Raf

On second thought... This is old news to most of you, but my time in TWI was blissfully brief and harmless. I'm probably as close to an outsider as an insider could get: attended twigs in 1988 and 1989 in the Bronx. A year of looking into it before attending my first twig (read some of the books, listened to a truckload of tapes). Took the class in Oct-Nov 88, Intermediate in January 89. And by Aug. 89, I was out, along with most of NY state. I remained affiliated with an offshoot (Finnegan's wake, I call it now) until about 1997. Taught and ran a fellowship fir a few years. Recognizing some hypocrisy in my personal life, I stepped away as fellowship coordinator and just hung around for a bit. Connected with what was then CES and bought their foundational class and some other stuff. Became a "CES partner" for a year or more. Then stopped. Started attending a mainstream church. And finally chucked it all a few years ago. I recite this history not in answer to a rudely posed question, but to explain that despite my academic approach to TWI and it's doctrine, I consider myself neither an oppressor within the organization nor a victim of it. I have seen victims offer their testimony here, and I can only try to empathize with the hurt. You manifest it in different ways, and that needs to be recognized. Some people, once victimized, reveal themselves to be broken and in need of love and assistance. Other people, once victimized, come off as entitled jerks with a pine cone fetish, also in need of love and assistance. To be continued

If you read GSC and come away with the opinion that we think everything taught by TWI was a lie, then you are not reading very closely. That is such a shallow analysis of our diverse opinions that if you stepped in it you wouldn't even need a towel to dry off. You say you've read the doctrinal section? I say you've barely scatched the surface.

MRAP, your posts are antagonistic and you are ignoring numerous direct answers to the original thread question, including one directly above your latest post. You appear to be here to attract attention to yourself and not to the topics we are discussing. You are reveling in the responses you are receiving, not because they address the topic, but because they address you. I question your authenticity. Knock it off.

I thought Sticks were Twigs that were no longer loyal to Martindale & Co.

MRAP, I don't care for your tone. You don't get to boss me around like a trained seal. You question my authenticity? Yuck foo. Do you have any idea how many times I have worked behind the scenes to get people I LIKE to stop questioning YOUR authenticity because it was disrespectful and in violation of our rules? And how many times did you ask for my assistance? Not once. Because you didn't have to. I stood up for you because it was right, not because you asked. And you have the unmitigated GALL to question my authenticity and boss me around like the Corps trainers you claim to despise? Seriously, fornicate yourself with a pine cone, you g-d ingrate.

You question my authenticity? Oh no! Whatever shall I do?

As much nuance as you want to entertain. I've got no stake in the answer.

The point is nuance. The point is helping people see that it isn't either/or. The point is helping each other recognize that Corps grads are people, not a caricature. I'm not saying we've been unfair to Corps at GSC. I'm not really saying anything. I'm asking. If you don't want to answer, don't. But to call the thread a false dichotomy actually misses the point, in my opinion.

Samarin observed a superficial similarity between SIT and lantuage, including the apparent breakdown of utterances into sentences and paragraphs. In no way did he suggest that these actually WERE sentences and paragraphs; only that they sounded like them.

I would be interested in seeing those same "brain wave" studies measuring what the brain is doing during interpretation and prophesy. If the part of your brain that controls conscious thought is not active during interpretation and prophecy, would that validate interpretation and prophecy as genuine? If, as I suspect, that part of the brain is VERY active, would that invalidate interpretation and prophecy?

"I was hungry and thirsty for love without the slightest idea where to find it." -- Acts 29. I think this issue has been bubbling just under the surface of GSC for years. Not being Corps or ex-Corps, I have no dog in the fight. But a bunch of posts over the last couple of days have really got me thinking about this, so I'm going to throw this out there as a conversation starter. TWI is an institution. That is, it is an organization with a structure. I think a majority of us got involved in TWI out of a genuine hunger and thirst for righteousness. Unfortunately, we came to an organization that had its own agenda. Those who wanted to go WOW or Corps did so, I think, out of a genuine desire to serve. But "service" was defined by TWI, and especially in the case of those who went Corps, those who wanted to serve became an arm of the organization. Understanding that we are each ultimately responsible for the things we choose to do, at what point to we stop looking at Corps as "marks" and "victims" of TWI's agenda and start looking at them as enablers, facilitators and perpetrators of it? Or is that the wrong question to ask? Am I using the wrong words? Can you phrase it better? I am torn between looking at Corps as the epitome of TWI's victims vs. the epitome of what made TWI oppressive in the first place. For me, a conclusion is not required. But as I said, I thought it would make for an interesting conversation.

Fair enough, Chockfull. I tried to use the word "indicates" to distinguish from "proved," because if you're following this conversation over various threads, you know that I agree that nothing has been or can be proved. I can use words like "suggests" or something similar, but I concede I cannot use "proved" or "proves."

Sigh. MRAP Can post wherever he wants, just like the rest of us. And I'm not the only moderator here. I do not run this site. There are three of us who are active at the moment. And the only reason people know I'm a moderator, is that I screwed up my duties a couple of years ago.

DontSnippyBeNice!

I don't know much about SOWERS, but my understanding is that it can easily be traced to TWI. What's the issue?

If you can come up with an example to consider regarding roots that precede TWI, please suggest it so we can consider it. Otherwise, I'm not about to come up with a framework to address every possible hypothetical. It's a waste of everyone's time.

We're still within 5 days, so give me a chance

Lol

Mr. Ed

We are still waiting for the relevance of the serpent speaking to Eve. Thank you for your observations on my post. I did not mean to direct any comment at you specifically. I'm sure you knew that. I have to say that to date, I find disagreeing with you to be quite agreeable. Your diplomacy certainly exceeds mine, and I appreciate it. No more me, seeing as my particular argument is specifically not the thread topic. I just wanted to clarify a point.

NEW RULE ON ALL GAMES After five days of inactivity, anyone is allowed to kick-start a game by any means (answering a question by looking it up, posting a new question even if it's not your turn, etc).

That is correct.

Quick comment: There is no indication that when angels speak in the Bible, they speak in anything other than human languages. If there is such a thing as "languages of angels," then it is conceivable that a person speaking in languages could produce an angelic language. I do not believe that to be the case, but that is my opinion only. What is NOT likely by any logical stretch is that every attempt made by a disinterested third party to identify the language produced when someone speaks in languages will be an example of an angelic language, therefore not identifiable. It is perfectly fair to suggest this will happen in some cases. I don't agree, but it is not important to me that it can or cannot happen. It is NOT perfectly fair to suggest that this happens every single time someone speaks in tongues in a setting where other people are present. You may disagree with me there. Fine. We have nothing to argue. I think "tongues of angels" is hyperbole. But I hope I have never asserted that as anything more than my opinion.. I think I have a sound basis for it, but it is not central to anything I've suggested. Remember, in ALL of these discussions, it takes ONE person practicing SIT to produce an identifiable language in front of a disinterested third party to prove me wrong. One. For my part, that one example has to be rock-solid documentable to be trusted. None of this "it happened to my third cousin's wife's best friend in Zimbabwe once." None of this "it happened right in front of me, but everyone involved is now dead, missing or living somewhere in Northsouthern Europe." If I am going to handicap my position so that no SIT can be disproved as language, then I think it's perfectly fair that I can set a really high standard for proving the product of someone's SIT is a language. That took longer than I wanted. Sorry.

Of course

Not going to throw this thread off course, but social pressure ties directly into my thesis about SIT in The Way.