Oakspear

How is this reliability demonstrated?

I have no desire to explain my understanding of the theory of evolution, even to someone who didn't smack evolutionists around B) Seriously though, I didn't think you were the type to get that frustrated with someone else's beliefs, the "smacking" reference seemed out of character. Thanks for the explanation, and as usual, i don't need help

Warning! - maybe a little. Let's assume for the sake of argument, that the "spiritual" experiences that people claim to have are real. That they really feel some kind of divine connection. It's been my observation that these experiences are interpreted in whatever way the person's mind is inclined to believe. The Christian might say it's God communicating to him. The Atheist might identify a natural phenomenon to explain it. A believer in reincarnation might see it as a memory from a past life. An ESP enthusiast could interpret it as telepathy. The UFO researcher would see an alien abduction as a possibility. The pagan might decide that the goddess was involved. But most of these folks would KNOW that the experience was what they were predisposed to believe it was. Unexplained phenomena have always been with us, and probably always will. Religion is our way to try to make sense of them.

We can "know" plenty, without being able to quantify it, we just can't prove, or demonstrate it to others. For example, I love my wife, I know that I love my wife, there is nothing that can talk me out of it. However, I cannot prove that to anyone else, although they can choose to take my word for it. On the other hand, although many believers will say that God (or whatever they call the "higher power") is known to them, loves them, listens to their prayers, has "a relationship with them", none of them can, with any reliability, predict what their god will do in any situation. Granted, none of us can reliably predict what our friends, neighbors, co-workers or children will do in a given situation either. Sure, there are formulas, and "holy scripture", and other so-called guarantees, but does your god do what you expect him to do, or even what he supposedly said he would do? Which raises the question (at least in my mind ), is God someone who can be counted on? It says that he can in the bible, but can he really?

Hmmm....I think both "sides" in this discussion stipulate that man exists. George was illustrating the relative tangible values of science and religion (or, if you prefer, a realtionship with God). Of course science couldn't have proceeded if man didn't exist, and would have proceeded whether man was literally created on the sixth day, or "crawled out of an amoeba". Now that's the way to conduct a proper discussion! I don't know, that you're kidding? :wacko:

Wow, Mrs. W wasn't perfect then, was she? Seriously though, this is a perfect example of someone high up in TWI making a decision based on little or no genuine knowledge.

I didn't disagree with Martindale's rationale for doing a new class. True or not, much of PFAL was dated, many of the religious doctrines that Wierwille addressed in PFAL were unlnown to folks in the 90's and 00's. PFAL could have been retaught in a much more exciting and modern format. WayAP didn't do it. It was a collection of pitiful attempts at rebuttals of misunderstandings of scientific theories and religious doctrine (or perhaps deliberate strawmen)

Good points in the last post George. I agree that religion often promises the moon, and just doesn't deliver. Then the little follower can't admit that they didn't get the bang for their buck as advertised, so they promote the spirituality du jour as well. While I still have my agnostic card, I do have religious beliefs and experiences, but I'm not setting my sights real high either. Nor am I so convinced about the objective truth of my experiences that I try to convince anyone else. Works just fine for me. I've also given up on the idea that God, or goddess, or the "all" or whatever, is out there making decisions for me. earlier this year, after being passed over for a promotion, I was told "I guess the Universe didn't want you to have that job" - my reply, which has become my credo, was "Well, next time, the universe damned well better ask me!"

It was me...I killed him...I killed the all!

The original sin of mankind was xeroxing

Ah...that makes sense. If it's stupid or "off the Word", we must have been misunderstanding "doctor"

It was in 2001 when I left

It all goes back to Wierwille and his brother signing over their inheritance to The Way, Incorporated. Whether one thinks that Wierwille had genuine godly motives or was a scam artist from the start, he benefited from and had access to ALL of TWI's assets, without being burdened by propert taxes, income tax, etc. We were so fooled, thinking it was our ministry. Who the h*ll is embarassed by a breach in protocol anyway? :blink: Does this remind you of anything? <_< Is this thread an eye-opener or what?

Did Wierwille personally own this golf cart? Or did it belong to The Way International? I'm thinking the latter. It wasn't really "his stuff" then, was it? Martindale learned this lesson well when composing his "loyalty letter" and throughout the nineties. Efforts to change were met with a tyrannical response and an invitation to leave "and don't let the door hit you in the rear" Good question. We all know many people who had good common sense. "Spiritual perception and awareness" implies something beyond what you can perceive with your 5 senses.

They "have fellowships serving the Word of God throughout the United States" Apparently no longer in all fifty of those states!

I thought that they kept it at 4 years, but changed it to:Candidate Year: Just like the old "apprentice year" Apprentice Year: Required to be a Way Disciple, and then work on staff Two Years "In Residence" :unsure:

I wasn't in the Corps, I am depending upon the testimonies of those who were in, and who testify to the difference between what was presented and what was later expected Okay, you do an apprentice year in exchange for future instruction. Makes sense. I think the difference of opinion here involves, not the definition of "lifetime", but the definition of "service". Most Way Corps grads would have been glad to use their training for a lifetime in Christian service running fellowships, teaching, "undershepherding", counselling, etc. Most would have also been glad to accept assignments in "areas of concern, interest and need". The problem is that a desire to define for oneself what that service would constitute, usually got you dropped from the Way Corps.

Oh, I don't know, screened a little better. Pulled people off at the first sign of trouble. Gee, practiced some oversight :huh:

Yeah, I have a question. Where does it mention giving up the freedom to live wherever you want to, working in the field you were educatted in, bringing up your children as you see fit. Where does it mention the "committment" to provide free labor? Having "A Liftetime of Christian Service" on the cover does not negate the aforementioned promises that it was a "four-year" committment.

And anyone who did check whatever stupid thing he was told, and confronted "leadership" about it, was shown the door pretty quickly. I'm aghast that Townsend didn't know Wierwille was promoting it

With respect, I believe this distinction is one that any follower of religion would make between his own religion and the religion of others.

Because they claimed that the assignments were all by revelation...

What exactly were the requirements for entering the Corps? From an outside vantage point, it looked somewhat haphazard, some folks seemed to "have what it took", others semed to just have the money.

Sounds like kissing up to the celebrity to me <_<

"Discussion" generally involves a bit more than stating that what you believe is truth and everyone who disagrees is an idiot. If you want to get involved in the Doctrinal discussions Allan, do so, but back up what you're saying. The major PFAL supporter on this board believes that PFAL virtually replaces the bible, it would be refreshing to hear the pro-PFAL position discussed rationally. Part of the challenge of having doctrinal discussions is that not everyone starts from the same premise. For instance, two people here may start from the premise that "the bible, as originally written, is god-breathed, and therefore without error" Those two hypothetical people may still disagree on what parts are literal, and what parts are figurative. They may disagree on what language the bible was originally written in, or whose definitions of Greek words they will accept. All of these disagreements can result in different conclusions, even if the basic premise of an inerrant bible is accepted.