oldiesman

If there's anyone out there who initially got involved with twi, or stayed involved with twi, because "Dr." Wierwille had a "Dr." in front of his name, please raise your hand. I'd be very interested in hearing about your stowry, and how that matters any with one's spiritual life ... :)-->

Steve, that's your mistaken interpretation of what I've been saying. I never excused anyone's adultery. Rather I've stated over and over again that sin is sin. But what I have objected to on this topic is a seeming double standard, why some folks seem to be so quick to exonerate "the victim" (which indeed, in some cases, may not be a victim at all), while at the same time, being so unforgiving and so unrelentingly harsh and critical towards the minister. Yes, the minister should know better and do better, that's for sure. But I sometimes feel the seeming double standard as unbalanced and unfair. I don't worship Wierwille, but neither do I hate his guts. :)-->

Great news! Happiness always for Danny & family. :)-->

I don't think it should be assumed that, just because someone is a clergyman, that the congregant is automatically considered "emotionally dependent" upon them. I think substantive and relevant facts would have to weigh in as well, corroborating same. :)-->

Thanks Raf. Excathedra and Steve, I agree with what Raf just said. Well said, Raf. Thanks. :)-->

JAL said: How true this is, for me at least! I think JAL is doing a good job of making a case that CES is different from TWI, in practice at least. A lot of the doctrines are obviously the same, true, which won't change, unless the folks advocating change come across with some extra heavy beef that makes more sense than already researched doctrines most of us believe is the truth. Those who don't believe these doctrines are always free to go elsewhere and enjoy other doctrines if they feel the other doctrines are more correct. I don't sense any condemnation or arrogance from JAL in that light, even though he still believes he's right. I don't have a problem with him believing he's right and saying so. He's got that right, just like anyone else. :)-->

Ok thanks. :)-->

Yup, Simonzelotes, like toothpaste that's out of the tube and can't be undone, it's too late, you said what you said. Sorry about that, I shouldn't have put the whammy on you. :D-->

Simonzelotes, I agree completely, and couldn't have said it any better. Thank you. :)-->

dmiller, I think I do see things as they are and believe these things happened, so I don't know exactly what you're talking about. My comment before was about this 37-page letter only. I don't see it as specific at all, all I read about is 37 pages of how the Trustees aren't spiritual people and are blowing it, with no specifics. It seems a tad condescending. Like spouting spiritual principles and realities, without really saying anything meaningful the Trustees can use "to change". I question from this letter, what are they supposed to stop, to change from, if there are no specifics? In this context, I think telling these people they are evil, without getting specific, is worthless. No wonder why they canned his butt shortly after this. It may have been canned anyway, even if they got specific, but I see no profit from this letter as it stands.Do you have that tape set by JAL where he gets real specific? I'd love to hear that, and any other information you may have, so that I may be properly informed. :)-->

No problemo, JT. :)-->

JustThinking, The name of Rev. Patricia Liberty was invoked as a reliable source in these matters. What does her viewpoint have to do with legal responsibility or legal liability? Why didn't you reprove the others for invoking her viewpoints, like you reprove me? Her views are irrelevant to your initial question. No matter, if her viewpoints are being considered in these matters, then all of her statements are fair game. :)-->

Rev. Patricia LibertyI disagree with the above statement. Since a minister is blameable for participating in inappropriate sexual behavior, a participant also is blameable for participation, most especially for initiating it. Rev. Liberty is supposed to speak for and be a representative of God. Ok, where does it say in the bible that folks who initiate inappropriate sexual contact should be given a free pass?

And I know Corps grads who were black and white. Even married couples who were Corps grads ... one Corps grad was black, their spouse, was white. Both Corps grads. If Wierwille were racist, would that have been allowed? Heck no! :)-->

Where's the evidence that he never got over it? I think he was being honest and sharing his feelings. I might feel the same way if it happened to me. This comment suggesting they were token blacks is extremely insulting to both Lonnell and Claudette, who both earned what they received. More German bashing. The fact that Wierwille had these books in the bookstore and advocated their reading doesn't mean he hated Jews ... I think he meant there were more ideas out there than what the mass media was feeding us, for years, and we had the right to know about it. Yeah, it does mean something when the U.S. yearly donates billions of dollars to Israel because the U.S. feels Israel is Gods Chosen People. Maybe you don't care about where your tax dollars go; I do.In my experiences, I've seen that true racists and anti-semites want nothing to do with blacks and Jews. On the contrary, Wierwille wanted to bring everybody into TWI, into the family and household of God ... so he didn't discriminate ... If Wierwille were racist and anti-semetic, he would have kept blacks and Jews out ... period. Add to that the fact that for years folks like us were involved ... I know if there were a hint of racism I would have picked up on it ... I'm not that stupid or ignorant of what is racism and how to tell it is being practiced. I think I would have complained about it if it were present to any extent, and I think you would have as well. :)-->

Have you called Way Headquarters yet? They'd probably have the information you need to know, even though you may not want to deal with them ... :)-->

I really don't get that from the Feb. 1987 letter by JAL & gang. For instance, where in that letter does it talk about VPW and LCM committing adultery? All we get are statements like: Ok, so what does that mean? To me, this is mega-vagueness, and nothing more than being Miserable Comforters, just like LCM said.Let's just talk about how the Trustees are blowing it, and let's reprove them with bible concepts from Wierwille; without getting specific.

Have a great weekend, one and all! :)-->

Waterbuffalo, If I am missing the mark, could you then please describe in detail what you mean exactly when you say that Anthem describes what wayworld was/is like. I don't want to misinterpret your meaning or put words in your mouth. :)-->

It sounds to me, generally, that Ayn Rand might be disparaging Christian thought and doctrine in her writings. I'm not saying she definitely is, or that her intent is to do so. I'm just looking at what she's writing, and trying to compare it with Christian thought and doctrine, and it looks to me like she could be disparaging Christianity. And the very fact that she's an atheist, might mean she looks on relinquishment of her own ego to a Higher Being, as being sheer folly. So, in essence, she may look at Christianity, as sheer folly.You seem to feel that relinquishment of your own ego is evil, that that was one of the evils of twi? From what I've seen, relinquishment of your own ego is not evil, in fact its at least a part of Christian thought and doctrine. I supplied some verses, there are many others. :)-->

This is one area were Rosalie differs from VPW. At least Dr. Wierwille and family put all his personal property in twi's name. But not Rosalie. Interesting! :)-->

Waterbuffalo, ahhhh ha ha haaaaaaa, you may ask Mike anything you please, I'm just trying to respond to your statements myself.What I'm saying is, you seem to be having a problem with folks being likeminded, having the same thoughts, goals, ideals, intentions, etc. well what do you think Jesus came to the world for? for us to be united in eating McDonalds hamburgers, eating at Wendy's, or Crispy Creme? Just trying to see where you're coming from. If it is an evil thing to relinquish your own ego, that it's good to be truly "independent", maybe you need to rethink what Christianity means and espouses? Just food for thought. As I said earlier, as a political system, I think Libertarianism is the best. But that political system does conflict with Christianity. Agreed?

Sounds a little like the Body of Christ, if you ask me. :)-->

Ayn RandAnthem Jesus ChristJohn 17:11 Waterbuffalo, and your problem is what, exactly? :)-->

def59, could you please be more specific. what exactly did Raf say? I could be wrong, but I don't have a problem with Jesus making some mistakes. After all, he was a human being. TWI also taught that he got sick. Couple of things that sets Jesus apart from all other men is that (1) he was born of the virgin Mary (the virgin conception) and (2) he always did the will of the Father. In my mind, always doing God's will, always being "in fellowship" with God, doesn't mean you are immune from making some mistakes. But what kind of mistakes did they say he made? some food for thought: what you and I might view as mistaken, might not be a mistake at all, just an action from God's viewpoint. Remember we don't always see things like God does. :)-->