Oakspear

I did not "rebuke" you for anything. I made a comment. This is a discussion forum, you know, we...discuss things :o No you don't, and you've never commented on my faith directly, however you regularly comment on other people's beliefs and spiritual relationships when they did not agree with yours. I think I covered the "rebuking" part, but no, I don't think your family is fair game to make wisecracks about, and (1) I didn't make any wisecracks and (2)If you're talking about Invisible Dan, he didn't eitherIf you're including Jesus in your "family", you have every right to consider him as such, but he is not exclusively yours, he's somewhat in the "public domain" so to speak. I don't recognize him as being off limits in any doctrinal discussion. ******************************************************************************** ***************************************************** I shouldn't waste my time arguing with nitwits, but here I go:First of all, I'm not trying to get anyone's dander up, I made a point. Arguing with demons? What your point bud? ******************************************************************************** ****************************************************** Yeah, what nerve I've got for stating an opinion. <_<What? Being a pagan means that I have to shut up and not express my opinion? I stood up for you the other day when one of my fellow pagans suggested you find a Christian forum. You judge Dan's "relationship" with Jesus to be non-existant or inferior to yours...based on your own subjective standards. Don't presume to suggest what I have the right to talk about and what I don't.

Actually, it has nothing to do with liking or disliking what you said. It was my perception that you were using your own beliefs as a standard for everyone else, or at least for Invisible Dan. You presume to judge his faith and knowledge. I commented on it. Gee Jeno-O, I've found our discussions in the past to be much more civil than this, even when we disagree. Having a bad day? Invisble Dan was making some observations. You made some statements that put your "knowledge" about Jesus over his. I commented on it. Not so much a like or a dislike, just don't think that the analogy was applicable. Pretty much the same analogy. I still don't think it applies. But I guess that it's "too damn bad" Whether you "made" them or not, you attempt to apply them and your perceptions to everyone. You did insofar as you exclude anyone whose perceptions of Jesus is different from yours is Jesus so small that he can be constrained by your perception? I would hope not. I guess if I was as hostile as you seem to be, I might say that it too, is "too damn bad" if you don't like what I have to say, but I'm a bit more tolerant than that. What does that mean to you? You rip into me, tell me that it's "too damn bad" if i don't like what you're saying, but it's okay because you say "peace" at the end? Seems somewhat hypocritical to me.

It's not false information pinky, it's a mistaken perception. Polar Bear may not be familiar with Oldies' tradition of posting only Monday - Friday and your fervant disregard for any evidence that doesn't support your POV. Well, thanks for small favors! :unsure: When you come by for that Leinenkugel you can tell me some more funny ones And of course there's VP's brains and brawn, making the earth shake even lo, these many years after his demise.

says DWBH. Didn't you read who the post was from? Ah...so you make the rules. I was wondering whose job that was. <_<

Another related topic that I'd like to bring up is our supposed ability, as PFAL grads, to "work the Word" ourselves, supposedly enabling us to verify the accuracy of what we were taught. Did we really think that some basic facility with a Young's concordance made us biblical researchers? Did most of us ever verify from non-TWI sources whether Wierwille's definitions were based on anything beyond wishful thinking? How can you separate the fish from the bones when you accept a definition of "fish" which most would recognize as the one for "bones"? So much of what's in PFAL we had to take Wierwille's word for. Definitions of words, "orientalisms", application of figures of speech, literals according to usage, msyterious old documents, etc. Start throwing all of that out as untrustworthy and the foundation starts to look pretty weak. Yet we took the word of someone who was so biblically savvy that he used the bible to justify sexual assaults and adultery. That's not exactly what he said:

Martindale inherited an organization, as has been said before, based on a man's personality. Wierwille could get away with a lot simply because he was a good enough con man to fool people. He kept enough of a veneer of "biblical research, teaching and fellowship" that people thought they were involved in a godly organization. Really, what did Martindale do that was, at the heart, any different than what Wierwille did? The adultery wasn't new, and the research wasn't any worse, so what was different? Martindale had Wierwille's ability to rip the heart out of a person but without Wierwille's skill at covering his tracks and making it look like it was "according to the Word". In my opinion, Martindale believed the hype about himself as God's spokesman, while Wierwille never really did. Wierwille used the perception that he was the MOG, Martindale's belief in the concept took away any restraint that he may have had.

That's right, it only makes sense if it's your opinion <_< There you go folks, Jen-o's knowledge and perception is THE STANDARD by which all else must be judged! :blink: Not the same thing at all. Jesus is not physically living in your house, eating your food, forgetting to clean his room and asking for the car keys. Jesus is not your sole province. No one has the access to your kids that you do; you're claiming the same exclusive rights to Jesus?

Do you really know where people get "the majority of their knowledge"? This seems like a reference to Romans 1 (maybe not, correct me if I'm mistaken please) - but I've never, not even wheen I was a Christian understood this. The whole "creation" testifies to the biblical god's exiistance only if that existance is already accepted. The same "creation" testifies to the existance of pagan pantheons to those who hold that worldview. Are you suggesting that without what you call false prophets and teachers no one would come to the conclusion that there is no God? Unlike sister Bramble, I will not suggest that you go find a Christian site, but among people who may or may not accept your premises about the bible, simply refering to it doesn't make your point.

I tell people a variety of things, depending on whether I think it's any of their business, what I think that they could handle, or just how good a friend that person is. Since I decided to stay in Nebraska after a year as a WOW, and I'm from New York, many people are curious why I live here. Mostly I just tell them that I moved around a lot in my younger days and stopped in Nebraska when I met a woman and married her. This is not untrue, since I may have moved back East if I hadn't gotten married when I did. I don't really have any big gaps in my employment history, since I wasn't in the Way Corps, except for being Apprentice 13. I was a WOW at 22, before really starting a career, so that doesn't raise any eyebrows. My career path isn't all that different from others who didn't have a degree, married young and had a lot of kids, so that doesn't set me apart either. My current wife didn't blink an eye when I told her that I had been in a cult...part of the reason that she is my current wife. What I think is ironic is that many people who think that I was an idiot for putting up with some of the things that I endured in TWI put up with similar things in their own lives, but don't see the similarity.

In the mid-nineties during a "Rise & Expansion" class our Limb Coordinator (who is out and has posted here) referred to us as "the incredible shrinking household" and to the class we were taking as "Rise & Reduction". This occurred several years after the great post-POOP exodus of the late 80's. Every week it seemed another family left or was kicked out or was M&A'd. Despite these dwindling numbers, there always seemed to be plenty of titles to go around. At the peak of TWI's membership, alte 70's - early 80's there was 7 or 8 regions, each with 6 or 7 states, some of which were divided into Areas or Territories that were bigger than some states. Branches typically were made up of 7 or more twigs. But in the 90's, cities with barely enough wayfers to make up a decent-sized twig were split into 2 twigs and called a branch, the U.S. was divded into 12 regions, sometimes with the region leader directly coordinating 2 or 3 states. Plenty of chiefs, the illusion of numbers due to bigger infrastructure, yet fewer and fewer indians.

Gotcha

Thanks everybody.

Naw, I'll find another cause soon enough Long live free speech

Who told who to shut up? Excathedra expressed her opinion. I objected to it, so I expressed my opinion. You apparently didn't like mine, so now you're expressing yours...no personal attacks, so I don't see a problem.

Yeah, I get your point...but entering a discussion to simply state that you don't care about the subject of the discussion irritates me for some reason. Sure, I can find bigger things to get irritated about, like thread titles that give no hint as to the subject of the initial post...now that gets my blood boiling

Well, the person who started this thread for one. Who cares about what any of us think, yet we all continue to post our opinions day after day.

Yes you are.The whole context of what DWBH is saying that the one speaking is a hypocrite...the truths are negated as spoken by that man, not negated as "truth". DWBH is smart enough to realize that any "truth" does not magically evaporate from an arrangement of words if a dirtbag utters them.

Your logic is wanting, Whitey. The fact that the minions of TWI had no "actual" power to control does not negate the power that some perceived that they had. Some gave TWI's bully boys the bird and lived where they wanted, others succumbed to the threats and did what they were told. I've been in both categories personally.

In '75 there were, what?, 30 Way Corps grads in the whole world?

Was that in DTA? I thought it was in his audio Believers' Family Class. But I remember the discussion. He implied that it was impossible for a grown man to be celibate. "What's he gonna do with that thing?" was what I remember him saying. He also said that young adults should consult with their parents as to pre-marital sex: "Children obey your parents in the Lord..."

They did that in Omaha.During most of the 90's there was a handful of twigs in both Lincoln and Omaha, but no other cities in Nebraska. After WOWs were sent here in '94(?) the number of twigs was inflated somewhat since many of the WOWs stuck around and formed the core of new twigs. Eventually we were down to two twigs in each city (each designated a "branch"), each led by a Corps couple. After all the Corps were shipped out in '97(?) we were part of the South Dakota Limb. Eventually we were absorbed by the Kansas City Branch of the Missouri limb in Lincoln and the Omaha wayfers were told that they should move because Omaha was "dead". Amazingly enough virtually all of them left.

I hope I'm not derailing this thread too much by talking about what I think doctrinal discussions should be, rather than the topic at hand. But we're already deep into it, so here goes... As WordWolf stated, it is possible to have a discussion about what the bible says, or what we think it says, without beating each other up. WordWolf brought my name up earlier...we agree on virtually nothing doctrinally...yet we have developed a mutual respect and ability to consider each other's point of view and grow and learn thereby. There are two extreme positions that I see here fairly often. I'm not painting anyone who has posted on this thread with this very broad brush; these are extremes. One is the "This is what the bible says, why can't you see it" position. The folks on this extreme view their interpretation, version, slant etc. on the bible as the only "correct" one. What they say is literal can't possibly be interpreted figuratively; what they see as a figure of speech in no way could be looked at literally. Hebrew words mean what they say that they mean and that's that. Posters on this extreme can represent any number of subgroups within Christianity. The other extreme tells us that the bible as written is wrong. Period. This may come from an atheistic point of view, or from another religious tradition, or maybe from a poster who feels that it's all figurative. Remember, these are extremes, archetypes if you will. Even the most strident among us fall within the grey in-between. Most of you know that I am not a Christian and don't believe that the bible is divinely inspired. This doesn't stop me from participating in discussions about what the bible actual says within its pages. I can read. I can formulate logical thoughts. I can make judgements on whether something is illogical or contradictory or if it hangs together perfectly. And I can do it without calling the people I'm debating mindless idiots or superstitious peasants. On the other hand, sometimes these discussions are not strictly about what the bible says. In those cases, making the whole of your argument "God said it, I believe it" does nothing to foster civil discourse. Perhaps in some ways I'm like those who engage in Wierwille nostalgia and believe that there was a TWI golden age...I believe that there was a "golden age" of the doctrinal forum. The days when hardly anyone came down here, but those who did were ready for some serious discussion. The days when we could dissect the Blue book, or PFAL session by session and actual get somewhere. Naw...those days probably never existed.

I have what some folks would consider a "pseudo-ordination"; I applied for and received an ordination over the internet by The Universal Life Church. I got it in order to perform weddings. I use the title "reverend" only in conjunction with my wedding officiant duties. I don't try to pass myself off as being special or spiritual or worthy of anything out of the ordinary. And I have this cool laminated card

It seemed to me what was considered "off the Word" when it came to sex had more to do with the personal standards of local leadership than anything else. I remember many scenarios: sex was okay, but only with believers and use birth control; sex was never okay before marriage; sex before marriage was okay, but no living together. Just when you thought you had it figured out, leadership changed and so did the doctrine.

hiway29: Interesting story; we saw similar things in our area, but not until the 90's. Several woemen in our area were "reproved" for having a get together at one of their houses because it wasn't approved by leadership.