WordWolf

We don't have to "look forward" or even SPECULATE as to how such a HYPOTHETICAL society would function. (We can, but we don't have to START there.) I would begin by looking at those cultures where religion can't "dominate cultures"- if only because they are ILLEGAL. Under COMMUNISM, religion is to be stamped out. So, countries like China and the USSR went out to stamp them out en toto. We've had perhaps a century since they did that, so let's look at the results so far. Has either of them shone forth as a haven of mankind's best qualities? Has either been an exemplar of people free of greed, pride, envy, hatred, and so on? Not only is that not the case, but it's even worse. With the "freedom" from religion they have, what have they done with it? Standards of living fell. The have-nots, rather than have a minimum standard of living where they are guaranteed food, a job, and a place to stay, have struggled to survive. We can't find out as many details as we'd like for this discussion, because they clamp down on media and all methods of communication. Disagreements are not allowed, dissent is not allowed. So far, every attempt to make a "secular paradise" has been an attempt to do so through communism, and so far, every attempt to make a "secular paradise" has produced an OLIGARCHY. A handful of the few hold almost all the money and power, a minority with some money and power hold them up and generate technology and some income, and the vast majority of the citizens struggle to put food on the table, and maintain even a MINIMUM standard of living, sharing a tiny place to live. We saw a new word invented- "karoshi." People work themselves TO DEATH trying to provide for their families. In the US, things are bad, but they've never been THAT bad for the people at the bottom- or for so high a percentage of the population. (The richest people anywhere always have a comfortable life, and always will.) Now, the people who defend communism as a THEORETICAL model keep pointing out that those are imperfect examples of Communism. The obvious point, of course, is that mathematics may have ideal concepts, but in the world, we must deal with what we have, which is, real people in real societies. Communism as a concept relies entirely on people- 100% of the people, acting ENTIRELY for the good of the whole of society, and NEVER purely out of self-interest. Can that even work? It hasn't worked yet. I think it's obvious it CAN'T work, because humans will seek self-interest in any place in any time. There will always be a minority seizing all the money and power that they can, and using any pretext to grab it, use it, and keep it. They'll use rhetoric that announces that they CLAIM they are working for the public good even while they line their pockets with money and the workers struggle to figure out where their next meal comes from. ------------------------------------------- Now, if we ignore them and imagine new societies without religion, I direct you back to my first post. Societies will form. People will form strata, Some people will seize power over others. In short, much like we have now, and looking much like we have now, with most differences being cosmetics. There won't be churches, but there will be other sociopolitical, local agencies- philosophy centers, reading rooms, public houses, bowling leagues. People will draw distinctions between themselves and others, no matter how arbitrary the lines. People will define "us" and "them" by some standard or other. People will freely complain about SOME social construct that they claim is universally oppressing people, whatever it is, and other people will disagree with them, saying that construct is helpful. People will argue, yell, and sometimes rattle their sabers and even fight wars. So, really, it would be interesting to see the COSMETIC differences, but the overall societies would develop the same ways, and turn out the same ways.

All messageboards have moderation. Some boards work fine with informal moderation- posters just point out something is wrong, bad, or not allowed, and the posters have the self-discipline to control themselves afterwards. Most boards require at least some moderation, because boards with zero moderation descended into incoherent noise as trolls overran the boards. (We're talking the 1990s, generally.) Since then, there's always someone in charge of making sure things don't devolve so badly that normal posters can't get in a word between 20 pages of trolls flooding the board. If you don't like the way a board is run, make up your own board, and invite who you want. Then you can feel free to snub me or anyone else you don't like because we're not allowed there. You can also just find a different board you like. There's no constitutional right to the GSC. There's also a lot of disagreement on the GSC because there's room for a lot of disagreement on the GSC. If you're getting static from several members, you've actually found something that disparate members can agree upon- even if that something is "you're posting like a jerk." With all the room for disparate opinions here, I think that may be one of very few things where a consensus can be found on the GSC.

I'm surprised that the new guy- the one who objects to moderation of both formal and informal kinds- thinks he's qualified to decide who should and should not come back here. "Hopefully you're so offended you don't come back. Bye bye." "Now, if you're too offended to come back...hint, hint.." Everyone is welcome to post here. Even the obnoxious are welcome to post here, and people with unpopular points of view as well. Keep in mind that posting obnoxiously A) will draw posts of similar tone in reply and B) will sooner or later draw warnings and formal moderation All of which, of course, get used as "evidence" that the person was never treated fairly. "Look how unfairly they treated me." Lots of posters have been allowed to continue posting after having been ASKED NICELY BY THE MODERATORS to behave. Some of those have used that allowance to post twice as obnoxiously on a thread, insult the moderation staff, and complain in general. At that point, the moderators HAVE to pull the plug. I'm being reminded of someone who manufactures a complaint at a nice restaurant so they have an excuse to refuse to leave a tip. If you just don't like it here, you can just stop posting. Go somewhere you like it. Maybe come back and post later, if you like things better some other time. This is the internet in 2025, you can do that.

If it was a personal attack, I would apologize. You might want a slightly tougher skin if you're going to stay on the internet. I stipulated to your premise, and am discussing purely on that basis. The initial post all pointed to one question/topic- what would a world be like, without any religion whatsoever? So, given the forum, I approached this as a sociological discussion, where religion is a socio-political structure and so on. My point remains the same- that a society without certain social and political structures won't have a vacuum. There will be OTHER social and political structures, and they will be used- or misused- in much the same ways. People are people. So, there would be some COSMETIC changes, but society as a whole would be much the same. I didn't even object to the implication that churches. etc. as a whole had rules, etc with negative connotations. It's debatable and largely up to interpretation any way, depending on the group and the practice (some more so, some less so, etc.) I pointed out what any sociology student could tell you- that people organize themselves into groups, and those groups immediately begin to have expectations, and so on. That actually is NECESSARY for social cohesion- and social cohesion keeps societies together. (It can also be dysfunctional, for the insider as well as the outsider.) So, addressing your original point, we wouldn't have big holes in the streets where church buildings are. We wouldn't have dead air time where sermons were, and so on. Society would invent other social groups, and invest political identity, personal identity, community identity, and so on. It sounded to me like you were making a binary division of societies where one side had religion, rules, regulations, and expectations, and the other side which did not... and I've seen implications where that means everything is perfect, at least on paper, once the first side is removed. (Try and stay awake while reading "The Communist Manifesto" for a great example.) It sounded like you might have been getting ready to head in that direction. So, since you sounded like one side had all the rules- with the obvious implication that the other side did not- I pointed out both sides would, and that it might be a surprise if you hadn't looked at it that way. Sometimes it takes looking at the right question to have the right answer. This may come as a shock to you, but that was neither personal nor aimed as an attack. Some of us use that expression with our friends and families. If I thought the point was opaque to you, I would have said so. (It may be a shock, it may not be a shock.... vs "Surprise! Here's how it is...")

See, made the same point without getting political, and thus, avoiding moderation. Seriously, stay off politics. We can go the "reproof" path and ask you nicely, which we're doing, and ask you to police yourself. If that doesn't work, there's always the "thousand stripes" method, and moderation, with or without a heavy hand. Myself, I take you more for a "reproof" kind of fellow than a "thousand stripes entered into him" kind of fellow. That's my opinion, I might be wrong- it's a little soon to tell.

A few of us haven't quite made "senior" yet. To name two, myself and Raf. (We went to the same school.) There's younger posters than us, but not many. Then again, right now there aren't many posters. (Not compared to say, 2001 AD)

"The reality, though, is that all churches and "spiritual" institutions have expectations, rules and regulations." This may come as a shock to you, but all INSTITUTIONS have expectations, rules and regulations. Communist China and Russia are loaded with them. Removing religion from a society doesn't change that, it just changes WHICH institutions and WHICH expectations, rules and regulations are in effect.

For the sake of this forum, I will examine from the position that all beliefs, including all religious beliefs, have stemmed entirely, 100% from people, with no exceptions. If so, that would mean all the religious beliefs- which people have based things on- would have that origin, as would every other belief upon which things were based. So, to posit a world where some of those beliefs were never developed, the question is, what would such a world be like? We're not imagining a world of magic and dragons here, we're imagining something deterministic and "realistic" (not fantastical.) I would expect it to look almost identical to our world. As has been pointed out, technology may change over time, but man has not changed. Improving technology has made some changes in society possible, but man is still man. We have the printing press, which helped to try to usher in universal literacy (a radical concept for history, and a recent one.) We have the internet, where someone can use that literacy to read things all over the world. We have the potential to have the best-informed Earth population EVER. Do we have it NOW? No, we do not. People go into an echo chamber and don't get impartial, fair and neutral information on things, just a lot of bias confirmation. (Can't blame ALL of that on Facebook, even if they made it easier.) What happened? Technology may have changed, but man has not changed. Hippies tried to eliminate capitalism, and make things free for everyone. It failed miserably. What happened? Man has not changed. MOST of the people went along with it. But it only takes a few freeloaders to ruin things. A minority of people showed up, and sponged off of the hippies, and tried to get everything they could (including "free love.") So, I could see the brands changing- from religious to any other brand. But I'd expect the same problems with a few cosmetic differences. Man has not changed. So, maybe somebody makes their identity in a philosophical group, or a political group, or even their bowling league. But there will be sectarianism, and sabers rattled. People form societies, and take on labels, and take on "who is an outsider", which strengthens group cohesion. That's going to stay the same as long as we HAVE people.

"How can anyone claim that TWI’s doctrines are not based on the bible?" You take a doctrine of twi's, and compare it to what The Bible says. You take what they claim The Bible says and means, and compare that to what it says, and the most sensible take on the meaning. It's the same principle you'd use to compare any doctrine or practice with any document. I'm familiar with what the U.S. Constitution says. I'm willing, at times, to discuss what the most logical interpretations are for what that says, and compare that to what any group has said. (I don't want to do that here and now, partly because it would be wildly off-topic for this thread.)

I've never heard of the ones in Formula 1, Darts, Curling, or Bridge. I have vague recollections of the ones in golf and tennis. I kind-of said "what do baseball and Denny's have in common?" and got there.

Totally. Your turn.

"All freshmen are required to take a humanities course." "What's so bad about that? " "Well the choices are absurd. Listen to this one. 'Humanities 1. Man, society, civilization, and the universe.' How am I supposed to relate to this stuff?" "Just don't talk in class, and they'll think you're one of them." "I'm in college to learn about money, not people." "There's more to life than just getting rich. 'People who need people are the luckiest people in the world.' " "People who have money don't need people." "I know, 'Every cloud has a silver lining.'" "No, silver's down this week. Say 'Every cloud has a zinc lining.'"

"On a dark, desert highway"

"It's a pretty good crowd for a Saturday, and the manager gives me a smile 'cause he knows that it's me that they're coming to see, to forget about life for a while."

Um, they each feature a Grand Slam?????

Differences of opinion! Differences of opinion are allowed at the GSC! Politics are verboten. Anyone who takes a position that "vpw was the greatest man of God since the apostle Paul" will find they've taken a VERY unpopular stance and will be debated. But they will be allowed to post- as will everyone who disagrees with them. Differences of opinion, agreeing to disagree, and independent thought are not allowed at twi, and never were. So, people used to twi and ex-twi ONLY may find freedom to think unsettling. But it's an asset.

I'm going to speak purely for myself, here. There's some thoughts I've had for a long time, now, but never stopped to articulate them. I just never felt it was the right time, or possibly not the right thread. So, I'm giving them their own thread. Yes, these thoughts are "About the Way" and about "About the Way" discussions. 1) I've been having these thoughts on and off for over a decade, so it was never a SINGLE poster who I've thought of. (So, if your immediate response is to get defensive, it says more about you than about my post. I'd think about that for a moment.) 2) A number of posters over the decades have all sounded almost identical. It was as if someone had given all of them the same canned responses somewhere, and they just learned to parrot them back- rather than consider whether or not the canned responses reflected reality. For ex-twi, I think it can either be very, very easy to get that to happen (for people who have left twi, but twi has not left them, spitting back what leaders said without ever thinking if it was sensible is how twi has always run things, and that's true now as well as then), or very, very hard (ex-twi who have a violent, knee-jerk reaction when someone tries that same bs on them one more time now that they're wise to it), or anywhere in between (depending on where the person is in their personal growth.) A long time ago, before the internet, I saw a local leader do such an egregious job of it that I was THIS close to keeping packets of Saltine crackers in my pockets, prepared to hand him one every time I caught him do it. But he seemed to have caught himself JUST as I was getting ready to start. I think I had a pack ready in my pocket at the time.) 3) There's this depiction- a pretty consistent one- that paints the GSC as a place where people do nothing all the time but hate on twi. It's not even true of our time on the GSC. A lot of posting is pretty neutral. Want to see examples to the contrary? Make a ridiculous claim that twi made or makes. Then, when posters correct you, you can claim they spend all their time hating on twi. It makes all the same sense as claiming a traffic cop signaling you past a hazard is "wallowing in hate" over the location he's signaling you past. 4) There this depiction- a pretty consistent one- that claims that GSC posters spend all their time doing nothing but hating on twi. First of all, check my posting history. That's not even true of the time I spend here. Second of all, you only see me for the few minutes I spend here, and not remaing 23:45 I spend in my day. Imaging I really spend any of that time on twi is a better example of "thinking evil" than anything I've ever said here. 5) There's this idea that warning people about twi or ex-twi groups is "thinking evil." No, it's warning people not to get their car stuck in the ditch! "In vain is the net spread in sight of any bird." If you're determined to spend your money and time on twi and pro-twi things, supporting them and propping them up, I certainly can't stop you. But if we warned you, and you ignored the warnings and went on and got caught anyway, that's entirely on you, we did what we could. 6) There's this idea that not being open to even considering you may be backing the wrong horse is a good thing. vpw claimed that the first mistake Eve made was "considering." No, it was paying heed to a dangerous, harmful predator who disguised himself as someone looking out for her, who got her to expose herself to danger by ignoring the sensible thing to do and trying to join a "privileged group" known as "wise." Is it wise to never look around and consider whether you are headed down the wrong road? I'll leave these quotes that I think are relevant. John Maynard Keynes- "The inactive investor who takes up an obstinate attitude about his holdings and refuses to change his opinion merely because facts and circumstances have changed is the one who in the long run comes to grievous loss." Paul Samuelson- "Well when events change, I change my mind. What do you do?" 7) There's this idea that people who- like GSC posters- warn others about the dangers of twi can't ever even think of anything positive to say about twi, vpw, etc. No, that's confusing the obvious warnings for EVERYTHING. There used to be something touted as a miracle mineral, something that saved a lot of lives in buildings by preventing the buildings from going on fire. That miracle mineral's name is ASBESTOS. I'm sure many, many, many people owe their lives to being able to escape a fire because asbestos impeded a bulding fire or prevented it. However, if you look around, you don't find people going around saying it's such a fantastic thing, and touting its praises. Why not? As you probably know- now if not decades ago when asbestos was popular- the thing has been responsible for a lot of deaths all on its own! Breathing in asbestos fibers is incredibly harmful to one's lungs, and can lead to a problem with its own name- asbestosis. (Feel free to look it up.) You might say that all people have to say about asbestos is negative now, and they ignore the good it's done. I think most people would reply that asbestos may have done well- and I would say it's saved lives- but it's more important to point out the incredible dangers of exposure to this dangerous substance than to focus on some of the benefits and IGNORE the dangers that could suffocate you or kill you. I, myself, started a thread to discuss vpw and wanted his positive traits included alongside his negative traits. I did the same for lcm and rfr. I found it fascinating that, of the three, nobody was able to come forth with even ONE positive anecdote about rfr, which was not true about either rapist/molester. Trying to focus on vpw's positive traits, now that I'm aware of a far more COMPLETE picture of the man, keeps reminding me of a quote, "Now you fellas have said some pretty mean things...some of which were true under that fiend, Boss Grissom. He was a thief, and a terrorist. On the other hand he had a tremendous singing voice." We've even discussed how Al Capone helped feed people in the Great Depression, but nobody ever focuses on the good he accomplished. It's as if people can't even SEE the good he did, they have to only focus on the negative. That's what's on my mind on this at the moment. Every once in a while, I get curious about what source people are parroting that they come off, all reciting the same things. Then I get on with my life because it's neither my concern nor my problem where people get their delusions or their misinformation. I do know that it would concern me if I were on the other side of things- if I could only recite what others had passed on to me...at least at my age. In twi, I was a lot younger, and a lot more naive. I fell for it then. If I fell for variations on the same themes decades later, it would concern me. I don't know why others are fine with it, but it does illustrate some people are really different from other people, on fundamental levels.

If you are CHARLIE, then those are your ANGELS. ("Charlie's Angels.")

This was Smash Mouth (or The Monkees) with "I'm A Believer."

I was hoping for another quote, but this is Styx' song "Mr Roboto."

But you helped me escape when I needed you! Thank you. (You might need to post another quote.)

It's possible to conflate the two- mainly because vpw himself worked hard to conflate the two, and convinced a lot of us, ONCE, that it was so. vpw plagiarized his way through BG Leonard's class, JE Stiles' book, and everything Bullinger ever printed, and made a comfortable living off of it, claiming he was learning all this from God Almighty. When some of these people came up, vpw claimed he "got the error out" of their works- which was a bogus claim. That gave him materials from people who understood God Almighty more than he did- although if they made a mistake, he just copied it over because he lacked the depth of understanding to "get the error out" for real. But he could sure claim he did- and people bought it. The real results came when vpw hijacked the hippies. He read about the legit Christians at the House of Acts- prayer, healing, REAL movements of God- and all by naive young folk whom he could hoodwink. So, he did. He went there, and performed his full act. Trying to serve God, and sure nobody would lie or deceive them, they became convinced- based on all the plagiarized stuff they thought he'd learned on his own- that this man was the great power of God. In this manner, he bewitched them. He managed to convince some of them to join twi. This was how he managed to strangle a new movement of God Almighty among the people, a move that the Devil no doubt applauded. He took people who were already serving God, seeing miracles, etc, and turned them into twi's sales force, quenching the spirit, and making them into income sources. Those people recruited people to twi, and those people they recruited did the same. Any real movement of God's people in twi was entirely due to those people. So, there are people who had godly experiences in twi- due to those people- and were told it was due to vpw, which was all a smokescreen. They still tried to serve God, but inadvertently advertised a movement of a man. Once those people started arriving, vpw was able to put into practice some things he'd always wanted to but never had the chance- namely, rape and molestation. He was able to put together really elaborate social structures to find him victims, groom the victims, isolate the victims, and cover up anything, and silence the victims if they seemed ready to come forward. Confusing twi for a " reformation of the church" is possible if one has no idea what happened, why, or who did what. The House of Acts was real, vpw was a fraud. In twi, both interacted. It's that simple.

You mean, like when Jesus overthrew the tables of the moneychangers, and chased away the folk that made the temple big business? Jesus walked with God (and, technically, with Jesus) and he was vocal about some of the crimes done on his watch.

If you're so motivated, please send $20 via the donate button. If you're not, no one is going to bust any part of you over it. But, yes, it costs money, and donations are cheerfully accepted and rarely solicited. BTW, I've been to groups where I was never pushed for donations. Of all things, I was involved for a time with a Catholic church group that never hit me up for donations....although we once did a project to feed homeless, and we did it out-of-pocket. Nobody asked me to, but I opened my pocket.... and in that instance, it actually made a big difference.

They've all been televised.