oldiesman

doojable, you did the right thing. Let me throw this out and ask your opinion on this .... do you think it'd be fair to portray the understanding of the 4th corps grad as an unwritten twi policy?

I always had health insurance on the job and that didn't effect my twi participation one way or another. Didn't want life insurance, as I was young and single and felt I didn't need it. That was my decision. There was a believer retirement planner in New Jersey who did that stuff for believers. Out in the open. See, these are just a few examples I'm talking about. Folks thinking that some stuff is twi policy, when it isn't. If you ask twi what their policy is, they'd tell you. They may even recommend some stuff... but it was up to the individual believer to decide for themselves what's best.

A so-called "policy" may be nothing more than a request that, if an individual couldn't or wouldn't do it, would be a request and it would end right there. Example: One supposed policy mentioned was "always obey your leadership", or "never question leadership". At times I did. Just one example.... one day, my tc wanted me to drive him, on the back of my motorcycle, to Albany for some meeting he had to attend. At first I told him ok, but then the day arrived and it was cloudy, and I got an uncomfortable feeling about it, so I told him no. He was quite perturbed, even called me an a-hole. And that's the end of that story. I also have letters questioning top leadership and responses back.

Doesn't necessarily mean someone is deliberately lying or they didn't exist, but someone could definitely be mistaken in their perception of an supposed policy of twi or the trustees. Perfect example of this Belle, is your insistance that twi taught that SIT is required for salvation. If you can get that simple concept wrong, it wouldn't surprise me that you and other folks could possibly get some other stuff wrong as well. This is why it's so important to document things in writing, if possible.

But there were written requirements to do extra things. For instance, if one wanted to take the Advanced Class, one had to fulfill certain requirements, else one wasn't admitted. If one wanted to go WOW, one had to fulfill the requirements, else one wasn't admitted. Interesting thing was the written "Freely Avail" statement in "what is the way". Maybe folks really didn't take that one seriously, but there it was, sitting there like a diamond. :) It would have been better for all of us had Craig and some others took that one seriously.

Those are pretty good questions and I think the answers are in the gray areas of life for each individual making the decision. One tolerates what one tolerates. Some folks are able and willing to tolerate more than others. During my stint, I was willing to tolerate tithing for a time according to the book (CSFB), 10% of gross income. When I discoverd that it wasn't bringing results, I was not able to tolerate that standard. It is my belief that each person made that decision for themselves, or should have, regardless of the wishes of another (with the exception of children). Another thought: up to this point we seem to be focusing only on the negative, the fear and intimidation; but what about folks who actually believed in tithing, who gave out of love, and the heart of giving, not grudgingly or of necessity? Those things were taught in twi also. So it's possible folks were motivated by those things as well, and still are. I just can't automatically assume that all these folks are tithing because they are afraid God won't spit in their direction, even though Craig in one of his rants said so.

This situation sounds unique, and I feel it's best to refrain from judging one way or the other because it's possible other things besides tithing could have been in play. I don't know if that twig would have been considered part of twi even if they gave money because I don't have all the facts. I've seen that happen before though, where other twig requirements weren't fulfilled and the meeting wasn't considered an official twi meeting regardless of the money. That may or may not be in play here, I just don't know.

And if he ever said that participants must tithe otherwise they get booted out, then that would be a rule, a requirement, a policy, to tithe. But as far as I can tell he didn't make that requirement, otherwise we'd know about it by now. Something that specific and mandatory would be well known and crystal clear.

Outofdafog, you're talking apples and oranges. Parents teaching their children to tithe, giving them the tithing money and telling them to, is entirely different than an adult individual requirement to tithe. What choice do they have? The bible says they should obey their parents. They are also exonerated from personal responsibility, since they must obey their parents. What happens if they decline? They can't.

Nobody's forcing you to respond to my posts Wordwolf. What's the point? The point is trying to answer a question Tom asked in his opening remarks. As far as discrediting, I probably get more of that than anyone else here except maybe Mike. It's all part of the game. When folks post, their ideas/opinions may be discredited. And you do plenty of discrediting yourself for you to talk!

Skyrider, if you don't knock it off with the whitewashing rhetoric, I'm going to have to resort to some rhetoric of my own, regarding your posts. Posters should be able to post their opinions on a topic, without the fanciful labelling. I've been guilty of that myself in the past, but more and more, have tried to eliminate these things from what I write, and keep the debate to a higher standard if possible.

I disagree with the extortion accusation, and I absolutely can't imagine in my wildest dreams, Don Wierwille extorting money from folks. Any specific incidents?

Then please share those handful of stories. What happened? Was there ever an edict handed down from the trustees that mandated tithing, else one was asked to leave? If so, when? Is there any documentation available about that requirement? These are some questions of this thread. I'm not whitewashing anything and have no desire to deceive. I'm simply asking questions.

Georgio, Who's gonna tell folks about the Coffee House if you don't go to the mall, or door to door? :) Door to door works. Look at the Jehovahs Witnesses.

Welcome nowgrown.

FOR ME TO POOP ON...HEH HEH HEH

If this statement is what you're referring to, it's hardly an answer, because there was a wide variety of fruit, both good and bad. If you wish to analyze specific situations and say "this situation" or "that situation" wasn't on God' authority, I would likely agree with you depending on the facts.

This is the exact point I was making before. If someone wanted you to tithe and you refused, that was that. There was no requirement. What I would consider a "requirement", would be if one refused, and then ultimately got booted out because of it. Has anyone heard of that ever happening?

How do you know that, and with such authority?

You'd lose. Save your money.

The IRS lost their case and twi proved they were.

Nothing wrong with preaching the gospel ... in fact it's downright noble. If that's a form of pitching Jesus as you may call it, it certainly is sanctioned in the scriptures.

It probably couldn't succeed under the First Amendment, at least. First Amendment: If twi teaches as part of their religious doctrine, that God's hand of protection and blessing is taken away from a person for failure to tithe, then that teaching would be considered a protected form of speech and religion under the First Amendment. Then after that, one would have to prove twi's "intent" to cause harm, a very hard thing to prove.

I will dig them out... I think some were quite good.

I guess it does John. But way back in the '70's we had no reason to disbelieve Wierwille when he said "lots of the stuff I teach is not original", and that he "sought enlightenment from men of God scattered across the continent." He did say those things. We did read those things, before the Information Age. Things easy to understand, that are self explanatory, without all the spin. So simple, that dummies need not err therein.