waysider

In PFAL we were taught to "Stand, no matter what happens." (paraphrased a bit) You can't do that without modifying your own behavior. In doing so, you become an active part of the procedure. That's what makes it so difficult to recognize.

"Let me get this straight. If I attend any church ONE TIME, then they own my soul for eternity?" What? Who said that? "Why didn't E&R church get rid of him sooner if what he was doing was so unethical?" Who really knows? Just because they didn't get rid of him doesn't prove or disprove anything. "People who join cults aren't "brainwashed" Well, maybe not initially but long term exposure and adherence to the tenets of a cult can certainly alter one's thinking and behavior.

For once we have a situation where a flow chart might actually help us understand the complexity of the situation.

At least in the REAL kindergarten we got a tasty snack and they let us take a nap when we needed it.

I'm curious about what people did before Darby proclaimed the existence of administrations (dispensations). How did they explain discrepancies and make everything fit like a hand in a sock puppet? Did they understand that the canonical sequence doesn't coincide with the chronology of the writings? Were they aware "there were only 3 kinds of people who ever lived. on. the. earth."? How did that impact their lives? Inquiring minds want to know.

That's a real gem right there, I tells ya. A bonafide gem!

There seems to be a date missing. It's the date that indicates when he took all his extraneous materials to the city dump (where the fire never ceases) and began to rely solely on God and the Bible for his spiritual enlightenment.

I don't think anyone meant to imply you can't or shouldn't use quotes to make a point. To suggest they did is being a bit disingenuous. You seemed to have a point in mind that you wanted to stress when you quoted Channing. What was that point? If you can't or don't want to address that point honestly, please don't drag this into a meta discussion.(ie: a discussion of the discussion, itself) Get back to the point at hand or start a new thread to address your concerns. As for Momentus, if you truly have no knowledge of the Momentus fiasco, you probably have very little understanding of the history of the organization or individuals you have chosen to defend here. Perhaps educating yourself on that issue would be an enlightening experience for you. As someone in an old 1940's movie once said, (obligatory quote) "It couldn't hoit, bruddah." edit: My Dad (may he R.I.P.) used to say "Poop or get off the potty chair." How's about that for a useful quote?

"As for my qualifications, I suppose you're right. I have no theological qualifications ... outside of the holy spirit the Lord gave me and the Bible in my hand. It certainly is very humbling. The wonderful news, however, is that I'm among very good company, since these were precisely the qualifications of most of those biblical characters we know and love. I'm sure glad that the Paul didn't hold Peter to the same standards of authenticity that you seem to want to hold me to, brother. The funny thing is, I was under the impression that a person's true credentials come from Jesus, since the Bible teaches that "... it is not the one who commends himself who is approved, but the one whom the Lord commends." Oh, here we go again, comparing ourselves to Biblical figures. Guess what. you're not David, you're not Paul or Peter or Jesus. You're just an everyday guy, living a delusional life in the 21st century, imagining yourself to be a key player in some noble "spiritual" movement. In reality, you're a simple pawn in the God-Game, just like the rest of us were long ago. You're the guy on the 11 o'clock news who got hoodwinked out of his life savings by some seemingly sincere shyster. You might be a perfectly nice guy in real life. I wouldn't know. I've never met you. Continuing to live the TWI/PFAL/VPW/JAL charade for your own sake is one thing. Promoting it to others as a panacea for their problems is entirely something else. And, when I say "something else" I don't mean something good. When I was a kid I loved to read. I did a lot of book reports. You find out quickly that you can't simply regurgitate paragraphs or rephrase statements to make them appear original. Right or wrong, you had to give your own take on what you felt the book was saying. So, with that in mind, what is Channing saying? Do you draw any correlations? How is it relevant to this discussion? What Channing may or not be saying is nowhere nearly as important as the idea of speaking your own thoughts, your own mind, rather than continually defaulting to a parroted encore of previous performances. In a nutshell: Think for yourself. You'd be surprised how far you can go beyond what you were taught, despite Wierwille's assertions to the contrary. edit: spelling

Note that in the upper right hand corner, Wierwille does, in fact, declare himself to be the recipient of a legitimate doctorate. (TH. D.) It was 1957 and the falsehood had already been established. (You do know he wasn't REALLY a Dr., don't you?)

Well, then, how about a summation? You know, kinda like, "The point being stressed here is (fill in the blank)." In other words, if you had to briefly give the essence in your own words, what would you say?

Can we get the condensed version?

Oh, OK. Another way to say "Just get over it."

".....men whose capacities and advantages, whose patient deliberation, and whose improvements in humility, mildness, and candor, give them a right to hope that their views are more just than those of their neighbours." SERIOUSLY?? You think this describes the subjects being discussed? Or, am I misinterpreting your implication? Here's a newsflash. The whole dogma of dispensations/administrations and 3 types of people is an elitist attempt to say "my dog's bigger than your dog.". It's the antithesis of what you seem to be suggesting. (Unless I'm misunderstanding the meaning of what you are saying, in which case I preemptively apologize.)

".....everyone else is deceived and therefore lesser children of god." Kinda like a pet schnauzer. "Fetch, boy, fetch."

You probably won't see many new faces. Offshoots seem to be filled with old TWI believers, pining for the good old days that never were.

There was no meat on those bones. That's why the skeleton never really managed to get anywhere.

Yeah, I don't understand the "answer nothing" part, either. I've got my hands full with "question everything" and "learn something".

"Question everything. Learn something. Answer nothing."......Euripedes

I must admit, however, had it not been for the humorous exploits of this merry band of Gawd's Elite, I may never have understood the full and vital essence of the phenomenon we know as cognitive dissonance.

When I said we tried to guess the gift ministry, I didn't mean to imply it was some sort of game. That seems to suggest we had a cavalier attitude about it. We did not. We considered it to be a serious and solemn event. I apologize for not stating it more clearly.

"......we were fed the company line about TWI being the revival of the Book of Acts, and how it was a world-wide ministry...." FellowLaborers was promoted as a way to gain an intimate understanding of how the church functioned in the first century through academic scrutiny and practical application in our everyday lives. After graduation, the idea was to take what we had learned back to our hometowns and put it into use so we could be better leaders. It fell short on all counts. The academic aspect was dismal at best. The promised study of Acts was almost nonexistent. The daily living aspect was nothing but a commune with a religious twist. We had some good times. We had lots of bad times. We learned some valuable life lessons. Few of them had anything to do with the Bible or how the first century church functioned. It was all a charade at best. .....but we did learn how to grow mung bean sprouts and make our own mayonnaise so that's nice.

Breakfast at The Way........HERE

Ironically, it was the focal point of a much talked about plagiarism lawsuit. "Harrison wrote "My Sweet Lord" in praise of the Hindu god Krishna,[1] while at the same time intending the lyrics to serve as a call to abandon religious sectarianism through his deliberate blending of the Hebrew word hallelujah with chants of "Hare Krishna" and Vedic prayer.[2]" SOURCE

At least they can't hide the bull any longer.