Twinky

I don't know US court procedure, but I did see this (my emphasis), dated Tuesday, April 11, 2023 ORDER: The Court has been advised that all claims asserted herein have been settled in principle. ECF No. 92. Accordingly, the above-entitled action is hereby dismissed and discontinued without costs, and without prejudice to the right to reopen the action within thirty days of the date of this Order if the settlement is not consummated. Any application to reopen must be filed within thirty days of this Order; any application to reopen filed thereafter may be denied solely on that basis Most of the documents are unavailable except to professional personnel. However, from the above, which is of public record, it seems to me that TWI is off the hook again. Paid over plenty of money, no doubt, and got a confidentiality clause put in the settlement as well. No findings against, and no admissions of liability.

Not "what am I [Twinky] fighting?" but "what is Mike fighting?" as it's a quote from something he wrote. Right on there, Oldiesman. And not confined to any particular church or denomination, either.

STL, I knew there'd be some interesting controversial views! Maybe they remain perpetual virgins? But some say there are no virgins at all. Instead, there are white grapes, or raisins. How very disappointing for those foolish martyrs who expect wives, and get raisins. https://www.indiatimes.com/news/india/islamic-scholar-punctures-72-virgins-theory-says-martyrs-will-only-get-raisins-in-heaven-340579.html

Could you copy your response here, please? If you can, delete response from the other thread.

We had a great chat in my church housegroup about "integrity" and how it applies in today's life, in today's situations, in real situations current for members of our housegroup. Integrity and compromise. Holding the line, without being obnoxious, close-minded, or bigoted. Perhaps A great secret (not THE greatest secret) is that the Bible is applicable to our day and time, and to just about every culture. Not necessarily in what it says, but in the broader outline, in "the heart behind" whatever is said. We may not need to wash the feet of others - but we should be happy to carry out acts of service, especially menial ones, for those in need - and not to exalt ourselves and expect others to serve us.

If anyone choses to debate Mike on his post above, the third in this thread, I posted his post in its entirety in Doctrinal. Otherwise, I know what this will turn into. Though, maybe, it could turn into something interesting. I'm sure we've had this debate a time or two, and he doesn't need to derail this thread, as well. And he isn't brilliant at starting his own thread. So there, Mike, I've started it for you, and you can run it from now on. Now back to the regularly scheduled programme.

Mike said this in response to a recent thread I started: I'm sure we've had thread concerning this, but if anyone wants to debate this with Mike, here it is.

It's a question that we get asked a lot and is the reason, or perhaps excuse, that people give for not believing in God. There's an answer, but it's not a quick answer and hard to explain in a few minutes to someone who's quite possible half-drunk and incapable of remembering. Your answer isn't quite clear. Are you saying that "God loves YOU" is a close second? Or that "God is light and light ONLY" is a close second? The latter is a hard concept to be able to explain, since what is "light" and what is "dark" can be unclear. Is a prolonged drought, or a plague of locusts good or bad, light or dark? If you're a farmer, it's very dark. If you're an invading force, it might be light because it drives inhabitants off the land. Anyway, the question is not what is light or dark. It's: No doubt T-Bone, OldSkool and cman have interesting perspectives on this one. With Bolshevik having quite a different perspective.

Probably is NOT "the Bible is the revealed word and will of God" as so pronounced by VPW. (And that probably wasn't *his* original thought anyway.) Instead, I'd venture to suggest that it's simply "God loves YOU." In my work out on the streets with homeless people and with young pleasure seekers, it is truly astonishing how many don't know this. And they may have been going to church for years, decades. God loves each and every one of us. May not love what we do, but loves us nonetheless. What would you say is the greatest secret in the world today?

I wondered that, too.

And welcome, Logicisgreatstuff. Sounds like you're a second generation TWI kid. Tell us a bit about yourself and your time both in and out of TWI in the Open>New Members spot.

We really need a "ha ha" icon here, not just an arrow or a heart. Completely sympathise with you, Logic, in your confused writing sessions. Living in the real world and also in TWI-world is great for learning to develop a split personality.

Oh my. We appear to be in a slightly cynical morning today. Maybe due to lack of sleep from a sore shoulder. I must exercise my free will, to be cheerful, and try not to pi$$ off my clients today.

Of course, you're assuming that "free will" is a good thing. (Aren't you?) Is it? We have some amount of free will within parameters. Those parameters are important. Perhaps you should be exploring the parameters. Which are partly cultural norms, partly because of our genetic makeup, partly inbuilt fight-or-flight and other autonomic responses, partly - well, who knows what. Perhaps you are exploring the parameters. But you can't escape them. And does it matter? To whom? And why?

When I did my research paper, the first draft was, IMHO, pretty good. It contained no Wayspeak because it covered areas that TWI rarely ventured into. Stylistically, my paragraphs had a bit of an opening sentence, Bible verse (usually from the OT), and a light sort of exposition. I was using the verses, however, as building blocks to my conclusion, not in a show-off way but to present my case. First draft got sent back. I hadn't included enough references to PFAL materials. (That's because there wasn't anything relevant in PFAL, dummy!) Second draft, well, finished version: I had had to rewrite to include various references to PFAL material that wasn't really relevant and added nothing. This version was well received, surprisingly widely read among the head honchos, got quite a few compliments from unexpected sources. I found a copy of my (haha) research paper a few months ago. I read it. It is, actually, good stuff. Huh, the additional bits that I had to stick in - stick out like sore thumbs. Made me wince. But: finished version matched their "style guide" and so was deemed acceptable. Looking at it again, I'd do it a little differently now, not the research work (which was so entirely my own work) but the way it was put together. And it could well be much longer because it was a fascinating subject. Certainly, there wouldn't be any Way jargon or turn of phrase. Oh, what was it, you ask? "Judicial Answers of Truth in the Ministry of Jesus Christ." [I remembered the title as being a little different, but I'm looking at the document itself.) Good ole Craig himself gave me that topic. Every answer, every OT quote, that Jesus gave was checked back in its OT context, reading back and forth over all related chapters, and then reading other related areas, Bible books, etc. Started as a word study of the word Apokrinomai [remember those word studies?] and exploded out from there. So you can see: mostly OT stuff - and a good look at the gospels. So you can see why there was so little quotable material in PFAL. After all, it wasn't necessary to study the Man himself, nor his lifestyle, his application of scriptures to living in his everyday world, his understanding, exposition and demonstration of the scriptures/ Torah/ Pentateuch/ temple teaching available to him. We're so very smart now that the gospels are irrelevant, so don't need to be covered in PFAL, just given a passing glance from time to time. The reality of "It is Written" applies to PFAL materials only. Rant over! Oh, and yeah. As a retired lawyer, I was used to considering carefully, looking at lots of relevant material, and producing an opinion, letter, document that noted all salient points and led to a clear conclusion. I knew how to write: for a court, for a lay client, for other professionals. And formally, for my dissertation - my degree. Not to mention, informally just for pleasure. But writing Way-style....errggggghhhhhh. Children's stories are better written.

Interesting old thread this. I was going to include an extract from their digital WayRag but it's not set up well and is in any event so difficult to read. At random I chose an article, and found a paragraph. So: they say what they want to say, reasonably intelligibly. Then say it again. Then a Biblical quotation. Then, take an English word (an ordinary, nothing-special type of word, from that Bible quote, and say "this is the Greek word xxxx" and expound what they claim is the meaning, both then and now. Then virtually re-write the opening sentence of the paragraph. Write four pages like this. Hey presto! End of article. Whatever they said, it could have been said more clearly in half a page. Not four pages.

Doncha mean, the backroom boys (and girls) who make the pastries, and fetch the coffee, and wash the cups? I guess, those who fetch the coffee and other tasties, too. Thanks, everyone (even if a few bits of crockery get broken in the process).

Well done, then, those who transferred to new server.

So what has become of a thread in Doctrinal I started only today," No-one comes to the Father except through me"? There were several replies, but the entire thread has vanished. There are other threads upon which I know there are new entries made today, and they have vanished too. Please can you restore these. I certainly can't repost everything that I wrote, as I have no other copies.

Paypal worked for me - though not the Donate button under the first post on this page.

Thanks, Chockfull. I thought for interest you might like to see what these churches support: Bath Abbey: https://www.bathabbey.org/donate/mission-partners/ The first four are working locally for international benefit; the fifth (Genesis) is a local charity. Holy Trinity/StACC: https://www.htcd.church/international-mission These are the international missions. There are other local (UK) missions that are supported, Genesis again being one. Genesis Trust (hyperlink) is local and small, and deals with the "dreggiest" homeless, addicted, abandoned people and tries to raise them in confidence and skill level and to reintegrate them into "normal" society. It works in partnership with other local charities to address their wider problems - housing, addiction, ill health, etc. Genesis is funded entirely by donations, mostly from the city's churches: its clientele is so chaotic in lifestyle that it can't produce the "measurable" outcomes that local authorities and other grant-giving organisations demand. The congregations get reports from time to time about the work carried on in these missions. So you see, both the churches as donors and the missions hold themselves accountable to the congregations that have given money. Oh, and by the way: neither the abbey nor StACC/HTCD ever require the congregation to give under pain of excommunication or any other sanction. Finances are talked about occasionally, especially when needed for a project; and we see the annual accounts of the churches, and the treasurers are always willing to answer questions. They're also accountable upwards to the diocese and higher church authorities. I think that's all exactly as it should be in properly run churches. I cannot see TWI ever getting involved in anything like this. What a culture shock that would be! Nor, for that matter, some of the US mega-churches where the "ministers" have huge churches and cult followings. It's time for TWI people and for those in mega-churches to "come on home" to the wider Christian community, and to properly play their humble part in building up the Body of Christ. Not build the body of any cult.

Charity, I'll raise you this one - thought it was what you were posting, but yours is very different. You probably know this one well:

Oh, and I want to add something else. I attend one church StACC regularly; and another church, known as the abbey although it hasn't been an abbey in centuries, occasionally - both Anglican. These churches use the money received to fund work that genuinely helps our communities - StACC is in an overlooked, impoverished area, so we provide free meals on a weekly basis to all-comers, and there's lots of other help etc available to anyone in need. The income is used to pay for outreach workers of various types. At the abbey, the Big Church for the city, there's also a lot going on, including some free meals and a vast amount of other support. A lot of clergy, only some of whom are paid for by the diocese - the rest from church funds. And BOTH churches (as churches) give away AT LEAST one tenth of all their income to support other churches and church building projects and missions, some within this country, and some to help overseas work. StACC (just a little church) is helping support a church in Albania, another in Romania, both on a regular basis; and there are occasional donations to several other African countries. Our slightly larger parent or maybe sister church has a whole missions team and supports four or five overseas missions and projects. The Abbey donates to four or five overseas missions, including the project Reaching The Unreached, which helps the most destitute children in south India with provision of housing, clothing, education (inc through Uni if the kids are bright enough). (Additional to this, members of the congregation often choose to donate privately to these causes.) Both churches have had serious financial problems in recent years and it's been a struggle to keep afloat. But their donations to support these worthy causes have remained at at least 10% of their income and they see this as vital. These churches are not doing anything extraordinary - in that this is expected, not just of Anglican churches but Methodists, Salvation Army, and no doubt many other denominations. Compare and contrast with a cornfield cult, that thinks giving "bursaries" to African students to study in Ohio is generous. And certainly wouldn't think of donating either time or money to helping homeless people in the nearest large town.

Oh ho! "A love of wealth or money can subtly overtake a love of God if allowed. When this happens, it is evidenced by covetousness, a desire for more and more." And there we have it, folks. We see the evidence. So they are admitting that the love of wealth or money and the incessant desire for more and more has indeed overtaken a (a??) love of God. "A love of money, wealth or possessions can indeed produce covetousness, but it cannot produce sustained happiness." It certainly cannot produce sustained happiness for those who feel forced to contribute to the coffers of those who have a love of wealth or money. What it's generally produced for the contributors is sustained poverty, not abundance - material or spiritual. What's generally produced for the recipients is - well, more and more greed. Their greeds and wants are definitely parallel.

No, not the toenails (which are real and still uncut) but TWI. And their promises. All are UNwelcome at The Way or (you choose).