What isn't controversial and why it matters

Welcome to De-Commissioned, a place for former members of the Great Commission movement (aka GCM, GCC, GCAC, GCI, the Blitz) to discuss problems they've experienced in the association's practices and theology.

You may read and post, but some features are restricted to registered members. Please consider registering to gain full access! Registration is free and only takes a few moments to complete.

[araignee19]

Here's the link to the full transcript:
http://gcxweb.org/Audio/ExcBillTaylor-12-09-1976.aspx

Anyone know what Bill Taylor did that was so "divisive"? 

[Linda]

You can read about it here:

http://gcxweb.org/Books/MarchingToZion/MTZ-Trouble.aspx

Basically, at an elder's conference in Albuquerque, Bill taught that "truth was more important than unity".

During this conference Bill addressed the subject of truth and unity, saying that while unity is important, Scripture also speaks of the importance of truth. Bill stated further that the point can be reached where the pursuit of unity exceeds the pursuit of truth and thus becomes an invalid unity;

McCotter taught that unity was more important than truth. In the "Leadership" book, co-written by McCotter and Dennis Clark (who, by the way, as far as I know has never backed down from this teaching and still sits on the national board of Great Commission) it says "unity is the cardinal doctrine". In other words, if a pastor teaches something that is incorrect, it is improper for another elder to correct it because it is a sign of disunity.

Bottom line: If you disagree with McCotter's teaching you are not being very unified, you get labeled a "slanderer" and you get excommunicated for slander.

[Ned_Flanders]

I'm sorry, Ned. I wasn't having a discussion on sexism; I was pointing out the ways in which I don't think they ever lived up to their statement of errors -- from my perspective. Obviously, as a woman, and as someone who was kept isolated from men, and just focused on her supposed gender roles as a woman at that time, it's hard for me to offer a wider perspective. I didn't have much access to men, or to how they treated men. They really separated us a lot. I do appreciate your perspective, and pointing out the ways in which they also manipulated men, or treated them like they were heartless, etc. It's a GOOD thing to have that other half of the story.

As for the role of sex, I have a different view than a theist would on this issue, obviously... I don't consider sex to be evil outside of marriage, and I consider it to be the individual's own business, which needs to be managed responsibly, like many other adult decisions. But even as a former theist, I just never felt it was the place of the church to force anyone to be married.  Admission of errors, and contrition? Sure... I can give you that. But that's no reason to force anyone into an even bigger error. As you said, two wrongs don't make a right. People need to be helped, as human beings, to meet the burdens of the consequences of their decisions -- such as, emotional counseling, and being prepared to either place a child on adoption, or be a proper parent, etc. If -- as you say -- a couple felt it their personal decision to marry, that's fine... But I see it as unfair to marry people who are not on equal planes. I just don't think it's a very loving thing to do to people; nor a very humane thing to do. 

Anyway, again, I was not trying in any way to negate that men were also wronged... I just can't offer a very extensive input into that, and I admit it doesn't come naturally to my train of thought, as I didn't have a direct experience with it. Thanks for sharing your experiences.

FeministRebel,
There's no need to apologize.  Anyway, I'm glad you appreciated what I shared. 

I was thinking some more today about what you shared about them "forcing" people to get married.  I'm just curious- what did they threaten to do to people if they DIDN'T get married?  In other words, what happened if the threat didn't work?

[araignee19]

McCotter taught that unity was more important than truth. In the "Leadership" book, co-written by McCotter and Dennis Clark (who, by the way, as far as I know has never backed down from this teaching and still sits on the national board of Great Commission) it says "unity is the cardinal doctrine". In other words, if a pastor teaches something that is incorrect, it is improper for another elder to correct it because it is a sign of disunity.

Bottom line: If you disagree with McCotter's teaching you are not being very unified, you get labeled a "slanderer" and you get excommunicated for slander.

I thought that might be it.

Similar doctrines are still taught. I know Kurt Jurgensmeier taught something very similar at the 2008 Faithwalkers (http://www.gccweb.org/conferences/faithwalkers/west/2008teachings_west.html). I imagine there might be better examples, but I don't know where they are.

I was also confronted one time when I brought a concern about incorrect teaching to a few friends. It exploded into this huge, ridiculous "disciplinary" meeting, where I was rebuked for causing disunity.

In this situation, the female team apprentice on my team got upset and worried that I was gossiping to team members about the leaders and causing disunity. She reported it to the female team leader, who reported it to her mentor, who reported it to the female leader of the Rock, who reported it to the male leader of the Rock, until it went all the way up to the senior pastor of the church and back down through the male chain of leadership to my male team leader and his apprentice. At this point, the male team leader and his apprentice asked to meet with me and my two roommates, who were incorrectly assumed to be involved in my attempts to "tear the team apart," and rebuked us about causing disunity, which I was never trying to do. None of these people ever approached me to let me know they thought there was a problem before things got turned from a mole hill into a mountain. They deemed that it was appropriate to skip the biblical instructions of how to deal with sin (which in this case I do not think I sinned in the first place) because disunity is such a dangerous thing. Disunity was seen as far more dangerous than the incorrect teaching could be.

[FeministRebel]

I was thinking some more today about what you shared about them "forcing" people to get married.  I'm just curious- what did they threaten to do to people if they DIDN'T get married?  In other words, what happened if the threat didn't work?

I'd only assume they would get expelled from the church, and be treated like pariah. One of the couples did go on to get divorced, and weren't involved much with GCx anymore, though their parents were long established GCx families. I know the gal moved to another state, far away.

[Linda]

Disunity was seen as far more dangerous than the incorrect teaching could be.

Well said.

To correct false teaching is not sin.

False teaching is either ignorance or sin.

False teaching causes disunity.

[theresearchpersona]

Here is the link. It's on wayback machine and takes a few seconds to load.:

http://web.archive.org/web/20110726080107/http://gccweb.org/assets/gccweb/Explanation%20of%20Criticisms%20final0910.pdf

There are three reasons. First, some bring up issues from the 1970s and 1980s that were either invalid or were corrected many years ago. Second, some people have gone on blogs to take a relationship conflict public rather than follow a constructive and Biblical process of reconciliation. Third, some who oppose God and His word are critical of obedient Christians who are actively sharing their faith in Christ.

So, what this statement says is if you are critical of Great Commission it is for one of three reasons.

1. You are wrong or misinformed. Or,

2. You are acting in a manner that is inconsistent with the Bible. Or,

3. You are opposed to the Gospel.

Which one are you?

Clearly, he forgets that there are more reasons. How about the idea that criticisms exist because people are exposing uncorrected false teaching/error.

If they want the criticism to stop, they need to go back to the beginning and make very public correction for all the bad stuff they have taught for 40+ years. In addition, to correcting it, they need to stop teaching it! Until they do that, they continue to mislead believers and will continue to receive criticism from Christians who are trying to help them see their error and warn others who are being deceived.

Hey Linda et. al.,

Before you ever link to a resource online, you need to make sure to download it--perhaps send to Puff for later use. The GCXweb library is a public resource for educational purposes, and so it could therefore be validly put there no matter what GC* wants or claims: whole journal articles from among the most well-connected high-profit publishers in the world have been deemed "fair use" when posted for educational and critical purposes, despite them trying to assert copyright, by very high courts.

I noticed that the archive.org link is now missing that PDF...it's possible for site owners to request take-downs, and it looks like someone within GC* may have done so. GC*'s leadership has struggled for years to hide its sins and be sure never to own-up to and apologize for them precisely and openly in a specific manner (rather than grumble about those within who dared do so just vaguely and noncommittally), so online resources can't be counted on to remain. God will keep exposing them and bringing it into the light, I believe, as he promises to do with sins: at least with sheep he's saving from their fangs, (and nobler careful-minded unbelievers whose faith becomes shipwrecked or proved fake), but thankfully, contrary to GC* crying "don't say anything negative", Christians are commanded to contend for the faith, expose trickery and false teachers and teaching--especially the subtle self-deluding variety--and warn others.

[theresearchpersona]

When I left, in 2003...

* I had witnessed them repressing many a potential dating relationship, including a mere friendship I had with someone.

Experienced this myself: never got to "dating", just watched someone with mutual interest (who was in leadership) be pulled-away and start personalizing the "serve God in your youth rather than seeing relationships" as "I am not seeking a relationship": of course, several hundred men and women in sexual sin that was treated lightly later, and you see why Paul says that those who are "hindering" (often rendered "forbidding") marriage" have departed from the faith in favor of seducing spirits, doctrines of devils, and lies in hypocrisy:

Now the Spirit speaketh expressly, that in the latter times some shall depart from the faith, giving heed to seducing spirits, and doctrines of devils; Speaking lies in hypocrisy; having their conscience seared with a hot iron; Forbidding to marry, and commanding to abstain from meats, which God hath created to be received with thanksgiving of them which believe and know the truth. (I Timothy 4:1-3).

People here like to play nice by saying "I'm not saying GC* is so bad" or whatever...but the implications of what they do in light of ^these^ things, and all in the name of ensuring "you work for the kingdom of God", or "seek first the kingdom...". Nigh every small-group "leader" I knew that was also male...was saturated in gross sexual immorality, continuing, which the word strictly says shows that someone is not in Christ, or not to be treated as they are a brother, but rather they should be kicked out of the congregation and not associated with: GC* leadership knows all this, yet in the name of building their little kingdom, teach what they do and lead those under their sway against marriage (as a million parents in our nation do in favor of securing good, materially comfortable futures for daughters whom they led to fornicate without consequence through birth control in the best-case scenarios, and to murder their children before birth in the worst of them). This leads us to:

* I witnessed them force two couples to get married -- one of them becacause they had premarital sex and the gal got pregnant, and the other just because they had had premarital sex, and the gal felt guilty -- so she told her mother. Both of these couples were forced to stand before the congregation and beg people's forgiveness

Specifics, define "forced". I hope people will be...fair about giving the whole truth untwisted around here. "Pressured"? Actually had shotguns to their backs? Frankly, in many situations, "pressued" isn't always wrong, yet sometimes it is...

* I witnessed them basically guilt trip a gal to stay married to her abusive husband, who has a felony assault on his record for beating her up, and abusing her

I can't say I am opposed if they reminded her that Christ warned that the only valid grounds for "divorce" (opposite of "stay married") is sexual immorality, but that also does not mean she must necessarily stay in the same house, meet with this man without supervision, and so forth. Hell, I like the way the Mosaic law deals with "dishonoring a daughter of Israel"...by handing such a man into the hand and household of his father-in-law (forever), but our current system, rulers (seen and unseen), have no balls.

* I witnessed them kick out a couple because they were living together, and had children, and wouldn't get married -- and the church kept trying to force them to get married. Not only that, but the church URGED all of us members to pretend like we didn't know them, after they got kicked out.

If they called themselves Christians then sorry, they really did do the right thing. On the other hand, if they were unbelievers, then those people had a right to hear the word; I doubt it was preached purely anyway, so either way they did this couple a favor: may God grant them repentance and a blessed life of marital bliss, and holy example to children raised to fear Him.

* I witnessed how they gave 'special' preferential treatment to a guy -- who was son of people who were leaders in another rival church -- when he confessed he was struggling with self pleasuring, and with thoughts of supposedly assaulting someone. They basically gave him some kind of sabbatical, and then he was allowed to just defect to the other church, instead.

And I saw how pastors' sons were often some of the most unruly, often uncontrolled, undisciplined, secretive, etc. people in the place. Of course the word states that a qualification for a pastor includes having control over his children, but the leader-trained leader-selected leader-approved can't be held to God's standards. I think in the future I'll name names, and I have had offers by worldly folks to get a book published.

* I witnessed how this 'sister' in our small group, who was emotionally frail and had some bad abuse history in her life, got close to this one guy -- who had a history of missionary parents and whatnot -- was given the cold shoulder when she brought up serious allegations of the guy, basically, raping her, and he didn't deny it ! The church basically still called it like she was exaggerating, and why wouldn't she just accept his apology! I couldn't believe it. Even when I was no longer going to the church... I felt guilty, because she messaged me one day, saying she needed me. She was emotionally lost, and wondered where I went, and I just left without much else. I felt guilty about that for a long time... This is just touching the surface, and in many ways, it's not dissimilar to Catholic minor abuse.

If you get me details and specifics, and more evidence, and any witnesses, I may get you connected to people who can direct you how to initiate the legal proceedings: Sovereign Grace Ministries is now under investigation and being sued, and could be charged, and whether they like it or not, people in positions of responsibility have a legal requirement to act, as well as report abuse: if the people abused by GC* in these manners would only come forward (and often there are not longer statutes of limitations) we could legally, fairly, and lawfully dismantle a large proportion of the historic leadership, and perhaps by such a public exposure convince their trainees (biblically) that they are not, in fact, qualified, and that if they give a dman about "the bride of Christ", they would step-down after being helped to point the Congregations to people who are, though I would feel very sorry for the pastors who have to then deal with them goats. Still though, I would rather they be kept together rather than scattered like poison to surrounding churches: actually saw some of that when a pastor kicked-out 10 families for asking if he would maybe just sort-of possibly please consider "teaching some theology?" They looked at me with glazed uninterested eyes, after I heard of this abuse, when I mentioned other problems and this website and they replied, "oh, that's still around", as though others' abuses were non-issues, or that after ten-years of commitment and relationships their being kicked-out (and ostracized) was nothing: like a bunch of psociopaths, and like people are just something to hang-with, eventually to grow-out of adolescent concerns and relating and into getting more intellectual, like learnin' the theology because its more satisfyin'. I was quite soured by this experience.

Now, I know we are all 'imperfect' and struggle with some things... but often they'd bring up allegations about people who I just -- through my rational thought, and personal knowledge of these people -- could not bring myself to believe as truth. A lot of it felt like fabricated hearsay.

I actually knew the details regarding allegations and knew they were assembling hearsay to make plausible-sounding arguments in some cases; the last event being the controversy surrounding this site.

Anyway, I'm off to reading your "Hello" now. : )

[FeministRebel]

Sir, I am not going to argue with you on the morality of these things, the 'acceptableness' of these things in Christianity, etc. I am not even going to argue with you... on that other very long diatribe you wrote on intelligent design. These points are truly irrelevant to me, because as an atheist, and someone who cares very much about science, I do not share your ethusiams, nor your views on what constitutes morality.

And no, I am not going to go on specifics in this forum, nor get you involved, somehow. I'm also not going to debate you on the use of the word 'force,' as if that somehow, discredited my story, either. It is, in many ways, a subjective word which can also imply the spiritual, emotional, and psychological manipulations of others.

This is a forum where people share their anecdotal experiences, not a place where they prove every detail they went through, bring up lawyers, and raise charges.

 

[theresearchpersona]

on that other very long diatribe you wrote on intelligent design. These points are truly irrelevant to me, because as an atheist, and someone who cares very much about science, I do not share your ethusiams,

As a biologist who studied evolution very specifically, and still reviews and edits papers for PhD candidates, that's quite cute for you to call them "enthusiasms".

nor your views on what constitutes morality.

And as a guy who was drilled by the bio profs. on the fact that "morality" is an unacceptable term in academia because it is a Christian concept constructed by imbuing Greek "ethics" with theology (some of them were quite adept with such history, given the importance of words in science), I am thinking that perhaps, as an atheist, you missed the memo, and ought to be informed on this.

In other news, since you didn't get it, and felt hurt and all, I am recently reviewing the evolutionary literature for bullying and "immoral" (quotes to call the "morality" into question) group dynamics as biological adaptations that can't be shamed, denigrated, ridiculed, or in any way called "bad" on the basis of science because they're advantageous natural selections: so why are you crying about your treatment at GC* then?

Think on that if you dare.

I'm also not going to debate you on the use of the word 'force,' as if that somehow, discredited my story,

I wasn't trying to, just asking a sincere question so I could know what, precisely, you meant.

It is, in many ways, a subjective word which can also imply the spiritual, emotional, and psychological manipulations of others.

"Can" is key, and all of these things are perfectly valid evolutionary adaptations for social interaction and the drive to successfully reproduce. So what again is your basis for complaint?

This is a forum where people share their anecdotal experiences, not a place where they prove every detail they went through, bring up lawyers, and raise charges.

See above.

And note, I don't say all this frank, strict stuff to be mean, but because it's your subjectivity that allowed the demonic jack-asses in GC* to get away with manipulation, abuse, and domination-seeking ("leadership") that you yourself so openly confessed to seeking after so passionately for so long.

Think on these things and if you stop being hurt a minute for being asked to clarify your words by someone who just wanted to hear what you actually meant, then maybe we can have a conversation, because it's only been like seven or eight thousand + years since humanity realized how fuzzy wuzzy people wuz bein' with their words, and that definition and actual intent (if any, sometimes people just talk and emote) matter, and asking for clarification is necessary for any actual meeting of hearts, minds, understanding, a real appreciation to take place.

[FeministRebel]

As a biologist who studied evolution very specifically, and still reviews and edits papers for PhD candidates, that's quite cute for you to call them "enthusiasms".

Not every scientist is a good scientist. Some see what they want to see, again, in the facts... rather than what the facts actually say. I am sorry that you like to argue from 'authority.' Isaac Newton also believed in Alchemy. Should I now start believing in that, too?

And as a guy who was drilled by the bio profs. on the fact that "morality" is an unacceptable term in academia because it is a Christian concept constructed by imbuing Greek "ethics" with theology (some of them were quite adept with such history, given the importance of words in science), I am thinking that perhaps, as an atheist, you missed the memo, and ought to be informed on this.

Just because a man is an authority on a subject, does not mean he is an authority on another. Ethics is a lot more than what Greeks have contributed to philosophy. These people do not sound like very bright students on such a subject, or to likely not have reviewed studies on the concept of how morality has evolved in animals, etc. Morality is not a Christian concept. There have been religions with deities, and claims to morality, as there are stars in the sky -- many of them long before Christianity. It is quite arrogant to think you have endowed humanity, somehow with morality, I'm sorry to say.

"Can" is key, and all of these things are perfectly valid evolutionary adaptations for social interaction and the drive to successfully reproduce. So what again is your basis for complaint?

So, you mean to tell me... that when people emotionally manipulate others with threats of socially outcasting them as pariah on possibly fabricated charges, or their social mistakes, or keeping them feeling like they are inferior because their ideas or leadership are threatening to them, or when they use erroneously interpreted scripture to bully a congregation around, that that is somehow OKAY, because it's a valid evolutionary adaptation? I am sorry, but what is your frigging  problem? Oh, I see... if I say that is immoral, you'll probably try to claim morality somehow, doesn't evolve, and therefore God. I see what you did there. Nice try.

And note, I don't say all this frank, strict stuff to be mean, but because it's your subjectivity that allowed the demonic jack-asses in GC* to get away with manipulation, abuse, and domination-seeking ("leadership") that you yourself so openly confessed to seeking after so passionately for so long.

Think on these things and if you stop being hurt a minute for being asked to clarify your words by someone who just wanted to hear what you actually meant, then maybe we can have a conversation, because it's only been like seven or eight thousand + years since humanity realized how fuzzy wuzzy people wuz bein' with their words, and that definition and actual intent (if any, sometimes people just talk and emote) matter, and asking for clarification is necessary for any actual meeting of hearts, minds, understanding, a real appreciation to take place.

I am not hurt. But I don't like speaking with arrogant people. And well, right now, that seems to include you. You seem to be on this high horse of cross examination, as if you were in some kind of courtroom -- and that's a big way to project your frustrations. I don't see you doing the same to anyone else.

Quite frankly, if what I say and how I say it bothers you, and you can't relate like a normal human being without being a bully --  that's not my problem. I don't really give a crap, one bit, what you think. I admit -- as I have plenty of times before -- that I was young, and I was naive. That clearly, had I known better, I would have never gotten involved. What's your point here? How is your blaming me for what I went through (especially because others sought to take advantage of vulnerable, young people) somehow negate other's responsibility for their actions? It doesn't. So stop bothering me, and go away. You have nothing productive, loving, or upbuilding to say. And I am done with you. You are NO Christian. 

[theresearchpersona]

rather than what the facts actually say.

Lesson 1. Facts don't speak for themselves: this is science 101.

I am sorry that you like to argue from 'authority.'

Lesson 2: everyone argues from authority, appeals somehow, or even discounts based on a perceived lack thereof. (You do so here, http://forum.gcmwarning.com/general-discussion/pbs-nova-%27judgment-day-intelligent-design-on-trial%27/msg12228/#msg12228)

Darwin believed in Lamarckism, which put him in the wrong (like usual) vs. Wallace, Mendel (who Darwin ignored), and so on: yet you decided to side with the guy (and I do more than you know). At least Newton actually had observations from which he inferred mathematical laws rather than philosophy fitted to his observations.

And as a guy who was drilled by the bio profs. on the fact that "morality" is an unacceptable term in academia because it is a Christian concept constructed by imbuing Greek "ethics" with theology (some of them were quite adept with such history, given the importance of words in science), I am thinking that perhaps, as an atheist, you missed the memo, and ought to be informed on this.

Just because a man is an authority on a subject, does not mean he is an authority on another.

Lesson 3: "morality" comes from "moralia", and before the likes of Christianity and Judaism, refered like "ethikos" to something like consequential values or prudent warnings rather than true "right" and "wrong" determinable apart from situational contexts. Unfounded, it's a very subjective term, and this is...well known in philosophical departments, which study it as just such a thing: a subjective and unmoored term used flippantly, per-society, and not according to...individual interests. So

Ethics is a lot more than what Greeks have contributed to philosophy. These people do not sound like very bright students on such a subject, or to likely not have reviewed studies on the concept of how morality has evolved in animals, etc. Morality is not a Christian concept. There have been religions with deities, and claims to morality, as there are stars in the sky -- many of them long before Christianity.

Is right and wrong: usually it is meant today, in simplest terms, as "right" from "wrong", and the animal studies you mentioned follow the pattern of anthropological and sociological use: society-based determination of what does and doesn't constitute harms to...the society, and what is good to that society. Thus when I said

"Can" is key, and all of these things are perfectly valid evolutionary adaptations for social interaction and the drive to successfully reproduce. So what again is your basis for complaint?

I quite meant it. What exactly is the basis for complaint? The very things you complained about as bad for you have obviously...been good for the growth and continuance of GC* and its core, and largely even for its members, attenders, periphery, and even the communities themselves that is serves. Remember that at first you were angry over me asking you to define things, which I did actually just ask because I wanted to understand you understanding, but given now that you've decided to point at various animal studies and a broad, subjective philosophical range that only vaguely points at the term referring to differents things, where unlike you, philosophers and definers actually come to some conclusion or else refer to those differences as different things rather than "a" propos "morality" that existed "long before Christianity". With an absolute God, that of Judaism but spread among non-Jews, it certainly did bequeathe a very different sense, substance, slant of argument, and notionality upon "morality" than had existed in Latin or any of the languages since which have inherited this vein of thought as a simple matter of histiography, and thus did produce something very different from what was generally known before; ever since a lot of people have tried appropriate a more definite, absolute sense of right-wrong, such as rape is always wrong, murder is always wrong, etc., while unmooring from that foundation: it does't work very well, at least as something argumentatively defended by grasping at reason.

And this is not a novel, unheard-of, academically restricted-to-one-disciplined train of thought. A lot of very intelligent Atheists have been trying to make this sort of thing popular, http://theweek.com/article/index/241108/where-are-the-honest-atheists  And moreover, you seem to have missed the medical part: this is a frequent point of discussion and work in every conference, text, class, board, and medical institution given the very tought decisions about choosing who gets what organ or treatment or resource to live, die, or be saved from some permanent impairment by getting the devotion at another's expense. It certainly tends to be an increasing part of the specialty of bio professors (of various kinds) and doctors teaching at Universities for precisely those things.

So, you mean to tell me... that when people emotionally manipulate others with threats of socially outcasting them as pariah on possibly fabricated charges, or their social mistakes, or keeping them feeling like they are inferior because their ideas or leadership are threatening to them, or when they use erroneously interpreted scripture to bully a congregation around, that that is somehow OKAY, because it's a valid evolutionary adaptation?

I am saying that evolutionary biologists, philosphers, and academia have already covered that grounds: and the consistent ones answered that question "yes", as it's reasonably from the standpoint of some individual or individuals ensuring they (and their dependents) have access to resources, support, dominate, keep group cohesion together, and so on. Lately some more fashionable types have been arguing otherwise because "bullying" is the new liberal crisis (i.e. thing getting attention that can have political advantages if blown-up) and one jerk who manipulated some equations into a model says there's an alternative, but all that says is that from the evolutionary standpoint there are separate potential nitches: from a purely consistent standpoint there is not right or wrong in this, only survival.

what is your frigging  problem?

I just ask people to be consistent: "you want pure atheism, evolutionary a priori materialism, etc.?" Then you don't, on that basis, get to argue "right vs. wrong"; you may get to argue "that makes me feel hurt or bad", and ask on that basis "please don't", and maybe nice people will say "sure, because then it might be a benefit to me", and maybe even convince someone who thinks otherwise (that it doesn't benefit them) by arguing the consequences for all, and if it works, great!

But let's not pretend that atheism is meaningful. It is void of despair and nothingness, nihilism, and silence in that void: existentialism has been tried to fill it, but it's a big cosmos  with no ear to hear for a few tiny human voices to shout at.

Oh, I see... if I say that is immoral, you'll probably try to claim morality somehow, doesn't evolve, and therefore God. I see what you did there. Nice try.

Not at all. It is a metaphysical category, like "law". There's a reason unbelieving lawyers all "realists", which to the initiated is the cynical joke for "cynics" who believe in whatever force is necessary for those who make it into power to get their way. I actually live with such a person btw, and know that sort of clique: it's why the politicians are unresponsible, and its founded on the very philosphical system I've been mentioning this whole time: not unknown or new news.

I am not hurt. But I don't like speaking with arrogant people. And well, right now, that seems to include you. You seem to be on this high horse of cross examination, as if you were in some kind of courtroom -- and that's a big way to project your frustrations. I don't see you doing the same to anyone else.

You must be new around here. Also, I do this even to close friends: it's a little harsher without tone of voice, body language, etc., but I do it because people don't seem to even think about what they are saying or mean until asked, and then they get huffy, some fight breaks out, I do this, the person may or may not think about it; if they come back and start defining, understanding developes, then some appreciation, and sometimes a worthwhile, meaningful acquaintanceship: other times, friendship. Even with atheists. : ) (I happened to live with two-and-a-half.)

Quite frankly, if what I say and how I say it bothers you, and you can't relate like a normal human being without being a bully --  that's not my problem.

Did the GC* bullies ever ask you to define your thoughts and annunciate them so they could understand you? Actually know what you mean, or perhaps aren't sure of what you mean yet, or anything like that, and then serve you accordingly? Any time I interact with people, I try to do that because they just wanted shallow, emotive, careless interaction to manipulate people into serving their purposes, and frankly I see why people like them do so: it's far easier, and it doesn't hack people off.

I don't really give a crap, one bit, what you think.

This. is. a forum: and sometimes people mistake a little contention or argumentation for aggression or hostility, when really it's just the healthy kind of engagement that long ago was deemed taboo because it might cause heatedness and hostilities and division and disunity and eventually war and awfulness...I'm probably more frank than I ought be, but I work with what I got, and I was sick for a long time such that I didn't have people to interact with and learn better ways: the only kind of advice that is normally given is "stop caring, just go with it, kinda-sorta make-sure-you-don't offend people or touch on the three no-no's [subjects]". (The traditional three are sex, money, and religion--occasionally "politics" is subsituted in there somewhere, or added.)

How is your blaming me for what I went through (especially because others sought to take advantage of vulnerable, young people) somehow negate other's responsibility for their actions?

Re-read: I didn't blame you. I did point-out a groundlessness for your protests, according to your profession, though: I rather feel for you--and I have grounds to do that:A Just God who who for Justice and Mercies, and zeal for the week and every victim, will avenage every wrong done them by those who take advantage of those things to mis-use them. Isn't this what was missing in the "god" among these men who claimed to work for, peach, and speak for God? When they themselves engaged in tyranny, abuse, mis-use, false-leading, and so on? Thus when you say:

I am done with you. You are NO Christian.

I have to ask (despite the response I assume it might provoke) how, exactly, do you define Christian? When you say ,

Stop bothering me, and go away. You have nothing productive, loving, or upbuilding to say.

just before, it makes me think you missed when Christ said,

I have come to cast fire upon the earth; and how I wish it were already kindled!

And like teachings of the one whose title that proper-nounlike religious designation is derived from, like his coming to cast a sword, division, and that the world would hate, reject, trample, reproach, and despise His own: this also GC*, except when duly criticized (often by that very word they claim is God's) also misses, in their attempts to "be cool for Jesus" and other scandalous and pitiful little schemes to be marketable and more generally acceptable: it causes great harm.

It seems you picked up "Christians are always 'loving' (as in "emotionally warming"?) and upbuilding" as the qualities of the Christian, and missed the "unacceptable", "reproached", "hateful", "intolerable", and even--as Romans came to call them--"arrogant". After all: they claim to know an absolute truth against every other God and religion and thought and teaching and word.

It is quite arrogant to think you have endowed humanity, somehow with morality,

I just thought I would quote this again, so as to juxtapose: please remember who it was that gave the great commandments regarding our affections and treatment of God and neighbor, define "neighbor" as anyone near--no matter how inconvenient--even a man perhaps dying of a beating on a road so dangerous he may have been a plant to get you to come near and stop. I am sorry nobody stopped for you after these men had done so much abuse and, I would hazard guess, attempt to outreach while being hypocritical and "unloving" in its true sense. What I think is worthwhile is to point-out that "love" has little to do with feelings and even friendliness, the sort of things you spoke of them making good on...at first, and everything to do with well-being.

[FeministRebel]

It would be really easy for me to reply to every wrong thing you've said... but you won't learn, and will come up with other absurd crap to substantiate your argument... just like a little GCx legalistic Christian would. You may claim you have left GCx, but GCx has clearly not left you. Even emotionally arrogant enough to state things about people "not stopping to help me" in your little ignorant 10 commandment rant.

You sure must be proud of yourself. Oh yes, you claim you have the "absolute truth." lmao Your just another primate, who will end up in nothing but dirt, and worms eating him, and you don't intimidate me with your ignorance, and arrogance. So, may make a big scene here, targeting me, and derailing this thread from what it was originally meant to be... but this is the last you will hear from me.

You're a troll.

[2xA Ron]

It would seem that FeministRebel is very definitely not interested in arguing right now.  While it is true that Jesus could be quite inflammatory and argued stridently on many occasions, I never recall Him pressing such arguments against people who did not want to argue with Him in the first place.

Also, while it may be argued that naturalistic materialism provides no basis for absolute morality (since a purely naturalistic world is simply what it is, neither good or evil, as Dawkins points out) and that it is therefore logically inconsistent for a naturalist to make arguments based on absolute morality, such a person can still object to immoral behavior in Christians.  Christianity provides a basis for an absolute morality and clearly defines what that morality is.  When Christians, GCx-affiliated or otherwise, violate that morality, they can rightly be accused not simply of inconsistency but of outright hypocrisy.  Such accusations stand no matter what the moral viewpoint of the person making them may be, since they rely not on the moral stance of the accuser, but of the accused.

While it is rightly pointed out that love is not based on feelings, nor always associated with friendliness (a parent disciplining a child, or simply not giving them everything they want, may not seem very friendly at the time, but it is ultimately loving and for that child's good), love does have some characteristics described in the Bible.  According to 1 Corinthians 13, love is "kind," does not "boast," and is not "arrogant or rude."  According to the same chapter, all knowledge, wisdom, faith, and right action are meaningless apart from love.  When Christians demonstrate even an apparent lack of love, they expose themselves to accusations of hypocrisy and, on the whole, drive non-Christians away from Christ.  Many who were born or raised in the faith left Christianity primarily because of the unloving hypocrisy of the Christians they saw (finding intellectual reasons to support their unbelief later).  To such, an unloving approach of intellectual argument is a sure way to remind them of why they left Christianity in the first place, and to further convince them that--whatever the result of the intellectual contest may be--they made the right decision because "see, Christians really are all unloving hypocrites." 

[Huldah]

Before you ever link to a resource online, you need to make sure to download it--perhaps send to Puff for later use...I noticed that the archive.org link is now missing that PDF...it's possible for site owners to request take-downs, and it looks like someone within GC* may have done so.

I saved the PDF. Anyone need a copy, PM me. (I may be a little slow responding, but I will respond when I can.)

[Linda]

Good thinking, Huldah!

I noticed they also took down the talk Rick Whitney gave at Faithwalkers 2008, I think it was. The one on committing to GC for the rest of your life, where he told parents that their college aged kids now answered to their local elders and parents should not interfere. Smart of them to take remove the controversial stuff so parents remain uninformed.

I believe that one good thing coming out of this forum as we point out the bad teaching is that they dare not leave it up. The best thing we can do for the leaders who are teaching the bad stuff and the people who are hearing it is to keep pointing it out as we are aware of it.

[Huldah]

... he told parents that their college aged kids now answered to their local elders and parents should not interfere.

Boy, is that ever offensive. And it's not even Biblical.

When advising or counseling your own kids is "interfering," something is very wrong indeed.