lindyhopper

Seriously? A major factor for you wanting to bring a kid into the world was eternal life? Non-existence is better than existence with an end?

Anyone know when Uncle H empied his bank account into Vic's new ministry? Did it coinside with events like the consolidation that happened in 72' or around then? I still think that the wise business man that Harry was is what was behind him "investing" in the Way and not that he believed that his kid brother had a special connection with God.

Damn if I am not leaving the country for a couple of years, cause one of these days I would like to collect all of your unwanted nametages and make some art with it. I definitely felt more holely with a nametag on. Some great points. Dooj, definitely a selling tool. Was there ever a time when there was just a standard name tag or color for a nametag or were they distinctive from the start. I think all those still in with a distaste for nametagocracy should follow Mrs. Owen's lead from years ago and wear all of your nametags at once to the next major wayfer function. I also think there is not only the outsider side to it but the non-outsider part to it. I think there is something about knowing other people's names and a feeling of belonging and being "IN". It works for business conferences and cults alike. TWI capitalized and took this to the next level, by playing both angles. You are in the know, you have a green name tag along with most everyone else wandering around at the rock, but hey, that hot chick over there is wearing a yellow nametag. What does she know that I don't? That dude has a white tag with green lettering. He must be special. I think they should have broke it down a little more. Like make specific nametags for where you were slummin' at the rock. Green for tent city. White for RV's, 3-D ones for those pop-ups, blue and pink for the men's and women's snore tents, I mean corps tents. Brown for those working the honey wagon. Gold for Founder's Hall, platinum for the Corps Challet, not just in color but actual gold and platinum. Mstar- hillarious! Ex70s Right, I think if you wore it on your left it meant you wiped your arse with it.

To put it simply, after being raised in twi and taught there wasn't "faith" as most of the world knows it, I realised that is all we have. This may be true of most things or even all things but for me I think there is a base amount in which we need to be certain of in order to remain sane. The rest is uncertainty. We either live with and deal with that, deal with it while still searching for assuredness, or we choose something to be certain of and act as if it is so, but that certainty does not make it so. When it came to the bible it seemed apparent to me that I was taking this guy's word that this other gy's word that these guy's words in a book were not only accurate, but truth and God's Word. It seemed that in order to have faith in God I needed first to have faith in those other guys. Dang if that isn't what Rom. 10:14 says in a way. For me it became dishonest to myself and to others to continue to be so certain of things I didn't really know, at least with things as important as God and the meaning of life and all that. It all became so unreal to me, getting together to support and bolster our agreed upon answers to life and beyond. It was faith upon faith upon faith. So much so that it all HAD to be right and real otherwise the whole house of cards would come falling down and we would be left with was lawlessness, fear, death, and anarchy. On the other side of the coin though, I am only an atheist in that I don't believe, not in that I am certain there is no God. That is the same thing with a different t-shirt. Doubt can easily be changed, certitude is a little harder to chip away at. That can make it powerful or very dangerous. I hear 1 Cor. 14:33 from many saying God is not the author of confusion. That sounds great, but uncertainty does not equal confusion. In fact, coming to terms with the fact that you know that you know that you don't know is quite liberating and clarifying. At least it was for me. No offense to anyone. Just my thoughts, my journey, YMMV.

Good question. I guess I would say I know that about as much as I know this supposed Jesus who supposedly died, and was somehow (by believing or an external force or otherwise) supposedly raised from the dead. I would say that since the law of believing isn't actually a law, and that the only way anyone believes Jesus was raised from the dead is by faith and faith alone, that I would put my money on faith. "How does that work," was clearly a question based on your faith based scenario making more sense to you than twi and other's faith based scenario under a different name. You must be intellectually satisfied with the unknown mechanics of how God raised JC from the dead, but unsatisfied not knowing the mechanics of the law of believing route. Whether it is God centered or self centered, both being faith based makes it self centered, because reality aside it comes down to YOUR faith, YOUR view, and what makes more sense to you at the moment. Both are also mechanistic, it's just impossible to know the mechanics of a God that is convienently beyond our comprehension. The law of believing puts things in our hands to a degree and we think we should be able to understand those mechanics, but we don't understand the human body to the degree that we can without a doubt rule out all the things labeled as "supernatural" as anything beyond just natural. So saying it is believing is just as plausible as the unvarifiable claim of an unvarifiable God raising an unvarifiable half human half god from the dead. It makes it just as possible as the rest of those guys getting raised from the dead by their respective gods or believing or mad scientists after remarkably the same number of nights and days. I think there is a bigger picture here and I think it has little to do with mechanics and more to do with what it all means perhaps those days and nights would be a place to start. So, sorry if you didn't appreciate my last post much. I doubt this one will fare much better.

There are a lot of ancient myths about people dieing and rising or being raised from the dead after three days and three nights. All have to do with new beginings, new birth, new life, etc..

Perhaps I'm a little late to the convo, and the whole analogy but... Ever notice how that baby keeps getting so dirty all the damn time. Perhaps it is something about the nature of the baby and not what to do with all that dirty water. I think I'll stick with the rubber ducky. squeek! squeek! There is a rubber ducky isn't there?

Glad you are trying to work things out Nandon. My two bits... I don't think it is a TWI thing to feel badly about breaking a commitment, whether legal (marriage) or verbal (love, verbal contracts, etc.). Not breaking those commitments (within sound reason) is a good way to live a respectful and respected life. I'm not coming down on you...just saying. I think the reason you felt like you had finally "left" TWI was because you must have felt trapped in the relationship for whatever reason the same way many of us felt trapped in TWI. The difference is in TWI there wasn't a welcome atmosphere to express what you really thought and felt about life, about yourself, about others, about DA ministry, etc. without the impending reproof, correction, eternal consiquences and so on. So we spoke wayspeak, the pary line, and quoted verses to eachother for all of life's problems. For that reason many of us broke ties the simplest ways possible. Perhaps some of us were already breaking out, living a non-twi life, "sleeping around" if you will, before we actually left. I know I was. Many of us already had one foot out the door. Leaving felt good, great at times, but for some it also came with moments of condemnation and uncertainty. OTOH, in most, not all but most, relationships communication is a matter of choice. (OK it is in all , but the consiquences or percieved consiquences vary). That is what will make or break a relationship and what will make the difference between a good relationship or break-up and an empty relationship or painful break-up, including affairs. This is why counsiling is good at times. It gets people talking. It gets stuff out on the table. In your case, as it is with many people, it takes tasting what you were missing what you actually wanted but were not getting and were not discussing, in order to get to the place where you guys can talk about it openly and deal with it, whatever the outcome may be. Last peice of advise and hopefully the counciling will deal with this. Don't get the counciling just to repair the relationship. You're not married. Be honest about what you want and need from it and if she is honestly not the person to provide that or the person you want to provide that for you anymore, then move on. If she is then great! Which ever way it goes move on HONESTLY whether that is with eachother or apart. That is the only loving way to deal with people you love. IMHO, of course. Good luck.

Please supply the wacky sourse you got this from. FYI, There are meoteor showers that happen in our atmosphere every year and then random meteors light up the sky across the planet all the time. And there is something called aN asteroid belt between Mars and Jupiter. This is where the majority of the asteroids in our solar system reside. For the solar-systemically challenged that would put the majority of the astroids closer to earth than Jupiter is. Heck of a job there Jupiter. You're fired!

Who has the power to change TWI? I don't think it is those sending money. They maybe have the power to end the way but not change it. It isn't set up that way. Their version of God's Word is not a market driven system. TWI has a long history of not listening to differing views from within and changing. Not until recently have they even entertained that concept of letting those voices stay withing the group. I can't think of one change in a major teaching over the years outside of the masterbation teaching of the original CFS class and the number of manifestations in the OT teaching and both of those changes were made by LCM. Boycotting your ABS will not be met with more attention to your concerns. I think that the reaction will be more like what our endangered friend said. Back to more reproof and control. I do see one way it might work. Seeing as there are apparently local level leaders and perhaps higher up that at the very least have issues with some doctrine or the way in which TWI handles things, those should be the people doing something and acting on part of their local followers. If those people have issues with TWI those people should act on the best interest of the local folks that they believe they are somewhat responsible for. You are the only ones that top leaders might listen to anyways. So, you guys, people like the guys GstG was refering to in his thread should get together and stop sending your AREA's abs into HQ. That will get their attention. Of course, you will probably just be replaced but if you have issues with TWI then do something about it now rather than later. Every grass roots movement has leaders. Someone needs to rally people together to form one voice instead of just a buch of individual voices trying to change the market by not buying Walmart. Most of the people that are still in that see any problems at all are people that think it is still the best thing going. I don't see those people, after all that has happened, not funding "the best thing going" or "the ministry that taught them the rightly divided Word." It would be hard and perhaps risky getting the word out. Hell, M*tt M*ll*ns gave my brother a "heads up" that I was causing trouble over on the Way kids Myspace. I'm not even in. I'm sure innies with concerns know the unfriendly attitude towards disenting views. That would be another thing local leaders could do...create a local atmosphere where giving your opinion is welcome and appreciated. A lot of ground work like that would need to be done in order to organize any sort of voice to be reckoned with. Of course, the looming question. Is it really worth it? I think you know my answer.

I heard about this a while back. Didn't like it then don't like it now. You have a problem with the way things are run? Speak up now, do something now, try to effect change now, or leave NOW. If the things that are wrong are so big that you think you need to be president to change them then, every day that you wait to be president will be another day that those things affect another person on some level. The effect of that over 5- 10 years while you wait to maybe become president to maybe change things dosn't sink in, all that hurt and wrong teaching dosn't matter? Do something now or leave now, do what is right, RIGHT NOW, anything else looks like an egotistical power play. You don't have to know someone personally to see what is right and wrong about that. In fact, not knowing them probably helps.

Actually, Odies, what is more destructive than hatred is wrong, devisive, controling, and hurtful doctrine being taught in the guise of "the accuracy of the Word of God." Speaking out against something you think is that destructive, while you may hate it, is the right thing to do.

OR perhaps it was written by men in a way that it would appeal to as many people as possible. They do with with song lyrics all the time. The less specific the better. Who wants to hear a song about some other guy or gal somewhere else doing something else, when it could be a song that sounds like they are singing directly to you (and you and you and you...), about your experiences and feelings. It is much more powerful that way (in record sales and on the radio anyway)...and yet in a way, much more generic. It lets you fill in the blanks. So string songs together like random verses and send a mix tape to your favorite loved one and start your own religion. oh, and rock on.

Well said, Tbone, but I don't know that it is inherent. If it were, why would we need the laws? It would take a while to type it all out but I think that it seems logical enough to me that through the evolution of our species eventually rules were needed and an enforcement of those rules were needed in order to protect and further the clan/pack/group. Humans needed eachother to survive the animals, the weather, and other humans. Trial and error would show that protecting life, promoting honesty, and protecting ownership would be ways to further life within and of the clan/tribe/pack itself. It seems to me that religion and gods served two purposes from the start: to explain the unknown and to enforce the rules. That combination in a vacuum might be ok, but in a dynamic world where more and more people interact with eachother and learning explodes exponetially, a group that strictly adheres to that combination becomes a violent one. When considering the idea of a species with an evolving intellect it would be hard to say which came first the rules or the gods, perhaps they came about at the same time. I don't know. I also consider myself as an atheistic agnostic. Somewhat of an evolution of my own. I am, of course, willing to change that position, god willing.

Well, you see David, when the Roman Catholic brand of Christianity finally takes over the world, all will be Italian. When this happens (as it has been fortold) the Pope will summon the return of the Flying Spaghetti Monster. This time is well known as "Al Dente". He will decend riding a refigerator made of gold and we will all be judged by being thrown against it. If you stick you will shead you earthly body and live eternally in your spiritual spaghetti state. If you don't stick you will be sent to the boiling lake of water, where you will be eternally boiled.

I find it interesting that in the Jewish tradition it seems clear that eating and drinking blood was not to be done because "life was in the blood", unlike in other surrounding contemporaneous cultures. Then along comes Jesus. His blood is spilled like Jewish sacraficial tradition, but before that he says take eat my body and drink my blood. It doesn't seem to fit with the OT law, even if it is only symbolic. On the other hand, it is thought that there were earlier pagan traditions of consuming one's god. For example, I believe I read that this was perhaps a Dionysian tradition.

I'm your icecream man, witness to me when I'm passin' by... Hey JT. I think it is the same as it ever was, just now with less flavor....or "flava" if you prefer. I think our old area is still craptastic, but now with more young folk.

I see nothing in there about causing one to loss their faith. Besides even if your challenging words may cause someone to loss their faith, for all you know that could be the best thing for them. After all many people with the strongest faith are those that have lost it for a while. In the KJV it sounds a little controlling to me, but I do like the way the NIV puts it. What is helpful and benefitial is going to differ from case to case, but challenging ones thinking is not always a bad thing. Infact, most of the time it is a good thing. I would like an example of someone saying something that the hearer is not "ready for." What does that mean? In what way does this hurt them? I understand it in terms of saying the wrong things to someone who may be grieving, for example, but that didn't sound like what some of you were talking about. The context of that verse seems pretty simple. Don't steal. Instead work hard and give to those that need and when you are speaking with others don't be a jerk, a perv, or gossipy. Don't cause God a lot of greif. (NLT, New Lindy Translation). The KJV uses words that make everything seem so spiritually hoitty toitty. Ministering, corrupt, grace, edify... it is just talking about how to act and treat eachother with a little common sense and respect. Like Shifra said...play nice together. The NLT will be out in bookstores near you soon.

Groups like twi are excellent examples of this. IMO It may not be like this everywhere anymore but in the late ninties and early 2000s you were incouraged to run nearly everything past the local leadership. Need a new car? Want to go back to school? Want to move to another state? Want to go out of the state for the weekend? Ask leadership. It was a crutch because many were not able to make simple life decisions without getting an ok or imput from one of their coordinators. Is getting advise about life decisions wrong? Of course not, but you don't need it for everything and you should try and get it from experts or highly experienced people in the field you may be dealing with. Going to Fiji? Ask a travel agent, ask someone who has visited there or someone that has lived there. You don't need a spiritual adviser for EVERYTHING. In fact if you believe the Bible the way some people do, we should be able be self sufficient in many ways (well you and God). BTW, one of the best things about churches is the social aspect, IMO.

What about something like this? Something like that could easily be made by anyone who knows their way around a woodshop (including me). If you tell me what your style is, I could help direct you a little more.

The crutch analogy isn't a very positive one. I am surprised those replying are using it. Isn't the idea of a crutch one of not just leaning on something because you need it but one of rehabilitation? The ideal situation is one of walking on your own is it not? Besides the phrase of using something as a crutch is not really a literal analogy, but one of using something as an excuse to do normal things or as a psychological or emotional prop...something that is, in a way, holding you back. I definitely see people, not necessarily on GSC, using religion or God as a crutch.

What is it to love God? and to love your neighbor as yourself? Well isn't God supposed to be love? So you could then say we are to God God or we are to love Love. The later makes more sense. Love to love? Love above all else maybe? Love first? What would those things mean? The simplest way I can think of it is that you allow, let, make love your nature. It is not something you HAVE to do or something you have to even think about doing it is so natural, so apart of you, that it becomes automatic. You become love or like love or like God. Then love your neighbor becomes more simple too. You just love. The specifics of that become a little more hazzy. :) At least to me. Although, I would suspect it would become clearer the more you allow yourself to be more loving, and love love. my $.02

Those that forget the past are doomed to repeat it. The only thing you can learn from history is that no one ever learns from history. I just came up with those all by myself. Feel free to quote me. Those that don't reach back...have horrible hygeine.

I'm with you, Shifra. Not that my company should give you any comfort. ;) I started a similar thread not too long ago. Didn't get much traction, plus I got busy. I think something isn't right with that Paul character. I don't know if I would say he was a spy, but something isn't right. You can't argue there are some good teachings in the writings attributed to Paul. Then again there is that subtle devisiveness, the subtle differences, and the unprecedented Jesus intervention/ conversion of Saul the Christian killer, with the unknown and illusive "certain disciple", Ananias. (Not unprecedented in that Jesus did it, trinitarian fans, but that it was with a mass murderer on his way to find more Christians to kill. Not exactly, the humble and meek seeker of the Messiah type conversion. A conversion by force. Doesn't jive with Peter's "save yourselves" or anything else I have ever read in there.) Comparing Paul with the gospel's renditions of Jesus' words is somewhat problematic, mainly because Paul's writings are the first records of the man Jesus, as far as I know. They predate the gospels. So it is not like the gospels should be looked at as a more accuate or more pure version of the things Jesus said and did. This can go way off into what Larry brought up concerning the existence of the man Jesus. Personally I find it odd that with a man like Jesus around performing miracles, healing people, walking on water, raising people from the dead, going before high priests and governmental officials etc. in a literate culture, the first we hear of him is from a guy who never actually met him in person. Only after his death does our first author meet him. A little off topic, I know, but the discussion of the legitamacy of Paul ultimately leads to the legitamacy of Jesus. I mean to get my hand on that Mythmaker book. Sounds interesting. I also agree with Abi's kabbalah comment. Paul doesn't seem to fit well with the Pharisees or Sadducee groups but he claims to have been a Pharisee while working for the high priest, rounding up Christians. The way I understand it that would make him working for the Sadducees. Correct me if I'm wrong. As I said, there is still plenty of good stuff in there, so go with the good and scrap the rest and seek for the real truth.

From the link you posted: and a bit different from This is exactly what I was talking about earlier when I said, "What you are referencing are people that assume first that the Bible's literal version of origins is correct and then try to find the science to back up their view, meanwhile ignoring or dismissing mountains of other evidence. It is not honest or genuine science." As to other things you said... Light has both wave (energy) and particle properties. It is dualistic in this way. It is a very cool topic, IMO. As far as the faster than light idea, read here. I'm not sure what you mean by "assumptions." There has been and is still a lot of work being done with dating methods. I can't think of a person who has said that science knows everything or that it is free from bias 100% of the time. Science tries to make closer approximations to the truth. Sometimes it is wrong, sometimes it is right. Religion on the other hand....has the big guy who is always right, never wrong, knows everything and is free from bias 100% of the time on their side. Now only if we could get past that assumption and get past the bias that props up some people's entire theology and world view. Seems awfully coincidental that the only people that believe this "new earth science" are also people who believe in a literal version of the Bible. Maybe one is influencing the other!