modcat5

I asked Karl to post this in Open and I am grateful he did, even though there's an "About the Way" tangent. Thank you for sharing this, and I do hope the book does well. Looking forward to reading it. Raf

I wanna hold your hand to show you I'll be there I like to do the things that let you know I care I sing this lullaby 'cause, girl, you fill me full I look into your eyes, you're so beautiful

We had to open an umbrella for about an hour. Other than that, no issues on the southeast coast. [disclosure: Raf and modcat5, same person too lazy to switch accounts].

Got a complaint that one of these posts crossed into politics. It didn't. But it came very close. Please continue to exercise proper judgment on this. Well done all around (including the "better safe than sorry" report).

Raf here, too lazy to switch logins: I'm not aware of any "exhaustive" effort, and I'm not willing to re-search that (meaning I have done some searching). I know there was a lot of Kenyon, Bullinger, Stiles and Leonard, of course. I don't know if anyone's ever tried to put them all in one thread.

So let it be done. Easy clues only

Those of us who left in the Geer expulsion came to the conclusion that loyalty was no virtue 35 years ago. I guess what I was hinting at was that no one who is on the board now would consider his/her history of loyalty to be a personal attack on their character. They think their loyalty is a good thing, and why wouldn't it be? As opposed to calling someone a sex predator or a con artist or intellectual property thief. You know, what we say about the current BOD is practically non-existent compared to what has been disclosed on this board and its predecessor of VPW, LCM and the people who served with them. Now, if we made it all up, if it was all lies by disgruntled ex-members, where are the lies against the current BOD? Where are the ex-members accusing them of playing fast and loose with marriage vows and purse strings? Are we no longer disgruntled? I don't know about you, but I still feel gruntled. Not enough to make stuff up against people we don't know, though. Interesting to me.

Let's nip this in the bud. FIRST: NO RULES WERE VIOLATED. We did, however, drive past the politics exit and made a note of one of the flags on politics property. NO POLITICS MEANS NO POLITICS. Yes, I am WILDLY overreacting, but only because it is SO EASY to do the politics thing on the atheism threads. I receive a Google alert every time a news story mentions atheism or atheists. I keep meaning to start a thread about it. But then I remember that I can't because so many of those articles are about political issues, like disagreements about whether and where to draw the line separating church and state. Let's just keep our distance. Criticizing Christians for using the state to enforce their beliefs is off limits. Criticizing atheists for trying to tear down any mention of God in the public square is likewise out of line. Thx.

As of this date: Board of Directors Rev. Vern Edwards [President] Rev. Steve Crommett Rev. Bill Greene Dr. Angela Priester Rev. John Rupp I know John Rupp, barely, from his time in the Bronx. I mean barely. WordWolf might have more memories than I. This website and its predecessor have done so much to expose the legacy leadership of The Way International. But I am not aware of any allegations of personal wrongdoing by any of the current board. Anyone have testimonial about their character? Not rumors. Not slander. Not even necessarily anything negative. What do we actually know about these people? Anything?

So... have we heard from anyone who has taken this class? Or the intermediate? Speculation aside?

Reposting the "Questioning Faith" forum rules, which apparently require a reminder. Emphases added.

Once again, the notion that "a Christian viewpoint is not welcome on Greasespot Cafe" is untrue and contrary to the overwhelming evidence. Dozens of posts and threads expressing Christian points of view remain on GSC unchallenged, unedited and unmotivated, including hundreds of posts by chockfull. "It is fine to me [chockfull] if people in working through the trauma of the cult operation leave Christianity." Again, the evidence suggests otherwise. This current controversy arose after chockfull changed posts from expressing his/her views to criticizing non-Christians on a personal level, accusing them of bias, egotistism and seeing the Word through "dung-colored glasses." The notion that "deconversion" could even be a topic of discussion was scorned by chockfull. This is far from being "fine" with people who leave Christianity. It would be more accurate to say "fine with people who leave Christianity as long as they don't discuss it or examine it." This is not a new phenomenon on GSC. It's happened before. It's what led to the separation of Doctrinal into multiple sections where people could anticipate different "ground rules." Mark Sanguinetti, an unapologetic Christian, often comes onto the atheist forum, expresses his Christian point of view, and lets the readers decide what to do with it. His posts are almost never moderated because he doesn't attack people. "However it is not fine to them that I remain Christian. I cannot call out faulty logic without moderation and hypocrisy with leaving the posts attacking Christianity unaltered but removing the Christian perspective posts." This is categorically false. Chockfull has been posting as a Christian for decades without that being a problem. However, his/her definition of "calling out faulty logic" leaves something to be desired. Chockfull does indeed challenge views that are expressed. And chockfull's challenges are addressed. That's where the problem lies. Chockfull appears to think he/she has the right to "point out faulty logic" without having to suffer the indignity of rebuttal. When rebuttal, chockfull gets personal and way off topic. The deconversion thread became about my actions as a moderator involving other people, not because it was relevant to the discussion, but because making it about ME draws attention away from the topic. Those posts should have been deleted immediately. They were not. That was my mistake and it will not be repeated. To be clear, the moderation of Chockfull's posts on the Deconstruction thread had NOTHING TO DO WITH HIS/HER EXPRESSION OF CHRISTIAN VIEWS and ecerything to do with making sure the thread remained on topic. Moderators cannot help it if certain posters find the atheist subforum more interesting than the conversations they are [not] initiating in the doctrinal section. Nonetheless, the blanket branding of non Christian views as "egotistical" and the constant derailing of threads to make them about people instead of topics cannot and will not be tolerated if healthy discussions are to continue. If you want to leave, feel free. But you are welcome to return any time. But neither you nor anyone else will be permitted to come on this page to lie about other people, including Christians. You were given chance after chance to stay on topic, but you repeatedly came back and attacked people instead of ideas. Your attacks on people were the only posts that were moderated. If you don't want to be part of a forum that insists you treat ALL posters with the same respect you demand, then leaving is your call.

Please refrain from personal attacks. If you can't address what a poster says without attacking his/her "ego," you are no longer addressing the topic but the poster. The poster is not the topic. Telling people to button their lip is bullying and won't be tolerated. Posts flagged for moderator review and possible reinstatement. Hidden but not deleted until such review is complete. [THIS post has been reported by me to trigger independent review]. [Update: The moderation was reviewed and upheld]

An off-topic comment was deleted. One more offense and the poster will be put on moderator approval, where EVERY post gets vetted to ensure it's on topic prior to anyone else seeing it. FA,FO. Thank you.

I did some moderating here even though I am involved in the discussion. The above post is not directed at anyone on GSC until and unless they accept that it describes their feelings. No one here is being accused of fitting that description. It was describing other Christians on other sites, one of whom is specifically named. If you do not feel this way or act this way, the post is not talking about you. The offending posts were hidden, as were the responses. Another mod may or may not decide what to restore. In the meantime, this thread is about evolution v creation in the context of a person seeking to examine evolution without religious preconceptions. Make it about me again and the post gets deleted. Do it as often as you want and it's gone. Stay on the g-dam topic. Thank you.

Glossolalia is off topic on this thread. Feel free to discuss in doctrinal or, from a skeptical perspective, on a thread in this forum where it is on topic.

No worries. See what I did there? On another front, I wanted to thank Modgellan for stepping in yesterday. We don't always see eye to eye, and I tried to make it clear that I would accept his review even if I didn't agree with it. One thing he only touched on that I think needs to be said out loud. And I'm putting on the modhat even though I take it very personally. DWBH said a LOT of hateful things about me after he left GSC, and I am not really at liberty to respond because he's no longer on this site to defend himself. I will tell you that he went on a vicious and hostile social media campaign to slander my personal and professional reputation. I do not accept the blame for his disappearance from GSC, and while I don't expect one, I believe I am entitled to an apology for this cheap, petty and ignorant allegation. OldSkool can come here and defend himself whenever he wants. But I expect him and everyone else to be honest about it. He was always perfectly free to espouse his point of view. That was never the problem. The problem was he had zero tolerance for anyone espousing the opposite point of view. GSC has dozens of threads where Christianity is presumed, the scripture is respected as an authority, and unbelievers have [at best] limited reign to interject. That wasn't good enough for OS. He had to say Christianity is no longer welcome at GSC, which is demonstrably untrue. Then he got mad at me for calling that lie a lie. Too bad. OS was not banned. He left because he wanted to, never recanting the lie that served as his motive. I do not accept the blame for his disappearance from GSC, and while I don't expect one, I believe I am entitled to an apology for this cheap, petty and ignorant allegation. Finally, poor skyrider. I believe in our years on GSC, we maybe crossed swords a few times. I want to say I challenged an anecdote of his, but I truly don't recall if it was skyrider, Socrates or socks. Whoever it was, it was years ago and never stopped any of them from posting. Maybe they avoided ME. Hard to tell seeing as I don't/didn't interact with any of them often enough to notice. Sorry, but it's true. They say their thing and nine times out of eight I don't get involved. I'm not saying never, but it's rare. In his very last post, May 25, 2023, he praised GSC for shining the light on TWI. He also quoted scripture. It's in the Time To Come Home thread in About the Way. Here's something skyrider wrote in Feb. 2023: THAT is what skyrider thought of GSC. Five months after his final post, Skyrider died. DIED. He didn't "quit posting because Raf made him feel unwelcome." He DIED. And you have the cold-hearted AUDACITY to blame MY conduct as a moderator for the decision of a man to stop posting here after his DEATH?!?! I do not accept the blame for his disappearance from GSC, and while I don't expect one, I believe I am entitled to an apology for this cheap, petty and ignorant absolutely contemptible allegation. The phrase gets used too often to be effective, but if ever there was a time it was appropriate: YOU SHOULD BE ASHAMED OF YOURSELF. Off my soap box. Apologies for digressing from the thread topic.

It is done.

This appears to be the post you are saying is gone. It is not. You mentioned others. I see no evidence of missing posts (the only evidence I would be able to detect are quotes that don't link back to posts).

A few years back I learned not to moderate threads when I'm posting on them. You of all people should remember why. That rule has been modified slightly because there are just two active moderators left, not counting Paw (so three, but he's been pretty hands off). So now I will moderate a thread I'm on, but only under very specific circumstances. One non-negotiable circumstance is I WILL ANNOUNCE LOUDLY AND CLEARLY WHENEVER I MODERATE A THREAD IN WHICH I AM A PARTICIPANT. This has NOT happened on this thread. I am unaware of any moderation action on this thread at all. There were no reported posts and no removed posts. Please let me know if I can help identify and locate any missing posts. There has to be some explanation. Censorship is not one.

Splitting threads is easier said than done. Enjoy.

Just to be clear: If you want to answer the question that is the title of this thread, that belongs in doctrinal. If you want to discuss how TWI and VPW approached this subject, that's stays here.

At this point I would agree, but I don't feel I've made a case for it.

Batcrap insane

That was kind but unnecessary. A good number of rules on this site were designed specifically to address the improper ways I handled disagreements with other people [ahem,Mike,ahem]. I've been tempted in all points like as you are, yet with sin after sin after sin. I am in no position to be judgmental against people who may end up having mod ID's of their own after a while.