Oakspear

There are times when we could trace back and see where we made an error that caused an injury, etc. But I think that it's ridiculous to think that a cause can always lead back to a mis-step, or unbelief, etc. I am the Safety Coordinator where I work. Part of my job is to determine whether employee accidents could have been avoided. A large percentage of the time they can. Like the guy who tried to clean the meat off the slicer blade while it was still turning. Ten stitches. There is some value, IMHO, in trying to determine whether an accident could have been avoided, so that you can prevent it from happening again. TWI erred in including everything from car accidents to the sniffles to heart attacks to some deficit in "believing". Another thing (while I'm on a roll). I don't think that dwelling on whether or not something was or wasn't a miracle, or whether prayer was or wasn't effective, or anything else is important. Being thankful, or happy, or relieved about the result is important. Even if one believes in answered prayer, or miracles, or "faith" healing, it should be obvious that not every prayer is answered, not every bad situation is resolved by a miracle, not every sickness or injury is healed; people die. Be thankful for what you've got. If you want to give God credit, fine; if you want to say that random chance or preparedness or having a rich daddy got you out of the mess, that's fine too. Fifteen years ago I prayed for my son who was very sick. The next day he was well. No trace of the illness. I've gotten to the point where I don't give a $h!t how it happened, I'm just happy as h*ll that I have a healthy son. Maybe it was a miracle, maybe it was just his body fighting back, maybe it was that the doctors knew what they were doing. It doesn't matter to me. About two months ago I was in a car wreck. I overslept for work and was in a busy intersection an hour later than I should have been. A car drove through a red light and hit me dead on in the driver's side door. I closed my eyes convinced that my last breath was seconds away. I walked away without a scratch, without a bruise, no problems...except the car was totalled. Lots of analysis possible here: if I hadn't overslept...if...if...if. Did God save me from injury? Did God cause the point of impact to be six inches forward of the place where the crash would have killed me? Why didn't he just avert the crash? Who cares? I'm alive. Was it God? Was it chance? Was it....who cares? I'm just thankful to be drawing breath. In theory, there is no difference between theory and practice...but in practice there is Oakspear

Last year's flurry of Mike Threads brought some needed excitement to GS, which I felt was getting a little boring. I was just mentioning the other day that we were getting a bit boring again, and voila (French for eureka) Mike announces new threads, with startling revelations. I can hardly wait! --> Song: Spelling and understandable sentence structure may not be a requirement here, but it sure helps other folks see what the poster is trying to say. Mocking or putting down posters who are less than clear is inexcuseable, however. My usual method of dealing is to skip over the more incomprehensible ones without comment. While I would never think of commenting on your mom's grammar, keep in mind that she was writing to her son who was familiar with her writing style, and not a bunch of strangers. By the way, her idiosyncratic style was more understandable than some of us here at GS! Seaspray: I see that you're back with your inanities after a three month absence. Wordwolf is not denying that it could snow in a month that is normally warm. I too have seen it snow in the summer: last week in June at Family Camp 1992. The point about the snow is that Wierwille's various descriptions of the alleged phenomena is inconsistant with each other, and with verifiable facts. Galen: The role of Wierwille apologist is one that I had not noticed in you before. I'll have to start reading your posts a little more closely. Chickens in a hen-house? Hardly. Mike inspires attacks just as much for his insulting and condescending manner as for his doctrinal positions. Oldies: According to Mike, they are "apparent" errors, since PFAL, being the revealed Word of God for our time, could not possibly contain errors. Just sit tight and "master" PFAL and all will be revealed. --> In theory, there is no difference between theory and practice...but in practice there is Oakspear

"blurry and difficult to focus on"...sounds about right In theory, there is no difference between theory and practice...but in practice there is Oakspear

Mike: Who really gives a rat's @$$? In theory, there is no difference between theory and practice...but in practice there is Oakspear

Wordwolf: You are the MAN In theory, there is no difference between theory and practice...but in practice there is Oakspear

Roy: I ordinarily don't defend Wierwille, but you are mistaken about him guessing or him using "became" because it "fix best". According to Bullinger, who is probably where Wierwille got his information, the verb "to be" does not exist in Hebrew, "was" is the past tense of the verb "to be". The Hebrew word hayah, translated "was", actually means "became" (I looked it up...just now) In theory, there is no difference between theory and practice...but in practice there is Oakspear

Far be it for me to say whether someone's experience was or wasn't a miracle. The reference to the book of Acts as a standard for miracles has been brought up a few times. Maybe the question can include, why don't we see those big time miracles that you see in the bible? Assuming that the averted car crash, the potential suicide climbing down just in time to get someone through traffic, and the apparent healings are genuine miracles, why do all the miracles that happen nowadays seem to be the type that require the participant to say "I just know it was God". It was pretty plain that Lazarus and Dorcas were dead, and just as plain that they weren't after Jesus and Peter got God involved. Jesus and Peter walked on the water, people who really were blind were able to see. Fire came down from heaven and wacked all those Baal worshippin' priests and prophets. Why don't we see miracles of that caliber any more? In theory, there is no difference between theory and practice...but in practice there is Oakspear

The Rohirrim joining the battle shouting "Death, death, death" was awesome. The look on the faces of the Orcs when Aragorn, Legolas and Gimli jump off the pirate ship, then the LOOK on their faces when the dead army materializes. Merry wounding the Nazgul and Eowyn killing him. (the Nazgul, not Merry!)Quite a few women in the audience cheered when she exclaims "I am no man" The depiction of Denethor's insanity was scary. The look on Frodo's face when he claims the ring just before putting it on at Mount Doom shows more than a little insanity in his eyes. Gollum's look just before he lands in the lava is priceless. There were parts of the movie where I literally cried, others when I cheered. I was on the edge of my seat despite having read the book at least a dozen times. In theory, there is no difference between theory and practice...but in practice there is Oakspear

I would say that most of the changes from the book to the movie were in the category of details. There were very few changes that were in any way major. For instance the Paths of The Dead change that Zix mentions. Elladan and Elrohir (Elrond's sons) play such a small part in the book, and do not appear "on stage" until this scene, that introducing them (as well as Aragorn's fellow Dunedain rangers) would only confuse by adding to an already large cast of "main" characters. Other changes were in the manner of compressing or alluding to things that are not fully developed. Like the above mentioned Faramir-Eowyn romance. The whole Houses of Healing chapter would have, IMHO, bogged the movie down at a critical point, the meaningful glances they give each other at the coronation tell the tale. The change that I saw that was most significant was the decision to not include "The Scouring of the Shire", and the connected fate of Saruman. For those who didn't read the book, the returning Hobbits, as well as Gandalph run into Saruman and Grima Wormtongue on the way to Rivendell. Treebeard got soft-hearted and couldn't bear to keep him caged up. By the time the hobbits return to The Shire, they find that a group of ruffians have taken over. Pippin and Merry organize a rebellion and take back their country. The leader is revealed to be Saruman. Frodo spares Saruman's life, but Wormtongue knifes Saruman in the back after Saruman kicks him. Hobbit archers kill Wormtongue. There have been arguments raging on LOTR web sites for over a year about this ommission. I would have liked to see the book adhered to in this case, but it did not detracy from the spirit of the book, and things still were tied up nicely. In theory, there is no difference between theory and practice...but in practice there is Oakspear

I was going to wait until Christmas day to see it, but was taking a stroll this evening and poked my head into the theatre to see if there were any seats left. 20 minutes earlier there was a line of at least a hundred people waiting, now there was no line and it was over two hours to show time. When I asked about available seats the two theatre employees looked at each other and said "Sure, we have one ticket left! (maybe this should be in the "miracles" thread!) See you in the spoiler thread! In theory, there is no difference between theory and practice...but in practice there is Oakspear

Actually, I think it was 1993. Not surprised that it would have happened more than once, but I do remember that the question and answer parts were discontinued after that in 94 and 95. In theory, there is no difference between theory and practice...but in practice there is Oakspear

Roy: You're equating science with wizards and sorcerers? Contrary to your opinion, science is not a fixed set of beliefs, but is updated when new facts come to light. Assuming that the bible is true (which I don't) one should always hold out the possibility that one's understanding of the bible is incomplete before trashing science. If the bible is the Word of God, wouldn't it necessarily agree with true science? I guess it's more comfortable to unthinkingly and uncritically adhere to one's beliefs despite any evidence that they might be wrong, rather than actually THINK In theory, there is no difference between theory and practice...but in practice there is Oakspear

Gloin and Balin both appear in The Hobbitt In theory, there is no difference between theory and practice...but in practice there is Oakspear

I believe that any miracles and healings that may have been happening were eventually stifled by the legalism of the leadership. In my experience I never saw anything that absolutely could not have been explained by the laws of nature, or by coincidence, or even by fantasizing or wishful thinking, HOWEVER there were plenty of times when a desired result came to pass after someone prayed. Maybe it was random chance, or even lowered expectations, maybe not. The point is that people believed that the supernatural could happen. Little by little restrictions were put on believing. Any revelation had to agree with what leadership said, or even that only leadership would receive revelation. You wouldn't see miracles if you weren't giving significantly above the tithe, if you were in debt, if you weren't "salted". People who previously experienced signs, miracles and wonders no longer did because they were talked out of it. This wasn't because of a sudden burst of agnosticism among wayfers, or a teaching that the supernatural wasn't available, just that it was taught that there were so many restrictions, so many hoops to go through, so many requirements, that even thinking about the supernatural became unusual. Heck, I've seen more miracles in the last six months, by non-Christians than I did in my last six years in TWI. In theory, there is no difference between theory and practice...but in practice there is Oakspear

As wannabe "leaders" frequently imitated Wierwille and later Martindale, many started saying "I'm running this meeting" whenever there was any dissent, or if the reproved one disagreed with the assessment of the almighty miniMOG. In theory, there is no difference between theory and practice...but in practice there is Oakspear

Good point Evan and ex10 about Wierwille squelching arguments as well. From very early on TWI was an organization that did not tolerate dissent. Wierwille usually wasn't as vulgar about it (although I dare say some might dispute that), the incident at the ROA Twig Coordinators meeting was a natural outgrowth of an attitude that had been there for years if nor decades. In theory, there is no difference between theory and practice...but in practice there is Oakspear

Good point about the yelling once being reserved for Way Corps. Yeah, it did turn into everybody getting yelled at in the mid 90's. Seems like when I got "in" in the late 70's more was expected of Corps folks. In 1994 I remember or Branch Coordinator telling us that we were wrong for thinking that only the Way Corps had made a committment, we all had by showing up to his living room and listening to him teach. In theory, there is no difference between theory and practice...but in practice there is Oakspear

I haven't seen the movie yet Rafael, but in the book, Eowyn and Faramir are both recovering from their nazgul wounds in the House of His Healing Presence...er...Houses of Healing :D--> Eowyn is in love with Aragorn, Faramir falls for Eowyn, who eventually returns his love. They marry after Theoden is buried in Rohan. That's not in the movie???!!! In theory, there is no difference between theory and practice...but in practice there is Oakspear

Anybody have any from before 1993? In theory, there is no difference between theory and practice...but in practice there is Oakspear

I was at that meeting also. The pattern that it set, at least in my area, was that whoever was running a meeting could do or say whatever they wanted. Martindale said that whoever was running the meeting (in that case, him) had free reign. I saw "leaders" take this attitude often, especially in "confrontation" meetings. Martindale...he should have been a diplomat :D --> In theory, there is no difference between theory and practice...but in practice there is Oakspear <!--graemlin::cool:--> [This message was edited by Oakspear on December 19, 2003 at 18:41.]

Check your private topics please In theory, there is no difference between theory and practice...but in practice there is Oakspear

The 2000 lawsuit was the catalyst that caused me to seriously question. Before that I questioned practices in my mind, but rarely doctrine. I rationalized away the abuses. Seeing how the so-called MOG was so "out to lunch" got me questioning in sucession Martindale's ability to lead, his ability to teach, the substance of actual Martindale teachings, and then even some of Wierwille's teachings. I took well over a year to methodically work through things. It was clear that a great many things could not in any way be suported by the bible. I worked my way up the Way Tree, getting no answers and finally spoke on the phone to one of the Trustees. He told me to take my concerns to my region coordinator, since that region coordinator had painstakingly "worked the Word" to prepare for a live teaching of WayAP in my area. The RC told me that he hadn't "worked the Word" regarding Martindale's class because the Trustees backed up what was taught in it and that was good enough for him. It was at that moment that, in my heart, I was "out". They threw me out a few months later after finding out that I posted here. I guess that the "reliable source" was myself. I used the "keys to the Word's interpretation" that TWI had taught me, I didn't take anyone else's word for it. I had no one to talk to face to face, but I did have a few folks from GS who helped me through the worst of times In theory, there is no difference between theory and practice...but in practice there is Oakspear

Forgiving, in my opinion is a multi-level type o' thing. There's the forgiveness where you decide that you are not going carry around hate anymore, because it's harmful to you, where you decide that you are not going to let some a$$hole who hurt you continue to hurt you through your own memories. Then there's the type of forgiveness where you decide unilaterally that the person who wronged you gets a pass. Kind of like when Jesus said "forgive them Father, for they know not what they do". They didn't ask for forgiveness. Like "forgiving" a debt. The person who wronged you is absolved from the consequenses of his actions. Those two don't necessarily involve any repentance on the part of the one who wronged you. How about when a person comes to you, repents of their offense, and makes restitution? Or expresses sorry, but restitution isn't possible? Another type of forgiveness involves accepting the "sorry", apology, restitution, whatever, and accpting that person back into full fellowship with you. In theory, there is no difference between theory and practice...but in practice there is Oakspear

Roy: I would guess (not being a lawyer, nor playing one on teevee) that it would depend on several things, including what "paperwork" was filled out. Was your business incorporated or otherwise operating "legally", or were you operating on a cash under the table basis? When you sold the business were there legal documents drawn up? Was there a bill of sale of any kind for the tools? Was the 10% in perpetuity, or for a limited time? I would imagine that if you didn't establish the paper trail, pay the right fees and taxes, etc, then there is no legal obligation to do anything. Moral and ethical is another matter. I'm glad that the love makes up for the money. I'd prefer both :D--> In theory, there is no difference between theory and practice...but in practice there is Oakspear

Ditto what Tom Strange said How do you know that what TWI has is "The Truth"? Despite Wierwille's claims that he would teach us the keys to "the Word's" interpretation and how we could work the Word ourselves, we really just sat in awed wonder at what we were taught. Any "research" was done only to back up what was already taught. In theory, there is no difference between theory and practice...but in practice there is Oakspear