Raf

Big Doodyhead! That's a personal insult! That's a personal... Oh never mind. stupid fat Hobbitses

Yes, you must learn to better mask what you really are, LLPOF. Mike'll show you how. ;)-->

Def, You lost me there. Except that no one teaches this. And why not? Because... Right. We agree. But doesn't agreeing on this point negate your conclusion? People are going to open themselves up to devil spirits by denying the Trinity? That's what we all, at our worst, used to say about people who accept the Trinity, remember? In both cases, it's a straw man argument. That's my opinion. Unitarians (context) don't believe we are perfect or that we can be gods. We know that we are flesh and look forward to the future day when God will change our bodies into immortal bodies. We believe that just as much as you do. Perhaps if you expanded what you were trying to say, I might understand you better. I don't understand what you just wrote. It's too easy to refute: uncharacteristic of you.

Originally posted by CKnapp3 SURPRISE CONTRARY TO WHAT SOME OF YOU THINK I HAVE NOT BEEN BANNED Since my name has well been dragged in the mud here in this thread I might as well answer for starters you wise guys who boast of how you think you have freedom of will you might do well to read Romans chapter 9 its in that precious bible who hold so dear you have NO FREE WILL WHATSOEVER you are what you are because God alone made you what you are and likewise I am what I am because God made me what I am why do you blame me for what I am did I make myself NO I DID NOT And in that chapter of Romans it states that God will have mercy on whom he will and he will harden whom he will the person in question has NO SAY in the matter whatsover if you all think of me as one of dishonor then blame God because he made me this way who am I to reply to God why he made me this way and since it was all Gods doing I am totally free of ALL RESPONSIBILTY who are any of you to hold me responsible oh I know what youre saying now Ol Chuckie boy is only deceived Im no more decieved than you are what you are NOT deceived then you are all fully aware of your actions and you will be put to blame because of that Oh I am blameless you might want to say not if you have freedom of will forget about standing blameless before your God you have applied blame to yourself because of your own freedom of will that you are so Goddamn proud of God cannot hold you to blame if you have no freedom of will oh and BTW forget about this Jesus saved my soul crap you have freedom of will and are therefore your OWN lords so Jesus couldnt possibly have saved your soul if you have truly made Jesus your lord then you have surrendered all of your socalled free will what person do you know is subject to a lord and has freedom of will you are a slave to your Jesus or so you say so how can you possibly tell me you have free will many of you will probably say you are possessed of the devil if Im possessed of the devil then I am also possessed of God for the devil is a creation of God and is in no way beyond Gods control besides God made the devil evil dont give me any of this crap that the devil is the former Lucifer who rebelled on his own free will there you go with that freedom of will crap again that is 100% unscriptrual the bible never said that Lucifer became the devil or Satan for that matter besides God bestowed him with power which by nature corrupts anyone who has it but if you are all adamant that you have freedom of will then when you are judged unrighteous dont give God this crap that your sins were washed in Jesus blood you chose to be your own lords by virtue of your proudly proclaimed freedom of will therefore you have to make your own atonements why do you all lie and say that Jesus is your lord even Jesus said he does no will of his own but rather the will of his father and why do you all look forward to receiving crowns on Judgement Day Dont any of you know that if you have a crown then you are burdened with responsibility what YOU WANT RESPONSIBILITY why be so stupid do any you go to gambling houses and throw away your paychecks hoping that by taking a risk you will have something much better why cant you be happy with what you have you are all just like Adam and Eve look what they had in the Garden of Eden but they just werent happy until they ate of the tree that was forbidden billions of trees yet they were hung up on that one bad tree did they receive happiness afterwards and Ill be Goddamned if you all arent still eating of that tree today besides your precious bible says to receive the Kingdom of Heaven as a CHILD a child by nature is very NAIVE he has NO SENSE OF RESPONSIBILTY you people who call me stupid and ignorant you must be soaked in so much Goddamn wisdom that its flowing out of every orifice in your stinking bodies but remember God witholds the good things from the wise and prudent and gives them unto babes are you wise and prudent or are you without wisdom and prudence and I say a babe is too ignorant to recognize the ignorance of another but you people think you are all smarter than me you know youre right you are smarter than me and your own superior intelligence will be the end of you all so Ill leave you all with this question am I a man of righteousness or unrighetousness you people are so full of wisdom suppose you tell me and dont go telling me to take a beam out of my eye either there is no beam in my eye and quite frankly I see clearly enough to see that NOBODY has a mote in their eye but I do see a lot of people with beams in their own eyes telling me to take the one out of my eye And those of you who boast about your freedom of will remember this BOASTING IS FOR FOOLS -------------------------------- You know, Chuck, the funny thing is, the punctuation marks neither add nor subtract from the readability of your intolerant bs screed.

He just did.

I would think you'd display better knoweldge than that.

No apology necessary. I just seized on something you said to make a point. Forgive me for "using" you like that. :)-->

Belle, It appears to me that he did not circulate the letter until he was no longer employed by TWI (and thus, no longer bound by its regulations). Apparently one of the people he sent that to did not adhere to John S.'s instruction (assuming, of course, that his account is accurate and true). So sum it up: he did not violate company policy. He believed himself to be threatened (whether that was reasonable or not depends on the credibility of the people to whom he spoke: I do not feel I have enough info to draw a conclusion there). He wrote a paper saying adultery was wrong (no duh) because he identified that subject as a doctrinal weakness in TWI (and rightly so). Hero? Never said it. Never will. Did the right thing? I think so.

I've read more inane drivel. Not lately, but I have.

Thanks MJ

what were the threats (and who made them) and what was that thing about giving the paper to a few for fear of his life or something ?(sorry about the memory thing here.... ever since i stopped renewing my mind.... i just haven't been the same) Sorry: I was away for the weekend and didn't see this post until just now: Excy: I have no idea how he was threatened. Or IF he was threatened. The statement that he was threatened was made by MJ, and I was responding to her post. I can't vouch for the accuracy of it: the only thing I know is he was fired.

What exactly is a "tad?"

JT, You're right (and so is MJ) if you think of TWI as a "company." But TWI was supposed to be a "ministry." That's the standard to which we should hold them. If JS should have been fired for anything, it would be for wasting time researching the fact that grass is green, the sky is blue, and a negative times a negative equals a multiplicity of negatives. That's a joke, people.

I don't think he's a hero either. But TWI was certainly being a villain. This wasn't supposed to be just a "company." This was supposed to be a research ministry and people were (belatedly) recognizing that adultery was a rampant problem. DUH!! I'll bet good money in the next breath you're going to criticize those in the research department who refused to take a stand and say adultery was wrong. John S can't win with you. If he didn't write the paper, you'd condemn him for his silence. If he wrote the paper, he violated company policy (which, last I checked, was somewhat LESS important than taking a stand on God's Word: Even when it's obvious. You think seducing your neighbor's wife and then killing him so you can marry her would be obviously wrong? Well, then, nothing "heroic" about Nathan, is there?). My point? You're ready to condemn John S no matter WHAT his past actions were. Yeah, John S violated company policy. Somehow, I doubt he would have gotten fired for writing an unauthorized research paper legitimizing abortion, or quanitfying the properties of manna. Company policy? F! the company.

This is straw man: no one is saying John S is a brainiac for figuring out adultery is wrong. What's amazing isn't that he figured out something so dreadfully obvious. What's amazing is that he got threatened for it. The example of John S is rarely brought up to prove what a wonderful guy John S is. The story proves nothing about John S, except maybe that he can read. The example of John S is more frequently brought up to prove how sick and twisted TWI was, that they would persecute someone just for saying "Adultery: bad." MJ, 1. Who said he is a "better Christian?" And who's painting him as an idol? You accuse me of making quips to try to shut you up, but look at what you're doing. You want me to shut up because ... well, I can't figure out why you're trying to shut me up. But stop misrepresenting me: I don't idolize John Schoenheit. He wrote a research paper on adultery and got fired for it. That's the extent of my opinion on the man. More replies in a coupla days: don't have time for it today...

MJ I think it really damages your argument against these men to believe that what JS did (research what the Bible said about adultery and make sure people got to see it) is worse than what Martha Stewart did (insider trading and obstruction of justice). I'm not saying Martha Stewart deserves to go to jail, but she did do something illegal. JS did... what, exactly? Disobey ungodly leadership? He writes a paper on adultery (in his capacity as a researcher in a Biblical research ministry), gets threatened for it, resists the threats... and you're taking TWI's side? Help me here, you lost me.

Regarding the statement "Jesus was wrong..." Those aren't their words. They are my summary of their words. I think it's important, if anyone is taking this discussion seriously, to see what they're saying in their words. If you think I'm misrepresenting them, call me on it. It's Question 15: There are three pdfs.

Unconsciously? I think, as far as the WOW-type program is concerned, they are well aware of what they're doing (ie, replicating TWI).

Here's the intro page.

I think it was in the PFAL class (not the book). It is certainly in The Way: Living in Love by Elena Scott Whiteside. It's also a bunch of hooey. Why anyone would appeal to it today is beyond me.

MJ, Thank you for your reply to my post, but part of your reply is the reason we keep having blow-ups. You said something like, "why don't we just excuse Martindale..." implying that this is a reasonable outcome of my argument. You must have missed the line where I said... I am well aware of what you are saying regarding Martindale. I have never contradicted it. But let's stick with the point: does a divorced person have no right to be a minister? That's what it sounds like when you bring up the fact that JAL and JS are divorced. Excuse adultery? Please, I did nothing of the kind. With that said, the rest of your post gives a lot of food for thought.

I can't contradict you, or offer an effective counterargument. I am utterly unqualified to say anything about Momentus. If you have a point here, it's one I'm incapable of seeing for the obvious reason that I never took Momentus, and came into contact with CES only after it abandoned Momentus. In normal, untainted language, looking to the past with a mindset of "I went through hell, but I can pull some good out of it" is healthy, even if the only good you can pull out of it is "I ain't gonna do that again."

Excy, Depends on you you're counting. The JDubs have, currently, 6,000,000 members worldwide. At it's PEAK, TWI had between one and two percent of that number (and that's assuming all 100,000 people who took PFAL stuck with TWI, not a safe assumption). It's far more likely that two TWI people will know each other than two JWs. Tell me if I'm wrong: in many cities, all TWI members knew each other. In JW land, you're Mr. Popular if you know more than half the people in your congregation.

Actually, the entire quote is... Entirely looking at "where do you go from here?" Not at all blaming the victim for his/her role in getting abused. You don't. But do you blame God for it? Or do you blame their father/stepfather? It's a perspective thing. I don't think (and I could be wrong) that JAL is saying you chose to be victims then.

MO, The comment "you could choose to be a victim" is presented in the letter solely in terms of how you're going to view yourself in the future: there is no implication that anyone chose to be a victim in the past.