chockfull

When I rejected the "family" vs. "household" blatherings of TWI, it was amazing to me how much more I valued genuine Christian fellowship regardless of the doctrine or background of the Christians. I saw that it was I who had blinders on due to a condescending and judgemental attitude I carried towards brothers and sisters in Christ. They were not considered "household". Boy what a beam I needed to remove from my own eye.

To me the verbal abuse happened by words that had the power of perceived spiritual authority behind it. What I had to deal with mentally was coming to the conclusion that the spiritual authority was a false one, and was there by people climbing political ladders that were self serving as opposed to what God set up. Secondly, I realized that as an American citizen I have freedoms that nobody can take away. Thirdly, I realized that the only power these words had over me were what I allowed. So I made a decision to rightly judge these words as coming from deluded people, and rejected their authority over me. Fourthly, I started building my own mental patterns, Biblical research, and relationships around the premise that the only authority I would allow to be over me is that which is genuinely from God. I had to change myself from habit patterns of being compliant to false spiritual authority. That was hard work and would have been much easier to ignore or avoid. I feel more free today than ever before. I am totally convinced that which is truly from Christ produces the fruit of complete spiritual, mental, and emotional freedom.

Lucy, He's brainwashed and can't see the truth. There's an element of truth in his analogy of excusing one's self from TWI being like betrayal in a marriage. It's just on the other side. Most licensed counselors equate spiritual abuse as very similar to emotional and even physical spousal abuse. So the betrayal in the marriage would be the one having the power and authority abusing the weaker like an abusive husband emotionally and physically abusing the wife. You should tell him that. I hear he refused a request to go to HQ and be the new face of Way Prod. So he's not buying in to drinking all the kool aid even though he's acting like a jerk to you.

There definitely is a double standard. Whatever personal details you tell an overseer gets repeated all the way up to directors / trustees. However, whatever the top dawgs do or say is "lockbox".

Jesus dealt with this issue when confronting the Pharisees in Matt. 12:34 - O generation of vipers, how can ye, being evil, speak good things? for out of the abundance of the heart the mouth speaketh. The difficulty presented by the Pharisees was that they had an appearance of goodness, and spoke words that sounded like truth. Yet their actions did not line up. What he was showing there was that in reality they were not speaking truth. The words they taught were tainted by leaven. It tainted the whole of what they taught. So he taught disciples to "beware" of this leaven. The Pharisees made up rules that protected themselves and caused their ailing parents to suffer. Like this the teachings of VPW have to be viewed as tainted with leaven. With the same heart that he performed acts of sexual predation he prepared teachings, classes, research. Can you remove the leaven out of bread? Take the little piece out that was tainted? No, as it spreads throughout the whole loaf, and you're unable to determine which section is leavened and which section is not. VPW's teachings are of a similar sort. Like the leaven of the Pharisees, you can't remove the leaven out of his classes, teachings, research. The loaf has been leavened. If you want unleavened bread, the only solution is to throw out the loaf and bake a new loaf. Unfortunately what you see with many of the offshoots is that instead of throwing out the loaf, they keep it and start a ministry around it, only changing the "behavior" to be more godly. Therefore what they attract is those who are accustomed to a leavened diet, as opposed to the unsaved, the untrained Christian, the pure soul in need of instruction. It just doesn't work.

There once was a loud screaming Okie Who almost got thrown in the pokey With him out of the way And his ex a bit gay Now they all wink and say "Okey Dokey"

Please forgive the crude humor in advance. I'm in a mood today. I was thinking instead of changing the inscription on the tombstone, we could just leave it as it is. Except we could carve the picture of a very small penis right under it.....

Youtube's enforcement policy is to remove any material that an organization complains is posted in violation of copyright laws. That is how they legally protect themselves with copyright issues. There is a recourse to any copyright owner to prevent infringement, get items removed, and prevent damages. What does this mean? That someone trying to take legal action against a copyright infringer in addition to bridging the gap of problems in enforcement due to jurisdiction for this kind of thing would also have the weaker position that to avoid damages all they had to do is send a note to Youtube. Here's an interesting link that describes courses of action if you have a clear owner of a website posting copyright violations on their website: http://www.marketingdock.com/copyrights/de...nfringement.php As far as songs go, LimeWire is a good option...

What's going on in Gunnison? We were going to rent a bus, fill it with alchohol, and go on a road trip over that way seeing what kind of young and defenseless women we could find with sketchy psychological histories that we could convince to have sex with using roofies. slap...slap.... "stop it". Boy I just hate it when the flaming head of VPW appears and starts typing on my keyboard. ;)

Does this statement tie in to the "Her Holy Hermaphrodites" thread? Becuase I must tell you I just got this "ewwwwwwwwwww" feeling. I really don't want to know about what RFR does with her lips.

As a matter of fact, Don's PhD thesis was on the rennovation of the WC of Emporia from an old almost extinct college to the "new" TWI college.

You know WD I think I'm finally starting to get you a little. Yes, absolutely we own our responses to the situations we were in. There are huge numbers of mitigating circumstances and offenses and horribly gross mistreatment, but ultimately we are responsible for the only thing we can be responsible for. Our response to the situations. You are absolutely right in questioning where it exactly was that we started allowing the empty threats of the loss of foolish things to control our responses. I certainly did allow that, and openly admit it. We can't control what happens to us, but we can control how we respond. I can only say that in my own mind, I bought into the lies that they introduced the fear with. I was played because I allowed it. I can certainly see how it was accomplished - very subtly, with the balance of threats of losing what I had built over decades, with control through insinuations, but ultimately it is my fault. And in owning that I think I am a little bit stronger and a little bit wiser, and am building the strength to not allow it to happen again. I applaud your efforts with the Way Credit Union. You know I think many times I get thrown off by your statements because they come off like you are a cold heartless b@st@rd. Maybe you are. Maybe you have a healthy balanced accountable viewpoint. Maybe a little of both. I'd like to strive to develop strong accountable believing as well as compassion. To each his / her own. Absolutely. These people will reap what they have sown, or otherwise, as the verse states, God would be mocked. And He may be for a time, but not when all the cards are on the table.

socks, Awesome stuff, and it's inspiring hearing about what was a genuine grassroots movement. People can sense that kind of stuff deep in the heart, and that's what draws and attracts them. Quite a contrast to what the lifelessness of way prod went more and more towards over time.

The trait of "being nice to people" with vp in my opinion you have to look at within the overall perspective of his life and what he was trying to accomplish. He was trained in school as a pastor. He did know the duties involved there, with meeting with people and caring for them. He did this for families when many other men went off to fight in WW2. During the time most of us knew him, he was expanding his organization he founded into a worldwide organization. As such, and as common to founding CEO's of many companies, the "sales" mode is always on, as is communicating vision. Can you separate a man from that vision or that mode? It's hard. Were the motives "pure"? Well, within the confines of his vision, probably so. Did he genuinely care for people and show it beyond what they could do for him to help establish his vision? That's hard to determine, and we may never have an answer. Certainly he was a man consumed by his vision, so everything he did and everyone he interacted with was framed by that. The vision itself is what I question. If it was genuine and God-inspired, as opposed to egocentric and megalomaniac-like, why would you sexually abuse people, make political power plays, take the glory yourself, and act like an overall abusive jerk? The overall fruit of his life, and that of those who followed in his chief position footsteps is one of abuse, control, perversion of scriptures, using people to please himself. So the real crux of it from my opinion is that the fruit defines the man. And you can't separate a person from the fruit they produce.

Maybe they were on the way to their keyboard and tripped and fell, injuring their wrist. Maybe they decided to take up knitting. Maybe they found a heathen website to post on saving souls. Maybe you are projecting.

Comparison - sure thing, bubba!!! Here's a start:

That just makes me want to take out a black permanent magic marker and cross out the word "Promoting" and replace it with "Obscuring".

I personally think the account in PFAL was not a real account, but a parable type of account made up by VPW to prove his point. After all, VPW's expertise and his doctoral focus of study was homiletics. I'm certain he knew the best way to make an impacting point. A parable story is more impacting than straight teaching of the point. If you bypass all the parable type rhetoric, and try to analyze that story literally there are plenty of holes in it. There's quite a disconnect in the story about the minister "giving his kids to God", and how TWI recommends overseeing children. Also, to think that a mother with a young child would allow them to be near a busy street allowing them to run out in the traffic is ludicrous. Assigning blame to someone in a grief-stricken environment is pathological (but actually commonly practiced in TWI). He used a parable to make a point about fear and faith. There probably is some truth to the lesson, however, as many have pointed out that whole 'law of believing' stuff can really be taken easily over the top to be a glossed-over generalized religious mental exercise kind of like 'the secret', which is too over-simplified in how things really work to be effective. This also starts to make me wonder about the Job account as taught by VPW. Was it really 'fear in Job's life' that allowed all his children to be killed? The 'hole in the hedge' theory? Or is Job rather an account of the reality of human life, kind of like what Ecclesiastes contains, and showing God's goodness to bless people as they go through life's struggles and cope with grief, loss, unkind public opinion?

The 'gifts' vs. 'manifestations' argument - here's a couple of points: 1) Gifts of healing is taught as a gift - each individual occurance of operating that manifestation is a gift. So at least for one of the 9, no dice in stating it's not a gift. 2) Christians mostly refer to 'gifts' as particular talents that Christians develop when walking in the spirit. So their usage of the word would more closely align with how TWI defines 'longsuits'. So what if it's a current usage, not a precise biblical usage? Except that they aren't as limiting on what constitutes a 'longsuit'. One could have a gift in painting, organizing, finances, almost unlimited the possibilities, and none of it focused on the mechanics of how God delivers them. TWI on the other hand - totally focused on the mechanics of the operation, and as such vastly limit the definition of 'longsuit'. How many of you in TWI for years ever figured out what your 'longsuit' is in the strict definition? Which one of the 9 are you best at operating? Do you know? If you're honest, probably not. Why? Because even in their definition of 'longsuit' a good deal of the latter part of I co 12 doesn't fit in. 'Longsuit' really isn't an accurate dividing of the word. It puts God in a box. God can energize people to develop great talent in many areas, and that's regardless of if they are completely aware of how precisely He energizes. So making a huge distinction between BG Leonard and VPW RHST book - is a pharasaiac straining at a gnat and swallowing a camel. If we look at how most Christians talk about 'gifts' as a more modern current usage as opposed to religiously judging them on gift/manifestation - maybe we have a lot more in common with normal Christians than we think. Maybe it could free us up to develop some more things in our lives.

The representation of good music might present an unfair competition to the blandness of way productions?

Outstanding!!!! This is hilarious and brings back memories. Thanks for posting this. The quotes on the last page are so frickin' hilarious: What a hilarious attempt to be profound while saying nothing. We certainly have seen the history when the curtain and veil is lifted. It's the little man behind the curtain in the Wizard of Oz. Except he has a drinking and sex problem. wtf??? It sounds like someone reading the "Footprints" poem while on magic mushrooms. What exactly is the 'history of the moment' ???? I mean, like, once you live a moment, then it's history. See, isn't that profound? Actually, since he brought up the moment, more how I feel with the moment and TWI history is kind of like this: Stuck in A Moment

Now for some reason I think Catcup might take extreme issue with this statement. Why don't you look at some of her posts or search for that name here.

My that sounds like the opening to Charles Dickens novel A Tale of Two Cities - "It was the best of times; it was the worst of times..."

Definition of Compassion (TWI literal according to usage): Compassion - 1) a fake emotion you need to display outwardly so that people think you care; 2) a sign of weakness; 3) something that we will beneficently bestow upon you by not attacking and destroying your lives if you kiss our ring and feet, obey without question, and never talk about how we hurt you.

No I am not saying Pharisees did not have individual sins. If you would actually read my posts, I have pointed out numerous times that Jesus addressed them as a group because they were criticizing him and attacking him as a group. I do not get your point. You are ranting about someone singling out individuals and their sins and discussing them day after day, and how Jesus didn't do that. Is this an overall condemnation of all of GS? If that's how you feel, then don't let the door hit you where God split you on your way out of here. Jesus dealt with individuals and their sins all the time. The man with the possessed kid trying to pin his believing on Jesus - his response - 'if you can believe, all things are possible'. Raising Lazurus from the dead - everyone criticizing him - he put every single one out of the room. The person criticizing the woman for wiping his feet with her hair - he confronted that sin right there. Even in his resurrected body he told Peter - what is it to you? when he asked about the disciple he loved. He most certainly singled out individuals, dealt with their sins, and if they were responsive helped teach and heal them. Even if they were not, like Judas Iscariot, he still dealt with him individually and publically, and the record is there for everyone to see. He healed a guard's ear after someone lopped it off, confronting that sin. These examples are numerous and right off the top of my head. You seem to be the one that is trying to prove that Jesus did not single out individuals. So prove it - where is your chapter and verse? While he doesn't name the name there, he names the report, and that the person is commonly known. He addresses ONE INDIVIDUAL, and that person would be very well known to anyone in the Corinth area involved in Paul's teachings. You have some really stupid logic there, WD. By your logic, maybe courts shouldn't single out individuals who commit rape or talk about the rapists' sins day after day during their trial. Maybe trials should only deal with groups of people in general. Maybe there are no individuals that abuse, it's just society in general's problem. Maybe even your own stupid and intolerant logic is not really your fault - it's somehow some group's fault, whoever raised you, or taught you wrong, or whatever. People who sexually abuse others in the name of God SHOULD be exposed, they SHOULD have people talking about their hypocrisy, and they SHOULD become famous for their deeds. Kind of like OJ Simpson.