"...But I can't help but wonder why some feel the need to continue to hound those who hold on to some or all of PFAL. Why the driving need to try to "force them" to reject all of it. It seems to work for them - there was a time when it worked for us, at least to some degree.
Thoughts anyone?"
Abigail, can you be more specific? I personally don't feel the need to hound anyone about any of their beliefs. I do feel it's fair game to debate any idea or opinion when it is posted in an open forum. As far as I'm concerned what is at issue is the specific idea or opinion they posted - not the person. I'm thinking of two hot-bed threads where things do get off-topic sometimes [threads Becoming Agnostic and Assume for a moment there is no God] - but that's when I bow out [when it gets nasty with personal attacks, going after other beliefs] - but what are most enjoyable and enlightening for me is when people think out loud, present their opinion and reasons why they feel that way.
But I can't help but wonder why some feel the need to continue to hound those who hold on to some or all of PFAL. Why the driving need to try to "force them" to reject all of it. It seems to work for them - there was a time when it worked for us, at least to some degree.
yeah... is there a way for you to be more specific about this without naming names? (we're not supposed to name names are we?)
Sushi's been posting again but this post was written by ABIGAIL************************
Well yeah, it is not my desire to name names, other than of those who perhaps post on this thread. I don't like to talk about specific posters who may not even know they are being discussed, it just seems rude. Also, to clarify, I am not talking about what goes on in the doctrinal forums either. In the doctrinal forums, all doctrine is fair game for discussion.
But seems that often, threads in other forums get sidetracked from their original topic when those who are generally viewed as "VPW" defenders post an opinion, even if the topic has nothing to do with VPW, for example.
I dunno, maybe I am wrong about the whole thing and shouldn't have started the thread - but it just seemed to strike me, after reading some of the other posts regarding "throwing stones" etc. That maybe we (and I don't mean EVERYONE, but am trying to keep this simple) are less tolerant of those who hold to some or all of PFAL than we are of others. But just because we disagree on doctrinal issues doesn't mean we have to drag that into discussions that aren't doctrinal to begin with, does it?
well sushi/abigail... I think that's a fair way to put it... and I try to allow others to believe what they believe... I may ask them "why" they believe the way they do and offer my views on why I do or do not agree with them but I don't think that's necessarily 'out of line' as long as I don't get nasty... and they're certainly free to believe however they wish... but I guess that's not what you're talking about...
But I can't help but wonder why some feel the need to continue to hound those who hold on to some or all of PFAL. Why the driving need to try to "force them" to reject all of it. It seems to work for them - there was a time when it worked for us, at least to some degree.
Thoughts anyone?
Speaking for myself, I couldn't care less what somebody believes.
I do, however, believe that the fusion of doctrines that Wierwille taught took a lot of partially correct things, mixed them with out-and-out heresies, and created a doctrinal lie that was the basis and the enabler for the abuses that impacted so many people here. I firmly believe that the maxium deliverance from TWI prison will come when the root cause is fully exposed for the lie that it is. Having said that, I try to restrict my comments to those that are properly in context (i.e., I don't try to derail a thread in order to make my assertions)
Outside of the Doctrinal forum, when I attempt to inject that kind of thought (along with the appropriate backup and support), that is largely the rationale for it.
Other than this, I will attempt to correct misunderstandings and misstatements of the representation of historic, apostolic Christianity when the topic comes up in a thread.
Otherwise, I try to be live and let live on folks' belief systems.
(Now, the Doctrinal forum is the exception to this...but doctrinal discussions/arguments/spitball fights are supposed to happen in that sandbox, aren't they?)
Oh, and by the way, I don't apologize for my comments, either.
I'm just an arm chair psychologist, but it would seem to me (to paraphrase Eric Hoffer, author of "The Passionate State Of Mind") the more emptiness a person feels, the more likely he/she is likely to 'latch onto' a cause.
Just think back when you got into the 'ministry'. Were things going great? I know for myself they weren't. My parents had just gotten divorced, and I was never a real social person to begin with. Then along came these people who seemed to like me and to actually want to hang out.
To be honest, I never really went in for the witnessing and stuff, but did it under silent protest. I just wanted to know I was 'okay'.
Getting back to the present, it would appear those who are gung ho, on either side, are truly lacking in their personal lives. They see the organization as the only thing worthwhile. The next natural progression to me is, they develop a 'Messianic' complex, having to 'save', deliver' all those who don't agree with their particular way of looking at things.
For a musical reference, try listening to Billy Joel's "Angry Young Man". It may shed some light on this.
But I can't help but wonder why some feel the need to continue to hound those who hold on to some or all of PFAL. Why the driving need to try to "force them" to reject all of it. It seems to work for them - there was a time when it worked for us, at least to some degree.
Abigail,
I can't think of but maybe one or two posters here who hold on to "all" of PFAL. Even then I don't see anyone trying to "force" them to reject all of it. Same with those who still hold on to "some" of PFAL. I still believe some of PFAL, not because it is PFAL, but because some of PFAL is pretty standard fare. Yet no one has ever tried to force me to reject it all ...
There is one poster here who believes that PFAL "IS" the Word of God, and he actively promotes that belief. That poster may get hounded a bit, but IMO it is not to get him to reject all of PFAL. -- And besides, no one could force that poster to do anything anyway -- even if they did try.
I guess what I am saying, is that I don't really see that happening. Did I miss something ?
I agree (sort of). I hold onto probably 95% of what was taught in pfal. I state my beliefs so that any poster new or old who may still be holding onto the same, doesn't feel like the 'odd one out'.
I feel the same way as Mark O'..I really don't care what others believe but if they want to 'attack' (and I use that word in it's right context) what I believe, then all is fair in love and war, as far as I'm concerned.
It doesn't bother me if I get hounded or accused of stalking, that's just the nature of a forum full of faceless names.
Regarding Abis' comment about 'gung ho'...If you read one of my earlier posts about my life right now, hopefully you can see that not everyone who is 'gung ho' (one side or the other) is living a crap life !!
Did I forget to mention I ride a 2003 Honda shadow vt 750 and have an aussie bulldog named Abbey ??!! She is a sweetie, just like I'm sure you are too Abi (on a good day) !!
Did I forget to mention I ride a 2003 Honda shadow vt 750 and have an aussie bulldog named Abbey ??!! She is a sweetie, just like I'm sure you are too Abi (on a good day) !!
Good for you Allan! it's just too bad though that you couldn't get a "real dog" like my Dixie Chick!
But I can't help but wonder why some feel the need to continue to hound those who hold on to some or all of PFAL. Why the driving need to try to "force them" to reject all of it. It seems to work for them - there was a time when it worked for us, at least to some degree
Never, have asked that anyone reject PFAL. My posts almost always deal with the behaviors of leadership. The fact is, that some posters who hold on to PFAL have the idea that to attack leadership somehow invalidates PFAL, thus the issue becomes their refusal to see the abuse perpetrated by leadership in some cases. If you use PFAL or its teaching to support such behavior or justify it then, PFAL becomes part of the topic at hand. Vastly different than trying to proselytize someone into abandoning their belief system
Wonderful topic, and I was trying to figure out a place for this comment, under Stones. I think some of the squabbling, quibbling, kibbutiing and squilliating comes from wanting to be right. It's an "I'm right, you're wrong!" kinda thing.
I don't have to be right all the time, I'd like to be and am in lots of things. Pretty close on others, circling the landing field on still other things.
But aren't there people that just want to be "right" all the time and take great umbrage at being told or even suffering the insinuation that they might be wrong?
Maybe some of this doesn't have anything to do with the Word, the Bible or the Way at all. It's just personalities.
But aren't there people that just want to be "right" all the time and take great umbrage at being told or even suffering the insinuation that they might be wrong?
My brother from the sock drawer... I call it "gotta-be-ritis"... it's an affliction of many out there in the 'real world' as well...
"Regarding Abis' comment about 'gung ho'...If you read one of my earlier posts about my life right now, hopefully you can see that not everyone who is 'gung ho' (one side or the other) is living a crap life !!"
The "gung ho" comment wasn't mine, but my husband's - though I understand how you could be confused considering I so frequently forget to log him out before I post.
"She is a sweetie, just like I'm sure you are too Abi (on a good day) !!"
Thank you Allan, flattery will get you everywhere (well almost - afterall I am happily married ) And yes, most days I am pretty sweet. Likewise, I hope to see more of your "sweet" side.
Back to clarification - I think on one of the throwing stones threads, I think someone mentioned that they felt like many times, when they posted something good they remembered from TWI or PFAL, they got jumped on by people telling them how bad it really was. I think that person's feelings are valid, and I suspect more than one person feels that way. I guess that was why I started this thread.
I am not saying "everyone" or even "almost everyone" does that. So maybe this thread isn't applicable to very many people. Maybe those it is applicable to don't even want to answer that question, at least in the forums. But I thought I would toss it out there as food for thought, because I was wondering too if more people would feel welcome here if there was a little more room for remembering the good things we got out of TWI too.
Yeah, I know that good was at a high price - but maybe we could discuss the price without taking away from the good. Not sure if that communicates well, but its the best I can do for now.
but maybe we could discuss the price without taking away from the good
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?
(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.)
Is that the board you want?
And is that the mods' and admins' position, as well?
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...
I see people disagreeing a lot around here... some of the posts just lend themselves to that... could it be "jumping on"? sure, I suppose so... heck, some might even think I'm "jumping on" you using the phrase "jump on".. but I'm not, I'm just posting my opinion and if you choose to see it that way (not saying that you do :) ) then there's nothing I can say except "I'm not jumping on you, I'm just telling you how I feel about it"...
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...
Mark O has a good point in that there are still quite a few around here who treat his belief of choice (Catholicism) as being headed by the devil incarnate... his church still gets a lot of grief here because of things that were ingrained into every TWI member... he (and others) should be able to point that out and disagree to disagree... even if it means doing so with conviction...
"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.
"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.
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?
That's great. I agree completely with you on this point. (You will likely only see me post in the event of a doctrinal issue: an assertion of the dogmatic, unquestionable truth of a TWI doctrine)...but I wanted to make sure that this was the point you were driving at! And not a doctrinal version of PC...
Recommended Posts
Top Posters In This Topic
10
7
14
7
Popular Days
May 3
31
May 4
15
May 8
12
May 6
7
Top Posters In This Topic
Oakspear 10 posts
johniam 7 posts
Tom Strange 14 posts
dmiller 7 posts
Popular Days
May 3 2006
31 posts
May 4 2006
15 posts
May 8 2006
12 posts
May 6 2006
7 posts
T-Bone
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Tom Strange
yeah... is there a way for you to be more specific about this without naming names? (we're not supposed to name names are we?)
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Sushi
Sushi's been posting again
but this post was written by ABIGAIL************************
Well yeah, it is not my desire to name names, other than of those who perhaps post on this thread. I don't like to talk about specific posters who may not even know they are being discussed, it just seems rude. Also, to clarify, I am not talking about what goes on in the doctrinal forums either. In the doctrinal forums, all doctrine is fair game for discussion.
But seems that often, threads in other forums get sidetracked from their original topic when those who are generally viewed as "VPW" defenders post an opinion, even if the topic has nothing to do with VPW, for example.
I dunno, maybe I am wrong about the whole thing and shouldn't have started the thread - but it just seemed to strike me, after reading some of the other posts regarding "throwing stones" etc. That maybe we (and I don't mean EVERYONE, but am trying to keep this simple) are less tolerant of those who hold to some or all of PFAL than we are of others. But just because we disagree on doctrinal issues doesn't mean we have to drag that into discussions that aren't doctrinal to begin with, does it?
Edited by SushiLink to comment
Share on other sites
Tom Strange
well sushi/abigail... I think that's a fair way to put it... and I try to allow others to believe what they believe... I may ask them "why" they believe the way they do and offer my views on why I do or do not agree with them but I don't think that's necessarily 'out of line' as long as I don't get nasty... and they're certainly free to believe however they wish... but I guess that's not what you're talking about...
Link to comment
Share on other sites
markomalley
Speaking for myself, I couldn't care less what somebody believes.
I do, however, believe that the fusion of doctrines that Wierwille taught took a lot of partially correct things, mixed them with out-and-out heresies, and created a doctrinal lie that was the basis and the enabler for the abuses that impacted so many people here. I firmly believe that the maxium deliverance from TWI prison will come when the root cause is fully exposed for the lie that it is. Having said that, I try to restrict my comments to those that are properly in context (i.e., I don't try to derail a thread in order to make my assertions)
Outside of the Doctrinal forum, when I attempt to inject that kind of thought (along with the appropriate backup and support), that is largely the rationale for it.
Other than this, I will attempt to correct misunderstandings and misstatements of the representation of historic, apostolic Christianity when the topic comes up in a thread.
Otherwise, I try to be live and let live on folks' belief systems.
(Now, the Doctrinal forum is the exception to this...but doctrinal discussions/arguments/spitball fights are supposed to happen in that sandbox, aren't they?)
Oh, and by the way, I don't apologize for my comments, either.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Tom Strange
But do you think that someday you could interpret the latin tag line?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Sushi
***Actually posted by Sushi***
I'm just an arm chair psychologist, but it would seem to me (to paraphrase Eric Hoffer, author of "The Passionate State Of Mind") the more emptiness a person feels, the more likely he/she is likely to 'latch onto' a cause.
Just think back when you got into the 'ministry'. Were things going great? I know for myself they weren't. My parents had just gotten divorced, and I was never a real social person to begin with. Then along came these people who seemed to like me and to actually want to hang out.
To be honest, I never really went in for the witnessing and stuff, but did it under silent protest. I just wanted to know I was 'okay'.
Getting back to the present, it would appear those who are gung ho, on either side, are truly lacking in their personal lives. They see the organization as the only thing worthwhile. The next natural progression to me is, they develop a 'Messianic' complex, having to 'save', deliver' all those who don't agree with their particular way of looking at things.
For a musical reference, try listening to Billy Joel's "Angry Young Man". It may shed some light on this.
Edited by SushiLink to comment
Share on other sites
markomalley
Sorry 'bout that:
It's a traditional Easter season antiphon.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Goey
Abigail,
I can't think of but maybe one or two posters here who hold on to "all" of PFAL. Even then I don't see anyone trying to "force" them to reject all of it. Same with those who still hold on to "some" of PFAL. I still believe some of PFAL, not because it is PFAL, but because some of PFAL is pretty standard fare. Yet no one has ever tried to force me to reject it all ...
There is one poster here who believes that PFAL "IS" the Word of God, and he actively promotes that belief. That poster may get hounded a bit, but IMO it is not to get him to reject all of PFAL. -- And besides, no one could force that poster to do anything anyway -- even if they did try.
I guess what I am saying, is that I don't really see that happening. Did I miss something ?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
allan w.
I agree (sort of). I hold onto probably 95% of what was taught in pfal. I state my beliefs so that any poster new or old who may still be holding onto the same, doesn't feel like the 'odd one out'.
I feel the same way as Mark O'..I really don't care what others believe but if they want to 'attack' (and I use that word in it's right context) what I believe, then all is fair in love and war, as far as I'm concerned.
It doesn't bother me if I get hounded or accused of stalking, that's just the nature of a forum full of faceless names.
Regarding Abis' comment about 'gung ho'...If you read one of my earlier posts about my life right now, hopefully you can see that not everyone who is 'gung ho' (one side or the other) is living a crap life !!
Did I forget to mention I ride a 2003 Honda shadow vt 750 and have an aussie bulldog named Abbey ??!! She is a sweetie, just like I'm sure you are too Abi (on a good day) !!
I'll try and put some pictures up later on.
Life is for Living !
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Tom Strange
Good for you Allan! it's just too bad though that you couldn't get a "real dog" like my Dixie Chick!
Link to comment
Share on other sites
templelady
Never, have asked that anyone reject PFAL. My posts almost always deal with the behaviors of leadership. The fact is, that some posters who hold on to PFAL have the idea that to attack leadership somehow invalidates PFAL, thus the issue becomes their refusal to see the abuse perpetrated by leadership in some cases. If you use PFAL or its teaching to support such behavior or justify it then, PFAL becomes part of the topic at hand. Vastly different than trying to proselytize someone into abandoning their belief system
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Tom Strange
(Sorry Allan... couldn't resist!) :)
Thanks for interpreting Mark O.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
socks
***I didn't really post this***
Wonderful topic, and I was trying to figure out a place for this comment, under Stones. I think some of the squabbling, quibbling, kibbutiing and squilliating comes from wanting to be right. It's an "I'm right, you're wrong!" kinda thing.
I don't have to be right all the time, I'd like to be and am in lots of things. Pretty close on others, circling the landing field on still other things.
But aren't there people that just want to be "right" all the time and take great umbrage at being told or even suffering the insinuation that they might be wrong?
Maybe some of this doesn't have anything to do with the Word, the Bible or the Way at all. It's just personalities.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Tom Strange
My brother from the sock drawer... I call it "gotta-be-ritis"... it's an affliction of many out there in the 'real world' as well...
BTW... what does "squilliating" mean?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Abigail
Allan,
"Regarding Abis' comment about 'gung ho'...If you read one of my earlier posts about my life right now, hopefully you can see that not everyone who is 'gung ho' (one side or the other) is living a crap life !!"
The "gung ho" comment wasn't mine, but my husband's - though I understand how you could be confused considering I so frequently forget to log him out before I post.
"She is a sweetie, just like I'm sure you are too Abi (on a good day) !!"
Thank you Allan, flattery will get you everywhere (well almost - afterall I am happily married
) And yes, most days I am pretty sweet. Likewise, I hope to see more of your "sweet" side.
Back to clarification - I think on one of the throwing stones threads, I think someone mentioned that they felt like many times, when they posted something good they remembered from TWI or PFAL, they got jumped on by people telling them how bad it really was. I think that person's feelings are valid, and I suspect more than one person feels that way. I guess that was why I started this thread.
I am not saying "everyone" or even "almost everyone" does that. So maybe this thread isn't applicable to very many people. Maybe those it is applicable to don't even want to answer that question, at least in the forums. But I thought I would toss it out there as food for thought, because I was wondering too if more people would feel welcome here if there was a little more room for remembering the good things we got out of TWI too.
Yeah, I know that good was at a high price - but maybe we could discuss the price without taking away from the good. Not sure if that communicates well, but its the best I can do for now.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
markomalley
but maybe we could discuss the price without taking away from the good
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?
(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.)
Is that the board you want?
And is that the mods' and admins' position, as well?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Tom Strange
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...
I see people disagreeing a lot around here... some of the posts just lend themselves to that... could it be "jumping on"? sure, I suppose so... heck, some might even think I'm "jumping on" you using the phrase "jump on".. but I'm not, I'm just posting my opinion and if you choose to see it that way (not saying that you do :) ) then there's nothing I can say except "I'm not jumping on you, I'm just telling you how I feel about it"...
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Tom Strange
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...
Mark O has a good point in that there are still quite a few around here who treat his belief of choice (Catholicism) as being headed by the devil incarnate... his church still gets a lot of grief here because of things that were ingrained into every TWI member... he (and others) should be able to point that out and disagree to disagree... even if it means doing so with conviction...
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Abigail
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.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
GeorgeStGeorge
Shouldn't it be "Ora pro nobis Deo"? I'm not familiar with that particular hymn, but the dative case seems appropriate, not the accusative.
George
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Abigail
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.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
markomalley
Abigail,
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?
That's great. I agree completely with you on this point. (You will likely only see me post in the event of a doctrinal issue: an assertion of the dogmatic, unquestionable truth of a TWI doctrine)...but I wanted to make sure that this was the point you were driving at! And not a doctrinal version of PC...
Edited by markomalleyLink to comment
Share on other sites
Abigail
No Mark. Discussing and debating doctrine is different, because you are debating an issue, an idea - not an experience or a memory.
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.