Oakspear

Zixar: For an apparently smart guy, you sure have trouble understanding simple concepts like sarcasm. You really thought I wanted help with spelling from you? Just to be a little more clear for you, my sarcasm was limited (initially) to the spelling thing. You were engaged in a running debate with (I think it was) P-Mosh and in at least two posts criticized his poor spelling. What? Your arguments weren't strong enough, so you have to resort to petty, picky carp (intentionally misspelled) like bringing attention to minor spelling errors? No evasion. My "flip" solution to your "who do you shoot?" scenario was meant to indicate that I rejected your line of thinking. I used humor to make my point. I didn't expect you to agree, but the point was made nonetheless. My reference to suicide was also humor, expressing my weariness with your many analogies which you seem to think are unassailable and flawlessly prove your point. I do not think that it is NEVER acceptable to kill a human being. I am not a pacifist. What I believe to be wrong is the assertion that exterminating whole cities down to the infants is somehow no different than putting down a vicious dog, or putting a sick farm animal to sleep. I understand that you hold the belief that the bible is perfect and need to find a way to reconcile sections that apparently contradict each other. I don't hold that belief, so I find no need, and have no desire to make it "fit". It makes more sense to me that Joshua/Judges is a justification of genocide by a people looking to sanitize their bloody beginnings with a divine blessing. I know you don't agree, I don't expect you to, but to me, the difference between the bloody tribal god of the OT is quite far removed from the loving, forgiving father of the NT. It's more of a difference of premises than anything else. Or maybe one of us is immature, ignorant, stupid or has some other mental defect (that was sarcasm)

With all due respect for free speech and all that, despite her posting this thread in the Doctrinal Forum Dot Matrix was not initiating a debate. Although Dot and I mostly disagree on matters of faith, I respect and honor the depth and steadfastness that she has in her own beliefs. This is not a matter for discussion, logical discourse or attempts to convince, it's Dot Matrix's heart. Can we just let it be? We have a perfectly good thread for debate started by Refiner. I'll miss you Dot Matrix, despite our differences.

Didn't we learn in TWI that "reject" means to "ject again"? So the first thing to do when rejecting is to go back to the PFAL books...

If the organ is still in tune, what's the problem? Now pianos...

Hiya Belle: Welcome in from lurking Glad to see you made it out of the TWI shadows. Stop on over when you get some time...I've got some extra Leinies in the fridge. :D-->

...Verily I say, unto thee today will I build my casino...

Even assuming Lingo's memory is accurate, being a nice guy doesn't preclude one from being "in on the scam". I concur with those who note that someone who was Secretary-Treasurer would surely not be in the dark as to the TWI goings-on.

Because you seemed to have appointed yourself the spelling monitor a page or two back. I was being sarcastic. --> Well, if I stay in the house the pit bull will probably attack Adolph when he begins to make his obligatory speech. The Copperhead will bite the dog when he investigates, doggy fashion. I'll let the Copperhead scare off the punks that are bouncing a basketball off the side of my apartment building and save the bullet for myself to save me from more of your analogies.

...I don't know...wasn't Norman Osborne a bad guy who went insane?

How's my spelling, Zixar?

Some of you are comparing the killing of PEOPLE to putting down sick animals or eliminating dangerous snakes or putting a bullet in the head of a pit bull. And don't see anything wrong with it.

hmm...can't mention other gods, including the devil/satan. Then there's the Book of Job. And let's not forget the mention of all the Baals and Dagon et al. ExC asked a valid question IMHO in regard to idiom of permission and not mentioning other gods and the OT folks not being able to understand..."says who?" The not mentioning other gods thing is in the OT, but they mentioned 'em anyway; the other is IMHO just some theological gymnastics to make the bible "fit", when it actually doesn't.

Regarding the bread and the stone analogy: That's a false dilemma - the third choice is that you were given neither bread nor a stone, that TWI was not an answer to prayer. Just because you ask for something, doesn't mean that you get it.

Okay Dot & anyone else who believes that TWI was an answer to prayer: what about ExC's question? If it was indeed an answer to prayer, was God that limited? The creator of the heavens and the earth is in a such a straitjacket that he has to answer a heartfelt prayer by "blessing" the one who prays with a stolen class presented by a sexual predator...you get the point I'm sure. The best that was available? If God can send people into remote national park camping areas, turn musicians around, whatever else, you mean he couldn't have directed us all to Calgary? And for those of us who "checked out" multiple churches and got witnessed to by various groups before finding TWI, why did God put us through all that? He couldn't skip right to the prize? On the subject of whether TWI was an answer to prayer, we'll have to agree to disagree: to some of you it definitely was an answer to prayer, to me it seems more like either "first one makes the sale" like Refiner said, or a "shopping around" until something seemed right. Still seems odd that God would answer a prayer with something that turned out to be so hurtful.

or..... ...maybe God didn't have anything to do with it.

Dissent was not tolerated. This affected what people did with the results of their research. Anyone who questioned or noticed too many discrepancies right off the bat either never took PFAL, or left soon after completing it. No effort was ever made by "leadership" to address serious questions. We were put off with exhortations to "hold it in abeyance", or "keep working the Word and you'll understand it". Either that or we were labelled as troublemakers or asked "who are you to question Dr. Wierwille who has devoted his life to this...". So anyone who questioned after making it past the initial involvement was forced out or "meekly" decided to shut up. There was NO mechanism for addressing errors, at least not at the local level. Most either "swallowed it" or left; neither course of action resulted in answers. Some stayed in, believing what they saw in the bible rather than the "company line", but had to keep their insights pretty much to themselves. What "research" became, for most wayfers, was confirming what Wierwille and later Martindale had already come up with. You used your concordances and lexicons to cram the bible into the shape that they twisted it into. During my last half dozen years "in", especially the final 18 months, I did a lot of studying and came up with a number of things that contradicted Way doctrine. When I presented my findings to leadership, no attempt was made to show me how I was wrong using the bible. I was exhorted to follow what the leaders taught, and trust that if there was anything that needed to be changed, God would show them, not me. My response was to say that someone would have to show me that I was wrong, or the Trustees would have to change what was being taught. As you can imagine that didn't go over very well. Study became primarily reading Way materials, with the research books as little more than props. Frankly, most Way people that I encountered, not only in the Martindale years, but even back in the 70's, were content to let the MOGs call the tune. In the late 90's I tried to get "research nights" organized, to teach people how to best use the concordances et al, but interest was minimal. Almost everyone that I knew had an interlinear in their home, but there was generally only a small minority who knew what to do with it, who could even transcribe the Greek letters, let alone tell the difference among the different parts of speech.

My cousin worked in the same office with the local twig leader. He witnessed to her and she started attending twigs. My aunt asked me to accompany my cousin to twig, which I did. My cousin stayed for less than six months, I stayed for twenty four years.

I second the opinion about there not being a separate class of recruiters...we were all expected to be recruiters. How effective we were depended in large part upon how much we bought the company line. In my early days I loved to "recruit", because I believed in what I was saying. Later it was difficult to promote a "more abundant life" that I wasn't seeing myself

Doctrine & practice, not always "parrellel". :P--> I never heard it "officially" taught that being the head meant lording it over the wife. Even in the Martindale's Class BPBF (Bozos Pretending & Biblical Fakeouts) it was taught that if the husband & wife could not agree then they should "hold it in abeyance" until they could agree. One of the things that made the rounds in our area was that the woman was the keeper, or guardian of the home (there's a couple of verses where this is mentioned - forgot where), and that this meant that she was responsible for the spiritual atmosphere of the home. This was interpreted to mean not only the decor, but what was discussed over dinner, music, what was on the bookshelf - pretty much all the "physicals" and how they contributed or took away from the spiritual atmosphere. This teaching overlapped with the "husband as the head of the household" teaching. The problem was always how teachings were applied and incorporated into counselling. Leaders would play these two concepts "head of the household" and "keeper of the home" in such a way as to ensure the behavior that they wanted from married couples. In our area, most of the women were strong, independent minded, go-getters. They really latched onto the "keeper of the home" concept. Most of the men were not interested in using the position of "head" to lord it over their wives. So what was happening was that leaders alternated between nagging the men to stand up and "be the head" (without any information as to what that really meant) and nagging the women to be better "keepers of the home". Sometimes the couple was set against each other by leaders, telling each that they needed to stand up and "do the Word", standing against their spouses. My experience was often the opposite of Krysilis' in that my ex-wife would stand firm on a decision that I disagreed with, invoking her authority as "keeper of the home" to take unilateral action. In my experience I saw little that indicated a second-class status for TWI women, but that leaders would denigrate whoever they felt was weaker, or less committed to "the Word". In the last years of my marriage I saw it flip back & forth several times.

Wierwille based his differentiation between faith and believing on a verse that says in part "before faith came"; (I have neither the time nor the inclination to look it up) even though both "faith" and "believing" are translated from the same Greek word: pistis. I can kind of see where a neophyte might be tempted to separate the two based on the "before faith came" statement, but it doesn't hold up under close scrutiny. Wierwille, although he defines his take on "believing" pretty thoroughly, never really tells us what "faith" is. Wierwille did not teach that all men before Pentecost were natural men. He taught that a "conditional", not-necessarily-permanet spirit was "upon" certian believers in the OT, as opposed to the unconditional, couldn't-lose-it spirit within of the NT

And there it is: TWI "research" in a nutshell

The BOD definitely has seen the rebuttal to this "teaching", yet chooses to continue with the Martindalean "Original Sin of Mankind". After presenting this rebuttal to John Reynolds and T*m H, my region coordinator, I was told that even if it can't be documented from the bible, it "must be true", "Because of what we know about homosexuality".

Back when I was examining the WayAP class segment by segment, I was finding errors on every page, but this section of the class was what really convinced me of the utter worthlessness of anything Martindale taught, and led me to have the same opinion of Wierwille. (I think I was one of those who contributed to Wayward's information...I recognize a few turns of phrase ) As Wayward so ably presented, none of the words carry the meaning or nuance that he assigns to them. They are ordinary words, used in an ordinary sense that he decides must have sexual connotations. It was abundantly clear, using research materials available to any Way believer, that Martindale was full of carp. What got my attention though, even when I was a loyal "innie", was his use of homonyms to prove his point. Yes, homonyms are words that are spelled identically, but as Wayward stated, you have to PICK ONE! The context determines which one. "Fountain" and "crossing over" make no sense in the context. His explanation shows how little he knows of grammar, Greek, Hebrew, or English. But this approach is not new. Karl Kahler, in The Cult That Snapped presents his notes on the "Athletes of the Spirit" teaching done by Martindale, and approved by Cummins and Wierwille. The same made up definitions and weaseling on translations are evident even back then.

Refiner: Greek and Hebrew words can be an important key to understanding, especially if the translation can be shown to be inaccurate, or if more than one Greek word is translated by only one English word. The Way, however, put way too much emphaisis on it. Martindale's butchering of this verse is a good example of how TWI twisted this legitimate "key" to push it's unbiblical doctrines. Wierwille did it as well, although seldom as outrageously as this. He was a bit more subtle in his approach and seemed to have a better sense of what would freak people out than Martindale did.

I don't get your son's band when I type in suffer.net