Oakspear

Ummm...weren't you "weeded out", Oldies?

In my opinion it is a waste of time to wade through Wierwille's works looking for "the baby" or "fish", and throwing out the bones with the bathwater. It is established, in my eyes anyway, that the man was a liar, and a thief and a con artist. Why would I want to use his works as a source for truth?

"The Fog Years" was a term, if not invented by Martindale, was used by him to describe the fog that he felt himself in from listening to Geer. He also used his explanation of what went on in those years to cast a fog over what really happened.

Mex: Don't assume that we all agree that all the things that you mentioned are true.

In the early days of Christianity, it would have been fairly easy for competing factions to spring up. Each of these factions would produce their own literature, some from pure motives, some in an effort to discredit those that they disagreed with. As one group became dominant, literature that supported opposing viewpoints would be supressed or destroyed. Again, some of the surpressing might have been done with pure motives, i.e. to guard the church against what it saw as heresy. As the dominant group consolidated it's power, it gained the means and motive to present the "other" books as heretical. Eventually one set of books were canonized as "The Bible", and anything else was viewed as simply not from God. Not all that surprising. The compiling of the canon of the new testament took place over a long period of time. Even when it was complete, there was not universal agreeement. Anyway, that's my view, based on my interpreation of the available facts. Opinions vary.

The Way, in my opinion, could never make up it's collective mind about Christmas. On one hand, they taught, ad nauseum, about how Jesus wasn't born on December 25th, the wise men weren't there and angels don't sing or have wings. On the other hand, they observed all the cultural Christmas traditions: trees, gifts, decorations, etc. On the gripping hand, they changed the name to "Household Holiday". The Jehovah's Witnesses, agree with 'em or not, are at least consistant in this regard. They say that they're not going to observe holidays, and they don't. TWI talked big, but never really gave up the traditions. And "Household Holiday" was so stupid, it was almost beyond comprehension. What 'holiday' was the 'household' celebrating anyway? And if that wasn't stupid enough, it was shorted from HOusehold HOliday to Ho-Ho. P.S. What I was trying to say in the description following the Thread title was I'm Amazed That I Never Kicked the Crap Out of Someone for Saying 'Happy Ho-Ho'

dmiller: Have two beers, I think you sprained something writing that post. I hate to be nitpicky (okay, I like being nitpicky) but although Bullinger says that nachash means "shining one", nachash is a normal Hebrew word for serpent aka snake. Blueletterbible.com says that nachash means serpent, but that it derives from the word "to hiss". But even assuming that Bullinger is correct, the root of a word only gives an indication of the meaning of a word, and is not always a reliable guide to the actual meaning. Words change, and as they branch off from the root take on shades of meaning and connotations that are not in the root. Bullinger (and Wierwille) often referred to a word's root to plum (or is it plumb?) meanings that weren't necessarily there. Anyway, we know it's not a literal snake, mainly because it's talking, not because it's the word nachash. There are literal references to snakes that use the same word. D*mn, now I need a beer, and it only 2;30AM.

TWI publically taught that the priorities were:1. God 2. Spouse (if you had one) 3. Children (if you had them) 4. The work of the ministry (as distinct from God) 5. Secular Job, school, etc But, as most of us know, the practical application was much different. You were doing God's will by running this class; you were taking care of your spouse by driving to Ohio and sitting through the advanced class; it was best for your children to be at such-and-such an event. During my time in TWI, especially the last five years, the pressure to do everything TWI was constant.

...and you should be proud! My own son is in the military...thankfully far away from Iraq.

The whole story about the devil, the incarnation of evil, tempting man and woman to disobey God and therefore experience evil themselves still leaves man with the choice of succumbing to evil or not. Adam and Eve made the wrong choice while still in the state that God had created them in, before being supposedly tainted by Lucifer, and before becoming like him. Jesus Christ came in order to "save" man from his sinful state and restore him back to...what? The state in which they succumbed to "evil" in the first place! Humans, including those alleged first humans, have within them the ability to do good, or to do evil. They have the ability to choose one or the other, or any one of the shades of grey in between. They can also be taught, or persuaded to do good rather than evil.

Joking or no, dmiller, your post that I responded to indicates that you believe that an allegorical interpretation is not possible, not that you don't agree with it. Yes, I got it that you were using humor to make your point. :P Actually, arguing from the point of view that the bible is true, the position that the devil is a literal being can be supported more easily than a figurative devil can...in my opinion. It really has nothing to do with an agnostic view. There are Christians who do not believe that the bible is talking about a literal adversary when it talks about the devil. A typcal agnostic wouldn't even get to the existance of the devil, being so busy wondering about the existance of God. I'd agree with that. One could hardly believe that God is a figurative representation of "good" while believeing in a literal devil. Possible, i guess, just not likely. With respect, I don't really think you do see where I am coming from. I put forth the idea of a figurative devil as a possibilty, in response to this: ...not as a statement of my own personal belief. I personally do not believe that there is a devil, literal or figurative. I thought that the statement "my bible says he does" did not take into account differing Christian beliefs about the devil and evil. Again, with respect, I'm not sure that you really know what I believe. It is certainly a valid biblical position that there is both a real God and a real devil. It does not necessarily follow that a "real" God means that there is a "real" devil. I think I clearly labelled my remark about a "talking snake" as sarcasm <_<

Nice smiley dmiller. So (he asks with sarcasm creeping into his voice, or at least his font) you believe that the bible is 100% literal? No figures of speech? That really was a talking snake in Genesis?

I define "apostle" as 'one who sits at a keyboard commenting on his cult days'....

Wierwille's quote above is a wonderful testimony to the way a body ordinarily self heals, indeed is designed to do such. But I fail to see how that description leads to the conclusion that sickness is death in part. More like sickness, unless it results in death, is an opportunity for life to assert itself.

I don't recall the "gift ministry" ever being specified for anyone being ordained

I agree that there is truth, I disagree that there is a lot. I disagree that Wierwille's classes are the places to be searching for the truth. Good luck on the gleaning

Yup, that's it.The Yardbirds didn't write it, but did the first popular version. I first heard it done by Aerosmith

Seems obvious, if you subscribe to a literal interpreation of the bible, I can imagine allegorical interpreations that would mean no literal devil.

The "other" books don't present so much of a problem if one abandons the position that the bible as we now have it is a translation of documents that were transmitted directly from God to man. I'm not talking about abandoning Christianity, or any specific belief, by the way, other than the belief that the bible is 'god-breathed', that it is inerrant, and that it fits 'like a hand in a glove'. It certainly is possible to view each of the various books within the bible as the personal experience of the individual writer, or a treatise clarifying or expounding on well-known doctrines, or even as a pamphlet arguing against views that the writer disagreed with. None of these positions negate the central message of Jesus. The "other" writings can be viewed in a number of ways: one is to regard them as a heretical, the product of a mistaken, or in an extreme view, devil-inspired. Another way is to regard them as simply the surviving documents of the losing side. Even within the second choice, there are different possibilities: did the losing side lose because they were wrong, or because the other side had better backing, or bigger numbers? ...and Belle, being down here in 'the basement', helps keep out the riff-raff

Similar to the discussion of sucession by revelation being implied, Wierwille's apostleship was also implied. In PFAL, his unique definition of "apostle" was obviously being applied to him: he claimed that he was teaching 'The Word' like it had not been taught since the first century, and an apostle brought 'new light' to his generation, and as Wierwille added it may be old light, but it's new light to those hearing it.

"...she was a hipster, a real gone dame..."

many here would agree with you...I partially agree with you Wierwille's words were revered as if they proceeded from the mouth of God. It is entirely appropriare that his words be put under a microscope.

Me too

I repeat my question: What specifically are you talking about here? What kind of power are you referring to? And what power did you see in TWI that outshone the power of "the dark side"?...and you have not said who you thought the "thought police" were/are, and why you think that they were fired. Many here, including myself, were targets of such, not that long ago.

I got involved in early 1978, so I fall outside the time frame set here, but my twig was mostly made up of folks who had been involved from the early seventies, some of whom had been out WOW and returned. Already, some of the "old-timers" were b*tching about how things had changed, gone downhill, and how regimented Way life had become. Steve Heefner was still talked about with respect and almost awe by some.