satori001

Sort of a universal, on-line everything bulletin board. I forsee that some of you may never be the same, once you look around. It is a virtual cyber-Alice's Restaurant. You won't be able to handle it, some of you and I pity you. Heh heh. Best of craigslist is an assortment of thoughts that are scored highly among the millions of craigslist posts by millions of anonymous (at least to me) craigslist posters. Don't blame me for the really bad stuff. You have to use your judgment, if you have any, and never read something there that may give you bad dreams, or bad thoughts, or bad desires, or just make you be bad. I would never do that. Neither should you. You're on your own.

Not for nothin' but this could include walking into a door.What ever happened with that shaman (?) course you were taking? Can you at least levitate?

As a matter of fact, I happen to be Jay Leno.

UH, I've got no argument with your having no argument, well, except for this. If their "doctrine" claims to be without contradiction, and it abounds with inconsistencies or, dare we say it, contradictions, doesn't that raise an eyebrow or two? Moreover, shouldn't it? I mean, if you're going to bother looking it over at all, what is the point except to ascertain its outlook, to assess it on its own merits and demerits?Even if we were talking about some religion you never heard of, if it tells you the grass is blue and the sky is green, that tells you something - at the very least, they're color-blind. I realize this was a casual email to shazdancer, and not a carefully edited publication, but should (presumably) basic truths be so nuanced or complex they can't be casually expressed? CES would have us believe their doctrine is simple and obvious.

As wacked as VPW ever was, he was never this wacked. Okay, maybe, with the inspired utterance stuff.Mike, you are a study of a rational mind, dropped into the fishbowl of an irrational belief system and learning to keep afloat with no tangible support beneath, but by an elaborate, illusory scaffolding of "faith" and rationalization. As such, you are more specimen than spokesman, but worth a good look. You're also like the cooperative subject of a highly-skilled stage hypnotist, who has utterly convinced you that your momentary, microcosmic world of suggestion is the real world, and you act accordingly, obedient to all imaginary principles and constraints, to the amazement, amusement and awe of the audience, you walk through a waking dream. Carry on, Mike.

JAL answer #3: How the Bible Interprets Itself -- a basic course in how to read ANY book. 1. Not really, because there is only one book that is God-breathed, and therefore flawless. 2. Its Author put within it the linguistic keys to deriving His originally intended meaning. 3. Again, very few Christians approach the Word with these keys, because they have never been taught them. 4. Thus, most sincere Christians are in the dark about many critical spiritual issues, because they do not know who to understand the Bible. My rightly delighted version: 1. This minor point has yet to be fully established, and may be the crux of the whole cult biscuit. I find it more and more difficult to believe that God would ever limit Himself to one, very loosely assembled, very poorly translated, very old collection of writings, EVEN if they were written by prophets. Maybe it's just me, but I think this is ridiculous. 2. The need for "keys" at all means the whole thing is locked to the average reader. Would God do that? 3. Yeah, well, my point exactly. 4. Well duh! Goes to the same point. I can see now why God doesn't get ALL the merit. He needs to rely on guys who are really good with words to find the "linguistic keys" to explain His wonderful, mighty, matchless, (thesaurus raid!) abstruse, ambiguous, arcane, complicated, concealed, confusing, cryptic, dark, deep, dim, doubtful, enigmatic, enigmatical, esoteric, far out, hazy, hidden, obscure, etc., Word and Will. It's just nutty! The same individuals are worried about putting God in a "box?" When you tell people they need "keys" to unlock the knowledge of God's will, where else but a "box" are they going to be looking?

Hey, there was more to answer 2. I should have known. Here is the 2nd paragraph: ------------------------------- What JAL said: 1. What TWI taught did great damage to many people's lives, because they took either the credit or the blame for whatever happened to them. 2. God did set up a reciprocal relationship with us, and faith is the simplest thing God could require of people. 3. There is some merit on our part for having faith, but most of the merit is on God's part, for if He does not keep His promise,our faith is in vain. 4. TWI's emphasis on "believing" subtly shifted the emphasis from the object of faith (the Word) to the human mind, and many saints believed (had faith in) their own believing rather than in God. ------------------------------- My rightly diverted version: 1. It's only karma, dude. 2. Wouldn't breathing be simpler? And what is so simple about believing? We can't even define it properly. Countless people use the word, and each by their own highly subjective definition. Simple? Gimme a break. Oh, and how do you square grace with "reciprocation?" 3. There is some merit on our part for having faith... wha? Merit? Merit? Anyway, it continues: "but most of the merit is on God's part, for if He does not keep His promise, our faith is in vain." Well there's logic for ya. Let's break (not "tear," mind you) it down, shall we? a - There is some merit on our part for having faith, b - but most of the merit is on God's part, c - for if He does not keep His promise, our faith is in vain. --- 3. breakdown of a-c a - I dunno. Grace, merit, grace, merit. What am I missing? b - It's like there's this merit pie, and we get a thin slice for having (verb) faith (noun) - but not "believing," cause that ain't the present truth - and God keeps he rest (but not all) of the pie. What am I missing? c - for? what's the for for? It means 'c' follows from 'a' and 'b'. This sentence is a logical trainwreck. How does 'c' follow from 'a' and 'b'? You get a little bit of merit, and God gets most of it, for [because] if He does not keep His promise, our faith is in vain. This is whatcha call a logical leap, off the deep end. --- 4. I think CES is subtly saying the same damn thing as TWI: TWI - Ya gotta believe to receive CES - Ya gotta have belief to have receif (receive) ** I gotta headache. - edited to add a couple words here and there -

Let's look at JAL answer #2! I have enumerated each sentence, and then re-stated them in my own wonderful, matchless words. 1. As TWI taught it, there is no such thing--"that works for saint and sinner alike." 2. Pistis is a noun, not a participle, and it means "faith." 3. Faith is simply trust, and it requires an object, like a promise. 4. Therefore, faith is a response of trust to a promise. 5. We do not initiate the process, God does. 6. He goes first, giving us a promise. 7. Then it is up to us how we choose to respond. 8. If we respond with faith, and act accordingly, He provides the power to bring to pass the promise. ----------------------- What I think he's saying: 2. Pistis means faith, not faithing (or believing) 3. Faith = trust in some thing ("object"), like a promise. 4. Faith = response of trust in a promise. The "object" was like a promise, now it IS a promise. 5. God initiates the Mysterious Process© - what "process?" I thought faith was a noun. Is it a participle again? 6. Mysterious Process© step 1: God gives us a promise. Hooray! Uh uh, not so fast, nippers! 7. Mysterious Process© step 2: We choose (verb) how to respond (verb) 8. Mysterious Process© step 3: If we choose (verb) to respond (verb) with faith (noun) He provides (verb) the power (noun) to bring to pass (zowie!!) the promise. So we simply "respond," a verb, with trust, a noun, or is it a participle again? A nouniciple? (I think getting needs and wants "parallel" was simpler.) So do you people remember all those times you were "believing" to be healed and stuff? And nothing happened, except maybe you sat there and bled? Well, you IDIOT, it's because you were doing the participle believing, and not the noun believing. What's the matter with you? Participles aren't nouns. (I knew it had to be that.) Thanks for clearing that up, John! And thanks for bringing new lite to our GS generation Shaz. Hope you don't mind my little effort at "right division." I'm sure JAL won't mind.

Yes. It's best.Cynic, if the kid weren't sleeping I'd be howling with laughter right now.

What can I say? It's quotable.

Billy, in other words, their dog don't hunt (the doctrine don't wash).

"Sittin' by the dock of the bay..."

Nice note, Billy. You address a few minor points, the least of which is whether or not you have a "legal team" advising what John Lynn may or may not put here in writing. I believe you when you say you have no TWI-like legal department, however you are in no position to know what legal considerations John may have pondered or perused. I am, of course, because I (as many here will tell you) am omniscient. Okay, not quite, but neither have I just fallen off the turnip truck, and that passes for "omniscience" often enough around here. Anyone in any executive capacity of any organization bearing any potential liability had better damn well consider the legal ramifications before spouting off in print. If you don't think John Lynn has, well, you are only 30. Even though you don't speak for CES, I'm wondering if you can speak to some of the other issues raised. You did mention the scholastic credentials Mark and John S have sought to acquire. But credentials mean they passed courses. It doesn't tell us what a dialogue might. Nice to hear, but the criticism is just as valid. They seem closed to everything but their own little world, and that perception does not change with a piece of paper. What is your opinion of Momentus? Have you found John, John & Mark accessible and willing to consider your own opinions? Have you differed with anything they may have taught and offered an alternative view, or worse yet, a correction? You said, "I'm not under the impression that STFI/CES has no skeletons in the closet - we're human after all..." If there were any "skeletons," are you confident they are all in the past, and bear absolutely no relevance to the present organization, its people, or its policies? Does it concern you at all that these founders of CES, especially John Lynn, were a part (directly or indirectly) of a long-term, virtual conspiracy to deceive the followers of TWI about its very nature, and the behavior and character of its founder and leadership, AND its teachings? And now their hearts are "healed" I guess? It's good that you read what is written here, and good that you bring your best judgment to bear on what you read. I only caution you not to equate anger with error. The word "bitterness" used here is a pejoritive, and serves only to discredit the experience or opinion of someone who is rightfully angry. Cynicism, likewise, does not rule here. Many are reasonably skeptical, and also reasonably cynical, but few (other than TWI's apologists) are blinded by those attitudes. Even though you do not in any way speak on CES' behalf, I would like to see you take a stab at answering more of the questions raised here, rather than simply defending your friends. By the way, some ex-Wayfers used to call PFAL "piffle," back in the daze. Do you guys call STFI "Stiffy" yet? Just a suggestion, and it's kind of funny, given CES's TWI lineage. Of course, I can accept that some may not find it so funny. Regards...

12 pages? Didn't you find it a little funny as new posters would miss the point entirely, causing others to go ballistic? Pure slapstick.

Maybe a little.

You aren't making a lot of sense.

Hey Dart-board, if anyone has assumed this role, it's you. Along with your complaints about GSC failing to bend at the knee before your favorite cult leaders, you have made yourself an accuser here.As accuser, you are pretty much saying that anyone who doesn't see fit to meet John Lynn only on his own terms is, by definition, a "complainer and whiner." Get yourself a clue, Dartanian. Cow-towing to that kind of self-serving, pseudo-spiritual, elitest rubbish went out with the trash. CES is hawking Jesus like he was a get-rich-quick real estate seminar. I find your own attitude every bit as mercenary as CES, and therefore TWI.

Hey Dartanian, wake up. If he was here to answer questions, he could do so publicly. If he wanted to hear from more people personally (privately), he would let himself become better known publicly. John Lynn is NOT afraid of meanies, and their flames and rude accusations. He would make short work of them, without even blinking, and the site is moderated besides. He's afraid (uh, yes - afraid) of being asked (never mind answering) REAL and HONEST and LEGITIMATE and REASONBLE questions in his virtual "presence," where he might then be ACCOUNTABLE for whatever those questions may raise (never mind the answers). In the great TWI tradition of leadership covering their own sorry @sses, the "personal communication" limitation is how the his holiness, Reverend Lynn may cover his own. Dartanian, I'm sure CES lawyers (in other words, his "handlers"), sharing his own fears, have forbidden (FORBIDDEN) him to communicate here any further. Imagine the potential loss of revenue should he go on record (truthfully or not), and his in-CES'd-uous followers get passing wind of it. Much better to keep it "personal" (private), where he can control or deny what transpires. Hey Dart-man, nice tune you quoted. I can almost hear the violins.

Once chosen, either path must be followed, and we are therefore all followers. True freedom may last for only the moment in which we choose what we follow. Do we put our choices to a vote, or do we consider the majority and then listen to ourselves? Frost took the time to find his own preferences and they led him to the path less traveled. Once the poem was published, it unfortunately became the path more travelled. "For Once, Then, Something" has revealed itself to me. The whitish glimmer was most likely a beer can. (I would have taunted him too.) "Acquainted with the Night" reminds me of the beginning of Jay Leno / The Tonight Show, where Jay walks around at night. The key is, it is not important whether you have the right time or the wrong time, as long as you have a good time. This is Jay's message too, and Frost may watched The Tonight Show and learned this principle. Amen. PS: Great post. Just couldn't peer into the well tonight.

Bribe Function: noun 1 : money or favor given or promised in order to influence the judgment or conduct of a person in a position of trust Reward Function: noun 4. (psychology) something reinforcing desired behavior: something positive that follows a desired response and acts to encourage desired behavior ** Why not call it a reward?

John Lynn is a self-serving elitest. This is convenient because he has always viewed himself as one of the "elite." His "man of God" role is an indispensable part of his "elite act." It affords instant sanctification, that is, status, because many people are quick to sign off on the clergy's claim to that status. If John should ever lower himself to "indulge" or "toy with" GSC, it will only be on the safest possible terms. He has plenty of "false evidence appearing real" that we might challenge some of his most precious, personal illusions. No self-absorbed narcissist like himself could permit that.

It may describe much of the Christian experience, not to mention the other major franchises. God is certainly not diminished by our lack of understanding, but our experience certainly is.

JT, he was never really here, was he? I know he left a post, but that doesn't really define presence, does it?

I'm just waiting for John Lynn to jump in here and answer a few questions with his trademark style, wit and panache. We'll sure learn a lot, too. Nothing else to do... but read... his articles... and... and... zzzzzzzzzzzzzzz.

Oldiesman is an Elmer Gantry fan. No irony there.