socks

I would agree with that Human - I think that's a very simple non-voodoo understanding of what it means to "exist".... In the way described earlier - my own son "existed" in my mind before he was born, my "Intents" were clearly to have a son, him. He then had a beginning, a birth, where that intention came into being. "Logos" - John 1 describes Jesus correctly then, as the logos of God. We know Jesus was born, we know Jesus died. The significance of Jesus, the Christ is that He DID have a beginning and end, and a resurrection that was completely outside the planning or forethought of mankind. His "ascension" is to a place at the right hand of God - one that He then assumed. God's intentions are now known. Another aspect to the existence is our side of it - there is no existence for us, no being or "am" - until we are born and then gain awareness. I suppose one could argue that we exist in some former state in the big never never land of wherever - but if we do, we don't know it. Not cognitively the way we learn to know our own existence, when we do. I actually think that is the one single most vital aspect to an understanding of who God "is", who we are and who Jesus Christ "is". We all share life together but each of us is a single, non repeatable instance of life, there is only one of us that knows that we are "us"....Again, we can postulate a lot of what ifs and maybe's but practically speaking the only verifiable life that we have is this one, and when it's over, all other considerations aside, that collection of memories dies with us. We accumulate a completely unique set of experiences and memories. God too appears to clearly declare Himself through the Bible in the same way - we understand God as a "1", we pray to "a" God that is a Father. Each child can only have one father. I can't pretend to understand the conciousness of God and won't pretend to through conclusions but - I do think it's clear that a God that exists for "eternity" - forever, if no beginning and no forseeable end - the state of awareness that we call "memory" and remembering, or knowing....is something I can't even begin to grasp or understand. But I can say that then for there to be a memory that is singular there must be an accumulation of experience this is also singular. If God made "us" after "His" image............that may be why we are individual and not collections of consciousness. We are "like" God in the most basic fundamental way.

All men are liars (and this is to Allan and anyone else reading this) Some are just better at it or have more opportunity to excel than others. One of the most dammed difficult things for humans to do is just be truthful and factually honest, even within a reasonable effort. Avoidance and aversion alone count for a major part of the kinds of obfuscation that is prominent in the Way. That doesn't even account for all the reinvention and re purposing they do. Wayfers tied to the hip of the Way Nash get toxic over time but a lot of that is - IMO - how the individual thinks and what they need. For all the disgust expressed over the years for "nametag" thinking, a lot of it still goes on. I don't place any great amount of negative value to that however, it's an indication of man's tendencies. Put another way, once humans get fed, have decent digestion, effective and comfortable respiration and aren't being threatened by something else that wants to kill or eat them - we start looking around for other things to do. Our choices reveal everything. />

Before Abraham came into existence, I exist There just isn't another way to read it in the immediate context... Unlike my trinitarian colleagues I don't think this statement proclaims him being God.. I think the only thing you can grasp from this is that Jesus thought he existed before Abraham... ---------------------------------------------------------------------- "Exist" isn't really that different all from "am" - I am, I exist. They both basically mean the same thing. Abraham was a man who existed at a point of time. Jesus didn't every exist prior to Abraham, in that way. I would say that we all need to agree on that first - Jesus didn't not say that He existed as a man before Abraham. Jesus was born, the man Jesus had a beginning. If I believe in a multi-personality deity that is still a true statement. If we can accept that as a true statement - that the man Jesus was born and did not exist before Abraham, but He did say that He did in fact - "exist" - Then we need to understand what that existence was. I know there's a format to this discussion but I would add right up front I am not a trinitarian by any stripe. I don't see that Jesus Christ spoke as one who understood Himself to be "God", it's not a natural assumption if I simply read the gospels. And historically I see that the theological premise(s) that began to develop that perception of Jesus as God took time and led to it as a conclusion but not one that was strongly driven by scripture itself, rather it's an intellectual exercise and conclusion.

Move to California Galen. You need to get out more. The Way has some of your "Joe Believers" here that were the most judgmental, off-scripture, and vindictive dikheads you could hope to meet. Not all of course, but plenty to go around if you need some. Differentiating between your JB's and Corps and all of that is off base from any biblical standpoint, anyway. I doubt - I really don't believe - that God has special sections for Roman Catholics or Wayfers or Galenites or any recognition of the sects, societies and other lines of demarcation that we hold to be so valuable. If you're an a hole, you're an a hole. Humans populate and gather as they're inspired. The "blame game" only works on our levels of perception. Take it back to zero and you have a person making decisions about what they want to do or not do. That's what God sees, if I go by what the Bible says. But like I said, your haven of heavenly local JB's is probably as rife with hypocrisy and lies as any group of people, on average. They're either just not motivated enough to take it to the next level or they haven't had a chance yet. Something else that doesn't get a lot of air time here is the simple fact that if a person doesn't like what a group is doing, and no one's breaking the law and is assembling on their own then those who want to should and those that don't shouldn't. If you don't like what that group is doing, want to change it and they don't want to change it then go somewhere else. Over the years I saw a lot of people that got "kicked out" where the group was better off for their going than if they'd stayed. Not saying you are or were one of them but I'm just being honest. Not everyone that gets kicked out of the Way is a good person or does good things and is just being treated badly or wrongly. .

They pay for when the Corps members move? Really?

Rings and Popes, not my area. Can't comment on that. Walter, as far as that goes, I can't say more than what I said. What people really know/knew or whatever, I can't say. I just didn't get the impression he knew about any of that stuff. Maybe he did, maybe he'd say different today. I don't know. This discussion is very academic to me, a matter of very distant past events that are important to those who were affected but not of much importance today unless, I don't know, someone's still affected and is trying to resolve the stuff. I advise a person to resolve it for themselves to the end they're satisfied at whatever levels they need to be and then on with life hopefully smarter. That's why I don't have any problem discussing it for all it's ugly side - I have a very good time discussing the beautiful side, too. I am both, in my own ways. It is what it is and to deny it would cause the sort of cognitive dissonance that occurs when you know a thing to be true but deny it, for whatever reasons. I find it's popular in our modern culture to re label everything to softer language that removes direct responsibility. All sin, all do wrong, all do right, all can aspire to do good, all can be the worst bastards imaginable. That's the human condition. We need to get used to it to survive and live in ways that will reflect and support the conditions we want to see. Live the love we want to have. If we can't do it ourselves it's dumb to expect others to. Who knew what, when and why and how? Who cares, at this point. No one did a dammed thing that made a difference in the end or we wouldn't be talking about it now, about whatever they knew or didn't know about anything. People that were hiding this stuff from others did, people that lied, did and those who were lied to believed it and etc etc etc. People lie, people do good and bad. I say, accept that. Embrace the horror. But don't become it. To reiterate, I don't care who or what disagrees or agrees. Delete this post immediately if you don't like it and you can. I'll manage okay without it, trust me. You all do the same. />

Thanks. I do think that I learned something through all of that though that's held me in good stead over the years as the evangelical movement has picked up steam. Namely, the endless sifting and tossing of the bible's content can lead people into a kind of insanity where they don't see the obvious and the most basic things clearly. Simple things become complex, by virtue of the thought processes they apply. On the one hand they preach how simple the Word is and how "easily entreated" it can be. Yet when you get down to cases there's NOTHING simple or easy about it. Your world's turned up side down with every transaction of life. Even simple involvement in normal day to day matters becomes icky sticky messy affairs of trying to re label everything and put a new happy-god face on it. Sure - it's ego. You say something's "good" and they say oh, my - you mean "best" don't you? No, I mean good dip, and if that's too complicated for you please don't use the bathroom stalls when I'm in there because you're probably not going to be able to use the toilet paper without getting into trouble and that's not trouble I want to be a part of. The adultery stuff is like that - diversion, avoidance, obfuscation and redirection while applying the most unctuous coercion this side of an enema. If a person doesn't know what adultery means, it's not hard to find out. There's little disagreement on it. Jesus clarified God's thoughts and intents on the matter. It's only complicated to someone who....has something to hide from God. Lie to God, fine but your prayer life will start sucking sand. Thus - the domino effect, etc. etc. The Way: Lying liars that lie to cover up the lies others they're lying about told when they were able to lie.

the Adultery page of Shaneheights: John's paper was a simple statement that bore no malice or controversy on face value. I can only speak from my own conversations with Walter Cummins at that time, and the author. Walter didn't have any significant issue with the paper's content. As noted here, any idiot who's read the Bible even a little would recognize it wasn't new science or theology. The Way had teaching on adultery that pointed a lot of the references to a larger context of "spiritual adultery", or "cheating on God" in todays parlance. I never understood that to negate anything to do with the actual topic of marriage vows, "cheating" on one's spouse or any related matters. Neither did Walter, as one of the architects of much of the Corps teaching curriculum and presentations over the years. He sounded pretty clear on the topic to me anyway, meaning the other stuff didn't cloud his understanding of what adultery was in a marriage between two people, etc. He told me he felt that while it was a very important issue, and he wasn't aware - his word - of the accusations and all their histories. Keep in mind that while there was substance that also a lot of smoke was being blown up butts by John L y n N who was - in my opinion - trying to divert attention from his own proclivities and accountability and focus on VP and others. It was amazing to me - and I spoke to him right before he was "fired" and after - that he excused his own actions so easily as those of a man now changed - but hammered on VP, Don and Howard so hard. Not that that they didn't need confrontation but rather that he did a good job of separating himself from them. Many people had no idea then or even now of the trail Lynn left behind, he covered it all up pretty quick. But JALS's just one example of the chaos that some people created to accommodate - in my opinion - their own ends. To Walter however the 'adultery paper" wasn't the critical one to divide or join together around. It needed to be handled, yes but he supported the moratorium Geer had recommended on "new" research. Now - of course this wasn't new anything, let alone "research" - it was a practical matter, not a doctrinal issue. And to me that was where the BS piled up. How and when and what to do next, to proceed, to come together to begin to get things worked on, discussed, fixed, agreed on, etc. etc. etc. There was a LOT of chaotic communication between all sides and parties at that time, and a lot of hot headed people venting and posturing about many different things. Some of it was honest and usable and some wasn't. Schoenheit was a nice enough guy at that time but was kind of a goober when it came to normal day to day practical matters, or seemed so to me, he was kind of in a head space that I didn't understand. But th much maligned "Adultery Paper" was none of that, and actually could have been a catalyst for some good. The song coming out of the Way Nash was to hmmmmmmmmm.....pray, and then read the Bible and then pray some more and then pray again so you could be sure you'd prayed. Then take PFAL again for the 1,000th time because that will help you to focus when you pray again which would be soon. And then pray some more. Once you realized that the gang back there had no means of supporting a restructuring efffort, healing effort or even just a sit down and talk about it effort - it didn't really matter. In fact if you were praying for answers the answer for many of us was get the f-k as far away from those mooks as possible before they blow up - which they did soon enough, but not like a lot of people expected.

There's a lot of good information there chockful - I have to say I'm not onboard with that as a means of identifying general broad "cults"- but I think it's good to have those kinds of things in mind as we make decisions. Here's why - if we're talking about "a" cult, and characteristics of "a" cult - I don't view Christian faith(s) as a whole from an "insiders' " viewpoint, largely because so many sects and groups, from the Roman Catholics to Wayfers, have criteria to exclude and include. There's marginalization across the board, everyone seems to do it, it's inherent to certain ideas. It's particularly in high profile for ex Wayfer groups - for me - because that's an area I'm familiar with. They can be highly exclusionary and prone to all sorts of in bred thinking. OR NOT - some aren't, by the standards I would apply. On the flip side of the coin, I have relationships with many people who aren't "Christian" at all and who see the whole thing=s as a big nest of viperous cults infested with lots of good hearted but deluded people who aren't reasonable if push comes to shove because their values aren't rooted in a humanity that will work on basic levels, like really respecting life, things like that. Non "believers" see Christianity as a cult from the get go - the cult of Jesus followers, or God followers, etc. Inevitably it transfers from the Invisible Icon to a human agency - voila - cult wit yer Jesus Dudes. I often don't feel any kinship to some churches and denominations, because there's no common ground - there is, really - but people are so prone to denigrate and devalue it and to that exclusionary mentality even when there's agreement and consistency in doctrine, concepts, values, etc. it's like they don't want to be recognized as breathing the same air as these other people. It's a mixed bag. As far as the Way Nash goes it's as much a "cult " as the 100's of other sects, societies, ministries, churches and organizations they rebuke themselves, sure. The behaviors and actions are what's important. One person calls it one thing, another something else. You (euphemistically applied) can call them anything that fits this year. "Cult" is so over used a loaded term - I don't use it a lot except to deliberately get someones' attention. The Way is like other churches though - that jerk that has the whole "man thing" going, manly men taking their rightful manly places to make the world right - don't remember his name. Or the RC religious orders and authority structure. The Pope, all of that. To me it's all like politics - lesser of two evils, gets you evil. I prefer to separate the people from the cult. I don't have anyone that's imposing it on me or that I need to impress or needle about it. I'm mostly concerned about those nefarious Girl Scouts and their "cookies".....

The film Deliverance is loaded with TONS of great lines, cinematography, music, etc. etc. The actors. The Screenplay got a Golden Globe award. The script itself musta been a doozey. That line "Let's just see...." is when they're dredging and scouring the area down river of where the guys say they're canoe went down and Sheriff Bullard recommends patience to see what they come up with. If all happened as they say, they should find evidence of it. Maybe. Hard to say. In that Top 10 Great Scenes for me is at the end when Jon Voights in the car getting ready to drive away and the Sheriff comes over to him and says he's got questions still about why they had 4 life jackets if there were only 3 of them then and why Drew wasn't wearing his life jacket and there's a long pause and Jon Voight answers emphatically but calmly - "I - don't - know". And they stare at each other for a moment and Sheriff says "Don't never do something like this again. Don't come back up here....." let's let this town die in peace, something to that effect. The RC knows how to stare you down and they can say they don't know as long as it'll work. At some point I would think the the Legal system will have to say yeah, we get that, so we're going to help y'all out a little since you can't figure it out yourself. Now have some of the corn and relax, it's real special isn't it? /> (insert banjo music in the distance...)

Sin, what is it - yeah, that's an open question. newlife's thread starter and all this got me to thinking - It's a thought provoking thing. I don't view "sin" either from the bible or anywhere else as I did back in the Way day. I don't think we understood anything about it, at all, other than the usual information that any reader of the bible will gather. How accountable and responsible a child is (or let's say we allow it to be) reveals a differentiator I think, it's just a way of seeing - to measure performance against a standard understanding is required to establish any degree of accountability to be responsible to perform that standard. (If I don't know what the standard is or why it is, I can't really be held responsible to aspire to it. Or can I and do I whether I like it or not and if so - when and how? It reveals that an action alone is not enough to establish a single standard of accountability or responsibility and impose it artificially by fiat, commandment, etc. and I think it starts to flesh out an understanding of right and wrong and "sin" contrasted to "righteousness". If I apply that to reality it doesn't always work though - f'instance a child may not know it shouldn't crawl across the street but it might anyway and in so doing come to harm. The harm caused by say, a car hitting it isn't because of it's understanding, intentions, purposes - it's caused by being in a place where a car could hit it. So wrong and right are easier to understand. No matter who you are, and what you understand, if you're in the street a car can hit you. And more so if, etc. etc. There's no "innocence" as we might call it, no ambiguity. Because? Not because crawling across the street is wrong or that there's anything untoward or unreasonable or remotely "bad" about crawling across a road if you're a baby or for that matter if you're an adult. (Chickens are on their own however and may be at risk).:biglaugh:/>/>/> Put another way there's no morality attached to it when viewed independent. No ethical considerations. Back to "sin" - I think - "think" - that religion tends towards viewing sin as the same kind of thing - where - God decrees "do not crawl across the street", and establishes it as wrong and bad independently of anything else, any cause or effect or understandable logic imposed that He reveals to us - it is wrong then because God says it's wrong and no other reason. I'm not sold on that, not because of my own preference but because I don't see that 1. in the bible, ot 2. in life. YES God's ways are higher than our ways and YES we may not understand HIS decrees BUT I would expect that if God is to hold us accountable and responsible for (a thing) AND IF we are like a child who can be hurt regardless of whether we can be accountable or not - THEN.... I'm not ready to wash it all out with "God will cover it and won't let anything too bad happen to us" or such reasoning because history is RIFE, filled with examples of perfectly good and reasonable people being ravaged and ruined, regardless of even the best effort. In fact if mankind is "in" sin out of the gate at this point - then Romans and the ideas presented on mankind (gentiles) have a moral sense that allows perception of good to the extent that they can seek, believe, learn and do the things mankind is encouraged to do and that would provide an inner urge to come to God is very important. Rather than lost and without hope, mankind is lost and without hope - and KNOWS IT, in it's heart and has a cognitive sense to respond to God's goodness. (Or we're all Calvin - ized and not jumping quite as joyously as my li'l converted guy because we don't know if we're a sheep or a goat but we have our fingers crossed which probably means we're SOL right there but we can hope, even though it won't matter either way what we do so - etc. etc. etc. ). One other point - my overall approach to biblical stuff isn't to attempt to work from a need to harmonize or align "it" all with itself. I prefer to let it stand as best I understand it, as - is, and work to understand the whole of the parts whether they seem to make sense or not. I feel that gives a person the best shot at understanding what God might actually be trying to say, especially in areas where I am not an expert already. Which is like, most of it.

Wanted to add - a child would be surprised that they are in "sin" and disconnected or not aligned w/God and that there is a level of dissatisfaction in the relationship. I think this says something about what "sin" is, and to spec's points. A two year old simply would not know that - and we know about the "terrible two's".... A baby doesn't do anything yet. And a toddler is learning. A 3 year old will do something "bad" or wrong and not be treated like an adult who might do the same thing. Reasons are pretty obvious. I suppose if I were to ask a child with an adult mind if they knew they were in "sin" and separated from their Creator, they might be surprised. Really? How'd that happen? Oh - hmmm. Okay. How can we fix that then, I had no idea.... If I were an adult with a child's mind and was told the same things I would probably respond the same way. The adult mind racks up experience - memories and compiles a "life" that is remembered, experienced and anticipated, all based on the collective things learned to that point. It sounds "wrong" to condemn a child that has no idea of what's wrong yet and wrong to condemn a child that when they then struggle to learn and understand. We can see that's wrong, we accept a different set of standards by which to judge - over a lifetime. Things may be done but they are handled in a certain way - and our "justice" and legal system in say, America, tries to declare and deal with that kind of thing, for better or worse. A time will come however when society will say - you knew better, you've been told, etc. Yet - and this is significant - Jesus expounded a more intimate level to understanding "sin", (which was always there in the Torah, moral commandments) that to think and want a thing can be as wrong as doing it. So one might say that "sin" is deeper rooted than simply learning, knowing and doing/not doing something. If God is our Father and we His children there could be similarities to how God is with His creation, and why that metaphor is chosen, especially if it's less figurative and more factually true. Anyhoo - just some thoughts I go through on this topic.

Thank you! newlife's question brings up so many things....and you have quite a bit to chew on there too. The nature of "sin" - that word, what is it, what does it actually mean? What is sin and more importantly - why is it, that thing or that state? I come back to this idea of relationship and "fellowship", a sharing of life. I took it all back to some basic realities - that we are single unique instances of consciousness - I am me, I know I'm not you or someone else and for the most part I can start by stating that a healthy human instance of life will always know that and accept it, more and more as it grows in understanding that. While I may learn over time that I'm a "part" of other things, of everything else, that has definition - I am not a part of everything or anything else to the extent that it reduces my own awareness of self. So I could say, I'm connected through relationships and processes, each one of us with each other and with everything else we are aware of. To me this single reality is never excepted or superceded by anything else, ever, while we are alive and aware of it. If we were to lose that sense to a demonstrable degree it would demonstrate itself by our own selves becoming less aware and conscious. Our ability to measure that basic state would degrade and we'd become unaware of ourselves. We "die" which may be what that really is. Either way - self awareness is fundamental. It seems that separation is therefore inherent and unavoidable - we can never all of us individually be "one" because of our intuitive awareness of time and memory. So if we are separate, what does it mean really to reconcile and be "at peace"? Sin - how do you here define it?

newlife, mine has changed but not on that point (salvation conditional on behavior, actions, "sin"). Overall I sense from the Bible that God is more interested in "saving" than not, more pro relationship and sharing than he isn't, more inclined towards grace and mercy than condemnation. The goodness of God leads to repentance....I recognize a shift from what I read in the O.T. histories and the God that Jesus preached - a complete view of God as merciful and gracious, loving and forgiving.....In the O.T. they killed, drove out, conquered and the same was returned to Israel for "sin". Christ's message picks up from that and speaks of forgiving as God forgives, as seeing God as His Father, as loving those who would be your enemy. His teachings synthesize what I read in the O.T. to a character profile that - IMO - in fact suspends judgment and imposes it on Christ, in whom we can then be reconciled through . I understand salvation to be conditional on acceptance of Christ and that requiring a clear recognition of our own need for reconciliation to God. An act of faith that then opens up the relationship and clarity into it. i would compare our relative understandings somewhat like a person who lives with someone and doesn't know who they really are. Eric Clapton comes to mind - his "sister" was really his Mother but he didn't know it. His mother was 16 when she gave birth to Eric and due to a whole range of circumstances thought it best if her parents could raise him and so - his parents were really his grandparents and who he was told was his "sister" was really his mother, Patricia Clapton.. In a situation like that the relationship is what it really is - and the people involved do know and relate to each other in a completely normal and natural way but not for who they really are to each other. We can "know" God, "see" him and have understandings of Him that range from not believing He exists at all to believing He is now a "Father" to us. Coming to a knowledge of the truth sets us free - knowing who, what, where, when and why - in that then we don't need to filter or anthro-morph it into something we can grasp but know it for what it really is. I don't think it's expected we will do that completely in this segment of life but we can continue to look, learn and understand.

Agree, on the scale and focus of the new Pope Guy. It's a lesser of two evils to me. Which still keeps us in the same arena... ...Given that he's fully paid and vested for his room and board and all related accoutrements for as long as he chooses to remain. (even if he resigns he'll be in finely appointed digs compared to a majority of those who line up to kiss his ring). :blink:/>/> "Let's just wait...and see....what comes out of the river...."

Q: That guy kicked you in the nads...pretty hard too! That must have hurt!" A: Yep. Q: So can you ever forgive him for that? Here - want a chair?" A: Yes, thanks. And yes, I already did. Q: Great - but you clocked him back pretty hard. He hasn't woken up yet. A: I see that. I knew he'd want to make amends for what he did so I went ahead and handled it with him. Q: So - do you still feel bitter about that? A: A little yes. Q: Think you'll get over it? A: Dunno - check back with me in a month and I'll let you know how my nads feel.

Resentment = feeling of indignant displeasure or persistent ill will at something regarded as a wrong, insult, or injury People make such a huge deal out of trying to not resent things or to feel like resentment is wrong when often I think the correct response is to, in fact, resent them. In further fact I think it's been a mix of different philosophies and religious ideas that have incorporated the interpretation that being resentful and even "bitter" is wrong. Bitter - here's a fun definition: having a harsh, disagreeably acrid taste, like that of aspirin, quinine, wormwood, or aloes. When something tastes nasty it just does and I want to know that and remember it if I have the misfortune to taste it once. Many have been convinced there's some state of saintly spiritual nirvana we should aspire to, never experiencing a sense of something being wrong and nasty or being disagreeable. Or that with enough Tough Love we get big enough "spiritually" for nothing to bother us - yeh, VPW promoted that idea but hardly ever succeeded for more than an hour as he could go apoplectic about anything big or small. I don't believe to ignore the essence of how we perceive and feel is "Christianity" or even how God sees and thinks about creation as He's brought it into being. It certainly isn't how God is described in the Bible, if that's the source material we use. I know the standard verses and then some - in regards to bitterness and resentment I think what the bible teaches is more a broad over arching view of how man should think and feel - avoid being "consumed" or occupied with anger to the extent it warps our other thought processes. Knowing there are going to be, should be, things that we don't like, that are nasty bad and wrong that are always going to be that way and that will always need to be handled. The effects of long term bitter ness and resentment may not be good for the human system but I have come to accept that to deny them will reduce my own analysis and - as the Way called it - how I "ascertain" a truthful understanding of life. Every preacher worth his or her salt can do a 30 minute sermon on not being bitter or not being resentful - toward God. Rather that man should come to an acceptance and embrace of God's intentions and plans as much as we can understand. Yet we know God fully expects us to function as in a "relationship". I don't believe however that having done that first we should do anything to exclude our sense of good/bad, right/wrong and like/dislike in favor of some comfy happy place in our minds. We should learn to recognize , use and manage those kinds of feelings and perceptions to better live.

You make good points eagle - In general, very general, I lean towards forgive more than to not do so - but I don't define forgiveness as a clean slate, fuggedaboudit every single time. I would add to your comments that there are many situations where more work will need to be done to actually do those involved any good, and without that forgiveness itself will be without power, significance and be meaningless. * I see the capacity to forgive without reservation in both quality and quantity to be a desirable thing and I would think is something that can only be achieved at the highest level of endeavor - "with God all things are possible". But f'instance ex-Wayfers, there's a few I can think of that have been free to quote willy nilly from the bible but have little concern for it's meaning and ramifications, they're just thick headed. On a practical level it is probably a combination of several things that we hear and see addressed - The well being of the person who is being asked to do the forgiving and forgetting. And on the other hand - The desire of others for it to go away, to stop hearing about it, wishing it had never happened, wanting for it - the thing - to be gone, all better or something to that effect. The stuff cherry picked from the Bible that's usually taught about forgiving isn't really what I'd call surgically accurate information or guidance. It usually seems to reflect a kind of folksy, common sense advisory. "If you hold on to that hurt it will make you bitter and then you'll only hurt more. You have to let it go and forgive the other person to really be free of it." Forgiveness is used too easily to be the kind of thing extended that is a complete wash, where the thing forgiven can only be resolved successfully by simply "deleting" it from consequence or consideration. I - really - believe - that's - what - the - Bible - teaches - about - God's - Forgiveness and how God views it toward us but not how we are expected to live with everything, all the time. Salvation is forgiveness that allows for reconciliation where nothing can be offered toward the resolution by one side - us, "forgiveness of sin", man reconciled with God His creator. Not all things require that kind of one-sided/do-all forgiveness. It's ridiculous to assume they would, IMO. Jesus taught to forgive yes and to extend that over and over. I don't see anything about that forgiveness being a free pass to go out and screw up again, but allows for the fact that that will happen - look at us with God - He forgives once in a way that allows for forgiveness over and over, from our viewpoint. But God doesn't stop working with us, teaching us, molding and shaping us through Christ and life. We see a single acceptance of Christ's work, God extends it to us. We have to learn to live in and with it. I wouldn't need the Bible or any further attention if that was all there was to it - I'd just go, "sin nor more" and so what? I'm forgiven, no need to say or do anything else, let me and my "new nature" go on their merry way. Jesus and the gospels supports a view of a life free of the emotional and intellectual encumbrances of failure: That the truth will make you free. Free - to do what? We "are" and "have" and "shall" a lot of things. I have a treasure in an earthen vessel. Christianity is often taught from a "this world is not my home, just a passing through" view. I doubt this life would exist at all if God really just expected us to .... it all away and not be concerned about anything at all. If nothing has a cost or a value that would make it of such importance as to want to understand it, fix it, reconcile it, change it. That's the very kind of work Jesus Christ was involved in. But I think many people just want anything bad to just go away so they can get back to being happy-happy. There's probably a lot of "would you just shut up and stop worrying about that?" Sometimes that's the right thing to do - sometimes not. But I suspect those who promote that kind of action and who are then also served by it. Maybe they're not as interested in my well being as they are in their own. Which would be very human and understandable if not plastered with a bible tag to price it out better.

This reminds me - Florida. Gerald Wr enn was the goober limb boss there, and region tool at a point if I recall. After he got kicked off that job for - I think the press release version was that he'd overworked himself and his family life suffered as a result and he needed some well earned time for that - the report from the beleaguered corps in his region he'd abused for years was the usual litany of $, women and lies. In the beginning of my second year there I could vouch that he was a liar extraordinaire, a bully with a direct line to VPW and all around general purpose mook. Great guy when I first met him, did some things together, some ministry work - great guy. Went south and sour, per anyone who relied on him or needed his assistance. Unless you had money or stuff or golfed or had something he wanted in which case you were golden. The Corps Assignments - I knew generally that the assignment meetings had become exercises in geo - management, some common sense strategy planning and increasing amounts of dart board on a map "who wants him" stuff. The logic of the earliest expansion discussions I heard or was a part of when we planned Way Production tours wasn't rocket science or suited for Mount Sinai - the early WOW office, and Trunk coordination were pretty straightforward IMO and down to earth. Then when we went to Florida I became aware of what an ego driven political circle jerk it had become for the about 50 or so region, limb, area and trunk people. There were some assignments that didn't match or make sense. I had a Branch that was fairly large and one of the last years where any PFAL classes or fellowship expansion occurred down there, according to what those who came after told me. I asked GW about some of the assignments, what the thought was, the guidance, etc. on three people specifically - two who'd told me they'd requested a change and been denied without explanation - and one who'd just shown up there kind of obviously dazed but was really a nice guy who I thought deserved better than being squeezed in - it seemed he could do better with a better assignment. I was told - course it's no surprise now - 1. it's not my place to ask 2. since you won't stop, the people who want to leave are wrong and need to stay and 3. and this was unusual because in GW's anger he actually told the truth I think, out of sheer egotism - That the one guys' name had been brought up, there was no obvious assignment and GW had raised his hand and said "I'll take him!" and that was how it went down. He just wanted more Corps, as many as he could get in his state - period, honest as he could be and now it was "my job" - his words - to make it work. In other words he was a total dik about it and was hell bent on bumping his numbers up to be the biggest limb, biggest region and if there was anything going on in the Way he wanted a lot of it so he'd be up front and center. He left it up to everyone else to figure out how to make that madness work. It didn't, and by the second year in he was on the way out and everyone breathed a HUGE sigh of relief. Craig acted surprised - why hadn't he been told about all the bs sooner - and he had been but he wasn't listening and didn't have time for it. VPW was shocked - my God, this is the man who was going to help me move the WOW!!! Duh. Anyhoo - the kindest thing I could say about these things were you have to speak up, be prepared, represent your own interests and be emphatic and passionate about what you wanted. Then flip a coin and come out swinging (metaphorically speaking of course).

/> Agreed! Certainly a different scenario than a priest getting clammy with a pre teen boy, I'll give him that. In High School we had a Father Donovan - I'll give his hame, there must be more than few Father Donovan's over the years....he was in his late 30's, red hair, Irish, from Ireland, wiry and lean. Smoked, and by that time I think I was flirting with cigarettes, and he chain smoked Camels. Taught Religion my sophomore year, out in one of the "Portables" they were called, small standalone rooms that were on the perimeter of the back court area. There were 4 if I remember correctly and in between classes he'd walk out back behind them on one side and light up. Very nice guy, spent a good part of the class sessions covering a wide range of topics, current interest stuff. He told us his background - he'd graduated high school, done a few things, worked and then took a couple years to go off on his own, hitchhiked all over Europe, did some really interesting and cool stuff, worked at all sorts of jobs to pay his way, saw the world, lived the life. He implied he'd gone out to sort himself out a bit and "find" himself. I thought that was immensely cool. He was very down to earth and not really impressed with himself other than he had the air of intellectual superiority that Jesuit priests all seem to have. And he had an air of the Searcher in him too, of being a thoughtful person who was trying to learn his place in the world. I have no doubt he'd had sexual relations as a young man, he was single, good looking and out to see and learn what the world was all about. I figured good for him, he wasn't there with a bag over his head, he could see the world for what it was. He did make a point of saying that unlike many of his peers he didn't go into the priesthood directly from school at the age of 13 or even 18. And he'd seen stuff, done stuff and had stories to tell. I remember feeling like this was not the end of the road for him. A guy like that would have a much better sense of who he was and how to live and work than many of the priests who grew up and into the priesthood from childhood. In fact they could set up their religious orders to have shorter lengths of time - say 3 or 5 years, with a view to developing those who really do feel lifetime service is their calling to be able to pursue that in different ways.The current model has failed badly and for those who handle it successfully I would wonder as you - what kind of life might have these people have had given the opportunity?

Nuts is the weird circle of irony around that priest's defense. If I understand it correctly his defense is - That while in his role as a priest - Which required he swear an oath to celibacy- He fell in love with a woman- Who he then secretly married- And continued to live a life that was completely false to those who looked to him as a priest- For 10 years- And so therefore would not have smooched and groped a teenage girl- Because he was in that - relationship? - with the other woman that he loved. I agree with you - I'm glad he was at least honest with his own feelings and did something about it, albeit a tad dishonestly. (I love your two finger reference!) But - yeah, I guess if I looked at it from his standpoint he did take a stand of sorts and follow his inner heart, and he would have known it wouldn't be a secret forever or perhaps planned a time when he could move on and out. Dunno. But I - and this is just me - I don't think that would constitute a very strong platform for establishing his personal integrity. He broke his own rules that he accepted when he took that oath, made the commitment and imposed the rules upon himself. So basically we have a guy who admits he lied for 10 years asking to be accepted as someone who then wouldn't lie again because he was too busy lying about the other relationship. That's a little like a guy with your jelly on his face saying he didn't take my berries because he was busy making jelly sandwiches. A little, to me. But I give him some cred' regardless - I hope he can get this behind him, move on and have a happy life. I do not believe that there is a biblical imperative for those who serve in any formal or informal role within the Church to marry or not marry or any combination of the two. There's advice and guidance, that's it but no rules other than the obvious common sense ones that apply to all as advice and guidance.

That's nuts Twinky! I get it though - I've read that this is more common than we might think. The need for companionship, close intimate sharing, reinforcement, feedback, support are all very basic needs. I've always thought that it's unrealistic and unreasonable to assume that everyone who chooses a life in a religious order that includes celibacy will be successful consistently across a lifetime. Nearly all of the nuns and at least two priests that taught my elementary school the years I was there left their orders later. One factors in then - what effect did their personal struggles and confrontations with such things as celibacy effect their work, how much and in what ways....? There are different sides to that kind of committment - what it means to the person making it and what it means to those he will then work with and serve. These stories, reports, lawsuits are really just the tip of an iceberg. They reflect when the damage is worst, laws have been broken, serious harm has been done. Incredibly the RC leadership has gotten away with their defense of self managment and regulation. They have so abused the sense that a religious committment to a specific set of moral and ethical creeds can inspire a higher level of care, concern and responsibility and in fact exemplify the opposite through their denial and lack of responsibility. A great deal of the RC's history in regards to relationships and marriage is TOXIC. The culture of fear in the church is so strong that those men and women who are most outraged against this stuff will not break rank and openly rebel from within to create an opposing culture of non tolerance. There are churches in the U.S. that have declared bankruptcy - not sure how that works for a church but they've done it - due to the millions of $$$$ paid out to settle lawsuits. I would think that would cause some Archbishop or Cardinal to step up and put the brakes on if there were any who really cared. I mean - at least if only to protect their bankrolls. While I recognize there are good people in the church I still find it atrocious that someone like the Pope can take office and get good marks from the press for acting "normal". I'd be more impressed if it was reported that Day Two he sat down with his direct reports and said "we're going to work on this sexual abuse problem we have, so cancel your vacations we're going to fix this". Instead it all strikes me as more of the cutesy precious mugging that goes on with RCics...."Oh Loooook!...He's THE POPE! and he actually opens the door for himself and talked to other people while he walked and LAUGHED at a joke! Oh, he's SO HUMAN and he's THE POPE! Can you believe it? Oh, I'm getting in line to kiss his ring, I can't wait this is just SO COOL!"

He said that "for the moment" he was in favor of maintaining the celibacy rule "because we have ten centuries of good experiences rather than failures." There's a guy who's swimming in de nial. Aside from whether it's a healthy policy at all and actually does any good for anyone, long term - He also alludes to a very important and powerful aspect of that condition - It's a struggle, a matter of discipline. And to all the priests who can't keep their hands off little boys YES MR POPESTER FOR THEM IT DOES SEEM TO BE A CHOICE THEY MAKE. The N.T. writers cover that ground, HOW TO HANDLE REPROBATE WOLVES, who make ruin in the flock. And it's clear that there are serious gaps in their end to end process for attracting, reviewing, training, approving and maintaining a body of mentally, physically and emotionally healthy members. His position that they have 100's of years of good experiences is such a farcical statement it doesn't warrant serious attention but it does highlight the reality of Roman Catholic Vaticanism - no matter how normal he appears to be, "for the moment" the rules will stay as they are and I've no doubt he'll defend the ordinances until his last dying breath. Prove me wrong, FrankenPope! I'll be the first one to admit I was wrong.

"Corps Alumni" designation always intrigued me, as applied. Any graduate of a (thing) that has graduats would be an "alumni/a". The few I met at the tale end there who were being called that were basically people who SpartanDale didn't want to drop but who he liked or felt still had warm snuggly feelings for the Way but were ready to move on over rover and at least not be a pain in the foot. That would have been around '87 - ''89, I think. More a Retiree designation kind of feel. I guess it defined the person alumnificating that they were no longer actively "learning" in the program and therefore were actually "out" of the program, as defined.....? It just seems an awkward title as Martinscale used it, and Weird. The old model was a young man's game.....but as I've spoken to others over the years I'm finding many hadn't quite planned far enough ahead to see how their futures might look. I wasn't early on but by the time I was getting close to 30 I was. My interests and my own challenges with growing older probably didn't make me prime beef anymore, and I'm sure I sounded somewhat less spiritually hoo-rah and more boots-on-the-ground than most. A little less blushy at the idea of moving again and again, which we already agreed we weren't going to be doing regardless of what the Skunk Office decided or ScarfinDale hooted up. Course if you're trying to keep a full time gig in the middle of the '80's there, you imbibed whatever loogies MarbleDale was offering up and made plenty of overt overtures of love to the Way Ink so as to reassure them of your undying committment. To them. As is known, I decided to cut my losses, leave whatever they wouldn't honestly return behind, chalk it up as line items for my next year's Spiritual-God-Keeps-Track-Anyway ABS Return Form 000 (a guitar, an amp, several dozen books, a redwood burl table, a couple 1,000 days of the best I had etc. etc. etc. etc. to those dipwads at New Knocksville) and just move on to swim the warm refreshing waters of God's Good Grace in a different land, under another sky. I'd love to be a fly on the wall at whatever those meetings are now but the warm musty smell of those walls and carpets and the site of all that old gray, pale skin would likely cause me to snarf up my last meal. I have today between 10 - ? guitars, depending on the month, have had to give away amps to make room for the ones I've got, books come and go and that table - well, I'll have to take solace that those idjuts were probably too stupid to know what to do with it and some po' Wayfer scratched their head at some point and said well donggonit, I guess it'll make good firewood, and either burned it or tossed it. So it goes. For those wondering what's to become of them if they leave those dirt bags on the side of the road - all I could say is it works out fine in the end. There's that night when you look out and see nothing but stars and you think - what's to become of us now, what will this be tomorrow?....don't sweat it. And even if the only thing you change is their ability to influence you directly, that's enough. :wink2:/>/>

Humility is easy to fake. The manner of self deprecation is often confused with a true meek heart and mindset. I wonder what "collaboration" really means....? Sounds vague, I haven't seen anything very specific either Twinkster. It could mean that he's as good as most Catholic Top Dogs at hiding the skeletons. It could be an accusation based on lack of information. Could mean he helped the wrong side. That's not hard to do - depending on which is the wrong side this week. Pope Frank! Gotta love it. Catholics are SO in denial. Wanting a Pope that will be "forward" thinking, while there's 1000's of weepy RC's sopping up the tears of joy that there's a new Popester in the Vatican. Oh Lord! It's a great great day! The new boss is about like the old boss and will be for a long time - they're not going to elect a new Pope that's going to do anything differently than the old ones have done when it comes to key critical doctrinal and practical areas. That's not the Job - the job is to protect the traditions, they're very clear about that. It's no secret. RC's wanting a progressive Pope is like Wayfers wanting a progress President. It won't happen.