Leaderboard

There have been several threads that have discussed this issue. One, specifically, deals with the dilemma his death from cancer presents. I'm not very skilled in doing searches but here is the essence of the dilemma: FIRST Wierwille taught, in the AC, that cancer is caused by devil spirits. More bluntly, that if you have cancer, you are possessed. Though he softened that message a bit in his delivery. Now the dilemma If Wierwille was correct, it means we were following a man who was devil possessed. If Wierwille was wrong, it destroys his credibility regarding spiritual matters. It means he could have been wrong about anything and everything. Either way, it's a losing situation. edit: Check THIS out. And THIS

Hogwash, Kit. Another scare tactic and misinformation campaign pandered by special interests, i.e. big Pharma and insurance companies that will have to face real competition if healthcare reform goes forward. The real question you should ask yourself are you satisfied that we as a nation pays more for healthcare to get such a dismal return on investment as indicated by the statistics above?

I have read several places where the blame for VPW's illness and death lie solely on the "believers" who simply didn't have their minds renewed and operating correctly to keep VPW alive, while at the same time blaming anyone who got sick and wasn't healed for their own misfortune and lack of believing. Why wasn't VPW reamed for his lack of believing? Why wasn't he mark & avoided? Why didn't anyone cast out his devil spirits? Isn't that a bit of a double standard? Seriously though, most of us rank and file were unaware of his illness. His death was a complete surprise while the cause was shrouded in secrecy.

I was bored tonight and just came back here after several years of absence. People here seem to be talking about the same things as we were back then. At the risk of seeming judgmental, I need to ask: Are there still that many people trying to overcome Way years? Or is there still a steady stream of people who are leaving The Way and are looking for answers to what happened?

Agree with the above, except that I don't mind 'splainin' myself, since that is what I like about Forums at any site. People discussing whatever post they want to discuss. If the originator of this post really wants to know the answer to his or her question, sounds like the answer is complicated, like each person here is complicated and like Life is complicated. If the originator of this post wants a quick and easy answer, then maybe he or she is not fully "out" of the cult mindset, yes? If the originator of this post is just trolling and attacking, then hell with him/her.....

It's all about choice. No one drags anyone here. No one cares whether you come or don't come. Pretty much everyone here can relate to the experience. The doctrinal discussions have all but stopped (thankfully). I'm just kind of curious as to why you care what any of us are doing?

Every time this subject comes up, I'm confused. This is American, is it not? Can't we frequent any website we wish? Who cares why someone is still here, who cares what websites anyone hangs at? Do you care what news sites I visit every day, or parenting blogs or what I write, read? When I have to answer to anyone as to my reasons for being anywhere.........well, I'm not doing it. It's no one's business but mine, period.

I can't speak for everyone else, but this is such a timely question for me--I have been wondering the same thing about myself. I got out in 1981, almost 30 years ago. I had a rough recovery period, lots of therapy, and have done very very well for myself since them. A couple of years ago, I found this site and spent a little time reviewing the various documents, and other pieces of information. So much happened in twi after I left and I found it fascinating. I got really turned off to this site at that time (no offense to anyone here) because I happened on a thread with a lot of bickering and debating about what the "Word" said about some topic. It kind of gave me the chills, because it had the same tenor as The Way when it challenged and debated the "Word" by citing scripture, etc. It felt to me like at least those particular posters had not gotten "out" completely as they had the same cult personality they developed in twi. Again, no offense intended at all, it was just my reaction. I am now back after a couple of years, with a new fascination as to why I joined twi, and I am asking myself What am I Doing Here?? The same question as the original post. I can't get my head around it, I just know that I want to read and read and read, not at all about spiritual matters, but about twi itself and how I got sucked in to begin with, I guess. I am still trying to understand how it happened? I am not sure what this is about, but I can tell you that I have worked hard in my recovery over many years, and perhaps this is the next step--previously I focused on learning about reality, decision making, self esteem, confidence, repairing my career and finding a whole new life. I spent several of those years not thinking twice about twi and simply living my life. Now, perhaps, after accomplishing these things, I am ready to come face to face with your question, at long last. I found K.S.'s Losing the Way to be compelling and very helpful. Thank you for that, K.S. My 2 cents.

How can you offend someone who states point blank they only came here out of boredom?

I contracted cancer myself in 1987 and I was a Corps Grad. I felt a great deal of shame and really questioned my worth as a leader and my effectiveness as a believer. "How could I, a Corps Grad, allow myself to get possessed?" I thought. In fact, I delayed getting examined because I didn't want to face facts. I was ashamed to tell others including family members and fellow Corps. Everyone in TWI was nice to me, at least to my face. I wasn't aware that VPW had died of cancer. I am completely cancer free (praise God!), but it took quite awhile for me to pull myself together emotionally. It shook me to the core. I finally had to face the fact that VPW was actually wrong about something. Later I found out that he himself had died of cancer 2 years prior. So, yes. This doctrine did a lot of damage at least to me and I would imagine lot of other people. It makes sense, but I wasn't aware that others were blamed for VP's illness, that is, outside of POP. I think I heard somewhere that the in-residence Corps at the time was yelled at for allowing the MOG to die "on their watch". Is that true?

Sorry to be a source of embarrassment for you...but I've been done with being nice to the drive-by judgmental posters for a while now.

Some of the subjects are the same. Some of the subjects are not. We do still get people, from time to time, who are either leaving now, or who left before and are now trying to put the pieces together. We also, however, are quite poopular with current twi'ers coming here and reading and learning what twi won't tell them- and not logging in, they're guests. (Similarly, CES/STFI people do that, especially when there's current events for their group.) The GSC is a clearinghouse of information. twi refuses to inform and discuss with their members, so they come here as the only current alternative that actually INFORMS. We also get new arrivals who have not yet been members, but who have been approached by twi'ers, and want information. They come here for similar reasons. So, current twi'ers come here, and sometimes they leave twi. Ex-twi come here and find it easier to move on with their lives once they understand things. And twi finds it even harder to recruit new people who can come here and learn all about them so easily, which means the group's numbers continue to shrink from year to year. Any ONE of those reasons is enough to come back here, IMHO.

I'm embarrassed at how you were (not) welcomed back! We don't have to slobber over one another, but surely we could treat each other a little better than that! Well papertrained, there are many reasons why many of us are still here . We keep getting newcomers looking for information. Sometimes, even if we're tired of it, we have to answer some of the same questions. Some of us are still here as a warning. Now that lots of people are familiar with the Internet, we want to keep these pages here and vital, so that if somebody hears about "The Way Inc" and wants to do some investigation, they'll find the truth. Sometimes some come just to discuss certain issues with other "friends". I hope that makes some sense to you. Maybe you'll stick around for a day or so and discover that this isn't really the same as it was two or three years ago. It's not totally different, but different enough.

Why do you give a **** why we come here? <_<

Kit, Perhaps your fears will be somewhat eased by the knowledge that there are many good Catholic hospitals in France such as Hopital St Vincent de Paul in Paris.

JAL and the "office manager" live north of the current office. There's no easy way to get from the north side to Martinsville. It's at least an hour long drive anyway you look at it. This is pure speculation on my part, but I would imagine that anyone who wants to work for them will move in that direction. I agree with Rejoice. It's probably more about convenience.

RELIGION As internet chatrooms, facebook twitter, youtube, etc go mainstream America......THE VOICE OF THE PEOPLE, and specifically the 'common people' are a growing voice in today's media. No longer can religious groups squelch and/or villify those who saw the inner-workings of a cult. Ten years ago, in April 1999.....P@ul All3n launched Waydale in response to TWI's then-trustees, Martindale and Rivenbark and Reynolds, for their cover-up of martindale's sexual predation who specifically targeted F3rn All3n when she worked on staff at The Way International. A lawsuit ensued. Waydale changed everything!!!! This new site, Waydale, pulled back the curtain of twi's cast of characters, their masks and agendas, etc. etc. and even showed us how 'the architect built the theatre.' Greasespot Cafe took the reins when Waydale closed. Thankfully, this site continues to give a voice to the people. Thank you, Paw. Thank you moderators. The Voice of the People......ex-twi people came to post their stories and their grievances. The Result?......P@aul All3n won this lawsuit in an out-of-court settlement, splinter groups were put on notice, and thousands of ex-followers/followers were given a RARE GLIMPSE OF TWI'S UNDERBELLY....and the pieces of the puzzle started fitting together. The Internet changed the level of the 'playing field'......and because of that, today's twi is only a shell of its former glory and oppressive power. Not only that, but this 'new information' has empowered us to MOVE FORWARD BOLDLY. POLITICS As well, the internet's websites, articles, chatrooms, twitter, facebook etc. etc.......are changing the dynamics of 'inside the beltway politics,' secret agendas, radical movements, censorship, etc. WorldNetDaily posted an article back on April 12, 2009 about Van Jones......the radical extremist, the 911 truther, the self-avowed communist, who became one of President Obama's whitehouse appointed czars 'The Green Jobs Czar.' Foxnews picked up this information and ran a whole series last week EXPOSING THE RADICAL MOVEMENT AND SHADOW GOVERNMENT THAT IS AFOOT. The internet chatrooms were abuzzing all week. Today, we learn........this green jobs czar, Van Jones, who had oversight of a $30 Billion government-run budget has been pressured to RESIGN. More to come.

God first Down with America UP with a NEW AMERICA http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PGuvpzqw4O0 <object width="560" height="340"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PGuvpzqw4O0&hl=en&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PGuvpzqw4O0&hl=en&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="560" height="340"></embed></object> love Roy

I've been considering this topic for a bit. It can be summed up as looking for how I've reacted to bullying since my time in "River Road Fellowship." And as I've seen others react to TWI style bullying in many different manners since I've been here I thought I would make a couple of observations and then see where the conversation goes. I've seen bullying here at GSC that seems very easy to deal with since "River Road Fellowship" messed up so much of my life. In most cases it has been easy to deal with here. There have been other times when facing certain things that reminded me of the TWI style censure that I endured that have left me feeling weak and incapable of dealing with behind the back gossip, judgments and such. OOps, I'm out of time for now. I'll try to get back later or tomorrow. Gotta go now.

Tzaia, you don't have to visit Doctrinal if you don't want to. It's not my hang-out much, either, but sometimes there are interesting things, and sometimes it just helps demolish a bit of Way "theology" by providing a bigger picture. I like that there are differing viewpoints on what might be seen as Doctrinal differences and it can help to (re)develop those critical thinking skills that were so crushed by TWI. We are free to explore here, and though there are some posters whose points of view I find very difficult to see, it's always good to explore other people's ideas.

VPW died about a month after I had cancer surgery. My family had to come in from out of town and help with my kids as no one from TWI was "available" to help. Fortunately, no one from TWI came right out and told me I was possessed; they just stayed away.

Hap, none of us know whether or not any measure is going to be in the bill signed by the President. And we won't until the last second. What will happen is that the House will pass their version and the Senate will pass theirs. Then they will form a bicameral reconciliation committee who will meet behind closed doors and craft one bill that must be passed by both houses without alteration...just an up and down vote. If that reconciled bill passes, it will go to the Presdient for signature. We won't know the content of the reconciliation committee bill until probably hours before votes are called on both the House and Senate floors. Frankly, it could be dramatically different than either the House or Senate versions. We agree on conscience clauses. I wish more on your side would accept that common-sense provision. Well, consider this: In 2006, the Massachusetts Legislature passed a law mandating that adoption services must attempt to place children with homosexual adoptive parents (i.e., the adoption service could not consider a couples' sexual orientation in making a placement recommendation). There was no explicit exemption for religiously-oriented adoption services, like Catholic Charities. Naturally, placing a child with a homosexual couple goes against the teaching of the Catholic Church. Whether you agree with it or not, it does (not up for debate). When regulators finished implementing that law, Catholic Charities of Boston was faced with a choice: go against Church teaching or shut down. According to this Boston Globe article, they decided the latter. Am I saying that this guarantees that Catholic hospitals will close down? No. But they might have to stop calling themselves "Catholic" if they did start allowing it. The decision would likely belong to the board of trustees who exercise control over the individual hospital or hospital system. A hospital that was directly a function of the local diocese would, undoubtedly, shut down before being forced to perform abortions, but I don't know how many of those there are any more.

Mark- I certainly do not KNOW for certain about whether either of those clauses will be explicitly included. If I were to hazard a guess however, I think conscience clauses should and WILL be explicitly included as logical compromises. No health care provider should be required to provide end of life counseling or procedures, whether near the beginning of life or towards the end. Other providers can and should give such counseling and services to patients seeking them. I do think that insurance coverage should include these, but you raise a good argument then about the coverage provided to employees of firms who oppose such procedures. I will have to ponder that. In other words, on this issue, I understand the concerns you and Kit express especially regarding Catholic principles. I was initially only meaning to address Kit's comment about requiring hospitals to provide abortion procedures, and I very much doubt such a requirement has a chance of being included or that Catholic Hospitals will be forced to close. One reason is the political reality of the administration needing the support of a group who otherwise has a general conceptual support for the reforms. Of course that conceptual support still has a long list of specifics that must be considered before it comes to agreement. ~HAP

All I heard was in ac for grads 95 Rome city,Uncle howard said we killed dr wierwillie, He died of a broken heart.What a guilt trip.He lost his best friend because we were not believing for poor old herr wiereillie.Maybe if he (wierwillie) had not smoked and drank so much he would lived longer. No mention was made od cancer till I came to greasespot.

I'm not anti-choice, I'm pro-life, but I'll take a stab at your question. First of all, there is nothing particularly good or evil about the D&C procedure, in of itself. My wife and my first child died while in her womb; she had a D&C done after it was determined that the baby was no longer alive. The baby would have eventually been expelled anyway. As to the second example (a severely malformed or diseased baby), let me reframe the question: Would it be morally licit to kill a patient who was ravaged with cancer and only had a few days left? Please note: I am not asking if it would be OK to allow the patient to kill himself, nor am I asking if it would be OK for a doctor to do the deed if the patient asked for it. I am asking if it would be OK for the doctor to do so of his own volition Alternatively, in the absence of a clear directive or proxy by the patient, would it be morally licit for a doctor to let a trauma victim go because the trauma victim might wake up a paraplegic? There are a couple of us on GSC who might posit that these two situations would be morally licit, but I don't think that the majority would. Since I consider the baby to be alive from the moment of fertilization, I don't see that there is morally much difference between killing a baby for therapeutic reasons and killing an adult for therapeutic reasons. As far as the "plan b" drug, I, for one, would not allow it to be used, nor would I allow hormonal contraceptives or IUDs to be used for the reasons that you state. I am morally opposed to the use of birth control, but I would not be in favor of banning "barrier type" or "spermicidal" contraceptives, though, because I would think that banning those types of contraceptives would be imposing my specific religion upon others. If you ask why banning barrier or spermicidal contraceptives would impose my religion upon somebody else, while banning hormonal contraceptives or IUDs would not be doing the same thing, my answer would be that once a life is created, the natural moral law applies ... and that is something that should be discernable regardless of one's religion or not (the same as banning murder and theft is not imposing Judaism, Islam, or Christianity on somebody) Should Catholic hospitals be allowed to provide "plan b" to rape victims? If the chemicals are legal, then they should be allowed to do so by the state. But the state should not impose itself on Catholic hospitals, Baptist hospitals, or Muslim hospitals to mandate its use. By the way, we've run into situations where a Catholic hospital has decided to disassociate itself with the Church because of a disagreement on these matters. And, as long as its board of trustees does not try to play both sides of the fence (let folks think it is a Catholic hospital while at the same time performing abortions), I don't really have much of a problem with such a decision. (Well, any more of a problem than I have with any hospital performing abortions in the first place, that is) The same holds true with abortion or any other procedure.

The abortion issue is like one of those handy-dandy screwdrivers that can do 16 different jobs. When people get close enough to a particular issue to begin to understand it, simply bring out the trusty 16AS tool and dissemble it (the issue) beyond the point of recognition.

I have a question for anyone here who is anti-choice here on abortions. The normal procedure for an abortion is called a D&C (Dilation and Curettage). This procedure is done for other reasons, though. Unfortunately, in my wife's first pregnancy we suffered a miscarriage. As a result, the doctor had to perform this procedure. The procedure would have been the same had the baby been alive (as in an abortion), or dead (as in a miscarriage), so whether the doctors plan to perform abortions or not, they need to know this procedure if they are an OBGYN. Now let's take it another step forward, what if a test is done, and they find that the baby will miscarry or will not live more than a few days at most because of some horrific, extremely painful disease? If, like me, you are not a fan of human suffering, you may want to abort a foetus with a condition like that before it ends up suffering too much. Would it be ok for a doctor to abort then? Should a mercy "abortion" like this be covered by insurance, whether private or government-run? Let's look at it another way too. The "day after" pill is used to basically kill a fertilized egg. If you believe that it is a human being at conception, why not prohibit the sale of this pill? Of course, this is just a higher dose of other birth control hormones, so even they could be banned under the belief that it's a human being at fertilization. Would you ban birth control too? The thing is, there is no neat answer to the questions surrounding abortion. Most of us, including us pro-choice folks, are not comfortable with late term abortions except in extreme circumstances. However, the further back you go, the more people go towards the "pro-choice" side. Rather than being a binary, "for or against abortion" debate, there are really a wide range of issues to discuss. However, politicians always use it to their advantage. The minute a politician wants to give free condoms or birth control to someone, he's labeled a "socialist eugenicist" or a "baby killer" by extremist anti-choice people. The problem is that the extremists are the ones controlling the debate on the abortion issue. In reality, most of us are both for and against it, depending on the time frame. So the question is, what procedures, under what conditions, at what time, should be allowed? Should Catholic hospitals be required to provide emergency birth control to rape victims? Should religious hospitals be allowed to not have doctors on staff that can perform a D&C just in case they might accidentally perform an abortion? This isn't about the debate over who pays for the healthcare, this is about how care is regulated. Whether the government pays for it or we pay for it, these questions need answers.

Hap, I think you are referring to the Hyde Amendment(s), which are provisions in appropriations bills that provide Federal funding for Medicaid. These provisions are not codified and so have to be passed with each year's appropriations bills. For example, in the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2008, the language said: SEC. 507. (a) None of the funds appropriated in this Act, and none of the funds in any trust fund to which funds are appropriated in this Act, shall be expended for any abortion. (b) None of the funds appropriated in this Act, and none of the funds in any trust fund to which funds are appropriated in this Act, shall be expended for health benefits coverage that includes coverage of abortion. © The term ''health benefits coverage'' means the package of services covered by a managed care provider or organization pursuant to a contract or other arrangement. SEC. 508. (a) The limitations established in the preceding section shall not apply to an abortion— (1) if the pregnancy is the result of an act of rape or incest; or (2) in the case where a woman suffers from a physical disorder, physical injury, or physical illness, including a life endangering physical condition caused by or arising from the pregnancy itself, that would, as certified by a physician, place the woman in danger of death unless an abortion is performed. (b) Nothing in the preceding section shall be construed as prohibiting the expenditure by a State, locality, entity, or private person of State, local, or private funds (other than a State's or locality's contribution of Medicaid matching funds). © Nothing in the preceding section shall be construed as restricting the ability of any managed care provider from offering abortion coverage or the ability of a State or locality to contract separately with such a provider for such coverage with State funds (other than a State's or locality's contribution of Medicaid matching funds). (d)(1) None of the funds made available in this Act may be made available to a Federal agency or program, or to a State or local government, if such agency, program, or government subjects any institutional or individual health care entity to discrimination on the basis that the health care entity does not provide, pay for, provide coverage of, or refer for abortions. (2) In this subsection, the term ''health care entity'' includes an individual physician or other health care professional, a hospital, a provider-sponsored organization, a health maintenance organization, a health insurance plan, or any other kind of health care facility, organization, or plan. The key point to remember is that this is within an annual appropriations act and it must be passed each and every year. For the pro-choice among us, that should be considered good news. For the pro-life among us, that should be very worrisome. In regards to the Hyde Amendment's implementation, it primarily referred to Medicaid funding. It specifically did not cover military medicine, VA medicine, or Medicare, nor did it include Federal Employee Health Insurance. As to HR 3200, there is no specific mention of abortion. There is neither a mandate for it nor is there a prohibition for coverage. For the pro-life among us, here are the concerns in that bill (I haven't seen a Senate Bill introduced yet and so can't comment on it. I won't waste my time looking through an informal committee markup): For a person to be considered to have health insurance (for the purposes of this law), the insurance plan held by the individual must be a "Qualified Health Benefit Plan" The decision on what procedures are and are not covered is not a matter of statute. The decision will be made by the Secretary of Health and Human Services (Kathleen Sebelius) (See sec 124 of the bill). Her decision on coverage is the minimum coverage required. In other words, it will be up to Kathleen Sebelius (I'm quoting that name to make Kit cringe ) whether abortion is considered a service that must be covered by a Qualified Health Benefit Plan or not. So what? Companies or non-profit organizations (for example the Catholic Diocese of Las Vegas or the Catholic Diocese of Reno) will have to provide their employees with health coverage or pay a 8% "contribution" to the government if they don't do so. (See Section 313). The plans offered by an employer must be Qualified Health Benefits Plans (See section 311 and review the above to show what must be covered), otherwise, for the purposes of this law, the employer isn't offering health coverage. If a person is not covered by an employer-provided Qualified Health Benefits Plan, the employee must participate in the Health Insurance Exchange (See Title II, in whole). If the person doesn't wish to participate in the Health Insurance Exchange, then that person will pay a "contribution" to the government (Section 401). That fine is 2.5% of the difference between the person's Adjusted Gross Income and the minimum amount where a person would have to file an income tax return (I know, the formula is a pain in the butt). Here's the rub: a person who participates in the Health Insurance Exchange does not automatically have a cost-share, like what happens with employer-based health coverage. Typically, the employer will pay 75% and the employee will pay 25% (or some other proportion). So, rather than paying $3,000 - $4,000 per year for family health coverage, as it is now, a person in the Health Insurance Exchange will be liable to pay the full $12,000 to $14,000 per year. In order to "help," Congress has a provision in the bill to provide "Affordable Premium Credits" (Section 243). What this does is provide a federal subsidy to help low to moderate income families pay their premiums. It is done on a sliding scale based upon family adjusted gross income. For a family making 200% of the poverty rate, that means that the government will provide a credit to make sure that coverage does not exceed 7% of that family's Adjusted Gross Income. On the other hand, if a family makes 400% of the poverty rate, that means that the government will provide a credit to make sure that coverage does not exceed 11% of that family's income. (See sec 243(d)(1) ). There is no provision in this bill to have these federal subsidies segregated to make sure federal monies are not used by plans in the Health Insurance Exchange to provide abortions. So, from a pro-life perspective, there are three issues: IF abortion coverage is mandated as a requirement, through regulation, for a "Qualfied Health Benefits Plan," employers will be required to provide that coverage for their employees, even in situations where abortion coverage is anathema to those employers (for example, the Catholic Church) unless the employer opts out of providing coverage for his employees. In which case, the 8% "contribution" will be used to provide abortion coverage via the "Health Insurance Exchange." IF abortion coverage is mandated as a requirement, through regulation, for a "Qualfied Health Benefits Plan," participants in Health Insurance Exchange plans will have no choice but to participate in a plan that has abortion coverage (whether they, themselves, use it or not is besides the point, their money will go toward providing abortions) IF abortion coverage is mandated as a requirement, through regulation, for a "Qualfied Health Benefits Plan," tax money will be used, through the "Affordable Premium Credit," to pay for abortions From a pro-life perspective, respect for life includes not only a prohibition of women receiving abortions and men pressuring women into having abortions, but also includes providing material support for abortions to occur. As to hospitals being required to perform abortions, that, too will be a part of the regulatory process. There are quality control provisions in this bill that impact how well providers implement the provisions of the bill. DEPENDING UPON HOW THE REGULATIONS ARE WRITTEN, that could provide a tremendous amount of pressure on hospitals to provide required services, including abortion services and on physicians to provide those services as well (in order to keep qualification to receive insurance payments). But the important thing to remember is that this bill calls on reams and reams of regulations to be written, none of which will be overridable by the Congress, even if they were so inclined. What would make pro-lifers far more sanguine (even those who would otherwise not object to this bill...unlike me) is if abortion funding was explicitly prohibited and if conscience clauses were explicitly included protecting doctors and hospitals. But neither will happen and you know it.

mstar1......in context to this issue, I am the one who brought up this question. It seems to me, there is a growing polarization in this country with regards to free speech and the internet. Obviously, most here at GS are aware of twi's mandates about the internet....specifically, the ex-twi websites. Outspoken and unapologetic, twi view the internet as evil. Just google "The Way International"......and its obvious. Just google "L. Craig Martndale".........and its obvious. In this thread, I am asking the question....."In a broad sense, Religion and Politics seem to be converging on a consensus that its becoming "unmanageable" or needs strict regulation and "fairness." Could this really happen?" In twi, there was censorship......could this movement for censorship be afoot on a national level?

Not posted here before, but here we go. I was in the Way in Great Britain in the late 70's to the early 80's. I met VPW on several of his visits, culminating in my deciding to go WOW. I'd had many health issues when I was very young, and the only treatment eventually caused severe deafness as a side-effect of the medication. I had several "great men of Gof" minister to me, without success, and this failure was always placed squarely back on the person being ministered to; we didn't believe hard enough, we had doubts, we didn't have our needs & wants in paralel. Whenever something didn't quite match up, or seemed a little "off" it was purely our fault for not having our minds right. Eventually you develop blinders; anything that you see or hear that didn't quite match up with the teaching, why, it was because I didn't have my mind right; it was MY fault. I've carried that kind of paramoia into my 40's. There's always that niggling wonder if something stinks, or if I'm not thinking things thru properly. I bitterly regret getting involved with this bunch of shysters; there were so many wonderful people at fellowships, and we were all getting conned blind......So much wasted years and potential.

Yah Oak!Like Ham said a whole new set of skills,Old Who song "wont get fooled again" Pawtuket,continue your fine work.

Have you developed a few *new* skills from the last time you've been here? we come back to the same *problems*, with a new set of skills.. and the experience looks entirely different than it did, ten, fifteen, twenty.. forty years ago.. maybe you never "grew up"..

Did this foray relieve your "boredom"?

People are not all cookie cut outs from the same dough, you know? Your experiences and what worked for you are yours but not necessarily someone else's. Obviously you have no need for a site like this, or the interest. Why begrudge and judge those that do? Likeminded-ness never really made people all the same inside. Some felt and experienced things perhaps quite differrently than you did.

Roy, I believe Oeno presented numbers that indicate we already have too many infant deaths. One reason is the lack of prenatal care affordable to pregnant women. yet another reason affordable health care and universal coverage is needed. Kit- I know of no provision that would require all hospitals to provide abortions. Some of the proposals do require insurance coverage for the procedure. Pretty much everyone, including the late Senator Ted Kennedy and President Obama has stated that they do not support requiring health care PROVIDERS to violate their conscience on such things, to the best of my knowledge. Further, most proposals I believe would require insurance abortion coverage to be funded by private dollars, in accordance with existing Federal law.

God first hi oenophile are you saying we should kill babies because is something that should talk about just the amount that we have lets get every thing right then see what the live birth are love Roy

Maybe its just an ageing organization, which wants to "retire" in a rural setting.. smaller, less people.. less "witnessing"..

If they are "moving".. what I wonder.. are they going to leave a forwarding address?

Roy, you are right. Greed has brought us to where we are now with respect to healthcare. As a nation we pay more for healthcare than any other industrialized democracy on the planet. Healthcare costs account for 17 percent total gross national product. Compare that figure with France which spends only 11% of her GDP on healthcare. You would think that with that kind of outlay, Americans would be the healthiest people on the planet, wouldn't you? Yet, when you look at what we get for our money another sharply different picture emerges. Consider, these statistics compiled by the World Health Organization. A. Healthy Life Expectancy: 1. Japan 74.5 yrs 2. Australia 73.2 yrs 3. France 73.1 yrs 4. Sweden 73.0 yrs 5. Spain 72.8 yrs 24. United States 70.0 yrs B. Preventable Deaths (per 100,000 population) 1. France 65 2. Japan 71 2. Australia 71 4. Spain 74 4. Italy 74 14. United States 110 C. Infant Mortality (infant deaths per 1,000 live births) 1. Iceland 2.9 2. Singapore 3.0 3. Japan 3.2 4. Sweden 3.2 5. Norway 3.3 33. United States 6.3 What do you think about them apples?

If you refer to "the same freakin stuff"to herr wierwille and pfal,I get that,Now the bible? Well,that is a horse of another color,I think a man can "miss it"and get the religious cult,stuff a life time. understanding the scripture?Takes faith,somthing you just gotta have,what works for one certainly will not work for another. Hence the same freakin stuff,we were all trained to be the same response,same obedience,heck for the guys same haicut suit and stupid smile,girls,dress, obedience to the one in charge. The founding fathers,Washington,Jefferson,Adams,even ole Tom Paine had morales,standards beliefs that were uncompromsing. Heck,It founded a country!Was it copied?Yep ,several sources ,From native americans to the Brits,France,Germany,Netherlands. Certainly it was not stolen,as said wierwille.Even the supreme court in the early days,the judjements were premises from the bible. One good thing about mathematics,science,is without respect to countries,religions causes.

That's OK (about not having time to post), My post got to stay at the top for three weeks. Always good to hear about someone having a big reason to smileWe all want to be of value to others, and you certainly are.

I LOVE MY NEW JOB!!! It is very inspiring. I teach developmental writing. My students include a guy pushing 60, who has foster children, a sweetheart of a lady who has great-grandchildren, for whom last week was her first week of college ever in her life, several former military and law enforcement, a bounty hunter, six deaf students (there are interpreters sitting next to me as I teach), and lots of traditional-age first-time college students. Lots of tatoos, every imaginable hue of person. Undiagnosed learning disabilities which kept some from being as successful in high school as they could have been. I.Q.'s all over the scale, including some very high. Many are holding down jobs and bringing up children, and going to school as well. Enrollment at this community college is up by 24% from this time last year. It's kind of like being a waitress at the lunch rush. I LOVE THIS. It's teaching folks who lost their jobs and are retooling to be competetive in the current economy. It's teaching people who need skills in order to get into the basic first year composition classes for college. This class is one of the gateways to their college educations, and to their futures. This is the closest that I have felt to being a minister since I left TWI. The very coolest thing about it is the lessons I am learning in courage and determination, from these students. They are amazing people. I am thankful for their good examples. I came for the job, but I'll stay for the students. Funny thing, that's what everybody who works there says. Anyway, sorry that I haven't had much time to post lately. I'm a bit overwhelmed for time. But it's very, very cool. Love you, niKa

yikes, you advocate civil war? Because some of us want health care to be more accessible to everyone? Just because you have access to the health care you need, please do not forget many of us do not. No one should die because they cannot afford health care, and no one should go broke because they get sick.

"...and JAL and his wife doing their thing ( hopefully), it's closer to the current board." Hmmm...where is JAL? Never hear about him with CES/STFI anymore. I doubt the move was the rent issue; the big city office was paid in full. And half the board lives in Michigan. More people are in the city; the move sounds like personal convenience.