WhiteDove

David they don't have a website for the BRC but when you get your book the email is on the sheet I enclosed.

Right TL that's why they pray to dead people I guess.

Bagpipes you can jump in anytime you want. Your post was a perfect illustration of what I was saying to coolchef. How each is relevant to our daily lives is a different question, and the answer is different for each person Which Christian church teaches that the dead are dead not alive Do you know?

Cool You asked what truth does twi have that any other denomination does't? I supplied you with some examples. How each is relevant to our daily lives is a different question, and the answer is different for each person. The one you picked out how many crucified with Christ as far as practical application in our daily lives is not that important, but none the less does not change it's truth. It does become useful when establishing biblical accuracy or integrity of the scriptures. So it has it's place it's just not a truth that effects our everyday life. Much like a wrench does not affect my everyday life on a regular basis but when I want to work on my car it is very useful. Everything has it's use it just needs to correspond with what we need. at the time. Now some of the other truths I learned I use on a daily basis and they have been invaluable.

Good question Coolchef to start with I'd say that they do have some things in common with churches more than they would have liked to admit most likely. Some things that they do not have in common with most/not all churches. Dead people being alive, Manifestations not gifts, Jesus is not God, The day Jesus died ,the importance of Pentecost, Salvation by grace not works, four crucified with Christ ,Body Soul Spirit, Jesus and the Passover, Baptism and on and on...... Now that said from the way you phrased your question it appears that you have not understood that I have not said that they hold the only or all truth just that they have/had some truth. That which was true can be accepted as such that which is not also can be accepted as such. If I read you wrong sorry but just wanted to make that clear upfront. I also was speaking of things that were true or factual not doctrinal necessarily, like they have nice grass. I can admit that without having to have some negative comment attached to it. Another words it's ok to say they had nice grass without being in eternal condemnation for not having something bad to say. It's ok it does not promote them in any way just admitting a truth/fact. Fine Rascal since it is not important to you-then you will have no objection to not refering to me as such from now on correct? Dang Ex Are you bored today? You really read through 11 pages of drivel? Thanks for the observation I just knew someone would get it.. :wub:

Incorrect Rascal admission that you see something that is true does not mean you align yourself with it or do not. It means what it says that you see it is true.. One can admit to truth about TWI and not be a supporter of it . Truth is truth despite how you feel about it. You can't seem to grasp that concept Truth is not dependent on human feelings ,emotions .morals it stands because it is truth. I think we have covered the unlevel playing field and I am not the only one that see's it despite the fact that you won't. As I said before just acknowledging it that's all. It's there, it's fine, just don't tell me it's not!

Ok so I guess it's back to Price Chopper for my olives after all..... Joking aside I'll try it again here. Your comment was My response to that quote was Matthew 16:23 - But he turned, and said unto Peter, Get thee behind me, Satan: thou art an offence unto me: for thou savourest not the things that be of God, but those that be of men. Mark 8:33 - But when he had turned about and looked on his disciples, he rebuked Peter, saying, Get thee behind me, Satan: for thou savourest not the things that be of God, but the things that be of men. From a look at scripture Jesus did not apparently just speak to Scribes and Pharisees as you indicated, since Peter was neither. He also was a member of Jesus' inner circle an apostle someone who Jesus liked but still he used the proper response when it was merited. Peter was human and I bet when he settled in for the night as he was drifting off to sleep perhaps thinking of the days events I'm sure he thought to himself wow he called me Satan. Perhaps he thought about why Jesus would do such a thing. I suppose Jesus failed your test of treating people nice due to his words. Apparently you do since you seem intent on referring to me as a wierwille /TWI supporter.

Then again there are these verses where he was talking to Peter and it was not about abuse but about seeking the things of man more than the things of God.Matthew 16:23 - But he turned, and said unto Peter, Get thee behind me, Satan: thou art an offence unto me: for thou savourest not the things that be of God, but those that be of men. Mark 8:33 - But when he had turned about and looked on his disciples, he rebuked Peter, saying, Get thee behind me, Satan: for thou savourest not the things that be of God, but the things that be of men. Cathy dear you have not offended me at all, and I don't dislike you . I am "mildly irritated" at times by your insistence upon labeling me a Wierwile/TWI follower despite the fact that I have told you otherwise. I'lll say it again for the gazillonth time, I am a seeker of truth and I'll accept it where it is found, it is still truth no matter what the moral state of the speaker is, that is a separate issue. 2+2=4 no matter who says it. The way is a source, one of many for truth like all of them because we are humans it has good and bad true and untrue. I can live with that. I do appreciate the olive branch and your concern, but I assure you that I have not snapped nor do I plan on it anytime soon.

Hahahah T Too funny I remember the frickin snow. It was a lot of work but still a nice thing to do. I know most of the Corps appreciated it. Now sometime I'll have to tell you about the time we got into trouble for drinking a little too much of George Jess's homemade wine.

I did a little checking on this bike this weekend. Topeka Harley Davidson is one of my business accounts here . They have a great store you can see it here Harley Davidson The store has been family owned since 1949 and is ranked 37th in the top 100 Stores. In the seventies VPW used to stop at the old store on 6th street. Back in the days before the motercoach when he and Howard drove the camper, he often made a stopover on the way to Wichita to stay with Dr. Stroud and family. Some of you may remember it was Dr. Stroud that gave VP the ship that he talked about on the set of Christian Family & Sex. The store now is nothing like it was then of course, with its museum and Harley Town a center of shops coffee house and grill. They have a 1969 fully restored Touring Electra Glide that looks very much like VP's bike looked in the photo in the museum here. Another part of the Harley complex is Yesterdays where they restore old Harleys back to original condition. I talked to the head restorer there and he said that the price was high on VP's bike. He said that that would be toward the high end for a restored one in good condition. It's really more of a collectors bike for in town riding nowadays. He said they will beat the hell out of you on a open road ride.

Well I suppose I will join Sudossuda and David and make it complete

Dang oldies even I would have to say that was "a bit of a cheap shot".

Fine, WD. You've NEVER felt put-upon for having an unpopular opinion here. You've NEVER felt persecuted here nor unhappy. You've never complained about that sort of thing. You're not complaining about it now. Anything that looked like textbook examples of any of the above were obviously mass hallucinations on the part of all the people who saw them. I think we've covered everything. Now will you stop "not-complaining-simply-stating-an-opinion-about-bias-that-didn't-surprise-me", please? By Jove I think you've got it old chap! I just knew you could grasp it. Thanks Dove slurks off to his corner of the board.

Well .....it is good to mean what you say and say what you mean! You know what I mean...... The problem with distilling down is that it even though it may resemble the original it never tastes quite like Crown Royal after you are done with your distilling process!!

I've never said or implied such a thing if you want to make $*@! up go ahead, since you are so big supporting your claims perhaps you can find somewhere that I stated such if not then I suppose we can assume you are delusional. And by the way I never said I was being persecuted either nor did I say I felt that I was., Nice spin. What I said is that contrary to what some posters would have us believe there is a bias here I also said that was no surprise to me. Expected! I also said that because of such that the playing field was not level at times Also no big deal What is is when someone tries to tell me it does not exist when it clearly does. You assume I was complaining ,unhappy, or persecuted not my words YOURS Just stating a fact! Never asked for anyone to feel sorry for me. In fact as I recall I said several times that it was not a problem as long as we own up to it. I'll put this in real big letters for you so maybe you will finally get it. I don't feel persecuted nor am I complaining, just stating a fact /truth. When you are in the minority opinion or perceived minority opinion then the "playing field" is not level.

Thanks fer sharing the chocolate cake! NOT.......

WD no one has ever said that there wasn't a majority bias here that is anti TWI. The issue was that because of that bias , you, and others who in some measure or other support TWI, were being deliberately targeted in some sort of "flame war", for lack of a better phrase. Realistically, if you post pro sentiments on a site that is basically anti , on whatever subject or site, you can not justifiably, IMO, claim surprise or indignation when the antis respond with vehemence Never said I was surprised I said several times I expected it. The issue was that some seem to think this bias will just go away and your sentiments will be accepted if you just smile and post nice somehow the field just levels out. That's like saying Ted Kennedy will agree with George Bush if he just smiles and speaks nicely.. That is just BS..

Im not a part of their organization nor do I feel a need to endorse it. I examine things from an is it true or is it not perspective. Who or where it came from is not of importance to me. [unless it "came" from vpw-then it must be fought for fiercely. It strikes me as odd that you're reluctant to admit this. Frankly, I'd respect you more if you could avoid artifice in this, and just say "this is my position, period. All my posts will reflect this." Despite claims otherwise, do you really think most posters would agree with your appraisal of your own posts, or do you think they'd consider it non-representative of them?] You are confused again WW I said unless it is truth then it must be fought for. Big difference! It strikes me as odd that you are too thick to read what I have written a gazillion times and that you insist on telling me what I believe. You know this how? Most people are reluctant to admit things that are not true. And frankly I am not missing any sleep over whether you respect me or not.

Hey Northern Neighbor Just a note of clarification, My point was /is this: Yes absolutely people post here for the most part freely, unedited. I have no complaint with Grease Spot Board at all. As you said everyone gets a fair shot at posting, it's after that, the majority /minority equation comes into play. This being a place that is generally not supportive of things TWI related . One would expect to be in a minority if you held an opinion that was pro TWI . I would however not expect the volume of negativity in response to a fact that is documentable. For instance A post such as this "The grounds at the Way were well maintained." is a pretty well known fact it does not speak pro or con about the ways doctrine or leadership activities it is generally neutral. One would think generally the response would be yes they were, one might even expect that some would interject that they were nice because of slave labor that kept them that way especially if they were the ones that doing the work . However one would not expect a response unrelated like yeah they were but what about the rape and pillage what about the false prophet. Why a neutral fact has to be turned into a "gang up" as you put it is a mystery to me. Why can't it stand that the grounds were well maintained without having to have some unrelated subject on twi evil attached to it. That said contrary to popular belief what people think of the way and all things related does not bother me one bit. Im not a part of their organization nor do I feel a need to endorse it. I examine things from an is it true or is it not perspective. Who or where it came from is not of importance to me. While the unbalanced majority /minority opinion on the way at times is frustrating to deal with in terms of posts to answer. It is expected and often justly earned. That there is a majority bias is not a issue for me. What is...... is when someone tries to tell me it is non existent .

To my knowledge he did not

I agree I never thought he was either but I was giving them the benefit of the doubt that thought he was ..... 1. So the teachings were not his (VP's) they were authored by others (per Groucho) 2. Wierwillites don't really follow VP's teachings because it was teachings by others that taught us. (per Groucho) 3. He was not a prophet at all so he could not be a false one. (per Templelady) 4. We were taught by others teachings not by VP's and not by a false prophet/or not even a prophet (per Whitedove) Which is exactly what I said before when everybody took such offence at it. my point exactly because I said it there had to be a problem with it . When others come to the same conclusion it seems to be ok. Sounds level to me.

Thanks for the correction Raf noted you do not agree with that part of his conclusions. No seem to it JL he compiled others works into his class. I don't believe I have quoted PFAL very rarly if I have and if I did it would be in direct reply to a question about a section. So then if we are agreed that the work was not his (VPW) teachings, and we are quoting the original authors where it came from Then I guess we can put the urban myth that we were taught by a false prophet to rest unless you think that those other authors were false prophets,because it was their teachings that taught us not VPW's

Man does that sound familiar I could swear I heard that somewhere before that his teachings were not his teachings. I'm a little confused here. It is well documented here ,geese there have been several threads on where book by book the teaching In PFAL came from. This was not any big revelation to me but to some it is I suppose. If one would choose to hold on to something they learned in PFAL wouldn't it be correct to say they were holding on to BG Leonard or Charles Welch or Kenyon's teaching ,not VP Wierwille If VP plagiarized others work then we were taught by them. GEESE I thought this point was easy to understand most people get it why it is not true. I suppose it becomes true if one who is not considered a wierwillite posts it. Why it's almost a revelation. Level as a freaking pancake Yeah!

Bumping up the corner Ok I'll take my place in the back of the bus now!

Here is another link for you! Faithful Word Ministries