unemployed, no local references.. the *husband* will not be able to become gainfully employed. He washes windows for a *living*..
he couldn't afford to have a telephone company technician install his business line. I was the one who sorted out ancient phone wiring in a 50 + year old house to find a clear line to the office.. and no, didn't charge a single dime.
the wife couldn't figure out why I was not simultaneously heroically hefting pool tables and the like..
I have names for this character.. Unfortunately, they are rather.. whats the word..
well, I'm sure the description would not pass the cuss checker here..
the nice house. The little vineyard in the back.. the appearance of prosperity..
but how did they get into the house? I mean.. no credit, no job, no.. anything.. did da way write a promissory note or something? Is that the standard procedure in this kind of situation?
The last time I filled out paperwork to just RENT a stinking hole.. the renters checked practically everything except for my prostrate..
Oh, it adds up. 15% from this guy, 15% from that guy------
Were they pocketing the ABS from the people who gave? Def. doesn't add up.
BTW, last I heard about the "believe to live abundantly on a genuine need basis" thing--they were considering taking out "genuine need basis." I think the nuts and bolts of this was that the staff supposedly weren't paid on a need basis anymore--as if they ever really were. I mean, when you tell them what you need, and then they say that's too much, you'll get this much instead, then you're not really living on a need basis anyway, are you?
Rich people don't need their empty promises of abundance, they already have what the way can never give them -abundance. Poor folks don't usually fall for con games like the way international likes to play because they see them all the time, everyday. The way is not interested in poor people anyway. No way they are going to abundantly share.
The way international targets middle class suburbia. They have long since abandoned the inner cities, prison outreach, working class neighborhoods, etc. As a rule of thumb that is, no room for absolutes in such a broad based statement.
Were they pocketing the ABS from the people who gave? Def. doesn't add up.
BTW, last I heard about the "believe to live abundantly on a genuine need basis" thing--they were considering taking out "genuine need basis." I think the nuts and bolts of this was that the staff supposedly weren't paid on a need basis anymore--as if they ever really were. I mean, when you tell them what you need, and then they say that's too much, you'll get this much instead, then you're not really living on a need basis anyway, are you?
I would be absolutely shocked if they ever changed the wording while RosaLIE is alive and still holding the scepter.
BTW, last I heard about the "believe to live abundantly on a genuine need basis" thing--they were considering taking out "genuine need basis." I think the nuts and bolts of this was that the staff supposedly weren't paid on a need basis anymore--as if they ever really were. I mean, when you tell them what you need, and then they say that's too much, you'll get this much instead, then you're not really living on a need basis anyway, are you?
All of that was the permutation of Corps Principle #4 over the years. The original one was "Believe to bring material abundance to you and the ministry". Or something similar to that.
However, people started to question that. Quite obviously living on WIC and other welfare programs doesn't exactly jibe with that. Also, it's hard to reconcile that with all the 10% pay cuts you're demanding the Corps take. And dictating to them they can't have children. Etc.
So the Forehead changed the principle to "believe to live abundantly on a genuine need basis". Just beautiful. I mean WTF does that mean anyway? When you examine that statement, it's double-talk and self delusion. You are on welfare in every sense of the word except in your mind, where you have convinced yourself you "live abundantly"????$#!$%^!!!!!
And now comes the next permutation. "living on a need basis" doesn't exactly line up with corporation law. There's the minimum wage law, and all that so you can't pay someone $2.50 an hour any more to clean Region Coordinator's toilets and iron their shirts. So they don't want language around that could get them in legal trouble.
All of that was the permutation of Corps Principle #4 over the years. The original one was "Believe to bring material abundance to you and the ministry". Or something similar to that.
However, people started to question that. Quite obviously living on WIC and other welfare programs doesn't exactly jibe with that. Also, it's hard to reconcile that with all the 10% pay cuts you're demanding the Corps take. And dictating to them they can't have children. Etc.
So the Forehead changed the principle to "believe to live abundantly on a genuine need basis". Just beautiful. I mean WTF does that mean anyway? When you examine that statement, it's double-talk and self delusion. You are on welfare in every sense of the word except in your mind, where you have convinced yourself you "live abundantly"????$#!$%^!!!!!
And now comes the next permutation. "living on a need basis" doesn't exactly line up with corporation law. There's the minimum wage law, and all that so you can't pay someone $2.50 an hour any more to clean Region Coordinator's toilets and iron their shirts. So they don't want language around that could get them in legal trouble.
And that, boys and girls, is how policy is made.
And that, boys and girls......is how screwed up wierwille's abuse approach was to everything twi. From hiring Rhoda on a "needs-basis"....he knew, with Rhoda's mennonite background, that this type of system yields control over the individual.
Once again......twi only makes changes when they MUST skirt the legal ramifications that could deal a major blow to their "non-profit organization." Just like the legal advise to oust martindale.......TWI ONLY DID IT WHEN THEIR HAND WAS FORCED.
living on wic and other government subsidies.. sponging off of any talent the locals have (wiring their houses, babysitting.. etc. etc.. tilling the garden, digging weeds.. cleaning) they always had the FINEST audio visual equipment for classes, I provided that. And nice chairs, no more funeral home knockoffs.. a lecturn (the branch pooled and bought the chairs and lecturn)..
what a scam.. they could make living in below poverty level *wages* look like they were rolling in money..
where the furniture came from.. who knows. How they were able to babysit a house for over a year for rent CHEAP.. with that many kids, people running in and out of the house with the wear and tear.. that's the hard part to figure.
When da *mrs* had health problems.. it wasn't da way, it was medicaid that paid the bill..
I'd rewrite the fifth corpse "principle".
To go forth as leeches and parasites, consuming areas of concern, interest and not need..
Recommended Posts
Ham
he couldn't afford to have a telephone company technician install his business line. I was the one who sorted out ancient phone wiring in a 50 + year old house to find a clear line to the office.. and no, didn't charge a single dime.
the wife couldn't figure out why I was not simultaneously heroically hefting pool tables and the like..
I have names for this character.. Unfortunately, they are rather.. whats the word..
well, I'm sure the description would not pass the cuss checker here..
Link to comment
Share on other sites
waysider
Did the place have red drapes?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
OldSkool
Uhh....is this believing to live abundantly on a genuine need basis....
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Ham
hmm.. come to think of it..
Link to comment
Share on other sites
OldSkool
Which is an outright contradiction in terms.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
waysider
Good point.
It begs the question: Does anyone "need" to live ABUNDANTLY?
Seems like the genuine "need" for most people would be to live ADEQUATELY.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
OldSkool
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Ham
That's it! A contradiction of terms..
It was all a facade..
the nice house. The little vineyard in the back.. the appearance of prosperity..
but how did they get into the house? I mean.. no credit, no job, no.. anything.. did da way write a promissory note or something? Is that the standard procedure in this kind of situation?
The last time I filled out paperwork to just RENT a stinking hole.. the renters checked practically everything except for my prostrate..
Link to comment
Share on other sites
waysider
I dunno.
It seems like having "more that you could ever ask or think" would somehow violate the "needs and wants parallel" concept.
Oh, they'll be "checking" that, too, if you fail to make your payments on time.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Ham
Heh..
Under any other circumstances..
people tend to take account of a few facts..
a house, that should rent for at a minimum, 2,000 a month
utilities.
a multiplicity of kids activities, for over a half-dozen kids..
very nice car.
a WALL full of videos, games, etc. etc..
the finest furniture..
and.. no income? Then minimal income?
and.. no references. At least locally..
Link to comment
Share on other sites
waysider
"The abundant life is spiritual."
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Ham
and the character could not afford to have the phone company come in, and sort out a few wires..
not that I mind helping out someone who needs it..
but somehow, all this does not quite add up..
Link to comment
Share on other sites
waysider
Oh, it adds up. 15% from this guy, 15% from that guy------
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Ham
The next element to add to the equation:
the city was (still is in many ways) RICH. A nice big, tasty nut to be cracked.. in a lot of ways unaffected by economic woe..
Link to comment
Share on other sites
waysider
Well, you wouldn't want them recruiting hobnobbing with the common folk, would you?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Ham
I think da way was salting the mine here..
didn't work. People saw through them like water..
Link to comment
Share on other sites
What About It
Were they pocketing the ABS from the people who gave? Def. doesn't add up.
BTW, last I heard about the "believe to live abundantly on a genuine need basis" thing--they were considering taking out "genuine need basis." I think the nuts and bolts of this was that the staff supposedly weren't paid on a need basis anymore--as if they ever really were. I mean, when you tell them what you need, and then they say that's too much, you'll get this much instead, then you're not really living on a need basis anyway, are you?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
OldSkool
Rich people don't need their empty promises of abundance, they already have what the way can never give them -abundance. Poor folks don't usually fall for con games like the way international likes to play because they see them all the time, everyday. The way is not interested in poor people anyway. No way they are going to abundantly share.
The way international targets middle class suburbia. They have long since abandoned the inner cities, prison outreach, working class neighborhoods, etc. As a rule of thumb that is, no room for absolutes in such a broad based statement.
I would be absolutely shocked if they ever changed the wording while RosaLIE is alive and still holding the scepter.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Tzaia
Parents subsidizing? It wouldn't be the first time.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
chockfull
All of that was the permutation of Corps Principle #4 over the years. The original one was "Believe to bring material abundance to you and the ministry". Or something similar to that.
However, people started to question that. Quite obviously living on WIC and other welfare programs doesn't exactly jibe with that. Also, it's hard to reconcile that with all the 10% pay cuts you're demanding the Corps take. And dictating to them they can't have children. Etc.
So the Forehead changed the principle to "believe to live abundantly on a genuine need basis". Just beautiful. I mean WTF does that mean anyway? When you examine that statement, it's double-talk and self delusion. You are on welfare in every sense of the word except in your mind, where you have convinced yourself you "live abundantly"????$#!$%^!!!!!
And now comes the next permutation. "living on a need basis" doesn't exactly line up with corporation law. There's the minimum wage law, and all that so you can't pay someone $2.50 an hour any more to clean Region Coordinator's toilets and iron their shirts. So they don't want language around that could get them in legal trouble.
And that, boys and girls, is how policy is made.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
skyrider
And that, boys and girls......is how screwed up wierwille's abuse approach was to everything twi. From hiring Rhoda on a "needs-basis"....he knew, with Rhoda's mennonite background, that this type of system yields control over the individual.
Once again......twi only makes changes when they MUST skirt the legal ramifications that could deal a major blow to their "non-profit organization." Just like the legal advise to oust martindale.......TWI ONLY DID IT WHEN THEIR HAND WAS FORCED.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Ham
Interesting..
living on wic and other government subsidies.. sponging off of any talent the locals have (wiring their houses, babysitting.. etc. etc.. tilling the garden, digging weeds.. cleaning) they always had the FINEST audio visual equipment for classes, I provided that. And nice chairs, no more funeral home knockoffs.. a lecturn (the branch pooled and bought the chairs and lecturn)..
what a scam.. they could make living in below poverty level *wages* look like they were rolling in money..
where the furniture came from.. who knows. How they were able to babysit a house for over a year for rent CHEAP.. with that many kids, people running in and out of the house with the wear and tear.. that's the hard part to figure.
When da *mrs* had health problems.. it wasn't da way, it was medicaid that paid the bill..
I'd rewrite the fifth corpse "principle".
To go forth as leeches and parasites, consuming areas of concern, interest and not need..
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Ham
for those of you that were in the corps:
did they have a class or training or something on "how to live in something way over one's income level, cheap.."?
The branch guy before them ran the same scam.. babysat the nicest house you could find on the bay. Stretch of sandy beach to walk on..
VERY expensive car. And.. he washed windows for a living..
Link to comment
Share on other sites
OldSkool
Nah, they just chalk it up to God's blessings.
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.