waysider

I think it was on closing night of Rock of Ages. 1973. Wierwille announced during the main teaching there would be a healing service for all who needed healing in front of the main stage. He instructed all who sought healing to come forth. Hundreds came up to the stage. He told all Advanced Class grads in the audience to come forth and pick out a healing partner so they could "minister" to them. Then, since the AC grads were outnumbered, he told them to keep finding healing partners until everyone was ministered to. I did not go down to the stage. It didn't seem right. If God wanted me to minister healing, why didn't He tell me Himself? Later, I started to question my decision. Do you have any idea what it's like to carry the guilt of thinking you denied someone healing? Were there any genuine miracles or healing? Not that I saw. And I was an observer, on the outside looking in.

"All scripture is God breathed and----- holy men of God spoke as they were moved by the Holy Ghost." How do you know? It says so in "The Word". Who made the statement? Paul. How do you know he was right? It says so in "The Word"

soul searcher Have you ever read Receiving the Holy Spirit Today? There is quite a lot in there that will explain what the average "Way Believer" regards to be accurate on this matter. I'm not saying I agree with it. What I'm saying is that it gives you some sort of starting point in trying to discuss this with Wayfers.

I heard Wierwille teach on this subject. I have always thought that this particular version I'm about to share was in CF&S, but no one seems to remember it being there. So, I'm at a loss as to where and when he taught it. Anyway, I think his explanation was all a bunch of *%*&$#@*, so, I am simply repeating this for informational purposes. Wierwille taught that Eve either masturbated Adam or performed oral sex on him. (I don't recall which.) Then, claimed Wierwille, Eve consumed the "byproduct" (and the following was supposed to be the "sin" part.) and convinced Adam to do the same. (Consume it, that is) Yeah, I know. That's some really bizarre stuff to be coming from a guy who was supposed to be a minister. Like I said, I think it's a bunch of nonsense "and then some", but, I wanted to put it out there as a matter of reference so people could see what kind of twisted mind drove someone we all thought was some kind of great Man of God.

It was 51 years ago today.

Welcome aboard!

I don't miss the guilt I used to have for "tripping out" on the "one true household". That-----and wheat berries!

Hi Gen-2 Welcome aboard. It's always refreshing to see things from another perspective, especially from a "little kid".

<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MfuwZVDndZ0&hl=en_US&fs=1&"></param><param'>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MfuwZVDndZ0&hl=en_US&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MfuwZVDndZ0&hl=en_US&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

It's not my intent to impugn Paul's character. Maybe he was a con-man, maybe he wasn't. I don't know. All that we really know about him is what he, himself, revealed in his letters. My point is simply this: We took what Paul said in letters to specific people, regarding specific circumstances, and equated that with God speaking specifically to us. I used speaking in tongues as a representative example. But, there are probably hundreds, or even thousands, of similar examples, as well. Here is that particular "speaking in tongues" example again. "I would that ye all spake in tongues" (Here is the "listening with a purpose" question that deals with that subject.) Session #11/Question #5 Q.Is it God's will that we all speak in tongues? A.Yes. What we are really looking at in that statement, in I Cor. 14:5, is Paul addressing a specific group regarding a specific subject. Yet, somehow, that has been changed in our thinking to mean that God (not Paul) told us (not the people in Corinth) we should all speak in tongues. In order to consider that directive to be addressed to us, you must first accept the basic premises of Biblical interpretation, as set forth in PFAL. (ie: to whom it is written/ administrations/ Jew, Gentile, Church of God/ Theopneustos, etc.) Otherwise, what you really have is exactly what you see, Paul addressing a specific group regarding a specific subject. Thus, what we often times thought of as being something God told us to do or something The Word told us to do, is really more on the order of "Thus saith Paul."

Some scholars believe it was actually Paul who wrote Luke, as well as Acts.

Don't eat snow. It's one of the ways that nature flushes pollutants from the atmosphere.

It does make sense, Mr. Aar, even the part about The Lion King, which, in fact, draws parallels from the Biblical records concerning Moses and Joseph. (I wouldn't be surprised to find that, a 1,000 years from now, Hakuna Matata has found its way into the canon.)

Most of us have probably lost touch with current events at The Way. Is that what really matters? The Way is still essentially the same organization at its core structure. Its system of operation, as we remember it, is still intact. It's still corrupt at the management level and that corruption has an effect on the rank and file members who may not be aware of the true nature of the beast. That's what we continue to expose here.

Here is the "aforementioned criteria" we (students of PFAL/Way theology) were taught to use. "The Way Ministry focused primarily on study of The Pauline Epistles. This was a precedent that was established early in the PFAL class via the introduction of Biblical administrations (Dispensationalism), the concept of observing "To Whom It Is Written" and the idea behind all people belonging to three specific categories. ("Jew, Gentile or Church of God") In addition, it was established early in the PFAL class that what "Holy Men of God" spoke or wrote was tantamount to words directly from God, himself. Thus, we were to consider the contents of The Church Epistles to be equivalent to words from God (Holy Men Of God Spoke.), directly to us (To The Church of God)" This is the criteria we used to evaluate scripture relevance. (not the same thing as whether or not Paul was a con-man) My apologies for not stating that in a clearer fashion. As to "Why would Paul have disingenuous motives"? (paraphrased) Who knows? I don't think we could have candidly answered that question a mere 40 years ago, had it been asked of us regarding Wierwille. In fact, when we were confronted with it, we had ready made rationalization near at hand to fire back. Then again, even if Paul's motives were altruistic, that doesn't guarantee they were wrought in a sane mind. When you accept that Paul's admonition regarding speaking in tongues is Theopneustos, you are making a huge assumption that is based, once again, on another facet of the "aforementioned criteria".

Roy Yes, we are all in a constant state of learning (hopefully) and it would, indeed, be a better world if there was harmony among the various and diverse "sects". Consider this. There are people who are rocked to their very souls, steeped in denial and painfully hurt when they discover the man whose teachings they followed for decades (VPW) was, in fact, a self-centered, drunken, sexual predator and religious fraud. Remember how people would say "Dr. says this." or "Dr. said that."? It was as if it had to be "right on" if it came from "Dr.". Like a surrogate spokesperson for God. So, now, here, we have this man, Paul, whose words have been revered, not for decades, but, for millenia. So very many things we consider to be things that "God said", are really things that Paul said. (Refer to my example: "I would that ye all spake in tongues."------Thus saith Paul)

Yeah, except there are at least weather records on file that refute Wierwille's gas pump Stowwwry. We don't even have any traffic logs for Damascus Road.

Some good commentary here, for sure. Here's the thing. It's like the old circular logic exercise that proves the existence of God. (ie: "The Bible says there is a God and since God wrote the Bible----there must be a God.") What do we really know about this cat named Paul? I mean, he had a pretty lengthy rap sheet before he made the old switchola. Personal credibility does not work heavily in his favor. As far as that goes, what do we even know about the practice of writing letters to churches during his lifetime? Weren't these just letters that he wrote to particular churches and individuals, addressing specific problems and situations? Did he ever intend for them to serve any purpose beyond their original intent? If he did, why didn't he convey that intent to the recipients before they filed them away with the rest of their letters? Why is it that Ephesians, which TWI heralded as the greatest epistle of all, is considered by many scholars to be the product of an author other than Paul and dated later than the rest? If Paul was a flim-flam man on the order of VPW, maybe the comparisons are warranted.

Does this mean they'll have to unsubscibe to Second Life?

Maybe it was just some bad chicken salad.

The "nostalgia for research" article/thread prompted me to contemplate the significance of "inerrancy". The Way Ministry focused primarily on study of The Pauline Epistles. This was a precedent that was established early in the PFAL class via the introduction of Biblical administrations (Dispensationalism), the concept of observing "To Whom It Is Written" and the idea behind all people belonging to three specific categories. ("Jew, Gentile or Church of God") In addition, it was established early in the PFAL class that what "Holy Men of God" spoke or wrote was tantamount to words directly from God, himself. Thus, we were to consider the contents of The Church Epistles to be equivalent to words from God (Holy Men Of God Spoke.), directly to us (To The Church of God), At one point during the course of the Fellow Laborer program, we were to read Ephesians a minimum of once a day. Then, we were to rehash it at our night twigs every night. Given the rigidness of the schedule we observed, this didn't last long nor were people very consistent in their diligence. That, however, is probably fodder for another topic. Here is were it gets sticky. Using the aforementioned criteria, it became an accepted "given" that whatever Paul said in Ephesians, Corinthians, etc was the same thing as God saying it directly to us. Suppose for a moment, though, that Paul was, perhaps, the VPW of his day. (So often, people would put forth the inverse idea that VPW was the Apostle Paul of our day and time.) Even now, years after his death, with the advent of the internet and the plethora of information it puts at our fingertips, some people still aren't able to see that VPW was really a con-man. People in the first century did not have access to resources that could prove or disprove Paul's legitimacy. We have heard people say that it's God's will we all speak in tongues (one example) because God said so in "His Word". Did He? Or, was it Paul who made that statement? Question five, of "listening with a purpose", in session eleven, poses the question, "Is it God's will that we all speak in tongues?" According to the answer key, the correct answer is "Yes". But think about it. Who really said "I would that ye all speak in tongues."? Wasn't it, in fact, Paul? Did he really say that "to us" or to a specific group of people two thousand years ago? There are many, many more examples of places where you could insert "Thus Saith Paul." What if Paul was really a forerunner of what we now call "con men"? What if Paul was the VPWFHDAT? (VPW for his day and time) It certainly shines a very different light on the importance and "inerrancy" of The Epistles.

"Music is a gift-------you give it away and you get to keep it forever." HERE (For enhanced appreciation, be sure to watch the video clip, as well.)

<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value=" name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src=" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

Off Topic Alert!! Speaking of misunderstood lines: How about this one from Groovin' by The Young Rascals. Life will be ecstasy, you and me and Lesley. (Life will be ecstasy, you and me endlessly)

<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value=" name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src=" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>