waysider

Moot point Not everyone has access to "The Gospel". Conversely, if God is omnipresent, everyone has access to something that is a product of God's "handiwork".

Did I say "Paul is wrong."? I don't think I did. People keep throwing this strawman argument into the discussion, in one form or another, despite what I have posted. Go back and re-read this thread. Though I did say, "What if Paul was a con-man?", I never said that he WAS a con-man, a liar, someone with ulterior motives, etc. You said this: "No one is saying it was not Paul who said these things. . . . it WAS Paul . . . who I believe was INSPIRED by God." AND, I have pointed out to you that you are most likely basing this conclusion on something Paul, himself, stated. ("Holy men of God spoke----etc.") That's circular reasoning.

I'm not sure how much difference it really makes in regards to search engines. I stumbled onto this web site while looking for a PFAL book.

Very sad, indeed. Just like living on a steady diet of Twinkies can have an adverse effect on one's physical health, feeding on a steady diet of misdirected political diatribes, spewed forth by political extremists, can have an adverse effect on one's mental health. If you knew how many people feed on such a diet, while the caterers are raking in multi-million dollar salaries, it would scare the beejeebers out of you. Still, I think the wife has been given an unfair shake in all this by the media pointing to a seemingly irrelevent cult connection on her part.

All through though this thread we have people saying, "God said this." or, " God said that.". Did He? Or did Paul say "this" or "that"? Then, it all comes back around to, "Well, the scriptures are God-breathed." How do we know? "God said so." No, He didn't. Paul did. "Well, holy men of God spoke as they were moved by the Holy Ghost." Did God say that?----or was it Paul who made that statement? Does that make Paul a con-man? Does it make him a liar? No. But it doesn't make those statements the "absolute truth" either.

Think of all the millions of illiterate people who have walked (or are currently walking) this planet. Are they S.O.L. because they can't read? Maybe they "hear" His voice in the roar of a waterfall or "see" His presence in the helplessness of a newborn.

Who said Paul lied? Lying is a conscious act of deception. If I say the moon is made of green cheese because I actually believe it, I'm not lying. Wrong, yes. Lying, no.

<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>

Look closely at the photo. It forms a triangle in the center. (Base up, apex down)

I dunno. I'm willing to chalk it up to strange coincidence. If Mr. Google leads her here to this discussion, I hope she will know she has my heartfelt sympathy.

I've looked at several articles on it now. None of them have given any indication whatsoever how the wife's personal history plays any role in the event. I suppose they could have played up the piano teacher aspect instead, but, it probably wouldn't grab as much attention as mention of a cult.

Mention of a cult connection adds an element of sensationalism. Sensationalism sells newspapers.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N8pyapqyB4o http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gqj_cZz6VXE http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oJ5cbq5HU8E http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p-IJzjsbQkc http://www.youtube.com/user/MrsRiaht#p/u/6/0Dl1KOqHZP4

Well, you could be right. I was just making an educated guess when I said it may have been Leonard

Oh, I know this is really about maintaining control and that the microphone, itself, is symbolic. Still, I have to giggle when I remember how a certain limb leader tried to give me a lesson on the correct way to hold a microphone. (the literal kind) He told me you have to be careful how you hold it because you don't want to conjure up any phallic images. I better not say anymore. HeeHee

The Great Principle appears in the class syllabus of Interpretation of Tongues and Prophesy (1971), which is a forerunner of the Intermediate Class. This was actually part of the original PFAL class and was known informally as "The Thirteenth Session". It is only conjecture on my part that this originated with B.G.Leonard. I base that guess on the fact that we now know VPW based PFAL very closely on Leonard's Gifts of the Spirit class. The principle is introduced, though not by name, on page 3. This page starts by quoting Philippians 4:13. ("I can do all things through Christ which strengtheneth me." (We touched briefly on this scripture in the "Thus Saith Paul." thread.) The implication being held forth on this particular page is that the "I" is you, as a believer, and that it is referring to you, the believer, operating "all nine" of the manifestations. On page 9, the principle is stated and a visual depiction of the concept appears. I don't have a scanner so I will describe the depiction for anyone who cares to draw it out. First, there is an inverted triangle on the left. (base up, apex down) Upon close examination, it becomes apparent that this triangle is actually three separate, close bordered, concentric triangles. (One inside another) In this triangle appears the text: GOD who is SPIRIT Then, there is an arrow drawn from the word SPIRIT to a reciprocating word SPIRIT in a large circle directly to the right and slightly below the triangle. The text appearing in this circle is: SPIRIT (arrow pointing down) SOUL (mind) (arrow pointing down) BODY Next, an arrow points outside the circle (just as the first arrow pointed outside the triangle, into the circle.) to the words: You speak out Something that intrigues me about this visual is that GOD appears inside the triangle portion (a three-sided figure) and that the triangle is actually composed of three closely concentric but separate triangles. This leads me to believe that Wierwille probably "borrowed" this visual depiction from someone who was Trinity oriented. However, I think Wierwille failed to recognize this triangle analogy that the original author had cleverly embedded.

I don't know how to state this any plainer. I am not attacking Paul. I am attacking a concept. The concept is that, first, the epistles are addressed directly to us today, and, secondly, that whenever Paul spoke, it was synonymous with God speaking.

This is something I, too, have thought about often. Suppose I stand before an audience and deliver a message in English. Problem is, the audience is comprised of people who only understand Japanese, Farsi and German. But, somehow, they are all able to understand my message in English. Hmmmmmm. So, then, what about tongues of angels? Consider, too, that "angel" can also be translated messenger" Suddenly, it's not so clear cut as it all seemed in TWI, when all we had to do to qualify was to speak glossolalia.

When you speak in tongues, silently, in the manner we were taught in The Way, your mind becomes more malleable and less resistant to suggestion. This has been demonstrated with scientific studies. Remember our "lift lists"? We were told to picture the leaders in a very positive light as we "lifted" (spoke in tongues for) them. So, if you habitually pictured VPW as some great person while your mind was in a malleable state, it became more and more difficult to accept any sort of negative, contradictory criticism of him. I doubt that Wierwille was clever enough to understand this on a cognizant level. I think he did, however, almost instinctively understand that people who spoke in tongues "much" became more compliant and devoted. Hence, he admonished us to speak in tongues much and "lift" the leaders. That may not be the "purpose" you were looking for; but I think it bears some consideration.

The eyes don't technically SEE anything. Your eyes simply collect the information that your brain, in turn, processes and interprets. This, for example, is how your brain is able to take two slightly different visual images (camera angles) and interpret them into one, singular, three dimensional image. This process involves certain physiological actions that take place at the neurological level. Thus, one can, indeed, "see" things without input from the eyes. This is very different from "imaging" which does not involve this particular type of neurological activity.

<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>

Probably more of a market for it on "the other site".

Here's where credibility comes back into the picture. Wierwille taught that God talked to people in the OT through dreams because they didn't have spirit IN them, like modern day "believers", by which to receive revelation. Hence, he said, God would only talk to us in dreams if we were so far out of fellowship that He could not reach us by revelation. Furthermore, VPW taught that dreams can otherwise be the result of devil spirits trying to get into our minds through "the trap door". Do I still believe that explanation? No, I do not. But, here's the thing. If Wierwille was wrong about dreams, what makes you think he was right about tongues?

That still doesn't address the question of whether or not what we, in The Way, as well as other "charismatic" organizations, called "speaking in tongues" is even remotely similar to what was going on in the first century.