oldiesman

Ham, The link "Priests of Darkness" does contain allegations of abuse from churches other than the RC. Here's an excerpt: For me, the fact that twi allegedly engaged in this stuff in the past is at least equal to all of this other evil stuff. So where's the proof they are still allegedly engaging in rape, drugs, adultery, alcoholism, etc. This is comparing apples with apples, so to say twi is the worse evil just doesn't line up with facts we have available to us when one considers the allegations about other groups as well.

Not at all. Evil in ANY group is not ok. But you are alleging that twi evil was the worse evil of all time, and I'm giving facts that dispute your allegation. But because your mindset is such that twi was the worse group of all time that that's that, you're just immune to facts to the contrary...

Talk about whitewashing horribly evil and devilish acts ... wow. If ever'im accused of that again its like the pot calling the kettle black...

Even if true, that still doesn't prove there was mind control involved. We still made the choice which you said so yourself. Hypothetically, what if Christianity turns out to be false? Does that mean all the teachers and preachers employed mind control techniques?

Sounds a little like Papal Infallibility. Any fingers you point at twi can be pointed multiple times over at the RC Church. They have centuries experience in this stuff and have dwarfed twi in the evil dept. BTW where do you get the doctrine of "your saved and you can do anything you damned well please to anyone ...". I must've missed that selection in my tape library. I DO remember the one of Galatians 5 that teaches loss of rewards for walking in the flesh...

Waysider, I agree with your statement about the kids and have said so. Regarding the folks who were thrown out like a sack of garbage: Why didn't twi just employ their decades old established "mind control" techniques to dominate their thoughts and wills? Seems so much easier than tossing someone out in the middle of the night?

The facts hurt Mark. It's near impossible defending the indefensible. I also think the present day RC doctrine of salvation by grace through performance of the sacraments is particularly untruthful and quite harmful. "God gives grace as long as one works to receive it". I treat my animals better.

Abigail, certainly doesn't make it ok, but let's not proclaim that twi is so bad while everyone else is so blameless and harmless... let's remember there's at least one other large and well respected religious group that has much more death and destruction and blood on its hands and in its history even up to the present day Pedophile Priests. Other churches can be investigated for violations as well. But the RC church is the biggest offender. Consider these facts: Priests of Darkness

Whether the fish was contaminated or not is in the mindset of the person making the decision. But that is irrelevant to whether it was a choice or not. It was a choice. As opposed to freely eating the fish one day, and deciding to freely do so for many years after that, then proclaiming now that we were "forced to eat it." Baloney. Whether it was tainted or not is another issue entirely ... but the point is we CHOSE to eat. (Exceptions are the mentally retarded, and children.)

Wow, what about the Roman Catholic Church? Just read history and consider what atrocities were committed; 10 times worse than twi.

Golly, one may use this line of reasoning for any kind of learning. Anything. One may use this excuse for any religion or university. One may use it for children learning in the second grade. For me the bottom line is that we were hungry and we ate and the food tasted good, which was why folks hung around for many years. Later, we learned that the fish had some bones. So we had to spit out those bones. OK. Doesn't mean the fish didn't taste good. Doesn't mean the fish wasn't worth eating in the first place. But the main point is, we CHOSE "the fish" or "the propaganda". (Notable exceptions are children and mentally retarded, who don't have a choice). But we fed on that fish ... ate it up. Why? We ate because we were HUNGRY, not because somebody controlled us to eat the fish! Believing someone controlled you to eat the fish is victim mentality. I think it's a loser. Now if a twi participant stayed involved for many years and now claims they weren't hungry for answers to being with, well then its ones own fault for getting involved for all that time for all the wrong reasons. Do you believe Dr. Wierwille wanted someone to be involved in twi who didn't really want to be there? HECK no.

Mark, I think the "fear of leaving" actually is pretty common among religious groups. That was true with the religion of my youth as well as twi. But remember that's all part of the risk and responsibilities one takes on when becoming involved in anything. I also believe this emotion of fear and apprehension is not limited to religions... it's a common occurance.. fear of the unknown. Regarding asking questions, I asked many questions during my twi stint, and have a stack of letters from hq with the answers. Therefore for me, there is no excuse because when I had questions about something, an attempt was made to get those questions answered. Sometimes the answers were not satisfactory to me, so I had to make a choice to stay or leave. At times, I chose to remain. At other times, I chose to leave. I left a few times during my stint. For instance, before taking the Advanced Class in 1978, I hadn't been to a fellowship in 6 months. What does all this mean? It means folks need to accept responsibility for their actions and beliefs and quit blaming others for our own decisions we freely made. We got involved in twi of our own freedom of will, and we left that way. Playing the victim card by using "mind control" as an excuse for what you now believe years later was a poor decision in life on your part (if you believe that way, I don't) is just that an excuse for a bad decision. Be thankful to God for all that you have learned, I am.

I voted for Victor P. Just kidding.

It might be Audio Letter #40.

Here's a link: Dr. Beter

VERY good points. Thanks WhiteDove.

Doojable, Thanks for the correction. To be more accurate in the future, I will use the word "alleged", since I didn't witness it. So here's my modified statement: "The parallel I'd make is that both were alleged adulterers, both had great messages, and the messages are worth considering and repeating despite their alleged sins."

Roy, I think you summed things up pretty good in your book:

Hi Roy, God loves you too. My reading of John Chapter 3 is very simple, and summed up in verse 16 "for God so loved the world that he gave his only begotten son, that whosover believeth in him should not perish but have everlasting life". That's how to get born again. Its a very simple truth. I'm not sure "adding the stage of seed" would help simplify matters and make it more logical, but feel free to communicate your thoughts.

The parallel I'd make is that both were adulterers, both had great messages, and the messages are worth considering and repeating despite their sins.

Sirguessalot, I think your analysis over complicates a very simple promise in the Word. Remember the word is so simple "a fool need not err therein". It is simple faith. When faith is lacking, it gets complicated.

Cman, What do you mean by "accepting"? By accepting, do you mean "doing"? Well I do think Christians should try to do all that Jesus said to do, the biggest among those is "love God with all your heart, soul mind and strength, and love your neighbor as yourself". HOWEVER, I do not believe in salvation by works. I believe it's solely by the grace of God through faith alone. Thanks bowtwi.

Rascal, I think the key is in your own statement "he claimed it was necessary to teach the dog not to disobey." That was his intent. So he employed corporal punishment as a training tool. In today's world, corporal punishment seems to be less and less accepted. For instance, many believe spanking is child abuse. But I would say that if it was his intent to beat the crap out of the dog out of pure meanness and hatred, then yes he'd be in severe violation of scripture. If not, then I'd be open to consider other avenues.

Cman, What it means to me is an individual's full belief in and acceptance of all the works of Jesus Christ while he was on this earth, personal belief in all the accomplishment of those works, personal confession of him as one's lord and saviour, belief that God raised him from the dead, and personal acceptance and belief of God's redemptive plan for mankind through belief in his son Jesus Christ, the Messiah.

DWBH, good post, thanks. BTW, it is widely known that Martin Luther King Jr. was a womanizing adulterer. So once again that old addage is proven, "the sins of the teacher do not negate the truth in the teachings." Thanks, DWBH.