T-Bone

How about finishing Penworks’ book Undertow first now switching to urgent public service message mode: why wait another administration to finish reading Undertow - don’t get left behind - of those in the know.

YOU have just described to a T the counterfeit ministry of wierwille! wierwille’s “relationship” with an imaginary god who tolerated his depraved lifestyle - he obeyed his own lusts instead of obeying the moral directives of the Bible. …self-love to the max ! wierwille had that lovey dovey chatty idolatry with an imaginary god and often let followers in on it - “Father showed me this” he used to say to slip in some hidden-Gnosticism-spin on a passage.”the Bible interprets itself” really means wierwille interprets it for you . Congrats, Mike you nailed it! Oh what wierwille-infused idolatry doth romp in cyberspace - if only one would realize it.

Thanks for the reminder - that’s one of my issues - I forget stuff

I know I have issues - but not with a delusional disorder…I’ve sought professional mental health help, have meds and therapies…so no sore spot here…I’m just satisfied with how it’s going and thought you -and the rest of the Hive-Mike-Collective that YOU suggested on another post - might find helpful - and they might have group rates. IT guys know cool stuff like checking the IP addresses and server routes - but Shingles doesn’t care…honey badgers don’t give a damn

On the contrary observe the quadruple principle in John 14,15, and 16…it’s the Father > the Son > the Holy Spirit > you…and given the truth that God set this “flow” it could also be you > the Holy Spirit > the Son > the Father. But this is merely my linear thinking as a finite being stuck in a specific space-time continuum -who can say how God works all this stuff out - certainly not me, you , wierwille or anyone else. to summarize: YOU have ZERO Scripture to back up your limited view of a prayer relationship- and I limited myself to just 3 entire chapters of John to support the quadruple principle .

Just a suggestion but you might find a real deal in a licensed mental health provider for help with a Delusional Disorder

I can only imagine how you see God’s plan. From the logic of all your other posts it probably involves a senile, weak, forgetful and sin-tolerant imaginary god like the one wierwille promoted. Maybe you’re projecting that counterfeit construct onto others.

What a bunch of pontificating bull-$hit Only from the mind of Mike who is incapable of distinguishing fact from fiction, truth from lies seems like he prefers to endorse wierwille’s absent Christ theology to a genuine relationship with Jesus Christ…oh well…his loss…but he must be happy acting as wierwille’s proxy high priest to provide a spiritual status report about everyone.

Merely interpolations on your part

I figured it was probably from Pillai’s work - TWI drew a lot in his stuff - I remember that from taking their Orientalisms class with Bo R. And not that there’s anything wrong with Pillai’s work - maybe it’s just me comparing the work of J Walton and M Heiser to Pillai ; I think Pillai produced explanations more palatable to Christians ; whereas The Cultural Backgrounds Bible (Walton) and M Heiser in his studies of Demons, Angels, Divine Council include other aspects of the ancient cultures - which the Hebrew religion did not ignore but they made certain to portray their God as supreme over all the other deities. on the idiom of permission thread in doctrinal I shared some stuff from the Cultural Backgrounds Bible - that gets into this different worldview - -the ancient culture worldviews (plural actually) - the writers of the Bible didn’t ignore other cultures around them - they often did a little revising - to portray their God as way above and over all other deities. That was my thinking in using the Cultural Backgrounds Bible note to argue that a theme of Job 9 seems to be we feeble little humans need someone MORE than human to arbitrate with a divine being of such magnitude as God Almighty - - such as the divine Son of God Almighty.

Great post, Skyrider ! You got me thinking about what is communicated subliminally to a newcomer while attending Twig. The newcomer sees the twig coordinator directing the manifestations. I don't think what wierwille / TWI taught and practiced about the manifestations was biblically correct. I don't find a master of ceremonies in I Corinthians 14 . We don't have a video of their meetings - but is it possible folks just had a casual manner - if someone felt inspired they'd stand up and pray...or stand up and prophesy.

WordWolf’s post alerted me to the problem – good catch WordWolf! I read the whole chapter of Job 9 (I copied it further below from NIV) and realized there are a few issues with that Way Mag article – one of the most glaring is the attack on the Trinity...so first here is the Wag Mag article from Mike's post: It is, if we use God’s Word to enlighten our imaginations with accurate “Word pictures.” I Timothy 2:5: For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus. He Is Our Mediator. This is a very enlightening verse. First of all it tells us that Christ Jesus is a man and that God is one God (not three). Jesus Christ could not, therefore, be God. A mediator is a “go-between,” one who stands in the middle and communicates or deals with each party. More technically, a mediator is “one who mediates for peace and unites parties at variance.” The Greek word for mediator, mesites, does not occur in profane Greek since they had no higher word than that meaning arbitrator. In the Septuagint, this word mesites occurs only in Job 9:33 where it is translated “daysman.” This translation sheds tremendous light on the role of the ascended Christ, in view of the Eastern culture of the daysman. A daysman in Eastern culture was literally a “great soul” in a town or village. He was unappointed and he was not elected but he was a man of great wisdom, well versed in the Scriptures, a man who rose up to reconcile the wrong-doer to the wronged. Jesus Christ acts to reconcile mankind back to God. He is our mediator, our daysman. End of excerpt ~ ~ ~ ~ Right off the bat I have a problem with the writer saying Jesus Christ is a man. Even if one wants to ignore the hybrid concept alluded to in the Bible that Jesus was both human and divine - The Word became flesh and made his dwelling among us John 1:14 there is still the ‘transformation’ of the resurrected Christ – I mean technically he is no longer a male species of humankind. He is something way beyond that. Seriously! How do you classify the resurrected Christ with his new body on this chart: Why do we have to hold to a scientifically accurate interpretation of I Timothy 2:5, when it is simply talking about the role of a mediator? I think for many something that cemented wierwille’s anti-Trinitarian stance was embracing his absolutist thinking . In other words, Jesus Christ is either a man or he is God. There’s no in-between – no other options. I’ve been curious enough to read some captivating books – scholarly works – besides systematic theologies – that are written from a Trinitarian viewpoint, to realize wierwille’s anti-Trinitarian arguments are nothing more than a mischaracterization of the Trinity – probably something closer to a caricature that exaggerates the most striking feature of the Godhead – the divine. Maybe it’s a similar issue to wierwille’s lack of understanding that transcendence and immanence are both divine features of God and Jesus Christ. That does not make them identical. Even speaking relationship-wise we read in Scripture the Father sends the Son…Jesus said the Father is greater than I… one God and Father of all, who is over all and through all and in all Ephesians 4:6 ... …then the Son himself will be made subject to him who put everything under him, so that God may be all in all I Corinthians 15:28 even the motif of father and son alone resonates with dads and kids… …in John 14, 15 and 16 we observe the quadruple principle – the Father > the Son > the Holy Spirit > you…but should we take that quadruple principle so literally in such a linear fashion…maybe Jesus was dumbing it down for beings trapped in a space-time continuum. We think a process must start somewhere in space and time. Jesus Christ can’t really be at the right hand of God in heaven and yet be with us always as head of the church – at the same time - can he? How can he do that? I’m not saying I understand it or can explain it – I just feel the concept of the Trinity holds a lot more promise of unraveling the relevant biblical data – inspiring us to think bigger about God / Jesus Christ and how all this relates to finite beings. ~ ~ ~ ~ Now if you read all of Job 9 in NIV, it is obviously speaking of someone who has a lot more power and authority than any human.: Then Job replied: 2“Indeed, I know that this is true. But how can mere mortals prove their innocence before God? 3Though they wished to dispute with him, they could not answer him one time out of a thousand. 4His wisdom is profound, his power is vast. Who has resisted him and come out unscathed? 5He moves mountains without their knowing it and overturns them in his anger. 6He shakes the earth from its place and makes its pillars tremble. 7He speaks to the sun and it does not shine; he seals off the light of the stars. 8He alone stretches out the heavens and treads on the waves of the sea. 9He is the Maker of the Bear a and Orion, the Pleiades and the constellations of the south. 10He performs wonders that cannot be fathomed, miracles that cannot be counted. 11When he passes me, I cannot see him; when he goes by, I cannot perceive him. 12If he snatches away, who can stop him? Who can say to him, ‘What are you doing?’ 13God does not restrain his anger; even the cohorts of Rahab cowered at his feet. 14“How then can I dispute with him? How can I find words to argue with him? 15Though I were innocent, I could not answer him; I could only plead with my Judge for mercy. 16Even if I summoned him and he responded, I do not believe he would give me a hearing. 17He would crush me with a storm and multiply my wounds for no reason. 18He would not let me catch my breath but would overwhelm me with misery. 19If it is a matter of strength, he is mighty! And if it is a matter of justice, who can challenge him b ? 20Even if I were innocent, my mouth would condemn me; if I were blameless, it would pronounce me guilty. 21“Although I am blameless, I have no concern for myself; I despise my own life. 22It is all the same; that is why I say, ‘He destroys both the blameless and the wicked.’ 23When a scourge brings sudden death, he mocks the despair of the innocent. 24When a land falls into the hands of the wicked, he blindfolds its judges. If it is not he, then who is it? 25“My days are swifter than a runner; they fly away without a glimpse of joy. 26They skim past like boats of papyrus, like eagles swooping down on their prey. 27If I say, ‘I will forget my complaint, I will change my expression, and smile,’ 28I still dread all my sufferings, for I know you will not hold me innocent. 29Since I am already found guilty, why should I struggle in vain? 30Even if I washed myself with soap and my hands with cleansing powder, 31you would plunge me into a slime pit so that even my clothes would detest me. 32“He is not a mere mortal like me that I might answer him, that we might confront each other in court. 33If only there were someone to mediate between us, someone to bring us together, 34someone to remove God’s rod from me, so that his terror would frighten me no more. 35Then I would speak up without fear of him, but as it now stands with me, I cannot. On page 837 of NIV Cultural Backgrounds Study Bible, Hardcover: Craig Keener, John Walton: 9780310431589 - Christianbook.com the authors comment on verse 33 9:33 someone to mediate between us. In the ancient Near East, people sometimes would ask for their personal gods to mediate on their behalf in the divine council. At other times, gods are seen as judges who mediate a person’s situations. Arbitration was also carried out in human courts in a variety of ways. One means of mediation was carried out by someone in the family acting on a person’s behalf. End of excerpt ~ ~ ~ ~ The description of a mediator in the Cultural Backgrounds Study Bible (or CBSB) differs significantly from the explanation of daysman in Way Mag article (or WM) in a few ways. CBSB says mediator refers to a popular culturalism of appealing to a deity as a negotiator as well as human courtroom adaptations and even notes a family member working as a representative. Whereas WM limits daysman as to someone of intellectual / moral greatness prominent in the community...I understand Job 9:33 as an appeal to someone who is more than human to be a mediator between God and us.

yes!

Rocky, great songs for this thread – thanks! I love Burt B’s stuff! What an artist! I got into my stream of consciousness mode - - and a few things flowed through my mind - - you’ve talked before about the mesmerizing methods of wierwille - - the Ramones’ song I Wanna be Sedated - the repetitive nature of way corps curriculum going over already familiar information (PFAL) again and again. I think I had grown to trust wierwille / PFAL so much that I had let my guard down years before I went into the way corps. Sedation is the administering of a sedative drug to produce a state of calm or sleep. A drug is a medicine or other substance which has a physiological effect when ingested or otherwise introduced into the body. Figuratively, a cult’s indoctrination can have an adverse psychological effect. So that by the time I was in-residence I was already primed – sedated – to accept without question…uhm…I shouldn’t mince words – just flat out absorb the expanded…amplified…and more serious perversion of an already warped ideology (PFAL) – wierwille would say toxic ‘gems’ to the in-residence way corps (leadership-in-training). such seemingly innocuous and ambiguous things like “anything done in the love of God is okay”. For wierwille and The Way International being a supposedly biblical research and teaching ministry – how come they never found any passages in the Bible to support that statement? Anyway… I did a little 'research' on the song I Wanna be Sedated – and wanted to share a couple of things about the inspiration behind the song: A song about occasions where getting chemically knocked down is preferred to the boredom, inspired by life on the road… “It’s a road song. I wrote it in 1977, through the 78. Well, Danny Fields was our first manager and he would work us to death. We would be on the road 360 days a year, and we went over to England, and we were there at Christmas time, and in Christmas time, London shuts down. There’s nothing to do, nowhere to go.” From: Ramones – I Wanna Be Sedated Lyrics | Genius Lyrics This could be the new song in a way corps promo

Well, farm boy – as an old city boy from New York, I actually loved all the farm stuff at Rome City campus. That’s probably one of the few things that made the isolation / intimidation / immersion / indoctrination / idolization ‘life’ somewhat bearable…even simple things like nights when I was on Bless Patrol, and we’d go by the pig barn – I got the biggest kick out of hearing pigs snoring – sounded just like when me and my friends were sleeping off an all-night drinking party… oh yeah – also ‘farm life’ in general was inspirational…I worked in maintenance for one block and really liked John N33se (in charge of maintenance) – I like learning how things work and fixing stuff. Having a backstage pass to the chicken farm – I came up with a comedy skit and discussed it with John N – and he was on board with it. Opening scene – corps night – everyone is filing into the chapel – there’s always two corps stationed at the entrance to visually give everyone the onceover to make sure they’re dressed properly and have their nametags on. Switch to a low handheld camera view “walking” toward the chapel – then is stopped by one of the ‘guards’ – who looks down disapprovingly. Switch to ‘guard’ view – and he’s looking down at a bare breasted chicken and says “hey, where’s your nametag?” He then looks to the side and sees a rooster with a nametag Rev. Cluck Norris …guard says “Bless you Reverend Norris” and lets him in… The idea never got past the developing stage because when I pitched the short video to the assistant way corps coordinator, he didn’t like it. Probably because it was so irreverent to where the Word was being taught or something like that. Oh well, my silly imagination was another thing that made in-residence corps life tolerable. Skyrider thanks for another incredibly comprehensive assessment of the way corps program – truly a gauntlet like you said – what an overwhelming…intimidating…and treacherous experience in order to become a mini-wierwille clone; which is weird because that’s not what I signed up for:

At Rome City we had pizza with chicken liver toppings...from the very chickens we killed! this belongs in a movie Silence of the Chickens

Good answer. You might like this article: Sometimes, it's the simplest questions that have the most complicated answers. What's the speed of dark? What happened before the Big Bang? And if the universe is expanding, what is it expanding into? The answer to that last question has a short answer and a long answer — but trust us when we say you're going to want the long answer. Here's the short answer: That question doesn't make sense. The universe is everything, so it isn't expanding into anything. It's just expanding. All of the galaxies in the universe are moving away from each other, and every region of space is being stretched, but there's no center they're expanding from and no outer edge to expand into anything else. But that doesn't mean that the universe is infinite. That brings us to the long answer. To understand how something could be finite but have no edge, think of the fabric of the universe as the surface of a balloon. As the balloon inflates, the surface stretches and every point on that surface moves away from every other point, but a tiny being on the surface of that balloon could walk forever and never run into the edge of its balloon universe. There's no edge, yet that balloon universe has a finite volume. The Shape of the Universe But the balloon is just one example. Scientists aren't actually sure whether the universe is finite or infinite, or even what shape the universe is. There are three options: spherical, flat, or hyperbolic (that is, it curves upward). Evidence from the earliest light in the universe suggests that the second option is on the money, and the universe is, in fact, flat. Even if the universe is flat and not balloon-shaped, however, it's still easy to think about how it could be finite with no edge. Think about a flat piece of paper. You could take two opposing edges and make them touch, creating a cylinder. If a tiny 2-dimensional rocket ship traveled from one of those edges to the other, it would arrive back where it started. You could do the same thing in the perpendicular direction: Connect the two ends of the tube to each other (pretend this is magically stretchy paper, for the sake of argument) and create a donut shape, also known as a torus. Now your 2-dimensional rocket ship could travel anywhere it likes, and it would never encounter an edge — even though your paper torus has finite volume. But wait, you might be saying. Paper is flat; a torus is curved. Isn't that cheating? No, and that's because scientists have a very specific definition for the word "flat." When they say flat, they mean "Euclidean," which means that parallel lines always run parallel and the sum of the angles of a triangle is always exactly 180 degrees. This doesn't happen on a sphere or a hyperbola, but it does on a cylinder, a torus, and any other shape you can make out of a flat piece of paper. This suggests something kind of exciting: If we live in a flat universe, you could potentially travel in one direction for long enough (or build a telescope that can see far enough) to end up right back where you started. Even cooler things happen when you think about other weird shapes — shapes that twist back on themselves could make you arrive back at a mirror image of where you started, for example. But no matter what shape the universe is, it's not expanding into anything. There's nothing outside of the universe because the universe has no edge. From: If the Universe Is Expanding, What Is It Expanding Into? | Latest Science News and Articles | Discovery ~ ~ ~ ~ I love topics like this because of the challenges to conventional thinking – and this also gets into what’s probably one of the most basic issues of Christianity – how to relate faith to reason. Faith deals with revelation – or some supernatural disclosure which could not be discovered by the unaided powers of human reason. Reason is the natural ability of the human mind to discover truth. With science, truth is determined by verification – as in the scientific method – which is a lot of observation and experimentation. Flying a plane or launching a rocket into space are doable because scientists found out the truth about gravity – yes, it’s a law but they figured out ways to ‘work around it’ – using other laws of physics like velocity, thrust, lift, etc.… Science is practical – if it works, it’s true… …but then there are theoretical physicists – they are curious about the nature of reality and the origin of the universe. They use mathematics and logic to create and test models of physical phenomena, such as gravity, black holes, quantum mechanics and mind-blowing concepts about other dimensions, superstring theories – a lot of it is theoretical because it’s based on or calculated through concepts or models, rather than experience – like in superstring theory so far, no one has invented a microscope powerful enough to see all the way down to where those vibrating loops are supposed to be. The most powerful microscope I know of is at Lawrence Berkeley National Labs – a $27 million electron microscope. Its ability to make images to a resolution of half the width of a hydrogen atom makes it the most powerful microscope in the world. ~ ~ ~ ~ Scientific truth gives us no criteria for metaphysical truth. Therefore, what is needed is another definition of truth for the metaphysical realm. In reading up on philosophy, I lean toward one theory of what truth is – it’s called the correspondence theory of truth “In metaphysics and philosophy of language, the correspondence theory of truth states that the truth or falsity of a statement is determined only by how it relates to the world and whether it accurately describes (i.e., corresponds with) that world. Correspondence theories claim that true beliefs and true statements correspond to the actual state of affairs. This type of theory attempts to posit a relationship between thoughts or statements on one hand, and things or facts on the other.” From Wikipedia So basically, truth consists in some form of connection…correlation…resemblance…agreement between a belief and a fact. For me, this gets into how I look at the Bible – and there’s a lot of ways to look at the Bible – even as a Christian. I believe the Bible is metaphysical truth (metaphysical = in a transcendent sense or to a reality beyond what is perceptible to the senses) – that it is a revelation from God – written by people inspired of God. Considering that people are not perfect, have worldviews shaped by their times and culture, I think the Bible is best understood as metaphysical truth and not as scientific truth. Consider the opening passage of the Bible - “In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth” – if I use the correspondence theory of truth, it seems reasonable that Genesis 1:1 might very well correlate with the big bang theory. The big bang theory is one of scientists’ best guess on how the universe began – it is “the prevailing cosmological model explaining the existence of the observable universe from the earliest known periods through its subsequent large-scale evolution… the theory describes an increasingly concentrated cosmos preceded by a singularity in which space and time lose meaning (typically named "the Big Bang singularity")” (from Wikipedia - Big Bang ). In other words, the universe started with an infinitely hot, infinitely dense singularity, then inflated — first at unimaginable speed, and then at a more measurable rate — over the next 13.8 billion years to the cosmos that we know today. The possible connection of Genesis 1:1 to the big bang theory could be that God is the one who created the infinitely hot, infinitely dense singularity. But to be honest, this is just my warm and fuzzy way of relating a metaphysical truth to a scientific truth - in other words - that's just my opinion - I could be wrong.

Attention all Grease Spotters : I thought the intention behind my post ( here ) was expressed in crystal clarity: exposing Mike’s gobbledygook, delusions and lies in one of his posts ( here ) ~ ~ ~ ~ From a quick online search: To expose is to make something visible by uncovering it – for example "at low tide the sands are exposed"; similar words : unravel, reveal, uncover, lay bare, leave unprotected, reveal the true, objectionable nature of (someone or something) as in "he has been exposed as a liar and a traitor" Mike’s response is interesting. He views my post as another gotcha game – he said, You were hoping I'd entangle my self in T-Bones web above, even though I've handled those points lots of times in the past 20 years. Maybe I should get myself edjumicated on the Advanced Search engine here and retrieve my old answers? No, I want to go in different directions. end of quoting Mike ~ ~ ~ ~ From a quick online search: To entangle is to cause to become twisted together with or caught in - "fish attempt to swim through the mesh and become entangled"; SIMILAR words: intertwine, entwine, tangle, intertwist, twist, ravel, snarl, involve (someone) in difficulties or complicated circumstances from which it is difficult to escape - "the case of murder in which she had found herself so painfully entangled" In Mike’s response there is a denial of defending wierwille and an attempt to redirect the conversation. If this were in a court of law and Mike has been charged with defending to the hilt wierwille’s sociopathic behavior – what Mike does is avoid the courtroom altogether for fear of getting caught in his own gobbledygook, delusions and lies. Basically he would be entangling himself in his own web of deceit. And just for the record – Mike has never “handled those points lots of times in the past 20 years” to the satisfaction of anyone but his own imagination.

You’re assuming Genesis 1:1 is referring to the creation of the eternal kingdom of God and the physical universe. the verse makes reference to the space-time continuum - - so what are you saying? God is limited to that? But linguistically we know certain words in the Bible - and in many languages / cultures as well - can have different meanings depending on context. When Jesus talked about our Father in heaven already knows what we need - is Jesus saying the Father is up there somewhere in the universe? When Jesus ascended into heaven did he go somewhere out there in the universe? Is it possible the kingdom of God - a spiritual (whatever that means) heaven existed before Genesis 1:1 ? Isaiah 57:15 says God inhabits eternity. What does that mean? Eternity is infinity - unending - duration without beginning or end…Eternal life is entrance into the kingdom of God - what ? How? When?

That’s assuming that the size of heaven correlates to the size of the universe. What if the universe is a mere “bubble” inside the kingdom of heaven? what if heaven was inter-dimensional ? Existing multidimensionally - in more than the 3 dimensions we can sense and measure - heaven existing in, through, around and beyond the physical universe?

I liked the article, and my impression is it goes along similar lines to a book I read shortly after I left TWI in 1986 - Decision Making & the Will Of God: FRIESEN, Garry with MAXSON, J. Robin: 9780930014476: Amazon.com: Books In my opinion this is probably one of the biggest topics that folks still in TWI – and those thinking about leaving should reevaluate. “So, what is the will of God? According to the article above, it's you” – I would put it differently – both the Bible Gate Blog article of 2017 and the Decision Making & the Will of God book of 1982 address the cognitive process of selecting a course of action by being sensitize to biblical ethical issues – if relevant - and weighing the considerations of anticipated consequences for the various alternative actions (if there is more than one option available). Also see Decision-making - Wikipedia 8 Steps in the Decision-Making Process | HBS Online 7 Important Steps of the Decision Making Process [2023] • Asana The Decision Making & the Will of God book of 1982 offers a biblical alternative to the traditional view of some Christian groups…and in the case of The Way International, an erroneous concept is taken to the extreme. The flawed assumption is that Christians desire to be in the center of God’s will and have only the narrow guideline of the Bible and direct revelation from God to work with…The Decision Making book lays out two categories of the will of God: 1. God’s sovereign will – known only to Him – this refers to God as supreme ruler and how He orchestrates almost innumerable elements (inanimate and living beings) to produce a desired effect, often surreptitiously in accordance with His own will. Think Romans 8: 26 - 28 26 In the same way, the Spirit helps us in our weakness. We do not know what we ought to pray for, but the Spirit himself intercedes for us through wordless groans. 27 And he who searches our hearts knows the mind of the Spirit, because the Spirit intercedes for God’s people in accordance with the will of God. 28 And we know that in all things God works for the good of those who love him, who have been called according to his purpose. Jesus taught us to submit to God's sovereign will - This, then, is how you should pray: Our Father in heaven, hallowed be your name, your kingdom come, your will be done, on earth as it is in heaven. Matthew 6 - most of the time we may never know what God's sovereign will is - but this attitude in prayer is the humility and trust we should have in God being sovereign. 1. God’s moral will – this God has made known in numerous ways – this is represented by the moral directives in the Bible such as: The 10 commandments Exodus 20 The Two Great Commandments – love God and neighbor Matthew 22 The Golden Rule mentioned in Jesus’ sermon on the mount Matthew 7:12 The Moral Requirements of the law written on our hearts - our conscience bearing witness to that Romans 2 The type of guidance we should expect from God is moral in nature - And lead us not into temptation, but deliver us from the evil one Matthew 6 I think we’ve all had instances where we stew and fret over a situation on what to do – and we pray for some kind of guidance – so we shouldn’t be surprised that God answers our prayer by bringing to the forefront of our attention some detail of the situation that now sticks out like a sore thumb of what is the wrong thing to do. Isn't it fascinating in Matthew 6 that it covers both God's sovereign will, and His moral will. ~ ~ ~ ~ When I was involved in TWI, I adopted the center-of-God’s-will concept for my decision making process – because that’s the way TWI taught us to choose. My self-confidence was slowly whittled away so that I felt more comfortable in taking the route any good little way-believer would choose. I just got off the WOW field and had thought about finishing college for a degree in fine arts. But where should I go? Back to New York? Being in my early 20s and going WOW must have kindled some wanderlust. I think my WOW year groomed me for checking with leadership before making any big decisions. So my wife and I talked about what state we’d like to live in – contacted the limb coordinator there and asked for a list of cities that had colleges and where he would like to see 2 WOW vets move “the Word”. So, we picked one from the list. It’s funny though, we lived there 4 years and I never did find the time nor had the desire to finish college. Moving “The Word” and running PFAL classes became more important to me. This only dealt with non-moral issues (like where to live, whether to finish college) – but I mention it here to show catering to TWI’s agenda tends to eclipse one’s personal preferences, priorities, and goals. Generally in non-moral issues TWI tended to push a decision making process that was predicated on knowing-God’s-sovereign-will…and since God’s sovereign will is known only to Him – this was all presumptive that you should do or not do something just because it’s assumed to be the will of God for your life. If the choice is between running a Ponzi scheme or going to work for a legitimate financial institution – the choice should be obvious – a Ponzi scheme is off the table. Now if the choices are 3 different legitimate financial institutions – one nearby but starting salary is just okay, one in another state that offers a much higher salary with lots of executive perks and will pay to move you and your family, and the third involves a 3-hour commute with salary just a little better than the nearby office but there’s a chance you’ll become a partner within 2 years since a close friend of yours started the company. Which do you choose? It’s totally up to you. What are your preferences, priorities, and goals. There is no wrong choice as far as God’s sovereign will or God’s moral will are concerned. When it came to morals wierwille took situational ethics to some next level $hit. Situational ethics takes into account only the particular context of an act when evaluating it ethically, rather than judging it according to absolute moral standards. wierwille’s perspective was the vantage point of a sociopath. There was no right or wrong – there was only whatever wierwille wanted to do. He was best known for his self-referential code of conduct by such statements as: “As long as you love God and neighbor you can do as you full well please.” “Anything done in the love of God is okay.” Note in both statements there is the advantage of giving oneself a free pass to do even unconscionable acts. All one has to do is convince themselves they love God and neighbor. In her memoir Losing the Way: A Memoir of Spiritual Longing, Manipulation, Abuse, and Escape: Skedgell, Kristen: 9780972002196: Amazon.com: Books , Kristen relates the incident of wierwille sexually molesting her under the pretext that he was helping her learn to be a better lover for her future husband. ~ ~ ~ ~ In the orange book Power for Abundant Living, chapter 23, Knowing One’s Sonship Rights, page 338, notice how wierwille defines sanctification: The word “ sanctified” means “to be set apart”…when he is born again, he is set apart by God for heaven and all hell can’t stop him from going. In other words, one can live like the devil, and it doesn’t matter to God – you’re going to heaven anyway. I believe that Bible Gate Blog article of 2017 is more in line with the sentiment of the Bible: We hear a lot of talk about “sanctification,” but what does that really mean? James MacDonald: Here’s a definition: Sanctification is the lifelong process in which Christ-followers are refined and increasingly conformed to the behavior pattern of Jesus Christ. It’s the work of God in the lives of forgiven sinners that takes them step-by-step away from selfish, sinful patterns of living and more and more into a life that’s wholly holy and set apart entirely for the glory of Jesus Christ. God uses hardship and the circumstances of life to shape and show our character. To be sanctified is to live in complete, continuous submission to him. ~ ~ ~ ~ If I may reiterate a few things you brought up. God is sovereign as "the divine orchestra conductor". We are not expected to make perfect decisions - just morally good choices. What is the sovereign will of God? Only God knows. What is the moral will of God? It’s not that hard to figure out. I’ll close with more excerpts from the Bible Gate Blog article of 2017: How should Christians make decisions? James MacDonald: The Scriptures make some choices explicitly clear, and our decision on those matters should be no-brainers. For example, should you take something that doesn’t belong to you (also known as stealing)? What’s God’s will for you in this choice? The fact that God included “You shall not steal” (Exodus 20:15) in the ten cardinal rules we call the Ten Commandments should clue us in clearly to what God wants. Easy decision. Don’t steal! But what do you do when the choices and alternatives are not as clear? What do you do when the choice is not a matter of a specific, biblical mandate that distinguishes right and wrong? When handling equal choices, God wants you to make the decision that would please you. God is a good Father who loves you! Within the boundaries of God’s Word, we find structure, direction, protection, and freedom. We don’t have to live in terror of making a wrong choice and violating his purposes.

That's it! Let's have a web competition! A web-off if you will.

I used to have this fuzzy notion that the ideal couple were made for each other… …after 47 years of marriage I think I’ve demystified how marriage works. This isn’t the time and place for me to dispense words of wisdom on the married life – nor will there ever be a time and place for me since I have no words of wisdom on the married life. I’m more suited for being in an ad for a licensed marriage and family therapist as another satisfied customer – since we have been to one a few times – to help us root out a lot of the erroneous teachings / practices of wierwille / The Way International – probably the last folks you’d ever want to seek counsel on relationships… My only comment on having a long-term relationship is that it’s a lot of hard work and both sides will need to make some concessions…why am I posting this stuff in the humor forum? ...well... ...I don’t take myself seriously most of the time – and I find there’s a lot of funny stuff about relationships anyway - as a wannabe comedic writer, that is a target-rich environment Bolshevik, I loved your posts here and here on another thread where you talked about boundaries being agreed upon implicitly or explicitly…and that by-products of each other’s internal dialog may have something to do with how we validate and acknowledge others (I’m thinking maybe it’s by me sensing the other person holds some similar values), and your great one-liners “If you love anything or anyone you don't do whatever you want. You do what's best for them. And I think self respect is involved”.

Great post, Bolshevik!

what makes cults attractive? how do pseudo-Christian cults pull off their con? pseudo-Christian cults = a religious bait and switch. do birds of a feather flock together? does wierwille ideology have a tendency to breed sociopathic traits in followers? Wierwille-fans have a habit of running up the flagpole the fantasy of a pathological liar, a cheating, thieving , sociopathic, mean and abusive sexual predator like it’s no worse than anyone else when they’re out of fellowship with the weak and sin-tolerant god that wierwille promoted. the god that wierwille promoted is indeed a fantasy of a sociopath’s creative imagination who - like the devotee cannot distinguish between what’s right and wrong, between truth and lies. The way that wierwille presented himself through plagiarism and sincerity many thought he was the real deal and not a faker. Many thought their lives were changed for the better because that was the group hype . Narrow minded people feel their lives are better because they’re right and all others are wrong. wierwille had a charismatic personality - many folks were attracted to his influence NOT because they thought he was a holy man - but because he made himself out to be a maverick - this appealed to the counterculture movement in its day. He went against mainstream Christianity and disparaged academia, cognitive skills, and worldly logic. He was not your typical religious leader. he turned the straight and narrow path of Christianity into something self-referential “as long as you love God & neighbor you can do as you full well please” . - as wierwille would often brag “anything done in the love of God is okay”. what a handy rule of thumb - if YOU THINK you’re doing something out of the love of God it’s okay. Plagiarizing the works of others so you can offer your followers a new and improved version of their work. It sounds like Christianity, doesn't it? A sociopath will always have the advantage over folks with a conscience. Why push yourself to develop your research skills and original ideas when you can take the shortcut and plagiarize from others. Do sociopaths congratulate each other over getting away with unconscionable acts? Why would anyone defend a sociopath? Do ‘great’ sociopaths think alike?