Tom

hmmm.. no i don't think that they know without speaking to one another.

That would be more like mind reading. But the "feeling" of some one doing better would certainly communicate, but not from the other person, from the Lord as the Lord chooses. Also the Lord flat out telling you.

In other words it's not an unspoken whether out load our within the mind type deal.

Does this communicate?

Absolutely - finely expressed fine points. Stuff like that keeps me motivated to keep communicating with you.

Also, I think this was a question, that one speaking to another and both understanding would be tougues, but not toungues in the sense of understanding. If it is understood, then it is not toungues in understanding but toungues in communication.

On the other hand, I have no idea what the heck you just said. The best I can do is divide that into 3 or 4 phrases or clauses, maybe a couple of sentences. I don't even see a question mark on the question. I'm not trying to be a strict grammarian here, but if I don't get the sense of a question, a question mark where one belongs might help - or I don't get the sense of what the question is that you're referring to.

Honest, bro, I'm not trying to be difficult.

Tom

QUOTE

Does the tongue have to be spoken out loud, or can one understand (interpret) the tongue of another without hearing it or even being in the same room?

Not really sure what you are saying here Tom.

Example:

Jane has a need. She knows she has a need. She can't figure her way out of her difficulty. She doesn't even know how to pray for it with her understanding.

John is walking by the spirit, just enjoying life, when God let's him know that Jane is in need (maybe he smells roses, Jane's favorite flower - I don't know, but he knows). John doesn't know what the need is. He knows less how to pray for it with his understanding than Jane does, & she has no idea how to herself.

So John speaks in tongues for Jane.

Things come together for Jane amazingly - in her understanding maybe, in real physical results maybe, in a lot of ways, maybe - but Jane is aware that things in her world have been transposed into a state in which the things that were in question have bowed the knee to Jesus. She might even be aware that someone has just spoken in tongues for her, thereby bringing that to pass. She might even be aware that it was John who spoke in tongues for her at that moment each syllable having power. She might not distinguish between the power of each syllable, but she's gotten the gist - maybe even to the point that the next time she sees John, he smiles & says, "So it all worked out, right, right?" Jane replies with a knowing smile, "No way, you didn't (but she knows he did). John replies, "Way!"

And they both know, spirit to spirit. Yes?

Give me a chapter and verse waysider,

I expect it's the one that says if there is no interpretation - no one there who can interpret is speaking to themselves and edifying themselves for the one speaking is hearing also and surely it is making sense to the one speaking.

"Don't the scriptures teach that SIT (without interpretation as in one's private prayer life) IS in fact a spirit to spirit communication? Maybe I am not understanding your question."

This what you posted is not what the scripture is saying, but you have it in part. Spirit to Spirit which IS understandable to one who can interpret, the one speaking and hopefully the ones listening.

Men and Women have spirit and can interpret what is said. whether or not they have come to the place that they can or not is a growth process.

Okay, I THINK I may get what you're talking about. To find out, let me ask you this. Does the tongue have to be spoken out loud, or can one understand (interpret) the tongue of another without hearing it or even being in the same room? See, what I think you are talking about is the spiritual intercession that goes on believer to believer when one speaks in tongues. I think you are talking about someone being sensitive to that - that there is something spiritual that happens whenever a syllable of tongues is uttered & someone sensitive to the spirit can know spiritually what is happening. Yes?

Give me a chapter and verse waysider,

Gads, you guys, STOP IT!

Dancing, you're the one putting forth something; YOU'RE supposed to give chapter & verse & say simply what you're saying, NOT Waysider.

And then you, Waysider, give chapter & verse - you're killing me. I must be missing something here.

Only to those who do not want to know. So not hardly rhetorical.

Oh, BS. Why even try to communicate if you think only those who don't want to know don't understand? You don't think that; don't act like you do - that's rude.

1 Corinthians 14:28

28But if there be no interpreter, let him keep silence in the church; and let him speak to himself, and to God.

1 Corinthians 14:37-39

37If any man think himself to be a prophet, or spiritual, let him acknowledge that the things that I write unto you are the commandments of the Lord.

38But if any man be ignorant, let him be ignorant.

39Wherefore, brethren, covet to prophesy, and forbid not to speak with tongues.

Well, for one thing, they were not "in the church," but what's your point? I know you feel like I should be getting it by reading this post, but I'm not, so what is it that you think this post documents? Can it not just be said?

Tom,

If Spirit can speak to Spirit. God to man and man to God.

Can't Spirit speak to Spirit as in man to man?

Um, I sort of think it does - are we making progress?

dancing----you've kinda lost me here. Don't the scriptures teach that SIT (without interpretation as in one's private prayer life) IS in fact a spirit to spirit communication? Maybe I am not understanding your question.

I'm sorry that it has taken me so much time to respond, but usually if I don't understand something understandable, backing off for a while helps (besides, not understanding, it's hard to have anything meaningful to say). I can't say I have since arrived at much of an understanding, but at the risk of sounding like an a$$ hole, I'm going to address what you're saying - go easy; I don't mean to sound insulting if I do sound that way.

Just because the language is understood does not mean what is said is understood.

Fine, I understand your language, but I don't understand what you're saying. If that's NOT your point, I missed it. And I have no idea what your quoted statement has to do with speaking in tongues, if anything.

And yes, if it is understood then it wouldn't be a toungue to the one understanding what the other is saying but recognized as toungues.

What the hell does that mean? How can it not be a tongue and be recognized as a tongue at the same time?

A couple of things:

1. What happened to "no man understandeth?"
   
2. Sounds like you're talking about simple inspired utterance.
   

I still don't get what's to consider in the much more that you're talking about.

If you've addressed those, I missed it.

yeah no 'man' understandeth...

Maybe that's why I don't understand.

Well, obviously that didn't help.

maybe there's an interpretation :D

:)

Who interpreted in Acts 2?

Why do you ask? I never thought or said that tongues couldn't be understood by someone. If I've got PFAL preconceived notions blocking what you're saying, I'm sorry, but you've been there, so please understand & deal with that in your communications - unless that's impossible here.

From what I recall without referencing it, Acts 2 says the hearers understood not that the speakers interpreted. Or was your question purely rhetorical? So from whence cometh this concept of "interpretation"? Me thinkest the plot thickens.---------Set darkens-----Organ music ( in a minor key )slowly increases in intensity.------exit stage left ----no wait, better make that stage right ( what with the left side being acursed and all that.)

Yeah, that.

Tom, I liked the stuff you shared about not putting new wine in old wine skins and on the joints and bands.

Thanks, T-Bone

Thinking about all this stuff I see that sometimes God works through people and situations - and sometimes in spite of people and situations.

I definitely believe there was increase in the body of Christ, even with this structure.

I feel the same way today. God can work with folks in the structure to bring increase to His body.

Yeah, I figure God is always doing the best he can with what He's got.

God can even use an a$$ (Balaam's a$$) to get His Word across to another a$$ (Balaam). But I'm not in favor of becoming an a$$ to get the point across.

1. VP promoted The Way Tree as an original revelation to him.
   
2. He also promoted it as a a revelation to him revealing how the 1st century church operated.
   
3. He also said that the 1st century church was led to meet in home fellowships by the guidance of holy spirit.
   
4. Ah, yes, he also likened The Way Tree to the way Moses was advised by Jethro to lead the people of Israel.
   

If the 1st century church really operated according to The Way Tree that VP promoted as an original revelation to himself, doesn't that dismiss the idea that there was anything original about the revelation?

He also said the communist cells operated that way, & that's why they were so effective. Today, he would say terrorist cells. And he would be right, but it seems to me that communists were operating that way before VP got his original revelation.

I do not believe that it was any kind of revelation to VP. I also do not believe that's the way the 1st century church (after which TWI was "supposed" to pattern itself) operated. I think The Way Tree, as it was presented to us, was pretty much a lie top to bottom. It was, I think, John Lynn, who described The Way Tree as the systematizing of error. THAT, I believe, is the truth.

If I were to try to trace back this revelation to who 1st received it, I would accept Jethro as a possibility - no one afterwards could then qualify. I don't see much difference between what Wierwille described as The Way Tree & how Jethro advised Moses to organize the people. But when Moses instituted his "way tree," it enabled him to "Be thou for the people to God-ward, that thou mayest bring the causes unto God: and thou shalt teach them ordinances and laws, and shalt shew them the way wherein they must walk, and the work that they must do" without "Thou wilt surely wear away, both thou, and this people that is with thee: for this thing is too heavy for thee; thou art not able to perform it thyself alone."

VP was trying to be a Moses to His (is that a nice fatherly term to your ears or a term of ownership or both - they're both wrong!) people. But he WASN'T Moses, & we WEREN'T the sheep of Israel. He and we were all members in particular in the Body of Christ.

In Moses' day, the "way tree" replaced long lines that Moses waited on all day to give the people the counsel of God while still enabling HIM to answer THEIR needs.

In our day, The Way Tree replaced the joints and bands of the One Body through which Jesus Christ brought increase to the One Body, & INSTEAD enabled VP to be our "father" & "teacher" (both contrary to the advice of Jesus Christ), & the determinator of what all true guidance was.

Systems theorists recognize that people ought to organize themselves into organic rather than mechanically organized systems. People, like all living organisms, don't respond to industrial age laws such as "if you want twice as much product, work you people twice as many hours." They grow & suffer setbacks in waves. Anyone who ever has been sick or trained athletically knows that. The Body of Christ isn't a mechanical structure; it is an organism. It is the masterpiece of God when it comes to organisms.

When I would leave NY in the early 70's & go to HQ, I would FEEL like I had left spiritual life & gone to a place where VP was Moses & we were all Jews. Now I know why & can put it into words (but you'd better have not tried to put it into words to anyone while you were there). It WAS that way. Then, after a while, it seemed right to be the right way. Then, when I would return to NY, it would seem like a confusing mess. But after a while, I would see the spiritual life of the believers, the vitality pulsing through the body there. In a short time my fellowship grew to over 30 people, but I always knew how everyone was doing basically because I quickly became part of the flow of the life of the thing, & basically, we were swimming in the power & victory of God - but an OT perspective with the veil still over the eyes wouldn't see it.

Okay, I've gone on long enough - hope I'm still making sense.

nope won't happen to much ego, to much disdain, to little love, need to get away from the Euro German, Aryan, Anti Semetic, Ionian Javaian mind set; there is a big world out there ,can't just feeel comfortable with one race of people when moving the WORD.

Ain't THAT the truth!

...of the "Jesus Movement"...

Well put together & a loving act of service, Sunesis - thanks.

If I may add 2 or 3 things...

With the Way tree, he [VP] was able to put a structure in place quickly.

It seems we called them fellowships. I don't recall for sure, but I don't think we called them twigs in '71, maybe we did. But I remember learning about building a number of fellowships in a certain area, & I think at that point we were calling them branches. But then we were informed that what we were doing WASN'T The Way Tree, & the WC came light-bearers to NY & chopped everything up with the Way Tree cookie cutter style. If one went to a certain twig, THAT'S the twig they had to go to exclusively. Not only that, but it wasn't

godly to go to someone other than your twig coordinator, especially someone in another twig for ministering if you had a need. IMO, it was that instituting of The Way Tree that finalized the take over of power at the "leaf" level. The branch & limb levels had already been taken over by Wierwille, & it was this fully implemented Way Tree structure that broke up the rest of the "joints and bands" in the Body through which increase came by Jesus Christ, the head.

VP bided his time and waited a year or so (70-71), let things grow while he sat on his duff on the farm, until there were enough people in place, that he could clamp down, causing Heefner to walk, but by this time - that was ok, he now had other men who could take their place.

It was also at this time that the Way West & the Way East were making a lot more money than Wierwille. He couldn't STAND that.

I think, as long as VP appointed "leadership" was not in an area, it flourished. Once structure came in, the growth started slowing.

As I remember hearing things, God told Heefner that if he moved to NY, the Word would move there, & so he did, & it did. I definitely know from Steve Perez on Long Island that God said as much to him about moving to Long Island to move the Word. This was Jesus Christ growing his Body. VP appointing "leadership" was BS - as was the WOW program. Before that people WERE going where God was showing them to go to move the Word. WOW stopped all that. VP said he was putting the WOW program into effect because people were too afraid to answer the call from God to go & move it, & that he was just going to put the WOW program into effect for a few short years until people got over their fear & could answer the call from God directly. Well, obviously VP NEVER ended the WOW program. Actually, people were responding before the WOW program, & stopped afterward. How could people answer the call from God when all revelation was coming to VP or to Wiengartner or whomever sat in the seat of power (where Jesus belonged & was doing just fine)?

Now, if there has been no intermediate class, or advanced class, who really would have stayed after awhile? VP had it set so that, if you want to grow, take the next class, and the top class was the advanced class. Note, no one was allowed to share what was in it with someone who hadn't taken it.

People were receiving revelation and being followed by signs, miracles, & wonders. People shared about those things. There was an attempt to shut everyone's mouths because "it was just ego." But if you wanted to learn honestly, you would know people who would share what you needed - it was part of the practical aspect of those joints and bands ministering in love that I talked about. The attempt to muzzle the whole thing in the name of pure doctrine was, IMO, nothing more than the same control effort of VP.

In '72, Wierwille came to NY to teach the advanced class because there was so much spiritual activity going on, he saw the need - or so he said. I heard nothing at that class that I didn't already know from someone in NY, & hadn't already seen in action. Maybe not some of the specific examples - some of the amazing accounts of healings in the class, but in those days most of those accounts weren't TWI accounts anyway. Biblically, we are SUPPOSED to tell of the things that God is doing. We were - that's how we learned. TWI tried to put a quietus to the life of it. They didn't. Not then. Finally, via The Way Tree, they did.

Maybe that's why I don't understand.

I agree with Sunesis...

TWI even made a mockery of the word 'Revival'... as if God would do nothing OUTSIDE the sanctions of their cornfield~ :(

I don't remember them talking about revival after foundational PFAL. More & more it was like circle the wagons around the cornfield to keep the enemy out. Then it was like circle the wagons to keep people from leaving, & finally, it was like open up the wagons, & get rid of everyone who hasn't had enough sense to leave on their own. Well, maybe not, but that's not TOO much of an exaggeration.

Perhaps many have lost interest in Acts 2 and Mark 16.

Along with 1Cor 12, 13 and 14...

Could be a much different approach and realization of these things.

Resigned to the incoherent toungues as taught by the way and others.

I submit and for consideration that there is more, much more then previously thought by many.

A couple of things:

1. What happened to "no man understandeth?"
   
2. Sounds like you're talking about simple inspired utterance.
   

I still don't get what's to consider in the much more that you're talking about.

Hm, maybe it's because kids become so much easier to live with when you're not living with them :)

Since you asked...

That's attributed to Lawrence Tribble,

circa the American Revolution.

From "The Great Awakening", the poem's called "Awaken."

...

Thanks WW

You can't put new wine in old wine skins

Indeed, as I posted on the Yahoo site:

While we're discussing things, I'd just like to put forth this. It is not a matter of being negative or being positive IMO. Jesus said you can't put new wine into old wineskins; it bursts the wineskin. He said you HAVE TO put new wine into new wineskins. No amount of positive thinking, believing, thinking it would be nice, or prayer will change that. If it would have, Jesus would have worked that way.

It's a matter of the CONTAINER. When Wierwille tried to incorporate the Body, organize the organism, Way Tree Jesus, WOW the outreach of God's spirit, Way Corps the gift ministries, centralize from whom all was to be fitly joined together, structure the joints and bands, etc, etc, he kicked Jesus out of the way & substituted an old wineskin - old, as in Old Testament old and new industrial age old. The life of the thing was eaten

out of it by a cancer from that point on. THAT structure will not hold new wine. As we were taught, it is not available - Jesus said so.

Now, if you want to go back to before Wierwille did that to the Body of Christ, then, as Xxxx [We hade been talking about someone on teh Yahoo site] said many a time, "There's nothing to it but to do it." Or, if you REALLY want to drop the old & the bad, stop dwelling on the past, & move on, again, that's fine with me, "There's nothing to it but to do it." Drop the old wineskin. THAT'S forgetting the bad & moving on with

the good. Xxxxx didn't need the old wineskin in KS. NY didn't need it. CA didn't need it. South America didn't need it. Europe didn't need it. Africa didn't need it.

People are doing it. Believe God for a couple of people to do it with, & do it. That's how it got done the first time. That's how it always gets done. That's how it is getting done today. I understand Xxxxx's definition of

revival, but remember revival starts w hen one rises with dawn in his eyes and wakens another, & the two a third, until there is enough making enough noise to waken the whole town - anybody know how that butchered version really goes?

I figure there is a point in revival when you don't have to try to get anything to move. The think is like a roller coaster going downhill picking up speed. All you have to do is hold on & have enough balls to not corral

the thing with an artificial structure.

But it starts with 3 people enjoying the love & power of God together, & that is so much more than nobody because when 2 or more are gathered in him name, he is there among them.

There is nothing to it but to do it.

He said that in 94?...Many of the top leadership confronted lcm about his sexcapades around 87...this was part of the reason for so many leaving...

Sounds to me that lcm had rationalized in his mind and justified from the bible that what he was doing was ok...

The guy really WAS dumber than a box of hammers.

Clarification here please, Groucho. In, or around, '87, did lcm apparently accept the reproof & then rationalize & justify from the bible by the time '94 came around? What was lcm's reaction to the confrontation in '87?

one thing i haven't figured out

is the difference between my brain then

and my brain now

i mean, i have kind of figured it out but it's strange

today i'm 50 (well so the adversary says) then i was a young innocent young lady

two different minds

but not exactly because i'm still me

but hopefully today i would tell that old man what i really think

ha

I don't know, Excie. My brother desribes himself as not quite being the idiot that he used to be. Hope springs eternal.

[iNo, your don't have power over your body to satisfy yourself sexually. Doesn't that sort of mean that men (& women) should be unselfishly looking to satisfy their mate instead of themselves?"[/i]

Tom, that was not what I was referring to and that was not what was taught. What was taught was that one could not refuse sex, could not say no to a spouse. Or, as some took it - you couldn't rape a spouse because their body wasn't their own.

Sorry I wasn't clearer, Abi. I understand what you were saying. I agree with you. I was trying to point out that what was taught was selfish & not a true representation of the unselfish relationship the Word presents.

Fom what I can tell since leaving twi and meeting other Christians.....it seems like gnuine Christians, when they have experienced the life impacting change of the new birth ... are different...old things, destructive things begin to fall away...as you grow as christian, you change for the better.

Alcoholics are freed from their demons, smokers and drug users are free from their addiction....people change....and from what I see...not so much of a conscious decision, but they have been changed on the inside..... those things have lost their appeal.....

What I saw in twi was that the longer I was there ...the more vulger I became....I became sexually active....started drinking regularly....was able to justify mean ness...was smug, arrogant...condescending..

It seems like we are given a chrystal clear set of instructions in the scriptures as to how to live , and yet there is always a teaching from twi that excuses us from our obligations.

Rascal, may I weigh in here as an ex-alcoholic who was freed from his demon, & an ex-smoker, & ex-heroin addict who was freed from his addictions after contact with the Way. I was freed from the heroin addiction during TWI 1, the others later. Perhaps that explains something of my attitudes on the other thread that motivated you to start this one. A lot of what happened to people depends on where & when they got involved with the way.

Not everyone experienced only what you did (although many experienced a lot of what you did). It wasn't all about the man with the thin black tie.

Yes, J, LCM publically said this in 94! I remember it clear as day.

Me too, my wife & I were there. I remember the sinking feeling in my gut. I believe it was an advanced class, no? That was a pretty horrible time for the both of us. Worse for my wife. My wife was spouse corps at the time. WC treated her like she wasn't any kind of anything worth trusting or fellowshipping with. She said that was the last time she was going to something like that. I couldn't blame her. She was quicker on the uptake than I was. I was stupid & loyal & ready to make too many excuses for a$$ holes.

It was taught in Believers Family Class.

He also taught that it was okay to grope your spouse whenever you wanted to, regardless of whether your spouse wanted you to or not, or felt it was an appropriate time to or not. Afterall, that's just they way men are built and your body is no longer your own once you are married.

No, your don't have power over your body to satisfy yourself sexually. Doesn't that sort of mean that men (& women) should be unselfishly looking to satisfy their mate instead of themselves?

tom, i've been understanding you all along

thanks

Abigail, I PM'd you about a couple of things unrelated to this thread.

i am speaking of toungues in your native language from one who knows your native language.

You don't have to feel constrained to answer this, especially if this is the same place we were at last time we discussed tongues, but you have to realize the obvious question.

My native language is English. If someone who knows my native language is speaking to me in my native language, he is going to be speaking to me in English, a language we both understand. In what sense is that speaking in tongues?

You presented the "orthodox vpw" position on adultery and whether or not it's ok for us to

commit it. That position follows up by dismissing all clear OT passages and all

Gospel passages as "different administration."

(And there's people here who would STILL say that-whether or not they would elect

to POST it.) Therefore, the "obvious" response from the "orthodox vpw" position

would have been dismissing the Proverbs acct, and then the Gospel acct,

as invalid due to administration change. Rather than wait for someone to make what's

the "standard" response before replying to it, I saved time and replied before the fact.

(That makes it a general refutation of the "orthodox vpw" position.)

Again, Wordwolf, this post should probably belong in the doctrinal section. I'm not sure what you've induced as "orthodox vpw" but vpw never dismissed all OT passages or all Gospel passages on the basis that they were different administrations. He taught they were for our learning. He taught they were to be received as addressed to us insofar as they didn't contradict that which is addressed to us. Your basic assumption concerning vpw orthodoxy is incorrect; no wonder your "time saving" conclusions are incorrect. Even if you're assumptions about vpw orthodoxy were correct, which they are not, they are certainly incorrect about me. Dang it, Wordwolf, do you make a habit of assuming stuff about people? I didn't think so before this. That just kills a potential communication.

Technically speaking, you personally had not posted that yet.

When I was saying "you", I didn't mean "Tom", I meant

"anyone holding this position"- a more general "you".

I should have made that clearer-but most attempts would still have looked

like I meant "Tom" no matter what I said.

Please keep in mind- if you're going to use the same answers vpw gave,

you're likely to get the same answers vpw would get if he were alive and posting

them here.

Healthy communication is a 2-way street-which means both of us need to be alert.

Okay, let's chalk it up to a miscommunication then - okay?

You are picking a fight where there isn`t one Tom. I am not venting, I am not portraying you as a wierwille defender.....I am not accusing you of anything period.

Stop accusing me of accusing you of things please.

Your words:

what I am adressing is the attempt to portray wierwilles adultery and fornication and attempts at scriptural justification and cover up as some how understandible.

You compared us to pharacees with stones in our hands...

I am addressing your attempt to explain/excuse wierwilles mindset and portray us as a$$ holes looking to stone a poor guy who simply erred.

When you mentioned what was done to women, you made it clear you weren't condoning it.

When you presented vpw's "argument", you made NO such distinction. Therefore, if you were not

endorsing it, you gave the impression you were-so don't blame me for responding accordingly.

You think it is clear that I didn't condon what was done to women, yet Rascal still doesn't get it. You didn't think I was clear about vpw's argument, yet Abigail got it.

I said "However, I do think that there are many who neither say 'they think vpw's comments were appropriate,' nor worship him, yet do, perhaps without even thinking about it, agree with his teachings in part. Both factor into the wrangling."

"People" I said. "in part" I said. I was talking about a continuum on which people could be at a point. Abigail got it. You would have if you didn't put words in my mouth. You want to lump me in with some classification? Then you're not conversing with me; you're conversing with a classification. That's a condescending, presumptuous rape of my individuality. Besides, you were wrong in your assumptions. If you're not going to address me & what I say, I'm not going to respond to you as if you had. Honestly, I thought you were bigger than that, Wordwolf.

If you want a more casual discussion as to whether a particular passage may or may not mean what

vpw claimed it meant, we have those on separate threads in Doctrinal.

Perhaps, but that was not what my post was about; although, you apparently still perceive it that way despite the fact that I said it wasn't several times.

I think this article hits pretty close to the mark:

MEL GIBSON'S CRUCIFIXION

By Pastor Chuck Baldwin

August 4, 2006

NewsWithViews.com

Let's get right to the point: the Hollywood elite have had it in for Mel Gibson for quite a while. First, he abandoned their penchant for promoting big government by starring in a truer-than-most-want-to-admit movie thriller, Conspiracy Theory. He then further alienated Hollywood Leftists by starring in the hugely popular Vietnam war movie, We Were Soldiers. And I'm sure Mel's wonderful movie about America's fight for independence, The Patriot, didn't sit well with them, either.

However, it was the production of his phenomenally successful film, The Passion Of The Christ, that no doubt took the Hollywood elite over the edge. That a Hollywood legend would dare to produce a movie that exalted, not denigrated, Christ's redemptive work on the cross was more than they could stomach. They have had Gibson in their sights ever since.

Unfortunately, Mel Gibson provided the Hollywood elite the hammer and nails they needed to crucify him. His extremely foolish misconduct was just what his enemies were looking for. Now, they are attacking him with a vengeance! In fact, he has been castigated by almost everyone in the industry.

For example, according to press reports, ABC has already announced the cancellation of a planned miniseries about the Holocaust it was developing with Gibson's Icon Productions.

In addition, Michael Levine, an agent who has represented super-stars such as Michael Jackson and Charlton Heston, said, "It's a nuclear disaster for him [Gibson]. I don't see how he can restore himself." Throughout the industry, the sentiment is the same: "Gibson has committed vocational suicide and is dead in the water. It's all over for him."

Yet, I don't remember anyone in Hollywood or in the national media saying it was "all over" for Jesse Jackson when back in 1984 he called Jews "Hymies" and referred to New York City as "Hymietown." I don't remember people saying it was "all over" for Michael Moore when he was quoted as placing Israel in his own personal "axis of evil." Why, then, are the Hollywood elite saying it's "all over" for Mel Gibson?

Gibson's enemies even overlook the fact that instead of sending his publicist to handle the media (as most Hollywood stars would do), he personally took responsibility for his actions and comments. In fact, his humility and contriteness in the matter have been quite remarkable!

In addition, Gibson has admitted to a long-standing problem with alcohol addiction, and he has apologized profusely for his anti-Jewish words spoken in a drunken stupor. He has even said he was willing to meet with Jewish leaders in order to facilitate a healing. What more can the man do?

The answer is obvious: the Hollywood elite don't care how sincere or how repentant Gibson is; they want Mel Gibson's crucifixion! I believe the American people will see through Hollywood's hypocrisy and hatred and will find it in their hearts to forgive Gibson's foolishness. At least I certainly hope so.

For the record, I would like to offer Mel Gibson, and anyone else who has a drinking problem, a free copy of my alcoholic father's true-life story, which is recorded on cassette tape. My dad was a confirmed and hopeless alcoholic until the age of 40. His deliverance from alcohol is nothing short of miraculous! From the day of his deliverance at age 40 to the day he died at nearly age 86, my dad did not have one drop of alcoholic beverage-not one! That's over 46 years of total sobriety. It is a truly remarkable real-life story!

If any of Mel's friends would like to have a free copy of my father's true-life story, or if readers would like to obtain a copy for themselves or a friend, go to www.chuckbaldwinlive.com/ebald.html for information on how to order. Again, there is no charge for the tape.

I hope and pray that not only will Mel Gibson survive the personal and professional attacks against him but that he will discover the true source of peace that fortune and fame have obviously not provided. Wouldn't it be nice, too, if Hollywood could find a heart and soul of its own?

Nope, not at all Tom, what I am adressing is the attempt to portray wierwilles adultery and fornication and attempts at scriptural justification and cover up as some how understandible.

You compared us to pharacees with stones in our hands...

I am addressing your attempt to explain/excuse wierwilles mindset and portray us as a$$ holes looking to stone a poor guy who simply erred.

That woman wasn`t destroying lives on a daily basis...wierwille did.

You compared us to pharacees with stones in our hands...

From the post you are supposed to be addressing: "Am I saying that everyone setting Wierwille in our midst and ready to throw stones at him are present day scribes and Pharisees 'tempting' the Lord's brethren, 'that they might have to accuse' them? No, we're not talking about the same situations here."

That woman wasn`t destroying lives on a daily basis...wierwille did.

Again, "...we're not talking about the same situations here."

As I said, "I feel like you would like to characterize me as a Wierwille defender so that you can argue with me and vent your anger on me, Rascal."

So what now? You can't find anything, so you make up stuff that's the direct opposite of what I've said?

what I am adressing is the attempt to portray wierwilles adultery and fornication ... as some how understandible.

I missed that one in there, Rascal. You're making stuff up again. Wierwille's adultery & fornication was despicable. I never said otherwise. As a matter of fact when I mentioned (also quoted from the post in question) "'helping' young conflicted girls get over their sexual problems by giving them 'pure, loving, sex'," I immediately followed it with the words "Please note the single quotes indicating I'm being speaking tongue-in-cheek" so that people would realize I do NOT condone that attitude.

what I am adressing is the attempt to portray wierwilles ... attempts at scriptural justification and cover up as some how understandible.

"Plausible," as in appearing to merit belief or acceptance with the operative word being "appearing." I was merely trying to point out so many years of WC did not believe what Wierwille was saying without any reasonably sounding biblical documentation, NOT that the documentation WAS sound. How many times and ways do I have to say I'm not presenting a doctrinal stance that I'm standing upon. Even later, in response to Wordwolf's statement that we believed what we did without any biblical documentation, all I was presenting was the biblical documentation that Wierwille offered. It wasn't until later that I started talking about what I believe - much of which I got from Wierwille's teachings.

Just because Wierwille used them as cover and rationalization for sin doesn't mean they are wrong. People use the liberty that God called us to as an occasion to the flesh; that doesn't make the liberty a lie.

I am addressing your attempt to explain/excuse wierwilles mindset and portray us as a$$ holes looking to stone a poor guy who simply erred.

Wierwille's mindset I wouldn't begin to pretend to understand. I never could, & I wouldn't want to try to fathom the nastiness that was there.

A poor guy who simply erred is another figment of your imagination as is the a$$ hole accusation.