Maybe we should start another thread about fellow laborer programs - the poor man's Way Corps or something? As weird as it was, my 3 months in FWC were a kazillion times worse.
Glad you too survived! And a pizzonia from the Watered Garden's garden to those nasty "leaders" who said that to their wives!
quote: Now mind you this is only my experience in law enforcement for 17 years and in one County in one State.
Are you an officer, or a dispatcher?
quote: In my experience domestic abuse cases run about 60/30/10. 60% of the time the man starts it, 30% of the time the woman starts it and 10% of the time it's a mutual slug fest.
Just to be clear about something: when I said the woman initiates it, I meant verbally, not physically.
Officer. A couple of times in my career I have had to take a 'desk' job because of an injury, (like now) but the bulk of my career was spent in the trenches or training others.
Now you're getting into causational factors. Certainly a woman may confront a man because he just came home drunk at 2 am and has nothing left of his paycheck...and she "starts" a fight. Or a woman may ask the man if he will watch the children while she goes shopping and he refuses because they will interrupt the game and she "starts" a fight. In my experience many times the man initiates a fight by what he does or does not do and then the woman starts verbalizing, eventually she has to yell to get the mans attention. It escalates. Now of course this is not always what happens...but in a majority of cases when traced back to the actual beginning...
It is possible that these women that "start" the fights are asking for or expecting something unreasonable from the man. And then the man gets frustrated because of this and verbally "strikes" back at the woman. Physical abuse almost always starts with verbal abuse.
As I said this is only from my experience.
When I say "mutual slug fest" I dont necessarily mean a physical slug fest, it can be a verbal slug fest as well. But I was vague and I apologize for that.
quote: ...did it ever occur to anyone that Paul's "letters" were his own opinions based on his cultural prejudices?...
OH!...but Groucho, Dr. Wormwood assured us that every verse in the bible is God's will!...Hogwash!...Paul of Tarsus was a pyschotic Christian killer who bought into the strict thinking of the pharisees (before he converted)...and all this was 2000 years ago! He wrote these letters to people who had a TOTALLY different culture and way of thinking than we do today....and you're going to hang your hat on THAT?
Yes. So now you believe that Christ died in vain? There's no divine nature to be partaker of? Everybody's only as good as their worst mistake? No thanks.
Wow!...How did you draw that conclusion from what I said?...The context is women being subservient to their husbands...
You not only jumped to some faulty conclusions, your logic catapulted you across an infinitely wide chasm!
Obviously, you are of the "Wierwille school" of "there's a purpose for every word He says, where He says it, how He says it and why He says it"...sorry, but I don't buy into the bible (as it's written) being God's will verbatim.
I've stated this before...the bible was written during a time when people thought differently than we do today...different culture, different norms...that does not detract from the message of the risen Christ and our salvation...to each his own.
Maybe we should start another thread about fellow laborer programs - the poor man's Way Corps or something? As weird as it was, my 3 months in FWC were a kazillion times worse.
Glad you too survived! And a pizzonia from the Watered Garden's garden to those nasty "leaders" who said that to their wives!
WG
I think that would make for an interesting thread, to say the least.
Here's the problem, though.
There just weren't that many of us. I stated in an earlier post that we graduated 50 per year. After thinking about it, I realized it was only half that number because it was like juniors and seniors in high school.
All were at the same school but only the seniors graduated. So, if FL was around for 10 years(don't know), that's only 250 people, at least in the Ohio program.
One of the aspects that is soooo difficult to convey to people is the reality of living in a *commune* 24/7.
There was no going home at the end of the day. We were home. There was no *private* time to really speak of unless you count doing laundry on Sunday night as private time. You couldn't sneak into town or find a place to hide for a few hours. It just wasn't possible.
We started our day at 5:30am(earlier if you were on breakfast assignment.) and ended at Midnight.
All that time was committed to the program.Running across the street to the truck stop for a pack of smokes before lights out was like "stolen" time.
Even when we were at our secular jobs, it was understood that our purpose in going to those jobs was to witness or promote the ministry in some way. If the job didn't afford those opportunities, we were supposed to get another job that did. Not that easy in Podunk,USA!
Guess I got off topic. There was plenty of degrading behavior toward women, though.
The prime example was how the limb leader, our second year, treated his wife (and mother of his child)
"The context is being subservient to their husbands"
true..
I think it was evolution of thought. I think what Paul asserted was very revolutionary for the time he lived. "wanna be the head? wanna run the show? You'd better do it like Christ loved the church.."
I think I know how he felt, dealing with the Neanderthals of his day.
Not to pick on the poster who first used the term "tie-breaker", but in a relationship that includes only two human beings (e.g. a marriage) the one who is the "tie-breaker" is the one who gets to make the decisions, plain and simple, calling it anything else is semantics, and misleading semantics at that. It's no more and no less than a dictator who condescends to listen to his (inferior) advisors.
That's not to say that the dictator or tie breaker or "head" can't be a great guy, good father, loving husband, but to pretend that there is any kind of "vote" is just that, pretending.
I agree with Oak...to use the term "tie breaker" implies that that the two people refused to compromise and come to a mutual agreement...I think it works better when two people can negotiate and agree than it does when one person rules over the other...
well, since no one has yet written from the kid's pov in this thread, i think i'll do it.
i saw my mother degraded repeatedly by TWI. for one thing, she has always made more money than my dad and though this was never an issue for him initially, TWI made it an issue. they told him he wasn't being the proper head of his household (or something to that effect). as a result he started working crazy hours that left him almost zero time with us and almost destroyed my parent's marriage. (not to mention that it didn't leave him much time for corps meetings and various other TWI crap, so he got grief from leadership for that too).
it also drove me crazy as a kid because since my dad was never home i could never get permission to do anything. i knew my mom was capable and intelligent enough to make decisions but she just couldn't say "yes" or "no" without my dad's ok. he was usually so tired when he got home at night that he just didn't care, so ultimately it was up to mom anyway. very confusing for a kid.
TWI's dissatisfaction with our family even went so far that in the mid nineties some leadership jerk accused my dad of being a "homo." it was directly related to what they perceived as my dad's inability to force my mom to submit to him (ie: make less money, keep her mouth shut, etc). so he must be gay if he wants to be married to someone like my mom who can actually think for herself!? (okay, i won't even pretend to understand TWI logic here). in reality we never had so many problems before TWI butted its ugly head in and started trying to run every aspect of our lives with its legalism.
i won't even get started on my own personal experiences as being a young girl growing up in TWI... but even as a youngster in the minicorps i had a very clear idea of who was superior-- and it wasn't us girls! fo sho!
Yes, Groucho, that's what I'm talking about. This is not to say that sometimes one spouse has the expertise or knowledge to make a call and sometimes the other spouse does. But in most situations it's discussion, consensus, compromise and more discussion. there must be maturity, there must be love and mutual respect.
Funny TWI never had any problem with my being the breadwinner--in fact they enjoyed the fact.
Ya see the way it worked was --I worked for the feds and then the state and checks were ALWAYS direct deposited. With Steve at home he just zipped to the atm and withdrew whatever he and leadership felt he needed to.
$400.00 one time ---the rent, utilities, grocery checks all bounced like rubber balls. He knew that money was for bills, knew the checks had been issued. Did he give a rats furless tail??? Nope, it was for the spreading of God's Word doncha know
Question how does one remain debt free when ones spouse is encouraged to spend every dime to spread the Word???
Of course this was all my fault, poor stewardship, lack of meekness, open spritual trapdoors..................................... la da dee -- la de da
See, when a decision was before a couple, God was supposed to zap the exact right victorious thing to do to the husband, because that is why he is the head--chain of command, just like in the military. The wife's job was to obey.
And how can you discuss and/or argue with "Thus saith the Lord"?
I never had any problem with my hubby making the final decision until he dicided I had no input at all!
Let's face it folks, when the washer breaks down and can't be repaired, who uses it more??? who knows what to look for according to the family's needs? If the wife said I want this, and this, and so on....these items add up. Perhaps there isn't that amount of money for that....so the husband and wife discuss what's important to stay in the budget. NO PROBLEM
But when the men walked all over us, many of us lost our enthusiasm for lots of things...not just twi.
quote: In my experience many times the man initiates a fight by what he does or does not do and then the woman starts verbalizing, eventually she has to yell to get the mans attention. It escalates. Now of course this is not always what happens...but in a majority of cases when traced back to the actual beginning...
Is it possible that what the man "does not do" to "initiate the fight" is agree with his wife? Is it possible that she doesn't yell to get his attention, rather she yells to bully him into submission?
quote: It is possible that these women that "start" the fights are asking for or expecting something unreasonable from the man. And then the man gets frustrated because of this and verbally "strikes" back at the woman. Physical abuse almost always starts with verbal abuse.
Some women have a warped sense of entitlement. Just like the stereotypical male chauvenist who expects sex on demand 24/7 regardless of headache, menstruation, pregnancy, fatigue, etc., these women expect to be heard 24/7 no matter how inconvenient it may be for the man. If there's a time sensitive situation, that's one thing, but sometimes we all just need our space.
quote: Certainly a woman may confront a man because he just came home drunk at 2 am and has nothing left of his paycheck...and she "starts" a fight. Or a woman may ask the man if he will watch the children while she goes shopping and he refuses because they will interrupt the game and she "starts" a fight.
This is preventable. In the 2 above examples the man is the unreasonable one. Sounds like things the man was accustomed to when single; just needs to make the adjustment. For the record, yes, if a man marries a woman, then she has the reasonable expectation that he will spend time with her much more than with his old friends.
quote: I've stated this before...the bible was written during a time when people thought differently than we do today...different culture, different norms...that does not detract from the message of the risen Christ and our salvation
Nor does it detract from the bible being God breathed. Our salvation doesn't begin in the next life; we have benefits NOW! Do you remember that Walter Cummins made a point of differentiating between what scriptures meant to first century believers and what they mean to us? Rigid legalism has never worked for God's people. Not in the OT when Solomon and Rehoboam "oppressed the people", not when the Pharissees laid grievous burdens on people, not when the believers of Jewish background tried to get the gentiles to be circumcized, and not today in fundamentalist style churches (including TWI under LCM).
Funny, one book on cults in the 70s actually admitted that cults were the "unpaid bills of the church". Likewise, GSC is some of the unpaid bills of TWI.
quote: I think that the person in a given partnership who has more power (i.e. physically stronger) rightfully bears greater responsiblity, and should exercise more restraint.
Usually it is the man.
Why not be the first one to agree.
be the one not to raise the voice above normal conversational level.. If somebody is SCREAMING at you, it is pretty obvious that they don't particularly want to hear what you are saying at the moment.
NEVER threaten, scream, or call names..
NEVER strike out with harsh words, in anger..
I really think the tongue can be controlled, unless someone is missing that part of the brain that enables the muscles to hold the mouth shut..
ESPECIALLY- NEVER strike physically. There is no excuse.. I wouldn't strike a woman.. even if she was striking me. I'd walk off. 99% of the time, exiting is a valid option.
If a man can't stop himself from striking a woman, he has no business even being around women.
Or even verbally abusing a woman. Whether he's "baited" into doing it, or not..
I think if you have to resort to extreme measures to get someones attention, something's wrong..
Why do you put it all on men. Sounds like back door chauvenism; like you think that women are too stupid and undisciplined to control their tongues. Like the man has to always be the bigger person. If that's true then men and women are NOT equal. If that's true then relationships between men and women are no better than relationships between humans and their pets. That's not God's perspective.
Why do you put it all on men. Sounds like back door chauvenism; like you think that women are too stupid and undisciplined to control their tongues. Like the man has to always be the bigger person. If that's true then men and women are NOT equal. If that's true then relationships between men and women are no better than relationships between humans and their pets. That's not God's perspective.
No, I don't put it ALL on the man.
The vast majority of men and women have little problem controlling their tongues and actions.
I'm plugging the loophole from the man's perspective. Worst case scenario.
I still believe that the one with the greater power still bears more responsibility. I can't think of one reason to return insult for insult, scream for scream. Blow for blow..
Nor does it detract from the bible being God breathed. Our salvation doesn't begin in the next life; we have benefits NOW! Do you remember that Walter Cummins made a point of differentiating between what scriptures meant to first century believers and what they mean to us?
Actually, I'm not really interested in remembering what any of Wierwille's flunkies had to say. (As if Walter Cummins saying it adds credibity)...scheesh!
...and although I agree that there are benefits that Christians enjoy in this life, we would probably disagree as to what they are...I ditched my "waybrain" a looooooooooong time ago.
Recommended Posts
Top Posters In This Topic
13
16
40
32
Popular Days
Jul 5
32
Jul 11
29
Jul 9
26
Jul 7
25
Top Posters In This Topic
GrouchoMarxJr 13 posts
oldiesman 16 posts
Ham 40 posts
Jeaniam 32 posts
Popular Days
Jul 5 2007
32 posts
Jul 11 2007
29 posts
Jul 9 2007
26 posts
Jul 7 2007
25 posts
Ham
West Virginia.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
oldiesman
Blue Ridge Mountains?
Shenandoah River?
:D
All the times I visited West Virginia on my bike, I loved the place. I want to go back in the fall and see the leaves.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Watered Garden
Maybe we should start another thread about fellow laborer programs - the poor man's Way Corps or something? As weird as it was, my 3 months in FWC were a kazillion times worse.
Glad you too survived! And a pizzonia from the Watered Garden's garden to those nasty "leaders" who said that to their wives!
WG
Edited by Watered GardenLink to comment
Share on other sites
Ham
I was kinda a weird kid.. I think maybe they put me in there to practice discerning spirits or something..
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Eyesopen
Officer. A couple of times in my career I have had to take a 'desk' job because of an injury, (like now) but the bulk of my career was spent in the trenches or training others.
Now you're getting into causational factors. Certainly a woman may confront a man because he just came home drunk at 2 am and has nothing left of his paycheck...and she "starts" a fight. Or a woman may ask the man if he will watch the children while she goes shopping and he refuses because they will interrupt the game and she "starts" a fight. In my experience many times the man initiates a fight by what he does or does not do and then the woman starts verbalizing, eventually she has to yell to get the mans attention. It escalates. Now of course this is not always what happens...but in a majority of cases when traced back to the actual beginning...
It is possible that these women that "start" the fights are asking for or expecting something unreasonable from the man. And then the man gets frustrated because of this and verbally "strikes" back at the woman. Physical abuse almost always starts with verbal abuse.
As I said this is only from my experience.
When I say "mutual slug fest" I dont necessarily mean a physical slug fest, it can be a verbal slug fest as well. But I was vague and I apologize for that.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
GrouchoMarxJr
Wow!...How did you draw that conclusion from what I said?...The context is women being subservient to their husbands...
You not only jumped to some faulty conclusions, your logic catapulted you across an infinitely wide chasm!
Obviously, you are of the "Wierwille school" of "there's a purpose for every word He says, where He says it, how He says it and why He says it"...sorry, but I don't buy into the bible (as it's written) being God's will verbatim.
I've stated this before...the bible was written during a time when people thought differently than we do today...different culture, different norms...that does not detract from the message of the risen Christ and our salvation...to each his own.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
waysider
I think that would make for an interesting thread, to say the least.
Here's the problem, though.
There just weren't that many of us. I stated in an earlier post that we graduated 50 per year. After thinking about it, I realized it was only half that number because it was like juniors and seniors in high school.
All were at the same school but only the seniors graduated. So, if FL was around for 10 years(don't know), that's only 250 people, at least in the Ohio program.
One of the aspects that is soooo difficult to convey to people is the reality of living in a *commune* 24/7.
There was no going home at the end of the day. We were home. There was no *private* time to really speak of unless you count doing laundry on Sunday night as private time. You couldn't sneak into town or find a place to hide for a few hours. It just wasn't possible.
We started our day at 5:30am(earlier if you were on breakfast assignment.) and ended at Midnight.
All that time was committed to the program.Running across the street to the truck stop for a pack of smokes before lights out was like "stolen" time.
Even when we were at our secular jobs, it was understood that our purpose in going to those jobs was to witness or promote the ministry in some way. If the job didn't afford those opportunities, we were supposed to get another job that did. Not that easy in Podunk,USA!
Guess I got off topic. There was plenty of degrading behavior toward women, though.
The prime example was how the limb leader, our second year, treated his wife (and mother of his child)
Pretty disgusting if you want my opinion.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Ham
"The context is being subservient to their husbands"
true..
I think it was evolution of thought. I think what Paul asserted was very revolutionary for the time he lived. "wanna be the head? wanna run the show? You'd better do it like Christ loved the church.."
I think I know how he felt, dealing with the Neanderthals of his day.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Watered Garden
Waysider, check your PT's.
WG
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Oakspear
Not to pick on the poster who first used the term "tie-breaker", but in a relationship that includes only two human beings (e.g. a marriage) the one who is the "tie-breaker" is the one who gets to make the decisions, plain and simple, calling it anything else is semantics, and misleading semantics at that. It's no more and no less than a dictator who condescends to listen to his (inferior) advisors.
That's not to say that the dictator or tie breaker or "head" can't be a great guy, good father, loving husband, but to pretend that there is any kind of "vote" is just that, pretending.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
GrouchoMarxJr
I agree with Oak...to use the term "tie breaker" implies that that the two people refused to compromise and come to a mutual agreement...I think it works better when two people can negotiate and agree than it does when one person rules over the other...
Link to comment
Share on other sites
minicorpse
well, since no one has yet written from the kid's pov in this thread, i think i'll do it.
i saw my mother degraded repeatedly by TWI. for one thing, she has always made more money than my dad and though this was never an issue for him initially, TWI made it an issue. they told him he wasn't being the proper head of his household (or something to that effect). as a result he started working crazy hours that left him almost zero time with us and almost destroyed my parent's marriage. (not to mention that it didn't leave him much time for corps meetings and various other TWI crap, so he got grief from leadership for that too).
it also drove me crazy as a kid because since my dad was never home i could never get permission to do anything. i knew my mom was capable and intelligent enough to make decisions but she just couldn't say "yes" or "no" without my dad's ok. he was usually so tired when he got home at night that he just didn't care, so ultimately it was up to mom anyway. very confusing for a kid.
TWI's dissatisfaction with our family even went so far that in the mid nineties some leadership jerk accused my dad of being a "homo." it was directly related to what they perceived as my dad's inability to force my mom to submit to him (ie: make less money, keep her mouth shut, etc). so he must be gay if he wants to be married to someone like my mom who can actually think for herself!? (okay, i won't even pretend to understand TWI logic here). in reality we never had so many problems before TWI butted its ugly head in and started trying to run every aspect of our lives with its legalism.
i won't even get started on my own personal experiences as being a young girl growing up in TWI... but even as a youngster in the minicorps i had a very clear idea of who was superior-- and it wasn't us girls! fo sho!
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Oakspear
Yes, Groucho, that's what I'm talking about. This is not to say that sometimes one spouse has the expertise or knowledge to make a call and sometimes the other spouse does. But in most situations it's discussion, consensus, compromise and more discussion. there must be maturity, there must be love and mutual respect.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
templelady
Funny TWI never had any problem with my being the breadwinner--in fact they enjoyed the fact.
Ya see the way it worked was --I worked for the feds and then the state and checks were ALWAYS direct deposited. With Steve at home he just zipped to the atm and withdrew whatever he and leadership felt he needed to.
$400.00 one time ---the rent, utilities, grocery checks all bounced like rubber balls. He knew that money was for bills, knew the checks had been issued. Did he give a rats furless tail??? Nope, it was for the spreading of God's Word doncha know
Question how does one remain debt free when ones spouse is encouraged to spend every dime to spread the Word???
Of course this was all my fault, poor stewardship, lack of meekness, open spritual trapdoors..................................... la da dee -- la de da
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bramble
Compromise was a dirty word in TWI.
See, when a decision was before a couple, God was supposed to zap the exact right victorious thing to do to the husband, because that is why he is the head--chain of command, just like in the military. The wife's job was to obey.
And how can you discuss and/or argue with "Thus saith the Lord"?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
krys
I never had any problem with my hubby making the final decision until he dicided I had no input at all!
Let's face it folks, when the washer breaks down and can't be repaired, who uses it more??? who knows what to look for according to the family's needs? If the wife said I want this, and this, and so on....these items add up. Perhaps there isn't that amount of money for that....so the husband and wife discuss what's important to stay in the budget. NO PROBLEM
But when the men walked all over us, many of us lost our enthusiasm for lots of things...not just twi.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
johniam
quote: In my experience many times the man initiates a fight by what he does or does not do and then the woman starts verbalizing, eventually she has to yell to get the mans attention. It escalates. Now of course this is not always what happens...but in a majority of cases when traced back to the actual beginning...
Is it possible that what the man "does not do" to "initiate the fight" is agree with his wife? Is it possible that she doesn't yell to get his attention, rather she yells to bully him into submission?
quote: It is possible that these women that "start" the fights are asking for or expecting something unreasonable from the man. And then the man gets frustrated because of this and verbally "strikes" back at the woman. Physical abuse almost always starts with verbal abuse.
Some women have a warped sense of entitlement. Just like the stereotypical male chauvenist who expects sex on demand 24/7 regardless of headache, menstruation, pregnancy, fatigue, etc., these women expect to be heard 24/7 no matter how inconvenient it may be for the man. If there's a time sensitive situation, that's one thing, but sometimes we all just need our space.
quote: Certainly a woman may confront a man because he just came home drunk at 2 am and has nothing left of his paycheck...and she "starts" a fight. Or a woman may ask the man if he will watch the children while she goes shopping and he refuses because they will interrupt the game and she "starts" a fight.
This is preventable. In the 2 above examples the man is the unreasonable one. Sounds like things the man was accustomed to when single; just needs to make the adjustment. For the record, yes, if a man marries a woman, then she has the reasonable expectation that he will spend time with her much more than with his old friends.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
johniam
quote: I've stated this before...the bible was written during a time when people thought differently than we do today...different culture, different norms...that does not detract from the message of the risen Christ and our salvation
Nor does it detract from the bible being God breathed. Our salvation doesn't begin in the next life; we have benefits NOW! Do you remember that Walter Cummins made a point of differentiating between what scriptures meant to first century believers and what they mean to us? Rigid legalism has never worked for God's people. Not in the OT when Solomon and Rehoboam "oppressed the people", not when the Pharissees laid grievous burdens on people, not when the believers of Jewish background tried to get the gentiles to be circumcized, and not today in fundamentalist style churches (including TWI under LCM).
Funny, one book on cults in the 70s actually admitted that cults were the "unpaid bills of the church". Likewise, GSC is some of the unpaid bills of TWI.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
johniam
quote: I think that the person in a given partnership who has more power (i.e. physically stronger) rightfully bears greater responsiblity, and should exercise more restraint.
Usually it is the man.
Why not be the first one to agree.
be the one not to raise the voice above normal conversational level.. If somebody is SCREAMING at you, it is pretty obvious that they don't particularly want to hear what you are saying at the moment.
NEVER threaten, scream, or call names..
NEVER strike out with harsh words, in anger..
I really think the tongue can be controlled, unless someone is missing that part of the brain that enables the muscles to hold the mouth shut..
ESPECIALLY- NEVER strike physically. There is no excuse.. I wouldn't strike a woman.. even if she was striking me. I'd walk off. 99% of the time, exiting is a valid option.
If a man can't stop himself from striking a woman, he has no business even being around women.
Or even verbally abusing a woman. Whether he's "baited" into doing it, or not..
I think if you have to resort to extreme measures to get someones attention, something's wrong..
Why do you put it all on men. Sounds like back door chauvenism; like you think that women are too stupid and undisciplined to control their tongues. Like the man has to always be the bigger person. If that's true then men and women are NOT equal. If that's true then relationships between men and women are no better than relationships between humans and their pets. That's not God's perspective.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Ham
No, I don't put it ALL on the man.
The vast majority of men and women have little problem controlling their tongues and actions.
I'm plugging the loophole from the man's perspective. Worst case scenario.
I still believe that the one with the greater power still bears more responsibility. I can't think of one reason to return insult for insult, scream for scream. Blow for blow..
Edited by Mr. HammeroniLink to comment
Share on other sites
Oakspear
Johniam: any way you can be a little clearer when your quotes of other posters end? Thanks
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Ham
I know.. some people fight like cats and dogs just to have the thrill of making up again..
just have mercy on the neighbors, the kids, the police, the pets.. most people don't want to hear this kind of thing..
go rent a Maxwell Smart cone of silence or something..
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Ham
I dunno. I kinda thought a marriage was supposed to be a marriage, or a relationship a relationship.
Not a daily session of momentus..
Link to comment
Share on other sites
GrouchoMarxJr
Actually, I'm not really interested in remembering what any of Wierwille's flunkies had to say. (As if Walter Cummins saying it adds credibity)...scheesh!
...and although I agree that there are benefits that Christians enjoy in this life, we would probably disagree as to what they are...I ditched my "waybrain" a looooooooooong time ago.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.