The Skeptical Texan

Tom, Me, too. It could've been worse. I knew a couple of guys that started smoking once they learned of Dr's affinity for Kools. I can't blaming my smoking on TWI, though. I started well before that and thank God quit a decade ago. I can attest that in the '70s TWI, believers consumed alcohol in copious quantities. That was one of the attractions to TWI: no goody-two-shoes Baptist attitude on beer. I agree with Ben Franklin on the topic: "Beer is proof that God exists and wants us to be happy." SkepTex

Did anybody ever hear Weirwille say that all of the "seedboys" believe in reincarnation? WRT the metronome, I don't think that's entirely unique to TWI. Mystical Christains in medieval times practices repetitive prayers and chants. Still creepy.

Wow! After reading the posts on this thread, it's amazing that anybody is in TWI at all. I knew that the Rev. L Craig Martindale was a jerk back in 1981, but I didn't know he was so demented! Weird, just damn weird!

Wasn't Richard T****s a roving WOW in Texas? If so, I recall him as being a really good guy back then. Disciplined, yes, but also interested in moving the Word in love. It seems that the Corps hardened hearts, or least encouraged behaviors that simulated a hardened heart.

I was never in the Corps, but I did attend summer school for 3 weeks with the Corps in 1974. I can't comment on what happened after the mid-70s but I learned much in those 3 weeks. From memory I recall the courses that I took that summer and even some of the instructors. I can't do that for any semester during university! Somerville taught an excellent course in OT history. There was a worthwhile introduction to NT Greek by Cummins. D. Owens taught a class on etiquette, which was new to me and good if one didn't become too legalistic. I also attended good classes on new testament textual criticism and figures of speech, but I don't recall the instructors. I was interested in the topics. The Corps were in the same classes. In addition to the TWI classes, I attended Biblical Studies classes at a university in Texas. For time spent in class and study, I learned far more at the TWI summer school. BUT, and it's a big "but", the Corps program struck me as extreme during that 3-week summer school session. I didn't experience sleep deprivation and I agree with Mr. Lingo that there are many organizations that are far more demanding on one's stamina. But the cuisine left much to be desired -- both in quality and quantity. I don't think I've eaten "Familia" since! The only solution was to buy the "Believer Burgers" to make up for the nutritional shortcoming. Though I found the classes worthwhile, three weeks was enough. Curiously, many of the in-res Corps seemed aloof and haughty, as well as one-dimensional in their personality. I learned more than the coursework of the classes I attended, enough to resist future invitations to join the Corps. Was the Way Corps a complete scam? I don't think so ... it just turned out to be much different than what was pictured in the recruits' minds. After all, weren't you agreeing to become a "bond slave" and didn't you believe that VPW was the MOG? In my opinion, the MOG concept led to all sorts of evil. SkepTex

I was disappointed in the show's content and presentation. The scholars were not particularly insightful in my opinion. Though I respect Karen Armstrong (an agnostic theologian), her written works are far better than her appearances on TV. The believing Christians were rather light on apologetics also. Yeah, there was conflict ... it's all pretty well documented in Acts and the Epistles. It probably was news for folks have a Bible in the closet somewhere.

I never added it and it would be too depressing to try to add it up now. Suffice to say, it was serious money. Somewhere in the middle of the ranges listed for me, but that would include WC sponsorships. It was 20-30 years ago so ,compounded at 8 or 10%, it would be over $50K. Somehow, it still think I was blessed in doing this; it's just that the money did not go to it's highest and best use!

I don't know how to cure tinnitus, but ear candling seems peculiar and dubious therapy. I've had a loud pounding noise in my ears before, but it was always related to swimming. If you ever get swimmers ear, mix up a solution of 1/2 vinegar and 1/2 alcohol and put a few drops in the ear with your head tilted to the side. This was recommended by my ENT and confirmed by my GP. The vinegar works to reduce the surface tension of the water in the ear. The alcohol makes the solution sterile. The uncomfortable sensation that you're experience may be related to the use of peroxide, which is about 97% water. The vinegar/alcohol solution might work if the problem is in your outer ear. You may have an infection in the middle or inner ear. You might have to break down and visit a real physician.

quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Originally posted by Dot Matrix: In PA, almost all my classes were filled with Catholics and "cool" searchers of the era. What do you think was the lure for the Catholics? -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Poor catechesis. I remember when I was "in," I repeatedly said, "if the denominational churches were doing their job, there would be no need for TWI." I still say that this statement is true. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- I'd add that it had a lot to do with changes resulting from Vatican II. Vatican II may have been overdue, but it completely removed the awesome ritual, the "mystery" if you will, from the Mass. Without that, the whole enterprise seemed rather devoid of genuine spirituality. This, I think, led many to look elsewhere. I have met many ex-Catholics who deserted their Mother Church for non-denominational Bible churches. Some even went so far as to join a cult in their pursuit of genuine spirituality. The references to bongs may explain why many accepted TWI without an appropriate degree of skepticism.

I don't remember Martindale saying that mountains were formed in the catastrophe between Gen 1:1 and Gen 1:3, but it sounds like something he'd say. I met Martindale in OKC a few years earlier. He impressed me as an egotistical jerk, so I pretty much tuned him out in th '79 AC. I have copious notes from the most of the speakers, but I think I must have spaced out when Martindale spoke ... no notes, just doodles in my notebook.

Very seldom do I give money directly to beggars in the US. There are just too many scamsters. I have helped a few souls that have pressed me with a hard-luck story, but I usually sub-contract my eleemosynary responsibility to Salvation Army, Feed the Children, and a Catholic charity. They're responsible organizations, and they vet out the scamsters for me. Outside of the US, I'm an easy mark. Nobody is faking poverty in Mumbai or Bangkok. Their local charitable organizations are probably more fair in distributing than I am, but the amounts you give beggars are trivial and, even if it is a scam, even the scamsters are desperately poor. SkepTex

EW, I, too, went to a PCA church and was greatly impressed with its Associate Pastor. When I tipped my hand on free will at Sunday school, he kindly gave me a copy of The Five Points of Calvinism. I'm sure you're familiar with this volume. The PCA impressed me with its faithfulness to 'sola scriptura' despite worldly pressures to depart from the faith. I never bought in to the concept of the 'limited atonement', but felt free to hold my own synthesis of free will and election. This doctrinal point posed no problem. However, the Associate Pastor moved on, and the church's Senior Pastor was just a bit uptight for me. I truly believe that I'll see these folks at the resurrection and will enjoy happy fellowship with them then. But, in the meantime, though, it's kind of a drag. I think there are actually several dimensions in selecting a church. The first, as already mentioned, relates to doctrine. The second, relates to the "style" of worship. Some folks really like a liturgical service; others prefer a less rote, unstructured service. Some like the old hymns; others like the modern 'praise' music. Some think communion should be every week; others, less frequently. I don't think God much cares as long as the service is truly worshipful. On doctrine, you're gonna find it hard to get around the Trinity issue if you're still a monotheist (I know, I know) and want to go to a church that believes that Jesus is the Son of God. I've developed a shaky rationalization for worshipping with Trinitarians that I know would be hard to explain and defend. My main doctrinal problem is with the immortality of the soul and the prospects of eternal hellfire for unbelievers. But, I'm one to talk ... I now attend a Nazarene Church 'cause its near my house. I attend infrequently and could hardly call it my "church home". I suppose I'm just a spiritual hitchhiker.

Kit, Never heard of him (or her) before, but the first part of Francis Frangipane's analysis hits the mark for me. Thanks for posting it. I disagree with Frangipane's assertion that "Christian have not had a memorial dedicated to the sufferings of Christ". Every Roman Catholic Church I've ever been in has the Stations of the Cross. Respectful treatment of Christ's Passion was a frequent subject in religious art over the centuries. The Stations are indeed memorials dedicated to the sufferings, but they do not convey as strong of a message to people accustomed to motion pictures. Gibson's "The Passion of the Christ" certainly stirred me deeply, awakened latent emotions, resurrected forgotten longings and resonated with my Christian DNA to paraphrase Frangipane. My take-away from the film was a jolting reminder of the seriousness of sin, my own sin in particular. That's why Jesus endured the punishing brutality of the Passion. As a consequence of viewing the film, I have a sense of contrition, an heightened sense of His sacrifice, and a renewed resolve to "go, and sin no more". (Of course, I won't succeed at the latter, but I'll try harder.) Weirwille's interpretation of Scripture did a good job of communicating the Jesus' redemption of sinners, but it discounted the seriousness of sin with Weirwille's dismissal of "sin consciousness" as a category of "doubt, worry, and fear". "If thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and believe in thy heart that God raised Him from the dead, thou shalt be saved" does not contain a requirement to comprehend His suffering. However, I think understanding of the consequences of sin -- death generally and the Passion of our Lord specifically -- is an essential dimension to the Christian faith, even if it is not a requirement for salvation. Paul lays this out pretty explicitly before Romans 10:9. When I was a Wayfer, I dismissed any serious reflection of my own thoughts and behaviour as "sin consciousness". Gibson's film inspired some pretty serious reflection in this viewer. But, still, it's just a movie. If you didn't like it, well, that's a matter of taste. Some folks like the old hymns; others like the more modern praise music. SkepTex

Rafael, When you noted that Nicea was not convened to put an end to the Arian heresy, you made a subtle, but accurate, distiction. Indeed, the Council was formed to unify the doctrine of the new state religion. The most objective account that I've read on the topic is in Gibbon's Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire. Gibbon describes the build up of the doctrinal conflict at length. Athanasius argued Jesus was homo ousion (of the same substance) with the Father; Arius argued he was homoi ousion (of similar substance) with the Father. At one point, Gibbon reports that tradesmen in Constantinople would engage strangers in a diatribe about Jesus being homo or homoi ousion. Gibbon notes that never had there been such debate over a single letter; an iota at that! Arius won the first round, and Athanasius looked like he was on the way out. In the end, though, the Council determined that Jesus was homo ousion with the Father and Arius' doctrine was denounced as heresy. This dogma was incorporated in the Nicean Creed, minor variants of which are still recited routinely today. The Council's resolution marks the beginning of the Roman Catholic Church as the unifying state religion of the Roman Empire. Those who reject the Trinity hold unorthodox Christian beliefs and are, by definition, heretics. Not long ago, both Protestants and Catholics would burn you at the stake for that. The reason I say that Gibbon was objective is that he didn't care much about the Trinity debate. His thesis was the either way Christianity contributed to the fall of the Roman Empire.

A super thread with lots of insight. Definitely worth a bump for anybody new to Greasespot. SkepTex