markomalley

My wife did some large murals in a classroom one year...what she did was print off the picture she was using as a master and put it on an overhead projector and then traced from that onto the wall. If you had a friend as a teacher you might be able to borrow an overhead or maybe even a computer projector to shine the image up on the wall. Just a thought...

Wow, Cowgirl, those were some really nice pictures. Did you use the picture from http://www.myastrologybook.com as a template for the mural? Did you project it on the wall and trace or did you do everything by freehand?

Groucho, It's important because you see what THEY believed and what THEY considered important and what THEY had for emotional responses. When you're trying to reconstruct what happened, it's not so important whether the contents of what he was presenting were factual or not, it's important to see what was presented and what happened. Fact is that he presented some information. Whether or not that information was factual, non-factual but presented in sincerity {i.e., Geer believed it to be correct even though it wasn't}, or intentionally deceptive {Geer presented it as fact while knowing it was false} is not, in retrospect, as important as seeing the reactions to what was presented and what eventually happened because of it. Don't get me wrong: there is some importance to know if it was a power play or if it was simply a delusion but the bottom line is that these events were critical in the eventual implosion that freed the vast majority of people from TWI. As you correctly point out, we are likely dealing with a bunch of psychotics here...but seeing how the events all string together is critical. On a personal note, the final straw that broke the camel's back with me and TWI was the 'loyalty letter' put out in '89. Seeing the events that caused LCM's paranoia to blossom so much that he'd do something idiotic like publishing that letter is very satisfying to me. And if something Geer did helped push him over the edge into his fog of insanity that resulted in sending that letter out...I can't now look back and not be at least a little thankful for whatever caused him to do that. I say this because no matter how insane LCM was, in retrospect his publication of that letter turned out to be one of the best events to ever impact my life, because had that letter not ever been published, it's possible that I might have not gotten out when I did and would have endured a whole lot during the '90s like so many here have.

JumpinJive, You said, Mark: I'm not much of a philosopher and I never heard of Pascal's Wager until reading this thread. But isn't there something missing from that construct, i.e., a true knowledge of God? How do you know there is life after death if God exists? How do you know there isn't if He doesn't? That would depend upon the particular religious construct. The vast majority of religious traditions imply some continuation beyond death. Whether this consists of an afterlife or reincarnation or something else...almost any religion with which I am familiar believes that something happens at the end of days. Take your pick which tradition you'd want to apply. If there is no afterlife and no God, at the point of your death you simply won't know anything at all, because there will be nothingness. You will have whatever pain, whatever dreams, whatever else, but at the moment that the oxygen saturation in your brain drops to a level that is not capable of sustainment of the brain cells' functionality, they will cease producing their electrical impulses. You will go *poof* and there will be nothing. Total obliteration -- nothing remains one way or the other, becuase (according to this construct) man is nothing but an organic entity. In any of the religious traditions with which I am familiar (which is hardly a complete list), there is some sort of animating essence that makes you you. This animating essence is not organic (what, exactly, it is depends upon the specific tradition to which you subscribe). At the point of organic death, as described, this essence is not obliterated, as it is not organic. What happens to this essence is again described differently according to the specific tradition in question. However, any tradition with which I am familiar all point to the existence of this essence. Something that complicates matters, though, are impacts of hypoxia on the brain. A euphoric state occurs, often accompanied by hallucinations, when the brain is starved of oxygen. And so a person who has a "near death" experience may believe they have experienced an "out of body" situation, when all they are doing is feeling the effects of hypoxia. Although this phenomena happens, it neither validates nor invalidates the existence of that 'animating essence' described above, nor does it validate or invalidate the permanence or impermanence of that essence and the what happens to it after death. However, it is important to understand this because it explains the divergence of views from people who have experienced a near death experience (one would think that, if it was a truly spiritual event, literally every near death 'spiritual' experience would be identical...however, if it is simply an effect of hypoxia, that would not necessarily be the case). So the bottom line is the atheistic view is that there is nothing beyond death (you won't know because you won't be capable of knowing). On the other hand, in the theistic view is that there is an awareness after death of some variety (I am happy to be corrected if there are exceptions...I just don't know of any); therefore, you will know. You then continue, From what I can gather, attaining resurrection life from God is not an easy task. Jesus said as much on several occasions. He even said there would be people who do signs and wonders in his name but still won't get there. There are other biblical examples too. Only 2 of an estimated 2 million got to see the promised land after being called out from Egypt. Not even Moses got there! What makes you think you're going to make it? Maybe you're just another idolatrous infidel in His eyes. Then again, maybe you're His precious child. How do you know where you stand? That is the $64 question. I go with my own prejudices here on my answer...as does everybody else on this site...I will say this much, though, Jesus said that there all of the law could be distilled down to two concepts: love God and love your neighbor. Following those two precepts is undoubtedly the critical part of any system that I can think of. The questions develop when one asks how best to accomplish those two objectives and what should be done when one falls short of those two objectives.

Garth, the mere application of Pascal's Wager is not fear-mongering. It's simply deductive reasoning. A logical construct. That construct could be applied to any given religious model of your choice, applying their dogmatic framework to the four different options available in that wager. In any case, if I'm wrong, I slip into oblivion not realizing that I was wrong, happy in my misguided fantasy. If you're wrong, you will have long time to ponder your mistake (whether that pondering happens in fire and brimstone, as you say, sitting on a cloud strumming a lute while considering your foolishness, roaming the earth as some kind of a phantasm, or crawling on all sixes as a reincarnated cockroach). The nice part of this is, though, that your closed-mindedness prohibits you from even considering that option (although in your evangelical ranting, you criticize, ridicule, and insult theists for that very fault). To borrow a phrase, things that make you go hmmmmmm.....

LOL. Thanks, Danny The funny part about people like him is that, according to the Gospel According to St. Matthew (as I recall, a book not accepted as part of the Marcionite Canon), it will be impossible for his wish to ever be fulfilled (until the bride and bridegroom are reunited temporally). The funnier part is that people like him (who accept Matthew as being canoncial) will never be able to understand my preceding statement, while you (who rejects Matthew as part of the Canon) will understand it perfectly!

Garth, I just googled up Pat Tillman. Every account that I read, in between the oggling and idolatry said the following: <i>Several of Tillman's friends have said the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks influenced his decision to enlist. </i> An example is <a href="http://www.usatoday.com/sports/football/nfl/2004-04-23-tillman_x.htm">here</a>. Why did we go into Afghanistan? To exact revenge on the people who harbored the terrorists who took down the trade towers. And to hunt down and kill members of that terrorist organization. Sounds like revenge from a bruised national ego to me. Was it just? Yeah. But it was also revenge. Did Al Qaeda present a realistic threat to the integrity of the United States? Please... Did the country of Afghanistan present a threat to our national security? Puhleese. Was it a threat to our national pride? Sure. Was it a threat to stability? Yeah. A threat to security? Yeah, right. 9/11 influenced Tillman greatly. So he joined the Rangers. Why would somebody join the Rangers? To see action...to actually be in the fight... Oh, btw, I remember Tom Lykus from KFI radio in LA. He was a complete jerk then...

jkboehme, Perhaps an area that would be beneficial for you to consider would be the impact of VP's ultradispensationalism on the theology he promoted. Perhaps another area of interest would be the other scriptures he ignored in light of the ones he exalted...regardless of the dispensation he attributed to a book. I think that you would have a much better time deconstructing his theology on those bases.

Jumpin Jive, Sorry I didn't respond earlier to your response. Garth and I usually get into these arguments about one subject or another... I do not believe that Christians are the only moral people. I believe that there are many, many moral folk throughout, regardless of belief. I do believe that a belief in something larger than oneself is necessary to have a belief in moral absolutes, though (whether that something larger than oneself is Christ, Allah, the Goddess, Buddha, or whatever). I do believe that the correct interpretation and understanding of how God has revealed himself to mankind is through traditional, historic Christianity (vice many of the relatively recent heresies that have cropped up over the past 500 years)...but that is a completely different subject and would be a total derail of this thread. But, the bottom line is that, in my belief, there are some things that are absolute...while many things are varying shades of grey, to form that grey, one must have both black and white...and those absolutes need to be defined by something external to me...otherwise they can shift and would not thus be black or white. As far as your general doubts are concerned, it's regrettable but understandable. I don't know you anywhere near enough to offer any counsel to you in those regards and so I won't pretend to be able to do so. If you'd care to share some of your experiences then perhaps I can offer you some counsel (PT me if you'd like). Let me ask you this: prior to you ever being involved with TWI, did you believe there was a supreme being larger than yourself? Is your frustration with this or is it with the disappointments experienced because the situation did not live up to what you were taught through TWI? I ask because it would be a shame to destroy a faith in God because of the shortcomings of a theology you were taught for a while. Or you can simply tell me to MYOB....

Garth, Tillman was heroic, as are the vast majority of members of the military. However, like many who rush to the recruiting stand in the wake of an incident, his patriotism was situational...an emotional response. To repeat what I said earlier: <blockquote><i>As to your hero, Tillman, consider this: the morality that led him to volunteer his services was supremely situational. He was offended by the attacks by Al Qaeda and proceeded to, based upon this offense, volunteer to exact retribution on those who bruised his ego. Heroic, yes, but still supremely situational. </i></blockquote> Note: I did not use the term utilitarian as pertaining to Tillman, I used the term situational. He felt threatened and responded by "fight" rather than "flight." Not to downplay that, but there is a difference between somebody who abandons a peacetime career in the face of a threat as compared to somebody who volunteers his services regardless of the threat and regardless of the public sentiment. [keep in mind I say this as a person who went in the military in 1981 and retired in 2002] With any major event that impacts the country, there is a temporary upsurge of volunteers. The mindset of a person who volunteers as part of that upsurge is different than the mindset of a person who volunteers between the upsurges. And, btw, I am also not hardly trying to assert that only theists do careers in the military. There have been many atheists who have done so and many of them have served with distinction. But I just don't believe that Tillman is a good example for you to use. Garth, you state repeatedly that atheists are good people and that you folk have rock-solid mores. OK, fine. Could you please share with me the external authority or authorities you use to define what is right and wrong? What is your source for determining how to act in a given circumstance? I'm not trying to mock here, rather I'm just trying to understand. Is your ultimate authority "you" or is it something outside of you?

Amuse and puzzle...throw into a thorough ( :) ) rage...one way or another... LOL You state that your POV is based on absolutes...what would those absolutes be? What is the source of those absolutes? If man is the be-all and end-all, then man must be the absolute. And man can change, as you have been so wont to point out over the months and years we've been arguing. You have listed the example of stealing as being an absolute moral wrong. I can think of a number of secular states, including many that have made absolute pronouncements of atheism as the official state policy, where collectivisation was practiced and where farms and industries were nationalized for the state. The justification: to take the capital out of the hands of the bourgeoise. Murder might also be seen as an absolute, yet I'm sure we can think of many examples where infanticide has been justified based on circumstances. I'm not trying to invoke some form of Godwin's law here, but the point is that in an environment where man sets the standards based upon himself as the reference point, seemingly obvious 'absolutes' may end up all too relative. Utilitarianism is simply the concept of the ends justifying the means. The means may be altered as seen fit to accomplish the ends involved. And, no, I do not think that utilitarianism is a condition that solely afflicts atheists. A utilitiarian moral structure is one where the moral standards are adjusted to accomplish what is perceived to be a worthy goal. Taking the China one-child policy as an example, the "worthy goal" was one of limiting the population, seen as increasing too quickly. The mores that were altered included the value of a large family, abortion, formerly seen as a taboo being viewed as the correct thing to do, and so on. There are many more examples, but...enough And as for your not being an evangelical...I do like the qualifier you gave that you are no more evangelical than some Christians who post on this board. You are indeed a very fervent supporter of your belief system and very vocal in your support of it...as well as being very condescending, at best, of those who do not agree with that belief system. In addition, I detect a certain desire to convince others to subscribe to those beliefs. If that's not evangelical, I don't know what is... Oh, btw, Happy New Year

Clay, Garth is an evangelist and is afflicted with an evangelist's zeal. That's all...

No, Garth, it doesn't make me want to go hmmmm... And I am shocked that you believe that my faith is so shallow that I am motivated by the fear of eternal punishment. Sorry to tell you, but that is hardly the case. My motivation is more along the lines of being motivated by the goodness of God, rather than by fear. But, of course, that is all twaddle to you, so I will leave my motivations aside. One thing I would say, though, is that I am very sorrowful of you that, before you abandoned Christianity, that you never acquired a deep enough understanding to recognize that the primary motivation technique used by God is that of love. As to the Einstein quote and the witness of the great atheist martyr Tillman (since you all would reject the term "saint" being applied to one of your martyrs, what is the term that you all would use?), neither surprise me. But, again, your comments don't surprise me as you are incapable of understanding the words I wrote. You quoted my statement, If I did not believe in God, I would have no core reason to have a solid moral foundation in my life. Apparently, that statement through you into such a rage that you were unable to read the concluding statement of that paragraph: The root of my morals would not be there so the standards by which I live my life would be completely utilitarian rather than based on any absolute. One statement is incomplete without the other. The quote you cited from Einstein is quite telling, he validates my statement: he states that ethical behavior should be based effectually on sympathy, education, and social ties -- all utilitarian concepts. If his ethics are based upon his sympathy, his education, and his social ties, all of which can change over time and are situational, then there is no solid foundation upon which to base his life -- except what seems good to him. Perhaps another quote by Albert would be a little more revealing: It has often been said, and certainly not without justification, that the man of science is a poor philosopher. Why then should it not be the right thing for the physicist to let the philosopher do the philosophizing? Such might indeed be the right thing to do a time when the physicist believes he has at his disposal a rigid system of fundamental laws which are so well established that waves of doubt can't reach them; but it cannot be right at a time when the very foundations of physics itself have become problematic as they are now. At a time like the present, when experience forces us to seek a newer and more solid foundation, the physicist cannot simply surrender to the philosopher the critical contemplation of theoretical foundations; for he himself knows best and feels more surely where the shoe pinches. In looking for an new foundation, he must try to make clear in his own mind just how far the concepts which he uses are justified, and are necessities. As to your hero, Tillman, consider this: the morality that led him to volunteer his services was supremely situational. He was offended by the attacks by Al Qaeda and proceeded to, based upon this offense, volunteer to exact retribution on those who bruised his ego. Heroic, yes, but still supremely situational. I am not for a second saying that altruistic behavior is the sole provence of the theist. That's foolish. If you can manage to do so, please consider what I did say: that the altruistic behavior is simply situational and utilitarian. Not necessarily "bad," per se. You apparently took my post as an attack upon atheism. It wasn't. You are more than welcome to believe as you will and I will hardly be the one to argue with you. As I said in the original post: if I'm wrong, I've hurt nothing and have nothing to lose. If you're wrong, you'll have an eternity to contemplate that error (and I'm not even saying where or how that contemplation will occur...just that it would occur). That's not an attack: it's just a simple statement of deductive reasoning.

At my most cynical, I can state this: Suppose maybe there is, maybe there isn't. (I don't believe that, but let's just stipulate for the purposes of argument) My belief in God has resulted in no negatives through my life. I am more considerate of my fellow man than I otherwise would be, due to the belief that God's mercy applies to all and that, as a Christian, I am called to practice spiritual and corporal acts of mercy to my fellow man. I am called to love my fellow man and to live in a less materialistic manner than I otherwise would. I raise my child to have certain standards of belief and practice which are constructive and conducive to a well-ordered and caring society. Etc. etc. etc. If I did not believe in God, I would have no core reason to have a solid moral foundation in my life. Everything would be situational. If I saw a woman who was good enough looking where it would be worth the price, I would have no motivation against committing adultery. I would have no motivation for raising my child properly, other than to make my life easier. Honesty? When it's convenient, etc. Respect for human life? When convenient. And so on. The root of my morals would not be there so the standards by which I live my life would be completely utilitarian rather than based on any absolute. I believe in God. If, when it is all said and done, I am right, I believe that God, in His mercy, will overlook my shortfalls and grant me eternal life. If I'm wrong, no harm has been done and a lot of good has been done through my life and I won't ever know that I was wrong (after all, death to an atheist is nothing more than obliteration -- there is no awareness after death) If I didn't believe in God, I would more than likely live my life according to utilitarian morals...with the corresponding impacts. If, in this circumstance, I am right, then I will never know it. There is no awareness after death. But if I'm wrong, I will have an eternity to ponder that error. So, from my perspective, even looking at it from the most cynical point of view, there is nothing to lose and everything to gain by acknowledging God. And there is everything to lose and nothing to gain by denying His existence.

First, a child needs to be taught the goodness of God first and foremost. Building a desire to love God with all the heart is of upmost importance...and I don't care where you go on Sunday/Saturday/whenever. If that is uppermost in the mind, the rest follows. Secondly, one thing that I've learned from years of experience is that a reliance upon what some people THINK a church teaches may or may not represent what that church teaches. At best, it is an indication of how well it taught. More than likely, it's an indication of how well families passed on the traditions of that church. Again, I truly believe that statement applies wherever, not just with the Catholic church.

Going to bed early. Have to be up at 4 AM the next day (cooking breakfast for some homeless folk -- work starts at 5)

That's such a cynical view, but, unfortunately, one that is probably all too true. I know of parents and others in positions of authority from many, many denominations (including Catholics) who use that as a motivation to control their children. Don't get me wrong, I am not trying to state for a second that if a person dies in a state of mortal sin that they, through their own decisions, will not end up paying the eternal price for those decisions. But I truly never have seen such an emphasis on this reflected...as THE emphasis...in any teaching of historic Christianity. Again, don't get me wrong...I am not saying that it's not there, but it is not THE emphasis... Just like what is woven throughout the Pauline letters and, most specifically, in the first letter of Saint John, the EMPHASIS is a positive one: how to conform oneself to Christ, an emphasis on God's divine mercy, practical advice about the struggle against concupiscence (see Rom 7), and so on. Having said that, the impact of sin is perfectly obvious (cf 1 Jn 1:7 and 1:9 with 1 Jn 1:6, 8, 10). I have little respect for somebody who threatens a child with damnation as a method of control. Again, that is without respect for the denomination of the person doing the threatening. That may keep a child in subjection, but will never end up producing a child who ends up WANTING to do the right thing when it's up to them. Frankly, with that type of rearing, it is no wonder to me why there are as many ex-Catholics as there are (and why there are as many ex-baptists, etc.) And, by the way, I am saying this from the perspective of somebody who goes to Confession once a month and who tries to do a thorough examination of conscience every night before going to bed. And somebody whose daughter reminds him that it's time to go to confession if he forgets. And I will tell you that my motivation for doing so is rarely based upon a concern of the destination of my soul. My motivation is the conformance of my soul to Christ, the identification of those areas where my thoughts and actions have fallen short of that standard and the desire to receive the healing of God's mercy so that my soul can continue to be ever more closely conformed to Christ. But for fear of hell? I would certainly hope not... FWIW

The particular quotes he decided to extract for us (apparently as criticism), I don't actually see as any kind of a problem. Although, frankly, if he wanted to go through each of them in detail, I believe that it would be more appropriate to do so within the 'doctrinal' forum. One thing I'd caution anybody, though, is that the use of St. Anthony's Messanger as an authoritative source for Catholic doctrine is a risky venture...there are positions taken on that site that are heterodox and do not reflect the position of the Church. If one wishes to discuss Catholic doctrine, it is easy enough to go to the Vatican's site and review the text of the actual documents involved. Or there are other sites that are more orthodox that would provide a better view. For example: www.ewtn.com www.catholicculture.org www.biblicalcatholic.com www.adoremus.org www.catholicliturgy.com and so on. But Wordwolf, please recognize that folks like Oldies will never acknowledge that anything positive or good can possibly come out of the Church. Just part of life.

TheMex, et al: First, I need to correct a couple of potential, understandable misunderstandings that have been expressed about the Catholic Church on this thread. A statement was made that the Church teaches that nobody can be saved outside of the Church. If you understand the words that are being written there, that is an accurate statement. The Catholic Church is the universal church...the bride of Christ...all of Christianity is part of the Catholic Church. There are groups that are unfortunately schismatic with the Church. (Those include groups commonly known as Protestant denominations as well as others) -- but, whether they like it or not, they are part of the Church, even though they are separated from her. To the extent that one of these groups teaches authentic Christianity, one can be saved through the teachings of that group. For example, the Church received the sacrament of baptism from Christ as the method used by God to wash away all stain of sin, including original sin and to place an indelible mark on the soul of the baptized. Those individuals who are baptized will receive the benefits of baptism, whether they are baptized in a Catholic Church or by a protestant or whatever. But the key thing to understanding all of this is gaining an understanding that the Catholic Church is THE universal church. As far as the issue with Our Lady of Guadalupe, it was an apparation given to Blessed Juan Diego. The image on his tilma has defied scientific explanation. There have been almost as many studies done of it as there have been of the Shroud of Turin. The same result happens: the image can't be explained, particularly considering the technology available at the time. In general, though, adaptations of the liturgy and the attempt to find parallels between existing belief and Christianity is something done by missionaries since they've gone out. In fact, you can see that happening to a degree with the apostle Paul on Mars Hill. It helps the locals understand the concepts -- and I don't see a problem with it.

I posted what I did as yet another example of the egocentric theology promoted by TWI. This egocentric theology seeks to exalt men over God. This response is again a typical response from somebody caught up in that theology. See, the issue that many of us who have discovered one form of authentic Christianity or another have found is that the story is NOT about us. The story is about God. Although it's been over 15 years since I've been in a TWI group or have heard a Wierwille class, I still seem to recall a quote that said something about a Christian not being a sheep but being a MAN OF GAWD. Emphasis on the power that was available to the person who subscribed to VPW's teachings. And the emphasis was always on keeping everything in the control of the man. The result of that theology was MOG worship, pure and simple. I feel very sorry for you in all sincerity. Biased? Sure I'm biased. I've seen the inside of TWI teachings and seen the emptiness in the end of it. I've seen, through encounters with people on this site and through other encounters, the end result of that egoism. And I've seen the results when people actually abandon themselves to God, rather than trying, in their utter arrogance, to use "the power of God" as their own, personal, spiritual shovel (tool). No, my previous post was not a personal slam on you...it was instead a slam on the empty theology that you've decided to again embrace. BTW, I did read your post correctly...you may not have realized what you wrote.

So are we <u>trying</u> to start up a piffle debate here between the usual suspects on one side and everybody else on the other?

OK, now we're getting somewhere: 1) Use of weapons: TWI was widely reputed for having stockpiles of light weapons (small caliber rifles, shotguns, and the like). It would be reasonable to assume that the FBI would follow up on those suspicions to determine if there was any validity to them or not. Investigative records of that nature would be a reasonable thing to maintain. Once again, was there an illegal cache of weapons? Obviously the government was not able to locate one. Did they look? Maybe records to that fact would be in your stack of papers. If there aren't records, perhaps you could do another FOIA asking that specific question. 2) Misuse of funds. TWI lost, for a time, their tax exempt status. Records relating to that period would likewise be reasonable to maintain. There may have been fraud investigations conducted against TWI and appropriate people within TWI in connection with that loss of tax exempt status. To my knowledge, there was never any criminal prosecution against TWI or its board or its employees, so it would be reasonable to say that any issues that were connected to that were either determined to be a deficient accounting system that was non-compliant with IRS rules, negligence in accounting practices, or insufficient proof to assure conviction for any criminal fraud. Or a combination of the above. If you will recall, there were other religious organizations whose leadership were prosecuted as the result of fraud (e.g., Jim Bakker, etc.) -- this is not to say that I believe that TWI was not guilty of something, but rather that the government likely could not prove that acts were criminal. Perhaps information pertaining to that is in your stack of stuff. If not, you could FOIA the FBI and the IRS asking for records pertaining to TWI's loss of tax-exempt status. The Privacy Act doesn't include organizations, only individuals. So, with the exception of having the salaries of employees and board members, along with their social security numbers, redacted, you should be able to get plenty of information from a FOIA on that subject. 3) Anti-Semitism. We have enough witnesses on this board to demonstrate that anti-Semitic teaching went on during the 70s and 80s. Holocaust denial, etc. Unlike Germany, those beliefs are not illegal here. Thus, it is doubtful that the FBI would waste resources on an organization that simply taught those beliefs, because there would be no crime to prosecute. However, if there was indication of anti-Semitic activity (e.g., cross burnings, hate mail, threats, actual crimes) being committed by TWI or its followers, then it is possible that there could be some records existing on that subject. I have never heard of any of that type of activity from TWI, including on the Waydale board or this one. Not saying it didn't happen, but I just haven't seen it or heard about it (other than the teachings issue). A FOIA to the FBI and to other government agencies, including one to DOJ Hate Crimes unit and the US Attornies that cover the different locales (NK, Emporia, etc.), could provide a definitive answer one way or the other. 4) Mind Control. What statute does that cover? Let me give you a little extract from the FBI's Law Enforcement Bulletin to show you their attitude about the subject: Brainwashing Brainwashing stands as the most common allegation leveled against NRMs. Even the existence of brainwashing, however, is debated fiercely among behavioral scientists.9 Clearly, in cases where movements physically coerce inductees (e.g., depriving members of food or preventing them from freely leaving), definite grounds exist for law enforcement concern. In the majority of instances, though, NRMs try to attract members through the same methods used by missionaries in mainstream churches or secular movements. NRM members may approach strangers or distribute pamphlets in the hope of enticing the uninitiated to attend a series of classes or lectures about the group's belief system. At these sessions, groups commonly hold extended meetings or prayer services during which they emphasize and repeat certain themes or messages. Absent illegal activity, this process is entirely legitimate. Critics should not apply the term brainwashing to the NRM missionary and conversion process simply because they do not approve of or understand the religion in question. (source: FBI. Interacting with "Cults." Law Enforcement Bulletin. 69:9. Sept 2000. p 16) In light of this, it is highly unlikely that the FBI would maintain records on TWI discussing mind control, unless some other issue was involved, as well. Let me quote myself with something I said a bit earlier: The takeaway on this is that most of these people who were so deeply involved with all the conspiracy stuff were, for the most part, wannabes. When it came down to it, they abandoned ship when the going got too tough for them. But what characterized them in general was a feeling of powerlessness that they are able to overcome through believing in a conspiracy to explain their personal lack. You still haven't shown me that TWI, in the field of conspiracies, that is any more serious than that. I really believe that this is the extent of the TWI inolvement with this type of stuff. Troubling? Sure. Illegal? You'd have to prove that to me.

My TC was so hot on all 9, all the time; I love the attitude: My TC was so hot. My TC. Still the emphasis on man rather than the emphasis being on the goodness of God. The more committed I got, the more talk I heard, the less miracles I saw. Note the five-senses attitude here...the emphasis is still on seeing things. Evidences of power. Not an emphasis on the worship and adoration of God, but what kind of power am I seeing evidenced. How is man getting exalted? maybe you (and I do mean YOU) got wooded out because their was something wrong with you anyway. Again, where is the emphasis: on man. Constantly on man. Man performs miracles. Man talks. Man has something wrong with him. Man. Man. Man. Ego. Ego. Ego. Me. Me. Me. they would find that miracles are happening with TWI again. I can again say that I've seen amazing things. Again, Me. Me. Me. I. I. I. because those boys are back in town. Emphasis on man...still and for always. Thank God I can read the Bible Pity that this person can't understand what is written, to realize that the Bible is NOT about being an instruction book on how to manipulate spiritual power, but it is a love story showing how we were loved into living and how we are now to live that love in constant worship, thanksgiving, and adoration of God. ready for another day of believing God's Word. I only wish for this person's sake that this person would some day be able to actually understand God's Word so that it could accomplish it's goal: to reveal God to His creation. But as long as the arrogance revealed in the above comments continue, there is no way that this person will ever understand even that fundamental principle. There was always so much emphasis on 1 Corinthians 12 in TWI, but, as with so much, even this was horribly misinterpreted: 1 Cor 12:4-6 There are different kinds of spiritual gifts but the same Spirit; there are different forms of service but the same Lord; there are different workings but the same God who produces all of them in everyone. 1 Cor 12:18 But as it is, God placed the parts, each one of them, in the body as he intended. The constant emphasis here is God giving, God inspiring, God producing, God placing. 1 Cor 12:27 Now you are Christ's body, and individually parts of it. God placed the gifts, the forms of service, and the different workings (energemata) as He saw fit. Not to cause the exultation of the member who displays them, but for the building of the body...to the end that the body, along with each member, could live in closer communion with God. But what do we see: My TC was so hot on all 9, all the time; -- not a word of praise of God -- rather, we see exultation of man. And that is so typical, particularly in TWI. It's the epitome of an earthly mind. The arrogance is incredible.

Bramble/Mstar/doojable/Johniam If Johniam is correct with the reference about Luke 8:2-3, it's all too believable -- particularly with the KJV translation. "ministered to him with all of their substance" With the sexually twisted interpretation that the spiritual "biggies" applied to Bible, it makes sense that they'd teach that to justify their lecherous behavior. I can just hear it now: Those women ministered to Jesus with all of their substance. The literal according to usage of substance is "all that they are, with their entire bodies." Obviously a eumphamism for taking care of Jesus' physical needs so that he could minister God's word to the people. You, ladies, are called to do the same, since the MOG is the one standing in the gap today. [OK, so where is the *puke* smiley] (Oh, btw, for the record, the word rendered 'substance' in the archaic language of KJV is the greek word 'huparchonta' (verb participle), from the roots hupo (under) and archo (first) -- it means 'what one has') How in the world they could possibly arrive at sexual 'service' from that is beyond me. Guess I'm not spiritual enough for that...

Obviously, I cannot speak to literally everybody who was in the military and involved with TWI, nor can I speak to literally everybody who was in the military and was Jewish, or Catholic, or Baptist, or Wiccan, or Muslim, or Buddhist, or Atheist, or whatever. And it is entirely possible that a person who was from any of the above religions could commit espionage. I can think of people who were Jewish, and Catholic, and Baptist, and Muslim, and Atheist who have, in fact, committed espionage. Was their religious preference a factor in the espionage? Very possibly. I know in the case of Jonathan Pollard, he sold his information to an Israeli spy. I know in the case of Chaplain Yu (Muslim), he acted as a courier path between Al Qaeda detainees at Guantanamo and Al Qaeda contacts on the outside. The other cases that I am familiar with were done for other reasons, such as political and financial. Having said that, should Muslims be prohibted, because they are Muslim, from holding a clearance? How about Jews? I don't know of a TWI person who has committed espionage. I also don't know of a buddhist who has. So are those groups beyond suspicion? Who knows... I know of people affiliated with a certain denomination who will go into debt to pay offerings to the leadership of this denomination. Some of these people treat relics touched by the hand of the leaders as if they were talismans. They latch onto every word spoken by a leader within the denomination as if it came out of the mouth of God himself. Certain members of this denomination have made allegations of abuse. And so on. The denomination is not TWI. It is not Catholic. It is a fairly mainstream evangelical Protestant denomination. I don't want to offend, so I will leave the exact denomination name out of the discussion, because it is irrelevant. Because some within that denomination are that fanatic and that brainwashed should everybody who goes to church in that denomination be suspect? Because a few of the leaders of that denomination promulgate those beliefs among the faithful, should all the leaders be suspect? One thing you need to realize is that the military has its own form of indoctrination and that this indoctrination is a lot more effective than TWI indoctrination ever was. The majority of people I have known in the military, particularly the majority who have made a career of it, have a degree of mental discipline and toughness that is not really the norm in the civilian community. Not that military people are at all superior or anything, but the day-to-day training that happens through years helps inculcate that in people. Face it, if a civilian screws up on the job, maybe a balance sheet is not right or a window is dirty or something else. If a person in the military (particularly those in certain specialities) screws up, somebody will die, a nuke will go off, a war will start, a $100 million plane will crash, etc. The norm for training the mind must be a lot tougher. Again, that's not to say that there aren't civilian occupations with this type of responsibility, but the amount of responsibility taken on by the military people is, on average, a lot more and, on average, comes a lot faster than with civilian counterparts. You are going to have bad people everywhere. You are going to have vulnerable people everywhere. Put the two groups together and you are going to have problems everywhere. But that doesn't mean with everybody from that particular demographic. What I'm saying is keep reviewing your telexes. Give me some proof of your allegations. My learned opinion of Wierwille was that he was a conspiracy nut. (See earlier definition) And that he spread that conspiracy nuttiness to his followers. And conspiracy nuts talk big...often without anything to back up the talk. But I'm willing to listen and learn. I am absolutely happy to help analyze which of those telexes you choose to post or otherwise publish. And if I see something that is of note, I'm happy to show the connections that make it of note. If you can tell me about a TWI person who committed espionage with the recipient of that information being TWI, I might change my mind. IF you can show me some evidence that TWI was actively attempting to get national security information (about nukes or not) from its members, I'll be happy to evaluate it. But the facts you've shown are as follows: 1. A WOW stated that he believed TWI was trying to build a bomb. This was refuted by another WOW. 2. Female WOWs were trying to recruit military folk for TWI. 3. A commissioned officer who was, at one point, running military outreach for TWI, was working in the program office at NAS Patuxent River MD that dealt with UAVs. (And, btw, that is a long way from the WH and is absolutely no guarantee that he ever possessed a Yankee White -- the level of access required for unescorted access to the WH) Those FACTS don't tell me anything that even comes close to substantiating any allegation that I see you trying to build. Please, give some more FACTS.