Oakspear

That's t&O...T&A is something else entirely

Right :huh:

Do you even know what a strawman argument is? One use of quotations is what is called the ironic quoation. This is when one says something like The are many different versions of "The Truth". The quotations in this case are not there for emphasis, they are there to indicate that I am using the word truth ironically, that I don't really believe that it is TRUTH. My point all along has been that there are many people who claim to have The Truth exclusively, but that there is often no way for those who have different versions of "truth" to prove that their version is better or more true than anyone else's. Perhaps I can amend my characterization to "a subjective perception of the truth" (those aren't ironic quotes). There's a lot of details that make up life, the universe and everything. people view them through many different lenses: cultural, personal, etc. There's room within the big picture for differing perceptions. I thought I had made that clear, but apparently not. My apologies for lack of clarity. There are lots of folks out there who claim the status of The Truth for their beliefs. I'm glad to hear that you're not one of them. Just so I don't make any unwarranted assumptions about your position, what is "doing the truth" in your opinion? And is "doing what you want" not "doing the truth", or something else? Please look up what a strawman argument is! I went through your posts and my responses to them. I can't find anywhere that I made any assumptions. Basically my responses to you where comments on and questions about your remarks in your posts, specifically your remarks addressed to me. Again, to avoid unwarranted assumptions, is that sattement equivalent to "doing the truth" versus "doing what you want"?

This isn't a rule in the doctrinal section (actually, I think the only rules are that we pick up after ourselves and refrain from human sacrifice) but down here there's usually has traditionally been a little more discussion and challenging of beliefs than upsatirs. "Discussion" as in an actual exploration of different positions, "challenging", not as in telling someone that they're wrong, but in requiring them to explain why they believe or think the way they do as part of the give and take. Folks who say "I believe ABC or XYZ" without offering much in the way of "why" are assumed to not want to have a doctrinal discussion and are directed to the Prayer Forum or the Guitar thread <_< Even threads that focus on particular scriptures can get pretty heated. I participate in a few of them myself and can manage to discuss the relative merits of different doctrinal positions and maintain the premise that the bible is "god-breathed" for the sake of the discussion. Discussions in the doctrinal forum have caused me to rethink my position on more than one occassion, and have forced me to sharpen my position on others due to the questioning of others. It's part of what Doctrinal is.

Well, Bliss answered for herself, so I'm saved the trouble. You expressed an opinion about it, so I asked you Oh, so you do have an opinion about what it means. Actually, that's my point. Then why did you get involved in the bickering yourself? Right. Didn't say they were proselytizing. Actually, a robust discussion is fun, doncha think? If we all agreed, it would be pretty d*mn boring. I'll not be able to get back to the computer for another day or two, so if anyone responds, or wants to beat me up, I'll be back on Thursday

Bliss: I can't speak for anyone else, but I understood that you were responding to the history lesson. You clearly believe that what you believe is in stark contrast to what the perpretators of the abuses in the history lesson believe(d). Perhaps I mentally combined what you and T & O where saying to come up with a misrepresentation of your position. So you don't believe that I, who does not believe that Jesus is my savior and does not believe in the god of the bible, am following the "doctrines of men and devils"?

Well T & O, perhaps I did miss your point, as obscured as it was with strawmen that it was in danger of becoming a fire hazard. :B) I can't say truth is subjective and then say some actions are wrong? Sure I can. Am I saying that only some truth is subjective? Yes I am. The "truth" that I refer to is the "truth" that can't be verified. One person's truth is that they "know" that a god exists and communicates with them. There's no way to show that this is false, but there's no way to show another person another's inner feelings are true either. If all you're saying is that there is some "truth" that is not fully knowable or understandable Okay, so what if we agree that there is some "truth" and a right & wrong, but if nobody has it 100%, or can have it 100%, then what's the practical difference between that and there not being an objective truth? Not much of one, if any. You keep bringing up the contrast between people doing what they want to do, and this "truth", but my point is that from an objective perspective, you can't tell which is which.

Hmmmm...not sure why you attached the terms subjective and objective to the two types of guidance. Especially where what you call objective guidance refers to the spiritual, which cannot be independently verified and is therefore subjective. Can you elaborate?

T-Bone, I have no beef with Christians like yourself, who see faith as a personal thing; I do have a problem with Christians, as well as Muslims and Buddhists and Pagans who insist that their personal experience applies to everyone. If a belief that Jesus rose from the dead helps one to be a better person and is a comfort during the tough times, I'm all for it, I have no doubt that this works for the individual. When one insists that ones personal subjective experience negates my own, then I have a problem.

Suda: So what is the term "doctrines of devils" referring to in Bliss' post then?

Partially, yes. I disagree. While there may be atheists who elevate their position to that of irrational belief, many simply choose to be atheists because they see no compelling evidence to believe Religion is different in that it is a choice to believe despite a lack of physical, objective evidence Agreed There's a actually a pretty lively debate about this, The New York Times magazine had a great article on it. Do you believe in Santa Claus? If not, is your lack of belief a religion? Even with a God, it's still subjective, if it was objective, then their wouldn't be the arguments that there are. Yup. That's what they thought, and thankfully the Allies defeated him and did not allow his beliefs become reality. Good point. My position is that those records are fiction, yours is that they are true. Since it doesn't appear that those kind of showdowns are happening these days, you and I both have our opinions.

What's your point here, you do what YOU want and believe what YOU want to believe too What is this referring to? I can't have a non-Christian belief system without "ignoring everything else in life? Only if your vision of God is so small that it can't incorporate muliple viewpoints This is a point in which we disagree. isn't this "begging the question"? A logical fallacy where the way the question is phrased assumes the answer One might argue that man was always this way, that there wasn't some golden age where man was pure and uncontaminated. Sure, including whether to beleive or not believe in any given religion. Free will. Maybe, but I don't feel qualified to decide what it is for anyone else, unlike, say...you. The question still remains, who decides what "truth" is, and if the answer is "God", who decides what version of "God" is right?

Wow, sarcasm and a strawman argument all in one post. Good job. If it wasn't clear enough, I'm talking about religious beliefs. Some actions are just wrong. Somebody can certainly believe that it's okay to steal my stuff, but I can also believe that there's a law against it or believe that I'm going prevent him in some way. Do you really think that this is what I'm saying, or are you taking religious equivalence to ridiculous ends thinking it makes your point? Again, I have the right to complain, and act if someone's beliefs encroaching on me and my life.

Historically speaking? The narrative from Acts may be true, or it may be false, but it's hardly indisputable. Nobody would die for a lie? Muslims die every day for the Koran...is that the truth? Nobody had a savior raised from the dead? There are numerous religions pre-Christian era who claim just that: a savior raised from the dead. Osiris and Mithra are two that spring immediately to mind. And why does somebody have to be wrong? What do I believe? Maybe when I don't have to run off to work in 10 minutes. Suffice it to say for right now that what I believe doesn't relegate what you believe to "doctrines of devils".

Sandman, Harry Osborne, the black "symbiont" costume. marriage...

But seriously folks... :B) How many people out there are convinced that what they believe is right, and everything else is either man-made or the doctrines of devils? Quite a few, I'd guess. Bliss' post illustrates for me a point that I have made at various times on these types of threads: People believe something because that's what they decide to believe, and interpret everything else in light of those beliefs, not becasue the bible or some other "holy" book says so. Because when pressed, most bible believers will resort to personal experience to back up whatever their holy book says. The question is then raised: why is one person's experience more valid than the next person's? If one person ascribes certain life events to the God of the bible, and I ascribe those same events to the Goddess; or Manannan, the celtic Sea God; or fairies; or extraterestrials or Allah...why are those beliefs less valid? Less divine and more "doctrines of men and devils"?

Good questions Sudo! They are also ''loaded'' questions . But, you know this. So, I will humor you. For me, it starts with belief. I believe in the goddess. Not ''a god'' , but GODDESS ALMIGHTY. Why? Because she manifests HERSELF in everything ........................so..I just do. Call it gut, faith, intuition, whatever.....I believe ( it's written in my heart.) No man can take that away from me. So, since I believe there is GODDESS, I then know that SHE CAN DO ANYTHING SHE WANTS, and therefore, would NOT leave us without witness. Therefore, I DO believe HER Witness. Is it literal/figurative? I believe in both. That holy men & women spoke, moved by the Spirit. So, therefore, my comments will always reflect this tone, that I , believe. Do I realize and believe that people have messed up / contaminated/ interpreted/ sinned/ dishonoured/ HER creation to the utmost? Carried out disgusting things all in the name of Goddess? Certainly. That doesn't deter me from believing She is. I've studied all the ways/methods/arguments over ''how we got here''. So? Like I said, Goddess is in charge, nor is She stupid. We have what we have. Use a multitued of resources. Who cares? I could study for 200 years and not know it all. I rest in the fact that She just wants me to believe in Her, and have a relationship with Her. Gerald gardner didn't have a written law or doctrine. Yet, he had a relationship with the Lady. To me that is the key. All else is dessert. Actually having a written standard so that we may know our God more intimately and our enemy to me is a good thing. Does it in its final form have errors? YUP! Is it perfect this way? NOPE. No man/religion/creed/doctrine can fill this position. All my OPINION of course......... [/font][/color][/size]

My mom is Irish on both sides with maybe a little English thrown in. My dad is Irish on his dad's side, his mom's side is Italian-Croation with a few other things thrown in.

I wonder how much the doctrinal positions in the class have been even looked at. In 2001, when Way Corps were "teaching" WayAP live, they pretty much just stuck to the syllabus, changing only Martindale's personal examples and anecdotes. At the time I wrote to John Reynolds, presenting him with a long list of things that I thought were doctrinally wrong with the class. I had spent the previous year spending a week or two on each segment, listening to the STS versions of each segment (for 24 weeks the STS topic was a segment of WayAP, and the subject in the fellowships was the same) and coming up with about ten pages of errors, inconsistancies, etc. John called me at home to attempt to quell my concerns. In response to my doctrinal questions, he referred me to T*m H*rr*cks, the region coordinator, who would be "teaching" the class live in a month or two in my city. According to John, Tom should be 'working the Word", to make the class his own in his preparation before teaching. A few weeks later Tom came to our fellowship and I spent some time with him one-on-one. He addressed none of my concerns. When I told him what John had said his answer was that he didn't need to work the Word, if the Trustees were behind the class, that was good enough for him.

In more than a few traditions, speaking in tongues is an ecstatic utterance that indicates...ecstasy. The words, or sounds, themselves often have no significance other than an as emotional outlet for the speaker. Not surprising that Christians would do this as well. Throwing in the expectation of interpreting the sounds is where the pressure and fakery comes in. I've heard several people in pagan traditions, including some native American sects, make sounds that are indistinguishable from what I heard as speaking in tongues in TWI or in other charismatic or pentecostal groups. Did someone mention excellor sessions? Even when I was at my most "brainwashed" I thought that practicing a language that God was supposedly supllying the sounds and words for was futile at best. "That you speak is your business, what you speak is God's business" was what Wierwille used to say. If that was so, then how could one become more fluent in a tongue? How could we call on people to start a word or a sentence with a particular letter of the alphabet? And why were some people's tongues the same every time?

It seems that the chief benefit of "getting born again", or "accepting Jesus into your heart" or "taking Jesus as Lord" or whatever terminology one's particular subset of Christianity esposes, is to get a get-out-of-judgement-free card. Everyone else gets judged on, what exactly? Where precisely is the cutoff brtween eternal life and the second death? So God, since he wasn't entirely clear on the scoring system for eternal life, and recognizing that "Plan A", the law, was too hard to achieve, comes up with "Plan B", the savior. Of course you have to take the word of those who say they have God's Printed Will ® for the need for a savior, that his actions will actually get you out of the dreaded judgement, or of the existance of this savior, or even of God! All of this rooted in the belief that the world is a crappy place, but that there is a better place somewhere else, or at least available later.

In January 1968 Wierwille visited the Haight-Ashbury section of San Francisco with the intention of visiting some of the younger people who were reaching people with their Christian message. He ended up meeting with a group that included Jimmy Doop and Steve Heefner...it may have been called "The House of Acts". At this time PFAL had already been committed to film and Wierwille played parts of it for the group. Heefner & Doop began using PFAL as part of their outreach, supposedly concluding that PFAL was what they needed in order to give their people a sound biblical foundation. Heefner & Doop withdrew from their former group and formed "The Way West", a corporation that was independent of The Way International (which may have still been merely "The Way Incorporated"). Heefner and his wife moved to New York to pursue an employment opportunity, while Doop remained in California heading up The Way West. Eventually Heefner incorporated The Way East in New York along the lines of The Way West. Both The Way West and The Way East were legally independent organizations that cooperated with Wierwille's group, using PFAL and buying Way books. At some point (early 70's maybe) Wierwille decided to centralize all operations and conducted a takeover of The Way West in the middle of a meeting, not informing Doop ahead of time. This was achieved by convincing the other 2 trustees of the Way West to vote Doop out and Wierwille in. Heefner got wind of this and resigned as head of The Way East before the same thing could be done to him. Another independent corporation in Indiana voluntarily meged with TWI, the organization in Australia remained independent and estarnged from Wierwille's TWI.

Right you are. I remember Martindale talking about how we shouldn't wait to catch someone "in the act", but that if we had a "genuine spiritual suspicion" we were to go to our "overseers", who would take some sort of action. Martindale enumerated a list a behaviors that he said indicated the presence of homosexual or lesbian spirits, whether or not the person was actually engaging in homosexual activity.

You're probably right, but TWI doesn't release any membership figures (yeah, I know they have no membership ) so it would be harder to estimate these days than it was a few years ago when a goodly number of us were freshly escaped or kicked out of TWI. During Waydale & GS's early days, there were quite a few folks (including me, Washington Weather, Igotout & Hope, and many others) who had been involved when Martindale was ousted, so we could give fairly accurate figures. Who knows how much they've shrunk these days?

The only way that the lay low strategy makes sense is if TWI is "THE" household of God, like they promote. If it is so screwed up that it requires a covert operation to fix it, then maybe it isn't worth fixing...ya think?