Tom

Carl, I think it is sort of like Bruce Lee's description of learning the martial arts. Before a man learns the classic moves of any style, a kick is a kick, and a punch is a punch. Then, as one studies a style, it interferes with what he already knows to the point that he doesn't know what kicks and punches are any more, and they don't flow for him in a fight. Later, when he has studied the style to the point that he has made it his own, again, a kick is a kick, and a punch is a punch - only now he is performing them much better. Broaden the principle. All the forms we usually call martial, all the different styles of karate, jujitsu, judo, even Tae Bo, Tai Chi, & Yoga all have their roots in the same soil, the same soil that nourishes all the different forms of Chinese medicine. They are not all the same, but they all work together and deal with the same elements. The fanatical Bible-only mentality is not a product of the Bible, but of fanatics. The less real their relationship is with the Word, the more fanatically they demand exclusive adherence to it. As Shakespeare said, "The Lady doth protest too much, methinks..." Methinks the Ladies doth protest so much - they're just a bunch of whores. This violent protestation was the way of the religous leaders, not the way of Jesus, the believer's example, the Word in the flesh, who spoke to spirits, to disease, to body parts, to trees, to storms. Is that the distant music of the leaves of trees clapping that I hear? Is that the ululation of the very rocks rejoicing? The wisdom of the Great Spirit is in all the earth, and wisdom's delight is to rejoice with the sons of men. Peace, Tom

"to see that nothing really is as it appears but as we are ready so shall we be ready...." That's profound. Great account of your son. I had somthing similar to that happen to my son. Way to handle it brother. "and somehow i keep posting here don't really know why...." Deep seated abilities promise rich experience of love, power, & wholeness. I'm thankful for your contributions. Good point - now wasn't that lame & egotistical of twi?

I think that "Christianity," for the most part, has lost the natural realm to the Adversary by default. Having unnaturally dubbed nature devilish, they have not only cut themselves off from their heavenly father's creation which he described as very good, but have also almost entirely cut themselves off from any spiritual communication that they might have received from God. This is because basically the only way man learns is by associating something with something else that he has previously experienced in his environment (nature); therefore, the only way God can communicate with man is via the associations he has built up concerning the natural world. Whatever happened to Jesus' promise of zoe, life in all its forms? "Christians" have sterilized life out of their experience in the name of purity. They are without root to their own natures. Jesus didn't do this; he continually used the patterns of life in the natural world to describe the ways of the spirit. Via association, life describes life. On the other hand, labels without the rich qualifying context of life, rape reality of the real. For example, what is a Wiccan? I've known Wiccans to absolutely deny identification with witchcraft because they know that what the word witchcraft brings to the minds of those to whom they are describing themselves is not who they are. Some describe themselves as merely living in harmony with the forces of nature. Others confess to worshipping nature. Others other things. Culturally imposed labels notwithstanding, it is what it is. Another example is the Native American. Traditionally in deep association with the earth's cycles, many of them believe in many spirits, but also in The Great Spirit, & many in the Son of the Great Spirit sacrificed and raised, knowing of this from their own prophecies many years before the coming of Europeans. I figure it is all real.

Well, thank you much, Danny. "Not even so much as a disembodied voice." Actually, the disembodied voice was the scary one. Before that, I wasn't aware that I was encountering anything - I thought that the things that were happening were all part of the great human potential, &, for the most part, I thought that I was in control of my growing utilization of that potential; although, sometimes, & more & more, I obviously was totally without control in the midst of powerful & damaging phenomena that I perceived as my own life issues - now I view those phenomena as parlor tricks with me as the dupe. And after that "disembodied voice," anything I encountered was via spiritual eyes, & I was in control, &, more & more, I learned how complete was that control. "Prior to the drugs, prior to twi" That's a little hard to answer. I sniffed glue more often than not all the way through the 6th grade. I didn't watch a lot of gothic/horror flicks after Dracula & Frankenstein; although, I've always had a thing for vampire stories. I did read a lot of sci-fi books, especially books involving ESP abilities. RE: "featuring the devil striking a bargain of one form or another in exchange for the soul of a person being enticed." Actually, the deal wasn't for my soul; it was simply that the spirit would leave me alone if I did thus & so. There is no doubt that these cultural references played big time upon our minds - that's the way culture works for everyone in every culture - but so what? After some point of reading those books on ESP, I definitely believed in ESP - but so what? That doesn't mean ESP is totally imaginary. The first time that I remember any kind of ESP experience actually happening - my friend & I smoked a joint & walked into the local bar to sit in the cool, have a beer, & talk. We must have been talking about ESP, I don't know, but at one point, my friend asked me if I believed in ESP. I don't remember for sure, but I think I said, "I don't know," & I do remember for sure that he then said, "Okay, tell me what three digit number I'm thinking of." This number came to mind, & I said it. He looked amazed & said I was correct. What are the odds? I guess 1 in 900 (999-99). I told him he was full of ...., thought of a three digit number, & told him to tell me what three digit number I was thinking of. And he did. What are the odds (900 X 900)? We went back & forth quickly, each of us doing it 2 or 3 more times. It was always exactly correct (odds? forget about it). Then he asked me what beer he was thinking of, & I was correct. And it stopped - just wouldn't work anymore. The next day, I was over another friend's house, & I heard this friend from the bar and another friend coming up his walkway talking. I said to myself, "Okay, if this thing is real, (I'd mention his name, but people here know him) is going to walk in the door and say "27." And with that (without me saying a word to him, not even "hi"), he walked in the door, pointed at me, and said "27." Our very experiences shaped by cultural references & drugs? Absolutely! But that doesn't mean there's nothing to it. By the time we got to acid - I remember this one time, another friend (also known by many on gs, & ordained) & I didn't even need to talk with one another for hours. Either I'd be thinking, & he'd be hanging out in my thoughts watching/listening/whatever you want to call it (there is no word I know of), or he'd be thinking & I'd be tagging along on his thought threads, or we'd both be riding the same thought waves. Still, it was piddle stuff. I was a novice at level almost nothing. You know, there are 5 people reading this thread right now (actually there is no one except me here), everyone go get a deck of cards, shuffle them, pick a card without looking at it, put it face down - then I tell everyone what their card is. Everyone is amazed. It is nothing - a cheap parlor trick, not mine but the spirit's. But there were results, & they weren't imaginary even thought they were definitley part of the culture & the drugs. BTW, I did something like that at a party once - I believe all the 5 people later got in the Word. Now that brings up an interesting point. As I said in my last post (I think), I had no idea that what I was fooling around with or what I encountered in the "disembodied voice" was the spirit of witchraft, but that's what Heefner identified it as, & he knew it because he heard it himself. Later, I read a book called "Deliver Us From Evil," by Don Basham that documented his growth into a ministry of deliverance in which he talks in different places about that banshee laugh I spoke about. Here is one excerpt: "...Then she [a woman who believed in ESP & practiced it] opened her eyes. What gazed out at us was less than human. Now from her lips came an eerie laugh, more sinister than anything I had ever heard. It sent shivers all the way down my spine. I didn't know what to do but hang onto her arm. I was shaken to my very depths. "That laugh!" Maxwell Whyte exclaimed. "I'd recognize it anywhere. Witchcraft!" The author does a really fine job of communicating the field of deliverance from spiritual captivity. I recommend the book. I sent a copy to Craig. During the next advanced class, I saw it on the junk (is that what it was called?) table. So, is all this about the particular laugh of the witchcraft spirit coincidence? I guess it could be. After all, I suppose we all had seen "The Wizard of Oz," & heard the laugh of the Wicked Witch of the West. But consider that it all played out the same particular way in all of us ESP believers. What are the odds?

Kids, or at least boys, all their lives want the approval of their dads. Fathers are the arbiters of all that is worthy - at least in the eyes of their sons. You've changed your belief system; it comes into play in everything you do. It is different than the belief system approved of by your dad in your upbringing. It worries you that he might not approve. Not only that, but, as an adult, it bothers you that you still have this need to stand approved before him; although, this need is more or less supressed and acknowledged. You haven't had this kind of disparity with your dad since you were an adolescent deciding what, if anything whatever, of your dad's beliefs you were going to make your own. The strong, necessary, and inevitable association of any possible present disparity between your beliefs and your dad's opinion of them with the similar disparity of your youth threatens your adulthood. The threat is all the more irritating because the perceived disparity is, for the most part, your own imagination's production of an unknown quantity (your dad's opinion of your beliefs) in a relationship that is very important to you. The irritation is further exacerbated the longer resolution is not forthcoming. That is the dream. Respect it and act on it, for putting it off will make your heart sick. Just because in your dream your father reacted the way he did to your inner beliefs doesn't mean that is the way he will react; his reaction in the dream reflects your apprehension. As cool pointed out, this dream is really about you - but I still think you need to talk with your dad. Is there any reason to believe that he will react that way if you share your beliefs other than the fact that your belief system is so different and so much has changed in the past few years? Has his belief system changed? Do you know? Is there some possibility in your own mind that whispers doubts to you that you might have the belief system of an idiot (remember the dream is mostly about you)? If so, that's not necessarily bad, but it would be a mistake to share those beliefs with a false face of conviction with your dad - the arbiter of worth knows the hearts conviction. Whatever degree of conviction you truly hold, honestly shared, is the wise path because the sharing you seek can only be a 2-way sharing which comes only over an honest pathway doubt and all. He is your father. He will receive your honest communication with all the love that he has in his heart for you, and his sharing in return will be new to you - and you'll grow. For many of us extwi, the belief systems we held early on were like large rooms in which we played freely with our children, the loving presence of God nurturing their growth. Later, sometimes barely or not noticed, authoritarian leaven subtly spread into those belief systems exasperating our children. Has your father also left twi? If not, I'd be highly selective in what I shared, but, if so, talk with him. Since 2002? That's not a very long time to unlearn so much & relearn. But hopefully both you & your father are moving past & beyond the blinders of twi. And, if so, moving past that, your father hasn't stopped changing any more than you have. And growing - growing in the grace of life. Your desire to share your life more fully with your father is a good desire. Its coming will be a tree of life. Proverbs 13:12 ¶Hope deferred maketh the heart sick: but when the desire cometh, it is a tree of life. Best I can do with what you've shared, nandon. As always, you judge the words. Same price as always for wisdom dispenced from the peanuts lemonade stand - 5 cents. Tom

Well, I saw the movie the other day. I almost didn't see it after reading some of the posts on this thread; well, hardly a thread - more like some threading of thought, especially the old cartoon character tangent & some other disconnected bits of string. So, I guess I'm about to add my own bit of disconnected string. My wife & I had already rewatched Superman I & II with the intention of watching the return afterward. Honestly, they didn't do it for me. I enjoyed them, but not as much as I thought I remembered enjoying them the first time. They were so one dimensional and sooo filled with rediculous holes. But I figured what the heck, they're based on cartoons for little kids I guess. So after reading Raf's comparison with I & II placing the return third in line (although his post was positive in tone), & with the 2 1/2 stars that some critic I read gave it, I wasn't expecting too much. But my wife & I were both very pleasantly surprised. The purists among you have some good points, especially if pure adherence is the goal, but I gotta tell you, the return brought back the magic of Superman for me like I & II rewatched didn't. I had no problem suspending disbelief. Sudo's points about the love child are well taken, but without weighing the moral implications, I hafta say that the idea of another kid with super powers in the story is a treat, & I'm looking forward to the development of that in the next movie if there is one. I recognize & agree with Sudo's concerns, but I don't think that the story line maintains any kind of purity (& I realize you are not saying this Sudo - a different point being made here) simply because it remains restricted to the originators' vision. Let the story evolve. Breaking out of molds was one of the things cartooning afforded. And one of the fascinating things about Superman was finding out just what he could do. I say, let it evolve. Sometimes regardless of all the valid objections of the critics, you just flat out really enjoy a movie, & sometimes realization of faults can ruin what would otherwise be an enjoyable experience. For both my wife & myself, the return was by far the most enjoyable Superman movie yet. After the movie, I went to the men's room. I got a space in a stall, & int the stall next to me went two small boys and a dad. The dad said to his son's friend, "So I guess you didn't enjoy the movie so much, huh?" "Oh, it was alright" said the boy. Then his son started going on & on about how he saw Superman do this & saw Superman do that. Oh, I'm glad I watched the first two movies before the return. It was a real treat to see the connections they made in the return to the earlier movies like when poor Luther talks about what his daddy used to say to him & gets the same wrong answers - cute little slapsticky offerings if you remembered the lines from the previous movies. I feel like I should apologize for disagreeing with some of you who know your cartoons so much better than I do, but no sense in being sorry for really enjoying something.

Call me a fanatical Christian, but, hm, let me see if I can quote something I posted on another thread...& edit it for this thead. No, it will be easier to leave the quote intact, but realize that the post was in answer to a question about whether or not drugs & sex spurred the early move of the Word. Anyway, point is, as I said, call me fanatical, but I believe that those things you believed were devilish are devilish. I never realized or thought when I was doing those things that there was any witchcraft involved. After the time in the above quote, whenever I would come in contact with the same types of spirits that I was once involved with, & I DID come in contact with them at various times, it wasn't the human potential that I once thought it was that I was coming in contact with, it was devil spirits active in situations and people that I was with. They knew me, & I knew them. And they do submit to the authority of Jesus - I just didn't realize it then. You know, do what you want Carl, as you will do; that's my take on it. Regards, Tom

Okay, thanks for that info, Pond. It does satisfy me, & I appreciate you mitigating my concerns on that account in so kindly a manner.

I went to search here recently for the first time, & was amazed at how easy to use and complete the search function is here. Who needs people's names - put in adultery, etc, as has been already said - you're not listening again or ignoring what people are saying, Pond. I do think it might be a little difficult for those few who are new to the internet, but as I said, it is time to learn. It is not too much to ask someone who is on the internet to learn how to use its tools, especially when they are so simple as they are here.

Pond, I'd respond to this, but my post WAS a response to this. You just said the same thing in more words. So, if you want to read a response to this, reread what I posted. BTW, are you aware that you're doing the same thing in your argument with Ex & Cool? Are you aware that you just keep saying basically the same thing over and over. Do you think that if you outlast people who disagree with you that you've achieved some victory in conversational skill? Pond: Ex, I think you should post a graphic represention of yourself in the act with VP on the opening page of the GS website with complete explanation. In a real conversation, you have to hear what the other person says also. Ex: I don't want to. Pond: You should want to. Ex: I don't. Pond: You should. Ex: Don't Pond : Should Don't should don't should don't should don't should don't should. Isn't there something in abusive relationships about an unwillingness on the part of the abuser to understand the word "No?"

QUOTE(excathedra @ Jul 14 2006, 10:24 AM) and THAT is not the rest of the story I understand What you're saying. There you go. Connect that dot. Oh, is that all? Front page. Do you hear yourself?

Hang in there, Ex.

That VP believed that all of his activities were justified biblically is no secret. He "documented" extramarital (commonly characterized as adultery) sex "biblically" to hundreds of WC, myself included. Of course, it was SUPPOSED to be kept a secret by us from non-WC because they couldn't handle it. Actually, VP wasn't sure that we could handle it, but he said that he had to tell someone the truth about the freedom we have in Christ, & we were the best he had. He also said that there were people among us - my particular corps - who would not keep that trust but would use what he was teaching against the ministry and would thereby destroy it. Perhaps John Lynn remembers that; he was there:). Can anyone say "paper on adultery?" So, now you know what REALLY destroyed the ministry. Hm, it seems like I've lost my tongue inside my cheek somewhere. Or did I?

Umm, yes, so? Which, if you're talking about the context of any of those verses, I don't believe the accused denying or defending ever had anything to do with whether those verses consitituted "proof" or not. Once the conditions of those verses were met, the accused was considered guilty of the accusation - any defense he rendered or didn't render didn't change that, so THAT'S a moot point when "proof" is present. No doubt, Pond. I referenced the verses out of context - as Jesus, Paul, & others did when they wanted to apply the truth of scripture to a different context to which, nevertheless, that truth applied, even at times "changing" the scripture reference to suit the new context while retaining the applicable truth - that truth being in this case "what consititutes proof." Thinking is allowed. Jesus did it. Feel free to follow "in his steps" as Paul did and others. For examples: Romans 9:27, 29, & 33. Those scriptures reference other scriptures taken out of the context of to whom they were addressed, but were as applicable in Paul's day, and, I dare say, are as applicable today, as they were applicable when first uttered in context Bullinger said it well, "The necessity for this is constantly experienced today in adapting a quotation for any special purpose beyond its original intention. It is no less authoritative as Scripture, not does it alter the Word of God." So? What constitutes proof all of the sudden doesn't constitute proof the second the accused dies? You're right, Pond; these things were not addressed to us. They are for our learning. Romans 15:4 For whatsoever things were written aforetime were written for our learning, that we through patience and comfort of the scriptures might have hope. I don't want to sound condescending, but it is time to learn.

Oh, yeah - that's where Martindale got it from. Wierwille taught it to quite a few WC years.

Deuteronomy 17:6 At the mouth of two witnesses, or three witnesses, shall he that is worthy of death be put to death; but at the mouth of one witness he shall not be put to death. Deuteronomy 19:15 One witness shall not rise up against a man for any iniquity, or for any sin, in any sin that he sinneth: at the mouth of two witnesses, or at the mouth of three witnesses, shall the matter be established. Matthew 18:16 But if he will not hear thee, then take with thee one or two more, that in the mouth of two or three witnesses every word may be established. 2 Corinthians 13:1 ¶This is the third time I am coming to you. In the mouth of two or three witnesses shall every word be established. 1 Timothy 5:19 Against an elder receive not an accusation, but before two or three witnesses. Hebrews 10:28 He that despised Moses' law died without mercy under two or three witnesses: I go along with that - depending. Sometimes 10 witnesses can see the same thing and have 10 different stories about it. But we're not talking about stories here, just proof about "TWI women report[ing] to him for sexual favors?" Apparently, according to this standard, what we need is one of the women & one other who will testify to make the two. I think, if memory serves, we have that in one or more instances; although, I don't know the specifics or the witnesses. You know, "proof." Personally, I don't need that degree of proof. But I understand your question, Eagle. I think it would be a good idea to gather the info the "proof" into one place. Everyone who was ever involved with TWI - well, ALMOST everyone has had that question at one point or another. It would be nice if it didn't take so long for someone to find out. On the other hand, the women who have come forward - although they've been public about it - do they really want what they posted to be in its own little - or not so little - forum area on GS for all to see - maybe next to "Just plain silly" in a forum called "Just plain sick?" However, again if memory serves, it seems to me that whenever I have seen one of the women come forward here on GS (& like Eagle, I think I've missed some of the threads that have been explicit AND numerous with testimony), it has been after a long drawn out back & forth argument about whether or not it REALLY happened - there is the Wierwille loyalty factor, and we all know that urban legends develop a life and a following of their own. Until, finally, one of the women reading gets tired of it and comes out AGAIN and says so. THAT can't be any fun for them either. But anyway, simple answer - I think we do have a couple of instances of what would stand up to the biblical requirements for proof sufficient to lead to consequences. But, you're not going to get it from my mouth Eagle because I don't KNOW anything more than what I just said (except individual statements) - which actually is just fine with me.

For anyone who is interested, the history of comic books is on the History Channel. Right now, 10:08 EST, they are talking about Superman comics. Superman - I thought it was a figure for Christ, but it was invented by 2 Jewish kids.

Sorry, I don't get it, but that's okay. I don't understand enough about it to have it bother me. No prob

Okay, maybe. I've heard that from quite a few others whom I respect. I don't see it (which doesn't mean a dang thing); I'll have to check that out further. "SIT with others hearing is in their native language." Always? "And understood by someone, though not all." Always? That just doesn't make any sense to me (which doesn't necessarily mean a dang thing either except for the following): The following being that I agree with this last statement completely & know it to be true in my experience. But if every time someone SIT, someone else understands it, why would it matter that people can have the spiritual eyes to recognize legitimate SIT? Just have someone do it & ask if anyone around understood it. Sounds kind of - I don't know - the two don't fit in the same world, you know?

Clay, respectfully, I don't see where these verses necessarily mean anything more than these people were witnessed to in their native language, got born again, & spoke in tongues. Do you speak in tongues? Do you know it to be true? Whenever you do it, does someone around you understand? Which doesn't mean it isn't inspired by God - or the real thing, right? God is just working with what he has, no?

I find this very interesting, Abigail. The other day, I watched the movie, "The End of the Spear." Hmm, I guess I have to give a spoiler warning here (but it is nothing the jacket of the movie doesn't tell you pretty much). It was based on a true story in which missionaries go to the Amazon & witness to a tribe of killers (literally, killing is engrained in their culture). These natives have many gods, but recognize that there is one who is the Supreme God. The missionaries find these natives, & all the fathers/husbands of the missionary families go to witness to them, & the natives kill all of them. Some of the natives do take note that the men didn't try to fight back, but it doesn't make any sense to them. Then the mothers & children show up (even though their men have just been murdered). The natives let them live because they are no threat. The women witness to them, telling them that the Supreme God had a son who taught us that the Supreme God (some long weird name in the native tongue) doesn't want us to kill each other The natives have a hard time believing that is a true story, & say something to the effect that, in the real world, someone would shortly take a spear to someone who acted that way. The Women tell them that is exactly what happened, & the Supreme God's son let them do it so that we could live by the Supreme God's will for our lives. Remarkable story. The natives change. I'm also reminded of Native Americans (who many times believed in many spirits, but also believed in the Great Spirit), who have accounts from thousands of years before the arrival of Europeans that foretold of the birth of the son of the Great Spirit, his murder, & his resurrection - so that not only their tribe, but all the NDN tiibes, and further all the tribes of the earth would know the oneness that ties us to the Great Spirit and one another.

No doubt, Abigail, TWI did all that I said, & all that you said, to Allan others, & worse to many. And I know that he is afraid. It is precisely the fear that keeps him from deliverance. But he can be honest & be freed immediately & then start to unlearn & learn. I obviated enough for him if he wants out of his enslavements. Giving ear to his evil intrusions simply gives place to the evil. It doesn't help him or anyone else. I'm not leaving GS, just leaving, as I said, the evil in his heart - by putting him on ignore - as I said - soon, so the choice is his. The goodness that overcomes evil is still present here and there on the forums. The pleasure of your company will continue I trust, Abigail, but I'm not going to talk about Allan anymore. Love ya, Tom

You've got that right, Abigail. All Allan is interested in is himself. Followers of Jesus are known by their love, their wisdom giving evidence that they have been with the Master, their selflessness, & the light of their countenance. Allan is known by the feeling of dislike for people that is so strong he can't help but to act upon it as a lust, his stupidity, his rediculous looking ego, and the filthy imagery of his heart. If his persona is associated with any name biblically, it is little satan. It's not that he doesn't care about the appearance of evil that he projects , he does - not like "his" NEW TESTAMENT tells him to, as in "avoid any appearance of evil," but in cultivating it as a part of the lust encasing his heart. Are you getting off as you read this, Allan - imagining as you call it, my spurting head & mmm, those brown spots on the other side - uh, uh, put that tongue back in your mouth & those hands back in your pockets - or under your butt if you still have control. Allan, you have to be intensely aware what an embarrassment you are to the body of Christ. Embarrassing public whoring is part of your spiritual/sexual sado masochistic lust enslavement. Is the pleasure worth your wholeness? The things that enslave you are nothing to God. Deliverance is available. You just have to be honest, want it, not want the evil, & believe God can do it. It is NOT a big deal. But I'm leaving now & will soon be out of earshot of the filth in your heart . You can too, & we can fulfil His joy, be likeminded, have the same love, having compassion one of another, love as brethren, & be courteous. Or not. Me too, sweetheart :)

That's great stuff, Abigail - thanks. I'll take the time to look further. It's good having you here. Tom