Leaderboard

The interesting part about this is how similar this sounds to many apocalyptic stories and tales. I'm considering many in various Seventh Day Adventist groups (like the Branch Davidians) in particular. There are conspiracy theories with other Christian sects, as well. And it's not limited to religions. If you look at the Alex Jones / Jeff Rense brand of political belief, they are big-time into conspiracy theories, as well. (I am not including all 9-11 Truth conspiracy types, though. While the full extent of that theory is that Bush did it, but he did it at the behest of the Bilderbergers, I think that most 9-11 Truthers just believed that Bush did it for his own jollies, without being ordered around by shadows beyond Cheney). I think that the common thread is that they are looking for some theory of theories that they can use to rationalize feeling powerless and small.

This weekend marks the 40-year anniversary of the Manson murders. For me, it is a chilling reminder to see the shocking outcome when blind allegiance to a cult leader runs its course. When I attended wierwille's advanced class, I was surprised to see all the conspiracy theories... ie the illuminati, the myth of the six million, the marxist minstrels, every denomination is headed by seed men etc. etc. Far removed from reading bible verses, this "advanced class" was ushering in ideologies, unsubstantiated theories, us-versus-them agendas. In this isolated class-setting, one needed to severely ante-up to be counted as a faithful advanced class grad. Then, the corps indoctrination included aspects of MAL-pack (more abundant life in survival settings) where each corps twig was required to map out a secret destination in the event of government collapse/takeover. More so in the corps indoctrination program, the mantra "the suggestion of a general is tantamount to a command" was well-known and voiced by the corps coordinators. So, the "general" (wierwille) might suggest something in private...and the "soldier" was to follow orders. Wierwille manipulated an "army" to jump at his command. Don't ask questions, don't ask how high to jump.........just jump. Thaaaaaat's riiiiiight. IMO, it's chilling to see the parallels of Manson's followers and the extreme subtle suggestions to the corps. Manson directed his followers' actions from behind the scenes. He didn't bloody his own hands. Thankfully, wierwille didn't project violent "prophecies" to his followers.....at least, not to my knowledge. BUT...........how close to the edge did we go???? When so many blame martindale for twi's downfall, they fail to recognize wierwille's ultra-smooth conning of one's conscience. Chilling reminders.......... :blink:

It was staged. One long time poster has detailed how she and VPW were sitting under a tree having a casual conversation, when a certain believer walked by. Wierwille jumped up and got in his face, delivering an enraged tirade. Then, when he had dismissed the person, he sat back down, smiled, made some off the wall comment about spiritual anger and casually resumed the conversation as if nothing had happened. It was all an act. He slipped in and out of character like a walk-on in a broadway show.

In the fall of 1979, the corps women had a get together in the Wierwille home. We men decided to pull a raid and swipe the big plate of nchos we knew they would have. We couldn't have done it without the permission of Mrs. Wierwille (hubby was away at the time), who gave us permission with only the request to be careful and not break anything. And, we also had the inside help of a "traitor", Naomi Townsend. After the successful raid, several of the women found us while we were standing around munching on the nachos, and were shocked by the presence of Naomi standing and munching with us. Later that fall, after hitching back to HQ alone from LEAD, arriving late on a saturday night, I pulled a solo rain on the pantry and filled myself, since I was starving. It's not like I took food that didn't belong to me, though. I founf a stash of tasty leftovers from Thanksgiving two days before that actually had been labelled to save for returning LEAD people. In fact, they never did give us that as a group, so I must have had some kind of revelation.

I am not sure what was said after I left. . . but, I never heard anyone say that the bible gave parents the right to kill a disobedient spouse or child. That would have penetrated my foggy brain. I have always been disgusted and shook about the practice of female infanticide in rural parts of China and India. . . . even when I was in TWI. I would have taken note of that. Martindale did say something about . . . . if it were old testament times. . . and homosexuals. I can imagine it was not a leap for him to include cop-outs or disobedient "believers". It wouldn't have been worse than swatting a fly to him. . . wasn't there even a song? The "adversary" was always nipping at our heels. . . typical TWI. . . giving the devil control over the power of life and death while totally discounting God's role and purview in creation. Hmm, we had more faith in Satan's ability than God's. That is something to consider if we dare. Maybe that is part of the soul killing you mention. . . . or part of the cause of beatings and cruelty. We had some really obsessive traits in TWI. . . . we did train our eyes on evil.

Good point. There were definitely some people who were corpse or leader.... wannabes who would otherwise have been living under a bridge. No social skills and pretty weird. I met one BC at the ROA who was pushing his folks to invest in a silver coin scheme he was selling. Looked like a slimy used car salesman. Bad jacket, bad haircut. Kind of like Billy Bob Thornton in Sling Blade but without the suave personality. :blink: Come to think of it, there were a lot of people who were kind of on the fringes of society who found a home in twig. Kind of a-social and backwards. Give that person some power and bad advice, yikes! JT

part#6--- audio missing

DISCLAIMER The following is second hand information, conveyed to me, personally, in 1979, by the individual involved. 1979 (during "the wierwille administration") A friend of mine who had recently graduated from a Way leadership training program returned to his hometown to resume his life. He was quite disillusioned with some discrepancies that he had seen and some that had been brought to his attention. Mind you, now, this was 1979, pre internet times, so he obviously knew even less than the average GSC frequenter who has been here awhile. He began to speak out publicly against The Way. Within days, literally, an armed goon squad appeared at his door, hundreds of miles from HQ, and made it very clear to him he could suffer dire consequences if he didn't stop immediately. They did not sugar coat it with "spiritual" talk of the hedge of protection. When he told me, I was flabbergasted. I tried to bounce the information off several people, both "rank and file" and "leadership". I suppose you can imagine the sort of reception and rationalization that ensued. Who is to say what might have happened if that incident had escalated? ****************************** "Wierwille manipulated an "army" to jump at his command. Don't ask questions, don't ask how high to jump.........just jump. Thaaaaaat's riiiiiight." ****************************** Believe it if you want to, or dismiss it completely. Makes no difference to me.

Old Chionese proverb: Egg Foo yung left out overnight is egg foo old.

Lack of love...Hmmph...How bout, I forgot because being on the spot is scary? One time in Christian Communication: Dave B*dard says: Kevin Nye stand up! Recite CC Principle# 7! Kevin stands up, struggles with it, but doesn't have it all down. DB yelling: Why can't you remember it?!?! Dave B*rk just said it two minutes ago! Are you deaf?!?! (As a matter of fact Kevin did have a serious hearing loss, but was not in favor of blaming things on his hearing loss, and didn't like to confess the negative of said hearing loss with the hopes of being healed one day). Kevin begins to stammer something and DB screams; "Answer me! Are-You- Deaf?!?! Kev*n still doesn't want to say yes, because he knows that this is not why he can't recite it anyway. But if he says no, it wouldn't really be true, and if yes, it would seem as an excuse and he'd really get creamed. Rock and a hard place. And on Kevin's right is his gal pal (just really good friend, for she was married) Karin Morgan. Karin is fidgeting in her chair as Kevin is being interrogated, grilled, smoked! Her husband Max had his hand on her knee, trying to keep her in check. He knows what she's thinking... DB keeps on screaming at the top of his lungs (that little nipper!), and finally Karin can stand the abuse no more because Kevin is her friend. So, she leaps to her feet and yells almost in a military fashion; "Yes Dave! He is very hard of hearing! He lost alot of his hearing due to adult measles and he doesn't want to confess that his hearing is bad because he wants to be healed one day!!!" And then slams back down in her seat next to Kevin as he sits down too and hugs him, kisses him on the cheek, and then hugs Max, burying her head in his shoulder and sobbed saying "I'm sorry I'm sorry", waiting for DB to rip into her. It was so quiet one could hear a pin drop, except for Karin's crying... But DB didn't rip into her. He was speechless for a moment, and then quietly says; "Well then why didn't you say so?" And Kevin says; "Because like Karin said, I never want to confess that my ears are bad and I don't want to use the loss as an excuse." And DB said; "oh". Now, that Karin was some kind of a friend, no? What a Sister! God rest her soul. She died a few years later of ovarian cancer. :(-->

Yeah, droning on on their birthdays... One guy went on and on during his "birthday speech" aboout how he was now "living in the Land of the Giants" and somehow had co-related his coming into the Way Corps with that old television show The Land of the Giants. Richrad Th*mas finally tells him to sit down and shut up, and then goes into his opinion of those who did such things, with the admonition to keep it short and sweet. Then, a couple days later, this gal, Judy Sz*m*ky, gets up with her guitar and sings a song she wrote called "Daddy's Girl" which was all about her life story, and it seemed to go on forever, while Richard T, in the background was half smiling and shaking his head in a "you got me on that one" sort of a way. When she was done, we all laughed and cheered as RT shook his head with a defeated smile..

Sixth (sickth) Corps precious moment #1: At A Public Speaking Training meeting in the Sonlight Room of the campus center we were all to give a speech about something we were passionate or really angry about. We all took our turns, then one of the men began to speak and he was so into his incedent that he punched a hole in the drywall. Sixth (sickth) Corps precious moment #2: LCM got hacked off about people missing the 5:30 AM CO3 meetings, so he said that everyone would have to meet in the library one hour earlier at 4:30 AM the next day and if anyone missed the meeting everyone would have to meet one hour earlier the next day. One man, N*** Y***, was so afraid that he'd oversleep, he took his sleeping bag to the library and went to sleep that night on the floor. The next morning there was a SIT alert and the meeting location was changed to the chapel. When they counted noses, NY was absent! LCM was livid and declared that there would be a meeting at 3:30 AM the next morning. He later relented and the meeting became a formal dance. Many got dressed up and went. I stayed in bed... Sixth (sickth) Corps precious moment #3: LCM was complaining about people missing breakfast, so he mandated that everyone must come to breakfast. They counted noses the next day and discovered that J*** M*** was absent. A crew of husky men went and retrieved him out of bed and carried him into the Campus Center bundled up in his bedsheet. Rumor control maintains that he was not wearing anything under the bedsheet. The event was so funny that the head table relented and he was given breakfast at the head table. Sixth (sickth) Corps precious moment #4: It was a tradition to announce birthdays at lunch and to allow the birthday boy or girl to request what song they wanted sung. On the day in question there was a reporter from a newspaper present. The song requested by the birthday person, Mrs, R****, was Father Abraham. In this song everyone spazzes out and shakes their arms and legs. The next day there was an article about the W C of E in the paper with a picture of everyone spazzing out in the lunch room.

God Hi All As we grow in love we learn to overlook our past and move on and that is why it blesses me to read stories of how we over came our past Because when one writes their story like the one Mark wrote with love it makes it easier for him to understand others shortcoming in life Now I write this to think all the ones that have put their lifes in the open like Mark and many other have Thank you Mark and I send thanks to all the others that have wrote their stories here with love with love Roy

Okay zix.... ............... just watch BTW... take a look at how much health care costs have risin ... lately... the last ten years have out-paced the previous 50 years. makes you go hhhmmmmmmmmm?????

"Really only saw one total a$$hole in the area -- Rico Magnelli was WoW in the area during his apprentice year" Can you support this statement?- I new Rico the year before as a WOW in CA. He had a GREAT heart and was fired up for God.

Trefor -- Right. Most Americans haven't read, or are not familiar with the Constitution A co-worker of mine, was dumbfounded when I told them that the phrase "separation of church and state" was nowhere to be found in the Constitution. --> They simply took it "by faith" that it was there, and never checked it out for themselves. :(-->

First, I'd like to state that I'm not a homosexual and I don't play one on TV. There were a lot of posts I wanted to address... but they're all a few pages back now... and it seems the name calling has stopped... I thought the big reason folks wanted this was so they could have the same "survivorship" rights as heterosexual folks do... plain and simple... So why should anyone else care? Only because your religion says to? ... You can have your anti-homosexual beliefs, just don't hide behind all the rhetoric and name calling, just admit it and say "I don't like it"... you don't have to justify it, it's the way you choose to believe... you are the only one who it has to be justified to... It's kinda like Abigail's "To every man his own truth and his own God within." but if that's your argument against this case... a couple's survivorship rights (whether homo or hetero)... what does it matter to you? It does not effect you really. It just effects your social and religious feelings... but that doesn't make it wrong. I'm on the outside, looking inside, what do I see? Much confusion, disillusion, all around me.

Long gone, When you said, "I don't have a problem with legally formalizing such unions to include most of the spousal rights (privileges, whatever) included in marriage," it appeared you meant that some wouldn't be included. I was wondering what those might be. Sheesh. I never saw you as such a nitpicker before. Pardon me for trying to have a reasonable discussion with you. Linda Z

Long Gone said, "Why do you assume that 'we' are afraid of anything? That was the "royal we." I'm kidding! I meant "we" as in "we as a society." Long Gone: "I don't have any problem at all with homosexual unions, whether life-long or not. I don't have a problem with legally formalizing such unions to include most of the spousal rights (privileges, whatever) included in marriage." I think we're...er, I'm getting somewhere now. I might even agree with you, if that "legal formalizing" permits one partner to include the other partner on his or her health insurance, allows them to share in end-of-life decisions, and other such things that life partners may do. I'm still not sure a court doesn't have the right to interpret existing law. Isn't that part of what courts do? (Not saying I know--just asking.) When you say "most of the spousal rights," which ones do you think same-sex partners shouldn't be permitted? Linda Z

"There is not a single privilege or power of a spouse that I can think of that cannot be conferred upon anyone a person chooses through other means than marriage." Joint tax returns. Health Insurance - 1000Names and I live together but are not married. He cannot put me on his health insurance. However, in our situation we can choose to be married or not, this is not the case for a homosexual couple. Social Security Benefits - same deal. Mark, Case law creates laws where none existed. They also overrule laws that violate constitutions. Case law did not create abortion rights, case law said the abortion laws were unconstitutional, there is a difference. There are still laws about abortion in effect today, but these laws have been upheld as fitting within the framework of constitutions on a state or federal level. To every man his own truth and his own God within.

You got me with the Leviticus thing, Mark. Now that I think about it, the dietary laws wouldn't fall under any of the 10 commandments, either. Now that makes me wonder if the ten commandments were given as a safeguard to a God-fearing society, while additional OT laws were given to safeguard individuals' well-being. I don't know the answer. I'm just pondering aloud to get others' input, but maybe this is the wrong place for that. Since Jesus Christ took us beyond the law to the law of love, do those other laws still pertain, even in the God-fearing portion of socity? Not saying they do or don't, because I'm not sure. But it's something to think about. Anyway, either way, you're right--it doesn't really have any bearing on the legal question at hand. You already addressed that yourself when you said, "Having said that, in modern society, Biblical beliefs and practices have nothing to do with society or the law." So back to that: If someone said this before and I missed it or didn't understand, can anyone tell me, from a purely legal perspective, how allowing homosexuals to marry jeopardizes the soundness of society? Isn't that what laws are intended to protect? Can anyone tell me how allowing people of the same gender to marry would be giving homosexuals more rights than heterosexuals? Linda Z

Oh, and Cynic: I'm accustomed to the stilted manner in which you epxress yourself. Hey, if you don't want people to know what the heck you're saying because you're hellbent on sounding scholarly, have at it, but it makes for lousy communication outside the ivory tower. One question, though: You said, "I have not appealed to the Constitution, and deem that document something that is quite far from having been divinely spirated." What is "spirated," because I can't find it in any American English dictionary. Maybe you meant "inspired"? Linda Z

Zix, you've been reading too many of Mike's threads. Dodge, distract, etc. "It's not quite the same thing, because at the time, there was nothing illegal about slavery, and the slaves themselves were chattel property. They could not exercise freedom by making a personal choice." Exactly, it was ILLEGAL for them to exercise freedom by making a personal choice and attempting to make it LEGAL was an attempt at changing a long established tradition. "It isn't. Only homosexual marriage is, since the sodomy laws were overturned on dubious reasoning by one Supreme Court after they had been upheld by another. " I misspoke and you know that. You still didn't answer the question, though. So I'll try again and word it correctly for you........... ""It is illegal to marry a first cousin or closer relative because of the real danger of genetically damaged inbred children, which have a high probability of winding up wards of the state, taken care of at society's expense. Polygyny is illegal because such families can quickly overexpand past the ability of the adults to provide for basic needs of the children, let alone how it subjugates women. Pedophilia is illegal because minors are not deemed able to understand the ramifications of their actions, no matter if the child consents." And homosexual MARRIAGES are illegal because????????????????? Why????????? To every man his own truth and his own God within. [This message was edited by Abigail on February 07, 2004 at 7:55.]

Now see...here's something I can "hear" and consider. Thanks, Long Gone! Your whole post is something that I can wrap my mind around and think about. What a breath of fresh air right now. :D--> ?????????????

Is this the best you can come back with? Or is this one of those 'gotta defend a fellow Republican no matter what' frat brother sort of thing? I'm sorry, but I didn't know that I made Cynic 'look good' because I called him on his condescending arrogance, particularly towards Excathedra in this case. And all he could come back with is to bring up an unsettled argument to deflect the criticism. Oh I know, its because I'm such the 'liberal', isn't it? Therefore that 'neccesitates' my words not meaning a thing, is that it? (As tho' that argument really carries any weight -- which it does not) My own secret sign-off ====v, Rational logic cannot have blind faith as one of its foundations. Prophet Emeritus of THE, and Wandering CyberUU Hippie, Garth P. www.gapstudioweb.com

That's yours and mine.

Hee hee, if this is the best you can come back with, bringing up unsettled arguments that you had with me as a means of 'proving' your case, then you must be getting desperate. Calvin was responsible for more than just Servetus' death. And the evidence documenting this isn't a result of some 'intellectual vitality of a lazy fabricator'. Plus I imagine that if it weren't so well known that Calvin was responsible for Servetus' death, you'd deny that too, and hope that nobody would be the wiser. Perhaps you aren't as objective about the founder of your denomination as you'd like for us to think, hmmm? Thank you for showing me further why Calvinism (your brand anyway) is best avoided. My own secret sign-off ====v, Rational logic cannot have blind faith as one of its foundations. Prophet Emeritus of THE, and Wandering CyberUU Hippie, Garth P. www.gapstudioweb.com

To you.

I do not wish to compare homosexuality to pedophilia.

we send cynic back to the scriptures to search if these things were so ?

It's not for me to argue one way or another about polygyny or polygamy - I was merely making some observations about its practice cynic. All I argue is that there is a level playing field. If the state allows two people to enter into the legal contract of marriage then it should allow any two people of either sex the same. The state does not allow anybody to have multiple marriages and therefore nobody is advantaged or discriminated against or rather everybody is discriminated against equally. We are talking about legal recognitions, not what arrangements that are not legally recognised may occur. Many heterosexual men have their harems, their mistresses, their "other women". VPW was only legally married to Dorothea and LCM is only legally married to Donna. Joseph Smith was only legally married to Emma no matter what other arrangements his religion came to allow at the time. Yet Bob and Tom are not allowed even one legal marriage to each other. That is the discrimination. Trefor Heywood "Cymru Am Byth!"

Interesting piece. "The Biblical Source of Western Sexual Morality," by Peter J. Leithart. http://www.visi.com/~contra_m/cm/features/cm07_leithart.html ***** Quoted from that piece: "This brief glance at the structure of sexual mores in two pre-Christian civilizations suffices to prove the point: Biblical sexual morality is not universally defended and practiced in all societies. The sexual morality that has served as a foundation of Western civilization is a product of Christianity. Given the fact that sexual issues so deeply disturb contemporary society, it is essential for Christians self-consciously to defend Biblical morality, not some vague 'traditional morality' or 'traditional family values.'"

If the consideration is merely economic, shouldn't would-be polygynists who could demonstrate sufficient fiscal capabilities have all the unions they might want and are able to support fully recognized as marriages by the states -- in the interest of equality and liberty?

maybe if you had too many spouses, the government would find it hard to deal with the social security ramifications i don't know ?

Incest definition and laws have nothing to do with the age of the participants. Therefore, incest does not necessarily include minors. There are older people (past child bearing years) with legitimate concerns about societal limitations on this.

Rocky: "Consensual incest" means engaging in a sexual act with one's own sibling, first cousin, or similar adult relative.

Other than the "what good is it" line, which I wouldn't pursue, I pretty much agree with Zixar, at least for now. I'm all for people being able to designate whoever they want as beneficiaries, medical decision makers, etc. I'm not in favor of people being able to demand that whoever they want be covered under their health insurance policies. Regardless of childless marriages, marriages of convenience, marriages that amount to little more than legalized pedophilia, forced marriages, and relatively temporary marriages, the institution of marriage is intended to encourage and support families, particularly children, who are the future of any society. It is not a peculiarly religious institution. Homosexual unions are legal. Polygamous relationships are also, in a sense. Polygamy, as such, is illegal, but there is no law preventing the same sort of arrangement, as long as it is not called marriage. For now, I think that the legitimate (from my point of view) concerns of homosexual couples can be met without changing marriage laws. There will probably come a time when that won't be the case. I expect that, within my lifetime, two women will conceive a child together, without any involvement of a man. I expect that sometime in the more distant future, it will be possible for two men to do the same thing. All it would take is a little advancement in the same sorts of techniques currently used for cloning, plus an artificial "womb." I don't doubt that either will happen. When they do, society will have to adapt and laws will have to change.

(resolving a cross-post) Trefor: With respect, that's the same dodge you used the last time I asked this question. I know you must keep seeing it as snide or accusatory because of the indignance of your replies, but I'm being totally serious--give me a REASON why I should fight as hard to protect homosexuality as I would to protect any other concept. As I outlined above, homosexuals already have the right to marry in this country, according to the definition of marriage that has persisted for the past three thousand years. If government were a restaurant, the fact that certain people don't particularly like what's on the menu does not obligate the chef to cook something special for them, nor does it give them any right to sue for redress.

How about, I wouldn't have had the fifty year old queer who tried to seduce me in his mobile home down in Louisiana when I was sixteen, and I had to commit assault to get away from him. If there were no homosexuals, that wouldn't have happened... So the answer would be: Society would lose "homosexual assaults on young boys if there were no homosexuals.

Tom: What would society lose if there were no such thing as homosexuality? I'm not talking about eliminating homosexual individuals, I'm talking about what would we really lose if all homosexuals were heterosexual instead.

I see the whole gay marriage deal as akin to girls wanting to join the Boy Scouts. There's no real advantage to it other than to stir up controversy. I do support the notion that an adult should be able to name a singular other person as his automatic beneficiary, medical decision-maker, and recipient of group health benefits, regardless of the actual relationship. This would cover everybody with the current privileges of marriage without making a sham of the institution. Singles, gays, roommates, best friends, a person should be able to choose someone for their mutual benefit regardless of whether or not they are engaging in any type of sexual activity. Society has a duty to self-perpetuate, sometimes at the cost of certain individual freedoms. The same arguments made for gay "marriage" can be extended to polygamy, incest, and pedophilia as well, but at best there is no net gain to society by allowing any of them. Society cannot self-perpetuate without placing women and children ahead of other marital variations. Incest and pedophilia are directly damaging to children, and polygamy oppresses women, relegating most to nothing more than baby-factories, or worse, objects of gratification. Here's a litmus test. Please fill in the blank in the following sentence to make it true: "Society would lose ___________ if everyone were heterosexual, so homosexuality does serve a vital function."

That was an interesting article Zixar. I have to agree with the authors point of view, provided that his description of the functions of the branches of government are correct. But to the best of my recollection of how our government is supposed to work, I think he is right...

Also, in this case they didn't make a law, they simply gave their interpretation of a vague part of the Massachusets state constitution. Courts are supposed to interpret the law, and supreme courts can overrule laws that don't fit in with the rest of the law. Legislating from the bench is a bad thing, but in this case all they did was provide a clearer interpretation of an already existing law. Whether that interpretation was right or wrong will be up for debate for quite some time.

The legal aspect of marriage (as opposed to the religious aspect) has always been governed by the state since it is the state that protects and enforces the legal aspects of such a contract. If you've ever gotten divorced you know what I mean. But there is more to this than divorce. There is wealth and inheritance. When you die and your spouse inherits your money (or when you transfer money between you while alive) there are tax and other legal consequences that differ if it's your spouse than if it's your live-in significant other. If you are on life-support and they need next of kin to make a decision - a spouse is legally the next of kin. Not a person you may have been in a loving supportive relationship with for 20 years but never married. There is also the matter of employee benefits like health insurance, retirment etc. that accrues to a spouse but not a non-married lover. These are legal relationships hence the state's legal authority to define marriage. Aside from the moral issue that I don't think I (or anyone else) should dictate who gets to love another person - except the people involved, I think there is a societal benefit to encouraging long term loving relationships and the legal benefits that go with them. I think this benefit to society surpasses the fact that some may not like that a married couple is interracial. Interracial marriaged used to be illegal. I think this benefit to society surpasses the fact that some may not like that a married couple is of two different faiths. Inter-faith marriage may not be sanctioned by certain churches and that's their priviledge but it doesn't affect the legal aspect of such a union. I think this benefit to society surpasses the fact that some may not like that a married couple is of the same sex. The state is being very courageous in taking this stand as were states in the past to legalize interracial marriage, and non-religious marriage.

Raf, I stand corrected. I was refering to it as the situation as he(LCM) percieved it not that it was something that needed to be handled at all. It's funny how intent doesn't always tranaslate well over the keyboard, sorry. Peace IMA

As wannabe "leaders" frequently imitated Wierwille and later Martindale, many started saying "I'm running this meeting" whenever there was any dissent, or if the reproved one disagreed with the assessment of the almighty miniMOG. In theory, there is no difference between theory and practice...but in practice there is Oakspear

cringing for other folks.... the way corps motto.... i remember evan's testimony and i remember daily the in-residence house of horrors with my tuttles also if i'm remember right, veepee was with lc initially with the jock chit then what happened ? after he did the dance, veepee backstepped ??? i forget ?

All right, out with it, Evan--- it was "no perception Paul" and "pablum Pyle", ifn' I 'members correctly.... all this, in a Biblical research and teaching ministry, the likes of which have not been seen since the uno Ce-antch-errryyy!!!!!!!! sheeesh --> --> --> :D--> [This message was edited by alfakat on December 20, 2003 at 0:06.] [This message was edited by alfakat on December 20, 2003 at 0:07.]

Oh geeze, I'll apologize for the sidetrack ahead of time...sorry. But VP, LCM, and company knew that the whole athletes thing was a humongous stretch, but VP in particular felt that it was ok to make the leap, because he was after all "the great teacher." He was fishing for ammo to back up his "claim," that the military terms were "athletic." When he didn't get it, he didn't change his teaching, he went forward with it anyway. And then LCM took it to new heights....or depths, depending oh how you look at it. --> Could it be that this "teaching" and the liberties taken with the scriptures set the stage for LCM's um, stranger teachings of the 90's? that aren't found anywhere in the bible?

Ex, :-P