lindyhopper

Man this stuff gets me. I think back to our days in residence and remember the clear stress my parents were under. I think it was a rough time for them. Other parents were loosing it on me and other kids. Others, while not hitting kids, lost it screaming and yelling at kids..out of control. Don't get me wrong the place wasn't a constant beating or anything. My point is, as Polar Bear stated, that it was clearly a stressful time for adults. That in turn had an effect on the children. As a parent now, I know how a stressful day affects your dealings with your children. Of course, I also know that stress isn't unique to TWI. Anyone who has gone back to college after having a child knows that it is not easy. The difference is the indoctrination. Being told to "train" your kid the way you do a dog" and "spare the rod.." yadda yadda from your "overseers" while under the stress of an intense lifestyle is a combination for those with marginal control to go off the deep end. Believe me I know. I am a mellow person, very easy going. My kids can push my buttons though. As any parent knows, it's the hardest job you'll ever have as well as the most rewarding. We need as much help as we can get. I was lucky to have desent parents. Although, what ticks me off is how one of the major areas that TWI still has a foot in my life is in parenting. Well, in my head concerning parenting. I'm a stay at home dad, the furthest thing from a twi parent. But, the anger that I saw towards children and those that hit and hurt me as a child have a lasting impact. I was well versed in twi doctrine in relation to child rearing through experience and teaching during my young adult years. So good and bad many things have stuck. I have heard the "train your child" line in very recent years, since I've left. I see the paralelles. Sure, I discipline my boys when needed (not through hitting though, I flick occasionally my 3 year old to get his attention) and yes I reward them when they are good too. You do the same with an animal, but I refuse to call what I do "training." I teach my boys. I raise them. Most importantly I take care of them. They are not dogs, and I don't want them to react to me the way a dog would it's master. Whether we intend to or not, we teach our kids how to be humans, a dog won't do that. You hit your child and you teach him to hit. You loose your temper with your kid and you teach them how to deal with tough situations. It is very apparent to me when my boys are playing with other kids, which children get hit and which ones don't, which are disciplined at all and which ones are not. Rambling a little here, but what I was getting at is that even though I do my best to raise my kids the best I can, there is twi in me somewhere. Urges to loose it, wanting to smack the crap out of them, but controling myself. Like I said, I know it is a hard job and that all parents probably feel like that at times, but I don't think wanting to hit a kid is natural, it is learned. Maybe I'm wrong, but I don't think so. This is why abuse is a cycle that takes a strong will to break. In my case, I have a fairly mild history in this regard, it is still there though.

Not so, Evan. You can still get a liberal arts degree in mathematics at a handful of schools. And of course, you know this but math is still a big part of philosophy. It is about logic when you get down to it.

For the record, if I haven't said this already, my parents never abused us either. Yes, there was the occasional hard smack with the spoon but nothing like what has been described on this thread. The stuff that happned to me happened at the hands of other people. Make no mistake there were some real bastards put in charge of children and young adults. HCW, one question. Who was the ministry if not the leaders? Supposedly there were no members but there were representatives and those were the so called leaders. They were the teachers and the example and the council. Plus, what Ex said. It wasn't until the mid ninties when D*nna Martind@le did a teaching at the Rock that explicitly said the "rod" was an attention getter not a tool for abuse. By then though, it was out of hand in many areas and many families. Still after that teaching it continued, perhaps to this day, in some areas. No, there was no "official policy" on smacking the crap out of your kid or other people's kids, the same as the rest of their non-policies, but somehow it made it into the minds of the collective and to the a$$ of their children. I wonder how.

I understand what you are saying Dancing, I really do, and I respect what believe. Although, here are some issues that I have. First the obvious ones. Yes, IF there was spirit it would seem that it would not be seen, heard, felt, etc. physically. It would seem it would have to be spiritual. Or would it? If you see it with your spiritual eye, then how does the "physical you" know it. There would have to be a connection somewhere in us between the spiritual and the physical, and if there is then why not see God with that physical connection? If there is a connection between your spirit and your body and mind then God would have the same connection. It would be in part a physical connection. So the real question is what is "spiritual" what does that mean. The answer requires faith and will vary upon the faith of the one giving the answer. Yes there is an ultimate reality. Knowing what that is will either never be known objectively or will be known later, the connection you left out. I see the connection. Pure...heart...seeing...but not while you live. Death will be the ultimate answer or non-answer.

Over Thanksgiving I watched a debate and Q&A of two authors on CSpan. One was a Intel. Design advocate and the other was an evolutionist. They were going back and forth about why the other should not be taught in public schools. The ID guy was pointing out the flaws in the theory of evolution (not always correctly) and the other was pointing out the unscientific nature of ID and it's approach to being included in text books. Then the floor was open to questions. The evolutionist scientist made a point that explains how I feel pretty well. It was that was that with evolution there is a body of evidence, a huge one actually, and then there are the fringe elements that pick at the edges of it, but vast majority of evidence points in one direction...toward evolution, and that is why he suscribed to it as do I. It is a theory, no doubt about it. I have questions and concerns about it, but there is a lot there that makes a ton of sense and is backed up with data and evidence. Gotta go....

What I think what you are refering to here in not knowing but learning, and if that be the case, I agree. If we continue to learn we grow and that which we think we know can change hence the fluidity.Fluid: ADJECTIVE: 1 Of, relating to, or characteristic of a fluid. 2 Readily reshaped; pliable. 3 Smooth and flowing; graceful: the fluid motion of a cat. 4 Changing or tending to change; variable: a fluid situation fraught with uncertainty. Characterized by or allowing social mobility: a fluid society. 5 Convertible into cash: fluid assets. I know, I know, definitions smefinitions, its only our means of communication here. I like Belle's posts on the first page. Faith is like a whitewater rapid, it is the ride not the destination. It is the same with learning. Truly knowing is the destination. Faith, or perhaps what you believe, is your raft, while your hope is that you make it out alive. lol Again a statement of faith. As is... Well, the second half is. I don't quite understand what you were getting at...how that related to what I said, but I think most monotheist's concepts of God concur with that. I think most religious organizations view "fluid faith" as definition #5. :(

Whoa, deep. What is in you in already in you and it is great. Your blowing my mind here, but I get what you mean. Again, a little circular and a little obvious, but it seems you mean something more, I think, maybe not. To have faith in something requires that you have some sort of construct or premise to base that faith on no matter how elaborate or simplistic. Even if someone believes something as general as "I know there is something out there, I just don't know what," it is still faith. It is based on something out there, no different from something in here. No matter how much one claims to know and how detailed their description, if it is invisible and unprovable and unobseravable then it is faith. Faith starts with what you think you know about that something, simultaneously. You don't know the unknown and then have faith in it and you don't have faith in the unknown and then know it better. In fact, the knowing that you claim is the faith itself, one in the same. Your whole statement above is a statement of faith. You claim to know that you know that you know it, but that is also faith. IMHO, the more one claims to truly know their faith the less fluid it becomes and the less they learn about what is actually able to be known.

Real quick.... T-bone, you are correct sir. The theory of evolution supports a materialistic viewpoint, when looked at on its own. Although, science itself when looked at in the same way does the exact same thing. ALL OF IT. The reason is very simple. Science is naturalistic. Meaning, science looks to the natural world, material things (matter, energy), for answers and explainations of the way things are, for no other reason than these are the only materials that they can observe and test. This is what science does. It is seperate from religion and when viewed on its own it is wholely materialistic. You cannot blame a scientist for not considering God in thier equation for life becauce God is not something they can test and observe. God is faith based and science is based on imperical data.

Oh, why's it gotta be black!? I'm with Medic, if you go shopping on Black Friday it should be done with the black market. Best watch I ever had....an Armani from a guy in NYC for 10 bucks. You can't beat that with a bat.... While soccer mom, racing for the same Fart on Me Elmo doll as you... Or fighting back snot-nosed, pizza-faced, emo freaks for an XBox... yeah, bats work for that. Hope yall had that kind of fun today. Good Luck.

Oh and shopping carts, yeah, eeeooooh. For kids these day they make little shopping cart covers with built in toys and such. It is the worst to be pushing your kid around in one and look down to see them sucking on the handle. This is another reason not to eat communal samples that the stores give out, unless they have a toothpick in it I guess. Although, I think a lot of stores have wised up to this and don't do it as much or serve things in little cups or with utencils of some kind. You can damn near have lunch at Costco just from the samples they give out.

Well, aren't we a bunch of germaphobes. I'm with you. My wife works in the Public Health dealing specifically with accute communicable diseases. So yes, we are psycho about this stuff. A little less so as the kids have gotten older though. I believe she told me that the dirtiest (highest concentration of cfu's [colony forming units]) place in an office is the keyboard and the phone, because they are rarely, if ever, get cleaned. The toilet had something like 10-20 cfu's while the keyboard had like a million. So don't go licking your keyboard :blink: or you fingers after typing. John get your hand out of your mouth!

They deleted it finally eh? That is too bad, I was just about to get started over there. I was suprised that it stayed up as long as it did seeing as they supposedly have a no debate policy. Yet, it seems they were glad to discuss things as long as you still had the time to go back and forth with Matt. Can't keep threads like that up for long I guess. Don't want lurking wayfers to come across that. Too bad. Happy thanksgiving ya'll.

Hey, Nato. I believe we've talked before. Personally, I didn't have a problem with your first post. Actually, I was laughing most of the way through it. Then the responses here gave me another chuckle. But I admit, your apology and dialog that followed was good too, not that it was your original intent. Rock on.

Yeah, I would do that Potato. I knew Matt and his sister. Well, it was more like we had many mutual firends and I knew him a little. He was always a decnet guy though. He is the son of RCs so I would imagine he didn't live the twi life that we did. I have never heard anyone say anything bad about his parents. I may be wrong, but as far as I know, they were never the hard-foot leaders that many of us know and (cough) love. The thing that has me curious, and this may be too conspiratorial but, he is my age (about 10- 15 years older than most the myspacers over there) and is more educated in philosophy and theology than probably anyone in twi these days. So, why is he hanging out there? I'll give him the benefit of the doubt for now cause I imagine he is not that unlike me and he sees a lot of himself in these young people and wants to help them if not protect them a little and perhaps be an example to them. The more negative side of me wonders if someone didn't approach him and ask him to do this. Of course, someone as curious as Matt, with free will and all, is probably reading this. So feel free to answer for yourself, buddy.

Actually, OM, all dogs are descendents of wolves. In fact, they come from domesticated wolves, estimated back about 130K years. Never heard of cats and dogs coming from the same species.

One of our local K9 friends around here is the gray fox. It is the only K9 with semi-retractable claws (cat's are retractable) and the only one that can climb trees.

Sudo, I see what you are getting at but I agree with Linda and Krys. "As bad as it gets" is in quotes. Actually, you don't have to click on the link to find that out, you see it right under the as bad as it gets header, "Storms kill 11 in South, officials fear higher toll." So you learn that right there in one glance. The hook is if it is only eleven deaths then as you pointed out, things could have been a lot worse. So the reader says to themselves, "Self, that is not as bad as it gets, what is it that they are talking about. I shall click and find out." That is how they get you, not through hyperbole, but by leading the reader there and leaving them with a question. Then after clicking they read the quote in context and maybe understand it a little better....or not.

Thanks for that, George. For a minute there I thought maybe the world was going to hell in a handbasket. Then you filled me in on the bunnies.... Thank God for the bunnies. I think I can go to sleep now.

Now Belle, you can't keep this up here in the open forum for long using words like "liberal." I think that MStar gave perhaps the most honest and truest answer so far. I think he answered your question. Yet, you would rather support one bias, in the guise of "the real story," over another. I would argue that we should support and seek the big picture which includes stories like this and stories that we more often see about death and instability. My honest opinion is that it has little to do with the media being liberal. Somehow no matter how many examples "liberals" give showing the media as not liberal at all, it still is accused of being so. It is the nature of news and human nature. Jerry Springer anyone? Can you imagine anyone reading the obituary's counterpart of "who's still living." Perhaps the "liberalmedia" label speaks to the supposed nature of liberals and conservatives as pessimists and optimists.

They really said this on a STS recently? :blink: I mean there are many many examples in the Bible to refute that claim. Take Paul for example, he converted after Pentacost and was on a hunt for Christians to torture and kill them when Jesus appeared to him and spoke to him (two sences involved). While I obviously question the verasity of that story and how it fits in the context of the Bible and God's fairness and a number of other things, it is how they view the Bible and that "law" you quoted doesn't jive with their own view of the Bible. Why then would they say such a thing? Perhaps to sell more classes. You need to get to the Advanced class to really understand all that spiritual stuff and the "revelation and impartation" manifestations.

Well, I would imagine that most of those times were early on and did involve drinking or drugs. Lets see. I remember times when we could leave state without checking with leadership and having them contact every LC of every state we were planning on passing through. Ah, those were the days. Ooh, ooh and the times when you could pray for whatever you wanted to without being called on to pray for something specific like our wonderful leader.

I agree, Hope, and the flip side to that is there are a certain number of paid positions that need to continue to be paid in order to keep that image of "growth and abundance" that they tout. Firing people because they don't have a legitamate position for them would give a more accurate picture to the rank and file of how things really are....dwindling. They can't put up the front of expansion and growth while at the same time firing leaders for lack of followers. They have to hvae five leaders overseeing Gunnison while there are only a few corps there and there is good excuse for them to tell people they need to sell it. With Indiana they were still close enough to the exodus in the eighties and the purging of the 90s that they could sell it while preaching quality not quantity. What would they say now? Can you imaging the future fate of twi? 12 regions for four states with a handful of fellowships, 25 members on the cabinet, 6 VPs, and 2 department heads for each staff worker. Anything to keep those believing images of victory. lol I'll always remember meeting the trunk coordinators of Germany one year at the WinB conference. This was the late 90s. We were talking to them on the airport shuttle and learned that they were not only the TC, and not only the only BCs, and not only the only FCs, but the only two wayfers in the entire country. That was pretty eye opening. I am still wondering about a pay scale. Anyone know?

That leads into my question. Are there pay scales for paid leaders? Does a RC get more than a LC? How about a cabinet member and a VP or any of the BOD?

As if the joy and blessing of serving the household isn't enough.

monkey #1 to monkey #2: "THIS is where Ron gets his pictures?"