penworks

Indeed, it is. Most of us acknowledge that the inerrancy of the Bible (that it is free of errors or discrepancies of any kind) is not only a hallmark of fundamentalist thought, but of many evangelical positions, as Bob points out it is addressed in many institutions of higher learning. We understand it comes from the idea of divine perfection, i.e. that "God is perfect," so His Word (the Bible) must be "perfect." This is an idea VP inherited and propounded in PFAL over and over again. Where this idea comes from is interesting to me, so I thought the following info might be useful to others interested in this thread. This is from the biblical scholar, James Barr, in his book Fundamentalism, pg. 277: "When conservatives say that the Bible is inspired by God, this means for them that it is completely without faults, failings, errors or discrepancies of any kind, or that such as exist are so absolutely minimal as not to count. What is the basis for this conclusion? There is no biblical or exegetical ground upon which it can be made, and conservative apologists do not even pretend to attempt an exegetical demonstration of it. [ Penworks note: exegetical means explanatory, in this case explain from the Bible.] The implication is a philosophical one. The nature of God is to be perfect; and if he involves himself in something, as he would do in inspiring a collection of books, these books would partake in the divine qualities of perfection...This way of thinking about God does not come from the Bible. In the Bible God is presented above all as active and personal: he can be argued out of positions he has already taken up, he operates in a narrative sequence and not out of a static perfection. The picture of God which presents perfection as the essence of the doctrine of God is clearly of Greek origin and is well represented in the Platonic and Aristotelian traditions. It was incorporated into Christian thought at a very early date and has remained extremely influential. " James Barr's credentials are outlined in several places, including in this tribute by Vanderbuilt University upon his death: James Barr

This cannot be said enough!

In that situation, yes, I agree that hypocrisy is only the beginning of what is revealed - abuse (and criminal behavior in some cases that unfortunately went unprosecuted) is also revealed...

Yeah, when you begin to apply VP's "dogmas" or "standards" like this to him, it gets very interesting... it's like flipping the switch of perspective to turn it on him...it reveals a lot of hypocrisy quite fast.

I've kept mine around in case I ever wanted to write a memoir and refer to what those notes might have to offer...

Agree. This is one of the most outrageous ideas coming from TWI I've heard yet. I can say I NEVER heard it when I was in from 1970-1987.

And if you can get a copy of The Way Living in Love, by Elena Whiteside, you can read VP's own words that, even if read with as objective an eye as you can muster, in my view clearly show how pompous, self-righteous, deluded, etc. etc. he was in all the accounts of himself and how he began TWI. Good grief...and I'm embarrassed to say part of my story is in that book, too. The book is a piece of blantant propaganda, no matter how well intended the author, and I am now ashamed that I let myself be used as part of it. It ain't easy living with that ... thankfully, I feel I can now make some reparations. Here at GSC, for instance...

No, come to think of it, he was no match for Robert but he was a close second... maybe...

Well, yes, Geer gave a major boost to "get back to VP" um, I mean "get back to the basics of the Word" dogma, but LCM did his part in pushing the VP worship thing, too, with his "VP and ME" book especially...

I think if you search around here you'll find plenty on his qualitites as a person. I think he fits the criteria of a sociopath (you can find definitions on the web). He could be charming and funny, and that helped him manipulate us. I interpreted his boldness and abusive language as being "bold for God's Word" like the O.T. prophets. How dumb of me. IMO love and respect for him depends on a person's belief in his being "the man of God for this day and time" and his teaching the "accuracy of the Word." Until a persons gives up those ideas, the worship continues, I think...

Yes, I am aware of that. For me, I wanted no more additional info added to it. Why keep giving free info about myself and my life. I don't have any idea how they are using it. IMO, FB is not transparent. They have info on me but I have no info on "the man behind the curtain." I think it's a lopsided system.

This is a long complicated story. The short answer is yes. Sometimes it wasn't that clear cut. Sometimes rationalization or double-talk was involved. Sometimes he wasn't confronted. By the time I left research in 1986, he'd been dead over a year. His authority lived on, however. For instance, when I asked W*lter Cum*mins, the head of research, whether George Lamsa misled VP on Aramaic issues (which could be a way to explain the errors in the Eli Eli interpretation), he told me VP was more spiritual than any of us. That was supposed to mean that no matter what question we might ask, in the end VP had the final word. The appeal to his spiritual insight, often made both by himself and others like W*lter Cum*ins, kept questions at bay. Or else the questioner was kicked out and a smear campaign began. Evidence of this was when several in the 8th Corps raised questions about "the end times" and pointed out VP's research had holes in it. Although I don't happen to agree with what they were claiming any more than I accept VP's theology (if you can call it that), what I think is atrocious is the fact they were kicked out and publically shunned. That tells you how closed a system TWI was and still is. In my view, TWI left me, I didn't leave it. TWI claimed in the early 1970s to be open to new insights, new things learned from the Bible and would change when they found "new light." This appealed to me. I have the information sheet handed out by The Way that states this claim. This so-called promise was not kept. But to be fair, it was silly of me to believe it. I should have asked the hard questions like: who decided what to change and when and how to let followers know of the changes. etc. But since teachings were taught as "the truth" how could you go back and change them? How can you change what you once taught was the "truth?" That would mean truth changes and that idea was the opposite of what they taught. But at 18 years old and hungry for answers, I swallowed the promises without thinking critically. The original so-called open-ness I liked might have existed on the surface and may have actually happened in small twigs, but officially with PFAL on tape and books printed, it became impossible to change anything. No processes were in place for making changes to any of that. But you know what? That is all irrelevant because in the end, in my view, VP's approach to the Bible was to harmonize (or in other words make up his own interpretation of) scriptures in order to avoid accepting any contradications or errors or different points of view found in books like the gospels, for instance. He bent over backwards to support the "inerrancy" doctrine that he and other Fundamentalists honor without question. Inerrancy at all costs! For me, the cost was too high. Sometimes it cost the reputations and years of effort of people who loved truth. In my view, the TWI system of belief, with inerrancy of the scriptures at its heart, is a defensive one, based on fear. It fears questions and other ways of valuing the Bible. There are plenty of threads here about the TWI so-called research, so if you want to search for them, you'll find more on this topic. Cheers.

Hey, Paw and everyone here, thanks for Greasespot and the courage you have to keep it going! Happy 10th anniversary! Pen

For me, the reasons were cummulative, but I guess this section from my story, An Affinity for Windows, says it in a nutshell: "I began to understand that fundamentalism held the Way hostage in its research efforts. But expecting the Way to change was like expecting an oak tree to grow tulips – it's impossible. Its nature can't permit it." Shamelessly, I'll give you the link to it : An Affinity for Windows

Yes, thanks. In this morning's Los Angeles Times, an timely article about Facebook was published: http://www.latimes.com/news/la-na-0428-senators-facebook-m,0,1985749.story?track=rss

Her use of Proverbs 16:17 out of context to apply to TWI is at the very least sickening to me. That's a good example of TWI's use of the Bible to their benefit. IMO, this is Bible abuse.

Good point. From my perusings about the history of Christianity, this sort of thinking seems pervasive in many sects, especially evangelical ones (and many other religions and various sorts of groups.) That's how they define their "tribe" and function. Without boundaries, what's the point of having any group (or religion) really? You're either in or out. To me, though, attaching the idea that the group is God's is even more specifically narrow and exclusive and insideous. It's a way to control people in an abusive pyschological way. In TWI, I think the idea that we were teaching "the rightly divided Word" implied we were teaching what God wanted known. Coupled with VP's "snow" claim, it made sense we were God's ministry. Of course, it was a twisted sort of sense, one based on erroneous premises. For instance, I remember a youth advance at ECU in Greenville, NC in the spring of 1971. Ironically, this event was held in a church across Fifth Street from The Way Home owned by The Way Inc. Joh* Ly*n was the limb (state) leader at the time. On a paper banner hanging above the stage was the advance's theme: "Addicted to the ministry of the saints," based on I Corinthians 16:15, "I beseech you, brethren, (ye know the house of Stephanas, that it is the firstfruits of Achaia, and that they have addicted themselves to the ministry of the saints." VP taught at that advance, as well as some of the First Way Corps. Clearly, this theme was used to fire up our commitment to VP's cult, there was no doubt about it. And the message was more than subliminal that the "ministry of the saints" was The Way's outreach system. In my view, The Way was equated with "the ministry" whenever we read those words in the Bible. Most of the time this was implied, not spoken outright. Although I bet if I searched some old Way Mags and articles by VP in his "By The Way" articles published in the St. Marys Leader newspaper, I could find some doozy quotes that would illustrate this issue. Some of you probably remember the collateral reading called, The First Century Church in the Twentieth, which sent the message: we were to immitate the Book of Acts in this century, in this culture, period. This would make us the ministry of God in this day and time. From what I've read and observed, this thinking is part of a larger kind found in many groups under the umbrella of fundamentalism. So to me, this thinking has its roots with VP, it's not a new tag line dreamed up by Rosie or anyone other than VP himself.

I agree. In my view it would be redundant to have a FB page for GSC. Besides, if you're like me and read up about FB, you know there are plenty of privacy, security, etc. issues with it. I deactivated my page there last Dec. - my personal choice. Has anyone else here read Jaron Lanier's recent book, You Are Not a Gadget? Very thought-provoking along these lines. He coined the phrase and is the "father" of virtual reality. BTW - It is interesting that without having an active FB account, I can still access FB pages from links which are posted here or from other sources who send me links to FB pages...so much for security...if however I try to go directly to the FB main page, though, I have to sign in, which I cannot do at present. Go figure...

Here's a strange one linked from Bri*n Bl*ss's page: http://www.facebook.com/pages/SIT-Speaking-in-Tongues/140753044222

Not that I recall (but maybe it did), although in TWI verses like II Corinthians 6:14 were used to promoted that idea: Be not unequally yoked together with unbelievers... Naturally, the unbelievers usually were identifed as people not born again (according to Rom. 10:9, 10), but in practice they were those outside the TWI belief system.

Does anyone know who is the administrator of this FB group?

Me, too.

Thank you.

Maybe I've misunderstood a few things here (wouldn't be the first time). I thought your Bible was a translation from the Aramaic (the P-e-s-h-i-t-t-a). If so, how come you put your translation for the Aramaic in footnotes?