LG

No, it wasn't. There is no difference between the audio class and the audio portion of the video class. Both are recordings of the identical events. The source for both is the film.

He has it backwards, laleo, but in some cases, the forum owner/operator might also be held liable.

He was sued for trademark infringement, not because of what he posted about TWI. TWI never would have bothered him, had he not been so intent on repeatedly infringing on their trademarks.

I doubt that "the level of discontent" of some ex-TWI folk on an Internet forum will affect either the conduct or outcome of the Peeler case. I think the most likely outcome is that it is decided in TWI's favor in court.

Why would TWI do that? What possible benefit might there be?

I suspect that ck's basis for thinking that "God closed his eyes to the sins of Israel" is a misunderstanding of something Wierwille said about Acts 17:30.

No, but there's plenty of overlap between them. Some people could be accurately called both agnostic and atheist. Some would be better called agnostic by some definitions and atheist by others. For the purposes of most discussions with theists, I think that agnostics and atheists are better lumped together as non-theists, because the real issue is the difference between theism and non-theism.I don't normally even categorize myself in this manner, but when I do, I consider myself to be an atheist, rather than an agnostic. George Aar considers himself to be an agnostic, rather than an atheist. But I don't see much, if any, difference between his non-theism and my non-theism, though our attitudes about past adventures in theism are slightly different.

For many agnostics/atheists, it was less coming to not believe what they formerly had than it was coming to a decision to quit playing make-believe about things they never fully believed, but tried to. I can't remember ever being fully convinced about any religious belief. Before, during, and after my time with TWI, I wanted and tried to believe various things. I claimed to believe them, acted like I believed them, and pretty well fooled everyone around me into thinking that I did believe them. The one thing I think I never did was to actually believe them. Finally, I decided to quit the pretense, and have been happier ever since.

I'm also interested, Maureen, not because I wish to embrace or refute your beliefs, but simply because I'd like to know more about them.

OM takes issue with templelady's notions about righteousness, seemingly claiming that it is impossible for someone who is saved to also be unrighteous. In "Fellowship is the Secret," as I recall, Wierwille treated 1 John chapter 1 as dealing with those already saved confessing sins to restore broken fellowship. If so, then 1 John 1:9 ("If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins, and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness.") seems to indicate that those who have been saved can still be, at least in part, unrighteous. Otherwise, they couldn't be cleansed "from all unrighteousness." So, it seems to me, oldiesman's position on this thread is contrary to Wierwille's position (not that either is authoritive or anything).

The Payne, Ohio one would have been, Chas, if it happened. Wierwille strongly implies that it was miraculous and never indicates that it was widespread, so it could conceivably have happened without showing up in weather records. The purported Tulsa snowstorm is different. A snowstorm that shut down all exits from a city would be noted in weather records. Not even an idiot would be fooled by an angel or anyone else saying that the city was snowed in, when a glance out the window would prove otherwise.

Wierwille would have slapped you silly, had you said that to him.

I think less of Wierwille than and his teachings than most of you, but ... Nah! It's just hyperbole. Wierwille never meant it literally. Some of his followers may have taken it literally, but that's their fault, not Wierwille's.

You don't even mention the most likely possibility, jkboehme. That is that the judge dismissed the case because she thinks it lacks merit.

That's really nice, but it should have ended with this: Everything after that only diminishes what goes before. The point was made. The rest shows only disdain for the intelligence and heart of the reader. The same is true of many of the "inspirational" emails that circulate the globe.

Or perhaps it simply indicates that you have a heart. You certainly recognize the horrible wrong that he did, but you likely also recognize some good in him too (maybe "a lack of pure evil" could be substituted for "some good"). You seemingly reckon his wrongdoing to be worthy of judgment and punishment, but not worthy of execution. If so, that's a perfectly normal judgment on your part, and probably not indicative of feelings of guilt on your part for what he did to you as a child. Whatever feelings of guilt you may have if you contemplate his being executed for what he did to you are more likely indicative of the feelings of a normal, compassionate adult, who seemingly has risen above the rage she sometimes still feels and now views her past victimization from a fairly healthy perspective. I can't imagine how hard it must be for you and others to discuss some of the things you do on these forums. It probably tears you up inside, but I suspect that it also has its benefits for you, which hopefully outweigh the renewed trauma. For what it's worth, I wish you all the best.

I think if you were honest (yes, I'm saying that you're not) you would admit that you don't know what the hell you're talking about.

There's a huge difference between "preparation for a lifetime of Christian service" and "a lifetime commitment to Christian service." There's an even larger difference between the former and "a lifetime commitment to TWI." I was accepted into the eighth Corps, but never entered, partly because the "bait and switch" some have discussed became apparent to me. It became even more apparent in later years, both from what I heard in Advanced Class grad meetings and WOW vet meetings, and especially, from what a couple of Corps grads said about pressure they were receiving because they wanted to make some career preparations that would enable them to afford to have families.

I'm not going to bother with exact quotes, much less citations from interlinears, lexicons, etc. Just some straight talk from someone who (I think) understands the Bible, but doesn't think any more of it than any other influential literature. However, I'll assume for the sake of discussion that the Bible is revelation from God. The two great commandments are to love God and to love one's neighbors. Jesus said that on those two (both of them) hang all the law and the prophets. From what I know of the Bible, they are so closely interlinked as to be inseparable, in the sense that neither can stand alone. One without the other is counterfeit. Jesus said that others would know his disciples were his disciples by their love for one another. He didn't say by their love for or of God. That may not directly relate to 1Corinthians 13, but if Jesus really was the Son of God, the Word of God, God's expression of himself on a human plane, then it sure should set some remote context for the understanding of "love" in 1Corinthians. I don't think that Jesus was minimizing love for or of God, but rather, was emphasizing that such love is best demonstrated through love for fellow humans. 1John offers more remote context for understanding: One can't love God, whom he has not seen, if he doesn't love his brother, whom he has seen. 1Corinthians 13 doesn't specify whether the love is love for God or love for other people. Since they're pretty well inseparable, if genuine, I think that both are included. If so, then even "the love of God" is a poor translation. "In the renewed mind" is spurious. The whole "literal translation according to usage" (that terminology is a lie in itself) of "the love of God in the renewed mind in manifestation" is even worse. It is, perhaps, useful to differentiate the love of 1Corinthians 13 from other sorts of love. If so, then "godly love" seems to me to be an appropriate translation, certainly much better and more literal than Wierwille's BS "literal translation according to usage."

My only reservation with your questions was "we were just brainwashed." I do believe that it was bunk, but I don't think that I was brainwashed. I think I actually knew that it was bunk all along, but I wanted it to be true and played a big game of make believe for several years.

It seems to me that what the man is saying is essentially that people with cancer can use it to "higher" purposes and if they don't, they waste it. I'm not religious and I don't agree with him on the specifics, but it is true that many people have suffered afflictions and found fulfilment and purpose through greater service to their God and their fellow humans than they might otherwise have found, had it not been for their afflictions.

I meant that it wasn't a cry of triumph in the sense in which Wiewille presented it. In the sense it appears you understand it, perhaps it could be considered a cry of triumph.

Your own words following this statement contradict it. There's plenty wrong with VPW's definition. Plainly and simply, it's wrong.

Raf, this is from someone who is not conviced that Jesus even existed, so give it whatever weight you think it deserves. Assuming the Bible accounts to be true, Jesus said seven things that were recorded for posterity but may very well have said much more. Since anything else he may have said that day is unknown, that might not be important, but I think the possibility (liklihood, IMHO) is at least worth mentioning. I agree that the Gospels indicate that Jesus was quoting scripture, possibly more that what is quoted, up to and beyond the entire Psalm. It seems to me that there could be two (not mutually exclusive) reasons. One would be for his own benefit, that being to support his own faith in a time of great challenge (to put it lightly). Another would be to use the event of his crucifixion to "witness" to the onlookers. Either, IMHO, is more likely than that he thought that God had forsaken him. I'm not a believer, but to me it seems that the Bible suggests one or both of two things: Jesus quoted scripture to strengthen his own faith, or to direct his audience to the scriptures. Either way, it was neither a cry of triumph nor a cry of defeat.

Hate to tell you thiis, Garth, but you didn't "nail" Calvin or Cynic on the Servetus matter. Cynic may at times be a prick but I think he's bested you in your exchanges. If I agreed with Cynic's premises, I'd mostly have to agree with his conclusions, though I would hope to express myself in a less grating way than he frequently does. If I were a Christian, the best expresison of and support for my faith I could think of would be some combination (I'd have to think about it and "tweak" it a bit) would be some combination of Cynic's logic and Evan's heart. Yes, Cynic and Evan, that's a compliment to both of you. I don't agree with either of you but I respect you both. (I could live with fewer "pathetically whining little wuss"" characterizations.)