modcat5

On 6/21/2025 at 6:26 PM, Stayed Too Long said:

I was thinking about what it takes to live a Godly life and realized one of God’s demands is for him to be worshipped by his subjects.

People also love to be worshipped by the fact of owning pets. Not only are they good company, but my dog loves to please  me, which also makes me feel good. If I say “down,” she jumps off the chair. When I say “out,” she heads for the outside door. 

And just like when God punishes me for not obeying him, when the dog does not jump down, I punish her for disobeying me. 
 

Apparently I really am a Godly person.

 

I know it's a dormant thread, and we usually have some leeway in policing "on topic" posts after a long time and a long discussion, but...

This thread was started in Doctrinal by someone who wanted to discuss doctrine, not by someone who wanted to see his relationship with God mocked by comparing it to the relationship of a pet owner and his good boy. I understand the impulse, but we set up Doctrinal: Exploring the Bible apart from the other subforums specifically to avoid this kind of thing.

Please refrain from posting on this thread unless you want to explore issues in the spirit of this forum.

Thank you.

 Once again:

I never chased anyone off this site.

Not one person.

Several people chose to leave after the site rules were fairly enforced with clear explanations. One of those people (not chockfull) chose to libel me on multiple platforms because I refused to let him use this site to libel and slander other people who aren't even participants here.

Yes, I did send a nasty message to chockfull. And I'd do it again. The level of dishonesty coming from chockfull is not something I am required to tolerate as a person, and my message was sent as a person, not as a moderator.

As a moderator, chockfull has not been banned and remains welcome to return anytime.

But I will defend myself against chockfull's lies as often as chockfull cares to spread them.

And I reserve the right to private expressions of contempt for people who deliberately choose to mischaracterize how I carry out the moderation duties here.

I've been trying to be less legal about such things, but yeah.

I'd prefer not to.

I'd rather see threads on The Four Crucified, all scripture interprets itself, JCING, The Law of Believing, tithing, etc

Greetings all. 

This sub forum is an experiment. It occurred to me that there was no specific place to discuss the doctrines of TWI as distinct from the practices and history.

So THIS forum is specifically to discuss what TWI teaches and whether it is Biblically accurate.

That's it. Please stick to that. I'm talking to you, fellow unbelievers. We get it. You think it's all bunk. No need to repeat it every thread.

All are welcome to discuss whether Christians should tithe or go beyond. All are welcome to discuss whether the law of believing makes scriptural sense. But if you're going to go on every thread and ... You get the picture. Just don't.

Thx

Anyway.

Let us know what you decide.

For the love of...

Ok. Stop.

I am trying not to be heavy handed here but for the love of Jiminy Cricket can you all please stay on topic?

18 hours ago, Nathan_Jr said:

Raf can answer for himself, obviously, but I read his post as just showing you around - what's available, how to get it, and what to do with it once you've got it. Different forums for different topics. Discuss whatever you want.

Only politics is out of bounds. Avoid politics and you're good.

 

Pretty much.

Categories are supposed to facilitate discussion, not hamper it.

Whether something belongs in Doctrinal or About the Way is sometimes a matter of nuance and emphasis. And yes, there will be overlap. Our discussion about Speaking in Tongues was about all of the above. It was impossible to discuss whether TWI taught us all to fake SIT without at least agreeing on what SIT means in TWI and in Christianity. So a lot of the debate was whether the thread belonged in About the Way or doctrinal, and no one was really wrong.

Point is, put your thread where you think it goes. If we feel a need to move it, we will, and we will explain why.

Politics is a problem because folks on both sides proved incapable of having a conversation without it degenerating into namecalling and personal attacks, and no one trusted the moderators to be neutral or consistent. 

Yes, sometimes religion and politics cross paths. TWI's right wing identity is a part of who they are. But so is their pro-choice stand. 

Tread carefully and respectfully, and we will do our best to do the same.

On 5/6/2025 at 7:33 AM, JoyfulSoul said:

Thank you.  Thought maybe it was the guy who wanted me to know Chuck Baldwin is a verboten political figure.

So, who here is Christian?  Anyone wanna get saved?

Fairly certain I am the only moderator whose identity is known and who visits all the time. When I am not modcat5, I am Raf.

You can feel free to contact me on either profile. I give $15 a month to GSC and I take nothing.

Pawtucket runs the place. I don't think his ID is secret but I also don't think he publicizes it, so not posting it here.

The other mods are Modgellan and ModSerling, each of whom has chosen to remain anonymous.

Lots of people here are Christians. Lots of people are not. Oldiesman, WordWolf, Allan are believers, though they probably disagree with each other on an issue or two. Chasity, StayedTooLong and I (Raf) are atheist. We try (and often fail) to confine our skepticism to the Atheism subforum in Matters of Faith.

So here's the deal: THIS forum is ABOUT THE WAY. So I was hoping we could get some clarity here:

If you would like to talk about what's going on at TWI TODAY, what they're teaching, how they are conducting themselves, how they are coming to terms with their past and recruiting for the future, awesome. As long as you're standing by what you "report" back to the group.

If you would like to discuss the MERITS of their doctrines, we have a whole "Matters of Faith" section for that.

I am very interested in seeing what TWI is up to, what they're charging for their classes, what The Rock is like, etc.

Anyway, you do not have to GIVE to participate in GSC, but I'm not gonna lie: we appreciate every dime.

Uh, yeah.

I'm trying to be hands off but you guys are making this difficult.

Candace Owens? There is NO reason to discuss her outside politics.

Zionism is a political discussion by definition.

You're giving us very little wiggle room here.

The topic of this thread is TWI, present tense. Keep it focused.

Next political comment gets deleted without warning.

NO POLITICS.

We're going to let the namecalling slide because it resolved on its own, but in the future please refrain from it. 

If you want to question the rational basis of someone's post, employ reason, not namecalling please.

Sincerely, the poster who coined the name Smikeol.

Congrats on trying to be apolitical with this topic.

Move on to another conversation please.

21 hours ago, Allan said:

I actually agree, I've been temporarily banned for being less politically vehement than this lol....'orangeman' is simply name calling by those who have no better argument...peace out 

I actually agree. Didn't pay mind to this thread earlier and no one reported it, but we need to be consistent.

Pretty sure "the previous movie" has a different name than the one you're thinking of.

Ok, for those who don't know, modcat5 and Raf are the same person.

And this is not MUCH of a trivia question, but I enjoy it.

In the TV series "The Good Place," which is about the afterlife, the core characters are told that one of them must be sent on a train to "the Bad Place" to correct an afterlife imbalance. They debate over which of them would be best to sacrifice himself/herself for the others, when the main character comes to a sudden realization that means NONE of them will board the train to the Bad Place.

What was the realization? 

Oh sorry. Be right there

The premise of the doctrinal section has been updated in light of recent questions and comments.

Suggestion, and you can take it or leave it, but in my humble opinion a true Easter Egg has nothing to do with the plot itself. People passing around sandwiches while watching a concert in How I Met Your Mother is a "callback," not an Easter Egg. A callback is when an idea is revisited without explanation, just to see if you're paying attention. (In HIMYM, "eating a sandwich" is code for smoking marijuana).

William Shatner guest starring as the Big Giant Head in 3rd Rock from the Sun, complaining that he saw someone on the wing of his airplane, and John Lithgow saying "I saw it too!" is an Easter Egg. The two actors played the same character in different iterations of Nightmare at 20,000 Feet on The Twilight Zone.

The scripture quoted on Nick Fury's headstone in Captain America: The Winter Soldier is the same scripture Samual L. Jackson's character repeatedly quotes in Pulp Fiction.

Etc

This thread spins off a post by George. 

For the uninitiated, Easter Eggs are subtle (or not-so-subtle) allusions to trivia that are not central to the plot of a show or movie, but are included to reward audience members in-the-know for paying attention.

For example, George posted the following in the "Newer Star Trek Shows" thread:

Quote

Susan Bay Nimoy guest starred this week on Brilliant Minds, starring Zachary Quinto.  When she is introduced to him as her doctor, she says, "I like him.  He reminds me of a younger version of my late husband."    

The gag, for those who don't know, is that Zachary Quinto played the younger version of Spock in the last three theatrical movies, making him a younger version of Susan Bay Nimoy's late husband, Leonard Nimoy.

This thread is for such Easter Eggs, whether you spotted them in a movie or a TV show. Go wild.

Clever

Moved the thread and retitled it to make it an explicit invitation to Christians.

I have to say i agree with Nathan.

Seeking clarity:
You are posting here because you WANT Christians to discuss what they believe the Bible teaches about the subject of your thread?
You understand that by posting here, you are voluntarily limiting your capacity to criticize those views in detail? (A mention might be ok, but anything more would be violating the gentleman's agreement that governs these subforums). 
Would anyone else like to weigh in?

Ok, the report was that this is in the wrong forum.

I agree.

There's a bit more to the report that needs to be addressed, but the upshot is, THIS thread belongs in the atheist subforum.

Leaving it here overnight for discussion and/or dissent.

Raf.