All Activity

This was a prior question in response to the statement "In Essentials Unity, In Nonessentials Liberty, and In All Things Love." Was thinking it over ... here's my quick 2 cents. I would say mostly Yes. Because of these things: (1) Unity: Yes. Without unity, or a system of "forced" integration with love, what do you really have? There's either a mandate of likemindedness and conformity, which is one of the major essences of an organized religion; or division and confusion, right? You can go on and on about telling people they should live the way they want to live but regarding essentials that's not biblical Christianity, right? Add on the Corps commitment, and you've got assimilation x 2. or 3. "Deny Yourself and be Sold Out to the Program". (2) Liberty: Yes to nonessentials. You like colgate toothpaste and I like crest. You like blue dresses and I like yellow. Granted, there was less of that sort of thing in the Corps. (3) Love: Yes. Without it any religion is ultimately doomed.

I can understand where you are coming from making such a statement, since believer’s think one can only experience joy by what is written in a book written thousands of years ago. They rationalize the only way of knowing if something is right or wrong is by reading it chapter and verse from this book. They also must read, apparently, what joy is to bevable to experience it. As an atheist I can tell you i have not experienced so much joy since no longer relying on god. I find joy in everyday living doing the things necessary to live. Family and friends play a significant role in my happiness and it doesn’t matter what their religious beliefs might be. Plus I no longer have to be concerned if I am pleasing god or not.

I think the bottom line is, nothing Charity said amounts to a broad attack on Christians in general that warrants a pre-emptive retaliatory attack on atheists.

If I were to go ahead with the documentation, it would be about ministries other than twi, offshoots of twi or cults. Would it be best to do so then in the Open forum or the Doctrinal: Exploring the Bible sub-forum? (Mind you, there is not a lot of scriptural support for the documentation since it's pretty much man made doctrines and practices.) Other than doing so specifically in response to JoyfulSoul's post, the documentation sheds a light on what leaders of these mega churches are saying and doing.

My post was about the prophetic phoniness (with a few extra adjectives added) that certain ministries prosper in. Your reply made it about the ministries themselves. Slight, but important, difference. I was aiming solely with the prophetic practices of these groups - not all the practices. These are the specific practices that I planned to document for you.

Same pattern. Break the clear site rules. Find out no one's going to put up with it. Claim bias and persecution and run off pretending to be taking the high ground. It was a nice try.

The mob can dish it out. Taking it? Not so much. I started reading the thread I started to find out why it felt right to be a 'bit' punchy. Lots of snarky and it didn't start with me. It's a balancing act. I'll withdraw from this thread just as I did the other. It was an interesting conversation. Now, I'm done.

I appreciate your judgmentalism about how uptight people are when it comes to this site's moderation. It really keeps me up, sometimes, wondering what you think of whether and how we enforce site rules. But rest assured, if we ever REALLY need to know we'll ask you.

So here's the exact wording Joyful cited. This was, of course, MANY posts after Joyful's broadside against atheists, so he can't honestly portray his comment as a response. In any event, specific or even general criticisms of ministry practices are not nearly the same thing as bigoted comments about all or most Christians, and don't deserve to be treated as such.

Alright, I just glanced at that thread. Still, some seem kind of uptight- like, 'oooohhhh, don't cross that line' So, we toss it back and forth a little, so what? I can't really tell if the criticism is objective or if it's because I'm scoring points? Tough pill to swallow. All of us were brimming with faith at some point. Some continued on with timeless, scared truths. Others of us got wounded and became entrenched in a protective, adversarial belief system. I don't know who said it but the way to fix a wrong turn is to go back to the place it was made (well, I guess there could be a shortcut). That can be a tough pill. As the O' Jays sang, 'if you miss it, I feel sorry, sorry for you.' We weren't wrong when we believed.

Chockfull got tired of an imaginary persecution he/she could not document except by blatantly lying about multiple people's experience in this board.

It's called a conversation. Things come out bit by but if some self appointed enforcer doesn't blow the whole thing up when someone comes along with a little push back Unfortunately, Chockful evidently got tired of it. I've got .... and vinegar for miles.

If you'd have asked, I would have mentioned it sooner. Questions are welcome here. Either you'll get an answer, or possibly some links to whole discussions of the answer. Or the names of several threads with whole discussions.

That's easy. Neither is considered acceptable- at least in this forum, there's a smidge of leeway in some specific fora- but the person who started escalated everything. Had your response been to someone's comment, I would have reminded the other person to behave. None of these posts are secret, so it's sensible that anyone I don't remind by name can still be reminded when they see it brought up. Oh, "poking fun." It that like "the boys having a little fun" when they hit or insulted "the darkies" some time ago in the deep South? That wasn't meant to be offensive, either, but it sure as heck was. If you think someone has "logical conclusions" in their doctrine, feel free to post about it in the appropriate forum. There's an entire forum that's perfect for that one. In this one, unless the doctrine is "vpw didn't rape anyone, didn't plagiarize, wasn't an alcoholic and didn't teach lcm to be twofold the child of hades that vpw was", then it's off-topic. So, obviously, everyone- mentioned or not- should remember that, and back off on doctrines, beliefs, coda, etc in this forum.

This was the most expensive television show to produce at the time, costing over a million dollars to make each episode, which was one of the reasons it was canceled after only 13 episodes. The actor playing the titular character based his performance on William Shatner as Captain Kirk in Star Trek (1966) of which he is a big fan. A video game based on this series produced by Bug-Byte Software was released for the Commodore 64 platform in 1985. George

Bill Miller Bill Baker Al Crowthers Larry Todd Joe Anthony Rick Todd Bama Dillert Jeffrey Moss Sam Harmon Nick Arden Jason Steele Tom Elder George

The Night They Raided Minsky's Berl Lahr The Wizard of Oz George

You can find more stories like this throughout the board, if you’re interested. WW summarized it all very well, but I suspect many still miss a critical point he makes. WW: vpw taught lcm. Among the things he taught him was that lcm was going to have to "loosen up" on the subject of sex and sex acts with women other than his wife if he wanted to lead God's people. He convinced lcm that vpw was the real thing. So, when lcm did things vpw did, lcm believed they were OK with God Almighty, so he didn't cover his tracks so much..which is why he got caught. There are accounts here witnessing lcm as a meek and diligent seeker before victor got to him. Idk, but it’s been said. It’s easy to blame lcm. He deserves it. But there is no lcm without vpw. Anakin Skywalker became Darth Vader. All the wickedness and destruction goes back to the original, victor. All. Of. It.

I kept getting stuck on "My Boyfriend's Back," but I knew that wasn't it. George

See, now this is interesting. I was never told the backstory. I was really disappointed in '93 because my young nephew joined me at the Rock that year. Everyone knows what it's like trying to communicate your faith or the reasons for your faith. Well, the Rock was nothing like I told him it was. It just wasn't worth it. Now I know why.

I remember watching it with my Dad. It WAS a bit bawdy for the day but probably tamer than Sesame Street, now. George

Since you separated sexual abuse into a separate offense, tell us about the extreme prophetic phoniness. Also, tell us what if any of the supernatural you believe might be authentic. I have some familiarity with all of those groups and frequented two of them many times.