Yanagisawa

I think one of the lies that enabled Wierwille to pull this off was the teaching from the foundational class that there are two realms, the senses realm and the spiritual realm, and that the laws of the spiritual realm supercede the laws of the senses realm. If you learn to manipulate the laws of the spirit realm, you can control what happens in the senses realm. I know that's one of the things that stuck out for me when I took the foundational class.

The advanced class was supposed to teach us how to operate the laws of the spirit realm, but it didn't, because there IS NO SUCH THING AS A SPIRIT REALM, and the Bible nowhere teaches that there is.

If we study the word aisthesis and it's cognates, translated "perceive," "judgment" and "senses" we find that the Bible exhorts us to exercise COMMON SENSE.

Wierwille taught us to ignore our common sense about what he was doing to us, and to strive to "acquire an in depth spiritual awareness and perception" that doesn't exist.

Love,

Steve

Voodoo

Corps or no corps, failure to operate the mystical, magical "law of believing" was always regarded as a sign of spiritual weakness, especially for those in leadership type positions. I've seen people try to "believe away" chronic illness, cancer, severe injuries, volatile domestic situations, toxic (physical and/or psychological) work environments, and more. Because the law of believing is equally as potent as a handful of fairy dust, it usually doesn't have a happy ending.

I remember one time, while in the Corps, when I operated mystical, magical powers that worked. It was a Sunday morning. (Remember Sundays?! Worst work-day of the week!) I woke up, not sick, but just plain tired. Exhausted. Bone weary. I prayed, "Heavenly Father, I'm tired. I need rest. I'm rolling over and sleeping as long as I need to. Please keep those who would F@#*s with me away."

I woke up late afternoon. I got dressed for the Sunday service (already in session) and quietly walked in. Nobody ever said a word to me - like they hadn't even noticed. It was truly a Sabbath miracle ;)

Yeah, something like that, I vaguely remember. In the cataclysmic fight, the earth was torn apart and that's where we get the continents from.

I don't remember anything about comets.

With the space exploration that is currently going on, you do have to wonder how big this bubble must be with all the water outside it. How big is infinity?

I think there is serious risk here of taking something that is poetic or mythic (in the proper sense of myth) and making it into an absolute truth. TWI was very good at that. Taught about figures of speech but didn't actually recognise when they fell over one (unless it was blindly obvious), and therefore took the Noah and the rain story as a literal not a figurative or descriptive idea encapsulating a greater truth.

After all, VPW's knowledge of English and of English grammar was appalling. He didn't understand the plain English of what he was reading (if "plain English" is something that can be said of the Authorised Version (KJV)). He used it to bamboozle people - there are other more comprehensible versions available - RSV or NASB for example, both of which have a lot of research tools available - but that wouldn't have enabled him to flaunt his supposed knowledge as easily and he would have had to rework some of the "class material" that he pilfered.

So it's not surprising that he didn't understand figures of speech, or myths, any better than English grammar. In fact, it would be surprising if it were otherwise.

Well said. The whole franchise was built upon the notion of "mathematical exactness and scientific precision" and "fits like a hand in a glove". This brand of "inerrancy" does great damage to the narrative, reducing it to propositions and bullet points and charts and footnotes that MUST agree with the modern mind, no matter how much of its life is lost in its dissection. In my opinion this is why Bullinger's oeuvre, no matter how sincere, was a fool's errand. Sincerity is no guarantee for truth.

Coming back to add that they also taught that the devil spirits poked holes in the universe or something to cause the rain. Because the heavens are made all of water or something. It's been a long time since I've been there, but that was what they were teaching.

I remember that. If I'm not mistaken, it was in the Advanced Class. E. Burton did a paper on it. He said the universe is inside a bubble, surrounded by a barrier called the firmament. Outside the bubble is nothing but water. (It's been a long time for me too so I'm not 100% sure on some of this.) The idea was that when Lucifer and God did battle for the throne of power, the war was so cataclysmic it broke a hole in the barrier and allowed huge amounts of water to escape. This was used to explain why comets are composed of frozen water.

How can people of seemingly above average intelligence and rational thought come to such a conclusion? Does not this ancient, pre-scientific record ooze of mythic explanations for what is? I wonder what Ken Hamm has to say about this one?

http://redemptionpictures.com/2014/02/28/bill-gothard-homeschool-cult/

These guys all have the same playbook.

I am currently taking a graduate level course on the doctrine of the Trinity. One of the first things we learned is that there are two different aspects to the doctrine of the Trinity. One aspect is called "the economic doctrine of the Trinity." The word "economic" comes from the Greek word oikonomia. The economic doctrine talks about "God-as-He-toward-us." It is essentially what has been written in the Bible. The gist of the economic Trinity is that everything we receive from God the Father, we receive through Jesus Christ by means of the Holy Spirit, and everything we direct to God the Father we direct through Jesus Christ by means of the Holy Spirit.

The other aspect is called the ontological or immanent doctrine of the Trinity, and deals with "God-as-He-is-in-Himself." The first thing any theologian says about "God-as-He-is-in-Himself"is that it is "ineffable," which literally means that it can't be spoken about. The next thing most theologians have done is to begin speculating about that which cannot be spoken of. Since there is no objective standard to judge the correctness of that which cannot be spoken, many different speculations arise and they often contradict each other. The need for unity of belief led to councils and creeds that dictate how to think and talk about that which cannot be spoken.

The words that became fossilized in the 4th and 5th centuries, such as homoousias and hypostasis had very reasonable meanings in the culture of the time, but those meanings have been lost down through the following centuries. Consequently, the ontological doctrine of the Trinity no longer makes sense to people who have not familiarized themselves with the thought worlds of late antiquity and the middle ages. There are long and convoluted rules about what we can think and say about that which cannot be spoken.

When Wierwille rejected the ontological doctrine of the Trinity, unfortunately, he also rejected the economic understanding of the relations between God the Father, the Lord Jesus Christ and the gift of Holy Spirit, which is accurate according to the Bible. I'm not really that interested anymore in what Wierwille taught. He is long gone and dead. What does exercise me is how John Lynn markets his material as correction for Trinitarian "insanity." People hear him say stuff like that and think he's talking about the economic Trinity!!!!! He has no awareness of how ignorant he sounds...

Love,

Steve

I noticed that as well. Here's another story, this one from an investigating group (the same one that was just fired yesterday from conducting an internal investigation at Bob Jones University)

http://www.recoveringgrace.org/2014/02/the-gothard-files-a-case-for-disqualification-x2/

This just published regarding Bill Gothard, another kindly spiritual leader

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/lovejoyfeminism/2014/02/bill-gothard-sexual-predator.html

Raf: If you haven't already I would suggest checking out a few of Bart Ehrman's books.

Perhaps a bit off topic but perhaps not. Interesting nonetheless.

WTF? Well, it was in the preview. Let me do my homework. It was Eliane Elias and she looked and played spectacular.

This one's pretty good too.

"I have no friends when it comes to the word!"

This bromide made a virtue out of being a brittle, reactionary geek with no relationhip skills, compassion or cultural maneuverability. It was a battle cry meant to snuff out dialogue, tension, paradox and mystery - all scary things to a hyper-Teutonic mindset.

And to think, I was planning on reading that pesky 600 page The Philosophy of History by Georg Hegel. Thank God I discovered a one minute synopsis. Thank you Dr. Dale!!!!

I'll be waiting for the one minute synopsis of A Critique of Pure Reason by JERRY Kant, and Leviathan by CALVIN Hobbes.

Okay, since the discussion is about "mainstream" whether that is right or wrong is not the issue. Lets' call it "synthetic mainstream."

The point is that, in my opinion, it is argot because it is not a language of accomodation. It is not a language that invites engagement and dialogue. It is rather a language designed to exclude and is "deliberately hermetic."

Also, I would ask you to condider "gnostic" in this discussion as gnostic with a lower case "g," as in placing a premium value on "true" knowlege attained by belonging to a group with ritual and culture designed to enlighten its initiates along a path of wisdom towards divinity.

For as long as people have agreed to bond together as the "in crowd" one of the first orders of business is to devise ways to exclude outsiders. Perhaps the most effective way to achieve this is by developing a unique language. The proper term for this phenomenon is "argot."

Argot is a secret language used by various groups to prevent outsiders from being a part of them and to affirm their uniqueness.

According to Pierre Guiraud in L'Argot. Que sais-je? Victor Hugo was one of the first to research argot extensively He describes it in his novel, Les Misérables, as the language of the dark; at one point, he says, "What is argot; properly speaking? Argot is the language of misery."

Bruce Sterling defines argot as "the deliberately hermetic language of a small knowledge clique... a super-specialized geek cult language that has no traction in the real world."

The Way mind police are "argoteers" of the first order assimilating phrases into daily conversation like: "Promised Land of the Prevailing Word," "the Renewed Mind is the key to the Power of Christ in Me," "as he is," etc. The list goes on ad nauseum.

The reason, I believe, the mainstream's reaction to the Talk Soup clip is mainly a big "HUH?" (after the belly laughter) is because the whole thing is creepy in the sense of "a super-specialized geek cult language that has no traction in the real world."

Any thoughts?

Man, when I see a "biblical concept" that has to be explained by lines and circles and triangles and arrows I know it's time to turn and run like the wind.

Kirkegaard's Fear and Trembling is a great exposition on this very subject.

It delves deeply into the account of Abraham offering Isaac.

Faith (and it's resultant obedience) takes on many faces in a given culture....sometimes looking honorable and uplifting - sometimes horrid and criminal.

In the Corps we were forbidden to set the Holy Trinity of seasonings (kelp, cayenne, sea salt) on the table lest they would become stranded and forgotten behind the common plate, thus failing to deliver a full round of salty, kelpy, peppery goodness to every Son of God seated with all power. The proper way to avoid this was to hold them in the palm of your hand, select the spice(s) you wanted, and then pass them on to your left. Many brothers' and sisters' sense of community, as well as their in- depth spiritual perception and awareness, was questioned over the sheer selfishness of tabling the spices.

Young Girl, get out of my mind

My love for you is way out of line

Better run girl!

You're much too young girl!

Adagio for Strings by Samuel Barber

OMG Joel Osteen seals the sum of the vapid wasteland that is Modern American Evangelicalism.

It is disturbing that so many thousands lap up this tripe and think they are nourished.

This is just my opinion of course.

BTW, ten to one she was called "Vicky" until she assumed the crown.

"we were all part of a cult"...I think that says it all. I have recollections of doing bless patrol at Emporia while Vic and his motorcoach were visiting...watching a young lady enter the coach and then sometime later exit the coach and walk away...even though it was well after midnight, sexual hanky panky NEVER ENTERED MY MIND...afterall, he was the mog"

Ditto!

One summer I lived in the "Upper Room" facing the courtyard and saw women come and go at a pretty good clip. Never did it occur to me that hanky panky was going on. Suspension of belief to the extreme.

As I have tried to sift through the issues of the above discussion I have found the works of John Polkinghorne helplful as well. A delightful, thoughtful quantum physicist/Anglican clergyman. Also knighted but not called "sir" because as clergy he is not expected to take up a sword.

A thought from Eugene Peterson:

"Inerrancy, as commonly defined, does irreversible violence to the literary genres of the Bible..

[inerrancy} stands squarely on the view that the Bible is a collection of propositions, i.e. verses.

It is a recent innovation, appearing in none of the Reformation confessions.

The Bible's descriptions of truth are rich and diverse.

Inerrancy is a concept that has to be footnoted in too many ways to be useful."