laleo

Actually, QQ, fascinating though this topic is, I'm wondering how you took such a sudden detour from ancient sexual encounters to kitchen appliances. Well, let's see, there was Debbie from a long time ago, the first one I ever saw nude, with the little round birthmark above her belly button that almost made me flip. Then there was Trudy or was it Judy who went straight for my zipper at the reservoir. And, let's see, I think it was Karen who buried my chest with little mounds of warm sand on the beach, while the seagulls flew in formation through the darkening sky, Venus glowing overhead. Kate was nervous. She chain smoked while I put on the music, her fingernails chewed down almost to the knuckle. Jill came to the first session of Dealing With the Adversary. I had to take her home because her car overheated in the parking lot. But boy did she come up with all sorts of angles I never even dreamed about. Then there was Lottie or was it Lattie or were we drinking a latte, damn that crummy Krups. Honey, go fetch me the Consumer Reports. How did you get from there to here?

Steve, I now understand your FOS/physics analogy, although it's been a long, long time since I've heard Wierwille's definition (or, more likely, Bullinger's) of figures of speech. While I won't take you to task on it, you may want to consider that if a writer (inspired by God or not) wishes to place emphasis on a point, repetition is a more effective tool than images. Consider how many times the Bible states that "the Lord our God is one Lord." No lofty language. No figures of speech. No grammatical hand stands. Just straightforward prose. Over and over again. And we get the point. Only God is God. It's a message that's repeated. For emphasis. Consider also that while Bullinger has a far keener mind than mine, and is much more skilled at identifying and categorizing figures of speech in the Bible, his conclusion (or maybe Wierwille's) for why they are there isn't absolute. Read a poem, any poem, and you'll probably conclude that figures of speech are employed to give focus to the message, to narrow the meaning. Not because those particular lines are more important, or even emphasized, just more dense, more textured, more vivid. While it might be interesting to follow the pattern of asyndeton and polysyndeton in the Bible (I forgot about those), what I wonder more is how much of the Bible is metaphor. Regarding God, miracles, and physics, let me say first that I often envy people of faith, and admire those with religious convictions (Mike: Please note that I said convictions, not illusions). If I've understood your point, it is that miracles, which seem to defy natural law, operate within it. Just as God, angels, and demons operate within it. Now, here's where I'm unclear. Because you often refer to the Bible as "the Word of God" and seem to respect the authority of the Bible as a vehicle to transport God into human consciousness, I've made some assumptions about who you understand God to be. So correct me if I'm wrong. The God that I was introduced to in The Way, the God I thought I knew, isn't the Universal Oneness, the Eternal Self, the Unity of Creation, the Brotherhood of Man, who exists in the physical world, maybe as some sort of energy field, who can be found in flowers and suffering and rainbows and meditation and children. He is a God with personality. He is loving, and angry, and jealous, and merciful, and powerful. He responds to human need. He hates injustice, hypocrisy, and arrogance. He won't tolerate disobedience. If you get into a battle of wills with him, you will surely lose, but He will admire you for the effort, and even reward you for putting up a fight. He likes spunk. If you don't like the outcomes in your life, you can plead your case to Him, and, if you've managed to persuade Him that you've been treated unfairly, He will rearrange the universe to set things right. He is interactive. He is present. Is this the God you say exists in the physical world? If so, where? Even Jesus, when he referred to the Kingdom of God, indicated that it originated in heaven. If heaven is actually on earth, why haven't scientists been able to detect it with, say, a seismograph of the spirit, like they've been able to detect even the smallest eruptions within the earth? If demons are limited in space and time, why is there no ruler to measure their height, their influence, their presence? It's not for lack of trying, Steve. Scientists have labored to detect God since the beginning of science, since the beginning of God. Lately, they've given up on finding Him, and are focusing their efforts on finding other clues to His presence ? by measuring the influence of prayer, by quantifying psychic phenomena, by chasing after miracles. So far, nothing. Scientists have been able to detect life, and energy, the origins of wind, the components of fire, and the effects of love. If this is the God you are describing ? the God of life and energy and wind and fire and love ? then, yes, I agree, that God (who is as impersonal as nature itself) is present and accounted for. But that isn?t the Christian God, as I understand it. Take care, Steve. I?m glad to hear you and your wife have found some solutions to her illness. And I?m also glad you?ve had your faith to rely on, too.

Hi Steve, I just read over your posts on this thread from the past few days and you've made some interesting (if not radical) claims. If you don't mind explaining a little more of your thinking on a few points, I'd like to hear more about how you arrived at your beliefs about the natural vs. spiritual world (or realms). (Incidentally, for whatever it's worth, I think your posts are completely on-topic since the idea of the natural vs. spiritual realm was introduced in the initial post to define Wierwille's "ubiquitously hidden" teaching.) While you've given an interesting history of the origins of the "natural vs. spiritual" teaching, I'm almost certain that the idea of the four kingdoms -- plant, animal, man, God -- was part of early Hebrew religious beliefs. I think you offered a refutation of this view at some point by suggesting that since animals eat plants, and man eats animals, then, if these kingdoms supersede each other, spirit would eat man. While that's an interesting perspective, I don't think the Hebrew beliefs centered around eating customs, but domination. In other words, plants are subject to animals, animals to man, and man to God. I think you're right to question that view. I don't necessarily think that because something is written in the Bible it is automatically true, but there does seem to be plenty of biblical evidence supporting this, beginning in Genesis. Which brings me to my next point . . . I think it's possible (preferable, even) to take the Bible seriously without taking it literally. I also think that there is a progression of religious thought in the Bible, which reflects the changing influences of other cultures and religions. Religions are, after all, manmade. Maybe there is something true or genuine or real about the concept of God, and maybe religion is man's effort to express or ritualize or rationalize what is experienced of God by man. For instance, you have mentioned the influence of demons, but that is a concept that didn't make its debut until much later in the writings. I'm sure evil influences have been experienced since the beginning of man, but there was no formalized belief system to explain these influences until much later. Same with the resurrection. For much of the Bible, the dead remain dead -- forever. For instance, Job's reward for a life of faith came in this life. There is no promise of a future life. So, anyway, is a concept less biblical, less Christian, if it is introduced at a later date? Do the earliest writings in Judaism, for instance, define Judaism, or is it also defined by later biblical writers who may be introducing new concepts? You mentioned that you found peace with Jesus Christ after reading Matthew 11:28-30. When I read those verses, I see a paradox. If his yoke is easy and his burden light, why does he use the words "yoke" and "burden" to describe something that is "light" and "easy"? I thought of other verses in Matthew (if thine eye offend thee, pluck it out; judge not that ye be not judged; if you look on a woman with lust, you've already commited adultery; turn the other cheek; love your enemies) and what I see is an impossible ethical standard that Jesus demands of us, which is far from "easy" or "light." That's not to say we shouldn't aspire to it, just that Jesus seemed to understand the paradoxical nature of following God. I'm a little puzzled by this analogy: "Just as figures of speech are legitimate uses, even though they appear to violate the laws of grammar, I believe miracles are physically legitimate, even though they appear to violate classical physics." Figures of speech are pictures painted with words that create images in the reader's mind which bypass reason to evoke emotion. I'm not sure why you say they "violate the rules of grammar." If they did, they would be a nonsensical sequence of words whose meaning is indecipherable. Additionally, the "laws of grammar" have no authority. They aren't immutable. They are simply a tool for communication. A poorly constructed sentence lacks meaning, but it doesn't defy the order of the cosmos. If a miracle occurs, it more than violates "classical physics." It redefines it. If, for instance, a person flies up instead of down after jumping off a plane, no matter what the cause, then gravity is no longer a law. Sentences make sense when the "laws of grammar" are obeyed. Physical laws exist with or without obedience, with or without understanding. You said: "I believe that there *are* normally invisible intelligences who try to influence human decisions, but I don't think this requires the existence of a separate 'spirit realm.'" But if something is "invisible" how can it exist in the physical world? When I first read this, I thought of things like ecstasy or tranquillity or terror which also do not follow the laws of physics in that none of these responses are guaranteed. While most of us might feel terror after free-falling out of that plane, there are a few who might feel tranquillity or ecstasy. There is no "law" governing our responses. But then the more I thought about it, these responses do exist in the physical world as a conglomeration of neurotransmitters traveling through our brains, originating in genetics, experience, and who knows what else. Intelligence, too, exists in chemical form. Are gods and demons products of our brain chemistry? If not, what form do they take if they exist in the physical world?

I hope you survived the bungee jumping and enjoyed the pie. Happy Birthday, John. Hope: I'm sorry I missed your birthday. Happy Belated to you, too.

Zixar, Oh well. I made the effort. But I'll keep my eyes open for others. Actually, the only thing I remember about Wierwille's rules of grammar is that by the time he had finished illustrating the "rule" the entire meaning of the verse (or whatever he was expounding on) bore little resemblance to what made complete sense to begin with. I thought that the purpose for using proper grammar was to make the meaning of language clearer. In The Way, it seemed to distort things. Like those verses in Ecclesiastes. They seem to be illustrating the futility of a spiritual existence, not evidence of a tripartite man. I wonder if using verses to illustrate a point other than the point they are intended to illustrate isn't an Actual Error in itself. Carry on . . .

Zixar: On Ubiquitous Mike's other thread, you quoted this verse: Going back a couple of pages when you were talking about pronouns, haven't you just furnished proof that Wierwille was incorrect when he said that every pronoun refers back to the closest noun (paraphrasing, because I don't remember exactly what Wierwille said)? When Wierwille taught the meaning of that verse, didn't he indicate that "he" refers back to the unclean spirit rather than the man, as in "When the unclean spirit is gone out of a man, he [referring to the unclean spirit, not the man, which is the closest noun] walketh through dry places, seeking rest, and findeth none." I'm not sure if this fits the criteria for an Actual Error, but you and Rafael were looking for examples of times that Wierwille may have broken his own rule about pronouns. I know none of this would make it through Mike's thick skull, but it seems to illustrate the point about pronouns that you were making earlier. Does it?

Dot, I haven't been in touch with him for years and years, but I know people who have. You know them too. If you don't get his email/phone number, let me know. I can give you a couple of phone numbers of those who I'm pretty sure are in the know. I'd like to hear how his brothers are doing.

Ted, what a sweet song. Hope to hear you sing it someday. Happy Birthday to you, Kathy.

There once was a girl from Nevada Who never took no for an ansa She loved to rememba All the way to Decemba The birthdays of all ex-way membas. Never mind. I'll leave the rhyming to you. Happy Birthday, Birthday lady!

Happy Birthday, Wacky. Enjoy your day.

Long Gone: It seemed particularly antagonistic. Probably my imagination. Never mind. QQ: Thank you. And I understand what you're saying. I think you're right.

Long Gone, I don't know what to say. I think you just don't like me. Or maybe you're being stubborn. I don't know. But I do know I don't feel like being at odds with you. Dot said it better than I can: "If we look at the accounts it does not need commentary." excathedra, I don't doubt that the article was helpful. I thought it had a lot of good information in it, and was written with compassion and understanding. However, I think some of the pronouncements in the article were too sweeping. But thanks for posting it. oldiesman, When alfakat mentioned (on another thread, I think) that you were a former WayDale poster, I wracked my brain trying to connect you with another handle. Your posts didn't sound familiar to me. Then the day dawned, and I remembered your former posts. I don't know you but my impression of you then is the same impression I have of you now. I don't think you are a former Way leader. I don't believe you ever had anything to do with the corruption that was in The Way. I think you were the guy sitting next to me at Twig, who shared his Bible when I left mine at home. I think you're the guy who worked a steady job, and had enough left over to treat everyone to pizza after witnessing night. My guess is that you were the one who handed me your car keys when I needed to get to work. Heck, you probably were even the guy who gave me your car when it was time for you to buy a new one. I met dozens of guys like you. You came in the middle of the night to fix a flat tire, brought me a cup of coffee at break, let me bum cigarettes off of you, and slipped me twenty dollars when I ran out of money at the Rock. You may have cracked a few jokes, but I don't think you made an inappropriate advance toward any of your "sisters in Christ." I think you were the backbone of the "ministry." You made a believer out of me. My guess is that it's so hard for you to accept VPW's abuse because it would never occur to you to be abusive, and you have a hard time grasping the idea that someone who won your trust and loyalty and respect could be so unworthy of it. I don't think you're anything like him. The insults and accusations he gets here -- he earned every single one. He doesn't deserve you. You're better than he ever thought to be. Maybe I'm wrong about you, oldiesman. But I don't think so. You don't have it in you to hurt anyone. VPW did. Let him go. Thank you, Dot.

Long Gone, This is precisely why it is important to call things what they are so that people CAN understand the effects. When testimonies of abuse are quickly labeled as something which they are not, it has the effect of sensationalizing and minimizing the event rather than exposing it for what it is. I think there is far more power in the actual accounts of VPW's abuse, then in the clever (and sometimes overstated) labels that people sometimes attach to it. Furthermore, Long Gone, your long indictment of Oldiesman was premised on a simple misunderstanding he had of what was written in one of the posts. He has never said or implied anywhere that anyone is "playing the victim." What would make you think that other than your own misunderstanding of what he is saying? Also, I'm curious. Did you read the full article that was linked at the beginning of this thread? I won't offer a critique lest I get yelled at for being too ignorant to know how to write one, but I'll say this: The article was not an indictment against aggressive sexual predators, but against male sexuality. I respect the process that excathedra is going through to make sense of her own suffering, but I also understand why oldiesman might question some of the premises that are quoted to support the conclusion that VPW was a sexual predator. VPW's predation was slimy and inexcusable. But the evidence to support it is in the testimonials, not in the labels. Just read Dot's posts. They are powerful.

Sorry to belabor the point, lindyhopper, but what are the "signs"? These are the sorts of things that people like oldiesman get hung up on, and understandably so. What happened is bad enough. But when it is called something other than what it is, it confuses the issue, and heaps even more pain and anguish and misunderstanding on what is already a bad situation. Yes, Abigail, it sure does "feel" like rape, but calling it "rape" only reinforces the sense of powerlessness that women feel who have been violated. Things need to stay in perspective. [This message was edited by laleo on February 03, 2003 at 8:46.]

Lindyhopper: First, if it was not consensual, but the victim "didn't know how to say NO," how does the non-violent rapist, absent a drugged or unconscious victim, know he is committing a rape? Secondly, what is your understanding of the definition of sexual harassment?

mj412 and Dot: I wish I had your courage. I hope you keep telling it like it is. Rafael: You have my respect. Oldiesman: Hang in there.

Okay. This was from 1974. Exam 1, Question 31:

Home studies questions? I can scan the ones you want and send them to you. Offhand I don't see anything having to do with the bar mitzveh, if that's what you're interested in, but I'll take a closer look.

Rafael, I just dug out a PFAL syllabus from 1971 and from 1974. What is an "advanced studies question" and where do I find it?

My very own duplicate vinyl copy of America Awakes!!!!! Hey, this is exciting! I gotta go check the needle on my record player. If I can find my record player. It sounds like you fared much better than my husband. At least your lessons were voluntary. To hear him tell it, he lived a veritable double life during those days, his accordion tucked shamefully away lest his friends find him out, yet practicing faithfully for years in hopes that his instructor would pronounce him suitable for the guitar. His parents tell another story. From what they say, he was so talented on the accordion that they all thought he?d lost interest in the guitar, and no one ever mentioned it again. He never found redemption. He still strums his guitar occasionally, but I've never seen him go near a squeeze box, or heard him play. Hey, what are those albums going for these days on E-Bay? I'm thinking of the possibilities. My husband and I are overdue for a cruise through the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame (maybe this time our timing will be better and we can avoid the traffic -- and the Indians fans -- is that still the name of the team, or am I confusing them with another team?). Then we can take you out to dinner and you two can reminisce about accordions, Lawrence Welk, gutting chickens, and such. Okay, forget the dinner. I'm already losing my appetite. How 'bout coffee? Or we'll find a Mike's Lemonade stand. How much is that album worth? Oh the possibilities!

Hmmm . . . flute, violin, dulcimer, recorder, autoharp, kazoo . . . I'm losing track. There was a picture of an accordion . . . did anyone guess that? If not, I'll vote for the squeeze box, only because when my husband wanted to take guitar lessons as a child, his music teacher made him learn the accordion first. He's still traumatized by it. Or could it have been something as generic as the piano?

Welcome to GreaseSpot, Oakmom. I'm glad your #1 Son (surely this must mean he is your only son) was able to lure you inside with a surprise party. Thanks for joining us. Happy Happy Birthday.

What a sweet story. Thanks for posting it, Jesse. And, Linda, thanks for sharing it.

Linda, You're too kind. I think our effort probably brought more of a groan than a grin, but, hey, we tried. I'll pass along your greeting to Ryebred. Hope you enjoyed your birthday.

It seemed like just another day at the GreaseSpot Café Until the doors flung open and the place began to sway! Then quickly Dorothy Owens pounded on her piano . . . Her good eye winking wildly, singing in her soprano To Linda Z a birthday song ? of this I am not lying. The din began to settle as the crowd burst into singing Plotinus played his zither as LarryP began to laugh At My3cents and Mandii, both rooting through Litwin?s stash. ChuckR fell through the swinging doors, dropping his homemade bong. Jesse Joe arrived with Fido, who began to howl along. Yeck came round the corner waving his arms right and left Because the birthday girl was coming and Lord knows she isn?t deaf! Kit Sober grabbed the microphone from Pawtucket?s outstretched hand To announce the present would arrive in Groovey?s VW van. The peace mobile had just pulled up, idling right outside. ?Come hither girl and 'cept our gift,? good George and Suzie cried. ?Yes, yes!? the crowd at GreaseSpot called, which swept away her pride. Linda Z was smiling, tears spilling from her eyes. Her crowd of friends with birthday wishes parted for her passing And walk she did, her head held high, her tresses loose and streaming. But wait, what ho? It cannot be! A man in business attire?! What brought him here today, she thought, with whom did he conspire? Was this that famous raconteur, the man whose every word did glisten? To hear himself; believe himself, and nary stop to listen? He walked, or rather swaggered, his charisma all aglow . . . And Linda Z began to blush as the sweat began to flow. Ginger Tea whisked up her special brew, a tonic to calm her For Linda Z cried hysterically as his form came closer. No frowns upon her face did show, for it was Aaron Brown! But no! Only satori, incognito. Linda Z let out a gasp when she saw it was satori Bedecked in Brown?s frameless lenses, arriving in all his glory. Satori smiled that smile of his and nodded at the bus, ?Your present?s inside that peace mobile. It?s yours from all of us.? With halting steps she made her move, slid open the VW?s door And bravely stepped onto that bus, inside its dark interior. From deep inside the bus there glowed, already framed, a myriad of Shin Hanga prints galore, some from the Edo period. Now Linda Z cried peacefully, her birthday wish fulfilled For all her friends were gathered near, and that was all she willed. Now that our lame tale has been told, we hope you did enjoy it. Happy Birthday from our hearts to yours, from Laleo and Ryebred. [This message was edited by laleo on October 19, 2002 at 18:11.] [This message was edited by laleo on October 19, 2002 at 18:16.]