-
Posts
4,697 -
Joined
-
Days Won
64
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Calendar
Gallery
Everything posted by socks
-
Are Unitarians Christians Really Muslim?
socks replied to geisha779's topic in Doctrinal: Exploring the Bible
Yah, Penworks - I recommend Armstrong regularly and highly. Very readable, and able to pull together major historical and religious information and background into a fairly easy read, for me anyway. It's not easy to go digging into the history of Christianity and the development of it's sects and strains, although I enjoy it. Christianity is my faith, and through some fairly regular and at times rigorous effort I've been able to develop a simple personal view of it and an understanding that is, I believe, connected to tradition while having individual meaning to me. I can't weigh on too heavily on the "Trinity" discussion, although I do agree that the important issue is in who Jesus Christ was and is, and less on who Jesus Christ is not and was not. Be He the Son of God, that has meaning, definition and substance. I won't even suggest I'm an expert or authority but I've read a great deal and given my own reflection to Jesus Christ historically, including the bible which I believe represents a historical view of it's own that's been wrangled with by many for many years, written by or for those who had at one time a reason for their beliefs, tangible and based on experience. There's an essence to it that rings true to me and that speaks to me. That it speaks different ways to different people in different times is no surprise, and it will probably always be so. The Big Picture comes slowly into focus over time and actually may require more than one person at one time to see "it". -
i've always wondered why it was so much easier to leave once he kicked. I must have thought he was a real MOG father for our day and time, or it just got easier to leave (peer pressure guilt) once the ball got rolling Interesting observation, exnorski. I see in my family's lives, it was a timing and aging factor, really. We were growing up, and just as when we were kidsters, "the times they are a-changing" - always. Some thngs stayed the same, others changed. Inevitably, IMPO - many of us would have moved into different kinds of endeavors. It was already happening while he was alive, slow/fast but with purpose.
-
Eyes you noted the element common to nearly all stories of people encountering what they consider "angels". Help. Someone showing up unannounced, unexpected, to help when it's needed. That verse about "entertaining angels, unaware" comes to mind. If it weren't in the bible it might read "don't refuse a gift because you don't recognize the giver". "Angels" don't have to be spiritual beings in human composition. They could also be someone who, in their own way, is following their inspiriration and guidance and in some form of complex synchronicity, as Oaks notes, is there to help. The really interesting part of any of this would be to understand the parts that flowed to produce the result. If a million different things could have happened, a million different ways, how and why then, that way? Everything in life is really happening at that level of magnitude, whether it's unusual or not. Given that anything can happen, what constitutes a enough factors moving in a certain direction to produce something "normal" and why at that time didn't any of the other millions of possiblities factor in and occur? Add to that anything I can't imagine and just going out to get the mail turns into an adventure. Still, when someone appears and disappears in front of two people, two different times on the way in and the way out, it leads me to believe something I didn't understand by normal experience happened. It would be wrong for me to deny it or explain it in other terms - "well, they just ran away really fast" or "I wasn't paying attention, I might have not seen that guy there". If that's not what happened, that's not what happened. Better to accept reality for what it is and go from there, IMO. But it's up to each person to evaluate their own stuff. Another oddball event - years ago in the 80's I was driving north on I-75 out of Florida up into Georgia and my car started making some serious weird noises and smoking off and on. I got off and stopped to get gas and then pulled up next to the market next door. I opened the hood, and a guy came up, normal looking guy, and he said "I can fix what's wrong with your car for you" and I said I had no idea what was wrong with it and started to describe the noise and smoke. He had a tool box, and he got under the hood and messed with the fan belt and moved the alternator around and other stuff while I watched. I talked to him a little and all he said was "hmm mmm. Hmmm. Hmmmm mmm". He finally shut the hood and said "Start it up". It sounded okay. He looked in the window and just said "See ya" and walked away. I pulled out - it sounded fine, I watched him walk into the store and I pulled back up to go in and thank him. He was gone. What can I say? Right place, right time. Maybe he went into the bathroom to clean up. I didn't ask, I took off. Car ran fine. There were a few other times over the years I'd wished he'd been there too, to be honest. :)
-
Thanks for that, I would agree completely. His approach as recorded to certain people and circumstance can be understood in that light. Sin in and of itself can't exclude us from the love of God or His purposes, as it's said that while everyone has in fact been a sinner, God so loved the world that He gave, etc. A lot of effort can be done to explain why and how that doesn't mean what it clearly states, but in fact it does state that and the clearest meaning is taken at face value. The "sinner" is lost and requires finding and "saving". When there's resistance it's difficult. But resisting what we don't know or understand is easy to do.The worst kind of resistance seemed to be that of religious findings and faith that take that which is God's and make it one's own - "self-righteous".
-
Good question, there. I don't describe or define involvement in the Way at any stage "programming". There's similarities to be sure, but I don't think people's involvement can be attributed to being programmed or brainwashed into staying involved. Some people probably were, to certain degrees, but overall, no. Not in MHO.
-
Eyes, a difficult aspect to this topic is understanding it by two of the criteria humans normally apply to anything they "believe" - not believe in, but believe. The two things - consistency and reliability. We look for repetition in life to establish our actions, repeated instances that form some level of consistency that we can then rely on. Predictable. Every day the sun comes up. That's repetition. We learn to rely on it and act with an expectation that there will be light. When it's dark when it should be light we want to know why. Deviations are accounted for over time and understood. Still there are things that occur that can't be studied, like the idea of "angels", a broad topic methinks - one reason being we haven't established the repetitions to look for that will allow us to know what's going on and then be ready to examine them more closely when they occur. Not being able to reliably expect and experience and accumulate knowledge makes it difficult. If angels exist, when do they show up, what are they doing, why now and not then? Why you and not me? Why this and not that. And if they can assist why not to the extent that they help humans avoid difficult circumstances altogether? Couple things I"ve latched onto - 1.) Allow for the possibility that a larger vision is being realized in life. It may not be how I would choose it to be. I may not be able to change it to my liking. So be it. I then need to at least attempt to understand it and live within it's constraints and freedoms and try to see where this ride is going. 2.) The "unusual" can happen at any time, anywhere, to anyone and with anything. Observation has shown me that while I don't as yet understand everything that occurs around me there is a consistency to it, although not one I would, by certain standards, establish. To that end it's reliable, if not how I would choose, consistent and reliable to it's own rules. I might put it "there's a lot going on that has nothing to do with me". At the same time, I function and live within the world in which all of that's going on. It stands to reason then, if there are "angels', and others that God has created, I may cross paths with them and they with me - but according to the purposes that govern all of us, not just me.
-
I've posted this before here. Because it involved my whole family it has a special significance for all of us. I recently retold this to my two sisters, who I'd never given the details to and found that my younger sister had an experience she told me about that was somewhat similar, different circumstances entirely but the basic elements were very similar. (snooze alert! it's loooong....) Anyhoo - 25th Anniversary for The Mom and I. We celebrated in Hawaii, two weeks. One on the Big Island, and one on Mauii. We tried snorkeling and found we really enjoyed it. The Mom's a strong swimmer as are the Boy and the Girl and having grown up little in Florida, they love the water. I've always been a little tweezed swimming, because I wear glasses and in the water I can't see much without them. But I got prescription lenses in my face mask and yow! It was like being born again. I really began to enjoy being in the water, seeing the fish, coral, all of that and within a couple days was starting to get the hang of it. So we're at a public beach, a bay, not too many people but there's public parking, a Snack shop area, a path down to the beach and a large primo snorkeling area in this small bay. There's even a life guard dude. So we set up in a spot and hit the water. The rest of the family's out and about quickly and I'm still tentative but enjoying the water. Down a ways to the left a few hundred feet the beach curves up into a cliff area and there's a kind of chicken wire fence, closing off a section that's all rocks, pretty slippery by the looks of them. At that area the sandy beach part is only 10 - 15 feet to the cliff wall, and then goes down to the rocky area fenced off. So at one point Mom sees how I'm doing - fine, so she wants to take the kids up to the snack shop. I say fine, I'll meet them at our spot in a few. I paddle off, happy as a clam. I'm staying in just a few feet of water, and I end up kind of floating off down to the end and I look up, see I'm getting close to that rocky area and turn in and walk up, figuring to get out. There's no one down at that end of the beach, it's empty and there's not much sand or beach. I step over a few rocks, not thinking they're slippery as I'm getting out of the water. Wrong. I slip completely off balance, and fall down on my left hand, catching myself from smacking down hard. Unfortunately, I jammed the middle finger, left hand straight down into this rock when I fell and as I stood up looked at it and found - I'd knocked the finger out of it's socket, second joint. So my middle finger's popped out of the joint, bent completely back the wrong way; like a perfectly wrong right angle. I'm moderately shocked, try to wiggle it and it's jammed stuck. I can feel the tendons stretched back like rubber bands and my blood pressure is going whoooosh into my head as I tried to get my bearings. Now - when I got out and fell and stood up - there was no one at that end of the beach. There were a few people in the water a few hundred feet down, and on the beach but I was alone. The whole get out-fall-get up-go ow! took just a few seconds. Then, suddenly there was a man standing in front of me, between myself and the cliff wall, standing there. He was about 6 foot, dark blond hair, kind of curly and long, wearing a colored t-shirt and swim trunks. I was so in shock I didn't know what to say. He said "Are you alright?" I was speechless. He put his hands on my shoulders and looked at me straight on and kind of shook me - "Are you OKAY?" I held my hand up and said "NO!" He looked at my hand and down the beach and pointed to the Life Guard stand. "We need to get to the Life Guard and get help. Come on!" and we went running down the beach. At this point I wasn't even thinking about who he was or where he came from, but I felt completely calm. I grabbed a towel at our spot and wrapped it around my hand - it wasn't bleeding at all, but it looked really weird and was starting to hurt like the dickens. I got my baseball cap - a purple and pink hat I'd that said "Lake Tahoe" on it and we went to the Life Guard. Life Guard Dude said "whoa! That's nasty! Can't help you man, I could probably pull it back out but they won't let us do that anymore. But there's an emergency hospital about 20 minutes away, you gotta go there". So the man's standing there and nodding and asks me where my family is.......I say up at the Snack shop - The Mom and the kids. He says he'll go get them and takes off running. I stand there talking to Dude Guy waiting, and he tells me I don't look so good and we sit down. At the snack shop, Mom told me later a guy came running up into the crowd and stood right in front of them and yelled "Are you here with a man in a pink baseball cap?!" They look at each other like - uh oh. She says they are, he tells them I've had an accident, I'm okay but I'll need to get to a hospital to get checked out. He says "Come on!" and they go running down the path to the beach and he points to the Life Guard stand and says that's where I'm at. Mom turns to him to ask him what's going on, and he's gone. One second - talking to her - next second - disappeared. She stopped for a second and looked around and then just kept on running down to find out what's going on. Soooo, we meet up and I've got my hand wrapped and just tell her I messed my hand up and we head out. I look for the guy, she tells me quickly what happened and we can't find him so we make a beeline for the car and head for the emergency room. Long story somewhat shorter - when we got there they said they couldn't accept my Medical insurance, Kaiser, I'd have to go another half hour into town. I hadn't let her or the kids see what it looked like, I didn't want to scare them. So I unwrapped the towel off my hand and said you gotta help me. By this time the finger was swollen up and just didn't look good. My wife - I hate to think about it - she closed her eyes and held my arm and the Admitting Nurse said "We'll see you" and took me back immediately to start x-rays. The good new was - no fracture or breakage. The bad news - they iced it up and told me they'd start the procedure to "reset" the finger bone after I'd gotten a shot of some pain killers. Hahaha. A nurse sat me down and stood behind me and held my shoulders while the Doctor started fiddling around with some stuff seated in front of me. He said he wanted to check my reflexes and had me extend my other arm out. He held the popped finger in his hand and asked me if I could "feel that" and I said yeah. He said "Here, grab it and pull" and tossed a towel out for me to grab. I grabbed at it and he yanked it and said "pull!" I did and at the same time he yanked the other hand, my middle finger hard and pulled it back out. I blacked out for a second, the next thing I remember was the nurse holding me up and the Dr. saying "I'm sorry. I'm really sorry. I'm so sorry - that's the best way to do it - it has to be pulled back out. I'm really sorry". So another x-ray and the bones look okay. They splint it and wrap it and tell me it'll be about 3-4 months before it's usable. Some other stuff. I get a prescription for some stuff and some pain killers and we're outta there. Later we compared notes on exactly what happened on the beach and the guy who showed up to help. We decided he was an angel. He didn't say much, was completely serious and focused completely on me and helping me. He appeared and disappeared, literally, in front of our eyes. His sole purpose seemed to be to get me through that period of time when I was disoriented and he was gone when everything was handled and the direction was set. Through that I learned a lesson that became clearer over the next couple days as I considered what had happened. I was overwhelmed when the ramifications of that event hit me. I cried, I couldn't stop. I've remembered it since like rivers of tears, like I was throwing up tears. Finally I felt fine, peaceful, as if I'd been wrung out dry. Why then, why me, why that way, why not other times and other people, I don't know. I believe this happens much more than we, all of us, are aware of at the times it happens. At other times it can be as if it's perceived out of the corner of your eye, and when you look directly it's gone. I am sure there are more instances like that one though. :)
-
Pastoring and the role of a pastor is a topic I've nibbled at quite a bit here, DW. It's what informs most of how I've evaluated my years of direct participation in the Way. Your point of confidentialty is of the highest importance. When I have no clear freedom to speak on another's behalf where privacy is a concern (and when isn't it?) I don't have the right to speak. Period. Where there's been privileged access to another's life it's part of the charge to protect them by not allowing that information to be made public. A lot of things can be said - at what cost? This isn't "lockbox" stuff, this is common sense. Or should be. The fact it's clearly required for medical professionals upholds the obvious truth that privilege carries responsibility. Going public, going to court over anything is a difficult business. rhino, as I know you know. I think your question and concern can be answered by the actual facts - no one until Paul Allen determined to go to court against any of the people mentioned, throughout the entire history of the Way we're referencing. I'm not looking at that from the viewpoint of what DWBH's stating - I'm just looking at the facts. If these things happened and if people were involved at different times, different people and different circumstances and no one ever chose to publicly address the events in public or in a public court by bringing legal claims and grievances against them - there have to be reasons. One reason would be they were encouraged not to. We've been over that ground. But there may not be one single reason or one that goes back to DWBH or anyone specifically. It may actually be more of a matter of how well the people themselves were able to deal with it. I can't say that for sure and clearly not for everyone. Going to court, publicly stating not just "what's going on" but "what went on with me", and all of the details would be difficult for someone. I don't have to be understanding to see that - the history speaks to it. Those who could, didn't. They moved on, over, along with, whatever but they chose not to. Doing so publicly without bringing forth the names and faces of the people involved would have been ill advised - claims without names don't go far. IMO it would be wrong to drag people out into the open against their will, or if they were going to be hurt more by the cure than the disease. That doesn't offer a simple answer and still leaves the entire topic up in the air - which is where it will remain IMO, when dealing with generalities. Any specifics are at the discretion of those involved. In your comments I hear "you can't tell me there wasn't a way that these people couldn't have been taken to court and stopped" by those who knew. But - that's in fact what happened, they didn't, immediately and they weren't immediately. DWBH describes circumstances that include more than himself or others in his role - it describes the people themselves who were involved. Why didn't they just say to he ll with it and do it? Even if they were told not to? Even if they were afraid? Even if they thought something bad would happen as a result? It's a three sided coin. Could everyone have done better, done more, done something? I think you have to factor in that - mahy of the people in the Way didn't want to see the whole thing come crashing down around them, even when they were victims of others. They wanted it to work and they wanted it to be right. I'm guessing but I've gotten the feeling over the years that some of those who "could have" didn't because they simply didn't want to go through the personal turmoil and hardship that would result. They preferred privaciy, at a cost perhaps, but privacy nonetheless.
-
Thanks y'all. Glad it makes some sense. "SP and A" has certainly been a playground for the Way over the years, Shaz. Given that the def. of "discerning of spirits" was a spiritual knowledge, not knowable by the 5 senses, I think we saw a consistent and probably predictable move towards expanding that to rely more on what a person gathered by their "5 senses" versus what they gathered by "spiritual" means, that was truly that kind of information. When the spiriitual know-dat is in short supply, waddya do? If I feel compelled to know that I know that I know when I don't know - yeah, black and white reliance on what I think I do "know". It's reasonable I think to put two and two together, and get four. What that really means, is a whole nother question. "Judgment" is easy, anyone can say anything and come up with a reasoning for it. Is it right? Nother matter.
-
Artists often describe their creativity as "coming" to them. They work and they produce, and there are moments of inspiration, clarity, awareness, illumination. Likewise the idea of a "muse" - a sense of someone or something that informs what we do. While these terms and ideas have been commonly labelled "possesso" by WaySponders and non-creative types, I think they deal with the same concepts as the SPA stuff. Where a person applies themselves towards an endeavor, works and develops their capabilities and in their efforts finds what I loosely term a "Third Track". It's just a term of my own but one that I use for my own imagery sometimes. Basically, a gestalt-ish kind of thing. Where the sum of the parts come to equal more than their normally known value or weight. A "spiritual", indeed "godly" level of life that we are a part of but less aware of, outside of these moments. My own experience has been somewhat consistent with what "TWI" taught on this, at least at the stage that VPW elaborated on it. The term "knowing", where you "just know", or become clear on something. A "flow", of ideas, information, inspiration, etc. That "Third Track" is that part of our lives that we develop that's less tangible than what we practice and learn by rote or repitition, yet it's there running down the middle of the "two tracks" we run along day after day. It becomes clearer as we go along, or can become clearer. It's always there, anyway, whether we see it and rely on it or not. It's another way of viewing that part of our lives that's "spiritual", and in a way that doesn't separate it - as in "god's out there somewhere" - but includes it, as "god's in here, right here".
-
You're welcome, ADan. Love offerings are now being received. The Bank is open. :)
-
Good question, exchanilla. I think back, and honestly, I never kept track of what was going on with or in his motor coach. The comings and goings, who and when, etc. He kept it up by his place a lot of the time when he was back at the shack. When he travelled there was usually a fair amount of hoohah around him and his presence but when JN intersected with him we were working. JN was a constant regimen of travel, visit/minister, play in small groups of 2 and 3, unload, set up, perform with the whole group, visit/minister afterwards, then strike the stage and tear down, load up and move on. When we were on the road I seldom saw him unless it was before the event or gig. I travelled with him a couple times inbetween events one year, and it was pretty boring to be honest, I think Howard and ChXXk, myself and VPW. On one trip we talked a lot about music, what was going on the field, what I listened to, who I liked, why, blah blah. Once with a guy from the midwest along, can't recall his name. But that was the sum total of my in-coach experiences with him. You remind me though that for a lot of people in the Way, VPW was quite a personality, someone to meet, talk to, get some time with. Girls, women, as well as men, seemed to love to be around him, say hello, talk to him. There was a kind of event atmosphere all the time, everywhere he went for a few years. It toned down after awhile and it took a lot more effort to be around him. It seemed he went from being approachable and fairly down-to-earth to being pretty impressed with himself, although he always had a lot of that going on. But you probably recall how he'd whisk in and whisk out, wherever he was. So I don't want to sound too ignorant, but a lot of the time I was woikin'. Same with the Wife. There were a couple times here and there, including one I spoke to him directly about, that I questioned what was going on. Looking back, in one specific instance it actually did involve him. He never mentioned anything remotely like "it's okay, it's not that big a deal, it's really a blessing" - in fact, (and I won't mention the name of the person involved, hope you understand) he questioned what I thought I "knew" and what I understood to be true. He was slightly defensive but painted the situation as one where I was wrong in what I thought was going on. I took his word for it. I may have been right about that situation or not, I really don't know. But it wasn't a pattern or one of a series of similar events, it was the only one of it's kind I came into contact with. So....for whatever reasons this was something I never really picked up on from him.
-
Thanks for the response Tzaia. I don't know the answer and I think - just my guess - it's avoidance. It's something he doesn't want to talk about and if pressed won't respond directly to. It might have to do with not wanting to drag PXX through it all, then and now. Which is understandable but - that's exactly what he did to others by pointing out these errors and wrongs in others publicly. Others were pantsed in public, but I think it's obvious he deflected direct confrontation to himself. So be it, but I would say the playing field wasn't level. In fact, there's an element of distraction to it - a "look at this! look here!", directing traffic away from himself...? As posted, he got fired, directly, by H. Allen. That burned a lot of people when it happened to them - I think he figured, hey. This is me. Me, John Lynn. They have to listen to me. A lot of people thought that. They forgot - "no friends when it comes to the Word/protecting our interests" trumps "you're always welcome at the Way"...every time, no matter who you are. Even I knew that - it's why I didn't bother with a final hurrah on the way out. I didn't need their permission, recognition or lies. And they did tell some whoppers about people at that time as soon as they got the chance. now I see - my own story is one of contrasts. Because I was in love with a wonderful person at the time I first met all of these folks I wasn't interested in being a playah. I was soon married and by the time we went into the Way Corp program we were well into developing our lives together. So I'm sure neither of us seemed we'd be approachable on this whole topic. I never heard anything direct on it taught, never saw or heard it in any meetings, and I was in a lot of meetings where a lot of things were discussed and dealt with. No one every told me about the wonderful benefits of "sexual healing" ministering capabilites. And frankly I feel kind of left out. I know it's not a joking matter but there is an odd kind of humor to the whole thing. Secret. Because some of you may not be able to handle it. Which is fine by me since everyone who got mixed up in the whole deal pretty much shot their relationships full of holes, with few exceptions. But I had little ability to help and looking back I'm not sure what I would have done. Hopefully the right thing. In contrast to what I was trying to do with building a solid relationship (now 38 years in the making) with a wife, I came out of some very hmmm...not so good personal years before that. I was deeply, deeply esconced in illegal drug use, large both in quantity and breadth. Many of my associations were with people of questionable character. My interests and friends were extremely esoteric, to say the least. In some ways I was in another world much of the time. Reasonably safe most of the time but looking back there were many more "lost" weeks than I care to remember, which I do with some difficulty. :) So, in a very odd way, much of what I encountered in the earliest Way years was a breath of fresh air and very normal and "grounded" compared to where I'd been visiting before that. I gave up drug use over time and then finally, cold. Since that final day I've never used any of those things again. So I quickly became a "square". I tried drinking, the party mentality, while in the Way. It didn't last long, I found then as now that I really, really enjoy having a clear head and mind. Trust me, I'm very glad to have left that all behind. So - I probably seemed a little dazed during those years, and I probably was. But not fertile ground for this stuff. I was trying to get my mind back, get it right, not mess it up.
-
Speaking of John's 1988 letter, he wrote this in it regarding VPW's "doctrine" on adult sexual relations: This esoteric doctrine has permeated the leadership structure of The Way to the end that believers all over the country know about it. Only some, John. Only some. Even after all these years I still haven't ever heard a full rendering of how one entered the Spiritual Mile High Club.What did one have to do from a "leadership" standpoint to hold the appropriate position. VPW and women I understand. VPW wasn't gay, his interests in that category were for women so women were the logical partners. But the men, the males. I'd still like to know more about what qualified someone, specifically the man, to be among the Chosen Few of the "leadership structure". That might shed some light on the whistle being blown. So to speak. John was one who was in high enough and deep enough, but I've never heard that full side of the story. Or for that matter why it didn't seem repulsive to him, being married and with a daughter of his own. I think it's an honest question, no gruntles involved at all. This might actually be one of the last, lingering questions I have. For the most part everything that happened all those years ago was a loooong time ago. Life has gone on and life by God's grace and a little effort is moving along at a swell pace. But there's a little part of my brain that hasn't gotten that part squared up. Maybe it never will. But a simple, straightforward answer would go a long way towards that. No condemnation forthcoming, trust me. Just curious.
-
anotherDan, another way I look at the fallen tree question is - if the condition "and no one hears it" is removed, it forms a loop. Or a loopy question. Or sumpin. "if a tree falls.......[ ]......did it fall?" The answer's obviously "yes" and has nothing to do with me. Again, how I relate to it doesn't have anything to do with what did or didn't happen. If the answer is "But I can't know that it fell to begin with" I'm done. Nothing else to discuss. now I see, I think that's where the whole issue of this thread topic goes. The discussion of "what happened" etc. is one thing, "it can't be proven" is another. They cross paths but they can't really be ongoing at the same time, can they? Can a determination be made one way or the other? I say yes - for the sake of discussion. :) To keep crossing swords over the two side by side doesn't advance or promote either one. Advancement or promotion may not be the point of any of it, either. The point doesn't have to be "and this proves that etc. etc. etc." Clearly GS provides a unique type of forum for people to say things that in many cases have just gone unsaid for a long time and long enough, for some. For them it's time to "say it", express it, open it up, there, it's out. Was it important? If it is to them, yes. But if I was the tree, I wouldn't care what anyone thinks either way and it wouldn't change a thing what they thought anyway.
-
Aw, Alfakat. Hey, thanks be to the coast for a li'l cool fog, hey! FINAlly! This all reminded me of something this morning - that old question, "If a tree falls in the woods and theres' no one there to hear/see it, did it really fall?" Sort of a Philo 101 question, and really a classic example of misdirection although not necessarily deliberate. Maybe. Because the question "Did it fall in the woods?".....is posed by the word "If". And the answer's obvjous, although that would tank a 1,000 writs and screeds. A preliminary discusson could go on forever about whether or not there are really trees, and what are woods, and who are we and how do we know if there are woods, and was it a big tree and did any innocent animals get hurt and what about that sky, what was it doing and blah blah blah. But on the ground, the question is really "IF" the tree fell or not. And the question assumes the answer to that by the conditions - and no one's there to hear it. We can't have an absence to an event if there's no event. So the question really assumes that there was an event. No details but the net result was something that could be seen or heard but for the sake of the question, may not have been seen or heard because there's no one "there" to recognize it. Did it happen? Yes. Was there anyone there to know about it? Well, let's say No. Did it still happen? Yes. How do we know? Because the question couldn't be asked if it hadn't. Which is all a little too Zen for Monday, but this being Sunday, hey. Worth a thought. If (heh hehe) we get past the what are trees and who am I in the universe part of the discussion, which isn't essential information - the real answers reveal themselves as we examine and discuss the material. In much the same way that often goes on here at GS. GS can never quite get past that level, methinks, because of it's "virtual" nature. None of us "exist" "in" or "on" GS. We pose information much the same as that question is posed, in a bit of a vacuum. The move from thin air to grilled beef is a struggle that's inherent and will always exist unless it's treated like that question - the "if" assumes that (since) there's others saying they heard and saw something, an event occured that's substantial enough to discuss and examine. In that examination, which should happen in a manner consistent with the nature of the event ("a little courtesy here, with a side o' consideration, table 2! Easy on the hard stuff, they've had a rough trip in!"), the question and answer clarifies itself. Unless I say it never happened and can't be proven, which brings me right back to where I started, token in hand, for another ride on the merry-go-round. I never get anywhere but I do get to ride again. :)
-
I've got a good example of what I think goes on here in this "proof" category. It's not a real heavy one, and I can offer it very generally without being specific, other than VPW and myself. In the late 70's at the Way Nash, VPW made a joke publicly about me, in front of a large group of people, implying - but not directly stating - that I'd done something. I took offense at it, and a number of people asked me about it aftewards which made it even more offensive to me as now a large group of people all "knew" something, based on what he'd said. So the next day I went to see him to ask him about it and exactly where he got his information from and to tell him he had it wrong. Actually, fukkin' wrong is how I think I put it. I was angry but courteous, and intent on making my point clearly. He kind of backpedalled a little, said, well, that's what he'd "been told" and he really didn't want to make a big deal out of it, he was joking and said he was sorry if he'd hurt my feelings and didn't see the need to take it further. I did. Because what he'd been told was wrong, and whoever told him that was wrong, lying or both and it would be easy to prove. There had to be a reason why someone would fabricate a story about me or pass on a second/third hand story (if that was the case) without any proof of their own. He restated, no. He wasn't going to "stew" about it or over it. I told him what about the comment he'd made then, others were misled by what he'd said, would he correct it? He got more agitated at that and said no, he wasn't about to do that and if I had a problem with it, it was mine, not his. This didn't turn out very well, needless to say. A few days later he came up to me and asked me "if I was still mad at him", like a joke. I told him no, I agreed to let it be but I still stood by what I'd said and that's what I'd repeat. He shrugged and said okay and walked away. My point is - people do lie. People do get things wrong when they're second hand. But when the principles are available and the trail's still fresh, it's not hard to reconstruct and gain a reasonable concensus on what happened. Unfortunately VPW died leaving a lot of unfinished business behind for others to sweep up and deal with. He knew - I'm sure - that all of this stuff would come up later after he was gone but decided for his own reasons to not deal with it. So others will. It leaves it open for others now to refuse the story's told based on a "lack of evidence". Those who do are as much "victims" as anyone because they'll never know the truth, as others do. That means the end results will be inadequate, in some cases. He was an adult. He was a minister of a Christian ministry. He was a leader to people who followed his teachings and embraced his vision of a worldwide ministry of "deliverance" based on an "accurate understanding" of the bible as God's Word. He knew he was dealing with young, immature people in their teens, 20's and 30's. There's no "blame the victim" here, and no misdirected "blame the man" now, later. There are situations he contributed to and in great part created. If now it's not all to everyone's liking or preference, that shouldn't be any surprise to anyone. In time everyone involved will be gone. Anyone who feels the need to clear their minds and hearts should. If you feel it's important still - don't leave it behind for others to have to sift through later.
-
I read a statement on GS once a few years go, typo or no I don't know - that there were/have been "1.000's" of women who were prey to Wierwille. I can't verify it either way but I suspect that was an exaggeration. Which also goes to the numbers not being important - 1 or 1,000 - but obviously there's a level of activity represented there and the important issue would be consistency, habit, and repitition, if it happened more than once, and what were the circumstances, etc. VPW's circumstances were reasonably stable, once he started The Way, Inc. So there's a lot of commonality that can be established in his activities, endeavors, etc. despite the fact he kept a lot of things to himself or under wraps. I feel your pain but have to say - a court doesn't establish "truth", all respect to the process. Judgment, determination, yes. There will be disagreement coming out, as going on, regardless of what the judge or jury determined. Once an event is over, it's over. The facts are the facts, be we alive or dead. But they can't be physically reconstructed again, ever, after they're over. Repeated, but the repeated instance won't be the same as the original. I know that's obvious. Eyewitness accounts - again, no singluar vision can be experienced by separate entities, "observers" or participants. Each is separate. Similar but never identical for the obvious reason that - they're different. 3 people can "see the same thing", and the event is one, but the observances are mulitple - in that way they're informed by the receptors, those who "saw" it, something. Effort has to be made to establish consistency, it can never be assumed that everyone "saw the same thing", although we do deal with that all the time, just from a practical standpoint. I would suggest that concensus can be reached - on certain things, if the effort is made to do so. That's probably about the best that can be expected given the realities we deal with. This board shouldn't be run as if it were a "court" of law. Those kinds of expectations and requirements don't fit here because the board isn't set up to function that way, the mechanisms aren't in place to do that. People write, post, tell their stories, discussion occurs, etc. etc. The stuff to do that is what's in place. So to that point - it isn't a fact because now, it's stated. It was a fact at the time of the event. The question "why tell it now" is answered by "because that's when it's being told". There are reasons for that and they're frequently stated - people were intimidated, unsure, fearful, in some cases talked out of sayinng anything at the time of the event. Moved on, tried to forget, didn't understand. Thought it was alright then and now have decided it wasn't. There are lots of reasons. I can tell you from personal experience - but don't take my word for it please - VPW could be very insistent, intimidating and make his case very clear when he didn't want you to do something, or talk about something or to just forget about something. He could lay out consequences if you didn't comply. He didn't offer the kind of "court" system justice that's been suggested people apply here, across the board, by any means. If he were alive today, I would offer this - as far as this board goes, I don't think the kind of activity or the approaches seen here would be any different. More dynamic, yes. But I think it would be very much the same. There are legal exposures - there are now, would be if anyone represented his estate and ongoing interests. The Way doesn't, obviously. The Allen case was a single effort, with them, The Way and LCM. VPW is long gone, but if anyone had a mind to and an interest, whatever it would be, they could mount an effort to challenge, formally, what's been circulated amongst their former members and community. Anyone ever wonder why no one has? I think amongst the array of possible reasons, there are similarities to what goes on here, on GS.
-
:) Dan. Self regulation is in place now. I'm suggesting - put the tools of Moderation in the hand of the people. Power to the peop's. Outrageous - yes, in a way. Practical? Maybe not, maybe not even possible. I see it like this - a person tells their side to the story and it's negative and the response is: They have an axe to grind. They're bitter. They're not telling the truth. They're looking to make money off their book. They're trying to get attention. They're making the bad out to be much bigger than it was. Those kinds of comments, observations don't deal with the specifics of the person or their story. They're not related to what's actually being said or written, they're related to why and someone else's perceptions about it. I guess what rubs some people the wrong way is that there's an automatic assumption that what's being put forth is in fact true. What's actually happening, IMO, is a reflection of a concern for the person who's writing - an assumption, yes, taking what they're saying on face value, there's a level of concern that should be shown and interest in the well being of that person. Without that, any discussion of details falls flat - this isn't a "court of law", that's ridiculous, as someone stated already and to try and apply those processes to a discussion board like this is misdirected. There's no "evidence", no jury, no finding or judgment. That isn't what's going on. If that's the desired direction, I agree that some other kind of forum should be established for it but I wouldn't want to be behind it or involved. That kind of environment sets up a situation that would be extremely unwieldy and could even have legal exposures, I'd think. Not that anyone's noticed that here though, right? Regulators, mount up!
-
Authentic natural progression, that's what I'm proposing. Let reality live!
-
I suggest a moratorium on all rules, of any kind. Let 'er rip. Good, bad, one way or the other, whatever goes up goes up. In tandem with that, give all posters who request it the Admin rights to ban anyone they choose to, immediately, no waiting. Anyone that chooses to ban anyone else can then do it and get it over with. Reasons can be given, or not. Give this plan a month to run it's course. Add a forum for threads that can discuss the actions taken and why, if anyone chooses to post them. At the end of the 30 days, anyone that's left is free to continue. Everyone that's out is out, for good, forever. I assume the Administrative dashboard can ID posters by IP address, so the ban action can be permanent that way, or reasonably so and anyone banned can't re-register under a new name. Two caveats - First, the Admin rights can only be assigned to someone who's been on the board for 30 days or more and can be identified as a regular poster - set a limit for minimum participation so that someone can't just show up and Admin/Ban after they've registered. Secondly - both the banner and the bannee are identified, like "Bujalabooby banned NeedleDik, 7/11/08"....so everyone knows who did what. Put up a thread that tracks ban activity and credits them appropriately. Seriously - let the board self-moderate for 30 days. See what happens.
-
Hey, Luc'. Just listened to some of Stanley's stuff. Nice music! I like the stuff that sounds like ZZ Top. Thanks! :)
-
Boots? Wacky weed? I need to get into Chat more. I'm missin' out. With the right boots, a good bootin' might be, well enjoyable.
-
GS, and Waydale before it, have always struck me as fulfilling a need to draw people of interest into a place where information and opinion could be shared, openly and unfettered. The fact that there are users shows there's a need. There are constantly differing opinions - the "other" side of the story is really "any other side" of the story, as told by a participant, from their viewpoint and experience. The Way has told their side over the years, what they choose to release. They don't provide any open forum physically or virtually for discussion of anything, other than what they allow. GS does. There's no restriction on that, other than those imposed by the community itself. Oakspear makes a great point - GSC is unique (AFAIK) in that opinions that do not support the mission of the site are allowed to be posted virtually unhindered. Any opinion can be posted, and the community responds to it as they do. The only real restrictions revolve around two things, I've noticed: how the participants of GS treat each other, and those being discussed. There's occasional deviances but they really don't deal with the opinion or idea or item being posted, they deal with how the reactions to it progress. The rules are more social than ideological - again, some deviation from that such as in regards to people's past stories and how they're responded to - but I think it still comes back to the perceptions of how they're being treated - with respect or not. How those who post their experiences are responded to falls into that. I can disagree with you - that's part of the basic mission statement - "The other side of the story" is an open book participants write. If I write "I think the Way was great! You guys are nuts!" no one comes along and deletes that and says "you can't write that here". But the community of posters can respond in such a way that the reaction and responses fall into disarray, get ugly and become "abusive" to some degree - again that behavior is outlined in GS's statements of purpose and expectations for participation in the forums. Once threads do that, some form of management occurs - it should, the board has rules for behavior - courtesy,reasonable civility - that should be upheld, otherwise they should be taken down. As long as they're up, they stand. The rules ebb and flow - things continue, slow down, stop, go away, come back. That form of self-management seems to work most of the time, at least to me. Some threads I think geez- when's this rat gonna drown? But there's stuff that always comes back up voer and over. Some of the disagreements seem kind of dull to me but the fact that they go on says something - they can be posted here, for whatever it's worth. A recurring form of posting seems to be when someone disagrees and chooses to goof on everyone over and over. The disagreement is there, but it's expressed in a way that doesn't really provide a way to respond to what's said other than "huh?" That's where the trolling stuff comes in I think - some humor enters into discussions all the time, but if that's all someone does in disagreement, it will end up appearing to be belligerent, "passive-agressive" as they call it. Rather than state and restate an opinion, I could choose to just make fun of someone else's. That's going to have a short shelf life. Still, a lot of us make fun of the Way and it's principles, it's ideas, it's history and it's actions. Again, if that's all the was done, it would wear thin. This would end up a satire/parody site rather than a discussion forum. Maybe it is a satire site, in some abstract way.
-
Probably should have started here, as this is to me the core of the sense of "squandered" John is probably feeling. Looking back, it's true that "back in the day" I had the sense that the Way was a place where possibilities could become realities. Some did, some didn't. Unfortunately the "logistical" support John remembers so well wasn't there to support the grand sweeping vision for such a large dynamic group and the organizational backing...? Hmmm....depends on what it was and who it was. And if VPW saw the potential. LCM - the Way never really got going "under" him unless you consider hurting and confusing people, killing individuality, squashing potential and effectively reducing the participation nearly 100 per cent a "success". He was a poster-guy for the support and backing - ill equipped to do much of anything outside the regimen of the Way Corps. Once he started trying to do things on his own - look at what happened. Whatever his "plans" were they make a Rubik's cube look simple by comparison, a perfect example of taking the energy and committment of the people he had access to and squandering it. The "support and backing" actually worked against the dynamics of the group, by restricting the other qualities - diversity, availability, energy, enthusiasm. These qualities were pretty quickly funneled into the available programs and direction of the Way - limited largely to promoting PFAL and the in-house outreach and leadership training programs, WOW Ambassador and Way Corps. Anyone interested in getting involved had just a few things available to them - take the classes, "go WOW", sign up for the Way Corps and 4-5 years later, pop out to a series of assignments where you were to work within the structure of the Way and at it's direction. That's if you were "serious" and available - otherwise there wasn't a real place in the overall support and backing to fully incorporate someone into a "leadership" role of the Way that hadn't completed one or both of the those primary programs. Which meant you had to go through the campuses where all of that support and backing was in play. Once the Way began to grow, the vast majority of enthused participants ended up at Emporia or Rome City, to become products of the programs. How many people "went in" enthused, diverse and available? How many came out and did anything even remotely close to the grand "vision" of the Way? Not that many, by my count. In fact it seemed that as just a very few years transpired those two locations became mired in problem after problem. Academic excellence? When, who? Who were the highly qualified and experienced instructors providing it? "Spiritual" training on a par with the "schools of the prophets"? When? Who? Lots of people came out, or were kicked out, confused and bewildered at what they were being exposed to. John was responsible for Emporia, for a few years there, so he knows as well as anyone what it became. Eventually - for Kriste's Sake - Tinny, New Mexico? Hitch hiking all over the country? If the energy and availability had been returned to the participants at the level it was being given and with the same honesty and energy, the Way would have had a better shot at becoming something worthwhile. But it wasn't and it didn't and the reasons are understandable. The real grand vision was missed or stomped out when it managed to poke it's head through - the individual potential of the people. The logistical support and organization backing of the Way is right at the center of why it failed, somewhere between non-existent and a modern version of "The 3 Stooges Go to the Moon". A reality check is badly needed, methinks... Anyhoo - enough of that.