Oakspear

ROA's were a weekend long in the beginning, and became a week long later on. A bit longer than "a day", sunshiney or not.Yeah, what Roy said Regarding your new signature, you've demonstrated that you know little about what Mr. Wierwille taught, and that you lack the ability to intelligently discuss any of it...so what I think is that your signature is an attempt to p*ss people off.

I think we should skip the evil #6 and move straight to #7

It's fine that you're settled...not everyone is...and you are the one who suggested looking something up.

It was the last or second-to-last one, in Dallas. 1996 maybe?

One of the piano or organ guys was a pretty low key guy...never got the spotlight...kind of faded into the background...he played in some of the "bands"...but mainly did the background music while we were waiting for things to start...Nik Maxson maybe. Anyway, at one Word in Business, a bunch of us decided that he needed to be appreciated, so every time he came out we stood, clapped, hooted and hollered, shouting his name like he was Mick Jagger or somebody...it went on all weekend...he eventually started acknowledging it...and didn't get fired!

Since I was the only one of the five who was in TWI in the 90's, I can assure you that he didn't offend me. Asking the question, however, demonstrates that we often don't understand why other people do what they do. I too have friends and family who are perplexed at how I ever got involved in TWI at all, a cousin who can't understand why I didn't leave within the first year like she did and ex-Way acquaintances who got out in various years who can't understand why I stayed past their exit. Oftentimes I see posters take the position that they left at the perfect time and that they retain the perfect mix of Way doctrine: anyone who left before them was a "copout", anyone who stayed in after they left is an idiot; those who have kept more Way doctrine than they do are waybrained, those who have kept less have thrown the baby out with the bathwater - "obviously" whatever doctrine they threw out was Wierwille's error! People came and went for a wide variety of reasons

This is one that I never understood. It doesn't appear to make sense. Why would Jesus use something that was not biblically true to illustrate a point? His using it seems to validate the POV that the dead aren't really dead. And why would there be an "old Jewish tradition" about dead people spouting complete sentences and apparently being alive after death when the OT supposedly has a "when you're dead you're dead" position?Do you have a source for your assertion that the parable is an "old Jewish tradition"?

Things that I've seen people get "slammed" for here: Believing in God Not believing in God Being a follower of PFAL Being a rejector of PFAL Not believing in God but refusing to publically "renounce Jesus" Believing in God but having some agnostic views Using Snopes.com as a source Being a Way Corps grad Being involved in TWI in the 90's Leaving TWI before POP Staying in PFAL after POP Saying good things about VPW Saying bad things about VPW Believing the snowstorm stories Disbelieving the snowstorm stories ad nauseum...

Then they'd also be the forefathers of those minority Christian "A-rabs"...

People who save seats for other people who arrive late for events - a variation on this was the old "bible saves a seat" at the ROA and other TWI events - I remember getting almost knocked over by a guy with an armload of bibles who "saved" the whole freakin' first row at ROA - if you want your seat saved, at least get to the event before it starts! Titles to threads that give no clue to what the thread's about The words "I'm like" when used to describe a mindset, or an internal dialog; for example: "I'm like, 'why did I take this job?'"

:huh: Really? How so?

...not that there's anything wrong with that...

Hmmm...I'm one who tries on occassion to be a "peacemaker", although certainly not a smarmy one.

Apology accepted. We're all looking for answers and trying to make some kind of sense in this world; the methods may vary: mine may not work for you, yours may not work for me. As long as there's no pineapple on pizza...

You recollect correctly. And to further clarify, I'm not suggesting that the PFAL fans be lined up against a wall and be required to defend their doctrine, just that in a discussion of doctrine, it would make sense for them to give reasons, rather than just telling everyone else that they're wrong. Okay...they should be run off and shot! disclaimer (attempt at humor based on previous misreading of the word "throughly"...I mean, the word "shut")

...all part of the pagan-new age-Jewish mysticism-atheist conspiracy service :ph34r:

I think everybody sounds okay.

Do cogs actually fall into place?

CM, check your PM's please

Perhaps the way I stated my position was unclear: I am not in support of posters who attack and harrass other posters who like some or all of PFAL. While I am not a fan of "the class", I get that some folks like it and have derived benefits from it. Nor do I think that anyone who is a PFAL fan is in any way obligated to defend their position, any more than anyone else. What I have observed is that while those who disagree with PFAL more often than not cite the bible to back up their disagreement, while PFAL supporters more often than not, do not. Not that they can't, just that they don't. What we frequently get is a "discussion" like this: anti-PFAL: VP taught ABC, but hey, look at this bible verse, it contradicts it pro-PFAL: truth needs no defense anti-PFAL: ABC is based on a false premise, a mistranslation of verse X, so ABC is not accurate pro-PFAL: look, I applied ABC and it works for me anti-PFAL: but what about applying those "keys"? pro-PFAL: you just hate Wierwille, don't you? and on it goes... I know I'm painting with a broad brush, and this characterisation doesn't apply to all PFAL fans, but it's a generalization that I have seen here time and time again. From what I remember from PFAL, we were taught to think for ourselves and learn to understand the bible for ourselves, not parrot what a man said. Thank you Mark & Belle. Correct. I'm not an atheist, and I do discuss and defend my positions. Often. This isn't a thread where I'm going to do that. And I'm not asking PFAL fans to do it here on this thread either. Just making an observation.

No it doesn't, you inferred what was not implied. Not surprising when you read "shut" as "shot"

We are witnesses, not defense attorneys. Truth needs no defense. ditto what previous posters said on the subject...I always thought (even when I was drinking the Kool-Aid) that "the truth needs no defense" was pretty lame. How do we know it's the truth if we don't explain it, investigate it it, "prove it" to ourselves. PFAL is no longer the standard for truth for most of us here; even most who hold to a goodly chunk of it do so because they have been convinced by their own study that it's so, not because they were told it was so. And if the context and flow of what I am saying, you'd realize that I'm against PFAL fans being summarily ostracized, but would like to see rational discussion by those folks of their beliefs. Up to your usual mornoic standard of rebuttal I see. And i posted shut down, not shot down.

Heard tonight: Why do we continue to hound those who clearly not going to change their minds? Because it's fun

To each his or her own, I guess, but why bother getting involved in a discussion at all if your whole position can be summed up as "oh yeah, it does too"? One thing that I have retained from my TWI/PFAL days is a desire to have a good reason why I believe what I do. Wierwille claimed to be teaching us keys to be able to read and understand the bible, not just accept what the priest or minsiter or rabbi tells us. I don't want to ever fall back into relying on other folks for my interpretations and beliefs. If I can't break down and explain why I hold a certain position, maybe I don't really believe it. Allan, I'm pleasantly surprised to hear you say that. I may have misjudged you.

predestination, CM?