socks

The never ending twisting and turning of language to accomodate requirements that would otherwise inhibit or restricts the ability to properly collect and keep money is an example of the duplicitous machinations religious societies, clubs and organizations formulate and execute. On Sunday they all work for a heavenly Boss whose ways are higher and mysterious. On Monday they do temp work for other agencies with clearer directives. Thus at the Way, a charge, plain and simple is variously: A donation. (of a set amount) A gift. (of a set amount) A free-will offering. (see above) A minimum required donation. (ditto) More is fine. Less? No. It's a charge, for a business service and product, when you "give" a "mininimum required donation" out of "love" for a "class" and the materials that come with it. You're buying the information and the materials, with whatever use restrictions come with them. I do that at Borders when I buy a book, or Safeway when I buy food. I pay, it's mine, I was charged and paid for the business processes, products and profit margin that the charge covers. It's exactly what the Way does with it's "class". Calling it anything else is transparent BS. IMO. :)

Thanks Mr. P-Tucket. All things been e-quilled, I'd have to accept Joe's reporting on his trying to settle out of court and get some recognition from Coldplay for the song(s). What's really captured my attention on it is - well, kind of ironic. Many years ago, when JN was working it's last year or so, I wrote a song that contained the opening chords and figure - it was a little slower, with a finger picking and rhythm part played against each other but the sound is very similar - it hits a G (Gmaj7) then to an F#m7, and second time through resolves to a B. I used open strings, high E and B, droning agains't the chord triads, played on the lower strings. At the time that's all I could do with it and it sounded nice, I like the way it forms a kind of "round" and can be played over and over, and where the B takes it to a 5th of the key of E there's a lot of room for improvising over it (which Satch does the deal with on his song of course) - because you can improvise in several keys, E, A, F#min, B, Gmaj - there's a lot of nice possibilities. I ended up writing just two lines for the theme, and that's sat there for what - almost 30 years. "If this were the start, the beginning again, I'd start it all over with you". I wrote them for my wife. I had no idea until reading that what his inspiration was for that song. I will say that combination of chords is difficult to know what to do with - I never really resolved it. It's really been in the back of mind as some sort of a counterpoint to a marriage, always a work in progress. It was funny at the time because I couldn't get where to take it next, a G - A felt right, etc. etc. - Lisa L. was on the tour with us at that time, a "Take a Stand" caravan trip or two, and at one point after I'd strummed it another 100 times, she commented "yeah, that's the kind of thing you like to hear over and over ... and over again..." She was making the point - is that it? I still fiddle with it, and it's odd how much it has the "feel" of Satch's tune. I've been pondering whether to post this, but figured now it was too close to comfort to not - because it does go to show that music may always be a combination of something that's come before, as I'm sure virtually every combination of every tone set has been done at one time or another. Cest la vie, 'ey? Truth may be stranger than fiction. :) I think they both did a good job with it.

In many respects yes. Some of the best people I've known in my life were people in the Way. For many years I felt it was a good way to go. Not always the best, but reaonable on many different counts. That word "reasonable" was and is important to me. If there's reasonable progress, good work I can do, solvable problems and a common desire to work together, a lot can be done. I haven't found that life has a magic wand anywhere that waves over everything and makes it ideal. Work is required, effort, investment of mind and body. That's standard running op', IMO. There was a brick wall at the end of the tunnel though for me. Fortunately I rerouted. Nearly everyone I know did, or has over time. It's for the best.

Don't try too hard Leafy, it's not worth it, trust me. "Twigs" were supposedly self-propelled and self-bossing. "In cooperation with the next exofficio level of the Way Tree". This was, in fact, the way it was described for many years. Exofficio is an interesting term. Applied in the Way it meant another level into the organization, a person who wasn't a full time hire or appointee to that position. Another volunteer, someone who held a position of oversight. Twig to Branch, usually is as far as that got. Area and higher ranks were generally assigned positions, salaried "staff" of the Way. "Official" positions. Twigs quickly became non-self-governing when the Way Nash HQ started calling all the shots from the "next official level" in the Way tree. "elders" and "leaders" were appointed to all levels, "self-governing" or not. Classes were on "concurrent" schedules. Class minimums for student sign ups were enforced. Twig Abundant Sharings were reported and monitored. Twig teaching schedules eventually were governed in many areas. Themes and topics cycled through the fellowships at the same time. Fellowship "orders of service" were established to insure that all the right things were being done. Many areas regulated the numbers of times a "twig" was to meet a week. Etc. Etc. Etc. This gestapo-like "cooperation" was anything but. It was a regulated, governed, restrictive system that weakened trust and promoted egotism.

Thanks, Rocky! I guess that's why I'm committed. Doesn't matter if it was a nickel or a dollar, it's the principle of the t'ing right? He that is faithful in the least will be faithful in much. He that is unfaithfuler in a little will be unfaithfuler in the most. He that is scrooed in the least wil be scrooed in the much. (translated from the Bohemian version = "coming and going you're getting it where suns aren't shining but the moons are full")

Sooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo, we all seem to be agreeing that the cost of office supplies and certain other operational costs related to it's formal "outreach program" would have been appropriately subsidized by the Way Nash, the recipient of all donations, charges and otherwise collected monies that those outreach programs generated. (cus if it was diverted elsewhere, you were officially designated as "stealing from God" who apparently lived in Shelby County Ohio) Le'see.....would that include STAMPS? I say stamps go in that category. Call me crazy, please, but I think stamps would have been included. Looking back. In retrospect. In hindsight. Rear view 20-20, yeah. I would.

M lady - those do-lang's have always caught my ear. Oh to be a fly on the wall in that session... "oo-oo-oo-ooo ooo ooooh.....oo-oo-" No, try doo doo... "doo doo doo doooo do doooh...do do-" No, try- "Dang it! Make up your mind!" Yeah, that's it....do dang do dang do dang... "Do yang, do lang do dang....how's THAT!" Perfect!!! Do lang! That's it!!! And history was made...?

:) Though the road be narrow May the path be clear The hills be low The sun be bright The view be grand...

I'm outta practice. I posted a "coldplay meets the alien" copyright infringement post - in Open. Sleepy fingers!

(rubbing eyes - I thoght I was putting this in the "guitar" thread - late night fingers I guess) It is similar, LindaZ, agreed. I think the intent will come into play here. Coldplay will probably benefit from the "George Harrison" effect - although not everyone likes their music they're recognized as nice humans and decent enough for a rock band anyway. I doubt the verdict could be anything but hand the bags of money over. CP won't hurt for it, I think you're right. :) "Hound Dog" is a great example, waysider. Chuck Berry's another. (name any Berry tune). Joe's distinguished himself as a passionate player, more than a shredder, but a writer and performer. He uses his bank of effects creatively to serve his music. He's enough of a fan of guitar to enjoy ripping hot molten guitar riffs of his own writing, with glee. Seeing him live it's obvious he enjoys playing as much as he enjoys knowing his audience enjoys it. He's a nice combination of serious-business 800 lb playing and fun. Coldplay's kind of a hoot. Chris Martin's charismatic, to say the least. The rest of the band is a punch out affair, but they seem to be a happy combination of music and song. They're not really my thing but I was surprised how much I enjoyed them live. Again, Harrison's verdict sounds about right here, and I wonder how Coldplay will approach it? Best of all worlds to me - Coldplay performs the song at the Grammy's and Joe joins them for a round of "Viva!" :) That would be cool.

Thanks. I think we're seeing - the two are related. Adultery is a justifiable cause for divorce. What's being upheld is the joining in marriage, the "two being made one". We could ponder the meaning of that - "as" one or "one". It appears more the latter in it's essence but I can see there are levels where the comparison of two joining as one would be appropriate too. To place the adultery in a list like this could be viewed very simply in the context of all of the laws and rules of the O.T. Divorce isn't wrong (breaking the rule of law), when there's cause. It's not the ideal outcome in a marriage, but it reflects conditions. It doesn't seem as though divorce is required in the laws in the event of adultery - but I doubt that if that condition persisted there'd be much reason for the marriage to continue as if nothing was wrong anymore than if other conditions reflected other things being wrong. Adultery's probably dealt with specifically in relation to divorce because it deals specifically with the committment between the people. As if to say "stand up straight". And then "Don't slouch". It could be assumed that also includes a host of other related positions that aren't "standing up straight". Other expections would be assumed the same way - because there's no "divorce" related instructions to not harm a spouse in other ways isn't an implicit allowance that it would be okay. It's common sense, to me. Rumrunner's post covers that. But - I have heard and read that things like abusive conditions aren't as deeply serious "spiritually" as adultery. It's kind of wiggled around, apparently because all of the possible variations of what can go wrong in a relationship between two people aren't spelled out in a commandment. Which is just stupid IMO.

Klaatu barada nikto.

Joe Satriani has sued the band Coldplay for copying his song "If I Could Fly" in their tune "Viva la Vida". Joe's a guitarist. Coldplay's an English band, mega hit-sters. Joe's well known amongst the guitar world, gets a fair amount of radio play and has had music in TV commercials. He's been a teach to a number of well known rock guitarists, Kirk Hammet of Metallica amongst others. Coldplay is well, Coldplay, known worldwide and up for a mess o' Grammy's next year.I've seen them both, Joe a couple, Coldplay once with the Wife. I like them both. Here's an example from Youtube that compares the two. The point is well made, methinks. What do you think? (World peace won't be thwarted either way this goes, I'm sure, but it's an interesting sitch) Satriani AKA "The Alien" - "If I Could Fly"...

John, the distrust is probably more general than anything. Plus, you could get a pretty good argument going here if you were giving away 100 dollar bills. You didn't make a bad impression IMO. The fact you were part of putting up Trancenet.net and helped get No Way Out going should be of interest to those who feel this kind of web posting environment is helpful.

That's the rub, ain't it, opera? Oi. Cest la vie.

This has been a good read. I look at modern Christian religion as being a "dance with the one you brung" state of affairs. It's the product of 100's of years of development, more if I consider how the larger world of religious influences are incorporated into what we have today. My own sense is that "true Christianity" doesn't have any overhead. There's no vehicle to keep running and no capital investment to manage. It is what it is, and it's not a system with a life span or parts that need to be replaced. It's really a relationship that, over time, grows and fills life. The gospel of Jesus Christ doesn't take up space in the same way that physical products do - the "religion" of the relationship with Jesus Christ and God, and the vessel that receives and contains it in life are the only components involved. Paul in the epistle of Corinthians describes this better than I can - (2 Corinthians 3:1-6) Do we begin again to commend ourselves? or need we, as some others, epistles of commendation to you, or letters of commendation from you? Ye are our epistle written in our hearts, known and read of all men: forasmuch as ye are manifestly declared to be the epistle of Christ ministered by us, written not with ink, but with the Spirit of the living God; not in tables of stone, but in fleshy tables of the heart. And such trust have we through Christ to God-ward: Not that we are sufficient of ourselves to think any thing as of ourselves; but our sufficiency is of God; Who also hath made us able ministers of the new testament; not of the letter, but of the spirit: for the letter killeth, but the spirit giveth life. The end result testifies to the process that produced it. I feel that the church Jesus Christ came to start was never intended to be an organization, nor an entity requiring financing or support, in the same ways that the Old Testament temple and rites and rituals required them or similar organizations and societies that are started for other reasons require them. We have teaching ministries - all they do is teach. Teach teach teach. Teach new stuff, reteach the old stuff, plan for teaching more stuff next year to remind everyone how good the old stuff was. At some point, that's enough. But it's never enough. Goes on forever. Teach teach teach. It's part of the modern religious culture and tradition. It's okay but it's not what Christ started, IMO. Is there a "cost"? I suppose in monetary terms, yes there would always be some. But nothing like what we have today. Books are books, CD's are CD's. They cost money, if you want them, you buy them. I buy them. Stuff - I like stuff. Stuff costs money. Stuff comes and goes. There'll be different stuff tomorrow, better stuff, updated enhanced stuff. We're going to want it, maybe need it. We should pay for it. But here we are and it is what it is. My concerns have nothing to do with money itself. I like money, in fact if anyone has a little extra and has been blessed by anything I've written, hey - let's dance. Send it right away to "boyhowdyaintthatsocksomething@homefortheholidays.com". I'll be your huckleberry. :)

"Practical error always leads to doctrinal error"... Pretty much a useless proverb, if it can be called even that. Practice makes perfect would be far more correct and succinct, IMO. Keep doing something, right or wrong, and you have a decent shot at becoming reasonably facile in whatever it is you're trying to do. Either good at doing it well or good at doing it badly. I guess he meant that if what you do is wrong by the standard of the Word, and you do it long enough - and you LIKE it, then you'll formulate a corresponding belief or doctrine out of it. Or just give up and accept it for what it is and take that. He would know. It's not a statement that really stands up to any scrutiny or hmmm, practical application IMO, whoever said it. Pack those nuts up warm and snug, it's getting cold!!

That's what ticks me off, Lifted Up - the criticism that it's been too long and it's too late to register a complaint and tell ones own side of the story. You were around, you can speak to the times and places. If the question these hairpins ask is - Why so long to tell it? The answer's simple - Because that's how long it took before she was ready to tell it. Get over it, read it, ignore it but geez - these people don't seem to understand they end up with egg on their face and worse in their pants when they show such low IQ and HQ. The answer's simple to understand unless someone's an idiot or just a jerk. Either way most others will realize that a person's account of events yesterday or 30 years ago deserves to be heard.

You mean He's not a rich blonde Italian with a southern drawl that shoots from the hip and keeps it re-al? :blink: Normalizing the relationship is what you want to do - normal meaning it has some authenticity and relationship to who you all really are, not just who they are and what they impose on you. I always try really hard to get along with others and maintain some civility and dignity so as not to embarrass them or myself. But there are limits. Not sure what you have at stake, so I could see keeping a moderate distance and looking for opportunity to help them make the evolutionary jump from Religious Neanderthal to Considerate Christian. But if you can't, I see nothing wrong with telling them to back off or butt out, or both. Or you could just give them free tickets the next The Trinity Singers come to town.

Weeeeell, if it was me, I'd suggest they talk to the person who said it and unleash their bounty of good will and biblical research on them instead of whining to me . But that's just me.

That's the one potato. ck is on the case, it seems. There's a ck the elder, and the younger. I think I have the name right, hope so. The poster here claimed to be the offspring of a former member of the Way, and if memory serves the younger may have been himself at one time, I guess by virtue of being in the family, dunno, it was never quite clear exactly what was going on. The "Rev." may be the parent, or the child, dunno. Either way, they're grammar's the same. It always appeared partly a scam, so the point could be moot. To get a refresher on ck, try THIS illuminating doctrinal treatise. Not to digress into off topic discussion on "ck", but a simple review of the words written by that poster will put that Amazon review into context. Not that it matters, it has no effect on Kristen's book or account, at all. Nothing written on Amazon by either of those people has anything to do with what's actually written in her book, so it's really not a review as much as it is an opinion but not of the material in the book - nothing's noted specifically as being true or untrue, nothing specific challenged and no alternate version or explanation of "the truth" is given in opposition to what's written. It's simply stated that it's not true and fiction. Typical.

I'm using the term "Wayfers" loosely geisha, and perhaps a bit too loosely. As you say, there's a lot of people in the "ex" category who would probably be fully active members of the Way if something hadn't happened to make them unacceptable to the Way, or vice versa. In that regard whatever it was is considered a valid reason. Other reasons that other people have had may not be so valid to them however. C'est la vie. Human nature. The McKeon voice has been heard here. cmckeon claimed to not be an active member of the Way. The broken syntax is recognizable though. Could be the same for "Rita". Who knows.

Amazon - "Rita" had a classic review. She points out that the cover of the book isn't "accurate" by Way standards and just goes to show you how the book is full of lies and mistruths. Anyone who misses the point of something that much may not actually be able to read. I browsed the Amazon reviews at large to see how many of the 1,000's of reviews that have been posted there make comment on the covers of the books being reviewed , and provide an evaluation of the cover in regards to the content of the books. I think "Rita" may have a Way Rozcar statuette coming to him - this seems to be a "first". I'd add a laughing face-guy if it wasn't so ridiculous. Likewise the contention - "(she) only describes the situations that make her a victim when it is convenient for her". The clear message in that is - hey, you did it, you were complicit, you have no right to come back later and complain. Proving once again, Wayfers are a hard nosed, stiff necked bunch who can't see the forest for the trees. It's hardly worth discussing, really. Thankfully we're free to express our opinions and when we do, we see those like "Rev." McKeon and "Rita". You can smell it - something's up. They make a better case for the book than anyone else.

True service can require a more difficult path be taken. Mueller's a great example BNI See. :) The teaching of PFAL in the Way was promoted on certain clear premises: It was knowledge that hadn't been known since the "First Century", the time when it was revealed and taught by those "holy men" of God who wrote and spoke it. It was revealed with a condition - that if VPW would teach it, God would reveal His Word to him as it hadn't been known since the "First Century". That others had pieces of it but VPW was the first and only to "put it all together". That "rightly dividing" the holy spirit field was a keystone of vPW's teachiing ministry and the area where accuracy was essential to "walking in power" and abundance, as taught in PFAL. That other churches and religions might mean well and do well but were idolaters and devilish if they believed Jesus Christ "was God", a topic where PFAL taught correctly and accurately. That the greatest knowledge a person could have was of God's Word, and to understand it accurately required knowing what was in PFAL. That the Way Ministry and PFAL was the only place that he know of in the world where God's Word was being taught as honestly and truthfully. - The only place to get what God has, the pure stuff, the real deal, accurately and with no bull - is through PFAL and VPW, the Way Ministry, "in this day and time". I would think that if that were true God would have a better plan for delivery than insisting that you and I pay VPW 25.00 for it. No, 50.00. No, 75 dollars this year. No, a 100.00. Wait, it's 200.00. No, it's back to a hundred. "But it's not about the money, it's about how serious you are and if you're committed, you'll flash some cash". And if it was true but the promise was subverted - that's like pis-ing in the wind. A really big wind. Jesus threw the money changers out of the temple and wouldn't allow them to pass through. My house will be called a house of prayer for all nations but you have made it a den of thieves. The same might apply to the humiliating and degrading behavior of His "ministers" and the sufferig they impose on those who, needing His Word the most, have the least to give for it and yet are constantly squeezed and shaken down for what they do have. God does ask for something - He asks for our hearts and in return brings us to the fold of eternal peace, with Him. It's "free" to us because Jesus Christ picked up the tab. The same guy who beat the crap out of the guys running the Bank of J-God, at the Temple. I didn't get it for a long time. Now I do.

The most significant realization I came to was a simple one, that it's wrong to charge for distributing something that isn't yours. If the Bible's God's Word, then it's His. If the enlightenment to understand it comes through His opening it up to someone then the understanding is between God and that person and it's individual and personal. I can read the Bible or read it to someone and "teach" it but I'm acting as a representative so to speak, an "ambassador". I can share the enlightened understanding but it's not a commodity or a product. I can make it into a product but all I've done is repackage the package. Charge for the repackaging? Who's idea is that? VPW claimed to have enlightened understanding that no one else had and that was vital and essential to a proper and correct understanding of God, life, the Bible and the things of God and life. If you didn't have that teaching you couldn't lead a true abundant life "in Christ". I would now say it's immoral to charge another person for it. If the values are placed correctly there's no other conclusion to arrive at. Compared to something of a lesser nature but similar - the reports that come up during catastrophe's like hurricanes or floods, where someone sells liter's of water for 4-5-10 dollars a pop when no water is available. People have to have water, it's essential. Water's normally relatively cheap, allowing for the container or the utility service costs and if it's doesn't have a fancy name on the label. Profiting from the misfortune of others in times of great need by gouging people is considered morally reprehensible, dastardly, a "crime" of sorts. I see charging for "God's Word" no different and moreso, on a higher level. Selling what isn't mine with the understanding that it's exactly what God wants you to know - that's a no-no. In fact, I'd go a step further and say that doing so, functioning that way, can open the door for and set an environment where all other manner of weakness and failing can flourish. Mixing God and "mammon" doesn't work according to Jesus. Business and industry has a place. God's Word isn't a business. Luke 16:13-15 No servant can serve two masters: for either he will hate the one, and love the other; or else he will hold to the one, and despise the other. Ye cannot serve God and mammon. And the Pharisees also, who were covetous, heard all these things: and they derided him. And he said unto them, Ye are they which justify yourselves before men; but God knoweth your hearts: for that which is highly esteemed among men is abomination in the sight of God. Today too people will cluck their tongues at the naivete of the idea that a teaching ministry shouldn't charge for it's teaching. How else will it thrive and survive? How else, indeed, is a very good question. All of the pratical caveats - cost for printing, materials, time, etc. etc. can be handled if handled carefully and with the understanding that to profit from selling "God's Word" is off limits.