Jump to content
GreaseSpot Cafe


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Pete last won the day on October 13 2012

Pete had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

8 Neutral

About Pete

  • Rank
    Smoke me a kipper, I'll be back for breakfast.

Profile Information

  • Gender

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. No guesses? OK I'll tell you. It's Robert Wilkinson. I have the address if you want to write.
  2. Hi Twinky I think that I was being too obscure. This isn't me, it is someone else. Hence the "I wonder who lives in a house like this" bit.
  3. "I wonder who lives in a house like this." [Spoken with the accent of Loyd Grossman]. Shucks, you can't even go to the garage without getting caught out by Google.
  4. Raf I want to do some further research before I respond to some of the previous discussion, and a response is needed as I don't like to see open ended ideas being left written off without proper consideration. However, I do need to clarify something that I tried to explain but has not been understood. I will draw a comparison here. Take a steam engine that you are watching travelling along a track. You see puffs of smoke coming from the stack. That's enough to tell you that the engine inside is running. The puff of smoke is not the engine. You don't see exactly what the engine is doing from your stand point. What I am alluding to is that the SIT is the puff of smoke, but the working of the spirit inside is the engine. So when you "pray in the spirit", the spirit is making intercession on the INSIDE and that is the engine, whereas the SIT is the puff of smoke on the outside. So if my SIT is "Loshanta malakasheeta rakistaani" one day, the spirit on the inside may be making one type of intercession, whereas if my SIT on another day is still "Loshanta malakasheeta rakistaani", the spirit inside may be making a completely different type of intercession. The spirit of God is not limited by me. The work of the spirit on the INSIDE is perfect. (By the way, I don't think VP SIT during the recorded class, but that's a separate issue). There are other things I have to say. But I would like to remark at this point in time that this thread has become much too long for any new person to be inclined to follow, in my opinion. I know this is Raf's thread, so I respectfully refer this back to Raf to consider decanting any good points onto a new thread so that newbies can pick up. Otherwise, I will have to consider joining Excie.
  5. I'd like to but back in here, if I may. Firstly, a big thank you to Chockfull for supporting me on my previous post which included the "Anyone could tell that this was a language" line. On reflection, I have to concede that this comes across as inflamatory, and it wasn't itended to be so in this particular case. Maybe I should have just stated that it "sounded like a language to me at the time". If I concede that particular line, perhaps Raf can concede that his line stating that he is presenting the side of "Proof" versus "Anecdotes" is inflamatory and rephrase or withdraw it. But I'm not going to twist your arm too far - it's up to you. Now Karl is reported to have stated that he SIT when he wasn't born again. I always approach such testimonies with caution. I accept that Karl may well be sincere in his statement, but does he know absolutely for sure that he didn't already have the spirit within? No, that is not possible. In fact, because he did SIT indicates to me that he did have the spirit. Perhaps his testimony should be considered as anecdotal, rather than proof. However, as has been pointed out already, this is leading to circular arguments that cannot be resolved. I want to throw something new into the mix: SIT is the EXTERNAL manifestation. It does not show you what the spirit is doing WITHIN. It does give you an indication that the spirit is being operated. However, what you speak is not necessarily a word for word reflection of what the spirit is doing within. What the spirit is doing within is not seen. It is "groanings that cannot be uttered" or "groans that are not spoken" in the Aramaic. So if your words appear to be similar when you operate the spirit, this does not detract from what the spirit is doing within. The spirit does the groaning to God on our behalf when things are going wrong. That is my hypothesis, and it is open to debate. And, although tongues may be diluted by unbelief or simulation in the operator, this wouldn't then detract from the operation of the spirit within, which is perfect. You may still be operating the power of the holy spirit within, even though you have doubted yourself what you have spoken, because the operation of the spirit is not spoken. Likewise, for interpretation and prophecy, just because the person speaking influences what is being said, this doesn't negate the perfect operation of the spirit within. Now I wonder to myself, when Peter heard people SIT, he declared that they had received the spirit. Peter was a fisherman by upbringing, not a linguist. He didn't see the need to take take their words away and analyze them. What could be so different from hearing tongues today? I'm asking myself that question. Why bother having linguists investigate the potentially badly operated external manifestation when we know that the internal actions of the holy spirit are not only perfect but also impenetrable? And if it is proven that tongues are being operated by someone that is not born again (which would be difficult if not impossible to do), perhaps we should consider that this is still the operation of "spirit", just not God's holy spirit. That's another one to throw into the mix.
  6. Hi Preacher Quoting your post: "Feel free to comment your feelings on this". OK, here are my feelings: Since you're obviously a mole from the Way come here because you think you're better than anyone else there doesn't seem much point in anyone engaging in discussion with you. You obviously didn't bother to read the purpose of this forum, which is that: "These forums are meant to be a place of discussion, where ideas and debates are encouraged. We welcome your opinion." You seem to think that this is a place where you can peddle your adulterated doctrine and make it seem dandy by adding some nice words and a passage of scripture to finish off. Gives you a nice feeling that you've done your bit for the Lord, does it? Hey, you're only fooling yourself buddy. If you want to preach why don't you go set up your own web site and get the hell off this one. Hey, God bless you too! By the way, don't bother responding to this. I'm not interested in hearing any more of your cr@p.
  7. Bolshevik I can relate to what you say, and I experienced much the same, only I never got yelled at in that way as far as I recall. I think that it is totally shameful that they yelled at you that way. That is a traumatic experience to go through and one that could have affected you in a bad way. It wasn't your problem and you have to understand that. You didn't do anything wrong, they did! My only question would be, just because the Way scr3wed things up, does that make the whole thing false?
  8. Old Skool Thanks for posting the link. It's some time since I viewed the documentary and I don't think that this is the same one. The documentary I saw concentrated on a single subject for the tongues analysis and I seem to remember them being wired up with sensors on their brain. Also, the documentary identified the area of the brain that was active when the person was SIT. But my memory isn't totally reliable and the item shown hits on similar stuff. As far as the posted link goes, I have to say that the lady who says that she is "out of control" is experiencing something that is different from what I experience. I would speculate that her SIT is genuine, but that her "out of control" bit is personal to her. But hey, if that's where she need to go, who am I to object, only I hope that she really means that she's just getting herself in a cool relaxed state of mind, rather than actually being "out of control". I try not to get myself out of control in case when I get back in control I find out that I've murdered someone, or worse.
  9. Well, looks like I should have remembered III Peter 2:2 Young man who drinks too much on an evening, ends up having p1ss1ng contest in middle of night. Raf, you pose some interesting and valid questions. As you say, it would have been better if those types of tests were done, but possibly they didn't think any further ahead than the particular issue that they were addressing at the time. This discussion has brought back some interesting memories for me. I never SIT in the 12th session. I flatly refused. This is difficult when you are faced with a high degree of peer pressure, and everyone else jabbering away in the background. Afterwards the class coordinator took me to a separate room to find out what was wrong. I just didn't like the way it was done in the 12th session. I had no advanced warning that this was going to happen in the way that it did. I felt that I was being co-erced into doing something in a way that I wasn't comfortable with. This was all wrong to me. However, when asked to SIT afterwards, I did. And I didn't make it up and it was fully formed the first time I did it. It has not get any better from that fist time. Now I did study a bit of basic French at school. But the language and syllables that came forth that day were from an entirely different vocabulary to anything I had experienced before. And the language was consistent: not French one moment and then Italian the next if you understand. Same glutteral stops, same basic sound structure. Anyone could tell that this was a language. I've never needed to, or wanted to make up the language myself. If it is not genuine SIT, the alternative is that I somehow have the ability somewhere in my brain to conjure up a completely foreign language that I have absolutely no comprehension of as to its meaning. That's going to take quite a few dollars of research money to work out, in my opinion.
  10. Raf I don't dispute what you personally experienced and I commend you on your courage to speak up about it. But you should know that they connected a guy up with sensors on his brain to check him out when he was SIT's. What they found was consistent with his claim that he was genuinely SIT's and not making it up as he went along. This is because the areas of brain activity that they witnessed during the tests were not the areas that would have been active if he had been making up the words. This fits exactly with what genuine SIT's claims to be: speaking without reference to the words spoken. So whereas this couldn't prove that SITs is spiritually genuine, it does prove that what the man claimed to experience was consistent with the results of the test. Personally, I didn't agree with the methods used by the Way in their excellors sessions. In my opinion, those methods are a really good way of learning to introduce your own made up utterances into what you speak. Also you're right that under the pressure put on them in the class it is possible that some made up their own words as they thought that this was what was expected of them. I don't dispute this, nor do I dispute what you personally experienced. But once you introduce your own utterances into tongues due to wrong counselling, you are more prone to do the same with the other manifestations as well. The Way actually taught something along the same lines, even though they contradicted it in practice. Just because the Way took someone else's teaching material and taught it doesn't make it automatically wrong. If you actually want to do genuine tongues, I'm sure that there is a way of going forward with this. Do you want to?
  11. This post is an offshoot of the “Christian Fellowship and Research” thread. First of all I want to say due respect to everyone who contributed to the previous thread. I wanted to post this separately as it relates to more than just that particular thread. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- We should definitely want to vet ANY organisation or individual before we get involved with them on a fellowship level. When Paul says “forgetting those things which are behind”, the word translated “forgetting” in the English comes from a word in the Aramaic which infers “forsaking” rather than forgetting. It could be understood in this case to infer “casting off”, as in casting off a mental burden. Paul had previously persecuted the church: this was well known to just about everyone. He freely recounted what he HAD done previously as an example to others of how God had freed him from all that stuff. However, it should be patently obvious that he could still remember and recount the events to others, only the events were no longer a “mental burden” to him. He hadn't literally forgotten them at all! To use the verse as an excuse for hiding men’s continued wrong doings would be obviously wrong. Now there ARE some things that you would keep to yourself, but that would be a matter of personal discretion, not because someone is threatening you or bullying you into covering up for their continued abuse. Furthermore, the church has every right to know that any serving person meets certain criteria for service. Paul did not keep on persecuting people after he began to serve God. He changed. Likewise, if someone has made a mistake in the past, they have a right for forgiveness and to move on, but ask yourself the question, are they moving on if they continue to propagate the error? So if errors have been made in the past, we have every right to check that the errors are no longer being practiced, before we associate with that individual or group. We also have a right to warn others if we know that they are contemplating joining themselves to a group or an offshoot that systematically practices error or abuse. So I would say to anyone, feel free to ask questions and expect answers. And be extremely wary if you don’t get a straight answer to your questions.
  12. OK - that last link doesn't work. Use the following link, enter the company number quoted above and tick all the boxes in section 2: http://wck2.companieshouse.gov.uk/0543785da71ab034441f73294790c947/wcframe?name=accessCompanyInfo
  13. Hi Twinky The company you mention was set up by the Way International, i.e. not the Way in Great Britain. The Way in Great Britain had the company number 1279965 and the charity registration number 272512. If you go to the charities commission website, you will find that the charity was removed from the register in 2002. http://www.charity-commission.gov.uk/Showcharity/RegisterOfCharities/RemovedCharityMain.aspx?RegisteredCharityNumber=272512&SubsidiaryNumber=0 and if you search companies house, the company itself was dissolved in 2003: http://wck2.companieshouse.gov.uk/fd4bd4059c25a83df8991450890aa7a8/companysearch?disp=1&frfsh=1349127033result
  14. Hi Twinky It may be that Robert "bought in" to Vince's organisation by giving them the loan. I don't think Robert set up his own charity in the US. I think that the other charity that he "bought into" may have been VFs. Excathedra Yes, I think that Richard is Robert's son and lives in NY (not literally "Robert" junior as I stated before). He is the one that has the Facebook account. He looks the image of Robert. Seems like they looked after themselves OK, doesn't it? Does anyone know the full story? I remember Robert saying that CG had tried to impose changes to the WIGB (Way in GB) that would have caused the charities commission in the UK to close them down. He didn't elaborate what these changes were. Meanwhile CG retaliated by suggesting that the devil was influencing what Robert and the WIGB were doing. So CG branched off on his own and sliced off the majority of the income by taking others with him, including the majority of the European WC. Then it looks like Robert did his own bail out and absconded to the US. Both CG and RW are very astute individuals. They are both mentally sharp and you'd need to be on your toes with them. As to whether they are as talented when it comes to spiritual matters, who knows. However, if you want to credit them with being gifted individuals according to the senses, I wouldn't deny this. An interesting story comes to mind that was recounted to me by one of the WC. When CG was travelling in the UK he left his car parked up and was approached by a dubious character who offered to "look after" his car for a financial consideration. CG proposed an alternative deal: if he came back and found anything wrong with his car, he would break both the guys' legs. How's that for a deal. So you see, you have to be on your toes if you get involved. They didn't get where they are today (financially) by being "nice" to everyone.
  15. In 1998-99, Robert Wilkinson as a Director of the Way in Great Britain Ltd (or as it was named then "Christian Counselling and Resources Ltd") made a loan of £100,000 pounds to "an associated charity in America" - name undisclosed. I wonder what this charity was? Funny that later on, when Robert relocated to the USA, he was welcomed with open arms by Vince Finnegan. I also notice that in 1997-1998, Robert decided to pay himself a director's renumeration of £50,000.00 on top of expenses, and a salary to his wife Barbara of £22,000. Strange that the same year, the organisation had an income of just under £26,000 (excluding bank and building society interest). That seems like a strange way to run a business to me! I wonder if all the people who "abundantly shared" that year were aware of this? I'd be interested to know if the loan was made to Vince Finnegan's organisation, if not, to whom. Was anyone else aware of these seemingly dubious financial transactions. Unfortunately Robert now apears to have "gone to ground", although I notice that Robert junior has his own facebook page.
  • Create New...