markomalley

For another perspective on the same topic, please take a look at this little thing from Penn Jillette (of Penn & Teller fame). Please note the whole 5 minutes is interesting, but the real "money quote" part comes starting at 3:00

Brilliant idea!!! In fact, as a tax deductible organization, there might be support from some who don't even post here but who are intereated in cult recovery and information.

For what it's worth, I appreciate what this site has been and what it has done for a lot of people. In my case, it finished doing what Waydale started: it answered ALL of my questions in regards to "what happened," it confirmed a lot of suspicions that prompted my quiet departure, and it removed a lot of illusions that I had about the "good old days." For making the forum available, you have my gratitude. I am likewise in debt to all of those who provided the inputs to the forum. As far as the poll is concerned, I didn't select any of the choices, as I didn't see that any of them adequately expressed my feelings about the place. There is a huge library of information available through perusing this forum, particularly the archives and the "About the Way" section. Unfortunately, a lot of that information is not indexed and cross-referenced. A lot of the most valuable nuggets of information may not be in the original post of a thread -- they may appear in posts #82 and #173 out of 312 posts in a given thread. Thus, those nuggets might not be immediately accessible to n00bs who would search for them. If the forums transitioned to a read-only state, old timers here would not be able to answer the questions posed by those n00bs. And, FWIW, I really didn't have all of my questions answered until I had posted here for a couple of years. I didn't even know what some of the questions were when I first started posting here. This is also a social club of sorts. There are those who post a lot on various and sundry topics that have nothing to do with helping answer TWI questions. There are those who rarely post and chat a lot. But the vast majority of us keep our eyes on the "About the Way" section and jump in when there is something to contribute. Of course, there is contentiousness no matter where you go (not only on this board, but anyplace on the 'Net). Having said that, here is something to consider: allowing the contentiousness actually increases the credibility of the information posted here. If contentious and hurtful posts were deleted rather than refuted in the open, only one side of the story would be presented...as it stands, many of the arguments that a lurker might hear from the TWI (or splinter) side of the story are right here and are knocked down. A TWIt might hear "the girls asked for it" off line from the TWI leadership. But when that accusation is levied against a girl who was repeatedly raped on this site and that girl (plus 10-15 others) jump down the throat of the person making the claim, it sort-of removes any credibility of the "asked for it" claim. Excessive thread editing and excessive banning of posters would remove that strength. Based upon what I've read on this thread, it's obvious that there is a lot of off-line stuff (e-mails, PMs, etc.) that I don't know and don't need to know. Frankly, if it's just e-mails/PMs, my advice is that there is a "delete" button on any e-mail client or web-based application. If it's something more serious than that (be it harassing phone calls, postal mail, stalking, credible physical threats, etc.), then that's another situation entirely. It is not my place to judge one way or the other, as I do not have anywhere close to all of the facts. Bottom line, though, is that this site is your private property. Nobody, with the exception of you, has the right to be here. Nobody has the right to ask you to dedicate any more of your time than what you have done in the past. If you shut it down today, I don't think anybody who's been around for any length of time would have any call to criticize you for that decision. But one thing: there are always n00bs joining this site. Always. That tells me that it still serves a purpose (whether or not that is the mark of viability is another issue altogether). Just one suggestion: if the majority of your woes (outside of acting as an umpire for online arguments) are from e-mail/ PM threats, you might want to consider enlisting a couple of trusted, but relatively emotionally detached, people to screen your PM box and pawtucket@greasespotcafe.com e-mail box for harassing e-mails. Sort of like a secretary does for an executive: delete the spam, deal with the small stuff, and only pass on the important stuff for the executive to handle. Regardless of your decision, you're in my prayers.

I would suggest that anybody who is looking for some job security look for a government job. Not the best pay, but very good benefits and almost zero chance of getting laid off (even if the specific job is eliminated, they work very hard to place you in a similar job elsewhere). For example, I looked for jobs in the state of Washington and came up with 873 hits. In addition, there are a lot of jobs where they will pay for moving expenses (although sometimes you have to get "into the system" at your own expenses and, then, as a "career" person, the jobs with relocation expenses increase dramatically). http://www.usajobs.gov (Oh, by the way, post office jobs are not posted on that site. They are posted here: http://www.usps.com/employment/) Of course, none of the above will help at all to cure an ailing economy, but if you need employment, this might be a good place to check.

Sorry to resurrect a somewhat old thread... But I wanted to add that I ran into Rico a few times during his interim Corps year in So. Illinois (he was in Carbondale, I was in Belleville). He was, in fact, highly enthusiastic (to put it mildly). In fact, it was his enthusiasm (along with ROA 88) that was one of the primary drivers that moved me to disappear off the face of the TWI earth. (When I had a military permanent change of station I didn't bother to leave a forwarding address for TWI) So while I would put him in the kool-aide drinking mind-numbed jerk category, I am, in a way, thankful that I ran into him. FWIW

Exactly. The facts hurt, Oldies. So why do you continue to defend the indefensible despite all the facts that are laid out? No, my exasperation was that despite all the facts, all the logic, all the impassioned arguments, there are those who are just so dense, so brainwashed, or so prideful that they simply won't admit that they were taught wrongly by TWI (or other similar cults) about the Church (not naming any names, mind you...I wouldn't want to be accused of making a personal attack). When I first started posting on GSC I just sucked it up and kept my mouth shut. Then I spoke out...thinking that some might hear. Well, I was utterly wrong. (What do they say about leading horses to water???) So I think I'll just make this my opus and wish all concerned a nice day.

(sighs) why bother any more...

The passage I would quote here is from Luke 15...particularly the story of the prodigal son. We can learn a lot from that passage. I'm sure that we're all familiar with it, so I won't bother to quote it here (you can look it up if you need), but a couple of things I'd want to point out: The son dishonored the father and voluntarily left (went to a far country) The son lived riotously, not in accord with how his father wanted The son then reaped the reward for his actions (started slopping hogs -- a MOST unclean animal in the eyes of the Jews, btw) The father didn't go after the son...he stayed on his estate. When the son repented and humbled himself, he went back The father welcomed him back with open arms...but the son had to take the first step and repent of his actions and walk back, before he could reap the reward of his repentence. See, there are the disconnects that Rascal and Wordwolf pointed out (quoted above). On one hand, the scriptures state that you are born again with incorruptible seed and that you are sons of God. On the other hand, there are many, many passages that call folks to good behavior and warn against the consequences of improper behavior. Why would there be consequences as clearly stated? Of course, VPW and his ilk did some scriptural gymnastics and said that it didn't really mean that you would go to h3ll. Rather, it was just talking about broken fellowship, or something along that ilk. Of course, those with Calvinist attitudes indicate that the person continued in his tendency of utter depravity and never was predestined for heaven in the first place. And those who are free-willers say that a person didn't truly repent in the first place and needs to come forward again. How about this, instead? How about separating the idea of "born again" from the idea of "salvation" a little bit? In other words, when you are baptized you die with Christ and are raised with him? (i.e., born again) But you always have the choice, like the prodigal son, of walking away, blowing away your inheritence, and then reaping the reward of that choice? Naturally, like the prodigal son, you are free to repent of that decision and walk back at any time you'd like, but, like the prodigal son, you are not going to be forced to act one way or another. Look at the oft-cited Romans 10:9 -- "That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved." If you'll note, this is a conditional statement. The action: "thou shalt be saved" is contingent upon the conditions: confessing the Lord Jesus and believing that God raised him from the dead. Does it say if you do it once and then have regrets on doing it, that you will still be saved? Has anybody really considered what it means to confess the Lord Jesus? What happens if you stop believing that God raised him from the dead? Salvation is typically presented in light of an "if" condition, either implicit or explicit. If you look at all these other passages in Galatians, I&II Corinthians, Phillipians, Thessalonians, the letters of Peter, and so on, that becomes clear. All of these places giving warning to be nice or else. Well, if you say that unconditionally, you are going to be saved regardless of your behavior (as VPW taught), then all of those verses ring really hollow. Why should I believe? Why should I act with grace in my heart? Why bother?? If you look really hard at the Luke 15 passage about the prodigal son, you recognize that you have the liberty of walking away. You can make the deliberate decision to live as an unbeliever. Does that change your status as being a son? No. But, do you get to reap the full beneifts/ consequences of your actions? Yes. Is God going to drag you, kicking and screaming, back? No. But, will He forgive and restore you if you come back? Absolutely. Something to consider. In the case of VP, the question for me is "did he repent of his multiple sins before he died?" If he did, I'm sure that God's mercy will cover a multitude of sins. If he didn't, then, well, ....

http://barackobamaisyournewbicycle.com/ Click on the link shown when you bring up the web page and you'll get a new message from the cult leader.

I just wish there was a way I could give it back. Unfortunately, I could do so and still have it counted against me for tax next year. Thanks Congress. Thanks Shrub.

Well, I guess this means that Paw can't ban anybody now ((ducking for cover)). The courts have ruled! A California judge in the Sixth Appellate District in Santa Clara County last week ruled that anonymous trolls on the Internet are allowed to stay anonymous. Along with remaining anonymous, Internet trolls are able to say what they like, by exercising their First Amendment rights, no matter how belittling is it. According to Reuters, the appeals court reversed a decision from 2006 that would have subpoenaed ten anonymous posters on Yahoo’s message board by the COO of a drug service company, Lisa Krinsky. The 2006 court case held that ten anonymous message board posters left quite a few harsh comments on the Internet regarding Krinsky, her company, and two officers at her company. One comment referred to Krinsky saying, "I will reciprocate felatoin [sic] with Lisa even though she has fat thighs, a fake medical degree, ***' and has *****." (read the cited article if you really want to read it. Trust me. You don't) Doe 6, a tag given to the anonymous posters, days later moved in superior court to quash the subpoena. The defendant claims that Krinsky had “failed to state a claim sufficient to overcome his First Amendment rights for either defamation or interference with a contractual or business relationship” and that her “request for injunctive relief was an invalid prior restraint”. From the Daily Tech: First Amendment Now Covers Forum Trolls

OKC, I'm sure you see what I'm saying now (see the bolded text, above)

St. Mary Mother of God Parish (on 5th St., across from the Irish Channel Pub?)). Beautiful old church! You are kidding! We go there about once a month. My daughter drags us down there for the 9AM Tridentine (Old Latin Rite) Mass.

Actually I really don't want to get into it. But when somebody wants to repeatedly shove his/her beliefs down another's throat, I think it's necessary and appropriate to make sure that the other side of the story is presented.

OKC WOW, Since White Dove is determined to make this a doctrinal discussion, I feel that you are owed both sides of the story. The other side of the story is straight from scripture. I am quoting the first passage with lots of context so that I can't be accused of taking a verse or two out of context. Jhn 6:32 Jesus then said to them, "Truly, truly, I say to you, it was not Moses who gave you the bread from heaven; my Father gives you the true bread from heaven. Jhn 6:33 For the bread of God is that which comes down from heaven, and gives life to the world." Jhn 6:34 They said to him, "Lord, give us this bread always." Jhn 6:35 Jesus said to them, "I am the bread of life; he who comes to me shall not hunger, and he who believes in me shall never thirst. Jhn 6:36 But I said to you that you have seen me and yet do not believe. Jhn 6:37 All that the Father gives me will come to me; and him who comes to me I will not cast out. Jhn 6:38 For I have come down from heaven, not to do my own will, but the will of him who sent me; Jhn 6:39 and this is the will of him who sent me, that I should lose nothing of all that he has given me, but raise it up at the last day. Jhn 6:40 For this is the will of my Father, that every one who sees the Son and believes in him should have eternal life; and I will raise him up at the last day." Jhn 6:41 The Jews then murmured at him, because he said, "I am the bread which came down from heaven." Jhn 6:42 They said, "Is not this Jesus, the son of Joseph, whose father and mother we know? How does he now say, 'I have come down from heaven'?" Jhn 6:43 Jesus answered them, "Do not murmur among yourselves. Jhn 6:44 No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws him; and I will raise him up at the last day. Jhn 6:45 It is written in the prophets, 'And they shall all be taught by God.' Every one who has heard and learned from the Father comes to me. Jhn 6:46 Not that any one has seen the Father except him who is from God; he has seen the Father. Jhn 6:47 Truly, truly, I say to you, he who believes has eternal life. Jhn 6:48 I am the bread of life. Jhn 6:49 Your fathers ate the manna in the wilderness, and they died. Jhn 6:50 This is the bread which comes down from heaven, that a man may eat of it and not die. Jhn 6:51 I am the living bread which came down from heaven; if any one eats of this bread, he will live for ever; and the bread which I shall give for the life of the world is my flesh." Jhn 6:52 The Jews then disputed among themselves, saying, "How can this man give us his flesh to eat?" Jhn 6:53 So Jesus said to them, "Truly, truly, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of man and drink his blood, you have no life in you; Jhn 6:54 he who eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day. Jhn 6:55 For my flesh is food indeed, and my blood is drink indeed. Jhn 6:56 He who eats my flesh and drinks my blood abides in me, and I in him. Jhn 6:57 As the living Father sent me, and I live because of the Father, so he who eats me will live because of me. Jhn 6:58 This is the bread which came down from heaven, not such as the fathers ate and died; he who eats this bread will live for ever." Jhn 6:59 This he said in the synagogue, as he taught at Caper'na-um. Jhn 6:60 Many of his disciples, when they heard it, said, "This is a hard saying; who can listen to it?" Jhn 6:61 But Jesus, knowing in himself that his disciples murmured at it, said to them, "Do you take offense at this? Jhn 6:62 Then what if you were to see the Son of man ascending where he was before? Jhn 6:63 It is the spirit that gives life, the flesh is of no avail; the words that I have spoken to you are spirit and life. Jhn 6:64 But there are some of you that do not believe." For Jesus knew from the first who those were that did not believe, and who it was that would betray him. Jhn 6:65 And he said, "This is why I told you that no one can come to me unless it is granted him by the Father." Jhn 6:66 After this many of his disciples drew back and no longer went about with him. Jhn 6:67 Jesus said to the twelve, "Do you also wish to go away?" Jhn 6:68 Simon Peter answered him, "Lord, to whom shall we go? You have the words of eternal life; Jhn 6:69 and we have believed, and have come to know, that you are the Holy One of God." Please note the bolded text in Jhn 6:53-6:56. Note the number of times he repeated the same thing. Had he been speaking metaphorically, would he have repeated it so many times adding emphasis (and if you assert this, please show me where he said the same thing 5 times in a row and was speaking metaphorically). Also, if it is obvious he was speaking metaphorically, why would many of his disciples draw back and no longer go about with him (v66)? If it was obviously a metaphor, then don't you think that they would recognize this? Or, barring that, don't you think he would say "hey guys, I was speaking symbolically here." (He did so a number of times when explaining parables elsewhere, you'll recall) 1 Cor 11:29 For any one who eats and drinks without discerning the body eats and drinks judgment upon himself. (Note the word discerning is διακρίνων (from diakrino) to evaluate, recognize, consider.) If you'd like to see the context of this verse, you need to start off with I Cor 10:15 and read throughout to this point. He covers a lot of points, but they all circle around participation in the Eucharist. So we have St. John reporting the words of Jesus very directly. We have St. Paul criticizing people for not recognizing the Body of Christ in the Eucharist. As verification that this is what, in fact, the apostles were talking about, we can look to St. Ignatius of Antioch, a student of St. John. In 110 AD (Only a few years after the Apocolypse was written), he wrote, in a letter to the Smyrnaens, the following: But consider those who are of a different opinion with respect to the grace of Christ which has come unto us, how opposed they are to the will of God. They have no regard for love; no care for the widow, or the orphan, or the oppressed; of the bond, or of the free; of the hungry, or of the thirsty. They abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer, because they confess not the Eucharist to be the flesh of our Saviour Jesus Christ, which suffered for our sins, and which the Father, of His goodness, raised up again. Those, therefore, who speak against this gift of God, incur death in the midst of their disputes. But it were better for them to treat it with respect, that they also might rise again. (If you want to read it for yourself, you can see it here (Catholic source) or here (Protestant source)) I'm really not trying to start a doctrinal argument with White Dove. He believes what he wants and I believe what I want. But since he is insistent upon pushing his understanding down your throat, I figure that you need the other side of the story, as well. Now, in addition to being a really nice guy, White Dove is also a pretty sharp person. And I would bet that if anybody could come up with chapter and verse that explicitly says that the Eucharist is only symbollically the Body and Blood of Christ, then he would be that one. Or if anybody could show that the Eucharist is nothing of importance at all in the spiritual life of the Christian, I am also equally certain that he would be the one who could do so. But I don't think that even White Dove could do so...unless he engages in some major gymnastics. So here's the bottom line: you can go with what scripture clearly says and what has been the consistent interpretation of scripture from the first century...or you can go with what White Dove says. Honestly, I am not really trying to convince you one way or the other; I'm just trying to make sure that both sides of the story are reflected here.

Actually, excath, I would never put you in the same league -- I don't recall seeing you go out of your way -- and, if anybody in the world would have a reason to go out of your way, you would.

One thing about White Dove that you have to understand is that he is one of the few on this site who are Jack Chick-like in his hatred of the Catholic Church and anything Catholic at all. (click on the link and you'll see why in this case). It's sort of funny. Whenever I bring up anything overtly pro-Catholic on this thread, he immediately pounces (I think his mission is to warn mere mortals like yourself about the evils of the Catholic Church) If there is a pedophile priest thread and I say something to condemn the practice, he jumps on and criticizes me because I am either not critical enough or that I don't realize "the real reason they're pedophiles is because they're Catholic..." (note the quotes there) If I attempt to correct a mis-statement, well, I am not qualified to do so because he graduated from a Catholic High School and thus knows more about the Church than the Pope (which is really funny, considering Ratzinger's background as a theologian). The message content such as that posted by White Dove, and the open hatred expressed therein, is the reason why there are some who post on this board (as I mentioned to you in that other thread) who are afraid to admit that they have either a) converted or b) gone back. (Corrected to add this one comment) But, don't get me wrong. Other than this one subject, he's a pretty nice guy. There's just that one chink in his armor...

White Dove, I was wondering when you were going to show up! Can't have a Catholic thread (even one that is started by an ex catholic) without you having to put your two cents in. (BTW, glad to see you finally admit to rejecting Sacred Scripture. It took long enough. I'm sure Geo and Garth will be glad to welcome you into thier caucus)

That is a LOVELY account of the Mass. It is a pity when people lose that faith and only see the motions.

I cannot imagine what it would have been like hearing that live, particularly as a young, impressionable person.

You might want to take a look at some of these old threads in the Greasespot Archives: Wierwille, Jonestown, & totalitarian "cults", exploitative manipulation, TWI-style The Thirteenth Tribe 1978 - The Current Psychological Hoax 1976 Corps Meetings VPW - A Patton Wannabe

Well, of course. If this were the 'tacks forum, we'd have to violently disagree...just as a matter of principle! (Gee, Radar would be proud right about now)

That is truly the funny part about all of the discussions with ANWR and so on...or "no oil for food" or any of the rest of it. Petroleum is traded on a global market basis. It is strict capitalism. We think that we'd help ourselves out a whole bunch if we tapped ANWR or drilled off of California? Well, we wouldn't. All we would do would be to increase the supply proportionally and drive the price down for everybody...including China and India. Yeah, more of the oil we use would be domestic, but unless we could 100% isolate ourselves from the remainder of the world, it wouldn't matter. (And, in fact, even if we could, it wouldn't matter, as the amount demanded would go down for a steady state of supply. Thus prices would still drop) The fact of the matter is that it really just doesn't matter. The only thing that will is if we meet our existing energy requirements (both for fixed and mobile requirements) using a different source, or different sources, than we are now. And those sources must be all domestic. And those sources must not cost more per joule of energy (and, if they are to be adopted willingly, they must cost less per joule) than what we use at this time. Otherwise, it just ain't gonna happen.

So you mean it isn't this? Or is this what you're looking to do in a year: Just want to make sure I understand...

I am a Lector and a catechist. I like doing apologetics in my spare time (but don't worry, I'm not quitting my day job!)