After over a decade of using the GSC, you know how to correctly use the "quote" system by now,
but it's obvious you refuse to do so CORRECTLY.
You melded your comments into mine, which makes it hard for people to see what it is I said,
and what comments you're interspersing.
That isn't fair to the person you're quoting, and it's not fair to those who try to read later what
you OR they wrote. Laziness, or intent to confuse the issues?
It's one or the other. I show you AND them more courtesy by making the effort to distinguish
between what I wrote and what you wrote.
Still doing it even after being called on it- in this case, by melding your comments with
Raf's comments.
Raf:
"Anyone who gives out of free will, whether it's one percent or 50 percent or more or less, is Biblically justified in doing so. The standard for giving in the New Testament for Christians is not a percentage, but a personal consideration based on faith, speech, knowledge, diligence and love. (Read ii Corinthians 8 for the build up to and follow through on this instruction)."
John:
"*Agreed! VP said in 'Lifestyle of a believer' that there are 3 things which justify one person giving money to another person. 1) for merchandise, 2) for service, and 3) out of love, which can only be opened from the inside, as I said in my first post, not out of coercion."
And we are all personally aware, by experience, that he often said ONE THING on paper in one place
that looked pious,
and ANOTHER THING in person or on tape that was self-serving.
All of us who were in twi were all fully aware that the Tenth/Tithe/ABS
was a REQUIRED 10%, required BY vpw, and "his" book that was used
to enforce this was REQUIRED reading at pfal, often required as homework
between Session 1 and 2 of pfal. vpw made it clear, and that was consistently
carried through the rank and file, that it was mandatory.
So, then, are you now REPUDIATING THAT TWI PRACTICE INSTITUTED BY VPW?
Are you now saying that the MANDATORY Tenth/Tithe/ABS vpw REQUIRED while
saying we should give out of love (but demanding we give no matter what)
was ERROR? It's a simple yes-no question as to whether you're saying that.
If you're NOT saying that, then it's hypocritical to claim this is all voluntary
while signing off on vpw's "it's voluntary on paper but in practice it's mandatory"
thing. But you're sending mixed signals and being unclear- possibly deliberately
to fog the issues, possibly accidentally because you refuse to admit what we
all knew THEN-that it was MANDATORY in twi and still is to this day no matter
what rhetoric says it is not.
Raf:
"Using someone's level of giving as a basis for criticizing him or her for not believing enough or not loving enough is an intrusion on that person's privacy. The Bible never instructs Christians to evaluate someone else's practice of giving. Only your own."
John:
"*I'll dispute you a bit on this one. Jesus told his disciples that a poor woman who gave 2 mites gave more than the pharissees, because she gave all her living while they only gave of their abundance. Maybe he wasn't "criticizing" their giving, but he definitely made a distinction."
*checks the account* He made a distinction, but that was hardly the institution of a doctrine.
He did not "use her level of giving" or "use the rich's level of giving" "as a basis for criticizing"
either her or the rich. There was no comment about how the rich didn't give enough, none about
how the rich weren't believing enough which is why they gave less, no CONFRONTATION nor
CRITICISM of ANY of the rich about what they didn't do.
Mark 12:41 And Jesus sat over against the treasury, and beheld how the people cast money into the treasury: and many that were rich cast in much.
42 And there came a certain poor widow, and she threw in two mites, which make a farthing.
43 And he called unto him his disciples, and saith unto them, Verily I say unto you, That this poor widow hath cast more in, than all they which have cast into the treasury:
44 For all they did cast in of their abundance; but she of her want did cast in all that she had, even all her living.
There was no intrusion into their privacy. There was no instruction by Jesus of
"And you shall examine the rich and how much they give", no instruction of a procedure
to evaluate the giving of the widow OR the rich.
So, this account has nothing to do with what was said-and therefore is irrelevant
when trying to dispute it.
==================================
John:
"ABS is between individuals and God. I never heard VP blur this."
We did! vpw told the insiders-and thus, taped recordings of meetings for the Corps
and so on mentioned it- and vpw set the policy which his rank-and-file were required
to follow. Coordinators were instructed to address if ABS was absent or under 10%
with the locals-and they did. Doing it that way insulated vpw from being the obvious
face passing the orders. This made it a little less obvious- but most people were smart
enough to know that orders were INSTITUTED by vpw so those policies were HIS.
Under vpw, ABS was between individuals and twi.
John:
"LCM didn't just threaten people with catastrophe about ABS, he once ranted about people not renewing their way mag subscriptions after the free one year subscription after taking pfal. He says you have money for HBO and Cinemax, but not for the way mag. He was mad, too. It's almost comical to think about now. The only bad consequences I, personally, have ever heard about coming to people regarding ABS are leaders spending ABS money on personal stuff. Makes me wonder about the current state of twi."
lcm took bad practices HE WAS TAUGHT BY VPW and made them more overt,
more obvious, more obnoxious. vpw knew when to whisper something because he
didn't want to get caught saying or doing it. vpw knew when he was doing something
he should be embarrassed about, or would get criticism if caught doing- but lcm
thought vpw's doctrines were Divine, so he had no problems with making ANY of
them overt- which, in this case, made him TWICE the money-grubber vpw was.
And hearing that anyone in twi was caught embezzling money really should come
as no surprise by now.
John:
"In the fellowship I now attend, we got some financial help in 2006, when much of St. Louis was without power for 8 days, to cover the cost of staying in motels. I'm sure we weren't the only ones, too. Also, in twi, I'm told that 85% of ABS went to HQ and 15% stayed in the limb. Other way around in the current fellowship. Nothing wrong with using ABS money to help people who have a need."
So, then,
you're saying your current system is much better than the system
whose use vpw MANDATED?
I just want to be clear. You've endorsed both systems in the past,
and by definition, both can't be "the best" since one must be
better than the other, and in this case, one practice is
VERY different than the other.
This is NOT a hard question.
John:
"I like that you say, "Maybe I'm blessed for that, and maybe I'm not." In other words you trust God and you trust the people and organizations you give to and that's all you need to know and that's all anyone else needs to know. "
There's something you might be on your own about.
We learned-the hard way- that placing trust in the people and
the organizations was a setup for abused trust.
So, trusting the people-and making that "ALL YOU NEED TO KNOW"
is a setup for making the same mistakes ad infinitum.
The 9/10 will go farther isn't a doctrine, it's HORSE SENSE! If God is really involved, then 1/10 will go farther.
The "9/10 will go farther" was DEFINITELY a doctrine.
That's why we can all quote the thing decades later, and so can you.
"If God is really involved" is a very big IF- and switches
"this is what God Almighty said to do, so He will back it up" -
and He did NOT say to do this, therefore He will not back it up-
with
"If God is really involved", then He will back it up-
which is the same mistake you keep making.
God is REQUIRED to follow doctrines He never made but YOU
assigned to Him. YOUR will be done.
John:
"Faith as a grain of mustard seed, remember? If God is really involved, everything is better."
Luke 17:5-6 King James Version (KJV)
5 And the apostles said unto the Lord, Increase our faith.
6 And the Lord said, If ye had faith as a grain of mustard seed, ye might say unto this sycamine tree, Be thou plucked up by the root, and be thou planted in the sea; and it should obey you.
This has nothing to do with a doctrine of giving 1/10 of your income,
nor is this a promise that, if you do, the remaining 9/10 will prosper further
than if you used all 10/10ths.
That was a doctrine taught by vpw in twi, and nobody can find it in
the Bible because it isn't there.
But it was a required practice of twi, a mandatory practice
set out by the doctrine.
"This doesn't compute for you because you no longer believe in God."
This doesn't compute for the devout Christians either,
because A) this doesn't follow logically from the verses you mentioned-
which is probably why you keep mentioning them BUT NOT POSTING THEM
B) this was never mandated by God Almighty, but by vpw and enforced
Summing up: please refrain from getting me involved in something that has nothing to do with me. I rather like my reading-and-no-posting existence in this forum and I would like to continue it that way.
Moderator's note: Hated to cut this post, seeing as it appears to be Mrs. Wolf's first. But she made reference to posts that have since been deleted (one violated more rules than we can count, and the others addressed the deleted post). We didn't want to delete her post entirely. Welcome to the Cafe, Mrs. Wolf. We hope to hear from you again.
Edited by modcat5 Mostly referred to posts that have since been deleted.
So..if I post an opinion you consider to be wrong...this constitutes an "attack"??? [deleted content]
Hello, Maddywolf. 148 posts and I saw none of them before today. I stand corrected.
Moderator's Note: disagreeing with a poster is not an attack. The post that was deleted WAS an attack. Deleted portions of THIS post constitute an attack.
There is nothing in the Bible that says "9/10th's will go farther than 10/10th's"
(Adjust the verbiage to make it more Biblical if needed.)
It's just not the there. It's a clever phrase, no doubt, and a good marketing ploy because it appeals to human nature. But, Biblical? Nope. It just isn't.
Now, does that mean you can't give to a cause because that's what you want to do? Of course not. Give until it hurts if it makes you happy but don't attribute it to a Biblical mandate..
I think Malachi 3:8-12 provides some Biblical justification for the notion that 9/10 goes farther with God's blessing on it than 10/10 does without.
Whether it is correct for Christian believers to appropriate that particular Old Testament promise is a larger issue that we will not settle in a message board, but just because an idea is not phrased a certain way in the Bible doesn't mean there's nothing in the Bible to support the idea.
For what it's worth, my belief is that the verse in Malachi is not talking about money at all. But who cares what I think. :)
There is nothing in the Bible that says "9/10th's will go farther than 10/10th's"
(Adjust the verbiage to make it more Biblical if needed.)
It's just not the there. It's a clever phrase, no doubt, and a good marketing ploy because it appeals to human nature. But, Biblical? Nope. It just isn't.
Now, does that mean you can't give to a cause because that's what you want to do? Of course not. Give until it hurts if it makes you happy but don't attribute it to a Biblical mandate..
I rarely agree with John but he is entitled to his viewpoint, just as you are. You don't have to attack him at every instance.
As Ralph would say ... Peace! :knuddel:/>/>/>
Thank you. I appreciate this.
I'm responding to his deliberate provocation. He sees that as a personal attack. [Remainder of post deleted].
Moderator's Note: If you believe you are being provoked, report it. That WordWolf saw your "response" as a personal attack is reasonable. That anyone would think it wasn't a personal attack is not reasonable.
Ok, guys, I just got in trouble with my fellow mods myself, so I'm really not in a position to get all preachy...
But come on! I'm not calling mod attention to this thread because no one has reported it. You guys want to settle it by yourselves, then settle it. That does not mean continuing it publicly until one or both of you get tired.
I'm suspending judgment on WordWolf because there have been no complaints. I see that he interacts with JohnIAm A LOT, and to be honest, I don't read all his posts to John in detail. It sometimes requires an interest in the subject matter I don't have.
I did read JohnIAm's comment to ME in this thread, so I see he is perfectly capable of expressing disagreement without getting out of line. Post 30 is so far out of line... you can't even SEE the line from post 30. I could have moderated it. I could have asked someone else to moderate it. I left it alone.
So John, if you think WordWolf is harassing you, report it. But don't step into the gutter. Post 30 practically invited rebuke. I respect your intelligence enough that I don't think I have to spell it out for you.
This is an interesting topic of discussion. Let's try to stick to it.
There is nothing in the Bible that says "9/10th's will go farther than 10/10th's"
(Adjust the verbiage to make it more Biblical if needed.)
It's just not the there. It's a clever phrase, no doubt, and a good marketing ploy because it appeals to human nature. But, Biblical? Nope. It just isn't.
Now, does that mean you can't give to a cause because that's what you want to do? Of course not. Give until it hurts if it makes you happy but don't attribute it to a Biblical mandate..
When I give to something I no longer sit in anticipation of a material blessing then feel ripped off if I don't get it. It's pretty freeing actually compared to the way I lived when I was in TWI.
I still think there's a biblical mandate to give to the poor. But that's just they way I've decided to live my life. Someday like everyone else I'm going to check out of here. I want at least a part of my life to be a benefit to others. Even if it's just giving a pair of shoes or something. Lord knows there have been times when I've needed a hand and someone was there to help.
I just had a Homer Simpson moment, one of those where he smacks his forehead and says, Doh!". :doh:/>/>
All these years we've been calling it Abundant SHARING. It wasn't sharing at all, it was GIVING.
Sharing is a two way street. ABS was a one way street. Everything went to HQ and nothing ever came back, nothing got shared.
It was called 'sharing' because we were supposed to give of our abundance, not of our livelihood. Nobody in twi said give till it hurts. Even VP made fun of that phrasing.
I have some other thoughts on ABS. In 'lifestyle of a believer' VP had scathing words about gambling, citing it as the opposite of giving. This led some people to call investing in the stock market 'gambling'. Not true. Part of VPs criticism of gambling was that "there is no increase of wealth". What is increase of wealth? Best example is agriculture. One kernel of corn can yield 3 whole ears. THAT is increase. You plant, you reap. This can be done with money also. Any company listed in the NY stock exchange has established a track record of increase of wealth. It's not like a slot machine, where you put money in and IMMEDIATELY expect an increase. LCM once said that he thought some people ABSed with a gambler's mentality. Perhaps he was right on that one.
As I said earlier, and some have concurred, there is no biblical or spiritual pressure to give till it hurts. We're supposed to give cheerfully. Even LCM said whatever you do, don't give out of guilt. Whoops, look at the time. Later.
It was called 'sharing' because we were supposed to give of our abundance, not of our livelihood. Nobody in twi said give till it hurts. Even VP made fun of that phrasing.
I have some other thoughts on ABS. In 'lifestyle of a believer' VP had scathing words about gambling, citing it as the opposite of giving. This led some people to call investing in the stock market 'gambling'. Not true. Part of VPs criticism of gambling was that "there is no increase of wealth". What is increase of wealth? Best example is agriculture. One kernel of corn can yield 3 whole ears. THAT is increase. You plant, you reap. This can be done with money also. Any company listed in the NY stock exchange has established a track record of increase of wealth. It's not like a slot machine, where you put money in and IMMEDIATELY expect an increase. LCM once said that he thought some people ABSed with a gambler's mentality. Perhaps he was right on that one.
As I said earlier, and some have concurred, there is no biblical or spiritual pressure to give till it hurts. We're supposed to give cheerfully. Even LCM said whatever you do, don't give out of guilt. Whoops, look at the time. Later.
John
You have a wonderful knack for twisting what was said. I never said that giving 'til it hurts was non-Biblical, I said that ABS is non-Biblical. That is a position I still maintain.
As to investing, neither one of them had a clue about prudent investing. This is evidenced by the massive blunders they made in property acquirement. But, here again, that issue is really a straw-man as this thread isn't about investing, it's about the practice of giving money to the ministry, above and beyond the customary 10% tithe.
It was called 'sharing' because we were supposed to give of our abundance, not of our livelihood. Nobody in twi said give till it hurts. Even VP made fun of that phrasing.
It was called "sharing" because we were supposed to THINK we weren't just handing over
money to vpw and twi. The idea was, we handed over money to them, and God Almighty
(not financially accountable to twi) would reimburse us in financial ways and possibly
other ways. So, they took, and someone else was supposed to reimburse.
As for whether or not we were to give of "our livelihood", that's a matter of SEMANTICS.
The "ABS" was a tenth/tithe that was called something else but was exactly that
anyway. By not limiting the name to a "tenth", he set it up so that the tenth was
MANDATORY and EXPECTED in twi, and MORE THAN A TENTH was expected but not
ENFORCED the way the tenth was. "If you really are thankful to God, you'll give more."
Who wanted to see themselves as unthankful to God-yet remain in twi?
So, people were convinced to give more. lcm just codified a practice he'd seen vpw
do off-the-record when he bumped the ABS requirement to 15%, to 20%, then
"the revelation changed" and it was 15% again. (With social pressure to give more.)
However, twi asked something respectable religious groups don't ask- they asked for
everything that would go towards savings. Naturally, they made up a term for it.
Based on a single account of a single incident that had nothing to do with it
(of course), vpw coined "plurality giving." The concept was simple. Cover all your
current expenses. ALL the money left over at the end of the pay cycle?
HAND THAT OVER TO TWI. In a technical sense, that's not
"giving of your livelihood" nor "giving until it hurts." However, it is still hurtful
and harmful to the giver if done the way they did it (totally different from the
Biblical account). Why is it hurtful and harmful? For the benefit of those
unaccustomed to thinking about how vpw's policies were harmful, I'll spell out
SOME of it.
It allowed for NO SAVINGS. What's wrong with that?
1) EMERGENCIES. When there's an emergency, a normal person goes into
the money they save for emergencies, and they have something to cover
that. It can go for some medical expense, loss of work, damage to a car
or other needed item that needs immediate repair or replacement,
and so on. The faithful "plurality giver" has NOTHING where others have
SOMETHING for emergencies. That's poor stewardship of funds.
So, what did the faithful "plurality giver" do in an emergency? He was
told God was supposed to supply it, and sometimes local twi Christians
would voluntarily help.
Naturally, someone's going to twist what I say and claim I said we
aren't supposed to help each other nor trust God. So, I shall explain
why THAT was wrong.
twi was taking the money, and claiming it would be reimbursed if needed
by God Almighty. He's not accountable to them,is not required to match
THEIR promises (which weren't HIS promises), He never signed off on
their promise, and He can't be held accountable if the money doesn't
appear.
It is good to trust God, it is foolish to remove prudent precautions and
trust God for every type of protection. That's why we wear seat-belts
and drive carefully, for that matter. Financially, it's no different.
2) Investment.
Where's the money for retirement? twi veterans are SUPPOSED TO
"work until they die." That's a quote from one of the higher-ups.
Other people (smarter Christians, non-Christians) set aside some money
so they have something for later. Not the "plurality giver." When
he retires, the money to put aside, whether large or small, isn't
with him, it's in a big pile twi accumulated from him.
What did twi do with that money?
They invested it so that when there's less money coming in,
they still have money.
In other words, twi convinces its people to take the money for
retirement, send it in to twi, then refuse to retire because they
have no money to retire-
then twi made a Retirement Fund out of it and twi's living
off of that now-while telling older Christians to just trust God
for the money- or live off non-twi family they were told to
spurn for decades for not being twi.
3) Nice things.
EVER treat your family to something nice?
Yes?
Well, under vpw's system, that's a violation-
since that wasn't a "need", you were supposed to send
that money in as "plurality giving."
If you're saying you NEVER treated your family,
I'm calling shenanigans on that.
Never had a nice dinner, gave a present for a
birthday/graduation/Ho-Ho,
never took them to a movie, bought a DVD,
video game, never got cable TV,
bought a nice toy, a piece of jewelry?
If you're insisting that, you're not being honest.
Anyone who was faithful to vpw's "plurality giving"
was hurting themselves and their family in the ways
I just explained. So, they did indeed "give till it hurt."
vpw was fond of relabeling things so people did things
while criticizing others for doing it- and he got away
with it because people trusted him and didn't look
closely enough to see he made cosmetic changes
and otherwise left in practice what benefited him-
when he wasn't instituting more practices like
"plurality giving."
I have some other thoughts on ABS. In 'lifestyle of a believer' VP had scathing words about gambling, citing it as the opposite of giving. This led some people to call investing in the stock market 'gambling'. Not true. Part of VPs criticism of gambling was that "there is no increase of wealth". What is increase of wealth? Best example is agriculture. One kernel of corn can yield 3 whole ears. THAT is increase. You plant, you reap. This can be done with money also. Any company listed in the NY stock exchange has established a track record of increase of wealth. It's not like a slot machine, where you put money in and IMMEDIATELY expect an increase. LCM once said that he thought some people ABSed with a gambler's mentality. Perhaps he was right on that one.
It's interesting that vpw would say things against gambling,
but had no problem himself visiting the racetracks.
Perhaps we're supposed to believe he visited them because
he liked horses and the ambiance.
One standard for vpw, one standard for everyone else.
Although what he said, if you're reporting it truthfully,
was all technically correct.
As I said earlier, and some have concurred, there is no biblical or spiritual pressure to give till it hurts. We're supposed to give cheerfully. Even LCM said whatever you do, don't give out of guilt. Whoops, look at the time. Later.
There's no Biblical pressure to "give till it hurts" nor for giving "of necessity."
II Corinthians 9:7 (KJV)
7 Every man according as he purposeth in his heart, so let him give; not grudgingly, or of necessity: for God loveth a cheerful giver.
This says BECAUSE God wants us to give cheerfully,
we should neither give with reluctance NOR OUT OF REQUIREMENT.
Why only cite part of a verse and not post it?
The entire concept of a required giving, a required Tithe/Tenth/ABS for Christians
contradicts this verse-when the entire verse is read.
If lcm said once not to give with guilt, he certainly was a hypocrite,
because he SCREAMED AND YELLED about people who were not
choosing to give 15%, 20%, and berated them for not
"plurality giving." He absolutely required people to give.
John
You have a wonderful knack for twisting what was said. I never said that giving 'til it hurts was non-Biblical, I said that ABS is non-Biblical. That is a position I still maintain.
As to investing, neither one of them had a clue about prudent investing. This is evidenced by the massive blunders they made in property acquirement. But, here again, that issue is really a straw-man as this thread isn't about investing, it's about the practice of giving money to the ministry, above and beyond the customary 10% tithe.
edit: grammar
Since vpw had a required 10% in practice as well as the "above 10%",
I'd say both the Tithe/Tenth and the giving money to the ministry above that
I just cleaned up this thread using my best judgment. If you enjoy seeing my fingrprints all over your posts, or seeing your work suddenly vanish, keep up the good work! I'd just as soon you knock it off. ;)
Johniam, you MIGHT be surprised if you checked your private messages (and the timestamps).
***
Now, again, if you feel you are being harassed, report it. If you feel the GS Moderators are treating you as a second class citizen, you have three choices: a. complain to the moderators, b. put up with it, or c. sayonara.
There is no option D. All option D's are requests to make option C involuntary.
Recommended Posts
Top Posters In This Topic
4
11
13
10
Popular Days
Nov 10
10
Nov 17
9
Nov 18
8
Nov 19
6
Top Posters In This Topic
Raf 4 posts
WordWolf 11 posts
johniam 13 posts
waysider 10 posts
Popular Days
Nov 10 2014
10 posts
Nov 17 2014
9 posts
Nov 18 2014
8 posts
Nov 19 2014
6 posts
Popular Posts
skyrider
WordWolf......yes, it really is that simple. I always appreciate your insight and posts. You bring fair, objective analysis to the threads that I've visited. Thanks. One of the reasons why I, fin
outandabout
when I was in TWI, I faithfully ABS'd 10 to 15% of my income the whole time I was there. I did not see any increase in my finances or the physical conditions in my life. I will concede that I don't k
newlife
I Abundantly shared in TWI.....not cheerfully at all. In fact, I dreaded doing it. When I got out of TWI, I did not share with a ministry or person. After awhile, I sent some money to two ministrie
WordWolf
Still doing it even after being called on it- in this case, by melding your comments with
Raf's comments.
Raf:
"Anyone who gives out of free will, whether it's one percent or 50 percent or more or less, is Biblically justified in doing so. The standard for giving in the New Testament for Christians is not a percentage, but a personal consideration based on faith, speech, knowledge, diligence and love. (Read ii Corinthians 8 for the build up to and follow through on this instruction)."
John:
"*Agreed! VP said in 'Lifestyle of a believer' that there are 3 things which justify one person giving money to another person. 1) for merchandise, 2) for service, and 3) out of love, which can only be opened from the inside, as I said in my first post, not out of coercion."
And we are all personally aware, by experience, that he often said ONE THING on paper in one place
that looked pious,
and ANOTHER THING in person or on tape that was self-serving.
All of us who were in twi were all fully aware that the Tenth/Tithe/ABS
was a REQUIRED 10%, required BY vpw, and "his" book that was used
to enforce this was REQUIRED reading at pfal, often required as homework
between Session 1 and 2 of pfal. vpw made it clear, and that was consistently
carried through the rank and file, that it was mandatory.
So, then, are you now REPUDIATING THAT TWI PRACTICE INSTITUTED BY VPW?
Are you now saying that the MANDATORY Tenth/Tithe/ABS vpw REQUIRED while
saying we should give out of love (but demanding we give no matter what)
was ERROR? It's a simple yes-no question as to whether you're saying that.
If you're NOT saying that, then it's hypocritical to claim this is all voluntary
while signing off on vpw's "it's voluntary on paper but in practice it's mandatory"
thing. But you're sending mixed signals and being unclear- possibly deliberately
to fog the issues, possibly accidentally because you refuse to admit what we
all knew THEN-that it was MANDATORY in twi and still is to this day no matter
what rhetoric says it is not.
Raf:
"Using someone's level of giving as a basis for criticizing him or her for not believing enough or not loving enough is an intrusion on that person's privacy. The Bible never instructs Christians to evaluate someone else's practice of giving. Only your own."
John:
"*I'll dispute you a bit on this one. Jesus told his disciples that a poor woman who gave 2 mites gave more than the pharissees, because she gave all her living while they only gave of their abundance. Maybe he wasn't "criticizing" their giving, but he definitely made a distinction."
*checks the account* He made a distinction, but that was hardly the institution of a doctrine.
He did not "use her level of giving" or "use the rich's level of giving" "as a basis for criticizing"
either her or the rich. There was no comment about how the rich didn't give enough, none about
how the rich weren't believing enough which is why they gave less, no CONFRONTATION nor
CRITICISM of ANY of the rich about what they didn't do.
Mark 12:41 And Jesus sat over against the treasury, and beheld how the people cast money into the treasury: and many that were rich cast in much.
42 And there came a certain poor widow, and she threw in two mites, which make a farthing.
43 And he called unto him his disciples, and saith unto them, Verily I say unto you, That this poor widow hath cast more in, than all they which have cast into the treasury:
44 For all they did cast in of their abundance; but she of her want did cast in all that she had, even all her living.
There was no intrusion into their privacy. There was no instruction by Jesus of
"And you shall examine the rich and how much they give", no instruction of a procedure
to evaluate the giving of the widow OR the rich.
So, this account has nothing to do with what was said-and therefore is irrelevant
when trying to dispute it.
==================================
John:
"ABS is between individuals and God. I never heard VP blur this."
We did! vpw told the insiders-and thus, taped recordings of meetings for the Corps
and so on mentioned it- and vpw set the policy which his rank-and-file were required
to follow. Coordinators were instructed to address if ABS was absent or under 10%
with the locals-and they did. Doing it that way insulated vpw from being the obvious
face passing the orders. This made it a little less obvious- but most people were smart
enough to know that orders were INSTITUTED by vpw so those policies were HIS.
Under vpw, ABS was between individuals and twi.
John:
"LCM didn't just threaten people with catastrophe about ABS, he once ranted about people not renewing their way mag subscriptions after the free one year subscription after taking pfal. He says you have money for HBO and Cinemax, but not for the way mag. He was mad, too. It's almost comical to think about now. The only bad consequences I, personally, have ever heard about coming to people regarding ABS are leaders spending ABS money on personal stuff. Makes me wonder about the current state of twi."
lcm took bad practices HE WAS TAUGHT BY VPW and made them more overt,
more obvious, more obnoxious. vpw knew when to whisper something because he
didn't want to get caught saying or doing it. vpw knew when he was doing something
he should be embarrassed about, or would get criticism if caught doing- but lcm
thought vpw's doctrines were Divine, so he had no problems with making ANY of
them overt- which, in this case, made him TWICE the money-grubber vpw was.
And hearing that anyone in twi was caught embezzling money really should come
as no surprise by now.
John:
"In the fellowship I now attend, we got some financial help in 2006, when much of St. Louis was without power for 8 days, to cover the cost of staying in motels. I'm sure we weren't the only ones, too. Also, in twi, I'm told that 85% of ABS went to HQ and 15% stayed in the limb. Other way around in the current fellowship. Nothing wrong with using ABS money to help people who have a need."
So, then,
you're saying your current system is much better than the system
whose use vpw MANDATED?
I just want to be clear. You've endorsed both systems in the past,
and by definition, both can't be "the best" since one must be
better than the other, and in this case, one practice is
VERY different than the other.
This is NOT a hard question.
John:
"I like that you say, "Maybe I'm blessed for that, and maybe I'm not." In other words you trust God and you trust the people and organizations you give to and that's all you need to know and that's all anyone else needs to know. "
There's something you might be on your own about.
We learned-the hard way- that placing trust in the people and
the organizations was a setup for abused trust.
So, trusting the people-and making that "ALL YOU NEED TO KNOW"
is a setup for making the same mistakes ad infinitum.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
WordWolf
The "9/10 will go farther" was DEFINITELY a doctrine.
That's why we can all quote the thing decades later, and so can you.
"If God is really involved" is a very big IF- and switches
"this is what God Almighty said to do, so He will back it up" -
and He did NOT say to do this, therefore He will not back it up-
with
"If God is really involved", then He will back it up-
which is the same mistake you keep making.
God is REQUIRED to follow doctrines He never made but YOU
assigned to Him. YOUR will be done.
John:
"Faith as a grain of mustard seed, remember? If God is really involved, everything is better."
Luke 17:5-6 King James Version (KJV)
5 And the apostles said unto the Lord, Increase our faith.
6 And the Lord said, If ye had faith as a grain of mustard seed, ye might say unto this sycamine tree, Be thou plucked up by the root, and be thou planted in the sea; and it should obey you.
This has nothing to do with a doctrine of giving 1/10 of your income,
nor is this a promise that, if you do, the remaining 9/10 will prosper further
than if you used all 10/10ths.
That was a doctrine taught by vpw in twi, and nobody can find it in
the Bible because it isn't there.
But it was a required practice of twi, a mandatory practice
set out by the doctrine.
"This doesn't compute for you because you no longer believe in God."
This doesn't compute for the devout Christians either,
because A) this doesn't follow logically from the verses you mentioned-
which is probably why you keep mentioning them BUT NOT POSTING THEM
B) this was never mandated by God Almighty, but by vpw and enforced
all through twi accordingly
Link to comment
Share on other sites
MaddyWolf
Summing up: please refrain from getting me involved in something that has nothing to do with me. I rather like my reading-and-no-posting existence in this forum and I would like to continue it that way.
Moderator's note: Hated to cut this post, seeing as it appears to be Mrs. Wolf's first. But she made reference to posts that have since been deleted (one violated more rules than we can count, and the others addressed the deleted post). We didn't want to delete her post entirely. Welcome to the Cafe, Mrs. Wolf. We hope to hear from you again.
Edited by modcat5Mostly referred to posts that have since been deleted.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Twinky
WW, back off a bit. Please.
I rarely agree with John but he is entitled to his viewpoint, just as you are. You don't have to attack him at every instance.
As Ralph would say ... Peace! :knuddel:/>
Link to comment
Share on other sites
WordWolf
In virtually every instance, I've been refuting his positions and pointing out error.
I have NOT been making it personal. John's going out of his way to make it personal.
You think I'M the one that needs to be nicer here, the one actually going on the attack?
I know he's entitled to his viewpoint. But if he's posting here with obvious pro-vpw error,
I WILL call him on it. He's got a right to be wrong- but I have a right to point out he's
wrong, as well.
Moderator's Note: WordWolf is correct in what he's pointed out. He is also referring to posts that have since been deleted.
Edited by modcat5Cutting quotes of a deleted post
Link to comment
Share on other sites
johniam
So..if I post an opinion you consider to be wrong...this constitutes an "attack"??? [deleted content]
Hello, Maddywolf. 148 posts and I saw none of them before today. I stand corrected.
Moderator's Note: disagreeing with a poster is not an attack. The post that was deleted WAS an attack. Deleted portions of THIS post constitute an attack.
Edited by modcat5Explained in note.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
waysider
Here's the long and the short of it:
There is nothing in the Bible that says "9/10th's will go farther than 10/10th's"
(Adjust the verbiage to make it more Biblical if needed.)
It's just not the there. It's a clever phrase, no doubt, and a good marketing ploy because it appeals to human nature. But, Biblical? Nope. It just isn't.
Now, does that mean you can't give to a cause because that's what you want to do? Of course not. Give until it hurts if it makes you happy but don't attribute it to a Biblical mandate..
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
I think Malachi 3:8-12 provides some Biblical justification for the notion that 9/10 goes farther with God's blessing on it than 10/10 does without.
Whether it is correct for Christian believers to appropriate that particular Old Testament promise is a larger issue that we will not settle in a message board, but just because an idea is not phrased a certain way in the Bible doesn't mean there's nothing in the Bible to support the idea.
For what it's worth, my belief is that the verse in Malachi is not talking about money at all. But who cares what I think. :)
Link to comment
Share on other sites
WordWolf
It's amazing that it's that simple,
and there's people unable or unwilling to see it.
[Portion deleted]
Edited by modcat5Felt like it.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
johniam
Thank you. I appreciate this.
I'm responding to his deliberate provocation. He sees that as a personal attack. [Remainder of post deleted].
Moderator's Note: If you believe you are being provoked, report it. That WordWolf saw your "response" as a personal attack is reasonable. That anyone would think it wasn't a personal attack is not reasonable.
Edited by modcat5Explained in note.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
skyrider
WordWolf......yes, it really is that simple.
I always appreciate your insight and posts. You bring fair, objective analysis
to the threads that I've visited. Thanks.
One of the reasons why I, finally, decided to quit responding to the "strawman stuff"
was because it only was a diversion and seemed to draw in personal jabs to take
emphasis away from the topic. As you well know.
Keep posting your insights. I appreciate it.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
Ok, guys, I just got in trouble with my fellow mods myself, so I'm really not in a position to get all preachy...
But come on! I'm not calling mod attention to this thread because no one has reported it. You guys want to settle it by yourselves, then settle it. That does not mean continuing it publicly until one or both of you get tired.
I'm suspending judgment on WordWolf because there have been no complaints. I see that he interacts with JohnIAm A LOT, and to be honest, I don't read all his posts to John in detail. It sometimes requires an interest in the subject matter I don't have.
I did read JohnIAm's comment to ME in this thread, so I see he is perfectly capable of expressing disagreement without getting out of line. Post 30 is so far out of line... you can't even SEE the line from post 30. I could have moderated it. I could have asked someone else to moderate it. I left it alone.
So John, if you think WordWolf is harassing you, report it. But don't step into the gutter. Post 30 practically invited rebuke. I respect your intelligence enough that I don't think I have to spell it out for you.
This is an interesting topic of discussion. Let's try to stick to it.
Edited by modcat5Link to comment
Share on other sites
Broken Arrow
When I give to something I no longer sit in anticipation of a material blessing then feel ripped off if I don't get it. It's pretty freeing actually compared to the way I lived when I was in TWI.
I still think there's a biblical mandate to give to the poor. But that's just they way I've decided to live my life. Someday like everyone else I'm going to check out of here. I want at least a part of my life to be a benefit to others. Even if it's just giving a pair of shoes or something. Lord knows there have been times when I've needed a hand and someone was there to help.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
waysider
I just had a Homer Simpson moment, one of those where he smacks his forehead and says, Doh!". :doh:/>
All these years we've been calling it Abundant SHARING. It wasn't sharing at all, it was GIVING.
Sharing is a two way street. ABS was a one way street. Everything went to HQ and nothing ever came back, nothing got shared.
Edited by waysiderLink to comment
Share on other sites
johniam
It was called 'sharing' because we were supposed to give of our abundance, not of our livelihood. Nobody in twi said give till it hurts. Even VP made fun of that phrasing.
I have some other thoughts on ABS. In 'lifestyle of a believer' VP had scathing words about gambling, citing it as the opposite of giving. This led some people to call investing in the stock market 'gambling'. Not true. Part of VPs criticism of gambling was that "there is no increase of wealth". What is increase of wealth? Best example is agriculture. One kernel of corn can yield 3 whole ears. THAT is increase. You plant, you reap. This can be done with money also. Any company listed in the NY stock exchange has established a track record of increase of wealth. It's not like a slot machine, where you put money in and IMMEDIATELY expect an increase. LCM once said that he thought some people ABSed with a gambler's mentality. Perhaps he was right on that one.
As I said earlier, and some have concurred, there is no biblical or spiritual pressure to give till it hurts. We're supposed to give cheerfully. Even LCM said whatever you do, don't give out of guilt. Whoops, look at the time. Later.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
waysider
John
You have a wonderful knack for twisting what was said. I never said that giving 'til it hurts was non-Biblical, I said that ABS is non-Biblical. That is a position I still maintain.
As to investing, neither one of them had a clue about prudent investing. This is evidenced by the massive blunders they made in property acquirement. But, here again, that issue is really a straw-man as this thread isn't about investing, it's about the practice of giving money to the ministry, above and beyond the customary 10% tithe.
edit: grammar
Edited by waysiderLink to comment
Share on other sites
WordWolf
It was called "sharing" because we were supposed to THINK we weren't just handing over
money to vpw and twi. The idea was, we handed over money to them, and God Almighty
(not financially accountable to twi) would reimburse us in financial ways and possibly
other ways. So, they took, and someone else was supposed to reimburse.
As for whether or not we were to give of "our livelihood", that's a matter of SEMANTICS.
The "ABS" was a tenth/tithe that was called something else but was exactly that
anyway. By not limiting the name to a "tenth", he set it up so that the tenth was
MANDATORY and EXPECTED in twi, and MORE THAN A TENTH was expected but not
ENFORCED the way the tenth was. "If you really are thankful to God, you'll give more."
Who wanted to see themselves as unthankful to God-yet remain in twi?
So, people were convinced to give more. lcm just codified a practice he'd seen vpw
do off-the-record when he bumped the ABS requirement to 15%, to 20%, then
"the revelation changed" and it was 15% again. (With social pressure to give more.)
However, twi asked something respectable religious groups don't ask- they asked for
everything that would go towards savings. Naturally, they made up a term for it.
Based on a single account of a single incident that had nothing to do with it
(of course), vpw coined "plurality giving." The concept was simple. Cover all your
current expenses. ALL the money left over at the end of the pay cycle?
HAND THAT OVER TO TWI. In a technical sense, that's not
"giving of your livelihood" nor "giving until it hurts." However, it is still hurtful
and harmful to the giver if done the way they did it (totally different from the
Biblical account). Why is it hurtful and harmful? For the benefit of those
unaccustomed to thinking about how vpw's policies were harmful, I'll spell out
SOME of it.
It allowed for NO SAVINGS. What's wrong with that?
1) EMERGENCIES. When there's an emergency, a normal person goes into
the money they save for emergencies, and they have something to cover
that. It can go for some medical expense, loss of work, damage to a car
or other needed item that needs immediate repair or replacement,
and so on. The faithful "plurality giver" has NOTHING where others have
SOMETHING for emergencies. That's poor stewardship of funds.
So, what did the faithful "plurality giver" do in an emergency? He was
told God was supposed to supply it, and sometimes local twi Christians
would voluntarily help.
Naturally, someone's going to twist what I say and claim I said we
aren't supposed to help each other nor trust God. So, I shall explain
why THAT was wrong.
twi was taking the money, and claiming it would be reimbursed if needed
by God Almighty. He's not accountable to them,is not required to match
THEIR promises (which weren't HIS promises), He never signed off on
their promise, and He can't be held accountable if the money doesn't
appear.
It is good to trust God, it is foolish to remove prudent precautions and
trust God for every type of protection. That's why we wear seat-belts
and drive carefully, for that matter. Financially, it's no different.
2) Investment.
Where's the money for retirement? twi veterans are SUPPOSED TO
"work until they die." That's a quote from one of the higher-ups.
Other people (smarter Christians, non-Christians) set aside some money
so they have something for later. Not the "plurality giver." When
he retires, the money to put aside, whether large or small, isn't
with him, it's in a big pile twi accumulated from him.
What did twi do with that money?
They invested it so that when there's less money coming in,
they still have money.
In other words, twi convinces its people to take the money for
retirement, send it in to twi, then refuse to retire because they
have no money to retire-
then twi made a Retirement Fund out of it and twi's living
off of that now-while telling older Christians to just trust God
for the money- or live off non-twi family they were told to
spurn for decades for not being twi.
3) Nice things.
EVER treat your family to something nice?
Yes?
Well, under vpw's system, that's a violation-
since that wasn't a "need", you were supposed to send
that money in as "plurality giving."
If you're saying you NEVER treated your family,
I'm calling shenanigans on that.
Never had a nice dinner, gave a present for a
birthday/graduation/Ho-Ho,
never took them to a movie, bought a DVD,
video game, never got cable TV,
bought a nice toy, a piece of jewelry?
If you're insisting that, you're not being honest.
Anyone who was faithful to vpw's "plurality giving"
was hurting themselves and their family in the ways
I just explained. So, they did indeed "give till it hurt."
vpw was fond of relabeling things so people did things
while criticizing others for doing it- and he got away
with it because people trusted him and didn't look
closely enough to see he made cosmetic changes
and otherwise left in practice what benefited him-
when he wasn't instituting more practices like
"plurality giving."
It's interesting that vpw would say things against gambling,
but had no problem himself visiting the racetracks.
Perhaps we're supposed to believe he visited them because
he liked horses and the ambiance.
One standard for vpw, one standard for everyone else.
Although what he said, if you're reporting it truthfully,
was all technically correct.
There's no Biblical pressure to "give till it hurts" nor for giving "of necessity."
II Corinthians 9:7 (KJV)
7 Every man according as he purposeth in his heart, so let him give; not grudgingly, or of necessity: for God loveth a cheerful giver.
This says BECAUSE God wants us to give cheerfully,
we should neither give with reluctance NOR OUT OF REQUIREMENT.
Why only cite part of a verse and not post it?
The entire concept of a required giving, a required Tithe/Tenth/ABS for Christians
contradicts this verse-when the entire verse is read.
If lcm said once not to give with guilt, he certainly was a hypocrite,
because he SCREAMED AND YELLED about people who were not
choosing to give 15%, 20%, and berated them for not
"plurality giving." He absolutely required people to give.
Since vpw had a required 10% in practice as well as the "above 10%",
I'd say both the Tithe/Tenth and the giving money to the ministry above that
are both direct subjects of this thread.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
modcat5
I just cleaned up this thread using my best judgment. If you enjoy seeing my fingrprints all over your posts, or seeing your work suddenly vanish, keep up the good work! I'd just as soon you knock it off. ;)
Link to comment
Share on other sites
waysider
[Where's the money for retirement? twi veterans are SUPPOSED TO
"work until they die." That's a quote from one of the higher-ups.]
That would be Harry (He wasn't my uncle) Wierwille.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
modcat5
This morning I deleted two more posts.
Johniam, you MIGHT be surprised if you checked your private messages (and the timestamps).
***
Now, again, if you feel you are being harassed, report it. If you feel the GS Moderators are treating you as a second class citizen, you have three choices: a. complain to the moderators, b. put up with it, or c. sayonara.
There is no option D. All option D's are requests to make option C involuntary.
Clear?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
outandabout
I thought it was Howard Allen. (Maybe they both said it.)
Link to comment
Share on other sites
waysider
Yeah, they probably both said it. It was a common sentiment back in the day, as was the idea that life insurance was unnecessary.
Of course, like a lot of these things, it only applied to us , not them.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
waysider
(I posted this on another thread, as well. It seemed to be relevant to both threads.)
Here is one for the "for what it's worth" department. It's not just The Way. Here is the accompanying video.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
johniam
quote: As to investing, neither one of them had a clue about prudent investing.
Then how does twi have more than 50 million dollars? Is this all RFR, or did they just sell a lot of bumper stickers lately?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.