Leaderboard

I see your point and I agree with you. You left out Yahweh telling Abraham to murder his own innocent son. That's about as f'd as it gets for me. But, but, but... Right, we could do this all day. I see the Bible as Mythos, allegory, poetry, propaganda. Man's attempt at explaining the unexplainable. And just man telling stories. And man writing poetry. And man writing propaganda. Some of the stories are based on historical fact. Jesus was a real man. Paul was real. There are lessons to be learned about ourselves in these stories. I do not believe God writes literature, scripture, instruction books. I do not believe God tells tells anyone what to write. I don't believe God requires binoculars, as Mike believes. Again, this is awkward to articulate, because it really depends on what one means by "Theopneustos" and "God." Ultimately, I can't make a logical argument for or against the theopneustos of any book, to your point. But it doesn't matter, because no holy book is required for one to understand Truth, Love, Principle... God.

Thanks Chockfull and Waysider... I do understand, at least I think I do.... the complexity of confronting these issues while IN the ranks of leadership. But I'm left questioning why a dozen or so didn't come forward after Waydale and/or GSC was up and running (the years, 2000-2005) to EXPOSE TWI'S TRAPPINGS? I suppose the answer could be as simple as..... why hash thru the details after someone's been OUT for 15 years or more? To me, I would think that some of these men would have voiced more compassion and empathy by helping to mitigate the destructive nature of twi. Ideally, that would have been the right and proper thing to do. Just like those ex-insiders in Scientology.... Leah Remini and others document a TV-series to expose L. Ron Hubbard, David Miscavige, Dianetics, Sea Org., programs, hidden practices and abuse, etc. Leah and others brought forth THEIR OWN STORIES AND EXPERIENCES to sound the clarion alarm of danger ahead. Sure, someone could read an article or go to Wikipedia to source these details.... but there is nothing like first-hand accounts to help shine a spotlight on the abusers and abuse. In my files, I still have my 1985 clergy listing of like 380 twi-clergy. Were these men and women so pathetically self-serving that they didn't care to help those caught in the twi-trap? If so, then how anemic their stature and impact really was.

Thinking back through my own experiences sometimes I experienced shock like in an auto accident or criminal incident. My mind froze up and so things I saw somehow would not register to question later. Bizarre things. A lot of times because I am not a fast processor with emotional intelligence I would just get run over and then like 2 months later I would process it and get upset. Until GSC came along all of this had to be mostly processed alone, or in whispered talks with the spouse, or in guarded tones around other Corps because you never know who is going to write a letter to the board to accuse you of something. All of that happened around us with people trying to lovingly correct upward with scripture and then getting axed. For anyone with org climbing aspirations like so many of these people have, all of that leads to more and more toxicity and dishonesty. They grow to the point they feel that protecting their position in the hierarchy is protecting “the ministry” so any Machiavellian action is easily justified. Of the 3 you named I knew 2 of them and they also displayed snake like Machiavellian behavior towards others and some dishonesty and targeting others to preserve themselves. They were not whistle blowers I know people whose lives were deleteriously impacted from both of them. I would say that all 5 of your reasons or a combination of them probably came into play for many leaders. At least on a subconscious level. I didn’t do the sex scandal bs activity so maybe it was more hidden to me - I only heard rumors. I will say that my own Christian parents are a better example than these clowns in this category. I also would say that the reputation of the BOD for excommunication precedes them and causes people to not mentally process things but just leave them sit there. So evil goes unchecked within the org. It’s only outside sources like here at GSC that you get the unfiltered truth on these matters. The whitewash society isn’t giving you any of it.

yeah, I think there’s a compound problem – In PFAL it is evident wierwille subscribes to the plenary verbal inspiration theory and posits other dubious theories (like the law of believing) derived from mostly a fundamentalist’s or strict literal interpretation of the Bible. On another thread, my 2nd wave post: 4 most common inspiration theories postulated by scholars , the plenary verbal inspiration theory claims the Holy Spirit interacted with the writers to produce the Bible but goes a step further and asserts that God’s inspiration extends to ALL of Scripture – WHICH INCLUDES when the writers recorded any historical, physical science and life science details – which really means God’s stimulation – or however you want to describe the divine / human interaction extends to THE VERY WORDS the writers ‘chose’. The writers could have chosen other words, and God often allowed them the freedom to express their own personalities as they wrote – but the Holy Spirit still guided the process so that the finished product faithfully conveyed God’s message. I’m of the opinion that the way one thinks the Bible was written will influence the way one interprets the Bible. There are only a few accounts in Scripture that indicate God communicated a word-for-word message like in Deuteronomy 4:13 and Deuteronomy 9:10 …but assuming God is also the creator of the cosmos – with superlative attributes like omniscience, omnipotence, omnipresence, etc. - and the fact that we find historical errors as well as erroneous concepts of physical sciences and ancient cultural worldviews - rules out this inspiration theory for me. Of course, that’s just my opinion – I could be wrong. I lean toward the limited inspiration theory which holds that God inspired the thoughts of the biblical writers, but not necessarily the words they chose. God guided the thoughts of the writers, but he gave them freedom to express those thoughts in their own style. Having that freedom along with the limitations of drawing upon the fund of knowledge thus far (knowledge and skills derived from family and cultural background. The concept is based on the premise that knowledge is cumulative and culturally developed. Some of this accrued knowledge is essential for survival.). ~ ~ ~ ~ I don’t view the Bible as a user manual for this thing called life. I think that’s the way PFAL portrays it. I don’t even think it was meant to be a book on theology. It is a record of God interacting with humans in a variety of ways. As Luke 1 says Inasmuch as many have undertaken to compile an account of the things accomplished among us, just as they were handed down to us by those who from the beginning were eyewitnesses and servants of the word, it seemed fitting for me as well, having investigated everything carefully from the beginning, to write it out for you in consecutive order, most excellent Theophilus; so that you may know the exact truth about the things you have been taught. Note the word compile - assemble information collected from other sources. This is reflected in Wikipedia’s definition of the Bible: The Bible (from Koine Greek τὰ βιβλία, tà biblía, 'the books') is a collection of religious texts or scriptures that are held to be sacred in Christianity, Judaism, Samaritanism, and many other religions. The Bible is an anthology – a compilation of texts of a variety of forms – originally written in Hebrew, Aramaic, and Koine Greek. These texts include instructions, stories, poetry, and prophecies, among other genres. The collection of materials that are accepted as part of the Bible by a particular religious tradition or community is called a biblical canon. Believers in the Bible generally consider it to be a product of divine inspiration, but the way they understand what that means and interpret the text can vary. The religious texts were compiled by different religious communities into various official collections. The earliest contained the first five books of the Bible. It is called the Torah in Hebrew and the Pentateuch (meaning five books) in Greek; the second oldest part was a collection of narrative histories and prophecies (the Nevi'im); the third collection (the Ketuvim) contains psalms, proverbs, and narrative histories. "Tanakh" is an alternate term for the Hebrew Bible composed of the first letters of those three parts of the Hebrew scriptures: the Torah ("Teaching"), the Nevi'im ("Prophets"), and the Ketuvim ("Writings"). The Masoretic Text is the medieval version of the Tanakh, in Hebrew and Aramaic, that is considered the authoritative text of the Hebrew Bible by modern Rabbinic Judaism. The Septuagint (meaning the Translation of the Seventy) is a Koine Greek translation of the Tanakh from the third and second centuries BCE (Before Common Era); it largely overlaps with the Hebrew Bible. Christianity began as an outgrowth of Judaism, using the Septuagint as the basis of the Old Testament. The early Church continued the Jewish tradition of writing and incorporating what it saw as inspired, authoritative religious books. The gospels, Pauline epistles and other texts quickly coalesced into the New Testament. From: Wikipedia - The Bible ~ ~ ~ ~ Circling back to my point of contrasting inspiration theories - plenary verbal inspiration theory versus limited inspiration theory – look at the difference in understanding a passage. Jesus replied, “Truly I tell you, if you have faith and do not doubt, not only can you do what was done to the fig tree, but also you can say to this mountain, ‘Go, throw yourself into the sea,’ and it will be done. Matthew 21:21 In PFAL wierwille used passages like this to teach about the law of believing. What’s funny to me is that wierwille - who plagiarized so much from Bullinger (and not that Bullinger was correct on everything he wrote about either) – either overlooked or deliberately ignored Bullinger’s comments on that verse. In The Companion Bible Bullinger notes on page 1357 by Matthew 21: 21: Be thou removed, &c. It was a common proverb to say of a great teacher, who removed difficulties, that he was “a rooter up of mountains”. And even in a more recent study Bible The NIV Cultural Backgrounds Study Bible , it notes on page 1654 under Matthew 21:21: Say to this mountain. Some later sources suggest that “moving mountains” was a Jewish figure of speech for doing what was considered impossible. ~ ~ ~ ~ Apparently, the plenary verbal inspiration theory was behind wierwille’s thinking to deem the passage as literal - as one of the bylaws for true believers. Whereas I subscribe to the limited inspiration theory – and see it as suggesting one should adopt a common cultural approach of that time – being determined and persistent when and where others might give up…well anyway – this is just one example of the compound problem in PFAL doctrine based on the plenary verbal inspiration theory …I have addressed this on other threads – see my post on another thread commonplace believing vs religious faith ~ ~ ~ ~ A summary of my thoughts. I believe the Bible is God-breathed, but there is no way to prove that the Bible is God-breathed. I accept the metaphysical truths in faith and hope the things the Bible promises will happen. PFAL is NOT God-breathed, though it often uses the plenary verbal inspiration theory as a basis to support dubious ideas like the law of believing. As a grad of PFAL and devoted follower of TWI for 12 years I acknowledge that my faith and hope in PFAL-doctrine is destroyed due to lack of evidence any of it works – other than as a ‘great’ indoctrination tool for a harmful and controlling cult. That’s all folks, have a nice day

Adding further.... I would be remiss if I didn't add the name of Charlene Edge to the list of those helping to expose twi's trappings. Her book Undertow is a powerful read of her escape from the Fundamentalism and Cult Control of The Way International.

I suppose the answer is somewhat like a recipe, a little of this, a little of that, a whole bunch of something else...and everybody has their own recipe they tend to prefer. I was never in the category of these guys or even anywhere close. I was just your basic Joe Believer kind of guy. Still, I can think of reasons I hesitated to speak out when I could have or should have. I had extended family in the ministry. I was the first in my family to become involved and brought these other people in with me. How could I tell them I might have done a horrible thing by bringing them in? Or, even, should I be the one to tell them? If I got thrown out of the little program I was in, how would it reflect on them? How would other believers treat them if they became vocal, too? And, what if they rejected what I told them? They're family. That part doesn't change. So, little by little, I drifted quietly out of sight. Was it right? Was it wrong? I don't know, but that's what I did. Now, if these decisions weighed so heavily on me, how much more difficult must it have been for these guys who were in visible positions of leadership? We can guess about their reasons, I suppose, but, we'll never really know unless they choose to tell us. The cafe is open 24/7. They're always welcome to come in and grab a seat. First cup is on the house.

Okay.... since this thread addresses questions, I thought I'd ask another. This question has surfaced many times, and it came up in the thread A Series of Purges .... but I still am trying to unearth more understanding. Why was there such a dearth of ex-leaders NOT WILLING to come forward and EXPOSE TWI'S TRAPPINGS? Except for Ralph D., Paul Mosqued@ and Alan Lich-t {some what] ...... why so few? Was it because..... There was money to be made by riding the same rails [doctrine]? Men stayed silent, because they wanted to chum with their buddies and not rock the boat? Many of these men were compromised in sex scandals of their own and kept their heads down? Life moves on quickly.... and most just wanted to press forward, not look back? Many were simply hirelings who didn't really concern themselves with the "flock of the sheep?" A combination of two or more from above? None of the above? Thanks.

I'll go with theopneustos = divine inspiration, divinely inspired. A human's work that is thospneustos will reflect the qualities of God, which, I suppose does mean perfect: perfectly accurate, perfectly beautiful, etc. (This leads to my earlier question: What is God?) I've witnessed athletic feats that I could only describe as divinely-inspired. And the athlete, when asked, can't explain how he/she did it, rendering the reporter's question, "What were you thinking when...?", to be utterly stupid. I recently heard Bob Dylan admit in an interview that he could never write songs like he did in the 1960s. The interviewer was shocked, but Bob was nonchalant and matter-of-fact and humble. It was a magical time, he said. He doesn't understand it himself. Certain literature, poetry, scripture so profoundly affects me, I'm moved to tears of joy. I've heard writers admit that sometimes the sentences or verses seem to write themselves -- there is no effort or work involved, they can't explain it, they humbly admit. Same goes for art, architecture, photography, any creative endeavor. It seems to me anything in nature or any human achievement that I might call divinely-inspired is NOT so because someone claims it to be so. Self-proclaimed works as theopneustos are surely not. Are sacred texts from around the world theopneustos? Sometimes. That is, sometimes for ALL scripture, not just Judeo-Christian scripture. Is PFAL theopneustos? No. It's bullshonta. I suppose I know it when I see it, but I would be cautious to label it theopneustos, probably because I would be too overcome with wonder and awe. The effort to label it as such seems foolish. Just my opinion. I could be wrong. And I'm perfectly ok with that.

For those wondering what's taking place here, the term is Sea Lioning, and this is a textbook example. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sealioning

When I exited twi in 1998, one of the first things I did was resolve to hold no sign of guilt. Why should I hold any guilt over my own head and heart? After all, THEY were the deceivers, the hucksters, the opportunists living off my sacrifice to serve twi. Yet, guilt is one of their many weapons. With incremental steps, each class gives them, they think, more access to govern our decisions and life. Remember.....having finished the advanced class, twi sent out a form letter stating to the grad that, now, he/she 'owed his life to the ministry.' One is quickly able to put twi's leadership at arms-length from any more encroachment the minute the weapon of guilt is removed!! With luminous clarity and serenity, one begins to see that twi holds NO POWER over you unless you allow it. Certainly, untangling this whole mess is a process.... but, for me, the beginning step was removing this guilt-weapon from further attacks on my conscience. I refused to think otherwise. Immediately, I began trashing wierwille's [sob-fest] corps letters that claimed "....you're corps, act like it. Stand with me." Then, I began dumping my Way Magazines....all of them, except one where I wrote an article on "Spiritual Integrity" [how appropriate, eh?]. Within days, I was going thru my correspondence files and dumping those. Then, after consultation with my wife.... we agreed that the collateral books were of no use and discarded them. Six months later, Paul All*n had his run-in with martindale and left twi. Less than two months later, April 1999... he had Waydale up and running. Explosions of eye-witness accounts started hitting the internet. Hundreds of posters came onboard to join the open discussions. It was easy to discern that there was this pent-up frustration and anger sitting out there just waiting for someone to strike the match. And, Paul was just the man to do it. He was computer savvy and devoted nearly 18-hours per day to monitor the site. His mission was to seek and destroy The Way and Martindale......hence, Waydale. Twi was caught flat-footed and had no idea how to stop this creation that they COULD NOT control. I would stay up till 2-3am, because there was generally 10-15 people still posting away. It was so electrifying that I didn't want to sleep. Questions sought were questions answered.... promptly. Soon, there was a private messaging and a private chatroom. Holy Moley. Who could sleep will all this activity going on? I couldn't wait to get off work.... to come home and catch up on the threads. Seemingly, after a few years [4-6].... many posters dropped off after lengthy post counts. Some came to vent, some to ask questions, some to be wierwille-apologists.... which all made for lively discussions. And, after Paul and Fern won their out-of-court settlement with twi, the baton was taken up by GreaseSpot Cafe. I remember the thread where we were given the chance to name the new website. Lastly, here we are.... nearly 24 years later and going strong. Reaching out with warnings to the hearts and minds of others. Twi has no choice but to "monitor this website and keep their eyes on the enemy." Rosalie, bless her heart, was so computer-illiterate that she had Linder print out copies of our threads and placed on her desk. And, you can be assured that many of us are on their "blacklist." I wear it with honor. All of this.... because we dared to ask questions that they refused to answer and recompense that they would not deliver. .

Well the topic is On God-breathed Scripture — rather broad in scope. And your opening post is a declarative statement. I’ve asked questions in an attempt to focus the topic, but I’m not really sure what that is anymore. Though I sometimes find Bolshevik’s posts to be cryptic, I don’t think he’s off topic here. Raf, what do you want to discuss? Is there a question?

"God-breathed" is a term from a book which has been pulled out and applied willy nilly here. So we've pulled a phrase from one book, applying it to another book, then rejecting the second book base on the phrase, and claiming that this process should now work on the first book? Sorry that's just nonsense. Do I believe the Bible is God-Breathed? Do I believe the Little Engine could?

I tended to use PFAL's definitions of the characteristics of God-breathed scripture, as they were the only ones for which we all had a common frame of reference. Whether a scripture can be "God-breathed" and not have those characteristics is a whole other issue. I think if anyone is going to make a case that a work is God-breathed, it's incumbent on that person to define it in a way that's falsifiable. You don't get to just say "It's God-breathed and you can't prove it's not." You have to prove it IS. That's how burden of proof works. If you make an affirmative claim, the burden is on you to prove it. Give PFAL credit for defining the characteristics of the God-breathed word, even if you don't agree with it. PFAL does not live up to those characteristics. Neither does the Bible. If you have an alternate set of characteristics, I'm happy to entertain them. If you have a definition of God-breathed we can explore, I'm happy to explore it.