Tzaia

This is really a great thread! Thanks for all the insight.

Not in my situation. I was mostly hurt to find out how fake the thing was.

Not that I remember. My (now) husband said he could not seriously date anyone who hadn't taken the class, so I had him pay for it.

I guess the difference is that you're happy you're doing yard work in heaven? The ironic thing is that I never once saw anyone from a branch coordinator on up ever willingly do their own yard work because they enjoyed it. It has always amazed me how people could speak so authoritatively about things that are pure speculation. They'd ask, "Don't you want to be in the kitchen?" No, not really - I spend enough time there now. However, I don't get enough bathroom time ( at the time I had small kids), so provided I have enough reading material, the bathroom sounds pretty good to me.

No, I don't care. I've been out since '87 and mentally gone before that. I didn't believe it then, which is why I joked about being able to find me in the household toilet. I was merely pointing out the ridiculousness of the belief. I mean seriously, if that's what is keeping someone in - I'm just suggesting they rethink the whole thing.

I never was able to quite get (from a TWI perspective) where I was going to be - besides the toilet.

Sort of a preemptive "Left Behind"?

Not that I really care what they think, but I was wondering today if current "standing" "believers" wonder about where we, who have fallen away from the "true" church, will be in the house of God in paradise? I can't help but think that with all of the emphasis on where someone would be in the house, like in the kitchen, when we were in TWI, that they lament not being able to hang out with all of us backsliding out-of-fellowship people. Seriously, back in the day I used to joke about my final destination room in paradise being the bathroom (and more accurately the toilet) because of how not involved I was even when I was involved. I know that people really believed they would be hanging out with Jesus in the kitchen (I guess while Martha is cooking and cleaning) of eternal paradise. I wonder if they think that paradise is going to be an awfully empty world?

Seemed pretty obvious, yet worth mentioning ;-)

Which part of THE WORD are you talking about? You do remember that adherence to Jewish law fell (rather quickly) to the wayside to accommodate the Gentiles when it came to food. At that time there was no "WORD" other than the Hebrew scriptures with all its dietary laws. Yet, when those dietary laws and circumcision became an obstacle to receiving the good news, they were set aside. I'm reminded of the Ethiopian eunuch that traveled to Jerusalem to worship in the temple. However, he ran into several unsurmountable obstacles once he got there. One, he was the wrong color, and two he had no testicles. He wasn't allowed to enter the temple due to his "defect" (apparently his defect was flagrant). He was headed back home when he came upon Philip. Philip shares the good news with him - fully aware of the Ethiopian's defect and what that meant in Jewish society. The Ethiopian asks whether the good news is for him - a humiliated and defective man who has no hope of descendants <== a big deal back in those days - and he asks to be baptized. Philip didn't flinch. He baptized him. Humiliated, rejected, and a social outcast (sounds like Jesus) - he came to know the Lord. Where did Philip go in "THE WORD" to know if it was ok to do that? Maybe he went into Isaiah 56 where God says: "Maintain justice and do what is right, for my salvation is close at hand and my righteousness will soon be revealed. Blessed is the man who does this, the man who holds it fast, who keeps the Sabbath without desecrating it, and keeps his hand from doing any evil." Let no foreigner who has bound himself to the LORD say, "The LORD will surely exclude me from his people." And let not any eunuch complain, "I am only a dry tree." For this is what the LORD says: "To the eunuchs who keep my Sabbaths, who choose what pleases me and hold fast to my covenant-- to them I will give within my temple and its walls a memorial and a name better than sons and daughters; I will give them an everlasting name that will not be cut off. And foreigners who bind themselves to the LORD to serve him, to love the name of the LORD, and to worship him, all who keep the Sabbath without desecrating it and who hold fast to my covenant-- these I will bring to my holy mountain and give them joy in my house of prayer. Their burnt offerings and sacrifices will be accepted on my altar; for my house will be called a house of prayer for all nations." Here we have two instances: One where "THE WORD" was set aside in order to welcome what would be outcasts (Gentiles), and one where "THE WORD" is used to welcome another outcast even though "THE WORD" has specific regulations that forbid any person whose penis is crushed or who lacks testicles to enter the temple. In each case, common decency, compassion, and mercy is considered more important than "it is written." How can I, in all good conscience, do less?

Jesus hung out with tax collectors, prostitutes, Samaritans, women, and just about every other socially undesirable that one could imagine. I don't see one record where he told them to shape up according to the word or he would shut them out. Perhaps he realized that for some it wasn't a radical conversion, but a lifelong process of progress and failures.

I don't think it's whether or not we (as Christians) believe homosexuality is wrong. I think it's whether or not we believe (as Christians) that Jesus came for everyone. Outcasts. Outsiders. And yes, even the homosexual. Who are we to decide who is to be reconciled to God? Who are we to suggest your or my particular sin is any less despised by God? I'm just sayin' that I think we (as Christians) should be very careful when we attempt to speak on behalf of God about who or who is not welcome.

Banned?

Is TWI really saying it's different? I mean people come on here and they say TWI is different. But I don't recall TWI actually coming out and saying it is behaving differently. Did I miss something?

Q. What do you do when you don't want others to read your posts? A. Use a white font.

It pays to learn the difference <object width="480" height="385"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VsyS0oHLNFA&hl=en_US&fs=1&rel=0"></param><param'>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VsyS0oHLNFA&hl=en_US&fs=1&rel=0"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VsyS0oHLNFA&hl=en_US&fs=1&rel=0" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="480" height="385"></embed></object>

James probably thought the same thing. He seems to be genuinely surprised by this turn of events. If it were me, I'd probably point people to TWI's book and then publish a commentary to point out deviations from his theology. But then there's that pesky problem of TWI's reluctance to sell its products to non-way people.

The irony is delicious. That doesn't make the argument (on Trimm's part) any less weak. His argument would be stronger (IMO) if he could pull a translation that predates TWI's and run a similarity test on it and thereby bypass the TWI thing altogether. My gut feeling is that it wouldn't pass, which is why he's playing the doctrine/first amendment card. On a different note - i can't help but wonder where we would all be if BG Leonard and others had as vigorously defended their intellectual property?

Potato - you have it backwards - James' organization is making the case into one of church doctrine. He can correct me if I'm wrong, but what he seems to be saying is that because the HRV that he wrote is essentially the doctrine of his religious organization, that it supersedes anyone's claim to copyright under the first amendment of the constitution. TWI is treating this as a simple copyright violation and that Mr. Trimm plagiarized a good portion of its Aramaic NT for his HRV.

So, if one leaves, they're probably possessed. If one stays, they're probably incompetent. Gotta love those odds.

Shellon - that's good to know that's it's not family doing this. I just assumed. But what I said goes for her (or anyone who thinks like her), too. She's got a pretty small god. Added in edit - Shellon's family - I am deeply sorry that I assumed it was one of you

There you have it. They would be peaceful if you would just stop using their work, and you would be peaceful if they would just stop insisting that you stop using their work. Have you ever approached them about paying them a percentage for royalties?

Not since leaving. Actually, no one bothered after I told them that I couldn't worship a god like the one "protecting" TWI. The only people who have been going after Shellon with any kind of regularity are her husband's family members who are still in TWI. Maybe now they've gone anonymous. Shellon provides them the perfect scapegoat. It doesn't matter if she is in TWI or not. It can't be them. After all, they are "standing," so whether she's in or not, it has to be her. I guess my question to Shellon's family is who is Shellon that she has such power and influence over God? I realize that prolonged exposure to TWI damages brain cells, but seriously Shellon's family, are you so brain damaged that you can't grasp the implication of what you're saying? You have literally put your god's grace, power, healing, and mercy into Shellon's hands. That doesn't make for a very powerful god.

Another thing I found ironic in Oldskool's post was the "punishment." Being sent out to (basically plant new churches) start fellowships was/is considered punishment. Wow. However, the truly entrepreneurial would see that as an opportunity to not only win souls, but have first dibs on any new MLM opportunities.