rhino

They did fine ... without their parents being designated as a married couple. So there is no harm.

I guess I'm just saying forums doesn't seem like a place to evangelize. Your "is it coming too close to home" comment is a personal probe into penworks life ... trying to be a sign post ... Perhaps penworks didn't mind at all ... I don't know what she considers herself ... But it isn't just the one comment ... you do a lot of "preaching" which is off topic. And no, I wouldn't want someone in this topic trying to convince me their Hindu experience proved their Hindu book was truth. God doesn't need to tell me to point people in HIS direction, I do it out of sheer joy. But it is off topic floods the topic with you trying to point people in your god's direction. And if someone comes back after their twi experiences....all the better. It's just the twi experience that queered it. Comes back where? Again ... your opinion, and more "witnessing". You state "the household" does exist ... your personal opinion and nothing to do with the topic. and on and on ... I think we are talking of other historical views ... not a rehashing of Bible views that you believe because of your personal experience. We were questioning the basis of the bible based on other historical knowledge. You say ... "oh but the bible is true, because of my experience with HS ... and I out of sheer joy am here to bring you back to the household. No, you didn't use the word "heretic".

I don't care to be the shepherd ... but most history is about dead people ... what is learned is about how manipulation happened ... hence how it can be avoided. There are lotsa responses to your comments WD .... are you a wolf cub?

and you also replied ... Hinduism may fall to the ground, even as Dagon fell and the LORD GOD ALMIGHTY saw to it that both the false god's head and hands were broken off. I think it says it all. Can't think or do anything. How do you know the false god's head and hands were broken off ... except that it was a story written down. You are using the Bible to prove the Bible is right, over say Hinduism. You seem convinced of that as truth, based on your experiences ... I think this topic is not about that. It is about other views, and other writings. It seems penworks has very good background to offer intriguing insight ... it makes me gag a little to think that you seem to want to "undershepherd" her back into the fold ... god told you to tell her ... blah blah ... It seems you want to take us from questioning whether holy men of God spake as they were moved ... to we should listen to you because god is moving in you. That doesn't seem like an improvement to me, it seems more like you are judging her views as heretical, as she mentioned. Your view is it is true because the HS works in you ... this topic is about writings ... or "scripture" and really about other options for those that have already spent years on the bible ... and have taken (a more honest look?) at biblical "problems" or other possibilities. It just seems the Is it coming too close to home? comment is out of place and "preachy" and condescending. The authority of a spirit working in brideofjc is not the topic. My HS told me to tell you that ... I'd like to stay on that topic ... but I admit, I have yet to read the books penworks mentioned ... so I have homework to do ... but that doesn't stop me from posting :) And I'm fairly certain penworks has much more to offer ... I'm willing to take the chance that she has exited the household that some bible thumpers perceive exists. If God strikes us down for venturing out .. so mote it be ... oh, and I am very sorry to hear of your family member penworks ... I hope you have time to come back later ... I wish you the best in dealing with your situation ...

Who said anything about mating for life? ... In nature, animals overwhelmingly protect, feed and care for their young. The term "nesting" is used of humans. Humans naturally care for their young, especially mothers. Fathers as well I believe, but if that is a weaker link, all the more reason to encourage a strong father role by cultural practice. I'm on a farm, and every wild and domestic species I can think of here is very protective of their young. Where did you come up with your list of bad animal parents?

Well, I said it was an INSTINCTIVE part of humans that is clear in nature ... most animals will fight heroically to protect their young, and that is true of most humans. That is a very clear point, your point of eating our children because some rats do ... would be a stupid argument. People that are called dirty rats are not good people But yes, you could easily make that stupid argument. Is it possible to be intentionally dense? No ... YOU are completely flawed and lacking in knowledge. What does that phrase contribute to the dialogue? And we are well off the point of this CA ruling ... but the broader subject is more interesting. "Marriage" has a different historical meaning than gay couples. What is the purpose of breaking that down? Changing the "institution of marriage" can do harm. Why should it be changed to make it something it never was? There is little history to go on to show if children raised in homosexual families will do well. Since they will never be the actual parents, will there still be mother /father roles? They are not equal to a regular marriage, why pretend they are? that is better than saying everyone is stupid if they don't agree with you. It is your opinion that the traditional family is fictional and overly romanticized. So single teenage mothers as the norm is just fine ... the traditional family is fiction anyway. Yet much of psychology and resolving problems revolves around these mom and dad characters in our life. The term parenting has it root in "parents". Changing the meanings of words is fundamental to changing society itself. Most seem to think marriage has a more special place, that includes parenting. Same sex marriages that don't have children have failed in that aspect ... but I guess they have the potential to be parents. A gay union is a different concept. Well "broken homes" are more prevalent now I guess ... why is that? I was raised by a single Mom, but almost all my friends had mom and dad. Now it is much more the norm for kids to be raised by one parent or none, I guess. But I think those single teen mothers would be better off if they had held a standard of having a Dad in the effort with them. As I said, it seems that should be the gold standard. Not the notion that "married with children" is fiction and a farce. Who will be determining who the best parents should be? Maybe there should be some of those previous standards you mentioned (involvement, diet) and there can be a legal scorecard, and the children can be taken from the parents and distributed to those homosexual couples that have higher scores. You mention the extended family, which is extremely important .... but how often does that extended family have as its most heroic helpers ... other blood relatives? Family is blood ... it is not old fashioned tradition and fictional. Families come from marriages. That breakdown in society should be looked at. It does not indicate the real parents don't have an instinctive drive to care for their kid ... but it has been replaced by something ... the government? So we need more government, or a better vision of the strong family? Maybe Bill Cosby can help ... You got to tell me that if there was parenting -- help me -- if there was parenting, he wouldn’t have picked up the Coca Cola bottle and walked out with it to get shot in the back of the head. He wouldn’t have. Not if he loved his parents. And not if they were parenting! Not if the father would come home. Not if the boy hadn’t dropped the sperm cell inside of the girl and the girl had said, “No, you have to come back here and be the father of this child.” Not ..“I don’t have to.” LikeAnEagle ... I agree, it is a subculture ... gay marriage is a celebrity cause ... but does it really help us .. or is it just another thing the left wants to break down?

I think Kimberly makes a good point ... in nature it is instinctive for the actual parent to care more about their kids. Just because our culture seems to be breaking that structure is not reason to say it is a failure. What does it matter if many fail ... what does that have to do with redefining "marriage"? As I said earlier, I don't really see the point of big tax breaks for married people, except that it promotes "society" to reproduce itself. It seems a large part of the problem with kids today is the breakdown of that husband wife structure, the loss of either father or mother oversight. What is the logic of saying since there are broken homes and marriages, we should just break down the rules even further? Well YOU have come up with a bizarre list of solutions. I don't see why any of those things are the way to preserve the family unit. There are already standards for marriage, that is being changed, time and laws are not going backward. There are aready laws for proper parental care. Are you saying there should be more laws on what parenting should require? What does that have to do with changing the law to include homosexuals n the marriage institution? Well history shows what has worked best ... and maybe the animal kingdom ... but government governs. Saying the strongest unit has been the real mother and father raising their children, is hardly the same as saying that is ALL that is required. But your idea of making a hundred new laws on diet and parental involvement seems bizarre to me. Of course there is more to parenting than just having the kids ... but it seems quite evident that a "broken home" is one where those natural parents are not together. In general, the real parents will have the strongest instinctive drive to care for and protect the child. Isn't that obvious? Many things in culture have worked toward breaking that family unit. Much of psychology revolves around mother and father figures, or lack thereof. You seem to be saying the choice is either to add a whole nuther level of draconian laws, or give up on it entirely. Why not just keep marriage what it was ... and again, the only reason I see for tax breaks is for promotion of bearing and raising children. The real parents will have by far the strongest natural bond to care for their kids. There are already laws that make it more difficult to leave that institution ... which seems most important for the kids. Putting "gay marriage" in that mix doesn't make sense to me, or the voters, or the state (of CA in this case). It made sense to a slim majority of judges who determined it on their own ... Again, it does NOT appear to be based in law ... except what was just defined by some judges. From mstars quote .. Discrimination based on sexual orientation, the majority ruled on Thursday, also requires that sort of more rigorous justification. The court acknowledged that it was the first state high court to adopt the standard, strict scrutiny, in sexual orientation cases. The judge compared it to inter racial marriage, which seems pretty lame. Race is not even definable. But the concept of parents raising their young has been around for a while. But the judges determined that it would need more "rigorous justification" ... which apparently legally means these judges decided there must be gay marriage, it is the same because they said so. Then they admit they are the first to adopt that standard. It is not as Hap put it ... the CA Supreme court ruled on the basis of one thing ONLY! - Did the statute violate the CA STATE Constitution. It is not a matter of them over-ruling the 'will of the people', but whether the 'will of the people' violated the Constitution. IT IS THEIR JOB, under the law, to make that decision. The only thing "violated" was the rule that these judges just now determined on their own. I suppose IT IS THEIR JOB ... but this is new and determined not by the constitution or any precedent ... this was decided solely by these judges. THEY decided ... it seems misleading to say it violated the CA STATE Constitution. BUT ... in CA, it seems all rights of marriage are already granted, except for the name of "marriage" ... so perhaps their own opinion is more justified ... the protection of children and all is already a moot point. If all the rights of marriage are already granted ... and homosexual couples can have kids, what does it serve to not allow them to be called "married"? If we are promoting anything by way of incentive ... it would seem the mother father raising their kids should be the gold standard. The roles and provisions for foster parents or adopted parents is secondary, but important. Establishing gay unions as a first choice for raising children seems questionable to me.

If they are the parents, they are mother and father. I'm just saying there is a rather obvious difference. A man and wife can have their own children and raise them, which seems the best. If two homosexuals have children, that basic unit has already been broken .... at best one is a mother or father. Voters thought there isa difference ... probably the writers of the constitution thought so ... five judges of eight (I think) decided otherwise. I don't know if this ruling has anything to do with the ability to adopt ... it is about whether homosexuals can be "married". There is nothing (apparently) in the CA constitution to say there is anything wrong with having a distinct designation. It just happened that a slight majority of judges decided CA should have legal gay marriage, despite the preference of the majority of the people. Here again... ... they've determined that marriage is a basic substantive right, which is just jargon for "we're going to overrule the legislature and the people acting through the initiative process, just because." That sounds snider and snarkier than it is. That's really all it means. Categorizing something as a "fundamental" or "basic" "substantive" "right" is just a bit of judicial code for "We get to decide and no one else does."

Homosexuals have the freedom to live as the choose, but homosexual marriage is different that heterosexual marriage .. is it not? It is NOT equal. The concept of family is part of our culture ... raising children ... blah blah ... so we have (mostly Christian) people forming a constitution ... and laws. The family unit that bears and raises children is a foundational aspect of our country. A "gay union" is different from that. The state (of CA) specifically distinguished the same sex couples from heterosexual marriages. But the (activist?) judges determined purely on their own, that this should be in the category of "equal protection". ipse dixit, "it's this way because I say it is"... that is the rule the judges used, not precedent or the constitution or the voters. The court actually seemed to try to cover for themselves by saying the state "emphatically rejected" the "distinct designation" ... but that was false ... the state emphatically MADE the distinction. The court emphatically rejected the state and came up with their own decision ... ispe dixit ... (the state, it is I) ... and they rejected the vote of the people. It is NOT based on the constitution ... it is purely a judgment of the judges, out of the blue ... even though the state and the people (64%) believe otherwise. So it does seem an activist judgment to me ... Just ask yourself ... is there a distinction between the family unit you were raised in, or the one you raised ... and the average homosexual union? Are there any qualities of the traditional family unit that might be beneficial to the child ... over the average gay unit? of course there is ... but five of these eight California judges determined for the whole state that they (soley them, not the constitution or state or previous judgment) would determine that the two were EQUAL. the state .. It is them ... (not you or your elected officials) anyway ... that seems fairly clear to me ... at this point .... but I don't know the ramifications of nixing the distinction. AFAIK, they had the same rights, just a different designation. I think married heterosexual couples raising a traditional family is a solid foundational thing ... and could be distinguished fairly ... Families raising their kids seems "American" and good ... I'm not sure why the is such a desire from the left to "denigrate" it.

There are also different ways of looking at the constitutions .. so considering three judges were in dissent, it would seem it is not perfectly clear cut. If it needs to be clarified, people should elect representatives that will clarify the constitution. I think that would work ... It is usually interesting to read the decision and the dissent ... I'm too lazy on this one ... right now ... Well, OK .... here is another view ... that the judges were acting on their own ... they did not break precedent, they set it ... by themselves. It seems people decided one thing ... judges decided to make a category to put this in that makes it "illegal" ... but it is based on their opinion. Next follows the typically slippery (and ipse dixit) "analysis" under equal protection. It's all a game of categorization -- if a law restricts a right the court categorizes as "fundamental" and imposes this restriction on the basis a "suspect" (i.e., "badwrong") classification, the court imposes a compelling/necessary test on the law, that the law must serve a compelling state interest and must be necessary to serve that state interest. Now, that may seem like a test that can be passed under the right circumstances, but actually, it's not. No law ever survives that test, ever. Once the court has, by declaration citing the authority only of itself, categorized the classification as "suspect" and the restricted "right" as "fundamental," it's all over. Any court just has to claim those magic words apply and it's all over. No deference whatsoever is owed to the legislature (or, in this case, the actual people of the state writing the law through the initiative process). The moment the court decides, on its own authority, to categorize (suddenly) the right as fundamental and the restriction of it as suspect, they rewrite the law however their consciences may impel them. This passage is question-begging: Finally, retaining the designation of marriage exclusively for opposite sex couples and providing only a separate and distinct designation for same-sex couples may well have the effect of perpetuating a more general premise — now emphatically rejected by this state — that gay individuals and same-sex couples are in some respects “second-class citizens” who may, under the law, be treated differently from, and less favorably than, heterosexual individuals or opposite-sex couples. This is of course pure rubbish, as "the state" did not in fact "reject" treating homosexuals differently as regards marriage law, but actually encoded this distinction into the law of itself. Had "the state" wished to "reject" this distinction, it would have passed a different law specifically "rejecting" the distinction. The court is speaking here, it seems, as a king, "l'etat, c'est moi" (the state, it is I, I believe it goes).

This is not a hot button issue for me, but I think the problem with activist judges is that they break precedents, when it fits their cause. It is NOT an emotional tirade ... Of course those tirades happen on all sides all the time ... but that is not the issue with activist judges. As a non constitutional matter ... I don't see the point in giving tax breaks to couples ... except I thought the idea was to make it easier for families to raise children. Other than that, I'm not sure what the point is ... or why people even need a legal contract to be united ... so much. Children need protection I guess, spouses not as much ... maybe ...

we don't know what the settlement was for one person ... a million? plus lcm exiled? multiply the bad cases like that by 100? then the worst cases ... $2 million each ... 50 of those and average stuff ... $100,000 times 5000 I don't know ... with all the sheet, they should not still be functioning ... yet they have access to Gunnison at 15 million .... I guess they have to somehow maintain that as a charitable operation ... that should be investigated. Are they doing a million bucks a year worth of charity there, or is it a perk for the elite? It should be a charitableretreat for ex wayfers ...

I think if I went to a high school reunion, I would not invite him and would not have his picture displayed. Same for any other confirmed predators I went to school with ... especially if they never repented and were still scoping out more victims ... but that's just me.

I am near a small town now ... and I suspect there are rumors ... I grew up near here and my family is from here ... but the times I'm thinking of, one was relatives ... they don't want to talk about it, but I talked a little with a couple, then wrote them a longer letter to explain what they read (I think about TWI in the 90's) was not the same as what I was in, and that I was not part of the worst of it even in the old days Another time was with a new group of friends, mostly professionals, and there was another geologist that was TWI with a corps wife. I was sorta "transitional" then, but I meant to tell them "hey ... some of us thought some of those people were pretty crazy even when we were in ..." I'm was never like them. And my own picadillos, I had before the cult :o Another close group of friends knew another corps guy professionally ... but I think he was rather "normal". It has never been that big a deal, but I think it was a black mark, or a stigma. Fortunately I won them over with my charm and good looks (and a lot of beer)

Well, I charged you with ombudsman powers Ham ... it is just up to the 12 to see the light and follow you. Maybe they put their finger in an electrical outlet and got charged with oversight. But yes, Who charged them with oversight ... of course they are "ordaining" themselves ... they want to hint at some spiritual foundation I guess ... probably in some closed room there was some "prophecy" about spiders and snakes, and vp's name was conjured up ... so v2p2 is being sent forth to Mississippi into the land of spiders and snakes ... and a new corps shall be built ... and the old (vp) shall be made new (v2p2) ... OK, I'm guessing, but I imagine those elements are tossed about among the really spiritual. Here is the video of the revival where the decided to get the corps back together ... And Ham is here to provide a more sure word of prophecy ...

Once outside the strict KJV, it seems all other texts are helpful. Also, for me at least, the line between secular and "spiritual" writings is a little difficult to discern. It should all be historically accurate, though Paul (or whoever wrote some of his stuff) was supposedly revealing "God's Will". This wikipedia section is interesting ... alternative views of Paul's writings ... Theologian Robert Cramer agrees that the "pseudo-Pauline" epistles were written to marginalize women, especially in the church and in marriage:: Since it is now widely concluded that the Pastoral Epistles were written around 115 AD, these words were written most likely about 50 years after Paul's martyrdom. Considering the similarity between 1 Corinthians 14:35 and 1 Timothy 2:11-12, conclusions that I and others continue to draw are: that Paul wrote the bulk of what was in 1 Corinthians but that he did not write 1 Timothy, and that around 115 AD, the writer of 1 Timothy or a group associated with him added the 1 Corinthians 14:33-36 pericope to the body of letters that later became 1 Corinthians. In this scenario this would have been done in part to lend further authority to a later (or more culturally acceptable) teaching that marginalized women.[74 Among the critics of Paul the Apostle was Thomas Jefferson, who wrote that Paul was the "first corrupter of the doctrines of Jesus" I wonder what forces were at work over the centuries to bend "the scriptures" to a more acceptable meaning. We see that in "research ministry" TWI, despite direct and obvious scripture to the opposite, adultery became acceptable. If vp was king, what would his Bible say? And even if we had the originals of Paul, what was that really? Who died and made him God ... so to speak Jesus died (and rose, we presume), but how do we know he (or God) made Paul anyone special? You can see why it was easier for VP to make it all God's Word. We accepted so much on blind faith. Even for people that don't think the Bible is very accurate, it seems the history of how we got our current versions would be interesting. For me, other history, like our geological history, make the OT scripture questionable. The great flood and age of the earth are apparent contradicitons that piffle does not explain. Mankind beginning with the first Adam and eve from his rib ... ummm ....

It seems worse when it is the back story gossip about you .. that you were in this cult ... and then stories of the last 20 years of TWI .... but they don't talk directly to you. It can even be a tool against you. I've had two or three times when it sorta leaked out to me, like "oh yeah, i know you were in that cult " but then the gossip is of all kinds of stuff that I was never part of. So they might assume I was zombie eyed and selling flowers and who knows what else. As bad as old TWI may have been, I sure wouldn't want to be associated with the later TWI. It seems along with getting our own mind back, we still have to reclaim our persona from people that have us labeled.

Congrats Catcup ... 24 years is a big chunk, but you have recovered it seems, and you have a big chunk left ... no doubt the best is yet to come.

It seems there is some work on the compressed air car ... but they are half as efficient as the electric car ... and there are problems ... and the one I saw could only go 30 miles. Of course the perpetual motion thing revealed this as a goof ...

I think it is someone being a troll, or trying to change the subject. Or he was hallucinating and it all made perfect sense to him at the time ...

Where dos the money go when they sell it?

Anyone have a picture of the motorcycle collection? So you're out there as a WOW, living on millet with mayo, "believing" to get by ... and of course sending in 15% to HQ. But we were moving da wuhrd ... so it was OK that our 8 hours a day ministry work might earn more money for HQ. Thankfully we knew how diligent they were at HQ with every nickel ... it all went to move da wuhrd over da wuhrld. I guess I was thinking a list of the inequities would be interesting ... how well vp and lcm lived ... compared to the average staffer or the needy WOW. And this branches off from all those "happy memories" of the slave labor corps fixing up the grounds at Emporia. I don't think vp air conditioned his dog houses, but how did our abs get used? My limited view on the major expenditures ... the coaches how many motorcycles? cars the plane the chalet & Gunnison Rome city Emporia the auditorium What money was actually spent on outreach? Way Productions was maybe the most worthy? The Way Magazine Limb staffs ROA (or was that net income?) Where did the rest of the money go? other properties? staff gold? liquid investments Too bad we never got a full accounting. I think vp tried to impress lcm's dad by showing him how much lcm got paid. How much was that? I remember one limb meeting in LA when there was a beginning of friction between LA guys and craig ... that wunnerful plane had problems (IIRC) .. craig did a dial up ... big chicken ..

I don't think people are really quite that logical or methodical. The complexities of submitting to "higher powers" and enduring abuse are beyond me to explain, but they are subtle and insidious. It seems the patterns of control are established from the start in TWI, and some that need help the most have patterns established from their youth. An abuser or abusive system preys on those people, and works on those vulnerabilties. Obedience and submission may be praised, and the process continues ... Those that weighed problems and decided to stay, did not have the big picture. And they almost surely did not see the amount of "brainwashing" that had happened to them. There is plenty of mind control and submission and abuse in the world ... when it systematically happens in a religious type organization it is called a cult ... I guess. Sure ... each of us is responsible for our lives ... that doesn't make the wolves that eat the sheep any less wolflike. Wolves that wear sheep's clothing seem doubly guilty ...

I'd guess she had more than one red hankie, and keeps tucking them into maybe a skin like fold in her palm, or a glove? Or the hankies can actually vaporize under pressure ... nah ... Here is the wikipedia link with quite a bit about her ... OK ... here is the answer , from this guy Actually a quite simple gag using a hollow thumb tip. The silk is easily stuffed into it and you just jam your thumb in behind. Even up close this is a fairly good illusion, but the shaking of her hands was a bit excessive.

you sound like me about two and a half years ago. They exist but are greatly diminished, phs 600 active? Of coe there are many offshoots ... ome tve come and ge ... ... lcm got booted after a lawsuit was settled against him, and he reportedly works the aisles at a Home Depot. ... twi still has gunnison but sold emporia ... I think they sold Rome City too, but it is back up for sale? I'm not even sure on that one. You'll have to just read some of the forums to catch up ...