socks

Old news story, see below for an old news clarification. https://www.christianpost.com/news/brian-houston-hillsong-youth-pastor-naked-cowboy-nyc-church-164824/

Interesting topic, mrap. Not new but I'll give you my 'pinion. For the sake of this discussion I'm only including 2nd generation Off shoots, started by those directly taught by Dr. Wierwille. I'm not familiar with 3rd and further out although I'd say that for better or worse they seem to digress so far from his direct influence that it's no longer a viable comparison. There's a lot of that in the earlier generations too though, like John Lynn, who has deviated so far from the basics of PFAL that he's not a reasonable comparison (despite the fact he assures his followers that Dr. Wierwille would be "pleased" by his work, nothing would be further from the truth I'm sure)...so in reality he's a perfect example of the need to be cautious since he's a textbook example of someone directly taught by Dr. Wierwille who's reinvented both history and teaching to equal a new thing. I might say he's either a pathological liar or extremely mentally damaged. Perhaps he's just a well meaning do-gooder. Whatever the case a person would be advised to evaluate him as a person and by his actions when considering if what he says is true or not and even more importantly to know how to accept him as a member of the Church - I for one would give him all the love and forgiveness accorded me by God through Christ, but would never put him in the position of being a Teacher. It would be unfair to his well being and potentially others. But this isn't about him specifically although he comes to mind because he's currently recovering from illness and had had so many ups and downs and a range of experiences in his lifetime. To a great degree you have to consider the character and conduct of an individual when you evaluate their work. Some Christians over emphasize that, others under. I'd contend that behaviors and conduct and the resulting characterization of the individual drawn by their actions is important and should be factored in at this front end when considering whatever it is a person does or says. Mathew 7: 15-20 - Watch out for false prophets. They come to you in sheep’s clothing, but inwardly they are ferocious wolves. By their fruit you will recognize them. Do people pick grapes from thornbushes, or figs from thistles? Likewise, every good tree bears good fruit, but a bad tree bears bad fruit. A good tree cannot bear bad fruit, and a bad tree cannot bear good fruit. Every tree that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire. Thus, by their fruit you will recognize them. Deut. 18:22 - When a prophet speaketh in the name of the LORD, if the thing follow not, nor come to pass, that is the thing which the LORD hath not spoken, but the prophet hath spoken it presumptuously: thou shalt not be afraid of him. Matthew infers intent - outwardly they act like sheep but their intentions are those of ferocious wolves. How do I find that out? By their actions. If we are comparing a fruit bearing tree then Jesus is saying that a bad tree won't yield good fruit. Ultimately they'll be cut down and removed. So he wants us to look at the tree, the person, and see what fruit it bears, what are the products of what it does, what it brings forth? Then judge by that - which you can do because the judgment is really already made and you only have to recognized it. Today Christian thinking accepts our lives of growth as manifestations of God's grace and mercy, without which we'd be condemned. So we see each other do good things, bad things, and we are compelled to forgive as we have been forgiven, and deal with grace and forgiveness with others. How much? Jesus said - a lot. 70 X 7. As many times as it takes. Does that then mean that when a person, a brother or sister in Christ teaches in God's name in error or in pride or for self serving reasons, that I am to forgive and accept them? The New Testament covers that too - all can be forgiven but not all are to be given freedom and access within the Church to speak for and on behalf of God. Deuteronomy speaks to that, the prophet who does not speak for God. The NT says to speak directly to each other, confront, include others, don't accept second hand information or rumors, don't promote gossip, require witnesses, multiple witnesses and proofs - why? To waste time? Be nice? No. To be sure you're right and that both they and those affected have the best opportunity to understand what's going on and how to correct it. Paul encouraged Timothy to watch out for Alexander the coppersmith because he did Paul "much harm". Paul also warned about those who would try to sneak in and defraud the church. Why, so they could defraud them? No, so they could collectively avoid being harmed. Paul also instructed Timothy what to look for in church leaders, the elders, deacons, over seers, "servants" of the Lord of God's people....he said look for honest people, men who are spoken well of, who have good reputations, who care for their families, work care for the needs of the church, who have some maturity in the faith. Basically he wants honest, reasonable people who are faithful to the church and who don't lie, cheat, steal or have ongoing problems with things like that. It's impossible to evaluate the teaching without evaluating the teachers. A person may be teaching something completely correct, biblically accurate, but not be living by the biblical teachings themselves. Worse yet, they can be lying about it, creating chaos in the church over it, hurting others without concern if they disagree with them and worse yet stuck, expecting to have their words honored over their actions - which is counter-Christianity. That's anti-Christian, it's the opposite of what Christ did or taught or what anyone who suggests their mature enough to teach "God's Word" on His behalf should be exemplifying. In order to do what the Bible teaches us to do there has to be discussion and communication between people. Will it all be right, good, even useful? Of course not. But if no one tries, no one talks, no one will know. When the news is good, we speak it. When it's not - do we ignore it? Reinvent it, translate it into something that sounds better? The Church isn't someone's personal organization that they run and manage as they see fit - its a newly minted reality where all are brought together in unity through Christ, and God fills us all through Christ. Notice how evil tries to segment and silence the individual, prevents inquiry, refuses to accept criticism, denies responsibility, blames others, prefers a vacuum. That's not the Body of Christ, the "Mystery" in living action, where each individual has God working and willing in them to both have the will and the desire to do as God wishes. Trash talk gets old and endless rounds of gossip damaging and hurtful. But if the Church doesn't make some effort to protect and warn itself and others - Who will?

I've seen how some of them re invent their resumes for the benefit of employers who don't understand that "spiritual perception and awareness" is a really valuable skill. I'd love to hear their answers to interview questions like "what do you think your greatest weakness is?"....how do you make "I can be a hateful lying bastard if I don't like you or I think you've done something to question my authority" sound good? I lost track of what they Way offered as training. Back in my day it was Howard Allen or Harry Wierwille going on about keeping a ledger, writing lists, saving money, that kind of stuff. I learned some practical things that I was able to use later, but if I hadn't continued my education I'd be seriously ham strung. Public speaking and life coaching is big amongst ex-Wayfers from what I see - but unless someone has some real experience and a thick resume why would you want them teaching you that stuff? Anyhoo.

Thanks. If I may, I'm going to string together some thoughts I've had about that, not new by any means. Retirement may very well have been what caused this latest diaspora. That idea has been in the seeds of the Wheaties many of us were eating when we left years ago. At the core of any issues the Way has is how they view authority and make decisions. "Spiritual" leadership trumps everything else for them - common sense, practical issues, planning, a "multitude of counsel". Nothing spells really spirituality for them like going against the grain. It's in the DNA there. Even though they believe this "world is not my home, I'm just a - passing through", they work 24x7 non stop to earn their rewards. Once they convince someone that 1. their immediate well being depends on them doing what they tell them and 2. their eternal future "rewards" are at stake too....they're pretty much in their pocket. Organizationally, a single person can drive the whole thing into an iceberg and then blame everyone else from their lifeboat as the whole thing sinks. They think that's the right way to work, to run a business like the Way, to manage people, etc. etc. It does take a certain kind of person to embrace being right all the time and the burdens that comes with that. Someone else always has to be wrong, but it's never personal. It's just business. So odds are that at some point any one person is going to be in conflict with the decisions of the organization and will be unable to affect the outcome, let alone change the decision. Everyone in the Way has reveled in how smart they are, how much better they live with the "accuracy and integrity of God's Word" that they and they alone have. Yet they live like weasels fighting over the same garbage can, year after year. It speaks for itself, really.

Then I went down to the potter's house, and, behold, he wrought a work on the wheels. And the vessel that he made of clay was marred in the hand of the potter: so he made it again another vessel, as seemed good to the potter to make it. Faith in God and Jesus Christ is the Way to go, annio, and your personal realization of that is real and profound. Savor it. Own it! It's yours. Sometimes the work we need to do most is to remove the barriers we and others put up that obscure the path we're to follow, the Way of Jesus Christ our Savior. The good news is that God draws us all to Himself through Christ. The change you seek can only be good. I heard something last week that's stuck with me and I'll share it with you - it was the statement that "to believe in Jesus Christ is to believe that you're forgiven"....that the fundamental foundational thing that God wants us to do is to come to Christ and know that forgiveness, His grace and mercy, that finally we are at peace with Him by doing nothing more than accepting the peace He offers directly to us. I've been thinking about that this week when I pray and it feels...."good". Really good. All the best to you - there's a song by a band named Dawes, titled "A Little Bit of Everything" and the final verse captures another idea I'd share with you and that is to enjoy the life God has given you! Every bit of it, to it's fullest. I believe we witness to God's magnificence as Creator when we make everything we can of the life he's given us. Peace! "All these psychics and these doctorsThey're all right and they're all wrong.It's like trying to make out every wordWhen they should simply hum along.It's not some message written in the darkOr some truth that no one's seenIt's just a little bit of everything." (Taylor Goldsmith)

Back there in the back back, the question about 'all men being liars' and if Jesus Christ was a man did He lie.... It is an excellent question! and one that allows vigorous discussion, discussion that ultimately leads to a greater appreciation for who and what Jesus Christ was and is. To me the answer is simple, if it's true that Jesus didn't lie it's true because he decided not to lie but decided to tell the truth. One could probably say it would be against his "nature", abnormal. (Example - I love my wife. I have never once in the 50 years I've known here said anything to anyone else about her that is critical or negative, and I have literally never whined over a beer with a buddy about how lousy she treats me. Why? First, she doesn't treat me lousy, second I don't have lingering negative feelings about her and lastly I would never go to someone else and tell them something we hadn't already worked out, because - I just wouldn't do that and have never had to do that. It's against the nature of our relationship and how I think about her. So it's a choice but it's not a difficult one to make. I just don't do it. Other things, not so much, so I'm not perfect in this regard by even the slightest bit but in regards to this I don't think of it as perfection I think of it as natural. I see Jesus, the Son of God, as having God's intentions and thoughts, His "will", foremost in his natural inclinations.) So - for a baseline, let's consider two verses we've all probably heard in relation to this and if not here 'tis: Numbers 23:19 - God is not a man that he should lie, neither the son of man that he should repent: hath he said and shall he not do it? or hath he spoken and shall he not make it good? And Psalm 116:11 - I said in my terror all men are liars. And to expand the topic a little Matthew 5: 33-37 - Again you have heard that it was said to those of old, ‘You shall not swear falsely, but shall perform to the Lord what you have sworn.’ 4 But I say to you, Do not take an oath at all, either by heaven, for it is the throne of God, or by the earth, for it is his footstool, or by Jerusalem, for it is the city of the great King. And do not take an oath by your head, for you cannot make one hair white or black. Let what you say be simply ‘Yes’ or ‘No’; anything more than this comes from evil. So - if Jesus was a man, part of humanity and with the faculties and capacities of humanity he clearly had the human faculty to, if not the capacity, to "Lie" and I would extend that to mean something different than telling someone their horrible haircut looked fine, or that Martha's lentil soup tasted good when it didn't. If Jesus dealt with his family and friends in the order of life and it's affairs to any degree I could probably assume that while he didn't get too wrapped up in things outside of his scope and interest he probably developed social skills to maintain a gracious presence in all his relationships. That's a guess, but it's arguable. On matters relating to God and our relationship with God Jesus was more specific - as in making oaths - don't use the values of things outside your range of authority like "by God I'll be there no matter what", or "as heaven and earth stand today, I will pay you back tomorrow" or such things. Just say what you mean and then do it, don't promise, as any number of things can, might and will change whatever it is you're swearing to do or be. Yes/No, and go with that. To me the answer is simple, if it's true that Jesus didn't lie it's true because he chose not to. A good example is the series of questions asked him in the desert after his fasting, in Matthew 4. We begin to see in the life of Jesus a different frame of reference than whether he would lie or not. We can examine this scenario in light of his humanity since the questions address things that he could choose how to respond and he didn't actually answer them all directly - And when the tempter came to him, he said, If thou be the Son of God, command that these stones be made bread. But he answered and said, It is written, Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God. He didn't answer no I can't or yes I can to provide proof of who He was, rather he answered by saying it was not most important. In fact for all three "temptations" he didn't argue whether he was able to do them, rather he placed them in a different or correct context. Imagine if he had said well, I could get angels to help me sure, but that wouldn't be profitable, as angels have better things to do. No, they do, you know that, I'm not going to waste God's time or theirs or - no, I'm sure they would if I asked but...." etc. etc. etc. Another place it says the people were amazed when he spoke to them with "authority" rather than like the teachers they were used to hearing. Like the time the man asked him to settle an inheritance squabble and Jesus told he wasn't a judge over him in those matters....who wouldn't want Jesus settling whether or not you get the vacation home or the dog house, in the will? He stayed out of it - "not my job, sorry". Anyhoo - did Jesus lie? No. Why? Because he chose not to. How did he accomplish that is another question really, but given that he was the Son of God, sent forth as the Living Logos and fathered by the Creator whatever genetics produced him were above average it would seem. It's not a case for having an "Uber Jesus-Man" like Martindale created to get Jesus down to his level, rather Jesus was literally "the son of God". And the bloodline of Adam is a non issue in this question IMO, as all men were under the "curse" at that time, and while you had a "believers line", it didn't endow any of those people with the ability to not be in sin and subject to the fruit of sin, death. All mankind was then born of a "human nature" that would ultimately die if not reborn as we see later, through Christ. David states this in - Psalm 51:5 - Surely I was sinful at birth, sinful from the time my mother conceived me... Romans 5:12 - Therefore, just as sin came into the world through one man, and death through sin, and so death spread to all men because all sinned... Romans 3:23 - for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God... And of course 1 Cor. 15:45 - "The first man Adam became a living being"; the last Adam, a life-giving spirit. Peace, beautiful people!

Hi folks greeting Twinkster et al. Of things related to King David, Mrs Bathshebah and her sadly deceased husband Uriah - There's a few things askew in the PFAL representation of the story as well as how others have related it's implications later.... 1. The record itself says nothing to make us think there was some form of kingly rights to unmarried or virgin women, and of course nothing like that covering married women. Doesn't mean it wasn't so, it does sound like the kind of thing a male ruler might come up with but I don't really see it in the Bible and history around a "David" is kind of scant, so.... 2. This is easily seen in the way David is written to have handled his hots for Mrs B - it was all clandestine, and handled behind her husband's back and in such a way that he ultimately was killed. So of course, there's no open law that David's invoking otherwise he wouldn't have had to hide it. 3. Nothing in the Torah says anything about special dispensation for any "king" in this area. There is that law about not coveting your neighbor's wife or any of his stuff though, so there's that. 4. When VP teaches this he did IMO speak as if it was some kind of understood law of the land at that time, but I'd agree that he could have just as easily been pontificating about the general idea that sure, David was king and could basically abuse his authority in any way he wanted since he was the ruler. As a teacher myself of that record over the years I have never taught it that way myself. If you're a proponent of reading what's written, there's no need to cover that because it's not written into the record. Rather, it's written into the record that this was a "crime of passion", and David fell victim to his own lusts. 5. Nathan reacts that way to David's authority later when instructed to go reprove David - if David get's pissed at him it could be lights out. Which is a very interesting aspect to Nathan's "conversation" with God to say the least. 6. I never once thought of anything in the record or in the way VP taught it in PFAL to be an indication that what he was describing as David's behavior was somehow an indicator of how a leader of any kind today could act. It doesn't make sense and wouldn't have made sense at the time - the entire record indicates that at that point the character David was F'ING UP ROYALLY and about to bring death on Uriah and his own family as well as the nation he governed. Or as the Bible says - "But the thing David had done displeased the Lord". Why or how could anyone think that's a good thing? In the time I heard, saw, knew and worked with and around VP from 1969 through his death I never heard him teach this subject matter as a means of saying that he himself somehow might have - what? - access to all the unmarried women of the Way because David did, or something akin to that. I never heard that connection made by him. I've never really understood how this connection's been made - maybe others did hear him talk about it or they heard the teaching and figured it somehow sounded like a good idea or something. I don't know. Have fun peeps!!! Stay frosty!!

Had to say in passing one more thing - after all these years and tears, these R and R people ("rest and relaxation"?) are being said to have "noticed" and "seen" some things that were wrong. It sounds so normal - like "I went outside and noticed that the air was a tad chilly." But under these circumstances saying they "noticed" something wrong is like saying they went outside and "noticed" the snow was piled 3 feet high in the streets and it was so cold their breath froze....and as if it had just happened and was such a surprise! Or like saying...the people in Houston "noticed it was raining and decided to call it Hurricane Harvey". When I saw the video of those people going on about how what they had "seen" was so wrong, I LOL'd. Really, I don't usually LOL like that but that day I did, and I went to my study (AKA "The Garage Shoppe") and laughed even more, upon reflection. Why did you LOL so, socks? you might ask. Well - read on. The Way's been in a rag tag dyslexic nose dive for decades. Then this. Lurking below the exodus and the bladdy-blah the question wafts by.... What was it that really sparked the exodus? I'll stop, with that question and call it a year. But for those of us who have seen and heard this merry-go-round going round and round so many times over the years we know there's usually something going on a little deeper down that not everyone knows yet. Something that made it personal.....finally. Peace!!! See you round!

Howdy Penworks! DWB, thanks and much the same to you, appreciate your insight, as the years pass.

My pleasure, chockfull! Glad to hear that. Donnie Fugit was one of a kind and made an impression on many people, in his day.

If I had a buck for every person I've counseled who got bad advice and counseling from Moynihan I could buy us both a couple of dinners at the Wooden Shoe Inn, DWB. None of us were perfect, every one of us in the earliest years you're referring to had challenges, made mistakes. Every one of us got our butts kicked more than once, and deservedly so, in order to get our attention and get us moving in the right direction when we weren't. We were young and learning. The problem with guys like him is they never got the foundation set right. He and Dottie came into the Corps with previous seniority from NC pending evaluation. After the first few months they and several others were bumped into the 3rd Corps and graduated with a year of "Corps training". They were nice but they were skidding - I'll never forget the BS he gave my wife and I after we discussed his a situation I'd observed, and questioned his handling of it. All I wanted was to see it set right, and I was more than willing to talk about it to help, if I could. Instead he blamed ME for not being "spiritually" minded enough to see how he was right....a tactic that became all too common for him as the years progressed. It seemed minor, we moved on - until it blew up in the people's face later that year, as his "counseling" to them failed. He completely disconnected from any involvement or responsibility. He did the same kind of thing for many years after that. He was also famous for never getting his facts straight and making excuses it didn't matter, later. Another thing I learned early on about most of the self declared heavies from the early Corps was that most of them were not successful at witnessing, signing people up for PFAL and under shepherding them over time which was the basic thing being promoted at that time - sign 'em up, get 'em in.. They crowed about everyone else being able to do it and castigated failures but many of the assignments they got they didn't have the kind of godly revival that was seen in the early years in the West and East Coast fellowships, Kansas, and other places, they TALKED a lot about it, "taught", telling others what they should do but were not successful at doing it when it came to actual outreach. 1000's of people heard the Word of God and the "signs, miracles and wonders" abounded, confirming the preaching of Jesus Christ. Frankly I was so youthfully dumb at the time I just assumed "they" knew something I didn't when it was the reverse. Charlene talks about this in her book - if you read in and remember what it was like, it becomes painfully obvious. Picture Donnie Fugit, who just "did it", versus other guys who were more interested in "teaching" ad infinitum what was already in PFAL, while there were assuming positions in the ministry. Did I love Bob - do I today? Absolutely. But everything I've seen and read they've stated they finally saw was "wrong" was wrong for many years prior. I was not happy to see all those people who turned a cold shoulder to God and His people and stayed on there for so many years. Taking all those years to see what they were doing was wrong, they're in need of very very serious rehab. Give them ample space and time to do that. I remember a guy years ago - he'd been a long standing supporter of the Way for years after many of us had left. His wife had dropped out of active participation, he still had half a leg in and it was either on GS or WayDale where he finally posted a copy of a letter he had just sent to Rosalie. It had the tone of - "you know me, I'm a Corps grad, long time supporter and you know how I love the ministry and support it financially and now here I am, I have some recommendations that I think would help you be a better ministry". He offered to come there, meet with her and discuss these things. He expected a positive response - after all, it was HIM, right? They would listen to him, right? He got a turn down and was ignored beyond that, as he reported it - and he was SHOCKED! Why? Because he had the feeling many others had had before him - hey, it's ME, I'm with you on this, I just want to help....! When I saw how this most recent group had bailed out, domino style, what they wrote about it reminded me of the same thing, adding of course that they'd been poking needles in anything that acted legitimate for years themselves. The only good news is they disconnected, for whatever reasons. Time will tell where that leads them.

They disbanded, if I got it correctly. You have to wonder how long it would take for them to realize there's no "revival" or "restoration" of an organization possible, nothing in the Bible talks about that. People, yes. The Body of Christ, the Church, sure. Israel, God's people, yes. God didn't issue a 200 year warranty on the Way Nash, Inc. There's no guarantee "it" will survive. It doesn't have to. It hasn't, and it appears it won't.

Hello happy people. Everyone taking their Flintstone vitamins? Stayin' frosty, my friends? Keep at it, the world needs you. My icon is gone forever I see, lost in the ether of the server moves. Till I find it, I'm using the one at left, and if you know what it means please - remember the oath of silence. I will speak of this no more. The "WAP" class - I didn't "take" it or attend it or perhaps more accurately did not endure it. Some thoughts - They couldn't come up with a better name for the replacement to PFAL than that? The acronym WAP is so useless. I know, that's not the biggest issue at stake but to put that burden on the beleaguered shoulders of an already tired and worn out membership was kinda mean. It does fit the Martindale personae though. Did a man ever exist with less charisma? I liked Craig well enough when I knew him but he always seemed like a talking mannequin. I'm being kind here. Anyway... Bliss, that brochure cover looks like it's from the 70's, was some time travel involved in it being made? I don't have any innie friends so I am missing this kind of stuff. Good reason to keep it that way. It's incredibly strange for the Way to continue to promote a filmed product taught by a person they had to fire and disavow any connection to, even for the Way. Isn't he pretty much personae-non-grata at the Way for all practical purposes? I'm sure there's some reasoning for keeping it going but it can't over come the simple reality that to even play the product requires a disclaimer. I'd love to hear how they handle that. Lemme guess - "all your questions will be answered in the Class. After. So write them down now. For later. Sign here". I would guess it fits into their overall public relations strategy (sorry, had to clear my throat writing that, I'm back) buuuut if you look at their website there's apparently no real people with names involved, other than a few lines that refer to a "Board of Directors", which is I guess all they think the public needs to know. Even the quotes of happy customers have no name credited. ****** WAP 1, 2, 3 or whatever the titles - I was reminded that Martindale isn't the teacher of the WAP course that people would attend today, it's gone through a few revisions and is currently taught by 3 Representatives, See No Evil, Hear No Evil and Smell No Evil, I guess. So it's no longer Mr. Personality doing the teaching. I guess there's a ray of light in those clouds after all, hey? The Way is a perfect example of silo'd thinking. They're locked into a progression they feel they have to uphold so they don't look outside "the box" they're in. If they were as concerned about really reaching people and helping them as they are with avoidance and covering their asses they'd see there are some very very very obvious routes they could take to "re energize" their efforts that would still give them a layer of legal protection for past events, which is what it appears they're most concerned with. ******* Now knowing how frequently The Way loses people and members shift their status with them that may serve some purposes but it makes it look like a hack job, a phony business front, which is very common in the digital world today and is marketing -101 for the masses of online media miscreants gaming your clicks. Even the Catholic Church has a big ass photo of the current Pope mugging for the camera on the Holy See site. Sight. Web site. One thing I do know - classes taught to people in living rooms huddled on brown metal chairs every night suck. It's a painful way to reach people but many of us endured. There are better ways to pass on the teachings of the Bible and the fundamentals of the Christian faith. It works but I feel so sad whenever I see photos of people in chairs in rooms somewhere and a guy at a table up front huddled down, "teaching". They talk, you shut up and listen, questions later. It's not like they're trying to teach Calculus or Advanced Trigonometry or C# or Java. It can be done around a camp fire, over the phone, in a living room setting or in a coffee shop. It doesn't have to be crammed into 2 or 3 weeks, it can be done over days, weeks, months very effectively, as Christianity is a new life and a new lifestyle. Life doesn't jam into small spaces well. Many many years ago I spent hours on the floor of my living room with friends, bibles and books strewn across the floor reading and talking and studying. We chattered like kids. Well, we were, pretty much so we did. We drank coffee like it was a sacrament. We had a great time. There was laughter, at things no one had to be cued for! No one had to tell us to be on time but sometimes I had to tell them to go home when it got late. All that metal brown chair stuff is just cruel, and needs to be kept to a minimum. I guess it's no surprise they still hustle the old stuff though, it takes little effort and probably feels comfortable to them. "ROI". I wonder when they go to sleep at night there at the Way Nash if they hear echoes across the grounds, of years past and wonder at all, about anything....probably not. Stay swell, my friends! Peace! P.S. AOS? No. Absolutely not. Uh uh. Nada. Zip. Bad cha cha. Absolute travesty, took several years for everyone involved to evoke their "plausible deniability" clause. So no. Stop it. No. P.S.S. AOS? No. Does anyone really think they got ANYthing out of it's depiction of the devil spirit realm? Anyone wanted to be just like Craig? It has about the same emotional and intellectual impact as a Celebrex commercial and the spiritual value of an Our Lady of Fatima Merry Christmas Snow Globe............ Accept no substitutes for "no". It was a washed out waste of time that didn't survive, for good reason. No - the best comparison is that it had the same impact of Craig Martindale onstage that year at the ROA, illustrating the word "kratos", where he had his "trainer", Dupe, holding a big piece of wood that he then was supposed to karate chop in half with a single slice of his all powerful hand. Except he didn't, he bruised his hand and beat on that poor board two or three times until finally even Dupe looked embarrassed. it wasn't exactly Karate Kid, put it that way. (anyone else remember that?)

Thanks for the information, Rocky. Interesting reading and listening. I haven't been on GS for quite awhile. Peace, homies! I was surprised my dancing Calvin dude is gone. I must have missed an upgrade. Not to worry, Calvin is always *here*. Got a heads up to this topic sent to me by a friend-o. This has been a developing story for several months, first heard about some of this movement a year or so ago. But if they don't land in front of my face I don't hear about this kind of stuff. DWBH! Yes, indeed. I see Ed and Jackie Horney there. Knew them back in Miami, they were both coming to our fellowship way back when, when they were dating. I love them, although I haven't really seen them for many years and have only friended Ed on farcebake recently. I'm glad they've separated themselves from the Way, any degree of separation will benefit them. They, as all of us, deserve a lot better than what's being funneled out of The Way Nash these days. But true - all of these people were active in the past 30 - 40, 50 years (dang, we're getting old aren't we???). I find it amazing they can suddenly be so critical the last few months, or years, of policies and actions that have been so for decades and that they themselves embraced and participated in. Y'know? Watzupwiddat? That business about the Way employee who was scheduled to teach a SNS and was pulled the last minute.....oh, the horror, it wasn't even announced, a new teacher took the podium, no explanation and worst of all, everyone from his domain area that had dialed in didn't know what was going on! Oh, the confusion they must have felt! As if that's a new scenario in the Way......? That kind of thing has happened and most assuredly continues to happen ALL THE TIME. the Way's byline should be "No, We Don't Answer Questions".....they never tell anyone anything about what they're doing and they're constant press-release communications amount to "You're ALWAYS welcome at the Way!", which is an english translation of a greek phrase that originally meant "Fu ck You". So, agreed, they're apparently nuts, damaged goods, dented cans, smiling icons of a lost race of people once thought to dwell in central Ohio. Museum artifacts. We be pretty far from any concerns as to what they're "revive and restore" business will be about but I'm sure it will be taking donations soon enough. Take care, my friends! Jesus is the way, the truth and the life! He was dead and lives again and God forgives and saves to the uttermost any and all who come to Him through Christ. Reckon yourself dead to sin and alive in Christ and enjoy that "new life" smell all the time!! You deserve it! Peace!! Well, that's about it. This is my bi-centennial post. And speaking of donations, I know you're probably wondering how to show your gratitude for this enlightening presentation. I get it and rather than complicate things, I've set up a number of ways for you to give back, and all for your convenience. 1. Use the "socks paypal" account to contribute to this important work. It's easy - go to paypal, find the "MoneyIsLikeLoveButCrisper" account and choose an amount. Think big. God doesn't like little thinkers. 2. Kickstart donations - yep, you can fund my next Big Idea. And I've got some great ones! Get involved! It's not going to fund itself! 3. Send those love dollars directly to me, socks. Use my email account: TakeMyMoneyPleaseSocks@ReviveAndRestoreMySockDrawer.com Peace out!!

Excellent insight Twinky. Innerstin' reading and thought. I think Jesus made it abundantly clear what He expects His followers to do. I don't think the current religious systems can be fixed. I say that with the caveat that effort towards doing that could certainly improve them but on a large scale effort it's just too much baggage to go through in my opinion. The only purpose i see for an "organization" is to facilitate the members of the "body of Christ" to work with each other and towards their collective common goals. Something like the Way Nash-anon never got it, we never took it to the next level of growth and VPW never promoted a true Acts-like functionality in the Way. Good bad or indifferent, the Way just didn't do that, I mean it as less a criticism and more a statement of fact. Running a business to hold classes and seminars isn't the same as caring for the weak and needy in the church and making sure everyone is being taken care of. Even the example in Acts of the disciples trying to split up the work assumes that there's a desire to do some useful work to help others. The image I get of the early guys and gals is that they were doing exactly that, doing whatever needed to be done for the growing following. They were, after all the followers of Christ who had known Him, lived with Him, knew Him face to face. If anyone was going to carry the message of service-first-know-us-by-our-love it would have had to be them. Being human I supppose they did the best they could as long as they could. Today, for me, there's been too much water under the bridge. It's not just the Roman Catholic church although they're about as bloated as you can get. The church/pastor model works fine if it's done using a community/cooperative model...at whatever level the members wish to participate use a share and share alike approach.

What a waste of time. Discussing the discussion, that's pretty much what happens and then of course disagreement = VPW has you hypnotized! Oh well. This is the last time for me. S'yall!

Oh now WordWolf that's just crazy talk! :biglaugh:/> Reincarnation has never "quite" added up for me. Reincarnation fits with the Conservaton of Energy law I think but I'm not sure that law is fully accommodated by it in return. Where all of the consciousness is coming from is a sticky issue for me. "Life" isn't an entirely unique thing, as it actually occurs. It's a "miracle" I would agree but once the requirements are met it's up and running - and there's a lot of miracles running around. And those miracles can be 'accidents' and unintentional, even out right cursed by the progenitors, later. So the higher purpose of life, if there is one, isn't required to be served in order to produce a life. The process of producing an instance of life is also very repeatable from existing materials - buuuuut - The consciousness not so much. Consciousness and specifically the accumulation of memories is individual and only occurs in an individual instance, or "container" as it were. Without memories there's not a lot of usable life. That's where I get stuck - Life is produced from existing materials but can't actually become a person that would learn or do anything without extreme change - "aging" by our word. So there's "Life" the idea and there's "Life" the actual person, which is all that really counts. So ------- it isn't really repeatable in the way that reincarnation suggests I think.

Growing up in the 50's and 60's, raised and educated Roman Catholic, converted to Christianity and now something of a Reformed Christian I've probably been exposed to many of the same things as the rest of you. If I didn't want to believe the history and tradition of Christianity there are many different alternates, interpretations and options. Pick one and go with it. So far I haven't seen anything that provides a factual alternate. Christianity is often criticized as being short on facts, long on faith. Fine, just don't ask me to switch to another view where there are in fact, no facts to outweigh the Christian view .That just seems silly. But believe as you will, it's a free country. Either way, Rome came and went and the names of the Romans who supposedly cooked this up are gone and their names aren't exactly household words. Today I saw a bumper sticker that said "Jesus Loves You"....haven't seen a lot of "The Emperor Titus Flavius Loves You" stickers. Lately.

Another thing to consider about the evidence/history of Jesus - this is juat a point of my own but in response to the topic - Jews by commandment were forbidden to make idols, "graven imags", statues, etc. to worship or pray to. Jehovah didn't want a sculpted rendering of "Himself" that mankind would go to, look at and say "this represents God", or "this is God". Jesus - the "son of God" - would not have been treated differently by the Jews that followed Him, I would think....the Temple wasn't God or where God "was" or lived, and the N.T. speaks to that in the book of Acts. So there was no ongoing traditon of elevating iconic images of God or any of the Prophets. Roman scupture and art was very developed at that time however - no lack of it, quite the opposite. I might conjecture if I was going to - that a Roman Jesus would have been served very well by some later statues, paintings, engravings, turning up.....just a thought. Now - of course Roman Catholicism comes to mind - which became very involved in imagery and the desire to represent God and Jesus and all of the assorted characters of history, but these are all after the fact and make no claim to be anything other than at best, inspired efforts but with no declared claim to be accurate depictions. Today many denominations are flooded with it - shoot, we got Jesus's in America that look like Greg Allman after a good night's sleep, hot shower and hearty breakfast. No lack of it today but nothnig that comes from that era. So rather than assuming the faux Jesus stuff is Roman developed it makes more - or at least equal sense - to take the stance that the lack of historical images and renderings is completely in context with what the Jews that converted would have done. And not done. In other words, the absence of paintings, statues, icons and representations of Jesus would be typical and characteristic of His era and the abundance that evolved later would indicate the influence of external influences and a misguided effort to basically market Christianity.

I wanted more but after reading everything I found, shy of buying the book - I don't see the Romans, a Roman, saying "We invented Jesus Christ, and we're proud of it" - ever. There's no historical facts - just a projection. Christians take a lot of heat but - after this guy started selling his book, the Pope didn't put out an order to execute the guy. Religious faithful aren't storming the streets and burning the guy's book and beating people that try to buy it. We're not crying on TV interviews and wailing to the sky about how insulting and degrading it is that this guy would demean Mohammed - er- I mean, Jesus. Christians get crazy about a lot of stuff - but it's largely small slices of the larger demographic and as far as that goes, there's nothing inhuman about being passionate and drive towards what one believes is true. Rather, it's natural. I swear though - I'm sick to the gut of guys like this who publish day dreams and wanna - be's and act like their scholarly credentials aren't tarnished in the process, $elling books up the ying yang, and all the while smugly attacking something they have no real chance of changing. Enough with the butter knives guys, if you want to cut Jesus Christ down to size you're going to need a bigger knife! :evilshades:/>Just say - you don't want to believe it, the bible, the stuff, and move on and stop selling books and making money off the wonderful effort you make to try and free the stupid and heal the dumb. :evilshades:/>

You read my mind, Steve! (note to self: investigate possible get-into-socks-brain pattern of certain posting here....more to come) I guess I need to read more of what Atwell is selling to comment but dammed if I'm putting more money into anyone's pocket in the name of Jesus. I read "Zealot" couple months ago - a fact checker's nightmare. The author, a Muslim, invented and embellished facts as he wrote. It should be sub titled "Based on Events Some Believe May Have Happened This Way". I got tired after the first couple chapters and just skimmed the rest to the end - it was interesting but not really a scholarly effort, given that the author is a self described "scholar". If it was as Atwill describes, the Roman psyche strategy did indeed fail. Or backfired - and what about Constantine? That didn't fire up until the 3rd century. Slow burn syndrome? The premise - invent a peaceful Christ for Jews to follow that will reduce the risk to the Roman empire... In the End Run Game, Jesus isn't widely considered to be a peaceful Messiah, for one thing - let me qualify that - Practically speaking the entire message requires a fundamental, all-family-business-is-settled reckoning between - call them the Good guys and the Bad guys. The names and faces change regularly but even the most peaceful "age of Grace" Christians believe that at any time - BAM! He's coming back and this time...it's personal. /> Whether that be in the sky or through human transformation or anything inbetween. Thus my "Chafing at the Bit" theory - some of us just aren't going to wait. Acts 15 - if that's part of the early history the church in Jerusalem had accepted Gentiles as Christians into the church and determined to not burden them with observing Jewish tradition - that entire growing base would reflect a different demographic in the world at that time - so the Experimental Roman Jesus exploded in a way the Romans didn't plan for - which seems either really ironic or just plain bad luck! The records of the gospels carry the Jerusalem/Samaritan comparison, for "loving your neighbor"....that message in fact draws all Jews together if they follow it, towards a "Jerusalme of the Spirit" as it were - if that message were followed it would serve to reduce the divisiveness at that time between them - so it's interesting - the so-called-Roman-Jesus promotes a coming together of Judean and Samaritan Jews? which would potentially strengthen them not weaken them. I'm curious how Atwell accounts for the fact that - IF - this was a Roman concoction - why there is not more Roman historical material available then - if would have been completely in their interest of succeeding to have presented more material to actually document His existence at that time - yet, we're still left with so little that the very existence AT ALL is still questioned by many. Again and as always - the primary records are then by those who participated or spoke to those who did - seems like an odd way to build a Religion if you're actually building it, versus it just "happening".

Most of the theological dogma - call it doctrine for want of a better word - defines the nine things listed in 1. Cor. 12 as "nine gifts of the spirit" that are given individually by God, issued "severally" as He wills. I note the "severally" because it highlights the translation and contextual nuances that are involved - today, the average person reading that word would assume it means more than one, several this or that - as used in the Bible it has the meaning of "separately" and even "individually". The ESV renders it so: All these are empowered by one and the same Spirit, who apportions to each one individually as he wills. Me, I don't fault anyone's efforts and give high marks for showing and trying but I don't think much has come out of the ex-Way community on this particular topic that's much different than what's already out and about despite the fact that the cost to learn their ex-Way versions of it has gone up quite a bit and consistently so, over the years. One Gift/Nine Manifestations isn't a widespread interpretation, so most of what you read on the topic of 1 Cor. 12 is going to be counter to that. A good middle ground is EW Bullinger, which will certainly show you ground zero of the textual work.

Requirement? No. Family, friends I trust, I might. Sometimes it's a burden to the other person to know a lot of details. But no, there's no biblical requirement which is why Romans 8:26 and 27 say what they do. People are curious animals though, always sniffing around. It's in the blood I guess. "No harm in asking" in either case. Could be harm in answering though. So someone says "well what's wrong honey? Yes, I'll pray for you How can I help? Is there anything I can do?"......that's fine. There's no imperative from the "Word of God" however to reveal specifics when prayer is requested. I do pray "in the spirit", and often. Speak in tongues. Don't make it a Jesus or the wall kind of thing. I have made an effort to separate the basic foundational things of "faith and practice" in my life from the people and the sources from which they come. It doesn't matter who or how I learned it from - some things I've learned from seeing what's WRONG as much as what's right. I give recognition to everything and everyone past, present and future that have come through my life however, even the dimwads and darfishes that I'd just as soon throw tomato sauce on and might given time and oppportunity. Yeh, I'm a tweeze. I'm fine with that. Some I could have done without but in a way those two verses in Romans also speak to that part of life - where I would pick and choose this way and that, perhaps God would see it differently. Can't change it now, either way that's for sure. So pray, in the spirit, speak in tongues, think well and positively, send the best mental and emotional messages you have into the ether. Cant' hurt. There's no imperative from the "Word of God" however to reveal specifics when prayer is requested.

Who left the gate open...again.... <br> <iframe width="420" height="315" src="//www.youtube.com/embed/95E6ON8s8-0?rel=0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

Congrats BikerBabe. That's great news and insight. I remember the first batch of "regular" liquid nicotine e-cig I tried, the full strength stuff. I got dizzy. At the time I had smoked ultra light generic brands for years, so that direct hit of strong nicotine was too much, almost made me sick. That's educational in and of itself, right there. It's very possible to use e-cig's to roll off the nicotine strength to 0. The liquid blend of 50/50 pg and vg with a flavoring is all you "vape" then, there's no nicotine at all. What they label "6 mg" is the x-light level for most blends. By the time you hit that you're not getting a lot of nicotine and of course, none of the chemicals that go into tobacco processing. A list - interesting reading. The e-cig industry is wise to move forward carefully but firmly. There's no reason that an alternative delivery system for nicotine that uses the same method as cigarettes to deliver it (inhalation) should be viewed differently than cigarettes. There's always the side effect too that with an e-cig you'll never set your bed on fire or accidentally burn a hole in your favorite shirt, sure. But it CAN be a method to quit smoking cigarettes, if that's your goal and every success story supports that. It can also be a method to quit inhaling nicotine completely, if that's your goal. After that whatever risk the e-cig "vaping" products contain are unrelated to the traditional and known risks of smoking tobacco. All the anecdotal data supports that the e-cig used for inhaling flavored vapor with or without the nicotine or chemicals provides a method for the pathological behaviors that a cigarette user has after quitting nicotine. Basically the "habit" part - you can have something in your hand that you put in your mouth and inhale and receive the same sense of ingestion you got smoking. It's like a pacifier for adult infant behaviors. /> And that will, in fact, allow a person to "quit" if they want to. I don't smoke, haven't for over a year. I stopped several years ago then started. Now, that's over and won't restart again. You get to a point after awhile where the smell and the smoke itself is just so stanky and horrible - well, I can't take it anymore, speaking for myself. I understand those who still do though. Now the distance between the effect and what I did to achieve it is like, far. Too far to get there from here anymore. /> Congrats!!! You won!!!! Savor the victory, you went a long way to achieve it.