Leaderboard

You know, it is possible John might answer questions about his paper and what happened way back when if any of you ask him. Here's the website contact page to reach him and his organization: Connect With Us | Spirit & Truth

I was going out WOW and on our way to Amarillo I flipped into a manic psychotic episode and they put me on a bus. I got off the bus in Oklahoma City and was acting crazy and the police picked me up and put me in jail. A warden took it upon herself to look into my purse and fortunately my parents’ address and phone number were in it. (They had moved) and she contacted my dad who flew to OKC and took me home. Without these “fortunate” occurrences God only knows what would have become of me. It’s only because God took care of me not TWI. By the way, I didn’t really want to go WOW in the first place but was pressured into it by my twig leader. I’m bipolar but was undiagnosed at the time.

If anyone wants to read my first-hand account of being on staff at HQ and talking with John right after he was fired, it's in Undertow, Chapter 54: Clampdown. I got his permission to use his real name in my book.

I was born and raised as a Roman Catholic, and attended their schools. I bought into their belief’s and even thought of becoming a priest, in other words I was sold on their doctrine. UNTIL the Second Vatican Council in 1962. Prior to this no Catholic could eat meat on Friday, and if they did it was a mortal sin. A mortal sin would send you to hell if you did not confess the sin to a priest. So if a Catholic was to eat a bologna sandwich for lunch on any Friday, and on the way home they were killed in a motor vehicle accident, their soul would immediately be damned to hell for eternity. Pretty severe for sure and not very comforting for their surviving Catholic family. Then, the Second Vatican Council decreed that eating meat on Friday, except for Lent, was no longer a mortal sin. In other words, you can eat bacon and eggs for breakfast, a ham and cheese sandwich for lunch, and rib steak for dinner, and no longer commit a mortal sin. How in the name of fairness and common sense, could a loving God cast his children into everlasting hell for eating meat on Friday prior to the Second Vatican Council, and not post Second Vatican Council? That opened my eyes to the ridiculousness of this teaching and started me on a very long journey realizing that trying to explain a loving God was also ridiculous. There are several thousand Christian religions that all disagree on how to obtain eternal life. Plus all the other world religions all have their way of salvation. If you can’t prove one is tight then all must be wrong.

IMPORTANT NEWS: If anyone is offered a Spanish translation of Chapter One (or other parts) of my memoir, Undertow, or any other of my published work, including blogs, please know I have NOT authorized that translation. My book, like all books published in the U.S., is protected by U.S. copyright law. For more details, read the copyright page of Undertow. To put this another way: I have not given permission, and have no plans to give it, to anyone to translate any parts of my work into any language. I say that not only as the author, but the publisher who owns New Wings Press, LLC, which published both of my books. People who hire translators, by the way, are not the authors of a work, they are the publishers. Now, if as a publisher, I had a bottomless piggy bank and a professional translator I trusted (and another translator to check that translator's work), I might consider publishing Undertow in Spanish, but as of today, I'm 99% certain no such criteria is in my future. Nor do I want it, thanks anyway. In case you're not familiar with the book business, publishing a book, not to mention writing it, is a whole lot of work, stress, sleepless nights, a juggling act of managing editors, blurbers, book designers, book marketers (yourself and your friends), book printers and book distributors. And 99% of the time, money is "lost" on the project. So you have to really, really, really believe the book(s) are worth all that to publish them. So, I'll just say that sharing Undertow with those who want it, like you guys here at GSC, was and will always be one of the most rewarding endeavors of my life. Cheers, Charlene L. Edge

A hearty congratulations to you and your new beloved! Have fun at your wedding... I'm sure loving my second marriage: to a non-Way-believer. We married in 2002. What joy. What freedom to relax and be yourself!

I'm getting married! This is still something of a surprise and a wonder to me. Am I excited, or terrified? Happily expectant, or scared of the future? Thinking it's just the best, or just the weirdest thing, that I'm in process of? Deliriously joyful, or just plain delirious? All of these things, from time to time, and sometimes simultaneously. It's a month since it was agreed, and I'm still sort of getting my head around it. I can tell you one thing. NO, that's NO, bloody church leader, or anyone else for that matter, is going to interfere.

Chantal should have some moderate impact on the Carolinas and Virginia: i: George

Anything we have known Anything we've forgotten.

Around 1979, I took my first PFAL class. I was only 15. I continued on with the indoctrination, ran home fellowships, served in Way Productions, worked on the grounds crew and graduated with the 17th Corps. Those 3-4 hour 'Corps nights' with LCM constantly screaming and relentlessly berating people were especially brutal. After our graduation, my husband and I finally bought a small house. However, we quickly sold that house within 2 years because of the the no debt policy. Crazy times. After years of abuse, I finally found the strength to get out in the year 2000. This web site has been helpful for me. It is good to know I am not alone. Thanks to all who shared their stories on this forum.

Our Unwritten Seoul

Parables, from what I can see, are each meant to make a single, specific point, in a manner that almost anyone could understand it, and that's it. They are not meant to dissect in fine detail for doctrine- except possibly for the single, specific point. The parable in question is rather pointedly about forgiveness. So, in the parable, the framing story shows a person in prison until a debt is paid. As a basis for doctrine, that's missing the mark (to put it nicely.) Shame on JS if he couldn't just see that immediately, let alone catch it on a later read. As I see it, for him to miss something that obvious means he didn't WANT to see it, and was busy trying to justify something he wanted to see, even if he had to torture the verses to PRETEND that's what they said. Right now, it makes no sense to me for a punishment to be more suffering and THEN annihilation. I'll have to look over the 9 verses and see if, somehow, it makes sense to me afterwards.

Even VPW argued that the soul is simply your breath life.

If you wonder why and how I came to write my memoir, Undertow, this blog post I wrote some years ago answers that question: Dear Rachel: This is How | Charlene L. Edge

We have addressed these issues before, but I did so in a way that was confrontational and not constructive. I hope to reverse that this time and do so in a way that addresses the issue from an angle I'm not sure we covered directly last time. One of the criticisms we (who do not believe in gods/God) face is that in the absence of God, we have no foundation for objective morality. I'll allow Christian apologist William Lane Craig to frame the issue. Objective moral values do exist, and we can justify the existence of such values because God exists. Objective moral values cannot exist unless God does. Now, I am oversimplifying his point and I invite you to read his work on this for yourself, but I do so with a cautionary note: I believe Craig (I will abbreviate to WLC to avoid confusion with that other Craig of our common experience) uses a LOT of words to obscure the fact that his argument is ultimately circular. That is, one has to presume objective moral values exist in the first place and you must assume there is a causative relationship between those values and the existence of a God in order to reach the conclusion that God provides the foundation for objective moral values. As I will demonstrate in either this post or a future one, the problem with the assumption that God is the foundation of objective moral values is, it leaves us with no mechanism to evaluate the morality of the actions committed by or ordered by that God. Of necessity, anything that God says or does has to be morally good, even if we know they're not. For the unbeliever, this is a serious problem, because we need to evaluate the moral value system of multiple gods who disagree with each other, with each religion telling us we have no right to question the morality of their God. We cannot question Allah or Jesus or Yahweh. A Christian sure can evaluate Allah, but only against Christianity. And the Muslim has no responsibility to accept a Christian's criticism because to the Muslim, the Christian is using a false moral foundation. Simply put, Christians believe Yahweh/Jesus is/are always right, and if your morality conflicts with theirs, you are wrong and better get with the program. Muslims think Allah/Muhammad are always right and if your morality conflicts with theirs, you are wrong and better get with the program. The problem is, they cannot BOTH be right, and there can't simply be no way to evaluate the morality of a god's actions or orders. The problem is in the premise. The problem with the whole construct lies right at the beginning, with the premise that objective moral values exist. They don't. Repeat, objective moral values do not exist. In fact, if you think about it, objective moral values are oxymoronic. We need to first distinguish between types of values. Some values are objective. Say, measurements. Five feet is taller than three feet. Six feet is taller than two feet. But is six feet objectively "tall"? Well, it can be. It can also not be. If you're a horse jockey, six feet is real tall. Perhaps prohibitively so. However, if you're a basketball player, six feet is tiny. Same six feet. Tall against one standard, short against another. The objective value is feet and inches. Or centimeters, for anyone reading on the rest of the planet. So when we talk about values, we can't assume we're talking about something objective, especially when human evaluation against ANOTHER standard comes into play. And THAT is the problem with morality. Morality is an attempt at a coherent system of value judgements, but such judgments are subjective BY DEFINITION. One cannot say an action is objectively moral, objectively right or wrong, anymore than one can say something is audibly green or chromatically loud. Actions merely ARE. They do not become moral or immoral, right or wrong, good or evil until they are measured against something else. What does this mean? On social media, a believer writes: "If atheism were true sin wouldn’t be real. It would be a social construct. So really if you murdered, raped or genocide a village, then that wouldn’t be wrong. So even your worst evils aren’t evil if atheism is true." But this believer is mistaken. Badly. The first mistake is to assume that subjective morality is somehow inadequate to evaluate the goodness or evil of an action. Not only is subjective morality adequate to the task, it is the ONLY tool we have to accomplish the task! That's hard for people to process because it requires saying things like "rape is not objectively wrong; murder is not objectively wrong; genocide is not objectively wrong." Here's the thing, though: "Not objectively wrong" is not a synonym for "right, acceptable, good," or even "neutral." Good and evil, right and wrong, moral and immoral are all subjective value judgments. Always. (This doesn't change just because one subjugates his own moral value system for God's and calls it "objective." God's moral value system is HIS subjective value system, and all people are entitled to evaluate it to decide whether it is adequate. Rape is not objectively wrong. But it is subjectively wrong and that is an adequate basis to condemn it. Murder is not objectively wrong. But it is subjectively wrong and that is an adequate basis to condemn it. Genocide is not objectively wrong. But it is subjectively wrong and that is an adequate basis to condemn it. On what basis does one evaluate the rightness or wrongness of an action? Well, I submit you hold it against a standard that IS objective. While it is not written in stone, one can build a predictable and useful subjective value system around the premise that all actions have the potential of helping people or hurting them, contributing to our benefit or contributing to suffering. If you commit an act that contributes to the greater good without exacerbating suffering, we can generally evaluate your action to be "good" or at least "neutral." And we can test that standard against any other. Ditch the parts that don't work and improve the parts that do. This is what humanity has always done. It is why slavery was tolerated for centuries. It is why punishment for criminal activity has become less barbaric over time. It is why we look back at a movie like Reefer Madness as a virtual comedy rather than a solemn warning. It is why Amos and Andy were hilarious in their day and offensive now. Our morality evolves. Biblical morality does not. Quranic morality does not. Objective morality cannot change, by definition, because if it's objectively moral in 2025 then it must have been objectively moral in 2025 BC. If you argue "but it was a different time," then you concede, of necessity, that morality changes when times change, which is the OPPOSITE of "these actions are objectively wrong." This is how I answered the social media Christian (I will repeat his post so you don't have to scroll back up for it: "If atheism were true, sin wouldn’t be real. It would be a social construct. So really if you murdered, raped or genocide a village, then that wouldn’t be wrong. So even your worst evils aren’t evil if atheism is true." My reply: 1. Sin is not real. 2. It is a religious construct. 3. Rape, murder and genocide are wrong, which is a SUBJECTIVE determination with a rational basis in the amount of avoidable and unnecessary harm that is caused. 4. Evil is a subjective value judgment, so as long as there are people, those acts will contribute to avoidable human suffering therefore determined subjectively to be evil. 5. Subjective morality is an adequate basis to condemn evil. 6. Objective morality is an oxymoron. It does not and CAN not exist. Stopping here to allow others to weigh in and ask questions.

That's fair. Each of the studies cited in the article acknowledge that very young children have an innate, intuitive, pro social moral sensibility. The article recognizes that children's moral sense is further developed through experience and even indoctrination. I should point out the careful word choice of "developed" leaves open the possibility moral sensibility is not necessarily improved.

Why would God need a witness?

https://web.archive.org/web/20030219041757/http://greasespotcafe.com/waydale/misc/adultery.htm Production of this document resulted in John being fired by T.W.I trustees in the late 1980's. Research Paper on Adultery by John Schoenheit (formerly TWI Research Dept.) (It is said that the circulation of this research paper led to John Schoenheit and several others who assisted him being fired from the staff of TWI in the late 80's. It is further said that anyone found reading this paper would never be allowed to rise in leadership in TWI beyond that of a "twig" fellowship coordinator.) Please make sure that you read the Question & Answer format Appendices at the end of this paper. Additional comments made by John Schoenheit on WayDale's Forums in May 2000. Forward: In 1982 or 1983 Rev. Ralph Dubofsky and Rev. Vince Finegan came to me. Dr. Wierwille had asked them to do some work on the subject of adultery. Ralph and Vince wanted to know what I knew and if it would help them. I was genuinely surprised at how little I knew about the subject from the Word of God. This paper is the result of those years of study. Actually, I had done a little study before Ralph and Vince came to me. During my last year in residence in the Way Corps, I was alone in my bedroom when a girl whom I had always thought was attractive came in looking for Diane. She thought that Diane was there and I was gone, and she came in wearing an "exciting" black nightie. I was surprised at how strong my desire was to make love to her. As I struggled to control my mind, I realized that I did not have a scripture to grab onto for support. I literally was not completely positive as to what the Word of God had to say on the subject. I began studying the the Word of God, and I got as far as the Mosaic Law which proscribes the death penalty for adultery. I believed that if God commanded the death penalty for adultery in the Old Testament, His will on the subject could not have changed with the change of administration. If anything, the marriage relationship is even more important now, during the age of Grace, because it portrays the Great Mystery. The reason for this paper is that I have discovered that not everybody believes that adultery is wrong. This paper is an attempt to clearly set forth the Biblical perspective of adultery and fornication so that every believer has a chance to see the will of God on the subject. This paper is not an attempt to "legislate morality" or to make rules and regulations that will improve the old man. It is an attempt to help every believer come to "an accurate knowledge of the Truth" (I Timothy 2:4). When a person knows where God stands on the subject, he can decide for himself where he wants to stand--on God's Word or off it. ==================================================================== Many Christians are confused about adultery and fornication. Some are not sure what the terms mean. Others think they know what the terms mean, but are not sure of God’s position on the subject. This paper is an attempt to clarify what the terms mean in modern English, what the terms meant as they were used in the Word of God, and God’s will concerning adultery and fornication. Adultery is defined by the American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language as "voluntary sexual intercourse between a married person and a partner other than the lawful husband or wife." Although that definition is not the biblical one, this paper will show that in the modern sense of the word, as well as the biblical sense, is a sin. The biblical definition of adultery is the breach of a marriage contract, and occurred when a man (married or unmarried) had sexual intercourse with a woman who was either betrothed or married. This definition will be developed from the scriptures in the course of this paper. The word "adultery" was also used by God to show Israel’s spiritual unfaithfulness to him. Thus there is both a physical side and a spiritual side to adultery. The thesis of this paper will basically deal with the physical side of adultery, i.e., actual sexual intercourse between a man and a woman. This paper will also deal with fornication. The definition of the word "fornication" as it is used in modern English has stayed very close to the biblical definition. Webster’s New Collegiate Dictionary gives the following definition for "fornication": "human sexual intercourse other than between a man and his wife: sexual intercourse between a spouse and an unmarried person: sexual intercourse between unmarried people." Thus the definitions of "fornication" and "adultery" do overlap to some extent. The definition of fornication will also be developed in this paper. This paper is in two parts with extensive appendixes. Part One deals with adultery and Part Two deals with fornication. In each part, the subject - adultery or fornication, has been developed in the order of biblical administrations. Thus adultery is considered first in the Patriarchal Administration, then in the Law Administration, followed by the Christ, Grace, and Appearing Administrations. Fornication is dealt with in the same manner. Adultery Every time the issue of adultery comes up in the Patriarchal Administration it is considered wrong and a sin. In Genesis 35:22, Reuben, Jacob’s oldest son, had intercourse with Jacob’s concubine. Genesis 35:22 And it came to pass, when Israel dwelt in that land, that Reuben went and lay with Bilhah his father’s concubine: and Israel heard it. Now the sons of Jacob were twelve. There is nothing in the immediate context to indicate that Reuben was in any way punished for his adultery. But years later, on his deathbed, it was that event in Reuben’s life that Jacob remembered and spoke specifically about. Genesis 49:3-4 Reuben, thou art my firstborn, my might, and the beginning of my strength, the excellency of dignity, and the excellency of power: Unstable as water, thou shalt not excel; because thou wentest up to thy father’s bed; thou defiled thou it: he went up to my couch. Reuben’s adultery was wrong. Reuben’s action "defiled" his father’s bed. The word "because" in the phrase, "Thou shalt not excel; because thou wentest up to thy father’s bed..." points to a cause and effect relationship. Reuben’s adultery somehow caused him not to excel. So Reuben defiled his father’s bed, and he would not excel because of his action. The incident of Reuben is thus similar to that of David. Nathan used the word "because" when he spoke to David: II Samuel 12:10 Now therefore the sword shall never depart from thine house; because thou hast despised me, and has taken the wife of Uriah the Hittite to be thy wife. The "because" in this verse again points to a cause-and-effect relationship. David’s treating God with contempt and "taking the wife of Uriah to be thy wife" was a cause, and the effect was "the sword shall never depart from thine house." The book of Job, which is another record during the Patriarchal Administration, also mentions adultery: Job 24:15 The eyes also of the adulterer waiteth for the twilight, saying, No eye shall see me: and disguiseth his face. The context of this verse is people who do evil, and includes "those that rebel against the light" (verse 13), "the murderer" (verse 14), and burglars (verse 16). Adultery is placed in the same context with murderers and burglars. And the verse itself says that the adulterer tries to hide his action, clearly showing the evil nature of adultery. Job mentions more about adultery in chapter 31. Job 31:9-12 If mine heart have been deceived by a woman, or if I have laid wait at my neighbor’s door; Then let my wife grind unto another, and let others bow down upon her. For this is an heinous crime; yea, it is an iniquity to be punished by the judges. For it is a fire that consumeth to destruction, and would root out all mine increase. Job’s attitude toward adultery is clearly stated. It is a "heinous crime" and an "iniquity to be punished by the judges." There are three other incidents in the Patriarchal Administration from which to learn about adultery. Abraham and Isaac both tried to pass off their wives as their sisters. Abraham did it twice, and Isaac once. In all three cases, the pagan kings who took their wives knew that adultery was wrong, and returned the wives untouched when they found out that the women were already married. These three accounts are covered in detail in Appendix B. There is one other record of adultery, actually an attempt at adultery, that must be considered. Joseph was one of the twelve sons of Jacob, and he was sold into slavery and taken to Egypt when he was still a teenager. Joseph was purchased by Potiphar, an "officer of Pharaoh, captain of the guard" (Genesis 39:1). After a time Joseph had risen in position until he was the overseer of Potiphar’s house. At that time, Potiphar’s wife desired Joseph and wanted to have sexual intercourse with him. She was bold and up front with her desire, and said to Joseph, "Lie with me" (Genesis 39:7). Joseph refused. He called the intended adultery "great wickedness" and a "sin against God." Joseph, like Job, understood the nature of adultery. It is a great wickedness and a sin against God. The information on adultery that can be gleaned from the Patriarchal Administration is clear. Adultery was wrong. It defiled, it made one guilty (Appendix B), it was great wickedness, a heinous crime, an iniquity to be punished by the judges, and a sin against God. There is nothing in the Word of God to indicate that adultery was in any way acceptable before God in the Patriarchal Administration. After the Patriarchal Administration came the Law Administration. As in the Patriarchal Administration, there is nothing in the Law Administration to indicate that adultery was in any way acceptable behavior. The Mosaic Law forbids adultery. The seventh commandment is: "Thou shalt not commit adultery". That the usage of "adultery" in the seventh commandment is physical, i.e., a man with a woman, was made clear by Jesus Christ when he quoted the seventh commandment as is recorded in Matthew: Matthew 5:27-28 Ye have heard that it was said by them of old time, Thou shalt not commit adultery: But I say unto you, That whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart. It is obvious from Jesus Christ’s usage of the seventh commandment that he knew it referred to illicit sexual relations between men and women. A study of Old Testament scriptures shows that for a man, married or unmarried, to have sexual intercourse with a woman who was either betrothed or married was a capital crime, carrying the death penalty. Leviticus 20:10 And the man that committeth adultery with another man’s wife, even he that committeth adultery with his neighbor’s wife, the adulterer and the adulteress shall surely be put to death. Deuteronomy 22:22-27 If a man be found lying with a woman married to an husband, then they shall both of them die, both the man that lay with the woman, and the woman: so shalt thou put away evil from Israel. If a damsel that is a virgin be betrothed unto an husband, and a man find her in the city, and lie with her; Then ye shall bring them both out unto the gate of that city, and ye shall stone them with stones that they die; the damsel, because she cried not, being in the city; and the man, because he hath humbled his neighbor’s wife: so thou shalt put away evil from among you. But if a man find a betrothed damsel in the field, and the man force her, and lie with her; then the man only that lay with her shall die: But unto the damsel thou shalt do nothing; there is in the damsel no sin worthy of death: for as when a man riseth against his neighbor, and slayeth him, even so is this matter: For he found her in the field, and the betrothed damsel cried, and there was none to save her. There was one exception to the law as recorded above, and that was when a man had intercourse with a betrothed woman who was also a slave. However, even then, there were consequences for their having had intercourse, and the act is called a "sin." Leviticus 19:20-22 And whosoever lieth carnally with a woman, that is a bondsmaid, betrothed to an husband, and not at all redeemed, nor freedom given her; she shall be scourged; they shall not be put to death, because she was not free. And he shall bring his trespass offering unto the Lord, unto the door of the tabernacle of the congregation, even a ram for a trespass offering. And the priest shall make an atonement for him with the ram of the trespass offering before the Lord for his sin which he hath done: and the sin which he hath done shall be forgiven him. In contrast to these clear verses, there is not one verse or record showing that adultery was acceptable to God in the Law Administration. A number of clear verses during the Christ Administration, which followed the Law Administration, show beyond a shadow of a doubt that adultery was a sin. Jesus Christ clearly addressed the issue on several occasions. He quoted the seventh commandment, "Thou shalt not commit adultery," on two different occasions. One was during his teaching from a mountain in Galilee during the summer of 27 A.D. (which has been quoted earlier). Matthew 5:27-28 Ye have heard that it was said by them of old time, Thou shalt not commit adultery: But I say unto you, That whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart. Jesus quoted the seventh commandment a second time while he was in Perea, just prior to his trip to Jerusalem when he was crucified and slain. At that time, a rich young ruler came to Jesus and asked him what he should do to have eternal life. Matthew 19:16-18 And, behold, one came and said unto him, Good Master, what good thing shall I do, that I may have eternal life? And he said unto him, Why callest thou me good? there is none good but one, that is, God: but if thou wilt enter into life, keep the commandments. He saith unto him, Which? Jesus said, Thou shalt do no murder, Thou shalt not commit adultery, Thou shalt not steal, Thou shalt not bear false witness. It is clear from these two separate records in Matthew that Jesus Christ knew and taught that adultery was wrong. John, chapter 8 is the record of the scribes and Pharisees who brought a woman to Christ "taken in adultery, in the very act." John 8:4-6 They say unto him, Master, this woman was taken in adultery, in the very act. Now Moses in the law commanded us, that such should be stoned: but what sayest thou? This they said, tempting him, that they might have to accuse him. But Jesus stooped down, and with his finger wrote on the ground, as though he heard them not. The scribes and Pharisees said to Jesus, "Moses in the law commanded us that such should be stoned: but what sayest thou?" (verse 5). They said this to Jesus so they would have something to use as an accusation against him (verse 6). Moses did say that a woman caught in adultery should be killed. Deuteronomy 22:22 If a man be found lying with a woman married to a husband, then they shall both of them die, both the man that lay with the woman, and the woman: so shalt thou put away evil from Israel. Nevertheless, at that time, the Romans had made it illegal for the Judeans to put any person to death. This is why the Pharisees had to take Jesus Christ to the Roman authorities when they wanted him killed. John 18:31 Then said Pilate unto them, Take ye him, and judge him according to your law. The Jews therefore said unto him, It is not lawful for us to put any man to death. The trap of the Pharisees who brought the adulterous woman to Jesus Christ was very clever. If Jesus had said to stone the woman, the Pharisees would have seen to it that he was arrested for breaking Roman law. If, on the other hand, Jesus had said, "Well, Moses said to stone her but we have to obey Roman law," the Pharisees would have accused him of placing Roman law above God’s justice and discredited him (Remember, they brought the woman to Jesus, not for justice but so they could find something of which to accuse Jesus.) When Jesus gave his answer about casting the first stone, all the accusers left the scene. Jesus then asked the woman, "Where are those thine accusers? hath no man condemned thee?" According to Mosaic law, there was to be a trial and witnesses who would testify to a person’s guilt. If the person were found guilty, the witnesses were to cast the first stones at the guilty party (Deuteronomy 17:4-7). When Jesus stood up, there was no one there to be a witness and no one to fulfill the Mosaic law by casting the first stone. So Jesus said to the woman, "Go, and sin no more." By calling the woman’s adultery "sin", Jesus clearly stated what adultery is - a sin. Furthermore, Jesus told the woman not to commit adultery again. It is thus clear that adultery was a sin in the Christ Administration. Christ quoted the seventh commandment, "Thou shalt not commit adultery" in his teaching from a mountain in Galilee. He quoted it again to the rich young ruler who asked him what to do to receive eternal life. He called the adultery of the woman mentioned in John, chapter 8 a "sin" and he gave illicit sexual relations as the only valid reason for divorce. In contrast to these records, there is not a scripture in the gospels that indicates that adultery was not a sin or that it was to be taken lightly. This paper has dealt with adultery in the Patriarchal, Law and Christ Administrations, and it has shown that adultery was considered wrong and a sin in all of them. For adultery to be acceptable to God in the Grace Administration would be a change, and God would have to say it is acceptable. In fact, the opposite is the case. In the Grace Administration, God continues to call adultery a sin. From Acts to Revelation, the words "adultery," "adulterer," and "adulteress" are only used fourteen times in the King James Version: Romans 2:22 (twice); Romans 7:3 (twice); Romans 13:9; I Corinthians 6:9; Galatians 5:19; Hebrews 13:4; James 2:11 (twice); James 4:4 (twice); II Peter 2:14; and Revelation 2:22. Only the first seven of these uses are in the church epistles. Each of the fourteen occurrences will be examined. 1 and 2 Romans 2:22 Thou that sayest a man should not commit adultery, dost thou commit adultery? thou that abhorrest idols, dost thou commit sacrilege? The context of Romans 2:22 is Judeans who are "instructed out of the law" (verse 18). Thus the reference to them, saying, "A man should not commit adultery" comes right out of the ten commandments, i.e., "Thou shalt not commit adultery." The reference is simple and straightforward, and refers to the physical act of adultery. There is no reason to read spiritual adultery into this verse since the reference is obviously to the law and since idolatry (which would be spiritual adultery) is mentioned in the same verse. 3 and 4 Romans 7:3 So then if, while her husband liveth, she be married to another man, she shall be called an adulteress: but if her husband be dead, she is free from that law; so that she is no adulteress, though she be married to another man. The context of Romans 7:3 is Judean law. This is clear from verse 1 "(for I speak to them that know the law)." Romans 7:3 is speaking about laws regarding divorce and remarriage and closely parallels what Jesus Christ said in Matthew 5:32; Matthew 19:9; Mark 10:11-12; and Luke 16:18, giving fornication as grounds for divorce. 5 Romans 13:9 For this, Thou shalt not commit adultery, Thou shalt not kill, Thou shalt not steal, Thou shalt not bear false witness, Thou shalt not covet; and if there be any other commandment, it is briefly comprehended in this saying, namely, Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself. Romans 13:9 is a very clear verse of scripture, especially in light of immediate context. The quotation, "Thou shalt not commit adultery" is from the ten commandments. It is noteworthy that the specific commandment was given in the ten commandments in the Law Administration, then quoted in the Christ Administration, and is now being quoted in the Grace Administration. The context of Romans 13:9 is easy to understand. God’s will for the believer is made clear in verse 8, i.e., "Owe no man any thing, but to love one another." All the believer needs to do then is to find out from the scriptures how to love his neighbor as himself. The answer, at least in part, is in verses 9 and 10. And verse 9 makes it clear that "Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself" includes not committing adultery, not killing, not stealing, not bearing false witness, and not coveting. All those "Thou shalt not’s" are "briefly comprehended," i.e., "summed up," in the saying, "Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself." It is clear from verses 8 and 9 that a person who loves someone will not steal from them, kill them, bear false witness about them, covet their belongings, or commit adultery with them. Furthermore verse 10 points out that "love is the fulfilling of the law" because it works no ill to his neighbor. The word "ill" is kakos in the Greek and is usually translated "evil." Love is the fulfilling of the law because the person who walks in the love of God will do what the Old Testament Law tried to do, i.e., get people to work no evil to their neighbors. Thus the person who walks in love will not steal, which is something the law tried to get people not to do. The person who walks in love will not commit adultery, which is something the law tried to get people not to do. Since the Old Testament law forbade adultery, in fact made it a capital crime, it cannot be "fulfilling the law" to commit adultery. So the person who walks in love, and thus fulfills the Old Testament law, must be a person who does not commit adultery. 6) I Corinthians 6:9 Know ye not that the unrightous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind. The question that needs to be answered in this verse is whether or not the adultery is physical or spiritual. The context of the verse is both spiritual and physical sins. "Fornicators" will come up later in the paper. "Idolaters," of course, is definitely in the spiritual category. "Effeminate" is the word used for the man who plays the female part in a homosexual relationship. "Abusers of themselves with mankind" refers to homosexuals and pederasts. Since many of the other terms refer to physical, sexual acts, and since idolatry is plainly listed, the weight of evidence is that "adultery" in I Corinthians 6:9 refers to the physical act. 7) Galatians 5:19 Now the works of the flesh are manifest, which are these; Adultery, fornication, uncleanness, lasciviousness. The word "adultery" has been erroneously inserted here. It is not in the majority of the Greek texts, nor in the Syriac Pedangta text. This ends the usages of "adultery" in the seven church epistles. The clear scripture is Romans 13:9 which leaves no doubt about God’s position on adultery - that it is not a loving thing to do, but is doing "evil" to ones neighbor. 8) Hebrews 13:4 Marriage is honourable in all, and the bed undefiled: but whoremongers and adulterers God will judge. This verse is clear. Although marriage is honorable and the marriage bed "undefiled," i.e., unsoiled, unstained. Adulterers, who are breaking the marriage covenant, God will judge. Whoremongers, or fornicators, are covered in Part Two. 9 and 10) James 2:11 For he that said, "Do not commit adultery, said also, Do not kill. Now if thou commit no adultery, yet if thou kill, thou art become a transgressor of the law. This is another time the seventh commandment is quoted in the scriptures. The context clarifies this verse. James 2:10-12 For whosoever shall keep the whole law, and yet offend in one point, he is guilty of all. For he that said, "Do not commit adultery, said also, Do not kill. Now if thou commit no adultery, yet if thou kill, thou art become a transgressor of the law. So speak ye, and so do, as they that shall be judged by the law of liberty. The overall point that is being made in this section of James is that it is not good enough to keep most of the law. Sin in even one area of a person’s life is still sin and makes him guilty under the Law. James 2:12 says, "So speak ye, and so do, as they that shall be judged by the law of liberty." The believer is to walk for God and not ignore sin in his life, thinking, "Well, after all, most of my walk is okay, so a couple sins won’t hurt." The reason adultery is even mentioned in James 2:11 is that it was an acknowledged example of sinful behavior, just as killing was. Adultery would not have been used in the verse if it was not a sin. 11 and 12) James 4:4 Ye adulterers and adulteresses, know ye not that the friendship of the world is enmity with God? whosoever therefore will be a friend of the world is the enemy of God. The words "adulterers and" should be omitted from this verse. They are not in the majority of the Greek texts or the Syriac Pedangta text. The word "adulteresses" has the spiritual meaning here, i.e., those who turn from God to serve worldly things. The context of this verse is those who serve worldly things rather than worshipping God. This is the first time that the word "adultery" has referred to idolatry or spiritual adultery. 13) II Peter 2:14 Having eyes full of adultery, and that cannot cease from sin; beguiling unstable souls: an heart they have exercised with covetous practices; cursed children The use of "adultery" in this verse is a good example of how closely tied physical adultery and spiritual adultery can be. The phrase "eyes full of adultery" forcefully reminds one of Christ’s words, "Whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery already..." Thus the phrase carries the imagery of literal physical adultery. While the context of the verse will allow that, the context also demands that the ones involved are spiritual adulterers, i.e., idolaters. They have "forsaken the right way" and have "gone astray" and are "following the way of Balaam" (verse 15). Thus, in this verse, there is no need to separate the spiritual sine from the physical sin. The men involved are guilty of both. 14) Revelation 2:22 Behold, I will cast her into a bed, and them that commit adultery with her into great tribulation, except they repent of their deeds. This verse illustrates the use of the physical sin to communicate a spiritual truth. "Adultery" carries the image of the physical act: "cast her into a bed" and "those that commit adultery with her." Nevertheless, in the context, the verse seems to be speaking of judgment for sin, not saying that there actually was a woman whom God would cast into bed. God uses one sin, adultery, to communicate truths about another sin, idolatry. All fourteen uses of "adultery" in the New Testament have now been covered. Not one of them indicates, in any way, that adultery is acceptable to God. Quite the opposite is the case. Adultery is a sin. Furthermore, the sin of adultery is used to graphically portray the sin of idolatry. Adultery has now been studied in the Patriarchal, Law, Christ, Grace, and Appearing Administrations. In not one single instance has it been shown not to be a sin. In stark contrast, there were many verses showing that adultery was a grave sin. Adultery, in the Old Testament, involved a man, either married or unmarried and a woman who was either betrothed or married. The evidence from the Gospels (Cp. Matthew 5:32) and from the epistles (Cp. Romans 7:3) indicates that that definition holds true all the way through the Word of God. There are no examples of the term "adultery" that involve a man, married or unmarried, with a single woman. That means that, up to this point, all this paper has shown is that for a man to have sexual intercourse with another man’s wife is a sin. This next phase of the paper will deal with fornication and will show that in the Grace Administration it is a sin for a man to have sexual intercourse with any woman unless he is married to her.

How's about some Saturday Night Blues?

Maybe I should not have split the threads. But I honestly thought "what happens after we die" was a different enough question that it deserved its own thread. So, we clearly agree that there is no post-life punishment for euthanasia (nor is there a post-life reward for sticking out the suffering). Not long ago I learned an actor friend of mine took his life in a "no way am I going to suffer the way my disease prescribes" manner. The thought is terrifying to me, precisely because I don't believe ending this life ushers us into the next. I think it was Ricky Gervais who said "People think atheists have nothing to live for. They have it backwards. Atheists have nothing to DIE for. We have everything to live for." Because this is our one shot at life, so make it flipping count! If you're looking at those issues from THIS side of the final curtain, the question of whether these acts are moral becomes a little murkier. But as far as post-death accounting: there is none. We agree on that.

Objective

And for the non-believer, it's difficult to believe there is no karma. But here's the thing. If you make a habit out of blowing through red lights on a regular basis, there's a pretty good chance you're going to get T-boned someday. It's not karma, it's just the laws of statistics catching up with you. It's not a punishment from God. It's not a tit for a tat or an eye for an elbow. It's just a way to cope with the sometimes harsh realities of this world.

Sin is a real religious construct. Sin is a real religious concept. The concept doesn't exist outside a religious framework..

Does anyone know TWI's current position on this issue? How do they explain the firing of John Schoenheit for rightly dividing the word on adultery? Surely, they don't dispute the thesis of his paper. EDIT: JuniorCorps wasn't alone in leaving over this issue. How does TWI defend against this legitimate reason. They must be prepared. After all, those postcards about "coming home" were sent to former dupes they must know left because for this very reason.

That's where the reasons given in the Appendices come in. What should have been so obvious became overshadowed by deceit, lies and powerful positions in twi.

This was the catalyst to us finally deciding to leave. I was young but I remember thinking "I didn't know we needed this research paper? That's kinda crazy. How is this not the most obvious thing in the world?"

A bestiality fetish. Not a problem for the spiritually mature with a mind so renewed... Yet some are aghast when I say victor squatted over and defecated into the mouth of God. What? Scat play by the spiritually mature is off limits? Hey! I didn't REwrite the book. Victor did.

It seems very unlikely that Mrs. Wierwille was present at that pj party. "He played a porn video followed by a talk on how a Christian can so renew their mind that this stuff wouldn't bother them, the spiritually mature can handle anything and that anything done in the love of God is okay." I've heard that he would tell a victim that she was chosen because she was spiritually mature enough to be with him. And then, in order to keep his abuse secret, he would also say to keep what happened between them in a lock box because there were others who were not spiritually mature enough to handle knowing about it. OMG, Holy ...., and twi today still honors this evil man as the founder of their ministry.

I should… I mean, I want to… I just can’t… People still call this schmuck “Dr.” Even John Schoenheit does. WITAF!?!

Back in the U.S.S.R. There is a town in North Ontario with dream comfort memory to spare.

Space Oddity "Four, three, two, one, earth below us"

"Like their leader VP, men (and some women) used those reasons above to get what they wanted leaving behind darkness and brokenness. " Now, now, "credit" where "credit" is due. (Or, possibly give "the devil" his due.) That sounded almost coincidental that vpw and some of his cadre likewise did those evil deeds. Let's be more specific, and more honest, about it. vpw was the originator. He set about to commit such sinful, criminal, and evil actions. Although it's possible that someone may have been interested in the cadre because of that, more likely they were all brought in the way lcm was brought in. vpw groomed lcm to commit those kinds of things. He told him all kinds of things, some of which we've heard. He told him- on the subject of fidelity in marriage- that the married lcm "was going to have to loosen up on those sorts of things if he wants to lead God's people." Since vpw had previously convinced lcm that vpw had an inside track on what God Almighty thought and wanted, that left lcm trying to accept that God Almighty wanted him to cheat on his own wife. And so on. vpw set up his network to target women, and when he set up that network, he groomed a number of people around him to accept or embrace that kind of thinking. That's why they were willing to help vpw rape and molest and drug the women that he did those things to. I mean, it wasn't a one-night, one conversation thing, he spent months carefully grooming and indoctrinating his inner circle so that there was a network of people close to him that would accept that and help him. Not everyone was indoctrinated this way. vpw worked hard at this, possibly harder than at anything else he did. He would find a moment to talk to only one person. He would make a small comment to them, and monitor their reaction. If they reacted in a godly fashion, he backed off and didn't bring it up again. We saw that with J1m D00p. When vpw spoke to him alone in a car, vpw tried to tell him that God Almighty was fine with orgies. J1m was resistant and revolted by the suggestion, and later convinced himself that, somehow, he misunderstood what happened, that he couldn't possibly have heard vpw say what he had heard vpw say. After that, vpw fine-tuned his approach. That was too heavy-handed and abrupt. So, he made smaller comments, less abrupt. He changed the "temperature" around him, so that discussions about sex weren't quite so out of place. Then he could make a single comment and dismiss it later as a misunderstanding if it went awry. AFAIK, Ralph D never recounted such an incident... and I doubt he was left out. I think he was approached like everyone else, but when vpw baited the hook, RD didn't take the bait- he wasn't immoral and wasn't going to be. So, vpw just dropped a passing comment and went about his business- but made a mental note to keep RD well away from the thick of things, and not to approach RD again. Over time, vpw had a list of people around him who were receptive and groomed- every time, a little further, a little further. He also had a list of people to keep clear of his sex maniac operation- people who could spoil things and ruin his well-organized sin machine after all the trouble he went through to set it up. But they had their uses also- mainly, their clean-cut natures were "evidence" that nothing untoward could be happening around vpw. After all, in public, he said nothing in favor of it, and there were moral, godly people around him, so they would have blown the whistle on him. So, yes, the comments in the appendices started with vpw. As with anything else in twi, some people just parroted his phrases without ever stopping to question whether or not they were correct, godly or right- or to think at all, for that matter. Whenever we saw multiple people parroting the same error-ridden sentences, it was as good as having vpw's initials or signature on the phrase, endorsing and recommending it all around.

Like their leader VP, men (and some women) used those reasons above to get what they wanted leaving behind darkness and brokenness. I saw the darkness, I saw the darkness No more safety, no more light Now I’m so shameful, no trusting in sight Thanks to him, I saw the darkness

How we communicate is a personal decision. I choose to (at least attempt to) communicate in a way that doesn't assume that the other person is a complete idiot. I'm also influenced by the way I communicated my faith while in TWI, and how I see many evangelicals/fundamentalists speak now -- it can be arrogant and condescending. I also figure that I'm not responsible for what other people believe as long as they're not trying to enshrine it in law, or are assuming that I'm an idiot for not believing what they believe. I think that Gervais, at least in that interview is pretty low-key about it. He presents why he thinks the way he does, but doesn't attack Colbert or imply that he is stupid. Regarding the second phrase you highlighted. My family members have built up an immunity to my opinions on religion stemming from my obnoxious "witnessing" during my TWI days and get very defensive when I express an opinion about religion. My point was not I wasn't trying to convince her that her god didn't exist, but that maybe her understanding about said god wasn't in line with reality...within the context of stipulating that God exists. By the way, I'm not an atheist, although I may sound like one sometimes. I allow for the existence of spiritual entities in a kind of agnostic way, but don't base any life decisions on their existence. If there is a God, then there are gods also, with their existence all being of similar probability. I recall a quote that was attributed to The Buddha (probably apocryphal) where he acknowledged that gods existed, but that they were rather silly! I have moved away from religion in multiple steps, starting with my rejection of TWO dogma, moving through skepticism about the Bible all the way to where I am now.

Thank you for acknowledging that the thread has veered away from its original topic so much that it is no longer even in the right forum.

Ha! I know that feeling.

I would like to request some caution here: the topic of this thread is questioning TWI doctrine, but if we start getting into arguments for and against the reality of claimed supernatural experience, I am concerned the discussion will no longer be "About the Way" and would instead fall rightly under "Matters of Faith." I'm trying to head this off now because I don't want people to come back later and say "why did you let so and so atheist say this and not let the Christian say that?"

I lived for years with the pain and fear than my unbelieving adult children and grandchildren, who being ineligible for a ticket for the rapture trip, would have to resist the mark of some dreaded beast all the while they were experiencing the great tribulation when God's wrath is poured out and life becomes worse than anything in the history of mankind. And if they were lucky able to survive all that, they would then have to face annihilation or the lake of fire or an eternity in hell or whatever God's judgment had planned for them. But, when I realized that there was no evidence that this bogeyman of a god even existed, that fear vanished.

Probably it would be freeing. By the time I started raising children I was already involved with TWI, so all my adopted and biological children grew up with TWI doctrine. However, despite being mostly Waybrained, I tried to encourage my children to think and come to logical conclusions. It took with some of them, but not with others! By the time I remarried and was raising a stepdaughter, my wife and I didn't attempt to indoctrinate her in anything. She still managed to catch the Christianity bug through friends, got baptized while she was in Air Force basic training, and still considers herself a nondenominational, generic Christian, although I doubt she cares about doctrinal specifics. Of my children with my first wife, none have stayed with TWI. One son is an atheist, another might be, but doesn't claim the label. My daughter considers herself Catholic, but doesn't really participate. The others never talk about it. My granddaughters are raised by parents who would probably not identify as atheists, but are not involved in any church and to my knowledge never talk about religion. One of the girls told my wife that she doesn't believe in any gods. They're probably the closest in my extended family who I would consider having been raised atheist -- more like raised doctrinally neutral

I like Gervais' approach. He doesn't try to beat people over the head with atheism, or even try to convince anyone, he just states that it's the conclusion that he came to.

By someone I meant you, Waysider. Do NOT dig that trash out. It could be one of those titles, but they aren’t ringing a bell. It might not have been published by ACP. It was heavily focused on the paranormal. My mind is exactly where I left it, probably next to my sunglasses and keys. Once I find it, I’ll remember. Unless someone ELSE remembers first.

Could it be Challenging Counterfeit or Angels Of Light? My copies, if I still have them, are probably buried in a box that's still waiting to be unpacked from my last move. Let's just say that finding them is not exactly high on my list of priorities at the moment. Yes, the mind is a terrible thing to lose. The same cannot be said of books filled with bullshonta.

Mmmph I am reminded of that book on ectoplasm and other such phenomena that TWI used to “study.” Wasn’t it published by American Christian Press, but later victor distanced himself from it? Someone will know what I’m talking about. A mind is a terrible thing to lose - only so much room for bullshonta.

According to Wikipedia, the word was used rarest in classical Greek, but was used in various ways: (as a verb) -- to greet with affection to show affection for the dead love for spouse or family I'm not sure the writers of the New Testament meant it in any way other than just "love". If I remember correctly, virtually every use of the word "love" in English is translated from "agape". (In TWI some "teacher" would breathlessly reveal that some instance of love was ...the word agape...as if it was some cosmic truth). I believe that it was retroactively assigned the meaning or interpretation of love from or for God. Biblical writers and theologians needed to present love that proceeded from God, or manifested by Christians, was somehow different than love manifested by disbelievers. I doubt you could subjectively see any difference between Christians and non-Christians in how they love. Of course any attempt to meaningfully define what God's love entails runs into the problem of any possible unloving action by God spurring a redefinition of love that includes that action.

I take exception to this. Those of us who believe there's nothing after this life have EVERY reason to live. What we lack is a reason to DIE. By which I mean, we can understand the value of sacrifice as well as the next patriot (there ARE, in fact, atheists in foxholes), but we understand that sacrifice as being for other people, not for reward.

1. "Sadly, I cannot get this man to accept the notion that the Bible really is the word of God." Ok, let's start there. The Bible never calls itself the Word of God. That's part of the problem right there. The Bible speaks of the Word of God quite often, but it never has the self-awareness to declare itself to be that Word. Maybe, just maybe, you can be wrong about the Bible being the Word of God and still be a good Christian. 2. "I think he would like it to be..." Well, no one asked you what you think, did they? Maybe he has no preference one way or another and is just waiting for you to make a plausible case for your thesis. 3. "... but is overly obstinate and has an awful attitude towards God and his plan for man's redemption." A lot to unpack there. Has it occurred to you that maybe YOU're the one being "obstinate" with an "attitude" that won't budge no matter how many facts he presents to counter your preconceived notion that the Bible is the Word of God? Like, maybe YOU're the stubborn one, not him? Because he shows you the Bible, and you start making excuses. Oh, that's the Old Testament. God's different now. He's really kind and gentle. He did what he did before because he HAD to to fulfill the plan of redemption. Problem: The plan of redemption is only the plan of redemption because God wanted it that way. It didn't have to be. He could just accept an apology without shrugging his shoulders and saying oh well because someone found a particular fruit of a particular tree to yummy to pass up (He also could have put that tree ANYWHERE ON THE PLANET but instead put it right in front of two people who did not know good and evil; then said don't eat from that tree. Not exactly a strong case for omniscience. It's like I put a cookie on the table in front of my 7-year-old and said "Don't eat that," then walked out of the room. He's gonna eat the cookie. I'm not all knowing, and I know that). So your friend, I submit, is not stubborn. Rather, he's amused at the contortions you'll twist yourself into to deny what's obviously written. There IS not idiom of permission in the Bible. Bullinger, for what he's worth, appears to be the only one who makes an issue of it. It's hardly a scholarly consensus. The existence of other figures of speech does not verify the "idiom of permission" as something the Bible employs on a regular basis. It is, however, an extraordinarily convenient tool for believers to employ whenever their holy book shows God doing what no good God would ever do, even though the book is unambiguous about it being God who did it. But that's just the old testament. Unless, of course, you're holding back tithes from the apostles in Acts, which is New Testament. (Oh, but it doesn't say God did that. It was Satan -- even though the Bible doesn't say THAT either). The Bible is filled with examples of God saying he'll do something and then saying He did it. It doesn't say he allowed it to happen or he allowed Satan to do it. It says HE did it. Now, it COULD have said he allowed Satan to do it, very easily. Look at Job. Satan did those things. It says so. Yeah, he got God's permission, but it says that, clearly. There's no ambiguity, and there's no "this is how it works normally." A figure of speech is supposed to be a statement that is true in essence though not literally true. "It's raining cats and dogs" is a figure of speech. "This car can stop on a dime" is a figure of speech. A figure of speech is not supposed to be a way for you to get the Bible to say the opposite of what it clearly says just because what it clearly says is inconvenient for your theology. God ordered the execution of a man for picking up sticks on the sabbath. He didn't give man permission to kill the offending sabbath breaker. He gave man an order -- cast those stones! God didn't allow divorce. He prescribed it. He didn't allow Satan to kill all the firstborn of Egypt. He had it done. And he DID have a choice. When my kid offends me, I have a choice how to discipline him. You have no idea how many times my discipline has stopped short of killing him because he did his chores between sunset on Friday night and Saturday night! So here's a thought. Bear with me: Maybe your friend isn't the stubborn one in this equation. Maybe he's not the one being inflexible. Maybe, just maybe, he's given this far more thought than you have.