markomalley

Note to mods: I am confident that this thread will eventually make its way, as if by magic, to the 'tacks section. Request you leave it in 'open' as long as possible so as to give those who don't play in the mosh pit a chance to comment (as The View is, by all accounts, a fairly successful daytime TV show...even without the spectre of politics) Now back to the regularly scheduled thread: TMZ.com reports: There is a strong buzz in Hollywood that Rosie O'Donnell will announce Wednesday (April 25th) that she is leaving "The View." For the rest of this short article, please refer to the TMZ.com website. Comments? I am not so much looking for the political angle on this (thus posting it in 'open'), but I"m more curious for opinions from those who watch the show. Was her tenure on the show a good addition or a mistake? If you watch the show, will you miss her presence? I have never seen the show (other than the political outtakes), so have no opinion other than it will be a little less humor out there.

Sorry. I don't have too much bad to say about J0e Gu@r!ni (is that cryptic enough to avoid editing???). I also don't have too much bad to say about my local branch coordinator (at the time I left in '89). (Having said that, the branch coordinator before him was about a horse's a$$, but that wasn't what you asked). I s'pose I could come up with bad things to say about both of them...but, hey, after 18 years, what does it really matter?

Rocky, Thanks. But the horse died a long time ago.

My thoughts exactly!

Caution: coarse language I'm sure we all we had a dad like that! (/sarc) Related story on TMZ

Wait, you mean that Baptists and Methodists aren't eeevvviiilll??? :spy:

I am not one of these 20-30 year TWI veterans (I was only 'in' for a few years and was never in Way Corps or anything else) and so may have the wrong concept here), but there is something that I see as a disconnect between TWI practice and Christianity that I hadn't considered before. It seems that the leadership in TWI set themselves up as rulers of those who were TWI followers (I would say members, but I seem to remember that only the BOT were actually 'members' of TWI...). We read that all women in TWI belonged to VPW (using the analogy that all women in a kingdom belonged to the king). I read that the leadership used followers as slave labor with the threat of shunning if the follower refused to provide the free services. It seemed that, in joining TWI, the membership essentially committed themselves to servitude to the leadership...be it local (twig) leadership, state (limb) leadership, or ministry-wide leadership. I contrast that with the attitude within Christianity. Jesus washed the apostles' feet. He told the apostles that to lead, they must serve. I see that the apostles, in taking on their ministries, literally gave up everything in order to go forth. I see that their leader (Jesus) served. He fed the poor. He led an itinerant life. He slept where He could. Yes, He let people give Him honor (annointing Him, washing His feet with tears/ hair, triumphant entry into Jerusalem, etc.), but He never forgot service first. Ultimately, He gave His life. His apostles followed His example, as well...as each and every one of them (with the sole exception of John), were martyred. You can see that with truly holy men and women throughout Christianity's history. A basic heart of service and a basic heart of giving everything up for Christ. Not to say that there weren't and aren't abuses, also, throughout history, as well (I think particularly of televangelists). But, in the majority, the heart was the leaders (particularly clergy) serving...and not only serving Christ but emulating Christ in serving those whom they shepherd. But do I see this fundamental disconnect between TWI and Christianity accurately? Is/ was there a fundamental attitude of "serve me" versus "service"? Was it always that way? If not, when did that creep in? I appreciate any insights I can get on the matter.

Fair enough answer. Of course, not one that many others would agree with, but it is useful to understand the evolution in your thought process. Thanks.

Mike, It's not so much the issue of the authoritative Bible but the relative authority of anything taught by Wierwille that I question and caused me to get Church Lady's comments. Unlike fundamentalists, I believe that the purpose of the written Bible is to reveal Christ, with Whom we should have our relationship...therefore, the subject of the accuracy of translations, the validity of the manuscripts compiled, the existence of the originals penned by Luke, Mark, etc., are placed into context. Since I don't have the issue about basing each and every decision in my life upon what is written in a KJV, NIV, NASB, or whatever, it is not as critical to me. A relationship with Christ is the critical issue, not some special gnosis that I might gain from conjugating Aramaic verbs. As to the Canon of the New Testament, accepted almost universally within the Christian Church and by other groups that call themselves Christian (to include TWI), it developed slowlly over time but was first codified (canonized, if you will) by the Catholic Church in the Council of Carthage a few hundred years AD (I can look the date up if you'd like). Carthage was a regional synod, not an ecumenical council...but was the first time that the entire canon was documented and voted upon by any body (as opposed to anybody). But I, too, do not really intend to engage you in a debate on the relative merits of TWI, the teachings of VPW, or whatever else. Frankly, we do not have a common basis of reference by which we could intelligently have a discussion with any hope to develop a consensus. As long as you rely upon references that I do not consider as valid (PFAL, the PFAL collaterals, VPW's writings in the Way Mag, etc.), you cannot develop a thesis to which I could subscribe. It would be about as ludicrous as me asserting that the Catholic Church is the only true Christian Church and arguing the point with you using Boniface VIII's Bull Unam Sanctum as my prima facie authority proving my point. You would say that my argument was just plain Bull. And, considering the audience, you'd be right in doing so. Bottom line: let's not waste each other's time. Having said that, the question is still open that is on the topic of the thread: when you left did you re-evaluate what you were taught while in TWI? Don't believe I ever saw an answer to that question.

If that happens, Mike will be talking to himself and/ or to the N00b's. I don't think many more of us would choose to engage him. (at least I hope not)

Mike, Welcome back! Glad to see you around and still plugging on it! One thing to say on that: Isn't that SPECIAL?!

It seems to me that you are asking three questions. 1. Does the life (professional and personal) of church leadership affect the doctrine of that church? 2. Did the life (professional and personal) of TWI leadership affect TWI doctrine? 3. Does the behavior of leadership affect the way that followers think, make decisions and behave? Those three questions have some interesting answers: First, the behaviors can, but do not always affect doctrine. A couple of examples where it has: The Church of England. Although members will deny it, the reason why the Church of England split from Rome was so that Henry VIII could get his divorce. Once he got his divorce, it became easier and easier to grant divorces to the followers. The Great Schism of 1054. Part of the rationale for the schism was that the Bishop of Rome (a/k/a the Pope, a/k/a the Patriarch of the West) was attempting to exert more control over the Eastern Patriarchates (Constantinople, Antioch, Jerusalem, Alexandria). After that schism, the view on centralized administration in the West (i.e., Rome) became more and more tightly controlled, while the patriarchates of the east remained essentially autonomous. It's a little more complex than that, but there is definitely an evolution. But, on the other hand, it doesn't always need to be that way: there are numerous examples out there were sinful, fallen individuals have still managed to uphold, publicly, correct doctrine (in the terms of the group to which the doctrine refers), regardless of their private sins. Second, did this happen in TWI? Well, it seems apparent, based on others' inputs, that some of the doctrinal points were adjusted in TWI to accommodate the particular foibles of the leadership. I'm sure others will do a far better job in outlining the details of this than I ever could. Third, does the behavior of leadership affect the way that followers think, make decisions and behave? Undoubtedly, particularly when the leaders end up adjusting their doctrine to accommodate the sins of that leadership. If leadership endorse and promote homosexuality in order to justify their homosexual behavior, the followers, if they remain followers, will adjust their personal beliefs...and potentially their personal behaviors...in accord with that teaching. If leadership teach that giving 15% is the minimum, followers who remain orthodox to that teaching will feel guilt if they give less than that 15%. The question, in my mind, should reflect how much emphasis is placed on orthodoxy within a given faith group.

Whether the individual was a foreign national or not is irrelevant. I am all in favor of controlling immigration and have expressed myself to the nth degree reflecting that; but there are valid reasons for controlling immigration and there are not. This is not one of them.

WASHINGTON, April 16 (Reuters) - At least 22 people, including the suspected gunman, were killed and many others were wounded on Monday in a shooting rampage at Virginia Tech university, police and university officials said. Source:Reuters (modcat5 edited title of this thread: number of dead increased).

Rocky, Thanks

How about this as a novel idea for people who were once involved with TWI: How about respecting the person's freedom of religion and freedom of association, as long as, in the practice of his/ her religion, he/ she inherently disrespects your rights to yours? Me, personally, I've known several Wiccans throughout my life. While their beliefs and practices are definitely NOT my cup of tea, I haven't noted that any of them were evangelistic at all in their beliefs. Yes, more than happy to answer questions, but definitely not pushing them down your throat. Seems to me that most who are out to condemn others for their beliefs need to yank the plank from their own eye and fix themselves and their internal groups, before criticizing others. I find it funny that somebody preaches about material abundance while driving a wow-mobile. I find it funny that somebody preaches inner peace, but needs tranquilizers to get to sleep at night. I find it funny that somebody judges others about sexual purity but gets his/ her needs filled by prostitutes (paid or otherwise). (No, none of the above are TWI slams...they can fit multiple groups) Bottom line: live the life that you are advertising, clean your own house, and then start judging others. Again, this is HARDLY an endorsement of Wicca or Paganism in general; rather, this is an endorsement of their right TO BE Wiccans or other varieties of Pagans.

Did I re-evaluate my beliefs: YES. After being out for 10 years, I finally got through my thick skull that maybe, just maybe, I was mistaken in my beliefs. So I took a fresh look and found that the TWI beliefs could not be justified. (I know that others will disagree) What were the circumstances of my leaving: I disappeared in conjunction with a military move, shortly after the "loyalty letter." I re-emerged for a little bit a couple of years later...with some offshoot organizations...but it didn't really last...

Yeah, religion is a dirty word with a number of folks. Again, a re-definition of a perfectly good word. (Or at least a relatively neutral word one way or the other) Religion is simply a belief in a supernatural and the system of belief, worship, and conduct that goes with that belief in the supernatural. That system of belief, worship, and conduct can be almost non-restrictive or can be as extreme as involving human or animal sacrifice. (You will note that I am not expressing approval or disapproval of any of those beliefs) I would submit that each and every one of us have a religious system at some level. Some of those may involve a supernatural deity (or deities) that one may identify as the transcendent supernatural object of the religion; with some, the pre-eminent object of the religion may be man (as an abstract), creation (i.e., the world around us), or some transcendent non-theistic idea of goodness to which to aspire. We all have codes of conduct. The majority of us have transcendent goals toward which we strive, we all have objects of some variety of worship. (consider worship to be some form of adoration) To some of us, that object is a god; to some of us, that object is an idea; to others, that object is ourselves.

It's interesting how these word-faith people pervert the usage of Rom 4:3 For what does the scripture say? "Abraham believed God, and it was reckoned to him as righteousness." If you look at the history of Abraham, you find that Abraham did, in fact, believe God...God said do, and Abraham did. God said go, and Abraham went. God said sacrifice and Abraham sacrificed. Does Abraham's history reveal that he "named it and claimed it?" Does Abraham's history reveal that he needed a car, found the promise verse, and said, "Well, I need a car, so I may as well believe for a Lamborghini?" Or for that matter, does Abraham's history reveal that he ever memorized a few promise verses from Scripture and then used those verses to twist God's arm to get him something he wanted? Or are there any other good examples of this through scripture? Abraham or otherwise?

Musical Instrument Digital Interface A MIDI can be used to control a synthesizer, like the one in your computer, but it can also be used to control digital musical instruments and can be used to record what is made on those digital instruments.

Thanks...

Belle, That confirms the suspicion that his stock trade would likely be considered an *insider trading* incident if the SEC (Securities and Exchange Commission -- US government) has jurisdiction on the trade. They did not make a press release until mid March Since the company is a Canadian company and traded in that country, I am not sure what jurisdiction the SEC would have (thus the second post). Insider trading laws are pretty strict in this country, as a result of some of the scandals that have happened in the past. This guy would have had access to that internal information before other shareholders would have had access to it, thus giving him an unfair advantage. That is a criminal offense (again, in this country). To repeat, though, I don't know what the trading laws are in Canada. He may have been totally within his rights to do what he did by their rules.

David, The *law* of believing is hardly unique to TWI (TWI and offshoots may be the only ones to use the *terminology*, but NOT the concept). Almost all Televangelists use the same thing. It is called "Word-Faith" movement and there is a whole (flawed) theology built up around it. This movement takes a verse like 1 Jn 5:14 (And this is the confidence which we have in him, that if we ask anything according to his will he hears us.) and pervert it into having little memory cards so that we can reference the Bible verse we want when we want to "claim a promise," sort of like a fortune cookie, rather than aligning our will to God, when we won't desire anything that is not within His will. Christianity that is responsive to our will, rather than modifying our will to Christianity. BTW, you may want to look at this thread which covered the topic about a year ago.

Menu Foods' Income Fund (mew.un) chart. The company is a Canadian company and, apparently, the stock is only traded OTC in this country. That also means that they would fall under Canadian trading rules, not American ones. (I am not at all familiar with the insider trading rules in Canada) Having said that, if you want to make your voice known as a consumer, you could either call or write: Menu Foods Investor Fund 8 Falconer Drive Streetsville, ON L5N 1B1 (905) 826-3870

Well, there is a realistic possibility that he may be hit with an 'insider trading' charge by the SEC, if they can link this to unpublished information about the tainted pet food. We would need to know the first time that the company released some notice about the food. If they made a press release prior to his dumping his company's stock, then he's safe (and entitled to do as he wishes). If not, then he may be in for some problems. In my company, they caution us repeatedly about making trades on our stock based upon something we 'know' at work. My last company did the same thing. I would assume that any publically held company would do so as part of their mandated ethics training curricula. As an addendum to my previous post, I just checked their corporate website and they've taken their investor relations page off line...which is NOT a good sign.