socks

Hmmm....actually yes, the quote is from the "Advanced Class" part of the series, and as you probably remember VPW stated "everything" was in the PFAL Foundational class itself, the Intermediate and Advanced just expounded on the basics which were all in the Foundational Class. If you have the "old" 65 page syllabus you'll get close enough to what he was talking about with that statement. The challenge to you johniam would be to simply take all of the doctrinal statements in PFAL and the "basic principles" we'll call them and, using the exact statements he makes throughout, form an integrated whole from the parts so that everything "fits" with everything else, hand in glove style. The question would then be - does it? and if it does, fine. If it doesn't, what falls out, what or where are the gaps? Doing that you'll move quickly past the "believe" part of PFAL - at this stage of my life I'd say that any idiot knows that to do anything they have to well, do it - and that's what VPW teaches - "believing action" to attain a result stated/promised in the Bible. Basically - treat the Bible and what it says with the same functional approach a person would with anything else in life. Believe it and there will be a result. This can in no way imply that nothing "happens" until a person "believes". Remember - everything essential and vital to Christianity has happened without any believing, effort, foresight or forethought on man's part at all. Nada. Zip. It's all God and Christ. VPW cut a fine line on this, if you're interested in fitting all of PFAL together and this is one part where it gets squishy - "not by works" - right there in the Bible. No effort on man's part constructs, achieves or earns his redemption, it's a "gift". A gift requires a giver - man is the recipient. If it's not by works, then believing can't accomplish anything towards it. It can't be defined as taught in PFAL or else it would be disqualified as a "work". First with the new birth (which VPW describes as "regenerate man" - what's that really mean? - and further with the life that comes from it. Pistis is in the bible, "believe" is - but it's been somewhat warped to imply and ultimately mean that man is doing something to make something happen. He's not. Acceptance is a much more passive term but describes man's role better. And it gets closer to the true relationship that man has to have with Christ than "pistis" being believing and that being an effort. The Way focuses on a single english word. Trust and confidence in the thing believed in, is the core meaning. There's no push that comes from man's part in that, it's the relinquishing of pushing that forms real faith. To quote VPW, I didn't write the book - and I'm not rewriting it either. Romans 8:9 might be an appropriate close to this.

hmmm. well johniam.... If that's the sum and substance of what you believe, and what the extent of what you think was in PFAL, you're 1. wrong and 2. not alone, the power-pak version of Christ-in-you was emphasized in PFAL to the extent it allowed the hearer to misunderstand the very thing it taught. Sometimes it seems like VPW did it deliberately, but I think he was just grasping to understand, and didn't fully. In the earlier years, late 60's, early 70's, he discussed this stuff, usually in informal settings. On many of the earlier SNS tapes his language emphasized the relationship of these things differently than he did in later years. Your logic, how you put these things together connects what I wrote to VPW's notion that "God doesn't possess".........Phil. 2:13 does not imply nor state that God "possesses" a person. You're doing what VPW did - insisting that a single conclusion be supported by new data, when it's clear the other data - like Phil. 2:13 - indicates God's relationship to us and how He works, which in fact doesn't say He "possesses". This is where the VPster got hung, instead of letting the Word say what it actually says he insisted that if "fit" like hand in glove, etc. It does - but not by us making it fit. I'm glad to see you don't have any scriptural or even some other reasonable objections to what I wrote. "God possessing" isn't one, as it doesn't relate to what I wrote. If you really think it does, 'splain if you would and I'll try to show you the difference.

But you guys have to deal with "expedient that I go away". Sorry. Just a note on this - (and I think it may actually support the fact that I was wrong - there apparently is more to teach the ex Way community at large....) The entire topic and idea of Jesus Christ being "absent", the "absent Christ" has become a real birds nest of mis matched ideas. As written in the Bible, "Jesus Christ", the man in the gospels is for practical purposes "gone". Jesus was killed and died. We read that. He is written to have been resurrected, alive again and then to have "ascended" and is now positioned on "the right hand of God". Jesus of the gospels is gone. The resurrected Christ is written to now be very much alive - Now known not in the same way..God's intentions and purposes being fulfilled thus far the physical Jesus Christ is not known in the same way as He was to those who knew him as written about in the gospels. This is written in straight forward fashion in the N.T. - the "ambassadors for Christ" stuff. Note the following verses amongst others: Nevertheless I tell you the truth; It is expedient for you that I go away: for if I go not away, the Comforter will not come unto you; but if I depart, I will send him unto you. Young's Literal Translation 'But I tell you the truth; it is better for you that I go away, for if I may not go away, the Comforter will not come unto you, and if I go on, I will send Him unto you; John 14:26 But the Counselor, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, will teach you all things and will remind you of everything I have said to you. The critical aspect of this to focus on today is not that Jesus Christ is absent - He's not - because Jesus Christ said He'd send a "comforter", a "counselor", the "pneuma hagion"....this allows for the relationship with God....through Christ...to happen. Note that when the HS would come they were told the HS would "teach you all things" and "remind" them of everything Christ had said to them. People refer to this idea of Him being absent as if He's no longer around, not available and a passive silent partner in this current phase of the process Who does nothing without our initiating the process through - I'll state PFAL this way - enabling the pneuma hagion "gift" through "believing action". This completely ignores a fundamental principle in the N.T. - Phil. 2:13 - Christ is central to that occuring, that Christ is "in" us and "among" us, fully formed and functional, the "mind" of Christ that always did and does "the will of" His and now our Father. He can't be absent as if He didn't show up for school today and it's up to us to cover for Him as if our dog didn't eat our homework so we're good to go if we step up. It's a ridiculous idea. The relationship isn't one of pieces separated, it's of what we might call today a fully integrated set of parts that make the whole and that constitute the means for a process to occur and to continue. Without the personal presence of Christ Christianity loses it's central core. What did you think it meant johniam in PFAL when you heard "eyes behind your eyes, ears behind your ears".....? If a person wants a guy in a robe with long blonde love-boy hair and a beard they won't see Him (and IMO imposing our own cultural, political and social filters on the personality of Christ to manufacture a Modern-Friendly-Jesus that comes to life is wrong and does the exact opposite of what learning who and what Christ really is would accomplish - He becomes what we make Him not what He is - how much do any of us like being made to live under the thumb of other's expectations of us, which we often reject or fail to live up or down to?). Cultivating a lifestyle of "believing" is IMO less a matter of "believing action" based on a set of rules and more learning to accept the indwelling mind and character of Christ that is brought alive, taught and remembered, by the Holy Spirit and it is that that very thing which allows us to fully function as individual parts of "the body of Christ" in the unique ways which God wants us to. (and as a side note to a de rail this is exactly why I believe much of the "good works" efforts of Wayfers derails their true potential before God, the so-called "gift ministries" becoming little more than the result of directed effort rather than gifts of service that work in harmony with the head, Christ - but that's another rant). The purpose was continuance....not absence....through the transitions of the future the relationship of mankind to God and Jesus Christ would unfold and in fact continue, in a new way, an essential way that would be integral to mankind's relationship to God and vice versa. We don't have to deal with the "absent Christ" as if that means something disconnected from the overall plan of redemption and "new life". Christ isn't absent. The expedient part of Christ "going away" was that God's plan would continue and He would live in each of us. . I think this "absent" topic gets wrangled over as a point of fact so much because it becomes important to some people as to whether VPW was right or wrong. F-k that. Him, me, you being right or wrong isn't the issue on this and that the doctrine of Christianity gets clouded in the matter is bad. Noting that Jesus Christ was "absent" is taking a part of a sentence and ignoring the rest. No Christian with a relationship with Christ and God would focus on that. It's wrong and doesn't serve God, Jesus Christ or the people of God. It's confusing. Who needs more of that?

What's left to? by sheer volume, tonnage, pages stacked, words counted thus far and hot air expounding out of New Knocksville..... ...not much. PFAL and it's 36 hours of material alone is plenty. The endless rewording and re presenting of the same thing with an endless effort to find or add a new twist to what's been turned a 1,000 times already...? Perhaps the time spent would be better invested in actually doing some things with it, acting on it, encouraging efforts to make the world a better place and building something worth keeping.

Thanks Michael. I only know one way, one thing, only one light. That's it for me, the core of the center of the essence of what I believe and my faith. I don't have any additives, enhancements, methods, techniques or paradigms to offer and neither entertain, offer nor sell any expanded versions of the original. And I loathe and disdain those who would sell God's gifts, so freely given. They get no quarter, no standing in these precincts and deserve what they get by choosing the outer rim - chaos. I have as many scintillating enlightened thoughts as the next clod but I don't mess with the foundation and cornerstone of What Works and in Christianity that is Jesus Christ, the way, truth and light, the Logos, God's mind and intentions brought to form for all to see and hear. Without that, there's everything else and everything else is not that so it's easy to get and keep a bead on it. With that, order, peace and progress within the human soul can begin and grow, life Anew. The closer anyone gets to that the clearer their vision and place. If this were then I'd do what they did - bring someone to Jesus, to hear, see and meet Him for themselves and let the work begin. And the Spirit is on the move even today so He's not hard to find. When He needs my help He knows where to find me but He knows His job. So do I. Or as ZZ Top said so eloquently "You may not see Him in person, but He'll see you just the same. And you don't have to worry, cause Takin' Care Of Business is His name". I take extreme exception to this crap that floats today in the name of Jesus Christ and His Father but it seems to have always been a soiled water in the shallow end of the pool. I'm a lousy swimmer but the deep end is much cleaner.

Worth the price of admission for the Harp alone....... <br><br> Giddy up! <br><br> <iframe width="420" height="345" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/HPzcZNgVfpA?rel=0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

"damn it socks you're just mad you had to sign an agreement to release him/them if the fellas in the white coats carried you out of there" Y'know, you just reminded me of a statement my wif' made a year of so after we left the Wee Willy Winkee Way and started hearing about their wholesale brutality and what they were dishing out at the time and being thankful I'd taken the high road out instead of going in alphabetical order through the Way's leaderz and unloading a tank load of UMF on them one by one - she said "I guess we left before they had a chance to be really mean to us". I thought about that for a moment and realized that this would be one of those rare moments when she in all her sweetness and loving intelligence was in fact, wrong about her assessment of that situation. See, her assumptions about her own reality had been formed by a somewhat limited and small slice of the actual larger reality in which she'd existed but not been fully aware of - and therefore was only a partially formed vision. I knew right then and there that this was an opportunity to expand her personal horizons to places that well, like, new places. So I did. I responded "No, actually we left the Way before I had a chance to get really mean to them". And that again is the living freaking truth. There's still always time of course, but it wouldn't be fun anymore so, yeah. Blends Ham. It's all about blends. This just in! A note to socks - "why do you hate D. T. so much? What did he ever do to you?" Cool! A perfect opportunity for me, socks, to expound on that greatest of topics - why socks thinks the way he does. I don't hate him. I saw a rat under the kitchen counter last winter, little squinty guy. I didn't hate him, didn't even put out a trap. That's why we have a cat, a cat who won't move a leg except to eat, poop and switch sleeping positions but will sit like the Sphinx for hours and hours once it knows there's a rat on the move somewhere in her domain and then - well, I never see the rat again.....what goes around comes around, cycle of life stuff and life has a way of taking care of it's own detritus which is what MoMental looks like to me, if smarmy corn starch and excreta can be classified as such and I'll admit up front I might be stretching it there a tad. I also consider it a personal achievement that he's never done anything to me or anyone related to me, good or bad, although I will admit it's not a great achievement and probably goes on the same shelf as all the times I've remembered to watch where I'm stepping while walking in the park and avoided getting dog poop on my sneak's. It's those little wins that are kinda cool and idle their time in those parts of my consciousness not being used for higher value work, like avoiding spraying Ant Spray in my eyes instead of at the ants.

I like the observation about slavery. ""Slavery was not as bad as it was made out to be. They were in loving households and were taken care of." You have to wonder what was in their Idiot Juice that morning that pushed that particular person to the edge of sanity and then having given their sorry as s a good kick, sent it over into the canyons of insanity. Whatever it was it must have tasted really good. I suppose the idea of being kidnapped and taken to another country where you lived - if you survived - with a "loving household" that "took care of you" wasn't all that bad. Plus, having a dollar value placed on your body must have been been a confidence builder. Some people never know their own worth. Slaves had it tagged coming out of the gate. Who wouldn't appreciate that kind of attention? I don't give a s hit what the context was, that statement alone is so laden with layers of anti-value it glows like kryptonite to the brain. Hearing it should have come with a warning that actual brain cells will be destroyed in the process of hearing it and attempting to reckon it, so try to expose an area you won't need for the next class, like the frontal lobe.

Interesting ideas. But - anytime you make a rule or law you create a compliance and enforcement issue which has a cost and expense. There have to be laws, yes. Enforcement and policing those laws - that's a big nightmare now. We have an over regulated, over governed and over legislated society IMO. Example: if you turn around and do blood tests for compliance as you describe, you've created an expense. The administration of programs like that are costly, using the courts, an existing agency or creating a new one - not good ideas. It's just more money spent. Local assistance shouldn't be administered by the Federal government or at the national level - if the funding is coming from the federal level fine - but it should be delivered through the state and city systems IMO. That's IF we're going to continue giving money away to everyone. Unfortunately the entire Tax code has become a dodge and dart affair, with more fixes to fixes to exemptions to loopholes imaginable. Church and religious tax exemptions are only part of the problem. I've worked my adult life, earning income and paying taxes and I can tell you for the average "middle class" American you get screwed by the Federal tax laws because the bar moves constantly - regardless of what political party is involved the gov has yet to enact any tax legislation that has significantly reduced my taxes, baseline - sure, there are more and more convoluted loop holes to take advantage of but the time and expense to take advantage of them is ridiculous. The Charitable donation deductions was enacted to allow for the kind of local help and assistance that would really help people so I wouldn't change that - but unfortunately it too has become part of the dodge. For most of us though it's a reasonable economic recognition of our sharing charitably with others.

That's reasonable Roy. I get that approach. I would express it differently though - things are knowable within their own or say, a context. Rather then say "I can't know" for sure, I recognize that there are things that I do, in fact, know - "for sure". That's just the way it is. I suppose if I shoved it down other's throats I'd be a jerk but for my myself and I and those close to me, it's a good thing. That's who I am, being anything else would be deceptive. If someone wants to say I'm wrong or that I can't know that way, fine. That's what they say. Yet, there are things that we all accept and rely on everyday, both big and small that we don't worry about whether we "know them as true" or not - we simply know them as we do and we function accordingly and giving them some thought we understand why and how we know those things. It's not really complicated, as I think you know. The fact that we can share what we know and are learning with one another is a part of how we learn. So there's a benefit to discussion.

Hmmmm, I really don't know what you're trying to say Roy. Apparently we don't agree on what the definition of "truth" is or the definition of things that are true. On face value, what you're saying simply isn't correct. The person "Eve" in Genesis had a right to their own opinion, yes. And apparently that person thought they were right, yes. However in that instance they weren't. There was no "degree" of right or wrong there, nor shades of black and white that made it partly right or partly wrong. Any shades of understanding that a person has isn't what defines the truth of a reality - it does for them, their perceptions might be this or that or anything and for that person they're understanding might lead them to a conclusion that is, in fact, not correct. I really don't understand where you come up with something like you're saying. As an opinion it's fine but I don't think it's possible to come up with that view from the information that's in Genesis relevant to the characters in the record. The information in Genesis doesn't lead one to the conclusion that there were degrees involved in what was right and wrong to do. Simply stating that there are things we don't understand or understand fully or may never know and understand doesn't preclude the fact that there are things we can understand at any given point in time. I'll leave you to your ponderings. Peace!

Better put, Steve, thanks! One of the areas this touches on and that's long been discussed on GS by many is the relationship between "truth" and "logic". In TWI parlance "truth" was "logical" and the use of logic would support something that was true. Classic example - The Trinity...which couldn't be true because it wasn't logical when stated as "one God in three persons and three persons in one God"......basically he proposed that logically how could there be three separate persons in one 'god'? In VP's presentation on the subect one could work regressively back from the two conclusions and one would be logical/true, another would be illogical/untrue. Buuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuut.....the relatiionship between logic and perception was never accounted for, handled or explained. The rules of logic applied came from somewhere - where and why focus on "mathematical exactness and scientific precision"? And why in a field where the impossible occurs all the time (waters part, dead rise, blind see) and events roll out when and how they do based on the "will", the intentions of God......is everything required to be "logical' by the standards of human mathematics and when compared to scientific endeavor? Math exactness I kinda get but if it's anything like science.......it will mean it's going on a long arch of experimentation, observation, review, adjustment and learning, I don't believe in a true Trinity but for different reasons, none of which VPW or his books really covered at all - but IMO he developed his requirements for "working the Word" and what was and wasn't logical and therefore true or untrue and refused to account for the fact that his initial perception that the Bible "fit like a hand in glove" is one that isn't stated so by the Author. Not to side track to Trinitarian debates or what VP did or didn't say or whether right or wrong........just thinking out loud.

Is this just semantics or what? If something is "true" it can not be "untrue" at the same time. If something is false it can't be true either. I could change something about that thing that's true, and come up with something else, but that won't be the original thing. It will be something else. Think of it as "true north" - yeah, yeah there's lots of different definitions of "north" but there is position, direction and point that is established on the planet earth as "north". That is basically fundamentally true, and "north" all the time. Anything else is not "north", it's another position, direction, point. If water's hot - it can't be cold at the same time. Right? It can BECOME cold but then....it's not hot anymore is it? If I say "the sun is shining, don't take an umbrella" and it's raining outside and dark clouds everywhere - what I said wasn't true. I can change what I said, correct it, say "it's raining, take an umbrella" - and that's now true - but it's not what I originally said. I think the proposition that "truth can become a lie" is fundamentally incorrect, I see it the same way you're describing it Kit. Roy, I'm not sure exactly what you're saying but it seems like you mean that - someone can change something about "truth" and make it into something else, through deceptive means like the "serpent" as an example. Now - that thing, the original "truth" is something else though, the actual original "truth" did not change. (in the examples you've given if I'm understanding you correctly)

Mostly I suspect it's that those who do want to retain and hold to that thread of validity in the teaching and the name represents an easy to use way to refer to him. There's a group of those who no doubt ignore reality too and figure there's no need to change a thing. "The Word's still the Word" and that includes non-Wordy things that are part and parcel of that spiritual package. Had he completed a recognized doctoral program, that would have been one thing - still, that wouldn't have validated his teaching, ideas or any outcomes from them. It would have meant he completed the work to achieve the recognition - and importantly - by the communities that maintain that recognition. The doctoral degree wasn't issued by an accredited source - "Pikes Peak Seminary", whatever. So one would know, should know, going in - it will have limited recognition and therefore value in those circles where degrees are handled. So it's puzzling that on his part he embedded it into who he was and yeah, equally puzzling years later to hang anything on it of importance. I think it's just "the name" that goes with the man. It's the same kind of logic he used in his books - he didn't hide his sources, although he wasn't clear about how he got from A to Z with them (B G Leonard's an example of that). But he did write, publish and sell books that contained material from others books. If God taught him, opened the scriptures ok, but apparently God wasn't up to redoing old work and just directed him to previous efforts. That's understandable, God has a lot to do but if it's all one happy bag of inspired work, all the better to clearly accredit God for past work well done and note the sources. When someone that advertises that they're a "Dr.", and they write and publish, it's safe as a buck on a board to say that person will know and understand the standards that govern publishing. There's no "or should", they will as a result of completing their doctoral work. He'd completed up to his Masters degree, and so he'd done his papers, writs, thesis, etc. etc. and then done the Pike's Peak thing. So he knew and he decided to avoid clearly identifying what he injected into his own work. In the world where academic work results in degrees and achievements - that's a no-no. It'sa no-no in high school too, or when you're writing a check or doing much of anything, one would think. So if one is going to represent their own academic level as one of Doctor of anything - it's like in for a dime, in for a dollar or something like that. Otherwise, why bother? I don't fixate on it but IMO it's a simple kinda deal.

Yes, I agree dabbob. The "name" became "Dr. Weirwille". Doctor? I've posted before, on a practical level it meant nothing to someone like me, it didn't validate anything or make anything better or worse, righter or slighter. Why anyone today would, I don't know but I doubt I'd waste much time or money trying to choke it out of someone that he wasn't a really real doctor.....I dunno, I have a bad attitude all around though so don't listen to me, might get you into trouble. For many years I'd addressed Roman Catholic priests and nuns as "Father" and "Sister"....."Father Brennan"...."Sister Hyacintha"....yes, there was a nun that had that name....eventually those titles become meaningless, they're part of the multi syllable name someone has "FathahBrennan". Why he wanted to be called Dr. is more telling I think. On the one hand he's got the attitude that theological training and education is a waste of time that turns the participant into a godless unbeliever with no faith..........but on the other, he wants to be the "Dr."..........who's he trying to impress? And is anyone being impressed? To some extent California may have figured into that a little maybe a lot - when he came out here, first time I saw him it was clear that he wasn't West Coast Cool - in fact the fact that he didn't cater or kowtow to the clearly superior coolness of the Coast was endearing....here's a guy who doesn't give a crap what you think about how he looks, he's here to speak and teach and if you don't like it, don't listen. That was refreshing because in California between L.A. and San Francisco alone there were competing Coolness Cultures and the hierarchy of SF, Marin and North Coast alone could be confusing - in a really groovey way of course man - but ol' Dr. Weirwille wasn't on that radar or anywhere close. To me, it was a non-issue. The title was boring and formal and unnecessary. But the idea that he was a dummy who didnt' have a grasp of how to count to 10 without taking off his shoes is wrong. But Dr.? ......over stating who you are is always going to be a problem, always.

An aspect to this for oldies and moldies is that early on, the "Dr." designation wasn't used most of the time by others or himself, he was "VP". Around '71, the Way Nash communicated that using it was preferred. In California this was done via phone calls and in an informal way, Dorothy Owens of the Way staff called around and I actually kind of remember the day that call came, believe it or not, at the East Bay home of Howie Y. So word kind of circulated that way. His "doctorship" wasn't really a factor in the impression he made at that time IMO, good or bad. PFAL obviously wasn't an academic kind of presentation and his demeanor and personality wasn't one of an academic. He was informal, friendly and his shoot-from-the-hip kind of delivery was the opposite of someone trying to maintain a scholarly manner. In fact it seemed as if he deliberately tried to foil that kind of impression. A few years on and he seemed to want to craft a more formal, educated and worldly wise image - "Dr."........as if to say, having accumulated all the educational background and cred's but tossed them aside as meaningless....so there was a bit of a disconnect there to straddle that fence....... same with the Way International, or the Way Nash as I like to refer to it. Early on, it was known as "the Farm". While it was a bustling endeavor, again, it wasn't Corporate Religion Headquarters in image. Friendly, down home, easy going. Soon enough he became "Dr. Weirwille", and the Farm the Way Int'l. Inc. If you'd met him before this all started up it seemed unecessary but not entirely unreasonable in certain ways. Depending on the reliability and stability of the re labelled image didn't work, long term because IMO that's not what "it" was, he was or the entire effort was all about. We all know what happened over time, so I think history speaks for itself. We are what we are and taking a different name or hanging up a different sign doesn't change that. "Authenticity" counts, it's all there really is.

<iframe width="425" height="349" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/T8fXb7Zhki8?rel=0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe> <iframe width="560" height="349" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/Yiq-P86PDMg?rel=0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

Come to thunk of it, there's a Mistress Ram Dom Dungeon Service advertized in San Francisco if I recall - yeah, think so. Sorry, maybe I shouldn't insert another comment into the discussion... hmmm, that didn't come out right... I mean, it could read "Go and Grow" but then that would be... Well, not to belabor this but if push came to shove, I'm sure M Ram Dom could help. I guess.

Actually RazRamDas Rosie looks very much like I remember her, going back about say, 25 years. Not to say she hasn't aged or has aged well or badly, but rather that she always looked mmm....mature for her age. Some people just look older than they are in years and frankly - not to raise the ire of anyone else here - she always had that hmmmm....how to put it.....ah, to h with it - she always looked somewhat matronly and pinned together. It's a cultural thing I guess. But she always looked 60, to me, even when she was younger. I have no idea how old she is so don't even know how old she was 25 years ago. And now that I'm 60 I look around people my age actually look younger than I thought she looked, then.....so.........I guess it's just a look. We're all getting older and we look the way we look. She's just always looked much older to me. No offense to the rest of us elderly, none were harmed in the making of this post. (as far as I know)

Yeh, sorry 'bout that. But, perhaps Ramdom Rosie's book could be titled: Was There Then Or Who Went Where uh... Who Knew What mmm... What Me Worry? Or......

Ramdom ....wasn't he a 60's guru, of the transcendental movement'?

"He once bragged that the ROA was done with no help from unbelievers." Not to go off on too far a tangent but I guess if we discount land, roads, auto-moe-beels, manufacturing, food, distribution, agriculture and of course, the cattle who were to become a "WOW burger", yeah, sorta. I see the similarities to Amish and Wayfers, in that Wayland appears to be a representation of a past, with little new work changing or advancing their current state. If they still are saying they're a "research and teaching" "ministry" - where's the research work? Where's the teaching? and where's the ministry? From what I've heard they really don't do anything close to research at this point, and what they do to teach - bare minimum, and what they've always done, but less. There's no ministry there, if ministry is service. What's the service they provide, and how would it rate in quality and quantity? That old saying sort of applies - they were born on 3rd base and act like they hit a triple. The current gang inherited certain things but haven't done much with it, it seems, except to continue messing it up. But they only have what they have - or more accurately have what's left that they haven't destroyed, lost of sold. Whether it's truly "3rd" base is a question too. "Maintenance mode". So - look ahead 25 years.....what's the Way look like? What are they doing? All things being equal and they can keep the property up and the transfer of power continues as it has....it looks and acts and does pretty much the same. Thing. Because nothing enters or is allowed to enter into the mix that will cause change. Amish work and build and grow within themselves and produce. I don't know that the Way actually does that - they work, yes and are very slow to change anything at all - but they've been doing more selling (properties, stuff) then building or growing as an organization. Seems like. And I suspect they still buy most of their food, supplies and materials from the "outside" business world of providers. As far as the Bible - not much work or growth going on there.

Read it for yourself - from the Tochster's brain to your eyes..... Transformation is what occurs when people alter the way the world appears to them by making specific decisions to tap into the power of interpretation. ****************************************** (read that first line again - several times, hold your breath, light a candle, count to 100 and exhale slowly. Repeat until understanding wafts across your consciousness like the gentle odor of a butterflie's breath, then do it again and soon you will understand how some neanderthal's from his past known as "Christians" might take issue with the essence of his concept(s)... ) So, why is it that producing transformations in how teams, organizations and families work together is so elusive despite well intentioned, very smart people? I believe the number one challenge is that our culture is entrained to listen for simple answers, sound bites, steps, tips and techniques to very complex challenges. We want answers to questions that demand more than what can be achieved through a sound byte or even an audio book. (yes....even an audio book - hard to believe but even that. ) --------------------------------------------------- Now I may already be in trouble because I neglected to get permission to copy paste that from one of those websites and in fact did not negotiate a price to do so and that's mmmmmmm probably one of the first and worst Sins in this Slick's Keys to Success, not paying for the priceless........and sure, don't kick an income stream outta your bed just because it's underwear's brown, money's money - there can be gold in them cottons. But - there it is, like a duck, sitting. The first sentence really - it's so incredibly beautiful I will need a weekend or two to ponder it's fullness. But for those who haven't eaten of this bowl, again - duck. There. It's sitting. So - for all you hungering for your daily plate of spiritual foie gras, there it is. The good news......there's more.

Redressed - yes! A better word for a better understood process. Sort of a smarmy mix of excreta and paste, formed to insure the original ingredients maintain texture and integrity. I like it. That's the living freaking truth.

Hey peace to you too DWBH! EST - yeah, EST. http://www.rickross....andmark269.html "EST". EEEEEEST. EST. I read about "Landmark" recently, a real milestone gem, that one, by the sounds of it. John Juedes has a very succinct writ upon the wonder that is Momentus, or Breakthough or Brokeyourback or whatever it's called now. http://www.equip.org...hrough-momentus Momental is basically reboiled bulls--t, although John J puts that in better language than the baser sort of rank swill laden phrases I'm thinking. It's a good read. The many sides of the man, the myth, the mothra: http://dantocchini.com/my-websites/ He might want to drop flyers over Hiway 29 and Weirwille Road with this one - http://www.accd.org/ the foot ociation for Christian development. They deserve each other's efforts. These Slick Willies all find each other, sooner or later, I've noticed. Guess it's like gravity and possibly the way that greatest of modern inventions - literally one of the all time Top 10 Great Ideas of Modern Man - works and that's of course The Toilet. Now there's an idea that's worth a weekend and 500 bucks. That'll be one hecka toilet but hey - do we deserve any less? But yes, the toilet, the way water inevitably, inexorably and without the slightest bit of additional effort, swirls and flows and draws together the gook and well, flushes it out. That my friend is a metaphor worth giving at least 30 seconds to. Like a great spinning swirl of universal inevitability it all comes together and joins the clean with the filthy and sends it on it's way to become recycled, over and over and over and over.Different form, different name, cleaned up and spiffy sparkling and new but still pretty much recycled hmmm....stuff.