waysider

Something that just struck me as odd is that, for as much time as he spent studying every little detail of Wierwille's life, Geer seems to have never discovered that Wierwille's doctorate was phony. Curious. You do know he wasn't really a doctor, don't you? edit: spelling

Mark It doesn't matter how many Bible versions contain the story, many Biblical scholars have opined that it did not appear in the texts until late in the 4th century. In other words, it was added.

A patriarch, in modern terminology, simply refers to the male head of a family or household. Geer, however, was using the term in a manner that deliberately bestowed Biblical status on Wierwille. Wierwille was not a Biblical figure. He had no status beyond that of a rural preacher. He wasn't the male head of my family, though he was a father and patriarch to the Wierwille clan, specifically. The only way to partially stretch any meaning out of the reference is to concede that The Way was synonymous with the household of God. It isn't and never was. It was a cult, like so many other cults that have come and gone through the years. Did he teach "The Word"? No, what he taught was an amalgamation of works that had been prepared by other men and women, a fact he was clever enough to conceal from his devoted followers. He even went so far as to invent fairy tale-like stories about magical snow storms and divine, audible voices to obscure his dishonesty. For what it's worth, I frequently heard him referred to as "our father in The Word", a term I personally objected to more times than I can count. Maybe some of you who know me can even remember me arguing that point with you if your memory stretches back that far. The only way to grant him Biblical, patriarchal status is to first acknowledge him as a Biblical figure. That's a big negative. Secondly, it would have to be shown that what he taught was "The Word". He fails the test on that as well. In the end, The Passing of a Patriarch was really nothing more than a bunch of mumbo-jumbo, designed to advance the cause of an overly ambitious "wanna-be". edit: HERE is a link to the paper being referenced. It's a perfect cure for insomnia.

If you had ABS'ed only 1% more they would have been able to do just that. It's all your fault.

Would you clarify the point you're making?

Green Card Promise Teaches how to separate the peas from the carrots.

CLICK

Witnessing at the mall: "All we are saying is give peas a chance."

People in the witness protection program get new ID's, new birth certificates, new social security numbers and so on. In reality, though, they are actually the same person. So A could grow a beard, start wearing a fedora and listen to John Coltrane reissues. Maybe A could even pass himself off as B's twin, twice removed. Alas, deep inside, A will still be A and no amount of disguise can change that.

Oh, I ate the peas. I just never really liked them.

Teacher: If we know that A is larger than B and B is smaller than A, can we then do a size comparison? Student: Depends Teacher: On what? Student: Culture stuff.

I never liked peas. There, I said it.

Finite means having limits or boundaries, therefore measurable. Criteria means the standard or set of standards by which something is measured. Morality is a subjective concept. In this case, however, if we all reach a consensus that killing someone for picking up sticks on the Sabbath is immoral, we have created a finite criteria. Now we can compare the two entities (self & Yahweh) using that criteria.

In order to compare any two or multiple entities, there needs to be a finite criteria to serve as a measuring stick of sorts. Let's say, for argument's sake, that the criteria is whether or not it is moral to stone someone to death for a minor infraction. I think we would all opine that it's not. It's not something I would personally recommend, anyhow. Yahweh (AKA: Mac Daddy of the OT), on the other hand, not only recommends it, He prescribes it. Do a logical comparison to determine which entity displays a higher level of morality. I give you three guesses .....but the first two don't count.

Way Theology is fond of using dispensationalism to resolve such problems, citing the contrast in administrations...."We're in a different administration now, the OT doesn't apply to us on these matters."...This, of course, invites a sense of elitism. That's seldom a good thing. Doesn't the Bible say that God is not a respecter of persons? This then is countered with a discourse of how God may not be a respecter of persons but He is a respecter of conditions....Eventually, what gets lost in the shuffle is that it's the same God at the heart of the discussion. (In speaking of His nature, God says, "I am the Lord, I change not." ...Malachi 3:6).......So, the same God who metes out severe punishments for minor infractions in the OT appears again in the NT as a God who is all love and light, all goodness and no evil.... Administrations become irrelevant. Conditions become a moot point.

John You're arguing about a man made doctrine and defending it like it's an edict from on high. The whole "9/10th will go farther...." thing is just some made up mumbo jumbo that sounds real official but isn't.

It would be accurate to say there is an incident of tithing (giving of 10%) cited in the Bible. It would not be accurate to say it is a doctrine or that it is required. It just isn't. It follows suit, then, that giving beyond 10% (ABS/abundant sharing) is not Biblical, either. You can't go beyond a nonexistent doctrine. Giving because you have a desire to do so, on the other hand, is addressed in the scriptures and encouraged. You are free to do so if that's what you choose to do.

No one said that. It's merely being pointed out that ABS is not a Biblical doctrine. Wierwille was wrong. I suspect, though, that he knew he was wrong and just didn't care. It fit too nicely into his little con game.

All those years ago, most of us were little more than kids or young adults. Geeze, to me, abundance would have been finding enough loose change in the sofa cushions to buy TWO packs of smokes instead of one. In recalling the first session of PLAF (The Wonder Class), it's quite clear that VPW was implying physical abundance, nothing deeply spiritual or esoteric. That shift in definition came later, after the hook had been set. I use the green card as a criteria for the abundant life, rather than a subjective interpretation, because that was the listing of product benefits the class would supposedly help us attain.

The abundant life, as defined by "the green card", is incongruous with the realities of TWI life. Imparts ability to separate truth from error? Nope. Promotes harmony in the home? Ixnay. The list is ad infinitum.

Drop the fruitcake, back away slowly and no one will get hurt.

SIT much!

Let's take a look at the credibility of the man who taught us about the manifestations. HERE

I think a lot of us, myself included, just assumed that Wierwille had some kind of inside track on understanding this stuff. He didn't. What he taught and promoted was nothing more than a hodge-podge of things he stole from other authors, sometimes whole chapters at a time. A special thanks goes out to John Juedes for THIS comparative look at RTHST.