Oakspear

First, I think that the bible is pretty clear that Jesus physically left this world and that at some point he will come back, if that's not a "return", then I don't know what is. I guess it depends what the proportion of the bible is figurative vs. literal. Does the bible say that the dead are alive? Like so many topics it depends on what verses that one wants to magnify and which ones are to be explained away.

I was not at a point where I expected to be supported. I was 19 and living with my parents when I took PFAL, they were not happy, but mostly respected my decision. I found out many years later that they considered deprogramming, but did not go through with it.

I'm not sure if I was officially marked and avoided or not, but in August or September of 2001 the Region Coordinator told me that I "was no longer welcome at Way fellowships" Because I "did not believe that the Trustees were leading the minsitry in the right direction." This came on the heels of the WayGB figuring out that I was posting on Waydale and Grease Spot Cafe and my speaking up about several doctrines that I did not believe could be biblically supported.

If my memory of TWI teaching is correct, they taught submission primarily to the written "Word", i.e. the bible. Everything was to be measured against that, even direct revelation. As I recall, the teaching was to master what was written, rather than waiting around for revelation on everything. Of course, leadership's mastery and interpreetation of said scripture trumped your own, so submitting to God was equal to submitting to leadership, a perversion at the very least. My opinion, based on limited contact with people who subscribe to the "surrender" doctrine is that some of these people need to grow a brain and think a little. Some of them couldn't decide which hand to use to wipe their butt without praying about it. I'm sure that there's more to it than that, but that's the inmpression that I was left with.

What do you mean? Were you looking for a sign that there really is a God? And you are trying to figure out if this was the sign? Over the years, here at GSC and in the "real" world, I've heard folks use stories like yours to demonstrate that there is a God and that he's looking out for them. Frankly, I think that, as nice as it was that you got pulled out of the ditch, it really doesn't mean anything in regard to your questions about God. Okay, if there is a God that fits the common Christian expectation, then it seems to me that this is exactly what he would do for you. On the other hand, even if there is no God, Mr. Smiley Christian acted in just the way you would expect someone who faithfully follows the tenets of Christianity to act, jumping in to help someone in need. Heck, he acted like any reasonably neighborly or mildly altruistic person would act. I've done the same a time or two (most recently today) and I'm not a Christian. What I'm saying is that if believing in God "works" for you, then do it, if it doesn't "work", doesn't fit the observable facts, then don't.

My brothers and sisters (two of each) acted as if I was their brother that they loved no matter what, treating my religion as irrelevant to their love for me. None of them are Wiccans

Gotcha; I understand that's what you're doing You tell me - I'm not sure that one can I can see why you'd have that opinion, I don't see that it would necessarily be so; our mileage apparently varies That's what I hear Okay That's certainly a valid way to look at it. The color of your glasses is a bit different than mine

For instance? There's often something that you can see and hear, but how do you interpret it? Again, for instance? Sure, do you ahve anything in mind? Okay...

You have to decide for yourself what makes sense for you. It is my personal opinion that much of what happens when folks say that they have experienced the presence of God (or gods) or have a relationship with God or what-have-you is entirely subjective and is influenced heavily by pre-conceived notions and tendencies. In other words, people tend to credit whatever their conception of "God" is whenever something spiritual, miraculous, or unexplained happens. I know folks who have similar stories to ones that I hear from Christians, and credit the Goddess, various Hindu gods or space aliens. (Really) This is a trap that many people who are considering a non-theistic life fall into, staying in "God-mode" out of fear of some kind. (I'm not saying that all or even most God-believers do this, btw). They start to consider that maybe God isn't what they thought he was, or doesn't exist, but quail at the thought of no prayers, no afterlife, no vague comfort from his "presence". So they stick with at least a superficial faith in order to cling to the things that they think that they can't do without. Looking forward to something to look forward to in the long run? How about living a good life? How about being the best person that you can be, giving to others, leaving a legacy? I personally have no idea whether there is an afterlife or not. Some of them look appealing, and intellectually lean toward one or two, but I live my life as if I am getting no second chance, no overtime in the sky, no eternal reward. I want to be satisfied when I draw my last breath that I did my best and was on balance a force for good. If there is something beyond that, well, I consider that a bonus.

Yes!Look it up, by all means! I recommend How to Enjoy the Bible by Bulinger. He cites his sources and demonstrates from scripture, making his point very well. One thing that I realized after leaving TWI was that there were several instances where Wierwille clearly misunderstood Bullinger (not to say that Bullinger was always right either), sometimes quoting him to back up a point that the quote really didn't back up. Another example was "The Lord's Brethren". Bullinger believed that the "royal" geneology was through Joseph, Wierwille believed that it was through Mary. Both had their own reasons. Bullinger used his belief that the kingship came through Joseph to back up his assertion that Jesus' brothers could not have been older half brothers from an earlier marriage of Joeseph. Bullinger claimed that older half brothers "would have invalidated Jesus' claim to the throne". [Frankly, I don't agree with Bullinger's belief that Joseph's was the royal geneology (in Matthew) and think that Wierwille made more sense. ] Wierwille, making his case that the Lord's brothers were not half brothers from a previous marriage, writes that it "would have invalidated Jesus' claim to the throne". Now if Wierwille thought that the claim to the Davidic throne was through Mary, what difference would any of Joseph's children from a previous marriage have made? Off-topic ramblings done for now

Actually, I did read what you wrote... Ah, my mistake. Wild dogs? Show dogs? Poodles? What kind of dogs are "loosed" and are set upon "game"? I know, you didn't say "loosed". Ah, you're coming up with a completely new dog analogy, not at all based on Wierwille's analogy from PFAL... Thank you. Those are some things that I did not know. I appreciate the opportunity to learn something new. Of course you thought it was excellent, it was yours <_< It did kind of look like a spoof site though I believe it is, glad I could help :B) That was a lot of effort (or at least words) expended over something you don't care about.Exactly why did you post that link in the first place anyway? Dude.

thanks

Response Part 1: I disagree that that's what people are doing. You posted a link. People are expressing opinions about what was visible on that link. I personally agree with some and diagree with other observations. VPW II is making statements on his site that are very similar, and in some instances identical to what some of us perceived as a very negative organization. Why wouldn't they make the connection? It just makes sense. Young Wierwille (what, is he in his late 20's?) obviously agrees with some of what grandpa taught, some of think that that alone is grounds for suspicion. Response Part 2: I brought up the statement about epiluo because it is a good example of what I view as Waybrain. I'm not trying to be insulting here, I'm guilty of it as well. In my view, Waybrain is repeating some TWI slogan, jargon or unsupported doctrine without underlying understanding. Even using the phrase "run rampant like a pack of dogs turned loose on the game" betrays a TWI mindset. Do hunting dogs indeed "run rampant", or are they trained animals that do what their masters train them to do. You're using TWI jargon that is based on error and misunderstanding. The "problem" in that verse is not epilusis, but idios. Epilusis refers not to the dogs upon the game, or their running, or anything else about them other than their being "loosed" from their restraints. It's pretty obvious in How to Enjoy the Bible, but Wierwille just as clearly musiunderstands Bullinger's meaning. I'm not trying to pick on you here, but this illustration from PFAL is one of my pet peeves; it's a prime example of Wierwille's inability or refusal to understand those he "learned" from, as well as an example of how Wierwile's successors taught Wierwille's analogies, rather than the bible that the analogies illustrated.

What's wrong with epiluo? It means to open, unveil, reveal, expound upon, an unloosing in the sense that something was bound, now it's unbound. Wierwille's image of epiluo being likened to uncontrolled dogs is a misunderstanding of Bullinger's quotation of an extra-biblical Greek writer.

I'm sorry, what's a CV? Were you right or wrong? I don't know, did you try to start a cult?

The purpose of getting a "real" degree is to demonstrate knowledge and/or proficiency in the field in which the degree is conferred. People in the said field know what's involved in getting the degree and what they can expect (to a degree <_< ) from the bearer. Degree mills, on the other hand, impress only those who don't know what's involved in getting a real one. That's why a lot of us were impressed with "Doctor's" "doctorate". We had no idea what it took to earn a ThD.

Roy, you are one funny guy!

Normally we get drive-by preaching from the Christians, telling us to "get back to the Word", nice to know that anyone can preach at us

The Kansas-Nebraska border, sure.

Sounds like Way Urban legends to me. Whenever TWI got people in the public eye involved, they made sure that you knew about it. Even if anyone from Kansas had been involved in TWI for a short time, it would have been trumpeted loudly before being forgotten. Who remembers that pamphlet that came out in the late 70's or maybe early 80's with Jim Schoenheit of the Buffalo sabres, Jom Donaldson the rodeo guy and a few others? Now I've heard stories over the years that a lot of famous folks were witnessed to by TWI people; I find that slightly more believeable. Wayfers often believed that true spirituality could only come via TWI, so fequently became convinced that preachers, singers, authors etc who had no connection to TWI had to be PFAL grads, or had to have stolen a syllabus, because they couldn't conceive that the information in PFAL was out there already.

You couldn't even wear the WOW pins after the program was ended

smartfoot

I submit that dictionary definitions of "legalism" are not entirely relevant to this discussion. "Legalism" was one of those words that became TWI jargon and was used within TWI in a way that did not necessarily line up with a NBW's understanding of the term. TWI taught grace through Jesus Christ (whether they practiced it is open to debate). They not only taught salvation by grace, but living a lifestyle of grace, contasting grace with "living under the Law", i.e. "legalism". There was much more to the whole Law vs. Grace model than where you ended up in the afterlife, it was how you were expected to live that defined whether something was of the Law, and hence legalistic. One of the legalistic measures in the Old Testament was circumcision. If you were a convert you had a choice about it, but that didn't make it any less legalistic. One could always choose to disobey any of the hundreds of parts of The Law. During some periods the result was death, in others it was expulsion from the community, in other times where the Gentiles ruled, there might not be serious consequenses at all. It was always a choice, it was always legalistic. I submit that whether there was the ability to choose or not is irrelevant to the discussion. One could choose at any time to disobey the directives of leadership in TWI, if the choice was "obey or leave", then we have legalism. If there was no such ultimatum, then we probably don't have legalism. No one that I know of was physically forced to remain in TWI, I don't really buy the brainwashing argument either, but the availability of a "choice" to walk away, when walking away would mean giving up something that was as valuable as membership in TWI was perceived to be is not really a choice. I would further submit that not every requirement is necessarily legalistic: prohibiting members from stealing from each other, beating each other up, or vandalizing each other's homes is protecting the group; requiring people to wear hats, wash their cars and refrain from recreational marijuana use may be good advice, but is a Law. There may be some gray area around the edges, but I say that legalism is not all in the head, it is a mindset of attempted control over peoples' lives by making the possession of something that one really wants, i.e. fellowship with a ministry that teaches The Word like it hasn't been taught since the First Century, dependent on arbitrary rules and regulations.

Maybe you can attach a handle to them and use them to clean up after your horses ^_^