waysider

GreaseSpot Cafe is a gathering place, bringing together people and information. We welcome all who have an interest in The Way International, including former followers, current followers, and those who may have friends or family members who are involved. Our mission is to provide information that tells the other side of the story about The Way International and its trustees. Our hope is that GreaseSpot Cafe serves as a place where those who have been impacted by The Way can make connections with people and information which will support their particular process of recovery

All the ones I have known have had no problem "displaying" emotion. In fact, most have been given to an outwardly caring persona. It's an acquired acting ability they learn so they will fit in. That's part of the reason they are not easily spotted. Once you are "on to" one, their performance becomes shallow and predictable.

By my criteria, treating a fellow man in a manner that displays blatant disregard for the consequences of said treatment would be a sin. edited for 2x post.

I think Tom Strange has exclusive rights to that one.

Perhaps you could ask the person who was actually there if your assessment is accurate.

So then when a married man has sex with a woman that is not his wife, what are we to call that if not adultery? (excluding this incident in order to address the larger question)

Only Del could answer that question and, unfortunately, we no longer have the luxury of being able to ask him.

So then you contend it is appropriate to illegally offer alcohol to someone you know to be less than the legally acceptable age for consumption?

Please refer back to post # 102

In 1972, it was illegal for a minor to consume alcohol, other than "Sunday beer", or offer it to a minor for consumption in the State of Ohio, which was VPW's home state, the state with whose laws he would have or should have been most familiar, even if this did not take place in Ohio. If he did not know the local laws, he should have inquired rather than pronounce it "OK" to offer a minor alcohol, which, by the way, would contradict our Biblical admonition to obey the laws of the land. (ie: what some might classify a "sin".) edited to reiterate this question again in case it went unnoticed. "Are you saying that, because penetration never occurred, there was no impropriety in the events that were described?'

I'll ask the question again in case it wasn't clear. "Are you saying that, because penetration never occurred, there was no impropriety in the events that were described?'

Maybe my memory is slipping. Wasn't it stated that Del confronted the BOT to no avail?

Oldies Could you perhaps clarify what is is about this situation that you find redeeming? Are you saying that, because penetration never occurred, there was no impropriety in the events that were described? If that is indeed your premise, can you explain in greater detail why you feel that way? Would it have been appropriate if it had been your mother?

I'm still stuck on this II Peter 1:20 thing. ("Knowing this first, that no prophesy of the scripture is of any private interpretation.") Is this saying that no scripture is of any PI or is it isolating the prophetic components? Add to that, verse 21 says "For the prophesy came not-------" Then, of course, if you continue on into chapter2, which, if the part of the class about chapter and verse markings is correct, was all part of a larger context anyway, you find the warning about false TEACHERS. So, I'm just asking, What's the emphasis here? Is it the scriptures or the prophesies of the scriptures?

Ham Although I can't speak to this particular incident, I can tell you that this effect is rather elementary for a lighting technician. I was once involved in a production of Royal Hunt Of The Sun which is a play that loosely chronicles the clash between Pizzarro, the explorer, and Atuhalpa, the Inca leader who was considered to be the personification of The Sun God. When Atuhalpa made his first appearance, he was elevated at center stage and back-lit with a gold gel-paper frame. He looked for all the world like he was surrounded by an aura. It was extremely effective.(And simple)

Thanks, Sky Watcher It took a tremendous amount of courage to post like that. There is so much there, on so many different levels, it's hard to know what to say. I'm glad you are here. waysider

Kick out the jams, Brother Ham!!

Excie You were NOT a member of The Secret Agenda Society. You were like the teller who was present when the bank was held up. You were there but certainly not part of the hold up gang. PS----It makes PERFECT sense. You are NOT the one who should be saying you are sorry.

I had to google it so I'm out. It's a really good one, though.

So now you're equating "ignore" with M&A? I hardly think so.

Maybe it's supposed to say 2'429 MUMBLERS!

Wierwille was a sham. He knew less about spiritual matters than the average "pet rock". Looking back on it, I'm surprised some some irate husband or father didn't blow the S.O.B's brains out. Maybe he had people threaten to do just that. Why else would someone who is so "spiritually perceptive" need to surround himself with armed body guards? Edited to point out that those things have all been said before by others. I just "put them all together" like they haven't been put together since the last time they were all put together ;)

Is it Bad To The Bone---George Thoroughgood?

One thing I find myself wondering is if they are able to spot each other, form alliances, cover for each other. Just wondering.

When Emmitt Rhodes split from The Merry Go Round back in 1970 or so, he released a solo album--- a REAL solo album. Multi-tracking was still quite new but Emmitt mastered it in no time at all. Every part on here is Emmitt. Here is a clip from that album. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pQstonvVxpA...feature=related PS--- When this was released I bought it on 8 track!