socks

Saying that people are neurotic, need to take a pill, those kinds of statements - that's wrong IMO, plain wrong. It's degrading and simply shouldn't be done on a board where people are trying to be open and honest about what they're thinking. Not even commenting to what they've said and simply branding it as neurotic babblings is wrong, does nothing to help the perception of the problem and only comes off as a nasty comment. If someone reacted to me that way I'd ask them to stop and try to discuss it. I'm not inclined to endless arguing - live and let live works for me. Disagree? Bring it on, I'm your huckleberry. Use terms like that to belittle and insult me? Forget it. If it continued to where I felt someone might do it at any time, I'd hit that ignore button in a heartbeat. It isn't worth it to come to this board, which is just a "cyber-spot" for posting our thoughts, and risk exposure to that kind of name calling. The ignore is available. So are these.

ex10, I agree. That sums it up for me too. I hope it clarifies for Mike what I (we) meant. I have no special view into what VPW was thinking or planning while he put PFAL together. I wasn't there, and was young like you when I first took it. I would just say that within a couple years or so it was clear to me that he felt PFAL was enough as it was. Between the class itself, the good o' collaterals and the RTHST book he offered we got the basic nuts and bolts of the Way's theology. The class itself never changed, was never edited for any reasons, regardless of what they might have been. RTHST went through revisions and reprints. Whatever changes occured never changed the basic teaching on the "gift", the manifestations, their operation, lambano/dechomai, any of that. The collaterals were compiled into books. The PFAL class transferral to video from the original was handled by 3rd Corps, under VPW's direction. The video versions that were then offered were as close to identical copies as they could be. No changes to that material were ever announced or recognized publically by VPW. Any changes that might have occured were negligible to those who retook it. We saw the first showing of it at the Way Nash after it was completed. Of course PFAL doesn't have to be god-breathed, a new issuing of "God's Word", and as a result perfect in every way, one way or another. And if he'd declared that in session one in a way that everyone would have clearly understood I doubt I would felt compelled to accept it over time. VPW never clearly stated that. That's reinventing history and it places a burden on it that it was never meant to bear IMO. VPW may have even very well wanted to believe that it was - if a person wants to invent that kind of mythology around it fine, but that doesn't make it so.

Mike - ex10 Okay, let's begin... Well, yes and no. I'd state it as such - that the basic doctrinal points taught in the PFAL 3 part series were done deals, and assumed to be correct as is. Some nuancing would be possible in certain records but from a "principle" standpoint the doctrinal messages were considered complete. Further "tweaking" would only clarify the details. That would be how I'd view the "early years", after PFAL was put on film the second time, in the version most of us took. ----------------- What I meant was different from what you're saying. I meant that from the standpoint of VPW and The Way Inc. the PFAL class, as offered and taught, was a "done deal". In PFAL VPW didn't teach 12 sessions in the first series and leave ot open to further discussion on the doctrinal points. He was teaching a it "as is" - here's what the bible says, here's what it means. If he was able to clarify, confirm or enhance what was in PFAL - yes, perhaps. He might look at that. To change the teaching or the conclusions - no. So if someone came and had different ideas on the major points - no dice. As far as the atmosphere of the "grads" of that period being accepting of the god-breathed status of what PFAL taught, I wouldn't agree, not by my experience, the people I knew (and I knew quite a few) or the things I participated in. Remember - if we take the statements of VPW that no one - no one, ever - had "mastered" PFAL, ever, to the point of "true mastery", including the books, then people at any period of time in the Way must have not done the "work" that VPW felt was necessary to do so. That certainly allows for some reservations of a sort, on the part of the people he's talking about. Not in all, and not to everything taught. But it's reasonable I thnk to factor into the reasons for such a statement by VPW that this idea of PFAL's "god-breath"edness may not have been fully embraced since I would say (and others have too) that it was never stated as such by VPW, and that if he inferred it or made statements to that effect, it didn't register to the point people accepted it. And in fact, I would say it wasn't, along the lines of what most people here, including some from that early period, have said their understanding was. Some people have said that it was a very good class teaching the bible and "abundant life" topics that opened up new territory to many people that had never heard it before but - that there wasn't a conscious decision to embrace PFAL itself as "god-breathed", out of the mouth of God. Again - PFAL could be attended and some, all, a little or a lot of that teaching from the bible accepted as correct, without any belief that the media itself was "god-breathed". So to clarify - the "done deal"edness I'm referring to was on the part of PFAL and VPW. This atmosphere you're referring to may have included some people thinking PFAL was god-breathed. I certainly knew people who probably felt the very dust on the tape it played on was worth investigation, who had kind of a neurotic fascination with the trappings of PFAL and who probably felt there was learning to be had by the number of times VPW blinked everytime he said the word "pie". I don't know. But there were a few people who went off on tangents like that at times. They usually seemed to be that way about other things too. It's easy to misunderstand what someone says or writes though. I just wanted to clarify what I meant. I thought it was clear in the post, but I guess not.

Cool. Anytime you want to get perspective, remember - they want to spend 17 months monitoring your Snack Plan. That'll get your mind right, fer sure.

Thanks ex10! I appreciate you coming up with that, and you're response. First, I'd eliminate the idea that Stephen's "believing" was a cause for what happened...the idea that believing is the determining factor for whatever occurs in a person's life. Believing, trust, confidence. Jesus prayed to God before His death for that "cup" to be removed. But in any case, for God's will to be done. His confidence was in God to provide Him with His will to be done, above all. I suspect that Stephen would consider his death more than not having his stiff upper lip on that day. He forgave his killers, and asked God to not hold it against them. It's an incredible record, and Stephen had to be an incredible person, just incredible. I often think, ponder about that first era of people. Think about it - they'd seen or knew people who'd seen and witnessed Jesus after His resurrection. After his death and burial. That's going to change a person, make a difference in how they think and act. It explains the passion of their lives, the indelible mark they made in history. In the same way, to whatever degree, it always happens. When and if we focus on Jesus and His story, we have His death vividly in mind, that sacrifice He made willingly. Then we read about His living again. When a person has any contact that they feel is tangible, memorable, "real" with Jesus Christ - it has the same effect as it did on them. It's impossible? but as with Paul, that realization fries a couple circuits and resolders them back again, in a way. Once it's done, it's done and there's really no going back, whether we try to ignore that part of our souls or not. That's real Christianity, IMO, the real thing, the Life, the Way. This other stuff, "believing", that stuff - it's not that big a deal. We're all going to succeed and fail in life. Live and learn. In these graceless times, we need a little dignity, respect for ourselves and others. Your love, care, that's the good stuff. Y'know?

What do his legs look like? Okay, just kidding. Seriously though - I'd want to know, are we talking a shift here or something glittery and tight? Sorry. My only concern would be the shoes. Anything under 3 inches ain't going to be that funny. Alright. That's just wrong. Enough. I really don't know. The thing about kids is they pick things up. They remember. I'm probably taking it to seriously too, it's probably innocent. But if you feel weird about it, as already stated, you owe it to yourself to follow up on it, ask the teacher maybe where the idea came up, it seems weird to you. Talking it over with him might set your mind at ease, at the least.

Oh, they have NO idea... NO idea. Bagpipes Lover, it's not legalism they're pedaling. Read it again. It's ASSISTANCE. They want to assist you in the following challenging items. Maybe they have stock in Chevron. Maybe they bought Frito-Lay. Snacks? I read it again. Yup. You're going to take the Advanced Class, you have to have snacks now. It's required. Snacks. Month 1....I got my fuel. Month 2...I still got my fuel. Month 3....I checked. I still have my fuel. Month 4...I lost my fuel. Month 5....I found my fuel. This is cool. Everytime I need to feel smart, I'm going to read that list. INStantly adds 50 points to my Eye Q. Honestly, this is for the ADVANCED class? I'd hate to see what they monitor for the Foundational now.... I dunno what they're teaching in the Advanced Class these days but it's worth it be on the mailing list just to get this. It's hilarious! It should be on the front page of Grease Spot, headed "Several Things to Consider Before You Join The Way". Snacks. :P :)

"The peace of God that keeps our hearts is based on our thinking these things, on having an abundance of the Bible in our minds." More is better? Could be. Although a lot of a little bit is better than a lot of nothing, that's for sure. This is even more meaningful if a person believes they're "born again" of God's spirit, carrying that treasure around in this life. Jesus taught - to be like our Father in heaven and to return a blessing against a curse. Not me, of course, I get to do what I want, He'll understand <_< But everyone else, yes? We temper each other's tempers that way. Everyone has their moments, adding fuel to the fire burns everyone. Why are we at odds? I don't know. What if someone at some point said, fine. No more. In a perfect world if we were all we wanted to be, I'd be here to help you and you me, I'd hope. I'm laying my sword down. It hurts too much to hurt you. I'm just not going to do it anymore. You do whatever you choose. Here. Here's mine. Everybody gets to stay. :unsure:

Arrogance has a certain beauty all it's own. That highly polished sheen that comes from vigorous buffing. So bright, so clean, so shiny! But, yeah...They gotta go too. I'm not sure who gets to stay yet, haven't gotten that far. Needless to say disagreement with me is going to put you on the Short List, no promises, but it's something to think about. Okay, back to topic. Got work to do.

Dictionary dot com lists the word "ortho" with several definitions. And a pronunciation key. It's pronounced - or-tho. Go figure. Here's what it says - ortho- or orth- (is that Garth's cousin - Orth?) pref. 1. Straight; upright; vertical: orthotropous. 2. Perpendicular: orthorhombic. 3. Correct; correction: orthopsychiatry. 4. The most fully hydrated form of an acid or of its salts: orthoboric acid. 5. Diatomic molecules in which the nuclei have the same spin direction: orthohydrogen. and my personal favorite: 6. Of or relating to one of three possible isomers of a benzene ring with two attached chemical groups in which the carbon atoms with attached groups are adjacent: ortho-dibromobenzene. Isomers and benzene rings - oh yeah. That's the stuff.

There's quite a few GS types that need sorting out, here Allan. Hopefully this will be the start of a much needed cleansing - just a few to start with: Neurotics Psychotics Fussbudgets Worriers Typochondriacs Buttinski's Nosey People Inquiring minds Questioners Wonderers Know-it-alls Dumbies Smartie Pants Wise Ackers Wise Crackers Wisenheimers Dorks And of course, comedians. Where to start, where to start....

I'm sure it is Belle! Nothing like a joyful noise. Yeah, those li'l munchkins have all growed up in front of us. Me, I'm starting to look like the other side of a saddlebag. Feel that way too sometimes. B) So it goes.

SWEET DEAL!

Cuff me, I'm guilty and ready to do my time. :) Ain' gonna be no time off for good bahavior, I can gawrantee that. Belle, you just reminded me of a woman at the church we've been visiting. Not that this is you but that reminded me of her....She is the nicest person, can't remember her name, but we've been behind her a few times, chatted lightly. She's way down into the music, clapping, and gets right into a groove. But... She has no sense of time, rhythm. I mean, if there was a meter to be found she'd get a parking ticket for just driving by. She is so off the beat, it's absolutely - it's like falling in love, it feels that good. It's crazy, I can't imagine what she's hearing but it's her own song. But she has the right idea, I know that. Few months ago, my son and daughter were both home together and we went together, the whole fam. They're 24 and 22, and both rather attractive if I do say so myself, all due to their lovely mother. We were behind this woman and the kids were so cute - they couldn't believe it but were trying hard not to laugh becuz this woman is so into it. So the woman turns around after the song ends and smiles at my kids and says "OH you make such a CUTE couple, WELcome!" She thought they were 'together'. And they quickly explained they weren't, in that way. Somehow, it just seemed right. That whole service was so good, I could do it again and again.

Do I get something if I do??? :unsure:

As were we all. And I bet you were the BEST at switching that switch. What year was that? I think you're example explains why LCM ended up buried in athletic metaphors. In a warfare, there's casualties, victors, defeats, spoils, captures and prisoners. People get hurt. There's strategy, the enemy gets routed and decimated. In athletics there's winners and losers. Nobody gets killed or seriously injured - unless they leave the competition, in which case you're a GREASEspot, ya puh-nk! Short answer - both apply to our lives, in different ways (and not all of the ways LCM taught IMO ) I think it does warrant study though. But the essence of it isn't too hard to understand at this point, I think. Then, I dunno.

ex10, can you elaborate? How did the discussion go on that record, and it's meaning(s)? Thanks. P.S. I know I'm not contributing much to the other discussions, so I hope this all fits with the thread topic. Come to think of it, what wouldn't? :)

Well, yes and no. I'd state it as such - that the basic doctrinal points taught in the PFAL 3 part series were done deals, and assumed to be correct as is. Some nuancing would be possible in certain records but from a "principle" standpoint the doctrinal messages were considered complete. Further "tweaking" would only clarify the details. That would be how I'd view the "early years", after PFAL was put on film the second time, in the version most of us took. It mostly came down to elucidating on what was already known. If a person added to it, good on them. But if a person came along and challenged any of the basic precepts, that was a no-go. I'd agree with that, and to a degree, with the PFAL series - but only to a very small degree. Nearly everyone who stayed around the Way for any length of time either didn't disagree or kept it to themselves. The culture wasn't one of open debate on the basics, that I remember, ever. Discussion, questions, yes. F'instance, when we went on our interim year I spent most of my personal studying reviewing Acts and the travels of Paul, in conjunction with Timothy, which we'd had all taught our first year. Those topics were of interest to me. VPW had already taught and presented his idea of the Way Tree, and it was in full development. My own study led me to feel as if Acts didn't exactly lay out a pattern for a Way Tree structure, that the first generation of "Christians" didn't live it out that way. I posed a few questions about it to VPW, and he actually felt the same way, that the idea of a fully formed structure as he proposed wasn't fully realized in Acts, or in the years following, but the essence, the "potential" for it was there. My questions posed an alternate idea - that there was room for a fluid and flexible structure that would move with the times, and according to the need. VPW agreed, yes. But the Way Tree was what we were doing now. I think he had trouble responding to any real challenge to his line of thinking. He'd get angry if you pushed too hard, angry if you didn't. That's really the same as how the Way was run under LCM - the role of a "leader" or "man of God" whose job it is to know and reveal a "present truth", an ideal path for the body of Christ to be moving down. Once thats' revealed it's everyone else's job to get in line and get busy making it happen. Does this go to anything you said? To me it does, and if you want to get into it further, I might be able to get clearer. Sorry if it's ambiguous. It makes sense to me. :blink: :)

That sounds like a great way to live it, Raf. In fact I remember you posting about that last year, at least in one post I read, and it made a great deal of sense to me.

Yeah, it may be a matter of location. Maybe churches are like businesses - "location, location, location". Maybe not. A church I've attended (occasionally) "teaches" all of that, in some detail. SIT isn't taught the same way. Where PFAL was more of a production-line approach which (I think) proved difficult for some people and even generated long term difficulties for others, it's dealt with in a more personal, intimate approach. This church did a series last year where they took each service and covered a huge laundry list of questions relating to life, the bible, many topics, all that had been submitted by the congregation. It was titled "Google It". :) , as in search for those answers. It wasn't a static one-teacher-at-the-podium series, it used media, guest speakers. The "how do we know there's a God" piece included non-Christian presenters who discussed why they're atheists. There was teaching from the bible. It was quite interesting, inspiring and helpful. I find these kinds of things much more informative and helpful than continual and slightly rebaked restatements of what everyone already knows, where the "real" questions, needs and interests of people aren't dealt with. I agree with Raf, that the "big ticket" items of JCING, Heaven, after-death life, etc. are probably the items that most ex-Wayfers define comfort levels by. There again, I've been surprised though. I think Wayfers often take a stance akin to picking a fight - "he ISN'T GOD!"....before even opening the discussion as to who Jesus Christ is/was - as one example. There's also a personal-comfort level that I thnk a lot of people want too. If a church or ministry has some connection back to the "original" Way or PFAL based Way ministry, it might feel better, more "right" because there's an assumption that the major doctrinal and practical concerns will be dealt with the same way. But it's really no different than anyone else choosing a church because "I like what they teach". Same thing, IMO. Anyhoo-a simple case could be made that if PFAL was an accumulation and collation of existing information into a single package, that existing information would have been/be available to everyone else too. If a person was looking for a replacement for it, odds are it's out there. (and of course even PFAL was a 3 part series with a lot of additional material so it wasn't a single class/answer/now-I-got-it-all solution). And to add a twist to that idea and to deal with the "reissuing of God's Word" uh, doctrine - another case could be made that in the course of PFAL being developed, the entire intent of a "theopneustos" "reissuing" of God's Word wasn't fully achieved as intended. There's ample evidence to support all of these notions, if that's the direction someone wanted to go.

There was a point there when the "WOW" burgers went way downhill - think it was the early 80's...help me out here. :unsure: Actually the beef was fine, but they changed the buns. I think Purchasing was trying to save a few nickels. Bad buns. :blink: :( Scarey.

Holy Mackerel!

ex10, you're mighty welcome and no, of course, you're not. :) Peter Max posters?! Cool!

"All of this, all of this can be yours All of this, all of this can be yours All of this, all of this can be yours Just give me what I want...and no one gets hurt"

Very good stuff, here, y'all. I do appreciate this and have ended my work days the last couple days coming to this thread after I get home. Aaah. Home. Praise and worship - I've mostly seen it as a "part" of church services, where it's at the beginning. I've also seen it as the "whole" service, where it's the primary activity of the gathering. There are many ways to praise and worship God - we're "living sacrifices". I confess - I don't understand things I read about like "laughing in the spirit", and such things. If something's funny, I laugh. I laugh at some things others might not find funny. But I just don't attend places where that's going on. -Raising hands in a church service wouldn't be out of order in my mind. There's natural expression and there's phoney expression. If people do it because it's the thing to do or because it's "time", that's phoney. As WhiteDove said - why bother? Sit down, relax. But when it's time to sing I'll clap, I enjoy the singing, the music. But I confess - it's a little weird to me a few times at one church we visited for awhile, I've seen some people in a service while the teaching or sermon is going on with eyes squinched shut suddenly raising their arms up out of nowhere and mumbling. To me, it's spooky. What's going on? Is he okay? :blink: Sorry, it's just the way it strikes me, I don't get it but I guess they do. My daughter's been to the Hillsong Music and church in Australia twice, once for a music conference they held. Hillsong's Darlene Zschech is an incredible singer and songwriter and wrote "Shout to the Lord", a staple of praise and worship singing now. They've been on tour worldwide and my wife's seen them and was really blessed by the entire experience. THIS LINK has more and an interview with her. I really like her music personally. While there are parts of the whole "praise and worship" movement as it's called, that are extremely commercial and contrived, I think it may be a legitimate response to the needs of people everywhere, particularly in our generation. It's certainly a natural growth, in many ways. They've got a song that's very cool - and they lyrics to the chorus made me go "whoa!" the first time I heard them. It's titled "Free to Dance" although it's not talking about dancing in the services all over the place spontaneously. The idea of the song is cool. My first thought was David, and I'd have to say that although dancing is a specatator sport for me, it sounds wonderful - it goes: This song in my heart, this song in my soul This song I was born to sing It's Your song of freedom, now I'm free to dance again I'll sing in the darkness, I'll laugh in the rain Rejoice in Your love again It's Your song of freedom, now I'm free to dance again Your Spirit brings me liberty Your breath of life has set me free Chorus: Jesus, Your love, it lifts me high Gives me reason to run the race with joy This song within me, Lord, will bless Your Holy name Jesus, I'll dance before Your throne Bring this heavenly sound to You alone This song within me. Lord, will bless Your Holy name It's a cool tune.