Twinky

There's been some surprising results so far. And it's got rather political, with the sideshow row about armbands and rainbows and suchlike. Apparently the match to which you refer is tomorrow (I just googled it). Celebrate away, if you wish! No mountains or forests in Qatar. So nothing much to interest me. Though I had a friend (now deceased) who lived there for a few years and enjoyed it.

LoL, not so many visit nowadays but the conversation can be lively.

Think this is right. "Ministries" are the things that, actually, you don't even realise you have - you just feel compelled to do certain things along Godly lines. You want to care for people (pastor them), or preach (evangelise), or expound (teach). Some people just seem to know the right Godly direction (prophets, perhaps). Apostles? Not sure there. Who really are our apostles today? Are there any? (I can tell you someone who definitely wasn't one!) Disregard anything you learned in TWI about HS/hs. Relax into knowing God, just knowing; and then you'll find peaceful understanding. Not confusion.

Makes me wonder what kind of process VPW went through before he went to theological college and then got ordained as a minister in whatever church it was. What sort of selection process did he undergo? Surely at the least, references would have been sought from his home church. And then, interviews, at least one or two, with others in the church hierarchy? Or did he just take himself off to theo college, without church support, and offer his services to a local church afterwards - in some sort of capacity though not necessarily as an ordained person. As I understand it, he was actually ordained as a church minister and fulfilledthat role for a period. But then - that might be a big lie, too. He tells tales about that church in his film PFAL. But then, he tells many tales. Has anybody actually seen any kind of ordination certificate? Perhaps he was only ever a probationary minister of some kind. So if he never went through any kind of selection process, not surprising that there was no proper procedure for selecting candidates for Way ministerial roles. Much more than "heart" is required, and very much more than being nice to people a few times and reading the Bible once or twice. Even if one could recite the entire Bible from memory, it wouldn't make for being a good minister. In fact, likely exactly the opposite.

Gimme your address, I'm inviting myself!

You folks will be coming up for Thanksgiving dinners soon. What's cooking? I was over there one year for Thanksgiving, spent the time with Ex10 and her family. Awesome time.

STL, that sounds really calorie-high. The cream cheese I'd like but dream whip - ugh. A cheesecake with most of those ingredients would be much more to my taste. Nathan, a Christmas cake is a heavy fruit cake. A celebration of the richness of imported vine fruits, developed at a time when people didn't have much. (Of course, such are very easily obtainable now.) Commonly these cakes are iced. First the fruit cake is covered in marzipan, then royal icing coats that. Royal icing is a hard icing, principally sugar, mixed with a small amount of glycerine to make it workable, and water. (Commercial icing can be purchased, to be rolled out - it's disgusting.) Then the top of the royal icing is decorated. I dislike marzipan and hard icing, and my cakes are uncovered but decorated on top with almonds and (though not on this occasion) glace cherries. Made like a wedding cake might be, not the increasingly-common sponge-cake variety, but a "real" cake.

In the oven now. Smells delish.

You're all going way off topic now. Isn't there already a current trinity thread?? Interesting for a discussion later, though.

Absolutely stuffed full of vine fruits: sultanas, raisins, currants. Also dates, cherries, pineapple, prunes, and of course mixed peel and glace ginger. All soaked overnight in orange juice and brandy. Not called "heavy fruit cake" for no reason! Today, there'll be the cake mix with butter, flour, various spices, black treacle (you might call it molasses), eggs and the usual stuff that goes into cake making. Finally, will get turned into one large round tin and three smaller loaf tins. I make a pattern on top with nuts and cherries, because when finished, I don't ice them, don't like icing. Then the cakes are baked for 4 or more hours. The house smells wonderful for the rest of the day, and when I get up next morning. And then, when I can turn them out, next day or whenever, they get pricked with a toothpick and the holes filled with brandy. They'll get soaked in brandy every week until Christmas. I keep the big one, and the smaller ones I give away as much-enjoyed gifts. Eaten in small quantities (because it's very rich), and - well, my big cake will last a couple of years. I still have a bit from last year; and finished the one made 2 years ago some time in this summer, some 18 months or so after being made. It was as delicious as when first cut; better, maybe. The smaller ones, however, are quickly and enthusiastically eaten by the recipients. Are you hungry yet?

It's 4.30 am and I am in the kitchen. Making my Christmas cakes. Well, actually setting all the dried fruit to soak. Will beat up the batter and bake the goodies later today, Sunday. Who is in the kitchen at such a daft hour? Early risers? No, those who don't get to bed at a reasonable time!

I'm pondering whether to start a new topic in Doctrinal, T-Bone, that I think you'd find interesting. Kinda follows from my "Consider the Evidence" thread, and links well with your above post. As it's gone midnight now and I was tired a couple of hours ago, now is not the time to start something that could be controversial. Maybe tomorrow. Watch that space (not this one, LOL).

Yaaaawwwwwn zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

That always bugged me. The "more than abundant life" has never ever been about money or things. Should have seen this as a red flag for a materialistic set-up, and walked out straight away.

You said it before I said it. There are some good things in PFAL, but that's because they were pinched from someone who'd put thought in, and who may himself have been inspired by God. Also some good things in the RHST part - for the same reason. The trouble is trying to sort out the truth from the fanciful, reconciling the conflicting messages and versions of whatever "the class" says, etc. Not being able to sort out truth from - from what isn't - is confusing and distracting. It's a poisoned apple (from a poisoned tree). Not all of the apple is poisoned, but you don't know which bits are and which bits are safe to eat. Best thing to do is discard the lot. Heck, for all I know, the confusing bits were deliberate - to confuse, to distract, from the other garbage that we were supposed to take in subliminally. If you're still trying to reconcile "all without exception" with "all with (or without) distinction," you're missing some other perhaps more serious junk.

Thought some of you might enjoy (?) this book review of a recently released book by an escaping Sea Org scientologist. I think some of us can so relate to what he felt when he left - hiding in doorways. (It's a free article, and you don't need to "register" to read it.) ‘At 52, I abandoned everything, every friend, every family member’: the top official who escaped Scientology | Scientology | The Guardian

Whatever the picture is supposed to be, it looks like appallingly bad, "talented amateur," but stiff, art work. Wouldn't want anything like that on my wall.

@OldSkool : I was terrified, too. Embarrassing how afraid of people I had become. Oh really ... what kind of "Christian" organisation leaves people full of fear? Took years to "escape" from myself (!). Glad to say, I have a much more sound mind now. It's taken real Christian love; thoughtfulness and care from non-Christians; GSC (!!!), and much reapplication of thinking ability. Not for nothing does 1 Thes 5:21 exhort: "Prove all things; hold fast that which is good." God clearly expects us to consider all the evidence, test (or "challenge") everything against what God says. Get that? Test against what God says, not test against what some denomination says. Or even what some other type of culture says. And test against "common sense," too. Lotsa that in the Bible.

OldSkool, what a very honest post. I would never have thought you'd've been fearful. Bravo for facing reality and moving on. I do think that a large part of the value of GSC nowadays is trying to beat out ideas, beliefs, with those who really understand where we're coming from, without risk of sounding weird. Exploring our own ideas and beliefs with others who have been through the same processes, sometimes with different results, can be very enlightening. Quite often, not just in the "belief" side, I find I don't quite know what I'm thinking or planning till I discuss with a friend, who might say, "But how will that work? What about...?" and then I can clarify to myself what I really mean, flesh out the details. Well, y'know. Iron sharpens iron. It's good to try our thinking processes against those of others, to help us get rid of the burrs, and to take our plans and ideas from nebulous theory to something firm enough to walk out on.

Therefore, Pres's Pubs checks and challenges what doesn't suit their narrative. Then Way Pubs has a go and checks and challenges. But now - NOW you can check and challenge. Does their narrative match your own experience? The experiences related to you by your friends and family? Does it match reality? How does it compare with what you've read here? I don't want this thread to be just about TWI and its methods. I want it to be about thinking things through, not just about Wayfer materials but generally, For instance: Where do you get your news? Your political input? Same-old, same-old TV channels? Limited number of social media outlets? How about looking at what the other side is saying? I don't care what your political views are in the slightest; I'm just saying, have a look at the other side (no matter how "ludicrous" you may think their views; they doubtless think your views are "ludicrous" too), because those of the other side must be saying something right. What is it about their PoV that makes it attractive to others? Could they be right about that? Even better than looking at "the other side's" reportage from within the USA, what does non-US reportage say? It's less likely to have a political view; it'll be more disinterested but definitely not uninterested. (If you don't understand the difference between DIS- and UN-interested, look it up). You certainly have easy access via satellite TV or internet channels to non-US news sources. In the UK, we have a requirement for "fair and balanced reporting" with newspapers and TV channels attempting to offer the other side (or another side) of any argument. There tends to be a bias towards a set of views, but media can't exclusively push those. That effort at balanced reporting been dispensed with in the USA. Perhaps that's why people like Alex Jones get away with his nonsense and outright lies. Hearing what others say is essential to trying to understand other people and their views. You and I certainly are wrong about some things. As far as I know, there's only one Man who never got it wrong, and he was murdered for his integrity (and hey, some people, even on this site, would dispute even that). Everyone else does get it wrong, some of the time.

Somebody's selling "Christian Etiquette" on Amazon for $20. 48 pages of information on eating nicely, use of utensils on the table, writing thank you letters, how to be a good houseguest or to be a good host/ess, etc. About how to be polite and get on with other people. Nothing controversial, but nothing outstanding, either, or perhaps I was well enough brought up to not need too much of Dorothy's pearls of wisdom. Now let's get back on topic, being polite and trying to get on with other people. I ask you not to bash Mike, and in return, I ask Mike to lay off promoting PFAL (as noted above). That way, we might have a productive discussion.

Ecclesiastes is a weird book and very much on point. Thanks for bringing it in, T-Bone. Nathan, great point. Hope you all enjoy pleasant and searching discussion on this thread.

Mike, honestly, you are welcome to post on this thread. You may have some valid points to make. Or valid questions to pose. I'd only ask : STAY ON POINT and don't deviate from the topic unless really germane. DO NOT promote PFAL or the other books. DO NOT BOAST about your nebulous connections. But please do discuss if you can do so without causing "commotion."

To look at doesn't mean you have to change you beliefs. But you do have to look with an honest, questioning mind, to see the flaws in your own belief system. You can still acknowledge the flaws but decide to stick with your beliefs, as being more helpful than others. Not one of us is belief-free.

Some people die for their beliefs. Or suffer such enormous social ostracism that they may as well be dead (far worse than being M&A'd). Like Copernicus, who said the Earth revolved around the Sun; or Galileo, who in later years supported that same belief? From Wikipedia>Galileo affair: "Galileo's discoveries were met with opposition within the Catholic Church, and in 1616 the Inquisition declared heliocentrism to be "formally heretical." Galileo went on to propose a theory of tides in 1616, and of comets in 1619; he argued that the tides were evidence for the motion of the Earth. In 1632 Galileo published his Dialogue Concerning the Two Chief World Systems, which defended heliocentrism, and was immensely popular. Responding to mounting controversy over theology, astronomy and philosophy, the Roman Inquisition tried Galileo in 1633, found him "vehemently suspect of heresy", and sentenced him to house arrest where he remained until his death in 1642.[2] At that point, heliocentric books were banned and Galileo was ordered to abstain from holding, teaching or defending heliocentric ideas after the trial.[3] " How solid are your beliefs? Really? if push came to shove, would you die or face life imprisonment, rather than recant? Or would you be willing in such circumstances to look at other evidence that might contradict your beliefs?