Oakspear

Hopefull: Personally, I get nauseous when I hear Wierwille referred to a "doctor". For me, it's bad enough when he's called "Dr. Wierwille", but when a hear a statement like.."when doctor said such and such"...it just turns my stomach In theory, there is no difference between theory and practice...but in practice there is Oakspear

Just Thinking: My point exactly :D--> Rafael: Shh...you'll wake him :P--> In theory, there is no difference between theory and practice...but in practice there is Oakspear

Yup, Martindale was an idiot who didn't have the watts to figure out that he could keep the TWI scam going if he came across as a "leader", rather than a tyrant. He foolishly and vainly thought that the skunk pelt and the acompanying spiritual claptrap would render him immune to any dissension. The lesson he learned from the Geer pseudo-coup was to be more of a jerk, not be more godly-seeming, as his mentor did. Wierwille, despite all the sexual abuse, lying, plagarism, behind-the-scenes politicking, bullying and whatever else, generally did not present himself publically like that. Wierwille crafted a persona that made it difficult to believe that he would do the things that he was accused of doing, Martindale's public persona created an atmoshere where we wanted to believe anything bad that we heard about him, his own public face made it that much more plausible. Wierwille got what he wanted by leveraging and manipulating, Martindale got what he wanted by bellowing orders and bludgeoning people over the head with TWI's version of God and his own MOGship. In theory, there is no difference between theory and practice...but in practice there is Oakspear

Adam didn't speak English? --> When I read my bible it seems like he is. In theory, there is no difference between theory and practice...but in practice there is Oakspear

How come Elrond is the only Elf that's not pretty? :D--> In theory, there is no difference between theory and practice...but in practice there is Oakspear

By the way, I didn't make up the skunk pelt thing. Another GSer, whose handle escapes me, did about two years ago. In theory, there is no difference between theory and practice...but in practice there is Oakspear

ExC: Well, there are sickos out there who might...it's happened. I don't know why, but some folks have been falsely accused before. Why someone would drag themselves through the mud like that is beyond me, but there have been instances. Frankly, if it was just one or two I might have retained my own doubts, but there are just too many to be the fantasies of a sick mind out to "get" Wierwille. In theory, there is no difference between theory and practice...but in practice there is Oakspear

SKUNK PELT!!!!! I just wanted to say that again :P--> :D--> In theory, there is no difference between theory and practice...but in practice there is Oakspear

I don't take Wierwille's (or Martindale's) offenses against others personally, but I do take note. For years the only information that I had (or at least the large majority of it)about the first two Presidents of The Way International came from...(*gasp*)the first two Presidents of The Way! And, surprise! I didn't hear anything bad from them about themselves! Now I can balance that information with first-hand accounts of people who were abused by these two. In addition, I can see for myself the obvious plagarism, the outright lying, and the misrepresentations that both of these guys perpetrated. In theory, there is no difference between theory and practice...but in practice there is Oakspear

If what folks say about Wierwille is "rumors without evidence", Martindale falls into the same category, with one exception. He admitted to a "one-time consensual affair". In my opinion, Wierwille covered his foot better than Martindale did, he presented himself to the masses better, he played the role of our "father in the Word" to the hilt, and orchestrated things so that even questioning him became taboo. Martindale, evidently thought that the conferring of the skunk pelt :P--> gave him the same aura of holiness that Wierwille cultivated over decades. Martindale therefore made no effort to appear wise and loving; he was the MOG, so that was that. He did not "work the crowd" like Wierwille did, so he appeared as he was, a jerk. In theory, there is no difference between theory and practice...but in practice there is Oakspear

Actually, Linda Carter, you're not answering my question. But that's okay, the question was mainly for folks who acknowledge Wierwille's sins but excuse them for one reason or another. So, that's the best you got? He's dead and can't defend himself? It's all rumors? Oh, and welcome to GreaseSpotCafe :D--> In theory, there is no difference between theory and practice...but in practice there is Oakspear

Let's see, how about multiple adulterous liaisons(sp?) and sexual abuse? First-hand accounts abound, here and on other sites, too many IMHO to be discounted. How about continuous lying about his credentials, background, specific incidents and supposed phenomena? How about egregious plargarism? Scan the site LC, incidents and supporting information abound.In theory, there is no difference between theory and practice...but in practice there is Oakspear

I dare because I hold the whole concept of someone proclaiming himself to be The Man of God for Our Time in contempt, and the silly posturing and faux symbolism of the "transfer of the mantle" in equal contempt. In theory, there is no difference between theory and practice...but in practice there is Oakspear

This is for mainly for the minority here who say that Wierwille's sins should be excused or minimized because of the "Word of God" that he taught, or who beat the "we all have sinned" drum in Wierwille's regard. So what's your problem with Martindale then? Sure he was crude and obnoxious, and engaged in many sins, but Wierwille put the skunk pelt on him, certifying him as a MOG; shouldn't we overlook his sins too? In theory, there is no difference between theory and practice...but in practice there is Oakspear

This has been, IMHO, the best thread on miracles in a long time. Very little of the "I know I was healed by God...are you calling me a liar?" challenges that sometimes gets thrown out, and more of the thoughtful, gentle, thankfullness and love for God that is a result of receiving a powerful gift. Thanks In theory, there is no difference between theory and practice...but in practice there is Oakspear

:D--> In theory, there is no difference between theory and practice...but in practice there is Oakspear

This is a post that has not been seen since the first century. Why, I forgot more about posting than Rafael ever knew. My purpose in contributing to this thread is to invoke some new thought on some of the postings over the past few years regarding Plagiarism. I offer food for thought and know this is a little long but it is my hope to put to rest some of the controversy from the past. While browsing Mel Gibsons new website for his forthcoming movie "The Passion of Christ" http://www.thepassionofchrist.com , I came across a web-site with some interesting views on Plagiarism that I thought would be of interest to some. So my "food for thought". If God inspires his people through his gift of holy spirit (" Peter 1:21 For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost.") to write classes, sermons etc., who really owns those teachings and sharings. When we share with someone the greatness of God's Word, we are all gleaning excerpts from those that have taught and preached to us as well as The Holy Spirit who works in us. "Romans 10:14 How then shall they call on him in whom they have not believed? and how shall they believe in him of whom they have not heard? and how shall they hear without a preacher? Romans 10:15 And how shall they preach, except they be sent? as it is written, How beautiful are the feet of them that preach the gospel of peace, and bring glad tidings of good things!" God is the one that "sends" us to preach and bring glad tidings of good things. So my questions is if God inspires us to preach & teach to move the Word, this is HIS goal, we respond and obey. Do we not want the Word that we speak to give insight to the novice to be spoken again and again to accomplish that which GOD wants. Isaiah 55:11 So shall my word be that goeth forth out of my mouth: it shall not return unto ME void, but it shall accomplish that which I please, and it shall prosper in the thing whereto I SENT IT. So when we speak God's word it is really God the author of his Word that is speaking through us, so how can anyone lay claim to "their sermon, their class, their preaching". In the scripture above we know God does not have a mouth, he uses our heart and mouth by our free will with the spirit of God in us. God also guarantees the results of HIS Word not returning void. "Matthew 10:19 But when they deliver you up, take no thought how or what ye shall speak: for it shall be given you in that same hour what ye shall speak. Mark 13:11 But when they shall lead you, and deliver you up, take no thought beforehand what ye shall speak, neither do ye premeditate: but whatsoever shall be given you in that hour, that speak ye: for it is not ye that speak, but the Holy Ghost." Even in these trying times, the whole purpose for God working through them was to be a witness. So I ask you, if one person benefits from a work that someone does (inspired by God) regarding God's Word, it is absolutely what God wanted. It would be very selfish for me or anyone else to teach the Word and say that I own or copywrite my teaching when in essence it is God who is the author working thru me. Deuteronomy 4:10 Specially the day that thou stoodest before the LORD thy God in Horeb, when the LORD said unto me, Gather me the people together, and I will make them hear MY words, (THRU WHO?)that they may learn to fear me all the days that they shall live upon the earth, and that they may "teach their children." Isaiah 51:16 And I have put MY words in thy mouth, and I have covered thee in the shadow of mine hand, that I may plant the heavens, and lay the foundations of the earth, and say unto Zion, Thou art my people. Isaiah 59:21 As for me, this is my covenant with them, saith the LORD; My spirit that is upon thee, and MY words which I have PUT in thy mouth, shall not depart out of thy mouth, nor out of the mouth of thy seed, nor out of the mouth of thy seed's seed, saith the LORD, from henceforth and for ever. Jeremiah 1:9 Then the LORD put forth his hand, and TOUCHED MY mouth. And the LORD said unto me, Behold, I have put MY words in thy mouth. When Moses wrote the 10 commandments on the tablets, did he lay claim to owning what he wrote, did he copywrite the tablets? The answer is clearly NO. Is it not therefore egotistical to put one's claim to the things of God that are freely given to people by God and for someone to take credit and glory for the spirit of God working in them, when it works in all God's children who are walking in tune with him. Did the "holy men of God spake" copywrite their materials? Just for some insight I will paste the following from a link from Mel Gibson's new movie website: About Using Sermons on SermonCentral.com http://www.SermonCentral.com ©opyItRight: How to Use Other Preachers? Material Without Compromising Your Integrity by Brian Mavis ?All work and no plagiarism makes for dull sermons!? Henry Ward Beecher ?Plans fail for lack of counsel, but with many advisers they succeed.? Proverbs 15:22 Is Using Other Preachers? Sermons OK? Have you ever wondered if researching other preachers? sermons for your own sermon preparation was wrong? What about reading or listening to just one other preacher?s sermon? Or what if you used someone?s outline, or main idea, or illustrations ? or even most of someone else?s sermon? Where is the line, and have you ever wondered if you crossed it? Even people who think that they are being completely original are probably not quite right. Some copy ideas without even knowing it. Rick Warren (a very copied preacher) is known for saying, ?If you take an idea from one person it is called plagiarism. If you take ideas from a number of people it is called research.? Ironically, even that was said before by US playwright Wilson Mizner (1876-1933). He said, ?Copy from one, it?s plagiarism; copy from two, it?s research.? John F. Kennedy is credited for saying, ?Ask not what your country can do for you ? ask what you can do for your country.? But it was really his ghostwriter, John Kenneth Galbraith, who wrote it. And Galbraith may have lifted the idea from Oliver Wendell Holmes who said, ?We... recall what our country has done for each of us, and to ask ourselves what we can do for our country in return.? As the manager of the largest sermon resource site on the Internet, I deal with the pros and cons of using material from other pastor?s sermons on a daily basis. I get emails worldwide from pastors saying how reading other pastors? sermons has helped them as a person and as a preacher. But occasionally I uncover someone who has submitted a plagiarized sermon and is probably preaching it as if they wrote it. Relying on Other Preachers? Sermons is Common Researching other preachers? sermons is not new. Sermons have been printed in books for centuries, and sermons on tapes have been abundant for decades. But with the advent of the Internet, researching and copying other preachers? sermons is easier and more common than ever. Last week SermonCentral was used over 170,000 times. It is the most popular online sermon resource site, but it certainly isn?t the only one. Just that fact alone proves there are a lot of pastors looking for sermon help. Advantages of Sermon Resource Sites There are different reasons preachers rely on other people?s sermons ? some good, some bad. Some benefits of sermon resource sites are: 1. They can help you write a better sermon, which can lead more people to know and grow in Christ. 2. They can give you other perspectives and help you grow in your knowledge of God. 3. They can give you the benefit of other pastors? research and resources. 4. They can help you save time. 5. They can help you with better big ideas, outlines and illustrations. Disadvantages of Sermon Resource Sites Some detriments of sermon resource sites are: 1. They can lead to laziness. 2. They can shortchange your personal conviction that comes with struggling over a passage. 3. They can prevent you from taking into account your congregation?s need, which produces generic sermons. 4. They can tempt you to take false credit for a sermon. Because reading, listening, researching, and relying on other preachers? sermons is so widespread, and because it has potential for such great benefit or detriment, it is important to do it right and for the right reasons. What Not To Do 1. Don?t wait until Saturday to begin your sermon preparation. (Preparing a good sermon is like brewing good coffee ? it needs time to percolate.) 2. Don?t go to a sermon resource site and just print off a sermon and read it. 3. Don?t retell a story as if it happened to you. What To Do 1. First, go to God and ask Him what He wants to say to your congregation. 2. Study the Bible passage on your own before you rely on someone else?s study. 3. Apply the passage to your life ? walk what you are going to talk. 4. With the passage in your heart, and your congregation in mind, discern the main thing (just one thing) you want to say and how you want to say it. 5. Now you can look at other sources. Be open to any better ideas, clearer ways to say things, missed points, and superior illustrations. 6. In your personal notes, cite your sources. 7. When you go to preach, reference your resources. If you just have some common illustrations, ideas, or quotes, there is no need to clutter your sermon with, ?I got this information from?.? But if you have used a significant idea, outline, illustration, or section (and even an entire sermon), give credit where credit is due. You can either mention something before the sermon or in the midst of it. You can also handle this by placing a note in the bulletin. For example you can say something like, ?In my research for this sermon, I used Chuck Swindoll?s outline from his sermon called God is Good.? The widespread use of gleaning from other people?s sermons is here to stay. The goal is to use the resource wisely and well. To cheat your congregation by overusing sermon resources is wrong. But it can be equally as wrong to avoid using them because of pride, and possibly cheat your congregation out of a better message. The Good News combined with good resources is a powerful combination for reaching your congregation and community for Christ. copyright 2003 by Oakspear Agnostic Press All rights reserved

Like so many things, Wierwille and TWI talked out of both sides of their mouths regarding college. While I recall some folks being encouraged to finish their degrees, mostly anything "secular" was derided in comparison to the 'things of God", i.e. WOW, the Corps, etc. Didja notice that Wierwille's kids went to college? In the 90's there was more of a push for people to go to college, I don't know what was behind it, but it did coincide with the Trustees' kids reaching college age. My oldest son was pushed to take some classes at the local community college by our BC, supposedly to widen his "sphere of influence". He had no desire to go, but relented and signed up anyway. He ended up taking his classes on-line. In theory, there is no difference between theory and practice...but in practice there is Oakspear

Irony...yeah, irony Assuming that the words do achieve that intention, how much trouble would it be to credit the teacher or author who you got the information from? Very little, I'm guessing. What do you mean by that. Normally "play on words" indicates some sort of figure of speech; what do you mean? Maybe, but there are, in fact, copyright laws in this country and in most others. If someone copyrights a work, then we have a legal obligation to honor that copyright, whether or not we have ethical qualms about the principle of copyrighting bible teachings. For many, part of the allure of Wierwille's "ministry" was that he was "teaching the Word as it had not been known since the first century". Part of the "hook" that kept a lot of us in TWI was the belief that it was the "only place that was teaching the Word of God". If we had known early on that what he was teaching was known as recently as the 1950's and that much of what he was teaching was being taught elsewhere, that particular attraction would have been negated. In theory, there is no difference between theory and practice...but in practice there is Oakspear

There are times when we could trace back and see where we made an error that caused an injury, etc. But I think that it's ridiculous to think that a cause can always lead back to a mis-step, or unbelief, etc. I am the Safety Coordinator where I work. Part of my job is to determine whether employee accidents could have been avoided. A large percentage of the time they can. Like the guy who tried to clean the meat off the slicer blade while it was still turning. Ten stitches. There is some value, IMHO, in trying to determine whether an accident could have been avoided, so that you can prevent it from happening again. TWI erred in including everything from car accidents to the sniffles to heart attacks to some deficit in "believing". Another thing (while I'm on a roll). I don't think that dwelling on whether or not something was or wasn't a miracle, or whether prayer was or wasn't effective, or anything else is important. Being thankful, or happy, or relieved about the result is important. Even if one believes in answered prayer, or miracles, or "faith" healing, it should be obvious that not every prayer is answered, not every bad situation is resolved by a miracle, not every sickness or injury is healed; people die. Be thankful for what you've got. If you want to give God credit, fine; if you want to say that random chance or preparedness or having a rich daddy got you out of the mess, that's fine too. Fifteen years ago I prayed for my son who was very sick. The next day he was well. No trace of the illness. I've gotten to the point where I don't give a $h!t how it happened, I'm just happy as h*ll that I have a healthy son. Maybe it was a miracle, maybe it was just his body fighting back, maybe it was that the doctors knew what they were doing. It doesn't matter to me. About two months ago I was in a car wreck. I overslept for work and was in a busy intersection an hour later than I should have been. A car drove through a red light and hit me dead on in the driver's side door. I closed my eyes convinced that my last breath was seconds away. I walked away without a scratch, without a bruise, no problems...except the car was totalled. Lots of analysis possible here: if I hadn't overslept...if...if...if. Did God save me from injury? Did God cause the point of impact to be six inches forward of the place where the crash would have killed me? Why didn't he just avert the crash? Who cares? I'm alive. Was it God? Was it chance? Was it....who cares? I'm just thankful to be drawing breath. In theory, there is no difference between theory and practice...but in practice there is Oakspear

Last year's flurry of Mike Threads brought some needed excitement to GS, which I felt was getting a little boring. I was just mentioning the other day that we were getting a bit boring again, and voila (French for eureka) Mike announces new threads, with startling revelations. I can hardly wait! --> Song: Spelling and understandable sentence structure may not be a requirement here, but it sure helps other folks see what the poster is trying to say. Mocking or putting down posters who are less than clear is inexcuseable, however. My usual method of dealing is to skip over the more incomprehensible ones without comment. While I would never think of commenting on your mom's grammar, keep in mind that she was writing to her son who was familiar with her writing style, and not a bunch of strangers. By the way, her idiosyncratic style was more understandable than some of us here at GS! Seaspray: I see that you're back with your inanities after a three month absence. Wordwolf is not denying that it could snow in a month that is normally warm. I too have seen it snow in the summer: last week in June at Family Camp 1992. The point about the snow is that Wierwille's various descriptions of the alleged phenomena is inconsistant with each other, and with verifiable facts. Galen: The role of Wierwille apologist is one that I had not noticed in you before. I'll have to start reading your posts a little more closely. Chickens in a hen-house? Hardly. Mike inspires attacks just as much for his insulting and condescending manner as for his doctrinal positions. Oldies: According to Mike, they are "apparent" errors, since PFAL, being the revealed Word of God for our time, could not possibly contain errors. Just sit tight and "master" PFAL and all will be revealed. --> In theory, there is no difference between theory and practice...but in practice there is Oakspear

"blurry and difficult to focus on"...sounds about right In theory, there is no difference between theory and practice...but in practice there is Oakspear

Mike: Who really gives a rat's @$$? In theory, there is no difference between theory and practice...but in practice there is Oakspear

Wordwolf: You are the MAN In theory, there is no difference between theory and practice...but in practice there is Oakspear

Roy: I ordinarily don't defend Wierwille, but you are mistaken about him guessing or him using "became" because it "fix best". According to Bullinger, who is probably where Wierwille got his information, the verb "to be" does not exist in Hebrew, "was" is the past tense of the verb "to be". The Hebrew word hayah, translated "was", actually means "became" (I looked it up...just now) In theory, there is no difference between theory and practice...but in practice there is Oakspear