To the Forum:

Sodini "thought" he was carrying out Thieme's mission against satanic liberal feminists. Sodini was in a dysfunctional state of mind, induced by thiemite influence. In one video we see Sodini admitting that he hides from his emotions. This is a psycotic thiemite mind game a thiemites plays with themselves because emtions according to Thieme? Are very very bad. This emotions playing "tricks" on the thiemite mind and the thiemites at war and aying tricks on their own emotions is a sick lie.

rtsp://rtsp-youtube.l.google.com/CkgLENy73wIaPwlYd7wNqbVbKRMYDSANFEIJbXYtZ29vZ2xlSARSB3Jlc3VsdHNaDkNsaWNrVGh1bWJuYWlsYKWGhIPg_-PjSgw=/0/0/0/30/video.3gp

Stop lying thiemites. Tell the truth.

My condolensces to the families who suffered this unnecessary horriffic loss.


Truthtesty

To the Forum:

Here is a better link to the Sodini "Hide from emotions" video:

[m.youtube.com]

Hiding from emotions is developed over time by thiemites for one reason because of Thieme's psycologically unbalanced view of Christian human emotions. Thieme falsely, maniacly, and vitriolically attacks Christian human emotions time and time again. Thiemites become distracted from reality and real issues while playing Thieme's false "shadow box" war against their own emotions. Thiemites believe they are fighting Thieme's war against their own "satanic emotions" which according to Thieme are a part of their own satanic nature.

This is extremly unbalancing to the unwitting thiemites who accept it and do not believe there is any other possibility of a "Christian" method of living. They do their best to keep up "appearances" to the public, but deep down there is undealt with trouble brewing.

Thiemites can't focus on "emotionally balanced faith" they must "rebound" that satanic emotion to get back into Thieme's false definition of "fellowship". As anyone can see this is a a viscious self-destructive circle once it is believed and accepted by an unwitting thiemite, who can't translate greek for themself and who did not have a masters degree from Dallas Theological Seminary..

Sodini was emotionally unbalanced by "Thieme indoctrination". THAT was the reason that women detected a "wierd vibe" from Sodini. Sodini was unbalanced BECAUSE of Thieme indoctrination and he could not figure out what was wrong with himself. Sodini did all the "right" things according to Thieme indoctrination. Sodini more than likely tried to apply Thieme's "Right man right women" indoctrination AND? It doesn't work. Sodini was thrown out of Tetelestai probably because he believed Thieme's right man/right woman indoctrination and trying to apply it in an environment (Tetelestai) where he learned it and where he thought it might work.

Frustrated and rejected by the woman and the entire Tetelestai church, Sodini was still "indoctrinated", isolated, and "vulnerable" to other cults, because of Thieme's authoritarian cult destruction of Sodini's Christian humanity. Sodini was literally a time bomb and highly "suggestable" to other "authoritarians". "Nice guy must die". The suggestability factor learned in thiemite indoctrination is to take man's words too seriously - "Nice guy must die".

The most likely outlet which might have prevented the "Sodini explosion", would have been counseling. Counseling would have allowed Sodini to at least vent. Thieme in a "fictitious spiritual military manuever", attacked counseling and "cut (counseling) off at the pass". So Sodini probably didn't view counseling as a "workable" solution."

This is just another way thiemites become dysfunctionalized by Thieme and it is catastrophic and completely unnecessary. People's and thiemite's lives are being destroyed and they think that their is something wrong with themselves or they project their problems onto someone weaker than themselves. But the real cause of the problem is Thieme. Thiemites do not view Thieme as the problem because they are too scared to suspect and question Thieme, as they have been intimidated and indoctrinated.

This was an extremly selfish weak and obviously dysfucntionalized cowardly act on the part of Sodini. Yes Sodini viewed women as "objects" not as human, but Sodini viewed himself as an object of G-d, because being human was bad. Women were just weaker objects. Also again to Sodini's twisted mindset this was a 2fer. Not only was this an explosion of the subconcious to vent, but it was also an attack (in sodini's twisted mind) on satanic liberal feminists. It was an act of desperation of a fully devaluated ego, for his life to have had some cause, so dying for Thieme's cause against feminist liberals (who Sodini was obviously submitting still to Thieme's authority) gave Sodini some sick nostalgic cowardly patheic romantic "rememeber me".


Again my condolensces to the families of this unnecessary tragedy.

I have tried to reach the extremist thiemites BEFORE they go/went over the edge.

Truthtesty



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 10/04/2009 11:38PM by Truthtesty.

To the Forum:

I am not a tax lawyer but wouldn't "free booklets" manufactured by Thieme be considered "normal", for a tax exempt non-profit entity? Would charging money for the booklets have changed the entity classification for tax purposes?

Truthtesty

Quote
Truthtesty
To the Forum:

I am not a tax lawyer but wouldn't "free booklets" manufactured by Thieme be considered "normal", for a tax exempt non-profit entity? Would charging money for the booklets have changed the entity classification for tax purposes?

Truthtesty

Hey testy, Apparently not. Check out John Piper's store, located at his .ORG: http://www.desiringgod.org/Store/Books/ByTopic/All/.

I'm not a lawyer either. Perhaps the ministry is considered a separate entity from the author.

prebound

Hi prebound,

Some ministries give away literature and others charge something for it. It is not like they are rolling in illegal dough. Though some high profile 'ministries' make a big deal of their propserity teachings and show it through extravagant living, not even their 501 c3 tax exemption status seems at risk. Though give Obama time. That too may be history sooner then we can now imagine. That would be OK with me. Then we would see just which pastors value the real truth and do so enough to speak it from their pulpits. No tax exemption as a charitable organization means freedom to speak on subjects they are now forbidden to preach publicly from their pulpit. Though the civil rights movement never had a problem with it, nor does Jeremiah Wright now.

Thanks,
Sistersoap

To the Forum:


Here also is a brief summary on Church tax exemption:

Do you qualify? Richard Hammar explains that the IRS has six factors that must be present in order for a church to qualify as a 501(c)(3) organization:
1. The church must be a corporation;
2. The church must be organized exclusively for exempt purposes;
3. The church must be operated exclusively for exempt purposes;
4. None of the church's earnings may inure to the benefit of private individuals;
5. The church must not engage in substantial efforts to influence legislation;
6. The church must not intervene or participate in political campaigns.
Follow the Rules Keep your exemption safe. It is possible to lose your tax-exemption. Violating any of the rules can threaten your status. One such rule is political involvement, described in further detail in the download "Protecting Your Church's Tax-Exempt Status."
[www.churchsafety.com]

I am pretty familiar with corporate personhood. I know several corporate lawyers and they did validate the information that I previously posted on "corporate personhood".

By the way, one thing I am pretty sure of is that the restriction on churches against direct political involvement(they can still legally join or form PACs)is not because of a bias towards churches. The reason churches or any corporation is restricted from direct political involvement is because of the Constitutional restrictions of corporate freedom of speech in political campaigns. (McCain/Feingold). This I think is corporate law. It has nothing to do with either the Bush or the Obama administrations.

I know some churches ask for a gift instead of outright charging a monetary price.

So any money taken from church profit could not be used to inure a private person? But Thieme had a salary? and was not a "private person"(for this persons usage of "private person)?

I will try to find more legal info on this.



Truthtesty



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 10/10/2009 09:59AM by Truthtesty.

To the Forum:

Sodini read R B Thieme jrs "Integrity of G-d" the day before and in preparation for focusing on mass murder. Here is another RB Thieme jr quote from "The Integrity of G-d ", which could have helped push Sodini down the rode to mass murder : RB Thieme jr quote : "... WE ARE NOT HERE TO BE A "GOOD" HUMAN! THE OLD HUMAN SIN NATURE MUST DIE, ... Now..."

Sodini also heard from his dating course "Nice guy must die."



Truthtesty



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 10/13/2009 07:45AM by Truthtesty.

To the Forum:

Well Sodini didn't believe in being a good human.

Quote
Truthtesty
To the Forum:
Sodini read R B Thieme jrs "Integrity of G-d" the day before and in preparation for focusing on mass murder. Here is another RB Thieme jr quote from "The Integrity of G-d ", which could have helped push Sodini down the rode to mass murder : RB Thieme jr quote : "... WE ARE NOT HERE TO BE A "GOOD" HUMAN! THE OLD HUMAN SIN NATURE MUST DIE, ... Now.".

Any outsider can see the sick insanity of the Thieme cult system. Sodini says Knapp(Thieme protogee) told him and convinced him that he could commit mass murder and go to heaven.

Second while Sodini read Thieme's "Integrity of G-d" there are sentences in there written by Thieme such as: "... WE ARE NOT HERE TO BE A "GOOD" HUMAN! THE OLD HUMAN SIN NATURE MUST DIE, ... Now.".

Ok? Sick insanity. Where was the "moral brake"? In Thieme's so-called "Christian" system? There isn't any. The "... WE ARE NOT HERE TO BE A "GOOD" HUMAN! THE OLD HUMAN SIN NATURE MUST DIE, ... Now.". is not just a "fluke" statement. IT IS A STANDARD STATEMENT FALSELY TAUGHT AS THE INDISPUTABLE WORD OF G-D TAUGHT BY A FALSE "RIGHT PASTOR" - teacher Thieme. Apparently Knapp has copied Thieme's false concept of "Salvation even if you mass murder daily" gospel.

Sodini was rolling downhill with no human moral brakes, it was only a matter of time for this accident waiting to happen. This scenario will more than likely happen again. Those that do not believe in human morailty are a danger to themselves and are irresponsible and are parasitic predators to society at large, and they should be treated accordingly.


Go ahead try to deny it thiemites. What would you say thiemites if you were a hostage negotiator and Sodini held those women hostage what would you say to Sodini to help him with simple common sense morality of right and wrong which he lost by following Thieme's teaching(and copycat teachers teaching)? What would you say? "Oh it's G-d's will? ... Time to listen to another Thieme tape?..." Now what if YOU were a hostage of Sodini's? It would be a little different then wouldn't it? Yep when a .45 cal is pointed in your face it's not time to passively "tapeout" like a druggy. It's time to pray and start thinking about reality.

Which is what I see most disturbing with many Christians. If you cannot connect and use your faith with the reality from day to day then your faith is useless. This is the real world. Until G-d says otherwise you are to function as a GOOD(as you can be) CHRISTIAN HUMAN and you are to be truthful and responsible. If you can't be truthful to yourself and G-d given reality then you are useless to yourself and your faith in G-d, and parasitic of others who have to carry your incompetent selfish load IN REALITY.

I think that "everything that attacks the morality of the Catholic Church is ok or must be right for political reasons(especially while Kennedy was in office)" is ignorant. While it is obvious that faith in Jesus' Holy Work is the power of salvation I disagree with those who say "human morality has no spiritual value". For ex: I submit very simply that a Christian who decides not to lie(in the face of temptation) and tries to be "moral" in not lying - is reducing the burden of Jesus' pain of what he suffered, therefore has "spiritual value".

Thieme and others give examples of 2 Corinthians 11:15 but that passage just says works it doesn't say good works.

Also,

RB Thieme jr quote from "A New Species": "Grace escalates Divine good and excludes human good (Mat 16:22-23)..."

There is no evidence of that Peter was thinking of "human good", there is also the possibility that Peter was thinking of his own self as 2nd in command of earth, if Jesus were to rule the earth immediately. That would not be human benevolence Peter was thinking of, that would be Peter savoring power for himself. Certainly Peter loving Jesus is not obscene to Jesus.

It is not clear, Jesus just says (paraphrasing) that "Satan" is thinking of the things of man not the things of G-d.
It doesn't say "human good", that's a Thieme addition.

It's also possible that some of Matt. 16:22,23 is figurative. Certainly, Jesus just stated a few verses earlier that he would buld his Church on Peter. Jesus would not buils his Church on Satan.

Also Jesus came to fufill the laws of G-d's commandments, not to abolish the law.


Truthtesty

To the Forum:


Sodini didn't believe in being a good human. And he learned that from Thieme and Thieme copycats.


RB Thieme jr quote from "The Integrity of G-d ", "... WE ARE NOT HERE TO BE A "GOOD" HUMAN! THE OLD HUMAN SIN NATURE MUST DIE, ... Now.".


Truthtesty: Perhaps if Sodini had read Vines ( [www.antioch.com.sg] ) the night before instead of the Integrity of G-d, things could have been different.


Vines:
Good, Goodly, Goodness A. Adjectives 1. agathos 2. kalos 3. chrestos B. Nouns 1. chrestotes 2. agathosune 3. eupoiia C. Adverbs 1. kalos 2. eu D. Verbs 1. agathopoieo 2. agathourgeo 3. euergeteo A1.     Good, Goodly, Goodness [Adjective] agathos describes that which, being "good" in its character or constitution, is beneficial in its effect; it is used (a) of things physical, e.g., a tree, Matt_7:17; ground, Luke_8:8; (b) in a moral sense, frequently of persons and things. God is essentially, absolutely and consummately "good," Matt_19:17; Mark_10:18; Luke_18:19. To certain persons the word is applied in Matt_20:15; Matt_25:21,23; Luke_19:17; Luke_23:50; John_7:12; Acts_11:24; Titus_2:5; in a general application, Matt_5:45; Matt_12:35; Luke_6:45; Rom_5:7; 1_Pet_2:18. The neuter of the adjective with the definite article signifies that which is "good," lit., "the good," as being morally honorable, pleasing to God, and therefore beneficial. Christians are to prove it, Rom_12:2; to cleave to it, Rom_12:9; to do it, Rom_13:3; Gal_6:10; 1_Pet_3:11 (here, and here only, the article is absent); John_5:29 (here, the neuter plural is used, "the good things"); to work it, Rom_2:10; Eph_4:28; Eph_6:8; to follow after it, 1_Thess_5:15; to be zealous of it, 1_Pet_3:13; to imitate it, 3_John_1:11; to overcome evil with it, Rom_12:21. Governmental authorities are ministers of "good," i.e., that which is salutary, suited to the course of human affairs, Rom_13:4. In Php_1:14, "thy goodness," RV (lit., "thy good"), means "thy benefit." As to Matt_19:17, "why askest thou Me concerning that which is good?" the RV follows the most ancient mss. The neuter plural is also used of material "goods," riches, etc., Luke_1:53; Luke_12:18,19; Luke_16:25; Gal_6:6 (of temporal supplies); in Rom_10:15; Heb_9:11; Heb_10:1, the "good" things are the benefits provided through the sacrifice of Christ, in regard both to those conferred through the Gospel and to those of the coming Messianic Kingdom. See further under kalos. See BENEFIT, GOODS. See also : agathos in other topics A2.     Good, Goodly, Goodness [Adjective] kalos denotes that which is intrinsically "good," and so, "goodly, fair, beautiful," as (a) of that which is well adapted to its circumstances or ends, e.g., fruit, Matt_3:10; a tree, Matt_12:33; ground, Matt_13:8,23; fish, Matt_13:48; the Law, Rom_7:16; 1_Tim_1:8; every creature of God, 1_Tim_4:4; a faithful minister of Christ and the doctrine he teaches, 1_Tim_4:6; (b) of that which is ethically good, right, noble, honorable, e.g., Gal_4:18; 1_Tim_5:10,25; 1_Tim_6:18; Titus_2:7,14; Titus_3:8,14. The word does not occur in the Apocalypse, nor indeed after 1 Peter. Christians are to "take thought for things honorable" (kalos), 2_Cor_8:21, RV; to do that which is honorable, 2_Cor_13:7; not to be weary in well doing, Gal_6:9; to hold fast "that which is good," 1_Thess_5:21; to be zealous of good works, Titus_2:14; to maintain them, Titus_3:8; to provoke to them, Heb_10:24; to bear testimony by them, 1_Pet_2:12. Kalos and agathos occur together in Luke_8:15, an "honest" (kalos) heart, i.e., the attitude of which is right towards God; a "good" (agathos) heart, i.e., one that, instead of working ill to a neighbor, acts beneficially towards him. In Rom_7:18, "in me ... dwelleth no good thing" (agathos) signifies that in him is nothing capable of doing "good," and hence he lacks the power "to do that which is good" (kalos). In 1_Thess_5:15, "follow after that which is good" (agathos), the "good" is that which is beneficial; in 1_Thess_5:21, "hold fast that which is good (kalos)," the "good" describes the instrinsic value of the teaching. See BETTER, FAIR, HONEST, MEET, WORTHY. See also : kalos in other topics A3.     Good, Goodly, Goodness [Adjective] chrestos said of things, "that which is pleasant," said of persons, "kindly, gracious," is rendered "good" in 1_Cor_15:33, "goodness" in Rom_2:4. See EASY. Note: Lampros denotes "gay, bright," "goodly" in James_2:2, AV, (RV, "fine"); in James_2:3, AV, "gay;" in Rev_18:14 (RV, "sumptuous"). See GORGEOUS, SUMPTUOUS. For asteios, "goodly," Heb_11:23, RV, see BEAUTIFUL. For hikanos, Acts_18:18, AV, "a good while" see WHILE. See also : chrestos in other topics B1.     Good, Goodly, Goodness [Noun] chrestotes akin to chrestos, denotes "goodness" (a) in the sense of what is upright, righteous, Rom_3:12 (translated "good"); (b) in the sense of kindness of heart or act, said of God, Rom_2:4; Rom_11:22 (thrice); Eph_2:7 ("kindness"); Titus_3:4 ("kindness"); said of believers and rendered "kindness," 2_Cor_6:6; Col_3:12; Gal_5:22 (RV; AV, "gentleness"). It signifies "not merely goodness as a quality, rather it is goodness in action, goodness expressing itself in deeds; yet not goodness expressing itself in indignation against sin, for it is contrasted with severity in Rom_11:22, but in grace and tenderness and compassion." [ From Notes on Galatians, by Hogg and Vine, p. 292.] See GENTLENESS, KINDNESS. See also : chrestotes in other topics B2.     Good, Goodly, Goodness [Noun] agathosune "goodness," signifies that moral quality which is described by the adjective agathos (see agathos). It is used, in the NT, of regenerate persons, Rom_15:14; Gal_5:22; Eph_5:9; 2_Thess_1:11; in the last, the phrase "every desire of goodness" (RV; the addition of "His" in the AV is an interpolation; there is no pronoun in the original) may be either subjective, i.e., desire characterized by "goodness," "good" desire, or objective, i.e., desire after "goodness," to be and do good. Trench, following Jerome, distinguishes between chrestotes and agathosune in that the former describes the kindlier aspects of "goodness," the latter includes also the sterner qualities by which doing "good" to others is not necessarily by gentle means. He illustrates the latter by the act of Christ in cleansing the temple, Matt_21:12,13, and in denouncing the scribes and Pharisees, Matt_23:13-29; but chrestotes by His dealings with the penitent woman, Luke_7:37-50. Lightfoot regards chrestotes as a kindly disposition towards others; agathosune as a kindly activity on their behalf. J. A. Robertson (on Eph_5:9) remarks that agathosune is "the kindlier, as dikaiosune (righteousness) the sterner, element in the ideal character." B3.     Good, Goodly, Goodness [Noun] eupoiia "beneficience, doing good" (eu, "well," poieo, "to do"), is translated as a verb in Heb_13:16, "to do good." C1.     Good, Goodly, Goodness [Adverb] kalos "well finely," is used in some mss. in Matt_5:44, with poieo, "to do," and translated "do good." In James_2:3 it is rendered "in a good place" (AV marg., "well" or "seemly"). See WELL. See also : kalos in other topics C2.     Good, Goodly, Goodness [Adverb] eu "well," used with poieo, is translated "do ... good" in Mark_14:7. See WELL. See also : eu in other topics D1.     Good, Goodly, Goodness [Verb] agathopoieo from agathos, and poieo, "to do," is used (a) in a general way, "to do well," 1_Pet_2:15,20; 1_Pet_3:6,17; 3_John_1:11; (b) with pointed reference "to the benefit of another," Luke_6:9,33,35; in Mark_3:4 the parts of the word are separated in some mss. Some mss. have it in Acts_14:17, for kalos. Cp. the noun agathopoiia, "well-doing," 1_Pet_4:19, and the adjective agathopoios, "doing well," 1_Pet_2:14. See also : agathopoieo in other topics D2.     Good, Goodly, Goodness [Verb] agathourgeo for agathoergeo, "to do good" (from agathos, and ergon, "a work"), is used in Acts_14:17 (in the best mss.; see agathopoieo), where it is said of God's beneficence towards man, and 1_Tim_6:18, where it is enjoined upon the rich. D3.     Good, Goodly, Goodness [Verb] euergeteo "to bestow a benefit, to do good" (eu, "well," and a verbal form akin to ergon), is used in Acts_10:38. Notes: (1) The verb ischuo, "to be strong" (ischus, "strength"), "to have efficacy, force or value," is said of salt in Matt_5:13, negatively, "it is good for nothing." (2) In Matt_19:10, AV, sumphero, "to be profitable, expedient" (sun, "together," phero, "to bring"); is rendered with a negative "it is not good" (RV, "it is not expedient"). (3) In Mark_14:7, the two words eu, "well," and poieo, "to do," are in some mss. treated as one verb eupoieo, "to do good."


Truthtesty



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 10/22/2009 08:44AM by Truthtesty.