Tripped Out Christians

[So_crates]

Speaking of jargon, I find it mildly amusing, for some reason, that, in The Way, "tripped out" meant something entirely different than it meant to the general populace.

I'm just sayin'

Yah, waysider, we're just trippin' on the drug of reality.

Did you know reality's for people who can't handle Saint Vic's doctrine?

SoCrates

Edited April 9, 2011 by So_crates

[Bramble]

I'm one of those non-Christians...I took good care of my babies and was never wacked out enough to toss them down the drain. Nor have I ever done serious drugs and been 'tripped out'. All my theological decisions were made while I was completely sober.

Not all exway are going to have a cookie cutter experience and cookie cutter beliefs after exiting the Way. WHy should they be scolded for it? Most here are able to move beyond the Christian=good, non-Christian=bad belief. Or they leave GSC for a more Christian site.

[soul searcher]

Speaking of jargon, I find it mildly amusing, for some reason, that, in The Way, "tripped out" meant something entirely different than it meant to the general populace.

I'm just sayin'

I never used the term before. Tripping to me means an LSD trip.

[waysider]

I never used the term before. Tripping to me means an LSD trip.

In The Way, it essentially meant you had forsaken your commitment to "the ministry"..

[So_crates]

Not all exway are going to have a cookie cutter experience and cookie cutter beliefs after exiting the Way. WHy should they be scolded for it? Most here are able to move beyond the Christian=good, non-Christian=bad belief. Or they leave GSC for a more Christian site.

I also find it amusing that they'll scold the tripped out Christians on this site, yet they fail to see the tripped out non-christian behavior of twi leadership.

SoCrates

[socks]

If you can think of a better way to communicate "throw out the baby with the bathwater" then have at it. If you can think of a better definite article than 'the' have at that, too.

I'll leave "the" alone, it's earned it's place. Baby and bathwater was fine the first 100 times I heard it in the context of Wayfer's leaving the Way. Think it was in a John Lynn writ. John Lynn's about as glib as it gets and is kind of a poster child for fast-talking-now-u-see-it-don't-worry-if-you-don't-get it. So it didn't surprise me there. Then it seemed to gather steam in ex-Wayfer circles. THIS and many other LINKS googled can shed light on the origin of the phrase. As always I'd recommend some comparative reading to get a handle on it. (note to self: check on "handles" and possible origins relating to "scandals" and the relationship of rhyming to meaning).

But I get your point johniam. Use the word "available" in certain circles and they'll go nuclear on you (note to self: check that one too). And that's good because using that word post-Way indicates the need for a good brain scrub to avoid a rash of bad dreams populated by people dressed in polyester suits carrying bibles.

Yet - I admit it. I'm tired of that phrase "baby and the bathwater". It's "glib" - it indicates to me a lack of thought, an easy way to refer to a topic that is really much larger and deeper. I'm ready for discourse, and ready even for newer better ways to express things. Or even newer applications of the old ways that ring real today.

I'd never ever use that phrase myself. It just never got into my language. I take baths, I've bathed babies. I'd never throw the baby I was bathing out after the bath, never let it drain out with the water, can't see how it would fit down the drain. What kind of a person, upon bathing their baby, would - while tossing out the used water - toss the baby out wth it?

You get the picture - the metaphor, the comparison there is ridiculous, there's a moment of apprehension upon hearing the statement and then a rejection of it because it's too unrealistic.

Perhaps as a comedic device but then you'd need the visual and that would require a context and some background on the character. Funny isn't an easy thing to achieve sometimes. I'm not sure that's funny.

So yeah. Another derail.

But "tripped out" harkens back to another day and time, means something completely different and of course has no meaning as used outside Way circles I'd suspect. Which is why I asked what that means these days.

Used in Way circles when the VPster picked up on it in the 60's - getting the meaning required context. The term as used outside the Way had meant the state of mind resulting from doing something. You see the difference in how it's become used in Way circles over the years? Today, as Tony used it, it's not the same at all as it was used originally in hippy jargon, nor by the early Wayfers.

It's a glib phrase meaning in context "no longer believes what you once believed" in God, or whatever. Informed by the implications of it's external meaning and usage it carries too much baggage with it to be clear and initiate a clear response.

And we wonder why the Bible can have different interpretations?

This is all sort of like when two guys know a guy named Jack and one says "Aww, you don't know jack about computers", and the other guy says "Hey, I do too know Jack!" And the first guy starts to test him on Windows versions and the second guy says "let's ask Jack, he knows all about computers", and the first guy says I didn't mean to find out about Windows versions really I was trying to see if you know jack about them" and the second guy says "Aw man, that's really jacked up" and the first guy says "Jack wouldn't like it if you said that" and the second guy says "You don't know jack about how he'd feel!" and the first guy says "Yeah, well, you don't either" and they then both agree that Jack is a nice guy.

"Who's on first?"..................

This is too complicated. I need to relax doing some al gore isms or something.

[Bramble]

'Tripped out' indicates that anyone who chose not to follow the posters belief system is drug addled insane and worthless.

Edited April 9, 2011 by Bramble

[waysider]

Used in context:

Believer #1>>> I haven't see Joe around lately.

Believer #2>>> That's because he tripped out about a month ago.

Edited April 9, 2011 by waysider

[WordWolf]

[in other news,

why do all the people who object to the GSC all use THE SAME LANGUAGE?

There's always this obsession with infants in a tub. EVERY FREAKING TIME someone doesn't like us,

they mention a baby, and bathwater, and a few other things, and that's about all they say.

It's like they're all reading from a short script or something. Aren't any of you permitted to

think for yourselves? I mean, if we got the same complaints, I'd expect them to use different

phrases to make them.

Again with this "tripped out" thing. Same language again! Is there some "anti-GSC Manifesto"

or something with the handful of phrases? It's got to come from SOMEWHERE.]

Why do all the people who type in English all use the same language? Every time they need to use a definite article they use the word 'the'. That's the only word they use! Aren't they permitted to think for themselves? The English language must be for hillbillies, I guess. You'd think a legitimate language would have at least 50 definite articles in it.

It's called LANGUAGE! If you communicate to others in a LANGUAGE, then you must use the proper words of the LANGUAGE! Most people think babies are valuable; those same people think that bathwater is expendable. The reason a cliche is a cliche is because it's true. If you can think of a better way to communicate "throw out the baby with the bathwater" then have at it. If you can think of a better definite article than 'the' have at that, too.

John, what WW is talking about is "jargon", not "language" per se. I think you probably already realize that. This need to argue over the nuances of semantics seems to be a residual effect. I have often noticed it in people who have a previous history of involvement with The Way.

Speaking of jargon, I find it mildly amusing, for some reason, that, in The Way, "tripped out" meant something entirely different than it meant to the general populace.

I'm just sayin'

In The Way, it essentially meant you had forsaken your commitment to "the ministry"..

There is a difference between language and buzz words: one everyone has a common understanding, the other may or may not be understood by everyone and also helps identify members of a certain group.

Now when you get people reading off the same talking points, you get the same similes, metaphors, ,and idioms. When people say the exact same thing over and over again, its almost a dead givaway that whatevers being said came from a common source.

Look at politicians, you can tell they're going by talking points because everyone of them will say almost the same thing. And that bleeds down right to the rank and file.

I do, however, think you could have expressed that in a little less confrontive way to Wordwolf. Do you think he doesn't understand the dynamics of language? Do you think he doesn't know what a cliche is?

Instead of trying to bully him into silence, maybe you should have asked him for clearification?

SoCrates

quote:

Instead of trying to bully him into silence, maybe you should have asked him for clearification?

I think he was trying to bully me (and by association, Tony) into silence. The self appointed damage control czar at it again. For many here, the other side of the story has become the ONLY side of the story, and when Tony makes an honest observation like "why are there so many tripped out Christians here?" this is a problem. He has what? 30 posts? WWs message was very clear.

First off, I don't read any aggression in his post. He made a simple observation.

Second, there aggression everywhere in your post: accusing, talking down to, taking sides.

Third, even if you want to rationalize by saying he was bullying you: two wrongs don't make a right

Finally, in this area: Do I have to repeat it?

Okay, everybody: according to your chosen belief system, if you believe he's trying to bully you into silence, he's trying to bully you into silence. It's not that he is trying to bully you into silence, but that your belief is making him seem to be trying to bully you into silence.

Damage control has nothing to do with it. I didn't say: don't present your side, or imply anything that suggested I wanted you to not to state your side.

I asked if there was a better non-aggressive way to present your side--you know, without accusing, talking down to, or taking sides?

Also, on this front: according to your chosen belief system, if you believe I'm attempting damage control, then I'm attempting damage control. Its not due to any effort on my part, but due to your believing.

Why is it a problem? It doesn't seem to be bothering them. Why is it bothering you? You really overreacted to Wordwolf's post. Why is it triggering one of your insecurities? Again we go back to your believing making it a problem.

However, if I were to hazard a guess: You think these tripped out Christian seen the same bullying you just displayed and tripped out? Nah, that can't possibly be the answer can it? Maybe they got tired of being abused by bullies. Nah, that couldn't be it either. After all people enjoy being sworn at, accused, being called names, being talked down to...(where is that sarcastic smiley?)

As I said before Saint Vic was a bully, he taught others to be bullys. Look at Martindale. 'Nuff said. Then you add to it the trickle down theory...and you have a ministry of bullies bullying people because they think that normal behavior.

As in my previous post, when I get a whole bunch of people using similar methaphors and idioms, I can bet my press card they're coming from a common source. But then, just because you read it on GSC its immediately one sided.

Once again: according to your chosen belief system: if you believe everything on GSC is one-sided, then its one-sided. Its not that it is one-sided, but that your belief is making it one-sided.

Have you ever considered Wordwolf's side? You seem to want everyone to consider your side but you don't want to consider anyone elses.

(snip)

SoCrates

Actually, I wasn't even THINKING of Johniam at all when I posted that. I was thinking of how we always seem to get the EXACT SAME HANDFUL OF PHRASES whenever someone wants to object to the GSC. Even if we only consider posters from the USA, each one will have a slightly different manner of speech-and thus of typing. So, the exact phrases used to express the same concept will be different. Hell, this was covered back in the Intermediate class, so it's old news for all the ex-twi'ers. (How TIP and prophecy will vary with the speaker's idioms.) In pfal, we even saw this in passing, how Amos (a shepherd) had a simple, direct speech, while John had a more educated, flowing style. So, that a handful from all over the country, posting often in drive-by posts, but sometimes staying for a time and rarely as regulars, ALL seem to use the same HANDFUL of phrases by COINCIDENCE strains credibility. If everyone addressing THE SAME SUBJECT uses THE EXACT SAME PHRASES to describe it, I know they're all getting it from the same source-the same book, the same document, etc. In the past, I also tended to find that it meant they had not explored the subject on their own. (Whenever I heard anyone defend cg33r's ideas of a God who is not All-Knowing, I ALWAYS got EXACTLY the same phrases EACH AND EVERY TIME supporting it. Later, when people began disagreeing, they all began using different phrases again. They were all quoting from his presentation rather than "making the subject their own" by "searching the Scriptures if those things were so." I would mind less if the same words were quotes from Scripture-since they might all independently study and quote the same verses, and have the common source be the Bible's King James Version.

So, John was way off in thinking I was even THINKING of him. His reference to a "self-appointed damage control czar", however, is telling. Rather than actually think about what I posted- a number of posters all agreed I raised a legitimate question that needed addressing- John immediately tried to dismiss the question and object to even consideration of it. Now THAT sounds like a "damage control czar", self-appointed or not.

But when I posted yesterday, I was really surprised. All these posters, across, whar, a decade? All over the country, yet all using the SAME HANDFUL OF PHRASES. Obviously, they are getting their phrases from a common source.

[socks]

Derail......or is it?.....

I love the modern version of "trippin'".....as when someone does something goofy or ill advised, and someone says "Oh man, you are trippin"....."....guy gets all whacked out, angry and someone says "Hey, don't trip on that...."

Meaning is very compressed and compact, "tight" as it were.

WW, I think it's just become a bell ringer amongst the ex-Wayfer non-tripped out Christians who still stand on some version of the previously revealed truth.

'Course anyone who knew VPW in his day would KNOW, without a doubt or equivocation that he'd be turning purple twice over if any one of his original premises taught were changed one iota (!) even a little bit and even more that in doing so they claimed were really following "in his footsteps" and doing what he'd have wanted done.

So on a side note it's funny that some who have changed so much think he'd be proud of their work today. He wouldn't be. He'd hate it.

It's much the same as his last couple years there, when Craig and Don would reference him or trot him out like a doll to "be" the President and Founder, all the while changing anything and everything first behind his back and then finally not really caring. Within their own ranks it was the babies eating the bather, to coin a phrase.

Everyone knows that. And for my dollar the second I hear anyone who's changed anything from VPW's teachings saying they're following in his original path I immediately know that 1. they never really knew him at all or 2. they're plain liers, if they did. They've completely disconnected from reality. Which may be a good thing but invoking his name is kind of funny, in a very unfunny way.

[T-Bone]

[it's a site with many Christians that is not specifically a "Christian" site. All are welcome here,

especially those with twi history, for whom this site is meant. (Them and people seeking information

on twi.]

[i, personally, wasn't treated particularly badly by twi people. If you don't count toxic doctrine

and bad practical and doctrinal error, it wasn't bad for me particularly.

(Then only various a-holes account for any bad experiences.)

It's all the crimes and moral wrongs done by vpw, lcm, rfr and others that were done-and are STILL

done- that need to be exposed. We were all lied to, deceived-and it was an orchestrated plan with

a LOT of lies- and it worked. We were all deceived. That's morally wrong, and various crimes were

also committed-including Fraud and Rape. Some lost their lives because of twi.

If that's not enough of a reason for having more than a "dislike" for someone or some thing,

then SHAME ON YOU.

In other news,

why do all the people who object to the GSC all use THE SAME LANGUAGE?

There's always this obsession with infants in a tub. EVERY FREAKING TIME someone doesn't like us,

they mention a baby, and bathwater, and a few other things, and that's about all they say.

It's like they're all reading from a short script or something. Aren't any of you permitted to

think for yourselves? I mean, if we got the same complaints, I'd expect them to use different

phrases to make them.

I've also noticed that different people count different things as "baby"- what's important-

and "bath water"- what's to be discarded.

If you mean "believe the Bible and trust it", I've retained that "baby".

If you mean "believe twi's package and sum total", I've tossed that out as "bath water."

What was true before vpw was born is still true. What are lies and deceptions are useless to me

no matter whose name is on the label.]

[it's not a Christian site, but you'll still get treated better here as a dissenter

than as a dissenter in twi. They're a LOT more cruel to their objectors.

Again with this "tripped out" thing. Same language again! Is there some "anti-GSC Manifesto"

or something with the handful of phrases? It's got to come from SOMEWHERE.

I left twi because twi as a whole decided-openly-to follow men rather than God.

I consider twi to have "tripped out." I've done my best to follow God no matter who was

alongside me and what titles were used. ]

being a movie fan, sometimes i get into these over-produced daydreams about something that really packed a wallop to my brain.....so i'm thinking of a movie idea.....maybe along the lines of a movie within a movie or something....

title of the movie is "Hello Grease Spot...or not"

brief summary:

An avante garde screenplay writer comes up with a novel approach to making a story. He wants half the screenplay to be composed of the actual impromptu response by some of the actors toward certain cliches spoken by others.

The writer drafts a scripted dialog for only half the cast - made up of jargon, buzz words, cliches, slogans, and catch phrases used by a certain religious group . The "script" for the improvising actors has no written dialog - only a short directive to guide them in what to say - the directive is "improvise from the heart".

A key scene in the movie is when the writer is trying to pitch his movie to a producer and says "it's a story about catch phrases and the missed point of no return."

~ ~

This is an interesting and provocative question. I have wondered the same thing too...are there talking points issued somewhere? Good observation...thanks for making me think. Where else did we hear that term baby and bathwater used?

i agree with you Geisha - i really appreciate what WordWolf brings to Grease Spot! Besides his Christian perspective - i think another quality his posts have is rock solid logic....i know i have a flair for being long-winded, going all over the map, hyper-critical and sarcastic......well, that's enough about my long suites - it's bad form to toot your own horn - but i always like WordWolf's approach in a discussion - it seems always level-headed, stays on point, and that there's been a lot of thought put into it.

[So_crates]

It's called LANGUAGE! If you communicate to others in a LANGUAGE, then you must use the proper words of the LANGUAGE! Most people think babies are valuable; those same people think that bathwater is expendable. The reason a cliche is a cliche is because it's true. If you can think of a better way to communicate "throw out the baby with the bathwater" then have at it. If you can think of a better definite article than 'the' have at that, too.

Proper words of language?

You mean say what you mean and mean what you say? (Where have I heard that before?)

Rather than tiptoeing around idioms involving babies and bathwater, why don't they say directly and honestly what they think this valuable thing is that we're throwing out with the expendables?

There's your better way to communicate the same thing.

SoCrates

Edited April 9, 2011 by So_crates

[Bramble]

Perhaps there are exway out there who are inclined not to be Christian and wonder if exway non Christian's heads really do explode. So they come here and see that exway exChristians can still type n stuff and somehow manage to refrain from murder and other felonies, so they can't be that tripped out.

[So_crates]

They seem to be all the rage nowadays, but all they do is annoy me.

Strawman arguments, that is.

We've been discussing how many posts about whether or not people are throwing out the baby with the bathwater. This is a strawman argument which leads nowhere. We could continue discussing it another 100 posts and still not touch on the real issue.

Tonyzamboni, what in your mind does the baby represent? And what in your mind does the bathwater represent?

Johniam, same with you, what in your mind does the baby represent and what in your mind does the bathwater represent?

Lets have that conversation. At least its about the real issue.

SoCrates

Edited April 10, 2011 by So_crates

[johniam]

OK let me see what other ways I can express "throw out the baby with the bathwater"....

throw out the pearl with the oyster

throw out the chewy caramel center with the tootsie roll pop

I dunno, at least baby and bathwater constitute 'aliteration', a proven literary technique. I also think the phrase implies that the throwing out of the baby is caused by a knee jerk reaction to the bathwater. Aughhh! Bathwater! Whoosh! Whew! Not realizing hey, where's the baby?

Tripped out? The only documentation I can recall is in the way living in love where Walter Cummins says to Elena Whiteside that John Mark from Acts had tripped out. The guy who went not with them to the work of the ministry or whatever.

WW, when you said aren't they permitted to think for themselves, don't tell me that wasn't condescending.

Socrates, you don't have a clue what my "chosen belief system" is. I was in twi for 18 years and I never DID buy that "it's your believing" crap. Somebody told me that Vince Finnegan's dad died in a construction accident. The person said "that's where his believing was at". That person was my twig leader at the time and I didn't feel comfortable arguing with him, but, eww, someone DIES and that's how their last days are assessed? That's where his believing was at? Didn't buy it then, don't buy it now. Did you believe EVERYTHING you were ever told in twi? You have a press card?

[So_crates]

They seem to be all the rage nowadays, but all they do is annoy me.

Strawman arguments, that is.

We've been discussing how many posts about whether or not people are throwing out the baby with the bathwater. This is a strawman argument which leads nowhere. We could continue discussing it another 100 posts and still not touch on the real issue.

Tonyzamboni, what in your mind does the baby represent? And what in your mind does the bathwater represent?

Johniam, same with you, what in your mind does the baby represent and what in your mind does the bathwater represent?

Lets have that conversation. At least its about the real issue.

SoCrates

As you can see, ladies and gentlemen, once again he dodges the real issue.

Why won't you answer the above questions?

The whole thing is apparently important enough to you for you to snap back at Wordwolf, yet you don't know what the issue is. Hmmmm.

This proves Wordwolf's point: you have no idea what the baby or the bathwater is, its just the talking points of a common source.

SoCrates

Edited April 10, 2011 by So_crates

[So_crates]

WW, when you said aren't they permitted to think for themselves, don't tell me that wasn't condescending.

No, that was what was commonly called an opinion. I often feel the same thing when I heard somebody spout off the same rhetoric I've heard from 30 other people. It shows people don't want to think for themselves, they want to be told what to think.

Socrates, you don't have a clue what my "chosen belief system" is.

Don't I? You'd be surprised how much you have told me about your belief system.

You don't move toward things, you move away. Rather than moving toward pleasure, you life centers around avoiding pain. You avoid answering direct questions because some of the answers may be painful.

Your more reactive than proactive. Calling people who disagree with you butt kissers and bitter. Or they speak with a forked tongue.

You respond to stress with feeling, as recently seen with Wordwolf's post. Rather than choosing to use both feelings and reason, you go on the attack, accusing and talking down to people.

You prefer a don't-do-as-I-do-do-as-I-say style: accusing others of being morally superior, then acting morally superior yourself (As I said before: why are "tripped out" Christians a "Problem"? Who gave you the authority to deem it a problem? If they have no problem with it, why do you you?)

Close?

Did you believe EVERYTHING you were ever told in twi?

Here's an interesting contradiction: on one hand, your the self appointed protector of all that is Saint Vic, and on the other hand, you only believe parts of Saint Vic's doctrine.

Interestingly, the parts you've defended has been his right to rip people off by charging for PLAF, his right to victimize (your playing down of his neferious activities and the God delivers bit), and his right to bully people (remember the corps person that was killed during the colon cleanse and his bullying aftermath?).

Interesting. Very interesting.

SoCrates

[geisha779]

Proper words of language?

You mean say what you mean and mean what you say? (Where have I heard that before?)

Rather than tiptoeing around idioms involving babies and bathwater, why don't they say directly and honestly what they think this valuable thing is that we're throwing out with the expendables?

There's your better way to communicate the same thing.

SoCrates

They seem to be all the rage nowadays, but all they do is annoy me.

Strawman arguments, that is.

We've been discussing how many posts about whether or not people are throwing out the baby with the bathwater. This is a strawman argument which leads nowhere. We could continue discussing it another 100 posts and still not touch on the real issue.

Tonyzamboni, what in your mind does the baby represent? And what in your mind does the bathwater represent?

Johniam, same with you, what in your mind does the baby represent and what in your mind does the bathwater represent?

Lets have that conversation. At least its about the real issue.

SoCrates

OK let me see what other ways I can express "throw out the baby with the bathwater"....

throw out the pearl with the oyster

throw out the chewy caramel center with the tootsie roll pop

I dunno, at least baby and bathwater constitute 'aliteration', a proven literary technique. I also think the phrase implies that the throwing out of the baby is caused by a knee jerk reaction to the bathwater. Aughhh! Bathwater! Whoosh! Whew! Not realizing hey, where's the baby?

Tripped out? The only documentation I can recall is in the way living in love where Walter Cummins says to Elena Whiteside that John Mark from Acts had tripped out. The guy who went not with them to the work of the ministry or whatever.

WW, when you said aren't they permitted to think for themselves, don't tell me that wasn't condescending.

Socrates, you don't have a clue what my "chosen belief system" is. I was in twi for 18 years and I never DID buy that "it's your believing" crap. Somebody told me that Vince Finnegan's dad died in a construction accident. The person said "that's where his believing was at". That person was my twig leader at the time and I didn't feel comfortable arguing with him, but, eww, someone DIES and that's how their last days are assessed? That's where his believing was at? Didn't buy it then, don't buy it now. Did you believe EVERYTHING you were ever told in twi? You have a press card?

Ask a direct question next time Socrates...gee, could you be more specific!

I can't really glean from the answer, but since so much of TWI's doctrine was based on the notion that believing equals receiving...... it APPEARS, Johniam, you have thrown out the baby, the bathwater, the tub and all..... right out the window. Possibly, you never really believed PFAL to begin with. Ha! Who knew?

What part of TWI doctrine wasn't based in some way on believing equals receiving?

Edited April 10, 2011 by geisha779

[tonyzamboni]

Wow! I never said I didn't like GSC! Just because I used a phrase that obviously everybody here HATES doesn't mean I don't like the GSC! I have been learning some interesting things here about TWI after I left it and I was beginning to like the GSC. And somebody asked me What is the baby and what is the bath water.

To me the bath water when it gets thrown out is dirty bath water. The bad stuff in TWI is the dirty bath water.

The Baby to me is Christianity in general. We were trying to be Christians but found out by experience or observation that TWI wasn't what we thought it was. But we were in it because we wanted to be CHRISTIANS and tried to follow Jesus and were attracted by much Bible examination instead of church bingo or guys with boofont hairdos that ended every word with ah. You know, Jesus-ah!

So when some people left TWI because we found ourselfs in such dirty bath water some decided to quit being Christians which is SAD because Jesus is still The Way The Truth and the Life. I am amazed that such a complicated and LONG conversation happened over my use of an extremely simple comment like the Baby and the Bathwater. Sheesh! Were a bunch of you one time members of the TWI research department?

Now one guy here said that he plays guitars with non Christians and he works with non Christians and doesn't require them to recite Ro 10:9. I understand that and I am the same way. I go out salsa dancing all the time and I don't ask the girls if they are Christians first. I just want to shake a leg or cut a rug. Is it okay for me to use those cliches here? Anyway, I understand the "not worrying about if other people in this World who we spend time with are Christians or not" thing.

What is sad to see is that some people here have pretty much denounced their Christian beliefs. I am not talking about "people that we work or play with", but people who were at one time very comitted and interested in being Christians and who wanted to spread the Word. It is this Group that all of us here were once in that gives me surprise when I find some who don't Believe anymore. People who have tripped ou...oops! I mean who have apparently decided that ALL Christianity is bad because of that Dirty Water that they once took a bath in. I don't know how I can be clearer. And SORRY if you don't like my choice of words Wolf!

[Sudo]

Tony,

You're alright in my book. Stick around why don't you and don't get disheartened that some of us see things otherwise now. Diversity makes the world more interesting doncha' think?

sudo

[tonyzamboni]

Well thanks for that Sudo! Your alright in my book also.

[So_crates]

What is sad to see is that some people here have pretty much denounced their Christian beliefs. I am not talking about "people that we work or play with", but people who were at one time very comitted and interested in being Christians and who wanted to spread the Word. It is this Group that all of us here were once in that gives me surprise when I find some who don't Believe anymore. People who have tripped ou...oops! I mean who have apparently decided that ALL Christianity is bad because of that Dirty Water that they once took a bath in. I don't know how I can be clearer.

I can't speak for anyone else, but I'm probably the ministries last angry man. Saint Vic cheated me and I didn't care for it one bit.

Consider what the ministry told us:

• This is the absolute truth
  
• Only we have it
  
• We've reached our conclusions through extensive research
  
• This works with a mathematical exactness and a scientific percision
  
• You have to have faith that the things we tell you are true.
  
• If its not working for you its because you don't have enough faith
  

No matter which religion you go to, all their doctrine and rituals boil down to the above list--a list of metabeliefs, if you will.

So, how does one know when he's found the truth, considering they all carry the same metabeliefs? How do you sort out 12,000 Christian religions, all making the same claims, yet there's only one true one. Seems to me the odds are stacked a little against me: 11,999 tigers to one lady.

Look how long it took for me to figure out the Way was a pack of lies. I've wasted the more productive years of my life buying into the way's line of bull and what do I have to show for it? Nothing. I'm in exactly the same place I was back in the early 70s when I started into the ministry. I've been spinning my wheels for nearly 40 years.

Only now I'm hearing people getting aggressive with me over the ministries failure. "You fail because you blame God"

So tell me, what of all those years I didn't blame God? Why did it fail then?

Also, I had doubts when I started into the ministry. I asked my twig leader, "If I fall flat on my face following this, whose fault is it?" His response to me was: "God's." (mathematical exactness and scientific percision, remember?)

So, if I seem to kick Christianity to the curb, its because the whole thing is too overwhelming for me, and I personally don't want to waste what I have left in my life believing in another Santa Claus.

SoCrates

Edited April 10, 2011 by So_crates

[geisha779]

. . . . . . .

The Baby to me is Christianity in general. We were trying to be Christians but found out by experience or observation that TWI wasn't what we thought it was. But we were in it because we wanted to be CHRISTIANS and tried to follow Jesus and were attracted by much Bible examination instead of church bingo or guys with boofont hairdos that ended every word with ah. You know, Jesus-ah!

This is the kind of generalizing I once did about Christianity and it really facilitated my being seduced by TWI. I was ignorant of the church at large and the basic tenets of the faith. Because I had little exposure to much of anything...given my youth, I was not discerning. I fell back on mocking a small and misrepresenting segment of Christianity. It really bolstered my feeling good about what I was a part of in TWI....special even. Yet, still retaining this attitude, always kind of stumps me...sincerely.....we weren't Brownists....we were in an ugly SMALL abusive cult. It is not like we were doing something great and noble by separating ourselves and following a man with a different doctrine.

So when some people left TWI because we found ourselfs in such dirty bath water some decided to quit being Christians which is SAD because Jesus is still The Way The Truth and the Life.. . . . .

For many, Jesus wasn't the way the truth and the life in TWI...He was a name, not a person in relationship...it was the bible ( NOTHING, but the word) many of us worshiped. Not just the book, but the book the way it was interpreted by VP and PFAL. Is that a genuine faith? I guess it is, but not the Christian faith and not a healthy one IMO.

....................................................

What is sad to see is that some people here have pretty much denounced their Christian beliefs. I am not talking about "people that we work or play with", but people who were at one time very comitted and interested in being Christians and who wanted to spread the Word. It is this Group that all of us here were once in that gives me surprise when I find some who don't Believe anymore. People who have tripped ou...oops! I mean who have apparently decided that ALL Christianity is bad because of that Dirty Water that they once took a bath in.

If it wasn't a good understanding which led to a genuine relationship with a genuine savior......but, rather to an unhealthy relationship to a set of doctrines ....then maybe we are not truly renouncing Christian beliefs, but a theology learned in a cult. I don't believe TWI and Christianity are in any way synonymous. Not to say there were not Christians in TWI...but, I bet they became Christians BEFORE TWI. I would rather have someone chuck it all....and maybe begin where they were....and let whatever calling there is...work in their life if that is going to happen....then have them hang on to some dirty bathwater which leads to what we examine here.

Some of us never were Christians in TWI. Some of us never will be. Some have chosen another path and that is by their own informed choice! I don't assume they have chosen it as a reaction to TWI.

Bolshevik nailed it IMO...."Too many assumptions"

I believe yours was an innocent question...but, there are loads of variables to be considered to answer it simply and honestly. :) Much of that is done here.

[WordWolf]

If you can think of a better way to communicate "throw out the baby with the bathwater" then have at it. If you can think of a better definite article than 'the' have at that, too.

I'll leave "the" alone, it's earned it's place. Baby and bathwater was fine the first 100 times I heard it in the context of Wayfer's leaving the Way. Think it was in a John Lynn writ. John Lynn's about as glib as it gets and is kind of a poster child for fast-talking-now-u-see-it-don't-worry-if-you-don't-get it. So it didn't surprise me there. Then it seemed to gather steam in ex-Wayfer circles. THIS and many other LINKS googled can shed light on the origin of the phrase. As always I'd recommend some comparative reading to get a handle on it. (note to self: check on "handles" and possible origins relating to "scandals" and the relationship of rhyming to meaning).

But I get your point johniam. Use the word "available" in certain circles and they'll go nuclear on you (note to self: check that one too). And that's good because using that word post-Way indicates the need for a good brain scrub to avoid a rash of bad dreams populated by people dressed in polyester suits carrying bibles.

Yet - I admit it. I'm tired of that phrase "baby and the bathwater". It's "glib" - it indicates to me a lack of thought, an easy way to refer to a topic that is really much larger and deeper. I'm ready for discourse, and ready even for newer better ways to express things. Or even newer applications of the old ways that ring real today.

(snip)

(snip)

WW, when you said aren't they permitted to think for themselves, don't tell me that wasn't condescending.

(snip)

(snip)

In other news,

why do all the people who object to the GSC all use THE SAME LANGUAGE?

There's always this obsession with infants in a tub. EVERY FREAKING TIME someone doesn't like us,

they mention a baby, and bathwater, and a few other things, and that's about all they say.

It's like they're all reading from a short script or something. Aren't any of you permitted to

think for yourselves? I mean, if we got the same complaints, I'd expect them to use different

phrases to make them.

(snip)

My point-if anyone besides John missed it-was that pithy phrases and slogans are used to

skip the thinking process-they save time by allowing one to just grab a slogan rather than

compose one's own opinions on a subject and express them.

"A witty saying proves nothing."-Voltaire.

It seems others already SAW the same point-socks, among others, raised it.

Edited April 10, 2011 by WordWolf

[socks]

Nope, not a research alumnae, just a general pain in the butt like everyone else.

One thing you're going to find out (or may know( is the Way has about the same kind of membership as any church - people are there for all kinds of reasons. They're participants because they have family or professional ties, like some of the message and activities but not others, believe some things that are taught and not others. Generally go along with the flow to get from it and contribute what they want to contribute.

They may like it where they live now but if they moved might find the way it's run locally is much different than what they were used to and will find it less likable for all of the same kinds of reasons. Or more likable and will be more involved.

Sure there's a general belief in certain things that are the same but there's a lot of differences too. Some may in fact not even "be" Christian and have no real investment in the beliefs but feel it's better than other things.

You hear that a lot in the Way circles - "it's the best I've found here and if I find something better I'll go for it!"

That's not really saying much is it? Hone shouldn't be something we switch based on how good the food is or how nice the yard is kept and we switch families if we like someone else's furniture better.

What is our home and what is our life based on, is the question.

So you'll see people who were in The Way, got the cap, the t-shirt, the WOW pin, whatever but who didn't really get much out of it or got screwed in the process.

Being in the Way can be tough for some people because of the normal social and religious peer pressures. Some people end up kind of "stuck" in the Way and associate their faith with having to have it. Once they get a change they explore other things.

Now - you're right though - if you have had a personal investment and relationship with God and Jesus Christ and certainly the Bible and other writings that have helped you in that relationship - the church affiliation shouldn't make a difference.

But in real time on the ground it does for people for many reasons, some of which I've written here.

We know the same bible verses so I don't always go in for batting those back and forth. I shoot one, someone else another back and we all make our cases. It's my go-to book, yes. But I try to promote thought, thinking and consideration. (that's in the Bible too). Where a person considers their life, the stuff of this life and processes it and looks at it. Therein lies the biscuit for me, the rest is all butter and honey. And I like butter and honey too, on a good flaky biscuit.

Yeah - biscuits, bathwater. Bad mix. What can I say?