markomalley

Sooo NOW he learn what the nefarious plot is! They want us to get rid of our cookies!

Indeed. It's a conspiracy!

I have been having trouble going to mass lately... ok, for almost a year now. I feel alone when I am at mass. But when I go into the church all alone, I feel warm and embraced. I wish I could puzzle this one out so that I can go to mass happily. I miss mass.

It is hard not to attribute every dark corner of my life to TWI. It is hard to realize that other things have happened in my life - happy and sad. It could be that I am going through yet another season of forgiveness... and as much as they are uncomfortable, if I just get on with the forgiving, I can get on with everything else faster, too.

You might be interested in getting in contact with Deacon Joe Pasquella (former TWI and now a Catholic deacon up in Buffalo). (posted here for a while as joepascha). His conversion story is here. He might be able to give you some info or support that you could use.

I wouldn't be surprised when the history is written that Paul Allen and Paw get the biggest credits for shutting down the joint.

sudo

Ain't that the truth!

I heard that the site is going to be going the way of the dinosaur in the near future. While I am saddened that the forums will no longer be available for those who need them, I can fully understand and appreciate the amount of one's life that would have to be involved in managing this mob and can also fully appreciate the need to offload that responsibility, particularly after this many years.

While I was still on active duty in the Air Force, I lurked a bit around some of the precursor sites. I didn't feel comfortable putting my opinions out in public -- I'd already learned how opinions posted on the Internet had come back to haunt a person even back in the dim dark days of the 90s. After I retired, I came to feel comfortable enough in putting my opinions out there that I made the plunge and joined up.

Although I don't ever believe myself to be a victim of TWI, I always had questions about what happened after my departure back in 1989. The resources from Waydale and this place really demonstrated to me how glad I was to have left when I did. But all of you Greasespot docents taught me exactly how glad I should be that I got out when I did. Not only did all my questions get answered, I got answers to a huge number of questions that I never knew that I had.

And to Pawtucket and anybody who provided me those answers (whether you knew you were providing answers or not), you have my eternal gratitude.

Congratulations! I hope you two have a wonderful life together.

To Excathedra and any other victims of abuse by VPW,

I received word a little while ago that this site was closing.

When I first started posting here several years ago, I was of the initial impression that LCM caused all the garbage and that if VPW was still around, none of the bad that happened in TWI would have happened. It took me quite a while to come to a realization that this, in fact, was an incorrect understanding.

My style of posting can be taken as rather forceful and opinionated at times. I do not believe that I ever posted anything hurtful toward any of you in regards to your past experiences. If I did or if the tone of my posts led you to believe any degree of skepticism in what you experienced, I would like to apologize while this site is still operational.

Like I said, I don't specifically recall anything that I said that may have been untoward, but 7 years is a long time. And I do know that my degree of understanding about TWI and its evils has mushroomed in the seven years that I have participated on this site and so it is possible, particularly considering how opinionated (read: what a jerk) I can be at times.

If I did, in fact, write something untoward, I make no excuses other than ignorance.

And if you were offended by anything I wrote that may have even indirectly cast aspersions, I humbly beg your forgiveness.

I never heard even the dim LCM say anything about "mass"acre.

I believe it may come from the old English (and before that, probably old German or Norse or some such) "mass" or "mess" meaning meal. As in a mess (dining or common room) in military terms.

A "mass" in religious terms is where the eucharistic tokens of bread/wafer and wine are taken, symbolising a "meal" and most commonly seen in "communion" services of Protestant churches and still called "mass" by RCs.

Over time, the name for the type of service associated with the "meal" service has become the name for the type of service itself regardless of whether "mess" or "meal" is taken.

But anyway...

Happy Christmas, and a bright New Year to all.

Have an enjoyable holiday break (if working) and may 2011 bring you an increase in personal satisfaction with life, in whatever form that takes for you.

Hope you had a Merry Christmas.

Actually, the word "Mass" comes from the dismissal in the Latin Liturgy

Ite missa est

Meaning, "go, it is the dismissal"

The word "missa" comes from the Latin "mitto", to dismiss/to send off. (You can read the full entry on the word from Lewis & Short)

If you examine the doctrine that was taught, you would, in fact, be confronted with the fact that it is just an extreme form of Restorationism.

Thank you everyone for the warm welcome and kind responses. You seem like a great group of people and I look forward to getting to know you better. In response to JeffSjo's question:

I realize in my last two relationships this was done to me, even though my instincts were screaming NO. The whole time I was with both, there was a strong tug of war between how I really felt and the "God's will" trap. In the end I left both and was drained by the experience. Reading this site and other people's experiences made me understand what I was doing. To be exact, if someone tells me our sexual relationship is of God, even if I have been resisting it, it has the effect of catapulting me into the relationship. The reason I think it is happening, is because as a teenage girl I decided this is how to belong to a family.

I wonder how many unmarried teenage girls went to the Way sex class, that I believe was intended for married couples? I did, but don't remember much about it at this point, except there was some soft porn in it. Anyone else remember it?

Christian Family and Sex

Christian Family and Sex

So what was the Christian Family and Sex class about?

Was Wierwille's Christian Family and Sex Class Any Good?

The above are some threads where it was discussed. There are more (see the above for additional links)

As I am reading this, I note the following:

17 User(s) are reading this topic

1 members, 15 guests, 1 anonymous users

The 1 member is me.

Leaves me wondering if the 15 guests and the 1 anonymous member are covert Innies seeking a way out.

Or maybe some of them are TWI "security". Hi, Mr Linder!

The guests are web crawling robots indexing web pages for search engines like Google and Yahoo. At least most of them.

Prayers up.

I will suggest to you the same as I have to a lot of folks: the government (along with government contractors) is the only growth sector in the country right now. I would suggest, if you haven't done so already, to look at http;//www.usajobs.gov as well as the employment websites for contractors, such as Lockheed Martin, Northrop, Raytheon, SAIC, L-3, and so on, particularly if you have government offices (whether military or non-military) in your area. Also, in a lot of cases, the government will pay for relocation. Contractors will normally only pay for relocation if you have some particular education or skill that they need and can't find locally. (I work for a contractor and have paid relocation for folks to Maryland from as far away as Ohio and Georgia before). If relocation is paid, that typically includes 30-60 days of temporary housing, as well (a hotel room or corporate apartment). I also paid for the interviewees to fly from their home to my office for an interview, as well...and that is always the case if they need a face-to-face interview and it's in the type of job where they'd consider paying relocation.

But if you haven't looked in that area, you might want to consider doing so. Regardless of your particular skill set...

I have long contended that the corps program was twi's exclusive indoctrination program.

All classes and meetings were "taught" or run by in-house wayspeak-ers.......and silly me, I sure had NO IDEA what "the way corps culture" would be like when I signed up. I mean, c'mon......I had recently been in college with free-thinking, beer-drinking, party-going, fun-loving young adults were everywhere having a blast.

Then....I get to the way college of emporia AND IT'S TABOO TO LEAVE THE CAMPUS WITHOUT PROPER PERMISSION! Are you kidding me???? WTF? Of course, twi didn't forcibly prevent my leaving the campus.....but the confrontations and peer pressure were standing close by if I got caught..!!!

Is that censorship? Isn't there a phychological/authoritarian censorship TO REGULATE AND CONTROL ONE FROM 'OUTSIDE' INFLUENCES TO HERD THEM TOWARDS CONFORMITY???

No wonder wierwille had to use unjust influence over the youth......heck, the 40-55 year olds in ohio would have never fallen for this indoctrination/censorship.

Now I wasn't in the Corps so I can't speak to that one way or the other...so I'll take your word for it. I was relating my experiences as a lowly Advanced Class grad, where, apparently, we were given a bit more freedom.

Yeah, Mark, I was thinking just a drive-by, too. Was going to give him/her another day or two ... perhaps it's an innie who has to find a suitable closet with internet, before posting.

Well, not that I care about drive-by posting. But getting wrapped around the axle about a first time poster who starts a controversial thread as his only post is about as useful as feeding a troll.

But as you say, we'll see...

Why Mark,

Do you even think such people that will not be held accountable are the same people who build a Christianity in the image of their own vices? (slight sarcastic tone plus smirk)

You quoted me as I was editing, no biggy!

I hope they won't be. I hope that they take advantage (or took advantage) of the ability to repent of their errors before they died, allowing God to shed His mercy upon them. (Luke 15:11-32)

But I'm not holding my breath. Self-righteous types are not generally capable of the humility necessary to do so.

Well, I can't speak for him but I am willing to put an excuse down for him just for the fun of it Mark.

LCM's EXCUSE,

He was a stupid college kid that already had a huge ego, abundant potential in his life to be an abuser worthy of anyone who was willing to crush all opposition while becoming a key member in an abusive religious organization, and a foolishness in his heart that would allow him to delude himself into thinking he was the MOG's successor even though he would use his "alpha dog" status to nail chicks in the parking lot if it was dark out, and he would have the kind of foolishness in his heart to teach some of the most Gawdawefully stupid doctrines that I can recall at this moment.

HHHMMM, Well I guess looking back at this last paragraph it may not be much of an excuse.

It's interesting that they can acknowledge the metaphysical aspects of Christianity in certain areas ("Gawd knew it in his fore------knowledge") but at the same time deny it when it comes to something else ("He didn't die for my sins...they hadn't been committed yet"). Sure, why not.

Drive-by posting, anybody?

When I sat thru wierwille's PFAL class:

1) I was told to write down all my questions and submit them to the class coordinator.

2) Pfal class was subjective by design. No open questioning was allowed.

3) In class, wierwille admonishes to "put away all 'outside' material for the next three months."

4) If class guy couldn't properly answer your questions.....then send them to dr. wierwille.

5) After class was over, twi leadership strongly encouraged me to sit thru it again....and again.

Seems like indoctrination and censorship go hand-in-hand.

I saw the same thing when I took (and re-took and re-took) PFAL, Intermediate Class, collaterals, yada yada yada.

But here's the point: you were encouraged to do it all. You were not sanctioned for not doing it. Therefore, I would say "indoctrinated" is accurate, but "censorship" doesn't really apply. It would only be "censorship" if they either forcibly prevented you from doing so or sanctioned you for doing so.

But that's all IMHO, FWIW, and YMMV

LOY once ranted about how we were not responsible for killing Jesus-he said he heard someone say all christians are responsible and it ....ed him off. I remember him saying something like 'I didn't kill our lord and savior and went on about how deeply he was offended by that.

I don't believe that either, I just thought it was fundamentaly dumb because we weren't alive when Jesus was here. So I didn't think it merrited ranting along with him. But somehow the ac of 95 cost Howie his best friend? Even dumber. They probably never met vpw.

IMHO leadership wasn't thankful or grateful for all that the believers did for them. They took and took and often gave little back.

IMO when people are spoiled and self centered they blame others for their unhappiness or lack in life.

Like rich kids who hate their parents that gave them everything. No matter how hard we gave and worked, they were never going to be satisfied IMO. They constantly blamed us for things we had no control over so they would not have to take responsibility for the dumb things they said or didn't accomplish.

So did he say that 1 Cor 15:3 was a blatant forgery? How about Romans 5:8?

Or what, exactly, was his excuse?

mark.....although I see your point where politics employs religion to get things done and religion employs politics to get things done, but what I'm trying to address:

ISN'T RELIGION AND POLITICS BEDFELLOWS IN THEIR ATTEMPTS TO CENSOR OPPOSING VOICES?

In my above post, Jesus had to stand against BOTH.....to not be swayed, to do the Father's will.

Twi used censorship to manipulate me. Political adversaries use censorship and spin tactics to manipulate me. So, there is this constant religious and political war being waged for the mind of man.

True Christianity has NO RELIGION in it.

True Christianity has NO POLITICS in it.

True Christianity is an intimate fellowship with my heavenly Father via Jesus Christ.

Or......?????

Religion and politics CAN BE bedfellows in their attempts...

TWI used censorship, that is true. I understand this censorship got dramatically worse during the 90s, after I had gotten out, so I can't speak to then. I know when I was in, most of it was on a more-or-less voluntary basis: if you were seen to spend to much time listening to secular music or watching secular TV, somebody would invariably talk to you about "the renewed mind," but I don't recall any specific sanction (keep in mind I got out in '89 and was more-or-less a rebel for a year before that time)

As far as the content of True Christianity, I can appreciate one making a statement that "True Christianity" having no religion in it, looking through a TWI lens at "religion" -- and I, myself, have made that very same statement, when I was in TWI, but I see religion a bit differently these days...not through a TWI lens.

As far as 'true Christianity' having no politics in it, again, from a certain perspective, I agree with you. But Christianity should shape the character and conscience of the politician. So there should be some sort of a tie there.

Politics, as we see it in our culture, has very little to do with Christianity, I will be the first to grant you that. But, the word politics comes from the Greek, politikos, things of the polis, or city. And people are almost always organized together in villages, towns, and cities. In Rev 21:10, we see "the new Jerusalem" descend out of heaven. The point is that we will always have some variety of politikos as long as we have a polis. How that politikos is conducted can and should be shaped by our Christian faith...not in an effort to censor people, but rather in an effort for each of us to censor ourselves and our own conduct and own speech, so that we, through our actions can show ourselves as examples.

Of course, religion plays a huge role in politics. And vice versa.

Why? Because they both deal with the social nature of man. And both directly involve addressing what man believes.

Frankly, I don't see that this, necessarily, is a bad thing...but rather as something that could easily be abused to become a very bad thing.

Looking on the perspective of religion influencing politics, you have two potential extremes:

There is one extreme of fundamentalism, where certain religions cause adherents to completely abandon reason in favor of their interpretation of the transcendent. On the other extreme, there is a form of militant atheism as a matter of official state policy (note the adjective "militant"), which utterly denies the possibility of the transcendent in favor of dogmatic reason.

In the case of fundamentalism, people can then be manipulated to justify any manner of abuse in the name of that fundamentalist belief. In the case of militant atheism, there is no higher authority than man. As a result, all social mores become strictly man-made and thus are relative and can be man-changed.

On the other hand, we've seen many times where politics influences religion. One big example is where the Republicans co-opted the fundemental / evangelical branch of Protestant Christianity in this country starting in the late 70s. Another example is where the Democratic Party co-opted the black church since the mid 1960s. I know it goes both ways: Jerry Falwell and Jesse Jackson were just as manipulative on the other side, as well.

I think the best recent example, though, was Barack Obama's phone call with selected leaders on the "religious left" last where he implored that these religioius leaders start preaching about the "moral imperative" of supporting his "health care reform." The reason I say manipulative is that he did not, from the beginning, ask for their support or even ask for their input...he only did so in an effort to get religious leaders on the left mobilized when it was apparent that his health care reform effort was in trouble.

And this is where it ties into your post so that this is not an utter derail: by imploring religious leaders to extol his plan as a "moral imperative," he was attempting to use religious leaders to shut up opposition (after all, if you oppose his plan, you are being utterly immoral, bearing false witness, and are not acting as Christ would act...)

Personally, I oppose both the Republicans and Democrats on this. I think that if someone shows up at a hospital and is in desperate need of medical attention, they shouldn't have to show their papers or anything. Save their life, then figure out what to do. We all know that there is too much up-front paperwork involved in going to the emergency room. It would be nice if the life-saving portions happened first, and the paperwork (which should be minimized anyway) waits until the end.

I agree

Again its interesting how people can read "personal characteristics" and inject meaning through their own filters:

The White House further clarified their position for the hard of hearing on Fri

Whole story from Associated Press

I agree. But, consider that it is currently illegal to discriminate against them in healthcare.

Before you suggest a "personal filter" keep in mind what I said before, I don't personally care. If they pay, I don't have a problem with them being insured. Healthcare is not the place to control immigration.

But until the text of the law is changed, it says what it says. Regardless of the White House statements.

Remember: the White House said no earmarks. Then he signed HR 1...which is nothing but earmarks. The White House said "no lobbyists." But they seem to have no problems signing waivers. And so on.

Obama did not lie, in all versions of the bill in any committee, credits and Federal health care funds to illegal immigrants is forbidden.

http://www.time.com/...1921455,00.html

Wilson is wrong, not Obama, on this issue.

Time Mag:

Time's reporting is also not hard to check.

TITLE II--HEALTH INSURANCE EXCHANGE AND RELATED PROVISIONS

<h4>Subtitle A--Health Insurance Exchange

Subtitle B--Public Health Insurance Option

Subtitle C--Individual Affordability Credits

</h4>

SEC. 246. NO FEDERAL PAYMENT FOR UNDOCUMENTED ALIENS.

Nothing in this subtitle shall allow Federal payments for affordability credits on behalf of individuals who are not lawfully present in the United States.

"This subtitle" = Subtitle C. Individual Affordability Credits. (by the way, the underlining above is mine)

On the other hand, check out Section 152

(a) In General-
Except as otherwise explicitly permitted by this Act
and by subsequent regulations consistent with this Act,
all health care and related services (including insurance coverage and public health activities) covered by this Act shall be provided without regard to personal characteristics extraneous to the provision of high quality health care or related services.

(b) Implementation- To implement the requirement set forth in subsection (a), the Secretary of Health and Human Services shall, not later than 18 months after the date of the enactment of this Act, promulgate such regulations as are necessary or appropriate to insure that all health care and related services (including insurance coverage and public health activities) covered by this Act are provided (whether directly or through contractual, licensing, or other arrangements) without regard to personal characteristics extraneous to the provision of high quality health care or related services.

Note subparagraph (a), above. They may not discriminate against ANYBODY for any reason in providing health insurance or health care.

(BTW, for the record, as long as my tax dollars aren't subsidizing it, I personally have no problem with anybody getting health insurance or receiving health care, regardless of their legal status. And, if my tax dollars are involved, I wouldn't have a problem with it either if the person or office receiving the tax dollars were obliged to report a suspected crime (being here illegally) just like they'd have to report any other suspected crime)

So it sounds like Time is joining Mr. Obama in the "YOU LIE" column.

dmiller,

The difference is that while CNN, etc. may not get things right 100% of the time, and they do focus too much on nonsense nobody should care about, they seem to make an attempt at being a news network. Fox News, on the other hand, focuses on being an entertainment network, and deliberately lies in an attempt to entertain their audience. That is why whenever a Republican does something illegal, Fox "accidentally" calls them Democrats. That is why people like Glenn Beck and Bill O'Reilly are on their network, rather than people reporting facts.

In fact, Fox won a lawsuit against two former employees over Fox's right to lie on the news. If you've not heard of Jane Akre and Steve Wilson, the Wikipedia article I linked to can get you started. Here's a quote from there:

So while any network could use this ruling as blanket amnesty to get away with lying, the fact is that Fox has been caught intentionally lying and got permission from the government to continue doing it. There is no reason anyone would trust what is reported on Fox. The integrity of CNN and the others are certainly up for debate too, but they haven't been as openly dishonest as Fox.

You use Wikipedia??? as a source and complain about the use of the Telegraph?

Seriously....

First of all, the lawsuit was against New World Communications (d/b/a WTVT). Case # 98-CA-002439 filed in Hillsborough Circuit Court (FL). It was not filed against Fox News.

I'm glad you think that Rupert Murdoch and Roger Ailes have the time to monitor a story produced by a local affiliate, but reality says that this is highly unlikely.

The case was filed by both Steve Wilson and Jane Akre. All of Wilson's claims were dismissed. All of Akre's claims were also dismissed.

Here is some verbiage from the decision filed by the 2d District Court of Appeal in 2003 (it's a darned shame that whoever wrote the Wikipedia article couldn't take the time to link to the actual decision)

Of course, the user-developed article on Wikipedia didn't bother to include these portions of the court's decision.

Based on the written decision of the court, the claim is laughable anyway.

The station asked Akre and Wilson to substantiate their claims and Akre / Wilson respond by accusing the station of trying to distort the story. They are fired in 1997 and they respond by threatening to report the station to the FCC. Then they sue the station on the basis of a whistleblower law. Let's think about this a second.

Here's the sequence (according to the court's decision):

- They work on a story

- Management asks them for documentary proof

- They don't provide proof but, instead, accuse management of trying to distort their story

- This goes back and forth a few times

- They get canned

- They threaten to report management to the FCC

- They sue the station for a bunch of things, including whistleblower protection

Just as an FYI, had they ACTUALLY reported the station to the FCC before they were fired or threatened to report the station to the FCC before they were fired, they might have a case about whistleblower protection. But they're fired and only then threaten to report the station. Whistleblower protection NEVER works that way. Ever.

First, all claims made by Steve Wilson, Jane's husband were dismissed.

Second, all claims made by Jane Akre were dismissed...except the whistleblower claim. What the whistleblower claim does is accuse the station for firing her because she threatened to go to the FCC. The jury was not asked to review the validity of the claim at all, just that she was was improperly fired because she threatened to file a complaint (though the chronology written into this decision does not indicate that this was, in fact, the order of events).

Now, let's go back to the decision:

Translation: she didn't have a valid claim under the Florida whistle-blower law.

Now let's skip down a little bit in the decision (you can read the whole thing by the link, which Wikipedia didn't provide but I did):

There are two points to get at here:

1) The Florida Appeals Court did not rule that it was OK for a news outlet to lie

2) They indicated that truth-telling was not a rule, regulation, or law. It was a factor that was developed as part of the requirement for license renewals.

Back to the decision:

Translation: Akre's attorney did not attempt to argue this point.

The bottom line: Wilson's case was dismissed out-of-hand at the county court level. Akre's case was dismissed at that level as well, except for whether the whistle-blower complaint stood.

By the way, what were the counts? According to a website maintained by Wilson and Akre, here are the counts:

Count 1) Breach of Contract: NEW WORLD, nonetheless suspended PLAINTIFFS' employment in violation of the employment Agreements, threatened to terminate the Employment Agreements immediately unless the PLAINTIFFS agreed to engage in activities, as described above, which they believed to be unethical and in violation of the Federal Communications Act, and the rules and regulations promulgated by the Federal Communications Commission.

Count 2) Declaratory Judgment:

Count 3: Whistle-blower Act Violation

Counts 1, 2, and 3 were all dismissed in Wilson's case by the trial court.

Counts 1 and 2 were dismissed in Akre's case by the trial court. Count 3 was dismissed upon appeal.

In other words, the substance of the matter, that they were ordered to knowingly put out a false report, was dismissed at the trial court level.

Bottom line: Wikipedia is not a reliable source...

Now, do you have any real evidence to back up your claim, or is it just that you don't like Fox's editorial position and, therefore, don't want to see it used?

Since nobody else has started one,

<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="

Myself, I was on Andrews at the time. My daughter had just been released from the hospital after having some pins inserted in a broken elbow after a playground accident. My wife was teaching at the nearby elementary school.

Watching the tube that morning, I saw the breaking news...daughter asked, "What happened Daddy?" My answer: "Honey, you just saw the world change forever."