Twinky

I read somewhere here, from Penworks I think, that for those who've been in a cult, it takes about twice the time you were in to recover properly from the damage. So if you were in for 10 years, you'd be recovering for 20. I don't know at what point one can say that recovery is "complete"; maybe sooner for others, maybe perhaps never for a few . A lot will depend on why one is no longer with the cult, and also what counter-information is available. For ex-Wayfers, if people have found GSC, or some other anti-Way site, then once they can accept what they read, their recovery will speed up. But first, they have to get to the point of accepting what they read. If they try to ease out of their cult-thinking by joining other like "splinter" groups, it may be a slower process. (Worse yet if they want to start their own group, as so many ex-Wayfers do.) But an ease-exit by joining a splinter may help; it helped me a little, and because I felt free to challenge (having become immersed in GSC), it became very helpful to see Way thinking for what it is. The R&R bunch can recover - if they want to. Their minds aren't seared with a hot iron, more like buried under a vast quantity of concrete.

TWI, and all cults, intentionally confuse likemindedness with lockstep thinking. There can (and should be) disagreements but these should be done with gracefulness and respect. Especially between Christians, who are all children of God, children of the same father. Siblings quarrel, but shouldn't fall out to the point of violence. I am a (volunteer) Street Pastor. One of the requirements is that Christians from at least four different churches come together to serve the needs of their city. The idea behind this is to build Christian unity of heart. As we patrol, we talk with each other, sometimes about tenets of faith, but frequently about how we've seen God at work in our lives. Theological discussions don't have a place; we see God at work in each other - whether Anglican, Baptist, Methodist, RC, or some independent housegroup. SPs talk about God's love, his grace, and his powerful outworking. And when we talk to vulnerable people on the street (whether they are homeless, or drunk, or drugged, or rowdy, or celebrating, or homosexuals, or just plain lost), we speak with one voice: we tell them that God loves them, cares for them, that we are the church and we've come to help them, talk with them, and see that they are safe. We preach by actions. It's got the attention of the whole country. http://www.streetpastors.org/

Goodness me! $100? Pity I tossed mine into the woodburner years ago.

Thanks. No loss to this place.

Welcome, draw up a seat and be ready for a long yarn. Mike, who posts here regularly, also says TWI saved his life by rescuing him from a life not unlike yours. I'm sure many others can say that too. Your story is delightful. You were honorable with your WoW sister and didn't fall in or allow her to fall in with pregnancy/abortion "rules." I'm so pleased your kids have grown up to be great Christians. With your Masters degree, I'm sure you'll be able to add much to our discussions here, especially in Doctrinal.

Thanks for those links, JayDee. A lot are self-referencing; the best link appears to be the last one, isitinthebible. Hard, with commentaries, to sort out historical and cultural "fact" from private interpretation of commentators through centuries, which has- become accepted as tradition - or worse, as truth. Some state that the angels "evidently" folded the cloths; others state that Jesus did this (presumably equally "evidently") I think I'll keep this in the "don't know" box for the time being, though I like T-Bone's summary as a working hypothesis - to get attention! "someone ALIVE had to have done that” - not only "done" it, but had time to do it in leisurely manner. (If the "someone" were Roman guards, or temple guards, unlikely they'd have done anything in leisurely manner. Anyway, they'd have stolen the entire body, wraps and all.) Hmm...

I don't know that it would be a Jewish tradition - more like a Roman one. Where, JayDee, have you read "both sides of the discussion"? And, "both" sides? What have you read? Yes, HE'S COMING BACK. But what means "the napkin folded [or rolled] together by itself in a separate place"? Must have been included for a reason. It's a seemingly unimportant detail in a big narrative - where "big details" are often missing. So it must have some special significance.

John 20:7 Some versions say "wrapped together by itself," some "rolled together" etc I heard a very interesting comment made about this verse in church this morning. I’ve never heard anything else taught about it; nor can I see anything in a commentary. This, the young stand-in minister said, denoted a custom at the time. When a master had eaten his fill of a meal, he’d get up, toss his napkin down and walk off. This signified that any leftover food would be available for servants and slaves. If, however, the master just got up, intending to return (perhaps he had to answer a call of nature; perhaps deal with some other household issue or a visitor), he would fold (or roll) up his napkin and leave it. This signified to servants and slaves that he intended to return and finish his meal. The minister’s thought was that the head napkin that had been bound about Jesus’s head being folded neatly signified his imminent return. I wonder if anyone here has ever thought about this or read anything. Most commentaries are written by academicians a very long time ago who may never have travelled far from their home countries and never visited any part of the middle-east. It’s the kind of thing that one might think ought to be considered in “Manners & Customs” or “Light through an Eastern Window,” but there’s nothing. M&C merely suggests it was a “handkerchief used to tie the chin up,” without further commentary.

I remember him and his "spiritual suspicion" thing. Heck, the man was mad! In fact, he spent - oh, two "semesters" of Corps Night "teachings" ranting about homo infiltration. A shocking number of people got dismissed. Impossible to even consider some of them being homosexual. He claimed to have caught two staff men in bed together in a room in Founders Hall -- anyway, they got dismissed. Who knows the real reason they got sent away? They weren't there to argue their case. The man was mad - crazy - but not really at them. He was frustrated at his own wife taking up with Rosie, couldn't do anything about it, so he hit everyone else instead. Without particularly wanting to make a comment about Donna - with a husband like him, who couldn't keep his pants zipped, a serial predator and f-cker of other men's wives - why wouldn't she look elsewhere? (If he'd been my husband, which praise the Lord he wasn;t), I think I might have been tempted to carry out a little surgery... If thine eye offend thee, pluck it out. If thy hand offend thee, cut it off. If thy foot offend thee, cut it off. And if parts in the middle offend thee...

Here's one such Trinity thread, started by the late Steve L. It's not, however, what I was thinking of earlier, which caused him to post the paper he'd written (shown above).

Okay, Krys, let's see if this works: Yep, looks good. There will be a thread somewhere here where Steve discussed this topic, and that's why he posted this paper. Lortz trinity paper.pdf

You want red drapes? Let us help pull the wool over your eyes!

"Your abundant sharing shearing fleecing at work!"

"All you ever wanted to know about sex" - with practical lessons.

"Name it and claim clone it."

I would also offer a paper prepared by the late Steve Lortz on the trinity. He did this for his (genuine) doctorate. It made more sense to me than anything else I'd read on the subject. However at the moment I seem to be limited in the amount I can upload. An email to the mods, perhaps, for assistance?

Some of you might find this page of interest. I know nothing of the author(s) but there appears to have been some serious work put into the website: http://www.angelfire.com/space/thegospeltruth/trinity.html

You mean, like Cornelius and his household did, when they had the gospel spoken to them, and spontaneously spoke in tongues? (Acts 10:10-16) Not much indication of hyperventilating here:

FWIW, the "mighty rushing wind" referred to in this section could have been an earthquake. I recall being in a minor EQ years ago - heard this rushing roaring wind sound along the gully that my house stood above (the gully is actually an earthquake fault line) - nothing to be seen, leaves on trees not moving, everything outside still. Then, the house gave a rock, a bit of a shake, nothing significant. By the time I'd formed the idea, it's an EQ, hide under the door jamb - the EQ, a sort of pressure wave, had passed. Others at work mentioned it briefly, so I know I didn't dream it all. But it really did sound like a big powerful noisy wind rushing along the gully. Since then, I've often wondered if there were a minor EQ at the time of Pentecost. The land at that place is subject to EQs, and we know from Biblical records that there was an EQ at the time of Jesus's death (Mt 27:51, EQ not mentioned in other gospels). I'm not going to offer suggestions on the "tongues like as fire" - could be some natural explanations, could be entirely a supernatural vision.

Read it, can't remember the contents, don't care to remember the contents. I probably chucked it in the woodburner along with so much other Wayfer stuff. Dont't care to remember what I did with it.

You probably have more up to date information than any of us here. It could be interesting for us if you could share what it's like now. If you were only in a fellowship/home group and visited Ohio only on special occasions, you probably had a fairly good time. If you were in rez or on staff, you could have seen a lot of - hmm - interesting things.

Mike, collating the work of others, especially en bloc, is still plagiarism if appropriate credit is not given. Why couldn't he just say, "I found these wonderful sources (Stiles, Bullinger, Kenyon, etc) and I've put them together so that you can access them easily"? Why couldn't he just use and sell their books (and thus pay royalties to the authors), and use them as his "textbooks"? But no. All the credit, and all the money, had to go to Weirwille. As for your foolish claim that plagiarism is a recent emotional outpouring here, look at some of the dates of old threads. They go back years. I myself saw John Juedes's comparisons about 2003. It didn't take much convincing that they were outright copies stolen by Weirwille, and thus I have never trusted anything Weirwille claimed, since then. Open your eyes, Mike. Stop defending the indefensible. Please.

Jolly good. Always nice to enjoy a cider. Some good choices round where I live: Somerset is famous for its cider apples (no joking). Let's have another, heh heh. And one for Ex10, she likes cider when she visits.

If you commit a crime and get hauled off to prison, have you reached your Cell-By date?

Are you on the red wine again, T-Bone?