T-Bone

Hi all, Does anyone know what happened to the picture gallery and the pictures that many of us had in our profile account? I had some from the Rock, advanced class, my WOW year and corps training.

Hey all, this is a follow up to my previous post – I had some other ideas about Jesus’ remarks on the two great commandments in Matthew 22… after listening to Twinky’s post from her church’s streaming service – a kid, Lucas reading from James 2: 14 - 26 and Simon’s talk on faith in word and deed – I felt my other ideas were now crystalized enough to try and articulate them. By the way, thanks for that, Twinky – an incredible sermon to say the least! One of the things that really stood out was his story of a vicar who was so very busy – a homeless lady came up to him desperately pleading for help; the busy vicar kindly dismissed her - saying he was too busy but promised he would pray for her. The homeless lady then wrote a poem and gave it to the local shelter officer. What really got to me was the aloofness sometimes found in folks who are too busy in their religious duties…parts of the poem: “I was hungry and you formed a humanities group to discuss my hunger…I was sick and you knelt and thanked God for your health…I was lonely and you left me alone to pray for me…” another stunning line was what someone said to Simon after a violent encounter while Simon and others were helping some street kids in Brazil – the person said to Simon “pity cries and then goes away – but compassion stays.” great stuff – thanks again for that, Twinky – I think Simon is truly a great servant for Christ!!! So getting back to some things I thought of while drafting my previous post – about Matthew 22, Jesus summing up the law and the prophets with just two great commandments – the first is to love God (v. 37) and the second – Jesus said is LIKE the first – love your neighbor as yourself (v. 39). A word stuck out to me – “And a second is like it: You shall love your neighbor as yourself.” It appears that Jesus is drawing some similarity between the first command love God and the second command to love your neighbor as yourself. That little word “like” conveys the idea that the two commandments have the same characteristics, qualities or importance…or they are just very similar to each other. What made it even more intriguing to me was the obvious omission of mentioning the first great commandment to love God in the epistles that I referenced in my previous post, calling attention to only the second great commandment – to love your neighbor as yourself (Rom. 13: 8, 9; Gal. 5:14; James 2:8 ). Now I don’t know what to make of that and I’m just thinking out loud here… …I’m wondering if the reason those verses focused on only the second commandment is because of the tendency we have to get so wrapped up in “our relationship with God” and our service/devotion to God we forget about our connection with others…I can still remember with crystal clarity, a major breakthrough in realizing the importance of the second command to love my neighbor as myself. It happened a few months after I left TWI and was in the early stages of shedding that prideful elitist mindset. I was in a supermarket by myself - and as I was nonchalantly doing some people watching – a thought stabbed me right in the heart – I am no better than anyone else here…I began crying and then had to stifle my emotions so I could continue shopping and check out at the register. That was just one of the many watershed moments I’ve had in casting off some cultic attitudes… …Anyway – a few passages come to mind…in the gospel of Luke, a lawyer summed up the requirements of the law exactly as Jesus had done in Matthew 22: 25 And behold, a lawyer stood up to put him to the test, saying, “Teacher, what shall I do to inherit eternal life?” 26 He said to him, “What is written in the Law? How do you read it?” 27 And he answered, “You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your strength and with all your mind, and your neighbor as yourself.” 28 And he said to him, “You have answered correctly; do this, and you will live.” 29 But he, desiring to justify himself, said to Jesus, “And who is my neighbor?” 30 Jesus replied, “A man was going down from Jerusalem to Jericho, and he fell among robbers, who stripped him and beat him and departed, leaving him half dead. 31 Now by chance a priest was going down that road, and when he saw him he passed by on the other side. 32 So likewise a Levite, when he came to the place and saw him, passed by on the other side. 33 But a Samaritan, as he journeyed, came to where he was, and when he saw him, he had compassion. 34 He went to him and bound up his wounds, pouring on oil and wine. Then he set him on his own animal and brought him to an inn and took care of him. 35 And the next day he took out two denarii and gave them to the innkeeper, saying, ‘Take care of him, and whatever more you spend, I will repay you when I come back.’ 36 Which of these three, do you think, proved to be a neighbor to the man who fell among the robbers?” 37 He said, “The one who showed him mercy.” And Jesus said to him, “You go, and do likewise.”…Luke 10: 25 – 37 ESV What I find so interesting (and self-incriminating ) in the Luke account is how Jesus exposed and rebuked the cancerous self-righteous attitude (note v.29, the lawyer “desiring to justify himself”) found in some groups who think they are totally correct or morally superior when compared to others. I am fascinated by Jesus reversing the lawyer’s original question in v. 29 “who is my neighbor?”. What I’ve garnered from some commentaries and The International Standard Bible Encyclopedia is that the prevailing opinion among Pharisees and scribes (“scribes” and “lawyers” are interchangeable in the Gospels – “Scribes had knowledge of the law and could draft legal documents contracts for marriage, divorce, loans, inheritance, mortgages, the sale of land, and the like). Every village had at least one scribe.” From Britannica: Scribes and Pharisees ) was that one’s neighbors were the righteous ones – i.e. part of their religious group. Similar to the prevailing opinion in TWI – with ideas like they’re the only group who has more of the “rightly-divided Word” than anyone else and unless you are born again and now are composed of body, soul and spirit then you are just an empty floating by…So I think it might be safe to say the lawyer more or less assumed it was up to others to prove themselves worthy enough to be his neighbor. Jesus’ reversal makes it clear that the lawyer must prove himself to be a good neighbor by tending to someone in need who has crossed his path. In a similar vein, the Sermon on the Mount stresses the importance of loving your neighbor – most notably in Matthew 5: 23, 24, “So if you are offering your gift at the altar and there remember that your brother has something against you, leave your gift there before the altar and go. First be reconciled to your brother, and then come and offer your gift. “… Jesus more or less puts reconciliation with a brother as a higher priority over devotion and worship …and in Matthew 7: 12 where Jesus talks about the golden rule “So whatever you wish that others would do to you, do also to them, for this is the Law and the Prophets.” Notice once again how Jesus underscores the ethical principle of “love your neighbor as yourself” in the law and the prophets.

Waxit, I believe we all can have a productive conversation if we all really listen, ask questions, be respectful and find common ground. And generally speaking, folks like to have their ideas validated – nothing wrong with wanting that. I've found that really productive discussions involving theology, doctrine, theory and practice tend to go through a refining process – where everyone tries to get down to the nitty gritty of the issues – by focusing on the most important or fundamental aspects of the issues. There is often a give and take that goes on – concessions and compromises – and sometimes something significant is achieved. From my own experience on Grease Spot there’s been times: I’ve abandoned, modified, expanded, changed or simply validated my position on something; broadened my horizon; gained a deeper understanding of something by listening to someone else’s perspective on it. Per your request and as a gesture of good faith, I will briefly state where I’m coming from – although I think one’s belief system is very complex and usually doesn’t lend itself to being conveniently pigeonholed – as you’ll see in the qualifiers I tack on to my position on stuff – and maybe you’ll find some common ground in all this. I am somewhat of a Christian agnostic - I do follow the basic tenets of the Christian faith – but when it comes to God - I do believe in God but feel that there is so much more about the Creator that goes way beyond my understanding or any theology. I do regard the Bible as the Word of God. Even though it has obvious errors and contradictions, especially in some historical or scientific matters – However, I believe any problems are few and far between in matters of faith – the basic tenets of Christianity – such as the birth, life, death, resurrection and ascension of Jesus Christ and all that accomplished…loving God…loving my neighbor as myself…sin, repentance, forgiveness, etc...and anyway "technically" speaking my faith is placed in a person (Jesus Christ ) rather than in a book. But if anything the Bible is certainly one of the means of developing my relationship with Jesus Christ. Also I wanted to be honest and upfront with you about your statement “an agnostic that doesnt regard the bible as the word of God when rightly divided with no contradictions in other parts of the bible”…”Rightly divided” is an interesting and unusual KJV phrase. I think it has been co-opted by various groups – becoming something of a catchphrase that goes well beyond the original idea that it was intended to convey. For some folks “rightly divided” seems to function as loaded language to persuade folks that their interpretation of the Bible or a particular passage is the correct and only valid explanation…Just wanted to let everyone know when I read “rightly divided” in a post, I automatically translate it to “in my opinion the correct interpretation of the passage is as follows…” . Hopefully some sound principles of interpretation were involved in the process…for more on principles of interpretation see Wikipedia Hermeneutics and Stanford Ency. of Philosophy: Hermeneutics and regarding KJV phrase "rightly dividing" see What did Paul mean by rightly dividing for an interesting read. Waxit, hopefully we all can look past what folks say regarding their own beliefs – not dismissing or pre-judging them. That will encourage folks to think outside their own theological box – and that will truly be a productive discussion. == == == Having said all that – I want to address your other post. Waxit, I agree that the basis, foundation…the reason behind obeying the law and the prophets should always be doing it out of love for God and neighbor. But I don’t see why you assume that means the command to keep the Sabbath is still in effect. You may be technically correct in claiming Jesus ".. never said, you can ignore His laws & commandments (Including the 7th day sabbath)"...But I don't think he needed to say that, because he is obviously explaining a "law" that supersedes all that...the law of love...The way Jesus explained the law in Matthew 22 makes me think of an attorney in the courtroom interpreting what is the intent of the law...This "law" of love is obviously a ruling factor in Romans 14 regarding how one should behave around others who may have different convictions than we do...the intent of the law has always been to engender love. Matter of fact there are several passages in the epistles that echo that simple summation in Matthew 22 of “love thy neighbor” and actually do not mention any specific laws that we are obliged to keep – see Rom. 13: 8, 9; Gal. 5:14; James 2:8…it seems to me "the law" has always been about love. Love is the common denominator of anything God has asked of believers. so if a verse like Galatians 5:14 says “For the whole law is fulfilled in one word: “You shall love your neighbor as yourself” and “fulfilled” means satisfied, brought to completion or accomplished – so I was wondering why do you think Christians are duty-bound - morally or legally obliged to keep the Sabbath?

From The Bourne Identity - here is the scene of Jason talking to Marie in the diner     – screenplay rewritten as Jason on his way to L.E.A.D. I’m not making this up – (tosses his way corps name-tag on the table) this name-tag is real. And who else would have an empty safe deposit box, only $20 in their pocket and a road-map to Tinnie, New Mexico? Oh I appreciate you buying me breakfast, by the way...Anyway, I come in this diner and the first thing I do is figure out how I can kick everyone out - in case I had to run a class. I can tell you the license plate numbers of the two cars outside that have Way bumper stickers. I recognize that stray dog in the parking lot from an old porn video. I can tell you the waitress is wearing a little gold crucifix and might be a good candidate for the PFAL class and that the 250 pound guy at the counter is a Bible salesman and thinks he knows how to handle “the Word”. I know that the best chance of a ride out of here is in either one of the two cars with Way bumper stickers or that tractor trailer hauling cattle to Hereford, Texas. I know I can go for days without sleep, be subjected to repeated face-meltings and public humiliation, and still do the 4 fifteens and run 5 miles before breakfast. Now why would I know all that?... And why would I remember all that but forget about my personal identity?

Good TED talk, thanks Rocky…I enjoyed that. I got a kick out of the story of someone asking Dr. Einstein why he issued an exam with the same questions as last year – and his response was that the answers have changed…love that…probably why some of my belief system is in a state of flux – still asking some of the same questions I’ve asked before – but it seems like the answers have changed.

that stuff is funny, Inkernet ! sometimes when people would ask me what's something heavy that I learned from the Advanced Class, I would say "found out that Mickey Mouse is wrong seed."

That “silent treatment” from wierwille sounds vaguely familiar. ..that type of behavior by wierwille (and other leadership as well) was but a foretaste of the punishment and manipulation that would lie ahead in way corps training: “The silent treatment is a way to inflict pain without visible bruising – literally...Research has shown that the act of ignoring or excluding activates the same area of the brain that is activated by physical pain…The silent treatment can tend to present itself as a response more fitting of the ‘high road’, one of grace and dignity, but research has shown it is anything but… Kipling Williams, a Professor of Psychology at Purdue University who has studied ostracism for twenty years, explains, ‘Excluding and ignoring people, such as giving them the cold shoulder or silent treatment, are used to punish or manipulate, and people may not realise the emotional or physical harm that is being done.’..The ability to detect ostracism is hardwired in us – it doesn’t matter if you’re being ignored by a group or a person you can’t stand, the pain still registers…” From Hey Sigmund website == == == It’s odd how certain things will stick in my memory – like stuff from Advanced Class ’78. There’s only a few things that stick out in my mind from that class: craig’s anti-Semitic rantings about the Thirteenth Tribe and questioning leadership (more on that in a second), a video of David Noebel talking about stuff out of his book The Marxist Minstrels - followed by wierwille and craig elaborating on a lot of big name musicians (like the Beatles) were either wrong seed or heavily influenced by devil spirits. And the most disturbing memory of all from that class is of my wife being put through an emotional and intellectual wringer over the "technicalities" of how to become born again of the wrong seed… ...btw, since I left TWI my opinion of that whole teaching on being born again of the wrong seed is that it's totally bogus – and not something I care to discuss here – the doctrinal forum is the place for that – I am just bringing it up as it relates to one of those turning-off-the-switch-moments-in-critical-thinking . My wife was in a Twig at Advanced Class ’78 (btw, married couples were separated in sleeping quarters and in Twig placement). Tonto (my wife) got into an argument with the Twig leader who emphatically kept making the assertion that one could only become born again of the wrong seed by addressing Satan directly at an altar and saying something along the lines of Satan you are my Lord. Well, this brouhaha went all the way up the mini-Way-Tree-of-Advanced-Class-’78 - and no surprise, was more fuel to add to the fire (as Skyrider mentioned the 8th corps guys going rogue on research paper) so, another confrontational-rant by craig – that we should not question leadership...so to sum up the message to my wife - coming straight from the top was "leadership is always right, you're wrong, so shut up". == == == == On a lighter note, at Advanced Class ’79, I remember Del D. on stage telling about how he was so nervous anticipating meeting wierwille for the first time. Del said he expected that when he would see him, wierwille would thrust his arm out with pointed finger at him saying “you’re wrong seed, you’re wrong seed!” ....I loved it ! I sort of identified with Del - not that I ever thought that I was wrong seed - but I definitely had low self-esteem issues and often doubted if I was really born again, going to heaven and all that jazz. == == == The only thing I found on You Tube was some Acts 29 clips – but it appears other bands used that name too.

…Skyrider, your comments about subjugation and corps grads needing to have a splinter group leader over their decisions got me thinking about the attachment theory… Subjugate is the old divide-and-conquer strategy…The interview article below describes the “trifecta of terror, love, and brainwashing as key to cult behavior”: “People come into cults through a variety of pathways and bring with them a variety of personality types. In addition, many are born into cults. But the one thing that seems to be supported by research is that new followers are more easily recruited when they are at a normal life “blip,” as Margaret Singer put it—if one is between affiliations, such as moving house, going to university, getting married or divorced or breaking up a relationship, experiencing bereavement. A person embarking on such changes may be looking for a new relationship, hobby, religious affiliation, or even a new gym (yes, there are many fitness-based cults). And all such changes can expose a person to a recruitment attempt. But in my view, the main vulnerability factor is ignorance. A person lacking knowledge of how cults target and recruit people and the mechanisms they use to entrap people may not be able to identify a coercion attempt when targeted." You identify a trifecta of terror, love, and brainwashing as key to cult behavior. Can you explain the intersection of the three? “The same dynamic that occurs in domestic violence also applies to cults. First a person is lured to group or person who seemingly shares their interests and concerns. They may then be subject to a kind of love-bombing, given extreme amounts of attention, which can feel flattering and seem the sign of having found a safe place. Then begins an attempt to isolate the person from friends and family. The potential recruit becomes engulfed in a new system and out of touch with their old, known network. That paves the way for the group to engage in “terror” tactics, arousing a sense of threat, whether it’s fear of the apocalypse, fear of being criticized, fear of the outside world, or some other group-specific fear. I believe attachment theory provides a good theoretical approach for understanding brainwashing, and it holds that people run to a safe haven when they are afraid. If the group has been successful, the recruit, now having had fear instilled by the group, runs to the only safe haven available—the group itself." What are the consequences? "There are two effects of running to the group. First, it creates a disorganized attachment bond, what Judith Herman described as a trauma bond in her book, Trauma and Recovery. It is strong bond that is difficult to break so long as the person remains isolated from alternate safe havens. Emotional and cognitive isolation are key, not necessarily physical isolation. Cults isolate followers by controlling their personal relationships and by restricting information sources to the cult. Second, the disorganized attachment, characterized by running to the source of fear, causes dissociation. Running to the source of fear obviously doesn’t provide escape from the threat. Because it is a maladaptive way of coping with threat, the person goes into a “freeze” mode and is unable to think clearly about what is happening. This explains why perfectly intelligent people can find themselves unable to rationally view a cult they are involved with. It is literally too frightening and disorganizing to do so. The lack of alternate information and true havens undermine a follower’s cognitive processes on matters regarding the group. The cult can now do the thinking for them—the essence of brainwashing.” from Psychology Today

Good point, Rocky…makes me think of another passage that addresses a similar issue of small-mindedness: 37 On the next day, when they had come down from the mountain, a great crowd met him. 38 And behold, a man from the crowd cried out, “Teacher, I beg you to look at my son, for he is my only child. 39 And behold, a spirit seizes him, and he suddenly cries out. It convulses him so that he foams at the mouth, and shatters him, and will hardly leave him. 40 And I begged your disciples to cast it out, but they could not.” 41 Jesus answered, “O faithless and twisted generation, how long am I to be with you and bear with you? Bring your son here.” 42 While he was coming, the demon threw him to the ground and convulsed him. But Jesus rebuked the unclean spirit and healed the boy, and gave him back to his father. 43 And all were astonished at the majesty of God. 46 An argument arose among them as to which of them was the greatest. 47 But Jesus, knowing the reasoning of their hearts, took a child and put him by his side 48 and said to them, “Whoever receives this child in my name receives me, and whoever receives me receives him who sent me. For he who is least among you all is the one who is great.” 49 John answered, “Master, we saw someone casting out demons in your name, and we tried to stop him, because he does not follow with us.” 50 But Jesus said to him, “Do not stop him, for the one who is not against you is for you.” …Luke 9: 37-43, 46-50 ESV Perhaps the disciples were envious of someone else doing what they couldn’t do - and maybe were not that altruistic either…But whatever the issues were – I like Jesus’ response which seems to defuse the intolerance and depolarize the differences…so I like Schaeffer’s “why does it seem as if so many Christians still fail to grasp the essential truth of our faith: inclusion and justice?”…inclusion indeed, the body of Christ is a whole lot bigger than we think…perhaps it is something we must continually try to comprehend – that Jesus’ teachings transcend “doctrine, geography, nation, male prerogatives, homophobia and race” et cetera, et cetera, et cetera.

you mean with something like... Sunday Night Teaching duct Tape

I’ll give ‘em all this much, splinter groups have been practicing self-isolation long before it was necessary with the pandemic.

Welcome to Grease Spot, Scott ! I think marked and avoided is a badge of honor around these parts. lately I've been getting into Irish Coffee - so allow me to offer you a cup

Thanks Penworks ! ...and about this thread in general: it looks like memory lane is turning into a freeway.

Brilliant post, Rocky...in my humble opinion your last sentence goes along the same lines as what Paul intended to express in Romans 14

Keep it simple – yes I agree...sorry - I digressed on the supposed difficult / clear principle. ..But you asked “So what's a simple way of reading verses that some might describe as "difficult"?” ....Funny - You’ve just described the current issue with Waxit’s thread on the Sabbath. He asked for one verse that shows the insignificance of keeping the Sabbath – and posters have given him several; going by his lack of response to any one of those verses – it appears, for some reason Waxit is having difficulty addressing those clear simple verses

That’s a great point, Stayed Too Long! Difficult verses just like the clear verses are a matter of opinion – depending on one’s theological viewpoint. There is also the possibility that the supposed difficult verses will remain problematic - no matter how many simple or straightforward verses one assumes relate to the difficult verses. ...to elaborate a little more on this supposed “principle” of interpretation, I would also add that “difficult” is relative to one’s level of knowledge and understanding. A complex topic might challenge one person’s intellectual efforts, but the same topic might be a piece of cake for someone else. For example, I started reading Hamlet – the last time I read Shakespeare was in college - that’s too long ago…age and time have taken their toll on a lot of things I learned in school…anyway, it’s been a real slow read – I lack a good knowledge of the historical period and have difficulty with the language / phraseology of Shakespeare. One thing that helps is reading Hamlet in The Complete Works of Shakespeare, by David Bevington which is like a jam-packed study Bible to me – It’s got footnotes, cultural and historical essays, background on the literary and cultural context. Another big help has been WordWolf – he has an extensive knowledge of Shakespeare / Hamlet – all that is a piece of cake to him…and so in several PMs he has helped me to kick-start a better understanding of Hamlet.

I found this tribute to Rev. Bishop - Tribute to Joseph Bishop - excerpt from the tribute: "...His professional life included stints as senior pastor of the Swarthmore (Pennsylvania) Presbyterian Church from 1948 to 1958, and in the same capacity in Rye, New York, from 1960 to 1982..."

HAPe4me, thanks for the link to the article…I got a kick out of this line in the article: “Sometimes I almost wish they would go back to something simple like smoking a little grass,” says Mrs. Lynn Seiffer, a travel agent who is getting her master’s in library science. “Drugs I can try to understand, but this? This is creepy.”

good question...I don't know - I got in TWI in 1974 - my first Rock was 1975...my first impressions were that it was Peter J Wade...then Bishop KC Pillai...but then I blew that off realizing I was just grasping at hay sticks - as I kept listen to his phraseology (different than way-speak) I was wondering if he was some invited local official like the mayor or something...hey any "old-TWI timers" out there - can you ID this guy?

I found these Rock of Ages videos while I was looking for Bob Stanley Acts 29 on You Tube...enjoy...obviously if you don't like a portion of the video feel free to fast forward it. Rock of Ages 1972 Rock of Ages 1972 part 2 Rock of Ages 1975 Rock of Ages 1975 part 2 Rock of Ages 1986 part 1

According to one website - “The average lifespan of a rattlesnake is 20 to 30 years in captivity. In the wild, the lifespan is less due to predation, disease or death by accident.” The allegorical implications of this informative tidbit are obvious. In the real world, the lifespan of a “rattlesnake” (aka cult leader) would be less due to having to deal with their fair share of trials and tribulations like everyone else. However, in way-world …I mean, in captivity – or rather, as a cult leader who oversees the captivity of others – well…for some gosh-awful reason – these rattlesnakes tend to live a lot longer....d@mn mooches. (note - original website link I posted for the quote did not work -so I'm adding a different one ( here ) as a consolation prize ...now how much would you pay for this post? But wait there's more - want to know if a cult leader is evil or bad - i.e. a rattlesnake ? check out this link - Dangerous Cult Leaders

It does sound interesting – and might be right up my “philosophical alley”. I’m probably somewhat of a Christian agnostic, if I had to describe myself “Christian agnosticism. Christian agnostics practice a distinct form of agnosticism that applies only to the properties of God. They hold that it is difficult or impossible to be sure of anything beyond the basic tenets of the Christian faith.” from Wikipedia Christian Agnosticism I had a coming-out-of-fundamentalism-party on another thread ( here ) … I like Frank Schaeffer's style of writing; I’ve read another one of his books - Sex, Mom, and God: How the Bible's Strange Take on Sex Led to Crazy Politics--and How I Learned to Love Women (and Jesus) Anyway - There is a chapter called Sex with the Ice Sculpture, an hilarious story of him at 10 years old carving an ice woman out of the deep wet snow and then proceeded to yada yada yada (oh no, he yada yada’d over the best part )…anyway, thanks for sharing, Rocky – I’ve put that book on my wish list…fyi – your link did not work – if you were just trying to show the book on Amazon – here it is "Why I am an Atheist Who Believes in God" book on Amazon

Just remember with folks well versed in theological debates it can mean one verse versus another verse. Hopefully if folks are not averse to goofiness it will not have an adverse effect - and folks will continue to converse amicably.

Thanks for that, Rocky ! Some deep thoughts there… By the way, you mentioned The Atlantic on another thread – after which I added their website to my favorites…have not taken the time to check it out much since I’ve been bogged down with homework from your “Remember when, PFLAP, VP…” thread – I’m slooooooooowly reading Hamlet.

I came to this thread today to get out from under the shadow of great bass players and all you did was push me in deeper. Great album, Waysider – I bought that from Amazon in 2006 – and probably after you or someone on Grease Spot played a track.