Oakspear

JL, I think what is being referred to was CG wearing a handgun under his suit coat, which was open so that the gun was somewhat visible. I was not there, I'm just attempting to recall what has been said in the past by eyewitnesses. The poster who called it "brandishing" was giving the legal dfinition of what he was doing : displaying a weapon for the purpose of intimidation, which is not necessarily waving the thing around, the image which the word "brandishing" evokes in my mind.

It's about experience with the man, your age indicates that you had NO experience with the man that we are discussing. A difference in age is irrelevant, what is relevant is experience with what we're talking about. You may notice that I'm not weighing in with an opinion about what went on in the clergy meeting because I wasn't there You telling us what you say that your parents said is second hand information. If either of your parents want to post here (for real this time), and tell us of their experiences, then that's their business.

Sure, I can remind you of John 10:10 The THEIF cometh not but for to steal, KILL, and destroy. I am come that they might have life and that they might have it more abundantly. The Thief (Devil) Kills and Destroys (murder) I hope the bible is enough documentation CK Not bad CK, not bad. But what you've done is point out a major inconsistancy, or contradiction in the bible. The writer of the Gospel of John is claiming that Jesus said what you quoted above. Yet there are many, many clear verses where God slays people, or has his followers slay people. Jesus is quoted as saying that The Thief (presumably the devil) comes for no other reason but for to steal, kill and destroy. Yet in every place in the bible where there's some killing done, other than one human killing another, the bible says that its God that did it. Even in Job, one of the few places where Satan is actually clearly named in the OT, the bible says that it was God that smote Job. I hope the bible is enough documentation

Wierwille taught, in my opinion rightly, that you read what is written to understand what the bible says. Right in the verse, in the context, previous usage, all that stuff is pretty good advice on how to read and understand the bible. The word agapē undoubtedly means "love" in some fashion, but does it mean "the love of God"? I John 3:17 But whoso hath this world's good, and seeth his brother have need, and shutteth up his bowels of compassion from him, how dwelleth the love of God in him? The phrase "the love of God" is (loosely) agapē theos; so if agapē is translated "the love of God", then this verse (redundantly) says "the love of God of God" or "God's love of God"; so why would the "of God" be added if "of God" is understood to be part of the definition?There's a few other places where it is phrased thus. I John 3:19 And this is the condemnation, that light is come into the world, and men loved darkness rather than light, because their deeds were evil. If agapē means "the love of God", then how can men love darkness with the love of God? That's one reason why I think that he may be wrong. The second is the whole "in the renewed mind" thing (doesn't he add "in manifestation"?) - there is no scriptural, textual, contextual or grammatical reason to add "in the renewed mind" that I can see. So, since Wierwille taught biblical keys, let's use some of them in this thread. I'm willing (as are others here in doctrinal) to concede that Wierwille is correct when the evidense supports him, not just because he says so. This is one of the times when its "just because he says so".

Ignoring and excusing the sins of the dead man when he was alive allowed the sins to continue.

allan, though I often (okay, usually) disagree with you, I'd have never thought that you'd be at a loss for words. Sudo's just dealing you what you frequently deal out to others. No need to imply...whatever it is you're implying.

God allows the Devil to kill people in the Old Test when people sinned. Can you document one place where it says that the Devil killed anybody? Look up "slew" in a concordance and see how many times it says God killed people. If you're going to take the position that God didn't kill people in the OT, but "allowed the Devil" to do it, what's your documentation?

Great, that's your opinion. It's different than mine, and you're entitled to it, but why do you think that TWI was good?

I am not now, nor have I ever been, a 'nice' person Regarding those who still 'dig PFAL', I have no animosity toward them myself, and in my observation they tend to be a cross-section of 'nice guys' to 'obnoxious twits', just like anybody else. What I haven't observed, at least here at GS, is PFAL fans backing up their positions in any of the docrtrinal discussions.

We've got 'em in Nebraska!

That is very appropriate WW. When the agressive Way Corps were sent to our area after ROA '94, the first people that they went after were folks who, frankly, I didn't want around. There were a handful of people who just seemed to drag everybody else down, and at first I was glad that somebody had the balls to confront them. Then the next group of confrontees were folks who I felt needed to tighten things up, then the next group... Each successive round of confrontations targeted a broader range of behaviors and attitudes. I fully supported (and even encouraged) the initial purges, but became more and more uncomfortable as they progressed. But since they were incremental, I allowed myself to be talked into their biblical correctness. Eventually, like the poem says, they came for me. If I had been tageted initially, I may have fought back more vigorously, but having supported each wave, and having convinced myself of each wave's rightness, I thought it would be hypocritical to object when I was confronted. Ex-wayfers who got out before this time period often cannot understand how we subjected ourselves to all the abuse. While we physically could have walked away at any time, we were manipulated in such a way that we believed that we weren't being abused. Frog in the boiling water.

1979

Other than ROA's and classes, I went to TWI HQ just once. Three carloads of us drove out from Queens one weekend. We drove overnight and arrived Saturday morning. We were fed a late breakfast and spent the day getting a tour of the grounds, then went to Sidney to see the Historical Center (not sure exactly what it was called). That evening we saw a Way Productions show in New Bremen. We were to spend the night sleeping in the cabin in the woods in sleeping bags, however it got really cold and Cliff Adelman came out in the middle of the night and brought us to a warmer location: the BRC! We were awakened in the early morning by a setup crew who were getting the room set for 10:30 fellowship. We were fed lunch after the fellowship and then hit the road back to Queens. No lists, no security checks. We were made to feel welcome every minute that we were there.

The 90's were like the frog in the boiling water, changes crept up so that you hardly noticed them until you were agreeing to things that you never would have considered had they been sprung on you out of nowhere. We got re-involved in TWI in late 1990 after having been away from them for a little over 7 years. Initially things were pretty innocuous, the Corps couple who were Limb Coordinators were pretty low key, and there weren't a lot of demands made upon our time. We went to fellowships when we wanted to, signed up for the classes that we could afford and wanted to be in, no major problems. Parrallel to this were the so-called Leadership Tapes that were circulating. It wasn't presented to me as a requirement, until a few years later when I wanted to go to an Advanced Class Special. Since I hadn't experienced the POP, the "loyalty oath" letter, the mass firing and defections, etc, all that I heard was Martindale's side of the story. It didn't make a lot of sense, but I chalked that up to there being a gap in my own TWI timeline. I pretty much accepted Martindale's version of events, partly because I didn't know anyone who could supply me with any other version. In 1992 we got a different LC, also pretty low-key and inoffenseive, things went along pretty much as before. At ROA 1993 two teams of WOW's were sent to Nebraska. We were not assigned a LC of our own, but were "overseen" by the Region Coordinator. Once again, no real change of pace. It was at ROA 1994 that Martindale had the meetings with WOWvets, Way Corps, and Advanced Class grads to rant about the "homo threat". In my view, this is when things began to change. We were sent a new LC, a newly minted Corps grad who was hot to "smoke out homos" and root out "unproductive evil".

It's snowing outside my window right now. You know, actual snow. I'll double check with my wife and step-daughter, they are angels, after all

I disagreee with that. The word rthat is translated "given by inspiration of God", theopneustos does contain the elements "Theo" (God) "pneustos", which blueletterbible.com says is a dervative of pneō, which literally] means breath or wind. That doesn't mean that the best way to translate something is by taking apart the word and translating each segment literally. Many words pick a figurative meaning derived from the literal root. Even in English the word "inspiration" literally means to breath in, but the word generally isn't used that way.

Okay, fair enough. "Love", or "love of God" is a common translation of άγάπή and άγάπάω, although there are places where they refer to loving darkness, so it's more contextual in I Corinthians 13 than an absolute. But what about the "in the renewed mind" part. What makes you think that Mr. Wierwille was correct there? Since this is the doctrinal forum, let's do a leetle research, shall we? I am by no means saying that Wierwille was always wrong, he wasn't, but let's not assume that he was always right.

Belle said that you attacked her religion, not her. But it does seem like every time templelady expresses an opinion, you're there with a criticism of the LDS church. Kinda like pavlov's dogs, ring the bell, here comes Allan Am I being hysterical?

Okay, fair enough. "Love", or "love of God" is a common translation of άγάπή and άγάπάω, although there are places where they refer to loving darkness, so it's more contextual in I Corinthians 13 than an absolute. But what about the "in the renewed mind" part. What makes you think that Mr. Wierwille was correct there? Since this is the doctrinal forum, let's do a leetle research, shall we? I am by no means saying that Wierwille was always wrong, he wasn't, but let's not assume that he was always right.

You're not plain anymore

If God did talk to Wierwille and tell him that he would "teach him the Word like it hadn't been known since the first century, if he would teach it to others", why did it take so long for God to keep his word? The supposed promise took place in 1942, in 1951 he was ready to "chuck it all" because he wasn't getting any answers.

I would agree with your examples, but not all churches believe that way.

CK: Why do you think that άγάπή or άγάπάω should be translated "the love of God in the renewed mind"?

Not for looks, but attitude: Jack Paglia from Without A Trace

Actually, we chatted once. The pizza thing is an in-joke that Raf and I started at a GS wedding 2 years ago and continue on the forums.