Leaderboard

You know, it is possible John might answer questions about his paper and what happened way back when if any of you ask him. Here's the website contact page to reach him and his organization: Connect With Us | Spirit & Truth

It's been a year or more since last posting, I don't visit here very often. I hope everyone is well. I came looking around for news about TWI, I guess they are laying very low and not doing the crazy crap they used to when Weirwille and Martindale where running things. I'm pretty much over my whole cult experience. I'm still in the same apartment, with the same cat. Haven't drank alcohol in 5 years and that is going great. I'm on ozempic and jardiance which has helped me get down to a 5.5 A1C and lose 50 lbs. I hope everyone is doing well. Seth

Well that's a fine "so what?"

So you know how they say you shouldn't argue with people on the Internet because no one changes their mind? Not exactly true. Sometimes people do change their mind (I mean, look at me), but more often, you'll be exposed to a new way of looking at an issue that you had not previously considered. For example, I tried to convey the thought in previous posts that a judgment can be subjective even if it is universally shared (like one actress being more attractive than another). Turns out there's a word for that, one that has been used on GSC before (but it's been about 16 years). Someone on threads tried to convince me that morality is objective because of something called "intersubjective objectivity." As first I thought he was babbling, but when I looked it up, I realized this perfectly articulated my feelings on morality: Intersubjective objectivity is when you have a subjective judgment and it widely, widely shared. Like, widely to the point where if someone disagrees, you have to question that person's sanity. Like, "E.T. was a better movie than Mac and Me," or "Celine Dion is a better singer than Yoko Ono." I mean, these are opinions, but you'd be hard pressed to find a sane person who disagrees. We treat such opinions as objective, even though they are not. That is "intersubjective objectivity," a term that I do not employ because I find it misleading (as it is not objectivity at all. It is an alternative to objectivity). I prefer to just call it what it is: Intersubjectivity. Morality is not objective. It is intersubjective. Murder and rape are not objectively evil. But the subjective judgment that they are evil is so pervasive that they might as well be objectively evil. They are intersubjectively evil. You may still find the odd person who disagrees. We call them sociopaths. We have a vested interest in protecting ourselves from such people.

IMPORTANT NEWS: If anyone is offered a Spanish translation of Chapter One (or other parts) of my memoir, Undertow, or any other of my published work, including blogs, please know I have NOT authorized that translation. My book, like all books published in the U.S., is protected by U.S. copyright law. For more details, read the copyright page of Undertow. To put this another way: I have not given permission, and have no plans to give it, to anyone to translate any parts of my work into any language. I say that not only as the author, but the publisher who owns New Wings Press, LLC, which published both of my books. People who hire translators, by the way, are not the authors of a work, they are the publishers. Now, if as a publisher, I had a bottomless piggy bank and a professional translator I trusted (and another translator to check that translator's work), I might consider publishing Undertow in Spanish, but as of today, I'm 99% certain no such criteria is in my future. Nor do I want it, thanks anyway. In case you're not familiar with the book business, publishing a book, not to mention writing it, is a whole lot of work, stress, sleepless nights, a juggling act of managing editors, blurbers, book designers, book marketers (yourself and your friends), book printers and book distributors. And 99% of the time, money is "lost" on the project. So you have to really, really, really believe the book(s) are worth all that to publish them. So, I'll just say that sharing Undertow with those who want it, like you guys here at GSC, was and will always be one of the most rewarding endeavors of my life. Cheers, Charlene L. Edge

Not exaggerating a bit, then.

I'm getting married! This is still something of a surprise and a wonder to me. Am I excited, or terrified? Happily expectant, or scared of the future? Thinking it's just the best, or just the weirdest thing, that I'm in process of? Deliriously joyful, or just plain delirious? All of these things, from time to time, and sometimes simultaneously. It's a month since it was agreed, and I'm still sort of getting my head around it. I can tell you one thing. NO, that's NO, bloody church leader, or anyone else for that matter, is going to interfere.

A hearty congratulations to you and your new beloved! Have fun at your wedding... I'm sure loving my second marriage: to a non-Way-believer. We married in 2002. What joy. What freedom to relax and be yourself!

Congratulations Twinky!! I'm so happy for you!!!

Chantal should have some moderate impact on the Carolinas and Virginia: i: George

Anything we have known Anything we've forgotten.

Around 1979, I took my first PFAL class. I was only 15. I continued on with the indoctrination, ran home fellowships, served in Way Productions, worked on the grounds crew and graduated with the 17th Corps. Those 3-4 hour 'Corps nights' with LCM constantly screaming and relentlessly berating people were especially brutal. After our graduation, my husband and I finally bought a small house. However, we quickly sold that house within 2 years because of the the no debt policy. Crazy times. After years of abuse, I finally found the strength to get out in the year 2000. This web site has been helpful for me. It is good to know I am not alone. Thanks to all who shared their stories on this forum.

Our Unwritten Seoul

Parables, from what I can see, are each meant to make a single, specific point, in a manner that almost anyone could understand it, and that's it. They are not meant to dissect in fine detail for doctrine- except possibly for the single, specific point. The parable in question is rather pointedly about forgiveness. So, in the parable, the framing story shows a person in prison until a debt is paid. As a basis for doctrine, that's missing the mark (to put it nicely.) Shame on JS if he couldn't just see that immediately, let alone catch it on a later read. As I see it, for him to miss something that obvious means he didn't WANT to see it, and was busy trying to justify something he wanted to see, even if he had to torture the verses to PRETEND that's what they said. Right now, it makes no sense to me for a punishment to be more suffering and THEN annihilation. I'll have to look over the 9 verses and see if, somehow, it makes sense to me afterwards.

Even VPW argued that the soul is simply your breath life.

Quantitative: countable. We have a soul. One. It's a thing. Not part of our imagination. Immeasurable: it doesn't have weight or mass. There's nothing about a soul that science can point to, independent of the body, in order to demonstrate its presence. It might be easier if I asked you what a soul is, independent of the body. I'm suggesting that St. Thomas Quinas' meditations on the soul carry no more weight in the real world than George Lucas' notes on how The Force works. (If you can think of a polite way for me to say that, I'm all ears)

If you wonder why and how I came to write my memoir, Undertow, this blog post I wrote some years ago answers that question: Dear Rachel: This is How | Charlene L. Edge

Three agents. Each following the god of Abraham. Each having their own scriptures upon which they justify violent suffering. Did I fix it?

That's fair. Each of the studies cited in the article acknowledge that very young children have an innate, intuitive, pro social moral sensibility. The article recognizes that children's moral sense is further developed through experience and even indoctrination. I should point out the careful word choice of "developed" leaves open the possibility moral sensibility is not necessarily improved.

Want to know what the glove looks like, what it’s made of, how it fits? Want to know where in your imagination to look for that yet undiscovered manuscript? Want to know how to MAKE something fit that doesn’t fit? There’s a Bible version for that.

Why would God need a witness?

Definitely a dog person…my pooch has never let me down and can always be counted on for her loyalty.

One more.

How's about some Saturday Night Blues?

Success!

Maybe I should not have split the threads. But I honestly thought "what happens after we die" was a different enough question that it deserved its own thread. So, we clearly agree that there is no post-life punishment for euthanasia (nor is there a post-life reward for sticking out the suffering). Not long ago I learned an actor friend of mine took his life in a "no way am I going to suffer the way my disease prescribes" manner. The thought is terrifying to me, precisely because I don't believe ending this life ushers us into the next. I think it was Ricky Gervais who said "People think atheists have nothing to live for. They have it backwards. Atheists have nothing to DIE for. We have everything to live for." Because this is our one shot at life, so make it flipping count! If you're looking at those issues from THIS side of the final curtain, the question of whether these acts are moral becomes a little murkier. But as far as post-death accounting: there is none. We agree on that.

Objective

This is how I look at nothingness. Prior to being born I was absolutely nothing. And after I die I go back to that state of nothingness. I didn’t suffer prior to being born and will not suffer after my last breath. There is nothing brave about accepting reality. If I truly believed in an after life you can bet I would being doing all the arrive there. Actually I did chase that belief for most of my life. I went down so many rabbit holes trying to be godly it wore me out. Please answer me this. How do you know for a certainty your biblical belief is the correct one getting you into heaven? If your are a RC you get to heaven by being water baptized, attending mass on Sunday and holy days of obligation, confessing your sins to a priest, doing good works, and make certain you do not die with a mortal sin on your soul, because if you do you are assured of going to hell. A Baptist believes you are not saved by works, but by the grace of god. How do you reconcile these contradictory beliefs? Let’s assume you are a RC and die with no mortal sin on your soul. And when you stand before the judgement seat of god he says, “why haven’t you realized works will not get you into heaven?” Or what happens if god actually believes being a Muslim is the only way to heaven. Or what if god believes you must be a Buddhist to enter the pearly gates? How about you must be a Hutterite or Menonite? It defies logic that of the thousand of religions in the world, you somehow, have come upon the correct one! Let’s say one representative of each of the religions of the world stood side by side and formed a line for miles. And when god appears, he would tap you on the shoulder and say “you have got it right. Welcome to your group. All the rest have got it wrong.” Pretty crazy odds, no?

Thank you. If I am less than respectful in responding to your questions, please call me out on it.

I have no problem believing there is no karma.

And for the non-believer, it's difficult to believe there is no karma. But here's the thing. If you make a habit out of blowing through red lights on a regular basis, there's a pretty good chance you're going to get T-boned someday. It's not karma, it's just the laws of statistics catching up with you. It's not a punishment from God. It's not a tit for a tat or an eye for an elbow. It's just a way to cope with the sometimes harsh realities of this world.

Sin is a real religious construct. Sin is a real religious concept. The concept doesn't exist outside a religious framework..

I was going out WOW and on our way to Amarillo I flipped into a manic psychotic episode and they put me on a bus. I got off the bus in Oklahoma City and was acting crazy and the police picked me up and put me in jail. A warden took it upon herself to look into my purse and fortunately my parents’ address and phone number were in it. (They had moved) and she contacted my dad who flew to OKC and took me home. Without these “fortunate” occurrences God only knows what would have become of me. It’s only because God took care of me not TWI. By the way, I didn’t really want to go WOW in the first place but was pressured into it by my twig leader. I’m bipolar but was undiagnosed at the time.

What Do You Know About Cults? What is a cult? “An ideological organization held together by charismatic relationships and demanding total commitment.” ~ Benjamin Zablocki, PhD, “Cults: Theory and Treatment Issues.” http://www.icsahome.com/articles/cultspsymanipsociety-langone How do cults recruit? Promises and pressure What are some warning signs? Charismatic, authoritarian, self-proclaimed leader with no check on power Deceptive recruiting (often sincere) Critical inquiry viewed as “persecution” Organized psychological manipulation Emotional, sexual, and financial exploitation Inner circle of loyal followers with secret beliefs/behavior No meaningful economic transparency How do cults undermine freedom? Demand loyalty to cult leader/ideology Disallow freedom of religion (theirs is the only right one) Intimidate to prevent free thought Control personal goals Destabilize freedom of association How can we respond to recruiters? ABCD A - Always research group B - Be firm when refusing recruitment C - Challenge appealing promises D - Don’t tolerate deception, even from a friend Warning: An imbalance of power is an opportunity for abuse. Undertow: My Escape from the Fundamentalism and Cult Control of The Way International By Charlene L. Edge. Memoir. Paperback and eBook at major booksellers & indie bookstores “… A frank, in-depth account of one woman’s struggles in a controlling organization.” — Kirkus Reviews Gold medal winner - Florida Authors and Publishers Association, 2017 On Book Riot’s list of “100 Must-Read Books About Life in Cults and Oppressive Religious Sects” What it’s about: After a family tragedy struck, teenaged Charlene rejected Catholicism, family, and friends to join what became one of the largest fundamentalist cults in America: The Way International led by Victor Paul Wierwille. After promotion to the inner circle of biblical researchers, Charlene discovered secrets: Wierwille’s plagiarism, misuse of Scripture, and sex abuse. Amid chaos at The Way’s headquarters, Charlene escaped. Why Undertow matters: Each year about 50,000 to 100,000 people enter or leave high-control groups called “cults” (data: The International Cultic Studies Association). Movies like Going Clear and The Path have captured the nation’s attention. Undertow is a personal story about cult recruitment and fear-based manipulation by an authoritarian, charismatic leader. The fundamentalist mindset, espousing certainty about God and the meaning of the Bible, causes untold divisions in families and communities. Undertow shows this pain from an insider’s perspective and that healing is possible. A taste of Undertow: “I gulped down Doug’s words without doing any critical thinking, not pressing him to prove what he said. He was so sincere that I clung to his assertions, like ‘believing equals receiving,’ as if they were heaven-sent.” CHARLENE L. EDGE spent 17 years in The Way (1970–1987). Later she earned a B.A. in English from Rollins College and worked for more than a decade as writer in the software industry. She is a published poet and essayist and a member of the Florida Writers Association, the Authors Guild, and the International Cultic Studies Association. She lives in Florida with her husband, Dr. Hoyt L. Edge. She blogs at: http://charleneedge.com

Mike is his own case study on how one can expect people from the way international to respond when they are faced with civil disagreement. I remember well what it was like to be so dang convinced that I am absolutely 100% correct on most things to do with the Bible, and by golly, the way international provided air tight "research"...yeah...they call it proven ministry research indicating that the topics are above question. Proven ministry research is considered absolute truth. Such an arrogant position. So typically, and we see it with mike, when one debates with someone blinded by wierwille-ism they almost always resort to bullying tactic, (ad-hominem attacks, passive agressive insults, even loud and boisterous yelling and screaming like a spoiled child, etc) if they can't dominate the conversation and browbeat those they debate with into submission. So when confronted with the illogic and gaping holes in wierwille's materials they come to a crossroads: give in to the cognitive dissonance caused by wierwille's doctrines and what the Bible actually teaches and run like h377 back to wierwille's doctrines or they can actually turn aside and consider other's points of view. Should this honest route be chosen then they would do as the Bereans and search the scriptures daily whether these things are so. Mike, et al., typically choose the run to wierwille route and resort to all sorts of slanderous insults, playing the victim, etc. Why the animosity? Because they are caught in an us verses them mentality that the way international builds into their adherants. Without the us verses them schtik the wierwille's entire story falls apart on yet another front....I mean it's allready falllen apart on so many angles, I guess another set of stress fractures won't hurt anything. Mike's word choices and several posts he put up today absolutely reek with an attitude of superiority and it's obvious he thinks everone who posts here is posessed, living in outer darkness, or whatever imagined scary scenario exists outside of the way international. Cult mentality, then they have their own jargon and way speak that makes little sense outside of a home fellowship where most people throw way speak around to each other as if actually makes any sense to begin with. Thank the Lord Jesus Christ that he has delivered me from the way international and their toxic doctrines that hide Christ and elevate a drunken, narcissistic, idol that they choose instead of Christ.

I take exception to this. Those of us who believe there's nothing after this life have EVERY reason to live. What we lack is a reason to DIE. By which I mean, we can understand the value of sacrifice as well as the next patriot (there ARE, in fact, atheists in foxholes), but we understand that sacrifice as being for other people, not for reward.

1. "Sadly, I cannot get this man to accept the notion that the Bible really is the word of God." Ok, let's start there. The Bible never calls itself the Word of God. That's part of the problem right there. The Bible speaks of the Word of God quite often, but it never has the self-awareness to declare itself to be that Word. Maybe, just maybe, you can be wrong about the Bible being the Word of God and still be a good Christian. 2. "I think he would like it to be..." Well, no one asked you what you think, did they? Maybe he has no preference one way or another and is just waiting for you to make a plausible case for your thesis. 3. "... but is overly obstinate and has an awful attitude towards God and his plan for man's redemption." A lot to unpack there. Has it occurred to you that maybe YOU're the one being "obstinate" with an "attitude" that won't budge no matter how many facts he presents to counter your preconceived notion that the Bible is the Word of God? Like, maybe YOU're the stubborn one, not him? Because he shows you the Bible, and you start making excuses. Oh, that's the Old Testament. God's different now. He's really kind and gentle. He did what he did before because he HAD to to fulfill the plan of redemption. Problem: The plan of redemption is only the plan of redemption because God wanted it that way. It didn't have to be. He could just accept an apology without shrugging his shoulders and saying oh well because someone found a particular fruit of a particular tree to yummy to pass up (He also could have put that tree ANYWHERE ON THE PLANET but instead put it right in front of two people who did not know good and evil; then said don't eat from that tree. Not exactly a strong case for omniscience. It's like I put a cookie on the table in front of my 7-year-old and said "Don't eat that," then walked out of the room. He's gonna eat the cookie. I'm not all knowing, and I know that). So your friend, I submit, is not stubborn. Rather, he's amused at the contortions you'll twist yourself into to deny what's obviously written. There IS not idiom of permission in the Bible. Bullinger, for what he's worth, appears to be the only one who makes an issue of it. It's hardly a scholarly consensus. The existence of other figures of speech does not verify the "idiom of permission" as something the Bible employs on a regular basis. It is, however, an extraordinarily convenient tool for believers to employ whenever their holy book shows God doing what no good God would ever do, even though the book is unambiguous about it being God who did it. But that's just the old testament. Unless, of course, you're holding back tithes from the apostles in Acts, which is New Testament. (Oh, but it doesn't say God did that. It was Satan -- even though the Bible doesn't say THAT either). The Bible is filled with examples of God saying he'll do something and then saying He did it. It doesn't say he allowed it to happen or he allowed Satan to do it. It says HE did it. Now, it COULD have said he allowed Satan to do it, very easily. Look at Job. Satan did those things. It says so. Yeah, he got God's permission, but it says that, clearly. There's no ambiguity, and there's no "this is how it works normally." A figure of speech is supposed to be a statement that is true in essence though not literally true. "It's raining cats and dogs" is a figure of speech. "This car can stop on a dime" is a figure of speech. A figure of speech is not supposed to be a way for you to get the Bible to say the opposite of what it clearly says just because what it clearly says is inconvenient for your theology. God ordered the execution of a man for picking up sticks on the sabbath. He didn't give man permission to kill the offending sabbath breaker. He gave man an order -- cast those stones! God didn't allow divorce. He prescribed it. He didn't allow Satan to kill all the firstborn of Egypt. He had it done. And he DID have a choice. When my kid offends me, I have a choice how to discipline him. You have no idea how many times my discipline has stopped short of killing him because he did his chores between sunset on Friday night and Saturday night! So here's a thought. Bear with me: Maybe your friend isn't the stubborn one in this equation. Maybe he's not the one being inflexible. Maybe, just maybe, he's given this far more thought than you have.

From WordWolf on a friend tracker thread:

I agree with Kit...watch what you post. During my divorce and custody dispute, my lawyer cautioned me about talking, emailing, posting, etc... about the case while it is in progress. ANY KIND of statments made by me could be used in court against me. And in ANY kind of court battle, whether it be civil, family, or criminal...it's just not worth taking chances. The internet is a public forum, and as such, can be accessed by anyone for any reason. That alone should scream caution to those involved in any sort of legal action.