Oakspear

No, that's not the name of that tune But it's a pretty good hint

I was still out on "hiatus" from TWI during this time...got back in 1990, but I still had contact with "innies" during this time. One thing that I recall was something that a woman who we babysat for told us. Most of the state leadership bolted from TWI, but kept a pretty low profile about it, acted like everything was still the same, the same twig, branch, limb structure was retained parrellel to the TWI "tree". The woman in question thought that she was attending a TWI sanctioned twig. She asked us one day how long it should take for TWI to cash a check. It turns out that the money was going to Scotland. While I'm sure that the leaders and some others knew what was going on, some of the rank-and-file, at least this woman, had no idea what was going on. She was not a faithful three-twigs-a-week person, but kind of floated in and out. It indicates to me that once the break was made, there wasn't a lot of dwelling on it. Takes one to know one, but Martindale missed seeing some of the qualities in this guy thatmade him Wierwille's successor: bu tt kissing and weasling

Any particular point that you're making?

She's got lovin' like quicksand Only took one touch of her hand To blow my mind and I'm in so deep That I can't eat and I can't sleep

Tom Petty Running Down a Dream (I'm pretty sure tha's right, but I'll wait for confirmation...will be back from work in 13 hours

One of the things that I see coming up is the need to have a being higher than ourselves to define morality for us. The problem is when there are competing systems of morality all claiming to be from that same supreme being. Then we fall back on each of us experiencing God in our own way, and listening to that still, small voice...in practical terms I don't see this as any different than each person setting their own rules, building their own personal morality. You have a written standard? So do the Muslims. It's diferent. Or maybe you stick to the bible. Guess what? Everybody interprets it differently. Want a standard mode of reading and "rightly dividing"? Most of us have PFAL's "keys". Yup; still, we have different opinions. So, if belief in God enables you to become a better person, I'm all for it. I just don't see "becoming a better person" limited to a belief in God, and certainly not to any particular faith. Is it a higher sacrifice to give your life because your God inspired you to, or because you acted "situationally" to fight for your country? Opinions vary.

hey...don't bad mouth the witches!

It's "Wicca", by the way, not "Wiccanism" And yes, I'm serious, but that post was a joke...we don't have popcorn Wicca is a specific form of paganism, started in the 50's by Gerald Gardner in England. He claims to have "rediscovered" ancient rites of the Old Religion. I think he was scamming to a great extent myself. I participate in a eclectic circle of pagans, which includes some Wiccans. My wife and I presided at the Yule/Winter Solstice ritual this past December 21st.

Back To The Future Marty: "unh...why did I set the alarm for midnight for?....zzzzzzzzzzzzzz" Clerks Dante: "H*ll NO I won't come in...I'm not supposed to be there today!" National Lampoon's Summer Vacation Clark Griswold: "Hoooneeeeyyy...I just heard on the radio that Wally World is closed for repairs..." Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan Chekhov (before beaming down): "Keptin, I remember this planet..."

Aren't you married, JL?

Wow! Front row! I was in about the ninth or tenth row at Madison Square Garden in 1976. Aerosmith opened for them.

Like most of those afflicted with Waybrain, you don't understand what the image of Christ on the cross represents to Catholics. It represents what he endured and suffered for us. It's purpose is NOT to glorify death. It's what he went through so that he could be raised and ascended. All you know is what Wierwille and The Way told you that it meant, and they didn't get it either.

Come to the dark side, Allan...we have popcorn

The chanting of the magic formula of salvation doesn't mean much, in my not-so-humble opinion, if the so-called "believer' continues to act in hurtful, selfish, deceitful ways. I'm not at all impressed with someone who is saved, but is a son of a b---- otherwise. Some of you have said how you've seen plenty of church-going Christians who live in a godly manner. Let me expand that circle to include Jews, Wiccans, Hindus and follwers of Native American religions. By their fruit...

Geo: I read Lost Christianities by this guy this past year, and it wasn't too bad. He makes a good case for the bible that we have today being the end product of factional infighting among the differing versions of Christianity.

The word "Christian" didn't come from "Christ in"

Since we're already derailed... This is a false dilemma. Or a stupid example. I don't think anyone ever said to not defend oneself from physical violence by a woman. One would be an idiot to let oneself be run over simply becuase it was a woman behind the wheel. Not only is this a false dilemma, but it's a strawman: you take a position that Diazbro didn't take, argue against it, and then call him an idiot for holding the position that he didn't take. Perhaps, but you included verbal harrassment as an excuse for "clocking her like she deserves". As I recall, it was something about a man's superior physical strength countering a woman's biting tongue (I'm paraphrasing), and a woman's verbal sniping being a justification for the man to hit her.I don't know about this "can't be a Christian" business, but you have publically come out in favor of violence against women outyside of self-defense

The four (later five) Studies in Abundant Living books were originally tracts. Do you remember in PFAL, Wierwille holding up those little booklets? They all later were incorporated into books. PFAL itself was a "novelization" of the film class, with grammar cleaned up a little, and most of the jokes taken out.

If Mr. Wierwille was being honest, why would he say that he threw out all his theology books, and used the bible as his only textbook?I think the answer to the question, Oldies, is that Wierwille said different things depending on what image he was trying to put forward at the time. He said contradictory things because I doubt that he was keeping track of his lies, or expected anyone to question him. And few did during his lifetime. It's obvious that much of what he taught was not original, not even "putting it all together so that it fit", he said that someone (presumably Stiles) did that for him in the 2nd edition of RTHST. But we have him implying that what everyone else taught was second rate, so that he had to "fit it together" on one hand, and claiming that he got all of his info straight from the bible on the other hand, and a possibly third hand, that God taught it to him. And if it wasn't original, then I guess it had been taught "since the first century".

So we still are back to the question: "Why did he make these apparently contradictory statements?" What did he mean when he said "Not everything that I teach is original", or that he learned from others, in light of his other statements that he threw out all of his books, and used only the bible as his textbook? Or this statement about Leonard: "really learned a lot about the other manifestations of the holy spirit. But he worked from personal experiences. I worked what he taught from the accuracy of the Scriptures" Oldies, the reason that it appears to you that "it is hard to recognize", is that it doesn't add up. There's a lot more context than the appearingly simple statement: "lots of the stuff I teach is not original". Putting Bullinger on the shelf when you are also saying that you were teaching the same stuff before you had ever heard of him, is not the same as saying that you learnd from Bullinger. Crediting Leonard with providing experiential teaching which you later "worked from the Word", while presnted his class as your own, is claiming credit for the research yourself. I don't know why you can't see this as a contradiction.

About the only time I regret throwing out my TWI books is when we have one of these discussions. Think about when Wierwille does mention other people, often he pays them left-handed compliments, like saying BG Leonard was great on experience, and poor on documentation, or how Stiles is never mentioned again after that passage in TW:LIL. Does he ever say "So-and-so taught me such-and-such", no, he throws out names, then about the best he can bring himself to say is that he kept what was accurate and threw out the rest. Specific credit and recognition was not ever given. Forget about footnotes, forget about endnotes, forget about a bibliography, he never, ever, mentions what he learned from whom, all he says is "Lots of the stuff I teach is not original. Putting it all together so that it fit -- that was the original work. I learned wherever I could, and then I worked that with the Scriptures. What was right on with the Scriptures, I kept; but what wasn't, I dropped." - a pretty lukewarm recognition of men that he copied from!

1. You read right 2. There are a few 3. Yes 4. No thanks

But, according to Wierwille, there will be a time when what was available at Pentecost will not be available, and there was a time when it was not, so I guess God does change! Either that, or maybe he should have either thought again about whether it's still available, or have come up with a better argument. Bullinger and others have made the case biblically that tongues are not avilable today. ******************************************************************************** ********* Okay, so, according to Wierwille himself he didn't learn from other people, he figgered it all out hisself from the bible. This is where the idea that Wierwille claimed that he originated it all, the quotes from The Way: Living in Love notwithstanding. So, how can we reconcile these two statements? and They appear to be contradictory? Was Wierwille, perhaps, lying? If so, why print these two apparently contradictory statements in his own publications? And then, of course, there's this:

maybe in Minnesota!~

Mark, the debate is ongoing, and has never really stopped. WW has done a good job IMHO of documenting what Wierwille actually said about various TWI doctrines and positions, as opposed to what we remember about them, all in TWI-published materials. No matter what debate it engenders, it gets it out there. never noticed this before. Let's see, he went to Mission House/Lakeland Collge for his bachelor's (I guess that's the college) He went to Princeton Theological Seminary for his Master's (That's either the university or the seminary, maybe both) He got his "doctorate" from Pike's Peak (Maybe he's considering this a seminary too) Where else does he mention any others?