Oakspear

Obviously those who are discussing it. Apparently not you. You seem to care enough to read and comment though.

I wasn't criticizing your spelling...just making a distinction...I am not without belief, I just don't believe what you do. It's not a common usage. I was pretty confident that the 'sorry soul" thing was meant in humor. Despite our fundamental and vociferous disagreements I actually get along with geisha pretty well. You don't recognize figurative language? :blink:

Thanks Good question. I for one will consider it :) How about other body parts? <_< Q. What do you call a contrite burro? A. A sorry foot

Actually, I think it's disbelief :)

I don't think you were unclear G, I just didn't answer the same question that you asked :blink: - not exactly anyway. To me, having any opinion about Jesus is like having an opinion about a fictional character...well not strictly fictional, more like one of those "historical dramas" that are "based on a true story"; I can have an opinion about what is presented, but it's not necessarily related to the real person behind the story.

Right after the Blue book :blink:

I agree with the second quote. What is this prayer supposed to accomplish? Cause my free will to be overridden? Sweep away some supposed fog or veil that is preventing me from seeing the truth? What would you think if a Witch told you that they were casting a spell to get you to reject Christianity and embrace the craft?

Before I reply...I saw the smiley, and understood the (lame attempt at) humor <_< - better start praying for 'dem knees though...you're going to be on 'em for a while longer. :B) As far as the serious part of you praying for me...I'm going to start another thread in order to keep this one on track. In order for me to give my opinion on Jesus, I first need to give my opinion on the bible. I see no reason to believe that it was directly inspired by God, that it is infallible or inerrant. I believe that, at best, it was an honest attempt to put in writing what was known or guessed about this mysterious Jesus guy. At worst it is a series of pamphlets designed to push the writers' points of view. The way that I look at it there are conflicting theologies, as well as internal contradictions. Certain parts of it seem to be written as refutations to theologies that did not "make the cut". There are numerous disagreements among the different manuscripts, some trivial, some major. That all being said, I personally believe that there was an historical Jesus that the gospels in some fashion refer back to. I also personally believe that he probably bore little resemblence to the Jesus of the bible. I believe that it is possible that the Jesus of the bible is a composite of various roughly contemporary figures. The different gospel writers appear to have very different agendas and views of Jesus. Supposed fullfillments of Jewish prophecies are intermixed with the mythos of the mother goddess and the slain god. So, in short, I don't think that the real Jesus (or Jesuses) made it through the editing process.

Oh yeah, I forgot about that one. Seems like pretty slim pickin's to build a whole mythology on, but more enduring myths have been built on less. As far as The DaVinci Code, I enjoyed it, but it was fiction for the most part. Thanks for the reference.

I don't think that, even in the gnostic gospels or the so-called apocryphal or pseudopigraphical (sp?) writings from the early days of Christianity is there any suggestion that Jesus and Mary had any kind of sexual relationship or that Mary had any kind of "special" relationship or position at all. Some folks will postulate that such writings existed but that the "patriarchal" church leaders destroyed them to subjugate women or some such argument, but there's no evidence of that either. I would think that writings of this kind would have left some trace, if only the writings of those who wished to refute them. Most of you know that I am not a Christian, much less a believer in the inerrancy of the bible, but I think that any information about Jesus needs to come from the existing documentary evidence, of which the bible is one of the main sources, and not speculation or chanelling of some kind.

Not only was he not a doctor, but I find refering to him simply as"doctor", (you know, as in 'when Doctor taught us such-and-such') as opposed to "doctor Wierwille" somewhat creepy.

Since it didn't snow on those gas pumps, the problem is solved: he didn't ask for a sign and there is no need for a facile distinction between revelation/miracle and phenomena.

Right on waysider...I agree. I think that Wierwille only pushed those he knew that he had a hold on, like the time he told an entire Way Corps group that they were thrown out, but later relented if they would...I forget what they had to do, but they all came back. Could he have done that with "the ministry" at large? No way! You wanted to put up a Christmas tree? Skip the Rock of Ages? Play banjoes during twig? No problem, just keep the money coming!

On several threads over the last month I'd find myself surprised at ex-wayfers talking about how they didn't buy into an aspect of TWI, or chose not to take such-and-such "recommended" action. I'd find myself somewhat skeptical, until I thought about when I spent most of my time in TWI: 1978 - 1980: newbie 1980 - 1982: WOW and inmate in a WOWvet Way Home 1983 - 1990: not involved 1991 - 2001: twig coordinator, assistant twig coordinator, active wayfer Most of the time that I was involved actively was during Martindale's reign of paranoia. It seems to me that outside of Way Corps and other leadership, to a certain extent Wierwille didn't want to know about activity that was, according to him, "off the Word". People weren't hounded to speak a certain way, do certain things and march in lockstep, as long as the money kept flowing. He wanted the control, the power and the glory, but he also was smart enough to know when to back off to keep from losing his meal ticket. Martindale wasn't as bright. He really believed that he was the MOG, that the Word was Over the World, that TWI was God's ministry, etc. He stupidly believed the press releases and ran us all off.

Hmmm...I always interpreted it as Household with capital "H", as in one, true, rather than back home with the "earthly" family. But you know, so many things were left unsaid in TWI that it was easy for different interpretations to arise.The first time I recall hearing "Ho-Ho" was as part of HOHoReLo - Household Holiday Relocation for the Corps.

I can understand, if you really believed that Jesus was born on September 11th, 3BC, and if you really believed that Christmas traditions were of pagan origin then I can understand not doing Christmas the way everyone else does. What I didn't and still don't understand is what was it about December 25th that made it a Household Holiday? If Christmas was so bad, why was it celebrated at all?

Well it's nice to know that this Refiner guy has a place where you can go [-----]. You know, since it's so repressive and unfair over here.

No - from the "revised rules" thread: I figured that you and I were big enough boys that the mild sarcasm wouldn't derail your train of thought. Okay <_<

Yes, greatly diminishing a poster's freedom to stir the sh!t pot, provoke comments, then go back and delete the original statement. Right. That was the defining moment of the downward slide. Paul also didn't hesitate to edit or delete posts that did not futher the "mission" of WayDale. WayDale was also a relatively short-lived entity, disappearing around the same time Paul & his wife settled with TWI. Whether the shutdown of WD was a requirement of the settlement, or the Allans just wanted to move on is unknown to me, but "strong sheriff" Allan held the searing iron of truth to TWI's heart for as long as it took to achieve his personal goals.Not to dismiss or minimize Paul's or WayDale's role, but let's not put them on a pedastal or turn them into legendary figures. And they all gathered on the grassy knoll at Area 51... One of the strengths of GS is that it isn't personal...Pawtucket will make the decision that is best for him I hope. But whether he closes all or part of the place down, GS still is viable, people still come here to learn "the other side of the story" and interact with other ex-TWI folks. It's still a place where we can hash out together what went on to us individually and collectively. A place where we can contrast and compare where we we have gone spiritually and otherwise since we left. If it goes, I for one will miss it.

You're right, and I do, after careful consultation with my wife and when my own family's financial needs are taken care of, and usually to individuals and groups that I feel are doing so quantifiable good, or have a dire need. Not an automatic percentage come h*ll or high water.

I love that movie, but once a season is enough! The missus & I watched it Sunday night after we exchanged gifts. The movie is hilarious, but there's some very touching scenes too, like when mom covers up Ralphie's use of profanity during his big fight, and when dad surprises him with the gun on Xmas morning.

I performed a wedding ceremony today.

You can overdo the "lying about Santa" thing either way IMHO. Some look at it as lying to their kids, some think that it's a harmless childhood custom. I was brought up believing in Santa Claus but don't recall being devastated when I found out otherwise; I never told my own kids that Santa was real, and they don't think that they were neglected or abused as children. Frankly I found TWI inconsistant about Christmas. On the one hand they decried its pagan origins and that Jesus was not really born in December, on the other hand most wayfers observed Christmas traditions like gift giving, trees, etc., even at HQ at times. In my opinion they made a big deal about something small and made themselves appear ridiculous in the process.

I don't think I ever was financially prosperous when I tithed or when I "abundantly shared". I even let myself get talked into going up to 14% at one time. We dropped back down to 10% for one reason or another and the "leadership" started hitting us to "increase the proportion of our giving", which we didn't. Right about that time we were able to trade our clunker in for a nicer car; the leadership immediately assumed it was because we had increased our percentage and announced that that's what we had done in a meeting. They were pretty peeved when I told them later that we had not increased. I still chuckle at the BC's response: "So you just were able to buy a car using worldly means, like saving money?" Once I stopped tithing I got out of debt and have been in the best financial position ever.

...that could be something to celebrate ;)