socks

Isn't the Mayor of Dover named Ben?

THE END IS NEAR De-Evolution - Myth or Science? THE END IS NEAR

Hello folks. In picking around these fine fixings I found a few fragments that caught my eye, although the entire plate of postings here are all worthy of slow, savoring. If I may quote a few passages and comment: I was in the Way from late 60's to late 80's. Bringing back the Rock before the Way Nash gets healthy is putting the cart before the horse. Baby steps, baby steps. Retire out the Old Bloods first, and get some sense of solid direction first, and proceed building some honor and dignity back into it. Then party. But I have to say I find it both quaint and precious in an odd sort of way that there's a younger generation of Wayfers out there interested in rebuilding the Way. It seems like a strange undertaking to me. Why not do something new, something that's your own, something that doesn't need fixing, firing of fussing with? That's as right as you can make it right from the start? The tendency of Wayfers to move back and forth and all around the country to be near a few friends of like thinking has always fascinated me. Can't people carry on where they are and build a life of their own? Is it always necessary to be with The Group to have a fully realized identity? Dunno. All I can say is do it while you're young. I wouldn't change my thinking on the Way that was my own experience, due to what someone did today. The past is what it was. If The Way became a reasonable home for Christian fellowship and worship and a person didn't have to worry about getting messed with 24 hours a day I guess that would be fine for anyone interested in checking it out today. I have to say I'm quite proud of my children, both in their early 20's. They don't know a Way from a Weigh. But they have truly done us proud. My personal goal in raising them was to build honesty, trust, and a giving heart as their examples. They exemplify those qualities in ways that make me cry at times. They don't need a concordance to find out if they're doing the right thing, or notes from someone's latest teaching. They're living what I call the Real Deal. They won't lie to you, they won't BS you and they'll help you if you need it. They know God is on their side and that Jesus Christ is with them. My hope was to move our side of the gene pool ahead a few steps at least. They're Leap Froggers. How about a church that values integrity, honesty and hard work, that puts the Word in action? That doesn't just teach a good game, but actually gets sweaty playing one? I think it's good to remember that if believing does equal receiving as the Way teaches, you have a perfectly clear accounting for why it is the way it is today and the way it will be tomorrow. Don't blame those who left 20 years ago for the way it is today, there's been ample time to make it right if that's what was going to happen. Look to the people that are there now to know why it is the way it is today. So far, the believing action of those who are left hasn't produced much of anything I've heard about that's noteworthy. My expectations are much higher today. Talk is cheap and the Way's big on talk. If anyone can produce any action, I'd say they're at least on the right track.

CK, he's inscrutable that's for sure, with ways that are beyond me. We could argue with him George but it would be much different compared to you or I, that I can promise. He's an interesting read though. That guy can jump from a dead-stop to the top of our back fence, a good 6 feet, in a single bound. He does a little back leg scrabble to steady himself but he's very spry. And conservative in how and when he expends that valuable energy. And he's almost 12 in peep years. Socially active in pursuits he cares about and feels are important. Goes out a lot. Doing quite well in his retirement years, bless his heart. Today I was refilling the Cat Bowl and spilled it, pellets flying everywhere. He jumped back and surveyed the floor, covered in food, then he just sat there and gave me That Look, like "Good job, dude, wait till the Big Girl Animal sees this". He's a pretty cool cat and tends to handle awkward moments well so I didn't get a lot of grief from him. I went off to get the vacuum and he trotted up next to me and followed me out to the garage door. I figured he was going to help, but he made a detour for the front door and sat there, which is the Signal To Be Let Out. I opened the door and he trotted out giving me one last glance that said "If She asks, I didn't see anything". Therein is that unspoken understanding we have that's difficult to describe. I know, he knows. We both know. We just don't talk about it much. Maybe it's a guy thing. So it's hard to figure out, but I'm reading the exchanges here closely, looking for clues.

Hi again George. Y'know I don't subscribe to a lot of the things you mention either. But where I'm at (California term, = "what I like mean to uh say dude, and all" ) is in like, more of a unifying view of life and uh stuff. Sorry. "Beavis and Butthead Do America" was on last night and I'm jonesing for an Ozzie video now. That part where they meet their Dads in the desert is classic stuff, and the Nuns on the bus - comedic genius. Those two guys - I bet the French appreciate their "less is more" style. I know they really didn't get their due in America. My primary proof for a master plan and a God ® is that we're alive. Everything isn't alive, certainly not like we are and definitely not with the acute self-awareness and advanced intelligence to develop preferences in breakfast foods. Life like ours, human life, isn't all that common. We keep looking for it, expecting to find it. Maybe there are other life forms like us, or like anything, on other planets. It would be cool. So far - nada. If there is we seem separated by distance. We don't know for sure. Odds may be there is. That's cool. I know that gets into a lot of other things like evolution, etc. and whether or not we're really the long term top of the food chain specimens we think we are on earth. But life as I know life seems very limited and fragile. I've had tropical fish, you look at them sideways they start swimming funny. Breathe on the tank they go belly up. On the other hand my cat's hitting 70 + years and still cares about how his fur looks when he goes out. So I definitely don't have all the answers. But I'm in search of a unifying view of life, one that doesn't separate science and human effort from God ® and what I believe is a multi-faceted universe. I don't see human thought as separate from prayer or what we're loosely calling "religious" pursuits. The fact I think, have self awareness, critical thinking ability, a sense of time in relation to myself and the world around me. Rocks don't do that. Corn doesn't, far as I know. Frogs seems perfectly happy to swim and sit, eat, sit some more. Granted I don't know what they're thinking but it doesn't seem to be how to develop anything beyond the natural desire to eat and swim and sit. When they have sexual activity it seems driven by nothing more than natural compulsion. That's not very romantic. I choose and act accordingly. I have the ability to wonder if there is a God. What makes things happen the way they do. What happens after I die. My cat isn't doing that or if he is he won't tell me about it and believe me I've tried to get straight answers from him and you'd think with all the stuff we do for him - but that's another story. Anyway, I think our ability to try and sort life out to our own satisfaction if nothing else is indicative of something more to our lives. That's sort of my ground zero. I suppose there are other explanations, like why does there have to be an explanation but that's the way I view it.

Glad you like it, SGL. :) I'm in hiding, incognito, A la. Shhhh...I'll check the PM's, but stay low.... :blink:

Search Engines at 20 paces, sudo? :D I live in California and as you're aware I'm sure the whole prison system here as in many places is in the news, legislature, you name it, all the time. The stats from the CDC are available to the public and are reprinted on that site link from their newsletter. And there's always going to be some question about idly flung stats and numbers, especially those made on a site like that, on any side of the discussion. They're just numbers, quoted by someone, anyone, about places, people, times and events that would require more investigation. What they actually mean is another topic altogether. Is the criminal mind prone to religion? Does religion make criminals? If we took it out of the religious realm and looked at other criteria, what points could we push? So I guess it's "controversial" to question some of these links to pages that blow hard on this stuff but perfectly sensible to accept them if they bolster an opinion you already have? Or am I supposed to nod with furrowed brow as I deeply consider the seriousness of a page that talks about why Beer is better than Jesus and just accept it because of course all people of any faith are deluded, simple as that, of course, just listen to the good atheist and all will be better? I thought we were having a serious discussion here. My mistake. I'll leave the meaty stuff to the fart jokes, which are bound to be next. But we're just batting flies here. Your statement that I can't be right when I say that my quality of life is improved by my faith and that no one else can be right including anyone I know, have known or will know speaks for itself and says it all, really.

Sidetracking YET again, Laleo you remind me of when Jesus said we should be like children. I can imagine a child hearing the parable of the "good samaritan" and being asked "so who was the neighbor to the guy who got beat up" and the child saying "why the man who stopped and helped him!" I can also imagine a child of a certain age saying "why was the man travelling alone, Jesus? My mother always says I should walk with a friend. He shouldn't have been out all alone! Was that the road out on the east side of town, because that's a bad road! How come that man left all that money? Wasn't he scared that the inn keeper would steal it? And how come he was carrying all that money? He could have been robbed too!!! Was this in the winter Jesus because..." That parable has a simple conclusion "as is" but we know in that kind of a setting there could have been people in the group asking many questions and offering many interpretations, but in the record we see a single point being made and realized. And of course it's a parable. No one asks "did it really happen?" because the message isn't based on it being a real event, it's wrapped inside an event that could have occured and was understandable to the audience being spoken to. In the same way I think a record like Genesis holds learning as you say, when we look at it like a child, like a person who hears it and makes the jump from "but what about?" to a single recognition of what's being written. Within that the message can be very diverse, very immediate and also have many levels, IMO. The "oooooh!" or "A HA!" moment can strike again and again, over time as we revisit it.

The other thing that strikes me is that, when given an answer that one's faith DOES help them to be more at peace, a better person, more honest and ethical and more inclined to live a productive life, you don't want to accept it George. You're perfectly willing to point to history, studies and stats that support the idea that religion is either a waste of time at best or destructive at worst but seem unwilling to allow for an individual's opinion that for THEM their faith does them good in tangible demonstrable ways. If you won't allow for that simple reality I think you're only asking the question so that you can state the answer you already have committed to. If I'm wrong, tell me.

One point we can agree on - there's a lot of grease on both sides of the fence. This link contains a report from the California Department of Corrections. Which contains this quote- Prisons in California don't have more religious people than anywhere else, sudo. Apparently they reflect society as a whole. I'm curious now where you got the stats to support that statement. I'd like to check them out.

"I dont think anyone is going to hell because they do or don't believe in the trinity. However, those who murdered over it might have a problem." Goey

Strange Little Known Facts About the Way Corps: It was a 2 year program till the 4th corps. Well, the 5th corps. When the numbers were seen to be high for the incoming 5th corps it was realized that there wasn't going to be room for everyone doing it 2years, with the 80 or so 4th corps and 5th corps all living there. So the option was given mid-year to the 4th corps to have an "interim" year, a year where those who chose to opt in would travel out, do a year somewhere and come back the 3rd year to finish up. It wasn't mandatory for anyone to make that choice, but it was painted as a way to alternate the numbers and possibly add some value to the program for everyone. Sure, added value may be a stretch, but of the 4th corps 8 people, 4 couples if I rekolek corekly, decided to stay on and finish in 2 years and the others took a "field assignment". Emporia evenutally solved the problem of space. Or added to it, I guess depending on how you look at it. I'm a little puzz-akled about the disagreement in understanding on what "4 years" and the Way Corps meant. I would tend towards Whitedove's description of it amongst most of the people I knew in the 70's although there was certainly differences in long term goals amonst the particpants.

To poke a bit more at the record in Genesis, I can see the meaning of it being very simple. Imagining the conversation as written - The earth is there and man is the keeper, the tender of it. Man's world has everything he needs and man is everything the earth needs. The two "trees" - life and knowledge of good and evil. Man lives and is able to choose between good and evil. God says don't eat of that tree - in essence don't choose good sometimes and evil at others, don't know good and evil, just know good. That's what you have the opportunity to do if you're Adam and Eve, people. Live right, do good. Eve simply uses her choosing to choose something wrong, against the natural law and order that God has set in place. She "eats" of that tree. I think it's sad that there's such a tendency to try and identify the sin, to the end of identifying some worst or most evil sin that was committed against God's instructions. I feel that just as there was no "apple", there's no specific reference to exactly what Adam and Eve did that was wrong as if it was a single rule. The simplest understanding of the record is I think that humans have been given life and a chance to tend this life they've been given. All "Adam and Eve" had to do was live on the earth, tend it, replenish it and live happy lives. But they chose to know both sides of the fence, so to speak. So the natural order and harmony was broken. I wanted to add - I don't think we have to have an "Adam and Eve", first woman and first man wandering around a garden. Maybe there was, and if so that would be wonderfully sweet. If not, the basic ideas set forth can be understood in an equally beautiful way.

Excellent question George. Briefly, I feel like "religious" endeavors are attempts by people to sort out and grasp a whole range of concerns and interests - morals, ethics, emotions, life in general, life in specifics. In contrast, I don't know that something like "absolute belief in a creator" as opposed to evolution, say, produces an increase in the quality of life I enjoy if it means that one cancels the other. In fact, when it comes to something like that I have to admit that to me it seems kind of distant. It isn't something that actually has an effect on me and the life I have to live today, and the things I have to deal with. Someone says the earth's 6,000 years old.....that doesn't make sense to me, but for that matter the idea of it being whatever - 2 1/2 billion years old doesn't have much traction with me either. I feel like a month's a long time, sometimes. While these things are of interest to me it's in a detached sort of way. That's just one example but for me it's the same for a lot of things that some people would classify as important tenets of their "faith". I guess I'm willing to admit I don't know about certain things and if somebody says well this is what the bible teaches and you're screwed up if you don't believe that or vice versa you're a dimwit if you do - I have to seriously consider how important that topic is to me personally. My whole world won't fall apart tomorrow if certain things change or I find I've been wrong, I still have to get up and go and get with it. As for my own "faith" and what I get from it, I may be an odd duck so I wont' speak for anyone else. I got into religion, "Christianity", like a lot of people, but I've stayed with it for my own very personal reasons. What I would call "faith" - a belief in things that aren't supported by physical evidence or things that haven't happened yet but I believe will - includes things that are supported by personal evidence. That personal stuff is the core of my belief system, and I've added to it over many years by my own practice, experience, study and learning. I do believe that there is a God who is functioning in a way that while I don't fully understand it, interacts and impacts my life. I've chosen to try and learn and practice Christ and His teachings and examples as recorded in the bible as a place to focus my efforts and my trust. The net result shakes out to be-my life is better going that route than it was when I was going other routes. Better in some important ways - marriage, family, my own pursuits as an adult in work and recreation. My sense of who I am and the world I live in has expanded slowly but sure, in fits and starts, in the route I've chosen. What keeps me at it is that I have a deep sense and belief that there is a God and that this life is representative of a larger world that I'm learning about. I like Thomas Jefferson and a lot of what he wrote and thought about specifically, Christianity. Although my conclusions are different than his at this point, he embraced the moral and ethical teachings of Jesus to be what he considered of the highest order. Although he 86'd the interpretation as Jesus as a savior, messiah, the son of God and all of that he felt that Christ's teachings were worthy of practice and adherence. How he lived and what he did attempted to represent his beliefs.

Really? :blink: This may be one of those "your mileage may vary" items. I don't think I'd have gone out and done something like that regardless of who thought it was a good idea. Buuuu-ut that's just me.

jb, this hits on something - "Anyway, I think I agree with your conclusion, though, that as far as defining "evil," Genesis seems to make an argument for self-awareness or consciousness as the characteristics that make us god-like." Laleo, more and more I look at the bible as a way to filter and understand some things that are beyond me. God is one. What God "is" seems beyond my grasp if He's done and does everything the bible says. My own world view as a person leads me to believe that the physical world works in cooperation with another, call it "spiritual", whatever - that there's forces at work that are clearly apparent but need definition and perspective to fully grasp. I saw the movie "City of Angels", with Nicholas Cage, where he plays an angel who interacts with humans because he cares so deeply for them. He's playing next to Meg Ryan, whom he is attracted to and he's trying to help her work her way through a difficult time as she struggles to understand the forces at work in her life. In one scene he asks her to close her eyes, and then he takes her hand and rubs her wrist. He asks "what am I doing?" She says "you're touching me". He asks her "how can you tell?" She says "I can feel it". He pauses and she opens her eyes. He says "You should trust your feelings more". The point's a simple one - things can be happening to us and around us that we ignore or don't stop to give attention to because we don't grasp them through the sense of our choice at the time. In her case, not seeing the hand touching her didn't stop her from knowing that she was being touched. But in other circumstances would it be that obvious, and what if the information coming to her weren't so common and "normal"? Viewing God as a "father", a creator who loves and provides gives me a view I can understand. I can work within my own parameters much easier and as in Genesis, God is described doing things the way we would. Whatever the processes were though God can't be doing things the way we would, so I think to at least some extent of a lot it has to be viewed as you describe. Your description of it being light hearted and playful is interesting - those word aren't usually associated with those chapters and it casts them in a different light. :) In jb's statement, it reminds me of how incredible choice is. One way to view the record with Eve and Adam would be they learned good and evil by doing something wrong when tempted that way. Another way would be that they simply exercised their ability to choose. Obedience and disobedience do seem to be the key parts to the record. In exercising choice they were god-like with "free will" to determine for themselves what they would do. Obedience and disobedience seem to imply choices being made. I can't choose to fly like a bird because I can't, no matter how hard I flap my arms or how high I jump. But I can choose to try and jump off a cliff and flap. And fall. Again, good and evil seem to fall to acting within the range of choices that are possible for me to make. If I choose correctly, "good". If I choose incorrectly, splat. I think this view may cover things the bible records like Jesus saying "believe and don't doubt and that mountain can be cast into the sea". The net result of such a choice would depend on it being the correct choice. Possible? Within the range of a God I can first only understand through my own perceptions, yes. Within the range of what God really is, I have no idea. Such a thing would really only be important to me, not God. But viewed in a light hearted way, sure. The greatest of life's challenges are doable and livable within the choices I make.

Oh boy. I just realized something. Jimmy, stop the presses, we've got...a headline! "Plaigarism is cheesey, says the American Dairy Producers!" Back to topic. The dog-eat-dog standard of the world we live in is one I have trouble with, so the pun is appreciated Evan! I wonder if that's the way it's always been, the way life was intended. I personally subscribe to a life-view that assumes for one person to gain another doesn't have to lose. It's difficult to navigate at times and I often find myself applying it to situations where the net result isn't even close to what I intended. But I still persist. Christ's example was one of total giving and in doing so He gave one life, but gained another, one intended for Him. It says to me that there can be more going on than meets the eye. Choice seems to be a big aspect of this. jet, I look at the spiritual battle you describe, one the bible sets forth consistently, and I wonder what exactly that battle is and who's at war with whom? And why? We have the ability to choose but we can only choose within the range of choices we have, that we know about. So at the root level of a person's existence there has to be a means of knowing good from bad or we'd never be able to recognize good when it was offered. (I know some Christian teaching says that God has pre-chosen those who will believe and those who won't and that He orchestrates it all but I don't think that's what the bible teaches). Paul speaks to mans' moral condition in Romans as basically at war with God by nature but he also offers another tidbit when he talks about Gentiles who by their own reasoning can observe the heart of "the Law" without knowing the Law, and how a Jew taught in the Law and knowing it gets no traction from only knowing it, they have to do it. If they don't live it they're not right by association, the Gentile who lives the same values and behaviors on their own is better off than the non-observant Jew. This must have p.o.'d a lot of Jews at that time. I think there's a lot more there than meets the eye at first glance. I'm just pondering at this point, it's an interesting topic. jbarrax, your postings on Genesis are really interesting. As far as the devill not actually lying in chapter 3, didn't God in fact say that they would "die"? That being the case, his statement that they wouldn't, whatever "die" means, would be a lie wouldn't it?

Ya, Geo. It's anecdotal evidence, but something has to account for these things. :o I'm sure that the lowest level of Hades has Cracklin' Rosie on the Muzak system, looped endlessly with the original version of Orlando's "Tie a Yellow Ribbon". (You always know when Seed Kids are in a bar by the way because they love those two songs and ask for encores - reminds them of home). As for me, I've been set free to jam!!! So I gotta add some value to this thread or I'm gonna get dissed by a Mod, for sure. Mike has actually hit on the essence of my contribution, although I will add no cheesey infomercial nor attempt to diminish the other contributors to this thread in my post. :blink: Evil is often defined in religious circles in relation to Lucifer (the devil, satan, etc.) as a sort of inventor of it, "the father of lies", etc. In a sense Genesis describes him doing so, although the ability to choose was within the first two humans we read about. Had he not shown up in the account, would they have always chosen correctly? Is it the natural state of man to choose right until given another option? Aren't there always other choices? Is evil only about choices? I'm seeing it as two things - 1- as a relative term, in relation to something else. Something is in it's natural state or condition and a change occurs that causes loss or damage to it, or somehow works against it's natural state. 2 - an independent cause that produces a result that's damaging to another natural state or condition. In general, "out of harmony" would describe evil to me, in a very broad way. Oaks's example of the animal being eaten by another is a perfect example. There we see one's natural state being reduced to total loss by the actions of another. Yet we also know that the animal doing the eating, known as "the eater", is doing what contributes to his own natural condition and state although it's definitely a bummer for the animal being eaten, AKA "the eatee". (thank God for grocery stores!) Interesting side note - people don't eat people, normally. Given the choice we'll eat other animals first. It doesn't seem natural for humans to scope out other humans as menu selections. When we read about such things we're revulsed. Or should be. If anyone's not, please move over a couple seats, thank you. But nature gives us a view of a - call it "larger" natural state and condition of the world we live in. It's natural, at this point, for some animals to eat other animals. Whether it was always so, I don't know but it seems to be what we would call "the order of things" in the world we know about. Big fish eat little fish. Great Whites eat anything. Alligators too. So there must be something more to evil and badness than that.An animal's gotta make a living, right? Does an undiscriminating palette make one more evil? ("you have to try the Brie from France, it's to die for! It's the only Brie I'll touch!!") I'm inclined to think that if I were to understand the true natural order of life I'd be able to determine what is and isn't evil. Whatever falls out of harmony with the way things are "supposed to be" would be bad. I think that's where things like the bible come in to play, as well as other means of learning. If I can learn what's right, I can learn what's wrong as anything that isn't right, or takes away from what's right, or functions independently of what's right, will be wrong . God is defined as being all "light", no darkness, no deviations, love. Whether metaphorical or not, these indicate a steady state of "right" that on some level if not this one, would be measurable. Deviances would be hmmm, not right. I think Romans is another good example. Paul struggled with understanding the world he lived in in relation to his new faith (which wasn't based on wishful thinking but specific events and study) and his understanding of the Torah, etc. I think he went a long way towards describing both good and evil beyond lesser definitions of do this-don't do that, you're a good boy, she's a bad girl. Which doesn't really get me to a total answer, but in a very global way I believe it's possible to come up with some basic answers to what's right in life as I know it and then work out applying that in to specific instances and actions over time, while still learning and broadening my understanding. ? :P

George, buy the latest Rolling Stone and read the U2/Bono intereview. In it he makes some interesting comments, as a person, a Christian, a person. It's an interesting read. Laleo, I'm in semi-thread-retirement. Lost my coupons. :D I once played bass guitar in a band that had a female singer, just a gig for a few months. This gal was nice enough but her voice - well, her range was limited at best. We did a version of "Cracklin' Rosie" by Neil Diamond that would curdle your brain by the second verse. Did 3 sets a night, 4 nights a week and did that song twice a night. THAT was evil.

Glad you like 'em Oldiesman. As far as people making constructive efforts to communicate with the BOT at that time, we've been over this ground before. Quite a few people did. Many people waited and worked towards recovery for 2, 3, 4 years, even more. Ultimately you had to make some decisions, IMO. Are these men and women running this thing out of New Knoxville trustworthy? Honest? Capable? You had to decide how much more you wanted to invest in trying to make it work with them. If you'd been ignored or rebuffed that certainly didn't go far towards building trust. I didn't trust them, or Geer. The BOT"s showed very quickly what they were made of, IMO. Geer was just a bone head, I don't know how to put it exactly. He'd always been nice to me and my wife, for the most part, and had his moments when he was a decent guy to be around. But be was in some kind of zombie-zone where he filtered everything through a kind of hyper-active interpretation of "principles" that were so shallow and inflexible he didn't really seem to understand how to simply live. The results played out over the next few years, as Raf and others point out. It's really very simple on the face of it. Looking at myself, I didn't end up going the route Craig did. Things changed, but I was prepared for it. I knew where I was going and what I wanted to do. Change can be difficult but I didn't lash out at the world, my friends, close associates. I'm not trying to sound self-righteous here but I didn't go dead-stick with my whole life as a result of any of this. I had a life, a family and a brain. It was time for change. Craig didn't see that. He wanted support and asked for it. He wanted people to be nice to him, to keep on keepin' on. He would have been better offering support and giving it. That's a lesson I learned. Don't try to tell people what to do for you, do what you can for people and let the chips fall where they will, they're going to anyway no matter what you do. Failing isn't the end of the world, it's really an opportunity to try again, hard though it may be. I think we've all seen where that led to for the Way Mnistry and it's "leadership".

I have no idea if Einstein is the student in the story, but the response on that web page is some serious blabbery. Most of the word count deals with everything else BUT whether or not it was Einstein, only stopping for air briefly to say it probably wasnt and either way it can't be proven. But why pass up an opportunity to explain the soft-brained tendency of so many and their "faith"? What's that got to do with the a refutation of the claim it's Einstein who was the student? And why do I give a rats asz about "naysayers". Don't like my faith? Get your own. Geez, it's like reading a 9 year old boy's screeds about the girl with red hair two seats up in school who won't talk to him at lunch so he's gotta write all over the bathroom walls "Sally eats dog poop!" Oh, but now we know WHY such a story would be promulgated. I see. Mostly Snope's status of "False" merely shows that in the absence of actual uh, what was that word...PROOF? they're more than happy to declare excathedra by both FIAT and CHEVY that something they disdain is false. Aparently Snopes is the Bible of the 00's. Sorry, I can't pass an opportunity to poke fun at an article that is so dripping with self-righteous goo it's funny, because when I read it I'm reminded of why I have no interest at all to demonstrate beyond the shadow of a doubt as to what I believe as a matter of faith - because the proof of my faith is to me, not anyone else. That's why it's "my" faith.

Man, this topic's got legs! It goes around every so often. As long as I'm here, some scintillating comments that will uplift everyone, I'm sure. Oldiesman, you make a good point in that a lot of the written dissertations that circulated from, and including, the Passing of the Patriarch in early 1986 to say about 1990, were long on rhetoric and short on specific details relating to the BOT, the condition of the Way and exactly what the problems were. I was sent Vince's, or one of his, and it seemed like I'd missed a lot of background he didn't write about as it didn't contain much information or facts about his whole situation. Which I felt would have been valuable to anyone trying to make an informed decision. Compared to the orderly conductance of business in the Way most were used to there was extreme chaos over those 4 years or so. Given that a lot of the documents that were sent out pinged off someone resigning or being fired and them leaving the Way, I don't think it unreasonable to expect a person would want some specifics, not by having to pester everyone over the phone with questions, but in the context of the letters they received. Here's what happened, here's who was involved and said, here's what I did, here's what they did and here's what I've decided. Here's the exact reasons why I'm leaving a ministry that I probably told you last week was the greatest thing since toothpaste and why I'm telling you today it's not. I've changed my mind about it, or some things and here's what they are and why. What's so hard about that? A lot of the letters I had forwarded to me were just like the P. of the P. That was a collection of what Geer said was VPW's last ruminations and discussions with him about the Way. How it wasn't what he'd hoped it would be, how he'd been failed and let down by those he trusted most in. How no one really stood with him or was standing with him. He named a lot of names but in that writ of Geer's there was no real presentation of much beyond that, no specifics, no statements of VPW's that would really allow a person to understand the details of exactly what was wrong and even more so exacty WHY VPW himself hadn't taken more specific action and appealed to anyone beyond a few close associates. There was also a lot of how hard Geer himself worked, despite the failings of those around him. Sound familiar? The veracity of Geer's writings was never proven. I have no idea if that's what VPW really said to him, it was never proven beyond a couple people that said oh yeah, he came to me too but they didnt listen or they were afraid. Overall if it's what VPW said to him it sounded to me like a lot of bellyaching. A lot of these resignation letters that went out later were similar in that they had a lot of vague accusations in them...."the BOT are idolaters"...."they're off the Word"....."I won't pimp for them anymore"...."I'm not going to follow men, I'm going to follow God". Details, please? What exactly does that mean, please? Most of all I felt like POP and all of this later stuff opened the door to change in the Way that was going to happen sooner or later anyway. This just brought a lot of things to the surface that were festering, things that weren't addressed at all by Geer's POP and that he took great exception to when they did come out. The whole autocratic set up of the Way was bound to fold, IMO, particularly for the reasons that most of us DID NOT know anything about, the stuff going on behind closed doors, but also because the Way was frozen in the past and had no vision for the future. It's members were growing faster and further than it's leadership. The future just came a little quicker for some. To me, LCM's "loyalty" letter was a joke. For 3 years he hadn't earned the right to ask for anyone to follow him and he'd given up what right he had by his inability to be an effective leader. (I don't believe he was the "man of God" of the ministry or had any particular eternal claim to it's presidency as it was handed down to him. Your mileage on that may vary) On that level it didn't make him a criminal, it just meant he needed to take a break and at least, with the assistance of the rest of the ministry, sort out the chaos and bring it's people together. But he didn't realize his own state, let alone the concerns of those he worked with. My opinion. See, I told you it would be scintillating. :lol: But really, this was a LONG time ago. I'm sure it's good to sort out some of the facts. I kind of understand why some might want to and I hope discussing it helps to resolve things. But today's a new day and these are long gone.

Why play the odds about bad things happening? Why not play the odds about good things happening? Odds are there will be more hurricanes and that there will be some bad ones, unfortunately. No offense, but I think it's in bad taste to toss around predicitions that will involve human lives based on a feeling that if the odds go in your favor you'll be "right". There's nothing right about damage and loss of life. And to make my point clearer in case there's any misunderstanding, it's wrong to do this as far as I'm concerned because it's insensitive to the immense suffering that it represents. Sorry Roy, hate to let you down hard, but cut it out. Please.

Ham, you've struck a chord there. - Bb maj 9/b5th to be exact, and it's resonating. My personal approach is - I'm about as okay as I'm gonna get at the moment, so can we move on to other topics of more interest, like why is it so hard sometimes to tell someone they have something wiggly lodged in their nose and it's weirding everyone out, when they obviously don't know? My personal conclusion - because if it were me, I'd want someone to tell me, but then I'd be embarrassed that it even got there to begin with and on top of that the means of removing it, while completely normal and common to all mankind for as long as we can remember is something we simply don't want to talk about - unless you're a Mother, in which case a kleenex and a simple "hold still!" will solve the whole thing and be done with it. As to Exoreeno's dllemma, I have no immediate relief, no simple answer, only that we should never be embarrassed about doing what comes natural to us and what at the moment we feel we need to do. Still, we will feel that way sometimes and maybe there's something to be gained from it. Maybe not. Either way, while we pursue grander purposes in life, of love and growth and ever-improving personal hygiene, sometimes it gets incredibly strange always trying to fix ourselves and everyone else within spitting distance. But then, we're Americans, and Americans wax on/wax off, ever hopeful and sure that if it's busted we can fix it and it it isn't busted, we can still fix 'er up right pretty and make it even better. In one way or another and probably many we're all a little tweezed in places. We're all at different stages of becoming the wonderful People our Mother's always knew we could be and that she no doubt still holds deep in her heart. Or, in the words of someone I can't remember - You have to learn to laugh at yourself. You might as well, everyone else is. :lol: :lol: :lol:

I also wanted to share this - I've learned some things over the years that have helped me immeasurably, namely that there are some people who either don't understand me, or worse, don't like me. I know - I know. Not like me? What's not to understand?? :unsure: I was surprised too. But it appears to be true. So I decided to do the work (again - sigh!!!!) and figure out the possible reasons for such an unlikely development and provide yet again meaningful and useful solutions for everyday life. Here then are my discoveries: Discovery #1: Chemicals. :o It's really all about the increase in chemically enhanced products that our society handles and ingests in the name of progress. Since the 40's it's increased 10,000 fold in the form or creams, lotions, fragrances, cleansers, toothpaste, food, water and even the very air we breathe. Result - brain damage, mostly in the brain centers that process emotions and logic. How can people make sound judgments about me under such an assault on their brains? Impossible. Unfortunately this will probably not improve in the near future so I've had to learn to be patient and understanding and invest my time addressing my other, very important discoveries. :blink: Discovery #2: The advancement of the 60's.psycho-goo philosophy - "I'm Okay, You're Okay". This is the most insidious of the assaults I must undergo as it sounds oh-so good but is no-so wrong! I'm about to finish up a book addressing this very topic, titled "I'm Okay - Got It?" that will clear up MUCH confusion in this area. Once people do the exercises that go along with the book they'll start to both see and feel much better - about me. It's packed with powerful and practical take-aways that are sure to thrill. Watch for it, it will be out in time for Christmas, which should make my holiday season a LOT better. Discovery #3: Practice makes perfect. Even when a person doesn't quite "get it" I've found it helps them a lot if they just act like they do and move forward with the correct behavior. It will seem foreign to them and challenging at first, but I've found that if a person will at least try, in time they'll learn to like the new way of doing things - to me. Over time it becomes more natural and before we know it things are right as rain, for me. ;) Well, that's the gist of it. There's more of course, so much more, but I just checked the "Check Post Length" button and I'll run out of space in about 50 screens so I'll hold on the rest, I'm reserving it for my next book, long in the making, to be titled "The Magic of Me". Watch for it, there's going to be a DVD version that will have lots of extras. .