Twinky

:offtopic:/> Allan, that's not the reason they told me, why you left. (I wonder now if even the Oirishman was told the real reason either, probably not.) Can't remember now what I was told. But that wasn't the reason!! Why am I not surprised?

Just a reminder: VPW taught that the 10 Cs don't apply to us, in our administration. (And in this I'd include a wider definition of "kill" - to kill off one's ability to love God, to love life ... to kill off one's zest for life. One's "spirit" if you will, though that has connotations for all of us.) Hands up if you can spot any of these that he did observe. Wot? he didn't observe any of them? What a surprise...!

Christian Family & Sex.... Now if you delete the words "Christian" and "Family" you have a more accurate description of what that "class" was about. Or you could even more accurately describe it as soft porn. Thank God, I don't remember anything from it, at least I think not. I do remember being very disappointed - and shocked - by the content. And lack of content. Just yet another vehicle for VPW to spread his anti-Christian, anti-Godly-lifestyle morals and ideas.

I know of a fellowship - not sure if they stood with TWI still, or were operating independently, or under CFFM - anyway, two of the members of the fellowship were involved in an accident. One was okay but the other lost some teeth. The fellowship kindly paid for dental treatment as the sufferer had no means to pay for replacement teeth/bridge/whatever without help. They saw the need, and were ready and keen to help. I can see that a local fellowship that is part of a larger organisation ought to help fund the wider group - to a reasonable level. But the local fellowship is in the best place to see what local needs there are, whether for its own members or in the wider community. And the reciprocal of the wider group receiving any money is that it meets its own reasonable needs (pays a fair salary) and it itself serves and helps (genuinely!!!) local groups or communities. TWI is not alone among church groups to forget that. It's not about acquiring palaces, mansions, big buildings, accumulating paintings, gold furnishings, fancy robes or any of the other organisational stuff that churches tend to get into. It certainly isn't about accumulating a large bank balance "just in case it's needed." Like the manna - it's a day by day thing. Don't accumulate more than is needed for the day. Trust the one with sheep on 1,000 hills. He's the one with the accumulation of wealth.

I kinda see Jesus as being with God his Father from the beginning like this: A couple decide they want a child. They make sure they're both as healthy as they can be. They try to find a safe place to raise their child. They work so that they have a home, a roof over their heads - and that of their baby. They have funds in the bank to help pay the expenses of the baby. They get themselves ready. Their preparations might take years, depending on their ages and situations in life. Their child is "with" them all this time, in their thinking, their plans, their dreams, call it what you will. Others may "buy into" this - grandparents setting up trust funds, educational arrangements, etc. But the child has no existence, other than in the wannabe parents' minds. Everything we understand from the Bible tells us that Jesus was in God's thoughts and plans from the beginning. That doesn't mean he existed. We were "chosen in him before the foundation of the world" (Eph 1:4) - we also were in God's thoughts and plans from a long time before we were born. That doesn't mean we existed. Does it? Or do you think we were playing games with Jesus in some place in the sky before any of us landed on Earth?

I DON'T believe the Trinity because to me it is the best answer to what scripture portrays. The first link in your post works. Otherwise, Wordwolf, you could try copy and paste into your browser.

LCM was dead against the 12 Steps and thought it was a cop-out. Devilish. And I carried that view, that the 12 steps was no good, for a long time. One of the churches that I attend did a series on the 12 steps, from a spiritual perspective - release from our addiction to sin (sin in general, or some sin specifically; let the congregation take its pick ). At first I was against it. I posted something elsewhere in this forum and the responses I got made me change my mind. I think maybe the 12 steps can be very helpful, taken with the right attitude of self-reflection and a desire to beat the addiction - with the help of one's God. And I'm quite certain that God is willing to work with anyone who truly desires release, whether with the assistance of 12 steps or in any other way. Here's the link: Twelve Steps - ATW. I see you posted on it and note your post #63.

Squirrel, as noted above, they're all mustelids and they vary in size from very tiny to nearly 8 foot long. Rats are not mustelids. It's pretty hard to see how a rat and a dog could be confused. Even if the dog is small and the rat grossly overfed. All are dangerous to squirrels. Watch out!!

I didn't know that, Waysider, but it definitely wasn't a skunk, nothing like it. European polecat is something different, a critter a bit bigger than a ferret: Polecat Both still mustelids, though not closely related.

I used to know a kid at my primary school - had a polecat (a sort of large ferret) - used to walk round our village with it in a harness. Keeping ferrets is (or was) in fact a popular occupation in the north of England. And one of my clients is in a care home, nice place. The nurses / care workers were having a chat one day and one was telling about her pet rat(s). She can't keep a dog where she lives, but a small caged animal is okay. She said rats are as intelligent as dogs and less trouble. Her rats were housetrained to use a litter tray. Wahhhh!!!! I think I'll stick with Tuxedo and Crypto. I'm pretty sure they're just scaredy cats.

Both ferrets and rats make good pets. Wotcha complaining about, LOL?

A dream? Did you mean nightmare, maybe?

LOA wasn't as serious as DFAC (extreme "mark and avoid"), which was for the more deeply despised Corps. These would include those who either wouldn't give Martindale (in particular) 100% commitment; or they had raised some other issues that he didn't want to deal with. If the dropping occured mid-year, DFACs were often publicly vilified and slandered because they were so hardhearted regardless of the extreme patience and kindness shown to them by LCM (can you see my tongue sticking out of my cheek?); then they were never spoken of again. (If he was being kind, they simply merely never got another mention.) The particularly pernicious thing was that if any active Corps person remained in contact with another who was DFAC, then the active one(s) risked all themselves and if it was found out, they too would be likely to become DFAC. The only way back to Active Corps was to go through the whole Corps program again - and it would be made particularly tough and humiliating for them. Well that's how Martindale ran it, anyway. Can't you just feel the lurrrve?

A what?

I'm not so sure that forgiveness of sins is available if there is no real repentance or regret for the action - no godly sorrow and no desire to "renew one's mind" to a better more godly way of living. Because to "ask" for forgiveness for abusing someone (or oneself) whilst simultaneously intending to carry on with the same action is mocking the grace of God. Or - as TWI might put it - "what's the heart behind it?"

From BBC News: Pope Francis shuns grand apartment for two rooms Pope Francis has opted for the simpler surroundings of the Domus Santa Marta hotel-style residence rather than the traditional palatial papal quarters Pope Francis has decided to shun a grand papal apartment on the top floor of the Vatican's Apostolic Palace in favour of a modest two-room residence. His spokesman said he was "trying out this type of simple living" in a communal building with other priests. In doing so he has broken a tradition which is more than a century old. The decision reinforces the newly-elected Pope's austere reputation. As archbishop of Buenos Aires he refused to move into the Bishop's Palace. Preferring more modest accommodation, he also often cooked his own meals. Since the reign of Pope Pius X at the beginning of the 20th Century every pope has occupied the palatial penthouse apartment with more than a dozen rooms, staff quarters, a terrace and extensive views over the city of Rome. But since his election Pope Francis has been living in a simple two-room suite in the Domus Santa Marta - a hotel-style residence built by his predecessor Pope John Paul II next to St Peter's Basilica. And he intends to go on living there for the foreseeable future, according to the Vatican spokesman Federico Lombardi."This morning he let his fellow cardinals know that he will keep living with them for a certain period of time," Mr Lombardi said. He said he could not say whether the Pope would remain in these quarters in the long term. "It is still a period of getting used to things," Mr Lombardi added. Pope Francis will continue to use the papal library on the second floor of the Apostolic palace for receiving official guests and will appear on Sundays at the window used by previous popes to address pilgrims in St Peters Square. About half the 105 suites in the residence are occupied by Vatican staff, who had to move out of their rooms to accommodate visiting cardinals during the holding of the recent conclave at which Pope Francis was elected. The Pope will take his meals in the communal dining room together with other visiting clerics and permanent residents. His simple new communal home contrasts with the much larger accommodation currently being renovated inside the Vatican for the future use of the now retired former Pope Benedict and his staff, reports the BBC's David Willey in Rome. I would be really impressed if he were to convert the Official Residence into say a hostel for homeless people, or use it for some other purpose of benefit to the whole community. And not just the official grand papal apartment, but the whole building.

I think now that I mostly feel sorry, pity, for the head honchos of TWI. Sorry for them that they have never learned, really, what love is, how to walk kindly before God, how to serve as Jesus did. They have missed so much in life. Their eyes are blinded. They have become so wrapped up in their egos or their organisation that they can't see what's clearly before them. Such small people. Small inside. Compassion has to come into true forgiveness. Compassion because the offender was weak, failed, abused. Did wrong, knowingly or unknowingly. As do we all. Only the self-righteous have no need for compassion. No empathy for offenders. And therefore no need to forgive. On another aspect of this thread: "forgive and forget" doesn't occur as a phrase in the Bible. When God forgives, he casts our sins far away. Jesus in his dying breath sought forgiveness for those killing him ... Romans and Jews. But many times, in fact, people are charged to remember, especially bad things that have happened. So that they can appreciate what they have now. Passover, and all that encompasses, is a ritual that ensures that forgetting doesn't happen. Paul, in Philippians, writes that he is forgetting those things which are behind, and" reaching forth unto those things which are before, I press toward the mark for the prize of the high calling of God in Christ Jesus." But he also writes to Timothy: "Alexander the coppersmith did me much evil: the Lord reward him according to his works: Of whom be thou ware also; for he hath greatly withstood our words." A clearer "Don't forget! Remember his evil!" warning you couldn't get. (We don't know whether Alexander was ultimately forgiven by Paul.) If this is the same Alexander of 1 Tim 1, then he was an apostate and a false teacher - "whom I have delivered unto Satan, that [he] may learn not to blaspheme." It's not "bitter" at all to warn against those that teach wrongly, that hurt others, that mock the grace of God.

He sounds like a nice, useful, helpful sort of guy, Socks. In other denominations (of which I know Anglican best) - even if a person feels a calling to the priesthood at an early age - say in high school, or even college - he is told to go away, learn a bit about life, and apply again a few years later. So people will spend a few years as teachers or accountants or - anything really - and then undertake minister training no earlier than early 30s and often much later. That way, they can bring lots of life experience of real situations, and consider Godly ways to deal with them.

It is... It is a totally nutty defence. That he was married, getting lots of ... married recreation ... therefore didn't need to grope a teenage girl. One really does have to have a chuckle. On the other hand, I do know some teenage girls really come on hard to older males, and make false accusations. Male teachers in secondary schools are particularly vulnerable to this, unfortunately. I wondered if this accusation could be something like that. And on the third hand... if he did grope the girl, he deserves whatever's coming. From secular authorities and from the church. And from his wife. Back to the topic, there have been Popes who have fathered children. And RC priests' housekeepers may perform more than simply housekeeping duties, or so I have heard. From unreliable sources. It would be useful if this could be reconsidered - at least, the process started - to end this manmade practice of celibacy. Perhaps ... when there is appointed a man in his 40s, not yet quite so entrenched in his ways that he can't take a fresh look. And still of marriageable age.

What's nuts, Socks? A daft joke about celibacy? Or a defence of, I never touched that girl because I'm secretly married? Or just being secretly married?? I kinda like the guy for having the guts to get married, and wave two fingers at the RC church's manmade rules. I wonder if he will apply to the Anglican church (or some other church) as a married minister? Even the RC church accepts married ex-vicars but won't allow them to proceed beyond minister staage (ie can't be bishops). You said: Huh, having been elected, it was widely reported that he paid his own hotel bill. What, there was some possibility that he would not do that??Maybe, like politicians, Popes should be elected young and vigorous. A man in his 40s, not yet quite so entrenched in his ways that he can't take a fresh look. And still of marriageable age.

If we'd really seen the power of God in manifestation rather than the works of man (one particular man and it wasn't JC) then things would have been VERY different. Sure some people were delivered from various illnesses, mental prisons and other predicaments. Especially at twig/branch level. We can all attest to meeting some awesome people at that sort of level. But deliverance after being prayed for at BoD level? Nah. Though you might find you were afraid to admit to some need if any of the BoD were around.

By way of comparison, the Methodist church generally posts its ministers to a particular church or churches for a period of 3-5 years. BUT that is done carefully, taking into account the wishes, needs and inclinations of the minister and the minister's family - and the wishes and needs of the receiving church. The 3-5 year period can be extended if that's what the need is, for either party. For instance: my friend, when she took up her first role as minister, was carefully and thoughtfully interviewed. Her family needs included: good schools for her four children, the schools not being too far apart; that they were within about an hour's drive from a major city here where she and all the children had been born and raised - they are a very close family and have huge family Sunday lunches all together, and my friend particularly wished to maintain close contact for her children and their grandparents; her husband's hard-built-up self-employed work in the area, south of the same major city; and as to the length of time, she wanted 5 years because that would help the children settle, the two oldest would be at Uni and the two younger ones would be ready to move to other schools if necessary for the 16-18 year old period of their education. Three years would be too disruptive for the children, she thought. All of that was carefully thought about and she was allocated to one single large church, about 45 mins south of the major city - in the heart of her husband's work area; there are two good schools for the children, the older two went to one school and the other two to another; the congregation was perfectly receptive to the human qualities that she has, and welcomed her plans to move forward (- as much as the average congregation does!). It was a perfect arrangement. At the end of the 5 years, reviews have taken place all round. Her tenure has been (most unusually) extended for another 3-5 years, 5 I think, and after that all the children will be well away and making their own independent lives. The older two are in their 3rd and 1st years of Uni and the third child may go this year if that's what he wants to do. I mention this in detail because she's told me about the careful and very thoughtful talks that took place before she was assigned anywhere. She has to complete a written form which asked about her specific needs, not just her needs but the needs of all those she was closely associated with - her family. There were interviews, not a short one-off interview, but a careful consideration based on her written requests. There was mutual trust and dialogue all round. Not quite how Corps assignments work...at least, at the bottom level. Perhaps only at Prez level.

Joke, a bit off topic but related to the last post: A young monk arrives at the monastery. He is assigned to helping the other monks in copying the old canons and laws of the church by hand. He notices, however, that all of the monks are copying from copies, not from the original manuscript. So, the new monk goes to the Old Abbot to question this, pointing out that if someone made even a small error in the first copy, it would never be picked up! In fact, that error would be continued in all of the subsequent copies. The head monk, says, "We have been copying from the copies for centuries, but you make a good point, my son." He goes down into the dark caves underneath the monastery where the original manuscripts are held, as archives in a locked vault that hasn't been opened for hundreds of years. Hours go by and nobody sees the Old Abbot. So, the young monk gets worried and goes down to look for him. He sees him banging his head against the wall and wailing. "We missed the R!; We missed the R! We missed the bloody R!" His forehead is all bloody and bruised and he is crying uncontrollably. The young monk asks the old abbot, "What's wrong, father?" With a choking voice, the old Abbot replies, "The word was ... . . .CELEBRATE!"

He and all popes and all cardinals really have to defend the doctrine of celibacy. How else can you justify to yourself the decades of denial of a normal human marital relationship? When you're in your 70s and suddenly realise that actually you could have been married, enjoyed a loving relationship with your WIFE and had the blessing of children? And so, they will perpetuate this myth that a minister must be celibate (in the face of scriptures that say otherwise) and keep younger decent men under repression. A bit off topic but here is an interesting article and very surprising defence against an accusation of an RC priest's sexual assault of a teenage girl: Surprise defence It's been widely reported in the UK but may not have made it to other parts of the world. I'm inclined to believe the priest and not the girl, who may well have been something of a fantasist. But I don't know.

BUT don't forget also that had OS (in this example, but there are many other such examples) used his own noggin and removed the branches or whatever, he would have been punished for that, for going outside his remit. Leaning to his own understanding / using his five senses / some other excuse. Use of common sense is not valued in TWI. Basically, you're damned if you do, and damned if you don't. Now you really are joking. Think on their own??? :blink:/> Can't be allowing dangerous things like that!!