Leaderboard

well the first step was now to require all the PLAF grads to take WAP so they were the first classes. then their kids. if you string that out long enough eventually maybe a new person or two would show up. I recall the manifestation part in WAP was in a private group not in a bedlam in front of class. as to your question, in the Way, $h1t always flowed downhill. so it could be the leader's fault, or it could be the sheeple's fault for not 'undershepherding' well enough. or the weak link in the chain somewhere, wherever a sycophant wanted to target. as far as pressure to run classes there was always that, and varying standards for what you needed.

More yes-men teach segments: Two Advantages As you noted, if one exits twi......only certain sections need to be redone. But the bigger advantage............since rozilla is not adept at teaching (that's an understatement!) having several people teach the fnc/int/adv classes, it removes the "adulation factor to THE TEACHER" diffusing its effect. Whereas, now......everyone knows that the one who orders the policies and mandates, i.e. the administrative side, is where the adulation spotlight and power levers reside. NO LONGER does the cult need a charismatic leader at the helm...........although, it's good to have him nearby in the grave where he surpassed sainthood and is lauded as mog-status with all the gift ministries, including sexual predation and a plagiarist drunk.

oh dear lord baby jesus on a pogo stick.... so how does bringing new folks into the fold work? do they take WAP first? same ole bs. love bombing, pressure grads to come up with relatives friends work associates, same ole witnessing tactics dating etc. do they take WAP first? no WAP first, WAP was replaced by first remove athlete of the dooface harem name and make corpse teach from same syllabus, then keep syllabus and have more yes-men teach more segments so if one left they could replace them easier. They did that with INT and ADV classes too. This is WAP 2. Then the whole cycle starts over again with "new grads" being all the same old grads but a new class. Just like Scientology where they would redo a section of LRH teachings and make everyone re-buy. passing baton indicates a race. this is more like wizard of oz where ugly troll behind mask dictates things. troops are kept in line by Nazi Germany like tactics - threat of shunning, but lying about it. defame those that speak up, excited about 'the word' ????????? yes the scientology-like excitement just oozes out of every pore of this group. I mean you see the video ridiculed on the Soup, right? that was exciting.

waysider, now you know the Way would never re$ort to looking at thing$ from a financial per$pective. And Ro$alie would never per$onally do $omething like per$onally call a large contributor or anything like that. kind of more like in addition to being a $ale$ rep, you paid for the privilege to attend by being on the cla$$ crew.... can you $ay $$$$$lave labor? money for nothing and being $creamed at by d1cks for free.

there are one-sided views here -- i don't want to name names -- but i will if you are going to torture me life and people's minds and hearts are so intricate i just don't know how to explain it i cannot see using all my post time (it's been so little) just crucifying everyone or every idea, thought, verse, etc., with regard to the way i will elaborate later, but now i have to go think about it there are so many horrible things in life. i can't stand the way, but do i have to dig and find things -- not at all. they are very uppermost in my mind but i have many good things, people, even experiences so have at it thanks love, e a sexually assaulted wayfer mwah

yes I do remember this. it makes me release a little vomit in my own mouth.

TLC, being that this is not a Christian or religious forum, and since ideas like the Bible being the God-breathed word of God, or that it is inerrant, or perfect are not universally accepted here – I think you are being rather presumptuous in leveling a charge against someone for violating a non-existent standard regarding this forum. besides the fact, that in my very first post I quoted C.S. Lewis’ view of the Bible – where he said: “The human qualities of the raw materials show through. Naivety, error, contradiction, even (as in the cursing Psalms) wickedness are not removed. The total result is not ‘The Word of God’ in the sense that every passage, in itself, gives impeccable science or history. It carries the Word of God;” And with all my comments in that first post that echo the same sentiment as C.S. Lewis’ words, and what I said to others who wanted clarification of what to post - I thought it was pretty clear that this thread was about folks posting their current views of the Bible, their journey thus far after once being involved with TWI. also I did give this thread a subtitle "confessions of a former fundamentalist" ...if one would care to look up the definition of a fundamentalist while noting that I put the word "former" in front of it - it should be evident that I (the person who started this thread ) no longer hold to a strict belief in the literal interpretation of the Bible...I even drew attention to that fact several times within my first post. …I do apologize if anyone got the wrong idea – as if we were debating what is the correct view of the Bible…but in reading all the posts so far – I think everyone got that - generally the content of their posts described a philosophical quest... and were definitely NOT a major dissertation on any Bible doctrine ...so I am mystified why you zeroed in on one particular post when all the other posts expressed some very divergent views of the Bible....I mean - I could understand it if you have me on your ignore list - which you may have, I dunno - so you didn't see the specific questions / suggestions I had laid out - but given the fact that all the other posts were definitely not lining up with the typical fundamentalist mindset, but rather were responding appropriately to my questions / suggestions - I am wondering what your intention was in picking apart one particular post. ...maybe I should also add it’s just not cool to attack another person’s beliefs on this thread – that is totally off topic! Because this thread is all about one’s personal belief system… I DID say in my first post that I did not intend to defend the Bible or my beliefs – I was expecting everyone who posted to feel the same way. also in my first post I did say to the moderators maybe I should have started this thread in the questioning faith forum. So it’s not like I was being deceptive – but maybe because it’s in doctrinal I guess some folks could drum up an issue about something…I mean look at the definition of doctrine noun 1. a particular principle, position, or policy taught or advocated, as of a religion or government: Catholic doctrines; the Monroe Doctrine. 2. something that is taught; teachings collectively: religious doctrine. 3. a body or system of teachings relating to a particular subject: the doctrine of the Catholic Church. == == == == I’m not arguing about doctrine on this thread…I’m promoting freedom of thought. maybe I should have started this thread in the Open forum…as in open to new ideas…open minded…open, free – NOT imprisoned…so addressing the moderators once again, feel free to move this to the questioning faith forum…or the open forum or leave it here – I don’t care.

I seem to remember WAP having more prerequisites than PFAL. A minimum number of fellowships to attend and maybe SIT prior to the class?

PFAL and WAP.....what's the difference? One was built on the deception of "infallibility".....it was as perfect as perfect can be. .........hiding in the shadows of stolen property and plagiarism from Leonard. Then, WAP......was build on the concept of "the present truth" that needed a refresh button every week, month and year. .........which put all grads paying to go thru a turnstile to gain cult access and purged the others who stopped paying. I seriously doubt that the narcissist wierwille ever gave it a thought that "his class" would go on a back burner. EVER.

I left. But because TWI uses The Bible, it can employ the Christians to do their dirty work. Eph 6:1 folks. Cute way to increase your numbers.

Just my opinion here. Although The Way made money on every class they ran, it was short term. The real goal was to build a following of people who would give them 10, 15, 20% of every paycheck, time after time after time. They knew the drop-out rate for class grads would be incredibly high. That's why the push to recruit was so aggressive. From a sales and marketing point of view, it's simple math. It was never about "bringing people to the Lord" or however else you choose to phrase it. We were unpaid sales reps, working for 0% commission.

Twinky, I also remember all the pressure put on us to run classes; I got so sick of it!! Finally, I sort of withdrew, and just lived my life. I didn't understand why we were under the gun to run classes; now I think it was because TWI was motivated so motivated by money. The more classes run, the more grads, thus more money for TWI. I always felt that TWI was more concerned about money, than moving The Word. No wonder so many people left right after taking the class; I wish I had.

Yes, I made the mistake of stopping midway through your first post, sending mine, then realizing that you'd already addressed my question. Thank you though. In the interest of making sure it doesn't become an "atheist" thread, I'm going to leave it here unless another moderator reads and thinks I've misjudged. I trust that all views are welcome for discussion, though.

Human, I have never seen any of those TV shows. However, you have a good point; most people without TV's are single, and without kids. Cable is way too expensive for me. I know some people can use Rabbit Ears, but they don't work for me. Also, I am afraid that if I had Cable, I would watch way too much TV. I know some people think I am nuts, not having a TV, but it works for me.

I have to object this this idea that all opinions must be embraced and are equally valid. Yes, you have a right to your opinion. I also have a right to mine, and that includes the right to think your opinion is foolish, and that you're conducting yourself poorly. We can agree, at least, on CIVILITY at the very least, but that doesn't mean I have to AGREE with anyone else. Oakspear and I approach things from a vast doctrinal divide and neither of us have any plans to cross it. Has anyone here seen us act uncivilly toward each other? Highly doubtful. Look- all positions are NOT equally valid, and agreeing with someone is not wrong, and disagreeing with someone is not wrong, and almost everyone holding an opinion is not discriminatory to the minority. Most of us here agree that having oxygen in the air and clean drinking water, in and of themselves, are good things. If someone disagrees, I'm going to point out why I think they are wrong. If someone gets nasty and defensive about being in the minority here, I'll call them on THAT, too. We had people posting here on HOLOCAUST DENIAL. They insisted the death tolls were highly exagerrated and so on. They were allowed to continue posting, and other posters refuted them. And they acted like they were being persecuted because everyone else was "one-sided." No, everyone else happened to agree on something and they didn't, and being called out on error was making them feel bad. If they didn't want others to call them on either poor doctrine or poor behavior, they shouldn't do either where others can see it and respond. Heck, I've been called on poor behavior online (not here) and actually thought about it and made improvements. Not everyone is willing to consider they might currently be wrong. They might say they had been wrong in the past, but have now "arrived" and that's no longer the case. Do we all agree Charles Manson's a bad guy? Do we all agree that John Wayne Gacy was a bad guy? That's not a bad thing-but some would call that "one-sided views." An attempt at "balanced views" might sound like this, depending on who is saying it: You all claim Al Capone was a terrible person, with claims he allegedly broke the law, his supposed racketeering, his (claimed) bootlegging, and the unconfirmed claims he bashed in someone's skull with a baseball bat. However, I ate at his soup kitchen during the hard Depression days, and I am offended whenever someone claims he wasn't a nice guy. Why, he never said a cross word to me, and he was quite polite." A reply to that might be that the person isn't looking at the whole picture, and that the benefits a few received were the results of the losses of many. The first person's reply might sound like this: You all are just bitter and would rather stew in negative emotions rather than just get over it and stop claiming he was a bad guy. After all, Capone is dead. I'm under no constraints to pander to anyone's opinions, positions, or delusions. I can, however, at least be CIVIL towards them and I'd appreciate the same- which, around here, isn't the case. I've been called 'the devil' before for disagreeing with someone. I didn't return the favor. Personally, I think we do NOT have "one-sided views." We acknowledge we had some good times in twi, as did some others, and later learned those good times were at someone else's expense, and good people were in twi as well as bad. Non-GSC posters would say that is NOT "one-sided", that's "fair."