Mister P-Mosh

What if it were presented as a biology or anatomy class? You can have a "scientific" (I only use this in quotes because we're talking about VPW) view of sex and anatomy without it being pornographic. The purpose of pornography is to sexually arouse someone. I didn't see CF&S as something that would be arousing people, although when I took it, I'm sure it had been heavily modified from the original. Still, your comments about fast forwarding through R-rated portions of movies makes me curious. What about violence? PG movies can have violence in them, yet sex has to be deemed X-rated. Why is that? Why are we so afraid of body parts yet give murder and torture a free pass? In Europe, they show womens' breasts on TV with no problem, and nobody makes a big deal out of it. Yet they wouldn't show the amount of violence you would see on your average show of 24. Doesn't it say bad things about our society, especially amongst Christianity, that we make such a huge deal to demonize sex and intimacy, and turn around and glorify violence? Actually, in school they show similar pictures in sexual education classes and in anatomy classes. Again though, the purpose is not for arousal, and you clearly see that it's not "sexy".

The thing is, if they are spirits, then their "real form" is not physical and thus non-physical beings can not directly interact with a physical thing like a pin. Therefore, part of my thesis is that angels must take physical form as a prerequisite to performing any dancing. Additionally, dancing is a human art form, which means that they would be required to take human form to literally be dancing. While we do have animals "dance", they aren't truly dancing, but just moving in a way they have been trained to. They are lacking the emotional aspect that humans have to spontaneously dance and enjoy it. We do say things like, "the Christmas lights are dancing on the tree" as a form of personification, but I also exclude the usage of figures of speech here. Me too. Although I'm possibly coming across as argumentative, I'm just doing this for fun, and not taking it seriously. It's difficult to express a dry sense of humor like mine on the internet.

Simple. The answer is zero. Why? Every time human beings have been documented as seeing angels, they always take the form of a human being. Therefore, you can simply substitute people for angels in this case, and ask how many people can dance on the head of a pin. Since it is not possible, the answer is zero.

I'm surprised someone hasn't written one of these things about living somewhere like Florida or southern Texas.

You would hate to work where I do then. People take smoke breaks in the parking garage in a somewhat sheltered area near the elevators up into the building. As a result, the elevator area, as well as the elevators themselves, almost always smell like stale smoke, and you often find cigarette butts around the elevators if the cleaning people haven't stopped by yet.

I guess it varies depending on the job. Since we are salaried and support systems that often need to be up 24/7, we generally work more than 40 hours a week anyway. My typical week consists of me in the office between 7:00am and 5:00pm, with a few nights a week of me logging in to take care of something, and occasional weekend work. I am available via email almost all the time via my smartphone. So in this environment, management is generally more tolerant. I've also never been criticized for my work ethic, and when I went to apologize to my director for taking a long lunch last Monday, she told me to not worry about it, especially since the week before I worked a few hours from home while I was on vacation. Still, others that I work with are criticized for taking long lunches regularly, which seems like a double standard since there are smokers who literally take a 15 minute break every hour. There is even one co-worker who may be in a position of being set up for trouble with the company because of his long lunches, even though I know for a fact he works every weekend.

Why is it that if someone goes to the gym on their lunch break, and if 20 minutes getting back to work, they are chastised, while a smoker gets to take 15 minute breaks every hour to go smoke. I mean, if you were running a company, wouldn't you prefer your employees being late because of doing something healthy rather than doing something detrimental to their health? This is a hypothetical situation, because I go to the gym during my lunch breaks (except Fridays) and always rush to get back on time. The people on my team that smoke, however, spend a lot of time doing it every workday. One of them puts in a lot of extra hours, so I don't fault him for it. The other works a precise schedule and never stays late.

My response would have been, "You are going to hell in about ten seconds if you don't get your fat, smelly @$$ out of my way and leave me alone."

I learned a lot of what others have said, but in addition to that, I would also say that an important thing I learned is self-value. Instead of always doing what others, whether leadership, my parents, etc. wanted, I had to learn to do what I wanted, and to believe what I figure out on my own. It was difficult, as a supposedly intelligent kid, to grow up and automatically reject my own thoughts because they didn't line up with leadership or what I was told the bible said. Now that I am both out of TWI and an adult, I have learned that I am capable of making good decisions, and just because someone in authority tells me something doesn't make it gospel truth.

Although I'm no longer Christian, this is one of the areas that the bible is pretty clear on. Jesus is quoted as saying in Matthew 19:24:

The word "disbelief" sounds more neutral, while "unbelief" sounds more like having belief is the default, and that unbelief is a rejection of something you already had. While they are similar terms, I agree with those that disbelief sounds better.

The ones they got rid of are probably detectives who investigate murder, rape, abuse, etc. and they kept the ones that sneak around giving people speeding tickets.

As someone that believes in neither Christianity nor Wicca, I don't have a problem with it. In fact, I view as nothing more than someone desiring the best for me, even if it is in a misguided way. Since I do not believe prayer has any magical abilities and is just wishful thinking, it poses no threat to me. On the other hand, if someone witnesses to me, they get one strike with a warning, and the second strike comes with me trying to avoid them for now on. I can respect their religion if they respect my disinterest in it. I would say that it's more like if you have a friend really into a sport like polo, and you have no interest in it. If they keep bugging you to go watch a match or go play and that is all they talk about or do, you won't want to hang out with them anymore. Religion is a personal topic, and it should stay that way, in my opinion. Other than on forums like this, I never talk about my atheism unless someone asks. It's unimportant and not really anyone else's business. I wish adherents to religions could work the same way.

Who designated you a god, or a representative of everyone in The Way still? There are plenty of people that don't think it is a cult. Some people were kicked out, and may not yet realize it was a mistake (e.g. splinter groups), and not everyone knows what you know. What about people who joined because a loved one joined? What about kids raised in that environment? There are people who joined for doctrinal reasons, because face it, VPW offered a new spin on Christianity, and the idea that you don't have to wear a suit every Sunday and sit in a gothic stadium is an interesting concept. It's not about destroying TWI, it's about healing yourself and removing TWI's tentacles from your life. In that process, many here make friends and reconnect with old friends, free from the boundaries imposed by The Way Corpse "leadership." While I agree with you that getting counseling can be important for many, there are things that only other ex-TWI people can understand. Think of this as like AlAnon or some other support group. While we aren't likely to relapse back to TWI, we have ways of thinking that would lead us down similar paths, and we all can use the support.

You apparently can't see the forest for the trees. As many others have told you repeatedly, people often start posting here WHILE THEY ARE STILL IN TWI. You left in 1983? Good for you. It was not nearly as cultish as it was in 1993 or 2003. What you don't understand is that TWI wasn't just some social club we were free to leave, but in fact a cult where in some cases lives were threatened and families were destroyed. I didn't use my real name here or even a common nickname for me because I wanted to avoid losing contact with my parents and siblings. I recently found out that they all left TWI, so I would be ok with it now. I had to go through a lot of trouble to leave TWI without being declared "possessed" and Mark and Avoid like so many others I saw leave before me. I was secretly engaged to someone not in TWI, when my HFC made a comment that all of us unmarried guys had better not get too attached to girls outside the ministry, or he'd have to shoot us (he was a cop, and not a very friendly person.) When you stopped going to "twig", there were no rules about how you would be suspected of being possessed if you didn't go every Sunday and Wednesday. When you left, you didn't have to file a vacation notification form to be sent to the limb coordinator, who would send it on to the limb coordinator of the place you were visiting. When you left, people didn't talk about how you were full of devil spirits and a threat to the lives of your twig. Lots of things changed, and your flippant attitude about using real names is not helpful.

It's been years since I tried to go there, but I seem to remember having difficulties there in the past because they didn't tolerate non-Christian standpoints. Pawtucket, despite being Christian himself, has an open mind and lets anyone post here as long as it is done respectfully.

Depending on what you want to do, you could continue to host it and turn the administration of the forums onto others entirely, or look at seeing if anyone else wants to take it over completely. I agree with others that say there are valuable things here, although if you are tired you shouldn't suffer so much either. Out of curiosity, how much traffic does this site get? How about the forums? If it's low enough, we of this site could discuss options if you wanted to turn it over to someone else, and figure out what would make the most people happy. Obviously, you can't please everyone, so it's just a matter of letting it slide. Obviously, those that are giving you specific directions to hell can do so based on their own trip their themselves.

I'm used to having a strategy and such, and I tend to research things that I do before I do them. I've never been one to make conversation, and am generally pretty quiet in person and content to let others talk. I've also always been very deferential to these people, as they were always "the adults" and I was always "the kid", so it is not simple on multiple levels. Still, you're probably right. I'm going to wait and see what others say, especially if anyone has had experience dealing with that before.

In one sense, I found it to be hilarious and since nobody but the shoe thrower got hurt it's ok to laugh at it. On the other hand, I don't like that he threw it at our president (barf) and what it says about the harm we have done to Iraq that a journalist can get so angry that he risks his life on something so futile. I read elsewhere that the journalist who threw the shoes had several family members who were killed in Iraq, and that he had been recently kidnapped and tortured. I think his trauma overrode his common sense and dedication to being a neutral member of the media.

As some of you know, I was raised in TWI, and left when I was a young adult, but after being fully indoctrinated, taking the AC, etc. It was difficult for me to leave, especially considering the fact that I have family that was in TWI as well. Essentially, all of my immediate family was in. I've recently discovered that some members of my family are no longer participating in TWI. Or rather, I've been told second-hand from other family members, who wouldn't know all the details. We've observed that they no longer read the bible every morning, they no longer require us to pray before a meal, they don't use as much wayspeak, and they don't attend any fellowships while we are around. So my question is, how should I approach the question? I'm concerned about them because they've been in TWI for more than 25 years, and for them to stop would have to be a huge deal. These are people that would never complain if something was wrong or they were depressed, and I think they may have given up on religion altogether. While that was a liberating experience for me, I don't think that they should. They're the type of people that need to believe in something, and I sort of hope they find some other church or something to help them. So how do I initiate dialog without stepping into trap by triggering their TWI-mental-reflexes? I don't want them to suddenly revert if I say something that might make them think I am "off the word" in a drastic way. I want to be careful to not attack TWI in case they end up defensive of it and start to go back. Dealing with innies, or newly ex-innies, can be difficult. I'm curious what you all would do and how you would talk to someone close about it.

What I don't quite understand is why some parts of the media keep trying to tie Blagojevich to Obama in some way. The two never liked each other, and Obama undermined him on numerous occasions before the corruption scandal even took place. An interesting article on the bad blood between the two can be found at The Washington Post: Here are some quotes from the article: I thought it was an interesting read.

This isn't the place to go into details, but you shouldn't worry about that. Seriously, if anything, your taxes should be lowered. Obama's tax plan has been misrepresented during the campaign, and I'm sure things will change as it goes through Congress, but look back a few years ago. When Clinton was president, we had a lot of financial prosperity as a nation, low unemployment, and a lot of innovation. A lot of the same people that brought us the governmental conditions that lead to that financial prosperity are being a part of Obama's financial team, as well as prominent businessmen and economic geniuses. He's got Warren Buffet on this team, for example. Do you really think they're going to do something to harm small businesses, when Obama's tax plan basically calls for restoring tax rates to how they were before Bush took office, minus middle class and poor tax cuts? That isn't radical, and shouldn't hurt any of us. It was much lower before the election. The economic crisis started long before the primaries were even concluded. Sure, some people are freaking out for no reason, but don't let them fool you. Obama is working with some of the smartest people available on the economy, and will work with Congress and the private sector to do what is necessary to get us all back on our feet.

This is the happiest I've ever felt after an election. While I know he won't be perfect, I think Obama is a good man who has the intelligence and character to do a good job. I wish him the best of luck. Also, I thought McCain's speech should be studied by politicians to come. He was graceful, patriotic, and restored some of the respect I used to have for him. I hope he and Obama can work together on some important issues going forward.

There are a couple of Republicans that he is seriously considering for that position. He's acting like a "maverick."

Would you rather it be named Hurricane Tweety Bird?