quote:CES is not what it advertises itself to be. The CES leaders are dishonest.
Steve Lortz, I think folks have to decide for themselves whether CES is being dishonest, or being dishonest enough to turn away from. I haven't seen or heard anything that persuades me to turn away from them or mark and avoid them. I think their books are worth reading; their tapes are worth hearing. You don't have to agree with everything they preach ... that's a given. Why not let people believe what they want to and stop being so anal retentive about it?
I think folks have to decide for themselves whether CES is being dishonest, or being dishonest enough to turn away from.
And how do they decide, oldiesman? How do we make an informed decision when we only have one side and it's a polished production like CES? Do we wade through hundreds of pages of CES tracts, calculated to cajole and persuade, rather than engage and inform? No, they take advantage of a collective "dialogue" like this one, if they're going to have a fighting chance. Why not look at the pro's and con's? Becaues CES' tradition is beyond question? Are you kidding me?
This is the only way to avoid being conned by the pro's, oldiesman. It's essential. And ESPECIALLY when CES leadership are all alumni of the same miserable cult, we need coherent arguments, valid questions, public "dialogue." CES is strangely silent though. I think it's because they have plenty to hide. They can't answer the tough questions, so they hide. Didn't CES endorse something called "Dialogue" once? As Invaluable Dan points out, they've changed its name (if I got that right). (They should have changed it to "Demagogue " - but they didn't ask me.)
oldiesman, here is what you are saying, in so many words, and in so many ways: "PAY NO ATTENTION TO THE MAN BEHIND THE CURTAIN!!" Sorry Toto. You may be logging in from Oz, but most of us are back in Kansas.
I haven't jumped in here, because I don't know John personally and I haven't had any real exposure to CES, but I'm wondering something. On the one hand, yes, JAL should make more of an effort to get to know us and drop the MOG persona some, yet if he did this, would we let him?
If he was to, say, post on Just Thinking's new thread about way homes, not as the MOG, but just like the rest of us, (like someone who understands TWI terminology). Let's say he posts on that thread and says, "Whoa! Way homes? Now that's something I haven't thought of for awhile. I used to like this one way home in Indianapolis; God were those people goofy...etc."
If he really did try to relate to us on our level, would we let him do it, or would 50 people gang up on him like mosquitoes and post stuff like, "Oh yeah! Way homes! Whoopie! I was in a way home once. Scarred me for life! Glad to hear you enjoyed YOUR way home, JOHN!!!" Are we really giving him much of a reason to pursue communication here?
In light of Greasespot's history and purpose, it is a PRIVILEGE for John Lynn to be HERE, and to address the many people who post, and many more who frequent Greasespot.
That is reason enough for him to "pursue communications" here, if he so desires. There are no special guarantees of safe passage for "VIP's." He gets what everybody gets, no more or less. If he, or his handlers and peeps, sense mortal, spiritual danger, he can just retreat back into the safety of shadows (a.k.a. "CES"), from whence he came.
Even so, John has nothing to fear. After all, fear is only false evidence, appearing real. And besides, if a few posters got really out of line, with language or accusations, Greasespot would protect him. He wouldn't have to resort to "spiritual anger." And that's best.
On the one hand, yes, JAL should make more of an effort to get to know us and drop the MOG persona some, yet if he did this, would we let him?
If he was to, say, post on Just Thinking's new thread about way homes, not as the MOG, but just like the rest of us, (like someone who understands TWI terminology). Let's say he posts on that thread and says, "Whoa! Way homes? Now that's something I haven't thought of for awhile. I used to like this one way home in Indianapolis; God were those people goofy...etc."
If he really did try to relate to us on our level, would we let him do it, or would 50 people gang up on him like mosquitoes and post stuff like, "Oh yeah! Way homes! Whoopie! I was in a way home once. Scarred me for life! Glad to hear you enjoyed YOUR way home, JOHN!!!" Are we really giving him much of a reason to pursue communication here?
Johniam,
You raise an interesting point. I suspect John might have just as many folks swooning over him in loving and protective admiration or agreement, as those of us "mosquitos" who may not concur with his ideas. Bzzzzzz.....I am a mosquito....a mosquito is what I am.... :)-->
But I always regarded John to be something of a gifted, master "communicator". He could get up on a stage and play an entire audience with his humor and what not. And considering all the emotional lashings and vomitings and crappings and pillow punchings which seemingly goes on in those "Momentus" group-encounter sessions through which he's undergone and even promoted in the past, why should the public commotion of varying opinions and expressions and debates such as are exchanged in this humble little thread and forum scare off a man of such experience and stature?
My opinion is that he would be treated well. Some would probably say "hey how about answering me on the other post" or something not quite as nice. If he kept posting, it would probably go away and actually turn into a conversation at some point. A couple of folks here (Mike, Oldies) get a lot of grief for their views but I haven't heard anyone shred them just for showing up.
Maybe I'm being naive but I think most people here are pretty decent. Who knows what a little effort on JLs part might do?
If you can stop for a moment and remember the godly aspects of twi, if not now, then the twi of the past, and focus on that and dispose of the ungodliness, i.e., the sex scandals, the corps cultness, the condemnation of other religions, etc., then you might have what exists now in CES. I don't really know, I'm just surmising, because I've never been to one of their meetings. I suspect that's how it might be. From what I've seen of getting their free newsletters and buying some of their tapes, it seems like they are an improvement.
waddaheyy made his mind-boggling observation and that was it...
sorry, Dan, I couldn't resist... seriously, explain, waddaheyy -- tell us how evil we all are for daring to call JAL and CES in question...how "blood-suckingly" evil and wasteful and counter-productive and unlike you we all are.... quote some philosophers, too, woodja?? How about Ayn Rand this time??
I read jeff's link and it gives alot of information about what John thinks about many many topics.
I can understand why he doesnt want to debate and agrue in this forum he for one doesnt want to speak his mind without calculated thought and comparison to "the word" .
I do not know if this is right or wrong but it is his choice isnt it? few here have their personal life questioned or debated we only go with the information a person choses to post. Pawtucket has clearly defined personal information as against the rules .
so in a way John is alot more forthcoming about what he thinks about topics than many here . I would like to discuss things with him and he has made his e-mail available but I will say for the record when i went that route a few years ago and asked them questions they did ignore me all together when they didnt think I was right they came up with a bible verse instead of a direct answer ..
to them that is their direct answer at times I do not think it is sharing or honest just a little game. sales and all.
If GSC ever changes its name it oughta be called Mars Hill.
Satori: Yes, it is a privilege to be here isn't it? Welcome back, by the way.
IDan: I agree, JAL's a big boy; he is equal to anything here. From a senses point of view, he isn't likely to get many bites for his group if he won't answer posts, but maybe he thinks God told him to post here.
JT: quote: Maybe I'm being naive but I think most people here are pretty decent. Who knows what a little effort on JLs part might do?
I totally agree.
WW: quote: If he did, I would give him a fair shake.
Neither giving him a "free ride" nor attacking him.
That's the cool thing about GSC. We don't have to respect persons. JAL's come this far; he really ought to indulge some of us.
John Lynn is a self-serving elitest. This is convenient because he has always viewed himself as one of the "elite." His "man of God" role is an indispensable part of his "elite act." It affords instant sanctification, that is, status, because many people are quick to sign off on the clergy's claim to that status.
If John should ever lower himself to "indulge" or "toy with" GSC, it will only be on the safest possible terms. He has plenty of "false evidence appearing real" that we might challenge some of his most precious, personal illusions. No self-absorbed narcissist like himself could permit that.
Well of course he's not going to indulge in any real debate with anyone here.
He's a busy man (unlike any of us), busy, busy, busy (did I mention he was busy?). He's got the weight of the whole world on his shoulders, after all. Since the emminent DR. WIERWILLE (who would be VERY proud of him) has passed, it's only JAL and co. that are the TRUE ministers of THE WURD. All those gazillion other guys out there who make their living by selling Christian theology, well, they're just not doing it right. We NEED CES as it's the only bastion of the True Wurd left for us.
And naturally, when you're in charge of an organization THAT important, you can't take time to talk to mere people. Especially when there's not much fresh meat around. He's busy, afterall. Remember? REALLY busy.
Nice thing about Mars Hill? It was a classic example of an open market of ideas; an open society, as it were.
Which is (IMHO) preferable to closed societies like TWI, and various other fundamentalist groups, where a wide range of opinions and challenges are hardly tolerated.
Speaking of Momentus, I didn't realize Bo Reahard was on the Mashiyach Ministries Board of Directors.
Although I know very little about Momentus, I am confident the ostensible psycho-pietistic scheme would generally elicit contempt from doctrinally informed and irritable Calvinists.
In the context of Wayfers, ex-Wayfers and CES-types, however, the doctrinal statement at the Mashiyach Ministries website ( http://www.momentus-mashiyach.org/momentus...ch-doctrine.htm ) shines quite brightly. It is a theologically and Christologically orthodox profession-by-reference of the statements of the Apostles', Nicene and Athanasian Creeds and the Definition of Chalcedon.
I have no complaints about the profession, although I do have some questions:
1. Is MM board of directors member Bo Reahard now a Trinitarian who believes and affirms Chalcedon Christology?
2. Are non-ex-TWI MM figures genuinely orthodox Trinitarian and Chalcedon Christians who somehow deem Trinitarian theology and Chalcedon Christology nonessential issues regarding fellowship, collaboration and ministry office?
3. Has there been opposition by MM figures to the Unitarian/Socinian dogmas and polemics of Lynn/Schoenheit/Graesser?
I hope MM's public averring of Nicene/Athanasian/Chalcedon Christianity has arisen out of something much more substantial than a need to say something about one's orthodoxy after fraternizing with orthodoxy's Unitarian/Socianian foes (e.g. CES).
Recommended Posts
Top Posters In This Topic
28
25
23
19
Popular Days
Jul 30
50
Aug 10
37
Sep 9
30
Jul 31
28
Top Posters In This Topic
sky4it 28 posts
oldiesman 25 posts
satori001 23 posts
TheSongRemainsTheSame 19 posts
Popular Days
Jul 30 2004
50 posts
Aug 10 2004
37 posts
Sep 9 2004
30 posts
Jul 31 2004
28 posts
oldiesman
Steve Lortz, I think folks have to decide for themselves whether CES is being dishonest, or being dishonest enough to turn away from. I haven't seen or heard anything that persuades me to turn away from them or mark and avoid them. I think their books are worth reading; their tapes are worth hearing. You don't have to agree with everything they preach ... that's a given. Why not let people believe what they want to and stop being so anal retentive about it?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
satori001
This is the only way to avoid being conned by the pro's, oldiesman. It's essential. And ESPECIALLY when CES leadership are all alumni of the same miserable cult, we need coherent arguments, valid questions, public "dialogue." CES is strangely silent though. I think it's because they have plenty to hide. They can't answer the tough questions, so they hide. Didn't CES endorse something called "Dialogue" once? As Invaluable Dan points out, they've changed its name (if I got that right). (They should have changed it to "Demagogue " - but they didn't ask me.)
oldiesman, here is what you are saying, in so many words, and in so many ways: "PAY NO ATTENTION TO THE MAN BEHIND THE CURTAIN!!" Sorry Toto. You may be logging in from Oz, but most of us are back in Kansas.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
def59
OM
Considering how you deny TWI had any errors, your endorsement of CES leaves something to be desired.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
oldiesman
I never denied twi has/had any errors. where did you get that from?
-->
Link to comment
Share on other sites
johniam
I haven't jumped in here, because I don't know John personally and I haven't had any real exposure to CES, but I'm wondering something. On the one hand, yes, JAL should make more of an effort to get to know us and drop the MOG persona some, yet if he did this, would we let him?
If he was to, say, post on Just Thinking's new thread about way homes, not as the MOG, but just like the rest of us, (like someone who understands TWI terminology). Let's say he posts on that thread and says, "Whoa! Way homes? Now that's something I haven't thought of for awhile. I used to like this one way home in Indianapolis; God were those people goofy...etc."
If he really did try to relate to us on our level, would we let him do it, or would 50 people gang up on him like mosquitoes and post stuff like, "Oh yeah! Way homes! Whoopie! I was in a way home once. Scarred me for life! Glad to hear you enjoyed YOUR way home, JOHN!!!" Are we really giving him much of a reason to pursue communication here?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
satori001
In light of Greasespot's history and purpose, it is a PRIVILEGE for John Lynn to be HERE, and to address the many people who post, and many more who frequent Greasespot.
That is reason enough for him to "pursue communications" here, if he so desires. There are no special guarantees of safe passage for "VIP's." He gets what everybody gets, no more or less. If he, or his handlers and peeps, sense mortal, spiritual danger, he can just retreat back into the safety of shadows (a.k.a. "CES"), from whence he came.
Even so, John has nothing to fear. After all, fear is only false evidence, appearing real. And besides, if a few posters got really out of line, with language or accusations, Greasespot would protect him. He wouldn't have to resort to "spiritual anger." And that's best.
Edited by satori001Link to comment
Share on other sites
TheInvisibleDan
Johniam,
You raise an interesting point. I suspect John might have just as many folks swooning over him in loving and protective admiration or agreement, as those of us "mosquitos" who may not concur with his ideas. Bzzzzzz.....I am a mosquito....a mosquito is what I am....
:)-->
But I always regarded John to be something of a gifted, master "communicator". He could get up on a stage and play an entire audience with his humor and what not. And considering all the emotional lashings and vomitings and crappings and pillow punchings which seemingly goes on in those "Momentus" group-encounter sessions through which he's undergone and even promoted in the past, why should the public commotion of varying opinions and expressions and debates such as are exchanged in this humble little thread and forum scare off a man of such experience and stature?
Danny
Link to comment
Share on other sites
JustThinking
johniam,
My opinion is that he would be treated well. Some would probably say "hey how about answering me on the other post" or something not quite as nice. If he kept posting, it would probably go away and actually turn into a conversation at some point. A couple of folks here (Mike, Oldies) get a lot of grief for their views but I haven't heard anyone shred them just for showing up.
Maybe I'm being naive but I think most people here are pretty decent. Who knows what a little effort on JLs part might do?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
WordWolf
If he did, I would give him a fair shake.
Neither giving him a "free ride" nor attacking him.
If he really wanted dialogue but was afraid
("life is fear in the sand of machinery"-JAL with no proofreader, WTRYPSU),
he could always use an alias and be anonymous.
=========
Personally,
I find it interesting that he had time to write up the articles
Jeff linked to, but has yet to respond to us.
(He might-there hasn't been a huge passage of time, here.)
Link to comment
Share on other sites
satori001
John Lynn probably waiting for the latest Dement-Us (Momentus) seminar on internet bulletin boards before he posts again.
Speaking of Momentus, I didn't realize Bo Reahard was on the Mashiyach Ministries Board of Directors. It's on their website.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
def59
Om
You seem quick to apologize and defend TWI no matter what the statement. So I made the mistake of assuming. Sorry.
Still CES sounds like warmed-over TWI, so again that's not a ringing endorsement.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
oldiesman
If you can stop for a moment and remember the godly aspects of twi, if not now, then the twi of the past, and focus on that and dispose of the ungodliness, i.e., the sex scandals, the corps cultness, the condemnation of other religions, etc., then you might have what exists now in CES. I don't really know, I'm just surmising, because I've never been to one of their meetings. I suspect that's how it might be. From what I've seen of getting their free newsletters and buying some of their tapes, it seems like they are an improvement.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
What The Hay
Of course, like any mosquito you're only out looking for blood. So what else is new?
-->
Link to comment
Share on other sites
alfakat
Thanks, what da hey, you are a regular Mr. Science!! or maybe Mr. Wizard??
No slippin anything by you, is there??
Link to comment
Share on other sites
TheInvisibleDan
What-the-Hay:
Please, by all means, wear your bug spray.
I have no wish draw John Lynn's blood, - merely to engage in a public discourse.
Danny
Edited by TheInvisibleDanLink to comment
Share on other sites
alfakat
Nuttin, honey.......
waddaheyy made his mind-boggling observation and that was it...
sorry, Dan, I couldn't resist... seriously, explain, waddaheyy -- tell us how evil we all are for daring to call JAL and CES in question...how "blood-suckingly" evil and wasteful and counter-productive and unlike you we all are.... quote some philosophers, too, woodja?? How about Ayn Rand this time??
Link to comment
Share on other sites
mj412
I read jeff's link and it gives alot of information about what John thinks about many many topics.
I can understand why he doesnt want to debate and agrue in this forum he for one doesnt want to speak his mind without calculated thought and comparison to "the word" .
I do not know if this is right or wrong but it is his choice isnt it? few here have their personal life questioned or debated we only go with the information a person choses to post. Pawtucket has clearly defined personal information as against the rules .
so in a way John is alot more forthcoming about what he thinks about topics than many here . I would like to discuss things with him and he has made his e-mail available but I will say for the record when i went that route a few years ago and asked them questions they did ignore me all together when they didnt think I was right they came up with a bible verse instead of a direct answer ..
to them that is their direct answer at times I do not think it is sharing or honest just a little game. sales and all.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
johniam
If GSC ever changes its name it oughta be called Mars Hill.
Satori: Yes, it is a privilege to be here isn't it? Welcome back, by the way.
IDan: I agree, JAL's a big boy; he is equal to anything here. From a senses point of view, he isn't likely to get many bites for his group if he won't answer posts, but maybe he thinks God told him to post here.
JT: quote: Maybe I'm being naive but I think most people here are pretty decent. Who knows what a little effort on JLs part might do?
I totally agree.
WW: quote: If he did, I would give him a fair shake.
Neither giving him a "free ride" nor attacking him.
That's the cool thing about GSC. We don't have to respect persons. JAL's come this far; he really ought to indulge some of us.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
satori001
John Lynn is a self-serving elitest. This is convenient because he has always viewed himself as one of the "elite." His "man of God" role is an indispensable part of his "elite act." It affords instant sanctification, that is, status, because many people are quick to sign off on the clergy's claim to that status.
If John should ever lower himself to "indulge" or "toy with" GSC, it will only be on the safest possible terms. He has plenty of "false evidence appearing real" that we might challenge some of his most precious, personal illusions. No self-absorbed narcissist like himself could permit that.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
houseisarockin
I knew not the man personally, but agree he ought to indulge us. After all it is he that came here.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
George Aar
Well of course he's not going to indulge in any real debate with anyone here.
He's a busy man (unlike any of us), busy, busy, busy (did I mention he was busy?). He's got the weight of the whole world on his shoulders, after all. Since the emminent DR. WIERWILLE (who would be VERY proud of him) has passed, it's only JAL and co. that are the TRUE ministers of THE WURD. All those gazillion other guys out there who make their living by selling Christian theology, well, they're just not doing it right. We NEED CES as it's the only bastion of the True Wurd left for us.
And naturally, when you're in charge of an organization THAT important, you can't take time to talk to mere people. Especially when there's not much fresh meat around. He's busy, afterall. Remember? REALLY busy.
Bah, just another drive-by posting...
Link to comment
Share on other sites
dmiller
Link to comment
Share on other sites
GarthP2000
Nice thing about Mars Hill? It was a classic example of an open market of ideas; an open society, as it were.
Which is (IMHO) preferable to closed societies like TWI, and various other fundamentalist groups, where a wide range of opinions and challenges are hardly tolerated.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Cynic
Although I know very little about Momentus, I am confident the ostensible psycho-pietistic scheme would generally elicit contempt from doctrinally informed and irritable Calvinists.
In the context of Wayfers, ex-Wayfers and CES-types, however, the doctrinal statement at the Mashiyach Ministries website ( http://www.momentus-mashiyach.org/momentus...ch-doctrine.htm ) shines quite brightly. It is a theologically and Christologically orthodox profession-by-reference of the statements of the Apostles', Nicene and Athanasian Creeds and the Definition of Chalcedon.
I have no complaints about the profession, although I do have some questions:
1. Is MM board of directors member Bo Reahard now a Trinitarian who believes and affirms Chalcedon Christology?
2. Are non-ex-TWI MM figures genuinely orthodox Trinitarian and Chalcedon Christians who somehow deem Trinitarian theology and Chalcedon Christology nonessential issues regarding fellowship, collaboration and ministry office?
3. Has there been opposition by MM figures to the Unitarian/Socinian dogmas and polemics of Lynn/Schoenheit/Graesser?
I hope MM's public averring of Nicene/Athanasian/Chalcedon Christianity has arisen out of something much more substantial than a need to say something about one's orthodoxy after fraternizing with orthodoxy's Unitarian/Socianian foes (e.g. CES).
Link 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.