GarthP2000

((shakes my head)) Chief, if you're trying to play lawyer, ... do not (repeat: do NOT) give up your day job. I'm not even a 1st year law student, and even *I* can see that you'd get NOWHERE with that suit. If, even if, the SVU came breaking down your door, yadayada, like you portray, there is no way you can legally or logically implicate us. Seeing that such units would be acting on just our posts, the ONLY ones you could possibly sue would be the aforementioned SVU, since they would be entirely responsible for making that decision. "Personal attack and character assassination". Yeah, right guy. Look at the posts you made about Weirwille in reference to his rape victims! Look at how cavalier they are? And they are about the 'sisters in Christ' that are part of your 'family'. Yet you want to be spared harsh words? Why shouldn't this kind of rebuke come your way? All because of your loyalty to Weirwille and his 'teaching you the Word'? That is where your loyalty resides? Above having genuine concern for the people he abused? That's what your god is all about?? Is that what 'The Word' preaches? ((scoffs)) And you wonder why people like me left. <_< And as regards any possibility of a suit from you, .... bring it on! (Oh by the way, I would demand a jury trial. See if you can figure out why.) And I'm saying that on the record.

Paint by numbers. ..... Do they still make those? Boy, those were the days.

DWBH, Your posts remind me of that Truth commercial of that guy who drives up to the cigarette corporations downtown office, gets out, and uses his megaphone to remind the corp's promise to shut down if it was ever proven that cigarettes cause cancer. "Hello cigarette corporation. ... You said that you'd shut down if it was proven that cigarettes cause cancer. ..... H-e-l-l-o! ..... Well, its been proven that they cause cancer."

Good one, Danny! That was my laugh for the day! Larry, Dude! Oldies hung himself with his own words. Anybody with at least a 6th grade level of English should see the not-so-subtle meaning/rendering of Oldies posts, how far it goes to whitewash Wierwille's reputation, and how much it capriciously downplays the sexual abuse the victims (Yes Oldies, I said victims. Get over it!) and what they went through. And given that Oldies isn't a sexual pervert/pedophile, his posts clearly illustrate his strong (and unjustified) defense of one who was. ... Which DOES put a question mark over his character. At least! He needs to learn that ... Pronto!

WW, Olds' 'apology' doesn't even begin to cover the troubling aspects of his posts in the discussed thread. ... So he backs off of the 'either they are lying or they are gay' part. ... Wow! BIG concession on his part. There is still a lot of what he posted there he needs to deal with. <_<

... that approach would be 'viable' only if you were using the 'Keep it simple, stupid' mindset. Well, I've got another alternative. Keep it Real. Ie., sometimes things are simple. Sometimes things are complex. Not all things true is going to be simple. Some things are, but others are more complex that don't fit on a pithy saying. And just because its complex doesn't require that it has to be confusing. Knowing this helps me to better deal with life and reality.

Apologizing for simply making this statement isn't enough. You need to know what's wrong with what you said, and how serious. Let's go over the biggies here, shall we? 1) "But maybe he did it just to loosen them up? You know the uptight ones." Whether they were 'uptight' or not is irrelevent. No means no, and when a woman doesn't want to partake in sex, that's IT! ... Final decision. ... No appeal. ... Wierwille should have backed the hell off. 2) "but I heard that some of these date rape drugs enhance the sexual desire. Sort of like a sexual aid." Ahhh, no they don't. They act as resistance inhibitors, knocking the victim out while the attack occurs, and nullifying their memory of the event afterwards. ... That's why they call it a date rape drug, guy. You're weak, pathetic attempts at apology are just that. ... Weak. ... Pathetic. ... Yes, yes, I know. I'm calling names, yadayada. Well, someone with an attitude that makes posts like the one you made that is warned about here should be called names; they deserve no better. I concur with everybody else here. Get some help!

Hehehehehe! My 'first thought' ;) upon reading the starting post was "Snope It!", as I distinctly remember hearing of this urban legend before, went to Snopes, and found out the lie that it was. ... But apparently, it's _still_ making the rounds, and a lot of people still take it seriously (even if they do think later to Snope It, like Bell and WW did).

So unless life here is like a perfect Candyland, then this world sucks totally, is that it? Besides, don't believers like you once say that this world is so wonderous and complex and beautiful, that it had to have a Creator? ... And now you say that life here sucks?? Make up you're mind, willya?

And where did you get this ridiculous idea that there are Christian based morals at the government level, what with all the lying, scandals, pre-emptive wars, and George W. Bush? ..... or are all those attributes of Christian based morals at the government level? <_<

JohnJ, Bringing that point up is Yet Another Variation of that Same Old Canard of linking atheism w/ Communism. And there are at least as many reasons why that canard doesn't work. First off, as much as I despise the forms of governments you mention, none of them (with the possible exception of North Korea) 'enforce atheism'. What they enforce is compliance with the state, and whenever religious individuals/groups 'step out of line' (as it were), either in reality or in the dictator's mind, they crack down on the religious individuals/groups. And even in the case of North Korea, its attempt to enforce atheism makes it nothing more than an incidence of atheism that is incidental to Communism, NOT causal. Which leads to Two, if there is this causal connection between atheism and Communism, then please tell me why, when measuring the political statistics of atheists here in this country, while there is no predominating political belief re: atheists, the largest political group within atheists are Libertarians. (This is what I have observed from talking to different atheists, reading about many of their political views, and getting political statistical info about them) And while many things can be said re: Libertarians, one thing you do NOT call them is Communist. Not w/o getting into a very heated argument with them in your face. Neil Boortz anyone? How about Penn & Teller in Showtime's Bulls**t? Fact is chief, is that atheists have been a LOT more involved with/linked to movements of freedom than you are aware of (or perhaps more than you might want to admit.) Face it, you've done a very good job at expertly dismantling TWI's facade, complete with your research based upon biblical authorities, people's own testimonies, and VPW's own plentious examples of plagiarism. But it's quite evident that, since all you can come up with is a few Newsweek articles as your 'research' base, when it comes to atheism, you are on VERY weak ground here. (For one thing, with your argument as to which group cheats more, based on said Newsweek article, I can easily counter that one with the obvious fact that a far greater porportion of Christians are in prison than atheists. Notice I said porportion. ... Now how does that fit in with your argument of religion "hemming it in", hmmmm?) Want more informed research, and from the atheist side to counter-balance your already abundant religious-based information? Check out the links I provided earlier on this thread. You did that kind of research when you were studying up on TWI; getting their 'side of the story'. Well, do the same here. But I daresay however that you might not find similar results re: atheists as you did re: TWI. ... But hey, that's me.

Well, one could actually talk to, and listen to, an atheist (preferably a lot more than just one) and get their take as to why they don't believe in God, or have walked away from religion. On this particular atheist site, read the deconversion stories in detail, and find out what people went through before and during their deconversion, and still go through because of it. Hope this helps you to see what it is _really_ all about.

Belle, Which is one reason why I'm surprised at his obviously flawed reasonings re: atheists. Frankly, I expected better, more informed conclusions on this topic, based on his thoroughness in his work about TWI. On the other hand, I'm not really surprised, as such is standard fare among a lot of ministers when they speak of atheism, ... with the same low quality level of researching skills as I indicated re: Juedes. See?

You all know what the real ironic thing about Johnj's posts about atheism is? It's that it winds up being no more than the standard orthodox information, a 'template' as it were, that he learned from his church, his denomination. He doesn't even take the time to talk to atheists themselves, get to know them or why they aren't of a religious mindset, or why they left the church/religion, why they think the way they do about religion, and what they actually go through in real life because of their opinions and lack of belief once people find out about their atheism. No, just stick to the same old tired canards and straw man arguments about atheism. ... Talk about not thinking for yourself as distinct from a 'cultic' group mindset! He further argues "One of these topics has been alluded to a few times-- the idea that we all have the freedom to pick and choose our values, what we want to beleive and do, etc. I like freedom, too. It's better than oppression. But the problem is that this idea (ie., freedom) ends up in anarchy." (Emphasis mine) This is another big clue as to what is wrong with what he's posting here. Notice how this freedom (supposedly) leads to anarchy, ... and yet he 'likes freedom too'. Kinda contradictory, isn't it? You like some of that which leads to a result you don't like?? I laughed out loud when I read that one. Yet Another Clue: "... or with society making up the standards (ask Jews in Nazi Germany if they like that idea)..." Here's a way of rephrasing that idea that still flows with your 'logic' that you haven't thought of, John. "... or with society making up the standards (ask unbelievers in orthodox Christianity in America run by the Religious Riech if they like that idea, including the same Jewish people, as well as unitarians, and other 'heretics')...". ... Oopsie! If this is an example of Juedes' skill as how much better a researcher he is compared with Wierwille, ..... well, I've seen Wierwille do better. <_< (Oh, and in case he wants to respond with how much I'm some sort of Wierwille apologist I supposedly am, I too have b**chslapped Wierwille's reputation and image at least as hard as most other people here.) P.S., I noticed that you left out footnotes. ;)

No, but I understand the culture, and appreciate the weird humor in it. As well as the music.

Well put, JumpinJive, well put! This point of yours brings up a good portion of what I have against the Judeao-Christian-Islamic deity. Yes, I said, have against him. I especially like the line by Sky of "There is more than one form of stoning, people mouthing off about it is another form of stoning." I almost fell off my chair LMAO at that one. Such a riot! ... Perhaps there is another form of stoning that Sky can perhaps relate to, more than he knows? ;)

So how old are you today? ... Huh? Huh? Huh? . . . ((running and ducking)) :lol:

What about what benefits all concerned as one reference point? Or a refrerence point being things that avoid hurting or abusing people? How about "Do no harm"? If you go over many of the biblical morals and the goals of such morals, you remove God as the originator of said morals, you'll come up with much the same expected behavior, both personal and societal (sp?), as that of many atheists and that of other religions/philosophies. Now there are other biblical 'morals' and behaviors that are at odds with this, and even (if you'll be honest enough to admit it) at odds with the everyday behavior of todays Judeao/Christians, many who claim that the Bible is the foundation of their moral behaviors. (Ie., how many today readily stone those who have extra marital sex, hmmm? Yet that rule is explicitaly in the Bible.) This being the case, one must wonder what God uses as a reference for His morals. :unsure:

((I'm gonna buy DontWorryBeHappy a bullhorn on his birthday for his CES shoutouts. ;) ))

You might be walking by the 5 senses if... ... You no longer think that a walking suit is appropriate attire to wear to a branch meeting. (If you are having trouble even recognizing what a walking suit is, you haven't been exposed to the kind of 70's wear that was fashionable for only a few days at the height of the disco craze. Google the term 'walking suits' for further info.) ... You never thought that VPW looked cool in his outfits in the Intermediate Class video. ... You want to complete your college education rather than go out W.O.W for the 3rd-4th time. ... You want to complete your college education rather than totally sacrifice it for the Way Corps and/or making a menial living working at HQ.

You're right, Bolshevik. I do appreciate it. ;) Thank you.

Well, ya know, given the kind of God we're told to believe in and obey, and often w/o question, so many, many times, ... I'd say that it's about damn time! Hell, the god of the terrorists who plowed into the World Trade Center, ... do we not judge him? For what he inspired his terrorists to do? Thought so. <_<

From what I've seen, the atheists I got to know, from the deconversion stories that I read, atheists become that way for a wide variety of reasons, which shoots in the foot the oft used (and lame IMHO) argument that atheists become that way due to either a very traumatic experience in the church or at the hands of abusive church leaders, or the (even lamer) reason that atheists are mad, shaking their fists at God, and (according to a former poster here) they "God didn't give them their pony". He was speaking of Jepthah, in Judges 11, where, as a promise to God if he won a certain battle, a father offers to sacrifice to God, as a burnt offering, the first thing that meets him after the battle. Sure enough he wins the battle, comes home, and who first meets him at his home, but his only daughter. (Read the account to see for yourself) TWI (in order to make God a little more 'humane', I guess) taught that it wasn't an actual human sacrifice, but a ceremony where the daughter remained a virgin the rest of her life (the part where she says, "Allow me to bewail my virginity with my fellows" is the supportive scripture they use to support that opinion.). But its still a burnt offering, and many scholars think that is exactly what it was. In any event, such a promise should never have been allowed by any decent, moral entity. At all! No matter what promise was made.

"In the Name of Bayer, I command thee to come OUT, thou foul spirit!!" Mike, this is further proof that you and your PFAL Master Wierwille are 2 sick puppies.

((laughing my arse off)) I rmemeber one time in early 1985 when some Way Corp apprentice was talking about how computers very well might have devil spirits because, since the monitor glowed when it was on, that meant that the computer had life within itself. Ie., it then had devil spirits in it! First off, technically speaking, the monitor was the thing that was glowing, not the computer. Which leads to ... two, then that would mean that, if they were right, the monitor would be one with devil spirits in it. And since TVs operate the same way, ..... well, what about all those monitors that were dispersed throughout the Big Tent at the Rock? They wouldn't know what a life was if it came up and bit them on the arse.