Twinky

Ah yes. Sunday trading laws. Once upon a time you could buy a pound of carrots at the furniture store for some three or four figure sum, and it came complete with free sofa and armchairs... Beer is what? Fruit juice? Mineral water??

Mine are all in another country but I need to make a decision to biff or ship them. I really don't want to give house room to the things. The only reason I would keep them is to work them through with a view to seeing what if anything is true, really true, so far as I can now ascertain. And sometimes better to follow a thread at GSC. But do I want to spend that much time on them - or just start afresh? Doesn't just looking at them and considering them really inadvertently glorify that man? (He wouldn't have "cop out" materials in the Bookstore.) And I don't want LCM's Red Thread. AoS has already met a fiery doom. Raf, congratulations on being free. Are you "traveling lighter" now?

George - you will have to talk to EyesOpen about the mojitos...she makes 'em pretty good! Anyway at Ex10's last year we were yarning away ... until people went back to their hotels for breakfast. I think maybe they were on breakfast and bed, rather than bed and breakfast.

Tonto! Happy birthday!! God's rich blessings on your life. Have a wonderful day. Twinx

Dooj - funny video. We'd all had spiritual lobotomies anyway. Seth - you think the purpose of the two-drink limit was to give us another rule? So they could beat us up for breaking it? WG, Waysider - a no-drink limit? I don't recall that on its precursor, the WoW field. So - no witnessing in bars, then? RumRunner - exactly; what you drink in private shouldn't be of concern. Unless it made you completely "out of oder." Maybe Seth is right. Make another rule, then you can beat on someone for breaking it. Pharisee-ism. Maybe it wasn't about the money [that TWI didn't get] after all. Heck, one of the fruits of the spirit is supposed to be temperance or self-control. Looks like they didn't trust the holy spirit in us. Whereas those who enjoyed debauchery (a work of the flesh) knew they couldn't trust their "holy spirit" and needed a rule to control their habits. Gal 5 in The Message is pretty cute. Or shocking. :)

Matilda, absolutely, it's a good idea to drink moderately, and alcohol fuels far too many dangerous or foolish situations. And a designated driver for a group night out is also a good idea. Sticking to two drinks on an evening out (the scenario as presented was, one drink as an aperitif, followed by one glass of wine with one's meal) is a good plan. But to enforce it legalistically? Works! Requiring the substituting of someone's judgment for one's own (a well-known TWI habit). Particularly if there are favorites who are exempt from the rule - ie, not a "top down" example (I guess the higher-ups - such as HiWay mentions - would be "spiritually mature" in more ways than one? LOL). HiWay, your tale sounds typical Way double-speak and maybe you want to start your own thread to enlighten us. What I'm wondering on this thread is whether it was not just an attempt to restrict our imbibing and enjoyment of alcohol, but also an effort to ensure that we had more available cash to support TWI.

One of the WC rules was the two-drink limit. You could not have more than two alcoholic drinks. That would be per day. There were two given explanations for this rule: 1. You needed to stay under the legal limit for drinking in case you needed to go out unexpected in your car to help someone. 2. To drink more may mean that you were less in control of your mind and might thereby let in devil spirits. And it was enforced. I know Corps who have been dropped for drinking more than two beers. Given the reports of the glorious leader who allegedly enjoyed his Drambuie on frequent occasions and in amounts well exceeding the two drink limit, it’s just another example of one standard for them and one for everyone else. But now I’m wondering if the real reason is something else: alcohol costs money. And if the money was drunk (by purchase of a bottle or two or three of one’s favorite bevvy), that money could not be sent to the great coffer in Ohio. I doubt really that most people would go overboard but to enforce so strictly (read, legalistically) this rule is just another example of love of money overriding love for people. Anyone else got any thoughts?

http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=mzJmTCYmo9g

Be interesting to see after all this exposure and ridicule whether they try some different sort of dance routine for their next round of song/dances, especially for the bigger events - the forthcoming anniversary weekend? The New Year Watchnight?

Oh. Really. Hnph.

Laugh in their faces, Jeff. It's a real "turn the cheek" opportunity. It's very good that your son is banned from seeing this group and learning such dreadful behavior. You have a great opportunity to show him what being a man is and exercising self-control. He he, I got myself M&A'd by a wannabe splinter group. It was too funny. I couldn't believe how pathetic the leader was. He had a crony there as a witness while he showed off being the big man. Ha ha, everyone else is laughing at him too, now. And nobody but him marks or avoids me. This one and the one that went gunning for you are no better than schoolyard bullies. But far more pathetic. Live life to the full! Here, have a drink on me -

Oh come on, Oldies. You know he thought TWI (=himself) was the only place capable of "rightly dividing the Word." You know he disparaged churches and religious organizations of all sorts. You know he mocked those who gave to other organizations and didn't put their tithe in the place best able to use it (=TWI). Yes, he said that about the Mormons in CSBP. He said, they tithed and they were prosperous. The implication was clear, they gave to their own organization. Which became rich. But then he said or at least implied that one would "get more" if the money were handed over to the organization "rightly dividing" the Word.

Still probably a no but George - have you got Skype?

Extracted from John Juedes's paper: Well, at least they are now talking about net income. Doesn't Christians Should be Prosperous talk about gross income? If tithing off the net income, the logic was, then you were putting the government and man's taxes and demands before giving to God and what was legally due to him. Then at some stage (early 90s??) without any teaching that I can recall, but subtly somehow, it became permissible to give 10% of net income. But about the same time, the ABS required booted up to 15%. So in fact they got about the same amount either way.

Aren't these guys back in the US now? You're welcome to them.

Here's a recipe: http://www.bbc.co.uk/food/recipes/database...ypie_1318.shtml This recommends puff pastry but you can also make it with ordinary short pastry too. Lots of variations on the theme. Try it with a baked potato and some carrots. Me, I'd have Savoy cabbage or Brussels sprouts as well. To follow, and because you already have the oven on: a creamy thick rice pudding. Yum yum. Very good winter stick-to-the ribs stuff.

Hey Chas, how'd the visit go? I don't remember seeing anything you posted. Hope it was a success.

A gun??!! What, they couldn't believe for God to protect them? What sort of branch leaders did they think they were? Somebody gonna steal The Word from them (they surely wouldn't have "earthly treasures"?)

Hmm, so the Soup video has made it onto the Cafe's front page. Funny! :) Not so sure I like the comments that are accumulating on the blog at the bottom of the video. It's one thing to work out issues at the Cafe, but quite another to wrangle in public on the blog. Enough there already to raise questions in the minds of any searchers after truth.

Well, do I have a fusspot cat or what! Tuxedo is getting oh-so-friendly. She has taken to prowling on the couch near my desk when I am at the computer in my "study." Yesterday I captured her (several times) and made her sit on my lap (not a popular choice). In the late evening, I captured her and she struggled a little but not fiercely. When she was calm I carefully cradled her and carried her off to another room. Sat on the couch and she calmed down. Lay on the couch with her on my chest and she stayed quite still and calm. We lay like that for quite a while, an hour or so. She does not relish this, but does not fight or bite or struggle to get away apart from a perfunctory wriggle. I always make slow and gentle movements and talk to her reassuringly, saying her name, and make sure that her eyes reduce to nice little slits and not the staring-eye no-pupil scared look, before I try anything new. Her fur is oh-so-soft and very gleaming. She is, however, a very bony cat, no fat, nothing spare, on her at all. Despite that she appears to eat constantly. She was jumpy this morning and would not let me touch her first thing, but she has overcome that now and as I sit at my desk, she is again roaming the couch so that I can fondle her. She also puts her head near mine, so has obviously realized that I am not about to eat her (or whatever does frighten her) (trying to think "cat" here). Other cat will still only allow me to stroke her and not pick up. However, when I was carrying Tuxy about and when we were lying on the couch Crypto's very concerned face appeared to watch what was going on and (for the first time) she put a paw on the couch and gazed deeply into my face, while I was cradling Tuxy. Maybe she had in mind to rescue her sister, though just a stare at her will scare her away. Nobody could call the look she gave me friendly or participative. I always try to ensure that Crypto can see what I'm doing with Tuxy. She watches carefully and if nothing happens with Tuxy, she will have a go at it herself (eg, a new toy or something different to eat). So if she sees Tuxy enjoys being fondled, maybe she will realize it's an okay thing. She does like to be stroked and brushed but not picked up. So things are moving well and remembering where they have come from, it's just lovely.

Enough already. When I laid me down to sleep last night, that dammed Renewed Mind is the Key song kept flittering through my brain. I felt like lying on my back and sleeping with the pillow snugly across my face. (But obviously I didn't.)

DWBH: "Chairman of the bored."

This gives them soooo much publicity. Years ago they would have "died for it." Now - it's all the evil demons, sorry, devil spirits, of the internet poking fun of the Word. There were some really talented musicians and other performers at TWI. Maybe there still are. But all the talent is squished into "one size fits all" and all joy and spontaneity removed - in the name of being "decent and in order." Over-choreographed, and with plastic smiles that look like they have come from pinning the sides of their mouths to their ears. It's sad.

The essence of this is that when Jesus appeared, Paul changed his mindset completely and followed Jesus. Then later he had further visitations and revelations from him. TWI claims to receive revelation about certain things but we only have their word for it and as such revelation sometimes runs contrary to clear scripture on like matters, one has to ask, was there any revelation to begin with? And if so - from whom? And TWI is hell-bent on being Pharisees. Legalists. You must do it this way. You must obey. You must do what we want even in the face of scripture stating the opposite. And actually they don't really want "gladness". That would be an "emotion" and therefore to be squished. Any expression of joy of heart, or excitement and enthusiasm, outside the carefully trammelled proscriptions of TWI is not "decent and in order." King David with his whrling and dancing in his gladness of heart would have been severely dealt with. His wife Michal's condemnatory attitude condemned her to childlessness - she was barren. Is it any surprise that TWI's joyless condemnatory watchfulness makes it barren and unfruitful?

You have the complete collection, OutinTexas? (tonque in cheek)