You are just too cool, aren't you Lolly?---Nooooo...Butter wouldn't melt in your mouth. But that doesn't mean you can make your prior posts say anything other than what they do.
So, let's review.
In your first post, you said: "Please spare me any elevation of M Gibson's motivation in the sacrifice of "his own money" to make this film (and thereby expose XXX number of otherwise ignorant souls to Christ).
His top priority is to reap profits (which priority he is executing in handsome fashion)."
In this post, you implied with no small amount of sarcasm, that Mel Gibson's motives were PRIMARILY mercenary, coldly calculated with the view towards "profits". Now had you stated that you believed potential profit was ONE of his motives, and left off the sarcasm, I might have had a different reaction to your post. There's no doubt in my mind that Mel Gibson made this movie with the belief that it would AT LEAST break even, and hopefully make a profit. But I guess the difference between you and me in this regard, is that I believe he just MIGHT have poured years of research, preparation, blood, sweat, and tears, and yes, HIS OWN MONEY into this endevour with the primary motivating desire that it might accomplish something greater.
You continue: "do you expect me to believe that he funded this picture to spread the "Word"?" And then: "I admit my prejudice that, whenever money is involved, the motive (if ever there was one, other than money) is compromised."
You've remained silent, I've noticed, on my observation that TWI charges MONEY for WAP and other classes. But somehow, I suspect that you don't believe TWI's motives are "compromised" where that money is involved.---It's to "spread The Word", right? -->
Both TWI and Mel Gibson charge money to people to receive a biblical message, but ONLY MG's motives are profit driven?
I asked you: "Being a business man yourself, would you be willing to risk loosing VIRTUALLY EVERYTHING on a venture that could just as well ruin you? REALLY? Even when there are many surer and safer ways to makes that kind of money?"
I'm still waiting to hear what YOU would do under the the above circumstances. Would a primarily profit driven motive make a lot of sense in the face of such peril---FOR YOU?
But you weren't satisfied to paint Mel Gibson as a opportunistic money gruber. You had to bash the content of his movie, too (even thought you, as yet, have not even seen it). You said: "I am unimpressed with his focus on the torture to which Christ was exposed (no one can verify the accuracy of degree in this area) at the expense of the message concerning what Christ's sacrifice delivered to our world."
Again, you choose to disregard my observation that TWI never had a problem
"focusing on the torture" that Christ endured. Again, it would seem that, in your accessment, only if TWI does something is it above reproach. Now, lest you point out that TWI focuses on more than the brutality of Christ's Passion, bear in mind that the scope of a "Christian Ministry" (at least one would hope) would focus more widely than it is possible to do in a 2 and a half hour film. A movie ABOUT Christ's Passion, would of necessity, focus upon the enormity of his sacrifice. A movie about PENTACOST would obviously focus on "what Christ's sacrifice delivered to our world". Both messages are important. Notice that God emphasized the "enormity of the sacrifice" more than a few times in The Word. Would you now question God's motive of focusing upon Christ's passion in the Gospel accounts? I didn't think so...
But it does appear that my question to you about what TWI does with "ALL THAT MONEY" got your attention. Did the question never enter you mind prior to my asking? You can question what MG is doing with all that money he's making from The Passion, but not what TWI is doing with all that ABS you faithfully send in?---Unless, of course, you don't ABS to TWI---in which case, a new day must certainly be dawning. Because, in the past, anyone NOT regularly contributing at least 10% of his income, would have some 'splainin' to do before his leadership!Yes, indeed DO get back to me. It will be interesting hearing what your leadership (undoubtedly after inquiring "up The Way Tree" how he should answer your question)has to say on the matter.
I said: "Nope. They maintain a stately property in Ohio, which none of their followers (whose hard earn dollars serve to keep it in such immaculate condition) can even step foot upon unless they've received prior written authorization. They maintain another high dollar property in Colorado, which serves virtually NO PURPOSE for the average follower(again, being maintained through your hard earned ABS dollars and the hard work of lots of overworked, underpaid peons) YOU have to pay extra for EVERYTHING! YOU have to pay for phone hookups. YOU have to pay for each new class that comes down the pike. YOU have to pay to sacrifice Thanksgiving with your family in order to sit through yet another "Advance Class Special". You have to pay for those Sunday Service tapes, even when you've already paid to hear the same teaching before via a phone hookup. You even have to pay for that pitifully thin Way Magazine."
Concerning having to "pay" for all of the above listed items/services, are you saying that you can get the Way Magazine without having to pay for it? You can attend the Advanced Class special for free? You'll be sitting through that "new class" they are rumored to be soon releasing for free? You get Sunday Service Tapes through the mail without paying for them? If so, my husband sure ought to know about that. You see, he actually sends in twenty dollars a month to receive that privilege. You've never been asked to contribute money to reimburse the fellowship host for the long distance toll of a Sunday service phone hookup? I'm sure my point, that none of these things are covered by ABS was NOT lost on you. No need to act obtuse.
If you are saying that you decline to participate in or partake of any of these things, then again, I say it must be a new day at TWI. For one thing, when most of us on this board were "innies", it was not optional to opt out of subscribing to either the Way Mag or Sunday Service Tapes. And if one failed to avail himself of new classes or never showed up at phone hookups, one would surely be asked if one had his spiritual priorities straight? If indeed, you are allowed to continue availing yourself of fellowships, without having to exhibit these benchmarks of "spiritual commitment", my hat's off to you. They might indeed be loosening their iron gripe on their followers.
LLP, the reasons why many people assumed that your responses were indicative of TWI's overall opinion of The Passion are, One: Because you are a "representative innie", and Two: The tone in which you denigrated both, Mel Gibson and his movie, sight unseen, is SO usually typical of TWI toward any biblically based endevour NOT initiated by TWI.
Thank you, CC. You took the words right out of my mouth.
LLP, I won't spare you any elevation of Mel Gibson's motive beyond profit. If you think that was his sole motive, then that opinion (not you, the opinion) is stupid. And yes, it's mean-spirited too. I guess "charity thinketh no evil" doesn't cover a producer making a movie to bring a story about the sufferings of Christ to the masses.
Your later post is far more nuanced, and appreciated, for whatever that's worth.
Gibson didn't have to make this movie. He didn't have to finance it with his own money. Was he hoping for a profit? I'm sure he was. But was that his top priority? Doubtful. So please spare me the insinuation that you don't find anything wrong with profit as his motive. Your "please spare me" exposed your sentiment.
You don't need to see the movie if you don't want to. Jesus Christ Our Passover is just as graphic, without the disturbing visuals. This movie glorifies Christ. That's my experience, and just as I can't talk you out of YOUR experience in a freedom-choking cult, you can't talk me out of my experience in a Christ-glorifying film. So spare me.
quote:As E.F. Hutton so aptly (if misleadingly inaccurately in their case) put it, he made that money the old fashioned way, he earned it.
That was Smith Barney - not E.F. Hutton.
LLP, I happen to agree with some of what you say about Gibson's profit motive for Passion. However I do also think that Gibson's passion for this movie was at least paritally based in his faith. One does not necessarily preclude the other. Live isn't all black and white.
You are fairly bright person, but you sure have a pompous way of expressing yourself which I think may be partly why some folks jump on your posts so much.
BTW, I did a post in the Open Forum on how to use GS's quote feature. You may consider looking at that.
quote:As E.F. Hutton so aptly (if misleadingly inaccurately in their case) put it, he made that money the old fashioned way, he earned it.
That was Smith Barney - not E.F. Hutton.
LLP, I happen to agree with some of what you say about Gibson's profit motive for Passion. However I do also think that Gibson's passion for this movie was at least paritally based in his faith. One does not necessarily preclude the other. Live isn't all black and white.
You are fairly bright person, but you sure have a pompous way of expressing yourself which I think may be partly why some folks jump on your posts so much.
BTW, I did a post in the Open Forum on how to use GS's quote feature. You may consider looking at that.
Goey
Goey:
Touche on the E.F. Hutton/Smith Barney thing, LOL, and, I do appreciate that you (and, to be sure, others) continue to actually read and respond without flaming me. Further, I'm sorry if my writing style seems pompous. I'm really not that way, so, I'll do my best to tone it down a little. OTOH, I try to be as open-minded as a stubborn one such as myself can be - and sometimes it gets a little frustrating on the board (although I do enjoy coming here and reviewing the posts).
I understand that the mass-mentality here is going to be anti-TWI. Based upon what I've read in the past, that is understandable; but if you review the initial post, IMO, it didn't warrant all the "jumpers-on" who pretty much amplified what appears to me to be a non-documented statement of opinion on how the poster expects (based, perhaps, upon his/her experience) TWI leadership to react to this film.
In my experience, exactly the opposite is true. Yet, the majority of posters immediately jumped to support Insurgent as though what was posted is the (excuse me, please) prevailing position throughout TWI.
I can tell you, most believers support this film and have taken non-believer friends (BTW, there is a lot of socializing with non-believers in my fellowship - no mandate to get them to class or to fellowship, just to be friends like anyother relationship where friends share different beliefs) to see it.
I can't speak for all of TWI and don't pretend to, and I am sorry if I come off pompously. I'll try to work on that.
llp, it's been proven that you live in a la la land of twi that not one person can verify or validate. In this la la land where your fellowship is things are said and leadership behaves differently than it does anywhere else in twi.
I have mentioned many times in many places that I can not and will not reveal anymore about myself and my location or leadership than absollutely necessary. The twi(ts) have tried to break into my e-mail and log on and want very much to know who I am and I will not provide that information yet.
These comments I reported have come from leadership, wc and regular kool aide drinkers who parrot what they hear from leadership. twi is not and never will give credit to non-twi people or organizations. They even spend a great deal of time teaching their wc wannabees how to "research" their own collaterals and twi published material instead of "re-inventing the wheel" and _having_ to go to _oustide, unreliable_ sources for information and research.
twi has not changed and these statements are consistent with the arrogant attitude expressed by so many die-hard wayfers.
Insurgent, you and I really ought to compare notes sometime - not on this board, of course. I do understand where you're coming from, and, perhaps what you say is accurate, that my area somehow differs from all others - or, OTOH, perhaps yours is the one that is "unique."
LLP, you do come across as arrogant most of the time and your experience does not match the experiences of 99% of the people on this site.
I'm "in" and I have heard the same statements and same aloofness that Insurgent has posted about and heard from others in different parts of the country similar double-sided compliments on the film.
I truly believe that if you are telling the truth about your experiences with TWI then you are either very very wealthy or very inconsistent in your attendance at TWI functions and fellowship with others in TWI so that you miss a lot of things.
TWI people can be very two-faced and they are good at putting their best foot forward when around those not considered on the inner circle of even common levels of believers. They may be telling you things they think you want to hear in order to keep you involved and to keep getting your money or to get you to stay around so they can continue trying to get your money.
Maybe if you tell us who some of YOUR leadership is, was and has been we could tell if you were in a protected environment.
Yeah...THATS it! Lolly Poppy....tell us please, WHAT section of the country your fellowship is in...maybe we could ALL come there and enjoy the benefits you speak of....maybe we could all hold up your fellowship as an example to the REST of twi as how to run a successfull spiritually nurturing place!
Maybe your fellowship can SAVE the rest of the ministry lolly poppy!
You are just too cool, aren't you Lolly?---Nooooo...Butter wouldn't melt in your mouth. But that doesn't mean you can make your prior posts say anything other than what they do.
So, let's review.
In your first post, you said: "Please spare me any elevation of M Gibson's motivation in the sacrifice of "his own money" to make this film (and thereby expose XXX number of otherwise ignorant souls to Christ).
His top priority is to reap profits (which priority he is executing in handsome fashion)."
In this post, you implied with no small amount of sarcasm, that Mel Gibson's motives were PRIMARILY mercenary, coldly calculated with the view towards "profits". Now had you stated that you believed potential profit was ONE of his motives, and left off the sarcasm, I might have had a different reaction to your post. There's no doubt in my mind that Mel Gibson made this movie with the belief that it would AT LEAST break even, and hopefully make a profit. But I guess the difference between you and me in this regard, is that I believe he just MIGHT have poured years of research, preparation, blood, sweat, and tears, and yes, HIS OWN MONEY into this endevour with the primary motivating desire that it might accomplish something greater.
You continue: "do you expect me to believe that he funded this picture to spread the "Word"?" And then: "I admit my prejudice that, whenever money is involved, the motive (if ever there was one, other than money) is compromised."
You've remained silent, I've noticed, on my observation that TWI charges MONEY for WAP and other classes. But somehow, I suspect that you don't believe TWI's motives are "compromised" where that money is involved.---It's to "spread The Word", right? -->
Both TWI and Mel Gibson charge money to people to receive a biblical message, but ONLY MG's motives are profit driven?
I asked you: "Being a business man yourself, would you be willing to risk loosing VIRTUALLY EVERYTHING on a venture that could just as well ruin you? REALLY? Even when there are many surer and safer ways to makes that kind of money?"
I'm still waiting to hear what YOU would do under the the above circumstances. Would a primarily profit driven motive make a lot of sense in the face of such peril---FOR YOU?
But you weren't satisfied to paint Mel Gibson as a opportunistic money gruber. You had to bash the content of his movie, too (even thought you, as yet, have not even seen it). You said: "I am unimpressed with his focus on the torture to which Christ was exposed (no one can verify the accuracy of degree in this area) at the expense of the message concerning what Christ's sacrifice delivered to our world."
Again, you choose to disregard my observation that TWI never had a problem
"focusing on the torture" that Christ endured. Again, it would seem that, in your accessment, only if TWI does something is it above reproach. Now, lest you point out that TWI focuses on more than the brutality of Christ's Passion, bear in mind that the scope of a "Christian Ministry" (at least one would hope) would focus more widely than it is possible to do in a 2 and a half hour film. A movie ABOUT Christ's Passion, would of necessity, focus upon the enormity of his sacrifice. A movie about PENTACOST would obviously focus on "what Christ's sacrifice delivered to our world". Both messages are important. Notice that God emphasized the "enormity of the sacrifice" more than a few times in The Word. Would you now question God's motive of focusing upon Christ's passion in the Gospel accounts? I didn't think so...
But it does appear that my question to you about what TWI does with "ALL THAT MONEY" got your attention. Did the question never enter you mind prior to my asking? You can question what MG is doing with all that money he's making from The Passion, but not what TWI is doing with all that ABS you faithfully send in?---Unless, of course, you don't ABS to TWI---in which case, a new day must certainly be dawning. Because, in the past, anyone NOT regularly contributing at least 10% of his income, would have some 'splainin' to do before his leadership!Yes, indeed DO get back to me. It will be interesting hearing what your leadership (undoubtedly after inquiring "up The Way Tree" how he should answer your question)has to say on the matter.
I said: "Nope. They maintain a stately property in Ohio, which none of their followers (whose hard earn dollars serve to keep it in such immaculate condition) can even step foot upon unless they've received prior written authorization. They maintain another high dollar property in Colorado, which serves virtually NO PURPOSE for the average follower(again, being maintained through your hard earned ABS dollars and the hard work of lots of overworked, underpaid peons) YOU have to pay extra for EVERYTHING! YOU have to pay for phone hookups. YOU have to pay for each new class that comes down the pike. YOU have to pay to sacrifice Thanksgiving with your family in order to sit through yet another "Advance Class Special". You have to pay for those Sunday Service tapes, even when you've already paid to hear the same teaching before via a phone hookup. You even have to pay for that pitifully thin Way Magazine."
Concerning having to "pay" for all of the above listed items/services, are you saying that you can get the Way Magazine without having to pay for it? You can attend the Advanced Class special for free? You'll be sitting through that "new class" they are rumored to be soon releasing for free? You get Sunday Service Tapes through the mail without paying for them? If so, my husband sure ought to know about that. You see, he actually sends in twenty dollars a month to receive that privilege. You've never been asked to contribute money to reimburse the fellowship host for the long distance toll of a Sunday service phone hookup? I'm sure my point, that none of these things are covered by ABS was NOT lost on you. No need to act obtuse.
If you are saying that you decline to participate in or partake of any of these things, then again, I say it must be a new day at TWI. For one thing, when most of us on this board were "innies", it was not optional to opt out of subscribing to either the Way Mag or Sunday Service Tapes. And if one failed to avail himself of new classes or never showed up at phone hookups, one would surely be asked if one had his spiritual priorities straight? If indeed, you are allowed to continue availing yourself of fellowships, without having to exhibit these benchmarks of "spiritual commitment", my hat's off to you. They might indeed be loosening their iron gripe on their followers.
LLP, the reasons why many people assumed that your responses were indicative of TWI's overall opinion of The Passion are, One: Because you are a "representative innie", and Two: The tone in which you denigrated both, Mel Gibson and his movie, sight unseen, is SO usually typical of TWI toward any biblically based endevour NOT initiated by TWI.
It's not my response that I felt was mistakenly assumed to be that indicative of TWI, but Insurgent's.
I've acknowledged some of your rhetorical and not so rhetorical questions - so, let up and give me a breather - I worship God, I don't claim to be Him, so I can't answer all of your questions in the "twinkling of an eye."
For what it's worth, I try to call 'em as I see 'em, and, I think I have, over time, tolerated and accepted the response here on this board as objectively as one who holds my generally divergent viewpoint can on such a board.
I didn't denigrate anyone or anything, not even Mel or his film. Given the stern tone of your post, you won't agree, but that's your right . . . I don't challenge it.
Also, I post here to express my opinion (which is just that, nothing more, but nothing less) in an atmosphere I know from experience can be hostile - that's to be expected, not because anyone else here is bad, not because I am bad. I know I'm not stupid, nor are my viewpoints. I don't consider anyone else or their viewpoints in that category. How any of you feel is your business, your right. I certainly do not seek validation of my right to post here, I was validated during the registration process, just like the rest of you.
That I don't measure each and every word in an initial post as to how it will affect responses, that I don't review and analyze that initial post to coordinate it with my own subsequent replies is more the result of spontaneity than deliberate or accidental contradiction.
You of course, are free to interpret all my words as you see fit.
Perhaps, as some say, I do live in la-la land. I make free will chioces with God's guidance to craft my own, individual walk. That it includes TWI is my own choice, and not due to some sort of cultish blackmail. I won't be intimidated by such blackmail (if ever it presents itself) to stay in TWI, nor will I be shamed into leaving TWI because of someone else's experience.
You've made your choice, I've made and will continue to make mine. I'd be willing to concede that I may have been too narrow in my initial description of Mel's motives, how 'bout some of you coming around to the concession that what I say about my experience might just possibly be true (for me, at least, if for no one else)?
I feel like I'm starting to sound pompous, now, so I'm going to sign off and cool down. Honestly, I don't mean to rant. I'm just like you, though, just a human with human feelings, emotions, strong opinions, and I find it helpful to participate here (whether you choose to believe that or not).
Thanks to all who replied, whether your message was intended to please, entertain, inform, or , well, whatever.
We aren't nearly as at odds with one another as it may seem.
To all, a fine day. Thanks for the opportunity to post.
I think Mel hoped for a profit, but I would be hard pressed to argue that was his primary motive. He could have made huge profits on any number of projects, as he has in the past. For profit to be his PRIMARY motive, one would expect him to appeal to our basest tastes, not our most noble. Disagree with his decision to make such a bloody film? Fine. Everyone's entitled. But ascribe it primarily to profit? Gotta disagree with you there, buddy.
I feel like I'm starting to sound pompous, now, so I'm going to sign off and cool down. Honestly, I don't mean to rant. I'm just like you, though, just a human with human feelings, emotions, strong opinions, and I find it helpful to participate here (whether you choose to believe that or not).
Thanks to all who replied, whether your message was intended to please, entertain, inform, or , well, whatever.
We aren't nearly as at odds with one another as it may seem.
To all, a fine day. Thanks for the opportunity to post.
Respectfully,
LLP
llp--you will have to excuse me for finding it hard to believe if other present-day, present-truth wayfers would say what you just did about posting here. One might wonder if RFR, HP, JYL, GF, and other way high muckedy-mucks would share those sentiments or approve of them for the rank-and-file.
Yeah...THATS it! Lolly Poppy....tell us please, WHAT section of the country your fellowship is in...maybe we could ALL come there and enjoy the benefits you speak of
>>
Yes I've been interested in this information
myself especially since LLP supposedly enjoys a hassle free existence in her relationship with TWI therefore she should have no problems disclosing this information. And given the amazing freedom she seems to enjoy in her local fellowship then why would there be a fear of reprisal if she shared details ?
LLP has said in previous threads that "numbers
are up" in TWI though when pressed for supporting documentation becomes quiet and stops
posting for a while I guess in hopes that people forget that she didn't come up with the
information. I'm still waiting LLP for that
info that supports your assertion.....
I've said it before - I have doubts that LLP
is even in TWI or has ever been. I've never
seen her post anything that a casual reader
of Gspot couldn't reconstruct by regularly visiting and gleaning timelines and details.
LLP's posts are typically vague when it comes to
basic information though she regualarly chastises Gspot for not having more insider
While I've been at loggerheads with LLP in the past, I respect his (or her) right to post his (or her)opinions.
As far as an opinion of "The Passion" goes, here's mine... (and no, I haven't seen it - the blood stuff would make be barf).
I agree that Mel originally made the film out of his Catholic conviction, but I think in the end, when the money was spent and he saw that there was a load of controversy around the movie, he let loose the media hounds and made sure that everyone knew about it. He even previewed it for free to a lot of churches and fundie groups. I'm not putting him down for that in any way. Had I layed out that much money for a film I believed in, I'd want to 1.) Get the word out about it and 2.) At least make back my original investment.
Money may not have been the prime motivator for him making the movie, but what film maker sets out to lose $30 million dollars? (hmmm - can you say "Gigli"?).
I don't think it's wrong for him to make money on the film. But I think to say he was so altruistic that he didn't care about making money is naive.
Remember what happened when Martin Scorsece(sp?) made "The Last Temptation of Christ"? I think all the controversy and publicity made that movie more money than they expected it to make as well.
That's why they call it "the business" in Hollywood... it IS business.
well i see what you and LLP mean (i thought LLP was girl ?)
but i'm not speaking to LLP, i'm mad, he said i'm in an offshoot ;)-->;)-->;)-->
Sorry you're mad, Ex', and, for the life of me, if you are trying to be funny or if you are serious about me saying you were in an offshoot, truthfully, I don't get it - call me thick headed if you must (my Mom called me that all the time.
Yeah...THATS it! Lolly Poppy....tell us please, WHAT section of the country your fellowship is in...maybe we could ALL come there and enjoy the benefits you speak of
>>
Diaz, show me one other innie here who lists his/her name, address, or other specific identifier. You cannot.
So far, I'm happy with my experience in TWI, and, for a group that's supposed to have withered away years ago (according to the numbers here), we seem to manage quite a few bodies (and souls) when we have meetings. Our group is a cross-section of society that includes professionals (public school teachers, college profs, business people, psychologists), mechanics, construction workers, factory workers, unemployed, teeny weenies, teenies (teens), young adults, and down right old dinosaurs, high school students, college students, drop outs, singles, married couples, divorced singles, single moms, and single moms to be. Folks miss fellowship for all the reasons you might imagine (work, vacation, illness, sports (a pet peeve of mine, Sunday mornings used to be off limits to school sports, not anymore!!), whatever. I've never witnessed anyone being reproofed for missing fellowship - no one misses a lot, no one who misses gets fried (that's fried like an egg . . . it's not a typo, LOL). Outreach is available to those who are available and care to take advantage of the opportunity. No one who can't or chooses not to participate get's reproved. I've taken trips and never had to leave so much as a phone number behind, let alone an itinerary.
It simply amazes me that some folks here are so stubborn in their notion that TWI must always be exactly as they remember or envision it, that they would sooner crack into a zillion pieces, like a fried marble, than allow themselves the possiblity that someone currently choosing to be involved with TWI could actually do so of his/her own free will and live to enjoy the experience without divorcing non-believer family and friends - without sacrificing that same free-will choice to accept Christ, study the Word, and aspire to a greater relationship with God.
My reason for staying in TWI is selfish - it works for me.
I don't doubt for one moment that on judgement day, I'll be directed to take my place on the right side of the room. I also don't doubt that I'll be joined there by faithful souls who walked this earth many years before me, many years before TWI ever existed . . . I don't doubt that at all. So, this illogical mind of mine concludes that at least some of those folks will not have been active in the Household . . . I'm guessing that some will come from Martin Luther's time - some will be Protestant, some will be Catholic - some will be (gasp!!) Jews and/or Judeans.
No one from TWI has EVER told me otherwise (we don't sawte [argh. . . make that waste] time trying to define who it is that isn't going to make it), but if someone did tell me that, I would politely file it away in that 'you don't say' folder in my brain and move on with my life as usual.
I'm not speaking for what any of you might have heard from anyone in TWI - I will only go by my experience which has been fufilling for me.
That's what a personal walk is all about (IMHO).
If some of you want to discredit my comments by casting doubt about how genuine (or truthful) I am, go right ahead. Validation is not among the reasons I visit this board.
Attempts to discredit my perspective by suggesting that perhaps I've never even been a part of TWI notwithstanding, I am comfortable with and know who I am, God knows who I am (and a few on this board also know who I am), and all that works fine for me.
(OT!!) Please excuse the inserted post. I meant to type at the end of the quoted post. I'm not too handy yet with the quote and post function of this board - for instance, how might one highlight, cut, and paste text to reposition it without having to retype everything? I dont' see that option. Please do excuse.
Respectfully,
LLP
Yes I've been interested in this information
myself especially since LLP supposedly enjoys a hassle free existence in her relationship with TWI therefore she should have no problems disclosing this information. And given the amazing freedom she seems to enjoy in her local fellowship then why would there be a fear of reprisal if she shared details ?
LLP has said in previous threads that "numbers
are up" in TWI though when pressed for supporting documentation becomes quiet and stops
posting for a while I guess in hopes that people forget that she didn't come up with the
information. I'm still waiting LLP for that
info that supports your assertion.....
I've said it before - I have doubts that LLP
is even in TWI or has ever been. I've never
seen her post anything that a casual reader
of Gspot couldn't reconstruct by regularly visiting and gleaning timelines and details.
LLP's posts are typically vague when it comes to
basic information though she regualarly chastises Gspot for not having more insider
LLP, Respectfully, I'm glad that you post here and I'm glad that your experience is much different from what all the rest of us have experienced.
I myself have not witnessed half the atrocities that are talked about on here, but I do identify with the doctrinal errors and some of the injustices and mean things done by leadership. I have been relatively protected, but part of that is because of reasons I can not go into right now.
I do believe every person on here and I can see how the things could have happened. I have heard stories locally from first hand experiences that have made my hair curl. So, while I also believe you, I do think you are in a very unique position and have not been in a position to see or experience the TWI that most of have. I think you're very intelligent, but I wonder if you are naive to the "between the lines" wayspeak that goes on in TWI. Do you listen to the STS tapes or read the magazine articles? I'm curious as to what you think of those.
The life [he is still alive] of Jesus still causes division.
Remember the various TWI studies in abundant living entitled something like
Why Division?
The four crucified?
The day Jesus Christ died?
Who carried the cross?
Has anybody read those lately?
I am reworking those points for myself before the seeing the movie. I hear the face of the devil as a women is shown in the crowd calling for his crucifion. But there is no verse in any gospel saying anything directly about the devils presence.
Recommended Posts
Top Posters In This Topic
7
13
9
15
Popular Days
Mar 24
33
Mar 13
19
Mar 19
18
Mar 12
14
Top Posters In This Topic
Raf 7 posts
oldiesman 13 posts
Steve! 9 posts
LowlyLollyPoppy 15 posts
Popular Days
Mar 24 2004
33 posts
Mar 13 2004
19 posts
Mar 19 2004
18 posts
Mar 12 2004
14 posts
Cherished Child
You are just too cool, aren't you Lolly?---Nooooo...Butter wouldn't melt in your mouth. But that doesn't mean you can make your prior posts say anything other than what they do.
So, let's review.
In your first post, you said: "Please spare me any elevation of M Gibson's motivation in the sacrifice of "his own money" to make this film (and thereby expose XXX number of otherwise ignorant souls to Christ).
His top priority is to reap profits (which priority he is executing in handsome fashion)."
In this post, you implied with no small amount of sarcasm, that Mel Gibson's motives were PRIMARILY mercenary, coldly calculated with the view towards "profits". Now had you stated that you believed potential profit was ONE of his motives, and left off the sarcasm, I might have had a different reaction to your post. There's no doubt in my mind that Mel Gibson made this movie with the belief that it would AT LEAST break even, and hopefully make a profit. But I guess the difference between you and me in this regard, is that I believe he just MIGHT have poured years of research, preparation, blood, sweat, and tears, and yes, HIS OWN MONEY into this endevour with the primary motivating desire that it might accomplish something greater.
You continue: "do you expect me to believe that he funded this picture to spread the "Word"?" And then: "I admit my prejudice that, whenever money is involved, the motive (if ever there was one, other than money) is compromised."
You've remained silent, I've noticed, on my observation that TWI charges MONEY for WAP and other classes. But somehow, I suspect that you don't believe TWI's motives are "compromised" where that money is involved.---It's to "spread The Word", right?
-->
Both TWI and Mel Gibson charge money to people to receive a biblical message, but ONLY MG's motives are profit driven?
I asked you: "Being a business man yourself, would you be willing to risk loosing VIRTUALLY EVERYTHING on a venture that could just as well ruin you? REALLY? Even when there are many surer and safer ways to makes that kind of money?"
I'm still waiting to hear what YOU would do under the the above circumstances. Would a primarily profit driven motive make a lot of sense in the face of such peril---FOR YOU?
But you weren't satisfied to paint Mel Gibson as a opportunistic money gruber. You had to bash the content of his movie, too (even thought you, as yet, have not even seen it). You said: "I am unimpressed with his focus on the torture to which Christ was exposed (no one can verify the accuracy of degree in this area) at the expense of the message concerning what Christ's sacrifice delivered to our world."
Again, you choose to disregard my observation that TWI never had a problem
"focusing on the torture" that Christ endured. Again, it would seem that, in your accessment, only if TWI does something is it above reproach. Now, lest you point out that TWI focuses on more than the brutality of Christ's Passion, bear in mind that the scope of a "Christian Ministry" (at least one would hope) would focus more widely than it is possible to do in a 2 and a half hour film. A movie ABOUT Christ's Passion, would of necessity, focus upon the enormity of his sacrifice. A movie about PENTACOST would obviously focus on "what Christ's sacrifice delivered to our world". Both messages are important. Notice that God emphasized the "enormity of the sacrifice" more than a few times in The Word. Would you now question God's motive of focusing upon Christ's passion in the Gospel accounts? I didn't think so...
But it does appear that my question to you about what TWI does with "ALL THAT MONEY" got your attention. Did the question never enter you mind prior to my asking? You can question what MG is doing with all that money he's making from The Passion, but not what TWI is doing with all that ABS you faithfully send in?---Unless, of course, you don't ABS to TWI---in which case, a new day must certainly be dawning. Because, in the past, anyone NOT regularly contributing at least 10% of his income, would have some 'splainin' to do before his leadership!Yes, indeed DO get back to me. It will be interesting hearing what your leadership (undoubtedly after inquiring "up The Way Tree" how he should answer your question)has to say on the matter.
I said: "Nope. They maintain a stately property in Ohio, which none of their followers (whose hard earn dollars serve to keep it in such immaculate condition) can even step foot upon unless they've received prior written authorization. They maintain another high dollar property in Colorado, which serves virtually NO PURPOSE for the average follower(again, being maintained through your hard earned ABS dollars and the hard work of lots of overworked, underpaid peons) YOU have to pay extra for EVERYTHING! YOU have to pay for phone hookups. YOU have to pay for each new class that comes down the pike. YOU have to pay to sacrifice Thanksgiving with your family in order to sit through yet another "Advance Class Special". You have to pay for those Sunday Service tapes, even when you've already paid to hear the same teaching before via a phone hookup. You even have to pay for that pitifully thin Way Magazine."
Concerning having to "pay" for all of the above listed items/services, are you saying that you can get the Way Magazine without having to pay for it? You can attend the Advanced Class special for free? You'll be sitting through that "new class" they are rumored to be soon releasing for free? You get Sunday Service Tapes through the mail without paying for them? If so, my husband sure ought to know about that. You see, he actually sends in twenty dollars a month to receive that privilege. You've never been asked to contribute money to reimburse the fellowship host for the long distance toll of a Sunday service phone hookup? I'm sure my point, that none of these things are covered by ABS was NOT lost on you. No need to act obtuse.
If you are saying that you decline to participate in or partake of any of these things, then again, I say it must be a new day at TWI. For one thing, when most of us on this board were "innies", it was not optional to opt out of subscribing to either the Way Mag or Sunday Service Tapes. And if one failed to avail himself of new classes or never showed up at phone hookups, one would surely be asked if one had his spiritual priorities straight? If indeed, you are allowed to continue availing yourself of fellowships, without having to exhibit these benchmarks of "spiritual commitment", my hat's off to you. They might indeed be loosening their iron gripe on their followers.
LLP, the reasons why many people assumed that your responses were indicative of TWI's overall opinion of The Passion are, One: Because you are a "representative innie", and Two: The tone in which you denigrated both, Mel Gibson and his movie, sight unseen, is SO usually typical of TWI toward any biblically based endevour NOT initiated by TWI.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
Thank you, CC. You took the words right out of my mouth.
LLP, I won't spare you any elevation of Mel Gibson's motive beyond profit. If you think that was his sole motive, then that opinion (not you, the opinion) is stupid. And yes, it's mean-spirited too. I guess "charity thinketh no evil" doesn't cover a producer making a movie to bring a story about the sufferings of Christ to the masses.
Your later post is far more nuanced, and appreciated, for whatever that's worth.
Gibson didn't have to make this movie. He didn't have to finance it with his own money. Was he hoping for a profit? I'm sure he was. But was that his top priority? Doubtful. So please spare me the insinuation that you don't find anything wrong with profit as his motive. Your "please spare me" exposed your sentiment.
You don't need to see the movie if you don't want to. Jesus Christ Our Passover is just as graphic, without the disturbing visuals. This movie glorifies Christ. That's my experience, and just as I can't talk you out of YOUR experience in a freedom-choking cult, you can't talk me out of my experience in a Christ-glorifying film. So spare me.
Edited by GuestLink to comment
Share on other sites
LowlyLollyPoppy
Link to comment
Share on other sites
alfakat
llp--nice...and YOUR point is?????????
Link to comment
Share on other sites
LowlyLollyPoppy
Goey:
Touche on the E.F. Hutton/Smith Barney thing, LOL, and, I do appreciate that you (and, to be sure, others) continue to actually read and respond without flaming me. Further, I'm sorry if my writing style seems pompous. I'm really not that way, so, I'll do my best to tone it down a little. OTOH, I try to be as open-minded as a stubborn one such as myself can be - and sometimes it gets a little frustrating on the board (although I do enjoy coming here and reviewing the posts).
I understand that the mass-mentality here is going to be anti-TWI. Based upon what I've read in the past, that is understandable; but if you review the initial post, IMO, it didn't warrant all the "jumpers-on" who pretty much amplified what appears to me to be a non-documented statement of opinion on how the poster expects (based, perhaps, upon his/her experience) TWI leadership to react to this film.
In my experience, exactly the opposite is true. Yet, the majority of posters immediately jumped to support Insurgent as though what was posted is the (excuse me, please) prevailing position throughout TWI.
I can tell you, most believers support this film and have taken non-believer friends (BTW, there is a lot of socializing with non-believers in my fellowship - no mandate to get them to class or to fellowship, just to be friends like anyother relationship where friends share different beliefs) to see it.
I can't speak for all of TWI and don't pretend to, and I am sorry if I come off pompously. I'll try to work on that.
Respectfully,
LLP
Link to comment
Share on other sites
LowlyLollyPoppy
Insurgent, you and I really ought to compare notes sometime - not on this board, of course. I do understand where you're coming from, and, perhaps what you say is accurate, that my area somehow differs from all others - or, OTOH, perhaps yours is the one that is "unique."
LLP
Link to comment
Share on other sites
rascal
Woah...who ARE you...and what have you done with our REAL lolly poppy? lol
fair nuff...long as you realise that YOUR fellowship is not necessarily the norm for the rest of twi...either
Link to comment
Share on other sites
WaywardWayfer
LLP, you do come across as arrogant most of the time and your experience does not match the experiences of 99% of the people on this site.
I'm "in" and I have heard the same statements and same aloofness that Insurgent has posted about and heard from others in different parts of the country similar double-sided compliments on the film.
I truly believe that if you are telling the truth about your experiences with TWI then you are either very very wealthy or very inconsistent in your attendance at TWI functions and fellowship with others in TWI so that you miss a lot of things.
TWI people can be very two-faced and they are good at putting their best foot forward when around those not considered on the inner circle of even common levels of believers. They may be telling you things they think you want to hear in order to keep you involved and to keep getting your money or to get you to stay around so they can continue trying to get your money.
Maybe if you tell us who some of YOUR leadership is, was and has been we could tell if you were in a protected environment.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
rascal
Yeah...THATS it! Lolly Poppy....tell us please, WHAT section of the country your fellowship is in...maybe we could ALL come there and enjoy the benefits you speak of....maybe we could all hold up your fellowship as an example to the REST of twi as how to run a successfull spiritually nurturing place!
Maybe your fellowship can SAVE the rest of the ministry lolly poppy!
Link to comment
Share on other sites
LowlyLollyPoppy
It's not my response that I felt was mistakenly assumed to be that indicative of TWI, but Insurgent's.
I've acknowledged some of your rhetorical and not so rhetorical questions - so, let up and give me a breather - I worship God, I don't claim to be Him, so I can't answer all of your questions in the "twinkling of an eye."
For what it's worth, I try to call 'em as I see 'em, and, I think I have, over time, tolerated and accepted the response here on this board as objectively as one who holds my generally divergent viewpoint can on such a board.
I didn't denigrate anyone or anything, not even Mel or his film. Given the stern tone of your post, you won't agree, but that's your right . . . I don't challenge it.
Also, I post here to express my opinion (which is just that, nothing more, but nothing less) in an atmosphere I know from experience can be hostile - that's to be expected, not because anyone else here is bad, not because I am bad. I know I'm not stupid, nor are my viewpoints. I don't consider anyone else or their viewpoints in that category. How any of you feel is your business, your right. I certainly do not seek validation of my right to post here, I was validated during the registration process, just like the rest of you.
That I don't measure each and every word in an initial post as to how it will affect responses, that I don't review and analyze that initial post to coordinate it with my own subsequent replies is more the result of spontaneity than deliberate or accidental contradiction.
You of course, are free to interpret all my words as you see fit.
Perhaps, as some say, I do live in la-la land. I make free will chioces with God's guidance to craft my own, individual walk. That it includes TWI is my own choice, and not due to some sort of cultish blackmail. I won't be intimidated by such blackmail (if ever it presents itself) to stay in TWI, nor will I be shamed into leaving TWI because of someone else's experience.
You've made your choice, I've made and will continue to make mine. I'd be willing to concede that I may have been too narrow in my initial description of Mel's motives, how 'bout some of you coming around to the concession that what I say about my experience might just possibly be true (for me, at least, if for no one else)?
I feel like I'm starting to sound pompous, now, so I'm going to sign off and cool down. Honestly, I don't mean to rant. I'm just like you, though, just a human with human feelings, emotions, strong opinions, and I find it helpful to participate here (whether you choose to believe that or not).
Thanks to all who replied, whether your message was intended to please, entertain, inform, or , well, whatever.
We aren't nearly as at odds with one another as it may seem.
To all, a fine day. Thanks for the opportunity to post.
Respectfully,
LLP
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
Thanks for posting, LLP. Even if we disagree.
I think Mel hoped for a profit, but I would be hard pressed to argue that was his primary motive. He could have made huge profits on any number of projects, as he has in the past. For profit to be his PRIMARY motive, one would expect him to appeal to our basest tastes, not our most noble. Disagree with his decision to make such a bloody film? Fine. Everyone's entitled. But ascribe it primarily to profit? Gotta disagree with you there, buddy.
Pleasure chatting with you.
Edited by GuestLink to comment
Share on other sites
alfakat
llp--you will have to excuse me for finding it hard to believe if other present-day, present-truth wayfers would say what you just did about posting here. One might wonder if RFR, HP, JYL, GF, and other way high muckedy-mucks would share those sentiments or approve of them for the rank-and-file.
you are a rank-and-file, are you not, llp???
Link to comment
Share on other sites
diazbro
Rasal said:
Yeah...THATS it! Lolly Poppy....tell us please, WHAT section of the country your fellowship is in...maybe we could ALL come there and enjoy the benefits you speak of
>>
Yes I've been interested in this information
myself especially since LLP supposedly enjoys a hassle free existence in her relationship with TWI therefore she should have no problems disclosing this information. And given the amazing freedom she seems to enjoy in her local fellowship then why would there be a fear of reprisal if she shared details ?
LLP has said in previous threads that "numbers
are up" in TWI though when pressed for supporting documentation becomes quiet and stops
posting for a while I guess in hopes that people forget that she didn't come up with the
information. I'm still waiting LLP for that
info that supports your assertion.....
I've said it before - I have doubts that LLP
is even in TWI or has ever been. I've never
seen her post anything that a casual reader
of Gspot couldn't reconstruct by regularly visiting and gleaning timelines and details.
LLP's posts are typically vague when it comes to
basic information though she regualarly chastises Gspot for not having more insider
information and gossip as if thats the primary
purpose of this forum. On the other hand , as
an alleged insider, she should be willing to
provide such information.
Edited by GuestLink to comment
Share on other sites
Hope R.
While I've been at loggerheads with LLP in the past, I respect his (or her) right to post his (or her)opinions.
As far as an opinion of "The Passion" goes, here's mine... (and no, I haven't seen it - the blood stuff would make be barf).
I agree that Mel originally made the film out of his Catholic conviction, but I think in the end, when the money was spent and he saw that there was a load of controversy around the movie, he let loose the media hounds and made sure that everyone knew about it. He even previewed it for free to a lot of churches and fundie groups. I'm not putting him down for that in any way. Had I layed out that much money for a film I believed in, I'd want to 1.) Get the word out about it and 2.) At least make back my original investment.
Money may not have been the prime motivator for him making the movie, but what film maker sets out to lose $30 million dollars? (hmmm - can you say "Gigli"?).
I don't think it's wrong for him to make money on the film. But I think to say he was so altruistic that he didn't care about making money is naive.
Remember what happened when Martin Scorsece(sp?) made "The Last Temptation of Christ"? I think all the controversy and publicity made that movie more money than they expected it to make as well.
That's why they call it "the business" in Hollywood... it IS business.
(ready for fire and brimstone...)
Edited by GuestLink to comment
Share on other sites
excathedra
well i see what you and LLP mean (i thought LLP was girl ?)
but i'm not speaking to LLP, i'm mad, he said i'm in an offshoot
;)-->
;)-->
;)-->
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Hope R.
Exie:
I just edited my post to say him (or her) because I'm not sure...
Link to comment
Share on other sites
diazbro
At one point LLP's profile indicated "she"
Edited by GuestLink to comment
Share on other sites
LowlyLollyPoppy
Sorry you're mad, Ex', and, for the life of me, if you are trying to be funny or if you are serious about me saying you were in an offshoot, truthfully, I don't get it - call me thick headed if you must (my Mom called me that all the time.
LLP
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Steve!
LLP, notice the smileys? She's kidding
Link to comment
Share on other sites
excathedra
i'm sorry LLP it was a total total funny
you mentioned waydale and how greasespot is an offshoot of waydale
i was just laughing my head off because i said i hate offshoots
i was laughing at my cult like self
sorry and thanks
Link to comment
Share on other sites
LowlyLollyPoppy
Link to comment
Share on other sites
LowlyLollyPoppy
My bad, EX. I really can be thick headed sometimes. LLP
Link to comment
Share on other sites
WaywardWayfer
LLP, Respectfully, I'm glad that you post here and I'm glad that your experience is much different from what all the rest of us have experienced.
I myself have not witnessed half the atrocities that are talked about on here, but I do identify with the doctrinal errors and some of the injustices and mean things done by leadership. I have been relatively protected, but part of that is because of reasons I can not go into right now.
I do believe every person on here and I can see how the things could have happened. I have heard stories locally from first hand experiences that have made my hair curl. So, while I also believe you, I do think you are in a very unique position and have not been in a position to see or experience the TWI that most of have. I think you're very intelligent, but I wonder if you are naive to the "between the lines" wayspeak that goes on in TWI. Do you listen to the STS tapes or read the magazine articles? I'm curious as to what you think of those.
Are you really in NY City?
;)-->
Link to comment
Share on other sites
fortunateone
To all
The life [he is still alive] of Jesus still causes division.
Remember the various TWI studies in abundant living entitled something like
Why Division?
The four crucified?
The day Jesus Christ died?
Who carried the cross?
Has anybody read those lately?
I am reworking those points for myself before the seeing the movie. I hear the face of the devil as a women is shown in the crowd calling for his crucifion. But there is no verse in any gospel saying anything directly about the devils presence.
Any thoughts?
By the way ... get out of TWI now!
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.