Twinky

What a wacky site that is, waysider. God hates a lot of things and people, according to them. Rabid hate. Sound like any other group you know? Wonder what the predilections are of the leadership in this group, that they have so much hate? I wonder if this same group has spent any time in looking at who God loves, and who he wants to help?

You asked WHY. It may be there was no particular reason - other than to deflect attention from what else VPW was "teaching." VPW magnified one aspect of evil to obscure the evil that he was perpetrating elsewhere. It's okay to hate homosexuals...just don't look at adulterers. It's okay to hate debt - and those in debt...as long as you give us all your money. You gotta do that. It's okay to hate those who have different religious practises ... as long as you don't realize how deeply you have become involved in a weird organization. It's okay to hate the proud and arrogant ... just as long as you do what we say. It's okay to hate women ... all this mess is all that woman Eve's fault, stupid creature, never obeyed her husband. (of which last point I could say a few things...but won't) It's all part of the smoke and mirrors.

You forgot the homo/lesbian rants, thoug LCM took those to a new level.

Okay, here is something that is perhaps a precursor to the sexual predation...or perhaps it's a one step removed variant. When I applied to go in the Corps, I was required to undergo a medical including a physical medical exam. Have a smear (pap) test. Provide details of the latest smear result. I can only think - now - that it was LCM and perhaps his facilitators making sure that he didn't catch anything from some poor young woman victim. Can't have the MoG catching some sexually transmitted disease now, can we? And while we're about it - let's just test young women's boundaries to interference with their private parts. (I thought this was pretty bizarre but it was a requirement, and I thought maybe it was a requirement to enter US colleges (ha ha, it's not any such US college :( nor so far as I know is it a requirement at legit colleges) and my doc thought it bizarre also. I don't under-estimate that it's a good idea to have health checks - can be debilitating, and expensive to fix - especially if perhaps one is not a US resident/citizen and without knowledge of US medical arrangements. I might add, the doc didn't do any such test, didn't want to, just accepted my word that the latest routine test was a clear result.)

@ George:

I'm female. And not stupid (except for being gullible enough to believe that lot). Not beddable either - Rosalie told LCM he shouldn't assign me to Green Room duties (realized they were taking a risk if special services were requested). Female. Got a brain. Not beddable. No use. Pretext: not meek enough.

(This vigorous discussion is really healthy, in that it shows people have managed to put back boundaries to a more appropriate place. Well done!)

I've always thought the traditional view of Joseph and Mary alone with their donkey is pretty stupid. They went where they did because it was Joseph's homeland. As it was also the homeland of his mother, father, brothers, sisters, cousins, they would also have had to travel ... I 'd suppose there was actually quite a big group of people in the "Joseph" party, of the "lineage of David." Some of them would be women who had given birth - maybe some even worked as midwives. They would probably have met up witih others travelling the same way, gone together for safety from bandits. Wasn't Mary herself supposed to be of the lineage of David? If so, her own mother (if still alive) would be travelling with the party. And what mother wouldn't want to be with her special daughter as she gave birth to her firstborn? Perhaps even cousin Elizabeth with the six month old John would have been in the party. Don't you think that God would have provided suitable people to help Mary, to make sure the birth went absolutely perfectly? Kindly women who understood the fear of a new mother-to-be? Unjudgmental women - for this unmarried mother. Mary's own mother and people she had known a long time, to help her and comfort her in this frightening time. Elizabeth, to whom Mary had run when she first became pregnant. And the innkeeper would have had a wife and servants to help in the running of the caravanserai. They would have done what they could to keep the young woman comfortable. Who knows what comforts they arranged for her? Hot water? Clean sheets? Curtaining, for privacy? I think perhaps Joseph would have been somewhat bewildered, but then also, perhaps amazed, at the tremendous support that had been provided just for this birth - the fine women who were there to help. Even though Joseph had probably seen animals - sheep, cows - giving birth (they were country people after all) and he may well have known something of what to do at a birth - I don't really see God leaving it all to the inexperienced Joseph - not even a shepherd boy himself - to deliver his Son. The innkeeper and his wife and servants would have been expecting a big influx of people. They would have prepared. They would have their own cattle (if they had any) in the fields just for the period (don't forget, the shepherds were watching their flocks in the fields). This particular stable may well have been just for the pack animals of those who were staying at the inn. Perhaps he had rented a field elsewhere where those pack animals could be kept so that he could rent out the stable as living accommodation - got it all prepared weeks before, scrubbed out, folding chairs neatly in the corner, camp beds laid out in lines... not exactly, but you get the idea. Heck, in our culture when we know there is a big event coming - people rent out rooms in their houses, sometimes their whole house - to strangers. In Greece and perhaps other mediterranean countries, in the summer when there is a big influx of visitors, the residents sleep on their flat roofs and let their bedrooms to tourists. The savvy Bethlehemites would have been out to make a buck or two from the people who had to be there; perhaps some of them were partying on their roofs. It's time to throw away the Christmas card idea (oh so twee) of a cute snow-covered shack with a radiant baby, two adults, a grinning donkey and a few random sheep. Oh and the shepherds and the three kings. Wayfers don't generally understand the shepherds and the "3 kings" to be there at the same time; nor even that there were three foreigners nor that they were kings- just astrologers and wise men. And yet those same wayfers seem to think there were only two people and a baby in the shack.

With John's attitude like that, I have to wonder what sort of looker Jeaniam is. If she is pleasant to the eyes and dresses nicely, sounds like she must be on the pull for whatever sort of males come along. Just to see if she has the "power." Or is she supposed to dress like a frump and hide herself under a brown paper bag, a chador, whatever, so that she doesn't "tempt" males. John's attitude isn't far from extremist Islamists who think all women are deliberate temptresses and therefore compel them to cover themselves completely. (Of course, what such an attitude displays really is not that women are temptresses but that men are out of control with out of control lusty impulses, and therefore have to have their impulses controlled for them. Like kids who have to be told they can't eat all the candy in the store.) I remember Lovely Loy teaching the men in my Corps that it was okay to ogle women's breasts...well, it was Ed H0rney, but Ed wouldn't have done that without LCM having specifically wanted that to be taught. The men in my twig were appalled. (Go on, John, have at it. You know you want to distract this thread even more!)

Blame the victim, Johniam, why don't you? Those women ... they were just asking for it, weren't they? In fact, they seduced that righteous man, VPW. ...In fact, isn't VPW the victim in all this, falling prey to those "arche" women? He surely is going to have some 'splaining to do, telling why his boundaries were so far removed that he fell prey to them and was caused to be unfaithful to his wife of many years.

Johniam, please consider THESE scriptures which you may consider supersede the OT ones - being as these are addressed TO THE CHURCH TO WHICH WE NOW BELONG rather than to the OT patriarchal society. In any event, the references you quote simply state what the situation is - not state it with approval. You may come round to thinking that God doesn't have a problem with man's sex drive (after all, He put it there) PROVIDED the man keeps his sex drive under proper control ... within proper boundaries ... boundaries somewhat like these: Ephesians 5:33 KJV Nevertheless let every one of you in particular so love his wife even as himself... LOVE HIS WIFE - not someone else's wife, and not "his wives." 1 Timothy 3:2 KJV A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife, vigilant, sober, of good behaviour, given to hospitality, apt to teach; A BISHOP - what's that, hmm, someone in some sort of leadership position in the church? Like the Man of God for that day and time? THE HUSBAND OF ONE WIFE - rather speaks for itself, doesn't it? Or do you think that gives a bishop/church leader to be ... a husband of one wife ... and keep a harem of other women? (And what about the other requirements for a church leader? But let's not go there on this thread.) Titus 1:6 KJV If any be blameless, the husband of one wife, having faithful children not accused of riot or unruly. THE HUSBAND OF ONE WIFE- second time it says that. And, again, to church leadership. Even in the OT you will find this: Proverbs 5:18 KJV ... rejoice with the wife of thy youth. Again - the WIFE of thy youth - NOT the "wives" of thy youth - and not with the wife of the youth (young man) that you employ, know, go to church with, or have any other communication with, either. While we're about it - lemme think - Adam's wives were called Eve and ... who else? Oh yeah, that's right. God only gave him ONE wife. How very mean of God, considering his later "approval" of 1000 women. (edited to improve layout)

JB, your post made me heave. Heard most of this before, but - heard. Seeing it written... (vomit icon please). I feel distinctly queasy. Haven't heard that one before; maybe some of that "special knowledge" for special groups (males). Ex 20:14 Thou shalt not commit adultery. Matt 5:28 But I say unto you, That whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart. Wouldn't spiritual maturity be ensuring that one didn't look on a woman to lust after her? (What else is the purpose of porn?) Oh, but of course. Adultery doesn't matter, in the renewed mind or whilst seated in the heavenlies.

And as to that WC6 man, even if he'd been working 18-20 or more hours straight for a week, that still wouldn't be an excuse for falling asleep. (Nor for more humane working hours.) However, there is no condemnation to those who fall asleep and therefore fall out of windows and die. Those ones can be raised from the dead (Acts 20:9-12).

Hah, haven't thought of that in years. But I don't think it accurately reports how LCM put it. It was more along the lines of "The body holds the same relationship to the mind, as reason does to the spirit." I'm pretty sure this is what he taught. And the idea behind that was: the body is under subjection to the mind and did what the mind told it to do; and reasoning should be along spiritual lines and is subject to our spirits. Of course, the phrase could have been said in a variety of ways over the various years that it was recited - add a word, change a word, omit a word - LOL, it wouldn't be the first time that Way doctrine had been subtly changed without any overt statement. But that was it in the early 90s. Alternatively, I could be misremembering it. No recollection whatsoever of the underlined bit that's quoted. Could be that it's some of the later (or earlier) ramblings of this out-of-control loudmouth. He wouldn't know temperance if it hit him with a 2x4. I'm not going to dredge any further back into the dustbin marked "TWI" for further recollections. My Corps years - in fact, all my TWI years - were spent suffering under his inordinately long ramblings and rantings and histrionics. That's more than long enough.

Quickly, please! Only argument about that, OS, is that I don't think they're preserving his image so much as using it to preserve the cushy lifestyle and accumulated wealth for the head honchos.

I thought this bore repeating. I echo it. Though I doubt the "some day" will be soon. Twice is established: But God Himself is witness against them, if they would but listen.

You're not weird, Excie. But this Chris B - now he sounds very weird. No doubt you "cast" him far from you.

Ah, Waysider...nostalgia. "It wasn't really that bad. Heck, I met some really great people in the Corps/ at twig/ at the Rock/ whenever." Mmmmm...what was it that sign in the BRC said/says? "The best times of your life are now"? Not, I think, a comment regarding the BRC or even TWI, so much as an exhortation to live in the present, not in the past...or the future. Don't know who originally said that, but it's not a quote unique to TWI.

Thought some here might enjoy this: Interview

I love making soup with squash - Crown Prince is best - it's nothing unusual and you probably have heaps of pumpkin or squash recipes (more common / popular in the US than in the UK). It's nice with a pinch of curry powder. Just a small pinch. Adds depth of flavor but you don't notice the curry taste. Or with loads of garlic. Or with anything else you fancy, really.

Wondered if there was any further information / update?

Smoking cannabis in public? You guys are living in the wrong country: Coffeeshops ... except it's not coffee they sell ...

Oh please, Johniam, it's not all about you. Or all about VP. But you did make this good point: Couple that with: That's where compassion for others comes in. We really don't know what has happened in people's lives. That really scratchy and difficult person you know, who rebels against everything ... the attitude stems from something. I wrote a hard-line comment above about castration; unfortunately, a lot of abusers have themselves been abused, usually as children and continue to exhibit that pattern as adults. (In fact, we've even had this discussion about VPW!) Abusers may need compassion and psych help to overcome their own problems (whether abuse to themselves or something else); but they also don't need to continue to be at large and a danger to others. Many of them are well able to know right from wrong, can function properly, and have excellent strategic, planning, manipulative, and disguise skills. Some even disguise themselves as ministers of light...in more than one religious environment. And sexual predation is wider than actual assault. A significant problem today is internet pornography. That - like the man who walked into the shower but did nothing - is consenting to the abuse that takes place. Which makes the viewer just as bad as the perpetrator.

There are many ways of preying sexually on people. It's not just rape. But I'd love to make the punishment fit the crime. Whip the offending parts off. Castration. Doesn't stop males assaulting with other weapons - bottles and such like. But the risk of losing such an intimate part of oneself might be a deterrent. Apparently it's a routine punishment for sex offenders in Czech Republic (according to Wikipedia).

Steve, as a former cult leader you have a lot to share about what leading a church/fellowship/whatever, about what it is NOT. You have learned to beware the groupthink and the shared values that are inappropriate. You have learned about the insidious way that false leaders lay out, the blind leader and the way into the ditch. You know the dangers, pitfalls, and over-respect of the leader. You can share all this, with a view to helping others to see when their egos are beginning to take over - when they themselves are magnified, and not God. Any of your fellow students should be willing to learn, with humility, the traps that the devil can lay before them. And hopefully any of your fellow students with ego problems who might follow down that path will be exposed at an early stage. You could also do worse than invite them to read Toxic Faith, and The Subtle Power of Spiritual Abuse. That's if they want to help people, and genuinely avoid leading people astray.