oldiesman

I agree with some of your points Rhino... good points. Dr. Juedes' writings do seem to be a bit presumptuous with his blanket one-size-fits-all labelling. I also periodically wonder if Dr. Juedes would be so relentless in his one-sided attacks against all-that-is-twi/ces/stfi, if twi/ces/stfi had been Trinitarian. Thanks.

Dr. Wierwille taught that the human body is beautiful and as part of the class showed us pictures of it .... nothing wrong with nude pictures in and of themselves. This is not porn. Porn is designed to encourage lust and lasciviousness, perhaps covetousness, those are the sins we need stay away from. But viewing pics to show how beautiful the body is is nothing ... its vanilla. I don't believe VP was encouraging those sins and can't imagine someone getting caught up in lust and evil imaginations from viewing those vanilla images unless they wanted to. Similarly I suppose someone can say looking at a beautiful woman in a bikini leads to lust and lasciviousness and porn but I dont think so. (Maybe Islam says that, don't know.)

Sure thing Jonny.

This is the reason why I hardly ever use the word "cult" about a religious group (unless I deliberately want to put them down) because its true meaning is subjective and it literally means nothing more than a blanket put down of a group in someone's eyes. There is no consensus on what it means other than its sort of like someone's own spin ... if someone dislikes a movement, considers it false, extremist, misguided, evil, or any other negative one feels about a group, they may easily slap on the "cult" label. Sort of like "I think this group is yuck". So to try to answer the question ... "what makes a cult" appears to be nothing except what one regards (for whatever reason) as a bad group.

There are doctrinal differences. I give them credit for trying to improve. Also I believe JS is a hero for speaking the truth about adultery back then. To hell with charisma.

Excellent suggestion Waysider.

Christians have sex, Christians have spit, Christians use sexual lubricants, spit is a sexual lubricant. Nothing wrong with the statement except that one's saliva shouldn't be used when the mouth has an active mouth infection.

Congratulations Daddy Raffy.

Linda, this may not be your problem but what I do first is check for viruses or spyware or trojans. Several weeks ago, I had a few of these that couldn't be removed by my regular protection package. It was causing wierd pop-ups and slow internet, something not working right so I called this place called IYogi, they are an outfit in India that with your permission take over your computer and fix whatever is wrong. Guaranteed to fix it or you don't pay. They charge $120 per year, and they recommended a sensational security software called superantispyware: http://www.superantispyware.com/ It got rid of all the crap inside my computer and now its quiet as a baby. Don't know if this will fix your particular problem, but at least it would eliminate the spyware malware problem. Try it for 30 days for free, free download. $30.00 to buy. If you don't like it don't buy it. But it works!

Abigail, thanks so much for trying to encourage all posters to stay above the namecalling and labelling and adhere to a more excellent standard. I hope you don't go ... but understand if you finally decide to. Know that your heart and continued respectable posting is a great example and will be missed.

I just received the book but haven't read it yet, looking forward to it. The forward was written by Lorna Goldberg, M.S.W., L.C.S.W. She wrote among other things: What hypnotic state? This is a manifestion of holy spirit that we the believer operate, we are in full control of our mental faculties. Stop and start at will. No hypnotism involved. If she doesn't believe in it, fine. But to mischaracterize it with that bullsheet is annoying.

Go to www.greasespotcafe.com, you'll see the box "search amazon.com" in the bottom right corner, type "losing the way" in keywords box.

Done.

JAL has a right to his opinion with respect to some former twi participants engaging in internet defamation and disparaging comments about the past. You may disagree all you want, but I think using the word "disgruntled" is a harmless way to say it. What do you think disgruntled means? It's another way to say someone is unhappy, unsatisfied about their twi involvement. Well, I think that describes some folks' actions perfectly. (Not everyone at GS Cafe, but SOME.) If one plays in the arena, one ought to be prepared to take some criticism of one's behavior, don't you think that's fair? Now, if JAL were to come on the forums here and say it here, I think he might be in violation of the rules because we are asked not to make it personal with other posters here on the forums. But John didn't come here, someone brought John's letter to us.

If you are suggesting that "flogging" was an acceptable form of punishment sanctioned by the BOT, I have to disagree. I do remember a paper called "Children Fun or Frenzy", that was written proof that TWI sanctioned parental spanking and use of the spoon (again, with limits, not beating the crap out of a kid.) I'm going to respectfully withdraw from this thread now, I don't want to say or do anything to detract from cake's story. I will continue on the child abuse thread if necessary, although as I recall we "beat that horse" pretty good back then.

Not to detract from cake's personal testimony, but if memory serves there was a "child abuse" thread a long time ago that discussed spanking where various opinions about it was discussed. My opinion is that there's a right way and a wrong way, and sometimes folks in twi applied it the wrong way which time unfortunately cake was at the receiving end of an event like that.

Krysilis, Thanks for sharing, and many thumbs up for your son who did the right thing.

I have one cigar per day, no tobacco taste in my mouth lingers from day to day. No more phlegm in the morning. Its great. I am taking a blood test soon as gonna ask what the nicotine level is in my blood, and I will let you know. Cigar shops also are a great place for men to hang out and talk. Miami must be full of them.

Hi Raffy. My favorite cigar is Don Pepin Garcia Blue Label One of these a day, don't inhale, you can't go wrong. Not nearly as bad as smoking cigarettes and you still have the pleasure of smoking. Don Pepin Garcia lives in Miami: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pepin_Garcia

Ok fine. If Pawtucket states in the forum rules that participants are not entitled to express their own opinions as it relates to or challenge a person giving her own testimony then I will abide by the rules.

Everyone is entitled to their own thoughts and interpretations of events about Wierwille or anyone else based upon the facts presented, even if it may contradict the victims feelings thoughts and opinions. It appears all you want is group think. I'll just morph my thoughts and feelings into yours and everything will be ok.

I don't have a problem with that as long as it is understood by everyone that a response of this type is allowed and ok and not interpreted as an attack on anyone's character but simply a varying opinion. What's the sense of taking it to another place on the site if a contrary opinion about the meaning of an event is still regarded as "bad manners" "lack of empathy" and "inappropriate conduct" warranting suspension.

Well that's why I suggested a separate category for victims to tell their stories of abuse and not have any possible varying contradictions/disruptions/interpretations/debates/interrogations, etc. On a forum where all are welcome and debates are encouraged, I frankly don't see any other way around it. You also could have the reverse. You could have a category for "pro-wierwille/twi rebuttals". Would that work?

Exactly!! Couldn't have said it better myself.

Here's a current problem as I see it: What happens when someone shares a personal experience that VP had sex with them. Ok that is a fact and should be believed. Then someone else posts that vp is an s.o.b. a con artist and a rapist. Then I post "my opinion based on the facts of this experience is that a rape was not committed." I can see this scenario happening and if my rebuttal is interpreted as an attack on the credibility of the teller of the story, I think we have a problem because where did I break the rules? I see it as a respectful disagreement as to the interpretation or meaning of the story that may differ from someone elses. So that's why I think we need the rules clarified.