Oakspear

Hmmm...you do have a point. Oftentimes in TWI I didn't necessarily believe something, but kept my mouth shut

Well, your change would be true, but no more representaive of my opinion than my original. The "everyone around me" addition would accurately apply to resistance to peer pressure.

Since they were already dead, how did he determine this?

The three trustees at the time signed The Passing of a Patriarch. Howard Allan's note at the bottom said: "I've read it and all is true. I've felt it and didn't know what to do. So I will change to do my best for the man I helped to kill" http://www.greasespotcafe.com/waydale/gallery/papletter.gif

I never had a response either, back when I was "in", but one response would be that several of the offshoots teach exactly what Wierwille taught back in the good ol' days, but without the later abuse. Secondly, how would someone know whether or not there are churches who taught those things without any investigation. The variety of churches and other religious groups is staggering. Thirdly the "groundbreaking research" is largely either plagairized or otherwise adapted from other sources, hardly unique. Finally, most people, while involved in TWI, never take a hard critical look at the research and doctrines except through "Way-colored glasses". Very few people have ever taken the time to determine whether or not what TWI was actually true.

I'm not sure what is meant by terminally skeptical <_< , but as George says, skepticism is a good thing. We are all skeptical to a greater or lesser extent, we just have different threshholds of what it takes to convince us. And that threshhold may be different for various categories for the same person. One person may embrace a given religion without question, but is very skeptical about the claims of politicians. Another may be very suspicious about religious beliefs, but accepting of UFO's. See what I mean? We all have areas in which in takes a bit more convincing to get us to 'see the light". Personally, I'm a skeptic in that I won't believe something only because someone says it is true. I generally require some documentation, or evidense. However, I usually don't need rigorous scientific testing to accept the possibility that something may be so, and believe that there are things where it's not possible to verify beyond a shadow of a doubt. Skepticism is healthy, it keeps us from sending money to those guys claiming to be holding our million dollars in that Ugandan bank account :blink:

Some of us interacted with a few of TWI's youth at the "Family Tables" website before we were shut out. I for one was not impressed. For a group of allegedly college educated people, their thinking skills were not at all in evidence. All these young people are "chomping at the bit"? Who's stopping them? Want to do something for God? Go do it!

There was more "protocol" in TWI that no one else in the world ever heard about. It took me a while being "out" before I realized that most of it was fabricated by Wierwille, or that he had taken old ciustoms and tried to apply them to the present day. Even though Martindale was generally full of himself and full of crap -_- he was more often than not entertaining and could hold your interest. Maybe all the yelling stimulated the fight or flight response and we were all overdosing on adrenaline :lol: Some TWI teachers could put you to sleep in minutes. What I'm seeing here is a lot of the things that Wierwille apologists and those nostalgic for the "good ol' days" claimed was never taught. Things that are not in PFAL, or any of the books, were taught regularly by Wierwille, and Martindale documented them.

This kind of crap used to annoy the heck out of me. Even if we stipulate that barah (translated "create" in Genesis) can only mean "to make something out of nothing", the English word "create" has a much broader meaning:Main Entry: 1cre·ate Pronunciation: krE-'At, 'krE-" Function: verb Inflected Form(s): cre·at·ed; cre·at·ing Etymology: Middle English, from Latin creatus, past participle of creare; akin to Latin crescere to grow -- more at CRESCENT transitive senses 1 : to bring into existence <God created the heaven and the earth -- Gen 1:1 (Authorized Version)> 2 a : to invest with a new form, office, or rank <was created a lieutenant> b : to produce or bring about by a course of action or behavior <her arrival created a terrible fuss> <create new jobs> 3 : CAUSE, OCCASION <famine creates high food prices> 4 a : to produce through imaginative skill <create a painting> b : DESIGN <creates dresses> intransitive senses : to make or bring into existence something new ...and even keeping to biblical usage, possess is used in ways other than demon possession - doesn't Melchizedek refer to Abraham's God as the posesser of heaven and earth? Humble enough to be bold?

Comment on the note-taking: Taking notes was an obsession in Way-world I was one of those people who could take notes that could be used as a syllabus, but after a few years I had notebook upon notebook that I never looked at. And what the heck did finishing anything have to do with taking notes?

What the f---? He just taught the bible ...and the worst thing that you can do is ask a bible question? I guess what he really wanted is adulation. I recall asking a Way Corps woman some questions after a teaching, her husband reproved me for it, using this VP & me example

Not sure if your "Um, no" refers to his country of origin or not, but there is not, and never was a country called Serbo-Croatia. The Kingdom of the Serbs, Croats and Slovenes was created from pieces of the former Ottoman and Austro-Hungarian Empires following World War I. It later changed it's name to Yugoslavia (the land of the southern Slavs). It included the "republics" of Slovenia, Croatia, Serbia, Bosnia-Herzegovina, Macedonia, and Montenegro, as well the regions of Kosovo and Vojvodina (not sure of the spelling). Several of these broke off to form the independent nations of Slovenia, Croatia, Macedonia and Bosnia. The remainder of the country kept the name Yugoslavia, although it was primarily Serbia. I'm not sure if it still goes by Yugoslavia, or If the union of Serbia and Montenegro uses another name (Kosovo was included in Serbian territory). The language that most of the ethnic groups from the former Yugoslavia speak is generally called Serbo-Croatian, although Bosnians immigrants around here call it "Bosnian".

I'm pretty sure that you know that I'm not asking you to "prove" anything. I'm just trying to figure out why people come to the conclusions that they do. I think that's good. You experienced something, and you chose a framework in which you can understand and process that experience. I don't believe that the objective truth or falsity of the bible has anything to do with what you experience and how you choose to learn, grow and be comforted from it. Let's extend that to non-believers in the supernatural. They experience something, and prefer to choose a framework of understanding that does not include the supernatural. I think we can get through the day without damning the atheists and pagans, or laughing at the credulousness of the Christians.

Kathy: Notice that I didn't say what you experienced wasn't real, or that you didn't experience it, or that it wasn't divine. What caused you to believe that this source of comfort was identical to the god of the bible? Assuming for the sake of argument that you weren't hallucinating, did the source of this "vision" personally lay out his agenda, or did you assume that he was the deity described in the bible? Yup, but still, people "know" things that can never be tested, verified, or repeated. Me, I have no problem with this. I do have a problem when those people try to push what they "know" on the rest of us.

time to log off...

darn, I usually go for the condescending snob attitude whenever possible!

Let me give you an example: My son moved this weekend. He asked me to help him move, I agreed to help him last night. I showed up at the appointed time, and helped. I demonstrated reliability of one sort. However, if my son had asked me for a large sum of money, or to help him on a different day when I had to work, I would have had to say no. There was really no way my son could have known in advance what my answer would have been. He knew that I would help him if I could, but had no accurate way to predict what would prevent me from assisting him. I believe that God is like that, if he exists. You ask God for stuff, you pray, but you don't really know if he is going to come through. Can anyone truthfully say that every time they prayed for something they received the desired result? Even in a narrow category such as health? Doubt it I guess I'll have to go back and re-read what you said the rsonse from God was. Okay...I just read your story. Very moving. I'll not question its reality (at least for the sake of this discussion) But it kind of illustrates what I am saying. What about the image that you perceived led you to believe that it was the god that you now worship?

How is this reliability demonstrated? But of course!

I don't think age is an issue. Cultural prejudices are set pretty early, even if active believing in them isn't

How is this reliability demonstrated?

I have no desire to explain my understanding of the theory of evolution, even to someone who didn't smack evolutionists around B) Seriously though, I didn't think you were the type to get that frustrated with someone else's beliefs, the "smacking" reference seemed out of character. Thanks for the explanation, and as usual, i don't need help

Warning! - maybe a little. Let's assume for the sake of argument, that the "spiritual" experiences that people claim to have are real. That they really feel some kind of divine connection. It's been my observation that these experiences are interpreted in whatever way the person's mind is inclined to believe. The Christian might say it's God communicating to him. The Atheist might identify a natural phenomenon to explain it. A believer in reincarnation might see it as a memory from a past life. An ESP enthusiast could interpret it as telepathy. The UFO researcher would see an alien abduction as a possibility. The pagan might decide that the goddess was involved. But most of these folks would KNOW that the experience was what they were predisposed to believe it was. Unexplained phenomena have always been with us, and probably always will. Religion is our way to try to make sense of them.

We can "know" plenty, without being able to quantify it, we just can't prove, or demonstrate it to others. For example, I love my wife, I know that I love my wife, there is nothing that can talk me out of it. However, I cannot prove that to anyone else, although they can choose to take my word for it. On the other hand, although many believers will say that God (or whatever they call the "higher power") is known to them, loves them, listens to their prayers, has "a relationship with them", none of them can, with any reliability, predict what their god will do in any situation. Granted, none of us can reliably predict what our friends, neighbors, co-workers or children will do in a given situation either. Sure, there are formulas, and "holy scripture", and other so-called guarantees, but does your god do what you expect him to do, or even what he supposedly said he would do? Which raises the question (at least in my mind ), is God someone who can be counted on? It says that he can in the bible, but can he really?

Hmmm....I think both "sides" in this discussion stipulate that man exists. George was illustrating the relative tangible values of science and religion (or, if you prefer, a realtionship with God). Of course science couldn't have proceeded if man didn't exist, and would have proceeded whether man was literally created on the sixth day, or "crawled out of an amoeba". Now that's the way to conduct a proper discussion! I don't know, that you're kidding? :wacko:

Wow, Mrs. W wasn't perfect then, was she? Seriously though, this is a perfect example of someone high up in TWI making a decision based on little or no genuine knowledge.