Oakspear

When unsucessful attempts are made to argue wayfers out of way-world, the wayfer is either unwilling to listen to any argument, or the argument is unpersuasive. If the argument focusses on abuses or other questionable practices, the wayfer has either already heard about them, and dismissed them as either false or unimportant; or has not heard about them and will question the source of the accuser. It is very easy for a wayfer to deny the truth of any evidence presented, to label the victim as a disgruntled ex-wayfer who is "copped out", or as possessed. Even if the wayfer believes that some or all of the accusations are true, it is possible to minimize them as abberations, or rationalize that the end justifies the means: these things are bad, but they taught me The Word. Arguing against Way doctrine poses other problems. Much of what The Way is also believed by other denominations. The Unitarians and Jehovah's Winesses don't believe in the Trinity, Catholic charismatics, Pentecostals, and other denominations speak in tongues, many groups require tithing; Wierwille drew from so many sources that most of it isn't unique. Most wayfers learn early on to trust Wierwille's definitions and interpretations. Any dismantling of his doctrine will probably require relearning definitions of words that Wierwille changed. Heck, most of us were willing to accept his claim that "some old document", long since lost, was enough to document that illegitimate boys did the bar-mitzvah at age 12, despite any evidence to back up the claim, despite the bible not saying that what Jesus was doing at age 12 was a bar-mitvah...etc. We swallowed Wierwille's definitions of Greek words when we had a lexicon in our hands that defined them differently. To get to the point: people aren't going to change their minds unless they are ready to change their minds. I wasn't ready to listen until I had reached a point where I had sufficient doubt in what I was hearing. The end does not justify the means.

The Malevolent Vibes will keep out all blasphemous and sacriligious food products. (private joke...sorry...shaman thing )

The full name of the church we usually refer to as "Unitarian" is the Unitarian-Universalist Association. There may be other organizations that use the term "Unitarian", but the main one, and most well known is the UUA. The beliefs and practices vary greatly from congregation to congregation and from individual to individual. The first organized Unitarians in the U.S. were Congregationalist churches in Massachusetts who maintained fellowship with the rest of the Congregationalists while rejecting the Trinitarianism of the majority. Later an independent denomination, the Unitarian Church merged with the Universalist Association.

Thanks bro' - that is the plan

Intriguing. And Hawaiian so-called pizzas are banned from the premises, correct? Ya gotta draw the line somewhere :D-->

Thanks for the book recommendation...I'll look it up. There's scientists who are atheists, and there are scientists who are believers, you get religious beliefs (or anti-religious beliefs) mixed in with what either group says. We haven't interacted much Jerry, but just so you know, I'm not an atheist, but neither do I accept the bible as necessarily true either. and "I do believe in fairies, I do I do" :P-->

dmiller: I too was one of those who came because of the doctrine. I didn't need to find someone who loved me, my family filled that bill just fine, and I had plenty of friends, in the neighborhood and in school. I was impressed by the ability of wayfers to come up with answers when most people I knew just shrugged their shoulders. However, the vast majority of people I knew over the years had no idea what the finer points of the doctrine were, and didn't care. They would have kept coming if Wierwille was teaching reincarnation or fire-walking, as long as the people in the fellowships were nice to them.

How to quote: Click on "..." on the blue bar above the message field when replying. [ QUOTE] [/quote ] will appear. Go to the section that you want to quote, and highlight it, then right click - then click COPY on the menu that appears. Go back to the "reply", place your cursor in between the two "quotes", right click and then click PASTE You can also copy or quote a whole post by clicking on the file folder with the quotation amrks next to it at the bottom of the post

Unless we're talking about the really high income folks, there are going to be reductions in lifestyle choices on both sides. Whether we're dealing with a stay-at-home-mom or a career woman, the same money that supported one household, now has to support two. Add to whatever expenses there were before, at minimum there is an additional rent to pay, a second set of utilities, a telephone, etc. Plus, the new apartment has to be furnished somehow, meals for a single person cost more per capita than feeding a family...it all adds up. Some of us can't afford Johhny's hockey lessons any more because the money is going to rent.

We're a liiiiitle short on water out here Galen :D-->It's not a perfect system, by any means though. I know of instances where women, who are perfectly capable of getting a job, will refuse to do so, in order that their child support will be higher. Thankfully, my ex-wife has not chosen this route, while it would hurt me if she did, the extra child support in our case would not make up for the income she earns. On the flip side, there are men who will stay in a low-income, dead-end job, or frequently quit their job and collect unemployment in order to avoid paying.

Husbands suffer, wives suffer; I've seen it go both ways. It depends on the individual situations. Mileage varies :P-->

Depends on the state.In Nebraska, child support is determined by totalling both parents incomes, and then applying a formula to determine how much of that combined income should go to child suuport. (It is figured on a "curve". The percentage for the 2nd child is less than for the first, the third is less than the second, etc.) The non-custodial parent pays a percentage of child support based on the percentage of the combined income that he or she earns. This can be changed by seeking a Modification of Child Support if income changes dramatically, like when there is unemployment. If I became unemployed, or had my income seriously reduced, I would need to go to court for a modification that would reflect my lower percentage of the combined income.

That which can be measured and quantified, and can be detected outside of an individuals perceptions. For example, something that would not be objective evidence: If I perceived that fairies were communicating with me, but their words were not audible to anyone but me, and they were not visible to anyone but me, there is no objective evidence for thyeir existance. There is also no proof that they DON'T exist either. For that matter, if in addition to me, you, Raf, and pawtucket, and twenty other people communicated with these fairies, then there still would be no objective evidence, because there would be no way to show those who didn't communicate with the fairies that we had. I doubt either of us is fully conversant in what evolutionary theory claims in its entirety (I don't anyway :D-->), but what evolutionary scientists claim is that the theory fits the evidence, as new evidence becomes known, the theory is modified to fit the new evidence. Maybe we'll disagree on this, but "contrary theories", which by which I assume you mean "creation", don't fit the evidence. Doesn't mean that they're not true, but there isn't much beyond scripture to back them up. I can see where, as a believer, you might feel this way, but could you offer a "substantive argument" as to why I don't communicate with fairies?

Shall I have a nurse ready for you?

How much of the crap that went on "on the field" did Wierwille know about? Sometimes I read accounts of teachings and counselling that deviated from what was taught in PFAL, or actions that contradicted what Wierwille espoused publically. Was Wierwille "in the loop"? Or were things done in his name done without his knowledge? I understand that one man couldn't possibly know every detail that went on. But in my opinion the pyramidal heirarchy of The Way Tree made rogue leaders somewhat unlikely. There was always somebody looking over your shoulder. When a leader is acting as a "Corps-Nazi", and isn't reined in or corrected, despite complaints and letters to the MOG, that sends the message that the "Corps-Nazi" behavior is approved.

For those of us who felt that there was a "golden age" of TWI, (even if it was only in your twig) how much of that "sweetness", how much of those "blessings", etc were due to the doctrine taught in PFAL, and how much was due to the personalities of those who were around you? In my opinion, no matter how much lip service we give to the importance of "the accuracy of The Word", it was the love and caring of individuals that drew us in and kept us there. And no matter how convinced we were that TWI was "the only place where the Word was taught" yelling and spitting eventually drove us out.

No, we're on the edge of nowhere, not in the middle :P-->

It's a figurative chapel

I used to think that the Unitarian motto could be "One God...at most", but now that I hear that they're pagan friendly, I'll have to scrap that one :D-->

In August 2003 I met somebody very special, she asked me to dance at one of my favorite bars. A week and a half later she insulted me in my workplace. --> I had to get to know this woman better. Some of you met her in person at the ! wedding last year, and many more of you know her as a chat room regular. My beloved Susie, known at GS as Reikilady, and I will be getting married in the near future. We have not set a date yet, but it may be as early as August of this year. We have a few details to work out before we set the date, but we will announce it here when we know for sure. Some of you know what a freakin' wreck I was in the wake of my divorce, but I have found my soul mate, my better half, my partner. The wedding, whenever it will be, will most likely be a simple affair, but we would welcome any and all of our Greasespot brethren and sistern who would like to attend.

socks: As far as I know, Martindale was not teaching that you could lose that "basic level of salvation". I was in and active through late 2001. However he did talk a lot about the bēma not necessarily being a pleasant experience for what he considered the unfaithful, as well as not having access to the benefits of being "in the household" both in this life and the next. Martindale wasn't that clear a teacher, and certainly could have been misunderstood as he mixed 2 minutes of scripture in with 58 minutes of venom on a Sunday afternoon.

How about a false dilemma? If you are defining "blind denial" as denying the truth of something in the face of evidense to the contrary they're both bad. Not believing something for which there is no objective evidense is different.

...and yes, I know Bullinger came up with it first. If there was ever a guy who could suck the life out of a passage of scripture, it was Bullinger with his anal-retentive attention to detail and over-emphasis on structure and correspondance and all the rest. Smart guy, but give it a freakin' rest

That's right folks, there MUST have been TWO veils, or the whole Word o' God falls to pieces Your humorous example is not that far off from the logic that brought us four crucified, six denials, two enties in Jerusalem, etc. - biblical nit-picking.