Tom

You're quite welcome, alfakat. Isn't there something very freeing in not knowing it all - and not having to? Results don't depend on you and your knowledge. You get to trust. And walk on water.

Here is something that I just posted somewhere else that seems to me to fit here also: Thanks a lot for the scratch. Quote: How do I define Christian? How about anyone who considers Jesus as Lord/Savior/Son of God? So, then am I right in assuming that since you don't consider yourself a Christian, that you don't consider Jesus to be Lord, Savior, or Son of God? Just making sure. Quote: ...who am I to set up standards to judge anyone's authenticity? Of course, the classic TWI answer would be you ["who am I"] would not be doing the judging, the Word would be. Actually, this arguably would be Jesus' answer to the same question. John 12:47 And if any man hear my words, and believe not, I judge him not: for I came not to judge the world, but to save the world. 48 He that rejecteth me, and receiveth not my words, hath one that judgeth him: the word that I have spoken, the same shall judge him in the last day. Of course that brings us back to what is a Christian, but one would think that, of all people, Christ would know what a Christian is - and even his reasoning was I'm not judging, the Word is. I agree with Jesus on that reasoning. But, of course, so do the "Trintarians and Unitarians, those who believe that every syllable of the bible was put in place by God and those who believe that the bible is purely the work of men, and all opinions in between." So, while I completely agree with Jesus thinking on this, neither my agreement nor Jesus' thinking stated above help us mitigate the crossfire involved in the diverse field of play of "Trintarians and Unitarians, those who believe that every syllable of the bible was put in place by God and those who believe that the bible is purely the work of men, and all opinions in between." So, let's step outside of the box and look at what's going on in the box from the outside. A rose by any other name... But that doesn't mean that any other thing were it called a rose would be one. A rose is what it is regardless of what we call it. And so is everything else. To go beyond that is to make too big a deal about terminology to the loss of the realization of the nature of things, candor, and truth. Just as we can speak and write our language without knowing the names of the parts of speech, so we can love and react to our true natures without knowing the names of the states of our natures. Btw, so also we can use and respond to figurative language witout knowing the names of the figures. Nomenclature, in any study, is a convenience for purposes of classification and discussion. Here lies the pivitol point in our discussion and the reason, the necessity I believe, to consider the bible in a discussion of what a Christian is. I don't think it is a matter of whether the bible is literal or figurative as much as it is a matter of whether or not the bible has integrity. For figurative language is a lot more precise than modern consideration gives it credit for, and literal language is a lot less precise than people suppose. Figurative language can shame literal language in its ability to communicate living truth, and literal language is as woefully deficient to communicate sound thinking as the mind behind the mouth that speaks it. That's because all language interprets itself in its context - as does everything else in life. Language is generally relatively (relative to a consideration that there is any kind of absolute truth concerning the nature of things) imprecise. Many words have multiple meanings. Even supposedly precise dictionary meanings will vary somewhat with each usage depending upon its context. Language is just a fluid thing over time and circumstances. Theoretically, the more we know about something - historically, socially - demographically - the more understanding we will have of a thing. But "everything" is a big field to play in. Even people with a broad scope of knowledge will have their perspective skewed in one direction or another somewhat, and nobody knows it all. The bible says that God has purified language. Psalms 12:6 The words of the LORD are pure words: as silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times. In a furnace of earth - hymph, that's curious. I believe that earth element carries over in the analogy. I my life, God has done a remarkable job of purifying the meaning of his communications to me in the context of my life. IN MY LIFE, I can't get around his words to me. I think God does that. Its a God thing, a thing God does in his communicating with people. And likewise I think his word is like that. Actually, I think it IS that - just in other people's lives. That's God's integrity interacting with our lives. I've been awed by word studies. I've been awed by going back to the first usage of things in the bible. I don't find that the bible always interpretes itself that way, the way that TWI taught it would, but I find that it does it too many times to be coincidence. So what? I find the Word of God has integrity, but the bible is not THE WORD OF GOD with a capital blah, blah, blah. I believe there are other parts of the Word of God that are not in the bible. Is everything in the bible the Word of God? I mean besides corruption over the years. I think so. The order of it? I'm not so sure. I'm sort of overwhelmed by the seven church epistles and their order. I'd like to know more about the bible, the canon, & so forth. But to tell you the truth, for the present time, there are other things I'm more into. The sermon on the mount is just absolutely amazing me. I've been over it I don't know how many times in the last month or so. Every time I read it or listen to it or discuss its truths, it balances my life and centers it in God so that the issues of my life outward flow out from God. There's this guy at work. Umm, his brother was murdered a couple of years ago. He got cancer and it - I don't know the word, starts with "M," spread through his body. He was given so many months. I ministered to him and healed him and his health immediately did a 180. I know that for his healing to stick, he has to change the base of his life from the darkness that invaded his heart and family as a result of the murder to what it means to be a Christian. I don't pretend to comprehensive knowledge of Cancer and its cure, but these things I know. So, I'm teaching him Galatians about freedom from the law and Ephesians about the beauty of the organism that is the body of Christ with our vital lives in the spirit together as members in particular. Its coming alive with him and some others at work and their families. To me that's what it means to be a Christian. Does it have anything to do with how literally I take the bible or whether or not I believe the bible is "God-breathed?" No. Yes. Somewhat - in certain regards. But what really matters is getting God to speak to us - to get his Word to us - right here - what we need - right now - with power - to us - to be interpreted in the context of our lives. The bible - figures in. Its always - well many times - there. But it is not the thing and no one thinks it is. Its not an organized church thing. We've all gone outside the camp to where the lamb is - to where he was sacrificed. It's where the healing is. Can I say God's love be upon you? Tom

No problem with those points, sky. I never meant to give the impression that the term ever could be completely disassociated from a sexual act no matter what other connotations or denotations be involved. I also agree completely that TWI used that exact fallacious disassociation as a cover for their sexual practices. I just don't care about their excuses as much as I care about your excuses and my excuses (not that they are the same as TWI's excuses) and Jesus' approach to us to get us to be honest concerning our heart's loyalties so that our marriages can be healed. Just my attempt to take the Word personally. I don't think the horse is without life until he's served his purpose and the healing has been delivered. But I won't belabor the point (or perhaps I won't belabor the point any more :)-->). Best regards, sky, Tom

I was on the Way International Marketing Dept. No big deal if no one remembers, but we were selling the Way books door to door. I was going throughout an office bldg and I went throught the door of an office. Right in front of me was a man at a desk who looked awefully sick. I didn't introduce myself or anything. The first thing I said was, "Aww, you look awefully sick!" He said, "I am." The next thing I said was, "Do you believe in the power of prayer?" Yes. Do you believe that if I pray for you that you will be healed? Yes. Would you like me to pray for you right now? Yes.And I did. And immediately I left. I never did try to sell him anything or even tell him I WAS selling anything, invite him to fellowship or say anything about it. I never even did tell him my name. I don't know what the heck he thought about what had just happened, but I bet he was healed. Here is what I think. The good old days were good for those who were fortunate enough to be there. But consider this. They were good because you made a decision to walk out and believe God and see the things that he promised about healing come to pass. Do it again. I don't care where you are; you have been placed in the body where it has pleased God - even if you feel totally displaced, you are surrounded by others who have been displaced - if not from TWI, from somewhere or not. It doesn't matter. As people have been saying, TWI is nothing, but God who gives the increase. Open your eyes. The fields might not appear ripe for harvest, but there is someone next to you who would like to grow and needs to be healed. Heal them. If they don't know or believe, teach them - then heal them. His yoke is really easy, and his burden really is light. Don't you remember? Ask him to remind you and open the door. All you have to do is walk through when it does. Remember?

Thanks for the further explanation, sky - good post! Okay, agreed. I don't think so either. I do & I think you are absolutely correct. I don't understand this statement, sky, especially in the light of your previous statements. If Jesus' words "hath committed adultery with her already in his heart" are not figurative, then it is possible to commit adultery in the heart. I'm caught between Dan who takes exception to the term "spiritual adultery" and you who will accept "spiritual adultery or heart adultery." I don't want to get hung up in the semantic rut that Dan spoke of. I'm not fighting here for a term. The term "spiritual adultery" may be okay or it may be a funky TWIism to be avoided - AND to make communication here all the harder. I'm fine with your understanding of "fantasy" or "chasing after the person." The point is that Jesus calls it adultery and it takes place in the heart. It's not temptation to be cut off. It's a done deal. That "higher level in the brain" that you spoke of is where consummation resides. It (whatever it is - & I think you know what I mean just the way that you said "u know what I mean" has happened in the heart and it is called adultery by Jesus. Adultery can mean anything from extramarital sex to making something impure by adding extraneous, improper, or inferior ingredients. Where do we place this usage? Suffice it to say that it really is literally, not figuratively,adultery, that it takes place in the heart, and that it keeps the marriage out of the heavenly state God intended for marriage. Lastly, you stated: Absolutely! Because his viewpoints are a matter of the heart, not just the actions. But consdider this. Jesus said to come unto him, all of us who labour and are heavy laden, and he will give us rest. Why? Because he is meek and lowly in heart and we will find rest to our souls if we take his yoke upon us and learn of him. If we are meek and lowly...I figure that this adultery business is on a higher level than that of the Pharisees. The higher, more stringent if you will, level is the level of the loyalties of our hearts. Be meek and lowly with regard to the loyalties of our hearts, and we will dwell in heavenly places and find rest to our souls. That yoke is easy. That burden is light. I'm just trying to say that kind of honesty will save our marriages. Or not. It takes two. But that's what this thread is about. And that's the level honesty has to dwell in to bring about resolution and redemtion - with respect to marriage. I'm presuming that's what is behind this - I know it is not semantics. Jesus wasn't about either the Pharisees or semantics - he was about what it is. Learn of him. Find rest. It's really a pleasure speaking with you, sky. God bless your heart down deep where you live. Tom

Thanks for the explanation, sky. I think I understand what you're saying. Let me see. Are you saying that committing adultery in one's heart is a figure of speech - not literally true, but said for emphasis to get a point across, the point here being, as you said, "if we censure our heart, the problem goes away and u wouldnt committ the act?" Jesus talks about committing adultery in the heart, but he doesn't really mean that literally? There just seems to be too much there in the record and elsewhere to indicate that is not the meaning. For one thing, there is the time element. As you indicated, Jesus is plainly stating that one who looks to lust after has already committed adultery before he ever gets to the bed. For another, Jesus is going beyond physical adultery considerations, not just for emphasis; but he's saying that even if one was to go without committing adultery in bed, they still couldn't get into the kingdom of heaven without this greater righteousness that he's talking about - that's quite a difference. It's much more than a wise saying to make a point so we don't commit adultery in bed. It's a real difference between a standard of righteousness that was presented by the Pharisees representing Moses and a new standard that Jesus was presenting. Proverbs 4:23 Keep thy heart with all diligence; for out of it are the issues of life. The issues of life proceed from the heart, not from between the legs. Matthew 15:19 For out of the heart proceed evil thoughts, murders, adulteries, fornications, thefts, false witness, blasphemies:The heart is not just the place where temptation starts; it's where the decisions of life happen. If someone steals something, he decides to do so before he ever acts on it. Jesus is the healer of broken hearts because that's the arena he works in because that's where life happens. Likewise, if we want our hearts, our lives, our marriages, families, and other relationships to be healed, we have to attend to the "affairs" of our hearts. The loyalties of our hearts determine whether we enter into the kingdom of heaven (God), and I'm not talking about salvation; I'm talking about the heavenly things that we can enjoy in this life - as was Jesus. That's the righteousness that exceeds the righteousness of the Pharisees without which Jesus said, "Ye shall in no case enter into the kingdom of heaven [in the marriage relationship in our discussion]." Tom

Ah, excellent post yourself, Dan (thanks for the compliment). Control the vocabulary, and one controls the range of possibilities in the argument. I'll think twice before I use the term spiritual adultery again. Perhaps I'll never use it again. Or perhaps I shall. But I appreciate the opportunity to engage in open-minded discussion about it and think this thing through with you. I like your viewpoint of considering "a 'spiritual' ANGLE [emphasis added] to adultery" rather than "a 'spiritual' DOPPELGANGER [emphasis added] of adultery, as if the 'physical' version wasn't bad enough." The "angle" angle fits better. But only where the relationship is one to one: spiritual to physical adultery (guess I just used the term already). Actually, I don't think the "physical" version is bad enough to convey the reality many times - but that's an aside. The thing is that I'm not as all convinced that spiritual adultery is always restricted to the spiritual angle to adultery. I think phrases like "whoring after other gods" fall within the realm of spiritual fornication or adultery but are much broader in scope than the spiritual angle on "physical" adultery. The illicit sexual character of the phrase is apparent, but there is no justification for restricting the physical counterpart to adultery. It includes putting any god before the true God in a manner characterized as whoring. "Did the Way leaders for one minute consider the spiritual 'side' of the physical adultery they were committing?" I don't know, Danny; I wonder. No such considerations ever made it to the forefront of any "doctrinal" teaching concerning the spiritual 'side' of the physical adultery they were committing - that's for sure. Any possible pangs of conscience deferred to personal security and systemic considerations. The idea that "spiritual fornication" was the act of believing the trinity - you know, by definition - was ludicrous. Any attempt to restrict the concept to that had to have been a ploy of excuse and political advocacy. Speaking of the heart of this thread - I am still speaking with you, Danny, but more directly with sky here. Abigail said: Sky responded Again, Jesus said, "Ye have heard that it was said by them of old time, Thou shalt not commit adultery, but I say unto you, that whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart." It seems to me, Sky, correct me if I'm wrong, that when you say you don't "think someone can commit adultery without actually having sex with someone who is not their spouse," you are taking the position of the Pharisees described by Jesus as something that "was said by them of old time" in contrast to the saying of Jesus "that whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart?" I don't want to be inflammatory here; I just don't see it any other way. Correct me if you have another perspective on it that I don't see.

I just got this email while I was reading yours, Johniam: Hello, Thomas We've shipped Moody Blues: A Night at Red Rocks with the Colorado Symphony Orchestra to you. You can expect to receive it on or around Wednesday, February 23, 2005.

Using the Word deceiptfully the way "The Way" did messes with truth in two ways. First, there's the screwy doctrines TWI came up with. In retrospect, many of them are now obvious to us as are the bad fruit of following such doctrines. Second, and more insidious, are the many losses of the right applications of the truths that TWI twisted to their own destruction. We readily reject the idea of spiritual adultery as TWI used it as an excuse for physical adultery - and rightfully so. But then, having no right understanding of the concept of spiritual adultery, we reject the whole concept as unbiblical. As Oakspear pointed out, the concept is there in the bible as any are free to see. But the reality of spiritual fornication was never used as an excuse for physical fornication in the bible; on the contrary, it was many times associated with it. But it was bigger; it was a matter of the heart. The same Jesus who said Moses allowed divorce because of the hardness of your hearts said, "That except your righteousness shall exceed the righteousness of the scribes and Pharisees, ye shall in no case enter into the kingdom of heaven...Ye have heard that it was said by them of old time, Thou shalt not commit adultery, but I say unto you, that whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart." That's hardly an excuse to commit physical adultery; it's a call to attention to the arena in which adultery really takes place - the heart. Isaiah 23:17 And it shall come to pass after the end of seventy years, that the LORD will visit Tyre, and she shall turn to her hire, and shall commit fornication with all the kingdoms of the world upon the face of the earth. Is it any more moronic to consider that a city can commit fornication with all the kingdoms of the world than that the term fornication can have a spiritual definition as well as a physical one? The wickedness and idolatry of this city are frequently denounced by the prophets, adn its final destruction predicted (Isa. 23:1; Jer. 25:22; Ezek. 26;28:1-19; Amos 1:9&10; Zech. 9:2-4. The wickedness and idolatry of this city WAS spiritual fornication. Revelation 2:20 Notwithstanding I have a few things against thee, because thou sufferest that woman Jezebel, which calleth herself a prophetess, to teach and to seduce my servants to commit fornication, and to eat things sacrificed unto idols. 21 And I gave her space to repent of her fornication; and she repented not. 22 Behold, I will cast her into a bed, and them that commit adultery with her into great tribulation, except they repent of their deeds. 23 And I will kill her children with death; and all the churches shall know that I am he which searcheth the reins and hearts: and I will give unto every one of you according to your works. 24 But unto you I say, and unto the rest in Thyatira, as many as have not this doctrine, and which have not known the depths of Satan, as they speak; I will put upon you none other burden. Do you really think that is all about some people who had sex with someone named Jezebel? And these? Revelation 14:8 And there followed another angel, saying, Babylon is fallen, is fallen, that great city, because she made all nations drink of the wine of the wrath of her fornication. Revelation 17:2 With whom the kings of the earth have committed fornication, and the inhabitants of the earth have been made drunk with the wine of her fornication. Revelation 17:4 And the woman was arrayed in purple and scarlet colour, and decked with gold and precious stones and pearls, having a golden cup in her hand full of abominations and filthiness of her fornication: Revelation 18:3 For all nations have drunk of the wine of the wrath of her fornication, and the kings of the earth have committed fornication with her, and the merchants of the earth are waxed rich through the abundance of her delicacies. Revelation 18:9 ¶And the kings of the earth, who have committed fornication and lived deliciously with her, shall bewail her, and lament for her, when they shall see the smoke of her burning, Revelation 19:2 For true and righteous are his judgments: for he hath judged the great whore, which did corrupt the earth with her fornication, and hath avenged the blood of his servants at her hand. Wow, that's one active whore! Nah, I would think that "Because iniquity shall abound the love of many shall wax cold" is a less moronic explanation for that magnitude of fornication. I don't want to wax moronically dramatic here, but in the context of this type of fornication, the Word does say, He that hath an ear, let him hear what the Spirit saith unto the churches. Revelation 2:29 Might be something deeper than zipping your pants up.

It seems that a lot of seeming contradictions would be reconciled if we were to look at the word "adultery" in its broader context of spiritual adultery. Then things like abuse wouldn't require a new "modern" viewpoint of marriage. Also God wouldn't appear to hold us in bondage until one or the other has sex outside the marriage relationship. Holding us in bondage to abusive situations hardly seems in line with the "God has called us to peace" of the same section of scripture. Also one who files for the divorce wouldn't then of necessity be the "guilty" party, but simply perhaps the one who is honest about the hardness of heart of the other. If, in the same context, Jesus says that Moses allowed divorce for the hardness of your hearts and the only reason for divorce is fornication, then fornication (like adultery) has to be taken in the light of its broader context of spiritual fornication because sexual fornication is not the only thing that can cause hardness of heart. God is Love, and he wants love in marriage. Anything we put in front of God (spiritual adultery or fornication)causes hardness of heart and the love can't flow between the married couple - because one or both have put something else in the way as a priority. That loveless situation is what God doesn't want us to be kept in bondage to - that's why Moses allowed divorce. Perfection doesn't enter into the equation, just faithfulness to an honest and true relationship. The problem comes in when we aren't honest about the allegiances of our hearts. Tom

I've heard it taught that the "adultery" mentioned here is spiritual adultery. Of course I've also heard it said that was an excuse by TWI to engage in sexual adultery. I think both figure in. If gods other than the God Who is Love are allowed to dominate in the relationship, hearts are heardened and love can't flow between the couple. As people have said here, God doesn't command that people have to stay in a relationship without love - regardless of the sexual morays of the time. We're called to peace - how peaceful would that be? Not! Peace. Tom

Its a good deal, Socks. For the New Year, Blockbuster LOWERED their cost to $17.45 per month for three DVDs at a time. I used to pay that for about 4 DVDs a month. Now I have 3-5 per week for the same price and no late charges. In addition, I get 2 coupons a month to use at the store. I just put 2 Moody Blues DVDs on my list. The only music DVD I have presently is Miles Davis Live in Concert. But that's about to change...

The Word also says that Moses allowed a couple to divorce for the hardness of their hearts. Jesus said that from the beginning it was not so, but Moses still allowed them to divorce because of their hard hearts. In your situation, it is a done deal. Do the present circumstances allow the parties to honestly figure out whose heart was hardened toward the Lord and toward his/her mate? If so, the Word is saying that you should either soften your heart(s) and get back together or stay single. Why bring a hard heart into another relationship? But if the other won't engage in an open-hearted loving acceptance and relationship, then I Cor. 7:15 goes on to say "...let there be separation. The brother or the sister is not under bondage in such cases, but God has called us in peace." You're not bound if that's the case. Peace, Tom

I'm looking at Blockbuster online for the video. They have four to choose from. 1. The Moody Blues: This video contains three performances by the band the Moody Blues that were recorded at different times for German television. "Bye Bye Burd," "I Really Haven't Got the Time," and "Nights in White Satin" are the songs performed. There are snippets of performances from other bands like Procol Harum, Emerson, Lake & Palmer, and Rick Wakeman. 2. Moody Blues: Legend of a Band(1990): a documentary which looks back at the band's history, and includes video clips and performance footage of some of the group's best songs. Selections include "Nights In White Satin", "Question", "I'm Just A Singer (In A Rock and Roll Band)", "Tuesday Afternoon", "The Story In Your Eyes", and many more. 3. 20th Century Masters: The Moody Blues(2004): home-video collection features five music videos shot while the band was enjoying a new surge of popularity in the 1980s. 20th Century Masters: The Best of the Moody Blues includes the songs "Your Wildest Dreams," "I Know You're Out There Somewhere," "The Other Side of Life," "Running Out of Love" and "No More Lies." 4. Moody Blues: A Night at Red Rocks with the Colorado Symphony Orchestra(1992): The Moody Blues, with the help of the Colorado Symphony Orchestra, performs some of the biggest hits of their career at the spectacular Red Rocks venue on this video. Among the eighteen songs performed during the concert are "Nights In White Satin", "Your Wildest Dreams", "Lovely to See You", and "Tuesday Afternoon". You know what - thanks for a reply, but I'm a member of Blockbuster online video renting, & I think I'll just add these four to my list. However, if any of these ring a bell, let me know. I'd like to experince the live concert feel you talked about, jardinero. Tom

jardinero, "A few weeks back, I watched a DVD of their concert they did at Red Rocks, Colorado..." What was the name of the DVD? I'd love to get my hands on it. Tom

No, no, no, Oakspear - all is as it seems to be. No one would ever think of fooling anyone else, nevermind have an extended hidden agenda, especially clowns, and most especially rich clowns. And it is the most absurd idea to think that any two or more of the richest families in the world would ever agree together to pull off an economic/political strategy that would make them look like they were doing it for the common man when really they were working for their own self-interest. Not to worry; people are all altruistically working for the betterment of all mankind. All men aren't really liars. Power doesn't really corrupt, and absolute power doesn't really corrupt absolutely. Well, maybe in Dr. Wierwille's life it seemed to work that way, but all the rest of the powerful people are on the up & up. The idea that the most powerful people actually control anything is rediculous. Live & let live; that's their motto. The fact that the vast majority of people throughout all history have been royally screwed out of a decent piece of the pie is just because of a crazy series of accidents. Families don't work together to maintain and increase power. If they did try to screw the little people, they would be honest about their dishonesty, & come right out & say haha, screw all you little people - right?. But they're all nice people. Satan is not the god of this world; he doesn't control its systems. Why, this is the Age of Aquarius, man. Up the global village! Up the U.N.! Boy, I'm really glad all the people in power are, you know, nice! Peace, peace.

But since you asked, I believe the idea is that they are used as a front for the illuminati as they work to bring to pass the "new world order" which I think is bad idea.

See, like I said, Freemasons talking about their goodness again :)-->. Okay, Galen, your question is, "What did we ever do to you?" You mean besides wrongly implying that I brought up Freemasonry again? Nothing that I can think of. I didn't bring up Freemasonry, Mr. P-Mosh did; I was alluding to his original post that started this entire thread.

BTW, just because, like the illuminati, the TWI leadership considered themselves to be illuminated rather than pagan doesn't make their practices pagan or not pagan.

Refiner, "Its very unlikely that there is such secret prectise at the top of the pyramid..." I'm wondering what secret practice is "such" secret practice. Are we still addressing Mister P-Mosh's original post that there was a secret pagan organization? And the similarity that he draws to the Freemasons being a cover for the illuminati? I think even at the top of the illuminati, there are few, if any, who with all consciousness of wrong doing and iniquity being carried out make themselves out to be the good guys so they can secretly be the bad guys. Even at the top, they don't consider themselves to be bad, but illuminated. I think the same holds true for TWI. I don't think there has ever been anyone near or at the top who thought they were pagans the whole time deliberately fooling the underlings into thinking that they were Christians. The different levels of "secret knowledge" that mstar alluded to we all have experienced. The question of whether these levels constitute conspiracy hinges on whether two or more persons in these levels agreed to commit an otherwise criminal or unlawful act. Secret levels in themselves do not make a conspiracy. The "unfruitful works of darkness" which are done in secret are not the only secret things. Other perfectly good things are, and ought to be, secret. I haven't kept up with the details of the various legal proceedings against TWI, but, if memory serves, conspiracy was among the charges. People bringing others to the MOG for dirty deeds constitutes conspiracy legally. Mr. P-Mosh offered us the idea that "any good conspiracy theory, this is just taking a few facts and combining them in such a way to guess at something unproveable." I suppose the supposed unproveability of a "good" conspiracy theory increases the tease value of the "good" conspiracy theory, but conspiracies can and are proven all the time. Here are some considerations that I've found: Unlike crimes committed by individuals acting alone, it is not necessary for guilt that the act be fully consummated. Many acts that would not be criminal if accomplished by an individual alone may nevertheless be the object of a conspiracy. Not only that, but a statement of a conspirator in furtherance of the conspiracy is admissible against all conspirators - uh, oh, even if the statement includes damaging references to another conspirator, and often even if it violates the rules against hearsay evidence. The conspiracy can be proved by circumstantial evidence. Any conspirator is guilty of any substantive crime committed by any other conspirator in furtherance of the enterprise. Double uh, oh. So, I'm glad that the levels of "secret knowledge" in TWI didn't of themselves make us all conspirators. And I don't think the levels were of themselves evil by virtue of their secrecy. But if the lawsuits against TWI are the tip of an iceberg that represents regular practice in TWI, then we have conspiracy - proveable conspiracy. I guess that takes this TWI conspiracy out of the realm of a "good" conspiracy theory and makes it bad. Sorry if this ruins the fun here.

Yeah, I tend to agree, vickles. "A lot of greed not just for money but for power that is for sure." VP taught that the love of money is really the love of power. Nobody would love actual money were it not for the power (over others) that money brings. That's what people (some people: "It is harder for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of heaven...")grow to love. "but I think it started with one man that wanted it all." Maybe. I don't know. It is hard to say where it STARTED. I tend to think that VP just didn't trust Jesus Christ to be the head, so he didn't trust people to follow Jesus Christ's lead, so VP HAD to see to it that it was done correctly by centralizing all decisions in himself. I think that after that, the power plays all over the "ministry" and the details of establishing that power (depowering other believers) had to play out in the leavening of the whole lump that became TWI. But maybe you're right.

The real quest of a conspiracy theory is to find out whodunnit - or whoisdoinit. Conspiracy theories are made to appear absurd by positing as the original doer one who is in an underling position whose doing, if original, could only appear magical by virtue of his lack of ability; thereby, leading all to pooh pooh the conspiracy. All would more readily believe that all the amazing coincidences were accidental (highly implausible) than to believe that a bozo such as Bush pulled off such an amazing design on purpose (even more implausible). We have to look higher up in the food chain for the originator not only to fit in the conspiracy theory, but to lend it even more credence. Johnny, you said, "the real emphasis was on the Bush agenda of ruling the world with giant evil corporations!" Bush couldn't rule his own corporations, nevermind "giant evil" ones, so by virtue of association of Bush'es stupidity with such a daunting role of ruler of the world conspiracy, the conspiracy theory is made to look foolish. But again, the pivotal point - when it comes to credence or no credence in conspiracy theory, is in figuring whodonit. Bush, obviously, can't do jack; therefore, any consideration that he would rule anything world-wide is absurd. But Bush never, as you say, ruled "the world with giant evil corporations!" On the contrary, anyone REALLY familiar with basic conspiracy theory 101 would realize that rather than Bush ruling "the world with giant evil corporations," giant evil corporations rule the world with Bush - and other stooges. Admittedly, Bush has moved up to the dubiously laudible position of MAJOR stooge, being president of the USA, but no further. Bush was bought and sold before he ever took office via the sham two party system designed by the puppet masters to make Americans think they have choice and exercise control - what a joke! "I was stunned," you say, as you "...sat there, and [said] the only thing that I heard was the cry of a Mocking Bird just outside my window." How ironic! The only song that the Mocking Bird sings is the last one sung in the neighborhood. So you can't know the originator of the song sung. Bush'es only deed is to sing the song most recently sung in the 'hood by the ruler of the roost - every roost has one - a top cat, dog, ruler, don'tchaknow - every cat, bird, chicken, ruler of the roost, knows that, why don't you - programmed by the roost ruler? "Mocking Bird" indeed! The difference between the merely tragic and true tragedy lies in the inevidetablity of the tragic result - its inevitability being brought to pass by a classic flaw in the character of the human. It is truly tragic that there are natural resources galore to satisfy man's need, yet his greed prevents the provision of paradise from success. It is supremely ironic that the downfall of man has been primordially prescribed and prescripted, posted for all to see before and after Shakespeare's tragedies, yet man can do nothing to prevent it from coming to pass. No top cat ever got to the top except by beating out all the other cats. How can anyone think that the smartest and richest players, those most in control of the design and utilization of the systems of the game, do not conspire to monopolize the field of play? Wouldn't you? Only mnakes sense - & they didn't get where they are by being stupid or nice. Nobody would put Bush in charge of the barn, nevermind the ranch (although a patriotic public would vote for him thinking he will police the place). Bush does what he is told by "Bush'es Brain." The trick is to figure out who Bush'es Brain works for. I'm betting it is the same people that Wilson's alter ego worked for - follow the money associations and inclinations. Same tired old conspiracy theory? Yeah, really tired! But never more apparent.

A childhood friend just left, so that's a big part of what Christmas is about this year. My wife & I went to a candlelight Christmas service this year - first time in many years we've been to any type of Christmas service. It was a simple service with a simple message about the hope of salvation that Jesus' birth was to those shepherds who were told about it and who then spread word of his birth - symbolized by everyone helping everyone else light there candle - spreading the light. Simple was good; we were ready for it. It touched something too deep to be ruined or replaced by commerciality no matter how prevalent it is. My relationship with my folks has gone full circle. We have a relationship that is as sweet and unassuming as it was when I was young. All those things, and more, have brushed in Christmas this season with a lively air that defies age, distance, generations, or man's stupidity. I've had Christmas without my children a number of times - really sucks. This year, they've participated in my Christmas as adults fully under their own intitiative for the first time. My wife is proving herself to be truly beautiful. I suppose these things don't all have to be bound up intrinsically in the bag called Christmas, but they are for me this year, and they all fit well in the bag. Merry Christmas. The message of the angels was "Glory to God in the highest, and on earth peace, good will toward men." That's my Christmas story this year. Tom

A childhood friend just left, so that's a big part of what Christmas is about this year. My wife & I went to a candlelight Christmas service this year - first time in many years we've been to any type of Christmas service. It was a simple service with a simple message about the hope of salvation that Jesus' birth was to those shepherds who were told about it and who then spread word of his birth - symbolized by everyone helping everyone else light there candle - spreading the light. Simple was good; we were ready for it. It touched something too deep to be ruined or replaced by commerciality no matter how prevalent it is. My relationship with my folks has gone full circle. We have a relationship that is as sweet and unassuming as it was when I was young. All those things, and more, have brushed in Christmas this season with a lively air that defies age, distance, generations, or man's stupidity. I've had Christmas without my children a number of times - really sucks. This year, they've participated in my Christmas as adults fully under their own intitiative for the first time. My wife is proving herself to be truly beautiful. I suppose these things don't all have to be bound up intrinsically in the bag called Christmas, but they are for me this year, and they all fit well in the bag. Merry Christmas. The message of the angels was "Glory to God in the highest, and on earth peace, good will toward men." That's my Christmas story this year. Tom

Bush IS giving us away. At least Kerry has no direct conflict of interest. If Bush was KILLING THEM ALL (spoken by a general from another war that also went on for too long because of stupid political reasons for no good reason with no good result), in certain respects I would have more respect for him. But he is fighting in behalf of terrorist interests, not killing them all - but protecting the worst of them.