potato

hi Oklahoma City Wow 78 I must caution you that all caps means yelling on the internet, but your message was worthy of yelling even if you didn't intend it.

Rosalie is an administrator. I never got the impression that anyone thought she was the MOGFOT. never got the impression she was trying to stoke any fire. teachings when I left were the most watered-down simplistic collateral subjects and way mag article distillations... no research, no thought. in fellowships, we were actively discouraged from thinking, from researching, from wanting to know anything but what was being taught on sundays and in the mags because, you know, that was the word God wanted us to know.... except it had moved beyond just one man's ego trip to a watered down version of long-gone mogfot ego.

yeah that made my jaw drop too... but, how far away from this was lcm when he said he was the man of god for our daytimeandhour? meaning there was no other and he was the lifeline to god's truth... he might as well have said he was the word incarnate. yes, a cult is a cult is a cult. where can God live in cultish thinking? there's precious little room for him.

all correct. in my opinion, being told not to work via the internet, visit non-twi sites, not to question leadership, to read the bible in the morning, to submit a schedule, to punish my children in certain ways and for certain things, to follow my husband blindly even when he was being stupid and destructive, to have sex with him no matter how mean he was to me, to have a job or not have a job, to not associate with people who left twi, to stop associating with people who wouldn't take the class, to me make up a the tenets of a legalistic system. whether it was good or bad for me is my opinion. I say it was bad, very bad. read it again, OM: "The term legalism is used by many authors to describe any belief system that implies that a Christian receives salvation and right standing with God by carefully following a list of expected behaviors which has been constructed by the creators of the system."

yeah, so? I think the topic was not really about whether twi is legalistic, but whether the legalistic policies of twi are/were good for the population at large, or bad. traffic lights control traffic and provide a way to channels vehicles and pedestrians safely, and the associated legalisms define rules of use. once a legalistic code of morals dictates what reading materials are appropriate, how you will spend your free time, and who you should associate with, then adherence to the legalisms becomes oppressive. read it again, OM. that wasn't a definition. it was an example of usage by christian writers.

T&O didn't delete any words in the definition. the MW entry in whole is: legalism Main Entry: le·gal·ism Listen to the pronunciation of legalism Pronunciation: \ˈlē-gə-ˌli-zəm\ Function: noun Date: 1928 1 : strict, literal, or excessive conformity to the law or to a religious or moral code <the institutionalized legalism that restricts free choice> 2 : a legal term or rule removing the illustration doesn't change the definition. the part in angle brackets is the illustration. here's what MW says by way of explanation: Illustrations of Usage Definitions are sometimes followed by verbal illustrations that show a typical use of the word in context. These illustrations are enclosed in angle brackets, and the word being illustrated appears in italics: 1key . . . noun . . . 3 a . . . <the key to a riddle> biblestudy.org attempts to explain usage by christian writers: Legalism The term legalism is used by many authors to describe any belief system that implies that a Christian receives salvation and right standing with God by carefully following a list of expected behaviors which has been constructed by the creators of the system. Some teachers have used the term to describe those who accept various Old Testament biblical laws and principles, such as tithing, as being applicable in some way to Christians. But if acceptance of those laws or principles is not being viewed as a method to "earn" or "preserve" salvation, this is not really related to the specific concept of legalism. It is entirely possible for a religious group to reject even any or all of the Ten Commandments, but to substitute for them a list of forbidden activities such as card-playing or dancing, and still be proponents of a legalistic system. whether you take the MW definition or the biblestudy.org explanation of usage, twi is plainly legalistic.

my memory is hazy on this, maybe someone else remembers The Forehead "teaching" about deprogramming, somewhen in the early 90's... did he almost say kidnapping was justifiable if someone was taken by their family to try to get them out of twi? I didn't keep any tapes and don't think I could stomach listening to that nut job even though I think transcripts would be a golden resource here. anyone remember that particular subject?

yes, we all do. in this thread I've been accused of speaking in anger and hate when all I felt was annoyance, which is understandable because CC9 doesn't know me. I can't understand a God who hates his people enough to put them in positions to be raped, beaten, killed. to me that's the devil, or just random stuff that happens in life because this world sucks. it's not the work of a benevolent, loving God. CC9 can keep his/her God, it's fine. I've never understood the logistical gymnastics people go through to make Jesus God and the son of God at the same time, or to make God kill people because he so loved the world, etc. that he has to teach them a lesson to make them repent. whatever. some people need that, I guess.

that is beautiful!

see, cman, I didn't at all get that from CC9's posts. I admit I couldn't read past the first 3 or 4, but the following snips from the first few seemed to make his/her position very clear regarding his/her opinion on where bondage, sickness, death and what have you comes from. if he/she later clarified his/her position to what you stated above, I missed it. and this last post of this morning seems to make it even more clear... and on top of that, if we believe God we will believe CC9 because he/she is speaking by the spirit, otherwise God will just keep teaching us the same lesson. I believe God, but I don't believe this particular interpretation of the bible.

cman, she suggested we look at our experiences from another perspective (hers), and it came off as preachy. I followed her statements through to a conclusion that I find horrifying, that God hurts people, or hurts or kills those they love, to teach them something. I'm simply not interested in a God like that, I find the concept repulsive. yeah, I was rude in telling her to keep her God to herself if that's what she believes, and she's free to preach a hateful God all she likes because she's free to view God as she likes, but I might be offended at the expectation that I should consider believing what she thinks because it will be good for me. there's a good reason I don't visit the doctrinal thread much and why I do most of my reading and posting in About the Way. (edited for grammatical error)

rhino, that was my feeling and why my prickles went up right away. seems like someone new will regularly pop in to teach us some lesson that we're obviously missing from the bible. I actually come here for a different reason entirely. they're free to sermonize I guess but I don't feel thankful in the least for it and I find it a bit insulting to assume anyone here has missed their valuable lesson delivered in a few easy paragraphs. I'm perfectly ok with people asking legit questions or just coming in to join a discussion, but I'm really not here so random people can try to save my soul. I will work out my own salvation and learn from the examples I see of both right and wrong.

my take on God is pretty much: s**t happens, God delivers, but you work your arse off and pay attention because there's always more s**t coming your way. it's just life. and that's the truth

WTH is this directed at me? if it is, I thought I'd just point out I'm NOT confused about God's will vs. bad experience.

I agree with you, dooj. many witnesses with similar testimonies carries weight in court. the defense would have to bring their character into question (as WD does with rascal and others) and prove they have motive for lying, or prove that the defendant was not present to commit the crimes for such evidence to be disregarded. also, WD, shame on you. I can't believe you cited wikipedia. you should use respectable sources if you want your arguments to have a semblance of integrity.

that's cool stuff, DogLover. I don't know anything about what churches are doing, but I do some stuff with a couple of local groups working with kids and families.

I will only answer 16 and 19: 16: all the lyrics became "watermelon" a few years ago. 19: hell yeah.

bummer... but I really couldn't see the point.... it was just a brag about a bunch of kids trespassing and committing vandalism and going out of their way to get way police force attention on themselves, to the end that they got in trouble with the law.

d00000d, that was AWESOME!!!!!!

you're so sweet, Belle. my avatar should be a porcupine :(

amen, dooj, amen!

thank you, dooj. your post is very enlightening! I think that's why I get sick to my stomach when I try to remember good times in twi: because they always preceded someone's heart getting broken and trust being violated. good times built closeness with people, and closeness meant they could hurt you... and hurt you they did. Twinky, the irony!!! before I left twi, I ran into an old FC who got on my case about divorcing my ex, like, why didn't I go to them for help? I pointed out that I did... they said I shoulda kept coming back because the squeaky wheel gets the grease... riiiiiiiiiiggggggghhhhhhhht. the fact is, the squeaky wife wheel gets lectured on why it was her fault. wtf.

welcome to GS. let's expound on your line of reasoning, shall we? God puts a woman in a marriage and she is beaten by her husband and loses the child she's carrying. it's God's will because she was supposed to learn something. a married couple places their young son in the care of someone in their fellowship who's been recommended by their leadership. their young son is sodomized. it was God's will that they learn somthing from it. a preacher puts a drug into a young woman's drink and rapes her. it was God's will so she could learn something from it. if that's your God, keep him to yourself. I'm sure you mean well, but please don't assume that we're all christian, believe in God, or don't realize the world is f-ed up.

yes, during a span of time they did. they also held investigations where they'd isolate one person to inquire about why they thought another person was only tithing a certain amount.

this might be what had The Forehead so ticked off... part of it anyway... he mentioned abs not making it to the root from the branches and limbs.