This is a continuation of my input on the 'asking your opinion' thread. I want to talk about the concept of "derailing" threads, since this is such a sensitive issue for some. First...
quote: Every post comes from a belief system, an agenda, and opinions and observations. If I start a thread called 'connect' and my first post presumes that the pfal series is legitimate Christian teaching, then for someone to dispute that, they may feel the need to establish their OWN belief system/agenda before giving their opinions and observations. This does not constitute derailing a thread. It has the potential to expound on a side point which may require many posts before resuming continuity, but it isn't a deliberate derail. We all do this to an extent.
I stand by this. I used my 'connect' thread as an example because I could have easily accused, say, Tbone of "derailing" the thread. His post on page 1 disagrees with my premise that the pfal series is legitimate Christian teaching, and he gives the reader a scope of his own belief system and agenda before giving his opinions. I don't agree with some of his opinions, but he was NOT trying to derail the thread. Neither am I on other threads.
quote:
So let me ask you directly - why do you refuse to answer questions and instead feel the need to teach everyone around here? Do you think we don't know scriptures, aren't Christian, or what? What are your conclusions regarding the people on GSC? There's plenty of people on here that were in TWI longer than yourself, did more in the organization, took more classes, taught more, etc.
This quote is from Chockfull on the 'asking your opinion' thread. Am I supposed to not answer his question because it's off topic? One could argue that my post scolding those who falsely accused my of sending that message to Excie was provocative. I thought something was merited. I guess you catch more flies with honey, eh?
The idea of "derailing" threads reminded me of a thread on Waydale 11 years ago. Can't remember the thread title, but it was going along and someone used the word 'duel' figuratively making their point. Then someone else went from the word 'duel' to the late actor Peter Deuel, who was in 2 TV shows in the 60s (Love on the rooftop, w/Judy Carne, and Alias Smith and Jones) before taking his own life in 1972. So then we get 20 or 30 posts about Peter Deuel, mixed with objection from whoever started the thread, leading to viscious name calling between 2 posters. By then there were 120 or so posts; Extwi (Paul Allen) ended up deleting more than one third of the posts on that thread. Now THAT is a derail. Anybody else remember that one?
Look at all the threads on About the way that I HAVEN'T posted on. I'm really not here to start fights; I'm just giving my opinion. Actually, I think my opinions reenforce to many of you why you have distanced yourselves from twi. That's not a bad thing, is it? For example, Geisha doesn't really expect me to change my mind about anything. She uses my posts as an excuse to voice her own opinions to everybody else. She has been posting since 2008. I haven't read any past threads where she has discussed her specific beliefs about Christ without me in the mix. Her beliefs seem to be what I would call extremely fundamentalist; more so than most GSers who are still Christian. Perhaps her input with those posters has run its course. She has nothing new to say to them, unless...HEY! Johniam is here! I can post my opinions to HIM! I don't have a problem with posters doing that. That's another thing I think we all do to an extent.
But Abigail is right. If my opinions are forced out of here then it's a closed system, and the other side of the story has become the ONLY side of the story.
Question john: If everyone else are the ones going off topic, and you are the picked on victim...why not take the high road and put the topic back on topic? I really don't expect you to answer anything more than how "unfair" things are between you and other posters. You poor guy. Consider the question rhetorical.
Really, you could then start a new thread in the Doctrinal section of the forums where you and others could hash it out all day long. As it stands I am sick of coming to the About The Way section and finding more doctrinal banter between you and others. Personally, I am sick of it and am considering a break from GSC until you run out of wind or the moderators start sending theses issues to Doctrinal.
Personally, I am sick of it and am considering a break from GSC until you run out of wind or the moderators start sending these issues to Doctrinal.
Couldn't agree more, OldSkool. Soon as Johniam makes an appearance on a thread, you know it's "gone" and it'll never stay anywhere near the topic as originally started. Nothing against John personally, just wish he would stay somewhat relevant.
Anyway, this particular thread is for him to be as relevant or irrelevant as he likes. And those of us who want can join him or not. I'm quite happy to talk to him about anything - on this thread.
Not just going off topic. Going off topic intentionally to promote a personal agenda. I'm as guilty as anyone of going off topic. Usually it's when we/I get sidetracked by something humorous. But there is no hidden agenda in that. I went off topic on Skyrider's most recent thread. Skyrider politely put it back on track and that was that. Going off topic to divert attention away from the terrible things that happened in The Way or to lay guilt on the victims or to promote PFAL or exalt VPW, that's the kind of derailment that really has no place in these discussions. I'm not saying those topics are off the table for discussion. I am saying, however, they shouldn't be used as a ploy to derail genuine discussion. IMO.
For example, Geisha doesn't really expect me to change my mind about anything. She uses my posts as an excuse to voice her own opinions to everybody else. She has been posting since 2008. I haven't read any past threads where she has discussed her specific beliefs about Christ without me in the mix. Her beliefs seem to be what I would call extremely fundamentalist; more so than most GSers who are still Christian. Perhaps her input with those posters has run its course. She has nothing new to say to them, unless...HEY! Johniam is here! I can post my opinions to HIM! I don't have a problem with posters doing that. That's another thing I think we all do to an extent.
Yeah, that must be it. There are posters who have been here since it opened, they have literally thousands of posts....but it is MY voice which has run its course. I am actually flattered, as it must be my voice which really irritates you. That would not be because you can't actually answer me in any intelligent fashion would it?
Believing the basic tenants of the Christian faith does not make one an extreme fundamentalist. Unless you want to deny them or redefine them and then replace them with extreme polar opposites that some old lecherous drunk conditioned you to believe. Unless you embrace some molester, abuser, adulterer, and pervert who gave you his extreme fundamentalist views and you accepted them as the "truth" as it has not been known since the first century. You haven't done that have you? You don't embrace a bunch of things you learned in a Christ denying cult and then call yourself a Christian do you? You don't actually look down on Christians do you? Keep yourself separate from them? Call them idolatrous ... among other things....have opposite beliefs and then try to number yourself among them do you?
That would be just plain strange.
We have a book written by a woman with first hand experience with VP....who tells what he was like.....we have a poster here who was drugged and taken against her will by the man...she has bravely given first hand information.....We have first hand testimony from several others that you can read on J Juedes site. We have people with very personal knowledge telling of PL who acted as pimp for the man.....and much more to hear.
Yet, somehow, you still embrace what he told you about GOD. That tells me a few things about TWI and you.....but, as long as you can personally insult and throw out terms you don't understand...maybe the light will shift elsewhere and people won't notice. Good luck with that...most people here have grown a conscience and are conscious.
You didn't go back and read other posts? Yeah...right.... and I still believe VP was a Christian teacher too.
This is a continuation of my input on the 'asking your opinion' thread. I want to talk about the concept of "derailing" threads, since this is such a sensitive issue for some. First...
quote: Every post comes from a belief system, an agenda, and opinions and observations. If I start a thread called 'connect' and my first post presumes that the pfal series is legitimate Christian teaching, then for someone to dispute that, they may feel the need to establish their OWN belief system/agenda before giving their opinions and observations. This does not constitute derailing a thread. It has the potential to expound on a side point which may require many posts before resuming continuity, but it isn't a deliberate derail. We all do this to an extent.
I stand by this. I used my 'connect' thread as an example because I could have easily accused, say, Tbone of "derailing" the thread. 1 His post on page 1 disagrees with my premise that the pfal series is legitimate Christian teaching, and he gives the reader a scope of his own belief system 2 and agenda before giving his opinions.3 I don't agree with some of his opinions, but he was NOT trying to derail the thread. Neither am I on other threads.....
1. i don't see how you could have easily accused me of derailing a thread going by the TYPICAL usage of the term [see definition from Urban Dictionary given below].
The act of throwing a thread in a discussion forum off topic, oftentimes so much so that the original discussion is unable to continue.
A common result of a troll attempting to have fun at the expense of people actually trying to use the forum.
A common result of a flame war between multiple users.
Commonly helped along unintentionally by people who are simply off topic, as well as the occasional grammar Nazi
- i certainly was NOT throwing the discussion off topic - but was merely expressing a disagreement with your first post which assumed a positive relationship between PFAL and grads.
- neither was i using troll tactics to have fun at the expense of others - i usually try to be respectful of all posters - and apologize to all for any past offenses; i usually try to direct my criticism/sarcasm at TWI's doctrine, mindset, practices, agenda, programs, LCM and last but certainly not least vp.
- i'm not the Human Torch nor have i ever been a member of the Fantastic Four; i don't get into flame wars, personal attacks, etc.
- i don't consider myself a grammar Nazi - that just ain't my style; i know i can ramble at times as well as produce a feature length movie-like post WITH commentary but sorry - i do happen to think the data-packed reply is pertinent to the discussion.
~~
2. in NO WAY does my post # 11 on your "connect" thread give the reader a SCOPE of my belief system - it doesn't even come close! Golly gee - i don't know how long a post i'd need to cover my belief system - and it would have to be available for editing/revising indefinitely since many beliefs are in a state of flux.
~~
3. i could be wrong but you seem to suggest there's something sinister or underhanded in my post by throwing in the word "agenda"; the merriam-webster online dictionary gives 2 usages of "agenda" - 1. a list or outline of things to be considered or done. 2. an underlying often ideological plan or program..... well, i do try to present my opinions in an organized and logical format so readers can follow the points i offer up for consideration. as far as having an underlying ideological plan......well, i think it's pretty obvious by now to most Grease Spotters that the ideological section of my brain which holds "the sum and substance" of what i know and experienced with TWI has a two word title stamped on the front of the file: "It Stinks !"
~~
since you referred to my post on your "connect" thread - i thought i would not only drag it over here - but also hiway29's post since i key off of it.
I have to say that in my experience, sitting through pfal over an absurd 50 times, 'instructing' 2 classes, 'undersheperding' I forget how many people,-the overwhelming atmosphere through the vast majority of the class was a struggle to stay awake, alleviated only in 'spots' like vp's more than conquerors comedy routine. The concentrated hours, several nights a week, after working all day, where you could do nothing but sit quietly, seemed mind numbing. For every student on the edge of his seat over sit, there were 2 wondering what they're expected to do, and pretty much going with the program to get it over with. Yes, I'm cynical, but it's my 2 cents.
after reading Hiway29's post i just have to say i pretty much feel the same way.
without addressing the content, sources and plagiarism in PFAL- i don't believe the word "connect" is really an honest description of the relationship between PFAL and grads.I'm just thinking of how classes were put together and conducted. "Connect" may suggest some sort of fluid 2 way traffic - usually in reference to communication happening between electronic equipment or people.
....but i can think of the three "C"s of TWI's strategy with PFAL to entangle followers. It's a 1 way street. grads check in but they don't checkout:
Complicate - take anything easy and build layer upon layer of useless details over it. "To receive anything from God what five things must you know?" for example. run sessions to have the biggest impact on people's personal schedules. save all your questions for the end of the class - usually by then most people forget about them. haven't had much success even after a few years of taking PFAL? well, you need to take the class a few more times then! a subtle theme of my years in residence was "master PFAL".
Confuse - often a byproduct of the first "C" - complicate.while this would get into the content of the class, it also relates how the class was run. students & grads bombarded with mind-numbing repetition "night after night and week after week"
Corner - if the PFAL life support system [i.e. TWI] was good at anything it was good at putting manipulation, deceit and coercion to maximum use! They worked overtime to develop a such a mindset in followers so as to eliminate any possibility of there being another way to live - other than their way! sometimes suggested in teachings but often a subliminal message - any road other than TWI's leads only to oblivion.
~~
in designing a good maze for entrapment, i think the above 3 elements [complicate, confuse, & corner] would be essential....and perhaps could be termed a forced connection - i.e. ensuring that grads STAY connected to TWI/PFAL.....all this is just my opinion, of course.
~~
~~
edited for online users with a slow connection
anyway.....i just wanted to address those items in your post # 202 on this thread - i did not take offense in anything you said - i was just concerned that you dragged my name into your attempt at redefining what it is to derail a thread - referring to my post # 11 on your "connect" thread as IF what i said or the way i said it is similar to what you do.......how about we let Grease Spotters decide.
Socrates: I think you are still blaming God for having "failed you". That's why you don't get results and I do.
that, to me, was a very wayfer like thing to say
I was just being honest. I read both the links he posted on #29 of 'asking your opinion. Sounded like a bunch of self pitying excuses for why the word doesn't work. I guess even wayfers can still get some things right.
--
quote: to me, hurting people is not god like or christ like
Was Jesus being christ like in Matt. 23 when he repeatedly said woe unto you scribes and pharisees hypocrites and serpents and generation of vipers? Right there in the temple where everybody could hear him? We were discussing something and Socrates tone was just as confrontational as mine.
quote: i mean,you might hurt someone unintentionally but if you do you (if you're normal) say you are sorry
To everything there is a season, and a time to every purpose under the heaven. This includes a time to break down and a time to build up. Don't you ever confront your son about what he says? Doesn't it hurt his feelings sometimes?
quote: but to me, sticking up for your dogma, doctrine, etc., has nothing to do with god or our savior
this is my humble opinion
Didn't Jesus say "my doctrine is not mine, but His that sent me"? He stuck up for his doctrine all the time.
quote: and if telling what happened to me is hurtful to others, like i've been counseled here, it's not because I hurt you
You have every right to tell others what happened to you. In a court of law, eyewitness testimony always hurts those who are guilty and the loved ones of those who are guilty. So what? If you're telling the truth, then that shouldn't concern you. I'm not trying to imply that I don't think you're telling the truth, I'm just saying.....
This is a fine example of why I get really F'ing sick of your moral superiority. I'm specifically referring to Twinky, Chockfull, and Waysider so far. Your first thought was, it HAS to be Johniam. Well, you're all WRONG!!! You're all on a witch hunt! You're all the fine upstanding citizens of Salem, MA a few hundred years ago reincarnated. How does it feel?
I used my 'connect' thread as an example because I could have easily accused, say, Tbone of "derailing" the thread. His post on page 1 disagrees with my premise that the pfal series is legitimate Christian teaching, and he gives the reader a scope of his own belief system and agenda before giving his opinions. I don't agree with some of his opinions, but he was NOT trying to derail the thread. Neither am I on other threads.
For example, Geisha doesn't really expect me to change my mind about anything. She uses my posts as an excuse to voice her own opinions to everybody else. She has been posting since 2008. I haven't read any past threads where she has discussed her specific beliefs about Christ without me in the mix. Her beliefs seem to be what I would call extremely fundamentalist; more so than most GSers who are still Christian. Perhaps her input with those posters has run its course. She has nothing new to say to them, unless...HEY! Johniam is here! I can post my opinions to HIM! I don't have a problem with posters doing that. That's another thing I think we all do to an extent.
Say the law of believing is true. You think this is because of your negative believing?
Wouldn't renewed mind have prevented most of this from happening?
Notice how believing and renewed mind are used as a weapon against someone else, but leadership never wants to check their own believing or renewed mind?
And once again I'll ask: your claim is everyone has an agenda, what's yours?
The revised version: seperating the quotes from the responses
quote:
also,
Quote
Socrates: I think you are still blaming God for having "failed you". That's why you don't get results and I do.
that, to me, was a very wayfer like thing to say
I was just being honest. I read both the links he posted on #29 of 'asking your opinion. Sounded like a bunch of self pitying excuses for why the word doesn't work. I guess even wayfers can still get some things right.
--
quote: to me, hurting people is not god like or christ like
Was Jesus being christ like in Matt. 23 when he repeatedly said woe unto you scribes and pharisees hypocrites and serpents and generation of vipers? Right there in the temple where everybody could hear him? We were discussing something and Socrates tone was just as confrontational as mine.
quote: i mean,you might hurt someone unintentionally but if you do you (if you're normal) say you are sorry
To everything there is a season, and a time to every purpose under the heaven. This includes a time to break down and a time to build up. Don't you ever confront your son about what he says? Doesn't it hurt his feelings sometimes?
quote: but to me, sticking up for your dogma, doctrine, etc., has nothing to do with god or our savior
this is my humble opinion
Didn't Jesus say "my doctrine is not mine, but His that sent me"? He stuck up for his doctrine all the time.
quote: and if telling what happened to me is hurtful to others, like i've been counseled here, it's not because I hurt you
You have every right to tell others what happened to you. In a court of law, eyewitness testimony always hurts those who are guilty and the loved ones of those who are guilty. So what? If you're telling the truth, then that shouldn't concern you. I'm not trying to imply that I don't think you're telling the truth, I'm just saying.....
In PFAL, Saint Vic talks about the alcoholic that was in his church community. As Saint Vic tells the story, he attended church one day. So, Vic put aside the sermon he was going to give and gave a fiery one on the evils of alcoholism.
As Vic tells the story, he was patting himself on the back for a job well done. He went to the front of the church to shake hands with the congregation.
Up comes the alcoholic. Vic thinks he's done something really great.
Rather than shaking his hand the alcoholic told him: "I came here for help and what did you do? You put me deeper in what I was in."
Vic said he went into his office and dropped to his knees and asked God for forgiveness and swore he would never do another negative sermon.
Now, I'll ask you: do you think you helped me or do you think you put me deeper in what I was in? Do you think you moved me closer to God (you have the ministry of reconciliation, right?) or further away?
On page 18 of PFAL, VP says, " I promised the Father that if He would forgive me, as long as I lived I would never preach a negative sermon, I would never condemn anybody."
I guess that promise must have slipped his mind while he was blaming John N. and the Way Corps for the death of Gary Dunhoff.
Here is a post just loaded with negative believing.
quote:
also,
Quote
Socrates: I think you are still blaming God for having "failed you". That's why you don't get results and I do.
that, to me, was a very wayfer like thing to say
I was just being honest. I read both the links he posted on #29 of 'asking your opinion. Sounded like a bunch of self pitying excuses for why the word doesn't work. I guess even wayfers can still get some things right.--
A positive believing person would have commended the effort and celebrated that I hung in there much longer than anyone else would have under the circumstances. A positive person would have said, you really gave a valiant effort, lets find out where it went wrong.
Rather then ascribing a negative motive, a positive person would have fell back on Doctrine, Reproof, and Correction. Remember: Doctrine, how to believe rightly; Reproof, where you went wrong; and correction; how to get back on track.
quote: to me, hurting people is not god like or christ like
Was Jesus being christ like in Matt. 23 when he repeatedly said woe unto you scribes and pharisees hypocrites and serpents and generation of vipers? Right there in the temple where everybody could hear him? We were discussing something and Socrates tone was just as confrontational as mine.
So your putting me in the role of being your authority figure. That's amuzing. I don't consider myself anybody's authority figure.
I'm about as much a legalistic church leader as Barack Obama is a capitalist.
Rather than falling back on that passage, why don't you leaf through the gospels, check on all the times people came to Jesus Christ honestly looking for answers, and enumerate all the times he ascribed negative motives to them.
What were we discussing? Why are you leaving that part out? More of your negative believing perhaps?
quote: i mean,you might hurt someone unintentionally but if you do you (if you're normal) say you are sorry
To everything there is a season, and a time to every purpose under the heaven. This includes a time to break down and a time to build up. Don't you ever confront your son about what he says? Doesn't it hurt his feelings sometimes?
So now we'll use the bible to hide behind, because we really we're using negative believing. Again, you ascribed a negative motive, rather than a positive one.
Why is it whenever your confronted with the truth, the other person is always morally superrior or bitter or a brown-noser or feeling self pity?
If the word is truth and people on this board are telling you the truth, then they must be speaking the word, right? So why won't you accept the truth?
quote: but to me, sticking up for your dogma, doctrine, etc., has nothing to do with god or our savior
this is my humble opinion
Didn't Jesus say "my doctrine is not mine, but His that sent me"? He stuck up for his doctrine all the time.
Considering the fact you've over reacted several times when confronted with the truth about that doctrine, I think perhaps you need to decide what you believe. Are you speaking God's doctine or St.Vic's? I'd say, because of the over reaction, deep in your heart you know its Saint Vic's, you just haven't gotten around to admitting it to yourself.
Further, didn't Saint Vic mention in the class, "Truth needs no defense?" So why are you defending something that needs no defense?
quote: and if telling what happened to me is hurtful to others, like i've been counseled here, it's not because I hurt you
You have every right to tell others what happened to you. In a court of law, eyewitness testimony always hurts those who are guilty and the loved ones of those who are guilty. So what? If you're telling the truth, then that shouldn't concern you. I'm not trying to imply that I don't think you're telling the truth, I'm just saying.....
A little bit of friendly advise try to phrase things in a positive form. Rather than phrases like "I'm not trying to imply that I don't think your telling the truth." The mind can process negatives so it turns them into positives.
An example: you and the wife are going out and you leave the kids with a sitter. As you go out the door you tell the kids: "Don't get into trouble." What always happens?
Another example: Don't think of tigers. I don't want you to think of tigers. What are you thinking of?
So you tell someone "I'm not trying to imply that I don't think your telling the truth," guess what their mind is hearing....
I'll ask again, you said in an earlier post everyone has an agenda, so what's your agenda?
quote: On page 18 of PFAL, VP says, " I promised the Father that if He would forgive me, as long as I lived I would never preach a negative sermon, I would never condemn anybody."
This is one way that you and some others consistently misrepresent me. I don't believe everything VP said was God breathed. Why do you act as if I automatically do?
VPs strategy with the way corps seemed to be like this: he would teach you pretty much all he knew about any biblical topic. But the flip side was, that he would hold you more accountable also. The alcoholic was a feeble individual, who needed more love than the average person. VP realized that his sermon was counter productive. He wasn't condemning John Nace or the way corps, he was 'upbraiding them with their unbelief and hardness of heart' (as he saw it) just as Jesus did with his 'way corps' so to speak, in Mark 16:14.
I suspect this falls on deaf ears, however. You are as anti way brained as you accuse me of being way brained.
quote: And once again I'll ask: your claim is everyone has an agenda, what's yours?
You've been reading it for 3 1/2 months. By my definition, an agenda is a biproduct of anyone's belief system. The belief system is 'fixed' the agenda is 'adjustable'. Your agenda is to deconstruct twi any which way you can. By comparison, mine is to pick my battles and disagree with yours. If you believe twi did evil to you, then just stick to your guns. I'm not really trying to sell pfal to anybody; you already know pfal. The links you posted really did come off to me like self pitying excuses. The first step to getting out of that (as IF that's what you want to do) is to recognize that. You wanted my opinion or you wouldn't have posted those links.
Others here do not blame God. They have connected with Him in other groups. Broken arrow, Geisha, even Kris Skedgell goes to a church. You seem to have the attitude of 'screw all of it'. Friend you look worn, like your heart has been torn. People may be fickle, but God is faithful.
quote: And once again I'll ask: your claim is everyone has an agenda, what's yours?
You've been reading it for 3 1/2 months. By my definition, an agenda is a biproduct of anyone's belief system. The belief system is 'fixed' the agenda is 'adjustable'. Your agenda is to deconstruct twi any which way you can. By comparison, mine is to pick my battles and disagree with yours. If you believe twi did evil to you, then just stick to your guns. I'm not really trying to sell pfal to anybody; you already know pfal.
I disagree. Agendas are usually hidden. You've just given me what you claim is your agenda. To get a deeper understanding:
What do you want?
How will you know when you have it?
Suprisingly, my agenda isn't to deconstruct TWI. I want people to know the truth about Saint Vic and his demented circus. Once they know its up to them to make their own decisions about what they want to do. I'll know I have it when I've broadcasted by every possible means the sham TWI is.
Belief systems are in a constant state of revision. When I was four, I believed you could get a girl pregnant by kissing her. I know better now.
When I was young, I believed my mother and father would live forever. I know better now.
When I was a teen, I believed I would live forever, I know better now.
When I was in twig, I believed God had an amazingly fantastic life just waiting for me to live. I know better now.
No belief system is fixed. As people grow and learn, they adjust their beliefs as they get new information.
Recommended Posts
Top Posters In This Topic
39
40
46
44
Popular Days
Mar 11
55
Mar 29
34
Mar 16
23
Mar 21
22
Top Posters In This Topic
johniam 39 posts
Ham 40 posts
waysider 46 posts
So_crates 44 posts
Popular Days
Mar 11 2011
55 posts
Mar 29 2011
34 posts
Mar 16 2011
23 posts
Mar 21 2011
22 posts
Popular Posts
waysider
"I could use the same argument when sex abuse victims tell their stories. I could say that in India it's still possible for a husband to find his wife not pleasing and have her burned. That twi sex ab
WordWolf
Sounds like you have a LOT of different "they's". Are "they" all one big "they", or are there many independent "theys" that lack specific names? "They" is INCREDIBLY vague- and thus INCREDIBLY CONV
waysider
Posted Images
johniam
This is a continuation of my input on the 'asking your opinion' thread. I want to talk about the concept of "derailing" threads, since this is such a sensitive issue for some. First...
quote: Every post comes from a belief system, an agenda, and opinions and observations. If I start a thread called 'connect' and my first post presumes that the pfal series is legitimate Christian teaching, then for someone to dispute that, they may feel the need to establish their OWN belief system/agenda before giving their opinions and observations. This does not constitute derailing a thread. It has the potential to expound on a side point which may require many posts before resuming continuity, but it isn't a deliberate derail. We all do this to an extent.
I stand by this. I used my 'connect' thread as an example because I could have easily accused, say, Tbone of "derailing" the thread. His post on page 1 disagrees with my premise that the pfal series is legitimate Christian teaching, and he gives the reader a scope of his own belief system and agenda before giving his opinions. I don't agree with some of his opinions, but he was NOT trying to derail the thread. Neither am I on other threads.
quote:
So let me ask you directly - why do you refuse to answer questions and instead feel the need to teach everyone around here? Do you think we don't know scriptures, aren't Christian, or what? What are your conclusions regarding the people on GSC? There's plenty of people on here that were in TWI longer than yourself, did more in the organization, took more classes, taught more, etc.
This quote is from Chockfull on the 'asking your opinion' thread. Am I supposed to not answer his question because it's off topic? One could argue that my post scolding those who falsely accused my of sending that message to Excie was provocative. I thought something was merited. I guess you catch more flies with honey, eh?
The idea of "derailing" threads reminded me of a thread on Waydale 11 years ago. Can't remember the thread title, but it was going along and someone used the word 'duel' figuratively making their point. Then someone else went from the word 'duel' to the late actor Peter Deuel, who was in 2 TV shows in the 60s (Love on the rooftop, w/Judy Carne, and Alias Smith and Jones) before taking his own life in 1972. So then we get 20 or 30 posts about Peter Deuel, mixed with objection from whoever started the thread, leading to viscious name calling between 2 posters. By then there were 120 or so posts; Extwi (Paul Allen) ended up deleting more than one third of the posts on that thread. Now THAT is a derail. Anybody else remember that one?
Look at all the threads on About the way that I HAVEN'T posted on. I'm really not here to start fights; I'm just giving my opinion. Actually, I think my opinions reenforce to many of you why you have distanced yourselves from twi. That's not a bad thing, is it? For example, Geisha doesn't really expect me to change my mind about anything. She uses my posts as an excuse to voice her own opinions to everybody else. She has been posting since 2008. I haven't read any past threads where she has discussed her specific beliefs about Christ without me in the mix. Her beliefs seem to be what I would call extremely fundamentalist; more so than most GSers who are still Christian. Perhaps her input with those posters has run its course. She has nothing new to say to them, unless...HEY! Johniam is here! I can post my opinions to HIM! I don't have a problem with posters doing that. That's another thing I think we all do to an extent.
But Abigail is right. If my opinions are forced out of here then it's a closed system, and the other side of the story has become the ONLY side of the story.
Edited by johniamLink to comment
Share on other sites
OldSkool
Question john: If everyone else are the ones going off topic, and you are the picked on victim...why not take the high road and put the topic back on topic? I really don't expect you to answer anything more than how "unfair" things are between you and other posters. You poor guy. Consider the question rhetorical.
Really, you could then start a new thread in the Doctrinal section of the forums where you and others could hash it out all day long. As it stands I am sick of coming to the About The Way section and finding more doctrinal banter between you and others. Personally, I am sick of it and am considering a break from GSC until you run out of wind or the moderators start sending theses issues to Doctrinal.
Here, to help you find your way.
http://www.greasespotcafe.com/ipb/forum/20-doctrinal/
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Twinky
Couldn't agree more, OldSkool. Soon as Johniam makes an appearance on a thread, you know it's "gone" and it'll never stay anywhere near the topic as originally started. Nothing against John personally, just wish he would stay somewhat relevant.
Anyway, this particular thread is for him to be as relevant or irrelevant as he likes. And those of us who want can join him or not. I'm quite happy to talk to him about anything - on this thread.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
waysider
Not just going off topic. Going off topic intentionally to promote a personal agenda. I'm as guilty as anyone of going off topic. Usually it's when we/I get sidetracked by something humorous. But there is no hidden agenda in that. I went off topic on Skyrider's most recent thread. Skyrider politely put it back on track and that was that. Going off topic to divert attention away from the terrible things that happened in The Way or to lay guilt on the victims or to promote PFAL or exalt VPW, that's the kind of derailment that really has no place in these discussions. I'm not saying those topics are off the table for discussion. I am saying, however, they shouldn't be used as a ploy to derail genuine discussion. IMO.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
So_crates
I agree with you, Waysider. Threads, because they are a collaborative effort, have a tendancy to evolve.
But, as you say, there's evolution, and there's derailing with an agenda.
SoCrates
Link to comment
Share on other sites
skyrider
IMO.....going off topic on a humorous adventure is perfectly acceptable.
What would life be without some side humor?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
geisha779
Yeah, that must be it. There are posters who have been here since it opened, they have literally thousands of posts....but it is MY voice which has run its course. I am actually flattered, as it must be my voice which really irritates you. That would not be because you can't actually answer me in any intelligent fashion would it?
Believing the basic tenants of the Christian faith does not make one an extreme fundamentalist. Unless you want to deny them or redefine them and then replace them with extreme polar opposites that some old lecherous drunk conditioned you to believe. Unless you embrace some molester, abuser, adulterer, and pervert who gave you his extreme fundamentalist views and you accepted them as the "truth" as it has not been known since the first century. You haven't done that have you? You don't embrace a bunch of things you learned in a Christ denying cult and then call yourself a Christian do you? You don't actually look down on Christians do you? Keep yourself separate from them? Call them idolatrous ... among other things....have opposite beliefs and then try to number yourself among them do you?
That would be just plain strange.
We have a book written by a woman with first hand experience with VP....who tells what he was like.....we have a poster here who was drugged and taken against her will by the man...she has bravely given first hand information.....We have first hand testimony from several others that you can read on J Juedes site. We have people with very personal knowledge telling of PL who acted as pimp for the man.....and much more to hear.
Yet, somehow, you still embrace what he told you about GOD. That tells me a few things about TWI and you.....but, as long as you can personally insult and throw out terms you don't understand...maybe the light will shift elsewhere and people won't notice. Good luck with that...most people here have grown a conscience and are conscious.
You didn't go back and read other posts? Yeah...right.... and I still believe VP was a Christian teacher too.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
johniam
quote: Nothing against John personally, just wish he would stay somewhat relevant.
Nothing personal????? Please. Nice rationalization, though.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Twinky
Now you're getting personal.
Just stay relevant. Easy.
Anyway. Enough of this. Carry on on your own, John.
I'm going to do what TWI taught:
Romans 16:17 Now I beseech you, brethren, mark them which cause divisions and offences contrary to the doctrine which ye have learned; and avoid them.
I commend verse 18 to you.
But it will probably provoke a further tirade from you, which I will not respond to. Enough already.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
T-Bone
1. i don't see how you could have easily accused me of derailing a thread going by the TYPICAL usage of the term [see definition from Urban Dictionary given below].
http://www.urbandict...ng%20a%20thread
- i certainly was NOT throwing the discussion off topic - but was merely expressing a disagreement with your first post which assumed a positive relationship between PFAL and grads.
- neither was i using troll tactics to have fun at the expense of others - i usually try to be respectful of all posters - and apologize to all for any past offenses; i usually try to direct my criticism/sarcasm at TWI's doctrine, mindset, practices, agenda, programs, LCM and last but certainly not least vp.
- i'm not the Human Torch nor have i ever been a member of the Fantastic Four; i don't get into flame wars, personal attacks, etc.
- i don't consider myself a grammar Nazi - that just ain't my style; i know i can ramble at times as well as produce a feature length movie-like post WITH commentary but sorry - i do happen to think the data-packed reply is pertinent to the discussion.
~~
2. in NO WAY does my post # 11 on your "connect" thread give the reader a SCOPE of my belief system - it doesn't even come close! Golly gee - i don't know how long a post i'd need to cover my belief system - and it would have to be available for editing/revising indefinitely since many beliefs are in a state of flux.
~~
3. i could be wrong but you seem to suggest there's something sinister or underhanded in my post by throwing in the word "agenda"; the merriam-webster online dictionary gives 2 usages of "agenda" - 1. a list or outline of things to be considered or done. 2. an underlying often ideological plan or program..... well, i do try to present my opinions in an organized and logical format so readers can follow the points i offer up for consideration. as far as having an underlying ideological plan......well, i think it's pretty obvious by now to most Grease Spotters that the ideological section of my brain which holds "the sum and substance" of what i know and experienced with TWI has a two word title stamped on the front of the file: "It Stinks !"
~~
since you referred to my post on your "connect" thread - i thought i would not only drag it over here - but also hiway29's post since i key off of it.
anyway.....i just wanted to address those items in your post # 202 on this thread - i did not take offense in anything you said - i was just concerned that you dragged my name into your attempt at redefining what it is to derail a thread - referring to my post # 11 on your "connect" thread as IF what i said or the way i said it is similar to what you do.......how about we let Grease Spotters decide.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
excathedra
this is way over my head and too nitpicky
choo choo
i don't care who says it or what it said -- conversation should be allowed
wtf
if we don't like it, just say so
if johniam is a troll, then boot him
if he just drives you crazy, deal with it
Link to comment
Share on other sites
johniam
quote:
also,
Quote
Socrates: I think you are still blaming God for having "failed you". That's why you don't get results and I do.
that, to me, was a very wayfer like thing to say
I was just being honest. I read both the links he posted on #29 of 'asking your opinion. Sounded like a bunch of self pitying excuses for why the word doesn't work. I guess even wayfers can still get some things right.
--
quote: to me, hurting people is not god like or christ like
Was Jesus being christ like in Matt. 23 when he repeatedly said woe unto you scribes and pharisees hypocrites and serpents and generation of vipers? Right there in the temple where everybody could hear him? We were discussing something and Socrates tone was just as confrontational as mine.
quote: i mean,you might hurt someone unintentionally but if you do you (if you're normal) say you are sorry
To everything there is a season, and a time to every purpose under the heaven. This includes a time to break down and a time to build up. Don't you ever confront your son about what he says? Doesn't it hurt his feelings sometimes?
quote: but to me, sticking up for your dogma, doctrine, etc., has nothing to do with god or our savior
this is my humble opinion
Didn't Jesus say "my doctrine is not mine, but His that sent me"? He stuck up for his doctrine all the time.
quote: and if telling what happened to me is hurtful to others, like i've been counseled here, it's not because I hurt you
You have every right to tell others what happened to you. In a court of law, eyewitness testimony always hurts those who are guilty and the loved ones of those who are guilty. So what? If you're telling the truth, then that shouldn't concern you. I'm not trying to imply that I don't think you're telling the truth, I'm just saying.....
Link to comment
Share on other sites
So_crates
Say the law of believing is true. You think this is because of your negative believing?
Wouldn't renewed mind have prevented most of this from happening?
Notice how believing and renewed mind are used as a weapon against someone else, but leadership never wants to check their own believing or renewed mind?
And once again I'll ask: your claim is everyone has an agenda, what's yours?
SoCrates
Edited by So_cratesLink to comment
Share on other sites
waysider
Dude----Could you at least use the color option (or something) to show where your own quotes begin and end?
I'm just sayin'
Link to comment
Share on other sites
So_crates
The revised version: seperating the quotes from the responses
I was just being honest. I read both the links he posted on #29 of 'asking your opinion. Sounded like a bunch of self pitying excuses for why the word doesn't work. I guess even wayfers can still get some things right.
--
Was Jesus being christ like in Matt. 23 when he repeatedly said woe unto you scribes and pharisees hypocrites and serpents and generation of vipers? Right there in the temple where everybody could hear him? We were discussing something and Socrates tone was just as confrontational as mine.
To everything there is a season, and a time to every purpose under the heaven. This includes a time to break down and a time to build up. Don't you ever confront your son about what he says? Doesn't it hurt his feelings sometimes?
Didn't Jesus say "my doctrine is not mine, but His that sent me"? He stuck up for his doctrine all the time.
You have every right to tell others what happened to you. In a court of law, eyewitness testimony always hurts those who are guilty and the loved ones of those who are guilty. So what? If you're telling the truth, then that shouldn't concern you. I'm not trying to imply that I don't think you're telling the truth, I'm just saying.....
Edited by So_cratesLink to comment
Share on other sites
So_crates
Johniam,
In PFAL, Saint Vic talks about the alcoholic that was in his church community. As Saint Vic tells the story, he attended church one day. So, Vic put aside the sermon he was going to give and gave a fiery one on the evils of alcoholism.
As Vic tells the story, he was patting himself on the back for a job well done. He went to the front of the church to shake hands with the congregation.
Up comes the alcoholic. Vic thinks he's done something really great.
Rather than shaking his hand the alcoholic told him: "I came here for help and what did you do? You put me deeper in what I was in."
Vic said he went into his office and dropped to his knees and asked God for forgiveness and swore he would never do another negative sermon.
Now, I'll ask you: do you think you helped me or do you think you put me deeper in what I was in? Do you think you moved me closer to God (you have the ministry of reconciliation, right?) or further away?
SoCrates
Edited by So_cratesLink to comment
Share on other sites
So_crates
Sorry double posted
SoCrates
Edited by So_cratesLink to comment
Share on other sites
waysider
And, by golly, he kept his word and never again preached a negative sermon.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
T-Bone
"...wouldn't you like to go to church with me..."
Link to comment
Share on other sites
waysider
On page 18 of PFAL, VP says, " I promised the Father that if He would forgive me, as long as I lived I would never preach a negative sermon, I would never condemn anybody."
I guess that promise must have slipped his mind while he was blaming John N. and the Way Corps for the death of Gary Dunhoff.
Click HERE
Edited by waysiderLink to comment
Share on other sites
So_crates
Here is a post just loaded with negative believing.
I was just being honest. I read both the links he posted on #29 of 'asking your opinion. Sounded like a bunch of self pitying excuses for why the word doesn't work. I guess even wayfers can still get some things right.--
A positive believing person would have commended the effort and celebrated that I hung in there much longer than anyone else would have under the circumstances. A positive person would have said, you really gave a valiant effort, lets find out where it went wrong.
Rather then ascribing a negative motive, a positive person would have fell back on Doctrine, Reproof, and Correction. Remember: Doctrine, how to believe rightly; Reproof, where you went wrong; and correction; how to get back on track.
Was Jesus being christ like in Matt. 23 when he repeatedly said woe unto you scribes and pharisees hypocrites and serpents and generation of vipers? Right there in the temple where everybody could hear him? We were discussing something and Socrates tone was just as confrontational as mine.
So your putting me in the role of being your authority figure. That's amuzing. I don't consider myself anybody's authority figure.
I'm about as much a legalistic church leader as Barack Obama is a capitalist.
Rather than falling back on that passage, why don't you leaf through the gospels, check on all the times people came to Jesus Christ honestly looking for answers, and enumerate all the times he ascribed negative motives to them.
What were we discussing? Why are you leaving that part out? More of your negative believing perhaps?
To everything there is a season, and a time to every purpose under the heaven. This includes a time to break down and a time to build up. Don't you ever confront your son about what he says? Doesn't it hurt his feelings sometimes?
So now we'll use the bible to hide behind, because we really we're using negative believing. Again, you ascribed a negative motive, rather than a positive one.
Why is it whenever your confronted with the truth, the other person is always morally superrior or bitter or a brown-noser or feeling self pity?
If the word is truth and people on this board are telling you the truth, then they must be speaking the word, right? So why won't you accept the truth?
Didn't Jesus say "my doctrine is not mine, but His that sent me"? He stuck up for his doctrine all the time.
Considering the fact you've over reacted several times when confronted with the truth about that doctrine, I think perhaps you need to decide what you believe. Are you speaking God's doctine or St.Vic's? I'd say, because of the over reaction, deep in your heart you know its Saint Vic's, you just haven't gotten around to admitting it to yourself.
Further, didn't Saint Vic mention in the class, "Truth needs no defense?" So why are you defending something that needs no defense?
You have every right to tell others what happened to you. In a court of law, eyewitness testimony always hurts those who are guilty and the loved ones of those who are guilty. So what? If you're telling the truth, then that shouldn't concern you. I'm not trying to imply that I don't think you're telling the truth, I'm just saying.....
A little bit of friendly advise try to phrase things in a positive form. Rather than phrases like "I'm not trying to imply that I don't think your telling the truth." The mind can process negatives so it turns them into positives.
An example: you and the wife are going out and you leave the kids with a sitter. As you go out the door you tell the kids: "Don't get into trouble." What always happens?
Another example: Don't think of tigers. I don't want you to think of tigers. What are you thinking of?
So you tell someone "I'm not trying to imply that I don't think your telling the truth," guess what their mind is hearing....
I'll ask again, you said in an earlier post everyone has an agenda, so what's your agenda?
SoCrates
Edited by So_cratesLink to comment
Share on other sites
johniam
quote: On page 18 of PFAL, VP says, " I promised the Father that if He would forgive me, as long as I lived I would never preach a negative sermon, I would never condemn anybody."
This is one way that you and some others consistently misrepresent me. I don't believe everything VP said was God breathed. Why do you act as if I automatically do?
VPs strategy with the way corps seemed to be like this: he would teach you pretty much all he knew about any biblical topic. But the flip side was, that he would hold you more accountable also. The alcoholic was a feeble individual, who needed more love than the average person. VP realized that his sermon was counter productive. He wasn't condemning John Nace or the way corps, he was 'upbraiding them with their unbelief and hardness of heart' (as he saw it) just as Jesus did with his 'way corps' so to speak, in Mark 16:14.
I suspect this falls on deaf ears, however. You are as anti way brained as you accuse me of being way brained.
quote: And once again I'll ask: your claim is everyone has an agenda, what's yours?
You've been reading it for 3 1/2 months. By my definition, an agenda is a biproduct of anyone's belief system. The belief system is 'fixed' the agenda is 'adjustable'. Your agenda is to deconstruct twi any which way you can. By comparison, mine is to pick my battles and disagree with yours. If you believe twi did evil to you, then just stick to your guns. I'm not really trying to sell pfal to anybody; you already know pfal. The links you posted really did come off to me like self pitying excuses. The first step to getting out of that (as IF that's what you want to do) is to recognize that. You wanted my opinion or you wouldn't have posted those links.
Others here do not blame God. They have connected with Him in other groups. Broken arrow, Geisha, even Kris Skedgell goes to a church. You seem to have the attitude of 'screw all of it'. Friend you look worn, like your heart has been torn. People may be fickle, but God is faithful.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
So_crates
According to your claimed belief system:
If you believe people misrepresent you, they do. But, its your believing.
If you believe what you say will fall on deaf ears, it will. But its your believing.
If you believe people are anti-waybrained, they are. But its your believing.
So rather than look at the fact that a lot of this is your negative believing, you rationalize and continue to blame others.
And you call me self pitying?
Once again. The purpose of communication is the result. If your not getting the results you want, adjust the communication.
Its your responsibility to package your message so it doesn't misrepresent you. Our only responsibility is to understand it best as we can.
The only person that can misrepresent you is you.
SoCrates
Edited by So_cratesLink to comment
Share on other sites
So_crates
I disagree. Agendas are usually hidden. You've just given me what you claim is your agenda. To get a deeper understanding:
What do you want?
How will you know when you have it?
Suprisingly, my agenda isn't to deconstruct TWI. I want people to know the truth about Saint Vic and his demented circus. Once they know its up to them to make their own decisions about what they want to do. I'll know I have it when I've broadcasted by every possible means the sham TWI is.
Belief systems are in a constant state of revision. When I was four, I believed you could get a girl pregnant by kissing her. I know better now.
When I was young, I believed my mother and father would live forever. I know better now.
When I was a teen, I believed I would live forever, I know better now.
When I was in twig, I believed God had an amazingly fantastic life just waiting for me to live. I know better now.
No belief system is fixed. As people grow and learn, they adjust their beliefs as they get new information.
SoCrates
Edited by So_cratesLink to comment
Share on other sites
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.