anotherDan

It's a fairly important question, I would say. If we are unaware of forces that drive us, that would be quite a pity, wouldn't it. If we are aware of them but don't know what to do about it, again, not much help. Wrds and Dot, good stuff! Thanks

I'm surprised he posts here, but am glad of it. My impression was that he was not a "yes man," and Dr. Wierwille did not take kindly to dissenters, even a little... even reasonable or spiritually honest ones. The "accuracy of the Word" was what he had found, and he was going to take it around (actually, "over") the world. I think he viewed Rev. Wade as a traitor to that vision, and (again, my impression) perhaps interested in his "own" ministry. DrW's attitude regarding leaders who left the Way was often, in my view, one of sadness. He often, I think, IMO, etc, did NOT bad-mouth them. I'm sure there are others who would say otherwise. LCM was another matter, especially in later years. I remember Milford and Betty Bowen, who were highly regarded, and still are for their quiet faithfulness, were a source for Rev. Wade's materials in the USA for quite some time. They lived quite close to HQ. It would appear that Rev. Wade has chosen to remain anonymous here, so it would appear at least to date, that "coming out" and explaining the circumstances of his leaving TWI (or The Way, Inc.) might be wishful thinking for some. He appears to have a courteous, "positive" approach to ministry. But you've got me thinking, Paw! Let's see, I know he's not Socks....

OK, I've got to read that again tomorrow. But I do have a question for you tonight. Did you intentionally write "flew the coup" or did you misspell "coop"? Because if you were intentionally inserting "coup" it would read phonetically, "floo the coo." The reason I have to retire now is to browse through a book I read a long time ago. Your post inspired me. A question to all. An inspired poem... is it "tongues"? Is it prophecy?

You got no excuse now, Oldies! Just kidding. Please consider my pointed questions to be rhetorical -- for your thoughtful consideration. I appreciate your heart, brother!

Cman, several times at work I thought back to what you and I posted this morning. As I drove home today, I decided I should give you a more proper apology. It's obvious to me now that I mis-read you, and I'm sorry I did. As I reread your posts just now, I see them quite differently. I think I may be a bit jumpy because I've spent some time up in About the Way, where maybe I don't belong! LOL. No excuse, though. It was not the way you wrote it, it was the way I read it. Your suggestion to go through the fourteenth chapter of 1Corinthians... would you like to start it off? I know early on there is that verse you're alluding to, that "tongues are not tongues anymore if it's understood." It's a good idea, and could provide a framework for discussion. Dan I don't know, but you might be posting it on the "face melting" thread. Wrds, that illuminated me. I see it now.

Wow, waysider, that was fun! I don't get it, but it was fun!

Here are my answers for the first part of Spot Survey, #1, the first post. I would welcome any input. Note: if you're a newcomer to the thread, feel free to just respond by replying to any comment, or you can do as others have done, and take the survey from the first post, or SpotSurvey2, which is on page 6, post 116, or click here. Old friends might then ask the question, "Do you still consider yourself a Bible-believing Christian?" And I would reply, "Yes." I believe literally the passage in Hebrews that says "For the word of God [is] quick, and powerful, and sharper than any twoedged sword, piercing even to the dividing asunder of soul and spirit, and of the joints and marrow, and [is] a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart." I believe the Bible falls into this category of "the word of God" as does any other way God chooses to reveal Himself, as He did through the spoken words of the prophets, as He did in Jesus Christ, and has He has done (as it also says in the Book of Hebrews) "in various ways and sundry times." Regarding the books ascribed to John, I find it credible that the "I, John" of Revelation is probably not the John of 1John. I think it is likely that the writer of 1John is the same as the author of the Gospel of John. T-Bone brought up a good point (I think on another thread) of how we were taught that there is only one way to interpret a passage, and yet, we see writers of the NT interpreting OT verses in a completely new way. This is distressing for a right-brained soul like myself. I almost wish it weren't so! But when Jesus was instructing his disciples (toward the end of his earthy ministry), he told them about "the comforter," who would come in his name, and teach them of things to come. He (or it) would guide them into all truth. That prophecy by the Lord Jesus was partially fulfilled in the writing of the New Testament. That same "Comforter" will guide "whosoever" into that same truth. Jesus then told them, "I will not leave you comfortless; I will come to you."

Dooj, I'm glad Wrds didn't let that one go by without a comment. I too thought it was a great statement.

So, Oldies, I guess the question is, are you comfortable calling Jesus "not God" when God Himself calls him God? I can see you thinking Thomas was confused when he said, "My Lord and my God." But God Himself? Are you comfortable contradicting God? You can base your answer on the NT alone, before you get to consult with Abi on the OT. The class taught you the keys to the Word's interpretation, remember? edited to add Scripture verses

Not sure how my clips tie it all together, but OK! (cameraman pans the gallery for reaction shots)

That's great. Thanks for that! I'm often misunderstood, I think, and no doubt it's often because I do such a poor job of writing. I don't write to good, but I edit well.

Hebrews 1:8 ff, citing Psalm 45:6 ff I'm off to work... will try to check in tonight. Oldies, you're a good man.

Cman, I get the feeling I must have pushed one of your buttons somewhere along the line. That's a shame, because I've appreciated many of the thoughts you've posted on other threads, and I'd hate to think that I've done something that puts a wall between me and you. If I have, I hope I can somehow get further with you in the future. My acknowledgement of the other posts was not detailed or effusive (actually, it might be considered effusive). Guessalot's reply was outstanding, Shifa's comments were delightfully devilishly funny and insightful, and abi's, as always, was warm and witty. If you think I'm missing the deeper things of the spirit, just say on, brother. I'm pretty dumb at times, and I might not get it, but I would like you to feel comfortable expressing whatever it is you have to share.

Cman, au contrare. I acknowledged those posts. Scroll up. Those kinds of posts are why I'm here. I enjoy them and learn from them.

The director, I believe, is Rob Riener (sp?), who was in the Archie Bunker show as "meathead". That's his mother doing a cameo, "I'll have what she's having." I was just marveling at the various reaction shots, like the guy behind Meg, and Billy's reactions... totally in character. It's a masterpiece of comedy, and Meg's performance rivals Patty Duke as Helen Keller! They must have had SO much fun shooting that scene! Not to derail my own thread.... just biding time until others weigh in on the real issues, but check out the reaction shots in this clip. They had to shoot this scene several times to get the reaction shots, and I read that Jack did this speech a number of times to get the shots. It was said that he stunned the rest of the room every time he did it. The second clip runs a little further out

Oldies, you didn't respond to my post, even though I addressed you directly. The rest of the post adds considerable context to the snip below, and much more that you could reply to. How about just this little snip? What do you think?

It's like the slain-in-the-spirit thing, isn't it? The people all around you are doing it, it's encouraged if not promoted by the clergy, and people do it. Shifra, do you have any thoughts about what Wrds was saying earlier about "the genuine," that flows spontaneously from an inspired, right-now energizing of God? Thank you all for your posts. I believe this discussion has value.

I'm surrounded by savants, poets, and comic genious! God, I love this place!

I agree with every word of that, Rascal.

I know about it, I care about it. I have no problems with those of you with knowledge and experiences sharing what you know or have experienced. But it "seem"s that way to you. I haven't called anyone a liar. I believe that people have told lies here; I know for certain that rumors fly. "Conjecture" certainly figures in. I think anyone with any sense at all would agree to all of that. You responded to a minor part of my post, and I don't fault you for that. That's the issue that pushed your button. That's what you care about. It's my opinion; you don't like it. That's where we stand. I was, as you suggest, naive, and "illusion" is not too strong a word. For a long, long, time. I own up to that. I now know about and care about "the seedy unbelly." I have very little first-hand knowledge of it, and don't have much to offer in that vein. I also don't have a desire to infer from certain reported incidents what the motivations of others is or may have been. I'm concerned with the question as to how I personally can live in accordance with correct principles and values. That's pretty much where I come from, and that's generally what I discuss. That's why I'm generally in "the basement." There's a lot less of the stuff I find distasteful down there. I appreciate your feedback, and I'm sorry I don't seem to you to know or care about ugly stuff that happened in the Way. It's helpful for me to have your input. edit: Maybe I should go on record, here (though, Belle, I doubt it will satisfy you that I'm an upstanding member of GSC!) and say that I have read a great deal of the "seedy underbelly" stuff, both recently and maybe ten years ago. I have not read it all, and as far as I'm concerned, I've read enough. I find some very troubling allegations credible. Some of it, I doubt. Those matters concerning taking advantage of "the flock", especially in the sexual category, should be condemned in the strongest terms. That is akin to priests or child-care workers molesting children. Some who post here have stories to tell of how they were victimized. To marginalize their stories or their feelings would be wrong. I do believe, as many here do, that GSC has been a godsend for people to sort their feelings and experiences out. It is fertile ground for people to get together and make some kind of sense of their Way Ministry experience, to revisit the things we experienced and understand it better, with the help of others, and because of our own growth and experience since our days there. All this is a big part of GSC and About the Way. There is also the doctrinal side, which I believe can be at the root of problems like these, and I generally post along those lines, because in my journey of recovery, that's where I've gone. It's how I've dealt with the pain, and it's how I've been able to continue in the joy of my experience. I try not to step on anyone's toes, and I try to be respectful of others' viewpoints and the issues with which they are grappling. I've had to reckon with lack of empathy on my part, as I've continued post-TWI. I've been a sinner there, and I may still have some work to do in that category.

Abi.... I just want to say: you are so clever!

Belle, I hear you, but my point goes to guessing at people's motivations. I know that many have a lot of "dirt" on other people, much of which can indeed be indicators of their hearts' motivations. I'm just speaking for myself, and my reluctance to judge, even based upon hard evidence. I could share with you some of the relationships and events that brought me to this place in my life, and I could share with you how I feel about certain things Jesus and Paul taught, but I am not here to win you over to my way of thinking. Post all you want about the sins of the leaders of the Way, and pronounce your indignation about it, and make all the conclusions you want. I think of myself more as a "guest" here than a "member," though I guess technically I am one, and grateful for it. If the point is to tell "the other side of the story," that's fine. But there does seem to be room for a range of viewpoints, and I have mine. I haven't yet been informed that it is unwelcome. If I am later so informed, I will excuse myself. Others have the scriptures TO judge, and I respect that. I sometimes find it hard to decide whether in a certain situation, I should "use" the judgement verses or the mercy verses, so to speak. I'm sure you, like me, have had enough of people "using" the Word to batter other people. That was part of the problem, right? I too want to tell another side of the story (not "THE" other side). I have no right to disallow anyone else from telling how they see it. That's all I'm doing. People can take it or leave it. You apparently don't like my point of view, and I can accept that. edited to add: It's not entirely accurate to say that I'm not here to win you over to my way of thinking. I would restate that. I am here to add my voice to the conversation. I'm also here to listen. So, strictly speaking, I'm not here to win you over, as I said, but if what I offer has merit, I would hope it has an impact.

I think what she means is that "I loved her first" is a FATHER-of-the-bride song, and was wondering if any songwriters would like to take a crack at writing a song from a mother's point of view. She offered "I loved her first" as a "guide" to the kind of thing she was looking for. Great idea! If I can come with something, I will, but I'm rusty. Waysider? dmiller? Cindy, if that's the case, you could post some of the things in your heart that you might like the song to say, besides what you already have. Just whatever you feel you'd like expressed about your heart towards your daughter and her importance in your family.

I do have some thoughts for your consideration. The use of the word "possessed" can be a deal-breaker. We have to be careful with that term, IMO. If I recall, "possesed with a devil" is daimonizomai, which would probably be better translated "demonized." The question, then, would be, can a believer be demonized? "Possessed" implies "owned and operated." I would answer "no" in that case. The believer is "owned" by God, but he may be "operated" by a demon, or evil spirit. Without getting into "believers" in the NT, which would be a good way to approach this, let's just take LCM's indiscretion for an example. I believe that it's consistent with the metaphysics of the Word to say that he was "not himself." A spirit of error or a foul spirit can be found among God's people. Also, a "spirit of slumber." Others are bold enough to name other forces "spirits" that are not found in the NT, such as "rage," "lack-of-empathy," etc. Whenever a person is "not himself," who is he? His soul is subdued by "someone" else. As far as the possibility of regaining control, the Word says "Resist the devil, and he will flee from you." This can be understood in a less broad sense to resist the devil by resisting his daimon and daimonion. But we sometimes need help, since the whole concept of being influenced or controlled by an evil spirit has to do with the will. I'm not offering this as doctrine. I'm no doctrinal authority. Just some thoughts. I would welcome others'.

agape, I've read your other posts with interest. Having left around 89-90, I appreciate the immediacy of your voice as to the later goings-on, and your POV. You'll be a valuable member, I'm sure. My heart goes out to you, and my prayers go up for you! I'm too new to be an official welcomer, but I'm sure that you will be appreciated!