Bolshevik

Wow. Thought-provoking topic. The site is about The Way. Looks like a post came from an SIT discussion, which I haven't read all about. I'd ask, "why is language" Yes, we speak the same language, but are we communicating? Do we understand each other? So what's supposed to be so amazing about SIT? . . . LOOK I can appear to communicate something to you and then . . . POOF . . . Magic decoder ring AKA Tongues with Interpretation . . . I'm actually telling it to you AGAIN. This time so you UNDERSTAND. Didn't they teach that SIT was like Baby-Babble? SIT will fall away one day and then . . . POOF . . . we will understand GOD.

"it"

I believe George Washington was guilty of genocide, and did some other bad deads. I haven't left the United States.

According to Generally Accepted Greasespot (GAG) Theory. Yep. What conditions influenced, allowed, propelled, sparked, and permitted him to do what he did? Good question. But off topic.

I believe the Bema, for the Wayfer, is more about reward than punishment. In The Way, there was no real system to correct a wrong-doing, other than banishment or deferring to the after-life. I personally have come to the conclusion that deferring to the after-life is cowardly and lazy. Rather than rectifying a problem, say "God will fix it later". Banishment, mark and avoid, isn't much different than that in practice. In both cases, isn't there acknowledgement that there is a problem? Spiritual Abuse. Emotional Abuse. Religious Abuse. Verbal Abuse. They seem to have one word in common. Is it hate, or might resentment be a better term? This anger is directed at leadership. Hate is between perceived equals. I agree that inner-turmoil will eat you up. But I think some expression of that is warranted, if we're trying to diagnose what's been thrown off balance. Sure, there needs to be some letting go, but dismissing the wrong-doing is not an honest solution, either. Often, citing forgiveness is just a platitude used for avoiding taking responsibility, If I can avoid acknowledging the problem, then I am free to do nothing. What gave leadership its power and ability to abuse? Who is responsible for that?

Minimizing is denial. Denying that the plagiarism is important is abusive behavior. When you point out the plagiarism, and they minimize that fact, they are trying to encourage you to doubt yourself, rather than confront themselves. Do that enough and you begin to lose confidence in your own thinking. That's manipulative. Yeah, I can see why you started this thread, as you mentioned. You're standing up for yourself. Awesome, Dude.

It's probably Wayspeak. International HQ. The Way International. International Outreach is a department I believe. Countries oversaw by International Outreach are International Outreach Countries. On topic, Rupp is not going to speak the lingo of modern business/industry very well. A person who is multilingual you'd think would grasp that.

Shoot. The link I intended to post had more realistic depictions of people and places you'll go.

Thanks. The humor makes it easier, I think. LINK. I wonder if the writer/editor on the TWI site used *How* deliberately or not. Did they know they were doing it? . . And if they did know, is it meant for the nostalgic? Keeping people in? Because who would be drawn to that message?

Thanks Steve and Waysider, good input. That makes sense. Okay, according to Generally Accepted Greasespot Theory (GAG Theory), Wierwille could only give that which he is, ego. He gave the gift of PFAL, to standardize thought processes so that His Ego could speak to our ego, and we became Bourne Identity Again. Our minds are subject to PFAL are subject to VPW. The *how* is a remnant of a VPW manipulation tactic. Followers of TWI, as his little Waybot clones, are likely parroting VPW when emphasizing how.

I remember, in The Way, parroting this "how" talk many moons ago. See this LINK. What is the meaning or purpose of The Way International's use of the word HOW? Example. Why is "how" italicized? What is the writer/editor/The Way International intending with "how"? Is "how" a process? Is "how" The Class? Is "how" a perception? Is "how" the rose-colored glasses? How is "how" important? Is The Way International implying "you're doing it wrong"?, "you're unsupervised"?, or "do it our way"? "How" seems to be paired with "teach", "taught" or "teaching". Is italicized "how" to distract from another word? Teaching? "How" could distract emphasis from "teaching/teach" . . . so what is meant by teaching? I know what a figure of speech is. I can google it. But that's not how. . ? Oh . . . they're saying whatever you can do The Way International can do BETTER, and how.

The first part of the verse is a description of Victor Paul Wierwille, The Teacher. The second part of the verse speaks to the ego and where The Teacher shall guide it, a segue into The Law of Believing. (VPW plagiarized The Devil, so this post is on topic)

There were long lists of things TWI claimed SIT could do. I don't know why they supposed them. Some of them were in writing. I've since tossed them out. SIT more to improve your grades in school. Skip coffee, SIT, you will be more alert. Are specific examples.

Claims in TWI that SIT enhances your physical and mental abilities could be tested, right? (If that's off topic, or has been covered, sorry)

Yes I've heard minimizing plagiarism. And seen the shocked look in response that anyone would accuse VPW of that. Go to the Victor Paul Wierwille Prevailing Word Auditorium and look at all the pictures on the wall of those other people he met. THERE is his credit to THEM, for all wayfers to see and acknowledge, VPW had help from other people. I've been told from numerous sources "you're too young to know what happened back then" or some variation. Therefore, VPW's plagiarism is a gray area. My bias, being from a different time, means I have no right to accuse VPW of plagiarism.

So if I were to be talking to wayfers, about plagiarism (the thread topic), and point out it's wrong and unethical and illegal by today's standards . . . might their minds jump back 30-40 years to a time of who-gives-a-hoot? Are we judging this plagiarism action out of context since it was done in a different time period/subculture? (Or at least the precedent established during a different era?) edited for grammar

Sorry. When I talk to followers of The Way, plagiarism, and staying on topic, is a bad idea. Staying on topic, is one of their tactics. Narrow the discussion. Why does plagiarism matter? In the context of other topics. It is and indicator. This plagiarism was done during the time of hippies? The 60s and 70s? Hippies were known for following the rules. It was an age of rule-following. People were soul-searching and leaders who were strict rule-followers would have been perfect for them. The Way International, strict rule-followers from the 60s and 70s.

2-4-6-0-OOnnnne !!!! I would agree with you. I see the plagiarism as an indicator, not a definitive proof, that VPW was a bad guy with bad intentions. The plagiarism must be taken into account with other evidence of his character and actions. If the argument just focuses on plagiarism, we get nowhere.

Plagiarism is stealing. Stealing is wrong. Taking a loaf of bread without paying in order to save a starving child's life IS WRONG, because it's stealing. Plagiarizing to (spiritually) save a life is WRONG.

I was taught to SIT and prophecy when I was too young to remember. As a kid, it was a game. In children's fellowship everyone was eager. As a got older, teenager, I remember having more and more reservations to the point of fear. I dreaded fellowship, which was three times a week, largely because of manifestations. I would actually spend much of the day in school worrying about it. At some point, into my twenties, every fellowship I would break a sweat over SIT and prophecy. It felt wrong, and was not a good experience.

I believe I've seen websites with subforums dedicated to discussing logic/ fallacies/ and how to argue and discuss. These forums were not the main purpose of the website, but it helped keep other threads from digressing into those types of discussions. I thought they were helpful.

I wasn't meaning absolutely always. I can't prove money is backed by faith of a government I have faith in. I've been conditioned to believe so, I believe. Take my word on it. (if this is just an exercise in equivocation, as you mentioned, are we having fun yet? )

According to Wikipedia, Faith, has numerous connotations. The Christians have faith in their Christ. Non-christians do not. Sure everyone has faith. How is it measured? Who cares? If you believe something for a long time to be true, and then found evidence that it was always false, might there be faith in moving your thought process to a new viewpoint?

What is Spurious Correlations, Alex? HERE

Does this happen though? That a discussion has come to THAT begs the question. You stated earlier there are correlations with atheism. Who's making those correlations? I'm wondering if this thread is a spin-off from a topic in another thread? (I was taking the OP as more hypothetical.)