Oakspear

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 ^_^

The same BC that I mentioned earlier decided that bedtime for chldren should involve nothing but sleep and reproved us for allowing our kids to take a book to bed every night. It did a lot of damage to our children's enthusiasm for reading. The whole "decent and in order" mindset was also taken to extremes. We homeschooled six children of various ages. Our living room and dining room was the school room, complete with school desks for the younger ones, filing cabinets with lessons and cardboard boxes of books, maps and reference materials. Nope, everything had to be put away, no boxes stacked in the corner, everything "decent & in order". Also, set times for "school" had to be scheduled, which is fine for a traditional school, but doing things differently than public schools is kind iof the point of home schooling. The result was that instead of wandering over to a map of colonial North America, or finishing a math problem after dinner, it became a lot of work to get everything repeatedly set up and actual lesson time decreased.

No simple answer. I think that for most new people, no matter when they got involved, the legalism wouldn't seem to be present, partly because they didn't know what legalism was, and the expectations for newbies was lower. In my observation the legalism got more extreme as time went by, but that might have been my perception due to an increasing dissatisfaction. One thing that I've noticed here at GS is that no matter what time frame one poster views as an ideal time, someone else was just getting out because things were getting bad. I got involved in 1978 and thought things were pretty good, but I've talked to people who got out then who were convinced that it had all gone to h#ll long before that. A lot of people who got in when I did looked back at the early 70's as a time when things were really hot spiritually, but there were a few posters a few years back who were out by '73, swearing that it had all fallen apart by then. And we've got people here who got involved in the early 90's and thought things were okay then! The individuals and local leaders that one was surrounded by made the biggest difference of all.

I think that this one came straight from Martindale. "If it's cold enough for a coat, it's cold enough for a hat."

I think everybody 'gets it" as you say, not everyone agrees with you, my southern neighbor, as to the application of what you say. Focussing on one statement of yours "it's dishonest to say someone is guilty when they have not had a conviction." - no, it may be mistaken, but it's not dishonest. In my opinion the use of the word "alleged" in the media is often a weasel word which allows folks to say that somebody is guilty while remaining "allegedly" neutral. Right, until objective evidence has been presented in a court of law and a conviction handed down, an individual is not legally guilty of anything. Outside of a court, we all have our own threshholds regarding what we consider convincing. One might require police reports and forensics to be convinced that an incident took place, another might only require the word of a trusted associate, another might believe every rumor that comes down the pike. True, accusations that are not objectively verified cannot be called "proof" or "truth" in the sense that there is no longer an argument about their veracity. But we are all free to accept something as true ever without objective verification. Most of what TWI's leaders have been accused of will never see the inside of a courtroom. Because the accustaions aren't true? Maybe, but more likely because Wierwille is dead, statues of limitations have run out, accusers lack the time or resources to go to court or have even put it behind them, deeming it not worth the effort. Lacking legal resolution, what we are left with is our own opinion of what happened, or in some cases, our own memory of what happened. While I think that you should be able to express your doubt about the veracity of some accusations, expecting others to conform to legal standards when expressing their opinions, or even relating what happened to them is a bit much. ...allegedly

This site is too negative? Yeah, sometimes we do focus on the negatives, but if we don't, who will? Other than John Juedes, who tells the other side? The only "other side" sites I have run into have been run by anti-cult types who often get basic facts wrong and are clearly pushing an "orthodox" agenda. Do the pro-Wierwille, pro-PFAL people have a place here? Do those who wax nostalgic about "the good ol' days" contribute? In my opinion they do, if only to demonstrate that we are not afraid to admit that good things happened, good people were involved, and some of what was taught was good too. So why is the general atmosphere sometimes perceived as negative? Because the positive side of TWI, Wierwille and PFAL is portrayed very effectively by TWI itself, and to a lesser extent in some offshoots. The "good" has many outlets, many places were it is trumpeted, not so "the other side". While on Grease Spot Mike can extol the virtues of getting back to PFAL, Jonny Lingo remember his fun in the Corps and White Dove can hector us about the difference between "TRUTH" and opinion, when you go to the TWI site, Family Tables, the new Way Corps reunion site or any other that lean toward the "positive", nothing critical is even allowed. Maybe we could also have a separate forum where negative aspects of PFAL and the bad doctrine that we were taught could be discussed without the usual "harassments," then that would be nice for some of those others who "faithfully" stay away from here.By harassments, I mean endless distractions to anything negative about PFAL and constant focus on debunking sex and plagiarisms and mental manipulations.

Many of us can think of things that never appeared in a class, never was written in a syllabus or Way Magazine, never was taught by Wierwille or Martindale publically (other than closed meetings maybe) yet were passed off as "The Word" by local leaders or even groups of "believers". We can argue until the cows come home about whether these things were "official" Way doctrine or were sanctioned by whoever the President was at the time, but one thing is true: the expectation in TWI was that leaders be obeyed and leaders were almost always backed up by higher leadership when complaints were lodged. Your choices were to obey the leadership and put up with their crap or leave. I'd just as soon avoid the argument about whether we were "forced" to do anything, just talk about some of the things that were put out there as if they were revelation from Gawd, yet originated merely between the ears of the "leaders". One I can think of was the ridiculous lengths that one particular BC went to in defining "debt". My son was at the time working two lowing-paying part-time jobs, the income level at each was low enough that there was no federal tax withheld, but if the combined income had been earned at one job, there probably would have been some withholding. The result was that when he did his taxes he owed some money, maybe about $150. (He was about 20 at the time. Now a few years before, Howard Allen talked about how he thought it was preferable to break even, or even owe a little a tax time, since that would prevent the IRS from holding your money all year at zero interest to you, which is what happens when you get a refund. When my son mentioned that he owed some money to the IRS, Mr. BC sat him down and strongly reproved him for being in debt (this was at the height of the Martindale anti-debt crusade). This was presented as handed-down-from-the-heavens Word O'Gawd. Another one was the same BC's insistance that everyone have a nice looking car. At the time I had 6 children living at home and wasn't making a heck of a lot of money. We had 2 cars, one a small car that I used for work (I was on the road and out of town a lot) and a second, a fake wood-sided wagon for hauling the kids around in that I had paid $500 for. We were saving up every month to upgrade and figured that we could get a nicer one in 18 months. Mr. BC insisted that the state of our car was violating the admonistion to "do all things decent and in order" and that we needed to get the car painted. <_< He harrassed us regularly about it. neither of these things per se were TWI doctrine, but the TWI annointed leader said these things with the full force of TWI behind him