Leaderboard

While my perspective might not be considered the opposite of that, it sure doesn't sync well with it. Personally, I find myself astonished at the divineness of scripture - and the venerable coherency of it all. Yes, it does contain within it many practical solutions for living a better life here on earth. But more than that, it inevitably frames the invisible spiritual world around us in ways that speak of realities that cannot be known or understood otherwise. And beyond what Jesus' words, actions and life (that was) might mean for us today, I believe what Paul wrote is what Christ's words and life (that now is) mean for us today.

Hi Mike, It’s all a matter of perspective …speaking for myself – since I left TWI in ’86, I have settled into something sort of positive…it is practical, helpful, and constructive – it’s a self-directed journey…I have been free to explore many paths – whether philosophical, theological, social, whimsical or whatever to plumb the depths of my existence…a simple pursuit to give my life meaning… I think people are complicated beings - - and so I tend to think we all go through some type of elaborate evolving convoluted mapping out process to navigate through life. Regarding my Grease Spot posts - what you may think is the essential focus of my life - or you may believe that this is all I ever think about - is really nothing more than me LOOKING BACK to a specific point in the space-time continuum of my life from the reference point of where I am now…I think being retrospective is something we all do from time to time...that’s how we learn…that’s how we grow. I certainly don’t celebrate the errors, abuses, exploitation, confusion and frustrations I experienced while I was in TWI – but like any troubling or traumatic aspect of one’s life all that has made me more sensitive to the influences and issues that brought on all that stuff. perhaps one of the subtle underlying messages on Grease Spot is that there’s a lot more options available during your journey in life. The things of PFAL is certainly one option - but I think the general consensus here is that it’s not a very helpful, practical or constructive option...just saying why limit yourself to one very restrictive option. Not like I’m perfect now or got all that figured out or I’m over it – but I feel it’s helpful, practical, and constructive to experience the give-and-take on Grease Spot – I get a lot of good things out of the experience and I hope my contribution might do the same for others. Believe it or not, I do understand what you say about thinking there’s something good in PFAL. Just allow me the freedom to pick and choose that and to utilize it the way I want to. For instance, the keys to the interpretation of the Bible – yes, it was something wierwille plagiarized from Bullinger – but it’s not like Bullinger - or wierwille or PFAL is the final authority on interpreting the Bible or that I agree with a dogmatic view of there being only one possible interpretation of scripture. I mean, it doesn’t take a rocket scientist to figure out that you might want to better understand a document written in ancient times / cultures by looking into the context, overall usage of words, original languages, historical and cultural context, blah blah blah - yeah all that - but maybe try to understand things from their ancient worldview to grasp the essence of the message and what particular issue are they addressing in what they say and do. fyi - it's not a book about science or history or geography - though you may get an idea of the writers' limited and imperfect view of the world back then. Not like we've got everything figured out now in this modern age - science, technology, knowledge is always changing, exploring, growing...my approach to the Bible is maybe along the lines of how I look at my past as I said earlier. What if the Bible is part of a map showing a path of a particular journey of faith? I see folks dealing with the same basic issues of the human condition - and here I am in the present time trying to relate to how they dealt with all that...maybe I'll learn something. I think Bullinger and wierwille got locked into a very literal…fundamentalist interpretation of the Bible…I look at the Bible as sort of a product of the times in which it was written…that’s one of the things I think wierwille ignored – I don’t think he realized the Bible and modern man spoke two different “languages” – so he would often squeeze, crunch and mangle science, philosophy or any other modern disciplines to fit into an ancient template…I won’t say the Bible is outmoded – like it’s obsolete or no longer practical... ...I just think in our interpretation of it we should recognize the humanness of scripture – not as another key to how to interpret any particular part – but maybe as an attitude we should adopt when we approach scripture…as something inspired of God – yes – but as something we can relate to since it was written by people - it's asking how did they deal with this particular issue and will that work for me? Whether one views Jesus as human or divine or a combination thereof – I think people relate to him the same way. We look past the cultural setting and accumulated world knowledge of that time and look for what Jesus’ words, actions, and life mean for us today.

Good post, Mike. I appreciate your response. it's too late this evening for me to post a comprehensive reply. But I can tell you that I DO hunger and thirst for righteousness (Proverbs 2:1-5). But I don't find it in the oppressive constraints of fundamentalism, including Wierwille's version thereof. There is so much more to life and more to learn about God and godliness than what is in PFLAP and/or in the Bible.

Mike, the reason you get "multiple posters, multiple points" is because YOU introduce them. I have no idea who or what "Dana Carvy" and "churchlady characters" are (and do not waste time by trying to enlighten me), but you have raised this as an answer to something completely different. You also bring in an irrelevant comment about nuns and puberty. That has nothing to do with the ability to write things out clearly. I suggested to you that you set out your posts in the clear and logical way that Steve set out his posts and particularly his papers (his thesis). I didn't ask if you liked him or agreed with the content; I suggested a format. Instead, you turned that comment into your opinion of the man not the content, and then you introduced yet more irrelevances, the Dana comment and the nuns/puberty thing. I know you have heard of the phrase "stayed mind." If you "stayed your mind" on what you want to say, and do not allow yourself to be sidetracked with irrelevant comments, you won't have to deal with the responses. You don't like the way So_Crates sticks with the same thing over and over again. Perhaps that's because he has "stayed mind" to pursue getting an answer to a question. He isn't sidetracking himself with irrelevances. You may think you have answered, but clearly you haven't answered adequately. Likewise, I have asked you the same question multiple times and got more irrelevances but never an answer. I have to say, I admire your fortitude in staying with your position in face of increasing shouting at you. I also have to say, I do not admire your ability to refuse to look at facts that may change your position. That is not logical. It is not Godly, either. A wise man, a scholar, a thoughtful person, will continue to gather facts, will listen to a multitude of counsellors, and will change his mind if the evidence points to another conclusion.

DWBH: My God! I never realized that even the concept of The Way Tree wasn't original --- I think I've heard it all now! By the way: "My name is Mel...and I'm a Wayaholic. Although I haven't been to a Way fellowship in over 10 years, I know in my heart that just one sip of their Kool Aide again --- and my life would certainly be over!"

Thanks for sharing that, DWBH one of my favorite film critics and writers is Roger Ebert (he passed away in 2013) had some good things to say about AA in his book and he was very candid about his struggle and recovery from alcoholism Life Itself: A Memoir and there is an interesting related article on the website that still bears his name My Name is Roger and I'm an Alcoholic here’s an interesting excerpt: “* Step 2 - Came to believe that a Power greater than ourselves could restore us to sanity. * Step 3 - Made a decision to turn our will and our lives over to the care of God as we understand Him. The God word. The critics never quote the words "as we understood God." Nobody in A.A. cares how you understand him, and would never tell you how you should understand him. I went to a few meetings of "4A" ("Alcoholics and Agnostics in A.A."), but they spent too much time talking about God. The important thing is not how you define a Higher Power. The important thing is that you don't consider yourself to be your own Higher Power, because your own best thinking found your bottom for you. One sweet lady said her higher power was a radiator in the Mustard Seed, "because when I see it, I know I'm sober." “ I love how Roger explains it’s NOT important how you define a Higher Power – the critical thing is that you don’t consider yourself to be your own Higher Power…I think one of the subtle influences of TWI was that it instilled in me a little bit of a god complex...I'm not kidding! I used to think if I came away from a teaching or some pump-you-up meeting feeling all superior in a if-god-be-for-me-who-can-be-against-me kinda way then "I really got delivered at that meeting" - that's gotta be like an event horizon for the god complex state of mind or something i dunno...gosh we really weren't a very humble bunch of folks back then now were we? …I swear the older I get or is it the more distance I put between me and a certain mindset I used to have – maybe it’s a combination of the two ( I’ve been experiencing life in a REAL world since ’86) - that I don’t get all hung up in how someone defines God…even wonder if I’m developing some “Christian agnostic” tendencies – I mean I’m familiar with the basic tenets of the faith…I’m conversant with basic theology…I enjoy reading a number of different translations – but beyond that…beyond the five senses – I’m not sure of anything…yeah God and the cosmos got a WHOLE LOT BIGGER after I left The Way International. One of the reasons I’m glad I’m not in TWI anymore is that I don’t have to pretend I’m having such a deep personal relationship with God Almighty while I’m at Twig Coordinators meetings – gotta keep up appearances dontcha know

Well, I don’t have any real problem with your viewpoint either…and perhaps we’re on more converging lines of thought rather than in some lockstep synchronization fashion (whatever the hell that is )…I too see a venerable coherency in scripture – though it may not be completely across the board like you do…I mean, without going into every single little doctrinal detail AND nuanced differences of a person’s viewpoint – I tend to think overall, most serious Bible students do not have much difficulty in arranging the great truths of the Bible when it speaks of sin, redemption, prayer, the person of Jesus Christ, etc. in a fairly self-consistent fashion – which may not be saying much since we’ve all witnessed how someone can make the Bible say anything they want …however…stepping it up a notch or two in the discipline of systematic theology I believe that is a noble endeavor by scholars to formulate an orderly, rational, and coherent account of the doctrines of the Christian faith. That this can even be done may not be a big clincher for some folks but I believe it does testify to the divine inspiration of scripture. I also agree with you that the Bible does map out a lot of things that have been and are and will be - - maybe not always in easily comprehensible ways. Now in the way that it’s “framed” - we may differ somewhat in how to interpret what it says. Is that literal, symbolic, is that something they adapted or reinterpreted, or "borrowed" from what was currently known? I dunno - that's a whole other topic to discuss...but that is part of the "framing" - it may be a spiritual truth never revealed before but do you think it's also possible it could be "ensconced" within these rough...imperfect...thoroughly human documents of the ancient world? ...I believe the form of writing used in the Bible is observational – a legitimate form in the ancient world. Observational writing tends to take the reader on the same journey that the writer experienced...I think that's how it's capable of relating to us today.

Twinky, great post!!

I have a jack, but I'm not going to help you!

I'm confident you're not kidding. That's sorta what I was getting at when I recognized and commented that Mike is a dogmatist. [one who asserts positively doctrines or opinions unsupported by argument or evidence.] Great insight T-Bone.

You missed the point. You "voted" "genuine." Interesting that you would invoke the "US military." How does the US military relate to the way your hero conducted his ministry and established his subculture?

Hi Greasespotters! The ideological crux behind the entire “Way Tree” revelation hoax is the following grandiose lie: “Each Twig is self-supporting, self-propagating, and self-governing”. The book “The Twelve Traditions” was published by Alcoholics Anonymous in 1946. It sets forth the administrative structure and “procedural protocol” regarding how each AA Chapter is to be governed. Here it is: The Twelve Traditions of Alcoholics AnonymousEdit Our common welfare should come first; personal recovery depends upon A.A. unity. For our group purpose there is but one ultimate authority — a loving God as He may express Himself in our group conscience. Our leaders are but trusted servants; they do not govern. The only requirement for A.A. membership is a desire to stop drinking. Each group should be autonomous except in matters affecting other groups or A.A. as a whole. Each group has but one primary purpose — to carry its message to the alcoholic who still suffers. An A.A. group ought never endorse, finance, or lend the A.A. name to any related facility or outside enterprise, lest problems of money, property, and prestige divert us from our primary purpose. Every A.A. group ought to be fully self-supporting, declining outside contributions. Alcoholics Anonymous should remain forever non-professional, but our service centers may employ special workers. A.A., as such, ought never be organized; but we may create service boards or committees directly responsible to those they serve. Alcoholics Anonymous has no opinion on outside issues; hence the A.A. name ought never be drawn into public controversy. Our public relations policy is based on attraction rather than promotion; we need always maintain personal anonymity at the level of press, radio, and films. Anonymity is the spiritual foundation of all our traditions, ever reminding us to place principles before personalities. Long FormEdit “Our A.A. experience has taught us that: Each member of Alcoholics Anonymous is but a small part of a great whole. A.A. must continue to live or most of us will surely die. Hence our common welfare comes first. But individual welfare follows close afterward. For our group purpose there is but one ultimate authority — a loving God as He may express Himself in our group conscience. Our membership ought to include all who suffer from alcoholism. Hence we may refuse none who wish to recover. Nor ought A.A. membership ever depend upon money or conformity. Any two or three alcoholics gathered together for sobriety may call themselves an A.A. group, provided that, as a group, they have no other affiliation. With respect to its own affairs, each A.A. group should be responsible to no other authority than its own conscience. But when its plans concern the welfare of neighboring groups also, those groups ought to be consulted. And no group, regional committee, or individual should ever take any action that might greatly affect A.A. as a whole without conferring with the trustees of the General Service Board. On such issues our common welfare is paramount. Each Alcoholics Anonymous group ought to be a spiritual entity having but one primary purpose — that of carrying its message to the alcoholic who still suffers. Problems of money, property, and authority may easily divert us from our primary spiritual aim. We think, therefore, that any considerable property of genuine use to A.A. should be separately incorporated and managed, thus dividing the material from the spiritual. An A.A. group, as such, should never go into business. Secondary aids to A.A., such as clubs or hospitals which require much property or administration, ought to be incorporated and so set apart that, if necessary, they can be freely discarded by the groups. Hence such facilities ought not to use the A.A. name. Their management should be the sole responsibility of those people who financially support them. For clubs, A.A. managers are usually preferred. But hospitals, as well as other places of recuperation, ought to be well outside A.A. — and medically supervised. While an A.A. group may cooperate with anyone, such cooperation ought never go so far as affiliation or endorsement, actual or implied. An A.A. group can bind itself to no one. The A.A. groups themselves ought to be fully supported by the voluntary contributions of their own members. We think that each group should soon achieve this ideal; that any public solicitation of funds using the name of Alcoholics Anonymous is highly dangerous, whether by groups, clubs, hospitals, or other outside agencies; that acceptance of large gifts from any source, or of contributions carrying any obligation whatever, is unwise. Then too, we view with much concern those A.A. treasuries which continue, beyond prudent reserves, to accumulate funds for no stated A.A. purpose. Experience has often warned us that nothing can so surely destroy our spiritual heritage as futile disputes over property, money, and authority. Alcoholics Anonymous should remain forever non-professional. We define professionalism as the occupation of counseling alcoholics for fees or hire. But we may employ alcoholics where they are going to perform those services for which we may otherwise have to engage nonalcoholics. Such special services may be well recompensed. But our usual A.A. "12 Step" work is never to be paid for. Each A.A. group needs the least possible organization. Rotating leadership is the best. The small group may elect its secretary, the large group its rotating committee, and the groups of a large metropolitan area their central or intergroup committee, which often employs a full-time secretary. The trustees of the General Service Board are, in effect, our A.A. General Service Committee. They are the custodians of our A.A. Tradition and the receivers of voluntary A.A. contributions by which we maintain our A.A. General Service Office at New York. They are authorized by the groups to handle our over-all public relations and they guarantee the integrity of our principal newspaper, the A.A. Grapevine. All such representatives are to be guided in the spirit of service, for true leaders in A.A. are but trusted and experienced servants of the whole. They derive no real authority from their titles; they do not govern. Universal respect is the key to their usefulness. No A.A. group or member should ever, in such a way as to implicate A.A., express any opinion on outside controversial issues — particularly those of politics, alcohol reform, or sectarian religion. The Alcoholics Anonymous groups oppose no one. Concerning such matters they can express no views whatever. Our relations with the general public should be characterized by personal anonymity. We think A.A. ought to avoid sensational advertising. Our names and pictures as A.A. members ought not be broadcast, filmed, or publicly printed. Our public relations should be guided by the principle of attraction rather than promotion. There is never need to praise ourselves. We feel it better to let our friends recommend us. And finally, we of Alcoholics Anonymous believe that the principle of anonymity has an immense spiritual significance. It reminds us that we are to place principles before personalities; that we are actually to practice a genuine humility. This to the end that our great blessings may never spoil us; that we shall forever live in thankful contemplation of Him who presides over us all.” When I was in-Rez with the 4th corpse in the fall of 1973, 3 Of The new “Advanced Studies” classes were videotaped during our first year. They were “The Renewed Mind”, and “Dealing With The Adversary” by Walter Cummins, and “The Way Tree” by John Townsend. During the taping of The WT, dictor had nite owls in the BRC. During one of said Nite owls, I DISTINCTLY remember him telling us that “The Way Tree revelation” was “inspired” by the “A.A. structure”. He never said how he came across those writings. You’ll notice also, that small little phrases like KISS———keep it simple stupid—, are also to be found throughout the halls of AA. Plagiarism was a way of life for DP! LOL! The Way Tree “revelation” was nothing more than a plagiarized business plan for an MLM scheme called PFAL. And, as EVERYTHING else in dictor paul’s minus-tray, it was stolen almost word-for-Word, and concept by concept from another source and that source, (AA), was never given proper credit publicly. To say that there was ANY part or piece of TWIt that was in any way “original”, is as ludicrous as saying “the Earth is flat”. And, just as accurate!.............peace.

Sky and T-Bone: See? It's easy to have fun here (and maybe get a "few jabs" in at times...LOL). Nevertheless, there's great learning behind all the rhetoric and jokes at GS, huh? I also (as you're both aware) am intrigued by the intertwining of things among the natural and supernatural realms. T-Bone: As you know, even light itself cannot escape a black hole. But we're far more than just "any old light", as that which exists in the natural realm. We're a bit more special (and powerful!) than all that. (Consider Jesus' remark, that "he considers it not robbery to be equal with God"...think of that for a bit!) So (of course) there really was a way out of The Way for us after all --- Ha! Ha! Because the "super massive black hole" surrounding HQ (to try holding us in) was not gonna hold in some TRUE LIGHT like us! (And God as light is certainly more than a mere collection of wonderfully arranged photons!) But now --- to be more on topic: Some time ago, I was thinking of some principles from botany and how they relate to The Way Tree. Interestingly enough, consider about how the leaves nourish the tree using photosynthesis to turn energy gathered directly from the sun into a special kind of sugar called glucose. These nutrients are then transmitted to the root via the other parts of the tree, which (in turn) redistributes this "new light" (in glucose form) throughout the tree, so it may flourish properly. And we simple rank and file members of The Way Tree tried to emulate this at times, attempting to introduce some "new light" (we had gathered from the light source via the spirit, as it were) to try nourishing the Root --- aka: HQ. But alas, the following was how it really worked within TWI: You might remember how The Way Tree evolved so as to eventually not include the leaves: simply because those weren't considered that important compared to THE (almighty) ROOT, Trunks, Limbs and Branches! Now there's something to consider from science! SO: No wonder that tree is dead! But it seems to live on somehow, despite everything. Perhaps (in keeping with current pop-culture) it's a zombie tree! And do keep in mind something Jesus prayed once: "thy will be done upon earth, as it is in heaven". Do ya think God endorses the idea that the physical laws governing the universe (which he himself designed) should flow in harmony with that in the spiritual realm? All for now: Spec

Mike, just repeating this in case you missed it previously. If you set out any parts of your "thesis" in the manner of the late Steve's papers, or even just his posts, we might be able to fathom your thesis more easily AND you wouldn't get yourself in such a tangle with the ... ... that you complain so much about.