|
|
Post by ghost on Aug 25, 2011 2:31:41 GMT -5
Being logical and rational is easy when you exclude the Holy Spirit. The idea of a Holy Spirit precedes christianity. For example, the greek pholosopher Socrates called it the «daemon» who guided him. He did not base a religion on this, nor did his philosopher disciples This has been linked ith the eruption of the volcano at Santorini and the tsunami that followed. There were numerous myths of resurections BEFORE christ. The myth of Adonis was known to the Greeks as early as the fifth century BCE. The Egyptian myth of Osiris dates back to at least 4,000 BCE and was recorded in detail by the Greek biographer Plutarch (c46-120 CE). The Persian Sun-God Mithras was mentioned in the writings of the Greek historian Herodotus (c480-c245 BCE). The cult of Mithraism reached Rome in the first century BCE.Sorry, in my knowledge, no dead has been raised in modern times. Sick are healed, of course, thanks to modern medicine ... Some people believe in a flat earth. It is their right. But the real earth is spherical ... In all other respects your post is correct. |
|
|
|
Post by lazarus66 on Aug 25, 2011 8:21:11 GMT -5
Maybe I just don't get the idea of these boards. I am not a good social animal, which is odd because I have been a professional entertainer all my life.
Noels, Maybe the people on TLC have been "cut down to size" by egotistical workers enough and are in a state that they don't need to be beat up on anymore. I was associated with your "truth" for over 50 years, and that is all I got was put down, beat up, and judged. I do have some very dear friends in the "fellowship" and will always love them, but the majority and the system, IMO, sucks and if I weren't a peaceful man, I would be "looking up" a few jerks I dealt with, turning the other cheek, like the workers told me too, and I would turn some of their cheeks. I would love to see some of them so I could tell them face to face, how I feel about them, now that I am free of the ridicules 2x2 mindset. I would be tempted to boot a few in the arse.
I will leave you to your mindless meanderings here as I can't see the point. I agree to disagree, but I have a small problem with this.
I have a brother that fits Rational's mold, and he attempted to kill me, and has cheated me out of a small fortune and I now live a poor life instead of the life I built. I don't know why my brother hates me, but I think a lot of it has to do with me being a defender of the "truth" before I got my eyes opened and knew better.
You folks will just have to excuse me as I like a good discussion and don't expect total agreement, but I can't see going out and starting a argument, just for the sake of arguing.
If the TLC is a touchy-feely place that you don't like, don't go there. There are many people there that are in a fragile state and it is because of the abusive mind control practiced by the 2x2 system.
Noels, I don't know who you are, but I dealt with Tharold Slyvester, Willis Propp, and some others that were totally off base and real knuckleheads.
I don't agree with a lot that is written here, but there are just some things I will fight. I don't like bullies, and I don't like people being emotionally abused, and that doesn't happen or need to happen on TLC.
Stay here in the fray of the battle, but don't do anymore damage to those that are wounded and need a safe haven.
I apologize if I offended, but I felt like I was sticking up for weaker ones........Dale/Pianoman/Lazarus
|
|
|
|
Post by rational on Aug 25, 2011 9:12:33 GMT -5
I have a brother that fits Rational's mold, and he attempted to kill me, and has cheated me out of a small fortune and I now live a poor life instead of the life I built. You should try looking at people as individuals rather than boxing them up. |
|
|
|
Post by Sylvestra on Aug 25, 2011 10:59:18 GMT -5
I'd love to be one of the "outsiders" (you know, the ones I mean....Christians who don't believe your meetings are the only way), who sit in your meetings and say out loud "Hallelujah" and "Praise God" for everything they agree with!
man-oh-man, I would love to do that!!!! Disruptive? Why should it be? Disturb the peace of your meeting? Why should it?
What a joke you people are!
|
|
|
|
Post by lazarus66 on Aug 25, 2011 11:50:39 GMT -5
I do look at people as individuals.
Now in your Rational mind, is there good and bad, creeps and good people?
Find a shoe, and wear it.....I have, I am a peacemaker and hate to see others torn down and beat up.
"Sticks and stones......" Words hurt more than any beating I ever took as a child.
|
|
|
|
Post by Scott Ross on Aug 25, 2011 12:57:26 GMT -5
but I don't really see any attempt on this board to find a common ground.A lot of that takes place 'off board', although I do try to do so here on the TMB. Part of the problem with finding common ground is that many people do not want to find common ground. It frightens them it seems.  They spend all their time on the board finding fault with others and pointing out all the differences. Those are people that seem to refuse to see what we have in common. Some of the exes have 'burned their bridges' and now refuse to see any common ground. Some of the innies refuse to believe there can be a bridge and likewise refuse to see any common ground. That category of people on both sides of the 2x2 fence seem to struggle with the concept of just what it means to be a member of the body of Christ, and a member of the Church (all Christians regardless of denomination) Scott 
|
|
|
|
Post by ts on Aug 25, 2011 13:00:14 GMT -5
Dale, may YHVH restore to you the years that the locust have eaten. The Bible is replete with examples of people who took the blows for righteousness' sake and YHVH Himself made it right. We can count on it. He hates lies and oppression.
Thanks for standing up against bullies.
|
|
|
|
Post by melissa71 on Aug 25, 2011 16:53:25 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by lazarus66 on Aug 25, 2011 22:40:36 GMT -5
I don't recall the entire story of how this took place, but a man went before a judge and told the judge he was an atheist and somehow he was telling the judge that since "believers'' had a holiday he wanted on too. The judge replied." The bible says 'the fool has said in his heart, 'there is no God' therefore you have your holiday, April fool's day.''
|
|
|
|
Post by rational on Aug 25, 2011 23:06:18 GMT -5
Noels -- I don't really see where you are coming from on this subject. Given that not everyone on TLC is a Christian -- and we already have some atheists, agnostics and universalists posting there. Perhaps Noels was just guessing at the criteria for being allowed access to TLC. I am certain this is true for you. |
|
|
|
Post by rational on Aug 25, 2011 23:11:08 GMT -5
I don't recall the entire story of how this took place, but a man went before a judge and told the judge he was an atheist and somehow he was telling the judge that since "believers'' had a holiday he wanted on too. The judge replied." The bible says 'the fool has said in his heart, 'there is no God' therefore you have your holiday, April fool's day.'' The entire story is a fabrication frequently presented as a true story by theists to mock atheists. Couldn't you make up something better than this? |
|
|
|
Post by rational on Aug 25, 2011 23:16:21 GMT -5
Now in your Rational mind, is there good and bad, creeps and good people? There are people I trust and people I do not trust. There are those I like and those whom I do not like. There are many who post here whom I respect. And there are some who I do not trust, like, nor respect. That is why it is best to refrain from personal attacks. |
|
|
|
Post by lazarus66 on Aug 26, 2011 4:58:19 GMT -5
Sorry Rat.
No, I couldn't make up a better story, since I am posting what I read before.
Can you prove that it is fabricated any more than I can prove it isn't?
Personal attacks are in many forms. That is why I deleted my account here before and I am about ready to do it again.
I think people have their own opinions and should be allowed to state them without having to document everything down to a "T".
You need to find a board where everyone is perfect and absolutely correct like yourself, but then you do have those that like to feed you cheese here, so maybe I will exit.
|
|
|
|
Post by rational on Aug 26, 2011 8:28:29 GMT -5
Can you prove that it is fabricated any more than I can prove it isn't? That is almost how these things work. I did look for a source. Nothing. Others have searched and found nothing. So, if you are saying it is factual, the burden of proof is on you. Everyone has that freedom. Everyone has that right. You as well. Just because I question you regarding your claims you are under no obligation to respond. You don't even have to think about the question. If you wish to claim you can float 9 inches above the ground I will ask for documentation but you are under no obligation to verify that you are telling the truth. If everyone were perfect it would be a dull board indeed. Sort of like a message board where no one challenges people. Post whatever you like and the group will murmur "Good points. Great post. I agree." Are you irritated because I do not accept everything you post as gospel? |
|
|
|
Post by rational on Aug 26, 2011 9:29:28 GMT -5
Rational, you present your point of view, Dale presents his point of view. There is healthy discussion and then....there are those who like to debate everything that is posted...I believe they just love to argue. When conversation results from one person's love of aruguing it's not always enjoyable for both parties of the discussion. Of course, this is MY opinion. As has been pointed out, no one is obligated to respond. In doing any research there are levels of reliability. In the case of studies, for example, reading the published results rather than the news release. There is the probem that many people fall for the trap that if it is on the internet it is true. You presented a FACT. The natural question would be "According to who?" You say the person is knowledgeable. You have to be able to convince others. Sounds like a solid opinion. They may only need to make sure they are being accurate in their observations. Sounds like a semantic issue. Simple gainsaying is indeed pointless. |
|
|
|
Post by Done4now on Aug 26, 2011 10:38:29 GMT -5
As has been pointed out, no one is obligated to respond. In doing any research there are levels of reliability. In the case of studies, for example, reading the published results rather than the news release. There is the probem that many people fall for the trap that if it is on the internet it is true. You presented a FACT. The natural question would be "According to who?" You say the person is knowledgeable. You have to be able to convince others. Sounds like a solid opinion. They may only need to make sure they are being accurate in their observations. Sounds like a semantic issue. Simple gainsaying is indeed pointless. Again - rational, you are presenting your point of view and I am presenting mine. I KNOW that this man has studied religion for decades! He has a passion for it, has a doctorate's degree, a professor, but no desire to publish a book. I respect him for that. He loves to visit about these things though. Hey - this is not opinion any more than some on this forum who love to cut/paste works from published sources as FACT. Am I wrong in your opinion? Now, I can be called a liar (or making this up....I was accused of that by someone ignorantly speculating) and this doesn't really bother me. I know this man very well. Do I agree with everything he believes? No. Do I believe everything published in books? Absolutely not. Do I believe that God is REAL. Beyond a shadow of a doubt!!! Do I believe in the Holy Spirit? Beyond the Shadow of a doubt! Much of what is posted on the internet is as reliable as published books. Do you agree/disagree? I've read some pretty "far out books". Interesting but WOW! I appreciate your comments that no one needs to respond. However, you would like your comments to be considered no doubt. There IS some very sensible and true comments that you make. Can't debate them really. But then....IMO....I think you have your opinions and IMO I suspect that some of your past experiences has made you reject anything presented to you unless there is strong evidence to back it up. If you were part of the 2x2 system I can understand that to a point. If not, I would guess that you have experienced something similar. I enjoy differing points of view. Makes us realize that we don't really have all the answers. Right? Or wrong? LOL Sherbear, as I recall you asked another poster to assess whether or not this person (known only to you) is a fool or not. She quite rightly could not do so having only your opinion to go by and said so. The fact that you are still harping on this is amazing (and very telling about you as a person). This whole thing reminds me of a man I once met, who prior to our meeting, was billed very similarly to how you describe your friend, who completely failed to live up to his positive advertising. This man was quite intelligent in the area of science--but when it came to religion he was a complete and utter fool. He had read quite a bit--but with only a mind to confirming his own prejudices. For example--he believed that the Impartial Reporter articles were completely faked by the exes to make the fellowship look bad. This man was introduced to me as somewhat of a respected expert--a well read student of religion, but I pegged him as having little of worth to offer in that area within a few minutes of conversation during which he embarrassed himself rather badly. I won't go into all the details of the wacky things he believed, but this particular self-proclaimed expert would fit right in with the holocaust deniers and those who insist that the moon landing was faked. He was really rather sad and pathetic, but I never would have known this without having a good conversation with him so that I could "take his measure". Over the internet? Who can tell? No one can judge the credibility of your so-called expert without more to go by and a person would be a fool themselves if they tried. you are not coming across as a logical person as you repeatedly try to manipulate us into accepting some unknown person as an expert while not providing any facts that would make such an assessment viable. on a forum, people generally do best presenting their own views and what they personally know. If your friend wants to participate here--he should get an account himself and build respect and credibility for himself through his own words. |
|
|
|
Post by rational on Aug 26, 2011 11:43:46 GMT -5
Again - rational, you are presenting your point of view and I am presenting mine. I KNOW that this man has studied religion for decades! He has a passion for it, has a doctorate's degree, a professor, but no desire to publish a book. I respect him for that. He loves to visit about these things though. Hey - this is not opinion any more than some on this forum who love to cut/paste works from published sources as FACT. Am I wrong in your opinion? I don't know if you are wrong or not. You have not provided the information that would allow that determination to be made. Linus Pauling won 2 Nobel prizes (Chemistry and Peace). In his later life he worked with vitamin C and published a lot of information about how taking large doses were beneficial to curing the common cold to being used as cancer therapy. Clinical research showed his research was flawed, information was incorrect, and his conclusions were wrong. Linus also had studied chemistry for decades and had a passion for it. He was completely wrong about the Vitamin C part. So you, as was the case with Pauling, need to provide the information for others to examine and see if they arrive at the same conclusions. Otherwise, as was the case with Pauling, you could be spending a lot of money to have urine that is very rich in vitamin C! Did anyone call you a liar? I guess that's a start. OK. OK I agree 100%. That is why single source unreviewed data needs to be examined, as in the case of the information you provided from your friend. Considered perhaps. Commented on - that is up to the reader. But if I post something I am always ready to defend it and will, and have, change my understanding. Yep. I think it is called life. You can be accepting or you can be skeptical. As I watch people lose money playing 3-card monty on the street I am glad I am skeptical! I was B&R in the F&W church. If you say it - Wrong. Prove it! If I say it - well of course it is right. Without question! |
|
|
|
Post by sherbear on Aug 26, 2011 13:18:48 GMT -5
If you say it - Wrong. Prove it! If I say it - well of course it is right. Without question! hehe - Well at least I MUST give you credit for being honest here. LOL I'm not sure if ANYONE can be 100% correct in any one area. There always seem to be exceptions to any "fact" that someone presents. Speaking of "religion" (that subject I find to be an ugly subject) I believe there are thousands of opinions of what is "right" or "wrong" and naturally everyone loves to be "right". |
|
|
|
Post by lazarus66 on Aug 26, 2011 14:47:18 GMT -5
Okay, Rat, Final chapter.
I have six newspapers that report me and my film crew as renegades and illegal hikers in regards to filming the Mt. St. Helen's eruption. We are the headline story in the two Seattle papers for 3 days running.
We broke the law, we endangered lives of rescuers.
Since a false claim in writing is libel, is this report correct?
I can not produce the papers, unless you want to pay for copying and shipping, but they do exist and I have them.
I simply ask you, since these reports are in two different papers, headlines, and published three days running, are they correct and did we break the law?
This is just part one. More to come after your answer.
|
|
|
|
Post by justlooking on Aug 26, 2011 14:57:43 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by lazarus66 on Aug 26, 2011 15:10:24 GMT -5
Luke, ya busted my case.
Now the question remains. Since we were denied recovery (15 million dollars) were we guilty, or was the press right?
|
|
|
|
Post by emy on Aug 26, 2011 16:39:03 GMT -5
Some people would say that is Rational. Who else might you be thinking of?
BTW, I'm interested in what your erudite friend has to say about religion or whatever his study focuses on. I don't recall that you have said.
|
|
|
|
Post by rational on Aug 26, 2011 20:58:20 GMT -5
Okay, Rat, Final chapter. Promise?!? OK. I will take your word for it. OK. Again, I will take your word for it. I can't see why you would lie about breaking the law. You lost me here. You said above that you broke the law. I really don't know if you were telling the truth or not. As I said, I believe you have some newspapers. Ahh. Perhaps I have it. The statement above stating: We broke the law, we endangered lives of rescuers.is not what you are stating here but is what is/was reported in the collection of newspapers that you say you have. And you are asking me if the report in the newspapers, claiming that you broke the law, etc., was accurate? How do I know? But newspapers and not always known for their accuracy and attention to details. OK |
|
|
|
Post by rational on Aug 26, 2011 21:11:42 GMT -5
Luke, ya busted my case. Now the question remains. Since we were denied recovery (15 million dollars) were we guilty, or was the press right? I see. (note to self - read the whole thread before responding!)It sounds like the people who reported to the press were not on your team. The court ruling has nothing to do with the accuracy of the newspaper reports. You were denied recovery because your case, as presented, was ruled against. Assuming the court documents were correct you were not breaking the law by climbing where you were. But the person who filed the story thought you were. The newspaper most likely accurately reported what it's source has related to them. I am not sure what you are looking for here. |
|
|
|
Post by lazarus66 on Aug 26, 2011 23:44:36 GMT -5
Here is the point.
What was reported was absolutely false. The court records bear that out. Then they tried to charge us with attempting to break a law. That is just flat out crazy. The jails would be full if people could be convicted of attempting to break a law without stepping over a legal line.
Fact. Libel="Verb: Defame (someone) by publishing a libel.
Noun: A published false statement that is damaging to a person's reputation; a written defamation"
Fact. If someone prints false statements (libel) about you, and cause you damages, you are able to recover that amount if you can prove libel.
Fact. Libel was proved by the court.
Fact. We lost $15 million dollars, and could not recover one penny.
Fact. Even though the law is based on producing facts, (like you do) and we produced facts beyond a reasonable doubt and someone (like you) interpreted the law so that we were unable to recover one penny.
Fact. A military officer stopped and spoke with ME, shortly before our arrest, and told us we were not breaking the law and offered us a lift out. ( I have that on CD)
Fact. We filmed the abusive arresting officer, and he told us that a cold front was moving in and told us we had to go back up into the mountains, which was meant for us to suffer a sure death.
Fact. We did nothing wrong, and were targeted by government officials that knew they had screwed up and needed us to die, to hide their mistake of not closing the area, correctly.
The whole point of this is to state this fact. Nothing can be a fact in the present tense. Even the laws of gravity, physics and nature are subject to anomalies, ie: a vortex may cause gravity and physics to be altered to some degree.
My father died at 4:59 on Oct 10th, 1990. AS they were declaring him dead, he came back to life for another 4 minutes, so the fact that he was legally dead 4 minutes earlier was not a fact. After the fact, when he did finally die, 4 minutes later, he (past tense) died.
Thus, you can say that in "fact" he was dead, but that is not a fact. It is false. Death is permanent, and no one can die twice.
I just wanted you to know why I find your need for facts so offensive to me. Facts are not certain until after an event has run it's course, then it is pretty obvious what happened.
I lost $15 million dollars because of the "fact" that people like you that have to argue everything to the enth, interpret the law and can turn what is a fact into something other than what it was.
You stated " You were denied recovery because your case, as presented, was ruled against."
All of the facts are there, and undeniable, but then someone like yourself had to argue that the interpretation of the law was that the facts were not true, even thought it is obvious to a small child that the facts of this case were indeed true.
I promise, I am done arguing with you about anything. I just want you to know I find your attitude of wanting facts so disgusting to me because of what happened to me, and happens daily because people like yourselves need to have the facts fit how they need them to be.
You enjoy arguing with others here that will argue with you.
Since we all are entitled to opinions, people like you, IMO, are what has destroyed decency, and the simple laws and principles that this country was founded on.
Principles: "1. A fundamental truth or proposition that serves as the foundation for a system of belief or behavior or for a chain of reasoning.
2. A rule or belief governing one's personal behavior."
In the future, after I have passed from this earth, when you are cowering in the corner and someone like me that is fed up with BS artists like yourself is standing over you threatening to mutilate you or take your life, because you and your cronies have destroyed this system and when the system you are destroying collapses, remember "you got the facts, Jack"
TO make my position perfectly clear, here are some more facts.
Fact. When I was a child there was no CPS to keep my father from beating me excessively daily.
Fact. Despite it being illegal, I was denied graduation from High School because of the "Powers that be" could do what they wanted and it went unchecked.
Fact. When I got fully grown and was a large powerful man, instead of picking on everyone, I was a champion of the underdog and those that were unable to fend for themselves.
Fact. I was falsely convicted and sent to Federal Prison in 1968 because facts didn't mean Jack squat.
Fact Upon my release in 1969, there were "no records" Of me having been in prison, in spite of the fact that I presented factual evidence in the form of a release paper with the Federal Pen. Stamp on it.
Fact. Because I was an ex-convict, but not a convicted felon, I was denied employment because of the laws back in those days.
Fact. When my brother made an attempt on my life, it was not real, because of the "fact" that I was an ex-con and he had never been caught dealing drugs and was an alcoholic, which is acceptable.
Fact. I have been abused by the system all my life, from my "false conviction", and all the "facts" in the world can not produce the records of my trial that would prove my innocence ( Attorney, Melvin Beli looked into it for me and told me this).
Fact. It makes me sick to have people that need to argue, just to argue, and don't care about the consequences of their actions, just a sport to them.
Fact. What I have seen from you sickens me.
Have a nice day and life.............I am out of here.
|
|
|
|
Post by rational on Aug 27, 2011 14:10:28 GMT -5
Here is the point. What was reported was absolutely false. Not having had the newspapers at hand I will take your word for it. You have to be careful when posting. You mentioned the court records and then in the next sentence used the phrase "...they tried to charge us..." but did not define who "they" were. I am guessing the defendants since in the court documents the ruling dismissed that charge. OK As you discovered, this is not true. You not only have to prove libel but you also have to prove that the libel did indeed cause you the damage you claim. In this case the courts noted: Appellants have not alleged the loss of a "more tangible interest" as required by the Paul doctrine. The authority cited by appellants does not support their position, for in each instance the court applied Paul 's reputation-plus principle and found a separate federally recognizable liberty interest.While they did acknowledge defamation what they said was: If we assume the statements are defamatory, by virtue of viewing the facts in the light most favorable to appellants, the statements nevertheless fail to rise to the level of a constitutional tort.(emphasis added). What was told to the press was simply not actionable. Looks like that is the case. The problem was that it was not beyond a reasonable in the eyes of the court and your representation was flawed. Immaterial. That has the weight of saying that the crossing guard said you were not breaking the law. While that is what he said the idea that it meant sure death is conjecture on your part. This may well be. In fact the court acknowledged this. But, as I have pointed out even without knowing the entire case, some of what you are calling facts simply are not. Certainly not that sentence! Really? Do you have support for this? What sort of a vortex? Altering gravity is the first step to an anti-gravity machine! Legally dead and dead are two different things. There are criteria for legal death and if a person meets them they are legally dead. They said he was legally dead (that is what the doctor calling the time does) and, I would guess, according to the criteria he was.This will be a surprise to a number of christians who read here. No, facts above are not always what you claim as facts. You need to understand the circumstances and evaluate the data in that regard, as in the case of what the definition of legal death is. Your problem seems to be that your representative did not do a great job. As noted by the court: The problem here is that appellants have not presented any argument, either before this court or the district court, that remotely resembles an application of false imprisonment law to the facts of this case. The complaint speaks exclusively in negligence terms.After one or two declarations from lawyer turn out to be baseless it is more likely that less attention will be paid to the remainder of the claims. And that is why, my friend, you do not want to go into court with a small child. And yes, there are people who interpret the law as it relates to the facts presented. What did you think? You would walk into court, tell your tale, and walk out with $15 million? The document from the court did a very through job in explaining why the "facts" were indeed deniable. That has always been your choice. I am sure there are many people with whom you can enter into discussions who care less about the actual facts and who will accept your version of events. You went to court with your case and, from a legal point of view, it was ill-conceived. You were wronged in several ways but the presentation of your representatives did not address the actual legal issues that would have allowed your case to be successful. And, I am guessing, that it was dismissed without prejudice. So, of course you are upset. You have always wanted you definition or terms and your version of things to be the only acceptable version. That is not the way life works. Argue - I would like to think discuss but I see your point. And, true to form, you provide nothing to back up your claim. OK And the next time you are bringing someone to court remember that you need a lawyer and not a child. Personal attacks get you nowhere. OK In the US there have been trials against child abuse since the 1600s. A federal organization known as the Children's Bureau was set up in 1912. How old are you? It is not that the organizations were not in place but because no one reported the abuse. But I guess you could narrowly call it a fact because there was no organization known as CPS. I would call this a technical 'fact', which I know you hate. You present no data but it certainly could be a fact. Again - no data but it would be commendable if it is indeed a fact. Again you were, so it seems to be implied, falsely accused, convicted, and imprisoned. Without facts your word will have to do. OK If there were no record how would anyone know? You were put into Federal prison on a charge less than a felony? This fact is too difficult to accept without data or clarification. Difficult to evaluate. It would be easy to assume that you have an emotional bias. So all of the facts in the world would not prove your innocence? That would imply that the court was correct and you were guilty. I hear you. It would be so much easier if you could just spout whatever you wish and everyone would accept it as gospel and say whatever comforting words you feel would be appropriate. The consequences of a discussion is often to get at the truth rather than the 'facts' that some interested party presents. For example in the case above, there really was no imprisonment, even less false imprisonment as claimed. Good to know. I would suggest using the ignore feature because having someone question your facts can be difficult to accept. Thanks. (should have read to the end before putting the effort into a response for someone who is gone) |
|
|
|
Post by hidoyle on Oct 7, 2011 8:46:39 GMT -5
The real question that should be asked is: Exactly when does an ex become an ex? I became an ex when it seemed to me that everything I did was wrong in the "workers" eyes. To me it was a double standard that some parts of the country could do certain things and other parts of the country couldn't. It all depended in who the "overseer" was. After doing some checking on my own, I found out that there are several things wrong with this religion. First, I've heard some "workers" say that there were verses in the Bible that should be removed....don't know if I was suppose to hear that or not, but I did. According to what I read, it says woe to those that add or take away from the book. That was the first flag and when I questioned it, I was told it wasn't any of my business. When asked the www's and how it all started, I was told that it started in England in the late 1800's and early 1900's. IF this is the only "true" way, what happened to the early settlers and everyone before them? Did they all go to hell? And finally, who made the "workers" all powerful, all knowing and can dictate what's right or wrong and give out punishment? I am so thankful that my eyes have been opened and I am no longer a part of this. Read this, I found it very interesting: iengineer7.tripod.com/profess.htm#Reform |
|
|
|
Post by aussie22 on Oct 8, 2011 4:17:41 GMT -5
Hi Hidoyle,
Thanks for your message.
We agree wholeheartedly with all you wrote.
It seems to us the worker's demand complete control and we had to be answerable to them, yet they can do whatever they want and won't take being questioned themselves.
This is quite obvious here in Australia especially at the moment with the CSA case.
|
|
)
