lindyhopper

It's called Animal Planet. Call your cable service provider. If they don't have it, you apparently know how to use some of the internets. Google-loogle. If that doesn't work... do you know the dewey decimal system? Be careful though.

It causes those things because it stifles conversation and conversation, dialog, is important, required actually, for any interpersonal relationship, whether on an individual level or a national level, to be a healthy, productive, proactive, and effectively reactive.

Bride, Dueling faith conversations always die quickly. Why? Well, we are talking about FAITH, that's why. It is a one way stream. You compare an answer or a comeback coming to you, to a pillar of fire? Well, you compared it at first but then made it sound more like it is a token, your sign, that maybe you will see that pillar of fire consume some heathens some day. Might I add... Nothing like watching men, women, and children consumed by fire from the sky, because they don't pray to the same invisible friend that you do. Nothing really kills a conversation more than crazy talk like that. It's like talking to a bunch of Japanese businessmen and telling them, "I've never seen a giant moth kill a large city of Japs, but that isn't to say I never will." Meanwhile you're wearing an "I *heart* Mothra" t-shirt. Your examples seem a little like apples and oranges. You claim the HS dropped these answers into your head. Ok. I think it was the everywhere present, all knowing, invisible, three headed Jack-a-lope, Skeeza. She's the god of quips, wit, smart answers, and good comebacks. Prove me wrong. May tar and feathers fall from heaven on me before I post this if I'm wrong. I got a call from my brother the other day. You know how I knew it was him? I know his voice, because I have seen him in person and have heard that same voice in person. Its a different story when you hear things from an invisible something in your head. Who am I to say it isn't THE HS and who are you to say it isn't Skeeza? (praise be her name) Since we have never seen this HS in person, heard that voice in person, gave it a big hug, how are we to know WHO that voice is? Maybe you just know. Maybe EVERYONE says that, saint and sinner alike, sane and insane alike. There is no way to TRULY know at this point whether there are invisible things talking to us, much less that yours is right and Makmoud's is wrong, and that is why we call it faith. One thing is for sure though. This HS you are talking about is key to the conversation, because pretty much everything we know about this "Holy Spirit" (at least by that name) is from NT books, many of which are under question or have been. For some poeple, if Billy Bob wrote Acts, while trying to pass it off as Luke's, then perhaps the content of that book should be questioned a little more. What if Billy Bob wrote it to discount other writings or other "Acts" (there are other books of Acts) and Billy Bob's side had more power, more men, and more money? It just so happens that this sort of thing has happened plenty of times throughout history. Those with the power, money, and forces (usually the same people) control the history written. Who needs fire from heaven when you've had plenty of rulers burning historical and religious books, even books of fiction (those three seem to overlap quite a bit) throughout the ages. Another point brought up... oral tradition. Ever play "telephone"? Try that for a few decades. The only way we can claim anything has been "preserved" over the centuries is by faith, because we have no clue what the original stories passed down orally, generation to generation, were.

I didn't have a reason. It just came out that way. I don't see the order in which I posted them to have any effect on my overall point. They both speak to the same thing, the writing of the gospel of Luke, and then in acts an intro to the days following the end of Luke. True, there is always that. Not a verifiable claim, but I can't disprove that possibility anymore than I can disprover whether there is or is not a God or gods. It is a statement of faith, not fact. I think the first step in accepting that sort of claim though is looking at other verifiable elements of the overall picture. That involves looking at the historicity of the books, characters, and authors of the NT, bible or any other book of faith, IMO. Otherwise, we are making an even bigger leap of faith. On the other hand, maybe the size of that leap, what we are leaping over and through and from and to, doesn't matter so much (again I point to the Mormon Church, or scientology for that matter). Maybe historical cohesiveness and authenticity isn't that important. Why can't God or aliens "inspire" or "move" or "work in" a sci-fi writer? Who better to describe the supernatural? Why can't a guy find gold tables and translating glasses? Who's to say I won't at some point find the same things in my box of Lucky Charms? Not you! It's another unverifiable possibility that either sits well with us or it doesn't. It either strikes us as "scripture" or it doesn't. Either way we are first and foremost taking the writer's word for it and then determining our faith concerning it second. It seems that most people don't want to just make a blind leap into the darkness of faith without being harnessed to something connected to reality, be it history or science or personal experience or a book. Otherwise, there is nothing there to differentiate it from the rest of the infinite possibilities. A light in total darkened emptiness doesn't illuminate anything. There needs to be something there to absorb and reflect it.

Me too, this IS good stuff. As to Luke being an eye witness, I think I agree with some scholars that say just from a simple read of his books you get an admission of not being one. Acts 1 Any "we section" fan can clearly see this is NOT one of them.Luke 1 Here is a maybe a little less clear to some but there is a definite distinction between "eyewitness" and "perfect understanding." Of course, to many Christians including us in our former way daze thought this to mean he knew by revelation and the backing of this as being apart of that 2 Peter 1: 20 "scripture." More on some of the other thoughts and questions later.

I don't think the numbers were what Oak was interested in so much as that these people left because they believed JC's prophecy. I think Oak's point has nothing to do with whether there are other historically verifiable prophecies claimed in the Bible. But the ones you put forward would fall within his point perfectly. Pretty easy to prophecy about things that already happened. Regardless, if you do believe the inerrantcy of the Bible, I don't think this is Jesus' prophecy. It is Jesus referring to Daniel 9 who is quoting Gabriel. Luke's is kinda vague... when the city is surrounded by armies... you can bet it is going down. Then again when the city is SURROUNDED by armies, how do you flee to the hills? But anyway, when you look at Luke's sister references in Mark 13 and Matthew you can then wonder about it's accuracy as prophecy. Matthew 24: Did, "immediately after" the destruction of Jerusalem, Jesus return? I'm not positive, but I don't think so. Interesting how in Luke, which was written much later, doesn't include this part. Luke skips the return of the Son of Man part and goes straight to the fig tree. So is it referring to 70 AD? The way the world is going there will be yet another destruction of Jerusalem in the future. Will Matthew be referring to that time? Is God so busy that he really needs to recycle his prophecies like this? Personally, I think there is enough vagueness and/or symbolism in pretty much all of those claimed prophecies for every generation since them to believe they apply to their time or their near future. I think when prophecying, the more vague you are and the more generic symbolism you use, the more likely it will be that your prophecy comes true. What about Mormons and the authenticity of their book. After all it is much more current and they actually have a signed affidavit from Joseph Smith, his neighbors, and friends who claim they saw the golden tablets and the "magic" translating spectacles, or so I've read. Seems more legit than stories which may or may not be written by some guys in their golden years about a guy they may or may not have known for a couple of years in their teens or twenties which differ in detail and which are the sole testimony of that person's full, part, or semi divinity. The story from the tablets doesn't exactly mesh with history too well, but hey, they freakin' saw the golden tablets and magic spectacles! Just a thought.

As a kid sure I was happy. As an adult, there were obviously moments of happiness, but I wasn't a happy person, happy with my life, whether I realized it or not. I realize it now. There was a lot of suppressing of questions and emotions and trying to hide part of my life from people that had their noses way to far in my business. There was plenty of things I missed out on as a young adult because I had fellowship the next day and I just couldn't miss that without saying something to someone or I hadn't told leaders I was leaving the state (easy to do in the northeast). I think there are studies that have shown that each of us has our own degree of happiness that is normal. There are spikes of happiness and dips of sadness but on a whole we typically have a "happiness equilibrium." I think for many of us even that equilibrium was out of whack in TWI and that is part of what makes it unhealthy. One part.

Ok, I see what yer sayin', socks.

I was referring to the couple years of Jesus' ministry, his death and then the following years up to Paul's epistle.

Ok, on a more serious note, not that the other post wasn't serious... I think if free will is an illusion as some say, that it would be very easy for the creator of the heaven, earth and everything on it including humans to make us think we have free will while said creator controls everything from... well, from everywhere, I guess, or from the beginning. ...every action has a reaction... Imagine our brains or our "free will" portion of it as our reaction center. It is where our senses bring input and we determine based on what we know, our life experiences, our cognitive abilities (all things God would know from the begining) how to react to that input and a decision is made. That decision has consequences... other reactions which produce other reactions and others etc. with each person making a decision on how to react for themselves. In reality these brain functions are all chemical and electrical responses linked to one another. Think of God as the grand chemist who set a reaction in motion. Not unlike a game of pool, but much more complicated. If the creator knows our reaction mechanisms, how we work, how we think, in the finest detail, to the end that he knows the final outcome, how is he not unlike the most perfect person playing pool watching all the balls eventually fall exactly in the pockets he wanted, straight from the break shot (let there be light... or whatever your favor of religion says). Did this perfect pool player physically take the 9 ball and put it in the side pocket? Well, no, but kinda. He was watching from the omnipotent perspective as the balls rolled around the table, but upon hitting the cue ball this perfect player knew exactly where every ball was going to go and hit it in a way that insured it. Or Think if God is everywhere, in the spaces in between, how easy would it be for God to be like the neuroscientist with an open skull in front of them. They probe this part of the brain and you speak, another part and a memory is invoked, another and you laugh or cry. If God is everywhere, he is "all up in your head" with the power of the universe at his fingertips. :D IMO, if there is a God it is more like an energy that is everywhere, not an intelligence. "We live and move" in it. Or God is like a grad student outside our dimension doing an experiment in Chaos theory... and here we are. :blink:

sorry, I haven't read the whole thread but... What if we are all robots with free will? leaves... doing the robot.

Socks- IMO, the "high claims" of authenticity are not so high compared to the higher claims of authority and origin that for most of those same people comes without question. It seems that people need to start in a different place. Before we believe something is "God's Word" then we should first see if the person purporting that claim is at least the same person they are claiming to be. We do this more with most books we read in high school than we do with the Bible. I would bet more Christians know about the history concerning Shakespeare and his work or the history of the Mormon church than they do about the Bible and Christianity (arguably the most influential and controversial books and religions of all time.) They should teach it in school, IMO. I think as one goes down this "frightening process" one realizes more and more that you do need to "strive to develope an entirely different 'god-consciousness'" as B Happy put it. It makes one more critical of their own faith (if they decide to keep it) and more excepting of others'. Actually, I think the context shows that this verse is not talking about if they are open for interpretation but how they, "the prophecy of the scripture," came about. if one is going to accept this as a legitimate book and verse in which to view the Bible then one must get that clear. The author is saying these weren't "cunningly devised fables" (says the guy writing under the name of Peter <_< ). We are eye witnesses of this. We heard the voice from heaven. We have a more sure word... and you'd best take heed. Then he says, in light of those things, the "prophecy of the scripture" is not of any PI, because it (the prophecy of scripture) in fact came from men being moved by the Holy Spirit. It sounds much like the first few verses of Luke. Many had put pen to hand but he knew perfectly as an eye witness from the beginning and decided all these years later, 50,60,70 years later, to write his own memoirs of Jesus. Most likely only after Theophilus had asked him to. So apparently, at the time this was written, from as little as 30-100 years or so after Jesus' purported death, there was some question as to whether the prophecy of the Messiah was true or not. Even during Jesus' time and before there was this skepticism. Perhaps a little off topic but, what I find most interesting about all this canonical history is that it takes 30 years after the death of Jesus for anyone to write anything about him. That would be the rough date of Thessalonians thought to be the first epistle and earliest written reference to Jesus. The other interesting fact is that the first we hear about it is from a former Pharisee, possible Sanhedrin, Christian killer. We hear from him and then there is this virtual explosion of writings about Jesus for the next roughly 150 years when "the church" takes what it feels is legit and forms the canon we know of today for the most part. What happened for those first 30+ years when Jesus was walking around on water and turning it into wine? It takes at least 40 years for an account of Jesus' life to be written in "Mark", the first gospel to be written (a possible 'Q gospel' could be earlier). It takes over 60 years, basically a couple of generations, for any historian or non religious writer, much less a historian who wasn't even alive while Jesus walked the earth (Josephus), to write a small paragraph about him actually existing and doing stuff. Later still someone decides to forge in that this Jesus guy was "the Christ" we've been telling you to give us money for. Anyways, I think in the end all this questioning of the authenticity of the books of the Bible lend themselves to education and not necessarily to lack of faith. In my experience most people of faith have personal experience(s) that anchors it beyond objective scrutiny. It should not be based solely on the book of the Bible as the Word of God. It should be something deeply personal and if it isn't then that needs to be explored one way or the other to the end of lack of that faith or a strengthening of that faith. If nothing else, I think Karen Armstrong put it pretty well. I think that goes for everyone. The more we focus on love and helping others the better we all are for it. Just my two bits.

Regardless of whether or not we can nail down an exact definition of what is being referred to as "scripture" in 2 Peter 1: 20, in order to accept that definition we must first assume that the writer of 2 Peter 1: 20 is speaking for God, seeing as God would be the only one who would know who was and who wasn't "being moved." So first before we have faith in the God of the Bible we have to have faith in those that wrote it, that they were telling the truth, that they were inspired, that they had revelation, and were speaking for God. Perhaps, instead, it is a separate faith that is confirmed through experience after reading the Bible. I suspect it may be a combination of those things as well as being "raised in the Word" in our Christian society. A generalization, I know, not everyone was raised like that but I believe most of us here were. Was this one of the first pronouncements of ex cathedra from the first pope? Looking at this as a book in the Canon it is one that has been questioned as authentic from the earliest of Christian authorities, Usebius of Caesarea and Origen were at least two of them. So who exactly wrote this and what their authority was in making such a claim is up for grabs if you ask me. The bigger problem with the way this was read in TWI, though, is not what the scripture was but what this verse was referring to... how PI was taught. The verse was not talking about how we are to read "the scripture" or how were or were not supposed to interpret it but where the scripture being referred to came from. The context shows that the author says it came from God not from men, not from fables, not from PI! Even though "in the context" was how we were to research the Bible, this verse was taken out of context to enforce an idea of compliance with the Word of VPW. If we were not PIing and the scripture interpreted itself then VPW was not PIing and we should receive it as the actual God Breathed Word. This discouraged questions and common sense reading and reasoning. Private interpretation was/is so apart of TWI's theology that it was/is basically "way speak." Everyone knew what was meant by it and plenty knew how to use it to control and how to point the finger. YET, that is not what the verse is talking about. As has been said many times here, when you throw this into the mix of the Law of Believing and the Fall of Man teachings as well as VPW's persona and attitude you have a concoction that, IMO, looks to be designed to get people to follow you without question and control them.

hillarious, that is good stuff!

Ah Sh!T, Oak! I didn't think about that. Krishna is going to open a can of whoop-a$$ now! (runs home to get tarp, blankees, and duct tape)

Unfortunately, for families it is a little tougher these days to get kicked out because they lob the ball back into your court and say, "Hey if you have a problem with the way we are doing things or what we teach, then leave." That doesn't always go over so well when you bring that idea up to the spouse.

Whether the reality of the consequences happens or not, it is the fear of those consequences, real or not, that brings a person to the point of acquiescence. It doesn't matter how the person in power gets you to the point of fearing your own disobedience, relinquishing your liberty to them, but one way or the other they have brought you to that point and you have bought into it. Fact is, there were teachings that explicitly and implicitly drew a line between leaving the "household" and death, citing actual deaths as examples. So "mark and avoid" was a powerfully divisive tool. There were and are multiple teachings from the bible where people died because of disobedience. Anyone who sat through PFAL and bought into it had already started down that road with the "private interpretation," fall of man, and law of believing teachings. We're not talking about fear because you've left. We're talking about people who obeyed and acquiesced out of fear. I think many people who stayed or stayed longer feared for their lives a little more than just whether they would be "ok."

Whitedove, Sure OM has the right to think differently and the rest of us have a right to think you and he are "a little off". Read the "famous last words" thread. There are many examples in there showing how many people believed leaving the "household" was writing your own death certificate. Was it taught on SNS? In some a word, yes. I recall Donna Martindales teaching giving examples of people or people's kids dying shortly after leaving TWI. Meanwhile, a standing believer had the superhuman strength to hold a airplane door closed so it didn't depressurize. The accuracy of the stories isn't relevant, the comparison is and that it was brought up in a SNS. It was clearly taught more to the corps and Adv Cl grads. I could go on, but the horse has been dead for some time. So it is a valid comparison. The fact that some people disagree with the facts, is their right. You are wrong, but it is your right to be. The teaching didn't need to be directly linked in an open teaching. It only had to be hinted at or taught and then later behind the scenes linked. Which in tandem with the above concept of death by disobedience, and a MOG persona the "doctrine" is made, the pressure is applied, and you have a choice. As the other teaching goes, "choose LIFE!" It is not a 1 to 1 comparison but it is a valid one and it is THE same concept, from the times of Henry the VIII and the times of David, that VPW and others used to get his way. Very valid comparisons.

By who's estimations... uh, Prophet(?), when I listened to it, I believe Ralph was asked a specific question, to take us through those difficult times and events, and then he answered it according to his perspective and role in those events. I don't think Jesus was there in person at the time, so he didn't come up in the conversation. Does every conversation and interview here and on GSC radio need to have JC mentioned in it? Some might think I'm foolish for saying this but... If you do that enough buying groceries will grow strangely dim. Some of us don't want to be so aloof. Some of us, in spite of all the bad, actually enjoy this life here on earth. Look at the recent posts... people are very curious about why all the good things that they remember, as do you, went so sour. So, closure is part of the issue. These are real phycological needs for many people to have to move on. Some of us just have an itch of curiosity that needs to be scratched. I think Ralph's interview is one of the more damning things on this site. Here is a former top leader in TWI, in his own voice, a voice that even I, rather young in the 80s, recognize. IMO it does way more than a hundred clamoring anonymous faceless posters does for those that are in these groups and have thought about leaving and for those that think we are all just a bunch of whiney ax grinders, no matter how true our stories are. So I believe the interview will help. Maybe if we all believe that enough... lol I don't know why the timing is what it is, but I know that RD (at least in his current screen name) has only been here since last year. Who knows when Paw figured out who he was and how long it took to get him to do an interview, all the logistics etc etc. It was the eighth year GSC anniversary, that is something. Ralph D seems to have nothing to gain by doing the interview. So why is the timing so suspect to you? oh and what the hell is this creepy quote from? satisfied? <_<

lets see... ... unequally yoked.... ... no no wait don't be rash you don't have to leave... ... we're just making suggestions not dictating.... ... hedge of protection reminder... ... "fronts of the adversary" reminder... ... just come over and lets talk this over... ... hey uh, so when ya coming over to talk about this?... ... so you know, you can always come over and talk... ... you know we'd love to talk, we always have an open door... Tiny Elvis what do you think? "a little less conversation a little more action" Thanks tiny E!

Hi Belle! Looking back at your story and this topic of the boredom of the Way in the 21st century got me laughing (my wierd sense of humor popping up again.) Is it me or were the late 90's and the post 2000 TWI days like being in the cult of Office Space? "Yeah, I'm gonna need you to go ahead and get me those ABS reports ASAP, and don't forget your monthly budget and weekly schedule as well, thanks. Oh and ah, Belle, I'm gonna need you to go ahead and work this weekend. We're moving and we need you help move some boxes to the new basement. Yeah, thanks, yer the best!" "Yeah, uh, Lindy, how many pieces of flare (read TWI promo items, books, and posters) do you have up in you living room. We require you to have at least fifteen pieces of flare in your fellowship living room." The silly demands, boredom, and monotony eventual drive us to go mid-evil (read "full sharing") on a fax machine or the telephone during a phone hookup. "What? You want me to stand and clap even though we're not actually in the same state, let alone the same room, as this guy? I want to do the lame Singing Ladies gesture dancing here in your living room, cause I'm imagining that I'm on the stage with them RIGHT NOW! I got your ABS reports right here! Phone hookup THIS!" (dramatization) LOL, oh boy did we really put up with this sh!t?

Makes total sense, Jane. Thanks for adding to the thread. I think there are a lot of bored people still in. How can they not be. They just keep telling themselves "it is the accuracy of the Word, not the excitement." Wrong on both accounts! Thanks for the "cuppa Joe, without the java jive." ; )

Well, JenO, I am not a "believer" of any sort in this matter but... does having "THE measure of faith" mean that you have it and you never "grow in faith" or "develop your faith." Everything else grows and develops. I can see what you are saying and on one hand I agree with it seeming elitist, but is it all all that different from the normal growth or development of our natural body? Children are subject to their elders. At a certain age kids think they know it all. Teens are rebellious. Young adults are naive. With age comes wisdom. Yada yada yada. I guess now we are at another point in which definitions start to merge and diverge. What you consider to be "the measure of faith" may be different from another Christian and different from what Todd is calling faith. VPW had 5 (maybe more) different usages of "faith." The one in which you are using would fall under the "faith of Jesus Christ" or holy spirit he described. Seems that is a faith all it's own. A broad usage of the word would most certainly change over time as our beliefs in the invisible/unprovable/unascertainable/unknowable change throughout our lives. Faith in some things is a little more at our fingertips, while other faiths are on the other side of the universe (that is if your faith includes the universe having sides and limits). What if developmental elitism is the reality of life? Just because you or I don't like the sound of it isn't going to make it any less true. Is choosing a faith that suits us best and makes us feel good about ourselves and our ideas of a god any less elitist?

Our young non-wayfer artist friend, Brushstroke, and the other thread on "The Perfect Out" made me want to have a thread like this. There were many "prefect outs" over the years right up to the present some more poignant than others. It all just depends on where we were in life I guess. There have been many people that have posted about their experiences since 2000. We are a minority it seems but there are still a significant number of us. So I thought for the future "Brushstrokes" a thread like this might be helpful. So let us know your story or reasons for your "new millennial exit." If you just want to link to your story that is fine too. A collection of recent history might be helpful, though, for newbies and for a more contemporary context. Here is my story. To cut to the chase though, I left because I realized I didn't believe in what the Way taught anymore (on many levels) and was tired of living a lie. The timing of my exit was hastened a little because I didn't want to put up with yet another intrusion into my personal life with another "reproof session." So I split with little explanation to my family and friends. It was the best decision of my life. I've told my story in many parts over the years here but for more detail and the most thorough explanation, click the link. Since then,(seems like a lifetime) my typing skills have improved immensely , myfamily has reconciled to some degree, and I am a happy person with a wonderful wife and two amazing boys. Life is good... still challenging but WAY better without the Way.

I've never met JustSayNo, that I know of, and probably rarely run into here, yet there are so many similarities in our two posts that we wrote at basically the same time. It is almost as if we were apart of the same cult or something!