Hacker: Sir Mark thinks there might be votes in it, and I do not intend to look a gift horse in the mouth.
Sir Humphrey: I put it to you, Minister, that you are looking a Trojan horse in the mouth.
Hacker: You mean if we look closely at this gift horse, we'll find it's full of Trojans?
Bernard: Um, if you had looked the Trojan Horse in the mouth, Minister, you would have found Greeks inside. Well, the point is that it was the Greeks who gave the Trojan horse to the Trojans, so technically it wasn't a Trojan horse at all; it was a Greek horse. Hence the tag "timeo Danaos et dona ferentes", which, you will recall, is usually and somewhat inaccurately translated as "beware of Greeks bearing gifts", or doubtless you would have recalled had you not attended the LSE.
Hacker: Yes, well, I'm sure Greek tags are all very well in their way; but can we stick to the point?
Bernard: Sorry, sorry: Greek tags?
Hacker: "Beware of Greeks bearing gifts." I suppose the EEC equivalent would be "Beware of Greeks bearing an olive oil surplus".
Sir Humphrey: Excellent, Minister.
Bernard: No, well, the point is, Minister, that just as the Trojan horse was in fact Greek, what you describe as a Greek tag is in fact Latin. It's obvious, really: the Greeks would never suggest bewaring of themselves, if one can use such a participle (bewaring that is). And it's clearly Latin, not because timeo ends in "-o", because the Greek first person also ends in "-o" – although actually there is a Greek word timao, meaning 'I honour'. But the "-os" ending is a nominative singular termination of a second declension in Greek, and an accusative plural in Latin, of course, though actually Danaos is not only the Greek for 'Greek'; it's also the Latin for 'Greek'. It's very interesting, really.
Perhaps. And perhaps.. *mr* iam. Do you have an inordinate need for "persecution"? You know.. they come to twig, see your books. Look the hoodlum up.. and they slowly back away. No real argument. So what to do.. take the "battle" to the "enemy"?
Do you really think the inhabitants of GS are a mass shelter for devil spirits, and it is your mission to "clear them out"?
There are a few problems with this notion..
Either
1. We are. And you apparently don't have the authority to bind us or silence us in vic's name.
2. We are. And the name you are using does not have any real authority..
3. You're dead wrong, There are no devils here, no "persecution" from "the enemy".
4. You are seriously deluded.
5. ...
I left the options open here..
I really think you have a persecution complex of sorts.
Is this how you justify your existence?
talk about how a woman buzzing around like a fly.. and needs clocked? Then wonder.. "duhhhh.. what did *I* ever do... duhhhhhhh.."
must just be those pesky devils..
do you REALLY think you represent God Almighty, and people vehemently disagreeing with you gives you some kind of verification?
Scripture actually makes a somewhat shocking(to those of us once in TWI) and compelling case, that God doesn't need you or I in the least. God is complete. Not only complete, but replete....as God is overflowing with perfection.
He is not lonely. God is already a being in relationship......and His pleasure is in His own perfection.
Out of that overflowing good and love..He calls us to share it with Him. He gave us Himself. He is our delight too.
The scriptures tell us right up front...For God so loved the world that He gave....why...because we are so lovable? It is out of His overflowing love that He calls us. Not out of any need God has for our hands and feet. It is because He is good.
I don't want to shock you, but God does things for His own glory and name. It is not pride, because He is actually worthy. For the sake of his great name the LORD will not reject his people, because the LORD was pleased to make you his own.
Paul, who wrote the letter to the Corinthians you quoted also said. "The God who made the world and everything in it is the Lord of heaven and earth and does not live in temples built by human hands. And he is not served by human hands, as if he needed anything. Rather, he himself gives everyone life and breath and everything else."
If you look at the attributes of God in scripture, and then look at what God loves and takes pleasure in.... you will find...they are one in the same.
God delights in us when we delight in Him....because....that is the right response. he LORD delights in those who fear him, who put their hope in his unfailing love. I have no greater joy than to hear my children walk in truth.
If God needed us...He would not be God. If it were possible for God to love or delight in anything more or greater than Himself...He would not be God.
He doesn't need us...He is not lonely...He is good and out of that goodness comes our salvation and joy.
Well, that should give John a few ideas to pick at and to keep him happy.
Very happy to "debate" with John on his own ideas. For which this thread might provide an outlet. Not happy to have him keep butting in where those ideas persistently distract from the thread in hand.
quote: my witnessing and undershepherding days are long gone
Don't you witness and undershepherd your own kid? You may not teach him the word, but you teach him anything you think will help him, right? That's all witnessing and undershepherding is.
quote: common sense seems to be what i like
Everybody's common sense is based on SOME belief system.
quote: Do you really think the inhabitants of GS are a mass shelter for devil spirits, and it is your mission to "clear them out"?
LOL. If I was going to suspect anyone of having devil spirits, it wouldn't be because of what you believe about VP et al, it would be because of the crippled logic used in responding to what I say. You still constantly misrepresent me.
while there may be some parallels, the term "witnessing and undershepherding" is TWIspeak. Paul didn't teach "witnessing and undershepherding classes". It might be valuable to rid yourself of all the TWIspeak before you can truly think on your own in a genuine fashion. I don't view raising children as "witnessing and undershepherding". There are many other choice terms that I can use describing it, depending on the day ;)
While everybody's "common sense" is based upon a belief system, I think what excathedra was getting at was that as Jesus stated, it's much easier to know someone by the fruit they produce, as opposed to the words they speak. VPW was a prime example of that.
All the "devil spirits" talk is simply TWI's indoctrinated method to quickly implement "shunning" people. It certainly is the quickest method that a TWI leader can get unsuspecting underlings to not consider the logic of someone's argument. And usually it is a great indication that the argument has merit and is in opposition to the leader.
In all the responses to you there are varying degrees of understanding your intention. I wouldn't call that "crippled logic". I would use that as an indication that you need to explain yourself a little more clearly and to more clearly understand where someone else is coming from.
no, I am actually trying to understand you. Maybe that is an impossibility. I've given you several chances to explain yourself.
What was the safe harbor, or safe haven you seem to have enjoyed under vic's tutelage? Thirty pages on another thread, and you finally admit it was NOT physical safety or security. For any run of the mill way follower. That's a good start. We've moved one block of "what it is not" aside.
What exactly WAS it?
Maybe we should address the same question to CFF..
I think the worst answer I'd get is "I don't know. I'll have to look it over a little more closely.."
Really, I'm giving you a chance to explain yourself. There is a lack of communication here. It's probably the non-communication that is inherent in way speak.
safe harbor. or haven. *we* know what THAT means, don't *we*.
Uhhh, no.
Shovel-ready manogawd(?).. surely that rings some bells somewhere..
no.
I've tried elsewhere framing a few answers with multiple choice options. Any of them close?
OK. Thanx 4 the thread. I guess I'll treat it as my personal diary. Deep thoughts by Johniam, if you will.
quote: while there may be some parallels, the term "witnessing and undershepherding" is TWIspeak. Paul didn't teach "witnessing and undershepherding classes". It might be valuable to rid yourself of all the TWIspeak before you can truly think on your own in a genuine fashion. I don't view raising children as "witnessing and undershepherding". There are many other choice terms that I can use describing it, depending on the day
But that's just IT! The one common point of reference we all have is twi/the bible. I don't care if my analogies aren't a 100% match; this isn't a science class; it's an opinion forum.
quote: All the "devil spirits" talk is simply TWI's indoctrinated method to quickly implement "shunning" people. It certainly is the quickest method that a TWI leader can get unsuspecting underlings to not consider the logic of someone's argument. And usually it is a great indication that the argument has merit and is in opposition to the leader.
TWI did use the concept of devil spirits to shun people, but they still exist. Jesus MUST have told his disciples SOMETHING about how to spot them, what to say or not say to them, and when to pull the trigger (cast them out). Those guys rejoiced that even the devils were subject to them. Jesus said it was more relevant that their names were written in the book of life, yet he allowed them to be human. Yes, the idea of me myself casting out a devil spirit even with the power of God required to back it up is kind of overwhelming. It is noteworthy that when they are mentioned in scripture, it's usually when they're about to be cast out, or at least, told to shut up.
quote: In all the responses to you there are varying degrees of understanding your intention. I wouldn't call that "crippled logic". I would use that as an indication that you need to explain yourself a little more clearly and to more clearly understand where someone else is coming from.
No, they aren't trying to "understand my intention"; they've already judged me. My last post on the dishing it out thread may explain some things along these lines, however.
Back in the day, LCM once said that the "dropout rate" in twi was highest the year after the wow year. He was acting like that was a BAD thing. I think it's a GOOD thing, and I saw related reenforcement of that couple nights ago. Let me explain:
Going wow was sort of a litmus test for the individual. I don't know about that "ten year's growth in one year" stuff, but before going wow, pretty much any believer could lead whatever double life they wanted. Go to twig, put on your church face; go home or elsewhere, put on any other face you want. But when you go wow, you live with and hang out with believers 24/7. Even on your job your time is regimented. No room for a double life. Not arguing the ethics of this, just saying that by the time that wow year is over, you KNOW what you're in for if you continue with twi. So it's perfectly normal if someone decides "hey, this is not for me".
TWI was WRONG to try to guilt people into staying committed without letting them think it through on their own. If someone got benefit from twi just from either going wow, taking foundational pfal, or even going to ONE twig fellowship, twi should have been thankful, cause it's God who gives the increase, right? I know of someone who left immediately after his corps graduation by design. So what? The gift without the giver is bare. Not just the gift of finances, any gift...commitment too. LCM was presumptuous to act like we OWE twi our utmost commitment beyond our lifetime. VP wasn't like that. VP may have expected more of way corps, but he knew that it doesn't do God any favors to guilt people into serving. He as much as said that in the way living in love somewhere.
So it's perfectly normal if someone decides "hey, this is not for me". BUT it's also perfectly normal if someone decides, "hey, this IS for me", as long as it's their decision. A lot of us did just that. I go to a fellowship run by a 9th corps couple, Russell and Cindy Coleman, whom some of you remember. They have 3 adult children. The elder guy is now 24 years old. He does a fellowship for young adults every Wednesday night. He was raised going to fellowship and taking classes, but wow isn't available anymore. However, he spent about a year living in what amounts to a way home with other young adults in WA state. They had secular jobs, did word related things, and basically hung out together for that time. The change in him is dramatic. Mainly, it's HIS belief system now, not his parents'. He did the same thing as the returning wow who decides, "Hey, this IS for me". That's a GOOD thing, but my overall point is that going wow gave us the enablement to make an informed decision as to whether to continue in this type of ministry or not.
I got invited to that fellowship to play 2 songs on guitar. I played Sam Pruyn's 'You've been forgiven' and Dean Ellenwood's 'It's gotta be God'. Normally us old timers are discouraged from going to that fellowship. I don't write many of my own songs, but I'm like an oldies station; I can play several twi songs from back in the day and they're not "old wineskins" to the believers here. Even the young folks like some of them.
I suspect that the real reason this thread was started was to get some kind of "payback". You want to coax me into posting things of interest to me just so you can try to "derail" it like you think I have derailed other threads. Well, have at it!
OK. Thanx 4 the thread. I guess I'll treat it as my personal diary. Deep thoughts by Johniam, if you will.
quote: while there may be some parallels, the term "witnessing and undershepherding" is TWIspeak. Paul didn't teach "witnessing and undershepherding classes". It might be valuable to rid yourself of all the TWIspeak before you can truly think on your own in a genuine fashion. I don't view raising children as "witnessing and undershepherding". There are many other choice terms that I can use describing it, depending on the day
But that's just IT! The one common point of reference we all have is twi/the bible. I don't care if my analogies aren't a 100% match; this isn't a science class; it's an opinion forum.
I agree. I was not a proponent of TWI speak even when in the organization. I always have been more of a free thinking person. That's just me.
quote: All the "devil spirits" talk is simply TWI's indoctrinated method to quickly implement "shunning" people. It certainly is the quickest method that a TWI leader can get unsuspecting underlings to not consider the logic of someone's argument. And usually it is a great indication that the argument has merit and is in opposition to the leader.
TWI did use the concept of devil spirits to shun people, but they still exist. Jesus MUST have told his disciples SOMETHING about how to spot them, what to say or not say to them, and when to pull the trigger (cast them out). Those guys rejoiced that even the devils were subject to them. Jesus said it was more relevant that their names were written in the book of life, yet he allowed them to be human. Yes, the idea of me myself casting out a devil spirit even with the power of God required to back it up is kind of overwhelming. It is noteworthy that when they are mentioned in scripture, it's usually when they're about to be cast out, or at least, told to shut up.
Yes they exist and are described in scriptures. The problem is that inside of TWI the lack of integrity at the top leadership levels has rendered their ministries null and void where they are blind to them even in their own midst. So instead they point to a person who disagrees with them and label them as "possessed", or "influenced", and issue edicts and slander about them. VPW did this and there are accounts on this site about it, as did LCM, and as do the current group of leaders. You may be insulated from that in your little local fellowship but consider it a public service we are making you aware of it.
quote: In all the responses to you there are varying degrees of understanding your intention. I wouldn't call that "crippled logic". I would use that as an indication that you need to explain yourself a little more clearly and to more clearly understand where someone else is coming from.
No, they aren't trying to "understand my intention"; they've already judged me. My last post on the dishing it out thread may explain some things along these lines, however.
Don't be so quick to generically label all of them. I do understand that it can be quite overwhelming to hold the sole opinion on a thread and have 6 or 7 others disagreeing with you at once.
Back in the day, LCM once said that the "dropout rate" in twi was highest the year after the wow year. He was acting like that was a BAD thing. I think it's a GOOD thing, and I saw related reenforcement of that couple nights ago. Let me explain:
Going wow was sort of a litmus test for the individual. I don't know about that "ten year's growth in one year" stuff, but before going wow, pretty much any believer could lead whatever double life they wanted. Go to twig, put on your church face; go home or elsewhere, put on any other face you want. But when you go wow, you live with and hang out with believers 24/7. Even on your job your time is regimented. No room for a double life. Not arguing the ethics of this, just saying that by the time that wow year is over, you KNOW what you're in for if you continue with twi. So it's perfectly normal if someone decides "hey, this is not for me".
Sure wow did good stuff for people. I had a great time. But some of the reason for the high dropout rates were how quickly people were doing it. Taking a foundational class in June, to the ROA in August, raising their money at the ROA and going out for a year. That's why they changed the program to what it is today. And they added a whole lot of rules. But the wayd program can be beneficial too. It's not necessarily the programs that are the problem as it is the morals of those at the top running them.
TWI was WRONG to try to guilt people into staying committed without letting them think it through on their own. If someone got benefit from twi just from either going wow, taking foundational pfal, or even going to ONE twig fellowship, they should have been thankful, cause it's God who gives the increase, right? I know of someone who left immediately after his corps graduation by design. So what? The gift without the giver is bare. Not just the gift of finances, any gift...commitment too. LCM was presumptuous to act like we OWE twi our utmost commitment beyond our lifetime. VP wasn't like that. VP may have expected more of way corps, but he knew that it doesn't do God any favors to guilt people into serving. He as much as said that in the way living in love somewhere.
What VPW said in the way living in love and how he actually behaved in his personal life and in interactions offer up quite a contradiction to say the least.
So it's perfectly normal if someone decides "hey, this is not for me". BUT it's also perfectly normal if someone decides, "hey, this IS for me", as long as it's their decision. A lot of us did just that. I go to a fellowship run by a 9th corps couple, Russell and Cindy Coleman, whom some of you remember. They have 3 adult children. The elder guy is now 24 years old. He does a fellowship for young adults every Wednesday night. He was raised going to fellowship and taking classes, but wow isn't available anymore. However, he spent about a year living in what amounts to a way home with other young adults in WA state. They had secular jobs, did word related things, and basically hung out together for that time. The change in him is dramatic. Mainly, it's HIS belief system now, not his parents'. He did the same thing as the returning wow who decides, "Hey, this IS for me". That's a GOOD thing, but my overall point is that going wow gave us the enablement to make an informed decision as to whether to continue in this type of ministry or not.
My opinion differs. To take a young person in their teens or just out away from their family, immerse them in TWI in their homes and all their activities, produces a higher level of indoctrination. Can that be good for people and can they exist in that beneficially? Sure, there's a lot good basic people can do to shield those in their fellowships from the problems higher up. Many of us did that as well. But at some point you have to pay the piper, one way or another.
I got invited to that fellowship to play 2 songs on guitar. I played Sam Pruyn's 'You've been forgiven' and Dean Ellenwood's 'It's gotta be God'. Normally us old timers are discouraged from going to that fellowship. I don't write many of my own songs, but I'm like an oldies station; I can play several twi songs from back in the day and they're not "old wineskins" to the believers here. Even the young folks like some of them.
IMO a lot of the older music was better than the whitewashed soulless drivel they are cranking out now - no wonder it's popular with the youth.
I suspect that the real reason this thread was started was to get some kind of "payback". You want to coax me into posting things of interest to me just so you can try to "derail" it like you think I have derailed other threads. Well, have at it!
No, I think both others and you were uncomfortable with the 6 or 7 vs. 1 developments of the other thread. You had some good points regarding CFFM at the beginning though.
Your argument is totally bogus! The first person to start derailing this thread was actually Excathedra; something about don't tell your story because it hurts the kids and grandkids. Then you didn't mind Oldskool, Mstar, Brokenarrow, Chockfull, Socrates, and Skyrider; all these posters, directly comparing CFFM with TWI. This is all on the first page; MY first post was the first post on page 2. I related my experience with CFFM, quite legitimate, on topic. In doing so, I addressed stuff posted by Chockfull, Socrates, and Skyrider. Don't I have the right to dispute what others post? You all certainly dispute me!
Then Pawtucket himself made the next post, seemingly concurring with some stuff I posted. That's why you passionately appeal to folks to ignore me. Pawtucket, apparently, won't cooperate with you. Then on post #31 you dispute what I posted. Then I commit the unforgiveable; I IGNORE you. Then, in post #37 you accuse ME of derailing this thread.
Sure you have the right to dispute. IMO it wasn't just you that was responsible for the topic sidetrack and derail. It was the whole argument in general which consisted of a bunch of all of us.
It's been 3 months now since I started posting again. I'm not trying to "convert" anyone to any organization or ideology; I'm just giving my opinion, which still embraces much TWI teaching, I admit, but the revised rules say, regarding opinions and povs, "we welcome them ALL". In those same 3 months there have now been several threads which would have had less than 100 posts and stopped except for overreactions to me. It is, I guess, so threatening to have even ONE poster here who sticks to his guns and still supports ANY twi doctrine that, as I said before, the damage control just keeps pouring in.
Well I will agree with you that without a dissenting opinion many times interest drops off faster. I think that's more generally true of any topic on any forum though. Whether that is "damage control" or just simple human nature and interaction I'll leave up to you to decide.
You really DO misrepresent me. If I dispute even ONE thing unofficially recognized as GSC "doctrine", you act like I'm the devil. You assign to me all manner of evil thinking that I NEVER posted or thought. Is it ME that's rattling your cages, or are you doing that yourselves?
I don't think GSC has any officially supported "doctrine". Most here do oppose TWI. It is a unique place in that, where people who actually oppose TWI can do so in an open manner. Try that in your fellowship. See how long that goes without people getting "rattled". Personally, I'm pretty much past getting rattled about a whole lot, although the immorality and heavy handed actions of TWI leaders has me morally disgusted to the point of wanting to make others aware of it.
One more thing. When TWI got going, at least during the 60s, they surely fancied themselves as the other side of the denominational story. People could come to twig, calmly discuss their dissatisfaction with their churches, and receive meaningful input. But by the time someone has been to their hundredth fellowship, sat through their hundredth believer's meeting, and taken foundational pfal for the tenth time, then the other side of the story becomes the ONLY side of the story. That's not something VP could totally control; when that many people get involved, the group takes on a shape and life of its own. That's true of any business as well.
To many of you, the other side of the twi story is now the ONLY side of the story. That's not Pawtucket's doing, it's YOURS! Paul Allen didn't post that much on Waydale either, he picked his spots. I can't stop you from ignoring me or even forcing me off here, I guess, but what does it say about YOU that you say "Aughhhh! I'm melting!" just because ONE poster can't be persuaded to concur with you?
I'm not that interested in persuading people to concur with me. I post here to be able to speak freely, which I was deprived of in TWI for years for fear of reprisal, as the vast majority of leaders in TWI are.
Sure this place has gravitated to be anti TWI. I think you're being a bit dramatic about the melting comment. People here have a pretty deep exposure to things in TWI and know how they operate and have been personally affected by it.
Or, I suppose you could believe what the mainstream line of thinking within TWI is, that this place is full of devil spirits, to stay off here, and that people are all lying. You know, where the real "damage control" is happening.
That's a GOOD thing, but my overall point is that going wow gave us the enablement to make an informed decision as to whether to continue in this type of ministry or not.
for me? No. Informed decision? "This type of ministry"?
while I was busy eating bologna sandwiches and "witnessing" and running classes, cabinet members were freely fornicating with my sisters in christ, some with and some against their will.
"this type of ministry"
Informed decision?
I'd still like to know what your definition of a safe harbor, or safe haven is.
Apparently it was NOT safe if one was young, attractive, and female..
There's an old Yiddish proverb: when the first man calls you a donkey, laugh. When the second man calls you a donkey, get angry. When the third man calls you a donkey, punch his face. When the fourth man calls you a donkey, buy a saddle.
If you have a group of people "misrepresenting" you, maybe its not them, its you.
As I said on the other thread, the purpose of communication is its result. If your being misrepresented, your obviously choosing to have it misrepresented, otherwise you would adjust whats being communicated so your not misrepresented.
quote: My opinion differs. To take a young person in their teens or just out away from their family, immerse them in TWI in their homes and all their activities, produces a higher level of indoctrination. Can that be good for people and can they exist in that beneficially? Sure, there's a lot good basic people can do to shield those in their fellowships from the problems higher up. Many of us did that as well. But at some point you have to pay the piper, one way or another.
True enough, but the same can be applied to military service and even college. What those 3, college, military, and wow have in common is discipline. Each of those things is a different kind of discipline, but ANY discipline will take the person's mind off their family and force them to rethink everything. Even a gang can do that. To an extent, I think it's healthy for young people to spend time away from their family comfort zones at some point.
There's an old Yiddish proverb: when the first man calls you a donkey, laugh. When the second man calls you a donkey, get angry. When the third man calls you a donkey, punch his face. When the fourth man calls you a donkey, buy a saddle.
A lot more than 4 people called Jesus a deceiver and a heretic. He didn't try to appease them; he stuck to what he thought was right.
There's an old Yiddish proverb: when the first man calls you a donkey, laugh. When the second man calls you a donkey, get angry. When the third man calls you a donkey, punch his face. When the fourth man calls you a donkey, buy a saddle.
A lot more than 4 people called Jesus a deceiver and a heretic. He didn't try to appease them; he stuck to what he thought was right.
Yes, but ther's a difference between being right and being stubborn.
Stubborn ignore facts and continues forward blindly.
Last year a police officer, a woman, drove drunk and killed 4 teenagers. On Wednesday she was sentenced to 8 years in prison. Lots of local outrage. The teens families are from India. They wonder if the light sentence is because they're foreigners. She drank 5 Cosmopolitans at a pub. Other officers were there yet didn't stop her. I don't even know what a Cosmopolitan is.
The analogy is that as an officer, should she have been held to a higher standard? She probably arrested others for this. Put cuffs on them, read them their rights, etc. We say that VP was a clergyman, so he should be held to a higher standard. We should be outraged. He should have morals, so he should be penalized MORE because he was a recognized moral leader. Treatment of VP is now up to God, and treatment of the woman is up to the courts for now, but even though the woman was an officer, knew the law, enforced the law, gave law enforcement a black eye by doing what she did, she didn't negate the law!
Drunk driving is still illegal. All the reasoning behind that and related laws is still respected. The citizens of St. Louis county don't have to individually rethink all criminal law just because an officer who was recognized as an enforcer of the law did something unspeakable. I think you can figure out where the rest of this analogy is headed.
The analogy is that as an officer, should she have been held to a higher standard? She probably arrested others for this. Put cuffs on them, read them their rights, etc. We say that VP was a clergyman, so he should be held to a higher standard. We should be outraged. He should have morals, so he should be penalized MORE because he was a recognized moral leader. Treatment of VP is now up to God, and treatment of the woman is up to the courts for now, but even though the woman was an officer, knew the law, enforced the law, gave law enforcement a black eye by doing what she did, she didn't negate the law!
You just love these straw man arguments, don't you?
Not to mention arguing to a false analogy.
First off, to get a proper analogy you'd have to have this happen with a procecutor--who interprets the law books and decides who goes to trial and who doesn't. Not the cop in the street, while valuable, they're at about the level of a twig leader. The cop in the street is our contact with government, the twig leader is our contact with The Way.
Now had a county procecutor raped a woman I'm sure you'd be outraged. Seducing, and raping many women--not to mention abusing his authority and using the county's political machine to stop him from being procecuted--and the villagers would be getting their pichforks and torches and asking what is this guy doing in a position of power.
Same thing with Saint Vic, he seemed to want to tell everybody what their morals were without following them himself.
LCM was presumptuous to act like we OWE twi our utmost commitment beyond our lifetime. VP wasn't like that. VP may have expected more of way corps, but he knew that it doesn't do God any favors to guilt people into serving. He as much as said that in the way living in love somewhere
He may have said that in the book, but, it certainly wasn't reflected in the way he dealt with Gary Dunhoff's death.
I think you can figure out where the rest of this analogy is headed.
I'm not great at analogy interpretation, so will have to guess.
1. Cosmopolitans are a New York drink and drinking them in St. Louis while you are a woman in a public service office will cause New Yorkers to give you a black eye?
2. We should be outraged at VPW, he should be held to a higher standard, and God should do that?
3. The fact that VPW was a drunken lecherous charlatan didn't change the Bible, just cause new interpretations of it?
4. Citizens of St. Louis county aren't rethinking criminal law?
I don't know, man, maybe I've got it all wrong. But people will do stupid things, cult leaders will bewitch masses, people will get used, God is still God, and a good portion of citizens of St. Louis county are selling meth thereby living criminal law as opposed to rethinking it, for which it's doubtful they have the capacity.
The death of this woman was certainly tragic. It amazes me how anyone could deny any resposibility on the part of VPW.
From Karl Kahler's Book.
Quote
"Dunhoff died anyway. Wierwille called a meeting to announce his death. Then, said Desmond, Wierwille told everyone who had cheated on the colon cleanse to raise their hands. Then he told everyone who knew about the cheating to raise their hands. Everyone with a hand in the air, he said, was directly responsible for Gary Dunhoff's death."
The aboove refers to the death of Gary Dunhoff who died as a result of a car accident while he was out "cheating" on the colon cleanse by eating some cookies.
Wierwille held anyone who cheated on, or even knew about any cheating on the notorious colon cleanse
"directly responsible for Gary Duhoff's death".
So we have Wiwerwille, who cheated on his wife (adultry) while taking sexual advantage of a member of his flock, and as a result of of this, the woman commits suicide. Yet somehow, according to Oldiesman, Wiereille bears no responsibility.
Oldiesman, in light of the above, please explain how and why Wierweille can hold these folks "directly responsible" for the death of Gary Dunhoff, and yet somehow not himself be directly responsible for the death of Sandra Sullivan.
I await your reply.
This post has been edited by Goey: 09 May 2008 - 06:09 PM
Goey
Many of my fondest memories in TWI... never really happened.
Waysider: Regarding W and U, as I said, I don't care if my analogy is not a 100% match.
quote:
QUOTE
LCM was presumptuous to act like we OWE twi our utmost commitment beyond our lifetime. VP wasn't like that. VP may have expected more of way corps, but he knew that it doesn't do God any favors to guilt people into serving. He as much as said that in the way living in love somewhere
He may have said that in the book, but, it certainly wasn't reflected in the way he dealt with Gary Dunhoff's death.
Apples and oranges: VP wasn't trying to guilt anyone into service, he was saying get it together or get out. He was harder on way corps than others; he thought God let that happen because they knew better. He was saying after all this time why don't you believe me. I recall a recent thread where this (Gary Dunhoff's death) was discussed, but I also read about it a few years ago in an excerpt of KKs book on Waydale.
quote: I'm not great at analogy interpretation, so will have to guess.
1. Cosmopolitans are a New York drink and drinking them in St. Louis while you are a woman in a public service office will cause New Yorkers to give you a black eye?
2. We should be outraged at VPW, he should be held to a higher standard, and God should do that?
3. The fact that VPW was a drunken lecherous charlatan didn't change the Bible, just cause new interpretations of it?
4. Citizens of St. Louis county aren't rethinking criminal law?
I don't know, man, maybe I've got it all wrong. But people will do stupid things, cult leaders will bewitch masses, people will get used, God is still God, and a good portion of citizens of St. Louis county are selling meth thereby living criminal law as opposed to rethinking it, for which it's doubtful they have the capacity.
A good portion? There are 2.5 million people in St. Louis city and county. How good is good? Most of that activity is done out in the rural areas, I recently read.
BTW Chockfull? If you don't mind my asking, when were you in twi? Sounds like since 1994.
quote: First off, to get a proper analogy you'd have to have this happen with a procecutor--who interprets the law books and decides who goes to trial and who doesn't. Not the cop in the street, while valuable, they're at about the level of a twig leader. The cop in the street is our contact with government, the twig leader is our contact with The Way.
Again, I don't care if my analogies are a 100% match. An analogy is like a parable. Jesus' parables weren't a 100% match; they drew a parallel between 2 things. For example the parable of the prodigal son (Luke 15). This parable drew a parallel between 3 principal povs in 2 different situations. In the actual scenerio, there was 1) Jesus, who spoke for God, the true forgiving Father, 2) the publicans and sinners, and 3) the Pharisees and scribes, who were resentful when they should have been rejoicing. In the parable there was 1) the forgiving father, 2) the younger son, who was being judged by...3) the older son, who was resentful when he should have been rejoicing. Get it?
Both VP and the officer were people who were associated with a standard which had authority behind it, who did unspeakable things. That's the comparison. Argue all you want.
I was around when it happened. I remember it quite clearly. VP used guilt and fear to bully people into submission. He went as far as to call John Neve (the driver) a murderer, straight to his face. He used guilt to get his way. Period.
edit: The message he sent was "Do exactly as the MOG commands or horrific consequence will befall you and your loved ones". Wouldn"t want to be guilty of bringing harm to your loved ones, now would you?
Back in the day, LCM once said that the "dropout rate" in twi was highest the year after the wow year. He was acting like that was a BAD thing. I think it's a GOOD thing, and I saw related reenforcement of that couple nights ago. Let me explain:
Going wow was sort of a litmus test for the individual. I don't know about that "ten year's growth in one year" stuff, but before going wow, pretty much any believer could lead whatever double life they wanted. Go to twig, put on your church face; go home or elsewhere, put on any other face you want. But when you go wow, you live with and hang out with believers 24/7. Even on your job your time is regimented. No room for a double life. Not arguing the ethics of this, just saying that by the time that wow year is over, you KNOW what you're in for if you continue with twi. So it's perfectly normal if someone decides "hey, this is not for me".
I'm wondering what you meant by a double life - it's a red bullflag to me, it brings up the memory of the feeling that you had to justify yourself to other TWI believers by telling victory stories from the times when you weren't with them, that what mattered was the physical superficial time spent with them, not your life in Christ, with God. That being around non-TWIers was wrong (they couldn't be real believers), being normal conversationally was wrong, and that basically there was no way God would be with you if you weren't continually with Them. An over-reaction on my part, I'm sure, but I'm wondering what you meant.
Recommended Posts
Top Posters In This Topic
39
40
46
44
Popular Days
Mar 11
55
Mar 29
34
Mar 16
23
Mar 21
22
Top Posters In This Topic
johniam 39 posts
Ham 40 posts
waysider 46 posts
So_crates 44 posts
Popular Days
Mar 11 2011
55 posts
Mar 29 2011
34 posts
Mar 16 2011
23 posts
Mar 21 2011
22 posts
Popular Posts
waysider
"I could use the same argument when sex abuse victims tell their stories. I could say that in India it's still possible for a husband to find his wife not pleasing and have her burned. That twi sex ab
WordWolf
Sounds like you have a LOT of different "they's". Are "they" all one big "they", or are there many independent "theys" that lack specific names? "They" is INCREDIBLY vague- and thus INCREDIBLY CONV
waysider
Posted Images
Bolshevik
source
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Ham
This post probably belongs here.
I really think you have a persecution complex of sorts.
Is this how you justify your existence?
talk about how a woman buzzing around like a fly.. and needs clocked? Then wonder.. "duhhhh.. what did *I* ever do... duhhhhhhh.."
must just be those pesky devils..
do you REALLY think you represent God Almighty, and people vehemently disagreeing with you gives you some kind of verification?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
geisha779
Johniam,
Scripture actually makes a somewhat shocking(to those of us once in TWI) and compelling case, that God doesn't need you or I in the least. God is complete. Not only complete, but replete....as God is overflowing with perfection.
He is not lonely. God is already a being in relationship......and His pleasure is in His own perfection.
Out of that overflowing good and love..He calls us to share it with Him. He gave us Himself. He is our delight too.
The scriptures tell us right up front...For God so loved the world that He gave....why...because we are so lovable? It is out of His overflowing love that He calls us. Not out of any need God has for our hands and feet. It is because He is good.
I don't want to shock you, but God does things for His own glory and name. It is not pride, because He is actually worthy. For the sake of his great name the LORD will not reject his people, because the LORD was pleased to make you his own.
Paul, who wrote the letter to the Corinthians you quoted also said. "The God who made the world and everything in it is the Lord of heaven and earth and does not live in temples built by human hands. And he is not served by human hands, as if he needed anything. Rather, he himself gives everyone life and breath and everything else."
If you look at the attributes of God in scripture, and then look at what God loves and takes pleasure in.... you will find...they are one in the same.
God delights in us when we delight in Him....because....that is the right response. he LORD delights in those who fear him, who put their hope in his unfailing love. I have no greater joy than to hear my children walk in truth.
If God needed us...He would not be God. If it were possible for God to love or delight in anything more or greater than Himself...He would not be God.
He doesn't need us...He is not lonely...He is good and out of that goodness comes our salvation and joy.
My personal soap box too!!
Edited by geisha779Link to comment
Share on other sites
Twinky
Well, that should give John a few ideas to pick at and to keep him happy.
Very happy to "debate" with John on his own ideas. For which this thread might provide an outlet. Not happy to have him keep butting in where those ideas persistently distract from the thread in hand.
Johniam, over to you...?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
chockfull
while there may be some parallels, the term "witnessing and undershepherding" is TWIspeak. Paul didn't teach "witnessing and undershepherding classes". It might be valuable to rid yourself of all the TWIspeak before you can truly think on your own in a genuine fashion. I don't view raising children as "witnessing and undershepherding". There are many other choice terms that I can use describing it, depending on the day ;)
While everybody's "common sense" is based upon a belief system, I think what excathedra was getting at was that as Jesus stated, it's much easier to know someone by the fruit they produce, as opposed to the words they speak. VPW was a prime example of that.
All the "devil spirits" talk is simply TWI's indoctrinated method to quickly implement "shunning" people. It certainly is the quickest method that a TWI leader can get unsuspecting underlings to not consider the logic of someone's argument. And usually it is a great indication that the argument has merit and is in opposition to the leader.
In all the responses to you there are varying degrees of understanding your intention. I wouldn't call that "crippled logic". I would use that as an indication that you need to explain yourself a little more clearly and to more clearly understand where someone else is coming from.
Edited by chockfullLink to comment
Share on other sites
Ham
I think this post belongs here.
Really, I'm giving you a chance to explain yourself. There is a lack of communication here. It's probably the non-communication that is inherent in way speak.
safe harbor. or haven. *we* know what THAT means, don't *we*.
Uhhh, no.
Shovel-ready manogawd(?).. surely that rings some bells somewhere..
no.
I've tried elsewhere framing a few answers with multiple choice options. Any of them close?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
johniam
OK. Thanx 4 the thread. I guess I'll treat it as my personal diary. Deep thoughts by Johniam, if you will.
quote: while there may be some parallels, the term "witnessing and undershepherding" is TWIspeak. Paul didn't teach "witnessing and undershepherding classes". It might be valuable to rid yourself of all the TWIspeak before you can truly think on your own in a genuine fashion. I don't view raising children as "witnessing and undershepherding". There are many other choice terms that I can use describing it, depending on the day
But that's just IT! The one common point of reference we all have is twi/the bible. I don't care if my analogies aren't a 100% match; this isn't a science class; it's an opinion forum.
quote: All the "devil spirits" talk is simply TWI's indoctrinated method to quickly implement "shunning" people. It certainly is the quickest method that a TWI leader can get unsuspecting underlings to not consider the logic of someone's argument. And usually it is a great indication that the argument has merit and is in opposition to the leader.
TWI did use the concept of devil spirits to shun people, but they still exist. Jesus MUST have told his disciples SOMETHING about how to spot them, what to say or not say to them, and when to pull the trigger (cast them out). Those guys rejoiced that even the devils were subject to them. Jesus said it was more relevant that their names were written in the book of life, yet he allowed them to be human. Yes, the idea of me myself casting out a devil spirit even with the power of God required to back it up is kind of overwhelming. It is noteworthy that when they are mentioned in scripture, it's usually when they're about to be cast out, or at least, told to shut up.
quote: In all the responses to you there are varying degrees of understanding your intention. I wouldn't call that "crippled logic". I would use that as an indication that you need to explain yourself a little more clearly and to more clearly understand where someone else is coming from.
No, they aren't trying to "understand my intention"; they've already judged me. My last post on the dishing it out thread may explain some things along these lines, however.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
johniam
OK. This is more like a diary entry.
Back in the day, LCM once said that the "dropout rate" in twi was highest the year after the wow year. He was acting like that was a BAD thing. I think it's a GOOD thing, and I saw related reenforcement of that couple nights ago. Let me explain:
Going wow was sort of a litmus test for the individual. I don't know about that "ten year's growth in one year" stuff, but before going wow, pretty much any believer could lead whatever double life they wanted. Go to twig, put on your church face; go home or elsewhere, put on any other face you want. But when you go wow, you live with and hang out with believers 24/7. Even on your job your time is regimented. No room for a double life. Not arguing the ethics of this, just saying that by the time that wow year is over, you KNOW what you're in for if you continue with twi. So it's perfectly normal if someone decides "hey, this is not for me".
TWI was WRONG to try to guilt people into staying committed without letting them think it through on their own. If someone got benefit from twi just from either going wow, taking foundational pfal, or even going to ONE twig fellowship, twi should have been thankful, cause it's God who gives the increase, right? I know of someone who left immediately after his corps graduation by design. So what? The gift without the giver is bare. Not just the gift of finances, any gift...commitment too. LCM was presumptuous to act like we OWE twi our utmost commitment beyond our lifetime. VP wasn't like that. VP may have expected more of way corps, but he knew that it doesn't do God any favors to guilt people into serving. He as much as said that in the way living in love somewhere.
So it's perfectly normal if someone decides "hey, this is not for me". BUT it's also perfectly normal if someone decides, "hey, this IS for me", as long as it's their decision. A lot of us did just that. I go to a fellowship run by a 9th corps couple, Russell and Cindy Coleman, whom some of you remember. They have 3 adult children. The elder guy is now 24 years old. He does a fellowship for young adults every Wednesday night. He was raised going to fellowship and taking classes, but wow isn't available anymore. However, he spent about a year living in what amounts to a way home with other young adults in WA state. They had secular jobs, did word related things, and basically hung out together for that time. The change in him is dramatic. Mainly, it's HIS belief system now, not his parents'. He did the same thing as the returning wow who decides, "Hey, this IS for me". That's a GOOD thing, but my overall point is that going wow gave us the enablement to make an informed decision as to whether to continue in this type of ministry or not.
I got invited to that fellowship to play 2 songs on guitar. I played Sam Pruyn's 'You've been forgiven' and Dean Ellenwood's 'It's gotta be God'. Normally us old timers are discouraged from going to that fellowship. I don't write many of my own songs, but I'm like an oldies station; I can play several twi songs from back in the day and they're not "old wineskins" to the believers here. Even the young folks like some of them.
I suspect that the real reason this thread was started was to get some kind of "payback". You want to coax me into posting things of interest to me just so you can try to "derail" it like you think I have derailed other threads. Well, have at it!
Edited by johniamLink to comment
Share on other sites
chockfull
I agree. I was not a proponent of TWI speak even when in the organization. I always have been more of a free thinking person. That's just me.
Yes they exist and are described in scriptures. The problem is that inside of TWI the lack of integrity at the top leadership levels has rendered their ministries null and void where they are blind to them even in their own midst. So instead they point to a person who disagrees with them and label them as "possessed", or "influenced", and issue edicts and slander about them. VPW did this and there are accounts on this site about it, as did LCM, and as do the current group of leaders. You may be insulated from that in your little local fellowship but consider it a public service we are making you aware of it.
Don't be so quick to generically label all of them. I do understand that it can be quite overwhelming to hold the sole opinion on a thread and have 6 or 7 others disagreeing with you at once.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
chockfull
Sure wow did good stuff for people. I had a great time. But some of the reason for the high dropout rates were how quickly people were doing it. Taking a foundational class in June, to the ROA in August, raising their money at the ROA and going out for a year. That's why they changed the program to what it is today. And they added a whole lot of rules. But the wayd program can be beneficial too. It's not necessarily the programs that are the problem as it is the morals of those at the top running them.
What VPW said in the way living in love and how he actually behaved in his personal life and in interactions offer up quite a contradiction to say the least.
My opinion differs. To take a young person in their teens or just out away from their family, immerse them in TWI in their homes and all their activities, produces a higher level of indoctrination. Can that be good for people and can they exist in that beneficially? Sure, there's a lot good basic people can do to shield those in their fellowships from the problems higher up. Many of us did that as well. But at some point you have to pay the piper, one way or another.
IMO a lot of the older music was better than the whitewashed soulless drivel they are cranking out now - no wonder it's popular with the youth.
No, I think both others and you were uncomfortable with the 6 or 7 vs. 1 developments of the other thread. You had some good points regarding CFFM at the beginning though.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
chockfull
Sure you have the right to dispute. IMO it wasn't just you that was responsible for the topic sidetrack and derail. It was the whole argument in general which consisted of a bunch of all of us.
Well I will agree with you that without a dissenting opinion many times interest drops off faster. I think that's more generally true of any topic on any forum though. Whether that is "damage control" or just simple human nature and interaction I'll leave up to you to decide.
I don't think GSC has any officially supported "doctrine". Most here do oppose TWI. It is a unique place in that, where people who actually oppose TWI can do so in an open manner. Try that in your fellowship. See how long that goes without people getting "rattled". Personally, I'm pretty much past getting rattled about a whole lot, although the immorality and heavy handed actions of TWI leaders has me morally disgusted to the point of wanting to make others aware of it.
I'm not that interested in persuading people to concur with me. I post here to be able to speak freely, which I was deprived of in TWI for years for fear of reprisal, as the vast majority of leaders in TWI are.
Sure this place has gravitated to be anti TWI. I think you're being a bit dramatic about the melting comment. People here have a pretty deep exposure to things in TWI and know how they operate and have been personally affected by it.
Or, I suppose you could believe what the mainstream line of thinking within TWI is, that this place is full of devil spirits, to stay off here, and that people are all lying. You know, where the real "damage control" is happening.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Ham
for me? No. Informed decision? "This type of ministry"?
while I was busy eating bologna sandwiches and "witnessing" and running classes, cabinet members were freely fornicating with my sisters in christ, some with and some against their will.
"this type of ministry"
Informed decision?
I'd still like to know what your definition of a safe harbor, or safe haven is.
Apparently it was NOT safe if one was young, attractive, and female..
Link to comment
Share on other sites
So_crates
There's an old Yiddish proverb: when the first man calls you a donkey, laugh. When the second man calls you a donkey, get angry. When the third man calls you a donkey, punch his face. When the fourth man calls you a donkey, buy a saddle.
If you have a group of people "misrepresenting" you, maybe its not them, its you.
As I said on the other thread, the purpose of communication is its result. If your being misrepresented, your obviously choosing to have it misrepresented, otherwise you would adjust whats being communicated so your not misrepresented.
SoCrates
Edited by So_cratesLink to comment
Share on other sites
johniam
quote: My opinion differs. To take a young person in their teens or just out away from their family, immerse them in TWI in their homes and all their activities, produces a higher level of indoctrination. Can that be good for people and can they exist in that beneficially? Sure, there's a lot good basic people can do to shield those in their fellowships from the problems higher up. Many of us did that as well. But at some point you have to pay the piper, one way or another.
True enough, but the same can be applied to military service and even college. What those 3, college, military, and wow have in common is discipline. Each of those things is a different kind of discipline, but ANY discipline will take the person's mind off their family and force them to rethink everything. Even a gang can do that. To an extent, I think it's healthy for young people to spend time away from their family comfort zones at some point.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
johniam
quote:
There's an old Yiddish proverb: when the first man calls you a donkey, laugh. When the second man calls you a donkey, get angry. When the third man calls you a donkey, punch his face. When the fourth man calls you a donkey, buy a saddle.
A lot more than 4 people called Jesus a deceiver and a heretic. He didn't try to appease them; he stuck to what he thought was right.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
So_crates
Yes, but ther's a difference between being right and being stubborn.
Stubborn ignore facts and continues forward blindly.
SoCrates
Edited by So_cratesLink to comment
Share on other sites
johniam
I have another analogy.
Last year a police officer, a woman, drove drunk and killed 4 teenagers. On Wednesday she was sentenced to 8 years in prison. Lots of local outrage. The teens families are from India. They wonder if the light sentence is because they're foreigners. She drank 5 Cosmopolitans at a pub. Other officers were there yet didn't stop her. I don't even know what a Cosmopolitan is.
The analogy is that as an officer, should she have been held to a higher standard? She probably arrested others for this. Put cuffs on them, read them their rights, etc. We say that VP was a clergyman, so he should be held to a higher standard. We should be outraged. He should have morals, so he should be penalized MORE because he was a recognized moral leader. Treatment of VP is now up to God, and treatment of the woman is up to the courts for now, but even though the woman was an officer, knew the law, enforced the law, gave law enforcement a black eye by doing what she did, she didn't negate the law!
Drunk driving is still illegal. All the reasoning behind that and related laws is still respected. The citizens of St. Louis county don't have to individually rethink all criminal law just because an officer who was recognized as an enforcer of the law did something unspeakable. I think you can figure out where the rest of this analogy is headed.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
So_crates
You just love these straw man arguments, don't you?
Not to mention arguing to a false analogy.
First off, to get a proper analogy you'd have to have this happen with a procecutor--who interprets the law books and decides who goes to trial and who doesn't. Not the cop in the street, while valuable, they're at about the level of a twig leader. The cop in the street is our contact with government, the twig leader is our contact with The Way.
Now had a county procecutor raped a woman I'm sure you'd be outraged. Seducing, and raping many women--not to mention abusing his authority and using the county's political machine to stop him from being procecuted--and the villagers would be getting their pichforks and torches and asking what is this guy doing in a position of power.
Same thing with Saint Vic, he seemed to want to tell everybody what their morals were without following them himself.
SoCrates
Edited by So_cratesLink to comment
Share on other sites
waysider
Raising children vs. witnessing and undershepherding
Witnessing and Undershepherding (syllabus)
Pg. 2
Our goal in in witnessing and undershepherding:
"The basic reason we witness is to help people into the classes on Power For Abundant Living and help them to walk on it."
--------------------------------------------------------------------
QUOTE
LCM was presumptuous to act like we OWE twi our utmost commitment beyond our lifetime. VP wasn't like that. VP may have expected more of way corps, but he knew that it doesn't do God any favors to guilt people into serving. He as much as said that in the way living in love somewhere
He may have said that in the book, but, it certainly wasn't reflected in the way he dealt with Gary Dunhoff's death.
Edited by waysiderLink to comment
Share on other sites
chockfull
I'm not great at analogy interpretation, so will have to guess.
1. Cosmopolitans are a New York drink and drinking them in St. Louis while you are a woman in a public service office will cause New Yorkers to give you a black eye?
2. We should be outraged at VPW, he should be held to a higher standard, and God should do that?
3. The fact that VPW was a drunken lecherous charlatan didn't change the Bible, just cause new interpretations of it?
4. Citizens of St. Louis county aren't rethinking criminal law?
I don't know, man, maybe I've got it all wrong. But people will do stupid things, cult leaders will bewitch masses, people will get used, God is still God, and a good portion of citizens of St. Louis county are selling meth thereby living criminal law as opposed to rethinking it, for which it's doubtful they have the capacity.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
waysider
Posted 09 May 2008 - 06:07 PM
The death of this woman was certainly tragic. It amazes me how anyone could deny any resposibility on the part of VPW.
From Karl Kahler's Book.
Quote
"Dunhoff died anyway. Wierwille called a meeting to announce his death. Then, said Desmond, Wierwille told everyone who had cheated on the colon cleanse to raise their hands. Then he told everyone who knew about the cheating to raise their hands. Everyone with a hand in the air, he said, was directly responsible for Gary Dunhoff's death."
The aboove refers to the death of Gary Dunhoff who died as a result of a car accident while he was out "cheating" on the colon cleanse by eating some cookies.
Wierwille held anyone who cheated on, or even knew about any cheating on the notorious colon cleanse
"directly responsible for Gary Duhoff's death".
So we have Wiwerwille, who cheated on his wife (adultry) while taking sexual advantage of a member of his flock, and as a result of of this, the woman commits suicide. Yet somehow, according to Oldiesman, Wiereille bears no responsibility.
Oldiesman, in light of the above, please explain how and why Wierweille can hold these folks "directly responsible" for the death of Gary Dunhoff, and yet somehow not himself be directly responsible for the death of Sandra Sullivan.
I await your reply.
This post has been edited by Goey: 09 May 2008 - 06:09 PM
Goey
Many of my fondest memories in TWI... never really happened.
SOURCE
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Yes, there's your Wierwille who, supposedly, never used guilt to bully people into submission.
Edited by waysiderLink to comment
Share on other sites
johniam
Waysider: Regarding W and U, as I said, I don't care if my analogy is not a 100% match.
quote:
QUOTE
LCM was presumptuous to act like we OWE twi our utmost commitment beyond our lifetime. VP wasn't like that. VP may have expected more of way corps, but he knew that it doesn't do God any favors to guilt people into serving. He as much as said that in the way living in love somewhere
He may have said that in the book, but, it certainly wasn't reflected in the way he dealt with Gary Dunhoff's death.
Apples and oranges: VP wasn't trying to guilt anyone into service, he was saying get it together or get out. He was harder on way corps than others; he thought God let that happen because they knew better. He was saying after all this time why don't you believe me. I recall a recent thread where this (Gary Dunhoff's death) was discussed, but I also read about it a few years ago in an excerpt of KKs book on Waydale.
quote: I'm not great at analogy interpretation, so will have to guess.
1. Cosmopolitans are a New York drink and drinking them in St. Louis while you are a woman in a public service office will cause New Yorkers to give you a black eye?
2. We should be outraged at VPW, he should be held to a higher standard, and God should do that?
3. The fact that VPW was a drunken lecherous charlatan didn't change the Bible, just cause new interpretations of it?
4. Citizens of St. Louis county aren't rethinking criminal law?
I don't know, man, maybe I've got it all wrong. But people will do stupid things, cult leaders will bewitch masses, people will get used, God is still God, and a good portion of citizens of St. Louis county are selling meth thereby living criminal law as opposed to rethinking it, for which it's doubtful they have the capacity.
A good portion? There are 2.5 million people in St. Louis city and county. How good is good? Most of that activity is done out in the rural areas, I recently read.
BTW Chockfull? If you don't mind my asking, when were you in twi? Sounds like since 1994.
quote: First off, to get a proper analogy you'd have to have this happen with a procecutor--who interprets the law books and decides who goes to trial and who doesn't. Not the cop in the street, while valuable, they're at about the level of a twig leader. The cop in the street is our contact with government, the twig leader is our contact with The Way.
Again, I don't care if my analogies are a 100% match. An analogy is like a parable. Jesus' parables weren't a 100% match; they drew a parallel between 2 things. For example the parable of the prodigal son (Luke 15). This parable drew a parallel between 3 principal povs in 2 different situations. In the actual scenerio, there was 1) Jesus, who spoke for God, the true forgiving Father, 2) the publicans and sinners, and 3) the Pharisees and scribes, who were resentful when they should have been rejoicing. In the parable there was 1) the forgiving father, 2) the younger son, who was being judged by...3) the older son, who was resentful when he should have been rejoicing. Get it?
Both VP and the officer were people who were associated with a standard which had authority behind it, who did unspeakable things. That's the comparison. Argue all you want.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
waysider
I was around when it happened. I remember it quite clearly. VP used guilt and fear to bully people into submission. He went as far as to call John Neve (the driver) a murderer, straight to his face. He used guilt to get his way. Period.
edit: The message he sent was "Do exactly as the MOG commands or horrific consequence will befall you and your loved ones". Wouldn"t want to be guilty of bringing harm to your loved ones, now would you?
Edited by waysiderLink to comment
Share on other sites
cara
I'm wondering what you meant by a double life - it's a red bullflag to me, it brings up the memory of the feeling that you had to justify yourself to other TWI believers by telling victory stories from the times when you weren't with them, that what mattered was the physical superficial time spent with them, not your life in Christ, with God. That being around non-TWIers was wrong (they couldn't be real believers), being normal conversationally was wrong, and that basically there was no way God would be with you if you weren't continually with Them. An over-reaction on my part, I'm sure, but I'm wondering what you meant.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.