johnj

when VPW used the word "LAW" he didn't use it in the Bible sense, meaning a law of God. Christians have been set from from those kinds of laws through Jesus Christ. He used it in the "New Thought" (which Christian Science and Unity School of Christianty was based on, popular in the late 1800s to early 1900s) sense- immutable laws of the universe, like gravity, that "saint and sinner" alike can manipulate to their own beneift or ignore to their own hurt. They are a-theistic laws- God has nothing to do with them except by setting them in motion. It's all up to you, not Him. The law of tithing/ prosperity was one of these, though VPW conveniently determined that the giving had to be to him in order to count. VPW probably picked them up from his mentors such as George Lamsa (who lived on the Unity School of Christianity grounds in his later years), Glenn Clark, Rufus Moseley and Albert Cliffe (who was a spiritist in addition to being New Thought). VPW wasn't discerning enough to know that New Thought and its "Laws" were completely opposed to Bible teaching.

There are detailed new articles on www.abouttheway.org including "Buying Blessings" - a review of the appendix of the new (2006) Way of Abundance and Power class which explains TWI's teaching on tithing and abundant sharing. Giving lots of money - but only to "the sole representaitve of God on earth" - is the only way to achieve material prosperity (tithing 10% of net income) and the only way to get spiritual blessings (abundant sharing over 10%).... or so they say. "The New 2006 Way of Abundance and Power Class: The Absent Christ" - a review of several segments of the new (recycled) 2006 post-Martindale class including the destructive power of negative believing (Job), the lack of teaching on Jesus Christ, theories of the two-part creation and continental drift (Peleg), and how and when the (expensive) class is offered. "Way Arrogance Lives On" - reflections on John Lynn's new letter lauding the glory of TWI in "the good old days" with his selective memory of TWI and lack of knowledge of the Christian world. Go to About The Way then "New" to find the links. Happy reading.

TWI was a closed system, except for one point. It was alike a dark brown bottle without a cork. Everyone inside the "biottle" of TWI couldn't look outside. That was forbidden. Only inside TWI was truth, or so they were told. But Wierwille was like the bottleneck without the cork. He let into the bottle all kinds of false or perverse things. But they could only come in through him, which became very self-serving. Wierwille was like a window without a screen. He had no discernment, so let in all kinds of malaria carrying mosquitos and vampire bats, flase teachings and practices.

If Cummins didn't say VP's "literal translations" made no sense when read, he should have. It's ironic that he said that VP's "literal" translations were not "free" translations. The early editions of RTHST always used the term "free" trabnslations. In later editions he changed all the "free" translations to "literal"... they never changed the wording of the "translations" themselves, just the term he used to refer to them. He wanted to make them sound more accurate and scholarly than they were.

if you're looking for sources for JCNG, I don't think you'll find them in the JCNG bibliog. They are more likely to be the guys that VP said he learned from -- Rufus Moseley, Glenn Clark, Starr Daily and George Lamsa. All these guys were primarily "new Thought" (like Christian Science). A few of VP's ideas, like the impersonal "Christ in you," were essentially New Thought even though VP didn't apparently have the discernment to notice that. Although Lamsa claimed to be Nestorian, his beleifs were mainly New Thought, and he had an office at Unity School of Christianity, which is a New Thought group. (Actually "New Thought" is over 100 years old in its current form, not new at all. It's dying as a movement, though some of its beliefs continue in the New Age movement and Hindu derivatives.)

I have 2 versions of the JCNG bibliography. It doesn't appear to me to be helpful. It looks as though somebody just made a list of books and nobody actually read them. There certainly is no evidence in JCNG that anybody actually read and closely evaluated them. (Footnotes nearly nonexistent) The more interesting version of the bibliog included the article "Forgers of the Word" in which VP claims the Bible was dramatically rewritten ("forged"), deleting all the wording of the verses that he would prefer ( like one of his prefered versions of Mat 28:19 which he insists on the basis of no evidence at all that it would not have the words "in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit"), and including versions of verses he prers. If you're wondering what was deleted and what was "forged," just ask VP because he knows everything. It's a typical cult ploy, to insist that Bible's been changed, which is why it doesn't read exactly the way the cult leader wants it to read.

One of my favorite lines is something W Cummins said about VP's "literal translations according to usage." (I beleive the quote is in "The Living word Speaks") Cummins said they often "make no sense when read." Cummins was right. And since they "make no sense when read" it leaves a lot of room to make up what VP meant.

The Bible verse that describes VP's life is 2 Tim 4:3-4: "Men will not put up with sound doctrine. Instead, to suit their own desires, they will gather around them a great number of teachers to say what their itching ears want to hear. They will turn their ears away from the truth and turn aside to myths." VP wasn't concerned about truth or sound Bible interpretation. He just wanted things that were new, different, out of the ordinary because his ears itched. If the Church had been unitarian, he would have become Trinitarian. If the Church taught soul sleep, he would have written a book "The Dead Are Alive Now." If the Church taught 4 crucified, he would have come up with two. If the Church taught athletes of the spirit, he would have come up with warriors. Being the MOG, no one could correct him or reign him in. There's a tape of Cummins "teaching" athletes and you can hear VP rooting him on in the background. He loved stuff that scratched his itch. If VP had lived longer, he would have come up with more "discoveries in the Word," which likely would have become more bizarre as years passed. Joe Smith of the Mormons (and any cult leader with absolute power) made the same progression, coming up with Jesus as Satan's brother, polygamy, etc. They have to constantly come up with "new" stuff to prove that they are the ONLY place anyone can find truth and that EVERYONE else is wrong. It's cult leader mentality. The difference between Joe Smith and VP is that in the Mormon system, you come up with new teachings by "revelation" direct from God (which adds more revelation in addition to the Bible, such as the Book of Mormon), while in the TWI system, you have to "find" it in the Word (VP said he taught by "revelation," but he still felt he had to prove it in the Word).

It appears that VP knew a lot of verses, but only in a very shallow way. For example, JCNG is an extremely important topic. But the whole book is only about 150 pages (less the indexes), with lots of white space and large print. And one chapter is history, not Bible teachign at all. Most of the chapters are typical VP teaching. He quotes a verse, then says 3 to 6 sentences about it. Then moves on to another verse. Only 3 to 6 short sentences about important passages? (Go ahead and count the sentences) Even more amazing is the audio tape on which the "common errors" chapter is based (I think it's tape 295). t's obvious he's quoting a verse, then shooting from the hip about what he thinks about it. Not even a reasonable attempt to understand it, much less cogently analyze it. He's supposed to be a big, world changing researcher, not teaching a grade school Sunday school class. This format was typical in teachings. Look at any Way Magazine article. Quote a verse, say 3 to 6 sentences about it, then move on. Very shallow in both understanding and teaching. Like the Platt river. Half a mile wide and half an inch deep.

The Lawsuits/ Sexual Misconduct section of www.abouttheway.org includes detailed stories of six women, including the two in well-known lawsuits against TWI. These are testimonies of the women themselves. It also summarizes the John Lynn talk "Overview of Events" in which he estimates that at least hundreds, and probably "thousands" of women were sexually used or harrassed by leadership.

VPW didn't like the parts against adultery. Hence all his convoluted rationalizations for why sex with women he wasn't married to was renewed mind thinking.

"fringe personality cult" is a good way of putting what's been going on with Rood. Plus, he has a great marketing sceme, dresing up like a rabbi for attention. Just as Wierwille took advantage of a trend (the Jesus movement), Rood is taking advantage of a trend to wild "Prophecy Club" predictions and a trend to adopting Jewish laws and ways. Sadly, it means leaving grace in Jesus Christ and going back to the Law. He also had help building an organization. The striking thing about the report that is critical of Rood on the web site mentioned above is that it comes from people who are sympathetic to him and who support his ministry in principle. When his own friends see his deception and sin, it is particularly revealing. If you're interested in more on Rood see several of my articles at www.abouttheway.org

It's possible to find a Christian- or a nonChristian- who does anything imaginable in this world. But the question is-- are they acting consistent with their stated beliefs-- or different from them? Are the wars mentioned here following the example of Jesus Christ, or not? Jesus Christ was apparently a pacifist. He explicitly taught "love your enemies" and verbally forgave people who put him on the cross. Do his teachings naturally lead to, or away from the events mentioned above? Were the people netioned above obeying or disobeying Jesus and Christian morals? No Christian advocates following professed Christians who violate Christian teachings, just the teacvhings they are rejecting by their actions. Bad behavior is not proof that good morals are bad.

someone happened to use the word "karma" which made me think of the traditional Hindu view of karma and how it contrasts from Christianity. Many westerners see karma through Christian eyes, thinking that you don't want bad karma but that good karma is good because it brings you some kind of reward. It's a variation of the Christian idea of reward and punishment. But straight Hindu karma is to avoid Both good and bad karma. They don't want to do good, because that would require them to return in another life to be rewarded for the good done. But they don't want to come back. So their best choice is to do neither good nor bad, basically to be apathetic toward people in need. This is one reason that higher castes traditionally do not help lower castes. When they do, they think they're hurting themselves (because they have to came back in another life to be paid back for the good they do) and they think they're hurting the lower castes, because they're thwarting the bad karma and suffering the lower castes deserve. In contrast, Christianity emhasizes helping the needy, not being apathetic toward them because they're suffering for the sins of their previous lives. This is why Mother Thersesa is a Christian, not a Hindu, and why the Red Cross is a cross and not a Krishna. And I think it shows how Christian morality is a kinder, gentler, more generous and gracious version than Hindu morality, and is a better morality for this reason.

I agree that some aspects of human morality are intuitive and common to us all. Everybody has at least some concept of "do not murder" and "do not steal" (although their code may alow them to steal but condemn others who steal from them). However, the moral code of Jesus in the sermon on the mount (Matthew 5-7) I think is far and away higher than moral codes that human beings come up with. For example, many people have some kind of belief regarding not commiting adultery (although over half the population commits adultery anyway). Jesus says that even lusting is as sinful (a problem for at least the 100 million people in America that access porn). We all have a form of "don't murder," but he adds that most forms of anger are as sinful because if that attitude is taken to its full extent it would result in violence. We all think we should love our neighbors. Jesus adds that we should love our enemies as well. He says if someone forces us to serve them, we should volunteer to serve longer. We have a sense that we should forgive our friends who admit their wrongs, Jesus insists that we forgive all, even our enemies. We beleive we should be generous toward people who respond to us (give & receive), Jesus tells us to be generous with those who can't pay us back (just give). We come up with a lot of reasons to divorce, most of which Jesus thinks are lousy reasons. We have a concept of not doing to others what we don't want them to do to us. Live and let live. But a rock can do that better than we can. Jesus tells us to love our neighbors as ourselves, and to do to others as we would have them do to us. That calls us to be outgoing with love, generosity, kindness, etc, especially with people who don't deserve it. A lot of the New Testament code of conduct goes beyond behavior to attitude and motive and is very self-sacrificing. It goes beyond moral codes people typically make up. I think this does two things. First, it give us a more moral code than what we'd make up, challenges us to let Jesus Christ ovverrule our defective moral codes, and replace ours with his. Second, it tells me that Jesus' kind of holiness is impossible for me to do completely. It tells me that I need to go to God for forgiveness, for reconciliation, for redemption and re-creation. I can't handle this on my own. Fortunately, God's moral code prompts him to give me a whole lot more mercy and grace than I'm willing to give other people.

I did not mean to imply that just atheists have substandard and in some (but not all) aspects immoral codes, but that this is true of all human beings. We all have a certain degree of selfishness, cruelty, anger, impatience, unkindness, lack of self control and self gratification. If you're not sure if you have any semblance of these, ask your (ex) spouse, children or parents (or be braver and ask someone who doesn't like you). All self-made moral codes will fall well below true righteousness. We all need God to correct our habit of rationalizing our own immoral behavior. We all tend to rationalize our behavior when it injures others or when someone tries to correct us. We're pretty good at excuses for our behavior. This comes much easier to us than humily repenting. We will also often change our moral code in order to not feel guilty about our sinful behavior. This is what VPW did. He changed his moral code about adultery when he began a habit of having other women while married. He had to go against the Bible in order to do this. Atheists have no moral code to answer to, so in that sense would find it psychologically easier to change their moral code to rationalize immoral actions We don't mind being accounmtable when we know we'll "pass," but don't want to be held accountable at least in certain areas of our thinking and lifestyle. Rationalizing and not wanting to be held accountable are significant aspects to many of the conflicts we have with other people, especially those in our own families. The difference between serious religious (of a Judeao-Christian variety at least) people and others is that they will allow God to overrule them to correct the poor aspects of their moral code, and will recognize they are accountable to God even when they know they can otherwise "get away with" ungdly behavior. They don't do this perfectly, but this still serves as a way to reign in their (our) immoral desires, something atheists don't have. Footnotes: The article on Japan I noted was printed on a local newspaper, the Press-Enterprise in Riverside CA approximately 2 weeks ago. I didn't write down the date. I can scan it for you if you wish. No one who knows anything about first century history questions Herod's existence, general dates of life, area and time of reign and general activities. Josephus, the Jewish Historian who wrote under Roman aproval is considered by historians to be on the whole a reliable source and provides many details of Herod's life. He mentions all four of the Herods the NT does, in addition to John the baptizer and Jesus of Nazareth. He also confirms several events mentioned in the NT.

I never said that atheists do not have morality or moral sustems. I said that nonreligious people commonly take the position that morals are man-made, changable, and personal. This means you can make up your own morals and values, and none can ever be called wrong, because they are "right for you." There are no absolutes. So if a person's personal system of morals allows cruelty, for example, no one can call it wrong. Having a strict God-imposed moral system means that people can be "over-ruled" by God when their personal moral systems fall below God's. People who have man-made systems of morality can set their benchmarks however low with no one to over rule them. One historical example: King Herod, king of Israel in the first century abandoned the idea of a absolute system of morals established by the God of Israel. His personal system of morals fit better with the Romans. His moral system allowed him to command approximately 20,000 murders the same week to celebrate his new staium dedication. And all the nonJews agreed that their moral systems not only enjoyed but promoted gladiator fights also. If he had been a devout Jew, he would have allowed God to overrule his personal morality and allowed those men to live. Much of morality is common sense. But intuition is not always accurate and the details are not always so. Herod certainly had "do not murder" as one of his morals. But to him that moral clause did not apply to the 30,000 murders that week (and many more at other times, including John the Baptizer, a historical event that is recorded by another source in addition to the Bible). This is the problem. We all have moral systems that may be good in many ways. The strength of moral religion is that it helps us to reign in the aspects of our morals that are out of line. Herod also had no accountability on this set of murders. If he had truely believed in the God of Israel, he would have concluded that even if he was not accountable to anyone on this issue, he would be accountable to God and would have changed his mind as a result. So belief in accountablility to God helps prompt better behavior too.

For those of you who want footnotes on the articles Imentioned... here they are. I can't offer a link to them because I still read some magazines the old fashioned way, on paper. "To Catch a Cheat," Newsweek, 10-15-07, p41. Key sentence: "Who is most likely to cheat? Athelets, kids who aren't religious and kids who don't take AP courses." I mentioned the nonreligious part because it was pertinent to the topic. ""Deaths Hint at Harsh Aid System in Japan," by Norimitsu Onishi, dateline Kitakyushu, Japan, NY Times News Service, Key sentneces: "Japan has traditionally been hard on welfare recipients.... To them, those in need are not citizens. Only those who pay taxes are citizens..... With no religious tradition of charity, Japan has few soup kitchens or other places for the indigent." To me, the real test of charity is when it is offered to people who "don't deserve" it, not just to those who do.

I think atheism gives a poor answer in the area of morality, because it lacks two important things: 1. Standards. (As was said above) without God to give humans a benchmark, there are no unmovable standards because morals are human-made. You can make up your own. Nothing is right or wrong. When I was in college the fashionable term was "values clarification." You should clarify your values, but nothing was right or wrong, only different. Humans can make up their own values (no standards) and change them at will. If standards are man-made, then you have no right to call another's choices wrong, even if they involve murder, stealing, incest, whatever. The result of this is that anyone can rationalize any behavior. And they do, whether dictator or skinhead. Fortunately, atheists and a-moralists don't live consistently by this. Even people who consider there to be no right and wrong have favorite morals (a fashionable one these days is racism), at least when they're the victims of others' values. 2. Accountability. Without a God who pays attention, humans have very little accoutablity. Most of the things humans do to injure others are fully legal, and most crimes go unpunished. Moral religion says that God does hold people accountable even when society is unable or unwilling to do so. Atheism provides no ultimate accountability, tho it may provide some limited accoutability on the fashionable morals which evolve and change because nothing is really right or wrong, just different. People need reasons to be "good" because being good is usually harder than being bad. Thieves find it's quicker to steal income someone else worked 6 months to get. Sudents find it's easier to steal answers (as the Newsweek article noted) than study. Many people think divorce or separation is easier than humility, admitting wrong and working through problems, etc. There are two basic reasons to choose to do good even when it's harder: 1) reward ("if I'm nice to him, he'll be nice to me") and 2) penalty ("if I hit him he'll hit me back, and he's bigger than I am") The weakness of atheism and a-moral thinking is that frequently humans aren't rewarded for doing good (The IRS doesn't reward you for paying taxes); and we are seldom punished for doing bad (eg the IRS seldom catches tax cheats). Little accountability and no firm standards. What morals'based religion like Christianity does is to fill in the gaps. It provides complete stanards rather than make-up-your-own. For example, most of the 10 commandments prohibit things that are fully legal in America, because God wants to establish standards higher than human-made ones. It also provides ultimate accountablity. God will reward and punish even when society can't or doesn't want to. This is why Newsweek linked nonreligious students to a high rate of cheating. The students knew that accountabiluty was poor (teachers seldom catch them) and they lacked unmoving standards (their "values clarification" led them to "self-made" morals which allow cheating.) The religious students were linked to low rates of cheating because they personally accepted God's higher standards and believed they were accountable to him even when they weren't to other humans. Suely there are hypocrites. But this doesn't mean that religion's standards and accountability are weak- it means people are weak or hypocritical. To criticize the standards because some people don't keep it is like criticizing American law against first degree murder because some people murder anyway. There will always be people who are or claim to be religious who don't live by God's standards and accountability, but that doesn't mean that they don't still provide a more reliable answer to morality than atheiism and a-moral thinking.

No country, people or government is entirely religious or atheistic. But some countries are officially atheistic, such as China, N Korea, the former USSR, and they attemopt to enforce atheism. Is atheism more commonly linked to freedom or to oppression?

I just read a Newsweek article last week (not a Christian publication) that did link religion and morality. The article noted that 60% of students admit to cheating (and how many more don't admit to it?). The studies stated that cheating was linked to nonreligious to not cheating was linked to being religious. It did not say, nor do I mean to say, that 100% of religious people are always honest and 100% of nonreligious are cheaters, but that there is a significant link between the two. One reason for this is that people have what the Bible calls a sinful nature. That's hard to deny. Parents typically have to teach their children to share, not to be selfish, for example. Selfish comes naturally. What moral religions such as Crhistianity do is to hem it in. The fact that many people who claim to be religious don't actually follow Biblical morality doesn't mean that religion is bad in itself. In fact, if you say that such people are bad because they don't follow Biblical principles, you're indirectly admitting that the religious moral standards are in fact good. Some of the posts above seem to use some very inflamatory terms to describe religious and/or Christian people, which surprised me coming from such reasonable atheist/ agnostics as yourselves.

Some atheists are raised Christian to one degree or another, then abandon faith. Their lives seem OK. But I'm most concerned about their children (or grandchildren) who are raised without the same Christian upbringing they had. First generation atheists I think take some of their Christian upbringing with them into atheism. They live by some Christian values without perhaps admitting it. And these values give them some foundation and benefit. But the second generation is more likely to abandon those good values and foudnation because they don't have the same Christian upbringing as their parents, and don't have the reason for the values or behavior. The "why" (pleasing and obeying God) is gone, so the "what" (the 10 commandments, living a life of love, etc) gets eroded. Then parents wonder why their kids didn't turn out to have as good of values or behavior as they did. I often see this even among Christian parents who have faith and morality, but don't give their kids the same Christian training they had growing up. They think their kids will pick it up by osmosis without Christian trainging. But they usually don't. I suspect that if the USA continues to turn away from its Biblical foundations (which deists had as well as Christians), some "American" values (which are based on the Bible) will erode or change as well. And the result will be that the USA of 2050 will be uglier than that of 1950. I read an article on Japan recently about how the poor are looked down on and not cared for. The welfare system is very poor as a result. And, the article noted, there is no private safety net organizatiions because Japan does not have the tradition of "relgious" compassion for the poor (seen in Christian groups like Salvation Army and formely Christian groups like Goodwill). Japan has relgion (Shintoism) but not the Judeao-Christian religion that emphasizes compassion and care for the needy. In time atheism would produce the same thing.

To me, atheism doesn't have good answers on some important questions, but this isn't always apparent until later, or until atheism dominates a society instead of being a small percentage of it as it is in the US. One of these topics has been alluded to a few times-- the idea that we all have the freedom to pick and choose our values, what we want to beleive and do, etc. I like freedom, too. It's better than oppression. But the problem is that this idea ends up in anarchy. It's impossible to have complete freedom without injuring each other. (If my values say stealing is perfectly acceptable under certain circumstances, that sounds good to you until you're my victim or vice versa.) A society can tolerate a few anarchists, but if a lot opf people become that way, it'll be obvious it doesn't work. WHich is why we need a Lord. Another problem (related to anarchy) is standards. If there are no universal standards, you're left with anarchy (mutual blood-letting of many kinds)... or with society making up the standards (ask Jews in Nazi Germany if they like that idea)... of oppresive dictatorship (this is the way of evolution- survival of the fittest). We need one Lord to survive as humans with some civility. Some days I think it would be a lot easier to not be a Christian. Then I wouldn't have to have quams about cheating on my wife when I felt like it, being harsh with my kids, stealing, etc. But the sensible part of me tells me that I'm better off in the long run with God's standards than following my feelings. One of the "big" reasons people abandon God is that they've been disappointed. A loved one dies, they get a chronic disease, etc. Then we ask "why?" and conclude God is not around so abandon beleif. But the fact is, abandoning God does not make disaoointment go away. Atheists still wonder "why?" and are no less disappointed with how life turns out than Christans are. But Christians have God to help them through it, which makes more sense to me. I also think that one of the biggest needs we have is for grace. Not just overlloking our bad side and saying it's OK because we all have it. But genuine grace, calling our bad side genuinely evil, but having God's grace to forgive and more than cover it, to treat us better than we deserve. And I haven't seen a religion besides Christianity that is as severe in calling our "weaknesses" evil and sin while at the same time offering redemption and grace in Jesus Christ. God treats us better than we deserve. So on the big questions, to me Christianity has better answers than atheism/agnosticism.

There are many urban legends regarding Bible verses. Another myth is the idea that "camel thru the eye of a needle" refers to a short door in a wall that a camel had to crawl through. Not true. Jesus was using hyperbole to say that riches don't get people into heaven and riches are not a sign that a person is righteous and being blessed by God. This is apparent from the reaction of the disciples, "who then can be saved?" That's the right reaction, because no one can be saved by their works, only by grace. Legends I think arise in sermons and Bible teachings. People (with good intentions) spin a yarn or repeat a yarn they've heard to try to explain a verse that is hard to understand or to accept. If the disciples in the above story had done this, they would have instead said not "who can be saved, " but "oh yea, anyone who lowers himself like a camel and humbles himself on his knees can make it." Not the right answer, but easier for humans to accept.

Nametags also quickly identified who was an outsider. TWI was always paranoid about outsiders, something you don't see at colleges and churches where you can wander around unmolested for hours if you wish.