Tzaia

I don't do unproductive. I'm pretty sure that anything I offered wouldn't result in the kind of paradigm shift necessary to stop the behavior.

Well of course they aren't talking to you, but that doesn't mean you can't pick up the phone and ask them why they are talking to your children instead of you - that because of your children's ages when your husband's death occurred, that the situation surrounding your husband's death can't be discussed with the level of accuracy that's needed. You could take that time to wonder out loud where their believing was as obviously whatever they were doing failed to cover the household. Sheesh. The sudden death of your husband and the aftermath was enough of a tragedy without having to deal with this sort of intrusion 13 years later.

Well I guess he told you [sarcastic smirk]. Seriously - Jeff - knock it off. Not all of us view the world through your filter, nor do we have to.

So does JAL

Spirit & Truth Fellowship International (STFI) is the re-name of CES. The Living Truth, LTD is JAL's new gig. There are similarities in that they will never have a "church" facility.

The name has been picked - and the email announcing the name has been sent out to people. The name is The Living Truth Fellowship, Ltd.

Really? and you know that how???

Try this link. He does a fine job of putting it together. Added: People with Logical intelligence are abstract thinkers and are attracted to logic and reasoning. They are good at investigation and scientific processes. They learn best by logic. The premise that the bible is mathematically precise is just that - a premise. Are we reading "records" or stories? Records makes it sound all legal and binding, where stories puts the idea that it's not so cut and dried. Anyway, I really like Bruce McLaren.

I was reading a chapter out of Bruce McLaren's new book, "A New Kind of Christianity" when this phrase stuck out at me: "...interpreting texts with mathematical intelligence apart from social, emotional, and ethical intelligence is unintelligent, antisocial, and unethical." In my opinion, there was a definite amorality to VPW's take on scripture and at the time, I appreciated the lack of conviction on certain issues. Now that I've gotten a few years under my belt, it has become clear how self-serving the amorality was and how being that way opened the door to abuse. While we were very bible-centric, we weren't particularly Christ-centric.

Sticking with a sinking stinking ship is more like it. Standing makes it sound like they are doing something noble and good. Believers in what? Being stubborn?

I would say that a few of us gave up the approach; set aside the premises laid out by TWI. Perhaps a different spin on the IICOR 2:10 about not being held captive by someone else's interpretation of what being obedient to Christ looks like, or what Jesus looks like, or whether to refer to him as Jesus or the Christ, and whether not capitalizing pronouns that refer to him will land me in hell either right when I die or at some point where I'm raised again to judgment (like why bother?). I've learned I can be moral and good without holding it to the WWJD standard, or some other person's idea of what is righteous and holy. Since I've done that, I've become a helluva lot nicer to people and cut them a bunch of slack for being - human. What a relief!

This is a bit off the topic - maybe - but I remember how we were all supposed to serve as a sort of income generator for our fellow wayfers. They were (to be) the first choice when you were shopping for something. Having said that, with the policy towards debt, just exactly who in the household is he supposed to be selling home to? And with the debt policy, how can he (in good faith) sell a house to anyone? Is he no longer a part of TWI or has TWI altered its debt policy?

Generally speaking - doctoral thesis covers a very esoteric subject in minute detail. It wouldn't be something along the lines of a textbook FWIW, his "collaterals" served as our textbooks.

The very nature of miracles is the inability to replicate them - miracles defy "reason". That's all I'm saying.

And I think you give VPW entirely too much credit. No I think that VPW thought Jesus demanded too much from his followers. From a dispensational viewpoint, the grace administration is less "legalistic" and there was a great deal of emphasis on that in TWI-land. There is a huge difference between one thinking highly of one's self and demanding everyone do the same. My take is that Jesus commanded respect (among those who respected him) and demanded it from no one.

Sure you can say George Washington never existed, but that would not be a statement of fact. Nor would saying the Eiffel Tower doesn't exist. Please don't take this personally, but the kind of reasoning you just exhibited is rampant in cult-induced thinking processes. It is often used to confuse the mind and then fill it with whatever someone wants you to think and believe. No one is saying that Paul didn't exist or that Jesus didn't exist. It is clear that Paul had a radical conversion, and it is also clear that he believed until the day he died that he had a miraculous encounter with the hs. Peter also had several radical encounters that brought about a clear break from the apocalyptic teaching of Jesus and a clear break from both the traditional teachings of Judaism and the more spirit of the law approach that Jesus lived by. What is not clear is whether these were actual occurrences, or figments of the imagination. What we do know is whatever those encounters were, that they had a profound and lasting effect on both of them. Can we say with any level of accuracy that Constantine's vision, which resulted in the conversion of an entire empire, was as a result of his encounter with hs, or him trying anyway he could to ensure a Roman victory? From a historical perspective, it can be said that his conversion dealt a huge blow to the overall integrity of Christianity (that's my opinion anyway). The point I want to make is that I think it is OK to allow one's self to consider anything and everything. If one wishes to take the "reasoned" approach to scripture, then it stands to reason that revelation and "miracles" can (and perhaps should) be taken with a grain of salt.

Erk - I don't think VPW liked Jesus because he demanded entirely too much from his followers. Paul's theology is far less radical in terms of expectations.

I don't know if I'm living "it". I do know that I'm moving further way from Paul's version of Christianity and trying to move closer to what Jesus actually taught. Jesus didn't demand worship of him and what he was doing. He wanted people to do what he was doing - and in my mind there is a significant difference.

Jeff- there are a lot of people who don't like to be disagreed with, period. Having said that, cults have a way of attracting people who are more prone to that behavior.

If you don't mind, may I take this a bit further? Paul's own writings were from his own convictions. Those who wrote about Paul and in support of Paul were by people who loved and cared about Paul. He was not taught by the master himself, or anyone who had a personal relationship with the master. Everything he taught was revealed by the hs, which (to me) is something that is obviously flawed. It has come to Paul's word being as good as Jesus' when there is no evidence to suggest that he ever had any real authority other than what he bestowed on himself. We really don't know what the (supposed) "false" teachers and "false" prophets said, other than disagreeing with Paul. It is clear that Paul and Peter (to a certain extent) quickly moved away from strict Jewish observances. What is not clear, but what appears to be somewhat alluded to (by the absence of) is that Peter and Paul probably had a falling out over how far to take that. What I find more than a bit puzzling is that most of what we take as "true" Christianity comes from someone whose only encounter with his savior was through a miracle, and the people who actually hung out with this savior and were taught by this savior personally became afterthoughts.

Of course, if one has ALREADY MADE UP THEIR MIND to dismiss the Bible, it doesn't matter WHAT the contents say, the only thing one will see is pretexts to ignore it, and a reasoned discussion is already precluded. It works both ways.

I would imagine that the lure of his particular choice for a doctoral degree had something to do with it not having that requirement.

The sad part would be if he really believed that's what he had been doing...you gotta admit that his spin on what he's been doing is priceless.

After attending an annual meeting at my church last night, I started thinking about STF's model of financial accountability and if it really works for the membership. Right now, STF only provides a sort of annual "report" to current "partners" or regular contributors. So while I was a regular contributor through 2004, I never received any financial information regarding the 2004 budget or actual because I had stopped contributing at the end of 2004. Not only that, but there is no published current information that would allow me to make an informed choice even if I wanted to give. There are no readily available answers to questions such as: How many board members draw a salary from STF? How is salary determined? Do the contributors have an opportunity to input on that decision? Could it be a conflict of interest for a board member to set his/her own salary and then vote it into being? Who is in place to oversee this process? What is the annual revenue? How is the money spent? What percentage goes for administrative expenses? How many are on staff and how are they compensated? It is my opinion that STF leadership operates from the premise that leaders have somehow received a certain spiritual authority and are therefore above being reproached by spiritual inferiors (or each other, for that matter). Who decides who is a leader? They do. They set themselves up as the head, and in turn, determine who else is appointed. I think that works if what you are looking for is camaraderie, but does this process provide the accountability that is necessary in a religious organization, particularly one that is a result of fracture from a group that is well known for its abuses? I don't think so. Every person who has questioned them has been eliminated from the organization - including leaders - and not without a fair amount of public smearing of reputations in the process. I just don't think the organization has provided enough evidence that they are transparent on any level, much less on a financial level.

Paul does have his own very miraculous conversion story. Actually I think Paul's conclusions and what he teaches deviate significantly from the gospel records, which is ironic given the order in which the NT books were written.