markomalley

Profound post, ex10. Arrogance is a common thread among so many of these posts. Is it even possible for one to be a Christian and be so arrogant in his own devices?

You know, this is another GREAT example of the wonderful public service provided by GS. Seriously. When I was in, we WANTED to present tokens of appreciation to people, particularly those who were in some leadership capacity that did us a service. We THOUGHT that it was the appropriate thing to do. I never got a pre-printed list of appropriate items, but had I done so, I would have been glad to have gotten one -- I would have considered it in the same category as a bridal registry thing. Why get somebody something that they didn't want and wouldn't use? I didn't realize the abuses that were so widespread among each and every member of leadership, from the lowliest branch coordinator all the way down to the root. After reading these accounts, I regret each and every present I was ever involved in getting any member of TWI. I didn't realize how badly I was being duped. Figures. :o-->

SkepTex: A lot of flakey ideas happened in the wake of Vatican II. The documents I have read are not nearly so much of a departure as some of the interpretations thereto. Vatican II, for example, did not forbid the Tridentine Mass: it authorized vernacular masses. But, it took Card. Retzinger (sp?) to point that fact out 35 years after the fact. Poor cathechesis enabled a lot of wackos to push their ideas upon an unknowing and nonunderstanding laity. Yes, unfortunately, a lot of folks did leave the Church and a few of them ended up in some really strange places. But, even that is changing. Over 1,600 cathecumens and candidates participated in the Rite of Election this year in the Archdiocese of Washington alone. If a small diocese like this one had that many, I'd be curious to see what the numbers were like in a big diocese. But, frankly, this isn't a Catholic board, so I don't want to bore people with a bunch of details.

Poor catechesis. I remember when I was "in," I repeatedly said, "if the denominational churches were doing their job, there would be no need for TWI." I still say that this statement is true.

Top doc backs picking your nose and eating it Eeewww!

Although outrageous, there is a bright side. When a close corps friend of mine showed me the letter, I decided at that time that it was time to exit, stage right. (It was the proverbial straw) How many other people avoided the nightmare of the '90s brand of TWI as a result of seeing that letter?

When I left TWI, I needed a complete break from it all for a while. I saw a lot that was going wrong...a lot that was hurting people and was "off the Word." Fortunately, as one in the military, my decision to walk away from it came at about the same time as a move brought on by the military. I went to an overseas country that had no fellowships, either with Americans or with local nationals. So, I essentially disappeared for about a year and a half. I kept in touch, to one degree or another, with some believer friends, so that I could keep an ear on what was going on. When I got back to the states a year and a half later, I was stationed in a different part of the country. I found a "splinter group" and went to fellowship with them, but it just didn't click (this was before the CES came out (or at least before I heard of them) and before there was some degree of organization among these splinter groups -- they were pretty much underground at that time). I then tried to find a church. But, with my "waybrain," it was very difficult to do so. I always found fault with their doctrine and/ or their practice. So, I went from place to place to place. Something that I had tried as a teen and young adult before I found TWI (or TWI found me). So, I gave up. For several years. I did what so many have done and said, "I'll just study the Word on my own and not bother otherwise." You know, that didn't work for me. After a few years without doing a thing, I started feeling a need to associate with other people again, to be involved in something larger than myself. So, I recognized that I needed to re-evaluate my beliefs I got during the time I was in TWI. My view of what remained was that LCM had gone of the deep end and that TWI was no longer a factor; the splinter groups that I had encountered were not impressive. There was a sense of "is this all?" I had no interest in getting involved in JW or in some of the "oneness" Pentacostal groups. A statement made by VPW which still rang true for me was that if the doctrine gets messed up, the practice is sure to follow. Well, I decided to re-evaluate my TWI beliefs based upon that criterion. So, I started examining. I used not only the KJV Bible, as interpreted using TWI criteria, but also other archaic early Christian writings and apologetics from a number of different sources. And, since this isn't the doctrine forum, I'll leave my findings to myself, but the bottom line is that I found the TWI doctrine wanting. I found that a lot of orthodox Christian beliefs are defenseable. So, what I did was I typed and cross-matched the written doctrine and laws of a lot of denominations. You know, I found that a lot of the so-called "liberal" Protestant denominations truly had no foundation that I could see. As somebody else on this thread said, they don't care about what you believe, they care more about who you are. Well, I saw that in practice, they really didn't stand for anything (no offense to anybody belonging to one of those denominations). They were, to their credit, very accepting. But, it seemed like they lowered themselves to the least common denominator, rather than setting the bar higher and asking people to raise themselves to it. On the other hand, it seemed like the fundamentalist/ evangelical denominations that I looked at used a lot of guilt and condemnation as their modus operendi. Arrogance. Again, not my cup of tea. I just didn't feel comfortable in either type. So, still with the military, I moved to Andrews AFB, Maryland. Right in the heart of south Prince George's county. We did not feel comfortable sending our daughter to a public school there, so we shopped around for private schools. We tried to get her into a Lutheran school, but no luck. So we ended up putting her into a Catholic school a few miles from the base. I foreswore Catholicism years before even getting involved with TWI, so it was an interesting concept, putting my kid into a Catholic school. But, it came down to the reality that it was that or a public school (the PG County school district is the second worst in MD -- behind Baltimore City -- the part of PG County we were in at the time was the worst part of PG County). So, I found myself re-examining the Catholic doctrine again. I needed to have the proper armor to gird my daughter against the propaganda and to argue with the people in that school, you see. What I found is that it wasn't as strange as I remembered it and it was no where near as evil as TWI had convinced me it was. And, the people in that school and the people in that parish were GREAT!!! It was a middle ground between standards and acceptance that I hadn't seen. So, I started seriously looking into it. I remember that there were four issues I had to seriously deal with: 1. The trinity 2. The communion of saints (i.e., "Are the Dead Alive Now?") 3. Apostolic succession (i.e., is there authority passed down from the original apostles) 4. The sacraments (i.e., how does God make His grace known to man?) Now this is not the doctrine forum, so I don't want to go through the process in grueling detail, but suffice it to say, I was able to resolve those to my satisfaction. And so, the family was received into the Church. Your specific question was about the thought process. Hopefully, I've passed my thought process on here. In summary: - I had to first examine my own TWI beliefs to see what was really true and what wasn't. The trick here is to examine those beliefs not only using VPW's interpretation of the Bible, but through a number of different mechanisms. Challenge your assumptions -- hold to what is true; reject that which doesn't stand up to good scrutiny. (One thing I looked at was that we should probably give a whole lot of credence to beliefs more or less universally held true for over 2,000 years -- if VPW disagreed with it, maybe we need to scrutinize our beliefs very carefully in that area in particular) - I then had to find a group with whom I both felt comfortable and would provide a mechanism for some type of growth (read that moral standards) - After I find such a group, I need to do a reality check on their doctrine and practice to make sure it is going to pass my muster - Before establishing communion with a group, you need to make sure you are comfortable with their teachings. I cannot understand the concept of going to Church with a group when you don't agree with fundamental aspects of their theology. They are teaching you right and wrong. (BTW, in a centrally controlled denomination, such as the Catholics, Lutherans, Episcopalians, Methodists, etc., the decision should be based upon the denomination's official canons, not upon what a specific pastor says) If you don't agree with the fundamentals of their teachings, then how can you sit there and listen? FWIW

If you have a zoo nearby, the zoo's gift shop should have something that would fit the bill. I've seen similar fake birds of prey at multiple zoos I've visited with my kid.

Sounds like "burn the chaff day." This is not a characteristic unique to TWI. I have heard of a number of religious groups which recommend that "devilish" influences be eliminated. I don't necessarily think that it's a bad thing, although, as is usual for TWI, they took a potentially good thing and hosed it up. If you repeatedly listen to the same thing, it will have an influence. If you repeatedly watch the same thing on the tube, it will have an influence. If you want to minimize that influence, then you should replace the bad influence with something more positive (thus "believer music," Christian rock-n-roll, etc.) How many of us would want a 7 year old to watch an "R" rated flick? Why? Because the film could upset, confuse, corrupt, or have some other negative influence upon the kid. Adults are not that different, it just (in most cases) takes a little more to cause the same influence on us. P1ss me off, though. Junked a bunch of perfectly good Kansas records that way. "Fear the Turtle"

Well, speaking as a relative outsider, I can say that I, for one, appreciate reading this stuff. I was one of those who was a "if Dr. was only here" person for years and laid all the blame on LCM. I read the POP and believed it as gospel. If not for the info I've gotten from Waydale, but mostly from here, I would have continued to be nostalgic for "the good old days," wishing that "Loy hadn't screwed a good thing up." I have learned from reading your experiences and, for that, I am appreciative. "Fear the Turtle"

Oops. That's the problem with writing a "book" post. I missed a couple of posts in between. Yes, I agree, the "I think this" vs. "I think that" heated argument with the associated perjoratives has gone on long enough. I saw the two articles I cited earlier in the morning papers and thought of this thread -- something new and different that hasn't been documented followed by my excessively long commentary on the same. But, yes, barring something new, I hopefully have killed this thread (following some death throes from the majority calling me a bigot, homophobe, and religious a$$h0le). But, I'll leave it for now. "Fear the Turtle"

I simply think that they don't see this as an analogue. As stated previously, you CAN hide being gay. How does a person (other than "the gloved one") hide being black? It was an interesting commentary. It certainly goes to show that there is hardly a monolithic opinion out there. If we can discuss this civilly, however, I don't accept its basic premise: My fundamental issue with the article is that it equates an attribute characterized by a physical feature with an attribute characterized by a behavior. The two are not analagous. Unlike the columnist, I believe that it is a proper function of the state to proscribe behaviors where the state has a compelling interest to do so (now, mind you, I use the term "state" to refer to the lowest common denominator, not as a reference to the federal government). The state regulates all sorts of behaviors. We may or may not agree with those regulations -- laws can be changed as society changes. There are those who believe that drug use should be legalized. If a significant enough proportion of the elected representatives agree with that proposition, they can change the laws (witness the "medical marijuana" revolution of recent years). Most states have already overturned the laws that proscribe homosexual conduct (i.e., sodomy laws). There are those who would prefer that insider trading regulations be nullified. There are some who believe that prostitution laws should be eliminated. If a state wishes to change its marriage laws to remove the requirement for diversity in sex, so be it. Having said that, it is one of the primary functions of religion to set a moral standard of behavior as that particular religion sees fit. We may or may not agree with those moral standards, but it is their right. Part of those moral standards include the proscription of behaviors that do not meet the standards set by that religious body. There are some who are far more liberal in their standards than others. My personal behavioral practices would certainly not meet the standards set forth by certain congregations, if not entire denominations: I smoke tobacco and drink liquor. As a class, people who practice those behaviors would be greeted with disapproval, told their behaviors are sinful and offensive to God, and largely made to feel unwelcome. Are they using the Bible to justify this exclusionary behavior? Well, they would say so. I may choose to disagree. Are they being bigoted? I could say so, using the exact same logic used in this Herald commentary. But, I wouldn't. I simply know where I'm not welcome (an ever increasing list of places - especially in the case of the smoking behavior :(--> ) and choose to worship elsewhere. I don't think that most people would say I am the object of bigotry under the above circumstances. It's my choice to smoke and drink, and if I chose to not smoke and drink, I'd probably be warmly welcomed and completely accepted by those groups. It's in my hands, completely. In my defense, I could perhaps claim some sort of genetic anomaly that caused me to take on these unacceptable behaviors. After all, my father smoked and drank as did his father. I know once you're hooked, you never really totally get rid of that craving (I've met people who have been smoke-free or drink-free for 20 years and they tell me that they still have an occasional urge for a smoke or a drink). Is there crossover between the lines of religious "authority" and the authority of the state? Of course there is. If the religious authority is effective enough in convincing people of the morality of their beliefs, then likeminded people will be elected to representative office who will then proscribe behaviors that are offensive to their constituents' beliefs. This process works both ways. Having written this tome, let me finally state that I do not wish to be offensive to anybody by drawing an analogy between homosexuality and smoking/ drinking. I realize that it is a flawed analogy, but I believe it is a more apt analogy than the one being drawn between between sexual preference and race. "Fear the Turtle"

Of course. But there are those who believe that "civil rights" are "civil rights" and that the entire "civil rights" community should be/ is a monolithic entity. I would not presume to educate you, Trefor, on the subject. However, there are those who have allied themselves with your cause who would believe that there is solidarity among all the civil rights groups, regardless of consituency. Simply stated, there isn't. As Rocky has expounded upon at length, Sen. Goldwater would roll over in his grave at some things that Republicans do in his name. The above cited articles show that some of the civil rights leaders would probably similarly prefer to not have their names appended to this cause.

We interrupt this thread with the following special announcement We now rejoin this thread, already in progress... :D--> "Fear the Turtle"

That's county, not country, JL. Prince George's (where Santa is still fully welcome, unlike certain towns in Montgomery Co. ;)-->) "Fear the Turtle"

Part of what I've heard as the rationale behind behind the Black civil rights movement distancing themselves from the gay rights issue is, other than the obvious religious issue, the fact that a person (other than maybe M. Jackson) cannot hide being black. This is not so much an issue with a person being gay. A person has to reveal, either through words or actions, that he or she is gay. I haven't seen to many people successfully hide that they are black. Therefore the issues of employment equity, separate but equal schools, bathrooms, etc. that were the spur of the black civil rights movement are not as much of a factor in this case. That is much of the explanation that I have heard from neighbors, friends, co-workers, etc. (and I live in a county that is 70% black, so we're not talking about an isolated visit with some kind of an oreo). "Fear the Turtle"

Also, here is an article that reflects the opinion of the Congressional Black Caucus and other political leadership groups on the subject: http://www.washtimes.com/national/20040315-122503-3346r.htm BTW, my motivation with the past two posts is to try to provide some feedback on the "black" view of same-sex marriage as a civil rights issue. I figure that they are the subject matter experts on that subject. "Fear the Turtle"

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/artic...-2004Mar14.html It's interesting how the lines are drawn, particularly when we're talking about a civil rights issue. I posted my personal opinion about it a while back, but before people pile on me, here it is again: - I think that if it comes up to the supreme court, that challenges to existing laws will be successful. - I personally believe that this should be an issue decided by the legislative branches at the various state levels. - My personal distate is irrelevant. My opinion doesn't count. I should just shut up and color. "Fear the Turtle"

All of the following bought in stores, not from infomercials (but I got the message from the infomercials initially) Worked: The Shark steamer, Shark stick vacuum, and Shark sweeper. The steamer does an amazing job eating through dirt and grime -- I use it in the shower stall, the stove, and on the grill. Does great! The vacuum is lightweight and actually gets a good vacuum -- use it in the cars and on stairs. The sweeper does a great job getting up dog hairs and works well on uncarpeted surfaces. Didn't work: space bags (they worked great, but ripped super easy and sometimes let air back in) Didn't work well: Foodsaver (it worked great for a little while and then I couldn't ever get a seal for the vacuum pump to work)

Imbus Nice Story. Please read this story from Snopes. Be sure to read the entire thing, including the part beyond the Paul Harvey "quote."

You know, it's interesting the parallels between religions. Easter, with its custom of passing out candies and other sweets, follows the period of fasting and abstinence known as Lent. The interesting parallel goes with the Muslim religion. Their holiday Eid-ul-Fitr celebrates the end of their period of fasting and abstinence known as Ramadan. With this holiday, celebrations including feasts and the passing of candies out to their children are done. I don't know if there is a similar custom among Jews, but it would be interesting to find out. The other surprising issue is that there is not more of an outcry among some conservative Protestant leaders against the custom of passing out candies during the easter season (although, I'll admit I've heard of some fundamentalist clergy that have expressed their distate with the eggs, chicks, and rabbits -- as fertility symbols). I would think that they, wanting to separate themselves completely from Catholic-like customs would want to eliminate this custom, as it gives reference to the end of a "season." Have any of you who participate in conservative Protestant denominations/ parishes heard any outcry out of the pulpits on this issue? (Not trying to start up any controversy, just curious)

Thanks exc...needed a good laugh this morning!

That's my point. That's the crux of Arianism. Well, ambassador for Christ is a separate issue. Up until the modern day of communication, ambassadors had pretty sweeping authority and responsibility...they weren't able to check with the boss before they could take a leak. But, again, that is part of the fraud. With TWI, you had to check. Otherwise, you'd get it whacked. Again, its part of the fraud.

You're right, but what about the MOGFOT issue? The MOGFOT says something and the "believers" turn off their brains. But, the bottom line is egotism.

MHO, here...and I don't claim to be the expert at VP, but if I'm not mistaken, both BG Leonard and Bullinger were not Arian. VP was. If he merely taught from their lessons, he wouldn't have been able to put his Arian spin on it. Once again, imho, that Arianism was a central necessity to his (VP's) ego-centric philosophy. Incorporating the Arian heresy into the philsophy he taught, allowed him to place himself at the same level as Christ and to make himself worthy of the same level of adoration. But, once again, this is all IMHO...I don't claim to be the authority on the subject. It's just something that I haven't seen posted in this forum.