Twinky

:offtopic:/> WW, stop attacking John, please just address the topic. If you don't like what John says, either ignore it or address it briefly and stick to the topic. While you make good points (sometimes), you can be awfully pompous :) (Cue an attack on Twinky)

A seller in Dallas, Tx, is offering on ebay for a mere $132 the following by Weirwille: The Living Word speaks: Studies in Biblical Research, Teaching, and Fellowship. Plus shipping. You have 11 days left in which to snap up this bargain.

Steve, would that be "holy spirit" not "Holy Spirit"? :rolleyes:/> I look forward to your further commentary on this doctrine. First time I've ever heard of two trinities. What does your third para mean? That is, what are the supposed meanings in the 4C and 5C?

Thank God for Greasespot. Who knows how many ruined lives have been prevented and how many ruined lives have been healed when the truth has been exposed! Thank God too that the Pope is finally tackling the problem of abuse in the RC church, which for decades has been covered up with offending priests simply transferred to other areas. Pope tackles sex abuse in RC church and he has appointed a survivor of 1960s abuse to be on his commission of enquiry: Marie Collins

Not saying anything is going along with it and not far from stealing stuff yourself. if people are stealing from the workplace, the costs have to be covered somehow =>higher costs to oncharge to customers. Or loss of profits, which ultimately means there is likely to be job cuts - which might include your own job.

Haven't posted on this thread before but thought you might like this one: Singer was on Book of the Week, his serialised autobiography.

Mark, your article quite rightly makes the point: "Reverend" simply means "respected" or "revered" - which all Christians should be - that's what got the attention of the non-believers when the early Christian church was becoming established. Those early believers (saints!) were respected for the way they treated other people. For anyone who's interested, here's a Wikipedia article about the honorific "Reverend" and its various permutations: The Reverend I have difficulty with the passage in Acts that states that the early apostles gave themselves to prayer, etc, and declined to serve at tables. Sounds a bit like they were "too good" to do menial tasks like that - although, to be fair, I have heard jolly good explanations about that passage - and it also says the congregation was pleased at the outcome. I can certainly see that some ordained clergymen and -women would have difficulty in undertaking menial roles. I also know a fair few who actually do undertake such roles, and do so with enthusiasm and joy at serving. God bless them richly.

Ham, that has nothing to do with what I posted. It's something that I have pondered a while. I think church hierarchies do get carried away at times with the title not the serving.

Don't you sometimes think that the titles given to those who serve in the church sometimes encourage a feeling of superiority? A "minister" is one who serves, or ministers, to the congregation. A deacon, bishop, cardinal, archbishop, etc etc? Or in TWI terminology, twig leader, branch leader, limb leader, etc? Jesus said: We see Jesus being what TWI called the lowliest of all servants in Eastern culture, the foot washer. Wouldn't "servant names" be more appropriate? Starting with "butler" and ending with "under footman" - or for women, "cook" (a highly respected position) and ending with "scullery maid" (the humblest and lowliest starting grade for female servants) - which would emphasise the "servant" quality and the higher the rank, the lower the servant-grade? You can find out more about servant-rankings by googling "servant hierarchy." I'm not just commenting on TWI hierarchy but on the hierarchy of established churches as well. The Pope (normally) lives in a fancy gilded apartment with loads of servants for himself (the current Pope refuses to move into that fancy residence). Cardinals have fancy clothes and residences. Archbishops have palaces and gorgeous robes. I have no idea what sort of hierarchy US mega-churches might have, but one thing I'm certain of is that none of the head honchos entitles himself the "scullery maid" or the "under groom" or "foot washer." And with the fancy titles and the fancy dress comes a sense of entitlement and lordship that should never be found in God's chosen ones.

Newlife, you said on a different thread that you were finding it hard to develop a relationship with God. I think by seeing what you are now seeing, you're well on your way. Another context you should be aware of is the OT setting. Sometimes a line is quoted in the NT that refers to quite a lengthy section in the OT. Just as a few words or a one-liner for us brings to mind a whole teaching, so it did in OT times. Significant parts of Romans are like that.- see for example Rom 8 to 11, which includes our "foundational" text of Rom 10:9,10. If you don't look at the parts of the OT that these chapters quote from, you miss a lot of depth of meaning. Paul was a highly educated Pharisee. Knowing where he "came from" and all the wealth of knowledge he encapsulates in a phrase, helps us better understand some of what he writes to the new Christians, many of whom were themselves of Jewish background. Some of what he writes is new, of course, but there is still that legalistic OT background that he has thought through in great depth to "see the heart (grace) behind it."

Newlife, sometimes I think we try too hard on our relationship with God, instead of just "being." Just enjoy His creation and give thanks as often as you can. See beauty where you can, see need where you can (and do something about it if possible), just relax, be thankful, and "be." He will find you, in your quiet times of contemplation.

Chosen? When I was in rez, LCM announced that he had nominated her as his successor, should he die (all of the trustees had, quite appropriately, nominated substitutes). It is considered - here - that he nominated her because she knew too many of his secrets. She certainly knew of his physical abuse of women (read the legal papers), facilitated some of his physical abuse - and stopped him assaulting some women who might make trouble. The blackmail price for her collusion and silence? The prezzzidency. :sleep1:/> She wanted the pension pot. She doesn't want TWI's demise, just doesn't care whether it happens - after her lifetime.

Newlife, I so identify with what you say in your first post. You don't want to be in TWI, you recognise the (let's be kind) problems, but you don't feel you "fit" elsewhere. I have been blessed to have found an awesome church and the teachings from the minister who was there when I first went were so healing. I would sit there with tears pouring from my eyes. His words were healing, soothing and I felt welcomed back and hugged and tucked in under a big snuggly blanket by my Father. This (silent) weeping lasted 4 or 5 months. I needed to be there then. That minister has now moved on. I still go to the same church, or rather, to an offshoot (church plant). I don't find the same satisfying teaching and frequently find myself at odds with what is said and of course they are all very Trinitarian. I find myself unpicking the theology at times, rather than listening to the essence of the message. What I do do is enjoy fellowship and real friendship with the people there. There are some awesome giving people, mature Christians, who are always doing something within the community to help others. They are genuinely caring, genuinely giving of time and resources, and I don't detect any hypocrisy between words and actions. I enjoy them as my fellow brothers and sisters in Christ, as fellow-workers, as joint heirs. It's fun. What I don't do is get involved in any theological discussions. I am thought to be a bit strange and to have some odd ideas. People don't understand "where I'm coming from." But nonetheless everyone is kind and despite the occasional raised eyebrows, no-one gets in my face, beats on me, or threatens to throw me out. I serve in several roles within my local church community and also in the wider city-wide church community. Generally I keep my views to myself, agree on basic Godly principles, and enjoy my own growing relationship with God. I like looking to see how He is working in the lives of other committed people too. Especially where their views differ from mine (and sometimes from each other's). I also know some ex-Wayfers. Initially these were good - at least in the TWI sense - but now there seems to be little in common except that we understand each other when certain phrases (jargon) are used. Some of those people I can't stand being near at all. But some have thought things through, learned from other escapees, and developed their own relationships with God. You can see the difference. Newlife, it's your relationship with God that matters. You can develop that if you find some mature Christians to learn from - Christians from diverse backgrounds and church theologies. It's helpful to have someone to talk things over with. They (and you) don't have to go to a church. That's only a starting point for you. :knuddel:/> Twinx

Don't you mean, string them up? :biglaugh:/>

It wasn't just picking up the trash - it was everything. Meticulous - you might say fanatical - cleanliness outwardly - but the dirtiest filthiest rankest vileness within. Everything outwardly dusted, washed, vacuumed, etc. Inwardly - a cesspit. It was earlier than 1993 - I remember some intense Corps Night teachings on this, 1990 onwards. I have thought about those (alleged) forms of evil occasionally, since then. I can see that there are different forms of "evil" if that's how you want to call it - actively doing wrong, failing to do right even when "doing nothing", neglecting to ensure that something was or was not done, etc. ( I have stripped the words and alleged definitions from my mind along with as much other TWI teaching as I can.) I have, however, pondered on Martindale's actions and considered these in the light of his "active" evil and "harassing" evil and non-active evil. I think he himself epitomised each of these aspects. He destroyed lives, relationships, integrity; he hounded and publicly vilified those who objected to his methods; and he did not take any stand against any kind of evil. He set himself up as a false god - made his commands required to be obeyed and himself to be idolised and worshiped, graciously lowering himself to our level from time to time - as long as we grovelled at his feet. I wonder if he has ever considered his own actions in relation to this line of teaching, and in what way he would categorise his own actions and behaviour. I wonder if he can see his destructiveness, his harassing evil, his lazy attitude to letting standards (proper Godly standards, that is) go to hell in a too-tight jockstrap. I wonder if he knew he was lying to himself then. I wonder if he is still lying to himself. But this didn't start with Martindale. He was just building upon the foundation laid by Our Faker in the Word. Matt 23:13 But woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye shut up the kingdom of heaven against men: for ye neither go in yourselves, neither suffer ye them that are entering to go in . 14 Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye devour widows' houses, and for a pretence make long prayer : therefore ye shall receive the greater damnation. 15 Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye compass sea and land to make one proselyte, and when he is made, ye make him twofold more the child of hell than yourselves. Twofold more the child of hell... that's what Wierwille did to Martindale - made him twice as bad as himself. And that's what Martindale was doing with others who came along after him - tried to make them twice as bad as himself. That's a significant escalation of destructive evil to those people who were groomed to follow in his footsteps - and of harassing evil to others who weren't in the chosen ones.

What's this about your navel, Steve? Are you planning to change your name to Adam? Did Adam have a navel? ... And other deep questions of that type... Plastic abs, I like that, I could do with some plastic to hold my flab in. Not that there's much, but things are going south a little bit.

What they "forgot" was that the gathering of abundance was to prepare for lean times. Some paid for Levites and their families in OT times. But in NT times, abundance was gathered so that it could be shared with those in need ... those [ordinary believers] who were experiencing famine; others who were in need because of illness, imprisonment, or widowhood. Of the disciples and apostles who remained in Jerusalem, do we hear of them claiming to be entitled to a tithe or any other money? No! I should be interested to know whether LCM still "abundantly shares" or even tithes to any organisation, and whether he lives on a "need" basis only, from whatever his income stream now is, and gives all the rest to some religious organisation of his choice...or enforced upon him. Does he drive a ratty old car? Wear clothes that are passed down from who knows how many other people? Have the burden of enforced journeys on a regular basis, and enforced (and chargeable) attendance at events where he hears the same old thing again and again? The whole bloody show took away any "joy of giving." But then, that's par for the course. Which took away all the "joy of living."

Cos you're an addict?? Cos you have nobody else to play with at silly o'clock?

Intellectual growth never stops. Might slow down a bit. Doesn't stop. Those who are curious/interested can still be curious/interested no matter what their ages are. Those who can't be bothered ... will lapse out no matter what their ages are. There are plenty of new careers started by people in their 50s and 60s. One of my friends even did her degree in her 70s...she's 84 now and doesn't regret it at all. Even got herself a little business out of it. I'd agree with you that the cost (which might not be recouped quickly) is a big deterrent from starting a new career/ new degree / putting it all on the line now. That extract makes it sound like life's nearly over... if you look hard enough, or maybe not even that hard at all, you'll find people who think life begins at 40, 50, 60, whenever you've got rid of the kids... Every day you can be open to new life experiences. In short, article is rubbish.

Yes, and that was insidious... in rez, we were not supposed to read any other materials. Was that an explicit prohibitioin? Probably. I remember maybe a couple of months in, finding in Plurality Palace an interesting looking book. I was browsing through it and my Corps sister came in. She saw me, hit the roof, and demanded I put the book down straight away and if I didn't she'd tell the Corps Coordinator. Boot camp under LCM's reign of terror was well under way. I complied, grumpily, irritatedly.

Actually, I don't recall him saying precisely that. He probably did say to study the PFAL materials (of course he would), but I recall him saying, "Read the epistles" to see who/what/how the new man should be. [lasst bit my paraphrase] Read the epistles. Not "Read the gospels," or "Study the life and behavior of Jesus." Not "Practice the Christ lifestyle." Personally I think there is merit in telling people to read the epistles. Too many churchy types read the gospels and think that that's it. The epistles are somehow irrelevant. So they don't "Learn to walk as he walked" in cultural situations such as we face today. But I don't think that reading the epistles to the exclusion of the gospels is a good thing. It's remarkable, really, how much is so very relevant to any culture, in the epistles. Be kind. Be forgiving. Pray. And remember, God's power is available to us to minister healing - just like Christ did. Yeah. Now! We can't learn that from the gospels. But we can learn how to operate that power...as Jesus did.

I thank y'all for your kind and gracious comments. Yes, there was a culture of "give and expect to be blessed" - regardless of whether the person sponsored completed the training. I do believe that God would honour the commitment in those people's hearts, though not necessarily in a way they might expect - if expect they did. Sky, I could've paid my way too but it was frowned upon. And I felt that if people wouldn't support me, perhaps I wasn't appropriate for this form of leadership. God honoured my own commitment (I think) and I got through but that bought me a whole raft of other problems. I think God had a load of other things to teach me that were nothing much to do with WC training; things that came much later. And he's used WC training to show me right and wrong ways to treat people.

I suppose I should hold up my hand and say, when I've sponsored people who've left, I've been a bit disgusted at them and their lack of commitment. I believed the slanders spread about them (why would my higher-ups lie?). Others, I've been bewildered about (but that was part of the secret mass exodus.) One, I told go to back and apologise most humbly to CG who'd thrown him out of the European Corps (EC) - I knew how hard this person had worked to get into the EC. Now, I think I have more respect for those who left, voluntarily or otherwise, than for those who stayed (like I did) - they didn't let the system beat them down.

Good one(s), BB. Two near misses. Who knows how long it would have been if these hadn't been found when they had - and how bad it could have got for you. Unpleasant procedures that you had, though.

This is a topic that is aimed most particularly at those who have NEVER BEEN IN THE IN-REZ WAY CORPS. What did you think, if a person you'd sponsored left the Way Corps? Did it make a difference whether they left of their own volition, or whether they were dismissed? Did it matter if they left during in-rez training, or after graduation? What, if anything, were you told - by the person, and by local leadership? Did what you were told appear to be true then? And now? The idea promoted was that a candidate rose up through his/her spirituality and became a (potential) leader. As such, that person was supported by those from whose ranks s/he had risen. Sounds good, huh? In actuality, it was, I believe, a way of tying the candidate in even more - just think of all those people you let down if you drop out! You had no respect to their efforts, their hard work, in paying your way for you. (A sort of sideways look at simony, if you will.) (You didn't "buy a ministry" - your supporters bought it for you.) A good ole bit of emotional blackmail. But at the time (not now) - when someone you supported left - did you feel cheated? Let down? Disappointed? Angry? Deceived, even? Or did you feel that they must have had some justifiable reason? No doubt you all have different feelings about it - you might have sponsored several people, some of whom stayed and some of whom left. I'm not thinking of the time when vast numbers left - areas left as a group - but when individuals dropped out before or after the mass exodus.