JeffSjo

(Feel free to add a liberal amount of sarcasm to the tone in this post as you read.) ________________ Well, I guess that nobody has the right to shout someone's sins from the roof-tops!? After all, the only true measure of guilt requires a jury or a summary judgement by a judge. And what about the appelate court?I guess we had better shut up until after the appeals process. As a matter of law, I guess we cannot judge Wierwille guilty until the supreme court says so. But even then, the legislative branch could pass a new constitutional ammendment to make Wierwille's scummy action legal. Why then, even the Lord himself could not say Wierwille was guilty. I guess the Lord knew all that W.D. would say was true when he promised that sins would be yelled from the roof-tops. Of course the Lord's promises are subject to White Dove's irrelevant version of guilty. (edited because I later remembered my third grade social studies.) I initially said representative branch, not legislative.

O.K., I can certainly go along with that Kimberly. Now I'm wondering if things like that were commonplace in TWI. I suppose it is not wise to stagger down the street and ramble incoherently about them too. Sorry Kimberly, no offense intended, I guess your comment just struck a little bit of my funny bone. I'm really wondering if TWI ministers ever tried to show off by talking about devils at funerals and weddings now....hhhmmm.

When I first came here I was hurting badly and needed answers. Among the first things that I did was tell folks that I learned thing from PFAL and was thankful for TWI. And everyone was gentle with me for the most part, IMO they were just giving the new guy the benefit of the doubt. But as I listened to your experiences and started lining them up with my own splinter group experience my views changed to what some folks may choose to label ANTI-TWI. But I still remember good folks who were trying to do good things too in TWI. In hindsight, it appears that real nasty scumbags ran TWI and are still trying to hide. But it was all too easy for leadership to hide and encourage loyalty and love. Loyalty and love is good. But truth requires a different attitude towards those in TWI who led people into scummy actions. In such a case I believe that truth and properly applied love and loyalty requires rebuke and exposure. As long as they have their identity tied up in TWI then it stands to reason that they may feel that any criticism of TWI is anti something anyway. Or criticism of Wierwille is bad. Or leadership deserves to have their sin hid for God's sake. I can understand these opinions, but I don't think that this is correct.

Sheesh W.D. You've been calling folks dishonest for a long time, and fairly often too. Whas up wit dat? Now you complain about being showed your distortion of the definition of "guilty" that you yourself did. And while arguing an irrelevant point you think that it proves that because you are alone here at the Greasespot in your distortion in the course of an irrelevant point that you stand alone on the truth. Another option to consider is that maybe your points are just that bad. I can see needing to stand against everyone when the truth is at stake. I think that is a tremendous stand to take. I really, really wish that I could perceive you in that manner W.D. But irrelevance and dishonesty on your part has convinced me that you are not doing this at the Greasespot in general. But what the heck, at least you are persistent. :B) (edited for spelling)

I agree wholeheartedly that if this were criminal court that Wierwille, LCM, Geer, and TWI would have the right of presumed innocence. Your whole point has NO RELEVANCE here though. So I suppose that you can claim that you are just holding with the context of this thread that you started W.D. if you want to. If this was a formal court you would have a good point. But I remember you rehashing this point many times mentioning the court of "public opinion" right here at the Greasespot. That rule does not apply here. Just as I said earlier that I was capable of judging you to be guilty of cherry-picking the definition of "guilty" to prove your irrelevant point, I am also capable of judging TWI to be guilty of many abuses. The parallel is simple to me. I am saying that by cherry-picking the definition of "guilty" to suit your irrelevant point you were deliberately distorting the definition to suit your purposes, whatever they may be W.D. Is it too fine a distinction to call a deliberate distortion a lie to you W.D.? It is pretty clear to me. Roll those eyes all you want! It doesn't change what you did. But sadly enough, it looks like getting called on you dishonesty is not going to lead to any change in your actions. A good Christian lesson is to confess one's sin. And every other ethical system that I know of has this principle somewhere in their cultural norms. You are definitely committed to whatever it is that you believe. But without this basic core honesty in your heart, what have you really got there W.D.? My splinter group leader went so far as to openly mocking the concept of honesty when it suited him. IMO he only did that to get people to go along with his lies. When people are like that you cannot believe anything that comes out of their mouths. What's next after lying to get one's own way? How about physical intimidation? That can be effective too. How about isolating and marginalizing the opposition? What good Christian behavior that is. How about taking away their families? That can break them too W.D. Like I said before W.D. About the only thing that I'm wondering about you now is how far are you willing to go to get your own way. In other words, I have formed an opinion about you (without the benefit of a legal trial mind you) and now it seems to me to simply be a question of when and if you'll stop. It's similar to a person who will take a big bribe, but not a small one. Either way, I know what they really are. (edited for grammar)

When I faced the same devilish doctrine in my splinter group I told them that God gave the care of my son to me. And that everything after that was up to me and my wife. And they were already mad at me for insisting on having a child when it was the current trend in my splinter group to not have children because the Lord was returning in 1997, no wait 2000, no I mean 2001, er 2003, no it was really going to happen in 2005. For whatever it's worth I have felt more broken than strong for quite a while WG, but thank you anyway.

I can pity both victims and the victimizer. But it is a lot easier to be angry at the victimizers. Especially when the victimizers are trying to shut the victims up. I've sung that song before too.

Of course when somebody uses abrasive terms to describe someone who may just need a little venting to heal, no matter what their motives are (That is you I'm referring to What The Hey) it is wrongheaded.

(TWO-CENTS ALERT) Hi Tzaia, I can understand how any emotional experience can turn into an addictive activity. It just happens, it is what happens to people sometimes. In my own experiences I like to think that taking a good hard look at these things have the potential to help people move on by coming to some kind of closure with the past. And in a situation where things turned ugly but we were taught and driven to put aside all our misgivings in God's name things got pretty badly messed up. For me these things hit home on many levels, God, family, worldview, emotionally, professionally, and they have the potential to touch upon and influence virtually every single interaction that I have with anybody. I am not going to be quick to judge anyone if they have the need to rehash things. But I won't judge them if they feel that it is time to move on either. Healing is a process and there are just too many questions that I don't have answers to about you or anyone else Tzaia. Especially if you feel that it is time for you to quit rehashing things. But for others here, at times it seemed like they were just telling folks to quit rehashing things because of ulterior motives. But even if a specific individual did not have the ulterior motives that I perceived, it is plain to me that at that time they were lacking in terms of care for the one who was rehashing things. At the very least they could have showed some sympathy or understanding to someone who had been beat up pretty badly. But when folks have said that it was time to move on as it pertained to themselves, heck, I just wish them well. There doesn't seem anything wrong with any of us being willing to consider that it may be time to move on. Or maybe being willing to consider that someday it may be time to move on either. (edited for spelling)

That sounds about right to me Skyrider.

The more that I hear from you guys the more I am amazed at how damaging a false perception of excellence has been. Be great-----be abusive. Be great.....castrate others. Be great.....teach children to suck your d_ck. Be great.....divorce your spouse. For me, this stuff is still hard to take in sometimes, for me like right now. :(

Dear Rascal, It may very well be that He cried then. But I take some comfort in believeing what He said about what HE WILL DO TO THE ABUSERS when he comes back. As leadership it seems plain to me that Paul took responsibility for what he led people into. Now we see TWI doing everything in their power to hide, and lie about what they led people into. IMO it doesn't take an Einstein to see (even if through a glass darkly) what the Lord will do to them.

Dear Watered Garden, I don't remember any of that because I was not close to HQ whenever that stuff was going down. But hearing it from you does not surprise me. I can see now how this record can relatively easily be twisted into something that always encourages us to be more committed, or to give more...et. etc. But for me, when my wife and the rest of the group believed Barnard's application of these verses I found it to be not so. This record encourages us to take responsibility for our own things. Not to give the responsibility up to others. Peter was confronting Ananias on lying to God. When I told this to my wife I told her that I would give or not to the group, but I wouldn't lie. I believe Ananias would have been just fine if he would have said something like, "I sold the land, and I'm giving this part of the proceeds." I don't believe that you did either. But even though I don't know you I am willing to bet that they accused you of turning your back on God. No they did't know who they were dealing with, did they? If they understood the things that he's promised to avenge they would not have done this evil, would they have? As far as my former splinter group goes, I warned them of God's garbage fire. But since they did not turn and my wife believed them, they hurt me a lot. It's a pretty good reason for me to not quit believing in the Lord's return. For the most part, the hope of His return is all that I've got.

White Dove, You see, your mistake does change things as far as to whether you are making a sound point. What can I say, as soon as I saw your initial post I "knew" that you were playing fast and loose with the dictionary to make your point. And the way you cherry picked the definition of "guilty" proves it. The most basic definition of "Guilty" has nothing to do with a court of law. But you excluded the most basic definition and made your point, which if I understand you is that we don't have the right to consider Wierwille to be guilty. You then said, "Need I say more....." Well, yes White Dove, you needed to say more. Your exclusion of all the other aspects of the word "guilty" shows that you are blatantly distorting the defintion of "guilty" to make your point. I do not relish that our history of posting back and forth made it obvious to me that you were doing this as soon as I saw your post. But that is what you did. No, I won't sue you, I don't need a court to see that you are guilty of distortion of the definition to make your own point. And I find it mearly annoying that after you distort the meaning of "guilty" that you say "Need I say more....." as if you made the case or as if we should all bow to your excellent sentence. If you want to make a sound point White Dove, you should learn to quit distorting things. I feel that it is a long established habit for you. (edited for spelling)

This makes perfect sense to me Rascal. My early life certainly had many of the same factors at work in it to make me more likely to be attracted to virtually anybody who seemed loving and accepting too. Once when I was in high school after one of my many moves while at a new school I became a burn-out because of all the kids at school they were the ones that were willing to take me as I was. And my bad attitude toward life in general that I felt at that time happened to be a pretty good fit with that crowd too. But for all the drinking and drugs that went with that crowd there are still a few that I would consider friends to this day if I saw them. But then they did not violate me as TWI has done to many. (added in editing) I feel it to be true that for me some of my old burnout friends turned out to be better people than TWI leadership, in general.

God's mercies are awesome Rascal. I think you are wonderful! You've got your family now, and I thank God for it.

Your bias allows you to lie about the dictionary defintion White Dove. The only question I have now is how far you will go in distorting things to get your own way? (edited for grammar)

I've been reading through the reformation lately. And on both sides (Catholic and Protestant) their drive, scholarship, commitment, and bravery makes TWI and my splinter group laughable in comparison. How is it that we believed we were world beaters? Most capable believers of all time, yeah right! (edited for Grammar)

I think it was pretty cool that Potato immediately went to check out the dictionary that you supposedly quoted from W.D., as I did. As soon as I saw your supposed quote of the dictionary I suspected that you were cherry picking the definition of guilty. And then I proved it. But not only did you cherry pick. You lied. Definition #1 is not what you said it was at all. Definition #1 of "guilty" has nothing to do with the legal system. Why did you lie by making definition #2 into definition #1 White Dove? This touches directly on my concern for you White Dove. It's all to easy to imagine you as someone who is just not willing to let go of your unrealistic view of what TWI and Wierwille were. If these things go against your inner sense of loyalty or purpose then I feel compasion for you. As Rascal said, you've been at the Greasespot for a long time arguing your case. But I take it as a warning when your beliefs move you to LIE AS YOU DID WHEN YOU MADE DEFINITION #2 TO BE DEFINITION #1. And even though I feel compasion for you if you really are motivated by loyalty, I assure you that I feel more compassion for those who had their lives ruined in TWI, and not just had to suffer through just listening to people come to conclusions that I might find to be disagreeable, as you seem to be doing right now. I don't need to lie now, even though I have sinned too. If you have to lie, then you are really only hurting your cause White Dove. And I wouldn't tend to believe you even if you had a sound point because of the lie. When I was new to TWI I met someone from the American Freedom Foundation, which I believe was a group that was promoting deprograming. And if I knew then what I knew now I would have some empathy for how this person freaked out when at our chance encounter I told him that I was with TWI. But because he freaked out, I thought that any anti-TWI person must be a nutjob too. And for the record, no matter what the motivation deprogramming is wrong and most often only backfired on the deprogrammers anyway. In similar fashion, your argument fails because you lied about the defintions, thus hurting your own case. (edited for grammar)

This is the definition of guilt from Webster's New World College Dictionary; on-line 1. The state of having done a wrong or committed an offense; culpability, legal or ethical 2. a painful feeling of self-reproach resulting from a belief that one has done something wrong or immoral 3. conduct that involves guilt; crime; sin __________________ From the same dictionary....guilty 1. having guilt; deserving blame or punishment; culpable 2. having one's guilt proved; legally judged an offender 3. showing or conscious of guilt 4.of or involving guilt or a sense of guilt ___________________ You cherry pick the dictionary to fit your premise W.D. Personally, I feel that if Wierwille felt the normal human pangs of consciousness you wouldn't now be in this predicament. I can judge Wierwille guilty without having a jury say so. He deserves blame. See def. #1

Isn't Nietzsche dead? I just hate it when people think that only their Nietzsche doesn't stink! Sheesh, throwing Nietzsche around again, like the zoo chimps.

I remember the intro in JCING. Wierwille sounded meek and gentle in it. What you remember Wierwille saying sounds like a jacka$$ speaking. And either way, it should not be "hard to say", What The Hey. I was just wondering how you'd respond to Wierwille's words out of you mouth being at such blatant contradiction with your own version of Christian ethics. They both came out in your posts in quick succession. Post numbers 28, 32, and 35. I put these three together in post #39. (edited for spelling and clarity)

I guess it must be me that is confused as usual. But for someone who has no memory in these rememberances you seem to have a good recall of "usual." If we keep it up W.D., I think that it will end up as usual.

So when Wierwille said "Stupider than a dead jacka$$ to believe in the trinity" was he speaking for God or was he BEING a jacka$$?