Just trying to understand how poking fun at the logical conclusions of atheism is a worse offense that calling some Christian groups preposterous, pretentious and extreme prophetic phoniness.
Maybe you can guide me in this nuance?
That's easy. Neither is considered acceptable- at least in this forum, there's a smidge of leeway in some specific fora- but the person who started escalated everything. Had your response been to someone's comment, I would have reminded the other person to behave. None of these posts are secret, so it's sensible that anyone I don't remind by name can still be reminded when they see it brought up.
Oh, "poking fun." It that like "the boys having a little fun" when they hit or insulted "the darkies" some time ago in the deep South? That wasn't meant to be offensive, either, but it sure as heck was. If you think someone has "logical conclusions" in their doctrine, feel free to post about it in the appropriate forum. There's an entire forum that's perfect for that one. In this one, unless the doctrine is "vpw didn't rape anyone, didn't plagiarize, wasn't an alcoholic and didn't teach lcm to be twofold the child of hades that vpw was", then it's off-topic.
So, obviously, everyone- mentioned or not- should remember that, and back off on doctrines, beliefs, coda, etc in this forum.
See, now this is interesting. I was never told the backstory. I was really disappointed in '93 because my young nephew joined me at the Rock that year. Everyone knows what it's like trying to communicate your faith or the reasons for your faith. Well, the Rock was nothing like I told him it was. It just wasn't worth it. Now I know why.
If you'd have asked, I would have mentioned it sooner. Questions are welcome here. Either you'll get an answer, or possibly some links to whole discussions of the answer. Or the names of several threads with whole discussions.
If you'd have asked, I would have mentioned it sooner. Questions are welcome here. Either you'll get an answer, or possibly some links to whole discussions of the answer. Or the names of several threads with whole discussions.
It's called a conversation. Things come out bit by but if some self appointed enforcer doesn't blow the whole thing up when someone comes along with a little push back
Unfortunately, Chockful evidently got tired of it. I've got .... and vinegar for miles.
Chockfull got tired of an imaginary persecution he/she could not document except by blatantly lying about multiple people's experience in this board.
Alright, I just glanced at that thread. Still, some seem kind of uptight- like, 'oooohhhh, don't cross that line'
So, we toss it back and forth a little, so what? I can't really tell if the criticism is objective or if it's because I'm scoring points?
Tough pill to swallow. All of us were brimming with faith at some point. Some continued on with timeless, scared truths. Others of us got wounded and became entrenched in a protective, adversarial belief system.
I don't know who said it but the way to fix a wrong turn is to go back to the place it was made (well, I guess there could be a shortcut). That can be a tough pill. As the O' Jays sang, 'if you miss it, I feel sorry, sorry for you.' We weren't wrong when we believed.
I think you know that twi will have none of the preposterous, pretentious and extreme prophetic phoniness that ministries like Morningstar (and IHOPKC, Gateway Church, Bethel Church, and others) prosper in, but they all do share in twi's history of there being sexual abuse. Now, do they all practice lovebombing like twi - that I do not know.
So here's the exact wording Joyful cited.
This was, of course, MANY posts after Joyful's broadside against atheists, so he can't honestly portray his comment as a response.
In any event, specific or even general criticisms of ministry practices are not nearly the same thing as bigoted comments about all or most Christians, and don't deserve to be treated as such.
I appreciate your judgmentalism about how uptight people are when it comes to this site's moderation. It really keeps me up, sometimes, wondering what you think of whether and how we enforce site rules.
But rest assured, if we ever REALLY need to know we'll ask you.
I think you know that twi will have none of the preposterous, pretentious and extreme prophetic phoniness that ministries like Morningstar (and IHOPKC, Gateway Church, Bethel Church, and others) prosper in, but they all do share in twi's history of there being sexual abuse. Now, do they all practice lovebombing like twi - that I do not know.
21 hours ago, Charity said:
You know nothing about what I do or do not know. What I said about those groups can easily be documented. I will do so if you're interested but not tonight - it's too late.
13 hours ago, JoyfulSoul said:
Just trying to understand how poking fun at the logical conclusions of atheism is a worse offense that calling some Christian groups preposterous, pretentious and extreme prophetic phoniness.
Maybe you can guide me in this nuance?
My post was about the prophetic phoniness (with a few extra adjectives added) that certain ministries prosper in.
Your reply made it about the ministries themselves.
Slight, but important, difference. I was aiming solely with the prophetic practices of these groups - not all the practices. These are the specific practices that I planned to document for you.
I think you know that twi will have none of the preposterous, pretentious and extreme prophetic phoniness that ministries like Morningstar (and IHOPKC, Gateway Church, Bethel Church, and others) prosper in, but they all do share in twi's history of there being sexual abuse. Now, do they all practice lovebombing like twi - that I do not know.
21 hours ago, Charity said:
You know nothing about what I do or do not know. What I said about those groups can easily be documented. I will do so if you're interested but not tonight - it's too late.
13 hours ago, JoyfulSoul said:
Just trying to understand how poking fun at the logical conclusions of atheism is a worse offense that calling some Christian groups preposterous, pretentious and extreme prophetic phoniness.
Maybe you can guide me in this nuance?
2 hours ago, Raf said:
So here's the exact wording Joyful cited.
This was, of course, MANY posts after Joyful's broadside against atheists, so he can't honestly portray his comment as a response.
In any event, specific or even general criticisms of ministry practices are not nearly the same thing as bigoted comments about all or most Christians, and don't deserve to be treated as such.
If I were to go ahead with the documentation, it would be about ministries other than twi, offshoots of twi or cults. Would it be best to do so then in the Open forum or the Doctrinal: Exploring the Bible sub-forum? (Mind you, there is not a lot of scriptural support for the documentation since it's pretty much man made doctrines and practices.)
Other than doing so specifically in response to JoyfulSoul's post, the documentation sheds a light on what leaders of these mega churches are saying and doing.
I think the bottom line is, nothing Charity said amounts to a broad attack on Christians in general that warrants a pre-emptive retaliatory attack on atheists.
I can understand where you are coming from making such a statement, since believer’s think one can only experience joy by what is written in a book written thousands of years ago. They rationalize the only way of knowing if something is right or wrong is by reading it chapter and verse from this book. They also must read, apparently, what joy is to bevable to experience it.
As an atheist I can tell you i have not experienced so much joy since no longer relying on god. I find joy in everyday living doing the things necessary to live. Family and friends play a significant role in my happiness and it doesn’t matter what their religious beliefs might be.
Plus I no longer have to be concerned if I am pleasing god or not.
Do you think this applies to the Way International?
This was a prior question in response to the statement "In Essentials Unity, In Nonessentials Liberty, and In All Things Love."
Was thinking it over ... here's my quick 2 cents. I would say mostly Yes. Because of these things:
(1) Unity: Yes. Without unity, or a system of "forced" integration with love, what do you really have? There's either a mandate of likemindedness and conformity, which is one of the major essences of an organized religion; or division and confusion, right? You can go on and on about telling people they should live the way they want to live but regarding essentials that's not biblical Christianity, right? Add on the Corps commitment, and you've got assimilation x 2. or 3. "Deny Yourself and be Sold Out to the Program".
(2) Liberty: Yes to nonessentials. You like colgate toothpaste and I like crest. You like blue dresses and I like yellow. Granted, there was less of that sort of thing in the Corps.
(3) Love: Yes. Without it any religion is ultimately doomed.
I think you know that twi will have none of the preposterous, pretentious and extreme prophetic phoniness that ministries like Morningstar (and IHOPKC, Gateway Church, Bethel Church, and others) prosper in, but they all do share in twi's history of there being sexual abuse. Now, do they all practice lovebombing like twi - that I do not know.
On 6/7/2025 at 7:40 AM, JoyfulSoul said:
Just trying to understand how poking fun at the logical conclusions of atheism is a worse offense that calling some Christian groups preposterous, pretentious and extreme prophetic phoniness.
Maybe you can guide me in this nuance?
11 hours ago, Raf said:
I think the bottom line is, nothing Charity said amounts to a broad attack on Christians in general that warrants a pre-emptive retaliatory attack on atheists.
Excuse me for coming back to this issue, but I'm just realizing that my post above had apparently been taken by some as an atheist attacking Christians.
When I wrote the post, I was thinking about the criticism other Christians themselves have laid against the prophetic practices (and teachings) of these groups which is what the documentation I said I'd share was based on and which I, as a former Christian, agree with as well.
As an atheist, I've just taken it a step further and think there is no evidence for this biblical God or the holy spirit (meaning both the "gift" and the 3rd person of the trinity). I participate in the discussion because I find this specific topic pretty problematic.
I think you know that twi will have none of the preposterous, pretentious and extreme prophetic phoniness that ministries like Morningstar (and IHOPKC, Gateway Church, Bethel Church, and others) prosper in, but they all do share in twi's history of there being sexual abuse. Now, do they all practice lovebombing like twi - that I do not know.
On 6/6/2025 at 10:56 PM, JoyfulSoul said:
I'm just going to tell you my opinion. Of course you can disagree.
Respectfully, you're very certain about things you know nothing about. But, I' m not here to convince anyone of anything, either.
Finally, JoyfulSoul, in the back of my mind, I was thinking about you being around twi again and comparing that with your past experiences with Morningstar and IHOPKC and how different the two are in the area of "manifesting" holy spirit. twi can definitely be more on the boring/less extravagant side of this issue.
Lovebombing in twi, however, was BIG with this and therefore may excel in comparison to the other two groups. I don't know.
Finally, JoyfulSoul, in the back of my mind, I was thinking about you being around twi again and comparing that with your past experiences with Morningstar and IHOPKC and how different the two are in the area of "manifesting" holy spirit. twi can definitely be more on the boring/less extravagant side of this issue.
Lovebombing in twi, however, was BIG with this and therefore may excel in comparison to the other two groups. I don't know.
Either way, travel on.
I already said my old "church" had an entire "service" with four or five of them talking about their out of body experiences. NDEs; visitations; caught up; seeing angels, on and on and on... OK with the utterance manifestations at the Way but I don't talk about everything with every Christian group I come across.
Other than that, things are just a bit tender around here for me. I prefer to just lurk awhile. Makes me think of cats but...I'm really not here to offend
I started reading the thread I started to find out why it felt right to be a 'bit' punchy. Lots of snarky and it didn't start with me.
It's a balancing act. I'll withdraw from this thread just as I did the other. It was an interesting conversation. Now, I'm done.
Snark is permitted in the “About The Way” forum. Indeed, that forum is a veritable Petri dish blooming with snark.
The ”Matters of Faith” forum has narrower guard rails. You can read the rules in the pinned post. Few are at greater risk of violation than I, so I try to be extra careful and generally stay out of it.
In your thread, my question about the nature of God was in response to your justification of profit in the name of God. It was a serious question, but devolved into snark through the exchange with Rocky. And that happens all the time in that forum.
As to who started it? Oh, it started ages ago! But in that thread, I think your suggestion that I should visit Tel Aviv, the gayest city in Israel, kicked it off. I must admit, for a middle school lunchroom, that was some high-level, well-played snark.
Snark is permitted in the “About The Way” forum. Indeed, that forum is a veritable Petri dish blooming with snark.
The ”Matters of Faith” forum has narrower guard rails. You can read the rules in the pinned post. Few are at greater risk of violation than I, so I try to be extra careful and generally stay out of it.
In your thread, my question about the nature of God was in response to your justification of profit in the name of God. It was a serious question, but devolved into snark through the exchange with Rocky. And that happens all the time in that forum.
As to who started it? Oh, it started ages ago! But in that thread, I think your suggestion that I should visit Tel Aviv, the gayest city in Israel, kicked it off. I must admit, for a middle school lunchroom, that was some high-level, well-played snark.
It's just soft, I don't want any of it. Oh, you're hurting my feelings.
I don't want to hurt anyone's feelings. Whateva... All good. All love. Everybody get some Kleenex. It'll be OK.
Recommended Posts
Top Posters In This Topic
17
19
15
27
Popular Days
Jun 5
30
Jun 7
23
Jun 6
18
Jun 1
15
Top Posters In This Topic
Raf 17 posts
WordWolf 19 posts
Charity 15 posts
JoyfulSoul 27 posts
Popular Days
Jun 5 2025
30 posts
Jun 7 2025
23 posts
Jun 6 2025
18 posts
Jun 1 2025
15 posts
Popular Posts
Oakspear
Almost thou persuadest me to be an atheist
Raf
WW kind of sideswiped a theory I've been working under for the past few years. I've brought it up before but it bears repeating. I have a suspicion (not enough evidence to call it a theory) that
waysider
That's really big brush you're painting with there.
Posted Images
WordWolf
That's easy. Neither is considered acceptable- at least in this forum, there's a smidge of leeway in some specific fora- but the person who started escalated everything. Had your response been to someone's comment, I would have reminded the other person to behave. None of these posts are secret, so it's sensible that anyone I don't remind by name can still be reminded when they see it brought up.
Oh, "poking fun." It that like "the boys having a little fun" when they hit or insulted "the darkies" some time ago in the deep South? That wasn't meant to be offensive, either, but it sure as heck was. If you think someone has "logical conclusions" in their doctrine, feel free to post about it in the appropriate forum. There's an entire forum that's perfect for that one. In this one, unless the doctrine is "vpw didn't rape anyone, didn't plagiarize, wasn't an alcoholic and didn't teach lcm to be twofold the child of hades that vpw was", then it's off-topic.
So, obviously, everyone- mentioned or not- should remember that, and back off on doctrines, beliefs, coda, etc in this forum.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
WordWolf
If you'd have asked, I would have mentioned it sooner. Questions are welcome here. Either you'll get an answer, or possibly some links to whole discussions of the answer. Or the names of several threads with whole discussions.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
JoyfulSoul
It's called a conversation. Things come out bit by but if some self appointed enforcer doesn't blow the whole thing up when someone comes along with a little push back
Unfortunately, Chockful evidently got tired of it. I've got .... and vinegar for miles.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
Chockfull got tired of an imaginary persecution he/she could not document except by blatantly lying about multiple people's experience in this board.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
JoyfulSoul
Alright, I just glanced at that thread. Still, some seem kind of uptight- like, 'oooohhhh, don't cross that line'
So, we toss it back and forth a little, so what? I can't really tell if the criticism is objective or if it's because I'm scoring points?
Tough pill to swallow. All of us were brimming with faith at some point. Some continued on with timeless, scared truths. Others of us got wounded and became entrenched in a protective, adversarial belief system.
I don't know who said it but the way to fix a wrong turn is to go back to the place it was made (well, I guess there could be a shortcut). That can be a tough pill. As the O' Jays sang, 'if you miss it, I feel sorry, sorry for you.' We weren't wrong when we believed.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
So here's the exact wording Joyful cited.
This was, of course, MANY posts after Joyful's broadside against atheists, so he can't honestly portray his comment as a response.
In any event, specific or even general criticisms of ministry practices are not nearly the same thing as bigoted comments about all or most Christians, and don't deserve to be treated as such.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
I appreciate your judgmentalism about how uptight people are when it comes to this site's moderation. It really keeps me up, sometimes, wondering what you think of whether and how we enforce site rules.
But rest assured, if we ever REALLY need to know we'll ask you.
Edited by RafLink to comment
Share on other sites
JoyfulSoul
The mob can dish it out. Taking it? Not so much.
I started reading the thread I started to find out why it felt right to be a 'bit' punchy. Lots of snarky and it didn't start with me.
It's a balancing act. I'll withdraw from this thread just as I did the other. It was an interesting conversation. Now, I'm done.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
Same pattern.
Break the clear site rules.
Find out no one's going to put up with it.
Claim bias and persecution and run off pretending to be taking the high ground.
It was a nice try.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
waysider
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Charity
My post was about the prophetic phoniness (with a few extra adjectives added) that certain ministries prosper in.
Your reply made it about the ministries themselves.
Slight, but important, difference. I was aiming solely with the prophetic practices of these groups - not all the practices. These are the specific practices that I planned to document for you.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Charity
If I were to go ahead with the documentation, it would be about ministries other than twi, offshoots of twi or cults. Would it be best to do so then in the Open forum or the Doctrinal: Exploring the Bible sub-forum? (Mind you, there is not a lot of scriptural support for the documentation since it's pretty much man made doctrines and practices.)
Other than doing so specifically in response to JoyfulSoul's post, the documentation sheds a light on what leaders of these mega churches are saying and doing.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
I think the bottom line is, nothing Charity said amounts to a broad attack on Christians in general that warrants a pre-emptive retaliatory attack on atheists.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Stayed Too Long
I can understand where you are coming from making such a statement, since believer’s think one can only experience joy by what is written in a book written thousands of years ago. They rationalize the only way of knowing if something is right or wrong is by reading it chapter and verse from this book. They also must read, apparently, what joy is to bevable to experience it.
As an atheist I can tell you i have not experienced so much joy since no longer relying on god. I find joy in everyday living doing the things necessary to live. Family and friends play a significant role in my happiness and it doesn’t matter what their religious beliefs might be.
Plus I no longer have to be concerned if I am pleasing god or not.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
oldiesman
This was a prior question in response to the statement "In Essentials Unity, In Nonessentials Liberty, and In All Things Love."
Was thinking it over ... here's my quick 2 cents. I would say mostly Yes. Because of these things:
(1) Unity: Yes. Without unity, or a system of "forced" integration with love, what do you really have? There's either a mandate of likemindedness and conformity, which is one of the major essences of an organized religion; or division and confusion, right? You can go on and on about telling people they should live the way they want to live but regarding essentials that's not biblical Christianity, right? Add on the Corps commitment, and you've got assimilation x 2. or 3. "Deny Yourself and be Sold Out to the Program".
(2) Liberty: Yes to nonessentials. You like colgate toothpaste and I like crest. You like blue dresses and I like yellow. Granted, there was less of that sort of thing in the Corps.
(3) Love: Yes. Without it any religion is ultimately doomed.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Charity
Excuse me for coming back to this issue, but I'm just realizing that my post above had apparently been taken by some as an atheist attacking Christians.
When I wrote the post, I was thinking about the criticism other Christians themselves have laid against the prophetic practices (and teachings) of these groups which is what the documentation I said I'd share was based on and which I, as a former Christian, agree with as well.
As an atheist, I've just taken it a step further and think there is no evidence for this biblical God or the holy spirit (meaning both the "gift" and the 3rd person of the trinity). I participate in the discussion because I find this specific topic pretty problematic.
Thanks Raf for your post.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Charity
Finally, JoyfulSoul, in the back of my mind, I was thinking about you being around twi again and comparing that with your past experiences with Morningstar and IHOPKC and how different the two are in the area of "manifesting" holy spirit. twi can definitely be more on the boring/less extravagant side of this issue.
Lovebombing in twi, however, was BIG with this and therefore may excel in comparison to the other two groups. I don't know.
Either way, travel on.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
Thank you for clarifying the point you were making.
If anyone actually has evidence of a double standard in moderating, please let us know.
You may contact me directly at this profile or contact ModSerling, Modgellan or Pawtucket to complain.
Or you could make a public spectacle like the last one did. Up to you.
Just be honest. If you're just here to instigate the moderators, just admit it.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
JoyfulSoul
I already said my old "church" had an entire "service" with four or five of them talking about their out of body experiences. NDEs; visitations; caught up; seeing angels, on and on and on... OK with the utterance manifestations at the Way but I don't talk about everything with every Christian group I come across.
Other than that, things are just a bit tender around here for me. I prefer to just lurk awhile. Makes me think of cats but...I'm really not here to offend
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
Seems to me that's the only reason you're here.
But maybe I'm wrong.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
JoyfulSoul
Most involved, antagonistic "moderator" I've ever come across.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
It's almost like that's what you were looking for.
But that would be cynical.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Nathan_Jr
Snark is permitted in the “About The Way” forum. Indeed, that forum is a veritable Petri dish blooming with snark.
The ”Matters of Faith” forum has narrower guard rails. You can read the rules in the pinned post. Few are at greater risk of violation than I, so I try to be extra careful and generally stay out of it.
In your thread, my question about the nature of God was in response to your justification of profit in the name of God. It was a serious question, but devolved into snark through the exchange with Rocky. And that happens all the time in that forum.
As to who started it? Oh, it started ages ago! But in that thread, I think your suggestion that I should visit Tel Aviv, the gayest city in Israel, kicked it off. I must admit, for a middle school lunchroom, that was some high-level, well-played snark.
Edited by Nathan_JrLink to comment
Share on other sites
JoyfulSoul
It's just soft, I don't want any of it. Oh, you're hurting my feelings.
I don't want to hurt anyone's feelings. Whateva... All good. All love. Everybody get some Kleenex. It'll be OK.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.