Leaderboard

Almost thou persuadest me to be an atheist

WW kind of sideswiped a theory I've been working under for the past few years. I've brought it up before but it bears repeating. I have a suspicion (not enough evidence to call it a theory) that VPW was an unbeliever at heart. In tribute to Mike's thesis about how Wierwille hid great truths in plain sight and we all missed it: He declared himself to be all but atheist after studying the Bible. He no longer believed the words Holy or Bible on the cover (which is grammatically and rhetorically stupid, but you get his point). Being educated about the Bible, its history and authorship caused him to all but lose his faith. He said so! What if he never regained it? Bear with me: what if, from that moment forward, it was never about getting God and His Word right, but getting while the getting was good? He got money. He got adoration, He got fame (relative to most of us). He got attention. He got sex. He got power. How much of what he did makes more sense if he didn't believe a word of it but knew how to manipulate people to get what he wanted from them? Every time he discovered a niche, he exploited it. "This book is not some kind of Johnny come lately idea just to be iconoclastic..." [if someone has the correct wording, please let me know. I'll be happy to fix]. Oh it WASN'T? Because it was so shoddy I would think that you were selling a title rather than a book. You have a doctorate. You know how to present and defend a thesis (stop laughing, you in the back row. @#$%ing Snowball Pete). But he was an unbeliever. He KNEW the scholarship about the Bible that people like Bart Ehrman and Dan McClellan are popularizing today. He knew and he stopped believing. And THAT is when the bulls hit started. The funny thing is, it doesn't negate anything he taught. Just his motives. If McClellan and Ehrman are right, the first Christians really weren't Trinitarians. They weren't what Wierwille espoused either, though some were. Jehovah's Witnesses actually got it right, if McClellan and Ehrman are correct. But even that conclusion presupposes a unified message from the New Testament writers. And they weren't unified. Here's the problem Wierwille exposed that a lot of Christianity still gets wrong. There WAS NO FIRST CENTURY CHURCH. There were first century churches. Tons of them. And they disagreed with each other about EVERYTHING. Another topic for another time. Bottom line, I'm increasingly coming to believe that Wierwille's rise and ministry can best be explained by the hypothesis that he was an unbeliever from the moment before he became relevant.

You know, it is possible John might answer questions about his paper and what happened way back when if any of you ask him. Here's the website contact page to reach him and his organization: Connect With Us | Spirit & Truth

I was going out WOW and on our way to Amarillo I flipped into a manic psychotic episode and they put me on a bus. I got off the bus in Oklahoma City and was acting crazy and the police picked me up and put me in jail. A warden took it upon herself to look into my purse and fortunately my parents’ address and phone number were in it. (They had moved) and she contacted my dad who flew to OKC and took me home. Without these “fortunate” occurrences God only knows what would have become of me. It’s only because God took care of me not TWI. By the way, I didn’t really want to go WOW in the first place but was pressured into it by my twig leader. I’m bipolar but was undiagnosed at the time.

If anyone wants to read my first-hand account of being on staff at HQ and talking with John right after he was fired, it's in Undertow, Chapter 54: Clampdown. I got his permission to use his real name in my book.

I was born and raised as a Roman Catholic, and attended their schools. I bought into their belief’s and even thought of becoming a priest, in other words I was sold on their doctrine. UNTIL the Second Vatican Council in 1962. Prior to this no Catholic could eat meat on Friday, and if they did it was a mortal sin. A mortal sin would send you to hell if you did not confess the sin to a priest. So if a Catholic was to eat a bologna sandwich for lunch on any Friday, and on the way home they were killed in a motor vehicle accident, their soul would immediately be damned to hell for eternity. Pretty severe for sure and not very comforting for their surviving Catholic family. Then, the Second Vatican Council decreed that eating meat on Friday, except for Lent, was no longer a mortal sin. In other words, you can eat bacon and eggs for breakfast, a ham and cheese sandwich for lunch, and rib steak for dinner, and no longer commit a mortal sin. How in the name of fairness and common sense, could a loving God cast his children into everlasting hell for eating meat on Friday prior to the Second Vatican Council, and not post Second Vatican Council? That opened my eyes to the ridiculousness of this teaching and started me on a very long journey realizing that trying to explain a loving God was also ridiculous. There are several thousand Christian religions that all disagree on how to obtain eternal life. Plus all the other world religions all have their way of salvation. If you can’t prove one is tight then all must be wrong.

I have a first hand recollection of him teaching that masturbation was the original sin. That's not an event you casually forget.

This is getting obnoxious

That's really big brush you're painting with there.

Our Unwritten Seoul

Parables, from what I can see, are each meant to make a single, specific point, in a manner that almost anyone could understand it, and that's it. They are not meant to dissect in fine detail for doctrine- except possibly for the single, specific point. The parable in question is rather pointedly about forgiveness. So, in the parable, the framing story shows a person in prison until a debt is paid. As a basis for doctrine, that's missing the mark (to put it nicely.) Shame on JS if he couldn't just see that immediately, let alone catch it on a later read. As I see it, for him to miss something that obvious means he didn't WANT to see it, and was busy trying to justify something he wanted to see, even if he had to torture the verses to PRETEND that's what they said. Right now, it makes no sense to me for a punishment to be more suffering and THEN annihilation. I'll have to look over the 9 verses and see if, somehow, it makes sense to me afterwards.

Quantitative: countable. We have a soul. One. It's a thing. Not part of our imagination. Immeasurable: it doesn't have weight or mass. There's nothing about a soul that science can point to, independent of the body, in order to demonstrate its presence. It might be easier if I asked you what a soul is, independent of the body. I'm suggesting that St. Thomas Quinas' meditations on the soul carry no more weight in the real world than George Lucas' notes on how The Force works. (If you can think of a polite way for me to say that, I'm all ears)

If you wonder why and how I came to write my memoir, Undertow, this blog post I wrote some years ago answers that question: Dear Rachel: This is How | Charlene L. Edge

Three agents. Each following the god of Abraham. Each having their own scriptures upon which they justify violent suffering. Did I fix it?

That's fair. Each of the studies cited in the article acknowledge that very young children have an innate, intuitive, pro social moral sensibility. The article recognizes that children's moral sense is further developed through experience and even indoctrination. I should point out the careful word choice of "developed" leaves open the possibility moral sensibility is not necessarily improved.

Want to know what the glove looks like, what it’s made of, how it fits? Want to know where in your imagination to look for that yet undiscovered manuscript? Want to know how to MAKE something fit that doesn’t fit? There’s a Bible version for that.

Why would God need a witness?

How's about some Saturday Night Blues?

Thank you. If I am less than respectful in responding to your questions, please call me out on it.

I have no problem believing there is no karma.

Sin is a real religious construct. Sin is a real religious concept. The concept doesn't exist outside a religious framework..

Does anyone know TWI's current position on this issue? How do they explain the firing of John Schoenheit for rightly dividing the word on adultery? Surely, they don't dispute the thesis of his paper. EDIT: JuniorCorps wasn't alone in leaving over this issue. How does TWI defend against this legitimate reason. They must be prepared. After all, those postcards about "coming home" were sent to former dupes they must know left because for this very reason.

This was the catalyst to us finally deciding to leave. I was young but I remember thinking "I didn't know we needed this research paper? That's kinda crazy. How is this not the most obvious thing in the world?"

I should… I mean, I want to… I just can’t… People still call this schmuck “Dr.” Even John Schoenheit does. WITAF!?!

Space Oddity "Four, three, two, one, earth below us"

Since we're off-topic anyway, a brief link. Someone asked about the contents of Schoenheit's anti-adultery paper, the one that got him fired for writing. It's still readable in the link in the "Greasespot Cafe Document and Audio Files" thread. The link to that Adultery paper is https://web.archive.org/web/20030219041757/http://greasespotcafe.com/waydale/misc/adultery.htm You can read, or reread, it for yourself.

Thank you for acknowledging that the thread has veered away from its original topic so much that it is no longer even in the right forum.

I lived for years with the pain and fear than my unbelieving adult children and grandchildren, who being ineligible for a ticket for the rapture trip, would have to resist the mark of some dreaded beast all the while they were experiencing the great tribulation when God's wrath is poured out and life becomes worse than anything in the history of mankind. And if they were lucky able to survive all that, they would then have to face annihilation or the lake of fire or an eternity in hell or whatever God's judgment had planned for them. But, when I realized that there was no evidence that this bogeyman of a god even existed, that fear vanished.

Probably it would be freeing. By the time I started raising children I was already involved with TWI, so all my adopted and biological children grew up with TWI doctrine. However, despite being mostly Waybrained, I tried to encourage my children to think and come to logical conclusions. It took with some of them, but not with others! By the time I remarried and was raising a stepdaughter, my wife and I didn't attempt to indoctrinate her in anything. She still managed to catch the Christianity bug through friends, got baptized while she was in Air Force basic training, and still considers herself a nondenominational, generic Christian, although I doubt she cares about doctrinal specifics. Of my children with my first wife, none have stayed with TWI. One son is an atheist, another might be, but doesn't claim the label. My daughter considers herself Catholic, but doesn't really participate. The others never talk about it. My granddaughters are raised by parents who would probably not identify as atheists, but are not involved in any church and to my knowledge never talk about religion. One of the girls told my wife that she doesn't believe in any gods. They're probably the closest in my extended family who I would consider having been raised atheist -- more like raised doctrinally neutral

I like Gervais' approach. He doesn't try to beat people over the head with atheism, or even try to convince anyone, he just states that it's the conclusion that he came to.

Mmmph I am reminded of that book on ectoplasm and other such phenomena that TWI used to “study.” Wasn’t it published by American Christian Press, but later victor distanced himself from it? Someone will know what I’m talking about. A mind is a terrible thing to lose - only so much room for bullshonta.

Thanks Oakspear! I spent the whole day online yesterday only to come up with what you so efficiently shared in three points. I'll still share my longer version with its links so I'll have something to show for my time . 1. “What agape means in ancient Greek writing somewhat differs from the word's contemporary use. The earliest references to agape in Greek writing use the term to refer to a deep love for a spouse or a close family member. Agape's Greek origin is the verb agapao ” Agape Love Meaning, Uses & Examples 2. "Agapē (αγάπη in Greek) is one of several Greek words translated into English as love. Greek writers at the time of Plato and other ancient authors used forms of the word to denote love of a spouse or family, or affection for a particular activity, in contrast to, if not with a totally separate meaning from, philia (an affection that could denote either brotherhood or generally non-sexual affection) and eros (an affection of a sexual nature, usually between two unequal partners, although Plato's notion of eros as love for beauty is not necessarily sexual). The term agape with that meaning was rarely used in ancient manuscripts, but quite extensively used in the Septuagint, the Koine Greek translation of the Hebrew Bible." New World Encyclopedia 3. "The verb agapao is used extensively in the Septuagint as the translation of the common Hebrew term for love which is used to show affection for husband/wife and children, brotherly love, and God's love for humanity. It is uncertain why agapao was chosen, but similarity of consonant sounds (aḥava) may have played a part. It is not impossible that the Greek concept even originated as a transliteration from some Semitic tongue. This usage provides the context for the choice of this otherwise obscure word, in preference to other more common Greek words, as the most frequently used word for love in Christian writings. The use of the noun agape in this way appears to be an innovation of the New Testament writers, but is clearly derived from the use of the verb agapao in the Septuagint<ref>Agape as a term for love or affection is rarely used in ancient manuscripts." Art and Popular Culture 4. "The verb form goes as far back as Homer, translated literally as affection, as in "greet with affection" and "show affection for the dead".[2] Wikipedia I enjoyed reading The Odyssey, so I'll share this as well. Art and Popular Culture above also mentions Homer. It reads, "Although some sources claim Agape appears in the Odyssey twice, the word is in fact not used. Instead, two forms of the word agape may be found: agapêton and agapazomenoi. Agapêton is found in Book 5 of the Odyssey and means 'beloved' or 'well-loved' (referring to Odysseus and Penelope feelings for their son Telemachus). Agapazomenoi is found in books 7 (Nausicaa saves Odysseus when he is starving, battered and naked after washing ashore on her island) and 17 (lines 30-45 when Odysseus' nurse Eurycleia saw him at first upon his return and 'with a burst of tears she came straight toward him' and the other maids gathered 'and they kissed his head and shoulders in loving welcome') of the Odyssey and means 'to treat with affection." (Words in Italics are added to the quote) Pretty cool methinks .

I can understand where you are coming from making such a statement, since believer’s think one can only experience joy by what is written in a book written thousands of years ago. They rationalize the only way of knowing if something is right or wrong is by reading it chapter and verse from this book. They also must read, apparently, what joy is to bevable to experience it. As an atheist I can tell you i have not experienced so much joy since no longer relying on god. I find joy in everyday living doing the things necessary to live. Family and friends play a significant role in my happiness and it doesn’t matter what their religious beliefs might be. Plus I no longer have to be concerned if I am pleasing god or not.

The GSC is not a "Christians only" or a "Christian=specific" forum. Everyone is welcome to post, regardless of position, beliefs, and where they are in their life. That having been said, not everything is welcome to be posted. It's not acceptable to dump insults on posters just because they're Christians, and it's not acceptable to dump insults on posters just because they're NOT Christians. So, no slams just because people are atheists or agnostics (which doesn't mean everyone else is free game for insults.) You have choices. Either refrain from posts like that, or just admit you can't control yourself and go elsewhere to post. You can always make your own message board and post whatever you'd like on it. The other possibility is to disregard the GSC rules and common manners and lay into people without restriction. Of course, that means that the Moderators are going to have to take action. Those who can't control themselves will require others adding control to them. That's true just about everywhere. Naturally, you can ignore my post or make fun of it, but a word to the wise is sufficient.

Well, there you have it. One of the most private of private interpretations.

This opens up a whole lot of other questions for me like, does God work with unbelievers as well. Maybe the whole rap of "the fruit of the spirit comes from the manifestations" is bogus. QUESTION for the group: did VPW make that up or did he copy it from elsewhere... Stiles, Leonard, or somebody else?

You should care DEEPLY about the plagiarism. Not only is it illegal, unethical and slothful, large portions of what he plagiarized have been shown to be inaccurate.

Nothing lasts forever 'cept, well, you know, the earth and sky.

Does this post have any meaning at all?????

This may be a great post in a thread called "VPW was Elmer Gantry". (and I liked both men...VPW and Burt Lancaster.) LOL

I'm an atheist. I have lots of joy. I also exhibit the fruit of the spirit in much of my life and have been commended many times for doing "God's Work" (to which I respond: "I have to; He won't). "Atheists are extremely without joy" is a statement of staggering ignorance and bigotry. I trust that is outside your character. Might be best to stick with a subject about which you actually know something

Well, remember he taught us to disregard the ten commandments, saying they were "the law" and the law didn't apply any more. The law? The ten commandments are rules for living together socially. Decent behaviour. Respect for God, and respect for fellow human beings. The Ten Commandments are a set of biblical principles that guide ethical behavior and worship. They are as follows: You shall have no other gods before Me. You shall not make for yourself a carved image. You shall not take the name of the Lord your God in vain. Remember the Sabbath day, to keep it holy. Honor your father and your mother. You shall not murder. You shall not commit adultery. You shall not steal. You shall not bear false witness against your neighbor. You shall not covet. These commandments were given by God to Moses on Mount Sinai and can be found in the Bible in Exodus 20:2-17 and Deuteronomy 5:6-21 You'll have to look hard before you find one that he didn't break. His God was money. His carved image was TWI. He mocked God. He respected no time of rest (quite the opposite, he pushed people to breaking point). He disregarded his parents. (Interestingly, this is "the first commandment of promise" - “Honor your father and your mother, that your days may be long in the land that the Lord your God is giving you." And we know he died earlier than might be expected for a man in his circumstances) He didn't physically kill anyone, but he killed their reputations, their confidence, their lives. He killed their genuine Godly ministries, too. Adultery - how many women did he rape and otherwise assault? (some have posted their stories here) Steal? He obtained money and other assets by fraud. He even stole his famous PFAL class and the follow-on classes! Bear false witness? The lies and slander he spread, about anyone he disliked and especially about departing Corps, are legendary. Covet? He sought the fame that genuine ministers had. As the Bible tells us: “Even a child is known by his deeds” (Proverbs 20:11) conveys the timeless lesson that a person’s actions-from childhood onward-reflect character. The verse serves as a reminder that moral responsibility begins early. Wordwolf has clearly set out the deeds of the child, teenager, young adult that was VPW. No surprise what the older adult VPW turned out to be.

"...it's not even a sin to eat meat on Fridays anymore..... but I bet there's still guys in hell on a meat rap! 'I thought it was retro-active! I ate a baloney sandwich. This guy had a beef jerky.' How'd you like to do Eternity for a beef jerky?"

1. "Sadly, I cannot get this man to accept the notion that the Bible really is the word of God." Ok, let's start there. The Bible never calls itself the Word of God. That's part of the problem right there. The Bible speaks of the Word of God quite often, but it never has the self-awareness to declare itself to be that Word. Maybe, just maybe, you can be wrong about the Bible being the Word of God and still be a good Christian. 2. "I think he would like it to be..." Well, no one asked you what you think, did they? Maybe he has no preference one way or another and is just waiting for you to make a plausible case for your thesis. 3. "... but is overly obstinate and has an awful attitude towards God and his plan for man's redemption." A lot to unpack there. Has it occurred to you that maybe YOU're the one being "obstinate" with an "attitude" that won't budge no matter how many facts he presents to counter your preconceived notion that the Bible is the Word of God? Like, maybe YOU're the stubborn one, not him? Because he shows you the Bible, and you start making excuses. Oh, that's the Old Testament. God's different now. He's really kind and gentle. He did what he did before because he HAD to to fulfill the plan of redemption. Problem: The plan of redemption is only the plan of redemption because God wanted it that way. It didn't have to be. He could just accept an apology without shrugging his shoulders and saying oh well because someone found a particular fruit of a particular tree to yummy to pass up (He also could have put that tree ANYWHERE ON THE PLANET but instead put it right in front of two people who did not know good and evil; then said don't eat from that tree. Not exactly a strong case for omniscience. It's like I put a cookie on the table in front of my 7-year-old and said "Don't eat that," then walked out of the room. He's gonna eat the cookie. I'm not all knowing, and I know that). So your friend, I submit, is not stubborn. Rather, he's amused at the contortions you'll twist yourself into to deny what's obviously written. There IS not idiom of permission in the Bible. Bullinger, for what he's worth, appears to be the only one who makes an issue of it. It's hardly a scholarly consensus. The existence of other figures of speech does not verify the "idiom of permission" as something the Bible employs on a regular basis. It is, however, an extraordinarily convenient tool for believers to employ whenever their holy book shows God doing what no good God would ever do, even though the book is unambiguous about it being God who did it. But that's just the old testament. Unless, of course, you're holding back tithes from the apostles in Acts, which is New Testament. (Oh, but it doesn't say God did that. It was Satan -- even though the Bible doesn't say THAT either). The Bible is filled with examples of God saying he'll do something and then saying He did it. It doesn't say he allowed it to happen or he allowed Satan to do it. It says HE did it. Now, it COULD have said he allowed Satan to do it, very easily. Look at Job. Satan did those things. It says so. Yeah, he got God's permission, but it says that, clearly. There's no ambiguity, and there's no "this is how it works normally." A figure of speech is supposed to be a statement that is true in essence though not literally true. "It's raining cats and dogs" is a figure of speech. "This car can stop on a dime" is a figure of speech. A figure of speech is not supposed to be a way for you to get the Bible to say the opposite of what it clearly says just because what it clearly says is inconvenient for your theology. God ordered the execution of a man for picking up sticks on the sabbath. He didn't give man permission to kill the offending sabbath breaker. He gave man an order -- cast those stones! God didn't allow divorce. He prescribed it. He didn't allow Satan to kill all the firstborn of Egypt. He had it done. And he DID have a choice. When my kid offends me, I have a choice how to discipline him. You have no idea how many times my discipline has stopped short of killing him because he did his chores between sunset on Friday night and Saturday night! So here's a thought. Bear with me: Maybe your friend isn't the stubborn one in this equation. Maybe he's not the one being inflexible. Maybe, just maybe, he's given this far more thought than you have.

Never thought about how wierd it is. You are not emotionally scarred are you? :)

Whoops-that is correct, sir! To be specific, he also said Leonard was good with experiences (and vpw derided experience often) but not with The Word. And H1ggins supposedly gave him his Bullinger stuff: "he writes like you teach."

I agree with Kit...watch what you post. During my divorce and custody dispute, my lawyer cautioned me about talking, emailing, posting, etc... about the case while it is in progress. ANY KIND of statments made by me could be used in court against me. And in ANY kind of court battle, whether it be civil, family, or criminal...it's just not worth taking chances. The internet is a public forum, and as such, can be accessed by anyone for any reason. That alone should scream caution to those involved in any sort of legal action.