Abigail

I'm with Geisha - Puff the Magic Dragon has to be the all time, #1 song that makes me cry. Okay, my sister Ex - these are a couple of other songs that really really make me cry. The first one was originally written about a woman dying from Aids.And this singer has songs for every one of my moods:And here is one more

Well, I got clean and sober in TWI. That was good. I paid a high price for that, however, and not just financially.

I had two children while in TWI, I love them beyond words and wouldn't undo that.

I met my husband thanks to Greasespot, which I never would have been a member of without TWI. I've made some good friends too.

My self esteem grew in leaps and bounds as a result of my experience LEAVING TWI.

Those are the pluses.

The bad - I paid a high price financially, emotionally, mentally and spiritually for all of that. I still have serious trust issues and cannot bring myself to become involved with another religious organization - or any other organization really, at least not one that requires an emotionall or spiritual committment.

Where would I be if I had never been involved in TWI? I have no idea. I could be dead. I could be drunk and stoned somewhere. Or, I could have gotten clean and sober via some other route, and ended up in the same place but with a different husband and different children.

I wouldn't trade my husband or children for a life of no TWI experience. However, I would gadly trade the "scars" I received in the process.

That is not a considerations in my book. What happens if I know you personally and repeat in a public forum a phone conversation or email we exchanged? You cannot get or guarantee total privacy or anonymity - you are reliant on the trust of the person(s) with whom you discuss intimate topics.

That is pretty much my point, RumRunner - you can NOT guarantee privacy or anonymity - especially on the internet. To set up a "private forum" has the potential to give a false sense of security, one that could potentially be very damaging to a poster with family members still in TWI.

What happens if a member of the hidden forums accidently repeats something in the open forums that another poster revealed in the hidden forum (for instance - perhaps they forgot you mentioned it in the hidden forum and thought it was already public knowledge)?

What happens if a member of the hidden forums PMs something you said in those forums to someone who is not a member of the hidden forums? Add to that then that person tells someone else, etc. etc.?

Those are issues that have to be considered, I would think.

Congrats, Mr. and Mrs. Raf!!!!!!

Mr. Raf, I hope you are prepared to make the midnight pickles and ice cream run!

I've missed you as well, Tom. I hope you'll stick around for a while.

Our questions we bring humbly to Him to be answered in His time. That is what makes the journey so fun.

What I find really interesting is that we can humbly bring our questions to Him and get so vastly different answers. I guess we each have our own paths and journeys to take in this life.

I want to apologize for the "name calling." I should play nicer with others. I got a PM from a concerned fellow-citizen. Apparently, however, it's OK to call Joel Osteen a "scumbag" and VP Wierwille a "rapist," for various reasons. But we mustn't namecall a fellow greasespotter, like calling them a "liar." I don't mean to dilute my apology. I really could have made my point in a more civil manner, and I should have. I regularly enjoy what you bring to the table, Bill.

This difference, Dan, is "public figures" verses "private figures." Public figures such as VPW and Joel Olsteen assume the risk of negative public opinion when they take on the roles they do. They proclaim themsleves men of God, apt to teach, and make (or made) a lot of money doing it. It is their employment and the people who follow or followed them are, in a sense, their employers - the ones who pay their salary. Thus, we have a right to critique.

The people who post here are not public figures, we are private people who come here to express opinions and debate ideas. The rules of the forum state we should not make our debates personal - attacking another poster's character is personal. Perhaps your opinion regarding bigotry is correct, I've certainly held such opinions towards other posters. In the end though, if your goal is to persuade you will have far better success using logic and reason than using words that will insult someone and thus cause their defenses to go up.

But I don't think there is a poster here who hasn't at least occassionally gotten personal with another poster in a debate, myself included.

Hi Tom,

Long time no see!! Why not start your thread? I think it could be an interesting conversation. It could also be interesting to ask the question and invite non-Christians to participate as well, no?

I think a large part of the problems that occur down here come from the labelling of people. "You're not Christian, so you can't relate/don't understand/don't have valid input" or "You're not trinitarian/You are trinitarian therefore you can't relate/don't understand/don't have valid input."

Wouldn't it be nice if we could just do away with the labels altogether and really listen to what the other person is saying. Who knows, they may have something valid to say.

Isn't Christianity supposed to be a way of life too?

The intent of Juedes seemed clear ... to him the concept of JCING was accepted because we could not think and only accepted VP as MOG. Geisha has been rather clear on her opinion of correct Christian doctrine. Introducing the suggestion those one god Christians are more like Muslims seemed another slight, more than adding to a reasonable dialogue.

I cannot speak to Juede's intent, I could only respond to the words he used. But I wasn't speaking of Juede's at all, I was speaking of Geisha's posts regarding unitarians and Moslems.

Geisha is clear on her doctrine, to be sure. But I would emphasise what SEEMED to you to be another slight, could have been something else entirely. She has tried to explain her point, I will take her word for it rather than ASSUME I know her intent was truly something else.

See the difference? Speculating over someone's intention may get us a correct answer or it may get us an incorrect one. If it is an incorrect one, you are potentially inflicting needless pain on someone - I've been there, remember?

I have no reason not to take her word for it when she says that was not her intention.

I'm not interested in debating the trinity really, only in looking at how some Trinitarians appear to be close minded on the issue, as Juedes portrayed in his "attack" on those that hold to JCING. So some showed good reason to consider the jcing position, even without vp's book.

I am sure some Trinitarians are closed minded. I am sure some Unitarians are also close minded. I am not sure that acknowledging such refutes Juedes' statements. I believe Mark did a good job of it though, in the original thread - by explaining how he did do his own research and came to his own conclusions.

But the point about those old writings is interesting. Maybe there is book of Jesus somewhere ...Matthew Mark Luke Jesus John ... of course Christians don't believe it is just a label assigned to a group ... he is the savior for all mankind.

Or was he just a guy that got good press and he never saw snow on the gas pumps either? What do we really know from those writings?

If Jesus is the savior for ALL mankind - then why have labels at all - why divide by Christian, Trinitarian, Unitarian, Moslem, Jew, etc?

Jesus came with a message of peace, he was murdered for it. Following his death, many of his followers used his message of peace to inflict further strife, division, and even war. I am not saying that is how ALL or even MANY Christians use it today - but historically that did occur and to one extent or another, it still occurs to this very day.

Yeah, I'll just go sit in the back of the bus

<<<Waving as I join you in the back of the bus>>>

You are correct, WD - I by no means know or understand ALL of Jesus' teachings, nor have I studied anything close to ALL of the Midrash (that would take at least a lifetime). I do see many, many similarities however.

Indeed, I sometimes think that if a new religion had not been born out of the teachings of Jesus, (a new "label" assigned to a group of people) that his teachings would have become a part of the Midrash or a part of the books of the prophets. Maybe not . . .

The head of the Christian church is Jesus Christ ... he did not teach rule by the sword, nor do we see any of that in those early followers (that must have come from those trinitarians )

The head of Islam is Muhammad ... he did convert by the sword, and their teachings indicate submission by force is approved. I have not heard of any recent "honor killings" by practicing Christians, nor stonings of adulterous women. (though some in TWI treated them harshly)

Okay, I've never studied Muhammad or Islam overly much, so for the sake of argument I will accept your premise as true. That still does not mean all of today's Moslem's are terrorists, nor does it mean that was the intent of Geisha's post. Moslems today are as diverse as Jews and Christians - there are many factions/sects with a variety of beliefs and interpretations.

Those of us who do not believe in the trinty tend to see the worship of the trinity as polytheistic, but it would appear that those who worship the trinity do NOT see it as polytheistic. It might be interesting to learn why that is - why they consider themselves monotheistic, no?

I'm not sure Jesus was really Jewish either. Certainly he was raised that way, but I was raised Catholic as well. I don't know that it defines one how they were raised. While he did honor many traditions, he also spoke out on many as well. I see him as more transitional. Certainly the Jewish leaders of the time did not see him as a follower, and I think they were right he wasn't. He brought a message of change to the Jewish people one that many did not embrace.

WhiteDove, if you study the Midrash you will find that what Jesus was teaching HAD been taught before, it just wasn't being practiced much in his day and time. There were differing sects within Judaism, just as there are today, just as there are among Christians.

Jesus didn't really teach a message of change, he taught a message of return.

Mohammad was a terrorist ... he ruled and converted with the sword.

Jesus was not a terrorist ... he said he who is without sin, cast the first stone. To this day, women caught in adultery in Islam are still stoned.

Rhino, Jesus was not a Christian, either, he was Jewish. His followers became Christians - called themselves Christian and many of them did rule and convert by the sword, also.

If you study the O.T., you will find the one act that abhorred God above all others was human sacrifice. Israel often disobeyed God in allowing those of other nations within their midst. In fact, God even set up parameters for when and how to do so, and Moses himself was married to someone of another nation. God even set up paramenters for animal sacrafice (to meet the human need to worship via sacrafice and not God's need for a sacrafice).

But when God got really ticked off, it was when Israel began following after those who practiced human sacrifice. So, I find the notion that God practiced human sacrifice a bit difficult to believe.

. . . .

We all know the childhood saying about sticks and stones and names will never hurt me. At least some of us know that isn't true. We know very well that words can hurt us.

For the past couple of weeks, this place has been full of hurtful and hateful words. I don't really care how one justifies it. "He started it first," etc. That's kindergarten justification. I don't even except that excuse from my children.

I have watched people be labelled, I have watched their words get twisted into things they have never said, hell, I watched one man basically have his identity outed (though maybe most of you already knew who he was - I certainly did not) in the name of DEFENDING him. Yet, I would imagine if he wanted his identity revealed he would have posted under his real name. A list of who should be "banned" was put together. I could go on and on, but why bother.

It is like a sickness. Maybe some of us had it before TWI. TWI certainly encouraged it. This notion of "reproof" and "confrontation." And it is till alive and well here at the cafe. The legacy of TWI certainly lives on and on and on.

Personally, I feel like I have had the .... kicked out of me. I feel physically bruised and battered, and it was all done with words and in the name of some "greater good." I am certainly not sure what that greater good is anymore, and I certainly am at a loss to understand what I did to deserve it.

5 threads all hurling accusations and cruelty and people. Calling people out for battle. Not one thread pulled down, most (though thankfully not all) of those posts still stand.

I started one thread, asking for an honest discussion about what does and does not constitute a personal attack. It appears few really want to discuss that issue. Perhaps because it would cause them to look too closely at their own behavior, I don't know. What I do know is a Moderator spoke up on the one thread where it was politely asked that no labels and name calling be used, and esentially said there was no point to discussing the issue, no point in having started the thread. Yet the moderators have been by and large silent regarding most of the cruelty and calling out that has gone on through 5 threads now.

I don't envy Paw and the moderators. At this point, if this were my board I would probably close it down. That Paw has not causes me to have great admiration for him. I realize too, that there is no way in hell the moderators can read every post and remove every personal attack. They volunteer their time here, they have jobs and families at home that need them.

Rabbi Jospeh Telushkin wrote that one of the worst "sins" (sins isn't his word it is mine, because at the moment I cannot come up with a more apt one) is to be indifferent to someone else's suffering. There is a lot of that going on around here. Worst of all, that indifferece is upheld and defended in the name of one person's suffering and at the expense of anothers.

This is no longer a community I care to participate in. I cannot, for the life of me see how all of this bashing each others brains in with words is helpful to anyone. Indeed, not only does it probably chase off many people who come here looking for answers and looking for help, but it hurts the participants as well.

Paw, you put forth a valiant effor with this place. Do not misinterpret what I have said as an accusation against you. There simply isn't a way to moderate this place effectively if the participants will not use compassion and self control to moderate themselves.

I'm done.

Flame away.

Yeah, I have no doubt Paw and you moderators have more than your hands full with this place.

As I have said to a couple of people lately - my guess has been that unless someone complains about

a specific post, it probably gets left up because no one has the time to read every post here.

I guess I thought it might help if there was some kind of understanding of what

constitutes a personal attack. Guess I was wrong. :(

In light of what has taken place here over the last couple of weeks, and the discussion about the need to modify the rules, I thought an honest discussion about what exactly is and is not a personal attack might be useful.

I would really like to see this thread stay on topic and not become about any individual poster or even about a specific group of posters.

I'd like to stay away from labels like "apologist" or those in some "inner circle" or "MOGs" and really keep this on track.

As I understand it, the "main" rule right now is that personal attacks are not allowed. But it seems to me that we may all have a somewhat different interpretation of what constitutes a personal attack.

I think most of us would agree that name calling is a personal attack, but someone calling someone a "troll" seems to be exempted from that. Should calling someone a troll be considered a personal attack? What about labelling someone as a "victim" a "whiner" an "apologist", "mentally ill"? Do those things constitute personal attacks?

What about assigning motives and intent to someone who has not acknowledged a motive or intent? Or assigning a motive and intent different than what the poster stated was his/her motive and intent? Does that constitute a personal attack?

It may be useful (and it may not be - but I thought it was worth a shot) to Paw and the moderators, if we as a community could express what we think does and does not fall within the category of personal attacks.

WhiteDove, please check your Private Messages

Well said, Lifted. And I will take it a step further. Shame, yes, is a big part of it. But for a little kid - especially a little kid who has been abused and neglected (and preditors are soooo very good at picking out the kids who have been abused and neglected) it is more than just shame. Mixed with that shame - causing that shame to be even greater, is the thrill that someone has finally noticed you exist. So yeah, there is a feeling that what is going on is wrong and that causes shame. There is also a feeling of being happy that someone knows you exist and on some level that happy feeling over something you know is wrong makes the shame oh so very much worse.

Todd, I think you may very well be right about the significance of rituals. First, though, the rituals must have meaning to the individual.

I think, the Chabad website where I had been studying has a lot of very wonderful information. But some of it is just too literal for me - I can't buy in. I have found a book, however, written by a Conservative Rabbi, that explains the rituals in a way that has more meaning to me.

Perhaps some day I will get there yet. :)

But, the good news is - it will though. The Messiah is coming for Israel in His glory, the Jewish people will realize who he was and mourn over him as a son for what happened to him. I love the Book of Revelation - the earth is righteous, it is superabounding, the Jewish nation once again is Holy and rules with Christ over the men of the earth, their mission finally fulfilled.

At the end, Heavenly Jerusalem - the real, true temple, that Israel had made on earth, which was the "type" or a shadow reflection of what was really in heaven, comes down - it is magnificent, with a tribe's name written over each gate, and the names of the 12 apostles written on its foundation.

Beautifully said, Sunesis. I am not as convinced as you are, regarding those things that will be, but they are beautiful nonetheless. If it turns out in the end you are correct, you won't hear me complaining. :D