Goey

Becasue I am none of the things you presume me to be. It is you that wants to know and attach the labels. And I doubt that you are actually concerned with "lurker's" at all, except possibly to disuade them from considering ideas that differ from your own, or from using/developing their own critical thinking abilities. Alan, I suspect that you are fairly uneducated in theology, hermeneutics and human communication (among other things). My guess is that you are stuck in VPW's and PFAL's kindergarten version of theology and that you are caught up in the doctrine of "spiritual suspicion" like someone with a bad case of MOG Syndrome. To make an assumption that I am either a Mormon or Jehovah's witness based upon one or 2 posts concerning SIT, is telltale of a lack theological education and of exposure to the real Christian and religious world beyond TWI and VPW's (or similar) teachings. Maybe it's time for you to come out of your cave and learn a little something beyond what you were taught in PFAL, TWI, The Way Corps, etc ... To demand that I or anyone else spell out our religious affilliations and beliefs because of your paranoid suspicions and subsequent desire to "unmask" folks, speaks loudly as to your your own spiritual condition. What would be the benefit if I did what you ask? So that presumptious and unlearned folks could prejudge me before they ever read what I wrote. No thanks. Alan, have you ever heard of the term, 'critical thinking'? You would do well to look it up and try practicing it a bit. It may be difficult for you at first because it requires intellectual vigour and intellectual honesty; things that you seem a bit challenged with at this point. It also requires objectivity and the honest desire to understand what folks are actually trying to communicate. It also means that you will have to let go of your current terroristic style of communication and learn to discuss ideas that oppose your own - without getting emotional, overly defensive or attacking folks, or trying to put absurd and eroneous labels on them. You must also be open to the possibility that you could be wrong on some things that you have held to for years. Some folks can't seem to stomach that, and prefer instead to dodge, ignore and deny anything that challenges their current beliefs. I hope you are not one of those, but I wonder. Why should I answer your irrelevant question about my past or present religious affiliations when you have not answered one of my questions or addressed any of the points I have made in my posts? All you seem to is dodge, ignore and attack. When you become more civilized in your postings and show a desire to use some critical thinking skills with a bit of compassion, you will find it much more rewarding here - both to yourself and to others. But honestly Alan, if I were to be half as presumptious as you are, I would presume you not to be a Christian at all, except that you said you were. You words and behavior contradict your own label of "Christian". Alan, if you wish further dialog, you can address the points I have made in this post. Show me where I am wrong or faulty in my reasoning. But be nice. If you can't do that and only want to dodge, attack and accuse, then please just shut the hell up. --- OK ?

Posted By Alan, Alan, I have never hidden anything here. However, I have no intention of giving you or anyone "Goey's Articles of Faith" If you want to know some about what I believe so that you can label me, unmask me, or whatever, then search the archives in Doctrinal and About the Way , and read my posts. And try to read the black part and not the spaces in between. Your quest presumes that certain folks need unmasking and that you have the ability to unmask them. I suspect that neither is true. But hey, thanks for the heads up. Is this a statement of fact, a guess, or are you fishing? Excuse me while I wipe up the coffee that I just spewed on my keyboard! ROTFLMAO ! --> --> --> --> --> --> --> --> -->

Oldiesman, You posted: Or does that mean unquestionably retain with blind faith PFAL and all that VPW taught? The length that someone has done something ofers no evidence of it genuineness or authenticity. However, it may speak to somone's inability or willingness to question or examine their own beliefs. Personal bias many times precludes objectivity. What I said was that I doubted that what we did in TWI was genuine and that I 'lean' towards a cessationist view. That should clue you in that I am not sure. Being unsure, I have nothing to show nor to prove. On the other hand, you seem cocksure that what we did in TWI was genuine. Therfore the burden of proof would be upon you. If you actually read what I wrote you would know that I do not pretend or intend to offer proof that yours is "counterfeit". "Counterfeit" implies that there is a genuine, which I am not sure of. Logically then, if there isn't a genuine posible today, then today's TWI style of tongues would be self-deception based upon wrong teaching - not counterfeit. Only if the genuine exists could there be a counterfeit. Another thing to consider is that TWI's version of tongues where "you move your lips, your mouth, etc" is not the only version being practiced. There are others. If I recall, VPW/TWI declared the other versions counterfeit or eroneous. What if they are not? We do know one thing, they can't all be genuine. At least someone is wrong. No asked you to now did they? However, it is understandable how you would seem threatend by the idea that what you have firmly and unquestionably beleived and practiced for 32 years may be in error. If it existed, which I am unsure of - and if I had it, and I don't think I do, I would be glad to show it to you.http://www.bible.org/page.asp?page_id=394 http://www.spirithome.com/cessatio.html

And many Baptists, Lutherans, Episcopalians, etc ... What I am saying is that I am not so sure that that what we learned in TWI was the real deal. I 'lean' to the cessasionist view of SIT. Of course if cessasionist doctrine is true, then it would mean that all SIT today is not genuine, which is a possibility that I am sure you wouldn't even dare to examine or explore. God forbid that we examine the sacred cow - only defend it.

Apolgies are meaningless without resitution or the willingnees to right the wrongs. TWI will never apologize. To expect it is unrealistic.

There were no scandals for years, because the abuses and evil were effectively covered up for so long. Scandal take place when thing are revealed - not necessarily while they are happening. Given TWI's history, the absence of scandal today means nothing at all.

MJ, This is obviously beyond your ability and willingness to comprehend. Facts are facts. Your denial of them does not change them or make them go away.

I never saw the big deal with speaking in tongues. It seemed contrived to me (as did interpretation and prophecy). Tounges was pretty much non-existant in the church for about 1900 years and did not come into the 'mainstream' until the Pentecostal Movement started in the early 1900s. Since there was no history or standard for comparison/authentication passed down from the early church, who's to say that what we did in TWI was the genuine deal? I doubt that it was. Which is not to say that the real deal does not exist. It could, but I lean more to the cessationist view nowdays. From my own observations, I don't see where I was any better off spiritually or otherwise when I was speaking in tongues vs when I was not. And I also don't see where folks who "SIT daily" are any better Christians or any more spiritual that those who don't. Some of the most mean-spirited Christian folks I ever met "spoke in tongues daily". And some of the nicest never have. Furthermore, what we experienced in Session 12 is a far cry from what is recorded in the Bible as happening on Pentecost. One was taught and learned in a class that we paid money for, while the other was a true movement of God.

You folks are cruel .... All this guy needs is some hugs. He was clearly just misunderstood as a child.

Can you put a 60 degree V-Twin on that thing? I think the old knuckle heads sounded prety good ......

I am truly devastated. Think I will go dissitate in my parambole.

Alan, that was truly uncalled for. You don't act very "Christian" to me. From one Christian to another, I would much rather hang out with the so called pagans, witches and new agers than with you.

Hi Jewel, I remember you from Baton Rouge. I was Danny B's roommate for a while. Welcome to Greasespot

Celebrities got too much unwarranted attention in TWI. I preferred to be around more regular folks. But it was kind of fun and interesting to watch some folks suck up to or to throw themsleves at so-called "celebrities".

Is that Sodium Dissitate or Potassium Dissitate?

Posted by Alan: Care to explain? Pointing out a logical flaw, or showing something to be false that was presented as at fact is not being viscious or accusatory. It is a part of the debate process. However, certain folks will almost always cry fowl when their ideas are challenged. Actually it would be quite dishonest for the most part. Many of us here still believe "some of the stuff taught in TWI", yet we are not flamed or ridiculed for the most part. Disagreement here can, (but does not always) lead to "ridicule and flaming". Some folks know how to disagree politly, others admittedy need to grow up a bit here. However, there always seems to be that small element here, that accuses other of flaming and ridicule when they are simply being challened on their ideas. Can't help that. It seems that where the so-called ridicule and flaming comes in, is when some folks assess TWI by their own particular experience and deny the experiences of others as if they never happened. It happens when folks deny, gloss-over, or minimize the clearly documented offenses of TWI and its leaders, just because they think they were "blessed" by those same leaders. It happens when folks deny the hard facts of the abuses that happened to many and then call the fact-bearers liars -- or even worse, blame the victims for the evil done to them at the hands of their heros. This will almost certainly bring on the "ridicule and flaming".

Oh really now ... let's look again at what your wrote. Here it is: Here your clearly stated that evil happend to some folks because they were too weak to say F. O. or to say no. Say it to whom? I assume, based upon the context of this thread, that it would be TWI's minions (disguised as spiritual leaders.) Allan, you gave no other reason than the victims own weakness. Nothing. So, by pointing out the weakness of those harmed as the reason, and ommiting mention of those who perpetrated the evil, you clearly implied that the cause/reason is soley due to the weakness of the ones harmed. This is not "my interpretation" - it is what you wrote. No where at all did you state, or imply there there is any other reason than the harmed ones weakness. Now you say, Alan, how then was it not blaming the weak for the offenses of the "strong"? And what then was your point if you were not doing that.

Posted by Alan: I don't see in the scriptures where God establishes, honors, or favors a particular organization or church (such as TWI). Aside possibly from special interventions, He was "involved" in TWI to the extent that individuals allowed Him to be involved in their lives. It is difficult for God to bless an organization as a whole when its leaders and followers have differing agendas - for the first, power, sex, money, etc and for the many of the others the things of God. God must then work within individuals not the corrupt organization. TWI was many times more of a hindrance to God's blessings than a facilitator. TWI was and still is a corporate organization that separated itself and its followers from mainstream Christianity. While the individuals were and are members of the Body Of Christ - I doubt that the The Way International Inc. ever held or holds now any kind of place in the Body of Christ itself. God blesses whom HE blesses and heals whom he heals regardless of the religious affiliation of those involved. Followers of TWI got no special blessings just because they were followers of TWI. My point is that we should give honor and credit to God, not to organizations and corporations like TWI. I will agree that "some" were too weak to say no. So what? Apart from the bigger picture though, this hints of blaming the weak for the offenses of the "strong". Pointing out the weakness of some does not exonerate those who led these weak ones into sin and evil, while claiming to be spiritual leaders. Weakness is not a sin. Preying upon the weak is regardless of how much "hot word" they taught on the side. It is even more so a sin when the predators come in the name of God and His Word. Time for some prospective Alan.

Alan, You posted: Rascal's question was obviously a rhetorical one with an obvious "no" answer. A rhetorical question with an obvious answer is a figure of speech that puts even more emphasis on the answer than saying it outright. You should know this stuff if you ever studied PFAL... The fact that you missed an obvious point as it flew over your head is no reason to ask others to dumb down their communication style.

Tom, First, fish, does not really want proof. And knows full well that *proof* of the existence of heaven/hell cannot be given to his/her satisfacion not matter how it is presented. He/she simply want to spew anti-god, anti-bible stuff in this discussion forum. Didn't you read wher he/she proudly declared that he/she wiped his a$$ with pages from his Bible? I think it's a safe bet that that was posted to intentionally offend folks here. Here is the quote: The person is not here to discuss - he/she is here simply to antagonize and offend. I simply answered one rhetorical question with another one.And there was a point ... My point being that depending upon one's philosophical/religious bias that niether can be "proved". Considering fish's apparent bias, and the playing field he/she has establsished, I think my question was well within bounds. Now if your protest to my "meanness" is in referrence to my use of "fishbrain", then I will point out that it is simply a take off of "thinkfish", the brain being the organ we think with (well, some of us anyway) Is that being mean? I don't think so.

Seems to me that many of the folks who "just get over it" (or tell others to do so) are those who are still entranced by VPW's hogswallow and are still in denial of what really went on in TWI.

Provide proof that you exist fishbrain.

Didn't VPW define a prophet as "one who speaks for God" .... ?? Regardless of any fortelling. By his own definition and considering some of his tales and stories, I think he slyly and subtley implied that he was a prophet whether --he out and out said it or not. He wanted US to put his definitions, stories and other crapola together and in our minds make him an apostle, prophet etc. He didn't have to say it.

Agape: The love of God in the renewed mind in manifestation in the prevailing household of the New Knoxville Cult of Cornfield Consciousness, as we faithfully send our 15 percent, blindly obey our leaders, and keep our mouths shut.

 Here it is: The Rich Man and Lazarus: