sprawled out

i don't know how much acceptance this will find here at GSC, but if you really want to find your "true" self, then i'd suggest you stay out of any church or group. don't read the Bible. and don't come here. take the time to put it ALL behind you. get out of the mindset completely. and give yourself the time to let the REAL real you (no, not the "Christ in you," the YOU in you!) come back to the surface. some may have a problem with this "without a net" approach. i think people do it all the time. how are you gonna find yourself without standing on your own two feet? my experience is that it won't take as long as you think. and you may be surprised to find how easily all the stuff you've been trying to shove into your heart and mind just kind of falls away. and there you'll be. (if, after you've been reacquainted with yourself, you want to seriously re-examine what you believe and why, then go ahead. my advice for that phase would be "Be fearless." and ruthless. honestly, Soul, if it can't stand up to real scrutiny, who wants it?)

could i have worded it differently? of course. but it was an emotional response. i've been out for many, many years. completely separated (except for a few folks, and we just don't talk about those days much). and now find myself "around" a bunch of people who seem to still be so interested, so concerned--and something about reading this particular post just made me want to stand up and plead, "please don't ever go back!" i'm just not gonna make myself to apologize for that, chas. i gave up apologizing for things i wasn't sorry for in april 1987. but i'm all for peace.

the truth is, I'M insulted. i know i'm new here, and probably won't hang around as long as some of you, but honestly, chas, both your original comment and your follow-up were out of line. i've re-read my original post 10 times and there's nothing in it that should've elicited that kind of response--other than what you read into it. and then to respond to my attempt to clarify (when no clarification should've been necessary) by saying i was "blunt" and "rude?" i'm sorry, i don't buy it. i understand how words alone, without facial expressions, tone of voice, etc. can sometimes make communication tricky, but i don't think that's what happened here. misinterpreted what i wrote because you lumped me in with some other posters. you almost said it yourself. i get that we're all supposed to be nicey-nicey here, but isn't that a big part of what got us all into trouble in the first place? i am glad i asked, though, because i really couldn't understand for the life of me why anyone would care about how many way vice presidents can dance on the head of a pin. now i know.

whoa! chill, chas. you misunderstood completely. i don't know where you got the idea that i was a current wayee, but i'm not--been out since '87. among the first, i'm proud to say! (though it wasn't soon enough.) what i was saying, to everyone here, was 1) why do you care if they have 3 or 300 vps? and 2) please don't ever go back. ok?

why, oh, why do you even bother having a discussion with this guy? nobody loves a lively argument more than i do, but this is beyond pointless. do you think you're gonna convince him of anything? a guy who still thinks vp was careful (i.e., diligent, circumspect, precise) about the gobbledebooks he "wrote?" isn't arguing with him like telling a hair-raising story to a bald man? you know, just a waste of energy. i know i'm new around here, but i think the best thing you could do for mike is never reply. of course, if you kids are having fun, never mind.

just what is that supposed to be? the verse numbers make me think you intend it to be scripture. so then i must ask if God gave it to you with all the typos, misspellings and grammatical errors? for god's sake--if you think it's important enough to write down at least proofread it!

my question is, why do you care? if someone gave you an iron-clad, logical, even biblical reason why there are 3 VP's, or some new class, or whatever, WOULD YOU GO BACK? please tell me you never, ever would.

we used to talk about not putting God in a box, but never about not putting OURSELVES in one. it's nice and refreshing and enlightening to see that we're all different, that we all see things differently and think differently. makes me re-realize that the whole idea of trying to get a bunch of people to toe the party line--whatever it may be--is pure bullsh!t. it's all the DIFFERENT perspectives that make life interesting, anyway. so for the record, jonny, you can be "inflammatory" with me any time. i don't mind healthy, honest disagreement. and i prefer straight talk to candy-coating. how else are we gonna learn, if no one ever challenges our assumptions? as long as it's a two-way street.

it's amazing how a topic gets mushed around. i guess my original point really was, if we have accepted that the way was essentially a scam--going all the way back to the OH and OK snow jobs--then can we accept the validity of way ordinations? logic tells me no. and my experience tells me that many of the clergy were bozos, and that there were plenty of real leaders who never got the nod. which would substantiate the idea that it wasn't always a godly process, at the very least. i suppose you could choose to think that God was at work in spite of it all. but once you've acknowledged that it was NEVER about listening to God, but rather about making up stuff that was supposed to be from God, then the whole thing falls to pieces. doesn't it? some may say that's throwing the baby out with the bathwater. i think it's just being honest.

yes, absolutely: hand•ful (n) A small, undefined number or quantity. i'm wrong? jeez, it's just my opinion, jonny. but it's an educated one. and to make sure we're clear, i didn't say only a handful weren't a**holes. i said only a handful were exceptional. of course, some were exceptional a**holes. and a few were both! (jonny--i see you changed "wrong" to "not right." come on, what's the difference? you getting all PC on us?) oh, and i was at that corps week ordination debacle--what a show!

bottom line, the "don't trust experience" rap was just another way to get you to deny what your senses sensed, what your brain deduced and what your gut told you. on the surface, it seemed reasonable: "it's true because the word says it." but it set the stage for what was to come. for me (yes, my experience!), the first step down was deciding not to trust my own brain. and my salvation was in finally listening to that little voice inside me yelling "bullsh!t" at the top of his lungs!

why was it always snow? why wasn't it ever some other weather event? no imagination? stick with the tried-and-true? ("Victor did not attend school yesterday because we had a blizzard at our house. Signed, Wierwille's Mother.") or could it be he was warning us, subliminally, that it was all A SNOW JOB?? (or is that just the oldest GS joke in the book?)

just to clarify, i never said they ALL should be drop-kicked. just that way too many were a**holes. they should've been the best of the best, the cream of the crop. but instead, there was a much higher percentage of d!ckheads than you see in the general population. now, i also had quite a few good friends who were ordained, real good people, but my experience was they were the exception. the simple truth is, only a handful were truly exceptional people. (just like in real life!) the rest were either blowhards who thought their title gave them license to say or do whatever they pleased, or just plain lame. but look who was choosing them, and look at who their examples were. it's amazing that ANY way leader was loving, forgiving, supportive, etc., when you consider what complete bastards vic and craig were. bastards who, for the most part, were tremendously threatened by anyone demonstrating real leadership. i'm sorry but it's true.

in the end, it was EXACTLY what a lot of them wanted. power corrupts, baby. (and power for abundant living corrupted, absolutely!) :D

once again, this may be something you all have already beaten to death. but just in case you haven't: i've noticed that even here, the distinction is made between "leaders" and "clergy," or "corps" and "clergy," as though way ordination was valid. was it? how many "clergy" did you know who honestly deserved any distinction, let alone reverence? WAAAAAAAY too many of those I knew were among the biggest a**holes i've ever known. how about you? how many names would be on YOUR list of "Clergy I'd Like To Drop Kick?" honestly, how much of it do you think was just politics and butt-kissing, or lack thereof? do we really think that the local region coordinator, Rev. WhatAClown, was identifying gift ministries?? and if way ordination was a scam, what about all those folks who walked away but have held on to their "Revs?" what's up with that?

whew. fun stuff. it's nice to see some folks checked the weather stories. what's amazing is that none of us checked SOONER. we obviously WANTED to believe. that doesn't absolve vp and the rest of any fault or blame, just to be honest about it. we were complicit. we had plenty of opportunities to stand up to them--i know i did--and usually folded. not necessarily because we were spineless, but because we wanted it all to be true. and eventually, because we had so much invested. i don't know about you, but it's good for me to recognize it again, after all these years (i've been out since '87.) sure, they deceived and took advantage, but we let them. there were enough holes in their stories and their "research" AND THEIR PERSONALITIES that we could've/should've seen right through them. but we let them off the hook because we wanted what they said they were offering. for me, re-realizing this answers the question "Why did i hang around so long?" and having essentially blown 11 years of my life it's a question that could regularly use re-answering. so thanks everyone. keep up the good work!

thanks, belle. good stuff. good old fashioned THINKIN'! as far as old vic teaching to the best of his ability, the only honest response i can give is that sometimes he really was a great teacher--a great communicator and persuader. and other times, LOTS of other times, he was sloppy and lazy in his teaching. (why not, after all? who was gonna call him on it?) and once he'd decided no one could teach HIM anything, he really ceased to be any kind of teacher at all.

Good answers! it just suddenly struck me, and i realized it was pretty fundamental to the whole thing. i certainly used to believe it--and figured sooner or later, God'd talk to me like that, too--but it's pretty clear that it was the Foundational Lie. so what do you call it when a guy with a lousy self-image also has an ego as big as the back forty? oh, and sudo--what are you so wound up about? i don't need no confrontation, brutha! been there, ditched that. but yes, i do believe in santa claus!

Maybe you've alrady been through all this, but what do you think? Did God speak audibly to VP? Did He tell him He'd teach him the Bible etc etc? Or did the bs begin there?

honestly, what do you--any of you--really know about islam? c'mon, be honest. as for robertson, yeah, he's blunt--if by "blunt" you mean the opposite of "sharp!"

i must admit there's a part of me that would love to get into it with you, mikey. ("i could lick any man in town tonight!") but instead i'll display my wisdom: it would be both pointless and fruitless, so ain't playin'. ;p

this would be funny, if you weren't being serious. you talk about the class as though you still believed it was god-breathed. it wasn't, kids. it was mostly a cut-and-paste job. i know you know that by now. all this book vs. "film" stuff is just silly. he made MISTAKES in the film, left and right, and they tried to patch over those mistakes in the book. there was no great spiritual plan that the film was for this and the book was for that. they just did what they did. oh, they absolutely loved attaching spiritual significance afterwards--which is exactly what you seem to be doing with this stuff. to quote ol' vic, "Johnny, quit it!"