socks

Chris Geer's report makes a bad report look good, by comparison. He could be reported as being a dishonest liar and he'd be better off, pound for pound, than the report he himself actually gets. He may have just adopted the All Time "it's not me" losers' limp excuse for the fact that no one that's ever known him likes him all that much. (although he was never all that weird to me it may have been because he lacked opportunity, dunno). He was able to later say it was because of the "stand" he took for the Word (hackspittlekaffkaff) sorry, even writing that in this context makes me hock up stuff....but yeah, the stand he took for whatever it was he was taking and standing about. He later sold his retitled PFAL class for serious $$$ through licensing agreements, to those desperate souls too stupid to have learned PFAL the first 50 or so times they took it and needed someone else to tell them what they already had forgottten - hard to report anything good about that. But no one ever had a chance to really get up close to him because he kept everyone at a distance by deliberate intent and action. He liked being a dik, in other words. It's been said it's because his Dad mistreated him - I wouldn't know. He was pretty good at being an outcast when I met him as teenagers, I know that. But that excuse only goes so far - he married Barbara, a very sweet woman in her youth and given the opportunity I'm sure she would have had a healing affect on him. Maybe she did - maybe what he became isn't as bad as he could have been. Dunno. I hope he's doing better - I'm surprised anyone's checking on him here, perhaps to find out if he can continue to be a living stick pin, again - dunno.

Billy Boblet was getting the company line or was part of it him/her self. I took PFAL in 1968. I'm probably not the best representative of GS in opinion or perspective, but I do know that most of the participants in this board weren't from the 70's and 80's. That statement indicates participation from the early growth surge of the Way through the death of the founder and the transition to Martindale. IMO, most of the useful input has come from those involved in the 80's, 90's and into the 2000's....that era really shows the transition into what the Way is today - it covers the greatest impact of Martindale setting up shop and building - sorry, I meant destroying, the Way's structure. As you note chockful, the Way's interests are served by re inventing the whole thing. That GS is full of old timers, belly achers, who aren't happy with this thing or that things but that's all changed, it's different, the Way of today isn't the same as what they're talking about blah blah blah. But Rivenbark's been there since the 70's and the current Absence of Trust Trustees are all relatively recent generation flakes, goombahs that have glommed on to the tail of a very aging and decrepit dog in it's final years. To someone like me - I don't care what someone who came along in the late 80's or the 90's does or thinks - I mean, I do but not if or in a way that validates the Way's integrity to a meaningful degree. To me - the 90's were all built around the pathologies of Martindale - a known quantity of failure and who appears to have had a public nervous breakdown and subsequent injection of personal pathologies on and into the organization he led. The Way never publicly tracked any action taken to correct that or even help him other than to boot him out - a good decision - but not effective if it was the only one. Leaving the standing cootie platoon of "leadership" in place to 'fix" anything was ludicrous. They're under trained, under experience and under-undered everything to be able to lead anything bigger than a pod of goldfish. I'm serious. They're nidiots. When people still come tumbling out of that barrel in New Knoxville with complaints that sound like the same ones that were made 40, 30, 20, 10 years ago - Duh. Get a clue Clyde. And oh yeah - Merry Christmas! />

The end of the world stuff and Judgment Day stuff do tend to get mixed together. Karma may be the best man can envision - what goes around comes around, you will get what's coming to you, as you give so shall you receive, treat others as you would be treated, the love you make is equal to the love you take, that sort of thing. I frequently appeal to myself and others from that perspective as I think it helps to keep us clear on the possibilities. If I DO give as I get and get as I give there's no real surprises. And life does tend to progress in the temporal plane that way, day to day, pret' near, more or less. Christianity is based on a different platform - "grace". Grace is a powerful concept, idea, ideal, and the results of it when applied are different than a karmic approach. Grace as taught by Jesus (who also taught the other give/receive too) and then by His followers later allows for the seemingly impossible things they attempted and taught - forgive others, give without measuring for a response, love without ceasing, etc. . One might say life is fine, for them - another life is terrible, for them - and in all the state of humanity is what it is and it will produce good and bad, right and wrong, etc. etc. "Mercy, grace and peace" to us all, indeed. It's a different view and one that I believe is found in many non-Christian religions, at their highest form. Brian Wilson (Beach Boys) wrote a great song that has some of this idea in it - push comes to shove, at the end of whatever and while I'm going there, it's a nice thought. "Love and Mercy" I was sittin' in a crummy movie With my hands on my chin all the violence that occurs Seems like we never win Love and mercy that's what you need tonight Love and mercy to you and your friends tonight I was lying in my room And the news came on TV A lotta people out there hurtin' And it really scares me Love and mercy that's what you need tonight Love and mercy to you and your friends tonight I was standing in a bar And watching all the people there Oh the loneliness in this world Well it's just not fair Love and mercy that's what we need tonight Love and mercy to you and your friends tonight

Back aty'all! Merry Christmas! Family and friends as much as possible. Some quiet time here and there. Weather permitting a little outdoor exercise, walking and the like. Have safe and happy holidays! Enjoy the Christmas season for all it can be! (No belief systems, religions, alternate, mainstream, fundamental, lift wing, right wing, far near or distant close ideas or theological constructs were harmed in the posting of these greetings, nor none intended! To file a complaint and receive compensatory help for all such, real or imagined, please proceed to www.MERRY-THiS_WHEREtheSUNshines.com and fill out form 100.A titled "Yeah Baby Gonna Get Mine Now!". Click the PayPal link and include the 459.00 filing and handling donation, and once it's received your help will be sent in a bright re gifted Christmas Card, suitable for hanging or framing!!)

<iframe width="420" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/J3H1Njg5eNo?rel=0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

I have mixed feelings on it being literal. The atonement by blood sprinkled on the ark, and that being the actual blood of Jesus Christ physically on the ark lid itself - I'm not sure that has to be the case. Christianity is based on a fulfillment of the offering done in a way that would be "once and done", not a continuation of previous ritual but a final act of sacrifice and offering, the atonement of the sacrificial lamb - Jesus. As I understand it there is an element to that offering of it being in real time, being done before God, "sprinkled", put forth in a way that it's clear that it's a real sacrifice and a real offering. We know that according to the records set forth in the gospels that did occur, in that Jesus died and His blood was shed, literally and in real time. The "offering" of it was being done in a vastly greater context than the day and people involved - Romans, Jews, followers, enemies, observers, all the participants were performing their actions completely different and contrary to what a Temple priest did when offering the blood at the ark. There was no singleness of purpose to make the death of Jesus Christ an "offering" of any kind. That's very telling to me - it fits with the burial and time of Jesus in the grave, the 3 days and 3 nights. He died and was buried. But to the people he wasn't killed to make a sacrifice before God, and while He was dead no one anticipated the resurrection. These events were clearly an engineering and execution of a Godly intent and purpose - nobody knew what was going to happen next, they abandoned any hope of a future with Jesus and were themselves distraught until He revealed Himself to them. Soooooo - could it have happened that way, where the blood did actually do that? I don't know, other stuff comes to mind but gotta run for now.

Ron Wyatt did not produce evidence of that happening, his claims did not prove that his blood sampling was the blood of Jesus. He was looking for something he intended to find, one way or another apparently. His "proof" did not prove that was the blood of Jesus Christ. He wants it to be, fine.

Likewise - Wyatt proposes something along the lines of the blood of Jesus falling through a crack in the earth that happened after his crucifixion when the earth "shook" and that soaked into an area below that spot where the ark of the covenant supposedly was. I think - I've read these accounts before. There's a lot of pieces that have to come together for that to even be remotely possible. It's less a matter of it being true in my opinion - because what Wyatt does is seek existing evidence, artifacts, historical evidence of past events we read of in the Bible. That's fine, and a very worthy endeavor. But I can't require that there be evidence today or that there be artifacts for me to find. LIke with the blood of Jesus stuff - it would be interesting but - so what? It's not going to take the records of the gospels and make them all true. Nor if ancient wood is found on a mountain. Boat? Fine. What's that really prove though? A quick glance at the assorted web sites seilling stuff doesn't offer the kind of validated documentation I hoped to find. I am somewhat dubious however of claims that can only be really understood by buying a DVD, tape or book. The videos are just snooze fests. ZZZzzzzz. My man. Waters that be Muddy!

Wyatt is a guy who looks, finds things and says they're what he was looking for. He's dead for a while now, I assume from his work that I have read that he meant well but I would simply say he did not maintain enough of discipline in his work. He wanted to find what he was looking for so he did. A lot of us do that with a lot of things. Noah's ark - the loose language of the bible has been developed into the "flood story" where everyone and everything on earth was destroyed by a flood so massive and deep it allowed Noah to beach his boat on - supposedly - Mount Arafat, which is up to 17,000 feet high. Forget the boat - that's a LOT OF WATER, covering the earth. Think about it - the entire earth covered by what - say 10, 000 feet of water or more... Think about the storms we've seen in the last 25 years around the globe, HUGE amounts of rain and water, and the terrible devestation caused by them. That's light drizzle according to what Genesis is interpreted to say. According to the story woven about the flood, the entire planet becomes an ocean, basically. A big lake with a few mountain tops poking up through it by the time it's over. And this all happens in 40 days - how much water has to fall in an hour to do that? The method of destruction doesn't match the requirements for starters - you don't need that much rain to kill everything. Heck, we get an hour of hard rain and people start driving like nut cakes. Considering the amount of rain you would have to dump in an hour and what that would do to the people, animals and property getting dumped on - it would take much less time to kill everything on the earth. Except the fish of course, who I would assume did fine, at least the ones who could stay down and move around the incredible amounts of earth that would have shifted as a result of the impact of all that water for 40 days. That affect of the rain destroying what it hit and the earth mixing with water is what's really scarey and again, unreasonable - the earth would have become not like a pacific ocean or a Lake Tahoe, but a huge puddle of mud. Most of the death would be caused by the exposure to such an incredible onslaught of water hitting you, non stop, for 40 days and then everything and everyone would have been floating in a brown sludge. But I'd assume that everything was dead within 10 days, 15? at the rate many think it fell - after that it would be over kill, literally. 40 days and nights of rain is one thing - enough rain to cover the earth as Genesis states today - for 40 days and nights - whole nother deal. It's the details and the math that crunches it - so I would assume that the record's been messed with over the millenia, or just represents a massive morality tale, with some likely tags to reality. There is more feasible history and evidence of a large flood occuring in that area of the world and there being a kind of history that's similar that may be true. For those who say "well, it's in the Bible so it must be true" - they're being silly. Yes it's in the Bible, what does it really say, what does it mean, how should it be understood? I think theology has talked itself into a corner on a lot of things and is just stuck there. But either way, it doesn't have to be the pin upon which everything else hangs on.

I like them Ron! Also, a good practice - if it has cheese in it, on it or over it, have some!

Ha! Well, there's always exceptions. It's no skin off my nose either way. I was interested in engaging in conversation - at first. But Yahweh hisself would get his panties in a twist at being made to appear so obtuse and absolutely inexcusably BORING as those dwads in those videos who drone on and on and on and... The best ones are the ones who use those voice de dibblers, that disguise your voice so "no one" can recognize you. So - there's a vidiot who uses a network connection to post a series of 90 minutes videos ONLINE where the whole world can see them, and have a library of these snooze fests, subscribers, and email addresses.... And they disguise their voice so no one can find out who they are..... Right there - that's all I need. That's too dumb to take seriously. Intentions might be good, I accept that. But 1/2 a bun short of a corn dog - yes.

Troll. By any other name... I don't think it contributes to anything remotely "doctrinal" to drop links to videos without any reference to what's in them or what the interest of the person posting them is. Why should I care if someone else doesn't care enough to at least offer a paragraph or two. It's assumed that this isn't for sharing videos, it's for discussing topics. If this person was interested in having a discussion about ideas and beliefs they'd state them. Instead it's these videos. I'm done being courteous. Look for a New Me, accept no substitutes!

What do you think teachmevp? What's your impression of that chapter. Would be interested. Thanks.

Looks very familiar. It's not possible to get down to much more than polite conversation without knowing what everyone believes about "God" - Yahweh, Jesus Christ, what have you - And "Satan". I'd prefer some succinct statements as to what we're talking about here. I simply am not going to watch 10's of hours of videos on anything to get into a discussion on what everyone thinks about - what, dunno. Perhaps a specific point - to which we could contribute teachmevp - to shed some light on collectively....:)/>

Well sure, but "who" is "Satan"...who is that one and where is he at this time? I get the other references, understand them I think but Satan has many different personnaes' in the religious world. Who do you think he is? Where do you think he exists? Is Satan a separate individual person? Is he human? A human being? Or another kind of being? I get that you're drawing a conflict of sorts between two sides and Satan and his clan are on one side. When you say Satan and his clan, I don't understand who you're saying Satan is. I get what you're saying his clan is -but who are you saying Satan is?

I hope his family manages his obligations and lifestyle closely. He has had well deserved success. I'd hate to see him fail performing onstage in front of an audience.

I would speak to the change that I know. When, how, to whom, all of that - yeah, the more the better. I don't have any real problems with the Big Tent approach, mass marketing with television, all of that - but I don't know how effective or authentic that is - it's another kind of thing in my opinion. Sharing person to person at the point of interest, need is what I see, the "human" approach is the only one I know. "For we cannot help speaking about what we have seen and heard." "Which things also we speak, not in words which man's wisdom teaches, but which the Holy Spirit teaches, comparing spiritual things with spiritual things." The Christian paradigm isn't one that you encounter in other things - there are aspects of the way of Jesus Christ and the new redemption and life in Christ in other things but the core message relates to something people won't encounter anywhere else. So those who have had the encounter, the experience, have heard and seen need to speak to those things. That appears to be how the message gets shared. God will "work" in the individual in ways that He chooses, that's not up to me. But I think it's only realistic and normal to communicate the new life in Christ. But if anyone including me chooses not to - fine. I'm not going to beat myself over the head for not meeting someone else's quota either. Keep it real and I'll have no 'splaining to do, is how I see it

To clarify that questions - and I may just not understand what you mean - but if nothing happens until the messiah's body of believers is gathered up, as you say, but it's possible to see initial movement and progression from Satan's Camp - are you suggesting that he/they have a "heads up" as it were, that the messiah's body of believers is going to gathered up soon, or that there's a connection between the two, a dependency of some kind? Just trying to understand what you meant, thanks.

Speaking of Satan and his clan, who are the major players out there now? Names, anyone? I'm also curious - I can't watch that video series, teachme, sorry - but who or what is "Satan" in your estimation? How would you describe Satan, what he is and where he is now, today? I have read many different perspectives on that, including what the Bible says, so I'm curious how you see it particularly in the context of your statement you see the Book of Revelation being set up. Thanks.

Ah, here we are, the usual suspects. I need to make some concrete contribution here or soon I'll be thought of as some interloper goober ish type. Soon, I promise. Next time. But while I'm here - I'd suggest John Carpenter's trilogy - The Thing, Prince of Darkness and In the Mouth of Madness - for a complete statement and road map of the spiritual realities at play in the world. Not because I think they're reasonable or make any sense whatsoever, they're patently ridiculous horror film fare but he was able to take some of the basic philosophical, religious and political ideas and concepts and wrap them into some pretty bizarre cinema. Not really entertaining, in fact I shouldn't even really recommend them but since I'd seen his remake of The Thing and then stumbled on Prince of Darkness on HBO years ago, I felt like I had to try and do something to redeem the otherwise complete waste of time they amounted to. Prince of Darkness is however worth the time to watch it - it's a complete spook fest, I would not recommend watching it alone or late in the day if you're at all squeamish. It's not just gross out, there's some of that - but the way he strings the ideas of God, Holy Spirit, Jesus Christ and Lucifer/Satan together into a sci - fi flick, including a time travel twist - it's pretty deep. Plus he does it by turning the whole thing upside down in a rather inventive way - I won't divulge the outcome of the movie but....it leaves you unsure what's reality and what isn't. Which is what "conspiracy" theory does, IMO. It plays well to a mentality that isn't ready to accept that what they see and hear, now, today, is surely what is real. My wife and I were discussing this just a day ago - for all the ideas, faiths, conceptual visualisations and theories of what life is really really all about - each person must do one thing to remain tethered to life however distasteful it may be at that moment - and that is to know what is, in fact - real, now. That perception and understanding - what is real, now - is the baseline for all intellectual endeavors and is therefore (he contended with panache and wit) essential to all spiritual endeavors. Food for thought....(urppp!)....:biglaugh:/>

It was certainly a good thing, chockful. And things like word studies can only help us to learn what's in the Bible. Right now, I probably approach it as both you and geisha describe. I always took word studies to be for topical reading, a method of reading the Bible in an organized way. It does help to understand the meaning of the words too of course. For me the primary benefits go to understanding context. There are limits to that though- just because a word is used to deal with say, rain and water and refreshing, may not be all that hugely significant, but as we saw over the years the Wayfer approach would attach all the uses into a string to make a definition - that will produce some convoluted definitions, to say the least and that don't necessarily add to the meaning - typically something like "water is a thing that can be rain and can also refresh when you drink it....and the sky is used as a figure for what "heaven" is, and heaven is God's domain.so water is Godly and from heaven and can refresh when it rains!! Isn't that wonderful??!!".....I'm exaggerating but not much. Martindale was the master at that, and it can only denigrate this discussion to go too far into that...so....anyhoo.... I dig word studies, and using reference materials though. Absolutely. />

Phileo, eros, storge and agape are good examples. Here's where the teacher part of it comes in for me - how many times have we heard that there's more than one word for love in greek and only one word for love in english? That's not true - there are multiple words for love in the english language - love, like, affection, care, intimate, close - all of these words indicate different aspects of "love" - and they're often used to do just that. What's happened is that in translation a single word was used to represent different nuances of meanings. A "good" translation has to extend that meaning as much as possible. The fact that someone at some point decided "love" works for every instance doesn't mean to me that I'm limited to that, or that word or that translation. And therein lies the rubber on the road - someone has to determine and define the actual meanings, in translation. When we heard "the love of God in the renewed mind in manifestation", it reflected a theological premise, much more than a simple definition of a word. In VPW's case he was extending a doctrinal position in using that definition for occurrences of agapa/e/o. I've used the example of the drink a glass of water before in teachings and some people respond "but what if you didn't know what a glass of water is? you'd need to be taught and that's why we need blah blah blah"....which goes directly to my point. I wouldn't say drink a glass of water without qualification to someone that I knew didn't understand what a glass was, or water was, or what it meant to drink. I'd use a different technique to communicate it to them using words, illustration, examples, many different methods...... "God's Word" uses words and lays them out as if the reader will know and understand the meanings and usages - so much of the N.T. scriptures that have been collected into the canon read just like that - there's no lexicon that comes with them, no Index of God's Words for a reference, no "Yahweh's Unabridged Dictionary". So - if God is telling man about things that man doesn't already know and needs to know, things that are going to be new, like Jesus Christ, a resurrection, new life, spirit, worship, faith, etc. etc. - and we're faced with a book that only contains x amount of information in it - and equally intelligent, caring and honest people come to vastly different conclusions on things in it - It doesn't lead me to assume that it's hopeless to expect I can come to reasonable conclusions or that everyone else is crazy or possessed - well, not right off the bat anyway.... It just tells me I need to clearly understand what God expects me to do with it, the correct methods to learn what ultimately He wants me to know.

Interesting part of this discussion, wordwolf, geish, chockful, and all.... For comparison, PFAL proposed that the "mathematic"al nature of the greek used in the Bible's translations allowed for a more exact determination of their meaning. I'm not so sure about that, at all anymore. I guess it's more exact than less exact languages but frankly I don't know how I'd weight that today. IMO there's a limited amount of information and clarity into the meaning of that information that can be gained from studying the language of the bible, the words, the customs and times around them, etc. etc. By limited I don't mean insignificant but rather that knowing the meaning of words doesn't help much if the usages of those words is as unique as they often are in the Bible. PFAL notes things about prepositions and VPW was a big fan of Bullinger's work showing place, time, motion, etc. But that's what prepositions do. The usage(s) of the words is as important and that requires a lot of additional study to determine. Even still it simply can't reveal the meaning of words when they represent unique concepts as we see so often in the Bible. So "Drink this glass of water" is pretty clear. There's no deeper meaning to what those words actually mean - we know what a glass is, what it means to drink and what water is. But if I'm in Ephesians 6 and read For you were once darkness, but now you are light in the Lord. Live as children of light (for the fruit of the light consists in all goodness, righteousness and truth) and find out what pleases the Lord. ... the meaning of those words is going to require more effort, even just effort to know why another version would read For you were once darkness, but now you are light in the Lord. Walk as children of light (for the fruit of the Spirit is in all goodness, righteousness, and truth), finding out what is acceptable to the Lord. Words like spirit, soul, life, gifts, tongues, prophecy - they are just words and their meaning can be understood. But as others have noted here the descriptinve nuance into what they actually mean isn't something that research reveals. It gets part way but not all the way. And it's kinda funny in an ironic way - VPW proposed that the Bible be given at least the same respect and effort as any other written work, to read what's written, read for context, where words used before, etc. etc. etc. Yet, like any written work the words will only communicate a certain kind of thing, a certain kind of message to the reader, limited by the format of the media itself. Funny.... The next time someone says "Picture this..." :biglaugh:/>.

My thoughts exactly Kevin. One of the alternatives for the Way would be to fully embrace the formal, organized "church" model. Be the church that they really are, have members, rules and public policies, ceremonies for entry into membership, etc. etc. etc. Do that instead of acting like they're something different. That would allow them to openly strong arm and muscle their members publicly and not try to keep it so shadowy. I'd describe the splinters as "different time, different place" ministries. Some change, some adaptation, some accommodation with the same general shape at the center as you stated so well. They all seem to feel that they're a better version of the former, a version that the founder would be "proud of". To which I've said more than once and other places then here - b---s---. VP would be spitting up shortie Kools out of his ears if he knew that any core part of his original teachings had been changed and probably be at least moderately peeved about any one of many lesser points of doctrine. That's one reason I find John Lynn such an abhorrent aberration - after all of his theological meanderings and experimentation he still markets himself as someone the ol' Father in the Word would be proud of. It would be more honest to just move and build from a new base, start over, stop leveraging the past like that. I'm sure it's just to waft some of that Old Time Wayness out over the newbies who don't know any better ("ooooh, you're John Lynn....oooooh, you were taught by the man of gawd....ooooooh....." and the Oldies who are so broken at the imploded ministry they once loved that they'll accept anything that smells like the BRC mid-summer, '75. By holding forth on that platform he can keep the dinero flowing in and maintain his former celebrity with those people. He was never "that" good of a teacher, not that funny, not that effective, not that -anything if compared to any one of many other teacher, pastors and ministers of that genre', the "Christian Lite" combo-Jesus-Bible-Metaphysical ministries. He's got the drill down though - he can muck up one thing after another, chase every $ making scheme and try out every new thing he can glom onto to re message the Bible and use to make a buck off of and get away with it with that crowd of his because 1. there's always more new people to funnel in and 2. the old Wayfer are more than happy to cite "Grace and Mercy" over it all and give him a free pass through it all, thinking that's spiritual maturity. IMO if they all don't spit of get off the pot though they'll fade out, as you describe. That may be the preferred way to wind it all down, just let time do it's thing. And for better or worse, there aren't going to be too many people at the estate sale 10 years from now, fondly remembering their healing times in the WOW auditorium listening to "We're Seated in the Heavenlies"...../>

Over it's years Way Prod has put out a lot of music, some of it good some of it average, some very disposable. Given the accumulation of people, the diversity, it stands to reason that it's gone the way it has, nothing says it would be great, or if it was at any point in time would remain so. Music is work and it takes craftsmanship, practice and personal investment to do it. Hillsongs is one of my fav's. They (Darlene and crew) found their sweet spot and have developed it over the years. It's "pop" music and fits into the general rock/pop genres. They do that kind of music really really well. Modern pop music follows a form and to sound good in that form you have to follow it, using very broad strokes perhaps but you have to have the fundamentals. One of those is a "hook", a line or two that captures a thought, idea, feeling in a way that will be meaningful to the listener. Like humor, when something's funny you don't have to analyze it, people laugh. When music's "good" to someone they like it for some reason, and people listen. Good is relative. I like pop music and really like inventive and innovative use of that format. It can be done many different ways but I know what I like when I hear it. I think Hillsongs is Black Belt XXX rated Uber Hot and Good when it comes to the pop form of music. It's not all I listen to but when I want that sound, they've got it. Not everyone likes it though, or likes it a lot or like me doesn't like it to the exclusion of other music. I don't put in Hillsongs when I want Coltrane, or Coltrane when I want Rungren, etc. etc. Everyone's different, we all have different things we enjoy. Music isn't teaching or reading although it can teach when it's listened to and the listener "gets it". The Way pursues a world view that denigrates person preference and elevates programmed choice. One's personal preference is only valid in Way World if it reflects the correct choice. Knowing and making correct choices is fundamental, yes, however then the individual can and will develop personal preferences through a lifetime of learning and experience that is unique to them. One person may like one color more than another, etc. etc. etc. There are countless things that make us who we are. The Way wants to say in effect "this is GOD'S WORD, you should like it if you like God's Word and you should"....The Way's effort to homogenize a "like mindedness" that fits all is and will always be a failure, long term. It appeals to certain needs in certain people though and for those people it works and it's great.