Tzaia

Ebay's got rules about selling other people's (stolen) goods. I guess if I were going to plunk down $5k OBO, I would want to see a bill of sale that proves that person is the owner of said materials. As it is, my husband (boyfriend at the time) paid $100, which was about $75 too much for me to take the class. This appears to be the audio version he's selling. As it is, the guy doesn't appear to be hiding who he is (it took me about 2 minutes to find out) and he is open for questions. The only other thought I had was that he must think TWI people are keen discerners of the truth gullible. Where would he get that idea?

Why doesn't someone just call the guy and ask him. He's listed a phone number and it's a real number. Then you could *gasp* stop speculating.

Naww, not us!!

I've already supplied the name of the guy near the top. The 3s are e; the 1s are i; and the @ is an a. I did a reverse lookup of the phone number.

Actually church politics, underhanded machinations, divisions, and denominations were present from the get-go and is readily evident to those who aren't trying to make it all fit like a hand in a glove and attempting to recreate a "first century" church style organization.

Does anyone know who D@v1d Schl31ch3r is? He's the "owner" of the phone number.

WD, do you have this kind of trouble grasping context in all of your endeavors? A jury is REQUIRED to presume innocence in a criminal trial. The practicality comes in when applying to situations outside a courtroom. I'll be looking at how good a job you do in presuming innocence.

There are a number of other reasons why no one in Acts was ordained. There was no "canon of scripture." There were no standard set of beliefs (despite what VPW taught) There was no organization called Christianity There was no centralized body of leadership that actually had authority. We have all that now. Many ministers that I know of go to seminary or through some sort of accredited school to get some credentials even if they don't agree with the theology. A presbyterian minister can't be ordained - even with the credentials - until that minister has been "called" to a congregation. It's not a matter of calling oneself ordained and looking for a church or seeding a church. Of all the people who have left TWI and gone on to ministry, I only know of one who has followed some sort of standard ordination path. Perhaps others know of others who have gone through seminary and received ordination.

I am sure someone has pointed this out as well: TWI did not operate like the legal system when it came to the notion of innocent until proven guilty. There are too many people who report that they were kicked out with little idea of why (beyond the "crime" of asking a question or questioning authority) and certainly no opportunity to defend themselves. Why? Because TWI wasn't required to do so, either legally or ethically. As nice as presumed innocence sounds, sometimes it's not particularly practical.

The operative word here is "charged" as in "arraigned in a court of law" of a "penal offense" (where guilt would result in a loss of personal freedom). The (only) context (where this is true) is the criminal legal system. It is not even true of the civil legal system, much less the "court" of personal opinion. I would go so far as to say that in order to avoid being accused, much less charged, one has to avoid even the appearance of impropriety. As such, no one who had been close to the man has said that none of this stuff could have occurred because he was never alone with a woman. And apparently when he was around the WC and HQ drones, he was more open due to the levels of "spiritual maturity" that abounded in those environments. At least with people like me (non WC - so less spiritually mature), he was subtle.

Read the context - which is precisely what I said. One must be charged for the presumption to come into play.

I agree. Should not stoop. Potato, perhaps you can point me in the right direction. I was never more than barely in, so I have no idea whether anyone attempted to blow the whistle when the guy was still alive. Did that ever happen? From what I can see, there was a conspiracy of silence and collusion among the leadership while he was alive and apparently until JWS wrote the adultery paper. What made/allowed people (to) come forward besides that paper?

WD - you should contact JAL about replenishing his supply of TWI materials. He sold all of it a few years ago. Perhaps he'd appreciate knowing someone out there has ample supply.

Your premise has been proven wrong. Don't segue into another pointless argument. People appear to be alluding that you might have a financial stake in the good reputation of VPW. Is this so?

Sure it's an opinion. If one is found guilty in a court of law it's called a legal opinion. One thing I can say about you WD is that you really like to put terminology in black and white categories. But just to make this stick, here's the dictionary definition: 1. a belief or judgment that rests on grounds insufficient to produce complete certainty. 2. a personal view, attitude, or appraisal. 3. the formal expression of a professional judgment: to ask for a second medical opinion. 4. Law. the formal statement by a judge or court of the reasoning and the principles of law used in reaching a decision of a case. 5. a judgment or estimate of a person or thing with respect to character, merit, etc.: to forfeit someone's good opinion. 6. a favorable estimate; esteem: I haven't much of an opinion of him.

Fascinating. Adultery and fornication, which was specifically mentioned as being a no-no, is green-lighted under the guise of spiritual maturity, while anal sex, which has no such designation, is absolutely taboo.

So are you saying he drew a line somewhere? :blink:

Chapter and verse, please. :)

http://cavett.blogs.nytimes.com/2007/03/28...sunderstanding/ ...I wouldn’t blame you for being annoyed at this point, wondering what, if anything, it does mean. It’s been called the most misunderstood phrase in our language. It was rife during the O.J. Simpson catastrophe. Wouldn’t it be fun to know if some of the jurors who freed O.J. actually thought he was innocent? (I’ve decided that if I chance to meet the Juice at a party, I will chat amiably and then say, “If you’ll excuse me, I feel the need to talk to someone who hasn’t murdered anybody.”) Anyway, have I teased you long enough? The P. of I. has nothing whatever to do with you and me. We can talk, write, broadcast and even put up a billboard (if so foolish) stating that the accused is the one who did it. It has to do with our system. If you find yourself accused of a crime, you do not have to prove your innocence. The burden is on the other side. The prosecution has to prove your guilt. That’s about it. And it is not even a rule of law. It is a rule of evidence, relevant only to the judge and the jury. more from pbs... http://www.pbs.org/newshour/forum/january98/tvcourt3.html One big problem I see that prevents people from understanding the system is the fact that the media and the system itself -- judges, lawyers, etc -- keep perpetuating myths about the process that only mislead people. These myths are basically the ideals of justice -- presumption of innocence, reasonable doubt,etc -- that represent goals: they depict the way things would work in an ideal democratic society. The reality is much less laudable, but lawyers and journalists insist on portraying the myths as the way things work, rather than as the ideals they are. and the icing on the cake... http://aspen.conncoll.edu/politicsandcultu...age.cfm?key=537 ... as the presumption of innocence does not attach until a criminal process commences. The right, as the model charge to the jury printed above states, belongs to “all defendants in criminal case,” but if one is not a defendant in a criminal case, the right may not be invoked.

More on the fallacy of presumption of innocence from [gasp] a law professor http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=Z...mYxMzJlYjJkNGQ= Monday, March 14, 2005 Presumption of Guilt [Jonah Goldberg] A useful summary of what should be obvious but isn't, from a reader: In law school, my Constitutional Law professor Akhil Amar frequently reminded us that the presumption of innocence is a courtroom presumption only. That is, before any evidence is introduced by the state, the jury in a criminal trial is bound to assume that the defendant is innocent. They are to to make no presumptions of guilt based on the fact that the defendant was arrested, indicted, and brought to trial. If the states presents no evidence, only the presumption of innocence is left, and the defendant must be aquitted. However, outside the courtroom no such presumption is required (emphasis mine). Hence, an employer may fire an employee for stealing from the supply closet without first obtaining a theft conviction in court. A student may be disciplined or expelled from college if marjijuana is found in his room by an RA - despite the fact that no criminal charges are brought. Likewise, outside the courtroom we are free to speculate about the guilt of defendants before trial, or even after an aquittal (after all, an aquittal only signals that the state could not prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt - not that the defendant was innocent. Hence O.J. was aquitted, but later found liable for Nicole Brown's death by a civil jury who had only to find the plaintiff's case more probable than not). It betrays a serious misunderstanding of the presumption of innocence to insist that we must refer to Brian Nichols only as an "alleged criminal" until he is convicted.(emphasis mine) Witnesses saw him commit his crimes, there are official records of his transfer to the court, and he confessed his crimes to his kidnap victim. Those following along at home are certainly entitled to draw the logical conclusion regarding his guilt. and another... http://www.sheilaomalley.com/archives/004405.html p 8 & 9 I've been asked to explain more than once why, right from the beginning, I was saying publicly that there was no question Simpson was guilty. I take no proide in having been the first public personality to come out publiclyl against Simpson. It just happened that way. I was asked by the media how I felt about the case way back in the early summer of 1994, and I decided to be candid. Before I tell you why I did, I should point out that some people objected to my having done so. One reason was the presumptiopn of innocence in our society. Also, they felt as a member of the bar, I should, therefore, not have spoken of Simpson's guilt before the verdict. Contrary to common belief, the presumption of innocence applies only inside a courtroom. It has no applicability elsewhere, although the media do not seem to be aware of this. Even the editorial sections of major American newspapers frequently express the view, in references to a pending case, that "we" -- meaning the editors and their readers -- have to presume that so-and-so is innocent. To illustrate that the presumption does not apply outside the courtroom, let's say an employer has evidence that an employee has committed theft. If the employer had to presume the person were innocent, he obviously couldn't fire the employee or do anything at all. But of course he not only can fire or demote the employee, he can report him to the authorities...

Never - just as long as people can take as well as they can give.

Ok, you call yourself a "victim" of a horrible crime while in the way (I'm assuming TWI) by a member of leadership. You pressed charges; he went to jail, and then you were marked (I assume M&A) because he went to jail. Then you said you weren't a victim. Which is it? You go on to say that you had no idea what kind of man he was and that they (TWI) didn't know what type man he was, but that didn't stop them for M&A YOU because apparently YOU were upsetting the calm. What did they do with him? Was he tossed out? Was he publicly rebuked? If he didn't get tossed, then I would have to say that they preferred him over someone who was willing to do the right thing at great personal cost and they knew full well what kind of man he was. According to some here, men were trained to be abusers of women, and at the very least women were expected to be willing comforters of men - but in case one wasn't willing - that didn't matter. So you don't think you should have been hurt? You don't think the handling of your situation wasn't even remotely inappropriate? You didn't cause the drama. Do you not get that? He acted inappropriately. You did what you had to do, and your closest friends and confidantes are exhorted not to take sides as the "best" response to this outrage? Well, if this is nothing more than a "tale" to show us all how you would have reacted to being attacked by a leader, and how you would have been treated by people you thought were the closest thing to a family in this world, you've given us all a very good reason for the forum to keep on talking. As such, you talk in riddles and contradict yourself. Please don't accuse people of twisting your words. We're only trying to make sense of what you are saying.

Well, my husband and I started attending a regular church right after we left, and made the mistake of talking about the trinity, so we went to various fellowships. We tried CES's fellowship until attending Momentus became the litmus test for being spiritually mature. Momentus created a culture that was very similar to being around arrogant corps members, and we wanted no part of it. We continued to be partners while starting to attend another church. Gradually I came to realize that TWI's teachings focused on small, inconsequential differences in interpretation that did nothing besides create divisiveness in the body, and CES had picked up TWI's propensity for that. Since 2004 I've visited the Middle East 3 times and spent a considerable amount of time studying early Christian history, lost Christianities, how and why the canon of biblical text came about, and other belief systems. I have come to believe that VPW, or anyone else who touts TWI as teaching the word as it has not been heard since the first century has no idea what s(he) is talking about. I have come to believe that every premise that was used to support the concepts in PFAL were faulty premises. I believe that the touted "correct" doctrine was not. I believe that while people were told that TWI thinking would set them free, that, in fact, it was nothing more than another form of bondage. It appears that the deeper the level of involvement that was supposed to bring spiritual maturity was nothing more than a systematic breakdown of critical thinking skills, and that every splinter's leadership continues to lack the necessary critical thinking skills that would help them to discern sh!t from shine-ola. JAL was definitely trying to pull on people's heart strings of what he believes were the glory days of TWI. I would agree that there were moments of true synergy, but I believe that much of the "glory" was as manufactured as the manifestations. While sometimes it didn't seem like a good idea at the time, I am so thankful that I resisted the pressure to do more and get more deeply involved. I believe doing so has created fewer regrets. So after carefully considering everything I thought I knew from TWI, I have pretty much dismissed it as garbage.

So that's it. You see no need to continually bring it up. No one is forcing anyone to be here. If you have moved on, then perhaps the best thing you can do is find something else to entertain yourself.

Interesting read, waysider. Since I have been studying early Christianity for about a year now, I have seen how much TWI borrowed from a lot of groups. Quite the little mix.