rhino

I don't remember who was there, it was just three or four and vince as I recall. Maybe they were trying to demonstrate how to work an idea. To mix threads a little ... imagine if there was an offering taken or the local host fellowships did some collection for the traveling minstrels. The minstrels would have been directly taken care of, maybe even well paid. There would have been less drive to push the sales aspect ... the musicians would have been independent. Instead there was maybe more of the hard sell or the shill or whatever, but the freedom of the musicians instead came under corporate control, and I guess they were not paid much at all, leading to more anxieties and stress. Sending all the money to the "top" made everyone subject to the supreme leader ... vp. I guess some were just trapped, and some loved their job or their mission or co-workers enough to work dirt cheap.

You have it wrong ... she was on the other thread but would not support her position ... fine i guess ... but the book was brought up on that thread, and I referred to all I could find out about the book's authority, since it pertained to that thread. Then eyes made a false accusation that she was attacked without being given a chance to respond. I didn't follow her there ... I responded to her false accusation. So since she made that attack, I responded. Before that, she could say whatever she wanted to sell her book on her thread. Then there was the doctrinal thread ... except there was no doctrine. Eyes is not debating anything ... she thinks the Bible is flawed and hateful, and she won't discuss her book ... you have to buy it to debate her. That finally got cleared up. Despite what her buddies are contributing ... she has been disingenuous. Most post on threads to discuss ... that has not happened ... just the "it's in my book, and I'm not tellin'" retort. WW seemed to recognize that earlier and left earlier ... but I don't think he was accused of anything.

This guy I knew, Serge ... for some reason just always "spoke in tongues" in his native tongue ... he was from ... ummm, Dominican, Jamaica? ... anyway, he may have left a trail of folks that think they witnessed a miracle of someone "speaking in tongues" in a language they happened to understand.

I guess I didn't realize you were trying to sell your book by claiming it contained some special insight, that you would not reveal here. You gave some verses already, and your interpretation made no sense to me, so I don't think it gets any better. But again, if you say the Bible we are working from is flawed and hateful, why even bother trying to use it? I guess it is like Piffle and like you said in your book thread, if you have questions AFTER you read my book ... The answer is "take the class" "buy my book". I still think you would be better off if you paraded your credentials on the Amazon site ...

I'm not sure you meant this to be humorous ... but it is ... I'm intelligent but ridiculous and "acting stupid"? People (most of Christendom?) that believe differently have a strong Biblical basis for what they believe on this issue. You seem to have none, and yet try to claim some biblical backing for what you say. Now at the same time you say people that seem to have a very clear backing from the Bible for what they say ... are not based on the Bible. It is not a cheap shot ... you have no doctrinal backing, yet you claim the Bible before it became flawed and hateful ... agreed with you. So those original texts you speak of ... are nothing like what we ended up with ... that makes no sense. Why not just say your beliefs are NOT based on the Bible ... because what we do have in the bible does not agree with what you think God would say on this issue. Isn't that more honest?

My point about the staged toilet seat shill, was that it was a known and used technique, to use the shill. The Takit thing, we were in Charleston sometime '79/80, Steve Sa+tini's living room maybe ... anyway .. Vince and a few from JN were sitting there with us, and Vince and all pretended to be deciding on the name of the group ... someone would say, how about blah blah ... evolving to taking it .. then blah blah ... then someone says Takit .. then blah blah ... like the whole thing had evolved right then in ten minutes. It didn't start with taking it to the top even ... and no mention that these had been discussed before. I don't know if they actually said that was progressive revelation or whatever, but that is how I recall it. I think it was just corps there, so it seemed they were trying to look spiritual or something ... it seemed odd even then, like to make us feel part of this inspirational moment. I understand JN would no doubt do the same intro's at times ... or sometimes improv ... but this was more play acting but trying to really trick us into thinking it was happening right then. So it fit with the "shill" thread. I wasn't saying anything about where the real "inspiration" for the name "Takit" came from. Here is the link from a couple years ago I found where Sunesis says they came up with it at HQ.

OK ... this would make your opinion clearer ... IF you are talking about the Bible... is that the hateful doctrine you are referring to? If it is, then it seems you would have no reason to bother trying to interpret what the Bible really means ... you are just saying the Bible, at least as we have it, is hateful and flawed. Is that right?

Of course I used that term because you said it here first, I was replying to you. But it seems we need to review again ... You "innocently" offered opinion there was simple enough, except you had already said you had written a book on the subject. So you were really throwing your weight around on that thread... yet you refused to respond to questions, as opposed to your claim here that you were attacked without having a chance to expound. That was YOUR false accusation here. So I just gave you the .. OK, I "attacked" ... BUT ... and it's a big but ... As we have said and you still don't admit, you had every chance and refused, but dug in deeper about your professors and whatever else ... So in response to the "hey, she wrote a book, she doesn't have to answer" ... I gave my opinion that there was no evidence the book meant you had any credentials ... I really did not attack ... and you had every chance to respond but refused. I only "attacked" the authority you seemed to imply. You played the author/professor card ... and I played the no evidence of scholarship card. All in the context of questioning the validity of your unfounded opinion. Then you came back here and "attacked" those people for not giving you a chance ... which you have yet to admit was simple not true. Then you quoted my two words, ignoring the context of my post. But thanks for once again bringing it up ...

The idea of the "practice session" using different letters or whatever, sure smacks of deliberately making a better fake SIT experience. And how did vp know "beep beep beep boop boop boop" was not a legit language? Anyway, I guess faking it was OK, just don't say betty boop boop has a nice beep beep.

I was interested to see if there were Biblical doctrinal explanations allowing that homosexual acts were Okie Dokie, as some suggested, but I don't see that at all. As far as I see, the Bible says homosexual acts are wrong ... I don't know about the "sin" part. TWI is hardly a standard of how most Christians treat homosexuals. Though depending how you look at TWI, it may be they are very accepting. What does Rosie say? But as accepting of homosexuals as most Christians may be, it seems they can still hold to their beliefs of what the bible says about the homosexual act. It certainly does not seem normal ... the gay sex act does not seem the least bit normal. I'm thinking most (normal?) people cringe at the idea of doing that thang. Even joking about it, that is the reaction I've seen. The Howard Stern crowd may claim it is wonderful (for heterosexuals), but the general response seems to be eeeewwwww. Christian or not, most people find that unseemly, so maybe there is wide agreement with the bible on this subject after all. It doesn't mean they want to put sodomists in prison or control them or mistreat the people that do those acts. I just don't see the point in trying to rewrite the Bible.

Rhinos smell nice, but pigs stink. Unless you have lost your sense of smell, or find a clean system, you may not want pigs. Most neighbors protest when hog operation goes in anywhere near them. It seems they must like that pig for the particular mix of meat and fat. $40/lb sounds pretty high on the hog ... so maybe it is a tall pig. I hear the faltering house building industry and general economic slowness is suppressing the deer hunting here for next year ... some of these wealthy guys are less wealthy now, and trying to sell the huge houses they built.

When vp came through wv on my interim year, we met briefly for breakfast, but we talked about getting older people to stay with the ministry, instead of just all the youngsters. We spoke of a few, and he was very interested in the subject. It seems maybe he wanted some besides "kids' to give him an air of legitimacy, perhaps. So any adults would have helped his image ... maybe.

don't you get those emails ... add an inch? it may rain more tonight also ...

Well, waysider can help rewrite pete and repete ... my beans are going in as we speak (inoculated with peat) ... so I'm "feeling my oats" another inch coming tonight maybe, but should get almost all in ... (open bar at the back of the BRC during all "teachings", why should the teacher be the only one drunk?)

you're in charge of PR excie ... I'll name a book in my Bible after you ... send me $100 and I'll ordain you too ...

Of course we will do that ... and make our own yogurt ... and don't forget the wheat berries ... By the way, I'm writing a more perfect Bible ... so if you want to get in on that, you better show up ... God bless I love you you are the best ... (unless you don't show up with money, in which case you are possessed) yes bumpy, you spread the word in europe, and bring the beer maids ...

yeah, I want to hear the details, because I will offer an alternative path to spiritual nirvana ... on my farm, they will need sponsorship, but it will be spent on them ... ALL I want is 5 hours a day honest labor ... the rest will include fishing, beer, swimming, nature watching, beer, water skiing, social activities, sports, beer, excercise optional, shared meals, time off, horse riding, hunting, beer ... I'll teach them volleyball skills, we'll grow grapes and make our own wine ... a commune, except I get their labor for free.... and I guess I can send them home whenever all the work is done they get possessed or fall out of fellowship. I guess I could bootleg some old waydaze stuff .. but that would be optional ... most learning would be over the internet and they could choose from several universities .... I admit I'd be taking advantage of them, but it would be a lot more fun than that other thang (as I see it).

Starting a new thread on this ... so as not to derail the ordination thread too badly ... waysider said rhino said waysider said George Aar said another I saw ... vince and his WayPro gang were in WV, and they pretended to go through this "progressive revelation" thing, wherin they came up with the name for "Takit". It seemed put on at the time, and someone here before confirmed it was staged. Maybe most of these incredible events were "performance art" ... like those mimes on the streets of New Orleans, except these people tried to get their money money dishonestly ... still, it was hat in hand ... any more shill stories?

I also saw it used by TWI another place ... more crudely. Clauddete travelling with the black quartet, told the story of being on the WOW field, what is the thing that bugs you most about the guys ... and pretty peggio from the audience yells, "not putting the toilet seat down". Rather obviously staged ... but it got a laugh. Clauddete says "right" and does her sitting on the cold seat spiel. Maybe vp taught them how well shills can work. Maybe it was common practice. (maybe that's a new thread :))

They can glom off the residue of "true believers" that are still carrying the weight of believing on their shoulders. (since so many copped out) Of course it would be those people's kids that would be prime to go through the experience that dear old Dad and Mom had. Oddly, it does seem there are still some that are living the "dream".

As to what the author of this book being announced has expounded here so far ... it seems there is no clear Biblical backing to the title question. Homosexual acts are lumped in with things that are still considered wrong. Saying they have no choice so it is not sin, seems the same as saying a kleptomaniac has no choice, so theft is not wrong. (I'm not saying the homosexual act is the same as stealing, but saying that using that logic to make either one "right", is wrong) Also that argument does not seem "doctrinal". My main contention is that it is fine for people to believe what they want, but to try to revise Christianity to coerce Christians to change their beliefs seems intrusive to their freedoms. It seems much more honest to say "I've looked at the Bible and I disagree with it on this subject", than to revise the Bible and to make it say what you want ... and say "see here, you were wrong about your Bible beliefs, you don't even know your own book". I like most of what Christianity has done ... so this issue seems like a case of an attempt to change a fundamental part of the religion. I doubt eyes is part of some grand conspiracy, but this issue is nationally contentious, and revising the Bible to make it accept homosexual acts as the norm seems a dishonest way to try to change Christians. Of course some churches are making the changes on their own, but it seems those move away from the more strict interpretation, which is fine, if it is their choice. I know this thread is an announcement, not a discussion ... but since a negative critique of people that disagreed was introduced, it seems this thread really is open for discussion.

I prefer the "free dictionary" instead of that bound up Miriam, though that could be fun too I suppose. 1. Given to contention; quarrelsome. 2. Involving or likely to cause contention; controversial: A central and contentious element of the book... Since I was referring to what was said, and not eyes as a person, then usage two fits ... when you say the Bible says homosexual acts are not "wrong", then that is controversial. And to say it is wrong with the implied authorities (book, professor), but refusing to engage in further discussion ... leaves it as a wall of contention, so to speak. Then in her threadto say she was attacked before being give a chance is another contentious revision. and here we are ... I think kimberly and eyes may have used usage one about some people that had disagreed and sought clarification. I only recall referring to what was said in that other thread. CONTENTION. which only referred to what eyes had said. Their response was a more sweeping judgment about the character of these attacking hateful people.

Well just to be the cynic, I wouldn't put it past vp, in his efforts to impress and win over good old dad, to put a couple folks in the audience to speak in their tongue they knew and give the interpretation. I knew an educated guy that used to always "speak in tongues" in his native language, then give the english version. Pretty convenient really. And I wonder the point of the tongues and interpretation anyway ... if there is some reason for the tongues part to be unknown, why would God give out tongues that were known in this instance? Twice? And it makes no sense to me ... when they say what is the profit if there is no interpretation ... I say what is the profit even with the interpretation? It's funny the questions that pop up when you remove divine authority from the Bible (or from the person teaching you the Bible) Anyway ... just letting Sam know there are a variety of opinions here :)

I said you fired the first shot ... in that you claimed the verses said something else about homosexual acts. Your book was brought up and you already had a thread about your book, so it is not like that was not known when your comments were made. Anyway .. then you wouldn't give reason why you felt what you did. contentious just means given to controversy ... so I tried to find more about your secret verses. And I agreed with jen-o, you could have given some reason without rewriting your 40 pages on the subject ... On a thread on that subject ... you made a contention that you would not back up, despite your 30 years of research. But then on this thread you "attacked" those whom you said never gave you a chance to respond. That's all ... no big deal ...

I think rascal has some animals ... make she could tell you where to go ... :)