Tzaia

We're talking about a dead person. I can't dig up his grave or desecrate his body. I believe that's the extent of his personal rights. The people of the US have rejected the alternative to a presumption of innocence within the context of the LEGAL system's jury system. The media tries to avoid bias by using the word "alleged." They are under no legal obligation to do so. There are ethical reasons to do so. They often report on facts as they see them. In any case, ordinary citizens in ordinary circumstances aren't held to that standard.

Duh!

I understand there is something there he feels he needs to protect (either that or he's simply a glutton for punishment). I just am curious as to why.

No. It's not you. It just shows them where their heads were. I cannot tell you how glad I am to have never been in it that deep. The glimpses that I had were enough for me. I just can't imagine living it.

In this particular situation it's (the debate about innocent until proven guilty) nothing more than a distraction. I'm curious as to why WD cares.

Well that burned an image in my retina that isn't going to go away very soon!

What you have said remains an opinion. Innocent until proven guilty is nothing more legal standard that exists in the legal system. If you want to put that in your belief system as something to live by, then fine. I'm a little more wary of people than that.

What I said was off topic. I wasn't insinuating that you were off topic. Jeff, you were done a tremendous service. Otherwise you might have stayed around. Once you completely shake free, you'll understand that it really was for the best.

Why do you wish that?

Actually you have "passed judgment." It is your judgment (opinion) that you can't say someone is guilty of a crime unless that person has been tried and convicted in a court of law. In your eyes that person is innocent and evidence is not factual unless it has been "proven" through the process of litigation. You also assume that only the legal system can determine fact or truth. It's an interesting standard, one which I don't believe is practical. Do you apply that standard to every situation?

Interesting that you would use a logical fallacy to support your opinion. Is the only difference between you and the lawyer who wrote the piece is that you aren't tired of people calling you on your stance?

I thought - sounds interesting, what's the catch? Then when I was presented with the green card I felt pressure. While being told I had "up to a year" I was also told that the cost of the class was doubling. Then I felt pressure and trepidation. Then I was being told I had made a commitment to God that I needed to honor and I felt pressure. I stated that if God wanted me to take the class, he would find the means (funding) for that to happen. It happened, so I thought it was God's will. I found the class boring. It was all I could do to stay awake, so my thoughts were that I would read the materials afterward - which I did. I immediately had problems with the tithe. I was intrigued by TWI's concept of grace. I never tithed and always wondered about TWI's concept of grace. This was not a class that I could wholeheartedly recommend to anyone, so I didn't. I used to say that PFAL was not for everyone and I definitely saw where some people took it way too seriously. At one time I thought perhaps I was being a bit too hard on the PFAL class, so I signed up to be on a team. I never did that again.

Critical thinking can take place without putting in stipulations such as "presumption of innocence," particularly when it is a moot point and serves no other purpose other than to be a distraction.

That is just a small part of the overall article and is not the main point. It is the opinion that the evidence meets the criteria of beyond a reasonable doubt. Legislators create laws. Judges render judgments on those laws which are written in the form of - opinions. Those opinions are based on facts and opinions about those facts and in the end are called judgments. Actually the jury renders the opinion that the prosecutor has met the criteria of beyond a reasonable doubt. In capital cases no single jury has that say - unless the defendant gives up his/her right to appeal. Why are we discussing this? The article does not support WD's stance.

Jeff - it appears this leader was having to spend an awful amount of time counteracting what you were doing. Of course he wanted to get rid of you - you questioned him and his authority and cost him time, effort, and energy. My experience is that these little liaisons will implode of their own accord, once you remove yourself as the glue that keeps them together. Nothing will cause that to happen quicker than you giving every appearance that you have moved on. It's hard to lose, and you have lost a lot, but this guy probably gets a great deal of satisfaction knowing that he's had such an impact and continues to have an impact on your world. When he no longer has that hold, your ex wife won't be so important and she might not like that, either. Just a thought...

I'm not sure where you get the "exactly" part. WD has been saying that no one can properly use the terminology that VPW is guilty as he has not been tried and found guilty in a court of law. The article link I shared, and wordwolf posted, refutes that premise. Even if he was tried and found guilty - that is also (in legal vernacular) an opinion.

Socks, I think you've got me mixed up with someone else. The point I was trying to make is that TWI doesn't have the lock on wanting to drive the ego out of musicians. In TWI's case, it could be that VPW and LCM felt that music could take something away from them. That's the only reason why I could imagine LCM wanting to take a lead role in a production. He would not like to be upstaged. Same thing with VPW. Brian Houston (Hillsong pastor) is well aware of the role music has played in growing that church. That was a deliberate move on his part, as was putting Darlene in charge of worship. The rest is history. Music, as a tool for powerful worship, was just getting its beginning in the '70s. It had always been a part of pentecostal and charismatic worship, which made TWI an interesting experience in that it was charismatic, but very muted in how it was done - and never done to music. Tongues and those agonizingly long prayers was where people strutted their stuff in TWI. Music, especially live music, played such a minor role that there was no need to rehearse or do anything to get better, much less develop music. My first exposure to TWI was going to hear Good Seed play at a branch gathering. That was my hook, so you can imagine how disappointed I was when I found out that things like that were the exception and not the rule.

Just to put this in perspective (not that I disagree with what happened in TWI), it is common to think of musicians as ego-centric by Christian organizations. There are people who make a living at driving the aspect of "performance" out of musicians and singers. The idea is that performance takes the worship aspect out of music and puts too much emphasis on the musician/singer. In TWI world, anything beyond singing songs would register as performance.

"all" without exception, or "all" without distinction. Sorry - feeling feistier than usual... :blink:

Interesting relevant WSJ article. http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123569758678089027.html

I think the moment came when he believed PFAL was a means to an end.

Keeping this in context, the "oddities" were used as you said - to make us wonder about all of the things we were taught as kids. If mainstream churches couldn't get how many crucified, the number of magi straight, and how old Jesus was when the magi appeared, what else were they getting wrong? At the time it seemed pretty sobering and I remember thinking that perhaps mainstream Christianity was doing a disservice to the believers. I guess we were supposed to be so grateful for being enlightened that we would gladly give 15% of our gross income or become indentured servants for life (and give 15%). I just never saw it that way. I do not know how many were tithers or abundant sharing at the 15% level, but it appeared that the deeper (higher) you were in the organizational structure, the notion that you could choose your level of giving was less likely.

I was not afraid to have another viewpoint. What I was afraid to do was say it out loud. One didn't dare say one had a different take on a verse or concept. Once I was out of TWI, talking and arguing about doctrine became like the "endless geneologies" of the bible. I found I was placing far too much value on doctrine and not simply keeping it simple. I don't do that anymore. Recently, I find myself getting annoyed when there's too much focus on how correct the Christian religion is and how superior it is to other religions.

I was thinking when I heard about and read Geer's paper was "how convenient." How convenient was it that he had all this inside special information and he waits until no one's left to confirm or deny the validity of what he was saying. I think the guy saw an opportunity and took the chance that lots of people would believe him and follow him. By that time we were convinced that the whole thing was not worth being involved with anymore.

I am not sure if I really care, but I used to have all the letters, etc. floating around at one time. About 600 pages. Has anyone digitized them and have them available?