Stayed Too Long

My 18 year old is heading off to university in a few weeks. It is difficult as she prepares to leave and begin life on her own. But looking back when I was her age, the world beckoned. I was glad to get out of the nest and move on, and she is the same way. From about the timne she was 15 I really had little say in her life. She knew what she wanted in life and was going for it. She has always been responsible so I let her have the reigns. I was there for guidance when she needed it but she had her friends and preferred hanging out with them. I had to accept this and was quite difficult. My job as parent is over except for doling out money for school.

You don't come across as preachy. Thank you for your insight.

I have not read the bible since my TWI days because it is full of empty promises. Even before my M&A it was a real task to sit down with it, especially when preparing a teaching. It was difficult proclaiming something I no longer believed in. There are individual versus that are inspiring to me. But I do not look to it as guidance for living my life any more than I do a book of poetry. There are times when I think about verses in a situation, but I also use ideas from psychology books, or from something I heard in a movie.

It has been brought up as a point of discussion. Some people think sex is very personal and should only be uttered behind closed doors. But it gets plenty of air time.

I believe there is something to "the will to live" although it is not written in stone. If it were a stead fast rule then passt cancer patients would still be alive because most did not want to die. Some went to other countries to receive experimental therapies. Most fought it to the end. On the other hand I have seen a spouse die and soon the other one goes also of no apparent reason. During WWII and the Baaton death march, many survivors said it was just their will to live that kept them going. They wanted to see their families again.

In the context of what our understanding is now of God and the spiritual realm I don't see any answers available. It seems human nature demands if we are wronged and can do nothing about it, we look to justice at some future point by a powerful judge. It doesn't seem to be in our being to accept certain wrongs we find troubling; we are not able to forgive or forget about them. The injustice done was just to great and the resolve lacking. In extreme cases like murder some people are satisfied if the killer is caught, convicted, and executed. You don't hear them say things like "They will have to answer to God for their crime". You hear "he got what was coming to him." But if the killer is never caught, or given a light sentence, then God's future justice and revenge begins to enter the situation. They say things like "he will get his due from God", or "I wouldn't want to be him on judgment day". To me it seems if we are able to forgive the injustice now no future action is required by God. But if we are unable to forgive the wrong then God will have to take action in the future to satisfy us.

Exactly what I have been thinking lately. And the God I am finally becoming comfortable with seems to vary a little or a lot from what other people have proven in their hearts. I don't believe he is all knowing and all powerful. If he is all knowing why did he screw the job up, have to put a few on an ark to save, totally destroy everyone else he made in his image, begin the repopulation process again, and mess the whole thing up again? And instead of destroying everyone once more, he uses threats of death and eternal damnation to try and keep everyone in line? He then realizes no one seems to be able to do all the laws and commandments he has laid out for his people, and comes to the conclusion his stipulations are just to difficult to accomplish, so he 'creates' a son who is one part god and one part human. He requires this 'son' to endure unimaginable torture, pain and death because his creation is not living up to expectations (I would have thought he could have forseen this and done things a little differently in the planning stages). Now all his weak children have to do is believe this son was raised from the dead and is their lord and all threats of damnation disappear. If this 'father' were held to the same standards of earthly parents he would be found wanting. Should an earthly parent have knowledge that someone was going to murder his child or foresaw harmful circumstances coming his child's way, he would do all in his power to stop it. But if god knows someone is going to kill his child, or foresees an accident coming, he will allow it in the name of 'free will' choice of the perpetrator. Can you image using that logic in front of a judge? It is inconceivable that a responsible parent would put up such a defense. But when a Christian's son or daughters body is mangled in a speeding accident, and they are forever confined to bed or wheelchair, or worse yet killed, their 'heavenly father' who is all powerful and all knowing says, "hey, free will choice, don't blame me'. And it isn't just this god; it is most people's god in general. All are very contradictory in their claims versus their performance. If all were as powerful as they claim none of their people would be harmed or ever get sick. There are chance reports of miracle healings which seem attributable to miracles, but most are due to science and medicine. For example, the only reason woman do not die in child birth today is because of surgery. If god was responsible for it a 100 years ago none would have died then. Believing in this all powerful and all knowing god requires way to much blind faith and turning your head when he does not deliver on his promises.

Maybe there has been no sitings of Loy because God's hand of protection has actually been taken off him and he has prophetically become a greasespot. Anyone heard any highway reports of road kill lately?

What about people who do bad things believing they are doing the will of God? Will God dish out His revenge on them also? Let's take for example slave owners in the U.S. Slaves who were also Christian, more than likely could not imagine why God had allowed such an awful thing to befall them, especially from other God fearing folks. These enslaved people were thinking when Jesus comes back, they will see justice done to their owners. Witches also, who were being hung probably took some comfort in knowing God will punish their executioners on His return. As whole Indian villages were being burned and inhabitants killed, they were praying that Jesus will punish those Christian's responsible. Can they expect God to dole out revenge and wrath to the Puritan's responsible for hangings? Too all the settlers of this country who made a fortune with slaves? And to the many God fearing Christians who stole the Indian's land and killed them? Or, because they did not believe they were doing anything wrong, will God reward them for being His son or daughter, going to church, reading His bible, and being kind to each other? Is this one of those periods of time He will "wink" at? How about today? Will people who wrong us, and believe they are right, be punished? Just because we are looking for wrath and revenge on someone, does that mean it will automatically come to someone who has caused us great physical or emotional harm or pain?

I attended several fellowhsips of Leonard's and found him to be quite detracting. While leading songs he would stop in the middle of a verse to make sure "no one got possessed" while singing. Apparently he was "possessed" while singing one time because the devil would not let him stop singing, and vowed he would never allow it again. Every song was a drudge to get through. Imagine singing God Bless America, and after every few words an abrupt stop, then a quick start....extremely annoying. I felt he was obsessed with devil possession. It was either prophecy or intrepretation of tongues that was allowed in his meetings, but not the other one, can't remember which now. According to Leonard one was God talking to the meeting, but you had to be careful with the other because it was too easy for the devil to possess the person and deliver a false message. Th person doing it had to be very spiritual before using it to make sure heor she did not become possessed, and apparently no one in the meeting met those qualifications. It was kind of different how Montana was introduced to Leonard. VPW had just died and our Limb guy, St*ve S*nn learned Leonard was in the state and got ahold of him. S*ann equated B.G. to a "founder of the church" because VPW had taken his class and his picture was hanging in the WOW auditoriam. S*nn was so impressed with him he had all the Corp in the state take the gifts class. Of course they didn't have the money themselves, so the state got to 'sponsor' the corp thru the class...another blessing for us. The class ran two or three weeks, and on the weekends Leonard did public fellowhsips. S*nn suggested the rest of us attend, so most did. S*nn also convinced B.G to attend the ROA that summer. My understanding was LCM was a bit upset because Leonard didn't follow the correct protocol and present himself before LCM at the proper time, or some such thing. Also B.G. wasn't too impressed with the ROA. Never did get too much of the details. Looking back Leonard just seemed like another guy with a bible class to sell. He also said Jesus Christ would return in 2000 or 2001.

What do you mean when you say "the time is short" before the second coming of Christ? Is short a relative term? Is it a definitive term? For example, can I expect Jesus to return this year? Or by the end of the decade or century? To my understanding 'short' is a relative term when describing time, and no real value can be placed on it unless defined by its usage. If I am talking about the length of time the United States has been a country compared to countries in Europe, it would be quite "short". This "short" period is roughly 225 years. If I have seen a friend within the last few days, I can say that is also a "short" period of time. But if I hadn't seen this friend in 225 years, if that were possible, I surely would not say it has only been a "short" period of time since we last saw each other. 'Short' used in relation to Christ's return, seems to be usd to invoke excitement, like it is right around the corner and will happen momentarily. Jesus said he would return but it has been over 2,000 years since he said it. So if 2,000 years is not a 'short' period of time, then conceivable it could be 2,000 years or more before he comes back.

It wouldn't have matter much to me. I was hooked on Wierwille before ever hearing or meeting the guy. I just loved the people in the first twig I went to and believed anything they said. At that period of time life just seemed to come together. I had a lot of trouble comprehending God and the first couple of fellowships my mind was completely at ease on who God was. Without doubt I knew God and His will for me. From then on I was sold and you could have laid VPW's work next to Bullilngers and shown me the plagurism and I would have denied it.

The first year I was in there really were no rules. You came to twig if and when you wanted to. It was no big deal if you didn't throw any money in the horn of plenty. No one was expected to choose between their family and 'the word'. We went out partying with friends and other wayfers. The same rules were in place the first year as the second, but the second was much regimented. It depends on how the rules are enforced.

Take care templelady...it appears you need side boards on your plate.

I do not believe it should be policy when a person can not be chased. For example, if the offense is driving less than 15 mph over the speed limit; or less than five outstanding arrest warrents for failure to pay fines; or less than 2 blocks from a school. It should be a case by case decision. I can only imagine how unsafe the streets would be if everyone knew they would not be chased unless they were speeding at least 15 mph over the speed limit at a school crossing or in a residential neighborhood. In my state that would be 40 mph and lots of people would be hurt or killed then. In my opinion America as a society is becoming intolerant of chance or mistakes. Risk is becoming less and less acceptable to the average joe. In sports if a coach does not produce anticipated results, or if an official makes a perceived incorrect call, many feel they have the right to assualt them. If I make an error in judgement and put a hot cup of coffee between my legs and it spills and burns me while driving, the food establishment becomes responsible for my mistaken decision. If a person chooses to "supersize" their meals and becomes obese it is not their fault but Burger Kings. It has become "unacceptable" that if you take in more calories than you burn, your waist line will grow. Blame it on someone else. If some nut with a weapon opens fire on a crowd it is not his fault. Get rid of guns. Unfortunately, no matter how hard we try, chance or error will always cause some negative result. As bad as it is innocent people, have in the past and will continue into the future, to be maimed or killed.

When divorcing my wife I agreed to move out the next morning after I told her and the limb guys. I found a room to rent and went to the bank to get some money to pay for it. She had wiped out our accounts of over $10,000! I immediately called about it and wanted half, and refused. Then I phoned the limb(burger) guys and told them the situation and asked them to have her give me my half. His response was "whatever 'arrangements' you two make is none of my business". I said there was "no" arrangement at all, but she had stolen the whole thing. He hung up the phone. What a bunch of jerks!

Thank you!!

What is black humor?

The PC police are alive and well.

SO WHAT????....Jeezuz died for you, don't you think he wants you to know there were four crucified with him and not two?? Integrity and accuracy.....that's WHAT!!

She should have been given the option of being the first recruit for your suicide bombers squad. That way she would not only "have been delivered" but also have some virgins taking care of her now in heaven.

I agree whole heartedly with your vickles. Perhaps I did not state or infer that in my statements, because that is definitely the subject of this thread. Most woman do instinctively, if that that is not to politically incorrect to say, think and worry about their children more than men. However, coolchef1248@adelphia.net:, profile shows the poster to be male. I was responding male to male in this instance. As the child of a mother who worried all the time about me as I was growing up, I can say the effects were quite detrimental. She would not allow me to walk to the school bus stop alone for fear something bad would happen to me. She worried I would say the wrong thing to adults and not be respectful enough. She always corrected my English which was a major embarrassment to me. I was constantly told to do better in school. The result was me growing up with very little self confidence. I had very few friends in school. I would second guess myself all the time when making a decison, afraid of making an error. I was very judgemental of other people also demanding perfection in them. Through counseling and hard work on my part I have overcome this, although I really don't know to what degree. Life is much better than it was, but I still find it very difficult to make decisions. If given a project at work I doubt whether I can do an adequate job even though it is often times quite simple. In most situations I like to be supervised just to make sure I am doing it correctly. Excessive worry that is not tempered with understanding, patience, and just letting a kid be a kid, can lead to major emotional and psychological problems.

I did not say I "never 'worried" about my daughter. Here is what I stated: obviously if something extraordinarily is going on I am quite concerned and worried about it. The poster's here indicate they are constantly worrying about their children: The point of the thread is to show that VPW's teaching about the woman's worry in PFAL caused the death of her child, is wrong. Examples of children not dying when mothers worried were given. Some are listed above. This is fine with me if you want to worry about people "all the time". Have at it. Then you make the huge leap to state: Just because I do not worry about my daughter "all the time" does not make me "close to a child abuser", nor am I not protecting her. For you to come to that conclusion is wrong. YOu have never met me, let alone seen how I raise my daughter. Your belief is racked with as much error and B.S. as VPW's that a mother's worry caused her child's death.

Speak for yourself buddy. The only time I worried about our daughter was if I knew something out of the ordinary was going on. After our divorce my daughter lived 1000 miles away for 9 months, during which time I did not get to see her at all. I was sad and lonely because of our separation, but was never concerned or worried about her. If that makes me close to a child abuser try and lock me up.

Only 17,800 sexual offenders unaccounted for in California. Down from 33,000. How can there be soooooo many friggin sick puppies? Staggers the mind!!