markomalley

I agree with the second quote.

What is this prayer supposed to accomplish? Cause my free will to be overridden? Sweep away some supposed fog or veil that is preventing me from seeing the truth?

What would you think if a Witch told you that they were casting a spell to get you to reject Christianity and embrace the craft?

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

What if Greasespot required more than your login?

It strikes me that the best parts of GSC can thrive if a few people were willing to gather a handful of resources and actually form a bonafide non-profit.

Just a thought.

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.

The holidays are a time to remember and plan ahead.

This place has been worthwhile for many over the years. I've enjoyed building it and seeing it grow. But that comes with a price. A price that has cost dearly at times. I am not looking for anything other than that you participate in this poll, so that I can get some feedback

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.

I was in-rez with Rico and he was a delight... just a guy who was full of life and joy and enthusiasm for God back then. It's so sad to see what he has become. But once you buy into the big lie that twi is the best (aka ONLY) way to know and worship God, and you start climbing that leadership ladder, it's pretty hard to turn back. I think he is convinced that by keeping twi's lockbox secure, and keeping "god's ministry" safe from outside interference, he is doing God's most holy work. Really sad.

I knew Rico, he was the WOW Program Director the year I went WOW, I had to deal with him several times on the phone and other wise.

Here's how I feel about him, I feel he is just a straight up filthy liar. I thought his wife was cute though.

I also felt Rico was a pimp for LCM Don and Howard picking all the hot tail from the WOW field for them to pillage, this is just how I feel, there may be no basis in fact for any of this.

Any way that felt good to get off my chest.

Seth

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

I had the privilege of meeting Tony face-to-face a couple of times throughout the years and interacted with him on an online forum for years. He was a genuinely good man, doted on his children, and had a profound faith.

When in heated discussions, he supported his positions with fervor, but always with charity (i.e., I never remember him belittling his opponent in an argument). Whenever he communicated about his health, he always maintained an extremely positive attitude about him. He set a really great example for many of us who communicate online or via the media.

He will be sorely missed by many, including me.

The facts hurt Mark. It's near impossible defending the indefensible.

I also think the present day RC doctrine of salvation by grace through performance of the sacraments is particularly untruthful and quite harmful. "God gives grace as long as one works to receive it". I treat my animals better.

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...

I still believe what we learned it twi, that once born again always born again, that we're born again of incorruptible seed. I still believe that Judias Iscariot is born again and was saved, that we'll see him in heaven. By this train of logic, I also think vpw and lcm were/are born again and all hell can't stop them from heaven like I learned in pfal.

Does anyone have any good reason to believe otherwise?

Tie that together with galatians which says uncatagorically that those who did what wierwille and his buddies did, will have absolutely no inheritance in the kingdom of God....I have to suspect the whole notion of wierwille being in heaven, simply because he recited a couple of verses...as questionable.

21"Not everyone who says to me, 'Lord, Lord,' will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only he who does the will of my Father who is in heaven. 22Many will say to me on that day, 'Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name, and in your name drive out demons and perform many miracles?' 23Then I will tell them plainly, 'I never knew you. Away from me, you evildoers!'

I'm wondering if the fruit of the spirit is what we display when we're walking by the spirit, as opposed to because we're born again. Maybe it's how we can see that someone is actually walking the talk.

I'm thinking there might be a way to see who actually is born again and I'm not sure I believe that it's speaking in tongues. I don't believe it's being kind to others, as I'm sure there are atheists that are very kind to others as a normal part of their lifestyle.

18For when they speak great swelling words of vanity, they allure through the lusts of the flesh, through much wantonness, those that were clean escaped from them who live in error.

19While they promise them liberty, they themselves are the servants of corruption: for of whom a man is overcome, of the same is he brought in bondage.

20For if after they have escaped the pollutions of the world through the knowledge of the Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, they are again entangled therein, and overcome, the latter end is worse with them than the beginning.

21For it had been better for them not to have known the way of righteousness, than, after they have known it, to turn from the holy commandment delivered unto them.

22But it is happened unto them according to the true proverb, The dog is turned to his own vomit again; and the sow that was washed to her wallowing in the mire.

============

I wonder about the last 4 verses.

If "those that were clean escaped" are supposedly "born again",

what could it mean that they can face a "latter end" "worse with them than the beginning"?

Supposedly, this would mean verse 21 says it would have been better NEVER to have been

"born again", than to have been born again and THEN turn aside and serve lust, wantonness,

and greed.

Does that mean that-

if a man is born again,

then decides to serve his lusts, and treats others like merchandise,

that God will deliver a punishment so severe, that he'd rather have never been born again,

because he would never have faced a punishment so severe?

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!

From the Daily Tech: First Amendment Now Covers Forum Trolls

You will find that there are 2-3 people on this board who are publically Catholic. You will (probably not) find that there are a couple of others who are "in the closet" about it (as there are a lot who are vehemently against anything Catholic).

OKC,

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

i was in china town last night and i loved the place,so many multicultural people..the human

race! I saw a people of all walks of life with ashes on their forehead(i had forgotten it was

ash wednesday. Ashes to ashes ....dust to dust .

The body of christ was alive and well,the FAMILY of God, like the human race is composed of

all differant types of people and personalitys,but in the end of the NBA game.

THE SAN ANTONIO SPURS BEAT THE WIZARDS!

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.

ohmygod is this another religious teaching or argument thread ?

i just got off the forgiveness thread

everyone seems to be into proving their beliefs

maybe it's me maybe it's late

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.

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:

(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.

i don't really like the catholic church. is that hatred ?

i do believe god works in the catholic church just like he did in the wayfer world

that's giving credit to god

not all the other nonsense

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.

THAT IS SOME FAIRY TALE! iT MAKE HANS CHRISTIAN ANDERSON LOOK LIKE A WIMP!

to my knowledge and keep in mind i am not a practicing catholic, a lot of the old school stuff the new generation isn't buying that,i love the symbolism of the mass but i personally don't believe in the flesh and blood(for real) stuff like that and i know hundreds of people in the city i come from that don't either.

I suppose thier are some really differant types of catholics just like their are many differant types of christian,baptist and pentecostal but we are all the family of God and the body of Christ.(I knew this would probably offend some of you guys that is why i warned you it was for catholics only,we don't all think the same exact doctrine.

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.

thank you mark,it was really bad hearing this LIVE at EMPORIA after i had just finished the pfal class,25 years later my subconcious showed me the truth!

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
  

That might be to logical for the political forum MarkO. So I am glad that you brought that up here. A good point indeed.

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)

The problem and the truly disturbing part is that I sort of see a glimpse of a smile on the face of the donkey.

Yes, I know most members of the republican party and some members of the Democratic party want us to stay in Iraq to guard our oil interests. But wouldn't it be cheaper if we saved the money we now spend to protect our oil companies over there and instead just bought the stuff on the open market? Either that or we could have Exxon, Mobil, Chevron and their cousins instead pay for our military and otherwise presence in the Middle East? What do you think?

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.

President Bush announced today that he is changing the seal of the President to a condom, because it more clearly reflects his political stance.

It makes sense. After all, a condom stands up to inflation. It halts production. It destroys the next generation. It protects a bunch of pricks. And finally, it gives one a sense of security when one is actually being screwed.

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...