waysider

"..... the harshness that was modeled by Wierwille and Martindale was something it took me a long time to shake and it adversely impacted my relationship with my daughter... which I very much regret." I could say the same about marital relationships. All the hooey about "Be a man! Grow a pair! Take charge!" Where's the room for compromise and free exchange of ideas and feelings? There were guys out there beating their wives, beating their kids, both physically and emotionally because that was the example they were presented by so-called leaders. Sure, Wierwille talked about compromise in Christian Family and Sex class but that was all just a bunch of talk. In real life, the man was a tyrant with his wife. Too many of us patterned our lives after his "machismo" example. It took its toll. I'm sorry I ever thought the man knew anything about marriage, sorry I tried to pattern some of my behavior after leadership. I know this is off-topic so I'll start another thread.

(I posted this on another thread, as well. It seemed to be relevant to both threads.) Here is one for the "for what it's worth" department. It's not just The Way. Here is the accompanying video.

Here is one for the "for what it's worth" department. It's not just The Way. Here is the accompanying video. edit: I also posted this on the ABS thread.

Problems shmoblems. Everyone has problems. Just keep sending us those blue forms and lots of money. And make sure you don't dip into the ABS to pay the postage. God will know.

The die-hards will find a way to rationalize it, at least to themselves. It's good that it's out there for all to see, though.

Yeah, they probably both said it. It was a common sentiment back in the day, as was the idea that life insurance was unnecessary. Of course, like a lot of these things, it only applied to us , not them.

[Where's the money for retirement? twi veterans are SUPPOSED TO "work until they die." That's a quote from one of the higher-ups.] That would be Harry (He wasn't my uncle) Wierwille.

It's like Amway. Everybody is so busy selling dealerships, the soap gets relegated to the sidelines.

John You have a wonderful knack for twisting what was said. I never said that giving 'til it hurts was non-Biblical, I said that ABS is non-Biblical. That is a position I still maintain. As to investing, neither one of them had a clue about prudent investing. This is evidenced by the massive blunders they made in property acquirement. But, here again, that issue is really a straw-man as this thread isn't about investing, it's about the practice of giving money to the ministry, above and beyond the customary 10% tithe. edit: grammar

Hello, Roy. It's nice to see you again. I think the feelings you're going through are something we all experience as we age. I can remember how my grandparents talked about how the world was going down the toilet. Then, as they got older, my parents talked about the same things. Now, here we are, still talking about how the world is going down the toilet. Well, maybe it finally is. Or, maybe our perspective just changes when we reach a certain age. I suppose it will be any day now that the generation following in our footsteps will be telling us how the world is going down the toilet, like it's some new kind of thing that just happened. Just act surprised and pretend you hadn't noticed. It'll drive them bonkers.

I just had a Homer Simpson moment, one of those where he smacks his forehead and says, Doh!". :doh:/> All these years we've been calling it Abundant SHARING. It wasn't sharing at all, it was GIVING. Sharing is a two way street. ABS was a one way street. Everything went to HQ and nothing ever came back, nothing got shared.

Here's the long and the short of it: There is nothing in the Bible that says "9/10th's will go farther than 10/10th's" (Adjust the verbiage to make it more Biblical if needed.) It's just not the there. It's a clever phrase, no doubt, and a good marketing ploy because it appeals to human nature. But, Biblical? Nope. It just isn't. Now, does that mean you can't give to a cause because that's what you want to do? Of course not. Give until it hurts if it makes you happy but don't attribute it to a Biblical mandate..

MOD NOTE: this post refers indirectly to previous posts that have since been deleted. While it is off topic, the responses to this post were on topic, so it is not being deleted. OK, I admit this is off topic but this discussion reminds me of the time I suggested Paul may have been a lunatic or conman. Sparks flew. (My thread wasn't the first time the subject had been raised at GSC, either.)

and often there was.

It sounds to me like he was hell bent on singing a solo version of "O Woe Is Me".

Suppose for a moment that the record being discussed was in the "original". How do we account for OT laws that were supposed to be immutable being brushed aside in the Gospels by someone who is said to have always spoken for God? Maybe that's too far off topic. I'm not sure. edit: spelling

To be fair though, I think it may have had red drapes (fire engine red).

Something that just struck me as odd is that, for as much time as he spent studying every little detail of Wierwille's life, Geer seems to have never discovered that Wierwille's doctorate was phony. Curious. You do know he wasn't really a doctor, don't you? edit: spelling

Mark It doesn't matter how many Bible versions contain the story, many Biblical scholars have opined that it did not appear in the texts until late in the 4th century. In other words, it was added.

A patriarch, in modern terminology, simply refers to the male head of a family or household. Geer, however, was using the term in a manner that deliberately bestowed Biblical status on Wierwille. Wierwille was not a Biblical figure. He had no status beyond that of a rural preacher. He wasn't the male head of my family, though he was a father and patriarch to the Wierwille clan, specifically. The only way to partially stretch any meaning out of the reference is to concede that The Way was synonymous with the household of God. It isn't and never was. It was a cult, like so many other cults that have come and gone through the years. Did he teach "The Word"? No, what he taught was an amalgamation of works that had been prepared by other men and women, a fact he was clever enough to conceal from his devoted followers. He even went so far as to invent fairy tale-like stories about magical snow storms and divine, audible voices to obscure his dishonesty. For what it's worth, I frequently heard him referred to as "our father in The Word", a term I personally objected to more times than I can count. Maybe some of you who know me can even remember me arguing that point with you if your memory stretches back that far. The only way to grant him Biblical, patriarchal status is to first acknowledge him as a Biblical figure. That's a big negative. Secondly, it would have to be shown that what he taught was "The Word". He fails the test on that as well. In the end, The Passing of a Patriarch was really nothing more than a bunch of mumbo-jumbo, designed to advance the cause of an overly ambitious "wanna-be". edit: HERE is a link to the paper being referenced. It's a perfect cure for insomnia.

If you had ABS'ed only 1% more they would have been able to do just that. It's all your fault.

Would you clarify the point you're making?

Green Card Promise Teaches how to separate the peas from the carrots.

CLICK

Witnessing at the mall: "All we are saying is give peas a chance."