Hey guess what???? 2000 years from now people will believe in the resurrection of Elvis, while other's will say it was caca. They will also argue who really shot JFK. Jesus may just actually take a back seat at that point.
Good one Dan. They probably will argue whether or not there ever was a Jackie, suggesting an feminine offshoot of Jack (JFK was often called Jack), and that her real name is unknown.
Is it practise on this site that posters are expected to edit their own posts if people find them offensive?
[Paw tries very hard to give people as much leeway as possible in posting. Therefore, each poster becomes more PERSONALLY responsible for their content and phraseology. If I say something derogatory, or something in a derogatory FASHION, I'm responsible for it. If I realize-or am reminded-that it was NOT what I meant or how I meant it, I can go back and edit. Usually, if Paw has to edit you, it was for profanity, name-dropping, or something else obvious. He prefers you manage your OWN posts. Just understand intentionally-offensive posts, left unedited, WILL produce responses in like fashion, which not many of us intend to incite.]
As well, is it practise that the Christians do not preach their beliefs on the board(and I have not seen any Christians preaching here) and so it is generally expected that Those who do not believe in Religion will not preach their beliefs on the site?
[ Certain forums have a bit more latitude in what is said and how it is said. A poster can state their opinion almost anywhere-so long as it is in the right forum, like politics in the political forums. Generally, if one indicates that the opposing POV is foolish or ridiculous, that's considered out-of-bounds. Now, the Doctrinal forum is a little different. People have some more lattitude in the content of their posts, with the understanding that it is vaguely related to twi or counter-twi discussions. Generally speaking, so long as you leave room for the dissenting POV to be held by intelligent people, there will be few problems. As Paw has pointed out before, this forum, in order to play host to as wide a variety of people as possible, must accomodate people of widely disparate points of view. Thus, a certain amount of respect supposedly is due each poster and each poster's position. (Excepting some pro-twi dogma, which may get dogpiled here.) Therefore, proselytizing in ANY way, shape or form, for whichever position or doctrine, is generally frowned upon. It also tends to draw fire from the opposing position. So, no, Christians are not free to preach on the board. Please note that, since this is a DISCUSSION forum, all attempts to post doctrine are subject to other posters either ignoring them, or discussing them. ]
Just trying here to work out the standard proceedures at GSCafe.
[A worthy goal. I just wish you'd have asked a few days earlier...]
WordWolf, thank you very much man! I had managed to avoid posting in this thread. Then you had to go make me spew coffee all over my screen. I am like so angry at you right now. :D-->
... Probably would shock her even less to find out that many of these same Christians (especially if they are in the Republican Party) have no problem 'approving' of the politics, legislation, and even the 'Christian moral standing' of one such Mormon, Utah's Senator Orrin Hatch.
Amazing how folks can be so 'tolerant' at select times when it suits them, hmmmm?
Some latitude please for asking about a post two pages back...
quote:Raf said: Do I really have to justify my belief that people start threads to see what the reaction will be?
Of course some people start threads to get reactions. Refiner is by no means the first or only poster doing this. So I missed the focus of your point? I tended to focus on the TWI vs non-TWI part... is that why you didn't answer?
cknapp3, I'm not stating anything new or revolutionary when I say that "people love to argue religion"... and brother, I'm totally with you on the banging the head theory... in all fairness to the arguees on this thread, Refiner did set up his original post by taking a somewhat antagonistic stance and then asking for comments... (and we all know that doing that at GSC is like throwing a cow into a pirahna infested river in a Tarzan movie)...
My statement in that post was not in answer to your question. It was a direct answer to excy's question, which was something along the lines of "how do you know he's posting to get a reaction?"
Your question was...
quote:Originally posted by Tom Strange:
quote:Raf said:
It's hard enough to see ex-TWI people rejecting Christ. It's a little harder, and I don't quite know how to explain it, to see someone with no TWI background come in here and, just to see what the reaction will be, attack a belief system we hold dear.
I wish you could explain it a little... if you can... personally, I don't see any difference in whether or not there's an "outsider" involved (except they don't carry our baggage)... To me it's just two ex-Christians, one that was TWI one that wasn't.
I placed the relevant part of my original post in bold.
I don't know how to answer that question. I feel the answer, but can't articulate it. That's why I haven't answered it. It's a lot easier to be academic about it and say Refiner has a right to post here on any topic he chooses, within the same bounds as any other poster. But feelings, emotions, reactions: those are more difficult for me to put into words.
I don't like it when Sudo or George attack or insult a faith I hold dear, but they're ex-TWI and this is an ex-TWI board.
I don't like it when Refiner attacks or insults a faith I hold dear, but he's...
well, he's not ex-TWI. My heart has to jump through another hoop to help me deal with it. He's not ex-TWI but people who are ex-TWI may agree with him or at least be interested in his comments on the subject. He has the right to post.
I should add that I have no problem with George or Sudo. I wish their beliefs were different, but they probably wish my beliefs were different, so we're even.
I don't know if that does enough to clarify it, but my bottom line on this is that this is not a Christian forum and Refiner has the right to post on subjects he thinks are of interest to people who are ex-TWI.
Refiner,
You said you wanted my opinion on the following:
quote:Do you think it is a forum that should be open to anyone who wants to post? Provided theyre polite? Even if say they are only interested in motor mechanics and movies.
Or do you think it should only be ex TWI?
Im curious.
Let's put it this way: if GSCafe became overrun with people who never had anything to do with TWI, then what would its point be? It would be just another Web community, like Yahoo or something. We have a common experience that binds us, and this board allows us to expand on that.
But you and Priscilla are just two people. I don't see the harm, and wouldn't see the harm unless the non-TWI element became so pervasive that it threatened the purpose of this site.
Who gets to decide? Well, I don't know. The only thing I know with certainty is that it's not my call.
I welcome your presence here, as I welcome Priscilla's. I'm sorry that this happened, because I consider Dot a friend.
I don't know if this answers your question, even partially. I appreciate your respect for my opinion, but I really have to repeat, it's not my call.
oh man, how do you think i feel ? here i am all excited about different (especially excultists') points of view but Dot is like one of my oldest friends in the world
but i can't say i agree with her, you know ? she was affected on a level that i can't relate to, but thankfully she and i are fine with each other. i just loved hanging with her, but she wants to do a christian forum now
Really? Now, let's stop, and connect all the dots ok?
Folks who rant agaist Mormonism are largely Christian in the traditional and orthodox sense right? I mean, that is a fair and solid presumption to make, right?
So, you take those folks, how many are conservatives/Republicans, more or less? Hell, I'll even throw some relgious/conservative Democrats in the mix to suit ya.
Now take that, and figure out how many are supportive/in agreement w/ Orrin Hatch in his politics/viewpoints/morals/etc?
Now, from what you know of conservatives/Christians, and their overall political makeup, is this illustration that I've demonstrated really that far off, hmmm?
I agree with the above posters and refer back to another page somewhere in the middle of this thread where somebody said something relevant about whatever it was we were talking about earlier.
Recommended Posts
Top Posters In This Topic
35
37
34
22
Popular Days
Jul 1
77
Jun 29
67
Jun 30
65
Jul 2
31
Top Posters In This Topic
excathedra 35 posts
Raf 37 posts
Refiner 34 posts
lindyhopper 22 posts
Popular Days
Jul 1 2004
77 posts
Jun 29 2004
67 posts
Jun 30 2004
65 posts
Jul 2 2004
31 posts
Popular Posts
George Aar
Why I personally reject the Bible is simply because it's the easiest case to make. Rather than spend endless hours trying to develop a plausible spin to explain why an all-knowing, all-powerful, omni
Raf
The last post on this thread was eleven years ago. Suffice it to say, MY position has changed since then.
waysider
Not only have we changed in those 11 years, the internet, in general, has changed. Social media has changed. On-line behaviors have changed. And, best of all, TWI has changed. It's shriveled up and be
Oakspear
The opinions of CKnapp3 do not necessarily reflect the ideas and opinions of other skeptics and agnostics here at Grease Spot Cafe.
:D-->
Link to comment
Share on other sites
TheInvisibleDan
Riding in the same convertible as JFK?
Where will we seat Jackie O?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
CKnapp3
So Oakie, you admit there are divisions amongst us skeptics too, eh
:D--> 
:D--> 
:D-->
Link to comment
Share on other sites
CKnapp3
Good one Dan. They probably will argue whether or not there ever was a Jackie, suggesting an feminine offshoot of Jack (JFK was often called Jack), and that her real name is unknown.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
WordWolf
[A worthy goal. I just wish you'd have asked a few days earlier...]
Link to comment
Share on other sites
WordWolf
I'm bothered that some non-Christians have to, for lack of a better word,
characterize all Christians as uneducated knuckle-dragging Luddites who have no
understanding of how the world works and are incapable of linear thought.
I'm bothered that some Christians feel the need to oversimplify their positions and
not have intelligent discourse with more polite seekers and dissenters.
No, I'm not thinking of anyone at the GSC. I've seen worse out there, actually.
Some people are quite eager to level blanket insults at the opposing POV.
(Well, I'm not thinking PRIMARILY of the GSC, anyway.)
Link to comment
Share on other sites
WordWolf
BTW, Refiner,
People who visit the GSC are either investigating twi, or looking to recover from
exposure to twi without a hazmat suit.
There is a third group of people:
drive-by posters.
Those are people who show up, and, in their first post, advertise their website,
messageboard, or doctrine. Thus, the post is a commercial.
Generally speaking, they tend to get it from every direction, and so they leave.
(Which is what we wanted in the first place. We don't like ads here.)
Link to comment
Share on other sites
simonzelotes
So does the anger stem from one's beliefs or the subject of one's beliefs being rejected?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
WordWolf
I'll answer you right after I finish beating my wife....
Link to comment
Share on other sites
houseisarockin
WordWolf, thank you very much man! I had managed to avoid posting in this thread. Then you had to go make me spew coffee all over my screen. I am like so angry at you right now.
:D-->
Link to comment
Share on other sites
def59
Oz
Would it shock you to know that most Christians would never consider you a Christian because of the your JW background.
Cults and heresies are not looked upon with an approving eye — and JW's Mormon's and TWI's are tops on the Cult awareness boards.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
GarthP2000
... Probably would shock her even less to find out that many of these same Christians (especially if they are in the Republican Party) have no problem 'approving' of the politics, legislation, and even the 'Christian moral standing' of one such Mormon, Utah's Senator Orrin Hatch.
Amazing how folks can be so 'tolerant' at select times when it suits them, hmmmm?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
TheEvan
Wow, quite the broad brush garthie
-->
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Oakspear
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mister P-Mosh
I disagree.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Tom Strange
Some latitude please for asking about a post two pages back...
Of course some people start threads to get reactions. Refiner is by no means the first or only poster doing this. So I missed the focus of your point? I tended to focus on the TWI vs non-TWI part... is that why you didn't answer?cknapp3, I'm not stating anything new or revolutionary when I say that "people love to argue religion"... and brother, I'm totally with you on the banging the head theory... in all fairness to the arguees on this thread, Refiner did set up his original post by taking a somewhat antagonistic stance and then asking for comments... (and we all know that doing that at GSC is like throwing a cow into a pirahna infested river in a Tarzan movie)...
Link to comment
Share on other sites
lindyhopper
I'm so glad we could stick to the subject of this thread.
Great job everyone.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
Tom,
My statement in that post was not in answer to your question. It was a direct answer to excy's question, which was something along the lines of "how do you know he's posting to get a reaction?"
Your question was...
I placed the relevant part of my original post in bold.
I don't know how to answer that question. I feel the answer, but can't articulate it. That's why I haven't answered it. It's a lot easier to be academic about it and say Refiner has a right to post here on any topic he chooses, within the same bounds as any other poster. But feelings, emotions, reactions: those are more difficult for me to put into words.
I don't like it when Sudo or George attack or insult a faith I hold dear, but they're ex-TWI and this is an ex-TWI board.
I don't like it when Refiner attacks or insults a faith I hold dear, but he's...
well, he's not ex-TWI. My heart has to jump through another hoop to help me deal with it. He's not ex-TWI but people who are ex-TWI may agree with him or at least be interested in his comments on the subject. He has the right to post.
I should add that I have no problem with George or Sudo. I wish their beliefs were different, but they probably wish my beliefs were different, so we're even.
I don't know if that does enough to clarify it, but my bottom line on this is that this is not a Christian forum and Refiner has the right to post on subjects he thinks are of interest to people who are ex-TWI.
Refiner,
You said you wanted my opinion on the following:
Let's put it this way: if GSCafe became overrun with people who never had anything to do with TWI, then what would its point be? It would be just another Web community, like Yahoo or something. We have a common experience that binds us, and this board allows us to expand on that.
But you and Priscilla are just two people. I don't see the harm, and wouldn't see the harm unless the non-TWI element became so pervasive that it threatened the purpose of this site.
Who gets to decide? Well, I don't know. The only thing I know with certainty is that it's not my call.
I welcome your presence here, as I welcome Priscilla's. I'm sorry that this happened, because I consider Dot a friend.
I don't know if this answers your question, even partially. I appreciate your respect for my opinion, but I really have to repeat, it's not my call.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
excathedra
oh man, how do you think i feel ? here i am all excited about different (especially excultists') points of view but Dot is like one of my oldest friends in the world
but i can't say i agree with her, you know ? she was affected on a level that i can't relate to, but thankfully she and i are fine with each other. i just loved hanging with her, but she wants to do a christian forum now
Link to comment
Share on other sites
GarthP2000
Really? Now, let's stop, and connect all the dots ok?
Folks who rant agaist Mormonism are largely Christian in the traditional and orthodox sense right? I mean, that is a fair and solid presumption to make, right?
So, you take those folks, how many are conservatives/Republicans, more or less? Hell, I'll even throw some relgious/conservative Democrats in the mix to suit ya.
Now take that, and figure out how many are supportive/in agreement w/ Orrin Hatch in his politics/viewpoints/morals/etc?
Now, from what you know of conservatives/Christians, and their overall political makeup, is this illustration that I've demonstrated really that far off, hmmm?
Notice how focused that 'brush' now becomes.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
herbiejuan
Tom we are a lively bunch aren't we
Link to comment
Share on other sites
def59
I am conservaive, (Gasp) but as a Christian, I take Orrin Hatch with a grain of salt, as I do with all politicians.
But how many do you disagree with philosophically that you may have similar political affections with.
When you can demonstrate no hypocrisy in your life to the rest of us, maybe you won't be so smug to shoot from the hip.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
herbiejuan
I agree with the above posters and refer back to another page somewhere in the middle of this thread where somebody said something relevant about whatever it was we were talking about earlier.
Can I take my meds now?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
def59
Garth
Here's something else, many Christians I know will find allies on certain moral issues from different pools of thought.
Sometimes its Mormons, whom we admire for their strong family ties (although some get too tied up) and disciplines.
We can appreciate Muslims for their belief in God.
Dittos for Jews
And sometimes, atheists like Nat Hentoff, a First Amendment scholar who is pro-life on biological grounds.
We would still want them all to come to a saving relationship with Jesus Christ, but that is an individual choice.
So again, can you demonstrate how you never act hypocritcally?
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.