim...and instead modifies the subject of the assertion to exclude the specific case or others like it by rhetoric, without reference to any specific objective rule. In example, person A says "All Scotsmen enjoy haggis" - and person B says "My uncle is a Scotsman, and he doesn't like haggis!"...leading to person A saying "Well, all
true Scotsmen like haggis."
There are better ways of dealing with issues than that...and with the issue of people in Two-House, there are many variations of such and that needs to be honored - just as others don't say ALL people in One-Law (i.e. claiming all Gentiles have to live as Jews in order to be acceptable to God) are somehow anti-semetic because of others who push Jews into second-class due to Gentiles feeling they love the Law more than Jewish people and should be equals on the issue.
