rhino

no, nothing like that rhino...but thanks for asking

i am never surprised when someone at our ex-cult site suspects or implies such...big laughs or not

i think if i were to list the names, books, organizations, philosophies, and other google-worthy phrases...it would probably take me days to compile

but i hesitate to invest the energy because of the patterns of overreaction and misunderstanding to such things that i see at the gsc

especially if i only post a few from some category...there seems a tendency on the part of some here to assume that the slice i present is somehow the entirety of my new cult

well..that aint ever gonna happen to this kid again

my overall expressed position comes from my own personal synthesis of a wide variety of fields and disciplines

some of which are very very old, and some of which are very very new..and all points in between

Thanks sir guess ... well you may be ready to start a cult .. or whatever you might want to call it. Perhaps becoming a sage is the next stage? (just kidding, I have been joking about starting my own cult, but I really don't have the energy)

It is good to study, it just seems your "findings" are incredibly involved. I wonder if all these stages are really so exact, and if the "higher" stages are necessarily better than the "lower" ones. It seems to be a sort of caste system, except you can move from one to the next in the same lifetime.

Off the bat, it seems there would be different ways to evolve at higher reasoning without going through specific stages.

you said

beyond rational (but best if rational is included) is characterized by social democracy, free information, caring communities, universal human rights, journalism and dialogue

and you said it is best to keep rational thought there too. This sounds like "life liberty and the pursuit of happiness" ... or maybe more like one world socialist government utopia.

Maybe I'm injecting my own opinion, but the trick seems to be finding a system that works with people that believe differently, without imposing on them too much. This intellectual caste system reminds me a lot of the university socialist elite deciding how life should be for their fundamentalist Christian lessers out there doing the grunt work.

Anyway ... some beliefs do seem tribal only, but that occurs in academia and politics as well. And the nature of man has been that power corrupts ... so these worldviews evolve wonderfully, and you end up with a master race vision or some such. In economics we had the roaring 20's (and now Greenspan hangover) and Germany was happening till Adolf.

Certainly there are stages of development, but man only lives so long, and he seldom has the drive to achieve, while keeping that drive in check to only do good for all, though he will surely label it as a great society, or big brother ... or whatever sounds innocuous or friendly even. But somewhere in the works are the henchmen to make sure the little people march in step.

What stage does this thinking put me at? :) But really, when you say "that ain't never gonna happen to this kid again", it reminds me how easy it is to fall into the old trap again, just in some other form. Or maybe that is just for us trapped in these lower circular stages.

Who said "much learning hath made me mad"? For me, I would like to be more well read, but I'm not so keen on putting together some perfect philosophy. There is probably much to learn here ... but the idea of these certain stages has a religious tone to me.

I really don't see how you go beyond rational thought without subscribing to a religious view ... which actually seems more of a return to fundamentalism. Don't Christians or others believe in the unity of their spriit ... care for all in the family, free information ... Even saying you keep rational thought, what is this guiding force that is beyond that?

Good old Jack can really get 'em going

I wonder if he'll have the follow up singer ... "A Beer Chaser"

thanks jen-o

I prefer philosophies spelled out in cartoon format ... like when South Park enlightened everyone on what Scientology really believes about all the alien stuff ...

I guess one might really admire these movements ... what does it take for them to get momentum?

Anyway, sir guess ... is there a site to explain all this, or is there a class to take and a cult to join?

Maybe I missed it, but what is the theory called exactly? Is it "stage theory" Is there a main leader that you read?

Our first year WOW pins (1975) was a big round pin that just had our name printed on with magic marker. Pretty classy to have to wear that for the whole year.

The wood grain were for word in business I think, maybe also for staff.

then there were the different hats at ROA. The white were for the elite. WOWs got yellow ones? Way Corps had green. Blue for staff? I rode around in a cushman and collected money ... I don't remember getting a hat ... should have taken a big haul and just gone to my car that last year

Nor do I have to provide a source for a statement about what I read, in a casual setting discussion. I seem to see no reason to lambast 4 judges for what they , as is their job, interpret as the legality of a law written by laymen.

No you don't ... though I gave quotes, a source, and the source quoted research ... and that was still lambasted as insufficient for our little discussion ...

But I was curious of the source. Yes, the judges gave their opinion ... as they are supposed to. Now the vote will come up again. But a constitutional ballot initiative may actually make things more strict than they are now, if it does pass.

bowtwi, I didn't see anything at your link about such a law ... it was about artificial insemination ... though many still "pasture breed". I do remember from Gunnison that there is concern about injury during breeding of horses, so for a valuable horse, pasture breeding can be risky business.

For cattle, many just get a bull in there to do the work. But if you want "designer cattle" you pay a bunch for super sperm from million dollar bulls, then do it artificially. Our pasture renter used to keep sperm in a liquid nitrogen cooler in our garage. All the males were castrated so they wouldn't get their sperm in there messing up the plan.

Anyway ... I don't think there could be any such law passed, sounds like a lot of bull. Those bulls have work to do, and they don't work part time ...

But I have also seen the bull nursing off the momma cow ... that was new to me. Stealing a drink ... I don't think it was foreplay ... :o

Got to be mooooving on ....

yeah darn activist judges said the voters had to abide by their constitution.

By a 4-3 vote, judges judged ... this issue was not covered in the constitution ... the judges even admitted this was a change ... "activist judges" also claim to have reason for their judgment .. they are opinions.

Oh, I did read that current polls say the voters of Cali are likely going to change their own mind this next time around and agree with those activist judges. Cursed fickle voters just don't understand God's plan for civil government.

Then the voters will decide for California ... though you don't offer a source. Generally the voters understand a good bit. I see no need to cast those that vote against as bigots. But there has been a lot of that here ...

The old testament had their church pretty established, and their laws I guess.

But in Acts ... there was some helping of each other, but when was all the loot ever moved to a central location from where it was never distributed? A special collection maybe was taken for a certain area in need. It was for that express purpose ... it had not been amassed at HQ at then distributed from the vaults.

It seems the collection of money from the poor (WOWs) to give to the rich (trustees) was perhaps as ungodly and unbiblical as the adultery doctrine, as far as I can tell.

So we have sex, money ... power ... using their power as ministers and bosses to lord over people and take advantage sexually and otherwise ...

TWI really was the real deal ... real evil ...

Here is a partial list of some marriage benefits, protections, rights ... from LindyHopper's article ... of interest was that providing these may actually reduce government liability, pushing me toward being more favorable. There is the marriage penalty, plus more obligation for a spouse to provide for a spouse in need, rather than the state, among other things. I'm not positive there is not some political activism in these studies as well ... still it is good to read.

I think many of these benefits can be obtained anyway (eg. power of attorney for health care), but marriage changes the "default" position.

• legal recognition
  of the couple's commitment to and responsibility
  for one another;
  
  
• legal recognition of joint parenting rights when a child is
  born or adopted;
  
  
• legal recognition of a child's relationship
  to both parents;
  
  
• joint or coparent adoption (in most states);
  
  
• second-parent adoption (in most states);
  
  
• foster parenting
  (in some states);
  
  
• eligibility for public housing and housing
  subsidies;
  
  
• ability to own a home as "tenants by the entirety"
  (ie, a special
  kind of property ownership for married couples
  through which
  both spouses have the right to enjoy the entire
  property, and
  when one spouse dies, the surviving spouse gets
  title to the
  property [in some states]);
  
  
• protection of marital
  home from creditors (in some states);
  
  
• automatic financial
  decision-making authority on behalf of one's
  partner;
  
  
• access
  to employer-based health insurance and other benefits
  for nonbiological/not-jointly-adopted
  children (considered a
  taxable benefit for same-gender couples
  by the Internal Revenue
  Service, which is not the case for married
  heterosexual couples);
  
  
• access to spouse benefits under Medicare
  and certain Medicaid
  benefits (spouses are considered essential
  to individuals receiving
  Medicaid benefits and, therefore, are
  eligible for medical assistance
  themselves; family coverage
  programs would deny coverage to
  same-gender partners and nonbiological/not-jointly-adopted
  children);
  
  
• ability to enroll nonbiological/not-jointly-adopted
  children
  in public and medical assistance programs;
  
  
• ability
  of both parents to consent to medical care or authorize
  emergency
  medical treatment for nonbiological/not-jointly-adopted
  children;
  
  
• ability to make medical decisions for an incapacitated or
  ailing
  partner;
  
  
• recognition as next of kin for the purpose
  of visiting partner
  or nonbiological/not-jointly-adopted child
  in hospitals or other
  facilities;
  
  
• ability to take advantage
  of the federal Family Medical Leave
  Act to care for a sick partner
  or nonbiological/not-jointly-adopted
  children;
  
  
• ability to
  obtain life insurance (because of findings of no
  insurable interest
  in one's partner or nonbiological/not-jointly-adopted
  child);
  
  
• ability to obtain joint homeowner and automobile insurance
  policies
  and take advantage of family discounts;
  
  
• recognition
  as an authority in educational settings to register
  a child
  for school, be involved in a child's education plan,
  and provide
  consent on waivers and sign permission forms;
  
  
• ability to travel
  with a child if it will require proof of being
  a legal parent;
  
  
• access to spousal benefits of worker's compensation;
  
  
• ability
  to file joint income tax returns and take advantage
  of family-related
  deductions;
  
  
• privilege afforded to married heterosexual couples
  that protects
  one spouse from testifying against another in
  court;
  
  
• immigration and residency privileges for partners and
  children
  from other countries;
  
  
• protections and compensation
  for families of crime victims (state
  and federal programs);
  
  
• access to the courts for a legally structured means of dissolution
  of the relationship (divorce is not recognized because marriage
  is not recognized);
  
  
• visitation rights and/or custody of children
  after the dissolution
  of a partnership;
  
  
• children's rights
  to financial support from and ongoing relationships
  with both
  parents should the partnership be dissolved;
  
  
• legal standing
  of one partner if a child is removed from the
  legal/adoptive
  parent and home by child protective services;
  
  
• domestic violence
  protections such as restraining orders;
  
  
• automatic, tax- and
  penalty-free inheritance from a deceased
  partner or parent of
  shared assets, property, or personal items
  by the surviving
  partner and nonbiological/not-jointly-adopted
  children;
  
  
• children's
  right to maintain a relationship with a nonbiological/not-jointly-adopting
  parent in the event of the death of the other parent;
  
  
• surviving
  parent's right to maintain custody of and care for
  nonbiological/not-jointly-adopted
  children;
  
  
• Social Security survivor benefits for a surviving
  partner and
  children after the death of one partner;
  
  
• exemptions
  from property tax increases in the event of the death
  of a partner
  (offered in some states to surviving spouses);
  
  
• automatic access
  to pensions and other retirement accounts by
  surviving partner;
  
  
• access to deceased partner's veteran's benefits;
  
  
• ability
  to roll deceased partner's 401(k) funds into an individual
  retirement
  account without paying up to 70% of it in taxes and
  penalties;
  and
  
  
• right to sue for wrongful death of a deceased partner.
  
  

thats separate issue--maybe you could bring that up in another thread

It is not separate ... it has been discussed here already ... these benefits to marriage. For the non-child portion of this discussion, why should couples be favored over singles?

So getting married is like shooting heroin?

Although Im sure there are a few ( alot ?)of married and divorced people that would agree with you (bad addiction that you cant get away from, costs you everything and oooo...the pain...),

Im not sure I follow your reasoning of marriage=shooting heroin.

What are you suggesting these married gays are gonna do, break in in the middle of the night and rob you?

Sorry if I was too subtle ... my point was simply that the influence of what the couple down the street is doing in their home is not grounds for making this ethical decision. I could have used smoking dope, since many want to legalize that as well. But really the point is many/most laws don't directly influence us ... would we change laws on something more obviously wrong, just because someone down the street is doing it without harm to us? Your justification made no sense to me.

However, if you want to compare the drug community to the homosexual community ... there may be a closer correlation than zero. As has been alluded to, some feel those that live in that sphere are more aberrant in other aspects of their lifestyle ... while there are of course the more average gay lesbian crowds as well. The average gay/lesbian parade may not be representative either. Hopefully the gay couple dads will not be wearing the leather pants with the but cheeks exposed ... at least not to the PTA meetings.

There is an influence in changing the law on marriage, more people getting a favored status by government or business ... I'm more accepting of that when there are children concerned. But then there is also the "promotional" aspect from some teachers or the "we're here, we're queer, get used to it" crowd.

The child seems by far the big issue. My position is not against a lesbian couple having a child. Probably children in stable same sex union families should have protections offered to hetero' marriages. Very limited data so far suggest these unions are quite similar to hetero' marriages.

I'm not sure though, that same sex couples that are now raising children are representative of the general population. In light of all the accidental teen or ill prepared pregnancies ... very few homosexual drunken one night stands result in a child ...The unprepared sex act for gays is more likely to end in AIDS than a child, culling that population rather than increasing it.

So it seems the homosexual with child has planned more deliberately, on a percentage basis.

And besides the accidental births, the homosexual couple has greater barriers to overcome to have a child, so their population in studies would be skewed toward those with greater coping/social/whatever skills.

But mostly I don't think laws should be changed against the majority opinion based on activist judges or groups. Even if it seems there is some evidence, there is still a need for the majority to accept, else scientific studies become manufactured by activists or special interests to impose their agenda on the public.

In what way is weouts or anyones life going to be changed if two adults down the block get married?

In what way is weouts life changed if two adults down the block are shooting up heroin?

This is the government taking a moral stance on the issue of whether same sex unions are the equivalent of "normal" marriages. The government represents the people ... and the people have clearly spoken against same sex marriage.

Some are trying to say, they don't get extra benefits, so give it to them anyway ... or some such ... but there are benefits. ..."Alaska's Supreme Court in October ruled that state and local governments must provide the same benefits to employees' same-sex partners that spouses get." for one example ...

I'm actually against any partners getting extra benefits. As a single person, many things are more expensive .. there are already benefits to having a partner, why should I pay more taxes for not having a partner. If one partner makes most of the money, why don't they pay or provide retirement funding for their partner on their own?

Well at least this "esteemed prophet" is getting the respect he deserves from the state of Utah ...

Too bad vpw didn't get pushed a little harder to lay off the young women ...

As far as huge class action suits ... can you sue the government? I'm thinking you can not.

I don't know if they could sue the individuals either, unless they were terribly out of line in their actions ...

but I'm just guessing ...

The irony of it all... Washington will let a man have sex with animals (no rough stuff tho) but refuses to let gays marry.

Ruff Ruff stuff is OK with fido ...

Well I don't want to spend $30,000 a year to keep some guy in jail for loving his pet. What you do in your own barnyard is up to you. As for passing out benefits to gay couples or married couples ... that is a whole 'nuther animal.

Of course the gov' does get involved if a spouse is doing something "wrong" in someone else's bedroom. If you put the horn in the wrong cornucopia, you lose everything ... then you can put your tail between your legs but you can't go home, you lost it in the divorce.

Baaaaaaaaaad doojie ...

First, I like my goat barehooved and pregnant

A goat's place is in her pen ...

But that sheep has been hangin' with you and is liberated ... but will still want me to keep her in heels ... while getting her lawyer to claim she has been repeatedly fleeced ...

besides, that sheep is old news ... I have mutton to do with her ...

I always get the goats to put a hoof print on a pre nup type agreement ... to be sure they don't try to claim some common law marriage ...

of course for some groups, putting humans on equal footing would be an advancement for the humans ...

what is age of consent for a goat?

come on ham ... your tail is standing up now, isn't it?

the one top left has sexy eyes ...

is there anywhere for this thread to go but downhill?

Confining animals is wrong ... have we learned nothing since Jim Crow days?

racism, sexism, TWI was wrong on so many things, why do you think they were right on this?

... the bigoted Christians that want to stop me from marrying my goat ... what are we still living in the 50's?

I'm not up on all of it, but it seems you have to treat the kids individually, not as a group ... unless they were a foster home ...

There may indeed be harm even if it is not lack of food or whatever (I'm mostly offering counterpoints or questions I have) .. but if there are 12 year olds being married or having sex with adults ... there is harm. (though in Spain or Mexico, I think age of consent may be 12)

It is interesting though ... where this religious freedom line blurs into state intervention.

it seems the real harm was done by the elders that had sex with the under aged. The children didn't need to be hauled away from their parents maybe, unless their parents were compliant with these men having sex with their children. But the men should be in jail for statutory rape? We can look at the chromosomes now, and see exactly who to incarcerate.

Does that seem right?

(oh yeah, Rocky was right one other time ... I'd have to look it up )

Thanks DWBH ... interesting analysis ... I lived with the Carl.is one year ... I'm hopin they moved on, though they were still doing a fellowship in '87 you say ... or Mark was anyway .... they were at that historical center home I think ... I guess GSC could offer some extra items of historical note on vic's history ... but they probably sold the place.

They see themselves as "the special ones" whose job it is to teach us all the REAL truth that mainstram Christianity has been missing all these years...

Like twi, they focus on Christianity as an intellectual excercise...and like Indiana Jones, they will fit the puzzle pieces together properly and find the lost ark...

That makes the most sense to me, as far as why seemingly sane people still revere the vicster. It is hard to let go of that "God's chosen few" notion. Some hard core Baptists have it ... there are the 144,000 special ones, Jim Jones.. then those guys that were going to meet the aliens ... all kinds of groups living in some sci-fi land with their Captain Kirk leaders.

But yeah, JohnS had that special rev ... he could follow in VP's steps and carry out the pursuit of doctrinal perfection ... but then the spiders starting crawling around ... maybe he needs to hang out here, get some more open peer review ... or maybe in more scholastic venues ... but as long as there are a few drooling over their every word, it might be hard for the anointed ones to take off the holy mantle.

Is this the place?

If it is, they have a shaman now ...

Shoot, I'm trying to remember the layout but it's all fuzzy!

You walk in and the main floor and rooms off to each side, and you went up the stairs to the stacks(?) and then the dome was one more set of steps??? And I remember having some kind of small class in a room in the basement(?)

I'm sure someone will remember better ... here's my guess ...

There was a desk first thing in the front door, and some of the usual library like stacks were in a section of the building straight behind the desk ... and that had a second floor ... maybe that was the glass floor, which would let more light into the lower floor stacks. It seems the building had a section behind the dome ... making the building "T" shaped?

Were there matching stairways by the entrances? I don't recall what was up there, maybe a couple small offices?

I like that 2nd pic in post #1 best, showing the hand imprint on the thigh ... and the detail of her shoulder ... looks like a photo.

Here is a high res' picture from a different angle of the first one ... I guess the streaks of marble are more evident ... looks like barb wire on the arm ...?

I think one would have to exonerate the vicster in one's own mind to really believe that his system of abuse and corruption to be worth resurrecting.

Is this new group really holding on to the illusion that the history of corruption was mainly loy's fault, or that vic, an otherwise "honorable" man was just "distracted" by the "temptations" of the world?

C'mon mr "history major".. let's hear a few answers..

Well, in history it is often ego driven people that do these things ... it seems the vic formula worked just fine for vic ... he got a lot of women and a lot of servants providing for his every need, waiting on him hand and foot ... and other parts.

Why not just assume that the intent of this group that is copying the old, is the same as vic's? If they want to replicate vic's thing, maybe they want to replicate those results ...

Train people to bring material abundance to them ... that would be .... wine ... women ... power ... money ...

It might make more sense to assume they really are after the same thing as vic, and that the first plan really DID work just fine ... for vic and a few at the top at least.

I'm thinking the glass floors were in the "stacks" - the part where the bookshelves were. I think the purpose of the glass was to let the daylight through from the windows.

And I think the glass was frosted, so you couldn't really see through it.

My memory is pretty faded; I could just be making this all up in my mind, but I don't think so.

OK .. I was thinking they meant up in the dome ... but you are saying right behind the desk ... that almost stirs some brain cells ...

Though there are conservative atheists, a conservative church would have no room for atheists. We seem to have confused the word conservative with conservative church. The two are not the same.

True caveman ... but much of "Christianity" has left any real adherence to the Bible become are mostly social structures.

Were you in a cave over 6000 years ago ... or do you think Adam and Eve lived in a cave? :)

Roland Garros (which my uncle won in 1939 in straight sets over Bobby Riggs)

Other than that, we are still trying to corner the oyster market, but keeping one eye out for that former star Oakie linebacker and his gay friend Gear at the Riec port!

WOW ... so Uncle Don is famous ... pretty cool ... but does that mean you are an Okie?