TLC

So what if you talk with LGBTQ people frequently now (and I don't.) But how much did you 25-30 years ago (before this PC era) when they themselves referred to their "lifestyle"? And if memory serves me correctly, Cra1ey himself spoke openly of it as being that on more than one occasion. Maybe I date myself with what I say (or said), but there was a time (years ago, evidently) when they relished their... what should I call it... network, to the point that if you wanted to advance within certain companies to positions of higher pay or prominence, you'd better be on board (regardless of your other qualifications.) Think that's really changed in the last 25 years, do you? I don't know... maybe the editorial review of Cra1ey's book on Amazon will also "bug the hell out of you" when it refers to "his former lifestyle." And btw, perhaps we (my wife and I) were never as drawn into the subcultural demons of TWI as you seem to have been to think that anyone needed to be pushed or manipulated into "renouncing" anything.

You're as clueless as they come, Rocky, about who I am, how I think, or what motive resides within me. But in your haste to criticize, you project the very traits that you loathe in others. Fact is, at a time when TWI was (as pronounced here) purging these unwanted souls from within, the fellowship at my house was attended regularly by a husband and wife (male and female) that held back no secret of his homosexuality. It's one thing to say what bothers you, Rocky. It's quite another to sit down and regularly talk face to face with someone and try to understand who they are, and want to find meaningful, sensible ways to help them improve their relationship with God, and with each other. Try it sometime, and see just how easy (or not) it really is.

Not for a New York minute do I think your side note is "just a side note." It's a concerted effort to be PC. I think the problem that some folk seem to be having with the use of the word "lifestyle" is more that it inherently implies a choice. And the current PC way of speaking is to accept that it's genetic, and that they really don't have a choice. (Which is BS, but that's another matter sure to gender strife and division here.) But, if you want to be sure and be (or stay) PC, then here's a little help from GLAAD as to what words and phrases should and shouldn't be used. (Oh, and be sure to note the cute little add that pops up when you visit their site.)

Returned to former lifestyle, from what I heard.

Briefly... as in before 6th corps or while in-res at Emporia? First I've heard that... Ya skipped the part where Donna hooked him in Emporia. Because he was so far removed from that identifty prior to his field assignment, it might be interesting to speculate where (or with whom) that rubicon was crossed.

if those two names together don't stir any memories of shenanigans going on at HQ (years before the Calagary bike ride), not sure what would (if you were there, that is.) Wondered at the time why the affair wasn't addressed from the top, but after learning the extent of the malaise, their adulterous romping around together is hardly worth mentioning. Always felt bad for Doug, though. Couldn't understand how or why he could put up with it.

I never said nor implied they were liars, nor did disagree that it's possible to experience such things. You completely missed the point.

hmm... I was inclined to think (or at least, say) that in earlier days. Seems to be a typical thought pattern once indoctrinated into a particular belief system. Well, have fun with it.

Why do suppose the great multitude of these sort of things just didn't seem to have that much of an effect on the attitude or spirituality of the nation of Israel when Moses was leading them out of Egypt?

Neither did I. But apparently some number of you didn't bother to actually read what I wrote.

Quite a deal indeed. But who spoke it, and to whom do you suppose it was said? Perhaps that doesn't matter to you, but I'm of the belief that it does matter. Matter of fact, Rom.15:8 very explicitly states the intent of Jesus Christ's ministry. Have you ever given much thought to the reason for the signs, miracles and wonders that were given? Or what (and when) the vast majority of such supernatural things began appearing to men? Why such a small handful prior to Moses? What great reason or purpose did (or do) they really serve? Yeah, James was quite the doer and works guy alright. Do you think it was anyone other than James that spoke such revealing words as are written in Acts 21:20? So what if you never saw it. Do you suppose it makes the truth of scripture and the word of God any less true? Luke 16:31. Talk is not only cheap, it can (and very often does) reach deep into the imaginations of the mind, and loses touch with what is or isn't real. Besides, it seems the only miracles that ever really stay with you are those that happen in your own heart and life. (And one of those is more weighty than the reports of ten thousand others.) See, it's not that I think they can't or don't happen. I just don't think that in this day and time that they're necessary, nor are they guaranteed to happen by something that is written and revealed to a different people, in the economy of a different day and time, for a different purpose and reason. Which, quite frankly, means that if and when they (in earnest) do occur ...they're are all the more revealing of His goodness and grace towards us, in and at a time of His doing (and not ours.) Just think about that for a minute or two... until perhaps the impact of what that means really hits you. Honestly speaking, I didn't always see it this way, and it sure isn't anything that was taught like that in TWI... At this point (late) in life, there is only one (glorified) man that I suppose I care much about duplicating. (And btw, it isn't the perfection that Jesus Christ exemplified here in the flesh, in a different day and time, for a special reason, to a special people.)

So tell me, sky... which of the three categories of "scathing crapola" of booze, sex, or finances did any of these incidents fall into?

Simply refers to ferretting out the doctrine(s) beneath it, which a lotta folk seem to either hate or are uncomfortable discussing. p.s. don't mind DWBH. He's still peeved at me for some number of reasons, not the least of which is my avoidance of flashing former status or credentials around, along with his inability to intimidate me with all his great fame and bluster. And he sure don't know jack about what I think or believe...

It appears after you read my first question, jim lack, you hit the brakes and slid right back into your sales pitch. So, whatever. I'd hoped you'd make it past my first post, but didn't think you'd honestly pursue it too far...

May be a valid point, Waysider, though it might have been much more the case in years after '86 (when more was "out of the bag" after the POP reading) than before. Before then, some were simply fired (aka, separated from HQ) for other reasons.

hmm...(long pause) Well, that's not at all what I said. So, after re-reading (and re-reading) my post (and then your post) several times trying to figure out why you appear to think it says something different, perhaps I can say it another way that makes it somewhat easier to understand. But before touching the real point of it (which evidently also eluded DWBH... and maybe most others), allow me to clarify this portion of it: For starters, keep in mind my departure from HQ was '85. It sounds like you were there for much later (possibly longer.) If it were only a bit of self medicating with alcohol to ease the pain of a cancerous eye, or talking about how pretty some of the young women were, or missing the accuracy on the teachings on financial prosperity... would any of the above have fallen into the category of "scathing crappola"? Nah. But, as many here have already plainly and repeatedly attested to, these were not the case. It is how far beyond these some folk (such as DWBH, but he's not the only one) say they knew at the time were going on that I am often taken back by. (Gut punched, at times.) So yeah, I more than get it that there was a lot of "cover up" going on that made it hard, if not outright impossible, for most (even on staff at HQ) to see or know what was really happening beneath the surface. But, without touching upon which of any of those nastier things might have been worse, there is one thing that stands out (in hindsight) as being so obvious, that it now seems that it should have been very hard for anyone to miss (especially those at HQ.) Some undoubtedly saw (or sensed) it more than others, and who knows how many left (or were repelled right from the get go) as a result. However, it seems as though those of us that were the closest to it, were also the most afflicted it ...and hence, blinded the most by it. (btw, the roots of it stretch far beyond a caste system, which it certainly grew into at TWI.) Pride. And my thought to mention Moses and Paul in my previous post was to point out that it appears in scripture that it can be so difficult for men with the highest natural aptitude to be humble, that highly unusually and incredible "events" (not so pleasant, mind you) happened in their life to humble them. Why it is that men with higher intelligence, greater leadership ability, or whatever else you want to call it, have such a difficult time with this might be more obvious to some than others. Nevertheless, it's plenty evident both in scripture, and in life around us, if you care to see it. So, I'll say this again (but in a different way from my previous post.) Those most afflicted by it can have the most difficulty seeing it (especially in their own lives, and in the lives of others when things related to it "sync" with their own ideology.) Yeah, call me what you will, DWBH. Put this post in your pipe and smoke it. If you get it, you get it. And if you don't, then I guess you don't.

Well, I knew there was a sicth corps. Evidently he was a product of the sickest corps (whichever that was...)

I'm not against anyone being physically healed. Furthermore, I'm not a complete stranger to the power of mental imaging or positive thinking (or whatever else you want to call it.) But I'm also not ignorant of what can happen when some become (or are) so focused on pursuing it and elevate it to the position of God or godliness. You quote pieces of scripture... but how much thought have you given to its context, or to whom it was addressed? Are you familiar with Pss. 103:7? Over the course of hundreds of years, how much did the nation of Israel really learn from all "his acts"? Do you honestly think the Gentile nations would learn any more, or any better, from what is seen or known only by their senses?

results? you're measuring results? hmmm... how deep down the rabbit hole do you care to go, jim jack?

Good grief. It's hard for me to imagine people being so dumbed down. Maybe they were just trying to rattle some cages... yank a chain or two here or there. Trolling, I think they call it.

If and when it ever dawns on us that the one personality trait that NEVER made it very far down the road with God, and then look back (or look around now) and see (or smell) the pride oozing out with every other breath... the answer to that question seems rather mute. Though it may have taken many years longer than it should have, I have no doubt that God has (and/or will) fill those that genuinely hunger and thirst after righteousness (though, perhaps not in the same way, or in the way we might expect.) Seems it might have taken God 40 years to humble Moses enough to finally lead Israel out of Egypt. Much less with Paul (maybe only a couple of years or so, after knocking him out of the saddle and blinding him for 3 days). Given how much was hidden and/or covered up (even from so many on staff at HQ, which I can easily attest to) ...I am often appalled (if not stunned) at what is said was known by some of you. It can read like there were so many that knew all this scathing crappola that... well, quite frankly, makes it sound like anyone with half a fkn brain would have known or seen all that was going on. Then again, pride can be such a blinding attribute that maybe it's hard to find (much less use) even half a brain. Just because someone reads or posts here on GS isn't some "get out of jail free" card that magically covers up or mitigates the stench of pride so infamously associated with TWI. Maybe what's most important to the Lord isn't where we've been, or how long it takes, but who or what we are like if honestly seeking after and learning who he really is.

Well, what do you suppose (or know) it was in your report that resulted in such a hasty exit?

Acts 2:40-47 is no more written to, or intended for, the church today than anything in Malachi 3 is. And the failure to understand that has lead to more poverty in the church (most notably in this forum, TWI) than you can shake a stick at. Sure, most churches tone this down from communism to socialism... but remember: "The trouble with Socialism is that eventually you run out of other people's money" — Margaret Thatcher

and from the spoils of war... lol. Well, the tithe was part of the Levetical law... which, of course, wasn't given until hundreds of years later. And, not knowing the mindset or motives of these patriarchs means that there's just no real way to know what "percentage" of the world they might have perceived as belonging (or owed ?) to the Lord. Or, if that's even the best way to make the comparison between the economy of their day and time to that of "the tithe" as it was set forth by Moses. Seems reasonable to think that by the time Moses arrived on the scene, Israel was so torqued in their own selfish view of the world that maybe "the tithe" was to intended to keep (or to introduce) God in(to) the picture.

Yes, but it (and Mal.3:10) did apply to Israel and was appropriate for them in that day and time. However, it (and Mal.3:10) were not given as rules, laws, instructions, guidelines (use whatever word anyone cares to) for the economy of this day and time. So, anyone "expecting" (aka, trying to believe for) the same results that Israel may have received (or been promised) will be walking out on... well, let's just call it... very thin ice. But what the heck, if someone thinks they can walk on water... go for it!