WhiteDove

Lindy The post was not directed at anyone as I stated it was passed on to me I enjoyed it so I in turn passed it on as well. For those who enjoyed it good, for those who don't that's ok as well. I see you quoted part of what Peter said which was in full. "Quitters never win and winners never quit"—the motto of my athletic club, which is very true. But sometimes we do quit doing things, don't we? I think the point was not that the phrase works in every situation in life, quite the contrary if you had quoted what followed as well you would see that in the context of the gym that may hold true but as he mentioned we do sometimes quit. I don't believe one can import that into a different situation such as that of a smoker and conclude that because it does not work there as well ,that somehow it does not work at all. In the context of the gym I'd say it is a fair statement if you quit exercising you don't win ,you don't reach your goal. Now in a marriage for instance one may quit and they may go on to as you mentioned have success in a career, they may make money , help others and so forth, but they also in turn don't win, they don't win the love of the spouse they quit on, they don't win the goal of completing the vows they committed themselves to, they don't win their family unit as one, and so on. In each case "winning" would be relative to the primary goal, in the record the goal was to assist Paul in the gospel, in that case he did not win . He may have went back to Jerusalem and made money, started a business, made lots of friends, the record does not say, as secondary goals he may of had success, but he also lost the success of the original goal which was to assist Paul. in that sense he lost. In the record John Mark did quit ,he went part way on the first journey ,and then returned home. It does not say they had a disagreement and he split ways, it says he withdrew., he went back home It seems logical that one would not take along someone to help that had previously not worked out, someone that had left them high and dry so to speak, someone that had left them short of the needed manpower to complete the job. It does not say why he quit, but I believe that had it been for good reason Paul would have taken that into consideration and not have felt so strongly about not taking him. It's kinda like if you were supposed to pick me up from work , and just blew me off for no good reason. I'd feel differently than if you had, say for instance had a heart attack and couldn't because you were in the hospital. Next time I needed a ride depending on which case it was would affect my trusting you for a ride.

Clackers

Thought this was worth repeating. Thanks for your honest accuracy .

Peter Wade sent this along today thought I'd pass it on as well........ "Mark the cousin of Barnabas (concerning whom you have received instructions--if he comes to you, welcome him)" (Colossians 4:10b). In other parts of the Bible he is called John Mark, and was the person who wrote the Gospel according to Mark. He was perhaps only a child when Jesus walked on the earth and the common view about his Gospel was that he spent a lot of time with Peter and obtained much information from him about the activities of Jesus. That's one viewpoint. I accept the viewpoint that God gave Mark the words to write and he did not need Peter's help. However, "if he comes to you, welcome him". The interesting thing about John Mark is that he went on the first missionary journey with Paul and Barnabas recorded in Acts 13 and 14. We don't know what part he played but "they had John [Mark] to assist them" (Acts 13:5). Now in Acts 15 we read of the humanity of the ministers of God, because Paul and Barnabas had an argument. Preachers are just as human as anybody else. "And after some days Paul said to Barnabas, ‘Let us return and visit the brothers in every city where we proclaimed the word of the Lord, and see how they are.' Now Barnabas wanted to take with them John called Mark. But Paul thought best not to take with them one who had withdrawn from them in Pamphylia and had not gone with them to the work. And there arose a sharp disagreement, so that they separated from each other. Barnabas took Mark with him and sailed away to Cyprus" (Acts 15:37-39). It appears that on that first missionary journey John Mark only went part of the way and then he quit and went back to Jerusalem. Have you ever started something and you've quit? "Quitters never win and winners never quit"—the motto of my athletic club, which is very true. But sometimes we do quit doing things, don't we? Sometimes we just feel that we can't continue with that. Well, John Mark quit. It doesn't tell us why he quit, just that he did. When they were getting ready to go out on the second missionary journey Paul made it clear there was no way he wanted a quitter on his team and he wouldn't take him. And Barnabas said if my cousin John Mark doesn't go, I'm not going either. That's the kind of situation. And so they had an argument and John Mark went with Barnabas to Cyprus. We don't read a lot more about him after this until we come here to Colossians and we find that he gets a mention. He's now one of the stayers. So even though there's been a relationship problem, now Paul and Mark get on well, and Mark sends his greetings to the Christians at Colossae. Paul commends him again in his second letter to Timothy, after Paul is released for a little while and then gets put back into prison again for the final time. Paul writes to Timothy, "Luke alone is with me. Get Mark and bring him with you, for he is very useful to me for ministry" (II Timothy 4:11). So Mark goes from being a quitter to being "very useful [very helpful, profitable] to me for ministry". And that really tells us something. There's somebody in the Bible just like you and there's someone just like me, and we can learn from their victories and we can learn from their failures too. John Mark quit but he came back. John Mark failed but he was not a failure. Does that encourage you? Some of you perhaps at times have decided that your faith in God doesn't work. It's a lot of trouble. You might be tempted to quit your faith for a little while. You might be tempted to throw it all away. What's the good? I read my Bible every day. I've done this and that and it's not working. People, you may quit for a time but the Bible says that "if we are faithless, he remains faithful—for he cannot deny himself" (II Timothy 2:13). That's good isn't it? You may fail but you're not a failure. You may quit and say I've had enough for awhile but God says He remains faithful. He loves you just the same as he loved you before. So can you learn something from John Mark? Yes, you certainly can. There are times when we quit but what we have to do is to pick up the pieces and get going again.

I never wanted a Crissy doll ,however I did want Chrissy Snow from Three's Company which by the way started it's run in 1977. Glad you had better luck with the doll than I did...... Also glad you found some platform shoes I was going to look funny in my socks and my Sunday go to meeting suit ,when I went to church while mine were on loan. 1978 Top 100 1978 More music trivia

Who's your best friend? If you don't believe it, just try this experiment. Put your dog and your wife in the trunk of the car for an hour. When you open the trunk, who is really happy to see you!

HMMMMMM.......

Exactly Right ...... And I missed all the cries of plagiarism for them not citing their sources apparently just as with VP some think they figured this out on their own.

Well I've got a shovel,but I'm not helping you! Snow ....Just never use that word around me....... Why I've forgotten more about snowballs than Pete ever knew......

Yep used to be on the Advanced Class reading list.

I don't believe that they figured it out at all. Much like VP they got it it from Bullinger. only they forgot to also cite their sources.

I do believe you are correct, boy there is a slew of definitions for the word depending on which instance you use it in. 4. to strengthen or confirm, esp. with reference to character, intentions, feelings, etc.; reinforce. 5. to make hardy, robust, or capable of endurance; toughen. I believe that these were the intent of the program some might disagree and see other definitions more suitable. Either way from the promotional material it seems clear that you could expect to be challenged and growth was expected.

This sounds like a story I once heard . Were there gas pumps involved?

There are several reasons I believe for why that may be possible for one VP was using the incident as a teaching point Mrs. Wierwille was however telling a detailed historical record. It would not be unusual to leave out the details in using the story for a teaching reference as the intent was not focused on the story itself as a historical record but only enough of the event needed to convey the point. That does not prove a case for Narcissistic behavior alone. I think her viewpoints are correct allowing for time, and editing considerations by the Way. Don't know was not in India, neither was anyone else ,one can speculate either way, most likely depending on which side of the fence you live on. Your assesment of what the book "said " is yours ,based on your prior posts I'd take your bias into consideration before accepting your review. I'm sure the same applies both ways.

Had you read what I wrote past the first sentence you would have found The key to the city was for the city of Allahabad. I seem to remember that the key was displayed at the Sidney House at one time. Anyone else remember that? I'd tend to believe the record, given that he was the guest of many receptions during the stay. The key was for one city not all of India and was given to him by a member of the central government who was from Allahabad. Another thing to consider is something that Way History fails to mention often which was that VP went to India as a representative of The American Committee for the All-India Federation of National Churches They sponsored his tour which is why he was given the entrée and attention he was given. Dr. J. S. Williams was their guide he was the head of the Federation of National Churches. As such I can see why he might have been presented a key. While he did teach while there on occasion the key would have been most likely presented as a matter of protocol under the representative title not the Way International. None of the news clippings I have seen mention The Way in fact, only the PAIRS organization. It was most likely arranged long before anyone heard him speak or teach, so I doubt it had anything to do with his preaching. Edited to point out host as mentioned was a better descripion for what he did rather than guide.

That may be..... but the challenge was to discuss them so I did Be carefull what you ask for especially when you dion't know what you are talking about.

My response was limited to the remark that was quoted I have no information on your specific case. The remark was Show me that in the promo literature or promo words about any of the programs! While the word toughening up". was not used specifically the concept to which was refered to was. It was not limited to Lead either.

What I wrote was all there is to say for the most part. The key to the city was for the city of Allahabad. I seem to remember that the key was displayed at the Sidney House at one time. Anyone else remember that? I'd tend to believe the record, given that he was the guest of many receptions during the stay. The key was for one city not all of India and was given to him by a member of the central government who was from Allahabad. Another thing to consider is something that Way History fails to mention often which was that VP went to India as a representative of The American Committee for the All-India Federation of National Churches They sponsored his tour which is why he was given the entrée and attention he was given. Dr. J. S. Williams was their guide he was the head of the Federation of National Churches. As such I can see why he might have been presented a key. While he did teach while there on occasion the key would have been most likely presented as a matter of protocol under the representative title not the Way International. None of the news clippings I have seen mention The Way in fact, only the PAIRS organization. It was most likely arranged long before anyone heard him speak or teach, so I doubt it had anything to do with his preaching. Edited to point out host as mentioned was a better descripion for what he did rather than guide.

For the record : from The Way Corps A Lifetime of Christian Service Physical training is a valuable part of The Way Corps training. Because the Christian believer is a three - part being,his life must be balanced spiritually, mentally, and in order for him to be at his best. Through participation in LEAD Outdoor Academy International, Way Corps students learn to develop mental, flexibility and physical stamina. Students build an attitude of "I can do ,therefore I do" and learn to live abundantly. I'd say that qualifies as toughen up

As an alleged wierwille defender I would point out that I brought this subject up on the other thread... I have no problem addressing factual information just made up s**t. and internet ramblings.

Then again perhaps some feel the same way when others attack their beliefs learned in the Way. Oh well feelings come and go..... Me I figure if your gonna talk cults then all the cards should be on the table........

Speaking of cults......... Here is a chilling exerpt from Mary Ann Collins book A former nun I entered the convent for several reasons. I wanted to be closer to God and to serve Him more wholeheartedly. I wanted to learn more about God and to spend my life being more intensely focused on Him. And I believed that God wanted me to be a nun. The convent was not a healthy place, either spiritually or emotionally. Our self-imposed penances, and our other attempts to make ourselves more holy, actually encouraged self-righteousness. We were not allowed to have friendships, or to be close to any human being. We were supposed to be emotionally detached. We were taught to love people in a detached, impersonal way. Sound familiar?

Or a figure of speech, either way I think the point was clear it is not good .I don't recall any way leadership condoning anything either much like the pope they went about their business under cover. They knew they moved these priest around to cover their pathetic deeds. They should have gave them the boot, turned them in. Yes they condoned them by their actions to protect them and carry on business as usual. They denied their deeds and forced victoms to trial to prove that which they already knew to be true, hoping to wear them down and slither away unscaved again.

I had to do it the suspense was killing me!!!!

Good luck ......... we all know that the theory blows like the wind depending on which argument is made against popular opinion that day. Theories are like that though that's why it is not good sense to believe them on oral authority