johniam

Wonder: What spinoffs believe JC is God? I've been to fellowships of 4 different spinoffs: CFF (John Shroyer), CBC (Vince Finnegan), CRF (John Hendricks, and a Chris Geer related one. None of those believe JC is God. I thought at one time that CES (John Lynn) taught that, but was assured in 1996 by someone that they don't. Just curious, where did you hear this?

There was a new person in the fellowship I attended this past Wednesday. And yes, it did seem to perk things up. Most of the people in the offshoot I'm in (CRF) are exway, at least here in STL. There are 6 fellowship coordinators and 2 of them were never in the way. The fellowships have much the same feel as twig ever did. One noticeable difference, however is the kids. They're actually into it. Last year at an advanced class held in Fla there were 325 people total, but easily 1/3 of those were 17 and under. Few months ago in Atlanta there was a weekend fellowship specifically for teens that did quite well. I recall being at a twig coordinator's meeting 20 yrs ago where the area cordo said "Most of the kids are bored stiff in fellowships; I don't know what to do!" Couple yrs ago I was at the fellowship I normally attend. There was a fellowship for the adults in the living room, the guy's 16 yr old daughter was doing a teen fellowship in another room, and there was a children's fellowship in the basement, all the fellowships had 10 or more people in them. That fellowship split not much later. All this doesn't guarantee anything good or bad for the future, but CRF has wows (lights), an advanced class, and is planning to start a corps type program.

Honey, honey, I wanna say something!!! I just thought I'd mention that IMO the reason TWI abhorred crosses so much, as with other things, is because TWI believes that crosses attract devil spirits. Isn't that special? TWI acting like authorities on devil spirits is like the three stooges acting like electricians or plumbers. They connect water pipes to electrical pipes and water comes out of the stove, the clock, the TV, etc. prompting that cook to say, "Need water? Turn on anything; you'll get it." TWI has been like that with devil spirits. Imagine if you will a break room in hell. Devil spirits are sitting in chairs talking and telling jokes. All of a sudden the mood is disrupted by a blaring horn. One of the devil spirits says, "Aw, dammit, this trinitarian just put on a cross around his neck! I gotta go, guys. Bye." TWI believed that all human action either attracted or repelled devil spirits. I believe that devil spirits exist, but either they're there or they're not. Just because somebody wears a cross doesn't mean they're automatically there, or coming. Sheesh! TWI acted like nonverbal behavior was discerning of spirits. False. Nonverbal behavior is the sum of what people do non verbally that can be detected by the 5 senses. For instance, facial expression, tone, volume or inflection of voice, hand gestures, choice of clothing, grooming or lack of it,eye contact, posture, space bubble, response time, etc. all of those things communicate something to others without the use of words. We were taught that certain nonverbal behavior automatically indicated devil spirits. That's absurd! You need holy spirit to discern spirits. It would be just as absurd to see someone wearing a cross and assume they were Christian. TWI made five senses discerning of spirits an art form.

Another thing occurs to me about the JFK assassination. It was the fourth time a US president had been killed, but part of it is still unsolved. Lincoln was clearly killed by a man who believed he was avenging the south. Garfield was killed by a spurned political wannabe. McKinley was also killed by a wacked out political activist, but why exactly was Kennedy killed? We still don't know for sure. Even IF Oswald was the lone killer, WHY? and for whom? Also, interestingly, the other three assassinated presidents were Republicans. JFK was the first dem. All of this adds to the JFK fascination.

I, too, was in 4th grade and the broadcast over the PA said that JFK had been shot. Then nothing. We had recess and as we were coming back in school one 6th grade teacher had a very serious look on her face. Then they played a second broadcast which said JFK was dead. A lot of the kids cried, but my own father had died exactly one month earlier, so I did not cry. This was surely the first direct encounter with the reality of death for most of those kids. I think this was different than 9/11, though. Separating the two events from their historical contexts, one would have to conclude that 9/11 was worse. This attack was not just on one individual, but on thousands, and bore the real possibility of being repeated at any time. JFK was just one high profile guy. But in 1963, there were only 3 TV networks: everybody saw the same shows, including news, depending on their interests. There was no cable TV, no internet...even radio stations were more restricted in what they could air. Literally, everybody felt the same pain simultaneously. The whole world was in shock for a week, seemed like. During the aftermath of 9/11 yes, many were glued to their TVs for a couple of weeks to a month, but many (like me) weren't. My daily routine was hardly affected and I don't live near NYC so to me it was/is barely more that a distant headline. Because of cable TV and the internet, I didn't HAVE to watch non stop coverage of 9/11 so I didn't. I'm not sure yet which of the two events changed everyday life more, probably 9/11, but it's hard to say.

I have two autistic boys, aged 8, and 13. Raf is right: routine rules. That movie 'Mercury rising' is very accurate. Whoever put that together did their homework well, at least on the kid's behavior. I remember the term 'pervasive developmental disorder' coming up from social workers during my kids' early years. My 13 yr old's overall communication skills improved dramatically after he was put into an autistic classroom. He's in elementary school now; part of his day is in a regular ed class/part in an autistic class. Next yr they're planning to put him in middle school. Watching that movie 'Mercury rising' makes me cry, too.

Didn't have to rent last night; Turner classic movies channel was showing all these really old Frankenstein movies. Boris Karloff was awesome.

Well, halloween was pretty good this year. Last year some kids on bikes stole two of my kids' candy, so this year I put on a large red bath robe with a hood and took my 18' extension pole (sturdy 6' long unextended) that I normally use for window cleaning and went out as Moses. I actually got several compliments on my "costume" but me and the three kids went together for an hour and a half and got a good haul. One house actually did give us religious tracts, but after they gave us candy. They were OK.

I like those "true tales from the west wing" about past presidents. Actually, I can picture the humorous atmosphere on that show in the Kennedy white house more than the Clinton one. I like that episode where that a**hole tries to hit on Zoe in a bar and threatens Charlie and Josh and doesn't even realize what he did until he was in handcuffs.

The original Haunting was scary; watched it when I was a kid. I saw a movie once named Terror in the crypt. In this one scene this old lady died and they had her body in the coffin on a sheltered stone porch during a thunderstorm. All of a sudden lightning struck and the lady was sitting up pointing at this woman. That scene was as good as in the Shining when the kid turns the corner on the three wheeler and sees those girls "hello Daniel come play with us for ever and ever and ever...".

After rereading JP's website, I'm guessing that Karen Martin has the power of attorney, since the letter TWI sent to all 4 kids is c/o her. Power of attorney is a legal standard, the key word being power. It's not just CYA. The Allen lawsuit was not silly crap. Neither was Paul in Acts 16 proving to Phillipian authorities that he was a Roman citizen, thus abruptly reversing the death sentence they had in mind for him. Legal standards are not silly to those who have the power to enforce them. While it may be slimy of TWI via HP to communicate with GSC only for the opportunistic purpose of attacking JPW's credibility and making him look like a fool, they DID do it, and they probably love seeing how many cages they've rattled by this thread. If JP knew about the POA, why did he misrepresent it? If he didn't know about it, why not? He's got to respond to this.

I'm still waiting for verification of this power of attorney. Either there IS a power of attorney held by Karen or Mary or there is NOT. Also, if there IS one, then Mrs. W had to have signed it in soundness of mind before being diagnosed with alzheimers. I was at a CFF fellowship with Kevin G. and Sarah in 1997 in which Sarah said that Mrs. W. was free to visit all 4 non TWI children. Mrs. W. could have made POA arrangements without TWI even knowing about it until recently. Also, there is a difference between power of attorney and a representative payee. Social security does not recognize power of attorney. It is possible for the same person to be both power of attorney AND representative payee, but it is not required. If Mrs. W. gets social security, it would be very unlikely for any of the non TWI children to be her representative payee. They don't live near her; they couldn't cash her checks. It is likely that Wanda is the RP. I assume she lives close to HQ. This whole thing could be more complicated than it looks. But HP's letter was attacking JP's integrity; like calling his bluff. Verification of the POA would end a lot of speculation. Even mine.

This is too weird...they say bobbing for apples is reenacting the fall? That's like saying that eating saurkraut is reenacting the holocost.

"Bazooka Jesus" huh? That's funny. I did hear on the radio that now halloween has passed Christmas as the holiday the most money is spent on. Maybe that's why they want to "reclaim" it. Man, if I passed out bible tracts and not candy I'd be afraid of getting my house egged or something.

If one of JP's sisters has a power of attorney, then this is a matter of public record. There is a PHYSICAL document somewhere (and probably several copies) which verifies this. GSC has posted public record documents before, such as VP's death certificate and some of the lawsuit transcripts. Why not this one? Harve's letter addressed four parts of JP's letter for refutation. The first was that JP "knew full well that one of his sisters had the power of attorney". This is an attack on JP's/GSC's integrity. He's saying JP flat out lied and deliberately misrepresented the facts. I think Harve's letter begs a response from JP. I agree with whoever said that it's a good thing that TWI has finally weighed in.

Dot, that stuff that happened in SF is appalling. It seems to me that those particular homos are like others who society considers to be victims in some way. Their speech is not intended to communicate anything; they just want you to jump through the hoops they want you to jump through and if you don't, they throw all the guilt at you they can and if you have any guilt in your mind, deserved or not, they will probably be able to manipulate you. That's what those guys were trying to do. Slugs.

Vertical limit: I'm not trying to drum up anything. Besides, I play guitar, not drums. A few pages ago, the last sentence in my post to Trefor said 'all we can do now is agree to disagree'. That was an open invite to drop the subject altogether. He responded, not angrily, that it was OK to have different views, yet that he reserved the right to challenge my views. That's OK with me. It does also give me the right to challenge his challenges. Oddly, he's not getting sensitive on me like some of you are. Much of what I've posted on this subject is stuff I've run through my mind once or twice. It's not intended to be received as "the gospel according to Johniam"; this isn't a TWI fellowship. I DO believe there is a difference between factual knowledge and spiritual truth. I'm just throwing my views out here. I've posted opinions before that have gotten chewed up and spat out quite cleanly so that I HAD to rethink them. Whether or not I do that after reading feedback to my posts on THIS thread is my business. I'm not obligated to give you or anybody else a running tally about that. Another advantage to being honest or blunt on these forums is that anybody can let their thoughts run and think "damn homos" or something like that, but here, maybe I DON'T have to look Trefor in the eye while I'm posting, but he can respond to me. There's a person behind those posts. This is mutual confrontation. A lot can be learned under these circumstances. His last post contained the phrase "feminine side." I responded to it. That's not drumming up a heated fight. It's probably as heated as it's going to get: at least between myself and Trefor. You and Rascal can get heated if you want.

Trefor: Why is it that we never hear about women having a "masculine side?" They know what they are and they're not ashamed of it. It is demeaning to men to suggest that they need to have a "feminine side" in order to be complete. I'm complete in Christ; I don't need a feminine anything. Also, if you were to start a TGI you wouldn't have to go far for a security force. You could probably recruit a "GayGB" from this thread alone.

Dot: In Gen 19 Lot was raped by his two daughters who had gotten him drunk, but they weren't in the Christ line. Jacob's son Judah was seduced by his daughter in law, Tamar, and THAT subsequent pregnancy was part of the Christ line, but really Tamar did a gutsy thing plus her husband had died and Judah said she was more righteous than he. That's in Gen 38. Little out of the ordinary, maybe, but not twisted.

Well, if you guys are going to keep throwing 'guilt bait' at me, I might as well keep responding to it. On page 2 of the sports section in the STL Post Dispatch there is an editorial section called SOUND OFF. The following letter by me was printed there on Aug. 24. ************************************************ Once again the self-appointed priests and Levites of political correctness have struck. Such turbulence over Jeremy Shockey calling Bill Parcells a "homo." Twenty-five years ago the movie "Animal House" was showing in theaters. Very funny movie. Very popular, especially among college students since the movie took place on a college campus. One scene has a young man struggling with a moral dilemma over whether or not to pursue sexual relations with a certain female. This was illustrated by an angel on one shoulder pleading with him to do the "right" thing and a devil on the other shoulder with a different message. The devil won by saying, "You homo!" Sure got a lot of laughs in the theater where I was. So go ahead and kiss up to the priests like those goody-goody ESPN anchors who have to if they want to keep their jobs. But remember how you laughed just as hard as I did. Does your conscience bother you for that? Mine doesn't. ************************************************ Political correctness is a blatant attack on freedom of speech, especially if you're white, male, Christian, or conservative. So it was OK in 1978 to laugh at calling someone a homo as a putdown, but today, it's a mortal sin? Reggie White bashes gays in a prepared speech and he gets flamed a little. John Rocker does it in a spontaneous, off-the-top-of-his-head kind of way and he becomes the sports media's "pinata" for basically the next year? I can't just honestly say how I feel about homosexuality without being called oh-so-righteous,*spiritual*, homophobic, etc. Bill Clinton hypocritically told a group of gays "I feel your pain" right after he got elected. Then before his first term was even up he signed into law a bill forbidding same sex marriages. He knew he didn't need their vote anymore. The truth is, most people really feel that homosexuality is on the Pluto side of reality, but they can't admit it without getting labeled and shredded. Some of you guys should just call yourself political correctites. That's your real religion. I don't care. My conscience didn't bother me Aug. 24. It doesn't bother me now. There is no 'guilt bait' you can throw at me that will cause me to do so.

Trefor: That website is ridiculous. First of all, the bible DOES mention sexual orientation. Gen. 1:27 So God created them in his own image, in the image of God created He him; male and female created He them. There they are: male and female. Nothing about homo, hetero, trans, or bisexual. I'm not "heterosexual", I'm MALE. THAT is my sexual orientation. Secondly, if you can throw Romans 1 out of the bible, I can throw John 3:16 out, too. Either it's God's word or it's man's word. I believe it's God's word. Tom S: There's a difference between religion and God. Namely, one is man made, one is not. Religion is all man made, but it's what we call any attempt to know God. Some religion succeeds, some doesn't. As for "Imagine", that song is my personal poster child for socialist hypocrisy. You've no doubt seen the video where he's playing the song while Yoko is opening the blinds letting in light symbolizing that the words to the song are 'light of understanding'. Isn't there a scripture about those that call darkness light and light darkness? So Lennon's playing this song and he sings...imagine no possessions, I wonder if you can. Well gee John, maybe it would be easier for me to imagine no possessions if I didn't have to see you playing an expensive piano, wearing expensive clothes, using expensive recording equipment, in an expensively furnished room, in an expensive building, located on expensive land, whew! Then, MAYBE I could imagine no possessions. As for Trefor, he is no different than anyone else here. There is a poster here who calls himself MrPMosh. He will tell you that there is no God and that religion is for those who cannot deal with reality. I don't agree with that any more than I agree with Trefor, but I'll read his posts. Recently he posted on two threads I posted on with some info I was happy to get. I can learn something from anyone. Sure, it's nice to have posters you feel you connect with, but it's OK to have diversity, too. This forum is intriguing; we do interpersonally relate, yet we don't bear the burden of being personally present with each other.

Dot: Yeah, your post explained a couple of things I'd wondered about. 1) I couldn't fathom how a man who taught such great bible...how his conscience could allow him to do such self serving, hurtful things to others. But if he really believed that his 'ministry' made it OK to touch like that...? Well, there you go. Sad. I'm married. My wife and I sleep in the same bed. Touching is good. I can touch her without preauthorization, but not anytime anywhere. Even with my own wife I have to use courtesy. Sheesh! 2) During my time in TWI, I probably visited HQ, Emporia, and Rome City several times each. Every so often (maybe 3 or 4 times total) I would be at one of those places and corps would be all over the place working or doing other things and my eyes would light on a woman's facial expression and it really seemed to me like she was pondering some tough secret that preoccupied her a lot. I naively thought she was in tune with the 'urgency of the times' or whatever TWI called it and that she was really locked in committed. Now I'm guessing she was recently aware of this inner circle and aghast as to how she got into this situation. This happened at least 3 times; same facial expression. Hell, Dot, one of those times it might have been YOU!

Trefor: I'm sure Jesus did express an opinion on the subject. It just wasn't written in scripture, but since he's the living word of God, his opinion couldn't have contradicted the written word of God. I remember watching Reggie White get flamed on the 20/20 show for having expressed his views on homosexuality (he addressed some Wisconsin group of politicians). During the same program this woman who was with some gay and lesbian organization said "How many times did Jesus Christ directly confront homosexuality? Not once!" Oh, really? My response to that is...how many times did Jesus Christ directly confront rape or drunk driving? Not once. Does this mean that those two things are also acceptable? I KNOW there's people on this thread who would have a problem with that. God decides what is natural. Not you. It says plainly in Romans 1:26&27 that homosexuality is against nature. You can either rebel against what God says or humble yourself before Him (not me) and ask for his help. One thing that is relevant here that irks me about TWI is that they HAD to assign devil spirits to every "jot and tittle" of human behavior. I believe Jesus and Paul and others in the bible knew how to deal with evil spirits but I have gotten so wearied hearing every burp and fart blamed on devil spirits by TWI that I have no use for people who talk about them all the time with nothing to show for it. To my knowledge there is no lust type behavior in the bible directly attributed to a devil spirit. When I first saw your name next to a post here I'm happy to tell you that I heard no 'still small voice' or moving loud voice or any kind of voice saying "Hey, man. This guy's gay." I do not believe that you are "more evil" than anybody else here. I'm sure there's plenty I can learn from reading your posts. Yes, I'm prejudiced against homosexuality. I'm sure you're also prejudiced against my attitude now. I don't hate you; I probably could have made my point on the post which originally got your attention without mentioning Leviticus 18. I'll try to keep that in mind, but what's done is done. Besides, I've posted my views on other threads. All we can do now is basically agree to dis agree.

Ginger: I was answering Trefor's post. It wasn't really a reaction, but it was more from my belief system. As stated, no human point of view can condemn homosexuality or any other sin. However, IF the bible really is God's "opinion" of this or any other situation, then God, who made the human body, the heart, it's appetites, etc. most definitely has the authority to condemn homosexuality as perverted. I believe it is, and He does. This may be hard for some here to comprehend, but my time in TWI did bring about much healing for me especially related to sexual stuff. CFS was part of it, PFAL was part of it, there were just way too many people in TWI to put in any box, good or bad. I believe Mike when he says that focussing on PFAL healed his hurt about the breakup of TWI. I also believe Dot, Excath, Valerie, and others when they say VPW was a pervert even though that wasn't my experience. I admit there's a part of me that does NOT want to picture him doing that stuff. It's disturbing finding out that this man I respected for those years was doing that. VP was never directly involved in my life, but his ministry and people who served it were in often a good way. It gave me an atmosphere where I could forget about dope and sexual hurts. Haven't had any pain in a long time from that. Everybody here has posted off topic and/or derailed a thread. If Rottie had titled the thread "Hey, who really hates the CFS class?" then it would be off topic for some of us to post what we posted, but she left it open for all views, pro and con. The only way to guarantee no derailment is to have Paw get really legalistic and hire people to scan the threads and if somebody is off topic they get a warning email and the second time they get a demerit, and finally they get banned. I don't want that!

The forcible suppression of unpopular views produces the impression that no adequate argument can be found with which to refute them. - VPW I came on this thread because I wanted to candidly express my opinion and experiences with the CFS class like Rottie asked for. At this point, if anyone really believes Mike is the only one who had anything to do with the thread's derailment, then you probably also believe Oswald acted alone in killing JFK. The next course of action is not to ban anybody. I recall a thread on Waydale that went south like this. It was about music or way prod and 2 particular posters ended up in quite a cat fight. After enough dust had settled, the moderator knocked the thread down from 120 posts to 80 some. Some posts on this thread need killin'. That is the extent Paw should get involved. IMO.