All Activity

The duo counts as one name. If you don't know them, there are nine other choices. Give five. George

It'll be my wedding night. After all the years (and my engagement) that I lost to TWI. Walking back to happiness with a lovely kind man.

Well, I can tell you what I will be doing on Saturday night in exactly 15 weeks time. Walking Back To Happiness ~ Helen Shapiro

But we don't need to necessarily name that duo, do we George. Just give five names?

OK, that was a tough one. it was a V-2 rocket, in 1944. Let's try an easier one: The first ten inductees into the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame were inducted on January 23, 1986. Nine were individual performers, and the other was a duo. Name FIVE of them. George

Adrien Brody Paul Gleeson Jarod Leto Elias Koteas Ben Chaplin Tim Blake Nelson Thomas Jane George Clooney Woody Harrelson

TWI's attitude to giving is so against what the Bible teaches and the way God operates that it is unrecognisable. And what they teach about tithing isn't recognisable either. To whom were the tithes given, tithes of what, where to be presented, and when. And why (that's a big one, and not one that TWI has ever touched on) (it's not what you might think). You can research it for yourself. It is absolutely wrong to be checking up on people's incomes to make sure they tithed/donated any money. It's between individuals and God. Here are the words of Jesus (yes, I know in the gospels, and only for our learning, hahahaha, as not part of the NT according to TWI) as recorded in Mt 6: when you give to the needy, do not let your left hand know what your right hand is doing, 4so that your giving may be in secret. Now just how private, how secret, is your giving supposed to be, if (hyperbolically) your left hand doesn't know what your right hand is doing? Your left hand can't know, but your twig leader can? Huh??? We were badly taught. But I do believe that God respects those who did give (even if from dishonest teaching).

WordWolf: twi keeps track of their members/"followers" and their tithes/money given under compulsion. Try giving less than 10% and see how long you go before someone starts giving you static. Ha! My fellowship commander was faithful to this practice, even though he renounced TWI for deviating from "the original" - the word as it was given to THE Man of God, victor p wierwille. (Bless his heart.) It had been said that my fellowship commander and his wife lived near the poverty line. They themselves never admitted this. Regardless, I always contributed generously to any social event at their house. (This is just my nature with anyone, and I was ridiculed for it.) If I asked what I could bring, they would answer, and I would provide plus plus - happily, it's just how I do it. Over time, with increasing frequency, I took on the role of host - cooking, cleaning, making cocktails, store runs - in THEIR house. (Later I suspected I was manipulated into this because of my generous nature.) Now, these parties were by invitation, but they were not optional. If they said what they needed or wanted, I enthusiastically fulfilled the request. And they were grateful, but not enthusiastically grateful. When it came to giving at fellowship, boy, oh, boy! I usually gave whatever cash I had on me, which wasn't much because who carries cash anymore. However, if I had 3 twenties, a fiver and three ones, I would only throw $8 in the horn. (If I had $60 on me, that money was likely already allocated for another purpose.) Somehow he knew. Probably because my then wife told him. Or maybe he knew exactly what to expect every week from the other regular attendees, as they always gave the same amount. Likely both are true. He never said anything to me directly, but the subsequent daily emails to "the family" and the next week's fellowship "teaching" were all about tithing, abundant sharing and II Corinthians 9:7. The passive-aggressive message to me was clear: I was not a cheerful giver, and God does not love that.

A very insightful post that demarcates the difference between what "the Word" says and the organizational practices, which is the STORY of how the Word is actually communicated by way of do as I say, not as I do.

Very recently (in March 2025, I believe) Leor Zmigrod published a book on The Ideological Brain: the Radical Science of Flexible Thinking. In general (so far) she addresses religious AND political thinking but doesn't suggest she favors one side or another. This book, IMO, is germane to this thread's discussion because IN PFLAP we were indoctrinated to think according to how Victor Wierwille taught the bible. In the nearly 40 years since I left TWI, I've changed how I think about both religious and political subjects and values. I will not reference any such subject as if I believe what I used to hold as true is particularly wrong, or even right or correct. But I do now hold that the entire notion of private interpretation of "God's Word" is inherently NOT valid because I believe humankind is unable to authoritatively make such pronouncements due to our inherent neurological, emotional, social or otherwise psychological limitation. Nevertheless, carry on with the discussion of TWIs view of private interpretation of the bible. Rather, my view is encapsuled in the wisdom (of Solomon?) in Proverbs 2:1-5.

Yes, both of those quotes are pretty recognizable for The Shining. George

If you don't get the actual title, I'll accept the way it's usually referred to: Oh, I can see There ain't no room for me You're only holding out Your heart in sympathy If there's another man Then girl, I understand Go on and take his hand George

Another example of why literal, word-for-word translations are not helpful and lead to confusion.

And then there is grammar to consider. HEH!

That was fun. I am reminded of the word STUDY.

This is why I've gone from a stance of NEVER privately interpreting to recognizing that private interpretation may be the essence of communication. You can't simply learn a bunch of words in another language and think you are qualified to communicate that language properly. Communicating involves so much more than words. It's knowing how to use them, when to use them, where to use them, how to pronounce them etc. Shakespeare offers great examples. A passage I once thought I understood may have a completely different twist when understood in light of what the author was communicating. (Hour to hour becomes whore to whore.) Try THIS on for fun.

It's interesting to note how fast pfal does a 180 when it comes to tithing. Christians are not under The Law, we are under Grace. All our rules come from Pentecost and afterwards...... except for tithing. The rules quoted are all from The Law, like in Malachi. One example is quoted that Abraham gave a donation- with nothing saying it was required or even expected. He chose to give it, and he gave it. That's not proof nor an argument for tithing. The only reference in the New Testament? II Corinthians 9:7. In the KJV, it reads: 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. (For the curious, the NASB reads "7 Each one must do just as he has decided in his heart, not reluctantly or under compulsion, for God loves a cheerful giver." ) vpw used this verse to say that we were required to give 10%- or more! to "God"- and both he and twi push for twi to be the sole source to receive all that money. He made no effort to distinguish it from the previous requirement- he called it "tithe"- same as before- which means "tenth." But even the verse he quotes says we don't have to tithe! If we are REQUIRED to give, the giving is "OF NECESSITY". ("Under compulsion.") twi keeps track of their members/"followers" and their tithes/money given under compulsion. Try giving less than 10% and see how long you go before someone starts giving you static. So, after Pentecost, no donations are REQUIRED. In Acts, there were donations requested at specific times for specific needs at that time. In twi, that's not the final word on the subject. Suppose you even give 10%. That's not enough. Now you have to "abundantly share." Those are donations above the MANDATORY 10%. The verses for this....no verses. "Well, under The Law, they gave 10%, we should do more!" Wait! In twi, that's STILL not the final word on the subject. Outside of vpw, twi, and possibly another group that got this from them, nobody has the sheer nerve to pull this one. "Plurality giving." In twi, that's a thing. It means you sit down, figure out how much you make, calculate how much you need to get by, and subtract that amount from the amount you made. Then you take EVERYTHING ELSE AND HAND IT OVER TO TWI! Everywhere else, you can take anything left and invest it, put it towards retirement, save it for emergencies, use it to buy something nice, etc. That's not recommended anywhere in the Bible. People wondering what difference it makes should learn some of the practical differences it makes. People in twi are NOT SUPPOSED to save for retirement, invest, etc. They're supposed to hand twi over all that money. So, when the person gets an emergency, does twi ever donate back a little of that money to compensate! No way! They'll pray for you, but the money is in their hands and not going back. In twi, you're supposed to distance yourself from family members who are not in twi..... UNTIL YOU NEED SOMETHING FROM THEM. THEN you go to them for help to cover for the absence of the money you handed over to twi! If you're in twi, you may HEAR that you're "under Grace", but in many ways, you are NOT treated that way, and that starts with handing over your money. Lots of people remember that "Christians Should Be Prosperous" (vpw's book that argues you're supposed to hand over 10%) was required with pfal. Most of us were given a homework assignment right at the beginning of the class, to read it. As soon as we got the book, we were required to read it. All the pfal material to cover- but the "give us your money" stuff jumped to the front of the queue.

Bullinger's "How to Enjoy the Bible" outlines Bullinger's explanation of that. A lot of that book was lifted and turned directly into content in the pfal foundational class. Sessions 9-12 were a mix of Bullinger's "Word Studies on the Holy Spirit", JE Stiles' "GIfts of the Holy Spirit" and Leonard's class. But a lot of 1-8 are Bullinger, and a lot of that was all HtEtB.

*exasperated sigh* "Used before" is an exegetical fallacy I would expect anyone with a Masters in Theology from Princeton Seminary to avoid. One word can have multiple meanings. How it is used in one context cannot determine how it is used in another context. And language changes over time. All languages. Depending on how you date the LXX and the Pastorals, there could be a 300-500 year difference. Meanings of words change over time. In one of the inexhaustible sessions of CFS, victor says the trees in Genesis represent people because Paul used an olive tree and its grafted branches as a metaphor for groups of people. He says he can't prove it, but something something you've just got to believe it to fit... In this instance, he contradicts his own fallacious methodology, making it even more nonsensical - how it's used LATER will determine how it was used before! Hey! I didn't make this stuff up. Victor did.

Is this, perhaps, the basis of the "used before" concept?

Well, I’m convinced. In light of an accurate treatment of the Greek and within the immediate context of verse 21, Vic got it wrong. His error is significant because he ignores his own self-interpreting hermeneutic - CONTEXT. Verse 21 establishes it. While looking into this, I came across Lamsa’s eccentric version of 2Peter 1:20: 20Knowing this first, that not every prophetic writing is made clear in its own book.

OK, got it. And WordWolf, I fully agree with your assessment above relating to both TWI and RC.

I've been trying to be less legal about such things, but yeah.

Sorry about that, here's some more names Adrien Brody Paul Gleeson Jarod Leto Elias Koteas Ben Chaplin Tim Blake Nelson

Is this "The Shining"? It isn't "Here's Johnny", but her name was Wendy I'm pretty sure. And it fits the profile.