socks

I agee. Still, I guess it would get cumbersome, looking at how you put it, Paw-T. :) I'm highly in flavor of the simplest approach, whatever that is. I definitely don't think - if it were me - I'd get into a lot of back and forth he said/she said stuff. If it seems like a problem and there's a warning and a disagreement, it's a free country. No one's forcing anyone to come here and endure reading posts they don't like. Don't like them, don't read them. Or post an opposing opinion. But if I'm warned and I disagree, some interpretation of the rules of the board will prevail and that's that. If I don't like it and it goes against my view, tough tookies. That's the way it goes. That's the way it goes in life, I don't always get to do everything I want, the way I want, whenever I want, regardless of what others think of it and even if they don't like it. Expecting that here is unrealistic. Labelling it as some form of post-Way-Bad-WayBrain-You'reNoBetterThanTheyWere control is silly. Taking a bunch of time to manage everyone's online posting problems has got to be a thankless and marginally useful activity. I wouldn't do it, I know that. We either get along and work it out online or not. If someone can't find the balance of what works and doesn't work here, I've said it before - start another board and expand the resources there. See where that goes. Nothing preventing anyone from doing that.

The concept of life insurance is sound, whether it be one of the types of policies available or your own savings plan. The idea is simple - when you die how will your affairs settle up, who depends on you and your income, how much, etc. I have a life insurance policy and the idea is to help balance outstanding debts and the loss of income to my family, should it happen sooner than later when they are dependencies on it. I don't want to leave them with a burden. I don't have a huge amount over what I might expect to need but it's there. A good person to consult on it with would be a tax accountant or financial planner who can look at your overall situation and make some recommendations. My advice - a little bit goes a long way, and it's good to talk it through now when you're healthy and alive. "The Hope" - avoiding life insurance because of that is hogwash. Sound financial planning is based on what you know, and can reasonably expect. If you're a Christian and expect a "return" of Christ at some point, you don't know exactly when that will be. A Christian's expectation for His return isn't based on the certainty of a due date, it's based on the certainty of the event. Not when it will happen but that it will happen. A person can "hope" for that event to occur and likewise expect that it may not in their lifetime. It's reasonable to assume that God would have us plan accordingly, either way, towards the future, whatever or when. There are many ways to plan - have at it! And just as you'd avoid pressure-cooker sales methods for life insurance, avoid pressure-cooker sales methods for "abundant sharing". Don't let anyone shame or guilt you into giving them your money. My advice - give thoughtfully, care-fully, with a dash of random kindness mixed in for good measure. :)

You make a valid point Oldies Man, there are some differences of substance noted. And it may be that John's interest is simply wishing the best for those he knew and loved. In fact, I don't doubt that's what he'd want for any individual, on face value. The line that sticks out is that "until" 1987, PFAL was the best source for the largest amount of "truth" available. What happened in 1987? John and others left the Way and started other endeavors like CES, or whatever it's called now. So there was then another place, places, where it could be had. If not better, a work in progress, I suppose. That seems to be his point. I can't completely fault John's sources, the means by which he chooses to continue to learn and fellowship. Those are of his choosing. Free country, all of that. But points like the ones about Bullinger don't sound right - to me. The methods that Bullinger presents may work for some, but clearly don't work practically for everyone and that approach to reading and studying the bible often bogs individuals down in minutiae - tiny little points of so-called "light" that send people off on tangents. The study requires detailed, minute work but the range of vision, of purpose should always remain on the "big picture", the pursuit of a simply day-to-day living relationship with God and Christ, and each other. Knowledge isn't bad. Effort is good and necessary. Study is profitable. But John's words speak to a group of people, "ex-TWI", who were largely built around a "movement" who's activities required detailed and minute knowledge and understanding of the "rightly divided" bible and activities designed to "spread the Word". My take - a "new" form or pastoring is desirable, which is really an "old" form, one that places the emphasis on the simplest values of a Christian faith and not endless drilling and adherence to "new" rightly divided or "corrected" teachings and Flavors-of-the-year doctrinal pushes - one that goes to bringing people one on one to Christ, through simple day to day help, the stuff people need that betters people's lives and leads to their own relationship with God and Christ, and enjoying that to whatever degree, with others. I don't know STFI, CES or whatever from personal experience, so they may say "but that's what we're doing!" I don't think their examples really support that but there's probably some good there by the look of it, people who would say so. But time goes on, and that's the benefit of a work in progress I guess - there's always room for improvement. Our own "fruit" can take awhile to hatch, some a lifetime, hey? :)

An offshoot of an offshoot. I like it! Whatever it is I feel a chorus of "my dog has fleas" coming on. I guess if dogs can have tics, tics can have - something. What we have here is a prophet, truly one of God's own prophets, speaking that which God would have known in this day and time. For $23.70, S & H included, you can have the essential information that God wants His people to know. The Profit spends 3 pages telling you all about what his book is about and then how to buy it. He could have added a few pages to that and probably told everyone the essentials of what it is that God has told him. For free. But God prefers to sell books, since that's what keeps His Profits fed and housed. Or you can grab some of the free stuff, there's plenty of that too. I suggest you hurry, as these are "the last days". Get it while there's time. I'll give him this though - you can donate but don't bother with the tax deduction, as he makes a considerable case that setting up as a tax exempt organization is unbiblical. I don't know about that, but it does allow him the freedom he describes to do as he wants without government control of any kind. Hey, right on. Let the Gov get it's own money.

No one can squeeze God into a concordance or a Greek lexicon. God's too big and His message is really too simple and gets lost amidst all the big words. Those are great tools, and research, in its place, can be exhilarating and enlightening, but those things are so much less effective than simply letting God quietly speak to your heart as you try to live love. True words, LZ. I enjoy reading the bible, the history of it's people and places. I enjoy studying it too, from many different angles, a few specific ones I feel comfortable with. The concordance and lexicon figure into that too, to a degree. Trouble is - PFAL gave some instruction on basic study techniques and materials and mentions the corcordance and lexicon. Bullinger's mentioned and referenced, quite a bit actually. Bullinger's just a lazy-man's library, for many people. Granted he has a lot of work and material, but it's ridiculous how some people focus on his Companion Bible as their single go-to resource. That's hardly "researching" the bible. Too many people walked out of the ministry with one side of their face glued to the bible and the other to a concordance and decided they knew how to "research" and became wrapped up in their own enlightened revelations and ideas. I still find friendly humor in that idea.

JAL's logic is lacking - He says there were big doctrinal errors, more than anyone knew... There were big practical errors, more than anyone knew... But it's the best thing in history. A true movement of revelation and the speer - it of God. How does that account for the doctrinal and practical errors? Speaking of which, the term "practical" error is a queasy term - it should be specific - is it wrong because the original doctrine was wrong and therefore wrong when applied/put into practice or is the practical error simply that the original Way doctrine was right and wrongly practiced? Or some combination of the above? JAL approaches this topic like it's a gimme - "yeah yeah there was a lot wrong more than anyone knew, yada yada....now. Who wants to do something?!? You, you over there. You? " It's a serious question and I think one of the reasons JAL - your letter needs work. It may be well intentioned but again - you need to say exactly what you mean, as if those reading what you're writing don't know what you mean or are about to write. Write as if the audience has no preconceived opinion. Be clear. Or clearer, please. What was wrong, and the resulting practical error would be good to know - hey, I didn't bring it up, he did. If he brings it up, it shouldn't be so blithely - it makes him look either disinterested or mmm....no other word but stupid. And JAL's not stupid. Anyhoo - my own impression is that JAL's remembering how powerful and active the community of participants in the Way were. Instead of reaching back to the dusty distant past, why not move to the here and now? JAL, you seem to be more about yesterday then today. Today, those people have moved on, grown up and older, and are living life in the present. You are too. Perhaps you can figure out a way that's fulfilling and satisfying for you to recap who and what you were "then". Maybe see what others have done, try new things with what you know. I'm sure you have but you sound to me like you're still looking. More power to you, my only recommendation would be that the hope is in the future, not in the past. Take what you will from it but move on, friend. :)

The purpose of the courts is to provide the place for determinations, judgements, to be made on the matters brought before them. Judge, jury, plaintiff, defendant, evidence, etc. etc. The court statements seem to be pointing out that the freedom to have religious beliefs doesn't allow a person to act in a way that's harmful to others in society simply because their actions are attached to what they consider religious convictions. Particularly when the court determined that several individuals of The Way were involved in activities that the defendants claimed brought them harm. Ones own right to "religious freedom" and the right of a community to exercise it's beliefs amongst themselves can be judged wrong by the law if there are laws broken. The court statements don't directly address the same issues as the leaven/loaf stuff but in application they could. Take out "the Pharisees" from the gospel statements and it's easier to see I think. As it says elsewhere in the gospels, it's not what goes into a person that makes him right or wrong, it's what comes out - what that person does. "This people draweth nigh unto me with their mouth, and honoureth me with their lips; but their heart is far from me." - Matthew 15:8. Talk is cheap. Actions speak louder than words. Etc. etc. - - that's pretty much what Jesus says The right to believe as one will, is one thing. But the actions taken speak to what I really believe and that is what Jesus judged by. I have a "right to believe" but not a right to act and break the law. Jesus doesn't say a person can't say they honor him and then act differently, He just says that the actions are what I'll be judged by. Not that different than the court statements, in a kind of abstract way I think.

DWBH - those pieces really do speak to the concerns that those in the local community and certainly the Way community should have. The comparison with Pharisees in the times of the gospels can seem harsh, even inappropriate to many but not when viewed through the logic of Jesus's statements. The personal conduct of the Pharisees was what made them "hypocrites" in Jesus's view. He said to them, you say one thing and do another. He told them you're leaven poisons the whole loaf. As the kingdom of heaven was likened to a small amount of leaven added to 3 measure of meal that caused the whole loaf to rise, so did the leaven of their errors. And what were there errors, their "sins"? Their hypocrisy - teaching one thing, doing another. Teaching things added on to and into the scriptures as God's Word, as doctrine and requiring that those elucidations and elaborations were as vital to obedience to God as the scriptures they worked from. Joeseph Stowell has a book "Fan the Flame, and one thing that's covered is the effects of their approach, pretty much along the lines of what Jesus objected to - I've added my thoughts on how some ways they compare to the Way International: -New laws continually need to be invented for new situations. - "current prevailing truth" - sounds familiar. -Accountability to God is replaced by accountability to men. - "this ministry is the only place where the true believer today can learn and stand - the Way Household". -It reduces a person's ability to personally discern. - Follow the leader, the next person up the chain of command knows what's best for you. Your own relationship with God reduced to include a mandatory relationship with one of "God's representatives". -It creates a judgmental spirit. - You're out of fellowship and in bad standing because house not clean, children rowdy, smile not big enough today, tithing not current, attendance spotty, unable to make meetings and classes, don't agree with the edicts of the ministry, sickness, art on the walls that leaders don't like, etc. etc. etc. etc. etc. -The Pharisees confused personal preferences with divine law. - This kind of music is "godly" that kind isn't, political preferences, clothing styles, and other things that ministry leaders assume to be "divine" guidance for their day and their people. -It produces inconsistencies. - Different leaders, different states, different policies and preferences, and changing preferences and "guidance" when proven wrong. -It created a false standard of righteousness. - Don't tithe and God "won't spit" in your direction. -It became a burden to the Jews. - Required observance of ministry edicts and policies add an ever increasing regimen of do's and don'ts. -It was strictly external. - Busy work for the spiritually minded. -It was rejected by Christ. - He didn't like it either. -

Beware of the leaven of the Pharisees oenophile, thank you for that reference to the leaven. I just had a "doh!' moment, and it occured to me that the meaning of those words of Jesus may not be understood by some of us as you present it, and it's a great opportunity to cover that ground again here. The general principle isn't even limited to the statements in the gospel, it's a kind of wisdom that appears in other proverbs and sayings. A point that's often made 'round here is - isn't is possible that VPW could act out of character with what he taught - ie, teach the "truth" of "God's Word" but not live that way, or do terrible things on the one hand but still teach "truth". Hypothetically, yes, anyone could. That's a gimme as they say. Leaven works through fermentation. Bread "rises" because of what the yeast, the leaven does. It fills it with gas. The whole load of bread is "leavened" as a result. Like the woman in Matthew 13: 33 - Another parable spoke he to them; The kingdom of heaven is like to leaven, which a woman took, and hid in three measures of meal, till the whole was leavened. What Jesus is describing as a processs is different than doing one thing wrong over here, and another thing right over there and so you have two completely separate and standalone events. It's not teach something right here, something wrong there, can't the right be right on it's own....? That's not what He meant when describing the leavening of the Pharisees doctrine. The process He describes does something different - it DOES promulgate and effect the whole of everything that's done. My point is something that's probably obvious to a lot of us but maybe not to others when it comes to this discussion - Jesus meant to let His followers know that it IS possible to have everything good go bad, due to a very small amount of error and He used leavening to teach it. The whole "loaf" is then leavened, or in that case, tainted by the errors of the Pharisees. That may not seem "logical" to someone who wants to break things down using a hierarchical type of evaluation, where things are layerd from top to bottom, or even a sequential system of 1,2,3,4 where each item or event is treated separately but potentially equally. The idea of leavening is a deeper view into process. Since He used it, it's worth knowing and understanding and certainly not worth refuting or denying. It accounts for areas of spirituality and life that would otherwise be difficult to manage and understand using a flat linear kind of logic.

Rocky, I just realized you said what I wrote a bit ago. Ha! Thanks, that sums up at least what I posted. Beliefs and conduct are/were being treated differently by the courts in those statements, as they should be I think. Freedom of speech in Japan wasn't mentioned that I saw, so I'll leave that to another thread topic, those informed on that topic and who are interested in posting to it.

Well, it's an interesting topic running here, to be sure. "Freedom of speech" - the Way's right to hold beliefs and speak them is a different topic. I'm not personally addressing this thread topic in that light, as I don't think that's what the thread topic is or was meant to address. As mstart just posted, anyone can hold any belief they choose, teach any version of the bible they wish to generate. It's not the belief, or even the way I personally choose to live it which others may disagree with - it's the conduct, the actions people and how they effect others that the court statements quoted appear to be addressing. Back to what you clipped exmiska - "The Court finds that an important distinction exists between belief and conduct. " The Court finds that an important distinction exists between belief and conduct. The beliefs espoused by The Way, and its members, are not subject to review by this Court. The conduct of The Way, and its members, is subject to reasonable regulation designed to protect a compelling state interest. The First and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution cannot be used to protect The Way, or its members, against legislation for the punishment of acts inimical to the peace, good order and morals of society." A section worth repeating even again, methinks.

Taken from the clip of Reynolds v. .1 IS, 98 U. S. 145 (1878) that was quoted, I'd assume it's based on a simple interpretation of our Constitution. The Declaration of Independence kinda has that ring to it in spots. I agree with the statement I quoted completely.

The right to believe is absolute. The right to act is subject to reasonable regulation designed to protect a compelling state interest. Thankfully this is true and is a basic part of our rights as citizens of the ol' US of A. It can be flawed in application and history is filled with cases where individuals determine to act against society's regulations to pursue change, with the result that the change is good. But that comes with the system, I think. It's good, not perfect - it can also have the negative effect of providing a means for society to act against itself by regulating activity that isn't a clear threat to others. But that's part of the ongoing process of living and working the system. I've long said that while the Way International has some esoteric beliefs, the right to have them goes without question. They may run against the values of society at large, "Christian" beliefs, non-Christian beliefs, the bible, the Quaran, the Yellow Pages - in a free society like this we are free to think for ourselves. Acting on them is a different issue and is treated differently, as it should be. What I believe is me - what I do could be the business of others if it effects them or involves them. The fact that the Way Int'l. hasn't taught all of these beliefs openly for all members and participants to know and evaulate is a problem they've never addressed. Even today, the PR statement seems to be that they've made changes, but any changes supposedly made haven't been clearly articulated - they're between a rock and a hard place - by admitting some problems have been corrected they would have to clearly articulate what those problems were - and that would put some things out on the table they surely don't want to be held liable for. So by having a President of the Way resign here, other members leave or terminte there, they can give the unspoken impression that those who are left weren't the problem and have no liability for the past events - the court statements in the Allen case say otherwise. But to me a huge problem they still have is the resistance to openly state what that case was all about from a historical standpoint - the settlement for the case included that no one would reveal the details once the settlement was accepted. Like it or not, they can't talk about it now publically. Still - the events provided a huge amount of general information that wasn't specifially part of the Allen suit that can be discussed and IMO should be - because of that statement - beliefs are one right, acting on them another. Are the members of the Way really safe according to what the Way International holds is their right to act according to what they believe? In regards to these issues I would think there is a risk to members. Silence isn't affirmation. It doesn't mean there's been change - these beliefs and ideas weren't common public knowledge in the past - what's to say they're still quietly accepted and believed in private today? If I were a member I'd want to know the 411, clearly and in print. The Way International is a "biblical research" organization. What's the work that's been done in the bible that clarifies these issues for members? I'm not a member, so my interest is limited. If I were, I'd want to know.

My Take - in a nutshell: The "law of believing" is only worthwhile to discuss here, from the standpoint of it being a point of doctrine in PFAL and the Way and even then it's of limited value to devote much time looking into it. For me, it's wasted time to devote any more time to it. That's not meant to condemn anyone's interest, just meant to say that for me, there is none. For those who still have work they feel need to do on it and that's of value to them - go in peace, friends.

It isn't, so your hypothetical is going to be skewed if the "LOB" is the metric by which you're measuring the outcome, ie, did you believe, who believed, etc. PFAL begins, as you know, with a dissertation on John 10:10, a great verse from the gospels. VPW elaborates on that - that at a point in his life when considering that verse, he looked about him at the community that he lived in and saw that most Christians enjoyed a life much less than abundant and in fact that the non-Christian frequently had a more abundant life than the Christian. The abundance he refers to is an abundance that can be seen - health, homes, cars, stuff. He wonders why and how can an "unbeliever" have more abundance than the Christian? Believing and the 5 Things you need to know to receive anything from God follow. There's a problem there - first of all, if Christ came to give something that's His to give and He's the one giving it, you have to get it from Him. So if there's "abundance" and you don't get it from Him, than whatever you have isn't what He was talking about - the emphasis isn't solely on the "what", it's on the giver of the what. Secondly if believing is the key to receiving it as PFAL teaches, it stands to reason that the believing has to focus on the one doing the giving - Christ - and not the thing being received. He came so others can have life and life more abundanty - so Christ is the key. I am come that...there's a result, but there's no result without the cause. So PFAL starts out on a flawed basis, but one that sounds very appealing. It's important to recognize right off though that VPW's premise is based on looking around at the non-believing community and defining "abundance" - they have better jobs, make more money, nicer homes, smarter kids, prettier wives and handsomer husbands - he's flummoxed by it. Clearly that abundance he points out isn't coming from Christ - these aren't followers of Christ he's comparing himself to. The Law of Believing works for saint and sinner alike, according to PFAL. This follows perfectly from his premise - the law of believing can produce abundance for anyone regardless of what they think of Christ or God. It's the answer to the problem he starts out with. How does the unbeliever produce "abundance" - he or she "believes". Hmmm. Mmm. PFAL continues by applying that law into a mix of 5 steps drawn from verses in the bible. As noted, "need and want parallel" isn't stated in any of the verses taught - he brings that point together extemporaneously while reading the verses. His point is that believing - applied by unbeliever to their own matrix of steps, or to the Christian using his 5 step matrix to receive - is the key. But either way, that abundance is forthcoming, by "believing". That's what PFAL teaches - there's more to the Christian abundant life that's taught of course, but sessons 1 and 2 go to great length to present this initial information. So basically session 1 serves up a contradictory set of conditions and results, and moves on quickly. Well, quickly if you think 33 more hours is quick. It's why so many people end up kind of hung up in space, betwixt logic and fallacy - it's not logical, but it sounds like it should be logical. All the verses are in the bible - but they don't fit together as described. I see John 10:10, I see the will of a loving God who provides abundant life through Christ. "Believing" is nothing more than an attitude of faith - remember, the most important thing Christ came to provide - salvation, to bring man and God together in peace, isn't produced by what I do, it's produced by what He did and does. If there's a reasonable logic flowing from that, it's that the same reliance on Christ and what He did and does will produce any "abundance" that's forthcoming from Him. The "things of God" flow from the same qualities of grace, mercy, faith and hope that are what salvation is all about. If I hit a nail enough times, it'll go into the wood. That's the way PFAL treats "believing" - believe believe believe,learn learn learn, memorize memorize memorize, think think think. My neighbor's dog can do that - he'll bark all day long tiill someone finally lets him in.

That's what he taught. I concur, along this same logic: Baptism as a ritual of reognition and declaration of faith and intent isn't wrong though, at all, IMO. I think the "baptism" of the spirit in new birth can be demonstrated in meaningful ways by people of all cultures, times, etc.

Hey camera dudes and dudettes - I've thought of Joe C. more than once over the years. Joe and his wife Linda, loved 'em both. Joe was the right man for the right job, perfectly suited for what he did. My wife and I had a photography business for several years, and during that time I did some video work. Hooked up with a director at the local PBS station and ran some camera for him at a few events, mostly the "talking head" stuff. As I quickly learned, camera work is exacting, and repetitive. Boring, by any other word but still requiring concentration and a fair amount of skill and experience to do it well. I loved and was fairly good at on-the-fly stuff, getting framed and set, etc. For the speaker-in-a-box stuff there was a set of protocols for camera op's, can't remember them all but based on the show the director would cycle through them for each shot, the main camera, camera 2, 3 etc. You'd be set up, stand by, be on, then off, "stand down", something or other. Jim probably knows all of them, Karl. You might as well be a 100 miles away on a headset, you can't be distracted or conduct other business or you'll screw up. (I set up a few queasy shots my first time out and even the slightest shaking of the camera or being off by an inch was the equivalent of running the Titanic into ice to the director calling the show) So I can imagine Joe C. maintained strict discipline on his crew. You have to. To add on the topic: camera crews are usually staffed by union operators, hired on to work an event, broadcast, whatever. They drop in and out and are pretty much part of the woodwork, no one pays much attention to them or is supposed to. And usually the operators dress code is pretty loose, you see a lot of sweatshirts, jeans and sneakers, regardless of what kind of event it is. They tend to be in their own world but if they're union and they're working they're dead-on good at what they do, or they won't work much as there's no room for error in a live broadcast and a director doesn't want to go back and do a lot of unnecessary clean up in editing to correct bad shooting if it's being filmed. So the dress codes are pretty much anything this side of what you have when you got up but you have to be able do the job right. SNS's were quite different of course - coats and ties and dresses were the dress code as I recall. I wouldn't be too surprised if Joe C. initiated protocols to cover demeanor when someone was at the camera, whether "on" or "off". It's like watching paint dry to be on camera in a fixed position and it's normal to develop a method of relaxing - the "at ease" posture for "standing down" might have been a little over the top but probably accomodated the type of demeanor they wanted to have during a SNS.

What kind of church was that? What was the name, if you don't mind me asking. Casting out devils? Collaring newbies? Sensing unforgiveness??? Wow. That's quite a church service. A lot of ministers riff off facial expression and body language. If you don't look right to them, they start poking around. They don't know what they're looking for but given the time, they'll find something, one way or the other. They gonna make yew right, alright. I'd look for a church that just has a basic, inspirational service with some order to it like song, music maybe, and a biblical message taught. Look for someone pastoring who seems in touch with reality and speaks to the group like he or she cares about how people are doing. Look at the people, are they happy? Downers? Churches always have a few people that are off-the-chart-so-happy-to-see-you they want to squeeze your head off. But overall, how's the group look? Smell? Hygiene can be important, although not a deal breaker. Or maybe just a church with a service you like - where you're not fingered as the Newbie and pestered. It can be meaningful to participate in an actual service, like Catholic or Episcopalean, too. There's others, maybe you could ask a friend, neighbor or co-worker where they go. Trouble is, brand name shopping is still a grab bag of chances. One Brand Name in one city can be loads of fun, few miles away a big drag. If you feel the draw though I'd keep at it, not in a pressured way but in a happy way. :)

No offense, but I'm not getting why this is important. That LCM - heard about this story - which is believed to be true - and had concern....that the Popester was shopping aircraft carriers...so Craig was right about this one thing, if nothing else, which was to be concerned about the Vatican's interest in aircraft carriers..... Not that that isn't important. Imagine all of those poor priests and cardinals trying to work a ship on the water in those long cassocks and robes. That's just downright dangerous. But honestly Keith (I knew some Gardners back in Ohio - do you guys remember Bruce and Maureen? That's not me, but knew them too, and I think it was through them I met your brother, and you. My memories shot, so I may be mistaken)... ...Craigster had more important things he should have been working on than worrying about what the Pope was doing. What's he give a ratz azz for? Does Shelby Co. have some waterfront access I'm not aware of? Sounds like a redirect to me. Smokescreen, mirrors. "Don't look at me - look at - look at the Pope guy! Yeah, he's really bad and weird! Yeah!!!" I'd be as interested in what he was really doing himself at that time while all of this nefarious Pope Activity was going on.

Fear is one aspect, not the only one though. It's the obvious one - when you're being yelled at, threatened, and someone's actions and words are imposing consequences on you - do this or else, do this or that will happen, do what I say or you're in trouble - that's going to cause fear. The "respond with the Word" is an interesting response and one that deserves closer examination. What does that mean? It doesn't mean the attack will go away. It can mean it will intensify and increase in volume and depth. The idea that if you "speak the Word" and an attacker will flee requires definition because there's ample evidence that when it comes to people and what people do and say, that doesn't always happen. In fact it definitely doesn't always happen when it comes to "Christians" who, on either side of a fence of opinion, determine to go after one another with vigor and energy on behalf of their cause. In fact when it comes to Wayfer Christianity, you can bet they're going to just "love you" and love you. To death, it seems. The conflict is set up when a person who's perceived as being "good" does things that make you feel "bad". Or fearful. It would be normal to question your reaction - they keep telling you how right they are, how wrong you are and what you need to do. You feel hurt, unsure. You have to decide what to do. But the response of fear, of feeling threatened and especially the fact that this or that bozo just won't quit - no matter what you do - that's going to take some working out. One way is to slap them 5 days from Sunday and walk away. Another is to try and work it out. But as I've found out that can be difficult when it comes to what so many call "Christianity", when it's really just an extension of their own ego. Sidenote: I'd recommend anyone with money in the Way Credit Union plan on removing it, regardless of the axe you can grind keeping it there. That's the last place I'd want any of my hard earned dinero-skis. Just my opinion.

To add: fear can also be described as "the creeps". You know, when someone says "that gives me the creeps", meaning a little goose bumpy. Apprehensive. Like something not-good is in your personal space. You're off kilter, not sure, paranoid. Paranoia. Imagine how paranoid it must have gotten at the Way, for some of the years discussed here. I bet you could have cut it with a knife. Talk about toxic-overload. That ain't good for the mind and soul.

A la. :) Ultimately WD, anyone who leaves or makes changes in their participation does what yuu described, fear or no fear. Fear is built into the system of doctrine the Way teaches. They are calling it "love" but it's clearly not the same as what the bible reflects. If it's "just" PFAL, then the scenario you describe fits. If the Way Corps is "just" a 2, 3, 4 year training program and then you move on and out, likewise. Amend to that though the notion that a lifetime of committment to them is required for what they've offered to fully "work" and it's a different scenario. Add that to break or change that committment has severe consequences, REGARDLESS of how you behave with everything else you were taught, and it's different. The Way teaches that the body of Christ has a "household' of true standing believers, who hold and benefit from their unique standing. Stay, you're protected and blessed. Leave, you're mincemeat. They teach they are that true household, or did. Everyone else is out to lunch. That in itself is wrong and sets up for some bad cha-cha. In a nutshell - if you enjoy and participate and want to expand beyond their immediate grip - and this is the way it was for many years for people posting here - they turn nasty, scarey and mean. That will produce fear in a lot of people, most I think. One day - they're your friends, wound a little tight but they can be nice and sweet. Next day - they're meaner than a mad bee and acting like you're Evil incarnate. :blink: But I agree with you - ultimately, if it's with fear over what might happen or with a friendly F-you and a wave, when you leave you leave. Time has proven something i think. Look at what happened when all of the "bad ones"as they now call you, left. They fell apart and things came to the surface, things they were hiding. It would seem the "hedge of protection" moved, if there was one. Know what I mean? Any observer without prejudice would at least consider that as an equal possibility, I think. And to add: The Way did make good on some threats. They could be extremely rough when they wanted to be. In some cases they simply took people and their stuff and threw them out. A bunch of big guys show up and toss you and your stuff out. That's going to be pretty weird for a lot of people. Women, young people, men who are trying to handle their own families in the middle of that and whatever's going on.

Their tactics are simple - It's all about fear. Fear of loss. What do you stand to lose if you leave, what do you stand to keep if you stay. If they can keep you convinced their the best game in town and you're mincemeat if you leave - they gotcha. Pretty much what they ended up with is a loosely packed cootie platoon. The Way benefitted from the character of the people who they booted out or who left on their own steam - although they claim that they've "cleaned out" all the Bad Ones, they've actually lost most of the Good Ones. Because a lot of people would have cleaned their clocks if they'd been treated like that. Trust me, the Way fears you more than you fear them. The Way Nash is extremely blessed alright - blessed that most of those who left were so anxious to cleanse themselves of the Way's filthy toxic stench they got out as quickly as they could and got as far away as they could. Or as far away as was necessary to be a fully functional member of free society, beyond the reach of the Way's nasty tentacles. Most people just want to get on with their lives, away from them. It could be a mile or a state away - once you're no longer under the influence of their slimey grip you can exercise all the rights of any normal citizen. Freedom, intelligence and the laws of the land put the Way at an extreme disadvantage.

I'm sure that the kinder, gentler, and so very much betterer Way of Today would have mentioned it, II, they just didn't have time. (get it...time...)

They look like nice people. They only list 4 heroes - Bullinger, Kenyon, Harrington and Weirwille. Kind of a "Fantastic Four" of the marketable religious, I guess. Not a large group though and an odd mix. I was listening to a Christian radio station the other week, and these two hosts were extolling the incredibility of this guy who's sermon they were about to play. I guess the guy was well known somewhere, I'd never heard of him but that doesn't mean much. But they went on about this guy and this particular sermom like it was George Lucas doing a dissertaton on Star Wars, only better. Not just the sermon, which they called one of his "sweet sticks", his really really great sermons. But also the guy himself, who they said was one of the Greats. So there I was, ready to go for some good stuff. Not more than a couple minutes into it, literally, I had to back out and change the channel. The guy stunk, both as a speaker and the content - marginal. He was all sizzle, with no visible steak. Just a lotta blow, blow with an odd fragrance. You never know. But only 4 super heroic heroes? That's lean.