modcat5

After careful consideration and in an overabundance of caution, we have decided to hide the spinoff thread that emerged from this discussion. We are aware that this action may be perceived as protecting people whose actions do not deserve protection. Please be assured that the only people we are interested in protecting with this decision are our posters, our moderators/administrators and our site owner. We suppose there is a place for healthy discussion about the second and third tiers of cult leaders, those who enable the leaders, the aiders and abettors of their abuses. But it's a fine line between identifying someone as VB's right hand man and accusing him of participating in criminal behavior. This decision is not final and the thread has not been deleted. It has been hidden so that we can delve into our previous policies on naming people to determine whether there is some middle ground we can reach where names are acceptable under conditions a, b and c but not x, y and z. We are amateurs at this. We are erring on the side of caution and protecting GSC against liability. Thank you for your patience as we seek to work this out.

Raf posting: First, the post-resurrection gospel never changed. In the gospels, pre-resurrection, it was the kingdom. But at the end of the gospels, Jesus gives the explicit instruction to disciple all nations in his name. The only change, scripturally, is that he's resurrected now. There are 40 days of appearances, only a small handful of which are shared in the gospels and Acts. We don't know how many people witnessed each appearance. But if you think he's teaching them the same thing after the resurrection that he was teaching before... I don't even know what to say to that. He of all people knows things have changed, and how. It is beyond reason to think he would not have shared information that they needed to know in order to make disciples of all the nations in his name after having instructed them to do so! So why DON'T the 12 do what he said explicitly to do? The Bible's answer is implied: the 12 struggled to get past the primacy of Israel and the Jews as God's chosen people. It's the only thing that explains Jesus needing additional visions after being told in person by the risen Christ to disciple all nations in his name. [The skeptical answer is that this is a major plot hole in a made up story, but I don't need to resort to that]. Peter should never have needed to explain to the disciples that Paul was justified in preaching to the Gentiles because all of them would have remembered Jesus explicitly saying disciple all nations in his name. So why did Paul learn more than the 12? It's not because he had a different mission. He had the same mission. It's because he got serious about carrying it out. And once he demonstrated his commitment to the instruction, he got more. So the revelation of the One Body comes to Paul. Why? Because the 12 failed to follow the instruction while Paul dedicated himself to it. Easy. Biblical. Corresponds to all scripture on the subject without inventing a reason for Jesus to not mean precisely what he said when he said disciple all nations in his name. [The skeptical answer, of course, is that Paul made his doctrine up and Christianity retconned the words of Jesus to make Paul consistent with his post-resurrection instructions. There being no resurrection, Jesus never said any such thing. The plot hole is only created when you have him say something clear and unambiguous and his most faithful followers completely ignore it].

I just deleted the thread while trying to get rid of a duplicate post. Feel free to carry on while we try to fix it...

11 days to go

Your history in TWI is fair game, as is DWBH's. We implore you both to keep real names out of it. Your marriage history is not fair game. References have been deleted. By the way: It's no longer a secret in these parts, but Modcat5=Raf. I try not to moderate conversations when I am a participant, generally, but I felt safe intervening here.

I'm not comfortable with disclosing the personal histories of posters unless THEY choose to disclose them. Same goes for real names. Please be discrete with people's personal information.

Fixed

I took Pawtucket at his word here when he said he was shutting down. But I should not be the one making public announcements about it. I will refrain from further comment until he announces what will be happening with this site. My apologies to all involved. See you soon.

That is correct. read my last clue carefully. I dropped a major hint in it. Raf

I just realized we did this show... not recently, but very few POSTS between them and now. It's how I met your mother.

sorry. lost track. "Haaave you met Ted?"

Maggie Smith won an Oscar for playing an actress who loses an Oscar. In the play, her character says she Hope's the award is presented by Michael Caine because he's so classy. In the movie, her husband is played by Michael Caine, so the reference is changed to David Niven.

yes!

For what it's worth: As you all (probably) know, moderators have two accounts: one as a moderator, and one as our normal selves. For a long time, the moderators' identities were secret. Many were outed a few years ago, but not all. If you don't know by now that I am Raf, you probably don't care. Whatever, I am Raf. It is not my place to disclose the identities of other moderators, with the exception of pawtucket, who owns the site but rarely posts. Two mods have mostly been monitoring things here day to day. Modgellan is the other one. I will not disclose Modgellan's identity. And I will not disclose Modwildcat's ID either. If he/she chooses to, that's up to him/her. Personally, I think this moderator's faith journey would be fascinating if he/she would disclose his/her identity. Finding out that modwildcat returned to Catholicism is ... not terribly interesting to me. I mean, who is modwildcat? But finding out THIS PERSON returned to Catholicism is surprising, to say the least. So, I invite modwildcat to post under his/her original screen name and continue this fascinating conversation. Hit me up with a PM if you can't find your login credentials. And wow.

Vince has been teaching that you could lose your salvation for at least 20 years. --Raf posting.

And you will again.

It was funnier when you were serious.

Parody is fair use. You can't sue over it. I'd be curious to know if anyone has the information and can tell whether the original artists were credited. Signed, Raf

This topic is not distasteful. The song is. And it's a part of TWI history that is fair game. It's no more political than discussing VPW's lie about being invited to Reagan's inauguration or LCM's bloodlust for stockpiling nuclear weapons. Certain topics that are About The Way will occasionally border on politics. Some may even cross the border. But this one, I think, doesn't. Feel free to disagree.

Thank you. No one took me up on the offer anyway. And, for what it's worth, I think that's terrible news. :( Signed, Raf

He's apparently planning a teaching this evening. PM me if you want details. 4/4/2018 Signed, Raf

Best wishes, Mr. Lynn. I hope your trust in holistic medicine is not misplaced. May your struggle be brief and your life long.

Welcome, Sastian.

I don't see where he wants to "take over" GSC. I will therefore chastise Rocky in a manner proportionate to his infraction by making him read this post until the very end. Let that be a lesson to you.

Ok, here's the deal: I just spent WAY more time than I wanted to reviewing this thread and watching the videos. I commend everyone on the amount of restraint you have shown in replying to this utter nonsense. I am obliged to ask you all to please restrict your comments to the argument, and not say things like "it's hard to take so-and-so seriously," which may not be namecalling, but resides in the same zip code. It is fair game to call the topic of this thread B.S. It is not fair game to call the person who posted it a.... an artist. I did not watch the full freemasonry video because I just had lunch. If someone would like to draw a link between the existence of freemasons and his or her own propensity to believe and promote nonsense, feel free to do so. No one is compelled to read it. No one is compelled to take it seriously. No one is compelled to respond to it. Each of us is free to discern the quality of a post or argument. That is not namecalling and is not a personal attack. As moderators, we are not going to take action against threads or topics just because we find them laughably preposterous on their face. The slippery slope, if we were to adopt such a policy, would be way too real.