TLC

Unless there really was an original sin. In which case, there's little doubt that there's been some notion of it ever since. Are you suggesting or purporting that there's no such thing (and never has been)? Evidently you also don't think the devil is real. That's pure speculation bs. Fine by me if you want to accept it as that, but certainly not worth promoting as anything more than that. But from my view of things, it's not a good rendering of Gen.3:22 that it appears to be remotely related to. Did you think and/or write this stuff (or any of the rest of it) yourself, or is it (what I suspect) a cut and paste of someone else's thoughts? Maybe we can VOTE on that, eh?

The title of this thread doesn't mean shinola.

Quite frankly, I can barely understand your English, your sentence structure, or what you are possibly trying to say about half the time, and not at all the other half. Is English not your first language? (Because I've honestly tried to assess why your speech is so bloody incoherent much, if not most, of the time.) Furthermore, I don't think you've yet sincerely answered a question I've asked you, on any thread. So, no, I'll freely admit that I'm really not that interested in talking to you elsewhere unless and until you start making more sense. And btw, cut the crap that your "research" is somehow "over the heads" of anyone (or everyone) else here, because it's not. You evidently enjoy thinking it's some puzzle you've taken apart, but whatever it is, it's shoddily strewn into bits and half missing pieces onto the floor, which you are then either incapable (which is what I suspect) or unwilling to explain.

So you learned egotism elsewhere, or it just came naturally?

lol... that'd be funny if it wasn't so typical of anyone perfidiously aggrandized by TWI and their own bluster.

So what does that have to do with the price of eggs? (because whatever you said, you're sure not communicating.)

Sure. Why not? see Philippians 3:20; 1Timothy 1:1; and Titus 1:4. What are you supposing we get?

Beats me. I still can't figure out what he's talkin' 'bout, trying to say, or voting on...

What sort of hokey poo is that? Or what are you "voting" on, and why? And in case you hadn't noticed before (I'd presumed most here knew this already), "Christianity" (as a label) evidently first appeared in Antioch, shortly after Paul began teaching there (Acts 11:26.) So, it's not rocket science to make the connection between Christianity and the teachings of Paul.

You're probably right. As mentioned previously, I've probably long since "grown away" from some number of things...

Well, considering that you brought it up, would you mind elaborating a bit on what those "high expectations" were? (Because I'm getting the impression that the expectations for it not only varied greatly, but probably changed significantly over the years.) Perhaps a new thread for it, eh?

Not "particular"ly. (yuk, yuk...) I'm not a physicist, and probably way under qualified to do much explaining of it. (But I was sorta curious what DWBH might have to say in response to my inquiry over in this thread.)

Quantum physics might disagree with you.

There's much in your post (most of it, it seems) that I'm just not relating well to. Maybe it's old(er) age and my thinking and perspective has changed so much on some things, that certain less critical or important things have faded. This line, for instance, escapes me: VP taught that God can't speak to our brain cells. If he said it, I evidently took it to mean something far different than how you seem to have heard it. If someone were to call us on the telephone, would they be speaking directly to our brain cells? Maybe yes, maybe not. Depends upon what we think it means. There has to be some channel of communication opened. Likewise for the above statement. In the context of receiving revelation or hearing from God, some avenue or means of communication has to be open. With either the mouth of the donkey or the eyes of Balaam, it was the Lord that first opened it. Off topic, I'm sure, but one of the first explanations I recall hearing of the advanced class wasn't that it would really teach you how to receive revelation, but that it would help explain what you've already been doing. (Just a thought, for some to ponder...) Who sold that kind of stuff, or when did it start? That sounds like lcm talking. Easy enough, I suppose. But holy cow... a replacement for walking by the spirit? No wonder there is a thread here discussing corps(e) as victims or oppressors. No wonder the (few) research papers I reviewed were so crappy. catch the brass ring, and... opps. I mean, catch the gold dove, and get ordained! (sorry... I couldn't resist a bit of cynicism.) sadly, it seems the "I have a class to offer" syndrome still carries on through many of the offshoots (or at least those that "have a class" to offer.) run 'em again. over and over and over and over...

Nor had I. Actually, I've come to the point of seeing it as much more than that. Does the basic design of "the Way Tree" have any biblical basis for it? Like many others, I used to think it did. Then, (not so long ago) not so much. But more recently, yeah, maybe it does... but definitely not in the way I used to think, nor in accordance with what Paul reveals concerning the body of Christ. I'm actually inclined to think that with how legalistic the church at Jerusalem is said to have been, it may very well have developed a somewhat similar structure. What might they have patterned it after? Perhaps after how the Jewish religion may have operated, given its system of priests and its many synagogues spread around the world. But the Way Tree very quickly developed a life of its own, and an all too powerful means of control and financial gain. Regardless of whether it's called or thought of as "magical thinking" or a "law," there is a latent power resident within how anyone disciplines their mind to think. And yes, it certainly can change what our perception of reality is (or isn't.) http://www.amazon.com/The-Magic-Thinking-David-Schwartz/dp/0671646788 (But this is also properly noted as being different than prayer.)

For as much effort as was put into trying to differentiate "critical thinking" from... well, from "less critical," or "non-critical," thinking I suppose (lol).... I'm almost surprised that there's been nothing else said or aimed towards what "direct revelation" is or isn't. I kinda presumed from what T-bone said the conditioning became such that when there was none, there was blind obedience to the rules. And when there was some (revelation) claimed, it was actually little more than folk rubber stamping what they did with an excuse for not being "blindly obedient." Am I seeing what was intended to be said right, or am I still missing something?

Please don't misunderstand the reason for my posts. I'm not upset or offended in any way, I merely sought what was only fair and honest in what was being said. Okay?

Okay, I sense that it did become that way in later corps. (hence, perhaps the e is rightly added to the word.) Although the "roots" of such thinking may have started growing from very early on, I really don't know at what point it may have become so pervasive that it can be said to be either normal, or "the way it was" among most corps. From my own perspective, there were (far too many) cases of it, but I didn't view it as being good, right, or "normal." Okay, thanks for clarifying what you meant. Seems I wasn't relating well to it. Fair enough. I like most forms of genuine thinking (as long as it's reasonably coherent.) Sound sorta like someone that only thinks they're thinking. (oy vey... I'll stir some memories with that line!) Yeah, those lines were a bunch a crap for the most part. Just a "rubber stamping" of what they wanted to do.

Then how much honesty is actually in the post (shown below) that you previously made, judging all the intent of a man and his life? What qualifies you to speak so brazenly?

And you were what age at the time?

That (using "and" instead of "or") appears to me to be an oxymoron. While that appears rather black and white (as I don't see how both are feasible at the same time...) Agreed. I guess I've always thought that thinking was critical, but maybe there's some kind of thinking that isn't. And apparently there must be some differences of opinion as to what "direct revelation" is or how it works. (I presume that you're thinking "direct" means something not via another person, or through any previously written or revealed information.) Frankly speaking, I don't see or know how it's even possible to receive "direct revelation" and for it not to result in thinking about it, or that it somehow automatically eliminates any further choices.

How well do you think you knew the man, Bolshevik? How much time did you have or spend with him? Perhaps you wouldn't mind elaborating a little.

Escaped isn't necessarily a bad or a wrong word, but I'm not so sure that it's necessarily the right word for everyone. (Some were fired, but I shant say who... lol.) Considering that even in a physical sense certain times of rapid growth are not without pain, perhaps it could be viewed by some folk that their pain of separation was, at least in part, a result of significant growth. You look back, and see tremendous learning... but not without pain, and not without questions still looking for answers. Could, moreover, should it have been much better than it was? Absolutely. But life can't be lived in the rear view mirror. God was, is, and always will be a tremendous teacher. At some point in time, we have to reconcile with the reality of who the real teacher was (and is), and whether or not we've learned what (or all that) we could or should have learned. Maybe some can look back and say, they grew away from twi.

While that might apply to some things, it would be a blanket statement (not to mention less than kind, unfair, judgmental, dishonest, or even cruel) to say it was true of every doctrine or practice that he taught or lived. (Not that I think you or anyone else said or meant that, I'm just sayin'.) The difficulty always resides in honestly separating the good from the bad.

Well, perhaps I'll risk mentioning that from a particular perspective, all (mankind) are a mark or a victim, and the point where we start to see any man or woman as the enabler, facilitator or perpetrator of it is when its analyzed from a fleshly point of view. So, in a certain sense, it might be fair to say that even vpw was the victim of a spiritual abuser. And likewise, it might be just as fair to say that all of us were (and still are) enablers, facilitators or perpetrators of some number of spiritual abusive things if (or whenever) we fail to walk in the spirit. So yes, it's a complicated question, as no one escapes the certain (spiritual) dichotomy of it. But let's not forget that the struggle that we faced (and continue to face) is not merely one of flesh and blood. Just as none of us were "all good," none of us were "all bad" in what we did or how we lived. So, rather than looking at individual lives as either victims or perpetrators, perhaps it is easier (or more sensible) to stick with analyzing which specific actions or doctrines were wrong or abusive.