waysider

Well, now, funny you should mention "insane". See, I think that particular word has a connotation of indwelling sanity. Yes, that's it. Someone who is in-sane is really sane (in an inner sense) Have I made myself throughly/thoroughly clear?

While I see your point, somehow, I can't bring myself to accept that Wierwille was on a plane of equality with any of these examples.

For those who are still involved with TWI or an offshoot What items from the list of Actual Errors in PFAL do you still include in your teachings or hear being included in others' teachings?

Standing for a cult leader......not the same as standing for "The Pledge"....Know what I mean, Vern?

Sure, he's allowed to make up words. No law against it. That doesn't mean the words will have any sort of universally understood meaning, though, or that the words will have the same meaning as other words. No problem... plenty of other straightforward errors to choose from. I won't bother to list them, as there is both an editorial and a seperate thread set aside for this purpose. You are correct in observing that Kris has changed names and other details. Some of this is done for obvious legal reasons. Also, some changes were made as a vehicle of literary license so that the gist of the book would appeal to a broader audience than just Way followers. (An example of this is when she refers to baby dedications as baptisms. Even though this isn't specifically accurate, it is a way to state it that will be understood by a broad audience in a general sense.) Yes, there is a thread that deals with the book as well as an audio interview on the front page.

Remember the old story of the bumblebee?....Too heavy to fly, but it does it anyway? Turns out it was really a myth. Probably originated at a time when the laws of aerodynamics were not yet as fully understood as they are today. So, suppose you are an eighth grade science teacher who has been repeating this myth for years. Now you stumble upon the truth of the matter. Do you continue to teach your classes that the bumble bee is too heavy to fly, now that you know it isn't?

"We sure do love you." Uh-huh----until your attendance becomes less than consistent and your ABS payments dry up. Then you might just as well be a week old tuna sandwich.

John You have obviously never bothered to read the "Actual Errors in PFAL". If you had, you would know that I'm not referring to things that are arbitrary. I'm talking about things that are clear-cut. Throughly and thoroughly do not have different definitions, as Wierwille insisted. One is simply an obsolete form of the other. That's not an opinion, it's a fact. There are, likewise, factual errors in the way Wierwille dealt with apistia and apathia....kingdom of heaven and kingdom of God...lambano and dechomai.....Bar Mitza in the O.T....and more. These are not subjective opinions, they are factual observations. Do you still teach these things the way they were presented in PFAL?....If so, why?

Give a try. State your point and I'll tell you whether or not I understand.

OK, I get it, John, you teach "the hope". What about those other things that have been shown to be erroneous, such as throughly/thoroughly, kingdom of heaven/kingdom of God, etc.....Can you still teach those now that you know they're inaccurate?

Is the PFAL class, and its premises, not an integral part of what TWI meetings promote?

John, JB's question is relevant to the discussion. It's tangential, but not off topic.

What point is that?

Thanks, Twinky. Yes, there is much more they could be teaching. Not much of it is found in their classes and reading materials, though. And, of course, if you ever ventured beyond the prescribed doctrine in your presentation, chastisement was imminent.

Some clarification is in order. When I ask, "What's left to teach?", I mean specifically from the body of various information and teachings we used to draw from. I'm sure there is a multitude of subject matter still waiting to be taught, but that's not the material I'm referring to here.

Josef Mengele was a real doctor. Doctorates aren't always what they're cracked up to be. I'm just sayin'

That entire pamphlet is based on erroneous interpretation. Why teach any of it? Oh, yeah, now I remember.....you have to give so God can spit at you. (Per LCM)

After reading through "Actual Errors in PFAL" again, I found myself wondering...what's left for them to teach? So many of the things that held us spellbound, like 4 crucified, lambano/dechomai, apistia/apathia, cry of triumph, throughly/thoroughly, the "law" of believing, and on and on have been shown to have been based on shoddy "research". Then, you add to that the doctrinal errors, which are more subjective in interpretation, and you have to wonder......What the heck does The Way and its offshoots have left to teach? If I went to a TWIG tonight, what would I expect to hear?

I was not at that meeting, but heard those exact points covered at another meeting. (probably in the late 1970s)

John There is no need for sarcasm and name calling. I asked you politely to refrain from meta-discussion. If you find that to be too much of a burden and/or find these discussions so unpleasant, why do you continue to participate? (Please respond to that question (if you feel you must) in the "soapbox" thread that Twinky has set up for you.)

I re-read both posts, John. I don't see anything about the way JB posted that changed the essence of your post. In fact, by trimming down your statement, he was able to address that particular point, specifically. You might learn well from that and adapt a similar technique yourself, instead of banging quotes into each other like so many runaway shopping carts in a crowded food market parking lot. However, this whole discourse involving the posts in question is nothing more than meta-discussion. (a discussion of the discussion, itself, rather than a discussion of the topic at hand.) In other words, you have driven this topic off course, just like you do with any other topic that threatens to tarnish the sacred image of VP (You know he wasn't a "Dr.", don't you?) Wierwille. Please stay "on the same page".

He called us his "kids". Well, I guess that's not so much outrageous as disgusting.

Makes me wonder if there are still people who believe Jim Jones was right. Scary,huh?

You shake my nerves and you rattle my brain.