oldiesman

Jen-o, if that is what you believe, then no problem. But the point is not moot. I'm not arguing against someone who believes the teachings are erroneous and false in and of themselves. That's your prerogative. What I'm arguing against is the idea that the teachings are false BECAUSE OF the sins of the teacher.

The sins of the teacher doesn't negate the truths in the teaching.

But as far as the assessment of blame or punishment for the driver, it still falls on the state of mind of the driver, not the state of mind of the motorcyclist.

Jeff, I get the recurring feeling that when you talk about me having compassion, you really want me to be quiet. But the forums are here for debate and discussion, something you don't seem to get. This isn't a therapy session for wound addiction. As they say "if you can't stand the heat, get out of the kitchen." I invited you to PM me to discuss any issues you like with me in private, but you declined. That's your prerogative. But I think its time now for you to take a different approach. Voicing your personal feelings toward me on a public forum isn't what the forums are for. I hope you get that.

From what I know of traffic law, the penalty could be as high as manslaughter or as low as a traffic ticket for running a red light, all depending on the drivers "state of mind". So yeah, its possible the guy could kill someone, and just get off with a traffic ticket! Riding a motorcycle can be a dangerous business and I'm fully aware of the risks involved.

Unless the person had "intent" to cause harm to the other, I don't see how one could be culpable. Maybe a legal case can be made, but morally, God looks on the heart and sees all the thoughts and intents and if there was no intent to cause any harm, especially the death of someone, it doesn't make much sense.

No, that's not what I meant. What I meant was that I believe VP is responsible for his own acts, i.e., adultery, alcoholism, meanness, selfishness, etc. I do not believe he is responsible for someone else's acts, such as suicide and the like. If we're talking adultery and he was a part of that, then I believe he's responsible for his part in it. I believe each participant is responsibile for one's own actions, whatever that was. I believe there are exceptions; being drugged for example.

That written statement by Howard Allen was bull.... I don't believe they helped kill VP or had any culpability in it. It just goes to show how screwed up their heads were at the time to believe that nonsense. Remember, they were in a fog. So far I haven't heard any evidence in favor of VPW "driving someone to SUICIDE". Remember, the key word is SUICIDE; not adultery, not alcoholism, not meanness, not selfishness. By saying VP & Co. were culpable of someone else's suicide, they are being accused of murder by another name. This accusation is horrible. Like he and Howard & Co. had that much power and control over people's minds they can command a suicide? Give me a break .... Sorry, still don't believe it, because nobody can guarantee the actions of another.

Yes, let's all apply this one.

I agree in part. I believe the people involved in a life who commits suicide are responsible for their own actions, whatever they might be. But whether they "provoked the suicide", or "pushed the person toward it", is another matter entirely. Many of us go through life dealing with people who are unloving, selfish and unkind; yet it doesn't equal provoking or drive someone to suicide. I agree that people who commit suicide are partly responsible for their actions. Maybe even more so.

I think judgments also should be made on logic and facts, not emotion. Saying John Doe was 100% responsible for Jane Doe's suicide when Jane Doe performed the act, is not logical, factual, compassionate or loving. I suppose its just like accusing someone of murder who didn't do it. Accuse them of what they are guilty for, yes, but not wholly for someone else's suicide.

Rascal, I said you lied because you didn't know whether or not I had experienced that kind of pain, not because I had experienced it myself. It just so happens that I have, but it is irrelevant whether I did or not; the point is, you wouldn't know so you can't make incorrect statements like that. Anyway, I apologize for the lying comment, I should have used the word "mistaken". I still disagree though with the idea that someone who commits suicide isn't at least partly responsible for their actions. Unless they are totally insane, which is in a separate category altogether.

Didn't you just say you were talking about Prager. Now you're saying it was about me? Which is it?

I don't think so. Even if the comment was directed at Prager, you'd still be lying. You have no idea what pain he has experienced in his life! Its a put down, really. You couldn't just disagree with his opinion and say so and leave it at that; no, you felt the need for a put down too.

So then people who commit suicide do not even share any responsibility for their own actions. Well, I disagree with that opinion.

Edited - removed personal attack

That goes without saying.

I guess it's just his opinion. Just like me, I suppose he doesn't always subscribe to the "blame somebody else" syndrome.

Am I allowed to post opinions without getting attacked personally?

All that goes on in a persons mind before committing suicide, I don't know. But I was listening to the Dennis Prager podcast one day and the topic was suicide... Dennis said something that stuck with me "suicide is selfish and narcissistic". It impressed upon me that no matter how hurt, desperate, depressed or insane a person may be because of relations with others, they still share in a level of responsibility for their own thoughts and actions.

All that goes on in a persons mind before committing suicide, I don't know. But I was listening to the Dennis Prager podcast one day and the topic was suicide... Dennis said something that stuck with me "suicide is selfish and narcissistic". It impressed upon me that no matter how hurt, desperate, depressed or insane a person may be because of relations with others, they still share in a level of responsibility for their own thoughts and actions.

Well obviously it was bull, especially since the same man wrote the following in his loyalty letter of March 1989: This certainly is written confirmation that one may walk with God outside of twi. So I think it really was up to each individual what to believe. I'm not saying some didn't buy into the "greasepot by midnight" line as a cause for concern; but to me it's a red herring. I can't buy into the idea that it was a reason some now say kept some folks inside twi for years, with all the other evidence we have available to us. My basic belief is this: generally, participants stayed as long as twi was in some way beneficial to them. They left, when twi became un-beneficial to them. Of course there will always be some exceptions.

Anyone who sat through PFAL and believed in "the law of believing" had the option of deciding for himself what he would believe. So when one heard "if you leave the ministry you will die", one had a choice to believe that or reject that, depending upon one's own choice. Or, choose to have faith in God and in the scriptures with verses like "I will never leave thee, nor forsake thee." So I think it was ultimately up to each individual. I don't think so. Just so we're clear on this, I disagree. I don't believe people stayed in twi or the corps because they feared that if they left, they would die. However, I can see that upon being told "the hedge of protection" will be gone if one left, it's possible some believers fell into that thought process for a time AFTER THEY LEFT. The thought crossed my mind too for the first few days. However, after more reading of scripture, retemories, SIT, faith in God, and common horse sense (like seeing all the folks who already left who didn't die after all) that fear vanished quickly.

I am not disputing the fact that some people, upon leaving twi, wondered if everything would be ok. I'm opining that that worry had NO comparison to an actual beheading by a King who had the military might to pull it off as desired. It's still apples and oranges. Comparing a religion where participants have free will with a military dictatorship where free will can get one killed, will never be a fair or factual comparison. If one commits treason against twi, one gets marked and avoided. If one commits treason against the King, one gets beheaded.

Thank you WhiteDove.