Twinky

(Rascal, have you noticed it is not women who attack on the sex and abortion issues? We know - gnosko - what was done to us, individually and as a group.) (But that's another thread, please take it up elsewhere if anyone wants to argue.) It is good to bring to the light the works of darkness and expose them for what they are. The commitment to a person (fetus) has got to be greater than the commitment to a program devised of men - especially one devised for a man's glorification. You know that to be told that God required this of you is COMPLETELY CONTRARY TO HIS WILL which is that you be fruitful and multiply. Examining in the light cannot completely repair the damage (can't bring back an aborted fetus). But it does relieve the silence and guilt of darkness.

Me too. At church nobody kisses anybody except people who seem to have known each other a long time. In some cultures people do greet with a kiss - others don't. I see this as an instruction to greet in a civil and culturally appropriate manner. Not an instruction that you MUST kiss believers in greeting. In some cultures that would in fact be highly offensive (Saudi Arabia? Pakistan?). But it is nice, and welcoming ...

This is clearly stirring up some very unpleasant memories for some people and I am very sorry if I have prodded anybody's pain that was slumbering below the surface. The teaching was wrong, stupid, inconsiderate, so anti-God and part of the general belittling of women. Pregnant women KNOW they have life growing within them. Even if it isn't "breath life" yet. Tiny fetuses can now be seen via scans making little movements, stretches, yawns, sucking fingers - it's not alive??? An older fetus when it kicks and can be seen moving - isn't alive??? Pregnant whilst in residence? Well that would be a no-no, and very difficult to do the program whilst either pregnant or with a tiny babe, but the couple should have been given LoA and then returned to the Family Corps (that's if they still wanted to be Corps) Child "a trick of Satan"? "Move the Word unencumbered"? (The words "steal, kill and destroy" come to mind.) New meaning of "Suffer the little children to come unto me." "A dozen or so little mogsters crawling about" - now that might be a reason (ha ha) but even the little mogsters if taught proper behavior could learn to be decent kids and adults. (Sorry, being flip here.) Good thing God is big on forgiveness, both for those who endured the loss of a baby and for those who condoned/supported it, like niKa, with financial help. Not sure what forgiveness is available to those who actively taught this devilish doctrine.

Hey Excie, you don't have to go in that horrible old motor coach In fact you could stand outside it with a flaming sword and make damn sure nobody else does either.

Oops double post

Yeah, I do that too sometimes (though not usually giving a reason why I raise an idea). Some of the responses from the church home group I go to border on the incredulous and oftentimes several of the group "jump" on me trying to say how wrong an idea is. I weigh their possible indoctrination/group think against everything I know from elsewhere. Other times, they think I am making some very wise comment. As a whole, although they are mature Christians of many years standing, with a deep love and confidence in God/LJC, they don't know as much of the Bible that most TWI folks that have been around only a few months would know. But they don't know it disjointedly either (like TWI folks). And I go to a really good church where I hear a lot of stuff that completely knocks out TWI teaching. For instance last week there was a teaching on humility and the heart of a leader and following a leader etc etc but the vicar is sooo humble and is always the first to point out his own errors and use them as a teaching point for what he is saying. The qas a Q&A session at the end and someone asked him how it would go if someone in the congregation disagreed with him. His answer was so kind and tender. And there are proper ways of sorting out disagreements within the church. That's washing with the Word. Seeing it lived in a different way. I don't always agree with what's taught, but I have the option to disagree, to think about it for myself, to see if there is anything from Waydaze that is relevant, and to make up my own mind[/i (now that I've got it back).

This was a nice thread - so thought I'd bring it back up as there are a number of new people hanging out in the Cafe since the last post. This was a nice thread - so thought I'd bring it back up as there are a number of new people hanging out in the Cafe since the last post.

Hey can I be Rosie too? I got 100% too but it was hardly a challenge. Mount up with wngs as ... butterflies (LOL) Hah, three of us - a holy Tri-nutty?

I think you're making my point, here. If the apostles had got out and done what they were commanded to do, there may not have been a great persecution such that the word got spread everywhere. It would already have been everywhere. Your word: "forced". The love of God does not "force" us but exhorts, commands, encourages - leaves it to our freewill to obey. As Jesus exhorted, commanded, encouraged, his apostles. But did they match that with obedience? Precise obedience?

You really have to consider what the apostles did in light of what Paul did. And also JC. Previously, we've seen Jesus on his travels wandering up and down the country. He finds himself in Samaria and spends a long time talking to a woman (way beyond cultural boundaries). Because of her witness, many believed. Jesus knew Samaria was ready to receive the Word. Ready to receive news of him. Ready to receive the great post-Pentecost message. John 4: 31 In the meantime, the disciples pressed him, "Rabbi, eat. Aren't you going to eat?" 32 He told them, "I have food to eat you know nothing about." 33 The disciples were puzzled. "Who could have brought him food?" 34 Jesus said, "The food that keeps me going is that I do the will of the One who sent me, finishing the work he started. 35 As you look around right now, wouldn't you say that in about four months it will be time to harvest? Well, I'm telling you to open your eyes and take a good look at what's right in front of you. These Samaritan fields are ripe. It's harvest time! 36 "The Harvester isn't waiting. He's taking his pay, gathering in this grain that's ripe for eternal life. Now the Sower is arm in arm with the Harvester, triumphant. 37 That's the truth of the saying, 'This one sows, that one harvests.' 38 I sent you to harvest a field you never worked. Without lifting a finger, you have walked in on a field worked long and hard by others." 39 Many of the Samaritans from that village committed themselves to him because of the woman's witness: " These are people considered unbelievers by the Jews. So JC and the apostles/disciples stayed there just a little while, and then moved on. No record of JC or anyone else revisiting when he/they next passed through that area. Now, why do you think in his last instruction to the apostles, he told them to get out to Samaria? Because it was ready! And they had seen it with their own eyes! But they wouldn't (even now) move out of their own cultural taboos. Later: Paul moved around the land of the Gentiles, setting up home churches, instructing some people very fully, and then appointing leaders. Then he moved on, starting more home fellowships elsewhere. He came back frequently to check on how they were doing, and wrote letters to the churches exhorting and warning them. Now this is among people who did not even have the OT to begin with. They worshiped idols, debated endlessly, etc, but did not have the understanding that the Jews did. Yet they turned wholeheartedly to what Paul was teaching. I do think this is perhaps what JC had in mind for the apostles to do. I'm suggesting that the apostles hanging around in Jerusalem is perhaps a little in the light of Paul wilfully going to Jerusalem ('cos it's so holy you know) despite warnings that ill-treatment awaited him there. He didn't do what God wanted him to. Yet God still blessed and honored his commitment and gave him great revelation, even whilst he was in prison in Rome. Don't forget the apostles lived in Galilee. That's their family home. Where their homes were. They were only in Jerusalem on a temporary visit, for a major festival. Maybe with, maybe without, their families. Doesn't say they decamped permanently from Galilee. Yet they just stayed and stayed. Read what JC commanded them; don't argue with me. Perhaps he intended their families to remain in Galilee whilst they made journeys elsewhere. Like Paul did. I'm just saying - have another look. Think about it. What's the bigger picture?

Now Ham that's just the sort of thing that was found in that wood in next-door's property adjacent to Founders Hall. (Gosh, what a time that was, clearing that out, when TWI bought it!) VPW2 would be too young to remember, though.

Here’s a verse which always seemed a little “off” to me (all quotes from The Message, which I read occasionally for its freshness and vitality). Acts 6 1 During this time, as the disciples were increasing in numbers by leaps and bounds, hard feelings developed among the Greek-speaking believers - "Hellenists" - toward the Hebrew-speaking believers because their widows were being discriminated against in the daily food lines. 2 So the Twelve called a meeting of the disciples. They said, "It wouldn't be right for us to abandon our responsibilities for preaching and teaching the Word of God to help with the care of the poor. 3 So, friends, choose seven men from among you whom everyone trusts, men full of the Holy Spirit and good sense, and we'll assign them this task. 4 Meanwhile, we'll stick to our assigned tasks of prayer and speaking God's Word." Last night this verse suddenly pinged into new vision (as it were). I have never seen or heard anything taught like this so offer it for considered opinion. I could be completely off the wall. So right from the beginning, the apostles didn’t want to get involved with the poor. Excuse me, hadn’t they spent enough time with Jesus, walking the streets, talking to all and sundry? (Doesn’t this sound a bit like the Pope refusing to leave the Vatican, other church leaders preferring to stay in their palaces, houses and comfort places; even wannabe ministry leaders living in log cabins? But I don’t want to derail my own thread here!) Here is the actual commission, the last words of the Lord Jesus Christ to them: Acts 1 4 As they met and ate meals together, he told them that they were on no account to leave Jerusalem but "must wait for what the Father promised: the promise you heard from me. 5 John baptized in water; you will be baptized in the Holy Spirit. And soon." 6 When they were together for the last time they asked, "Master, are you going to restore the kingdom to Israel now? Is this the time?" 7 He told them, "You don't get to know the time. Timing is the Father's business. 8 What you'll get is the Holy Spirit. And when the Holy Spirit comes on you, you will be able to be my witnesses in Jerusalem, all over Judea and Samaria, even to the ends of the world." 9 These were his last words. So. They're told to wait for a few days – get the gift of holy spirit – then they are to be witnesses in Jerusalem, Judea, Samaria and elsewhere. They weren’t told to wait around afterwards. Weren’t told to stay in Jerusalem. Were told to “get out there.” So why do we find them quite a long time later – still in Jerusalem? Acts 2 41 That day about three thousand took him at his word, were baptized and were signed up. 42 They committed themselves to the teaching of the apostles, the life together, the common meal, and the prayers. 43 Everyone around was in awe - all those wonders and signs done through the apostles! 44 And all the believers lived in a wonderful harmony, holding everything in common. 45 They sold whatever they owned and pooled their resources so that each person's need was met. 46 They followed a daily discipline of worship in the Temple followed by meals at home, every meal a celebration, exuberant and joyful, 47 as they praised God. People in general liked what they saw. Every day their number grew as God added those who were saved. This activity took time. Yes, they had 3,000 new converts and more added daily. But they built a routine, and took time to sell property. Here we are in Acts 4: 32 The whole congregation of believers was united as one - one heart, one mind! They didn't even claim ownership of their own possessions. No one said, "That's mine; you can't have it." They shared everything. 33 The apostles gave powerful witness to the resurrection of the Master Jesus, and grace was on all of them. 34 And so it turned out that not a person among them was needy. Those who owned fields or houses sold them and brought the price of the sale 35 to the apostles and made an offering of it. The apostles then distributed it according to each person's need. 36 Joseph, called by the apostles "Barnabas" (which means "Son of Comfort"), a Levite born in Cyprus, 37 sold a field that he owned, brought the money, and made an offering of it to the apostles. More selling of property and lands. The time this might have taken… And clearly, it’s not that the apostles were the only ones who knew the Word at it was lately revealed. There were other instructed ones and they could have taught. Here we see Joseph/Barnabas who was clearly instructed and able to follow the teachings. He could have worked with some of the new converts in Jerusalem. He probably wasn’t the only one. It also seems the apostles didn’t carry out their self-assigned task of teaching properly either. There is big persecution after Stephen’s death (how much longer after the first Pentecost is this?). Believers are scattered all over. Phillip witnesses and opens up Samaria, but although a wonderful man, he himself perhaps wasn’t fully instructed: Acts 8: 14 When the apostles in Jerusalem received the report that Samaria had accepted God's Message, they sent Peter and John down 15 to pray for them to receive the Holy Spirit. 16 Up to this point they had only been baptized in the name of the Master Jesus; the Holy Spirit hadn't yet fallen on them. 17 Then the apostles laid their hands on them and they did receive the Holy Spirit. Why hadn’t the apostles taught Phillip that far? Keeping knowledge to themselves? Didn’t fully share with Phillip? Phillip didn’t understand? We can speculate about that. Meanwhile, the apostles go back to Jerusalem, witnessing as they go: 25 And with that, the apostles were on their way, continuing to witness and spread the Message of God's salvation, preaching in every Samaritan town they passed through on their return to Jerusalem. And much later we find Peter and John getting legalistic and refusing to eat with Gentiles when there are Jews around…. They also tell Paul that they will stick with witnessing to the Jews and refuse to go to the Gentiles, telling him that his ministry. I think there may well be a reason why Jesus didn’t tell them to stick around in Jerusalem. Do the business, then get out into the rest of the country and the rest of the world, witnessing. Don’t stick in one place, no matter how good it all looks. JC knew the legalism there would kill their ministry, just as legalism had killed his earthly body. Sure, they moved with power, miracles happened, people were born again - it must have been an amazing and thrilling time. Maybe, just maybe, if they had moved on soon after Pentecost, having taught worthy converts what they needed to know – maybe, just maybe, things would have been very different. (You can be dead right but dead wrong!) Perhaps Stephen wouldn’t have been martyred. Perhaps Saul (Paul) wouldn’t have witnessed his death. Perhaps Paul wouldn’t have been converted and gone on to receive the revelation that he did. Perhaps Peter or John would have received it instead. God is big enough to get His Word out there. The Lord Jesus Christ is big enough to take care of his church.

You know,I'd really like to see some of these folks out of their own comfort zones... ...working in an AIDS clinic in Africa ...working in a slum in Delhi or Bombay ...on food supply in Darfur ...building accommodation in some country recently hit by a hurricane, tsunami or earthquake ...hauling food and building supplies in Kashmir ...working as a volunteer in a drug or alcohol rehab program in any big inner city ...as a volunteer teacher aide in an inner city school ...as a hospital aide on Friday night Some of these might be paid (minimally) Most would be volunteer posts Might do a jolly sight more good than prodding a fire pit on an Ohio farm

Just bringing this up to the top for the benefit of some recent visitors to the Cafe.

I started a poll on why people left. Think I'll just bring it back up to the top.

From The Writing Machine (see post above) Well maybe the prophecy came true - he is shedding new light on his generation. His writings are dispelling some of the myths and Wierwille-ology and indoctrination. Some of that new light is shed upon those of us who were Wayfers ignorant of the goings-on in the Family Corps. The prophecy just is not quite coming out the way the prophet (??) expected it to. (edited for typo)

WW, you are getting off track. What I asked was, whether TWI paid for leadership-conceived abortions. Seems like they paid for non-leadership abortions as well. (sick sick sick) Now the little end represents what you put in And the big end represents what God blesses you with ...And the blood dripping from the middle represents your abundant sharing at work in the abortion clinic. So if someone conceived by VPW or LCM or the CC or the BC or the LC or the other "spiritual heavies"- whose pocket paid to clean up the evidence?

(((AJern))) It must have been very difficult for you as a child. (It was difficult for adults!) You would have to learn to form proper relationships with people your own age and with the world at large, having yourself a very damaged background. Did you receive any counseling to help you learn "normal" reactions and responses? I'm sorry your marriage did not last. It must have been very difficult for your wife at times, unless she was also a Way-babe raised in the same cultural desert. Do your best with your kids, showing the love (and appropriate discipline) you didn't quite get yourself. The Cafe is a good place for you to vent your frustrations and to re-think your ideas. Your own perspective here is valuable.

I'm absolutely horrified. (((Rascal))) It's the equivalent of say 2 Kgs 6 (people eating their babies). See also Lam 2:20 Did they miss this bit? - Ps 127: 4 As arrows are in the hand of a mighty man; so are children of the youth. 5 Happy is the man that hath his quiver full of them: they shall not be ashamed, but they shall speak with the enemies in the gate. And this one: Gen 1: 27 So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them. 28 And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth F6 upon the earth. Anyway back to the topic,

Too right sistah! I went Corps because I saw some wonderfully humble and helpful people, out and out committed, really striving to help. They had quality in their lives. Nobody, when I was considering Corps, told me it was to "toughen me up." They said it was difficult or hard work, but you expect that of any training course (my degree and subsequent professional training were all VERY hard work). It was once you got in that you were told it was "boot camp" for the first semester. And that you'd signed up for life (I thought - how foolish - that it was to train people and return them to their localities, to offer a greater depth of Word and be a twig coordinator there.) In my Corps, we were told we were so (...what? weak spiritually, was it?) that boot camp was extended to next semester. Then it was RoA set up (hard work but often fun). Same next year. Perpetual boot camp. Now the boot's on the other foot. Those boots are made for walking And that's just what they'll do One of these days these boots are gonna walk right over you. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7OU7Nezg7Ls

There have been a number of comments here about abortions being sanctioned or required by TWI. There have been intimations that some of these abortions have been because women have been abused by leaders at the top of TWI. Having also read of people who have been on staff who have not had any medical care paid for by TWI even though injuries have occured as a result of work-related accidents; and people who have been in rez and suffered injury (eg LEAD) and again who have not had medical care paid for by TWI, I'm left wondering: Who paid for these (leadership-conceived) abortions? Was it left to the couple (on the basis that it could have been the husband's fetus that was being aborted)? Was it left to the woman (if a single woman)? Or was this paid for by TWI? PLEASE NOTE: this is not a thread about whether abortion, and TWI's sanctioning of it, is right or wrong. It's about who paid the financial cost.

"Toughen up" ????????? Show me that in the promo literature or promo words about any of the programs! Some of us were pretty tough (ie, resilient, had learned a bit about life, knew how to take a few knocks) before we went in. Some of us knew how to speak for ourselves, deal with things. Some of us had successful professional careers. Successful! You know what? Because I had achieved something of significance - it was squashed time and again. Had genuine academic ability, had genuinely helped people in the world, had genuine profesional qualifications. (Had? I mean, have.) Never mind that my heart for God had led me to that choice of career - if ever I said anything it was, "You're leaning on your 5 senses." Even just making a sensible comment - using my God-given brains - brought this response. Corps wasn't about toughening anybody up. At least from the 90s on, it was about crushing us into a one-size-fits-all robot, capable of reciting the party line (I can't speak for WC training before then). If anyone thought anything other than what the MoG or CC thought, it was considered you had missed on the bit about acquiring in-depth spiritual perception and understanding. Get real! What about the two-by-two thing? Pretty much everyone in any program knew how to cross a road, go to the shop, do things, without their own Political Officer watching every move. Anyway - in which of the gospels does it say: "Toughen up"? I thought they were all about being loving? And the epistles tell us to be "kind and tender-hearted."

Fact is, it was different. Got much more into one's head. Having persuaded adherents to give up friends, family, loved ones, activities, professional aspirations, music and practically anything else that "held them back" from "being God's best" and persuaded people to burn or destroy possessions as harboring devil spirits - people didn't have a lot to fall back on. Hey, I spent nearly a decade in condemnation and fear. Christian friends knew I had problems which were "religion" related. A dear friend came to me one time, held her arms out and said, "God wants you back!" and urged me to renew my relationship with Him (this is several years into being M&A'd). Of course, I thought she was po-zest because wouldn't God tell me first?? Other Christian friends also sought to help. Glad they stayed faithful and loving to me - I was really unloveable thanks to That Place. But I'd had no qualms about leaving my church decades before as being sad and boring. (Maybe that was just being a teenager.) Devil spirits? I think we must all have picked up a big load of 'em to produce spiritual blindness, deafness, dullness of mind, subservience, and who knows what else. Those thoughts had a life and a binding power of their own.

Well, this started off as an interesting thread but when I wasn't looking seems to have deteriorated quite a bit. A book I have been reading lately is called: "J Hudson Taylor - A Man in Christ" by Roger Steer, in the Missonary Life Stories series (ISBN 1-85078-408-6). Hudson Taylor was born in 1832 and it became his life's work to be a missionary in China. It was a difficult time, civil war and outsiders not specially welcome. He insisted on wearing Chinese dress (and insisted his missionaries also did) and that "was rooted in his deep respect for Chinese culture and his sensitive perception of the role of the missionary, in which he was far ahead of his time." Because of that, he made inroads where western-dressed missionaries simply were not accepted. This remarkable man also would not accept any distinction between laity and clergy and insisted all were equal before God, not a decision that won many friends among missionary circles. He was contemporary with George Muller, based his own expectation of getting his needs met on Muller's (prayer but never asking), and in fact time and again Muller sent him funds to support his outreach work.