Twinky

When I did my research paper, the first draft was, IMHO, pretty good. It contained no Wayspeak because it covered areas that TWI rarely ventured into. Stylistically, my paragraphs had a bit of an opening sentence, Bible verse (usually from the OT), and a light sort of exposition. I was using the verses, however, as building blocks to my conclusion, not in a show-off way but to present my case. First draft got sent back. I hadn't included enough references to PFAL materials. (That's because there wasn't anything relevant in PFAL, dummy!) Second draft, well, finished version: I had had to rewrite to include various references to PFAL material that wasn't really relevant and added nothing. This version was well received, surprisingly widely read among the head honchos, got quite a few compliments from unexpected sources. I found a copy of my (haha) research paper a few months ago. I read it. It is, actually, good stuff. Huh, the additional bits that I had to stick in - stick out like sore thumbs. Made me wince. But: finished version matched their "style guide" and so was deemed acceptable. Looking at it again, I'd do it a little differently now, not the research work (which was so entirely my own work) but the way it was put together. And it could well be much longer because it was a fascinating subject. Certainly, there wouldn't be any Way jargon or turn of phrase. Oh, what was it, you ask? "Judicial Answers of Truth in the Ministry of Jesus Christ." [I remembered the title as being a little different, but I'm looking at the document itself.) Good ole Craig himself gave me that topic. Every answer, every OT quote, that Jesus gave was checked back in its OT context, reading back and forth over all related chapters, and then reading other related areas, Bible books, etc. Started as a word study of the word Apokrinomai [remember those word studies?] and exploded out from there. So you can see: mostly OT stuff - and a good look at the gospels. So you can see why there was so little quotable material in PFAL. After all, it wasn't necessary to study the Man himself, nor his lifestyle, his application of scriptures to living in his everyday world, his understanding, exposition and demonstration of the scriptures/ Torah/ Pentateuch/ temple teaching available to him. We're so very smart now that the gospels are irrelevant, so don't need to be covered in PFAL, just given a passing glance from time to time. The reality of "It is Written" applies to PFAL materials only. Rant over! Oh, and yeah. As a retired lawyer, I was used to considering carefully, looking at lots of relevant material, and producing an opinion, letter, document that noted all salient points and led to a clear conclusion. I knew how to write: for a court, for a lay client, for other professionals. And formally, for my dissertation - my degree. Not to mention, informally just for pleasure. But writing Way-style....errggggghhhhhh. Children's stories are better written.

Interesting old thread this. I was going to include an extract from their digital WayRag but it's not set up well and is in any event so difficult to read. At random I chose an article, and found a paragraph. So: they say what they want to say, reasonably intelligibly. Then say it again. Then a Biblical quotation. Then, take an English word (an ordinary, nothing-special type of word, from that Bible quote, and say "this is the Greek word xxxx" and expound what they claim is the meaning, both then and now. Then virtually re-write the opening sentence of the paragraph. Write four pages like this. Hey presto! End of article. Whatever they said, it could have been said more clearly in half a page. Not four pages.

Doncha mean, the backroom boys (and girls) who make the pastries, and fetch the coffee, and wash the cups? I guess, those who fetch the coffee and other tasties, too. Thanks, everyone (even if a few bits of crockery get broken in the process).

Well done, then, those who transferred to new server.

So what has become of a thread in Doctrinal I started only today," No-one comes to the Father except through me"? There were several replies, but the entire thread has vanished. There are other threads upon which I know there are new entries made today, and they have vanished too. Please can you restore these. I certainly can't repost everything that I wrote, as I have no other copies.

Paypal worked for me - though not the Donate button under the first post on this page.

Thanks, Chockfull. I thought for interest you might like to see what these churches support: Bath Abbey: https://www.bathabbey.org/donate/mission-partners/ The first four are working locally for international benefit; the fifth (Genesis) is a local charity. Holy Trinity/StACC: https://www.htcd.church/international-mission These are the international missions. There are other local (UK) missions that are supported, Genesis again being one. Genesis Trust (hyperlink) is local and small, and deals with the "dreggiest" homeless, addicted, abandoned people and tries to raise them in confidence and skill level and to reintegrate them into "normal" society. It works in partnership with other local charities to address their wider problems - housing, addiction, ill health, etc. Genesis is funded entirely by donations, mostly from the city's churches: its clientele is so chaotic in lifestyle that it can't produce the "measurable" outcomes that local authorities and other grant-giving organisations demand. The congregations get reports from time to time about the work carried on in these missions. So you see, both the churches as donors and the missions hold themselves accountable to the congregations that have given money. Oh, and by the way: neither the abbey nor StACC/HTCD ever require the congregation to give under pain of excommunication or any other sanction. Finances are talked about occasionally, especially when needed for a project; and we see the annual accounts of the churches, and the treasurers are always willing to answer questions. They're also accountable upwards to the diocese and higher church authorities. I think that's all exactly as it should be in properly run churches. I cannot see TWI ever getting involved in anything like this. What a culture shock that would be! Nor, for that matter, some of the US mega-churches where the "ministers" have huge churches and cult followings. It's time for TWI people and for those in mega-churches to "come on home" to the wider Christian community, and to properly play their humble part in building up the Body of Christ. Not build the body of any cult.

Charity, I'll raise you this one - thought it was what you were posting, but yours is very different. You probably know this one well:

Oh, and I want to add something else. I attend one church StACC regularly; and another church, known as the abbey although it hasn't been an abbey in centuries, occasionally - both Anglican. These churches use the money received to fund work that genuinely helps our communities - StACC is in an overlooked, impoverished area, so we provide free meals on a weekly basis to all-comers, and there's lots of other help etc available to anyone in need. The income is used to pay for outreach workers of various types. At the abbey, the Big Church for the city, there's also a lot going on, including some free meals and a vast amount of other support. A lot of clergy, only some of whom are paid for by the diocese - the rest from church funds. And BOTH churches (as churches) give away AT LEAST one tenth of all their income to support other churches and church building projects and missions, some within this country, and some to help overseas work. StACC (just a little church) is helping support a church in Albania, another in Romania, both on a regular basis; and there are occasional donations to several other African countries. Our slightly larger parent or maybe sister church has a whole missions team and supports four or five overseas missions and projects. The Abbey donates to four or five overseas missions, including the project Reaching The Unreached, which helps the most destitute children in south India with provision of housing, clothing, education (inc through Uni if the kids are bright enough). (Additional to this, members of the congregation often choose to donate privately to these causes.) Both churches have had serious financial problems in recent years and it's been a struggle to keep afloat. But their donations to support these worthy causes have remained at at least 10% of their income and they see this as vital. These churches are not doing anything extraordinary - in that this is expected, not just of Anglican churches but Methodists, Salvation Army, and no doubt many other denominations. Compare and contrast with a cornfield cult, that thinks giving "bursaries" to African students to study in Ohio is generous. And certainly wouldn't think of donating either time or money to helping homeless people in the nearest large town.

Oh ho! "A love of wealth or money can subtly overtake a love of God if allowed. When this happens, it is evidenced by covetousness, a desire for more and more." And there we have it, folks. We see the evidence. So they are admitting that the love of wealth or money and the incessant desire for more and more has indeed overtaken a (a??) love of God. "A love of money, wealth or possessions can indeed produce covetousness, but it cannot produce sustained happiness." It certainly cannot produce sustained happiness for those who feel forced to contribute to the coffers of those who have a love of wealth or money. What it's generally produced for the contributors is sustained poverty, not abundance - material or spiritual. What's generally produced for the recipients is - well, more and more greed. Their greeds and wants are definitely parallel.

No, not the toenails (which are real and still uncut) but TWI. And their promises. All are UNwelcome at The Way or (you choose).

From the article: "a strategic plan to reach out to individuals who once fellowshipped with The Way Ministry, but, for whatever reason, currently do not." So would those individuals include those who -- for whatever reason - mostly baseless -- were M&A'd, slandered, vilified, abused - and if so, would those people firstly receive an apology from The Way Ministry; and secondly, be welcomed with open arms? My guess is that (1) no apology would be forthcoming; and also (2) that any such individuals would be put on "spiritual probation" until such time as they proved themselves sufficiently sycophantic to re-embrace TWI restrictions. Could take issue with practically every sentence in this promo. But why waste the head space? I have better things to do. For example, my toenails need cutting. It's all fake!!!!!!

That's cos their class is "chicken sh1t." (I assume you meant paltry not poultry, but I thought it was funny.

Oh? What happened there? (I do have a genuine interest in knowing. Some history here.)

Huh, nobody's sent me one. But why would they? They don't have any address that's even remotely relevant. But if they did... perhaps I would return it with the invitation, "Come on back - to the wider Christian community." Come to church with me for a month or so. See what my church teaches. See what the congregation do to reach out to others, and to help the community generally. See what the Christian community in my city, comprising many denominations, does, to help not just the Christian community, but the entire city - believers or not. See how we engage with those around us. See the help, healing, deliverance available to all. And then tell me you can do it better. Yeah, right.

This. A rant. Not a conversation. This too. There are plenty of men around who are kind, considerate, wonderfully well rounded men, who are so far from the "macho" male image that they must be from another planet - the macho nitwits, that is. And there are plenty of women who are pioneering, bold, won't-be-told women who have broken the "ceilings" imposed on them (generally by patriarchal or paternalistic societal norms). All power to those who want to smash those restrictive norms, whether they be male or female. But calling a dog a cat, or a cat a dog, doesn't make it so.

My understanding is that SEX refers to whether one is male or female. GENDER is a grammatical term, used in some languages (like French and Spanish) when nouns take certain word (Work-endings). Why? Lost in the mists of time - probably based (in Europe) on ancient Latin, but why did those who spoke ancient Latin choose to do this? But in recent years, gender has been co-opted by the woke brigade to try to distinguish between - between what? What one is, and what one wants to be? With all the problems being a woman brings, it beats me why men, with so many advantages, should want to "be" women. The use of "they" to define a single person is just plain weird. He/she/it. They?? What, do such people have split or multiple personalities as well as "gender dysfunction"? To use "they" to mean a singular person is confusing - I'm always looking for the other person or people involved. "They" is plain lazy, and ignorant, or both. I do wonder if there would be less of this "gender dysfunction" if the pressure to be a thuggy macho male were less prevalent. If men were able to enjoy their more caring or sensitive side instead of being beer-swigging football fans with noisy cars.

If you hired a contractor to build your home, and right from the beginning you, or someone else, kept interfering with the plans, the contractor might reasonably get pretty ticked off. How many "design and build" contracts have you heard of - one thing was designed, and then multiple changes were introduced as, or after, the building was started. Maybe the building needed to be built bigger - or smaller, because the money ran out? Maybe there was a problem with the foundations - the subsoil wasn't as expected, there was an unknown hole or a load of archaeological artefacts. Maybe a shortage of a type of building material? A bespoke builder needs to accommodate changes.

That's what a certain cult teaches. Maybe more than one teaches it? Exactly. God never removed the ability of his creation to talk with him; and God has continued to talk with his creationS since time began. Question is: do the creations listen? Or have they failed to pay any attention?

Good lord, is that Craig? His vaunted golden hair has slipped down to his chin, and gone grey? Still got the scowl, though.

I googled her name and found this music by Claudettee. I listened to a few clips. It's 43mins long. Not my kind of thing, but others might be interested. Looks like a TWI production. By clicking on it, you might be giving royalties of some minuscule amount to TWI. Make your own decision about whether or not you want to do that, or have given enough to them already. Of course, doesn't tell us what she knew about what was going on, and I don't know when this album was made.

Maybe a bit off topic but : "Would you be blessed to ...?" Which usually meant, "You will do this whether you want to or not. Because I'm telling you to."

Aincha glad there wasn't Zoom or Skype in those days? If there were, you can imagine somebody in Security examining the feed from every single household on line, and looking out for "off the word" things. Not just the nametag slightly askew, or the shirt not being ironed to perfection, or having the wrong hairstyle - but they'd be examining everything in the background. The state of your lounge, kitchen, or wherever you were sitting; whether the curtains hung correctly; what TWI paraphernalia was on display; how tidy the place was; and a zillion other irrelevant details that they have no business knowing. They really would "have eyes on you."

Like, "the word of God is the will of God." Means, "the Bible as I teach it is the will of God as I interpret God for you." From the TWI PoV, it certainly does NOT mean: "Jesus Christ [and what he preached] is the will of God." Particularly since we were actively discouraged from reading the gospels, those naughty OT records!

"Generation." Hmm. Might mean something along the lines of "administration" if one still buys into that idea (I don't, well not in the way TWI teaches it). In places in the Bible it puts "week" for a period of a year, or "day" for a period of a year or some other length of time, not just a period of 24 hours. So I wonder if "generation" (a vague word, not a specific length of time) is used in a vague sense, to indicate some future period, that those currently alive might or might not see. I think all that Gen X and Gen Z and other stuff is a little ridiculous. Though without doubt the "Swinging 60s" generation with its funky fashions and mini-skirts had considerably different aspirations from the 50s generation of post-war austerity leading into more peaceful and settled times, or the 70s, with heavy rock and psychedelic drugs.