Leaderboard

Mark, Since your post is so long I didn't want to copy and paste. . . . God's providence does not exempt you from civil obedience. . . nor from paying your taxes or from obeying the laws of the land. We are to be as wise as serpents and as harmless as doves. . . . what you think you understand about grave evil may in fact be wrong. You may have taken a political agenda and mingled it with a narrow biblical perspective and come up with a uniquely American Christian phenomenon. . . . truth, justice and the fear of social values. If you break it down. . . what is your complaint? That your taxes are being used for the health and welfare of others? And that this somehow goes against what is right in the sight of God? Because you believe God didn't say that is how to see to the care of others? Because it is the State using your money to help feed, clothe, and house those less fortunate? Widows, orphaned children, those disabled and not able to care for themselves? Or is it just unwed mothers that bother you? People with addiction issues? Take another look at what it is you are opposing. The help, care, and concern for those less fortunate. You are justifying this as evil. Why? Because you are taxed? In a society where you live and enjoy the benefits afforded? Because it is the State offering these helpful programs. Food on the table of a hungry family is God's bounty whether it comes from food stamps or a pay check. As long as it is received with thankfulness does it make it ANY less a blessing??? A hungry kid get's a school lunch on your dime. . . My goodness. . . the grave evil just sucks the air from the room. Jesus said. . . pay your taxes. . . the society in which you live says. . . part of this money is going to help the poor. . . this reflects our values as a society. . . . not some conspiracy against God. Take another look at what you think is grave evil. Not a chance it is close. Paul tells us to obey the laws of the land. . . pay your taxes. . . and Mark says. . . I have to, but I will speak out against such grave evil. . . . what evil. . . that part of your taxes are used for the good of others??? Yeah. . . okay?

Perhaps that's because the people you go to church with are...what's the word?...polite! People saying things like, "...he needs to grow a pair" are just further evidence of how controlling twi wanted to be. One just shouldn't say stuff like that to someone, it's just plain rude and insulting!

"The Way,Twi"leadership liked to use the phrase except when you stood up to them,then it was rebellion.

Kinda reminds me a fifth fourth grade playground bully. "Whadda ya, chicken?"

Yeah.......and "that" kind of corps were too often promoted for their bullying and megaphone mouthings. Like any group, the fringes seem to get most of the attention.....albeit, wierwillistic antics. All one has to do is look at wierwille's "promoted"......martindale, geer, lynn, finnxgan, etc to see the arrogance in runaway mode.

This has little to do with how our family runs and everything to do with crass people running off at the mouth when they don't get their way. My husband made it clear early on that he never wanted to do a work crew. Some people from TWI apparently didn't get that memo, so they'd call during the day when he wasn't home and I'd tell them that he wasn't interested. I didn't need to ask him because I already knew what the answer would be. I didn't feel it was necessary to interrupt him by calling him at work or giving them his work number because they didn't want to take my word for it, so I didn't. My guess is that they weren't used to someone (namely female) deflecting them and the assumption was made that my husband hadn't made sure that I knew my place. Many of "that" kind of corp were used to talking down to people and they weren't used to someone like me politely but firmly holding her ground. So rather than say something like OK, they'd tell me my husband needed to grow a pair. We've been involved with our church for over 12 years and when I've told someone no on his behalf (because I know that's what he'd tell them), no one has ever suggested that my husband needed to grow a pair.

Correction: You did NOT flake out. You wised up.

The scriptures pull no punches in exposing those who SPIN and are IN...the vicious cyle of "ever learning and never able to come to the knowledge of the truth." Perhaps, twi and its splinter groups would do well to spend time studying this section of scripture and then, taking a hard, long look in the mirror. For those who stand guilty of spinning this cycle......ever learning and never able to come to the knowledge of the truth......are men (women) who are lovers of their own selves, covetous, boasters, proud, blasphemers, false accusers, fierce, despisers of those that are good, traitors, heady, highminded, lovers of pleasures more than lovers of God, having a form of godliness [and that's not even the WHOLE LIST]. Have we seen men and women like this? Is it any wonder that the proud and highminded want a following? Is it surprising that such false leaders seek their own "teaching ministries" or splinter groups or web sites that spew their rhetoric? So when this verse shows up: II Tim 3:7 Ever learning, and never able to come to the knowledge of the truth. .....it is not surprising that these false teachers/accusers STAND IN OPPOSITION TO GOD AND THE KNOWLEDGE OF GOD. And yet.......some left twi only to jump into another spin cycle.

My husband is basically non-confrontational. He usually keeps his mouth shut. On a number of occasions we would get called to do stuff that he didn't want to do, like clean up someone else's yard, whatever. At the time, we had 3 small kids and quite a bit of work we were doing on our own home (which we were buying), so essentially, he didn't volunteer to help out. So, someone would invariably ask me to volunteer him, and I'd invariably tell them no. A conversation would go something like this (usually on the phone): We're cleaning x's house and need someone to clean out the gutters. Would your husband be available to help out at 10am Saturday? Me: No. Them: I'd like to talk to him myself. Me: No you're not. I already know he's not going to have the time, because he has plenty to do around here. Them: He needs to grow a pair. I can't recall how many times I was told my husband needed to grow a pair, but it was more than a couple of times. Why would someone say something like that?

Of course had he been honest then his cult never would have become as "big" as it did. But if VPW had known that, one day, any 10 year old could find out the truth about snow on gas pumps, who invented the hook shot and what Pike's Peak really was, plagiarism etc. ...would he have been a more honest minister? He had no checks and balances and was dangerously unchallenged no matter what he claimed. or was he truly a psychopath?

Cool post, Jeff. Though the language you use is probably the sort of language that would have been heard coming from that man's mouth. In keeping with your original post, I'm not sure if the splinter group leaders find it necessary to use such vile language in teaching their people.

Excellent and well put post, Geisha! Thank you!

To me, the irony of him even having a job at Home Depot is just too much perfection, be his job title President or Greeter. Wasn't a Home Depot somehow involved, allegedly, in the lawsuit we first learned about at Waydale? The lawsuit that sent him off TWI grounds, carrying little more than a tampon and a toothbrush, on his own for the first time, yeah that one. I'll look it up, but I'm pretty sure...... (edited to say "a" Home Depot, since the Co itself shouldn't be implied by me to have been involved)

Of course. But, they're missing the key ingredient-----charisma. Have you ever done this?-----An old song comes on the radio and you find yourself reminiscing with your kid (or grandkid) about how great the music was "way back when"? They look at you with a blank stare. Why? Because it's not really the music that was captured in your fond memories, it's all the circumstances surrounding the situation in which you heard it. I think it's the same for some of these guys. They yammer on and on about the greatness of "the law of believing", not realizing it's really all the hype surrounding "the class" that has taken up permanent residence in their minds. If you click on the website in the initial post and listen to the teaching on "the law of believing", it becomes quite apparent.

Thanks Twinky..((Hugs Right Back At you))) I never understood why my husband did not feel able to leave TWI in the light of day but now after I came here I finally understand why and what a horrible pressure he felt not just for our twig life but the decision to marry me and how that must have added ten fold times more pressure. If we had stayed would our marriage have survived intact.. I doubt it. We made the dead on Right decision to leave. Our lives have been so blessed since then...But it was not until I came here that I truly understood how right that decision to leave was. And even more important that the decision to not go back, was also the correct one.

(((((Leafy))))) sneaking out like that... You made the right decision. What a bizarre way to feel you needed to act on that decision.

LOL tazia at the time we felt like we were flaking out and really until I found Grease spot it felt like we had quit on God's Word.. We truly left before so much of what you all left about happened.. not that it wasn't going on but since we were in the more remote and less populated areas we really didn't know most of this stuff.. We just knew we were not happy ... Well he was not happy, I was beginning to really question and One night I told him how much sometimes I wished we were not twig coordinators and that it was difficult to be watched by all of the people in your twig who were just waiting for you to make a mistake, (we were running a twig near the Limb) and he said what if we left. and I said you mean Idaho and he said no I mean the Way. Would you come with me.. and I said with out a moment of hesitation of course I would come with you I love you why wouldn't I... Two nights later we left in the middle of the night Minus much of our belongings.. we took only what we could carry in our back packs... We felt like we were failures, we were struggling with making enough money to be financially stable and had been for over a year. and Hubby had been reamed out several times... We left the state and began our lives anew and it took a long time to feel like we had made the right decision... in fact it wasn't until sometime in 88 that I ran into a TWI believer and got invited to twig that I realized I would never go back... That gut feeling when something is dangerous that you get sometimes when know something is wrong but not what exactly. Well for me it wasn't until I came on here that I knew why I got that feeling. Now I know.

My "unbelievable" was rhetorical, really... ANYTHING is believable and done in Wayworld!! -- RIDICULOUS!!! was more my intent.

Yes, the lawsuit is certainly a possibility. I can hope that they'd choose to win the fight, but it is up to them to figure out how to respond to TWI if a lawsuit happens again. (grammar)

Hi Tzaia, It seems pretty clear to me that the ones who tell you this concerning your husband most likely intend it as an insult to you both concerning how your family runs. It sounds like you aren't refering to life in Wayworld, but as things are for you now. And even outside of TWI insults, put downs, and ignorantly judging folks like you and your hubby seem to be not an unknown occurance. But personally, I don't see how they feel they have the right to give the two of you such an unsavory commentary.

Field Corps were expected to expect an assignment on staff every few years. To keep them fresh on the Word. We're not talking a one-year assignment, either. Not enough to listen to Corps Night over hookups, on tape, or however, nor to be involved with twigs, branches, limbs on a constant basis. Most "church" leaders will go away on retreat/to synod/to conference/to some other type of clergy meeting, for maybe a week max, Monday to Friday. But only for a week. They don't need to go back to their training institution for prolonged re-training.

"Grow a pair!" Said innocently: "Oh, our yard is too small for that. We already have two apple trees and some fruit bushes. No room for a pear tree."

Let's try this one more time. We'll make it simpler. Just a yes or no answer. Is it ever justified to overthrow a government?

Nah, I don't think he cared.

Somewhat off-topic, but this reminds me of an old joke: A newlywed couple enter their new home together. The husband (much larger than his wife) takes off his pants and tells her to put them on. They're obviously much too big, and she says, "I can't wear these!" "That's right," he replies,"because I wear the pants in this family!" The wife then takes off her panties and tells her husband to put them on. "I can't get into these!" he exclaims. "That's right, and you WON'T be getting into those until you change your attitude!" :lol:

A dickless Cabinet Member and a sacless Department Coordinator once went before Queen Q-tip herself to tell her Mrs. B was wearing the pants. What was Mrs B doing? Exactly what her husband had "told" her to do. Absolutely nothing wrong. Was I ever confronted? Did anyone ask me? Was Almighty Q-tip receiving revelation? She was too busy to get the facts. What did any of it have to do with anything? There are a few trees on grounds missing some a lot of bark. Who do you think they represent?

WW.....you beat me to it. I was just about to say the same thing. Wierwille was idolized......warts and all.

Oh, if I had a nickel for every time someone said that to me/hubby throughout the 90's... !!! Leadership LOVED to say that whenever they couldn't get the husband to do what they wanted, ESPECIALLY if the husband was allowing the wife to speak out or if he was deferring to her expertise or wisdom. Just like they would tell the wife she was being spiritually rebellious if she disagreed with her husband or the leadership over anything. Their other favorite phrase was to tell me that I needed to stop trying to wear the pants in the family. I think the first time I was told that was in 1987, about a month into in-rez training, and the last time I was told that was a few days before I was booted from twi in 2000. The funny thing is, usually the leadership agreed with whatever it was that I was doing, they just hated the fact that I was the one doing it and not my husband. That's when he would get the "grow a pair" speech, and I would get the "wearing the pants" speech. Unbelievable.

I think they thought you were controlling him instead of the other way around. I understand that you weren't controlling him....you were just helping him keep his own calendar focused on the family. They wanted him to tell you that he would make up his own mind and come over to do the gutters like THEY wanted. I hope that made sense.

Seems to me that he'd need to grow a pair if he could get bullied to do something on the phone. Funny how they wouldn't notice that irony. (Please to note: I am not saying he would succumb to their persuasion or not. Not implying anything one way or the other on that)

Had you understood my post, you would recognize that I fully agree that taxes are not charitable giving. But perhaps you don't quite understand charitable giving that a Christian is called to do, so let me lay it out for you in a granular fashion. Let us assume, for this example, you make a gross salary of $6,000 per month. $2,000 is paid for taxes (federal, state, local, sales, property, etc.). $600 for a tithe (which is really not charity), $3,000 a month for expenses (mortgage/rent, gas, food, etc.), leaves $400 to put away for savings (rainy day fund, retirement, kid's college, etc.). And nothing left over for charity. Now, let us assume that the government did not perform social assistance spending and taxes were adjusted accordingly: $6,000 per month for income, $1,000 for taxes, $600 for tithe, $3,000 for expenses, $400 for savings, and all of a sudden, you have $1,000 that can be given to charitable causes. If you assert that taxes do not impede charitable giving, that is ridiculous. If you don't have the money, you can't give it. If you pay less in taxes, you have more money that you can dispose of, including to charity. Would I attempt to assert that everybody would then give all of their excess to charity? Of course not. But there are those of us who would give a whole lot more if there was less taken from us through taxes. And I would assert that this number would be more than we would think, once people were to realize that it is up to them to help keep people from being homeless or to keep folks from starving. Caution: <marquee width=500><blink><font color=red><b>Godwin's Law has been triggered needlessly</b></font></blink></marquee> I did not cite the European example you mentioned because those people did not throw off a dictatorial and unjust ruler. The others did. But try answering the question: should those countries I did cite have just sucked it up? Did those countries, including the United States, commit sin by revolting against their rulers? Should we, morally, still be a British colony?

You and I agree on that one. Shocking. Churches should steer way clear of any government influence...and the lack of doing so is one of my biggest problems with liberal-leaning churches, even moreso than the problem with the government for allowing it. My issue with those who take the Establishment Clause and attempt to create a hostile environment to the public expression of religion by individuals. For example, there are those who would want to prohibit my high school daughter from gathering with a couple of other Catholic kids and praying the Rosary during their lunch break at school, citing 'the wall of Separation' as justification. There are those who would prohibit Federal employees from having a Bible Study group in an unused conference room during their lunch break or after work hours, citing that same wall. There are those who would apply a religious litmus test to elected / appointed officials, not that they wanted to require a religion, but that being a member of a religion would be a disqualifier (once again, the same old tired "too many Catholics on the court" thing came up in some circles with the appointment of Sonia Sotomayor to SCOTUS, as a recent example...to say nothing of Sarah Palin's membership in a Pentacostal type of denomination being an utter disqualification for VP). And, of course, who can forget about the case last spring at a Florida high school where Mary Allen, senior class president, as forbidden to speak at the class's graduation because of fears she might mention something about God. One quote about it is sort of funny: "Mr. Staver said the district also agreed to forbid senior class President Mary Allen from speaking at the school's May 30 graduation ceremony on the chance that the young woman, a known Christian, might say something religious. " When it gets to that extreme, I think the pendulum may have swung a bit too far. Of course, I would never expect you to agree with me on that one.

2 Thess 3:10: For even when we were with you, this we commanded you, that if any would not work, neither should he eat. This verse refers to those who are able but not willing. It is unfortunate that many churches have fallen down on the job and do not care for the unfortunate ones in their midst, but I doubt that ever changes, since the government does it for them. No wonder people think church is boring; you go Sunday for a couple of hours and there's not much else to do. The people in the first century church didn't just say it; they lived it. The Romans considered them to be inferior people; they weren't too interested in lending a helping hand to the Jews or the new church. Am I supposed to apologize that I never got beat to a pulp by one of those girls? I did get cursed a lot because of the color of my skin. Does that count? WG

I've been out of residence for over 30 years and I still have a recurring nightmare of having to go back in-residence. Always crying, that I just can't do it.

First of all, I know a lot of people who work a full work week and don't expect to be paid a dime for it. They are members of religious orders. Who are we to tell God how He will provide? Well, it seems to me if the model of charitable giving extolled throughout the entire Bible is followed, we are not actually telling God how He will provide, rather, we are simply following the guidelines He set forth. On the other hand, if we set up an example that is nowhere even hinted at and require the poor to follow that example, at that time we begin telling God how Hw will provide. Your quote from Romans 13 is an interesting one. In the context of your post, the message I'm receiving from you is that we should all shut up and submit to the government. I don't know if that's what you intended to communicate, so if I got that wrong, please clear it up a bit. Thanks. Let's carry out the logic of that a bit, though. We should just shut up and pay our taxes, tolls, and give respect to the government. OK, fine. Using that line of thinking, Poland's domination by the USSR should not have been opposed in the 1980s, because their domination was of God. The countries of Africa should not have risen up and thrown off their French and English colonial masters during the 1960s. Mahatma Gandhi should have just concentrated on Yoga, rather than leading the Indians out of Colonial rule in the 40s. As with Iraq in the 20s. Turkey should have never thrown off Ottoman rule and become a secular state. And, finally, the US should still be a British colony. So perhaps that understanding of Romans 13:1-7 needs some tweaking.

The point was not sympathy; the point is are they really being helped, and in my opinion only one or two of them were. Throwing money and sympathy at a problem isn't a solution. Those girls needed to learn accountability and responsibility. They learned neither. They learned that they were pitiful, helpless, victims and that society owed them. They were taught that they were not responsible for their problems, nor were they responsible to learn any skills, support themselves or care for themselves in any way. I can think of two who very well may be independent right now, but most of them are probably still living off taxpayer money. I believe in helping those who cannot help themselves, but I do not have any interest in helping those who will not help themselves. And that's Biblical. Here's an example from that particular place: A teenage girl was in a class in the school and decided to spend the hour or so looking out the window. When she was asked, very politely and respectfully, to please kindly take her seat, she flew into a rage. How dare that &*()_()_^&*^())( tell her what to do? She flew upon the instructor, a big hulking young man, and had to be restrained. Even while her teeth were grinding the flesh in his forearm, this young man is saying, "Now, _____, you're really not angry at me you are angry at the person who hurt you when you were a child. That is the person you are biting, not me, not really." No accountability there. The guy had to get stitches and probably a tetanus and a rabies shot. But she was not responsible for harming him, oh no, she was a victim. I think it's time for people in this country to grow up, take responsibility for their own actions, and stop depending on the government. I believe in being as charitable as possible, but I would rather give my time and money and goods to those who really need help and want to help themselves. WG

What version of the Bible is that? Romans 13:1,2 etc refers to being subject to the higher powers in the church (who have not so far in the 21st century been worthy of it IMO) Most of us pay taxes whether we want to or not. Paying taxes that are used to supposed social welfare programs takes all the choice out of charity. My one brush with the system was when I was a receptionist for a year at a former orphanage which was then billed as a "residential treatment facility for troubled adolescent females." I have absolutely no sympathy for these kids. They did as they pleased - stole, beat the crap out of each other and the counselors, ran away, turned tricks whenever they could. And there was no discipline in place, for they were poor innocent children according to the all-knowing State, and under no circumstances should they be taught right from wrong or even accountability. "IT'S NOT MY FAULT" was their battle cry. They were schooled on grounds, got an allowance, and pretty much lounged around the rest of the time, when they weren't threatening murder and mayhem. One of the pitiful little darlings decided to commit suicide by setting her room on fire, changed her mind, and wandered off to play. Three people who crawled into her room to rescue her suffered smoke inhalation, while she was out enjoying volleyball with her friends. Another little lady threw a plugged in radio into the shower where a girl was bathing whom she didn't care for. The problem, as I see it, with this "charity" was that there was no godliness in it, no accountability, no real caring. Most of the counselors were just babysitters in bedlam. I think it would be much better if such charities were privately run. Like George Mueller. These chicks were turned loose on society with no skills, no home, no clue how to take care of themselves. The State should have just taken all the money it poured into that place and had a nice bonfire with it. WG

Geisha, I believe those in our society who self-identify with a major concern for social justice have seriously misinterpreted, if not perverted, two thousand years of social teaching. I believe they have co-opted social justice teaching to promote a socialist agenda. That is not a universal condemnation, just the general norm for the past 75-80 years. Therefore, since I have no desire to be associated with those doctrinal perversions, I prefer to separate myself from identifying with them. I will perform labor with those groups from time to time, as some of them do perform worthy work; however, I refuse to support the positions they take on political issues. In fact, I have actually used a "lobbying night" to lobby for positions that correspond to authentic social doctrine rather than the perversions they promote. You see, my position on social issues is that it is a personal responsibility of Christians (and other people of good will) to perform both corporal (physical) acts of mercy and spiritual acts of mercy. This is not something that can be delegated to a centralized governmental bureaucracy. Take, for example, feeding the poor. It is my personal responsibility to feed the poor, not the government's. Therefore I work from time to time in the local soup kitchen, deliver groceries to the homebound, and stock my local food bank. It is my pleasure to do so, because I feel that I get some variety of blessing for it and believe that I impart some sort of blessing to those whom I serve. And, oh, by the way, we don't ask the religion of somebody when they get fed, get groceries delivered, or pull food out of the food bank (just thought I should say that). Assistance can be tailored to what is needed in a given individual circumstance. Paying my taxes does not relieve me of that responsibility, but it strips me of my resources needed to properly carry out that responsibility. (When, after taxes, I take home only about 60% of my gross income, I am severely hampered in my ability to share with the poor) Even Dorothy Day believed in a voluntary poverty, not a State-imposed one. If you look up the name Dorothy Day, you will find her to be as radical a social justice champion as there is, but she comes from an era that was before the current one where State controlled charity became the preferred option. You said, God is a bit socialist in this respect. . . take another look. One area that is often misunderstood is that society does not equal the State. Socialism makes that mistake. So do most "social justice" types. I have studied the subject intently for years. God is in no way a socialist. God wants His people to depend on Him and Him alone. Socialism substitutes God with the State as the source. Socialism is a grave moral evil.

The concept of a wall of separation between church and state comes from a letter written by Thomas Jefferson to the Danbury Baptist Church. The letter was written to reassure a religious minority in the new state of Connecticut that their rights were not something that was conveyed to them by a legislative body; rather, those rights were immutable. The letter itself says: To messers Nehemiah Dodge, Ephraim Robbins, & Stephen S. Nelson a committee of the Danbury Baptist association in the state of Connecticut. Gentlemen The affectionate sentiments of esteem & approbation which you are so good as to express towards me, on behalf of the Danbury Baptist association, give me the highest satisfaction. my duties dictate a faithful & zealous pursuit of the interests of my constituents, and in proportion as they are persuaded of my fidelity to those duties, the discharge of them becomes more & more pleasing. Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between man & his god, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, and not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof, thus building a wall of separation between church and state. [Congress thus inhibited from acts respecting religion, and the Executive authorised only to execute their acts, I have refrained from presenting even occasional performances of devotion presented indeed legally where an Executive is the legal head of a national church, but subject here, as religious exercises only to the voluntary regulations and discipline of each respective sect.] Adhering to this exp​ression of the supreme will of the nation in behalf of the rights of conscience, I shall see with sincere satisfaction the progress of those sentiments which tend to restore to man all his natural rights, convinced he has no natural right in opposition to his social duties. I reciprocate your kind prayers for the protection and blessing of the common Father and creator of man, and tender you for yourselves and your religious association, assurances of my high respect & esteem. (signed) Thomas Jefferson Jan.1.1802. The first amendment, itself, says: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances. You can judge for yourself, in this particular context, whether Jefferson's letter is a good exposition and an accurate representation of the text that is actually in the "Establishment Clause" of the First Amendment or not. I don't particularly see any conflict when reading the entire context of Mr. Jefferson's short note to these people. However, do I see any basis for the current way that the "wall of separation between church and state" has been applied in modern days? I absolutely do not see that. ((placing hands over head waiting on the onslaught from Garth & Co)) The Establishment Clause is not the subject of this thread, though (the way I see it), the subject is the intermingling of Church and State. Looking at it from a doctrinal point of view. Consider the famous quote from Jesus, as recorded in Mark 12:17, "Render to Caesar the things that are Caesar's, and to God the things that are God's." It seems that Jesus clearly understood the roles of a non-religious government and that of the religious establishment. (look at the context of that verse to see what I mean) Consider social justice efforts in the Bible. You will see no examples of where a secular state is charged with looking after the poor. For example, in Leviticus 19:10, And you shall not strip your vineyard bare, neither shall you gather the fallen grapes of your vineyard; you shall leave them for the poor and for the sojourner: I am the LORD your God. There was no commandment to turn over part of the harvest to the government for government redistribution of wealth. Those who owned fields and vineyards were told to leave a bit behind. It was an individual call to charity, not a call for government action. Consider in the New Testament. Acts 4:34-35, There was not a needy person among them, for as many as were possessors of lands or houses sold them, and brought the proceeds of what was sold and laid it at the apostles' feet; and distribution was made to each as any had need. Who effected distribution? Not the government, but the church. Likewise, there was no compulsion to sell the surplus and pay the proceeds as a tax: it was voluntary. Then you have the other passage that is frequently used by the "social justice" types: Mat 25:34-36 Then the King will say to those at his right hand, 'Come, O blessed of my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world; for I was hungry and you gave me food, I was thirsty and you gave me drink, I was a stranger and you welcomed me, I was naked and you clothed me, I was sick and you visited me, I was in prison and you came to me.' Mat 25:37-39 Then the righteous will answer him, 'Lord, when did we see thee hungry and feed thee, or thirsty and give thee drink? And when did we see thee a stranger and welcome thee, or naked and clothe thee? And when did we see thee sick or in prison and visit thee?' Mat 25:40 And the King will answer them, 'Truly, I say to you, as you did it to one of the least of these my brethren, you did it to me.' You will, again, note that there was not a call to be taxed and to have a government, either earthly or spiritual, make the distribution. There was an obligation laid for each person to take action. Knowing this, it amazes me that the churches would want to be intertwined with government. One would think they would be familiar with the verse, No servant can serve two masters; for either he will hate the one and love the other, or he will be devoted to the one and despise the other. You cannot serve God and mammon." (Luke 16:13) When they compromise themselves by acceptance of government money, and the government terms and conditions that go along with that government money, they compromise themselves.

I mean, why didn't Bruce simply join Finnagins group?...Oh, I get it...Vince didn't offer him a paycheck that was as good as starting his own thing...and besides, now Bruce can be the mog...what a deal. They learned their lessons well.

Very funny stuff, really. I gotta grin everytime I read you all's stuff.. very creative..

Perhaps LCM could well serve as Head Custodian of Home Depot. I can almost hear him now... "If you guys don't do exactly as I ask, I will have you all cleaning grease spots by midnight !!" Anyone get it? SPEC

If LCM were president of Home Depot, he would probably declare half the employees as being homos and then close half the stores...

Humm how about LCM manageing the dumpster in the back of homedepot?

I really do hate the reputation thing.

Buttons???? We don't need no steenking buttons!

I just noticed that--- O no---

Some of the things I have been thinking about lately have led me to conclude that whether or not a person chooses anonymity is completely irrelevant compared to the things that I consider important. A person can behave with a sense of accountability and be anonymous. A person can also be completely wrapped up in their concern for their reputation more than anyone else's welfare and be anonymous too, heck, they can even talk about how they have a reputation based entirely on their avatar name for one thing or another. I could go on and on with different examples of behaving good and bad..... but it seems to me that any motives or intents of the heart can be carried out...good or bad...totally independently as concerning one's choice to be anonymous or not. And depending on the "hot button" issues that may be motivating us that particular day it seems resonable to me to expect a person's view of "the anonymity issue" may fluctuate... I call that being human.

Dear Socks, I hope this response is not too late. I can see how someone can choose anonymity and BE accountable. In that sense it applies to character and not whether or not someone is able to be held accountable. Considering the WAYGB, and TWI's history of abuse I fully am willing to fight for a place like this that allows people who have been abused the availability to be anonymous. Espescially as it seems it may be necessary for them to post their own thoughts without being counter attacked when it comes to family and friends. And while it seems obvous that TWI knows the names of some of the supposedly anonymous posters here it also seems obvious that they may bully anyone who they think will let them get away with it. And unfortunately abuse victims are often prone to letting it happen again. But the fact that I've used my own name does seem to heighten my sense of accountability for my words and my ideas in spite of all that. I've been thinking lately that I believe the Lord will hold me completely accountable for my words whether or not I choose to be anonymous. So before Him my anonymity is a moot point. I guess I feel like if I know I'll be held accountable by Him, what freakin difference should it make to me what anyone else thinks of me? But in regards to actually being pursued by TWI style bullies in real life; I'm generally feeling too irked by all the lies, deception, and what it has already cost me to care to much about whether or not that actually ever happens.