Oakspear

Was that in DTA? I thought it was in his audio Believers' Family Class. But I remember the discussion. He implied that it was impossible for a grown man to be celibate. "What's he gonna do with that thing?" was what I remember him saying. He also said that young adults should consult with their parents as to pre-marital sex: "Children obey your parents in the Lord..."

They did that in Omaha.During most of the 90's there was a handful of twigs in both Lincoln and Omaha, but no other cities in Nebraska. After WOWs were sent here in '94(?) the number of twigs was inflated somewhat since many of the WOWs stuck around and formed the core of new twigs. Eventually we were down to two twigs in each city (each designated a "branch"), each led by a Corps couple. After all the Corps were shipped out in '97(?) we were part of the South Dakota Limb. Eventually we were absorbed by the Kansas City Branch of the Missouri limb in Lincoln and the Omaha wayfers were told that they should move because Omaha was "dead". Amazingly enough virtually all of them left.

I hope I'm not derailing this thread too much by talking about what I think doctrinal discussions should be, rather than the topic at hand. But we're already deep into it, so here goes... As WordWolf stated, it is possible to have a discussion about what the bible says, or what we think it says, without beating each other up. WordWolf brought my name up earlier...we agree on virtually nothing doctrinally...yet we have developed a mutual respect and ability to consider each other's point of view and grow and learn thereby. There are two extreme positions that I see here fairly often. I'm not painting anyone who has posted on this thread with this very broad brush; these are extremes. One is the "This is what the bible says, why can't you see it" position. The folks on this extreme view their interpretation, version, slant etc. on the bible as the only "correct" one. What they say is literal can't possibly be interpreted figuratively; what they see as a figure of speech in no way could be looked at literally. Hebrew words mean what they say that they mean and that's that. Posters on this extreme can represent any number of subgroups within Christianity. The other extreme tells us that the bible as written is wrong. Period. This may come from an atheistic point of view, or from another religious tradition, or maybe from a poster who feels that it's all figurative. Remember, these are extremes, archetypes if you will. Even the most strident among us fall within the grey in-between. Most of you know that I am not a Christian and don't believe that the bible is divinely inspired. This doesn't stop me from participating in discussions about what the bible actual says within its pages. I can read. I can formulate logical thoughts. I can make judgements on whether something is illogical or contradictory or if it hangs together perfectly. And I can do it without calling the people I'm debating mindless idiots or superstitious peasants. On the other hand, sometimes these discussions are not strictly about what the bible says. In those cases, making the whole of your argument "God said it, I believe it" does nothing to foster civil discourse. Perhaps in some ways I'm like those who engage in Wierwille nostalgia and believe that there was a TWI golden age...I believe that there was a "golden age" of the doctrinal forum. The days when hardly anyone came down here, but those who did were ready for some serious discussion. The days when we could dissect the Blue book, or PFAL session by session and actual get somewhere. Naw...those days probably never existed.

I have what some folks would consider a "pseudo-ordination"; I applied for and received an ordination over the internet by The Universal Life Church. I got it in order to perform weddings. I use the title "reverend" only in conjunction with my wedding officiant duties. I don't try to pass myself off as being special or spiritual or worthy of anything out of the ordinary. And I have this cool laminated card

It seemed to me what was considered "off the Word" when it came to sex had more to do with the personal standards of local leadership than anything else. I remember many scenarios: sex was okay, but only with believers and use birth control; sex was never okay before marriage; sex before marriage was okay, but no living together. Just when you thought you had it figured out, leadership changed and so did the doctrine.

hiway29: Interesting story; we saw similar things in our area, but not until the 90's. Several woemen in our area were "reproved" for having a get together at one of their houses because it wasn't approved by leadership.

Several years ago I was in Florida for my son's wedding (I was the best man!). We were waiting for the rehearsal to start and decided we needed to make a food run to a nearby Subway's. My wife and stepdaughter went with me and my son asked me to get a sandwich and drink for him. We ordered a "#2" (combo with sandwich, chips & a drink) for my stepdaughter a salad for my wife 2 sandwiches and 2 drinks for my son and I When we got up front to pay we were missing one of the drinks. I pointed this out to the counter girl. Gritting her teeth, she pointed out that I had ordered only two drinks (Big Rule of Customer Service - just take care of the customer - don't point out why he is wrong). I pointed out to her that I had ordered two drinks and a #2 which included a drink. With a straight face she countered with "I didn't know that you wanted a drink with that". (They just give you the cups, you fill it up with what you want at the fountain) Amazed that a combo that included a drink might not really include a drink, or why I would have to ask for a drink when I ordered something that came with a drink I directed her attention to the menu board, which clearly showed that a "#2" included a drink. In a tone of voice that indicated that she thought that I was the idiot, she informed me that not everybody wants a drink with that and that she would have to charge me extra. At this point I was irritated enough and hungry enough to pay whatever it took to escape from the madhouse, so I forked over the extra money. While I was doing this she was muttering about how I should have given her clearer instructions, to which I responded by asking her if she realized that I was the one paying her money for food and not the other way around. At this she stepped back from the counter and threw up her arms in front of her as if to ward off a blow and yelled at me to "get my happy foot out of there". Call the manager? She was the manager. P.S. When I got home I contacted their regional office to complain and found out that not only do they have very good video surveillance, but audio as well and the whole thing was recorded. She was fired.

An interesting bit of Martindale trivia. The 1992 "Defeating the Adversary" class was in large part a reworked version of the "Galatians teachings"/"Leadership Tapes" that came out in the very late 80's and into 1990 and '91 in response to Geer's POP.The class was filmed live in the auditorium as part of a week-long "Advanced Class Special on Discerning of Spirits" during the summer of 1992.

So that makes it okay?

We can have it good in so many categories and be so much farther ahead than the rest of the world in material comforts, religious freedom and ability to live our lives the way we choose, but does that mean that we can't strive to do better, or be angry or disappointed when our leaders don't measure up to the high standard that is set for them? I don't measure our leaders against third world dictators or middle eastern theocrats, but hold them to a higher standard.

Anyone who strongly and unequivocally states their opinion can be considered insulting. A non-believer might state that he no longer is superstitious nor is he an idiot who follows foolish religions. The believer might be insulted, feeling that he is being called a superstitious, idiotic fool. A believer might just as strongly and unequivocally state their theistic belief, implying that non-believers are blind, willfully ignorant and hate God. There are folks on both endes of the "believing" spectrum who shun diplomacy.

Thanks for those who contributed to the collection of second-hand incidents of people understanding tongues. The biblical uses of the phrase "speaking in tongues" seems to presuppose that people knew what it was. Does this mean that SIT was known outside of Christianity, or just that the biblical writers assumed that their readers would be familiar with the Christian version of it? George brought up uses of speaking in tongues in paganism. I know several pagans who speak in tongues, and those among them who claim that it's a real language that someone once recognized. Most that I am aware of utilize tongues as an "ecstatic utterance", not at all for its content, but more for the meditative aspects of it.

No kidding! If it's from God, how can you decide what the first letter would be? The same way he knew gee, guh, goo was

Before someone jumps on WordWolf for comparing Wierwille to Gacy... He is not saying that Wierwille was a serial killer, rapist or child molestor or even a clown. The point is that someone doing "nice" things doesn't mean that he didn't do the evil things as well. That a good exterior sometimes hides a rotten interior.

Malakasito!A personal religious faith requires no objective proof, because it's subjective, i.e. whatever you experience is for you, not for me and certainly not assembly-lined for the masses. That's what organized, institutionalized religion does, tries to make everybody fit in a one-size-fits-all box.

My personal opinion is that tongues were genuine for some people and others made it up, probably because it isn't something everyone can do, despite the TWI doctrine of "all nine all the time".

Not once have I heard or read of anyone with their own ears claim to have unmistakably recognized a tongue while in TWI (or out of it for that matter). Twice have I seen where posters have said that someone who they considered reliable had heard a tongue that they not only recognized but the interpretation resembled what was said in the tongue. One was just this weekend, where Don't Worry Be Happy related how his father, who spoke over a dozen languages, recognized two tongues, and Allan, a poster from Australia or New Zealand who claimed that his wife, who was of aboriginal ethnicity, recognized a tribal tongue and verified that the interpretation was correct. I've never had anyone tell me that they heard such a thing themselves, and most tongues that I heard during my time in TWI were so simple and repetitive that after hearing someone speak in tongues a few times I could almost tell you word for word what their tongue would be each time. I even remember hearing some folks from other countries speaking in tongues and then interpreting in their native language and I could always tell the difference, even when it was a language like French with which I had no experience But there were always stories floating about of so-and-so speaking Spanish, or Gaelic or Japanese or whatever (my tongue was once described as a cross between a Thai sportscaster and a Klingon) Of course there's VP claiming to have quoted Hebrew and Greek when asked to "speak in another language" that time in Tulsa and Karl Kahler's dad repeating the names of some Pacific volcanoes over and over when he took PFAL. Whether or not you think that speaking in tongues in general is real, do you think that speaking in tongues in TWI was real?

I wasn't being sarcastic, I was basing my observation on the assumption that the types of churches that I mentioned taught tithing. Being brought up Catholic, I'm not surprised that they were that low. Very few Catholics that I knew gave 10% or more and were shocked that I was giving that much when I joined up with TWI. Frankly I'm not surprised at the low numbers for atheists and agnostics. To me it seems logical that if you're going to a building every Sunday that is asking you for money, even if it is in a low key manner, you're going to give more than someone who isn't in that position, all other things being equal.

"Looking for his can opener" :blink: Holy crap!

I would have thought that evangelicals, conservatives, penecostals, et al would have been higher.

By masturbation Only in war Yes, but they all fight about masturbation. Seriously, these are three different topics. Maybe three different threads? You do ask some good questions though.

My opinion is that the way that "God" was viewed changed with the changing culture. The OT god was portrayed the way he was because the Israelites were successful militarily, conquering most of Canaan and slaughtering their enemies. For the most part the OT god was portrayed as acting in much the same way as the gods of the neighboring nations were. In that culture their god would have been portrayed as "good" because he was taking care of business, making it safe for their tribe to prevail over their enemies. While the Hebrews viewed their god as the creator of the universe, he was their god, and not the god of all mankind; Yahweh was the biggest, baddest deity on the block in their opinion. The Christian viewpoint is different, "God" is not the god of one tribal people, but everybody's god. From that viewpoint, the biblical god's commands to slaughter whole peoples seems cruel and not at all "good". I think that before we can intelligently opine whether "God" is good or not, we need a definition of "good" that is non-circular.

For most believers in the biblical god, God defines good. Not being one of those, I'd say that God, as described in at least the OT is not such a good guy.

I wasn't so much looking for names, just asking if you were thinking of specifics or just an impression. You answered my question. Thanks. Don wasn't a Way rev, his ordination was from someone outside of TWI, but he never to my knowledge used the title. I'm sure about C0ulter, he wasn't ordained until the 90's.

Why was it green if it wasn't oxidized copper?