Oakspear

Indeed. My own spiritual path is one of personal experience. I don't think it's reasonable that everybody's spirituality can be contained in a book, and that there can be only one "true" understanding of the divine.

I believe most people decide which is which in a subjective way. For example, Bullinger wrote about the figure hendiadys, but did not apply it to the "My Lord and my God" verse, because he was a trinitarian, while Wierwille did.

Ah buhlieve brutha Ron, ah buhlieve!

In PFAL we learned about figures of speech. I'm sure that we'd all agree that some parts of the bible can be taken literally, while others are figurative. How can you tell which is which?

Congratulations. I've been a scout leader and currently am a merit badge counsellor, so I understand what's involved. As far as that 18th birthday approaching: I've had my share of last minute requests for help because a scout was approaching the deadline!

Is there anything about evolution that necessarily precludes a god at the start? Is there anything about believing in a god that eliminates the possibility of evolution? I think that the answer is "no" to both. Unless one believes in a 100% literal interpretation of the bible, why is evolution any less plausible than a from-thin-air creation as the process by which the world and all that is it in was created? Most of us, as PFAL grads, learned about figures of speech; can we say with any certainty that we know which parts of the bible are figurative and which are literal?

:o

Wayfernot: Those were some of my questions as well. If he got to be the President for a least a year after the accusations, then what else did he do to warrant his being demoted, defrocked and put on probation?

Okay, it's just a joke, I get it But the reason that anything is "funny" is that there is an element of perceived truth in it to the teller. For example, racists jokes are funny to racists because they believe the stupid things that are said about people of other races. The joke is funny to creationists because many of them believe that science is indeed "versus" God, that scientists don't believe that you need God, yada yada yada. Therefore, IMNSHO, the responses by Garth & others are entirely appropriate. And another thing... Few scientists claim that any one theory is the absolute final word on anything, but that new information may necessitate a change in the theory.

No, according to WW, part of your argument is the strawman. A person cannot be a strawman, but their argument can

There is no redeeming value associated with alcohol and drug abuse. There is great redeeming value in gaining knowledge of God, the Bible, and a spiritual lifestyle. Suda, this is where there is a perceptual divide. Some users of drugs and alcohol, "abusers" or not, don't see themselves as abusing, and do see redeeming value to what they're doing. 'Til the day he died George Harrison never expressed a regret about his drug use...personally I think his perspective was a bit skewed As far as there being redeeming value in "gaining knowledge of God, the Bible, and a spiritual lifestyle", how can one argue with that? But not all agree that that's what was happening whilst in TWI.

I don't disagree with you, it wasn't all bad IMHO, but the fact that "something kept us locked in for all those years" doesn't prove that it wasn't.

Notice how the new students look so young; children of "standing" wayfers perhaps?

Sudo is very enthusiastic in the morning...and makes great stew.

Let me tell you a story about the first time I met pawtucket in person: It was at the 2nd Weenie Roast in Tennessee, most of us had already arrived. I had mentioned to the group that someone had told me that pawtucket looked like Fabio. Soon after, pawtucket walks into the cabin, and rascal asks him who he is. He replies "paw". We thought that he said "Paul" and asked Paul who? - rascal then asked what his screen name was...pawtucket thought that he was asking his real name, and gave it. (pawtucket's real first name is the same as a poster's who was very unpopular at the time) We all looked at him, wondering if we should be polite, or burn him at the stake. About this time, pawtucket began to wonder if he was in the wrong cabin! After some backpedaling and repitition, we figured out who he was, and that he didn't look like Fabio.

That was the fifth!

Was your mom from The Bronx? Or assigned there?

I get your point :B)

Whether there were actual requirements or not, I never knew what they were from where I sat. When I was first involved in TWI, the only Revs that I knew about were John Lynn (Limb & Region Coordinator) and Barb Gr*y (later L*lly) who was an Area Coordinator. Our Area Coordinator was an interim Corps guy and all the BC's were non-Corps. When I was out WOW, a family coordinator a few towns over was a 4th Corps Rev, but the Limb Coordinator was not. It never seemed to have much rhyme or reason

Excuse the slight derail, but this is what a doctrinal discussion should be, IMHO; a reasoned discourse on the subject, rather than...well...other stuff Thanks Tom & T-Bone

For a group of folks that were taught to lean on the written text as a yardstick of what was correct (i.e. godly) we sure fall back on experience a lot!Don't get me wrong, I see that as a good thing, but it somewhat undermines the "Christainity is the only way" viewpoint, since if your experience makes something true, then my expereince would do the same.

Yeah, why bother with understanding when you can get a cult leader to do it for you? Actually I only do my poking between 8pm and midnight I dispute this! (Hey, I guess youy're right! We can't have both?

This argument crops up periodically; that we should be thankul for Wierwille because he unveiled heretofore hidden secrets to the world at large, and that without him, the works of Bullinger et al would remain hidden. What we don't usually see is that even at its peak TWI was no more than a pimple on the foot of Christianity. TWI looms large for us, since we were in the middle of it, but ask the next 100 people that you see if they have ever heard of TWI...you'll be lucky if you find any, let alone any who know what any of the unique doctrines are. If most of us weren't so lazy we could have found the answers without following a alcohol abusing, lying hypocrite. Instead we preferred to be spoon-fed our beliefs in the guise of learning "keys". How exactly did you do that? If you used Wierwille's definitions and assumptions to check anything out, your "research" was severely limited, even crippled, doomed from the start to come up with only answers that agreed with Wierwille. (We've got a thread down in doctrinal "PFAL Colored Glasses" where this is discussed)

Thank you George...that's what I was trying to get at at the start of this, not whether TWI had it "right", or what verses backed up what position, but what's the point of it all? What? God can't edify us except by having us speak gobbledy-gook?

So we're assuming that Wierwille taught the truth?