waysider

Why does the sun go on shining?

Do you remember how, when the auditorium was being built, it was not acceptable to abbreviate the name? Geeze! Talk about a red flag!

"Taking it private" is a euphemism for "the lockbox". It's not respectable or the right thing to do. It only perpetuates the sort of secret agenda that permeated TWI.

Yes, I read her post. Did I see another incident with Wierwille? No. I did see "virtually unscathed", though. You see, Oldies, the issue is now, not whether or not she had another encounter with Wierwille but, the fact that you erroneously drew that conclusion from the omission of any reference to it in the body of the post. I fail to see anything moronic about that observation.

And you know this-----HOW?

Well, now I'm confused. First you said it wasn't sexual in nature and now you say it IS sexual in nature. What has changed that has suddenly caused the reversal of perception? I mean, either it was sexual or it was not.

So what's the problem , Oldies? When it involved a woman you didn't see it as a sex act. Why would it now be homosexual? You said yourself it was just an innocent back rub. I would think you would be honored to give the man of God something as innocuous as a back rub. What's the difference?

Are they also popular in the UOK-2 galaxy?

Hey!! How did you know my favorite color is blue?

GreaseSpot Cafe is a gathering place, bringing together people and information. We welcome all who have an interest in The Way International, including former followers, current followers, and those who may have friends or family members who are involved. Our mission is to provide information that tells the other side of the story about The Way International and its trustees. Our hope is that GreaseSpot Cafe serves as a place where those who have been impacted by The Way can make connections with people and information which will support their particular process of recovery

All the ones I have known have had no problem "displaying" emotion. In fact, most have been given to an outwardly caring persona. It's an acquired acting ability they learn so they will fit in. That's part of the reason they are not easily spotted. Once you are "on to" one, their performance becomes shallow and predictable.

By my criteria, treating a fellow man in a manner that displays blatant disregard for the consequences of said treatment would be a sin. edited for 2x post.

I think Tom Strange has exclusive rights to that one.

Perhaps you could ask the person who was actually there if your assessment is accurate.

So then when a married man has sex with a woman that is not his wife, what are we to call that if not adultery? (excluding this incident in order to address the larger question)

Only Del could answer that question and, unfortunately, we no longer have the luxury of being able to ask him.

So then you contend it is appropriate to illegally offer alcohol to someone you know to be less than the legally acceptable age for consumption?

Please refer back to post # 102

In 1972, it was illegal for a minor to consume alcohol, other than "Sunday beer", or offer it to a minor for consumption in the State of Ohio, which was VPW's home state, the state with whose laws he would have or should have been most familiar, even if this did not take place in Ohio. If he did not know the local laws, he should have inquired rather than pronounce it "OK" to offer a minor alcohol, which, by the way, would contradict our Biblical admonition to obey the laws of the land. (ie: what some might classify a "sin".) edited to reiterate this question again in case it went unnoticed. "Are you saying that, because penetration never occurred, there was no impropriety in the events that were described?'

I'll ask the question again in case it wasn't clear. "Are you saying that, because penetration never occurred, there was no impropriety in the events that were described?'

Maybe my memory is slipping. Wasn't it stated that Del confronted the BOT to no avail?

Oldies Could you perhaps clarify what is is about this situation that you find redeeming? Are you saying that, because penetration never occurred, there was no impropriety in the events that were described? If that is indeed your premise, can you explain in greater detail why you feel that way? Would it have been appropriate if it had been your mother?

I'm still stuck on this II Peter 1:20 thing. ("Knowing this first, that no prophesy of the scripture is of any private interpretation.") Is this saying that no scripture is of any PI or is it isolating the prophetic components? Add to that, verse 21 says "For the prophesy came not-------" Then, of course, if you continue on into chapter2, which, if the part of the class about chapter and verse markings is correct, was all part of a larger context anyway, you find the warning about false TEACHERS. So, I'm just asking, What's the emphasis here? Is it the scriptures or the prophesies of the scriptures?

Ham Although I can't speak to this particular incident, I can tell you that this effect is rather elementary for a lighting technician. I was once involved in a production of Royal Hunt Of The Sun which is a play that loosely chronicles the clash between Pizzarro, the explorer, and Atuhalpa, the Inca leader who was considered to be the personification of The Sun God. When Atuhalpa made his first appearance, he was elevated at center stage and back-lit with a gold gel-paper frame. He looked for all the world like he was surrounded by an aura. It was extremely effective.(And simple)