modcat5

I'm baffled.

How is it censorship to set rules for civil discourse and expect adults to abide by them?

And there's nothing new about these rules.

Bringing my place of employment into it? Not cool.

I'm all for standing up to MRAP. Done it myself, as he'll no doubt attest. But we can do it without resorting to namecalling. If I were interested in censorship I would have deleted the whole post. Instead I excised only the parts that were specifically in violation.

And frankly, I shouldn't have to.

Folks, confronting each other can be healthy, but we can't allow it to descend into namecalling. Although a patently rule-breaking post was not reported, I had to edit it anyway because failing to do so would send the message that such comments are tolerable.

Believe it or not, we still have lurkers. And I for one would like for them to know that this is a place where they can express themselves and be challenged without being berated.

Lecture over.

Let's please keep the conversation about the topic and not the people posting.

Thanks.

Tell me if I'm mistaken, but the opening post appears to be doctrinal in nature and not "open."

MRAP, I see the misunderstanding. Yes, we are referring to offshoot organizations.

I've moved this thread from In Memoriam to Open for greater visibility for the next few days.

True, but might as well codify it. And that way I don't get "Raf, you're up" messages. :)

Slept on it.

I think MRAP is correct. We are mixing things up to an extent that makes the conversation difficult to follow, and there is an expectation that we will confine ourselves to the topics at hand.

The doctrinal section is intended to divorce personalities from what the Bible actually teaches, and to another extent whether one interpretation of the Bible should be preferred over another. The issue of whether the Bible is credible also falls under doctrinal, but we created "Questioning Faith" to house such discussions to keep them from interrupting discussions that are purely about what the Bible teaches.

But in practical terms, it is sometimes exceedingly difficult to separate doctrines from the people presenting them. Thus, a conversation about the REV, even in doctrinal, will naturally include the people who produced the REV. We can be sticklers and demand that we evaluate the REV on its own merits. That would be in keeping with the purpose of the Doctrinal section. If we are going to discuss the motives of the people who produced it, we should only do so in order to shed light on the specific doctrinal issue being raised. Saying Schoenheit and Lynn were influenced by Wierwille is insufficient for that purpose. Saying that they were influenced by Wierwille's brand of dispensationalism and that caused them to "translate" a particular verse in a particular way that might be contrary to a detached analysis of the "original" text is perfectly fair game. [The names of Schoenheit and Lynn are being used for the purpose of example only. I don't know specifically who is credited with the REV, but it's not really relevant to what I'm saying here. Insert the actual names or remove those that don't belong, and my point remains the same].

Moderating is an art, not a science. Conversations flow. People tell jokes. People digress. It's natural. Policing every post would lead inevitably to "legalism," and the moderators have neither the time nor the inclination to engage in such a practice. The rules are intended to facilitate conversation, not to stifle it.

So we're going to leave this thread alone and admonish the participants to please remember the thread topic and the purpose of doctrinal. If we were to take a legalistic approach, we would be compelled to agree with MRAP and move/moderate a number of posts on this thread. Then we'd be micromanaging. But any call to return a thread to topic needs to be respected, even if it does not result in any moderation of posts that preceded it.

Personality clashes will happen. Mods will jump in when needed to keep the peace. As MRAP has noted elsewhere, we are all adults here. Whether another poster likes him or not is irrelevant. Whether a moderator likes him or not is irrelevant. As long as he sticks to the rules and/or the natural flow of a conversation, we're not going to have a moderator-problem with him or anyone else.

Haven't watched yet. Saw the Deadpool movie though. It was... interesting.

Anyway, catching up on last week's Arrow, LOT, Supergirl and Flash over the next few days, not necessarily in that order.

Raf

This forum is to discuss offshoot ministries whose histories can reasonably be tied to The Way International.

If discussions about any particular ministry generate enough threads, they will get their own subforum.

Discussions about Chris Geer in the USA will be directed here. Discussions about Geer during the time period in the 1980s and 1990s will be directed to About the Way in Europe, now a subforum under About the Way.

Feel free to contact me if you have any questions or suggestions.

Please bear in mind that not everyone involved in TWI can properly be labeled a "public figure," so please be careful naming names, ESPECIALLY if you're going to accuse someone of... anything. Just be nice.

Saying Vince Finnegan switched his doctrine on the end times is fair game. Saying he beat my dog might result in a libel suit (note: This was cited as an example. Vince Finnegan did not beat my dog. Or anything else. Vince Finnegan did not MEET my dog).

The moderators reserve the right to change any real names to avoid slander or libel.

The following concludes TLC's post #356

Which, aside from what I though was much undeserved criticism from WW, only drew this response:

I'm just going to inject one thought.

To ask about I Corinthians 14:2 is to admit not having read the thread. It gets tiresome answering the same questions repeatedly.

In the same vein, an observation was made about certain posts being off-topic. That observation was made in a way that made it clear the observer had not read the thread. THAT is a good answer to WHY SO TESTY? And it us not Directed at you, TLC. At least, I don't think it is.

Aside from your "one thought" and your proud position of what YOU think and say the Bible says, it seems rather obvious to me that any other discussion of what the scriptures might really mean or say is going to continue to be run over and trample beneath some superior word study of the issue (which quite ironically, is in the same egotistical fashion to how the much detested TWI so infamously did its great "research" work.)

And this post pretty much sums this all up:

Exploring more is fair game. Restating that which has already been addressed and refuted is not. If "no man understands" is a blanket statement, then Acts 2 is a lie and all anecdotal evidence is Biblically invalid. It's not a blanket statement.

There. Said it AGAIN.

Who needs it said an umpteen and first time?

Problem is, Raf, is that any "exploring" (so to speak) must be done on your terms, or it gets immediately castigated.

So, aside from the next post (which will be address to chockfull) I'll simply bow out of any further discussion on SIT.

moderator's note: TLC's post was not changed. Not even typos. Blank citations were his errors, which probably would have been caught if not for the formatting issues. GSC apparently only allows a certain number of quotations per post, and when you post three times in quick succession, the page combines the posts. This was not his fault. Hopefully, reposting makes his post a bit easier to follow. Raf

The following was posted by TLC

Once desperation sets in, I suppose any excuse for why you're not producing what the Bible plainly says you will becomes credible.

I am neither thrilled nor anxious to say what is to follows, as it is sure to draw more fire, but I feel compelled to make one more post. (And it may be my last.)

The only "desperation" (if there is any) I sense might be here is the incessant efforts to derail any attempt to look at this issue from a new perspective, in defense of your already established position on it (and continued claim the "the Bible plainly says" what you and whomever is with you say it says.)

What is plain, is that I am "late to the party" (though at this point, I somewhat detest even quoting those words.) Perhaps if I were to have propose the very same questions over two years ago that I've posted here recently, there would have been a more honest reception and consideration of them. However, I was most certainly not at the place two years ago in my own thinking and understanding that I am today. And believe it or not, I did read (though rather quickly) through this nearly the entire thread before ever posting here the first time (which I tried to make fairly obvious in my initial posts here...)

My second post on this thread actually made reference to something in a post of yours, Raf, after which I brought up several questions (none of which engendered much of a response from anybody):

The idea of "tongues of angels" is entirely speculative, since it is not defined in the Bible and only presented as a hypothetical in I Cor. 13:1. We cannot assume that spirit beings require a system of communication that is literally like human communication. When God talks to Gabriel and Michael, does He use words? Does my brain use words when it communicates with my hands to type on this keyboard? Fact of the matter is, we have no idea how angels communicate, and this verse does not answer that question.

Here was a another question in the next post:

...what are the fundamental reasons for even demonstrating God's Power?

To thwart the accusation of having never stated something of my opinion, where I stood, or was approaching the issue from, I posted in plain language here:

Just for the record (not to prove or disprove anything), I have heard in years past (early years in the ministry) what sounded to me like some number of very beautiful languages in "believers meetings." No, sure can't begin to tell you what they were or sounded like, but it did seem that several sounded nearly recognizable (one in particular stood out as being quite French in nature.) Living in a highly multinational area still exposes me (not infrequently) to a multiplicity of languages, and I'll say this... I seriously doubt that I (nor very many others) would have any success at telling many (or most) of them apart from a lot of the modern SIT (for lack of something better to call it).

As I began to more carefully consider what was (and wasn't) being said or brought forward in this thread on the biblical doctrine of SIT, more questions (or rephrasing earlier ones) began to come to mind, which I then posted here:

Raf responds to the post with (more a less) a restatement of his own position, and implies any effort to look at this another way is born of despartion:

Has it occurred to anyone that we wouldn't be trying so desperately to explain why speaking in tongues never produces languages if speaking in tongues actually produced languages?

and here:

Tongues are languages. Speaking in tongues is speaking in languages. To think that you can speak in tongues without producing a language is to inject a definition into the Bible instead of allowing it to speak for itself. And that improvised definition would not be necessary if you were demonstrably producing what the Bible promises in the first place.

and here:

If a follower of another religion were going through this many logical contortions and definition expansions to justify the failure of his claim to produce it's promised results, we would all reject the claim without hesitation.

Which I spoke out against here:

Which you poo-pooed here:

(part 2, continues in next post...)

I waited a bit before sending this from Open to the Humor forum.

Agreed.

In plainer language:

If you want to discuss whether dispensationalism is the correct doctrine that should flow from the usage of oikonomia, do that here.

If you want to discuss whether dispensationalism is evidence that the Bible is a bunch of hooey that people twist themselves into knots over in order to justify their faith, DO NOT DO THAT HERE. This is not the thread for it.

That's what I meant.

For the record:

There is a thread on Dispensationalism in the Questioning Faith subforum that can overlap with the discussion that has been started here. But the threads ARE DISTINCT and should be treated as such.

If you want to discuss whether dispensationalism is a mechanism to make sense of conflicting scriptures, etc., the place to do that is in the other thread.

If you want to discuss what oikonomia really means and whether dispensationalism is Biblically accurate, you can do it here or there, but THIS is the better thread for that discussion. In the Questioning Faith subforum, acceptance of the underlying authority of scripture is fair game. That aspect of the discussion is NOT fair game here. That's what distinguishes these two threads.

So have at it!

Don't even pick up the bats, and keep your balls to yourself.

Ok, we're back.

Some of the comments here have gotten quite personal. I'm just going to ask that folks exercise their maturity and refrain from that conduct. I'm not pointing fingers because I assume you know who you are and what you wrote. One post that went too far was deleted. Another that arguably went too far remains for no reason other than I found it difficult to separate fair critique from unfair. On another day I would have deleted it, but then it would have seemed like choosing sides. No need. You're all adults, and I know you are able to work through it.

MRAP: If you think GSC is a cult, you are entitled to that opinion. You are entitled to express it. You couldn't be more wrong, but we are under no obligation whatsoever to explain to you how and why. We are an online community that you asked to join. We have norms and mores that have built up over more than 16 years of posting both here and on a predecessor site.

People cite their TWI credentials here to document that they know about the matters they are addressing. That's it. Being Corps or WOW or Way Disciple or Advanced Class grad doesn't win anyone any GSC points. It does help us (readers) identify those who are speaking from personal experience v. those who are relaying what they heard.

Some of what you guys have written to each other is utterly uncalled for and beneath the dignity of an adult on an internet forum. I get to decide whether the time I spent in TWI or studying the Bible was wasted, not you and not any other poster here. And if you do not know my career or my level of success in it, you have zero moral right to disparage my life on or off this board. Seriously, act your age.

For the record, mine us under 50, and I am seriously not an angry person. But I can get riled up with the best of them, like the rest of them.

A couple of other things.

1. Please stay on topic. If a thread is dedicated to a certain topic (like the REV Bible), then discuss the topic on that thread. Please don't ask someone on one thread to defend what he said on a different thread unless you are somehow relating the other thread to this one.

2. Some of us have identities that are completely secret on this forum. Others (like me) are completely open about who we are. And some, like DWBH, treat their ID as an open secret. As far as posting on the forum is concerned, we ask everyone to respect each other's self-identification by addressing them by their screen name and only by their screen name. Actually, that's more than an ask. Seriously, don't out anyone unless you KNOW for a FACT they are ok with it.

I can't think of anything else other than to say play nice and stick to the topic.

Temporarily locking this thread for review. Will reopen soon. [Raf]

This is a placeholder for a thread introducing the GSC to new posters. I thought it would come in handy to have some easy-to-find advice and information. This will be updated, but I invite longtime users to include your own recommendations and new users to ask questions.

For now, this will suffice:

Greasespot Cafe exists to provide "the other side of the story" about The Way International. With very few exceptions, members of this forum are former followers of The Way. That is the ONLY generalization that is safe to make those who post here. Other than that, our experiences and views vary widely. To wit:

Some of us hold a deep appreciation for the work and ministry of Wierwille. Others think he was a moral monster. It is possible to think BOTH, and some people do ("he was a lecherous so-and-so who taught some neat stuff"). Some people are involved with offshoots of TWI. Others are more mainstream Christians. A few hold completely different religious views (I think we have at least one Wiccan). A vocal minority are agnostic and/or atheist. Do not assume a fellow poster is a Christian until that poster has made it clear, and do not assume a fellow poster respects Wierwille's doctrinal legacy unless that has been made clear also. Wondering why posters have moved "so far from the Word," for example, will likely provoke some less than charitable feedback. Some of us think we've moved closer to the Word. Some of us think there IS no "Word" in the sense defined by TWI and/or Christianity.

All views regarding TWI are welcome, but they are also subject to challenge, discussion and debate.

We've tried hard to divide the forum into different sections to make it easier to find topics of interest. Most of these sections are self-explanatory.

The Open Forum is for topics of general interest.

"About the Way" is ... about TWI. About Wierwille. About Martindale. About Rivenbark. About the practices and experiences associated with TWI.

We don't host discussions of politics on this board. We tried. It was too volatile to justify for our purposes. Get your fix elsewhere.

Our doctrinal section is for discussions of doctrine. While it is open to everyone, the key in every doctrinal thread is to remain on topic. We recently started a subforum in the doctrinal section to isolate conversations with an agnostic/atheist bent. Feel free to peruse, participate, or avoid it like the plague. But whatever you do, stay on topic.

If you don't know where a topic belongs, take your best guess and post it there. A moderator will move it if we think it's in the wrong place.

The prayer room is not a place for debate.

We have rules. They're a little out of date, but they give moderators a guide to resolving disputes.

The Golden Rule applies here. Be respectful, and you'll be respected. But be careful: not everyone defines "respectful" the same way. You may feel it's respectful to tell me my opinions will send me straight to hell. I may feel it's respectful to tell you you're brainwashed and deluded. Take a breath, try to resolve your disputes amicably, and report a post or conversation to the moderators if you feel intervention is the best way to handle it.

We used to have a LOT of moderators. Most are now inactive, but a couple of us are still around. We have real jobs. Give us time to address issues brought to our attention.

This will be updated.

If we're not going to get to some point where this discussion is Doctrinal, this thread will be moved.

How dare you defy me!

I mean, cool. Whatever makes you happy.

I'm going to step in and ask everyone to take a breath.

TLC is new to these parts. Most of us have had time to get to know each other. We don't know him. He doesn't know us. Let's let each other breathe.

TLC, some free advice:

Start a thread in New Members introducing yourself and giving us a feel for where you come from, ideologically/philosophically/"religiously" speaking, plus some history of where/when you were connected to TWI. It will help foster understanding. If you're in an offshoot now or a mainstream church, let us know. This is advice. You are not being "commanded" to do any of this, and there will be absolutely no consequences if you choose not to follow the advice.

Thanks again for seeking to join the conversation.

Not Tony Shalhoub

Oops. Wrong login.

Done. A tad more reader friendly now. The only thing I added was paragraph breaks. I left everything else alone.

Decision: teachmevp is a member of this site and is free to continue posting. If we're reading them correctly, many of his posts do link back to their source material. Assuming he is the author of that material, there is no reason to believe he is in violation of any policy of Greasespot Cafe.

A new thread has been set up called "God's Reconciliation," which is the name of his blog (assuming it's his). We've asked him to voluntarily restrict his posts to that thread unless he is posting something that is not a part of that blog.

He is (and all of us are) reminded that this is a discussion board, not a text dumping ground.

No moderator action has been taken against teachmevp and none is required. His old topics are being merged onto the new thread as time allows. New posts will appear at the bottom of the thread.

Most recent responses to his threads are being unapproved for view because we feel this action addresses the situation raised in those posts. The decision to unapprove comments is being made on an individual basis.

There are literally more than 100 threads to go over. I ask teachmevp and those who appreciate his contributions to this site to exercise a little patience as we go through them (in our spare time, while we have jobs, etc).

Thank you for your understanding, comments and concerns.