socks

I see what you're saying now. This may have actually been shortly after the initial idea for the name came up. At the time I'm remembering when we were kicking this around, it was like yeah. That would be a great name. I wasn't the only one who got the feeling that it was a good name for the band we were talking about. I don't remember the W. V. hoo-haw though, but if you do I'll take that at face value. Maybe I wasn't there, but I don't remember if I was. The idea for forming something new was being discussed for a long time, and it wasn't out of the minds of just a few. The whole concept of how Way Productions developed there the last few years of it's "hey-day" is moderately humorous. Rewind to 1971, a Winter Youth Advance at the Way Nash, and a concert held in Minster by the Way over the weekend that was named "The Rock of Ages". I'd come out with "Cookin' Mama" and a bunch of the California crew, and we played. There was lots of music there. Then the summer hit, Cookin' Mama had been playing steady for a couple years there in the Bay Area and by then we're all "grads" of PFAL. We hit the road and visited Kansas, Indianapolis, and stopped in Ohio for the first ROA "'71", then went on to New York. Dove was in Kansas, although we booked a gig with another local outfit named "Crank", and did several nights there. Good Seed in Indiana and we played a gig or two there. Everyone in at the Way Nash for the summer and then in New York, and we gigged around and played a couple nights with Pressed Down. Then the long drive back to Cali and back to work. To some people this was some kind of "youth" outreach, where bands were singing Christian music to reach others and bring them to the Way. To those bands though it was what we did, we played and worked and as we progressed along we decided to mix in songs about Jesus Christ, God, the bible, and assorted thoughts. And stuff. There were a lot of musical endeavors, music was a big part of the times and the lives of the people. It came with the territory. At it's best it was authentic, an honest effort by those involved to express what they felt and believed. BS? Plenty of that, more than you can imagine. It goes with the territory too. The more these kinds of efforts fell to be planned and orchestrated by those outside the immediate effort, non-musicians, "leaders" and the like, the more it sucked. Offering the opportunity and capacity to get people together and do and try some things - that was good. Working together - that was good. More and more it seemed like people with no vision, no talent and no compassion ran the thing. That was bad.

I was somewhat interested in the bible pre-TWI but couldn't make heads nor tales out of it. Post-TWI I have a high level of interest, as I have all along, maybe more. Involvement in TWI didn't hinder or hurt my interest, it actually fed it and kindled it. But what's this about George being an atheist? When did that start?

The name for Takeit/Takit/Tookit was born on a bus the way I described it. I can't verify what others say about it. (Sounds like a blues song.) The idea of a new band, new direction, new clothes, new do's, was being discussed by many people, many places, many times. My point of reference is the Joyful Noise discussion. I heard those remixes and have a set, WD. It was an improvement, to be sure. A lot of the analog blur came from the Stevenson mixing board, which was a live board being used for a recording environment. Mark G and especially Mike W. did a lot of work on that board, Mike pretty much did rewiring miracles with it but it was never an ideal recording board. Mike was the epitome of patience with that stuff. Mark was very good at finding the sweet spot of a piece of equipment. Part of the difficulty with Mark G's remixes is that the bottom drops out in spots to get that range he found. I think he found some fidelity but I don't think it's the actual original sound of the stuff. Good job though.

Point of history rhino - who confirmed that was staged, the naming of "Takit"? The name came out of some conversations Vince F and JN had, over several months. A lot of ideas were getting kicked around about what Way Prod. might do next. In conversation on the road Vince talked about "taking it to the top", and the phrase "take it" was used several times. Brian B. was scratching some stuff out on a piece of paper and said "why not call it "Take it" then - Takeit became Takit and that was the name. If anyone has eluded to that being "revelation" they're wrong if they're saying that "God" popped the name in anyone's noggin and it came rolling out. Maybe it was for all I know, I doubt it, but I don't remember anyone claiiming that. And if it's Vince F and the JN I was in, I don't remember ever staging a retelling of that in West Virginia, as if it were. There were several versions of JN, I was a member from it's inception through 1980. A lot of what we did was rehearsed, and a lot wasn't. Many of the song "introductions" and sharings between songs were done more than once, rehearsed, yes, but that wasn't intended to be BS. More often than not though if we felt inspired, we'd go to something different, if we it was on our heart. Sometimes it resonated and hit a chord with an audience, sometimes not. Sometimes just one person, sometimes we'd never know. They were basically things we felt communicated around the songs we'd written and were performing, and were crafted efforts to help and hopefully bless the listener. We definitely discussed and went over a set of songs and rehearsed them. That's a "duh". We were a very different group of people, from many different backgrounds and skill levels.

Hi folks. I don't have a lot of time this week to get deeply into the topics of this thread, although they deserve the depths that are being plumbed methinks. I worked up a post long enough to choke a horse and decided against putting it up, we need to keep our horses. I would like to say ditto to many of the things that have been said of Jim and Steve. I met them both way long ago, in 1968 and am glad I did. There were a few years there when the amazing and the unusual were the pattern of the day. It's because of those things I came to know beyond any doubt that Jesus Christ is living today and that God is my Father. It's hard to find the words that really wrap around that but I am always mindful of those who have gone before and been a part of my life's path, as were they.

.

Aaah, yes Rocky. Franks has got the butter on the biscuit. No crumbs.

I doubt He'd care. :)

I would agree rhino. I know some churches do teach the doctrine of tithing as if it were a requirement today and do it in good faith. The foundation for it - giving as a response and recognition of God's goodness to us is, I believe, sound. The practice of that foundation, the concept, is described in words that reflect grace in Christ - freely, cheerfully. I think the Way knows that tithing is not a requirement for a follower of Jesus Christ, today, post-resurrection and ascension. Yet they have taught it as a requirement for their members, to be practiced if one expects to be blessed by God. The Way deliberately crafted certain parts of scripture - like Paul's collections for the saints - as being instructions from God and examples as to how followers of Christ were to act - scheduled, patterned and repetitive. This ignores the deeper truth of how the early followers grouped together and worked to help and support each other. By collecting moneys and gathering them all in one place to be administered for the use of that one place and one place only they strangle the vision of the group for itself. It's more of an "every man for himself" kind of practice than a family working together. I've said it before - for a group that prided itself on doing what "the Word" says and not following the ways of the "world", the Way clearly allowed itself to be controlled by what it claimed were the constraints of tax law and status. Where was the "phooey on that!" attitude that so characterized their approach to "right doctrine" in other areas? The Way talked a good walk but never backed it up with action, never truly followed the pattern of the early Church in it's infancy, as seen in Acts 2-6. So no, IMO they don't deserve a penny of anyone's money. Certainly not if the intent is to give to an organization that "does what the Word says". :blink:

Y'know Jeff, I think your question asks the right question and in the right way. "Deserves" strikes the chord for me. One aspect to the giving of dough to the Way Nash was tithing, giving 10 percent (or more, however it was defined by them at that moment) And "ABS", sharing of 'bundance. Over and above, all of that. Nearly everyone who tithes recognizes that tithing is defined by a giving back of a part of what you have, in thanks to God, who is recognized as the giver. Of your stuff, whatever it is, and of course, life itself and all that goes with it. Tithing, completely separate from "who" gets it, involves a relationship between two - God and me. God and the person. It's a matter 'tween us. In the case of the Way, their stance was one of "we taught you The Word, did all this stuff for you, we're the agents of Godly change in your life, the ones without whom you'd have nuttin', so we're the most deserving recipients and anyone else is a counterfeit, undeserving and just plain gettin' what isn't theirs. So don't blow the dough, show the dough. To us. We're the godly source and therefore the correct place to give your money." Add to that, that they argued regardless of what went on, tithing should occur, as well as the ABSing, so if yu don't do it, you're scrooed and not recognizing God in your life, so get over it and give them the money. That's very debatable, to say the least and has been done so lo these many years by many people. Add to that also, that they taught that tithing was key to "prospering" so again, if you want to prospoer, get over it, anything keeping you from not tithing even if it's their lousy organization and do it anyway. It's just the smart thing to do, so be smart. Basically, they gave people an offer they couldn't refuse, with a godfatherly kind of love. Until refusal was the choice, in which case other options were considered like - divert that recognition to someone who wasn't at least a lying sack of dog doo with a bad attitude. Maintain the relationship correctly, 'tween us and God and let the recipient be someone or something that truly needs it and is at least trying to use it in some way that has real, clear benefit. Not just mow the green green grass of the Way Nash yet another year and provide 3 squares and a roof for people you don't even really know, much less trust and respect. That change of choice has proven to be completely cool and correct by the many who have done so. People thankful to God for all He's done for them, recognizing His goodness, in ways and means that are real and useful. Scintillating. And much more worthy of the true intent of "tithing" - to focus once again on the goodness of God.

Highway, it's one wrong turn this side of nowhere, right after you go past lost. I found information on THIS SITE, TRIP ADVISOR They list all of the many restaurants, sites and activities that are available. It's a real destination point by the looks of it.

Jeff, it's with rare exception that those collecting money on God's behalf don't manage to do extremely well when it comes to salary. Whether it's the selling of their own god-given and scintillating insights into life or just the usual tried and true plate passing, they don't go hungry to say the least. When Jesus fed the hungry multitude everyone ate and there was plenty left over. Jesus blessed them and brought God's provisions to take care of His people and everyone ate. His cup ranneth over, as it were. Today, it works in the reverse. Apparently you didn't get the memo. God spills to the multitude - you - and then you spilleth over to your Local Friendly Minister. You feed them. Care for them. Provide for them. Make sure they have the best of everything, after all, they're God's Ministers and deserve no less. From you. What these money-sucking tics will get from Him remains to be seen. If what I see in their ranks is normal, it will include bad hair and a fat assz.

Good question. All questions will be answered in the order theyre received, once your donations have been processed. You cant win till you join, and you only lose by waiting! I only want you to win! Win now! And often! Thank you, youre the best!!!!

I am not in or from TWI, but I will offer my services here and now as a collector for any and all moneys that may be lying around and getting cranky for want of a good home. Send those loose dollars to socksIslandGetaway@DontHideItDivideIt.com immediately for fast relief. Rest easy, knowing all money received will only be used for the furtherance of good work. Or join my latest and newest effort - Club Winners! - one of the fastest growing online organizations for all those who truly wish to prosper. Its simple - use the E-Z form at YouWin!.com to pledge a monthly amount to me and I, socks, will guarantee you a place in line with all the other Winners! at YouWin!.com. Its fun and easy. Start winnning now! There are no losers, so you cant lose!!!

Probably one of the best things the Way had going for it at any time, IMO, is the simple "compassionate" view of others, and the recognition that others need help sooooo, here's some help. Friendship, understanding, a shoulder or arm to lean on, a ride, a job, and yes, the bible's teachings. It may sound crazy to some at this point but at one time friends and relationships were the foundation of what it was all about. Pushing that out and restricting it would account for the incestuous le familia that grew over the years. Counselling is serious business. Largely listening and learning. As in all pursuits some are better suited than others, some who should never go near it. The Way did come to wanting to have All The Answers based on the appropriate verse of scripture and a good tank of get-up-'n' do-it. Unfortunately if and when you did have serious problems and needs you could get left in the dust if you took to long to get-up 'n' get 'er done.

Rule o' thumb, Rocky, I think that's going to be true. Compassion - I see it as drawing from our innards, so to speak. Who we are, how we think and believe, the "real" me. Where the record in Matthew 14 speaks of Jesus feeling compassion for the people that had gathered, He healed their sick. He saw their need and responded out of his concern for their condition. I think where a lot of Christianity fails is in trying to build and support a system that recognizes an assortment of creeds and beliefs as "right" and views that as success, "we've built a church that's right and that's a glory to God". To me, the rightness can only exist in a living breathing acting context - in life. The rules and reg's, the "truth" is God's domain. He's defined what and how life is and we can learn, study, live, debate, argue it till we're blue. In the end, how I live is my domain. It's there that compassion lives and flows out from. If there isn't any or if I restrict it, what's that say? Can I be right and not be moved with concern for others, simply turn away and continue to be right? Even Jesus recognized that there would always be needy people. Can we help everyone all the time? If anyone could have you'd think He'd be the one to have done so. If Jesus provides an example to me I can see that I can only do what's at hand, what's in front of me, what's within my scope. I may live with a larger vision for the world, the future, others while simply doing what I can when I can and for whom I can. If I have the right stuff going on inside it stands to reason that I'll be compassionate to others at all times, regardless of what I can or can't do. Recognizing the needs of others and having feelings for them would be normal I think.

Emotions can be a benefit - they can cloud yes, but they can also clarify and they can energize, drive action. Emotions aren't bad things, although the way our emotions can effect us could be. The Way's counselling instructions imply that an emotional attachment to something is involvement to an extreme. Not true. Sympathy - a "counterfeit"....for what? That's like saying happiness is a counterfeit for hunger. Sympathy is feeling for someone else's condition. Nothing wrong with that. If that's all a person has to offer it may not do anything to help the other but what would be better - to feel nothing or feel something? It's common to spiel that line "nobody wants it". But when things are bad, we do want understanding and recognition by others. We don't want others ignoring it or treating our own problems as if they were insignificant. That kind of attitude does spill over into the Way's counselling description there - involved but not extremely, uninvolved and unemotional and unsympathetic. Is that "Christian Counselling"? And what's that, anyway? Christ counselled. What did He do, what's described? Compassion is associated with His feeling many times, in fact it's one of the most common and clearest views into His personality we have written about, I think. Compassion wells up from "inside" us, reflects who we are. If I'm unsympathetic, can I have compassion? At times my own emotions and compassionate feelings may contradict what I "believe", or think I do. When that happens, it's better to examine what I believe and what I feel and try to understand my reactions, than to deny or ignore them.

The most common definition I know of for compassion is to have feelings of sympathy, pity, concern for another person. Empathy - understanding the condition of another and having concern for them. Luke 6 has a lot of statements of Jesus that would include compassion for others, I think. Compassion would be the heartfelt concern for another that would cause someone to extend themselves towards that person to help them, offer aid, assistance.

dmiller, this may be a case of "Paul's Thorn in the Flesh", revisited. In PFAL the teaching went that ministers often taught the thorn in the flesh "buffeting" Paul was whatever ailment or shortcoming the minister teaching had... It's food for thought, that in both their cases these guys taught it as sexual in nature. Dunno. I'm just saying...it's innerestin'. More Thought Snacks - The idea that Adam and Eve "introduced" sin into the world that has since been inherited through the bloodline of mankind is almost a "duh-huh" idea - Adam and Eve are presented as the first two human beings. If they were the first two, there were only two that could be the first to do anything, including sin. And the capacity to sin by choice was within their makeup and well within the realm of possiblity. There's a big ho'down in PFAL about "perfect" blood being key, but what's perfect in blood? Blood is blood. If imperfection was possible, it was as likely that it would occur as not occur - choice. 50/50 in nature, choose this or choose that. A human being would be perfect as made, until they weren't - and the weren't would occur as soon as they relied on their human capacity to choose incorrectly. I'm not denigrating "obedience" or minimizing "disobedience", rather looking at it as it seems to have been and in fact is even now, today. If Jesus Christ was born with "perfect" blood, the race was on, and as told He won. Imperfection and the results didn't occur in His life, and that presents us with the new paradigm for a relationship with God - perfection, delivered to an imperfect vessel, container. We're no different than Adam and Eve, but we do have the option to choose, all our lives. Anyhoo - dunno what TWI is into these days, nothing to contribute there, but if they still teach that stuff about "Original Sin" being sexual...look out...I mean, I'm just sayin'....

I hadn't thought of Gary Dunhoff in many years, I knew both he and John. John and Fran, since we were all teenagers in Alameda, Ca. Gary was a great guy, and didn't do anything that day to deserve to die. Neither did John. That accident was terrible, horrible in what happened. John did struggle with it, understandably, there's no way a person wouldn't. A million what-if's, how-comes and hurtful remembrances later, it could still be very hard to handle. At some level you have to come to grips with it, and to do so requires a lot of help, if you can get it. I suspect looking back that VPW's response to it was a way of distancing himself from it, and any responsibility for it that might be reflected back on him or the Way International. It was "safer" for him to blame them and John than to love him and help him deal with it. That's all you can do under those circumstances - try to love, get through one day and then the next and hopefully get them adding up so somewhere down the line you can not feel bad for even breathing, and realize you're still alive and not lost in darkness forever. You need to know you're still worth loving and living otherwise it's just not worth the alternative after awhile. If John's out there - drop me a line here, "Johnnie G". we love you, brother.

Nice. Somewhat akin - It reminds me kind of the old joke about the guy in a flood, stranded on his rooftop, praying and waiting for God to rescue him as he refuses first a guy in a boat, then a helicopter ride because as he tells them "God's going to save me from the flood!" - and finally drowns. At the "Pearly Gates" he asks "why didn't God answer my prayers!!!" and he's told "Well, He sent you a boat and a helicopter!! Whaddya want?" I do tend to miss what's right in front of me when I'm looking for something else. It's good to retune, attenuate, take a pause for the cause, balance out a little bit. I have a lot of activity in my life, but frequent opportunity to catch my mental breath. It's just a matter of doing it although that can be a challenge. I like the idea that the ordinary things we do can be filled with faith and love. The ordinary made wonderful, like those small acts of kindness that are remembered because they meant so much.

That's probably true Lindy, I'm making a general statement as to the simple fact that nearly no one reads the entire bible, from start to finish or spends any great degree of time learning what's in the whole book. If you don't you won't have questions about something you don't even know exists. If all you know is what someone else has told you about it in their interpretation and you only have that one opinion, you're limited. That's probably why it's impossible to have a coherent discussion with someone who doesn't know what you're talking about and isn't interested in understanding. If they've been taught to view questions and different opinions as dangerous, they'll steer clear or pop off a knee jerk answer.

Hi I. Whether it be Peter or Pater , the "prophecy of the scripture" spoken about if from the vantage point of the first generation of followers of Jesus Christ - woulda hadda be the "OT"...? What they had. The prophecy part - what was foretold - as to the coming of the Messiah, the people of Israel, the world, etc. And stuff. That verse sticks out - someone's being reminded, told, that the prophecies aren't open to interpretation. Yet, interpretation, understanding, was inevitable. So there's limits to be observed, but what are they? Clarity has to be achieved, and I suspect the topic of Jesus Christ would be a hot one. From another viewpoint it could even be used to refer to Paul - he claimed to receive by revelation of Jesus Christ, and offers interpretation of the OT in relation to Jesus and who He was. Who's zoomin' who? :) I've tried to take it from a more general view of allowing God to open the understanding.

"I believe the bible" almost always means "I believe in God who I believe is responsible for the bible". Truth to tell, most people have never read the bible - all of it, to the end they could say they believe it. If a person's never bothered to read the whole thing, why bother making high claims as it's authenticity? Smaller still the number who have read it more than once or studied much of it. Most believe what they've taken from it by choice or what's inspired them. Which is fine, but no cause to pound a lectern or take up a collection. :) I like Armstrong, too by the way. Finished "The History of God" last year and have another of her's on the barbey for the summer.

penworks, I could see two interpretations of Tim. 3:16 - 1.) all scripture, writing/graphe, refers to the "Old Testament". We could use Jesus's breakdown of "scripture" in Luke:24:44, 45 And he said unto them, These [are] the words which I spake unto you, while I was yet with you, that all things must be fulfilled, which were written in the law of Moses, and the Prophets and the psalms, concerning me. Then opened he their understanding, that they might understand the scriptures, This works with Paul's statement to Timothy - "and how from childhood you have known the holy Scriptures, which are able to make you wise for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus." Timothy being a young man, younger than Paul anyway, he would have been reading and studying those "OT" writings that were in existence at that time. I could also see a broader interpretation of it, one that Paul may have inferred - that the understanding that he had by "revelation of Jesus Christ" that he wrote could be included within that - in other words, less the actual letter that he was writing and more the writings that he did that carried that information. "Logos" is a big part of this, as most Christians use it synonymously for the bible, meaning "the Word of God", the bible. Today people tend to view logos as a word or words of expression, communication. There's more to logos though, than a word for a word. And communication isn't the thing being communicated and a word isn't the only way to communicate. What's more important - how something is communicated or the thing being communicated? I guess an argument can be made that if we only had one means of knowing something - only one form of communication possible or used, then that form would be essential, since it's the only one. But we know that words, language, writing, isn't the only form that God uses to communicate with people and the words of the bible aren't the sole means God has to communicate with us. Still, if we accept upfront that the bible - the collection of "old" and "new" testament writings we have collected today - are words that God has inspired others to write, then other forms of communication should explain, confirm, corroborate, expand and increase on what we have. I guess... Your question is one that I've spent time on too - it's a reasonable one. :)