Oakspear

I guess whether or not you could actually pay cash for a house would depend on the home values in your area and what your income was. I have no idea what houses go for these days. But let's say you want to get a small, two-bedroom for $50,000. Let's further say that you have an income of $30,000 per year. How much of that income could you put away as savings. Let's assume that you can sock away 10% (not bad, considering that you are already giving 10%+ to TWI), so that's $3,000/year. So in seventeen years you have put aside a little over the $50,000 you need. Plug in whatever income level or home valuation that you want, but that's a long time to be saving. In the meantime what are you doing for a place to live? Renting! In those seventeen years hopefully your income will rise, but the cost of buying a home will as well. While getting a good job, saving your money, living with your parents etc are all good advice, it still takes time to do all of this, and most non-TWI financial advisors would say that you are making better use of your money to take out a mortgage than to try to save it all up front. TWI and its leaders didn't try to give advice on how to do it because they didn't know how! They assumed that a mortgage was prohibited by God, so therefore owning a home must be possible if God's word is true

Ah, trying to guilt me into stopping my criticism? :D--> That got me sucked into being PTA president for three years Seriously Pat, while I applaud you doing your part to keep information about TWI flowing and all, I just don't think it's very funny. You can chalk it up to one man's personal opinion, but I prefer my satire to be a little more subtle, while your site is a bit more blunt and the humor more obvious than I normally like. Anyway, I made my point, I shan't beat it to death - have fun

I see your point about higher comprehension level, but how about a higher humor level? ;)-->

One of the things that LCM and the other top dogs said about RFR was that she was a good administrator. Aside from whether TWI is a "ministry", or a cult, an organization always needs somebody who can keep things organized, to "keep the trains running on time" so to speak. Back in Wierwille's and Martindale's regimes, I thought that the Vice Prez and Sec'y-Treasurer filled that role. Vic and Loy were the front men, the idea men, while the other two trustees implemented the "Great One's" ideas and orders. Say what you will, but Wierwille knew how to run a cult, he knew how to be the center of attention. Martindale could have had it too, but did himself in. Since Martindale's ouster, roles seem to have reversed. The Vice President, the administrator, the implementer had now been elevated to the top spot, and appears to be acting the same as when she was Vice President. I believe that this is a good startegic move on TWI's part. RFR is not a good speaker, taught seldom in public, did not have a loyal sub-group of followers due to be a Limb Coordinator or Corps leader, but I'll bet she rules with an iron fist while letting "the boys" have little pieces of the spotlight to teach and run limbs and regions. The central, powerful MOG version of TWI failed, why continue in the same fashion.

By the way Galen, I was just trying (apparently unsucessfully :(-->) to be humorous; sorry about the fallout. :D-->

Yes, oeno is much more handsome than an eighty-something founding father :D-->

johniam: I doubt the ACLU was involved with a decision to ban religious t-shirts at work. Sounds more like management just didn't want to deal with dueling t-shirt slogans :D--> It seems like you are viewing the Ten Commandments as somehow religiously generic and therefore okay, as opposed to Hail Marys and Speaking in tongues, which would be specific to some denominations only. I've got news for ya: I don't recognize the sabbath day, let alone keep it holy I do not worship the biblical god I've got a lot of graven images around casa de oak, mostly turtles, and a few Santa Clauses, but I don't worship them I don't make a habit of taking Jehovah's name in vain, but I'd like the option if I feel the need The others I can pretty much live with, but I have a hard time with the coveting sometimes.

johniam: Without the use of illustrative analogies, can you define the difference between an establishment of religion and the establishment of religion? While I do understand your examples, I question whether they are relevant to the point that you are tring to make. I suppose I can come up with an analogy to show how "an" and "the" in one specific context could have equvalent meaning: 1. I drove my car through an intersection 2. I drove my car through the intersection In both cases I am talking about the same intersection, in neither case is it any random intersection, but it is the one that i specifically drove through. Neither is the intersection "THE" intersection, as in, the only intersection. The only point that I am making with the above is that the distinction between "the" and "an" does not necessarily exist.

I can't wait to see Present Spewth when Pat gets rid of the twelve year-old boys and gets some real humorists :P-->

What attracted me initially? The confidence that Way people had in what they believed: I wanted that I thought speaking in tongues was cool Little by little I believed what was taught and made it part of my own belief system. I believed that The Way represented the only place that the whole truth was being taught. Even after leaving for a few years, I still believed it all: I had left mainly because I couldn't get along with the Limb Coordinator. When I came back I started to doubt little by little, what kept me in for a long time was the hope that I would figure it out if I just stuck with it. Later I stuck with it because I believed (rightly as it turned out) that my marriage would end if I left TWI.

Weren't you that guy Galen? ;)-->

Take your own advice jsamuel, think before you post. Jim gave some good solid advice, instead of posting on an anonymous forum, search for and find (the meaning of "hunt down") Geer and "then what?"...oh I don't know...ASK HIM what you want to know!

Harry Wierwille's autobio is full of examples of taking out loans to buy things

In my opinion wise cracks can actually help get to the truth by introducing uncomfortable subjects cushioned with humor. Well, before he was a bus driver flunky, while after he was a self-appointed prophet and the man with the ANSWERS.Oh, I'm sorry, were you just looking for folks to say nice things?

My old fellowship coordinator had a plan for buying a house without (supposedly) going into debt: A) Find someone who is selling a house. B) Convince that person to make you a partner in the ownership of the house. For example, if the house is worth $100,000, and you can come up with $10,000, the $10 thou makes you a 10% partner in the house. You pay 10% of the taxes, repairs, etc. If you rent it out, you get 10% of the rent C) As you make more payments, you own a greater percentage of the house. If you stop making payments, your share never increases. Of course the plan is to eventually own the whole house. The guy who preached this plan owned his own house free and clear. However, he claimed that he was buying it in this manner from his parents. His parents died before the deal progressed very far and he inherited it outright. I can see several holes in this plan, other than that I never heard of anyone actually doing it. Anybody else see 'em?

Thanks Steve, well put.

Okay Steve!, all "with distinction" -->

????????? (oikonomia) occurs seven times in the bible: Three times in Luke 16:2-4, translated as stewardship I Corinthians 9:17, Ephesians 1:10, Ephesians 3:2, and Colossians 1:25 all translated dispensation. The first three in Luke apply to one person's personal responsibility to act as a steward. The steward talks about being put out of the stewardship and having the stewardship taken away. It is referred to as if it is a thing. While there certainly is a time period over which the steward exercised his stewardship, the emphasis appears to be more on actions, as opposed to time. I Corinthians 9:17 and Colossians 1:25 seem to fit the explanation that Goey gave of Ephesians 3:2, "Paul is simpy saying that he was given grace by God by allowing him to preach and minister to the Ephesians (Gentiles)". Ephesians 1:10 could go either way, in my opinion, maybe somebody who has studied it can give some insight. In my view, the idea that there are distinct administrations, or periods of time, where things are completely and sharply different, is not supported by the verses that use the Greek word ????????? (oikonomia). To support administartionism/dispensationalism you have to get your evidense elsewhere. One of the results of following the idea of administrations/dispensations is that you get the "to whom is it written?" quandry. Certain parts of the bible are relevant, and some are not. It is self evident that things changed over time. There was a Garden of Eden and then there was not; there wasn't a torah and then there was; other examples can be cited. But to conclude that the periods of time that coincide with these occurences are somehow sealed off from each other, where God's rules of salvation are completely overturned, needs more documentation than has been given so far. Just where does it say in the bible that what dispensationalists claim is true? Can dispenstaionalism be documented from the bible, rather than just illustarted by analogy?

Posted earlier by WordWolf quoting Goey: Dave writes concerning Diepensationalism: And where would that be? Which Epsitle and what Bible mentions an "administration of grace". Not the King James. Not the NIV. Not the ASV. The words "administration of grace" do not appear in any Bible that I am aware of. Paul does however write in Epehsians 3:2: Eph 3:2 2If ye have heard of the dispensation of the grace of God which is given me to you-ward: Is this talking about an "Administration" as defined by Wierwille/Bullinger/et al - as in a period of time? No. In the context read verses 7 & 8: Eph 3:7 Whereof I was made a minister, according to the gift of the grace of God given unto me by the effectual working of his power. Eph 3:8 Unto me, who am less than the least of all saints, is this grace given, that I should preach among the Gentiles the unsearchable riches of Christ; Paul is simpy saying that he was given grace by God by allowing him to preach and minister to the Ephesians (Gentiles). To pull a time framed "administration of grace" out of these verses is absurd and sloppy interpretation and is not reading it in the context. Dave said elsewhere: Huh? What "actual words" are you taking about?Following is my comments on the above: No matter what words you want to use, they have to fit the context of what is being discussed. Paul is not talking about a "time period" of grace. He is talking about being given the stewardship, the responsibility to preach about grace. If you want to posit a "time period" of grace, then you have to find another part of the scripture to back it up.

Yes indeed, it is a momentous day :D--> Although, whatever it was, I'm sure it mattered to Adam and Eve; God gave them specific instructions, and they decided to take a different path. Here's some more food for thought: Was God's command totally arbitrary and capricious, or was there some logic and ssense that Adam and Eve could easily perceive? Was the "thou shalt surely die" part of the command because God was going to punish Adam & Eve, or because of an inherant danger in "the tree" that would cause death in and of itself? An illustration: When my children were small I told them to eat their vegetables. No inherant, immediate harm would come from not eating their vegetables, but there might be a consequence from failure to obey imposed by me. On the other hand they were told not to play in the street, inherant, immediate harm could result if a car ran them over. The first was a standard that I imposed because of my standards, which were debatable and arguable, the second was imposed to keep them alive. Which was the command to not "eat"?

BFD: Check your Private Topics

All the Grease Spot women that I have met are stunningly beautiful and the men extraordinarily handsome. Yes, Steve! does look like Mr. Bill, especially before his morning coffee, and I really am a red two-headed eagle :D-->

I like to say "Merry Christmas" sometimes, mainly because TWI frowned on it, but as a non-Christian, "Happy Yule" is more what you'll hear from me. I happily and joyfully accept all manner of holiday greetings however :D-->

I apologize to all for the "oh yeah, sez you" level of debate in the middle of my last post :D-->

Why yes I have, thank you. SOME people were expected to live by those laws, not all. Israel only. The law was never sent to China, or North America, or Sub Equatorial Africa. So non-Israel would be functioning under the same divine expectations that they had all along. If God doesn't label the time period, why do you feel the necessity to do so? Calling the Law that was given to Israel an adminstration makes an assumption that may or may not be warranted without more thought than you appear willing to give it. No you haven't by you That would be you once again I think that you just made the opposing viewpoint I guess calling something that would be as biblical as calling it an administration since neither are biblical