Leaderboard

I'll admit my memory isn't as sharp as it once was, but I seem to recall a discussion addressing that very topic, some time ago. I have no idea how to find it again or where it all led. I seem to recall, though, when the dust all settled, we found ourselves down the block inside at 23 Skidoo.

1) I think glossing over their complicity to the Martindale purges and rfr's draconian policies that are only reined in when a lawyer insists they must be is the wrong approach. (If your "Christian" group exploits its workers and only stops when lawyers and law enforcement say they have to stop- as with twi- then your group is not as "Christian" as it claims to be.) They were perfectly comfortable with that for DECADES. That's not some piddling little detail. It says a lot about what they value more. 2) Nobody said it was "ALL about money." Some is about money- thus the timing when retirement is looming. Some is about POWER- now they can make the decisions. Some of it is about AUTHORITY- now other people hang on what THEY say. Some of it is about prestige and privilege- they have titles with cachet now, and possibly some of the chief seats. But dismissing all of that because itá not "ALL about money" is a convenient way to blow off a position you don't like. (Make up a caricature of that position, knock it down, then pretend that was the actual position, and you can dismiss the original position casually.) I don't think you MEANT to do that, but it looks like you were definitely in that neighborhood. 3) Last I heard, there was a "donate" button on R&R's Facebook page, which you can't see unless logged in. So, casual inspection may not make it obvious. BTW, just because they ALSO have normal jobs doesn't mean much. Having a standard source of income, among other things, makes it easier to hide "slush fund" expenditures. It also keeps the lights on at home.

My 7th/8th grade History teacher (same teacher both years) would have refused to accept it. She had a rule which I've been thinking about a lot during the past few years. Our definitions were not allowed to recurse. That is, we were never allowed to use a word to define itself. (There's never a guarantee your audience knows the meaning of the word, otherwise why ask you what it means?) Most of the time, that was easy to work around. We all hit a snag on defining "fur trader" without using the word "fur". I wrote down "animal pelt" and others ended up using "hairy skin of the animal." So, if she asked you what a fur trader was, and you said it was a trader who traded in furs, she wouldn't have accepted that answer. So, knowing this, and knowing that the same issues of understanding occur all through life, I return to answer your question. To be asked what "incorruptible seed" means to you, and to answer with "it's seed that's incorruptible" is just to shuffle the order of the words you were asked. It answered nothing. If I had no answer at all, I would have left it unstated. If I was game to try to explain it, I would explain, that, to me, it means "[meaning of seed] that can't be [meaning of corrupted.]" Either is a legitimate answer, One just avoids answering if you don't have an answer, one is an answer. (There's also "I don't know", which is a legitimate answer but people seem to loathe to resort to it.) I find this sort of thing is actually an ex-twi thing more than anyone else- when dealing with adults. I've seen so-called leaders resort to dodging when asked questions about the party line when they were forced to agree with it while knowing it made no sense. They dodged in harmony, too. In fact, I was preparing to snail-mail some Saltine crackers to various leaders in reply to those comments when they suddenly all stopped parroting that same line and seemed to all reverse position. Then again, I encountered a different cult where they all parroted the same things as each other also, so it's really more a cult and ex-cult thing than uniquely twi.

I failed to correct you when you said earlier that I was only speculating. I was not and am not. For that failure, I apologize. The argument on "once saved, always saved" was long ago settled. If you're asking how or why I believe Dan's paper is nonsense, it's because I believe in a just, merciful God who, if He's interested in having believers fellowship together in groups at all, precludes social structures that can only lead to oppressive authoritarian cults. That's not speculation. IF I were to engage in debate over a convoluted list of bible verses and comparison of the meanings of Greek and Hebrew words, THAT would be speculation because I'm not qualified to speak on that subject. And frankly, based on the inferences (some worded as conclusions) that you made about the subject of Dan's paper and the scriptures you cited, I think you probably overestimated your capacity to speak authoritatively on the subject also.

Just making the statement (that I highlighted in bold) does not constitute even an acknowledgment that you understand my point. OTOH, I have asked you pertinent questions and posed hypothetical situations that directly go to the heart of your point. As I said in the STFI forum, that while you are not allegedly "100% convinced" on Dan's claims, you have ONLY commented in such a way that you are, in fact, 100% convinced. If you were not, you would at least be open to discussion on the issues I presented to you. I said more in the other forum. I'm not interested in a pi$$ing contest over convoluted meanings of scripture verses listed in whatever order and comparing the meanings of Greek or Hebrew words. I have presented feedback based on real life experiences that demonstrate the sociological and "organized religion" ramifications of the claims at issue. Take them or leave them. I have no need to have the last word on the subject.