Oakspear

While visiting my family in New York last week, my brother told me about Russel Timoshenko. Timoshenko was a cop for all of a year and a half when he and his partner pulled over a car that had plates registered to another car. After stopping, the driver shot Timoshenko twice in the face and fled. I'm sure that if the officers had been mistaken about the plates, or if there had been a good reason for the plates being wrong, then it would have been looked upon as harrassment, or arrogant cops. Maybe if Timoshenko and his partner, Herman Yan, had spent a little more quality time with their coffee and doughnuts, Timoshenko would be alive today.

My father is a retired cop and my brother is a homicide detective sergeant. I find your generalization offensive.

For a biblical research group they sure left out the context when it suited them, didn't they?

You linked to the page for editing the "labyrith" article, not the article itself.

When I was kicked out of TWI in 2001 I was still married to my first wife, who had been involved in TWI since '71 or '72. She was allowed to stay in. I remember her being genuinely concerned that we would not be able to "agree" on anything, since she was in TWI and I wasn't. At the time I still was a Christian and still believed that one could "work the Word" using the magic decoder ring of "keys to research" and divine the will of God. I told her that we were both adults who had been taught how to read and understand the bible and that surely we could use our skill at "working the Word" to reach a godly compromise if we disagreed. Several days later she announced that she would never compromise on the Word and that my thinking was a priori wrong due to my separation from "the household". She had the full backing of local TWI leadership in her position. Shortly thereafter she kicked me out of our home, convinced that she was "unequally yoked to an unbeliever" because I was no longer welcome at TWI fellowships. Black & white thinking? You bet.

I was out of town for over a week and missed all of this discussion until this morning. Interesting stuff. I believe that outright banning and even agressive moderating/editing causes more problems than it solves. Part of what makes this a unique and valuable site is the presence of many who swim against the stream, who hold minority views. There are many places where the pro-Wierwille, pro-PFAL, pro-TWI position is heralded with no dissension whatsoever allowed, e.g. TWI's own site, web pages of the offshoots, and privately owned sites like Family Tables. Even an anti-TWI site like Juedes' doesn't allow dissenting opinions. Personally I find that encountering reasonably stated opposition sharpens my own position, helps me to be more logical in what I think and believe. That being said, there are posters who are not logical, not reasonable, and contribute little to the discussion. What do we do with them? I've always been a proponent of letting the idiots prove that they're idiots by their idiotic words. We've got posters who repeatedly tells us that first-hand testimony isn't reliable for a variety of reasons, but carefully avoid using the words "lie", "liar", "lying", etc. Does anyone seriously believe that the posters who do this have any agenda other than propping up their dead idol, despite their protestations to the contrary? Let the fools trumpet their foolishness.

I see you've all been keeping this discussion going while I've been on vacation. Geisha: I appreciate the time you've taken to explain your POV, very well articulated. Of course you believe that your position is the only true one, I get that and am not offended. It makes sense from your angle. You've gone farther in spelling out why Christianity makes sense than any other that I have seen. Bravo! Hope to see you around the forums.

Wasn't that a song by George harrison? <_<

Anamchara did we entice you over to this thread with all the talk of a civil discussion?

It didn't seem evil to me, but it did seem like the stupidest thing I'd ever seen. The mornonic television show was even worse. I can't believe it's still around

Actually, I like it that you have to search a bit for the doctrinal forum, helps keep out the riff-raff For me, the ideal doctrinal discussion would get heated at times, but different points would be considered. I don't know how many times I thought "Hmm, I never thought about it from that angle before". Phrases (in the context of a doctrinal discussion) that tick me off are sound something like "It's clearly written..." or "That's what the Word says" or "It's not my opinion, that's what God says. I have no problem with anyone believing that, it's just that it does nothing to further a discussion. Equally irritating are remarks like "What difference does it make? There's no God". It's a discussion forum, if you don't want to discuss, then this isn't your hangout .

Sunesis: I wouldn't get upset about the biblical god being referred to as the "skygod" any more than I should get upset at being called a "demon". Ignorant people will not go away just because we're annoyed at them. edited for spelling because the original post followed 3 Jack Daniels and much beer

Follow up to Sunesis while I'm waiting for bride to check back in: Like I said earlier, the things that you mentioned do occur. Christians do get ridiculed and insulted. It's wrong. What also happens is that some of the Christians ridicule and insult the non-Christians. Sometimes both sides get insulted when no insult is meant. Part of disagreement is that you believe that the other side is wrong. Believers, consistant with their belief system, see atheists as blind to the handiwork of God evident in the world, atheists, consistant in their belief system, see believers as credulous and yes, engaged in illogical thinking. It shouldn't be a surprise to either camp that the other feels this way. But first, is there a polite way to express these opinions without being insulting and condescending? Second, is it necessary to get one's defenses up because someone is less than diplomatic? Speaking from the non-Christian side of the cafe, sometimes we disagree with you guys. We don't believe that the bible is god-breathed, and yes, we will question assertions that you make. Most of you are smart enough to discuss your beliefs rather than cutting off discussion with remarks like "That's what the Word says", because a lot of the time, not all Christians agree that that is what the Words says, let alone what it means. As an ex-wayfer I enjoy getting involved in doctrinal discussions because part of me wants to know how I got fooled, how I was reeled in by Wierwillism. Part of me just enjoys good intellectual debate. But I've been told that I shouldn't participate in doctrinal diuscussion because I am not a Christian, and my opinion was dismissed by a poster who suggested that another poster "not listen to demons". This isn't a pity contest. I'm not trying to prove that I'm more persecuted than you are. The point I'm trying to make is that it's not just that Christians are getting picked, but everyone is being treated with disrespect. I point out again the law of Believing thread's last several pages, a polite, civil, reasonable discussion is being held among several posters, none of whom agree with each other in the slightest. I point out my many discussions with WordWolf, a committed Christian that I have had many fruitful discussions with, because we each respect the other despite a wide chasm between our beliefs. I'm all for getting along and keeping this a place for discussion, not derision.

Are you saying that the doctrinal forum is only for those who fall into that category? If I misunderstand please correct my misapprehension.

Semblance? ;) http://www.despair.com/pretension.html

I'm going on vacation in a few days, try not to have any fun here without me.

I don't know Sunesis, Geisha is having a discussion with me and The Invisible Dan and a few others and it's remarkably civil and open-minded on all sides in my opinion. I'm not saying that what you describe doesn't happen, because it does, but some good discussions can and do happen when there is mutual respect. While I disagree with her conclusions about the evidence that she presents, I find her logical thought processes refreshing and her information educational. She has expressed her disagreement politely and I think she will tell you that Invisible Dan & I have done the same.

New moon actually

Roll away, roll away, roll awaaaaay...

I have this mind picture of you and me in a boxing ring smacking each other with big thick history books But seriously, this is fun! A couple of points: There's possibly more internal evidense for the authorship of the gospels than I am aware of, and it's possible that I am unaware of details of how authorship was assigned. But I've been doing some checking over the weekend on a lot of the points that we're discussing and I find smart guys & gals weighing in on both sides of all the issues. We can play dueling experts for years. You said you had a hard time following my reasoning regarding why a "faction's" views could be so important when it didn't bring them riches or fame? It's not all about riches and fame. They all thought they had the truth, Marcionites, Gnostics, Ebionites; they all thought that they were carrying on the legacy of Jesus. Why would the groups that ended up labelled heretics cling to their beliefs, to their scriptures? I don't see much difference among the different Christianities, other than one group came out on top (and then that group split into competing factions) I don't claim that paganism is historically reliable and therefore doctrinally correct. I'm as skeptical about my own religion as I am about yours.

If one accepts the premise that the bible was written by inspiration of God, then when it was written and who wrote it isn't a problem, and the reliability of the witnesses is a moot point. One of things that we know about from the biblical record, the apocrypha, as well as secular sources was that there were disagreements about exactly what it meant to be a Christian, who Jesus was and what he accomplished. Most of them wrote about their version of Jesus and Christianity, some of the writings survived as the canonical books, the apocrypha, the pseudopigrapha and Marvel Comics . Naturally the winners would paint the losers as heretics and point to their deviation from the "orthodox" scriptures. If the Gnostics or the Marcionites or Ebionites or whoever had prevailed, then a different set of teachings would have been labelled heretical. We're so acultured to the idea that the canonical gospels present a more or less accurate view of what took place in that time that we reflexively reject what contradicts them.

Before those articles in the Way Mag came out I had done some teachings in our area about goddess worship, as well as the non-Christian origins of Halloween, Christmas & Easter traditions. I taught a Limb meeting and a regional Advanced Class grad meeting on the subject of goddess worship. My Limb Coordinator typed up my notes and sent them to HQ, shortly thereafter we get a series of goddess articles in the Way Magazine. <_<

I'm always up for improving my communication skills, Rhino. ;)

Earlier in this thread I said something along the lines of fre speech being only incidental to what goes on here. Another poster expressed some surprise that I said it. Let me expand upon it a bit. I did mean it. Here is an exerpt from the "About Us" and "Forums" section on the home page GreaseSpot Cafe is a gathering place, bringing together people and information. We welcome all who have an interest in The Way International, including former followers, current followers, and those who may have friends or family members who are involved. Our mission is to provide information that tells the other side of the story about The Way International and its trustees. Our hope is that GreaseSpot Cafe serves as a place where those who have been impacted by The Way can make connections with people and information which will support their particular process of recovery. These forums are meant to be a place of discussion, where ideas and debates are encouraged. We welcome your opinion. In that light, please be courteous to fellow posters. Disagree all you want, but respect the fact that someone else may feel as strongly about their ideas as you do about your own. Please don't make it personal. A lively discussions of ideas is both more polite and more relevant. Our forums cover many topics from religious to political. While we are not a religious site, we do embrace discussions in this area. All are welcome here. However, harassing behavior will result in being banned from the forums. There is no need for personal attacks. If you have a specific problem with a poster, settle it outside of the forum. Threads of that nature will be deleted or sent to the Soap Opera Forum. The opinions expressed on this site are not necessarily those of the cooks, waitresses, bus boys, or cashier of the GreaseSpot Cafe. The mission of GSC is "to provide information that tells the other side of the story about The Way International and its trustees". The primary mission of GSC isn't to provide a forum for free speech. Now I'm of the opinion that free speech allows for a better flow of ideas and allowing dissenting or minority opinions gives greater credibility to the "mission". But free speech for its own sake isn't why GSC exists. There are many places where TWI's side of the story is presented, TWI's own website, their Sunday services including tapes, as well as numerous fellowship meetings. Then there's the unofficial TWI sites like Family Tables. On none of these is there even the pretense of free speech. Disagree, or even ask a question and you're out! Add to this the numerous sites affiliated with various splinter groups, where disagreement with the prevailing doctrine is not permitted. Even among anti-TWI sites there is no allowance for dissenting opinions. GSC is unique (AFAIK) in that opinions that do not support the mission of the site are allowed to be posted virtually unhindered. Note that harrassing behavior and personal attacks are not allowed. Of course the poster doing the harrassing is not going to think that they are harrassing or attacking. That's one of the jobs of the administrator and the moderators, to determine whether posts fall into those categories and what to do about it. Is everybody going to be pleased 100% of the time? No. Does that mean we don't have standards? Also no. This is not about any surpression of free speech, it's about stopping harrassing behavior in the forums.

We can agree that the copies mostly agree with each other, that is a far cry from agreeing that they are "accurate". This is another point of disagreement between us; I'm not convinced that the gospel accounts were written by eyewitnesses. They start to appear, what? 50-70 years after his death? There is no internal evidence in the gospels of Matthew, Mark or Luke that they were written by anyone named Matthew, Mark or Luke, in fact, no author is named. There is disagreement about the Gospel of John, but there is at the very least a suggestion that it was John the Apostle who wrote it. This is a stawman. I have not put forth the theory that they all had a mass delusion or that any of the eyewitnesses lied. It is my position that we don't know anymore what it was that converted thousands, or how ever many there were. That many were eventually converted is a given IMHO, since the movement survived into the reign of Constantine and beyond. What I believe is in dispute is whether or not the gospels and Acts are what really happened, given that they were written so long after the fact, probably not written by people who were there, and also probably by people who had an interest in promulgating their faction's beliefs. I don't think anyone is claiming that Hubbard was resuurected, but I may be mistaken not knowing a lot about Scientology. Consistant with what I've already written, we don't have 500 eyewitnesses, we have one guy (Paul) who says that there were over 500 eyewitnesses. And speaking of converting thousands with a lie; how many did Muhammed convert with his (according to Christianity) lie? I didn't say that. It can be true. I just don't believe that it is just because the bible says so. People believe lies and die for them every day. Not something I'm real fond of, but it happens. I don't know, but that's not one of my arguments This is a false dilemma: that a false portrayal must be flattering. But from one point of view, it is very flattering, that someone from such humble beginnings, who died such a horrible death would be exalted as he was. Quite the rags-to-riches story! I'm not saying that the biblical account is definitely false, that anyone was definitely lying, that none of it could have happened, just that the biblical record by itself is not (for me at least) sufficient proof. Your mileage may vary. And don't sweat spelling.