LG

If I were a (non-Waybrained) Christian, I think I would realize at least a couple of things. One, that Romans through Thessalonians is no more and no less "for our learning" than any other scripture. Two, that most of Paul's epistles are no more addressed to me than are any other scriptures. A couple are addressed (in one way or another) to all Christians. Most are addressed to specific churches. "Aforetimes" be damned; Wierwille was wrong about "to whom it is addressed." Food for thought: "Epistles" are simply letters, which are normally addressed to particular recipients. Other writings (books, theses, articles, opinion pieces, etc.) are not generally specifically addressed to any parties, but are intended for (and therefore, implicitly addressed to) all who may read them. Food for thought: If the Gospels are not addressed to Christians, by which I mean those "born again" on or after the Pentecost that figures prominently in Acts (it was an annual affair), then to whom are they addressed? Actually, the answer is pretty simple. All Biblical writings are addressed to whomever might read them in the future (from the perspective of the writers). The gospels were not written for the people who were there with Jesus. They were written for (and to) people who did not personally witness Jesus' life and ministry but who might, upon reading or hearing about it, believe on (in, whatever) him. The notion that they were not targeted (addressed, if you prefer) to potential or actual Christians, is ludicrous. Wierwille was simply wrong about the whole "to whom" topic. His error was obvious not only by logic, but also by reading "to whom" the "church" epistles are actually (in their words, not Wierwille's) addressed. The "church" epistles are no more addressed to any living Christian, potential Christian, or combination thereof, than are any other sections of the Bible.

I managed to get rocketing rabbit two of five tries. The others were one each of the slower ones.

Makes me hungry for a bit of tender loin (space intentional).

If that were true, how in the world did Newton come up with his theories on optics and gravity? How about all the other people who have come up with new ideas? The notion that a person can't go further than he is taught is one of the most destructive things promulgated by TWI. For many, it led to the horrible combination of MOG worship and denying their own reservations about various doctrines and practices, and for some, it led to some severe victimization.

Excuse me for going off topic, but this brought to mind something funny that happened to me at college at the beginning of the Spring semester of 1975. I had attended the college in the Fall, but a girl I had known from my hometown transferred there in the Spring. We had night Chemistry labs at the same time (not the same labs, but across the hall from each other) and decided to go out afterward to catch up. We weren't out all that late, but it was later than the curfew at her dorm. The dorm mother had both the University and the town police forces out looking for my friend. What we did was completely innocent and safe, but it sure caused a ruckus.

You have no idea how many did, or tried. Neither do I, but I've read tales of people being "given the bum's rush" for speaking against the MOG and I know that even posing serious challenges to Wierwille's doctrine could get a person shunned in a hurry, even in the seventies. Also, for all the talk of openess and accessibility, I suspect that access to Wierwille (real access that would allow for confrontation) and even moreso to Martindale, was limited.

Not all of the food I eat will necessarily be sushi. Not all of the e-mail I send will necessarily be addressed to Mike. Not all of the books I read will necessarily be written by Salman Rushdie. Not all of the shots I fire from guns will necessarily be aimed at people. All of the above are true statements but I have never eaten sushi, addressed an e-mail to Mike, read a book written by Salman Rushdie, or aimed a gun (much less shot it) at anyone. I don't anticipate that I will ever do any of those things, but all are possible and the statements allow for all possibilities, but imply none of them.

I don't know why I'm bothering, but here I go. It implies nothing of the sort. "Not all" allows for the possibility of "some," but does not imply any. That's a complete flip in logic. According to your logic about Wierwille's works, what you should be saying is that if you eat not all of a pizza, then that would imply that you ate some. But that's not so. I didn't eat all of the pizza my local Dominos made tonight. That doesn't imply that I ate any of it. In fact, I didn't. I haven't had pizza in months. No, it doesn't. It asserts only what it says, that not all of what he writes will of necessity be God-breathed. That allows for the possibility that some of what he writes could be God-breathed, but does not imply that anything he writes is God-breathed. None of the rest of your "thus saith the Lord" examples are worthy of my time, because they include similar logical failings and also rely on the presumption that what Wierwille wrote is true. Even where it were or could be, your distortions would render the resulting sense of it unreliable at best, and (as is frequently the case) completely contrary to what Wierwille himself actually said.

I almost never remember my dreams and can't recall any recurring ones, but I occasionally wake up feeling troubled, with remembrance of tiny pieces of what I know must have been a dream. If I've ever had a dream that relates to TWI, I don't recall it.

It's quite possible for a person to hold himself accountable for making stupid choices or being a gullible fool, and also to hold charlatans, sexual predators, and other sorts of evil doers accountable for their actions (and words). Many screwed up and needy people (myself included) were succeptible to TWI's "charms." That doesn't excuse them for poor choices, but neither does it excuse the snakes who took advantage of them.

My small East Texas town has an annual Fall festival. One event is a "beauty" contest, in which the contestants are all fairly prominent (as prominent goes in a small town) men, dressed in drag. Most of the men who participate are either Baptists or Methodists who are active in their churches and in the community. They're doctors, dentists, lawyers, business owners. They're family men. None (to my knowledge) are perverts. The whole thing is silly. It's fun. Because the votes are tallied according to how much each "lady" collects in donations, it raises a little money for the community. Nobody thinks of it as an abomination or even something kinky. It's just a goofy way to raise a little money for the Chamber of Commerce. I think what Bliss describes is similar. It's likely just a stunt to motivate the kids, by offering them the opportunity to see their gym teacher do something goofy.

Being a bit nuts seems to be a requirement for being a greasespotter, whether "good" or "bad." Who else but a nut would have put so much time into something like TWI?

It strikes me that some are missing the forest for the tries, which was a common problem in TWI. It's an analougous problem to straining at a gnat and swallowing a camel, concentrating on a mote in some other's eye and missing a beam in one's own, or insisting on strict adherence to certain nits in the law and igonring the weightier matters of the heart of the law. I'm far from a perfect messenger in this regard, because I don't believe the Bible (and certainly not PFAL) to be "inerrant" or "God-breathed." But even as an infidel, I can appreciate much of the heart of the Bible, which heart can easily be lost in over-concentration on the letter. Regarding the "new rules" that Mike claims that others are imposing on Wierwille, the pertinant rule dates from the Ten Commandments, if not before. It's simple, basic honesty, as illustrated in the commandment to not bear false witness. Wierwille represented other people's work as his own. Regardless of any academic or legal standards, that's lying. Wierwille lied repeatedly, with the intent of presenting himself as "some great one." Some people (not the all-inclusive "we" that Mike suggests) bought into that whole-heartedly. Others accepted it to lesser degrees. No matter how people accepted Wierwille's misrepresentations, they (his misrepresentations, not necessarily the people) were dishonest.

Yes, but it has little to do with electronic or mechanical things, which don't really mean much, and not a lot to do with personal relationships, except with my daughter. Due to poor maintenance in the past, my body is breaking, much earlier than it should have. I'm not sure how much of the damage can be reversed at this point, but unless it can, I don't think I'm going to be around too much longer. That's pretty depressing in one sense, but being the somewhat optimistic pragmatist that I am, I tend to be thankful that my life has been better than many, if not most, and am now focused on trying to make sure that I leave behind the best legacy possible, given my circumstances, and at least the certainty in my daughter's mind that I love her and have, within my severe limitations, done my best for her. Not much else matters.

A football game is more physically taxing than a baseball game. Football requires more time between games (and therefore fewer games) than most other sports. That's the reason, Linda.

According to Morgan's post, the children were not invited to get on a vehicle prior to obtaining parental permission. The driver simply asked them if they would like to go to church. From the response of the church when she called about the matter, had the children indicated a desire to go to church, the driver would have required permission from a parent before extending an invitation to board the bus. So the church seemingly met your condition as a matter of policy. I've no problem with castigating people for what they do wrong, but I don't see castigating them for the possibility that someone else could maybe try to do something wrong. Now, if the bus driver had invited Morgan's children to board the bus without her permission, then that would have been a different matter entirely. But that's not what happened, is not what happens in any similar church program/service of which I'm aware, and doesn't have a thing to do with the situation that Morgan described.

Like I said before, CW, I wouldn't have my kids participate, but I wouldn't freak out about them offering their services to others, as long as parental approval were a requirement.

If it were the Scientologists, the Moonies, or the Branch Davidians, as long as they didn't provide transportation to their services without parental approval, I'd have no problem with it.

I'd have no problem with what Morgan described. If someone were enticing kids to hop on a bus without parental approval, that would be a different matter, but that wasn't the case, and isn't the case with the many churches that do similar things in many communities. I don't share their beliefs and wouldn't have my kids participate, but they're not a threat and for some people, what they offer is a heck of a lot better than anything they experience elsewhere, even if it is (IMHO) a fantasy.

If so-called "pure" altruism excludes any sort of personal feeling of wellbeing, even "warm fuzzies," then I doubt that it even exists. Whether or not it does, Christianity does not espouse that sort of "pure" altruism. Nor is the love (or acceptance) it propounds unconditional. "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you." "Love your neighbor as yourself." "Forgive us our trespasses as we forgive those who trespass against us." "For with the same measure that ye mete withal it shall be measured to you again." All of those scriptures, plus many more, include conditions and a self-interest motivation. And that's fine. Just don't spout off the nonsense that Christianity doesn't include self-interest as a motivation for love or good deeds.

I don't care which issue it is from Walmart's POV, if a prescription is available from other local pharmacies and Walmart refers people to those pharmacies if it doesn't stock that particular prescription, there's no proper legal issue. If Walmart were a retail pharmaceutiical monopoly in a particular State, that would be a different matter.

Not to brag, Hap, but I fall into your first category, yet voted for Bush four times (twice for Governor). You are right, though. Anyone who plans to vote for him again is a moron. P.S. I realize that you're joking, agree that Bush is neither particularly bright, nor particularly satisfyining, and feel like nuking the jerk every time he says "nu-cu-lar." Unfortunately, in the four elections in which I've voted for him, his opponent has been a worse choice (in my not so humble opinion).

Like most years, I don't even know who's playing in it, but I will take a bit of time to find out and to find out who won, just so I can talk about it the next day with people who care. I may watch the final few minutes and read a few news articles or forum posts about it, for the same reason. Otherwise, I don't much care. I stopped caring about professional football when they stopped caring about their players at least pretending to be decent people.

Like Hap, I've pretty much ignored this thread until now. Since it doesn't want to die, I guess I'll throw in my two cent's worth. The original remarks to which WG took offense were innocuous. After she took offense and posted some mildly offensive replies, a few of the posts crossed the boundaries of good taste, IMO. Had she accepted the original posts to which she objected in the spirit in which they were intended, that probably wouldn't have happened.

How in the heck do you think that enemies declare truces, engage in treaties, and sometimes even move from being enemies to being allies? As Oakspear already pointed out, theists and non-theists act similarly in such situations. Both defend themselves with deadly force if they deem it necessary and both act in nonviolent manners, including offering concessions to those with competing interests, if they deem that to be appropriate. And you know this how? The answer is, you don't. Those concepts, with limitations that almost all theists acknowledge and practice, are pretty basic to interpersonal relations, getting along with other people. They're not dependent upon belief in a supernatural "plane," nor a belief in life after physical death. Every sane person recognizes "a force greater than the sum total of man." That is not a theistic concept. Personifying such forces is.