Tzaia

Faith, by definition, is belief in something that cannot be proved, so don't shoot the messenger. http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/faith #2 I am only using the "ground rules" (a system of assumptions and presumptions) of reason and logic. They're not my rules. The problem with the protestant belief system is that it is based on reason and rationalism, which is ironic, if you think about it. On the other hand, the Catholic religion does not not hold itself to the same standard because the Catholic faith is only loosely based on the book. That's actually pretty smart. Judaism, Christianity, and Islam are the only religions that are book based. However, that in and of itself is not a guarantor of truth. The only way reason and rationalism (pretty much the same thing) can be used to work through protestant beliefs is by establishing a set of ground rules. Call them the basic tenants of faith. Regardless of what we've been told, these tenants are actually pretty arbitrary. However, the assumptions are put into place and one pushes off from those assumptions. TWI added and subtracted from those assumptions things such as inerrancy, mathematical precision, figures of speech, and context. Regardless of the system of belief, if you strip away the assumptions, then the outcomes have no constraints as assumptions, by definition, are limiters. In the study and application of critical thinking, the real work is deciding which assumptions are there for a good reason, and which are not.

Maybe I would have agreed with you a few years ago (I can agree with the wannabe part) about DG, before I started an academic journey. The problem is that he hasn't subjected himself to the rigors of academia. He reads a book and if he likes what it says, he adds it to his repertoire. What does he do with the things that he doesn't agree with? He thinks he gives them thoughtful consideration. I beg to differ. The truth is that he hasn't ever really seriously taken apart all of his belief systems (at least when it comes to religion) and examined them. That's my opinion.

I believe all religious beliefs require a suspension of critical thought to a certain extent. None of them can really, really, really be explained logically.

Pretty much the gist of why the relationship soured. I don't get it (anymore).

It was pretty full the one time I attended something there. It was close to the opening. There was valet parking.

I have tuned my bs antennae to check whether someone has a "dog in the race." Anytime someone attempts to censor what I should be reading, doing, etc., my radar goes up.

I haven't really read a "Sower" in years (as far as I was concerned, they were too wordy and hard to follow), but I've thought more and more it's necessary, if only to hone my critical thinking skills. This month most of the magazine focuses on truth and relationships. I'm going to be honest about this. For years, I had a hard time having a "deep relationship" with anyone who I wasn't sure was non-trinitarian. It was a point of commonality for me that was a deal breaker. This belief in the importance of the belief caused me to shut out people that I knew were trinitarian. The truth is that I could not have a non-antagonistic conversation with someone about the trinity. I was so wrapped up in the "truth" of my belief system that I could not imagine myself apart from it. And then it happened in October of 2002. I got my first taste of being ministered to by trinitarians. Granted, none of them knew I wasn't one of "them". But I stopped thinking of them as "them". I don't keep my beliefs hidden anymore, but I don't go out of my way to push what I believe onto my friends and make it a point of contention. Why? It came down to semantics. I believed Jesus became a functional equal to God. Trinitarians believe he always was. I say "believed" because I'm not so sure about any of it anymore. I opened up my mind to possibilities and I saw that none of it was as cut and dried as I once believed. The other reason is that I frame my discussions around the notion that I'm in "learning mode". I want them to help me to understand why a particular belief is so important to them. I have been able to have very deep conversations with people once I stopped trying to convince them that I was right and they were wrong. DG in his article about truth and relationships is dismayed that a long time friend gives up "truth" for relationship. He doesn't understand why someone would do that. He dismisses other's truth as being subjective, while believing his truth is objective. Well, I used to think the same thing. I used to believe that somehow I had a better ability to objectively view things than others. I will say that I have a higher than normal ability to step back and view things objectively, but I am far from being totally objective about my world view. Once I realized that even my awareness of that could be highly subjective, I stopped believing in any kind of absolute truth. Just because someone can state that they are objective about why he or she believes something, doesn't mean he or she is. EVERYONE works off of a set of assumptions and presumptions and no one can be 100% sure his or hers are the correct ones. DG acknowledges that while trying to convince the reader that his view is truth rather than his truth. DG describes himself as a "genuine" truth seeker while (IMO) looking at others as less of one. Those who are not genuine appear to be people who won't consider his (opposing) position. He defends his stance because he doesn't hold the position "for position's sake". I beg to disagree. Once one makes a statement regarding a "truth", it becomes a position. Once a relationship is dissolved based upon doctrine (position), then it really does become "for position's sake." Why am I bringing this up? Because I see many of the same tactics that were used within TWI to keep people from thinking for themselves. I have observed these "truth seekers" first hand and how they refused to entertain any position other than their own. I have witnessed and been at the other end of how they drew information out of a person only to use that information against them at a later date. The reality is that the vast majority of people who invest money into STF do NOT have the depth of relationship with the people at the top that they think they do. If you read the letters and testimonials, they are full of "way speak." Basically people who believe that because these guys came out of TWI that they somehow have a better way of approaching God's word when it comes to proper understanding. I would agree that STF has a system, but it's flawed. I personally believe ALL systems of bible study are flawed, because they are designed by humans and therefore have biases. I believe that in order to be a true "truth seeker, " one must continually question what they think and believe, and never ever ever leave it up for someone else to decide.

Kept the best copy of each and tossed the rest. The only books I've ever discarded.

Dead wood. I didn't think of myself in that way.

That was the crux of the whole thing - get your name in "the book" so everyone will know what you did. Furthermore, the absence of your name in "the book" will be a testament to what you didn't do for TWI. Oh the drama of it all.

Most bullies don't follow through with tough actions. That's what mindless minions are for.

You may be right. It appears that after the Jan/Feb Sower, JAL was not on the list of contributors (writers). He had been put on the payroll back a few years ago, but had never found a niche as far as what he could do in the office.

So while we stopped attending CES functions, we were still "partners" and held fellowships in our home for people who had left CES, but weren't up for church. We did that until we noticed that every gathering was nothing more than a CES bash session and what turned into doctrine wars. I watched as long-time relationships suffered over the notion that holding to the "truth" was the glue that kept the relationships valid. It was becoming harder to separate the bones from the fish. We (my husband and I) grew weary of all the arguing about "truth". He started attending a local church. I stayed away and got my fellowshipping in at CES home HQ.

I never actually heard that. I recall the "lost tribe" thing. The conspiracy theory mentality allowed for a lot of this thinking to go unchecked.

Yet the author doesn't see where he has been less than transparent in his dealings with people. I have no doubt that he believes what he writes, but not to the extent of doing. I witnessed first hand the breach of ethics on a number of issues. The problem with STF's thinking is that it doesn't pay close attention to the back side of rewards. The scriptures clearly say we will be judged according to our works and Jesus clearly says that we would be better off having not been saved if our works don't measure up. Dispensationalism doesn't think those clear teachings from Jesus apply to the church. I disagree. I leaned towards dispensations until about a year ago. While still holding firmly to the notion of possessing the "truth" as it has not been proclaimed since the first century. I name stuff that is part of cult mind-set out loud. I used to be very cautious about talking about my former religious organization. I thought people would think less of me. Now I don't care. Naming it has been very freeing because most religious organizations lean towards a cult mentality whether they realize it or not.

Nope. I remember being pressured to join the $1k club.

I knew at least one family with heads of households well into their 30s who walked away from thriving businesses and what I would call "charmed" lives to enter FC. There was no (what I would call) logical reason for them to go, beyond the fallacy that WC was the "best" way to serve God's people. These were people who lived like they had a lot of money, but were hitting us up for sponsorship. When I asked them about that I was told that corp was supposed to live off of sponsor money. I looked at WC as more of a college thing and less as missions training. Actually, I was never quite sure what the purpose was.

As in you can walk into any given McDonald's and see the same menu prepared and served by different people, who are all basically alike. The "beauty" of McDonald's is in its adherence to things being done a certain way using pretty much the same ingredients all across the country, and to a large extent, the world. Now I get where VP got the idea that McDonald's was actually his idea.

So, in the meantime I'm doing a lot of studies in Christology and while I don't have a book about it in me, I do have some opinions that definitely are different from TWI, most of them having to do with Jesus and what he is currently doing and this "image of God" body-soul-& spirit thing. While JAL brushed me off, MG and I talked at length about my misgivings about TWI's body/soul/spirit teachings. I had come to the conclusion that Adam (& Eve) were the image of God in their original body and soul state. If there was "spirit," it wasn't anything like how it was taught in TWI. By the time Seth came along, Adam had become his own image and his own kind. He was no longer the "image of God". I didn't see any kind of spiritual death. I also felt that man's body had the capacity for death the entire time. The question of what would have happened should man have experienced death before the fall was one that would never be answered. Would he have been "obedient unto death" as Jesus was? While much of what I discussed was originally pooh poohed by MG, I couldn't help but notice that the "image of God" part had made its way into the OGOL book. Not that I was ever credited for that, but then again I hadn't published anything along those lines outside of Prodigy's religion forums. Again, we could talk. Really talk. Talk without fear of repercussion. It was real conversation. At least I thought so. By this time, Momentus is becoming a huge issue. Several people have gone to JAL personally, now it's gone to a full-blown group confrontation. It's at this time that we decide not to attend CES fellowships any longer. However, this in no way affects my relationship with CES. I'm still volunteering and supporting the research ministry. In my mind I've separated what they teach from what they do. As long as I don't have to deal with how they do church, I'm pretty much ok with them.

At the heart of all this is (IMO) a certain level of emotional blackmail. The cost of leaving is higher than the cost of staying.

Early into this rediscovery process RD and SP made their exit. Not much was said by JAL other than lamenting the schism. MG was becoming more involved, but he hadn't moved north yet. I was learning a lot more about JAL and PL. She was running the office, which was a sun room off the back of the house. Copies of old unitarian books were being sold and connections with other non-trinitarian groups were forming; most notably Anthony Buzzard's group. He had published a fascinating little booklet that was the pre-cursor to his "self inflicted wound" book. CES was participating in round tables with other Christian organizations. JAL spent hours on the phone connecting with people who had exited TWI. There was a mailing list of over 5000 people. In the meantime, Momentus was making an appearance even as marriages were breaking up. Momentus revealed some of the uglier aspects of TWI, including its systematic grooming of children (girls in particular) for sexual abuse and what that did to the kids. By this time I was helping out in the home office with computer stuff as a volunteer. I assisted in helping move and convert the data from Mac to PC. That brings me to one of the more disturbing situations for me. I had not been through Momentus. I was pretty wary about the whole thing, but what I experienced one evening pretty much nailed the coffin shut on whether or not I would go through a weekend. I had been testing the data transfer and conversions and was ready to move it and go live. This was a several hour job. I needed to do this when JAL was out of town. That day happened to be when a guest/roommate who also happened to be a Momentus trainer was at the house and was going to be using the house to host a party for his wife. The guests included a number of Momentus grads and JAL's parents. So my car gets closed in and I can't leave to get anything to eat. Here I was at the site of this elaborate party where people are feasting on New York Strip steaks and I can't get out to go to Hardee's to pick up a burger. It's been 12 hours since I've had anything to eat and I'm getting a bit cranky. So somebody comes in after everyone's eaten and after everyone's been served the cake and offers me a piece of cake. I explained that I hadn't eaten all day, but the last thing I needed was cake. I needed real food. Then I was offered some leftovers. I was mad. I was stunned. I was heartbroken. In the spirit of all this open communication and iron sharpening iron stuff, I let the guy know (whose name escapes me right now) that I was perturbed by his lack of manners. I told him that he knew I had been working all day with only bathroom breaks. He knew I hadn't had anything to eat. He knew I was working for free. He knew I couldn't get out because of the parking. Yet he never offered me a bite to eat. His excuse? He didn't know if there would be enough for the guests. I was appalled at his excuse and I told him so. The idea that he could open his mouth, say that, and believe it on any level was astounding to me. I told him that if this kind of thinking is what Momentus is all about, I didn't want any part of it. I told him that I gotten enough of that attitude in TWI from WC people. As a sidebar, Momentus was particularly insidious for people who had departed TWI because it created a dynamic similar to the name tag hierarchy in TWI. It created an immediate tension between the "best thing since sliced bread" crowd and the "I'd rather not" group. So my question about Momentus was what good was this to CES; to the people who were supporting CES? What part of this is fish and what part is bones? I've never gotten a straight answer on that one.

I don't think so. I'll be adding to this as I go. I just can't write it down in one big essay.

Eat the fish and spit out the bones was said a lot in the early years of CES. For the first time, I could openly read and discuss books that weren't on the "approved" reading list without fear of recrimination. What I enjoyed was the discussions that took place where we could openly discuss what we were seeing in Scripture that was different from what TWI taught. I wasn't worried that I would get smacked (figuratively) for exercising private interpretation. RD, in particular, turned me on to some fabulous books. One that stands out in my mind was Hans Kung's "On Being a Christian". The summer after we left TWI for good, I sat down and read all the collaterals again with fresh eyes and a different perspective. I was making a point of keeping an open mind and was determined to check everything. It was as though I was reading new books. I came away with the feeling that I had spent years picking at nits and that it had been a waste of time. I also came away with the belief that about 70% of PFAL's "revelations" were either inconsequential or wrong. But I wasn't ready to attend a "regular" church. There was that trinity thing. We spent our time going to CES functions and attending a local home fellowship that had left TWI. The branch, which had left as a whole, was splitting over differences. We I had gotten to the place where differences in beliefs weren't grounds for exclusion. This is what I liked about CES in the beginning. Open debate and discussion was welcomed.

Are you surprised? Yeah, I'd like to see a separate thread on your experience.

It's in an industrial park. Address is now on the website.