Abigail

by Jack Riemer We cannot merely pray to You, O God, to end war; For we know that You have made the world in a way That man must find his own path to peace Within himself and with his neighbor. We cannot merely pray to You, O God, to end starvation; For you have already given us the resources With which to feed the entire world If we would only use them wisely. We cannot merely pray to You, O God, To root out prejudice, For You have already given us eyes With which to see the good in all men If we would only use them rightly. We cannot merely pray to You, O God, to end despair, For You have already given us the power To clear away slums and to give hope If we would only use our power justly. We cannot merely pray to You, O God, to end disease, For you have already given us great minds with which To search out cures and healing, If we would only use them constructively. Therefore we pray to You instead, O God, For strength, determination, and willpower, To do instead of just to pray, To become instead of merely to wish.

I'd file a complaint with the health department Mr. P!

"That's wishful thinking Abi. PAT HAD NO MONEY. They would have gained nothing, and it would have cost them more, if TWI had continued to pursue the case after they already got what they were looking for. Screwing Pat over financially was obviously NOT on their agenda." No Raf, its speculation, just as your opinion is speculation. Based upon what I know about TWI and about Pat and the "pain" he inflicts upon them with his website, I find it difficult to believe TWI wouldn't cause as much damage to him as they could, given the proper opportunity. That would include forcing him into bankruptcy if possible. It's ok. Ultimately, it really doesn't matter which one of us is right.

"You either couldn't afford to go forward (no shame there: just say so) or you didn't have the confidence in your case that you profess. If you believed in your case and had the will to see it through to trial, you'd have done it: you would not have surrendered the domain name no matter how they asked." Raf, the same could be said of TWI going to trial. They could have gained more by going to trial as well (despite Pat's current financial situation - they could have royally screwed him over if they had an absolute win on their hands)and the fact they didn't, tells me they too faced the very real possibility of losing. Conversely, it is often very foolish to represent oneself - especially in a federal court which has much stricter rules than district or circuit. So it may very simply be no one was spanked and both parties were wise to settle in the way they did. TWI got their domain name and trademark and Pat did not lose his shirt.

aaaaa"How is everyone defining "worship"? How does one know they are "worshipping" something, as opposed to loving, respecting, etc. etc.? " That is just sad, Oldies. Can you respond to my response to you or are you just going to continue to flounder and dodge?

Oldies, "The bible is the "written word". Jesus is "the word in the flesh". They are both "the word." TWI always taught that the written word takes the place of the absent Christ. Christ is not here in person, so the bible is here to take his place. " Who (outside of TWI's twisted doctrine) says Christ is absent? Is it not "Christ in you the hope of glory" And if it is - then Christ is not absent - he is present inside you. Additionally, "I do think a case can be made that twi worships the bible ... but whether that's idolatry is another matter, since "God and his Word" are one in the same (John 1:1)." Now you are arguing for the trinity. If God and his word are literally one, and Jesus was literally the word made manifest in the flesh, then Jesus and God are literally one and viola, you have the trinity. That being the case, worshipping Jesus is no more "sin" than worshipping the Bible. Somehow, I find it difficult to believe God's desire was for people to worship the Bible.

Pat, Technically you may be correct, but in practice, one generally waits until discovery is completed, or at the very least mostly completed, before filing a motion for summary disposition. Now, on the otherside of this and for what it is worth, I don't think you got spanked. You didn't file this lawsuit, TWI did. Therefore, it wasn't up to you to simply "drop it". In addition, as part of their Complaint, TWI was requesting you pay damages. Legal matters/law suites often come down to a game of chicken. Most civil suites are settled before trial. However, prior to settlement there is a lot of research, discovery, and legal manuevering which ultimately allows both sides to have more room to negotiate. Had you simply rolled over and tried to settle, they may very well have required damages be paid as part of the settlement. By holding your ground and filing a counter claim, you let them know it was going to cost them money to try and get money from you. You gave yourself room for negotiation. I believe settling was a very wise move on your part and you did it in such a way that you didn't have to pay damages. So, taking all of that into consideration, and considering you were handling this by and large on your own and without an attorney, I think you did very well.

"According to the paperwork we were given by the clerk of the district court when we filed in Fed Court, above 90% of pro se cases are thrown out as soon as a motion for summary judgement is filed because this is the stage where that many pro se litigants become hopelessly lost. Pat carried it all the way to settlement." CW, technically speaking, the fact that Pat and TWI settled means little in terms of his legal skills. In this case, discovery was never completed and the motion stage never reached. Yes, Pat filed a motion for summary disposition(prematurely) but TWI never filed a motion for a directed verdict, nor did they have time to. Additionally, in this case if the judge HAD granted a motion to dismiss the case, Pat would have been the victor, not the loser. That being said, I'm sure it was still a good experience for Pat, in terms of getting his feet wet in the legal system. p.s. Raf, I'd rather see the money in the hands of the lawyers than in the hands of TWI. At least the attorneys make little pretense about who they are and what they do.

"Abi: Does that work with trademark infringement cases? I honestly don't know: do all trademark infringement cases go to fed court first? I'm under the impression that this is not the case." I do not know if all trademark infringement cases go to federal court first. Jursidiction and venue can get very complicated depending on the nature of the case and the type of case. Additionally, one can request a change in venue for numerous reasons. I know very little about trademark law. What I do have a decent understanding of is civil law in general. That being said, yes arbitration would still be possible. Most judges would prefer to see a case go into some type of mediation and would not deny such a request if both parties are agreeable to it. We recently had a medical malpractice case get moved to arbitration they day of the trial, in the midst of jury selection.

Pat, Did you receive your answers to interrogatories and your request for production of documents? If so, are you going to post them?

An aside from the settlement issue. . . . "not being a lawyer, I can't answer why they went to Fed court instead of an arbitration board or whatever)." Arbitration/facillitation is not eliminated as a course of action until the jury makes a decision. At any point in time prior to a verdict the parties can agree to mediation and/or the judge can order them into mediation. In this case, it is to Pat's benefit that this did not happen, as then he would have had the added cost of 1/2 the fees for the arbitrators/facilitators. As to the rest, I know nothing about trademark laws. I think Raf and LongGone make some valid points but to me the BIGGER point is that TWI had to shell out more money in legal fees and that is a good thing.

"Depends on who - Democrats, generally speaking, are happier in a fantasy world, and they are called 'progressive.' Anyone else is just called 'insane.'" Perhaps, but do the insane care what anyone else calls them? Is their world truly even a fantasy world or is their world as real to them as yours is to you? Merely shift a perspective and boom, the whole world has changed. "Is God truly in another realm? Or is the thing that is missing simply the realization that He is here? Irrelevant question, really. Speaking of God, to the observer, the conscious being, the observation is all." Why irrelevant? Perhaps the observation isn't all, but is simply all one can communicate to another. "Your statement is a blanket one and based on that I have to disagree with it. Certainly there are those who can't bring themselves to look around, but there are many others who can and do. 1. The prime directive of all blankets is to give warmth and comfort. " A perspective shift - the prime directive of a blanket is to protect one from the cold, or in other words - to shield them from seeing the individual as an individual instead of as on object or a "them". "No, that association exists in the mind of the observer holding the memories. For everyone else, it's just a placeholder for parking butts." Perhaps. But whose reality are we most concered with - everyone elses? or our own? "The empty chair holds memories of those who once sat in it, or joy in knowing who will sit in it next. No, that association exists in the mind of the observer holding the memories. For everyone else, it's just a placeholder for parking butts." Perhaps, but neverthe less it does exist. And by its existence and its ability to stir the memories - the event/person/people live on in the minds of those who remember. "This discussion is only referring to the human tendency to bestow the absence of God, much like the absence of a certain emperor's clothes, with the status of presence." Whose life is God absent from? How do we know He is absent? If we are unaware of Him does that make Him absent? If I am unware of my son standing behind me, is he absent or present? Conversely, how does one know He is present? Just because on has faith that He is does that guarantee anything?

"Do you believe in God? Belief, as we understand it, is not a bridge but a barrier, because belief, as WE understand and practice it today, is OUR definition of its object, not the object." Exactly! One of the first principles one learns when studying Kabbalah is just that. All of these words, ideas, concepts - none of them ARE God, they are just a way to try to know, explain, understand God. To actually know God is beyond our ability to explain or understand, and yet we can actually know Him. this too is a catch-22

"The sanitariums are filled with delusional people. They may believe they are living in the Taj Mahal. Is the Taj Mahal a real place? Yes. Are they really there? No." ah, but if they don't know they are delusional, if they are happy in their Taj Mahal, does it make a difference? To those on the outside, it may make a difference, sure. But do the delusional mind being delusional or are their delusional places better than our reality? "God, like the Taj Mahal, is in another realm entirely, and believers, like the incurably insane, can't bring themselves to look around and ask themselves, "What's missing? Should I be looking elsewhere?" Is God truly in another realm? Or is the thing that is missing simply the realization that He is here? Your statement is a blanket one and based on that I have to disagree with it. Certainly there are those who can't bring themselves to look around, but there are many others who can and do. "The empty chair is... still empty. The cool of the day is found in the shade of a tree. The drying of tears is found in the comfort of a sympathetic friend. . . . " The empty chair holds memories of those who once sat in it, or joy in knowing who will sit in it next. The cool of the day is found in many places. The shade of the tree, a pond or lake, river or stream. The drying of tears is also found in the release of the hurt.. . . . peace friend.

thanks Sky and likewise. My response was very much for Chwester only. Its an old argument. It seems to really bother him that I utilize the programs which my tax dollars (as well as his) pay for to work for a better life for myself and my children, instead of wallowing in misery, bitterness and self-pity as he does.

Two southern hillbillies walk into a bar. While having a shot of whiskey, they talk about their moonshine operation. Suddenly, a woman at a nearby table begins to cough. After a minute or so it becomes apparent she is in real distress. One of the hillbillies looks at her and says, "Kin ya swallar?" The woman shakes her head no. "Kin ya breathe?" The woman begins to turn blue and shakes her head no. The hillbill walks over to the woman, lifts up the back of her dress, yanks down her drawers and quickly givers her right butt cheeck a lick with his tongue. The woman is so shocked that she has a violent spasm and the obstruction flies out of her mouth. As she begins to breathe again the hillbilly walks slowly back to the bar. His partner says, "Ya know, I'd heerd of that there Hind Lick Maneuver,but I ain't never seen nobody do it."

Chewster, thank you for reminding me of why it was I chose Judaism over Christianity.

You think, therefore you are.

"Why do we have to expect perfection from people just because said people talk about God?" Expecting basic morality and human decency from those who "talk about God" is a far cry different than expecting perfection. I don't think any of us expected the latter, but we damned well ought to expect the former.

"ut I feel that if I can't believe some of it, I can't believe any of it. I guess it is a progessive thing. I didn't take to PFAL overnight either" SC, I was the same way for a long time, all or nothing. I chose nothing for a few years because I just couldn't figure out how to do it half way. I still haven't become an official member of a church or synogogue, but I have learned to find more middle ground. That is the beauty of being outside of TWI, you DON'T have to believe everything a church/religion teaches. You have the freedom to pick and choose what you believe is right or wrong. :)--> The key is to remember everyone else does too. So be as respectful of their beliefs as you would want them to be of yours.

I'm with you on this one Geo. I have been having a great time studying the Bible from the perspective of parables illustrating spiritual points and learning a great deal as well. SC, You may be interested to know that most Jewish people, even the orthodox ones, do not take the entire O.T. literally, nor historically have they. I find it very interesting that Christianity stems from Judaism and yet the Jews do not take it all literally and so many Christians do. Additionally, and I don't mean this harshly though it may come across so in print, you are likely to learn more at a Bible study group if you go into with the attitude that they might just know some things you do not and/or that some of what you are so sure about may actually be incorrect.

." I for one do not think that the Torah should be thrown out, even though we are in the "grace" administration now. Yet, I still have to wonder how much relevance the Torah has to Grace." A LOT! spend some time perusing some of the articles here. It may take a little time to find the ones that speak to you the most, but it is time well spent. Not all Jewish people live under the laws in the rigid/steriotypical way we tend to associate with the concept of Judaism. Many follow ritual laws more as a tradition than a religion. There is a great deal of depth to Torah which is difficult to see without some of the oral traditions and teachings to go along with it. In that depth you will find grace and an incredible sense of oneness with God, a oneness which I found seriously lacking during my time with TWI. I think many of the articles on this website (though certainly not all) could apply to anyone of any religion, one must simply ignore or replace the references to Jews and Judaism to see it.

DMiller, "Beth Yeshhua reminds you of twi?? Wow -- guess I better look at the site a little closer! They never really seemed to come across that way at the weekly meeting I went to" It's their statment of faith which weirded me out some, it's here This reminded me of TWI . . . "Statements of Faith and Vision Vision Our vision is to restore the worship of the Father in spirit and truth to the First Century model in the hearts of as many people as we may reach with our message." It goes on to make a few other references to doing things as they were done by the First Century Church as well. It may mean absolutely nothing, in respect to who they are, it just weirded me out is all. Doesn't mean there isn't things I can learn there. :)--> Thanks for the other link, too, I will check it out.

Danny, That was some great information you shared. I would love it if you could post some links, but if it means looking all the stuff up again, don't worry about it, I'll find it eventually. "Even today in the middle east, and in other religions, women wear veils. " Interesting point. It might be fun to check out the history on this. In Judaism, the men are to keep their heads covered. Married women too, will wear a scarf on their heads - at least in the more orthodox traditions, but not the single women. Yet, the single men still do..hmmmm. Sky, "Personally, I can see a beuutiful woman wearing a small hat with a little vail over her head, on rare occasion, (like once a month or two or once a year) as a signal to other men, look hands off, my body and beauty are for my husband or husband to be only. " Doesn't the wedding ring do that? I have to quarrel with a woman choosing to wear or not wear a veil. I'm speaking more on the deeper level of this entire submission thing. The weaker vessel and all that. "Personally, I can see a beuutiful woman wearing a small hat with a little vail over her head, on rare occasion, (like once a month or two or once a year) as a signal to other men, look hands off, my body and beauty are for my husband or husband to be only. " Another topic for another thread probably. While I think a woman should have the right to dress as she chooses, I agree. At least in this society, it is wise to consider the message your clothing may be sending. "As a man, if my wife is dressed in a sexually provacative way in public, it certainly makes me feel a little insecure, especially if she is beautiful. This is certainly one aspect of what the apostle was getting at." I would think a man would be proud to have such a beautiful woman on his arm. What's to be jealous of if she has already decided she wants to be with you anyway? Instead, it is the other men who should be jealous because she has not chosen them. I know 1000Names loves it when I dress a little sexy to go out with him, he feels proud. I enjoy it as well. Course I wouldn't dress that way to go out without him, either. "So women try and take advantage of there beauty in this manner. If men had more self control with there eyes and lusts, I think women would dress more approbriately" And this really is the crux of the matter. Because it is the beauty which may attract a man, but it is not what will ultimately keep him. A woman (and a man as well) would be wise to find a balance between looking nice and making sure the attraction is more than skin deep. "The "leadership vaccuum" will always exist when men are not taking God seriously, and force upon woman more authorative leadership roles of which many are perhaps uncomfortable." This may be true as well. But likewise, there would be no "vaccum" if it was understood one gender does not have authority over the other.

DMiller, read some more and I must say their statement of beliefs weirded me out some, because they are so similar to TWI's. Despite that, I am going to check out some of their teachings and see what they have to say.