waysider

From the CES Doctrinal Issues statement, there is this: [Along this same line, Eve's mistake in Genesis 3: 1-5 was not that she "considered" the Serpent's words, but that she failed to compare what the Serpent said with what God said. To say that she should not have even thought about an alternative viewpoint shuts down healthy inquiry and the freedom to develop personal convictions. It is a subtle but deadly form of "brainwashing" and fosters unhealthy dependence upon teachers and tradition, often at the expense of truth and a "good conscience"] ---------------------------------------------------- From The Letter there is this: Perhaps worst of all, a golden opportunity to make known the Word of God, as it had not been known since the first century, was squandered. The Way. It was. What was it? First and foremost, it was, from about 1955-1987, the only place I know of where anyone could hear the amount of truth of the Word of God that we heard. Like I, you may know of some ministries that do teach some of these truths, but I submit that until 1987 there was nowhere other than TWI to find all of them taught as accurately as they were there. That is why The Way International stands out on the spectrum of Church history as an amazingly significant Christian movement. ---------------------------------------- Huh??? If it was the greatest thing since sliced bread, why do they now feel they must clarify that they disagree with what they were taught on 26 (count 'em) major doctrinal points?

It's been a long time since I've driven "The Emerald Necklace". At one time I actually lived right next to it. The thing is, it's not your typical city park that has an entrance and an exit. It's more like a scenic outerbelt that encircles the city. It's a Blvd. of sorts. The point is, many people travel this particular road for reasons that have nothing to do with the park system. I used it many times as an alternative route to and from work. So, the response "You're driving in a park" may be technically accurate but ignores the real situation. Ok, sorry----Back to the topic

I remember when VP used to state that the defining hallmark of a cult was that they believed in the Trinity. He, of course, was using that definition to take a back-handed swipe at those who opposed his "Jesus Christ Is Not God" theology. So, then what about cults that aren't even religious in nature? What makes them cults? I believe this theological criteria regarding The Trinity was just a smoke screen to hide the truth of what we were from us in plain view. We were a cult. Get it? A cult. Not because of our theological ideology regarding Jesus Christ being God but, more specifically, because we lived a lifestyle that typifies what one would expect of cult members. If we were "blinded", it was by VP's charisma and ability to hold a firm hand of control on his enterprise.

I believe what is being objected to here is not so much the validity or viability of saliva as a sexual lubricant, or whether Christians have sexual relations but rather the format in which it was openly presented and misrepresented as being relevant to Biblical research and teaching.

Out of the heart come the issues of life. This so-called "class" was a rare opportunity for the general populace of TWI to see what was in VP's heart. ----and we didn't even realize it at the time.

Yes, it's Time Of The Season by The Zombies. Here's a nice cover version by DMB.

My knowledge on the subject of martyrs is minimal to non existent. I can tell you this, though, Brushstroke, TWI taught that praying to Patron Saints was the same as praying to Devil Spirits.

Here's an article on "meta-discussions" that I stumbled upon on another site I visit. It seems to have some relevance to the subject of "rules". http://www.fitz-claridge.com/node/18 It's a bit lengthy so I've only copied the introduction. Sarah Fitz-Claridge home | polls | search Meta-discussion: an explanation Sarah Fitz-Claridge What is meta-discussion? You eagerly start reading a discussion supposedly about a subject of great interest to you, only to find that instead of being about the named subject, the discussion is full of posts arguing about how to discuss, what posts should be allowed on the forum, the attributes of a particular poster, complaints about others' posts and complaints about the discussion. Your heart sinks. You search in vain for any on-topic posts, then give up and never bother returning to that forum or discussion again. That is meta-discussion, and it ruins many a good discussion. For that reason, more and more discussion forum owners are asking posters to avoid meta-discussion. Let me explain why: Meta-discussion is second-order discussion: discussion about the discussion – for instance, about its style, its participants, the forum in which it takes place, and so on – instead of about on-topic matters. Imagine a discussion forum whose subject is the book Atlas Shrugged, by Ayn Rand. Here are the possible kinds of discussion:

What's your name? Who's your Daddy? Is he rich like me?

Is it Do You Believe In Magic? by Lovin' Spoonful?

Rhino While I agree with the point you are making, I am still curious if this expression came from a specific source. I think the earliest I can recall hearing it was about 1972 or 1973.

Happy smoke free birthday, Raf!

"I'd be dead today if not for Dr. Wierwille/PFAL." Through the years, even long before GSC, I have heard people use variations of this same phrase on so many occasions that it's difficult to estimate the number. Does anyone know where this phrase or line of thinking may have originated? Surely hundreds(maybe thousands) of people did not arrive at this "conclusion" all by themselves. Is it in a teaching, a song, a magazine article ? Where did this start? For one or two people to think this is expected, but hundreds is bizarre. Remember-----We're talking about a cult being attributed this virtue. Anyone know?

finallyunderstand Posted Today, 09:06 PM I don't remember if anyone ever said I was posessed. But there were several times I was told I wasn't "controllong my mind" or I was "out of control" just because I didn't agree with someone or something. Like the time when they tried to get me to pray for the board of trustees to either die or change. I disagreed in a meeting about having 24 hours of prayer for this. I refused to pray for anyone to die. OMG. Was I ever roasted. They all took turns ripping me to shreds. I was only a kid too. -------------------------------------------------------------- Oh my gosh! You were asked to pray for someone to DIE? How sick is that?

Hi Avondale Up on the top bar, you click on "live chat". There is a "lobby" as well as a place to talk one on one.

One problem that I am having with this discussion is that it seems to exclude those who are not of the Christian persuasion. Surely the difference between intentional and non-intention misdeeds exceeds the boundaries of one's particular religious beliefs

All this talk about "forgiveness" makes me wonder if maybe we shouldn't pause and define it. Sorta make sure we're talking about the same thing, know what I mean?

Everybody Picks On Me!

I like your "ruck sack" analogy, Ben, though "diddy bag" might be more appropriate for the current guests of GSC.

Maybe we're all just Waiting For Godot. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Waiting_for_Godot

Maybe this is better suited to the doctrinal forum but, I think one must examine the meaning of "forgiveness" before committing to subjecting to it.

Ben Are you aware that VPW had direct ties to white supremacy/anti Semitic organizations, sympathized with Hitler and openly taught that The Holocaust was a fraud?

I feel no compassion for them.(VP and LCM) They chose the paths they followed. Likewise I feel no compassion for Hitler, Noreaga, Idi Amin or Musolini because they were "deceived by Satan". Anger for what they did or judgment of their actions could never make me "become as guilty as they are".

We all got duped-----All of us. When we handed someone our pen to sign the now infamous "green card", we were part of it. When we sat in front of the twig and expounded on the amazing (cough) "law" of believing, we were part of it. When we went door-to-door or mall witnessing to entice people to sign up for PLAF (The Wonder Class), we were part of it. When we refused to allow a brother or sister to voice a "negative" but rather insisted they "renew their mind", we were part of it. And------------- we thought that what we were doing was helping people.

Sound the alarm, it's Radar's birthday.