Abigail

Mo, I was addressing your first post in this thread, and that post only. I hadn't even read all of the other posts in this thread. And in your first post, you did say: " you want me to tiptoe around you and your pro-TWI stance so as not to hurt your "itty Bitty Feelers" forgidaboutdit!!!" and "Post as you will, but when you face the rebuttals that will surely come, do not think that I for one will be impressed by whimpering cries of "foul", by those who display a complete lack of regard for my feelings or my experiences. " Which I found to be rather contradictory in that it APPEARED as if you were telling people you would not watch your words out of concern for someone else's feelings and yet at the same time you seemed to be accusing and/or angry about others for having a total lack of regard for your feelings. So, I did not in fact turn what you quoted around at all (and how could I when I had not even read it?), nor was I casting aspersions on anyone's character, and it is now you in who are turning around what was said. We are all rather contradictory at times, it is part of being human. But I think sometimes it is a good thing when we recognize our own contradictions, it allows us to be more forgiving when we see it in others. I do not understand the anger, Mo, nor do I feel I deserve it. But if it makes you feel better, go ahead. I was simply expressing my point of view - though I guess as you said - you are not interested in tiptoeing around the feelings of other people. So, does this now constitute me crying foul? It shouldn't because I am neither hurt nor angry, but am simply expressing my pov.

"The quick to anger thing (among others)sets off my alarm bells." Allan, what is it that scares you about this? We all have moments when we are quick to anger, even you. That isn't intended as a slam - but I remember when a poster came to the boards who also "set my alarm off" (no, I'm not referring to you). Eventually, I got to know the poster a little better, via emails, and found out he wasn't a monster afterall. I still disagree with him doctrinally, but I am no longer "alarmed" by him. "Such questions as... Does mankind really need a 'savior' ? How much better off would we have been if Jesus had never been crucified ? Is there reallllyyyy such a thing as 'sin' ? etc.. maybe you get the 'gist' of what they were pushing." I don't. I think asking questions is a good thing, even when it means questioning our own faith. If our faith is strong, we can handle such questions just fine. Many people here at GSC have asked similar questions after leaving TWI. Some remained Christians others did not, but we are all free to make our own choices.

"I have noticed a trend this last few weeks to try and make those of us who have legitimate complaints about our treatment at the hands of TWI, or the treatment of friends and loved ones, "tone down" our comments and opinions." I must have missed this trend. What I have seen were some threads that suggested we could slow down and ask questions to make sure we understood what other posters were trying to say and some discussions which ultimately reminded me that everyone who posts here is human, has feelings that can get hurt, and is valuable to the board. "If you want me to tiptoe around you and your pro-TWI stance so as not to hurt your "itty Bitty Feelers" forgidaboutdit!!!" I see this a little differently than I once did. Now I look at this and remember how little concern we often had for other people's feelings while in TWI. We were to "Reprove" first and worry about feelings later. I hated being treated that way in TWI, I don't wish to treat people that way now that I am out of TWI. "do not think that I for one will be impressed by whimpering cries of "foul", by those who display a complete lack of regard for my feelings or my experiences. " It goes two ways, Mo, perhaps those you are referring to here feel that some of us have a comlete lack of regard for their feelings and experiences. See, earlier you talk about not being concerned about hurting someone else's feelings and later you talk about how others lack regard for your own. It just seems to me, we should have regard for both - our own and someone else's. I have not seen anyone suggest we should not expose TWI on the forums. Nor have I seen it suggested that we should not post opposing opinions, experiences, and viewpoints. I believe the arguing and debating that goes on here can be healthy and educational. What I HAVE seen, as I stated earlier in this post, are some suggestions that we think about what we've read, ask questions, and have some care in how we respond.

What exactly are you wearing right now? pajamas What is your current problem? I'm hungry and waiting for Sushi to finish cooking dinner What makes you most happy? My family If you could go back in time and change something would you? Yes and no. I have regrets, but my life has lead me to where I am, and I am happy where I am. Name something obvious about you: i have curly hair What's the name of the song that you're listening to? Not listening to any Any celeb you would marry? Nope Name someone with the same birthday as you? an old friend Do you have a crush on someone? Sushi Ever sang in front of a large audience? yes What do you usually order from Starbucks? Carmel Latte Has anyone ever said you looked like a celebrity? Stevie Nicks Do you still watch kiddy movies or kiddie TV shows? Yeah, I love Veggie Tales Do you speak any other languages? i know a few words in spanish Have you ever ridden in a Hummer limo? No, but my kids have Has anyone you've been really close with passed away? yes, Do you ever watch MTV? nope What's something that really annoys you? bullies and closed minds Chapter 1: Nicknames: Mouse Current location: michigan Eye color : Brown Chapter 2: Do you live with your parents: no Do you get along with your parents: mostly Are your parents married/separated/divorced: Divorced since I was 8 Do you have any siblings: Older brother, younger sister Chapter 3: Favorites Ice cream flavor: Carmel Praline Season: Spring/Fall Shampoo/conditioner: thermasilk or Pantene Chapter 4: Do You Sing in the shower: no write on your hand: rarely Call people back: Sometimes Believe in love: yes Sleep on a certain side of the bed: yes Have any bad habits: yes Chapter 5: Have You Ever Broken a bone: no Gotten stitches: yes Taken painkillers: yes Gone SCUBA diving: no Been stung by a bee: yes Thrown up in a restaurant: no Sworn in front of your parents: only ONCE Had detention: no Been sent to the principal's office: yes Been called a hoe: yes Been called a stank-foot mongoloid elf-tit lookin' sonofabitch? no Chaper 6: Who/What was the last Person to text you? Sushi What did it say: I'll never tell ;) Person to call you: My sister Person you hugged: my son Jacob Person you tackled? my son Aaron Thing you ate: Pepper Steak and rice Thing you drank: coffee Thing you said: I told Sushi I'd be right back - then I got stuck doing this silly survey :D

"All the 'coordinators' would get together for meetings at least once a month... Write down in our calendars the ‘events’ coming up, getting like-minded, and talk about people discuss and condemn their actions... ummm, I even remember discussing Abigail & her ex frequently. " ROFLMAPMP - and I bet we gave ya'll plenty to talk about. Someday, Safari, I would love to hear what was said, though I can imagine it! Yes, learned helplesness and dependancy were big tools of TWI. I resisted that at first, but over time and with the birth of my children it became more and more difficult to resist. And I believe the leaders (not you Safari, as thank goodness you were never my l leader) saw that in me and worked hard to beat it out of me. That would be the only explanation for why they would support my (now ex) husband in his decree that made me a virtual prisoner in my own home. And I too endured the conflicting no-win advice of leadership. I remember taking my youngest to a children's fellowship, he was maybe a year old, and was never away from me except for during TWI functions. He would cry and cry when I left him, so I would stay and try to help him get settled in and get comfortable. I was reproved for doing that and told I needed to drop him and run. Then your husband, Safari, reproved me for leaving him cry like that. But I have to tell you, I really appreciated what your husband said to me, because it was exactly what my heart was saying to me - don't leave your child cry! I was also reproved once for bringing the kids to a viewing of the Martin Luther film, even though the very people reproving me were the same ones who INSISTED despite MY PROTESTS that I bring them.

I'm with Raf, on this one, Oldies. If you want to find the "truth" you have to look for the reports with the least bias. You can often find the bias in the wording, such as "The Talmudic twists and gyrations some of these people still go through" It tells me the author is counting on his own readers lack of "fine tuning" when it comes to their thinking. Also - the link is not to the law library but a website whose editor seems to admire someone who has great admiration for Hitler. Whether it were 6 million or 1 million, I can't see admiring someone who did what Hitler did.

That is wonderful news - so I'm guessing in 14 - 18 years we can expect P-Mosh jr. to come and debate politics with us like his/her dad?

I may not post very often down here these days - though I'm sure the inspiriation to do so will come again. But in either case, whether I'm posting or not, I am reading.

Best wishes to you in this endeavor, friend. Hospice does some great things for people.

I'm in Michigan, Allan. Here's the thing, there are quite a few CES folks here, or people who belong to other "off shoots". They share what they believe, doesn't mean they are recruiting. I share what I believe from time to time - even posted a link to a Jewish website I frequent. Doesn't mean I'm recruiting. BUT - even if someone WERE recruiting, aren't we all big boys and girls, capable of making up our own minds?

well I don't know any mantra's but I have studied Jewish Mysticism some. I guess that makes me one of those damned pagans too. I've also had many converstations with Todd and Clay - yet I haven't been recruited. Gee, guys, I guess I'm not worthy to join your club ;) :blink: So Allan, if you and someone who holds beliefs similar to yours post in agreement on a thread, does that mean you are recruiting?

Belle, I'm glad you are enjoying the website, it is one of my favorites. I may not always agree with everything I read there, but it almost always offers me a different perspective for consideration. Plus, I find most of the articles have moral values that I agree with and there is a lot of stuff geared towards the kids. I could spend months and months there and never find all the cool stuff.

Yeah, Clay, thanks. I will also keep searching for the original article where I got that from, which I am fairly certain is somewhere on the Chabad.org website. Another "version" from the Midrash is that God did intend for Adam and Eve to eat of the fruit, but not until the Sabbath. In other words - the "tree" wasn't there simply to "tempt" them, there was a purpose. But they ate before the proper time. That is one of the things I love about Judaism - there are tons and tons of arguments regarding what particular verses mean. It is the job of the individual to study and consider and decide for themselves. While you may find within a few temples, those who would force their interpretation down someone else's throat, the overall idea and tradition is to "debate". In doing so, we are given greater insights. Just searching through the articles on Chabbad.org you can find a variety of "translations", "interpretations", "ethical considerations", and insights into what took place in the Garden of Eden. Some of the are cohesive with one another and others contradict each other. But I get to choose what to believe, free of outside pressure from others.

I"m still looking for the article. I know I posted it here before, a year or two ago - but I haven't found it yet. But if I recall correctly, it had something to do with the yearning for greater knowledge, which God built into us. The idea was that prior to eating of the "tree of knowledge" we were much like the rest of the animals, operating by and large on instinct. Likewise, we did not know of duality "good" and "evil". That isn't to say it didn't exist yet, because it did at least in the spirit realm - we simply didn't know of it. The article went on to say that where it says that God commanded Adam and Eve not to eat - another way to translate that is to read it as God "warned them". In other words - it was their choice, but God wanted them to understand that once they ate of it, a change would take place that could not be undone. That change would include a greater knowledge, an understanding of duality, but would also include the eventual death of our earthly bodies. There's more too it and I will keep looking for it.

hiya Oaks - Among the Jewish traditions and teachings is the theory that Adam and Eve did do exactly what they were supposed to do, in that the eating of the fruit gave them an opportunity to learn and grow. I can't remember exactly how it worked out and will have to go back and find it - then I will post it for ya.

"A man has five items in his bathroom: a toothbrush, shaving cream, razor, a bar of soap, and a towel from the Marriott." Snopes was wrong - the toothbrush part is a myth

that is sick very very funny but sick

Couldn't resist it - temptation was just too strong

Did you check snopes? ;)

and don't forget, Socks . . . . . Any point worth making is worth making over and over and over and over and over. You crack me up!

"but "kinder/gentler" is so much at the forefront these days as we try to determine how to argue with some sense of civility that I'm sure that most folks will pause and think before hitting the "add reply" button" Tom, I think you hit on what I've been getting at but unable to say. I said before that to me it is a no brainer that when you come to an Ex-TWI site and post good things about TWI, you are going to get a negative reaction. But, perhaps the other side of that is that we could also be more civil in how we state that negative reaction? I duunnoo. I'm not into the "lets all be nice and get along" warm fuzzie stuff, because I think it is unrealistic and only serves to silence people in the end. But, as usual, I am looking for a balance.

No Mark. Discussing and debating doctrine is different, because you are debating an issue, an idea - not an experience or a memory.

Strange One, "Abi... maybe "jumped on" isn't the correct term, although I know it gets used around here a lot... and what one person perceives as "jumping on" might just be someone disagreeing with them, or a lot of people disagreeing with them... as to what TWI is or was" Agreed, that is a possibility. Like I have said - I am throwing out thoughts as I think this stuff through. But I also think more than one person feels that way, and generally if several people are all perceiving things the same way, it leaves a greater possibility that there is some accuracy to their perception. Doesn't guarnatee it, just increases the odds. "There are a lot of strongly held opinions about what TWI was or wasn't and is or isn't in this group... that's to be expected... people's buttons are going to be pushed... " Again agreed. Heck, I used to be one of the first in line to loudly express my disagreement over any post that might remotely hint at something good about TWI. It has taken me a long time to learn how to back off and let people be in that regard. I don't think I"m the only one who has ever felt that way either.

Mark, "And is that the mods' and admins' position, as well?" First off, I am NOT a moderator, nor do I play one on tv, and I most certainly DO NOT speak for them. Heck, I don't even know who they are, other than Paw. I am simply expressing some thoughts that have been on my mind of late. I just wanted to be very clear on that point. "What if the core is rotten and only a small part of the periphery was beneficial? Should those of us who hold that belief shut up? " Absolutely NOT, nor have I ever suggested that. But at the same time, if someone posts about something they remember fondly about TWI, does that post have to be followed by a remark about how rotten it was? I think most of us here already know and agree that at least some portion of it was rotten, otherwise we'd still be going to "twig" every week, no? "Meanwhile, of course, it is perfectly acceptable to hash around slams about traditional Christianity, and Catholicism in particular..."of course the trinity is BS" -- "The Pope is the worst religious leader in the world" -- "everybody knows that water baptism is wrong, of course" etc., etc., etc.)" Nor have I said that, Mark. I am not sure why you are putting words into my mouth, so to speak. Personally, I am not a supporter of bashing any religion. I think doctrinal debates are fine, but that is different than bashing someone's religion.

Just wanted to say hi, Zix.