Twinky

Here is another wedding gift: Dad's special gift

What a wonderful wedding gift!

Great song, Waysider. Most appropriate.

Oops! Further oops! Residents in some parts of the UK had to use umbrellas when they went out of the house. And had to wash cars twice a day. As to laundry... :( There were some interesting BBC news clips but I can't find those. Ugly.

Ah, the dining room. Another place where all the tables had to be laid out in their perfect rows, and all the chairs in their perfect position, and all the cutlery on the table in its perfect position. I don't remember stringing any of these - the chairs and the tables were always in exactly the same position (and someone's earlier tip about where the chair legs were always placed comes to mind). It does look nice when the dining room is properly set and all the places properly set. All the knives with the blades facing the same way, all the dessert spoons and forks set up the same way, etc. It was part of the "training" though, to ensure that we could set a table and thus always be able to get (low level) jobs in restaurants as wait staff on our WoW years - and in post-grad years when we had to have jobs that would fit in with ministry schedules.

I used to have a red car. But sorry, Rottie, I didn't notice that it was a bird poo attractant.

If God hadn't wanted us to have emotions, he would have designed us differently. He gave us emotions for a reason. Or reasons. Part of which is to enable us to be fully human and not machines or more simple life forms. Emotions are fine tools, helpers, warnings. As long as we process the information but don't allow our emotions to rule our lives, to dictate the long-term course of our actions. I am trying to think of occasions where Jesus had a hissy fit when people were "emotional." Even when someone had died, he didn't have a hissy fit - simply said, "Don't weep," and then did something about the cause - raised the dead, healed the sick. Didn't deny the emotion, just removed the reason for it.

:biglaugh:/> :biglaugh:/> :biglaugh:/> If pushed, no doubt VPW could call himself a farmer. Since he was raised on, and lived on, a farm. Then he gave it up, just like the apostles gave up fishing, because of the greatness of the ministerial call on his life. And that Paul? Obviously couldn't believe for the greatness of God's Word to support him hence he had to remain a saddle- or tent-maker (depending on your reading of his job title).

On second thoughts, I probably didn't have a copy - just notes of the teachings (video?? by LCM??). (All too long ago and I choose not to remember.) And lotsa other books, many of which I burned. I didn't' want them falling into someone else's hands and luring them to investigate / join TWI.

Johniam, she didn't say "tooth brush" but "bristle brush" - perhaps a standard size scrubbing brush. Now I have to say I did once brush the stonework outside my door - but that was a one-off because the person who sold to me had had a party and got sticky green stringy stuff all over the stonework. On a regular basis? At Anderson? Talk about make-work. At least they let us cut the grass with mowers - not with nail scissors. And Rottie and John - I think I burned that VP & Me book. Creep creep suck up suck up vomit.

The chairs have to be strung in perfectly straight lines both across and from front to back. Perfect grids. God forbid that any chair should be out of alignment and harmony with the other chairs. Of course, there are chairs that have hoops at their feet (TWI would be far too mean to pay for those at HQ) so that they can easily be hooked together and put in straight lines. If you did have any of those in a meeting place - using the feet was a form of cheating.

Outie...I thought "love" was all about confronting weakness and being spiritually angry about it? :unsure:/>

Funny how the emotion Anger was acceptable - even desirable, as it showed how "spiritual" you are. As long as you were angry at the "right" things, like the sloppiness of the Household. Not at the injustice of the world, or the latest war, or suchlike. Oh no. But emotions like Joy, Happiness, Sorrow, Remorse, Excitement - were all dismissed. Unless it was the Joy of serving in some way task like dishroom, event set-up, snow clearance,etc. These are of course to be enjoyed without question. But the Joy of living in a beautiful sunshiny day, or just smelling the flowers...you must have something better to do! My Corps sis was allowed to go someplace (Florida?) for her grandfather's funeral - as long as she took someone from HQ with her. Another Corps sis was not allowed to go to her sister's wedding (somewhere nearer than Florida). She'd have plenty of opportunity to see her sis and her new husband when she'd finished her in rez training. (In retrospect - yeah right, sure she would.) Great witness, huh? Even Jesus took time to go to a wedding; and there's no indication he went because he was related or even friends with the wedding party - it seems more the cultural thing of inviting the whole village.

Sounds just like how I spend my time. Washing people, their feet, their clothes, their houses. Looking out for what might make their lives more bearable. That's what I get paid for, very modestly - I'm self-employed. Many of my clients are very elderly. And that's how I spend time doing voluntary work with three different organisations, two Christian (check out Street Pastors), and one secular (but there are a lot of compassionate people, some Christians, also involved with that one.) Think I have to agree with you on that, WW. What it takes, really, is thinking about other people and what they might need to make their lives easier.

Too many red flags in PFAL to count!! But I gave the man the benefit of the doubt, knowing that men don't know everything ... and he's American ... therefore knowing how old English works might not be quite his thing. Certainly his knowledge of grammar was appalling. ... little did I know that VPW and through him TWI did think they know everything. Even in the face of experts. Here's a red flag. The Lord's Prayer. As I recall, there was one of those Listen with Understanding or Reading with a Purpose questions at the end of that video section - "Why can we not pray this prayer?" Answer: we can't pray to be forgiven as we forgive others - because we're already forgiven. Basically that mocks the rest of the prayer and discourages the faithful from saying it, remembering it, bringing it to mind, bringing the order of the prayer to mind by recognising God's awesomeness first and foremost. It would have been better if he'd decided to change the line (give it a literal according to meaning, or some such) that says, "Forgive us our trespasses as we forgive them that trespass against us," to say "And having freely forgiven us our trespasses, help us just as freely to forgive them that trespass against us." But that might have raised too many red flags for other people. So - just diss the whole prayer and make people forget it. I've just started reading a book by RT Kendall entitled "The Lord's Prayer" wherein he examines the prayer line by line, word by word, thought by thought, to endeavour to build a deeper spiritual understanding amongst those who pray this prayer. Right in his introductory chapter, RT Kendall, quoting Dr Martyn Lloyd-Jones, states: "It is spiritual pride, if not arrogance, to refuse to pray the Lord's Prayer with others." That smote me in the heart. Spiritual pride ... arrogance ... typifying TWI and passing on, to this day, through too many of its adherents. :CUSSING:/>

:offtopic:/> WW, stop attacking John, please just address the topic. If you don't like what John says, either ignore it or address it briefly and stick to the topic. While you make good points (sometimes), you can be awfully pompous :) (Cue an attack on Twinky)

A seller in Dallas, Tx, is offering on ebay for a mere $132 the following by Weirwille: The Living Word speaks: Studies in Biblical Research, Teaching, and Fellowship. Plus shipping. You have 11 days left in which to snap up this bargain.

Steve, would that be "holy spirit" not "Holy Spirit"? :rolleyes:/> I look forward to your further commentary on this doctrine. First time I've ever heard of two trinities. What does your third para mean? That is, what are the supposed meanings in the 4C and 5C?

Thank God for Greasespot. Who knows how many ruined lives have been prevented and how many ruined lives have been healed when the truth has been exposed! Thank God too that the Pope is finally tackling the problem of abuse in the RC church, which for decades has been covered up with offending priests simply transferred to other areas. Pope tackles sex abuse in RC church and he has appointed a survivor of 1960s abuse to be on his commission of enquiry: Marie Collins

Not saying anything is going along with it and not far from stealing stuff yourself. if people are stealing from the workplace, the costs have to be covered somehow =>higher costs to oncharge to customers. Or loss of profits, which ultimately means there is likely to be job cuts - which might include your own job.

Haven't posted on this thread before but thought you might like this one: Singer was on Book of the Week, his serialised autobiography.

Mark, your article quite rightly makes the point: "Reverend" simply means "respected" or "revered" - which all Christians should be - that's what got the attention of the non-believers when the early Christian church was becoming established. Those early believers (saints!) were respected for the way they treated other people. For anyone who's interested, here's a Wikipedia article about the honorific "Reverend" and its various permutations: The Reverend I have difficulty with the passage in Acts that states that the early apostles gave themselves to prayer, etc, and declined to serve at tables. Sounds a bit like they were "too good" to do menial tasks like that - although, to be fair, I have heard jolly good explanations about that passage - and it also says the congregation was pleased at the outcome. I can certainly see that some ordained clergymen and -women would have difficulty in undertaking menial roles. I also know a fair few who actually do undertake such roles, and do so with enthusiasm and joy at serving. God bless them richly.

Ham, that has nothing to do with what I posted. It's something that I have pondered a while. I think church hierarchies do get carried away at times with the title not the serving.

Don't you sometimes think that the titles given to those who serve in the church sometimes encourage a feeling of superiority? A "minister" is one who serves, or ministers, to the congregation. A deacon, bishop, cardinal, archbishop, etc etc? Or in TWI terminology, twig leader, branch leader, limb leader, etc? Jesus said: We see Jesus being what TWI called the lowliest of all servants in Eastern culture, the foot washer. Wouldn't "servant names" be more appropriate? Starting with "butler" and ending with "under footman" - or for women, "cook" (a highly respected position) and ending with "scullery maid" (the humblest and lowliest starting grade for female servants) - which would emphasise the "servant" quality and the higher the rank, the lower the servant-grade? You can find out more about servant-rankings by googling "servant hierarchy." I'm not just commenting on TWI hierarchy but on the hierarchy of established churches as well. The Pope (normally) lives in a fancy gilded apartment with loads of servants for himself (the current Pope refuses to move into that fancy residence). Cardinals have fancy clothes and residences. Archbishops have palaces and gorgeous robes. I have no idea what sort of hierarchy US mega-churches might have, but one thing I'm certain of is that none of the head honchos entitles himself the "scullery maid" or the "under groom" or "foot washer." And with the fancy titles and the fancy dress comes a sense of entitlement and lordship that should never be found in God's chosen ones.

Newlife, you said on a different thread that you were finding it hard to develop a relationship with God. I think by seeing what you are now seeing, you're well on your way. Another context you should be aware of is the OT setting. Sometimes a line is quoted in the NT that refers to quite a lengthy section in the OT. Just as a few words or a one-liner for us brings to mind a whole teaching, so it did in OT times. Significant parts of Romans are like that.- see for example Rom 8 to 11, which includes our "foundational" text of Rom 10:9,10. If you don't look at the parts of the OT that these chapters quote from, you miss a lot of depth of meaning. Paul was a highly educated Pharisee. Knowing where he "came from" and all the wealth of knowledge he encapsulates in a phrase, helps us better understand some of what he writes to the new Christians, many of whom were themselves of Jewish background. Some of what he writes is new, of course, but there is still that legalistic OT background that he has thought through in great depth to "see the heart (grace) behind it."