modcat5

Reading through this thread, and a couple of observations: At first, you guys were doing fine, arguing positions over personalities. That includes DWBH. TLC went after DWBH's positions, Twinky posted observations, DWBH challenged them to think through the consequences of their positions. WW weighed in substantively as well. Things start to go south with post #18. TLC went after DWBH, not his position. Post 19: DWBH responds in kind. BOTH are out of line. Post 20: I disagree with WW. I don't think DWBH "went after" Twinky. I think he challenged her position by carrying his interpretation of her position to its next logical steps (post 17). DWBH called her no names (I'm assuming Twinky is a her. Correct me if I'm mistaken). I can understand WW's concern about the tone of DWBH's posts, but on this one, I think he's misguided. Post 21: DWBH responds in kind to WW. 20 and 21 are honest reflections of how the posters feel and don't cross any lines, but neither was necessary to the subject being discussed. We're going off topic. Post 22: WW takes issue with DWBH using the words "waybrained pontificators." Reading the quote in context, I think DWBH may have been a bit harsh in his word choice, but it does go back to his post 17 and challenges the substance of TLC's and Twinky's comments. Borderline at best, and in context, he's talking (post 21) about the difference between "impartiality" and "bending over backwards" (ie, declining to address the consequences of what someone says). Again, I would have used different words, but that's me. I think WW tried to be reasonable here, but again, I think he overstates DWBH's position when he accuses him of "going after" Twinky. He went after a position she stated. 23: I agree with the beginning of what DWBH says here, but no, I don't think WW needs an emotional timeout. I might, after this post. :) 24: Twinky, you lost me. You quoted TLC and directed a post at DWBH. Did you realize that? 25: Sort of agree with Twinky. However, the comments DWBH made were specifically related to what TLTF is teaching, so I would leave it be. Yes, the content quoted is appropriate for doctrinal. But it is not necessarily inappropriate here, as long as we're still relating it back to TLTF. Twinky made none of this personal, for which I am grateful. You other guys, check yourselves. I don't see a huge issue with what anyone posted, but you're straying off topic.

I second the notion that we've veered off topic. A CFFM thread would be most welcome. --Raf

Hi BlueCord. This is Raf. This is the hat I wear when acting in official capacity as a moderator. (If you see "mod" in front of a screen name, it's a moderator). Great to have you on board.

I have better things to do, gang. No politics. No rebutting deleted posts about politics. No whining about the no politics rule. No. Damn. Politics. This is not up for discussion or debate. If you want to cite someone's expertise but you can't do it without political imagery, don't. It's getting deleted. If you want to rebut someone's opinion based on research or credentials, fine. Based on his political conclusions or biases? Don't. Just don't. Complaints can be directed to the moderators through private messages.

A post featuring blatantly political commentary and all posts that followed it (because they referred back to it) have been removed. It was decided some time ago that we would no longer host political discussions on GSC because passions ran so high that it became nearly impossible for the moderators to keep peace. It was not done to punish conservatives or liberals. It was done because political discussions bring out passions that we simply could not handle, and that was when we had oodles of moderators. Today we have one to three mods actively monitoring the forums on any given day. We all have jobs and we're unanimous in our lack of desire to make sure political discussions abide by the rules. This applies to everyone and every political persuasion. We. Don't. Do. Politics. Here.

Speaking as both Raf and Modcat5: The thread question was open-ended and included an opportunity to reframe the question and answer it accordingly. As such, I see a lot of discussion about how TWI operated, and while those discussions don't directly address the "victim v. oppressor" question, they absolutely do address that question indirectly (by expanding on the "it's more complicated than black-or-white" answer). So far, I don't see any post on this thread that has derailed the topic. Expanded and explored? Yes. But not derailed. The exceptions to this observation have been made invisible. They need not be addressed here.

I'm just going to leave this right here: The GSC Forum Rules Be courteous, and please don't make it personal. Remember, others feel as strongly about their opinions as you do about yours. It's okay to disagree, but when doing so, criticize the message, not the messenger. For example, "I remember that event differently," is appropriate; "you're an idiot" is not. Also, don't assume someone is calling you a liar just because he/she disagrees with you. Please do not engage in insulting behavior, personal attacks, and inflammatory language. This includes: calling fellow posters names accusing them of "needing a therapist/shrink/meds" labeling others with terms such as "Wierwille apologist" or "perpetual victim" distorting another poster's name to insult or ridicule making disparaging remarks about fellow posters' character, motives, intelligence, religious beliefs (or lack thereof), or life outside these forums. Implying negatives about fellow posters is also not acceptable. Be aware that sarcasm toward another poster can quickly turn a discussion into a flame war. And by the way, "He hit me first" didn't work with your mom, and it won't work here. We disapprove of comments that stifle discussion or label a particular viewpoint as unwelcome. Such comments hinder thoughtful and open discussions. Do not accuse fellow posters of being "trolls." If you suspect someone is trolling, PM the moderators; please don't start a thread about it. Do not "stalk" another poster from thread to thread to perpetuate an earlier disagreement (but don't accuse someone of stalking if he/she just happens to disagree with you often). Do not talk negatively about a fellow poster in a thread where he or she is not participating or start a new thread to "call out" that person. Do not challenge a fellow poster's personal recollections of his/her TWI experience. People deserve the freedom to share how TWI affected their lives and should not have to fear interrogation or feel pressured to "prove the unprovable." Generalizations about how TWI affected everyone who was ever involved in the organization may be challenged, however. If you wish to question those generalizations, start a new thread. This conversation has clearly been taking place over multiple threads. I am not reading closely enough to have an opinion about the substance of your disagreement with each other, and I'm not taking sides. But the next time you guys disagree with each other, if it's not on topic and if it is personal, it's getting moved to the Soap Opera Forum. Look, I'm the LAST person to lecture anyone about letting emotions get the best of us. And I'm turning a blind eye to most of the posts where you seem to be slugging it out. We get it -- you're not in each other's fan clubs. We want to keep this place somewhere EVERYONE can participate and work out their concerns with open-minded survivors, which we all are or should strive to be. My inclination is to leave this post up as a warning for one day, then remove it and remove any post above that is not on topic. This thread is about TWI starting a Twitter account, for Pete's sake. We can be flexible with how we define "on topic," but I think we can agree that at this moment, we're not on topic even a little.

To be clear: A discussion about whether Jesus is God, Biblically, belongs in doctrinal. I haven't analyzed every thread here, but... A discussion about when Wierwille began teaching that Jesus is not God belongs here. A discussion about why most groups teach he is but TWI teaches he is not can be at home either here or in doctrinal. It's inevitable that a topic like this will have some doctrinal overlap. But I don't see any threat of this becoming a doctrinal discussion so far. All seems good. Carry on.

This thread has been moved to "Out of the Way: The Offshoots."

Greasespot Cafe needs your help. As many of you know, this site is owned and operated by one guy, Pawtucket, who has shouldered the entire burden of the cost of its operations. While posters have volunteered to contribute from time to time, the burden has remained mostly his for 16 years. Here's what Paw said on Facebook recently: I replied, "Nope." And he responded: So, $100 a month plus the $300 in one-time fees of updating the software and moving the server brings us to $1,500. So we have a fundraiser and a goal: $1,500 to maintain and improve GSC for a year. I just made my donation (and I'm not going to say how much it was, nor do you have to). HOW? There's a DONATE button on the right hand side of the main page of GSC. Click it and help us keep this site going. This thread will be pinned to the top of the open forum until April 30, 2016. If we reach our goal before then, we'll tell you. Anything that comes in after we reach our goal will be handled by Pawtucket. My belief is he should consider it a reimbursement for 16 years of doing this on his own. We do kind of owe the guy. But Paw says he'll just apply it to the monthly service fee and pay ahead. In other words, the more we raise now, the less we have to ask next time around. Some of you can give more than others. Decide what's best for you. This is not tax deductible and it is not a requirement for participation on the forum. If you value this site and this forum, please show your support. Thank you.

And courtesy is courtesy, name-calling is name-calling and rules are rules.

I'm baffled. How is it censorship to set rules for civil discourse and expect adults to abide by them? And there's nothing new about these rules. Bringing my place of employment into it? Not cool. I'm all for standing up to MRAP. Done it myself, as he'll no doubt attest. But we can do it without resorting to namecalling. If I were interested in censorship I would have deleted the whole post. Instead I excised only the parts that were specifically in violation. And frankly, I shouldn't have to.

Folks, confronting each other can be healthy, but we can't allow it to descend into namecalling. Although a patently rule-breaking post was not reported, I had to edit it anyway because failing to do so would send the message that such comments are tolerable. Believe it or not, we still have lurkers. And I for one would like for them to know that this is a place where they can express themselves and be challenged without being berated. Lecture over.

Let's please keep the conversation about the topic and not the people posting. Thanks.

Tell me if I'm mistaken, but the opening post appears to be doctrinal in nature and not "open."

MRAP, I see the misunderstanding. Yes, we are referring to offshoot organizations.

True, but might as well codify it. And that way I don't get "Raf, you're up" messages. :)

Slept on it. I think MRAP is correct. We are mixing things up to an extent that makes the conversation difficult to follow, and there is an expectation that we will confine ourselves to the topics at hand. The doctrinal section is intended to divorce personalities from what the Bible actually teaches, and to another extent whether one interpretation of the Bible should be preferred over another. The issue of whether the Bible is credible also falls under doctrinal, but we created "Questioning Faith" to house such discussions to keep them from interrupting discussions that are purely about what the Bible teaches. But in practical terms, it is sometimes exceedingly difficult to separate doctrines from the people presenting them. Thus, a conversation about the REV, even in doctrinal, will naturally include the people who produced the REV. We can be sticklers and demand that we evaluate the REV on its own merits. That would be in keeping with the purpose of the Doctrinal section. If we are going to discuss the motives of the people who produced it, we should only do so in order to shed light on the specific doctrinal issue being raised. Saying Schoenheit and Lynn were influenced by Wierwille is insufficient for that purpose. Saying that they were influenced by Wierwille's brand of dispensationalism and that caused them to "translate" a particular verse in a particular way that might be contrary to a detached analysis of the "original" text is perfectly fair game. [The names of Schoenheit and Lynn are being used for the purpose of example only. I don't know specifically who is credited with the REV, but it's not really relevant to what I'm saying here. Insert the actual names or remove those that don't belong, and my point remains the same]. Moderating is an art, not a science. Conversations flow. People tell jokes. People digress. It's natural. Policing every post would lead inevitably to "legalism," and the moderators have neither the time nor the inclination to engage in such a practice. The rules are intended to facilitate conversation, not to stifle it. So we're going to leave this thread alone and admonish the participants to please remember the thread topic and the purpose of doctrinal. If we were to take a legalistic approach, we would be compelled to agree with MRAP and move/moderate a number of posts on this thread. Then we'd be micromanaging. But any call to return a thread to topic needs to be respected, even if it does not result in any moderation of posts that preceded it. Personality clashes will happen. Mods will jump in when needed to keep the peace. As MRAP has noted elsewhere, we are all adults here. Whether another poster likes him or not is irrelevant. Whether a moderator likes him or not is irrelevant. As long as he sticks to the rules and/or the natural flow of a conversation, we're not going to have a moderator-problem with him or anyone else.

Haven't watched yet. Saw the Deadpool movie though. It was... interesting. Anyway, catching up on last week's Arrow, LOT, Supergirl and Flash over the next few days, not necessarily in that order. Raf

This forum is to discuss offshoot ministries whose histories can reasonably be tied to The Way International. If discussions about any particular ministry generate enough threads, they will get their own subforum. Discussions about Chris Geer in the USA will be directed here. Discussions about Geer during the time period in the 1980s and 1990s will be directed to About the Way in Europe, now a subforum under About the Way. Feel free to contact me if you have any questions or suggestions. Please bear in mind that not everyone involved in TWI can properly be labeled a "public figure," so please be careful naming names, ESPECIALLY if you're going to accuse someone of... anything. Just be nice. Saying Vince Finnegan switched his doctrine on the end times is fair game. Saying he beat my dog might result in a libel suit (note: This was cited as an example. Vince Finnegan did not beat my dog. Or anything else. Vince Finnegan did not MEET my dog). The moderators reserve the right to change any real names to avoid slander or libel.

The following concludes TLC's post #356 Which, aside from what I though was much undeserved criticism from WW, only drew this response: Aside from your "one thought" and your proud position of what YOU think and say the Bible says, it seems rather obvious to me that any other discussion of what the scriptures might really mean or say is going to continue to be run over and trample beneath some superior word study of the issue (which quite ironically, is in the same egotistical fashion to how the much detested TWI so infamously did its great "research" work.) And this post pretty much sums this all up: Problem is, Raf, is that any "exploring" (so to speak) must be done on your terms, or it gets immediately castigated. So, aside from the next post (which will be address to chockfull) I'll simply bow out of any further discussion on SIT. moderator's note: TLC's post was not changed. Not even typos. Blank citations were his errors, which probably would have been caught if not for the formatting issues. GSC apparently only allows a certain number of quotations per post, and when you post three times in quick succession, the page combines the posts. This was not his fault. Hopefully, reposting makes his post a bit easier to follow. Raf

The following was posted by TLC I am neither thrilled nor anxious to say what is to follows, as it is sure to draw more fire, but I feel compelled to make one more post. (And it may be my last.) The only "desperation" (if there is any) I sense might be here is the incessant efforts to derail any attempt to look at this issue from a new perspective, in defense of your already established position on it (and continued claim the "the Bible plainly says" what you and whomever is with you say it says.) What is plain, is that I am "late to the party" (though at this point, I somewhat detest even quoting those words.) Perhaps if I were to have propose the very same questions over two years ago that I've posted here recently, there would have been a more honest reception and consideration of them. However, I was most certainly not at the place two years ago in my own thinking and understanding that I am today. And believe it or not, I did read (though rather quickly) through this nearly the entire thread before ever posting here the first time (which I tried to make fairly obvious in my initial posts here...) My second post on this thread actually made reference to something in a post of yours, Raf, after which I brought up several questions (none of which engendered much of a response from anybody): Here was a another question in the next post: To thwart the accusation of having never stated something of my opinion, where I stood, or was approaching the issue from, I posted in plain language here: As I began to more carefully consider what was (and wasn't) being said or brought forward in this thread on the biblical doctrine of SIT, more questions (or rephrasing earlier ones) began to come to mind, which I then posted here: Raf responds to the post with (more a less) a restatement of his own position, and implies any effort to look at this another way is born of despartion: and here: and here: Which I spoke out against here: Which you poo-pooed here: (part 2, continues in next post...)

I waited a bit before sending this from Open to the Humor forum.

Agreed. In plainer language: If you want to discuss whether dispensationalism is the correct doctrine that should flow from the usage of oikonomia, do that here. If you want to discuss whether dispensationalism is evidence that the Bible is a bunch of hooey that people twist themselves into knots over in order to justify their faith, DO NOT DO THAT HERE. This is not the thread for it. That's what I meant.

For the record: There is a thread on Dispensationalism in the Questioning Faith subforum that can overlap with the discussion that has been started here. But the threads ARE DISTINCT and should be treated as such. If you want to discuss whether dispensationalism is a mechanism to make sense of conflicting scriptures, etc., the place to do that is in the other thread. If you want to discuss what oikonomia really means and whether dispensationalism is Biblically accurate, you can do it here or there, but THIS is the better thread for that discussion. In the Questioning Faith subforum, acceptance of the underlying authority of scripture is fair game. That aspect of the discussion is NOT fair game here. That's what distinguishes these two threads. So have at it!