Broken Arrow

Okay, I'll speak in plain English. Why are you bumping this? Is there something in particular in this thread that you want to discuss or keep discussing?

Wherefore dost thou bumpeth?

I thought it was Stephanie, but I could be wrong.

I take it, then, that he's no longer with his wife. What does "IIRC" mean?

Oh.

Thank you Twinky. Your insight on this has been very helpful.

In reference to Kit's post. I would just like to reiterate that in TWI Christ was absent. You find that written in some of their books not the least of which is the PFAL book. So I've developed the following formula: Organization - presence of Christ (Messiah)= non-Christian organization. Therefore since TWI by its own admission claims Christ was absent, The Way International (or The Way, Incorporated as it was formerly known) was not a Christian organization. If God moved, and He did at times, then it was in spite of the teachings, attitudes, and sins of TWI. That is not to say that everyone in TWI was not a Christian, but the organization itself did not follow Him or recognize his lordship.

I loved that quote from Max Lucado. It kind of puts it in proper perspective. I'm not sure I agree when he says that prayer is the friend of the physician. I think it's the other way around. Everything else he says in this quote is awesome.

Luke was not one of the 12 disciples. It's reasonable to speculate that he may have been one of Jesus' disciples, just not one of the 12. He was most certainly with The Apostle Paul, however, and Paul never told Luke his occupation was rubbish. That would support your argument. While I'm at it, and this is a minor point, wasn't The Rescue written by D@vid Cr@ley?

Actually, these aren't ex-wafers. The victims are people still with TWI for whatever that's worth. Where did they get the money? That's the saddest part of this story as it is in every scheme like this. They get their money from various places. There are probably some people who had money. Most probably did not. It looks like one lady cashed in her retirement. I've known people in similar situations to get cash advances on credit cards or borrow money to invest in some sort of shady scheme. Typically they lose it all. TWI has a no debt policy so I don't know how many would have fallen into this category. What is particularly saddening about this case is that Hirschfield had a ready-made trusting market in the form of TWI followers. Hirschfield was in TWI and so for that reason, and that reason alone, he had total trust. He, apparently, decided to exploit that trust and basically steal money. He says he didn't receive any money; I rather doubt that. Just for the record, Hirschfield was in no way "slick" or smart in the way he pulled this off. He plainly and simply took advantage of trusting people. My guess is that he'll do at least 5 years of jail time, but who knows?

I really wasn't referring strictly to TWI but you still make a good point. Would a religious organization of any kind be objective? Well, depends on what is being disputed I guess. What if one of the parties is in tight with the leadership of said group? Would they be unbiased then? I'm glad you brought up "stacking the deck". That's when a group that has in reality reached a consensus but they still need to "sell it" to the public. So they find someone, just one or a few people known to support the opposing viewpoint. Of course, folks are glad to have some of "their people" on the decision making team. Then the team votes what they decided they were going to vote anyway. It gives an appearance of objectivity because the opposing view was represented. In reality the whole thing was a ruse from the start. It's a powerful ploy, though. An opposer looks bad if he turns down the invitation (most of the time they don't see it for what it really is). In such a case, the opposer looks either like all they want to do is gripe, or they don't really believe their viewpoint is valid. If the opposer accepts the invitation then the team goes ahead and rejects the issue at hand but it seems like they've considered all viewpoints. They haven't considered all viewpoints, they've already decided what they're going to do. People play games like this all the time. Back to I Cor. 6...One of the things Paul asks is "wouldn't it be better to be wronged?" or something like that. I take this to be in trivial matters. Instead of being about "proving our point" or "getting what's due me", just let it go. I think Twinky alluded to that in her post. I know I have to watch out for that in my own life. Sometimes I can be all about proving myself right and not being disrespected. That just brings on more misery for me. A mature person just lets certain things go. There are more important things in which to invest my time and energy.

Golly gee...I wonder if he posts here under the name of...oh well.

I certainly haven't been exposed to all Bible teachers, but I haven't heard anyone really talk about it. I've read quite a few books and I used to listen to a lot of radio sermons (worked at the station) but I haven't heard this subject discussed at all that I recall. I find it interesting that VP chose the sexual addiction accusation to emphatically make his point.

Thanks for posting this Twinky! I'm in a similar situation though not as long. I never thought of posting here for ideas. I'm reading along as well and I, too, wish you all the best.

I've seen this played out in both TWI and non-TWI situations, that's why I have a concern. I know of a case where a WOW sucker-punched his fellow WOW and knocked out a tooth. This required dental work and the police were called. Of course, one of the first things police do is ask if you want to press charges. He was strongly "encouraged" not to deal with this through the courts but to involve TWI leadership. It was decided that the perpetrator should pay the dental bill. The individual never followed through on this, and with the knowledge of this incident, he was still permitted to enter the Way Corps. He may even post here for all I know. As far as felonies, I don't think the prosecution even asks if a person wants to press charges; they just prosecute if I'm not mistaken.

Thank you, this is a helpful perspective. One small question; with regard to the exhortation to settle matters quickly, isn't that a parable spoken by Christ? I'm not aware of any other references.

Indeed!

I've often heard it said that if a believer is wronged by another believer, they should not take the matter to a secular court of law. I Corinthian 6 is used to validate that belief. Even when I was active with TWI I never bought into that. While I'm fully aware of this scripture, I don't agree with this interpretation. The thinking goes that some mature followers of the church get together and listen to the cases of each party and then render a decision. What if the other party doesn't recognize the authority of the ad-hoc group? What if one of the "judges" really isn't into it and fails to show up for these hearings but still renders a decision all the same? What if one of the parties stalls and doesn't show up? I know of one case where the offending party just didn't show up for the "hearings" and would always have an excuse. He eventually tired everyone out. What could they do, have him held in contempt? How does it work if the believers are in two completely different congregations? How are the "judges" picked then? If a judgement is rendered, who assures the offending party adheres to whatever guidelines set down by the panel? If someone does something to physically hurt one of my family members, seriously damage my property, or steal from me, rest assured I will press charges I Corinthians 6 not withstanding. Someone may ask how I reconcile this belief with I Cor. 6. The truth is, I don't. I have surmised that I'm not really sure what is being said in this scripture in light of the culture and customs of the times. What do you think? Am I wrong? Is there any light you can shed on this passage? By the way, I'm not in the process of suing anybody, nor have I, nor do I plan to. It's just a question.

I wrote that in response to something Waysider said earlier in this thread. Upon re-reading this, I think it is a bit harsh and doesn't really communicate what I believe. What I was trying to communicate was that looking to the Way International for recompense is a waste of time. Examining one's self and assessing the damage is definitely not a waste of time. In fact, I think it's necessary in order to move on. I did not mean in any way to say "Quit your whining!" No, in my own experience it wasn't until I began to admit I was damaged that I began my own healing process. In situations where I've been hurt either by TWI or someone else, I have never been able to have the person give me back what they took from me. In most cases I found the perpetators unwilling to admit their own abuse. Even in cases where the perpetrator was repentive, I found them unable to undo their own damage. So I have quit trying to get something back from the abuser. I still hold the other party accountable for their actions, though.

You know you're in trouble when they pay you not to sing. ("Oh no, please, stop doing that...here. Go buy a burger or something.").

Just for the record, I don't believe goods needs evil either. I'm just talking about a dichotemy I see when the "idiom of permission" is used to explain evil happenings. I don't have an answer myself.

I believe I knew the man I wish to be?

I must admit, I sort of threw this "idiom of permission" thing on the trash heap along with the other teaching errors of TWI. You're helping me to see that maybe there was something to this. I have problems with two key aspects of this argument. Certain acts in the Old Testament do not line up with the loving and merciful God of the New Testament; killing of the first born being a prime example. The idiom of permission that says God allowed the Devil to do it helps reconcile the two contradictory ideas. However, saying that God allows evil to be unleashed connotes that God can stop it if He wishes. If God allows evil to occur when He has the power to stop it, isn't that the same as committing the act itself? Also, if God is merely allowing the adversary to commit an evil act, can't the adversary just say, "No! that would make God look good in the long run, and I'm therefore not cooperating. Finally if God allows the Devil to commit evil, the implication is that God needs the Devil in order to show his goodness. In other words, good needs evil in order to exist. Not exactly an almighty God. Now, I have nothing to offer in terms of another explanation, but this one leaves me with a lot of questions.

Oh, I see. No, never lived around Pittsburgh but I worked with and went to school with people from there. That's how I learned about "yinz". I was never taught the correct spelling. Thank you. If I may ask, just what is "Hiberno-English?"

I wish we still used "ye". We seem to have no second person plural word now. You can't say "ye" now because it is outdated and sounds old fashioned. You can't say, "you people" because that's offensive. That leaves us with "you all", y'all if you're from the South, "you guys" if you're from my part of the country (which is kind of dumb if much of the audience is women. We say it anyway.), and "y'uns" if you're from certain parts of Pennsylvania. Then again, if this is the biggest deal in life for me to lament, I need to get out more. Y'all have a good one. Take care "you guys".