diazbro

"Hey,hey, hey Mateus Rose" (recalling the commercial). And what about Annie Green Springs, Deuce-Juice, T.J. Swan ("Easy Nights" was my fave in the Swan line), Reunite ("on ice" of course. bad sign when the makers recommend consumption of "wine" over ice), and lets not forget the "street wines" Thunderbird, NightTrain, and MD 20/20. I once drank a bottle of Thunderbird, followed by a quart of Country Club Malt liquor (the things we do) and the next day I cursed all breweries, distilleries, wineries, and the fermentation process in general. I followed this up by making a pledge of sobriety and a promise of comprehensive service to humanity in exchange for the the removal of my hangover. Eventually the hangover left, I back-burnered my plans to serve humanity and backslid on my sobriety pledge later that night. As for now I'm off the college diet and tend to stick with the cabernets. The Coppola line is somewhat well thought of but is becoming something of a fad (not that that should deter you from sampling it). The Yellow Tail line is okay but something about it doesn't sit right (with me) but I can manage.

I'll tell you this. There were many functioning alcoholics in TWI yet the leaders "winked" at it all quite possibly because some of the leaders could be quite boozy themselves. Strange since alcholism was supposedly caused by the spirit of Leviathan. So on one one hand it was okay for someone to be walking around possessed but since he was "just" drinking it was cool. But if someone was even suspected of being a sympathizer to "homos" then they wanted to make it seem like a 4 alarm fire. Why the double standard ? I mean possession is possession. Why accept and tolerate one but not the other ? TWI had lots of different standards for different people. Some people got a pass on some things while others got the boot.

Yea. That trip down memory lane is fine and sweet. I take that trip now and again myself. The key is not to confuse the good times of youth as being the result of the TWI. I met some GREAT people when I joined up with TWI but they would have been good regardless of the circumstances so I give THEM the credit. Its like sharing an umbrella with someone for an extended period of time. Maybe you share some things and have a moment but no one wants to be in the rain their whole life. One can have a good time without it.

One notes that the ICC (aka The Boston Church of Christ) grew in many ways as did TWI and they also used home fellowships and community centers and was also regarded as a cult. The Moonies did it also and had numbers comparable to TWI. "home fellowships" predated TWI's peak and many people in the 60s ,with no knowledge of TWI or ICC, are very familiar with this idea so I think this is why there is something of a resurgence in churches at home. In reality the recent interest in home fellowships has very little to do with TWI if anything at all. Even if one restricts their attention to the "cults", TWI, ICC ,and the Unification church used homes, centers, and rentals to hold services and all were of comparable size at their respective peaks so I don't how one organization can be singled out as being more influential than another. and I doubt that mainstream denominational leaders were sitting there taking notes on outreach and growth from TWI,ICC, or the Unification church. Many people want a return to the supposed simplicity of the 60s (though they were anything but simple) but the idea of less intervention in one's spiritual life was definitely valued and people haven't forgotten about that. While there is definite interest in home fellowships at this time it is by no means taking the country by storm at least to the extent that churches are closing doors in record numbers.

yea I got a dead link also....

TWI did NOT invent the concept of home fellowships. In the 60s and into the early 70s there were many,many spiritual groups and alternative religions who met in homes, community centers, and public parks. There were also those groups who travelled the country and used whatever was there to hold services or meetings. In fact it was from of these groups that I fiirst learned about SIT this was LONG before I ever heard of TWI or PFAL. If anything TWI benefitted greatly from this spirit of the 60s because many of us , who were accustomed to informal meetings, felt at home at Twig because we had experienced it many times before albeit with other groups. TWI was just one of MANY groups who employed the home fellowship idea so I don't see why you seek to give TWI credit for this concept. Most of the 60s groups met informally because of lack of finances. TWI had/has lots of money but was too damn cheap to invest in anything except HQ and other key properties. Seems to me that TWI got to be VERY organized but wanted followers to continue to live as they did when they were young - stacked 4 to an apartment, moving every 2 years. driving crappy cars. And all this so people could financially support HQ. Money flowed into HQ but not back out. Actually if the home fellowship idea was supposedly perfected by TWI why is it now that they claim around 4,000 "standing members" when in times past the numbers were much,much larger ? Maybe, just maybe if TWI had decided to devote some of the money it had towards serving the body instead of the trustees then things might have been different.

Yet he never attempted to dislodge this practice (being referred to as the MOG") even though he was acutely aware of it. Like many I first knew him as "The Teacher" and later as the "MOG". LCM really worked this one and I guess at some point the "FOT" was added. See the thing about VPW is he could have stopped all the adulation and glory that was coming his way BUT he didn't. He could have told people about his illness BUT he didn't. He knew very well that people were calling him the "MOG" but he never discouraged it nor did he humbly deny this title. As time went by I though that "The Teacher" was a bit - "unhumble" but no one could openly question VPW's alleged deep knowledge of "The Word" - and get away with it. Since no man knows how God works and what might motivate Him to speak to one over another I don't think that anyone has any business trying to offer explanations for his method especially since there aren't instructions for this type of thing published any where. Lots of people in TWI alleged to have received revelation about other people that conflicted with reality yet no one would back down and admit that perhaps their hubris and desire to appear to be "salted" was perhaps causing them to imagine things. I suppose if one so desperarely wants to receive revelation then even simply thoughts might appear to be goodies from "daddy's cookie jar". I've seen two Way believers who both claimed to have received revelation that the other was possessed. Neither would back down and after a while they just quit arguing. Both of course told others that the other was operating devil spirits and gave various reasons why the other couldn't possibly have received genuine revelation from God. It was just a pi$$ing contest between these guys and that was all. In my own opinion I do think that it is possible to get supernatural guidance but I don't think it happens nearly as frequently as various Way classes and leaders taught. God gave us a brain and intellect to use so lots of our decisions can be made using the wisdom of others in combination with experience and common sense. This will get us through a lot. I knew some Way believers that would walk around always "asking father" for information about what food to eat, where to park the car, what color to paint the house, where to plant some flowers, and on and on and on. In many ways they were very anxious people because they simply could not trust themselves with making even the most basic decisions for fear that it might lead to demonic possession or some catastrophe because they didn't "stop to ask Father" about it. I seemed to me that these types of people were far more fearful and incapable of independent action than any so called "unbeliever or corpse".

Pull a ScarFace on his a$$..... Well no you can't do that even though you might want to. I don't know what his problem is - this isn't machismo this is idiocy and insecurity all wrapped up in one package. You mention that your employers don't want to let him go for fear of a lawsuit ? well explain to them that this hombre is "Creating a hostile work environment" and document all his behavior in a log ,diary style,from now on. Its acceptable to log in previous behavior but you should make sure that its noted as such. Have a sit down with your boss, and describe these problems and incidents and more importantly, the impact it has on your ability to work. You don't have to make threats, you don't have to make charges, you just let them know whats up in a matter-of-fact style. If they are even halfway with it and experienced with labor law they will pull this muchacho aside and speak with him. This doesn't mean it will go away but it *does* mean that if things get uglier then they know you have registered your concerns so they MUST take the situation seriously. If they are idiots then they are ripe for a lawsuit from anyone who has to endure the wrath of this guy.

According to johniam: "VP never said there was an actual snowstorm. He said he called the airport and the voice on the other end said there was a snowstorm. VP once said he thought it was an angel saying that for the purpose of keeping him there long enough to meet the guy who led him into tongues." According to WordWolf: So, Barries Hill found that the reality of the event did not match vpw's account of the event. "Hill notes that the weather bureau, newspapers and airport do NOT record a snowstorm at that time." Naturally, this woman-who previously had believed him COMPLETELY- brought this to his attention. It is at THIS time that the new levels of this story develop. "When she mentioned this to Wierwille, he dismissed these facts by suggesting that the blizzard was 'a phenomenon' or that he 'spoke with angels' when he called the airport, train station and bus station. Wierwille conveniently blames holy angels for LYING to him about the weather rather than admit his fabrication." Anyone who was with TWI in the 70s especially the early 70s would know that the snow storm story was circulated and referred to. Plus it was documented though VPW changed it (see above). Now VPW supporters are trying to find inventive ways to keep the deity that is VPW from looking like the liar he was. They aren't doing a very good job.

So Mike has it that someone can attest to the occurrence of freak snow storms (twice in a life time) and he wishes to advance it that surely this must have been what VPW saw. But VPW later says an angel bailed him out when he was confronted with the lack of evidence that he was "snowed in". Of course a freak snowstorm wouldn't have resulted in an undetected "snow-in" situation that paralyzed the town. VPW had it that it was something major that impacted not only him but others (the airport) yet he seems to be the only one who saw it. I think if the airport grounded planes because of a snow storm then they would have documented it. Of course the VPW fanatic then jumps back now to the "angel story" where we are to believe that it was really an angel who was talking to VPW and not an agent at the airport. And it was a a lying angel at that. Making up stories about a snow storm to keep VPW in his hotel room to polish off another bottle of drambuie. I don't think angels lie or help enable those who would lile but ,in the minds of a VPW freak, of course the angels would bend rules for Dr. Drambuie. You see how embarrassing it is for VPW fanatics ? They keep twisting and trying to justify all of VPW's words and works and when its obvious that they can't , they make up something even more outrageous (freak snowstorms that only one person can see) and grasp at straws to keep the leagacy of their king alive. This is sad, so sad yet they keep at it with dogged persistence. Pathetic. And isn't it also interesting that Mike says that its all insignifcant anyway in an attempt to downplay the whole issue but thats not cool since VPW's snow story was frequently referenced and used as a key,pivotal moment in Way history. So you can't down play it. TWI didn't - at least in the 70s.

I think that most of those "would you go back threads" are usually rhetorical though some of the earlier ones over on Waydale and in the early days of Gspot were quite revealing in that some people don't seem to be that opposed to the idea if some set of changes were made. I don't think that those people have changed their minds but perhaps they have stopped posting because they realize that their position is somewhat unpopular. I know some people who would love to go back to TWI if for no other reason than to re-attach to their youth and those experiences they had. But its kind of sad that they've given up on their current life and the possibilities that freedom offers. Its like a long time convict who is so used to the institution that even when he is out on parole and free, he undermines his own liberty because deep down he is so used to life in prison that its more appealing than life on the outside. I know someone who would really be happy of he were riding around in a clunky car with a green Way sticker, going to classes, and waiting for the ROA. Why ? I don't know but he hasn't made anything of his life since departing TWI and doesn't seem to want to do much of anything. He was excited when he read here on Gspot that TWI was supposedly considering a return to the VPW materials and possibly PFAL. It got his hopes up a great deal. I do think that some of the people who are in love with "the good ole days" of TWI are simply nostalgic for their youth and they give TWI all the credit for any good times they or for any of the cool people they met. I say give the people you met the credit. For me - One of the the least appealing things I can think of is that my best days were in TWI. They weren't - not even close. I thank God I experienced lots of things "back in the day" and TWI was just one of them. I've learned a great many things prior to my Way experience, during , and after and no man, church, cult, or organization owns me or my collective experiences.

Yea. VPW got busted and laid out the angel story as a quick CYA move. Look. the snow on the gas pumps thing was openly promoted way back when (no pun intended) and at one PFAL session (40 people present) we were told that it was an example of a phenomenon that heralded the start of VPW's true ministry. (Of course we didn't know that VPW was a miserable failure as a humble preacher because the life of a lowly servant of God didn't offer enough action). Anyway we were told that it was "real snow" and also that being "snowblind" was symbolic of the blindness that Paul experienced (as if VPW was comparable to Paul) during his moment of epiphany process. So anyone who tries to tell you that the "Snow story" was just a symbol or some lie manufactured by an Angel (I don't think that its in their nature to be lying) to protect Dr. Drambuie then just tell them to a check-up-from-the-neck-up. But for the VPW loyalists don't let me interfere with your denial fest.

Lets look at some of the key elements from Prager's article since it is entirely relevant to this thread. My comments are inserted between the "PRAGER" quotes. PRAGER: "....And I am appalled and frightened by this feel-good doctrine of automatic forgiveness." Of course. "automatic forgiveness" is a mechanism to relieve personal stress and to avoid the unpleasant yet very necessary aspects of working through the pain resulting from an offense (perpetrated or received). It cheats the process whereby we take stock of the magnitude of the offense so we can put it into perspective such that when we do forgive we have a very clear picture of what it is we are doing. No where in the Bible do I see the concept of "forgive immediately" or "forgive on demand. It simply doesn't exist. PRAGER: "These days one often hears that "It is the Christian's duty to forgive, just as Jesus forgave those who crucified him." Of course, Jesus asked God to forgive those who crucified him. But Jesus never asked God to forgive those who had crucified thousands of other innocent people. Presumably he recognized that no one has the moral right to forgive evil done to others". Right. So when a VPW diehard tells someone who sufferred abuse in TWI to forgive simply because others have forgiven VPW,LCM, and TWI then this is wrong. The diehard doesn't know what those abused people endured ( or they refuse to believe) yet they demand that others forgive. Once again its cheating the process of healing and seeking a premature close to something that needs to be examined before forgiveness can genuinly and truly be given. PRAGER: "You and I have no right, religiously or morally, to forgive Timothy McVeigh or Michael Carneal; only those they sinned against have that right, If we are automatically forgiven no matter what we do, why repent? In fact, if we forgive everybody for all the evil they do, God and his forgiveness are unnecessary. We have substituted ourselves for God." I'm gonna do some substitution here but I think its entirely appropriate. I'm using the first sentence of his paragraph. - "You and I have no right, religiously or morally, to forgive TWI or Victor Paul Weirwille; only those they sinned against have that right" Wow. So true yet so many Way diehards so desperately seek total absolution for the VPW legacy that they seek to bully others into forgiveness. Worse, they attempt to characterize those who won't provide forgiveness on demand as being somehow unchristian in their behavior. You talk about a "lie from hell". Yet it goes. If you didn't suffer as a result of your Way experience or as a result of an association with VPW or LCM then good for you. But don't seek to minimize the problems of those who did. PRAGER: "Some people have a more sophisticated defense of the forgive-every-one-everything doctrine: doing so is psychologically healthy. It brings "closure." This is therapy masquerading as idealism: "I forgive you because I want to feel better."" This is really dead on and its how I usually see the concept of forgiveness being applied. People want to forgive or be forgiven simply to feel better. They aren't at all concerned with establishing a better relationship with someone (or at least as a priority) they just want to get by the bad feelings and move on. Get that "closure". Proponents of the "you must forgive else suffer the pain of internal rage" are so far off base. Forgive when you are ready because if you do it prematurely then you will definitely experience rage upon that realization. I don't at all buy the "it will eat you alive" argument. It doesn't even make sense from my experience and many I talk to. Its just psycho-talk designed for people to get rid of the bad feelings. Forgiving before you are ready is no healthy, right, or even authentic.

If he heard voices it was probaby his own as he was talking to himself out loud while digging for an identity that would distinguish from the rank-and-file denominational preacher. He concocted a personal myth (aka "a lie") to make his difficulties with mainstream denominations seem the result of his "advanced" desire and knowledge for "the word" when in reality he was simply too impatient and power-hungry to maintain a church in the conventional fashion. He needed a way to jump-start his bland preacher career into something else. The "gas on the snow pumps" story was his attempt at getting us to believe that God commissioned him for His work - which evidently involved buying his Ph.D. (a somewhat forgivable move were it not for the fact that we had to call him "Dr"), plagiarizing from others - mostly obscure works of others who probably wouldn't find out about it or were too forgiving to press the issue. Every con artist needs a role and an identity and a schtik. VPW conjured his and stole his material from other people and blended in some 50s pop psychology and this combination worked very well with the last 60s crowd who were fed up with the religion of their mom and dad. I don't think VPW realized how succesful TWI would become. Unlike many , I don't think that there was a time when VPW was "innocnet" or "well meaning" except as it related to his own advancement. The fact that he did buy his Phd and ripoff others shows that he had a serious lack character and ethics which is bad for anyone but particularly so for someone who is a preacher and double especially so for someone who claims to have talked to God. If VPW did in fact hear the voice of God it is interesting how at that point VPW STARTED doing unethical things (plagiarizing, lying, power plays in consolidating his power over Way West), AFTER his so called moment of epiphany. Most people , if and when they experience a moment like this, STOP doing bad things and clean up their lives. VPW became more flamboyant and outrageous in his claims and because it worked so well , perhaps he started believing his own BS at some point. I don't know but he wasn't a good man and he wanted the adulation and glory that he got in "abdundance" in the 70s. The fact that people hadn't caught didn't mean that it was okay. And it certainly doesn't mean it now.

Only if there are kisses involved.... *laff*

Geeez back at ya ! I wasn't complaining.... It might even make for a more interesting answer....

I think we all have varying levels of interest in revealing our Way past. I recall when Stanley R. (wife of Bo) showed up briefly on the forum (I think it was Waydale) and it turned out that she had a problem that people were not willing to use their real names. Of course there was an ensuing discussion about people preserving their privacy and how Google could reveal information about someone that could represent them in a bad light. Others were saying that it didn't matter because they were proud of their accomplishments in TWI though ,quite interestingly, most of these people didn't work or were self employed and thus weren't that concerned about their "public image". Whereas those who were actively looking for work or seeking advancement understandably wished to down play their "cult" past. I found this to be rather telling. What it bolied down to was that we had people who didn't need to work (or work for "straight america") telling others who did that they were being "weak" or "full of fear" for down playing their Way past. Is this right ? No. I don't think so , especially when people in the former category might one day wish to seek work in the common sector. And at that point they would seek to disassociate themselves from TWI's identity as a "cult". I know people in this category who ,on their resume, did water-down their involvement in TWI by calling it something like "non-denominational biblical studies". Yet these same people were deep into splinters and had that same "Way boldness" and were happy to talk about "I have no friends when it comes to the Word". Two faced isn't it ? Why not use your interview with your potential employer as an opportunity to witness or to explain that "laws of prospertity" or the "law of believing" or how "devil spirits are keeping the business from taking off" ? It is your business what you wish to tell people about your way past. No one should tell another what to reveal and to what extent. The point is that if someone who is proud of their Way past looks down on others who aren't and later attempts to downplay their own Way past just to get a job then they are being hypocritical. It simply isn't right.

Lots of people had discipline to move God's word forward - but being Corps wasn't a requirement to do this though TWI would have you believe that it was. Relative to this thread I'm making specific reference to those who still think they are the best of the best. There are many former Corps here at Gpsot who do not exhibit that attitude but relative to my post above I'm making specific reference to people whom I know on a personal basis. People who would chide others for not being more into their Way past. People who like to talk with great relish about their early Corps year and their various interactions with VPW or LCM. Seems to me that if someone loves to talk about this still then they are being massively hypocritical if they water it down on their resume. Clearly there are former Corps who can celebrate their service to God without making the incorrect aasumption that it somehow made them better than another. There are many of them here and they are fine people. Lots of people just wanted to make a difference and at the time it seemed like the Corps would get them where they needed to be. Thats fine. I'm talking about a segment of people NOT everyone.

I've known several Way die-hards who , even after leaving TWI, talked up their "achievements" in TWI and openly criticized others who didn't speak openly and positively about their time with TWI. How ironic that ,on their resumes, all of them water-down their time with TWI and seek to neutralize potential negative reactions. On their resumes they characterizing their Way expereince as , for example: non-denominational clergy christian outreach and research coordinator leadership training program director non-denominational theology studies non-denominational biblical studies christian outreach program coordinator This is massively hypocritical. On one hand they want to admired and respected by other Way people for being the "best of the best" or whatever yet the totally back down when it comes to the rest of the world. I mean aren't they "ambassadors for christ" ? Are they afraid of "offending a corpse" ? Should they "boldly speak the word" ? They can't have it both ways. Understand that I'm talking about those former Way folks who are still very much enamored with their Way past. Obviously any sane person seeking employment outside of TWI wouldn't start listing Way classes and duties to appear to be attractive to a potential employer. But there are those former Corps who still very much want credit (from other Way people) for having "served the Body" (or some such whacky idea).

yes see thats what I was getting at. I think its better to go with someone who captures your essence as opposed to your look. Speaking in general of course since I don't know Oak.

Mary is a pretty lady ! The woman I'm currently dating is a dead ringer for her......

You'll need to grow a beard and lose some hair unless of course you are sporting a "Men's Hair Club of America" setup in your profile pic ? *laff* Kids ! Oh if only.....

Ah keep in mind that physical resemblance is only part of it. Solid chracter actors can almost always play anyone well , whereas leading types are notoriously narrow and limited in their range (e.g. Tom Cruise). Also note that I'm not saying that Jodie Foster is a bad actress at all. My point is that while I might be tempted to select someone who is physically similar I think I would pick someone whom I think could capture my personality better than say my features. Having said that who wouldn't want to be represented by a physically appealing professional ? I would like to think that a much taller version of Al Pacino would be who I would want but casting directors would probably pick Harry Dean Stanton which is probably a more honest fit *laff*

------ Matthew 18:6 But if anyone causes one of these little ones who believe in me to sin, it would be better for him to have a large millstone hung around his neck and to be drowned in the depths of the sea. ------ This verse was used in a grad night teaching long ago to discuss the obligation that those ordained by TWI had to "the ministry". This "teaching" was in response to the departure of John C**y from TWI. This verse was used as a form of caution for those who might seek to "back out of their commitment". At the time of the teaching, it seemed to only apply to those who were ordained though this verse turned up later in a teaching which described the Corps in general. Later, towards the early 80s it was used to describe anyone who would back out.

I bet it was something along the lines of "god won't even spit in your direction unless you abundantly share".