Twinky

I just don't get this "fear" (=terror) of God. I loved my earthly father. He was kind, loved his family devotedly, gave his life for us in fact; he was light on discipline (that was Mum's job) but when he said No, he meant No! In all my growing years he spanked me once; well deserved; and I live with the reason why and mended my ways ever since. But be afraid of him? Be terrorized by him? Fear him? Utterly laughable. I mended my ways because of his love and his forbearance. Because he loved me. Because he would do whatever he could so that I could enjoy my life. Because he treated me kindly, tenderly, not oppressively. And so I perceive God. My heavenly father wouldn't want to terrorize me any more than my human father. Surely? By contrast, my Mum disciplined us hard and tightly. Restricted what I could do. She loved me and didn't want me to make mistakes. Did I respect that? No!!!! I grew into an angry adolescent. I hated her and we had major rows. I ran away from home as soon as I could (at age 18). My father's dying wish was that my mother and I would make up. At the end of his life he devoted himself to trying to reconcile us. And when he died...I knew that it would honor him, to make up with my Mum. Actually she is a very good, supportive, wonderful woman. It took me growing up to see that. If I end up half the wonderful woman she is, I'll be well pleased. I'd do anything to help her and improve her life. She loves to visit me (I love that too) and it would be nice if she came to live with me. Where you guys get your fear (terror) of God I really don't know. What role models did you have, growing up? What role models from your earthly bosses? Are you spiritual adolescents, still? What kind of relationship can you have, really, with someone you are afraid of? Appeasement? Subjugation (not submission)? Extreme wariness? No ways tender as a nursing mother, lovingly reaching out hands to you, a relationship to cast all your cares upon.

I will be finding all about this in Jan when I go for an overseas trip. Can't wait for the security stuff......... :(

That's an interesting new perspective, Kit. That's rather thought-provoking. My church did a "roving nativity play" this week round the houses where its primary catchment area is. We sang carols that got local residents a bit interested. Then there was a new view of a familiar topic. Joseph and Mary...my fiance...pregnant...a bit of a scrap breaks out between J&M as they try to talk the innkeeper into having them..."what are you going to call this baby?" "Well, I thought Robert was a nice name, but Mary says it's got to be something else." Later the wise men come. The innkeeper says he didn't know anything about kings, but he'd seen this couple, the girl was pregnant. "But they looked a bit...y'know, common..." And the wise men think, "Oh can't be them then, not if it's a king to be born..." It was funny. But made you think. (It was a real pregnant Mary too... baby is due early Feb. Pity "Mary's" son no.1 was fretty and crying a lot. LOL)

Why is this topic in ATW anyway?

Agreed we need to have some sort of security - but how is it delivered? I've done a fair bit of international travel. Without doubt the security is the most unpleasant, obnoxious, unhelpful, degrading - in the US. Other security officials in other countries and in very busy airports can ask the same questions - politely. Professionally. Without getting people's backs up. Most people I know, if faced with international travel and can go via the US or some other way, will opt for another way and avoid the US. They shudder at the misery of American "security." It is not just security - it's the immigration component as well. Under the big Welcome to America signs sit the most unwelcoming and surly officials ever. Are they selected for their grumpiness? After a long international flight which will take several hours and may cross several time zones, tired travellers are willing to cooperate but don't want the suspicious "evil eye" cast upon them by immigration officials. And these people are the "face of America" to tourists. Frankly, faced with such a welcome, I often feel like I'd like to perform a terrorist activity on them, or at least leap across their desk and kick their heads in (and I'm not a violent person, I go with the flow). Contempt breeds contempt. If they did the things they have to do in a professional but pleasant manner, the job would still get done - but without the stale taste of resentment. London Heathrow, for example, is extremely busy and the place bristles with security gadgets and watchful armed police officers - but the officials are polite and don't behave as if everyone were trying to do something wrong. As a result, the passengers are cooperative. And appreciative. Some airport overseas - maybe Australia: Airport official: "You have been randomly selected for ..." Me: "Nah, mate, you've selected me because there isn't anybody else about and you're bored." AO: shrugs and smiles Me: "Let's get on with it then. What do you want me to do?" (activity) Me: "How does this thing work, then?" AO: (explains) And we have a long and pleasant discussion about security, testing devices etc. I felt uplifted. Probably, so did he. Another time, my bags were searched - not in my presence - for an onward flight out of the US - I don't have a problem about that, but I did want to make sure that the breakables in it were still packed carefully. Would they let me check - they could see I had nothing in my hands? No. Would they open the bag again in front of me, and show me? No. Would they do anything to help me? No, and if I touched the contents they would search the bags again. In fact, I think they threatened to arrest me! Weeping with tiredness, I went elsewhere, and at some other place where my bags were again allegedly checked, I found a more helpful official. This one was not American - Ozzie, Brit, something else. He opened my bag and showed me that my breakables were still packed nested in the soft things so that they wouldn't be damaged. Took less than a minute. I will never go to LAX again.

Wow, bet that was really good fun! Well done for confronting the evil so publicly.

Yep, he did that. But to be fair, he did open a Bible and expound on some principles. Initially they were helpful or seemed like he knew something. He spoke confidently and with authority. His teachings were the "hook." I was willing to forgive obvious errors because he taught as no church I'd ever been to. And (unlike himself) I didn't expect him to know it all. And his followers, twiggies, were vibrant, enthusiastic and full of energy. They wanted and expected to see God at work. They glowed with excitement at walking with God. I'd been to plenty of churches beforehand. Dull congregations, might be nice enough people, but no outreach, no desire or enthusiasm. And sermons - might be nice enough but no substance. If you want to know, if you want people excited about God and Godliness; if you want to understand some of the more obscure parts of the Bible...PFAL did that. I think churches and church people have changed a lot in more recent years. Many churches now have very active community programmes and/or get involved with dispossessed members of the community. Sermons give a better sense of God, the word in action, whatever. Many in the church though are afraid to speak to neighbours, colleagues...they lack the vibrancy and excitement that Wayfers showed. The church I go to now is very active in building its community; I'm part of several city-wide (denomination-wide) initiatives. And my church minister said: "The main reason people fall into cults [yes, he said cults] is that the church hasn't taught the Bible well enough. For that I apologise." There were many people in this congregation from lots of different backgrounds/denominations, and some had been very badly hurt by legalism, poor teaching, etc. If God's voice is hidden - even and especially in the church - seekers will go where they think they hear His voice. The answer is clear. Teach the Bible. And let those who hear live it and not be ashamed to speak to others. That's the part we can all play in defeating those of TWI ilk.

Well, another great and lively discussion gone . Thanks, Johniam, good deflect. Actually Johniam digresses to a worthwhile discussion on another topic and maybe one of the Mods could split it off and put it elsewhere?

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.