penworks

Oh, yes, I see that now. Looks like Mike's comment at the end...not RG's. Thanks :)

Wow. I'm surprised at Research Geek's comment from his above quote dated October 04, 2002: "Dr not only earned his doctorate, but he performed far beyond what any PhD has ever done for anyone. He brought us God's light like it hasn't been seen in 2000 years. In my book that earns him credit far beyond a doctorate." Maybe Research Geek has changed his mind since then. For me, that's an impossible claim to believe anymore. peace, penworks

I think one of the top 10 favorite phrases VPW popularized in twi was, "You have no friends when it comes to the Word." I believe "the Word" was defined by VPW, so if you disagreed with that you were WRONG. When I left HQ in '87 after 17 years of involvement in twi, several people that I thought had been my closest friends, chose twi and its doctrines over remaining in touch with me...one told me to my face I was deceived by the devil. But a few stood by me and are still my friends today. Cheers! penworks

A reliable source (IMO) within the last month told me they are back in the USA.

oops, Happy belated b/day, Socks. It's wonderful to "see" you again after all these years! Sending peace, joy, and love your way today and every day, Penworks

Since I'm being referred to here, I thought I'd chime in. Just to clarify: I returned to college post-twi to get a liberal arts education (the word "liberal" in this case does not refer to any political left wing stance or religious stance, but that's another topic). I did read lots of English literature and philosophy etc. that helped me think clearly and logically and exercised my critical thinking capacities. I earned a B.A. in English. I did not get a degree in early Church history or Semetic languages, etc. I just like to read. I've read things pertaining to the history of the Bible, etc. during and after college. For a good overview I'd recommend Karen Armstrong's The Bible - A Biography, and her A History of God. Also, for those interested in what interpretation of texts, including the Bible, involves, pick up a copy of A Short Introduction to Hermeneutics by David Jasper. Hermenuetics is just a fancy word to describe our understanding of the nature of texts and how we interpret and use them. Happy reading/learning/living, penworks

Great news! I'll be watching. peace

I would argue that ignorance is NOT bliss...ignorance has only hindered me in being a more fulfilled person or one who could better weigh options before making informed decisions. But I'm an obsessed reader and knowledge junkie so take what I say with a grain of salt. Perhaps this will shed some light, although I can only speak for myself here...For me, reading about the history of Bible texts or any other texts considered sacred in the world is separate from what I feel is an internal spiritual life. I have come to the place that spirituality or "faith" in an unseen creator does not have to depend on knowledge from a book, any book, including the Hebrew scriptures or the diverse collection of documents in the N.T. or the Koran or any Buddhist writings or Shakespeare for that matter. If it did, we'd be in the soup. Why? We don't have any originals and even if we did, what we'd have are originals of the Hebrew people's mythology (that is not a derogatory term) and the originals of letters in the N.T. to specific groups of people who understood them in a different context and culture than the one we live in. The events surrounding why they were written are long lost to us. In addition, they were understood by people with a world view vastly different than ours (one small example is that they thought the earth was flat) and so their meaning is not necessarily one we would relate to. But that's another huge topic... For me, the more I explored different religions, the clearer it became that generally people from all cultures throughout time have been using religion as a way to express their understanding of a Creator, to record their perceptions of it, and not to define it accurately or know it completely (well, maybe Paul thought he was doing that but I'm not sure about his agenda). It's the extremists that have made the problems, made the US vs. THEM a problematic attitude about one's religion. Karen Armstrong is a wonderful writer on this topic. Check out her work on Amazon, especially The Battle for God - The History of Fundamentalism. So is Joseph Campbell, author of The Power of Myth. Of course, they are not writing from a "Christian" point of view, but from an historian's point of view, just as Bart Ehrman is doing about the history of N.T. texts - and where and how the canon was decided upon. But perhaps this post does not fit into this thread. If a person wants to stick with the Christian frame of reference, which includes that the Bible is God's Word and there's no other way to know Him (or It) than from the Bible and through Jesus Christ, then reading theologically-based works by Christians would be of more interest... It seems to me that most religions are all pointing to the same star but from different directions. For me, it became important to understand how and why I came to take the Bible as the authority over anything else such as other religious writings, and more importantly, over what I knew was right inside myself. In this process spanning 20 years since leaving twi, I feel I've gained a more appropriate view about the Bible and so appreciate it differently than I did while in twi. But I'm no scholar or expert. And I'm sure enjoying the journey post-twi.

A good read on this topic is: Vital Lies and Simple Truths - The Psychology of Self-Deception by Daniel Goleman, PhD. He writes: “Lacunas are black holes of the mind, diverting attention from select bits of subjective reality – specifically, certain anxiety-evoking information.” Pg. 107. Our task, it seems to me, is to first be aware these exist and then try and offset them with reality checks. For me, reality checks include listening to other people, reading a lot, and making more time for contemplation and reflection on my life than modern society normally allows. Hey, no one said it's easy. Cheers, Your neighborhood book hound, Penworks

Right. I thought that was the point, too, back in 1970 when someone talked me into taking PFAL. I admit, they didn't have to twist my arm too hard, since I was so hungry for "answers." Too bad VP did not allow for much FIXING...especially after the PFAL class was filmed. Couldn't redo it after all that $$ was spent! Oakspear - congrats on your 7th anniversary. My 21st is this month.

Paw - Someone who might be able to shed light on your question about where vp might have stood just prior to JCNG being published is DWBH. My own 2 cents: When I was about 12 yrs. old, (yeah yeah back in the dark ages ) my mother and I sat in a pew on Good Friday at St. Francis de Sales Catholic Church. We were supposed to contemplate on the crucifixtion and what it meant for Jesus to die for us. Jesus, who of course was the second person of the Trinity, was also fully man, and fully God. As expected, I was also taking catechism classes at Catholic school and had it pounded into my pea brain that God was the creator who kept the universe in order, for instance He was busy preventing Earth from crashing into Mars, etc. So out of boredom or a trouble making impulse, or something, I leaned over and asked my mom, if JC was God, but he died and was dead for three days and three nights, who kept the universe in order while he was dead since that was his job as God? She frowned and said it was a mystery. Did not make sense to me. Then in high school, I got involved with Young Life. My local leader made a point, for some reason, of pointing out the word "trinity" was not found in the N.T. and so wasn't "true." He made that claim on the basis that the N.T. (at least his copy of Good News for Modern Man) contains the entire truth of God's Word, so if the trinity ain't in there, it ain't true. Made sense to me By then I was starting to question the authority of my Catholic church. Mmm...not unlike in the tradition of someone named Martin Luther, but of course I was too young, too uneducated, and too shy to nail anything on any front door of any cathedral and cause an uproar. But then of course I had never heard of Martin Luther yet, either. Then, in Dec. 1970 I took PFAL and don't remember hearing the word "trinity", only that JC was the son of God. Made sense to me. (Of course, vp had a way of making many things seem as if they made sense, since you barely had time to think about what he was saying nor the implications of what he said.) Then, I left twi in 1987 and decided I didn't know anything for sure. Most people here probably know that the trinity was "invented" long after Jesus died and this "trinity" became a major church doctrine. It was an attempt to identify just who or what JC was since there were so many conflicting ideas floating around (ref. books like Lost Christianities - The Battles for Scripture and the Faiths We Never Knew and you'll get a good overview). The debate continues to this day, obviously. Makes it up in the air for me. I'm inclined to think JC was a man, although an enlightened one and definitely worth reading about in the N.T. and other documents. But then you should know that I'm a person who does not hold to the idea that the Bible is "perfect" nor contains everything we might ever learn about what people call "God." BTW - Has anyone read The History of God by Karen Armstrong? I know Socks has. Cheers!

Since I'm getting quoted here, I figured I'd respond to this. In my comments about people in twi getting college degrees: vpw's comments that I heard were specifically in reference to the ECU guys finishing their degrees before they went in the Corps so that they'd have a worldly credential along with their Way training. He thought this would give them entry into leadership circles out in the world where they could witness and win people for twi. Without a degree, there would be a more limited way of reaching people. I venture to say that this idea continued well into the future. It also included gaining "sense knowledge" that could be evaluated and "made accurate" and useful to twi (like he used to change words in songs to make them more accurate with his version of the Bible). That said, I would never, I repeat never, mean to say that anyone who got any degree accomplished that ONLY to serve twi's purposes. Knowing some of the people DBWH mentioned (in the thread about TWI vs Therapeutic Relationships), I'm venture to say that in their hearts they genuinely wanted to help people. Who knows what is in a man or woman's heart anyway? The problem is that because twi was a closed system, these trained people in counseling were in a very odd situation when counseling, to say the least. DWBH outlined those issues already. Peace, Penworks

Hello DWBH and everyone here, I've been on vacation so am just now catching up. Boy, this is a critical topic to any discussion of twi, IMO. It is a CRITICAL area of ANY ministry. I was in an early Corps, before DWBH, and had no focused teaching on counseling people other than using the Dale Carnegie class principles mixed with the Bible. Like when you're counseling a person, "Try to see things honestly from the other person's point of view" and tell them things like, "Live in day tight compartments" to overcome worry. To that, we'd add things like, "Think the Word, the Word, and nothing but the Word." The idea was to keep people focused on positive not negative thoughts and we'd point out appropriate Bible verses for them to "renew their mind" in whatever catagory they had a problem. That, of course, fosters denial of stupendous proportions. In that scenario, problems are not really addressed and resolved, only covered over with a bandaid. I can testify to that! When I graduated from the Corps in 1973, got married, and went to L.A. for our first assignment, I was scared to death of counseling. It was not clear how to go about handling people's problems except to encourage them to renew their mind to the Way teachings and love one another - and use those Carnegie keys. It's a shame, really. I shudder to think how many people I tried to "help" with these pitiful tools and hope I didn't do too much damage, telling people to just "get committed to the Word" or "let go and let God" so that their problems would be solved. Geez. I did all that myself and I KNOW my problems many times were not solved! I do remember that any counseling by "outsiders" like psychologists or psychiatrists was definitely "off the Word." You couldn't forbid anyone from gaining that help, but it was labeled as "sense knowledge" and even worse, as DWBH mentioned, vpw said it had its roots in spiritualism (the devil's country), not the accuracy of The Word. So I never suggested that to anyone; we just tried to discern any devil spirits and pray for people. One thing I was confused about was regarding the manifestations of the spirit, like discerning of devil spirits, which we were supposed to "operate" in order to help people. If, for instance, being homosexual automatically meant a person had a devil spirit of homosexuality, but the only way you (as their leader) could know whether that person had such a devil spirit was by "operating discerning of spirits" then how come by just looking at them or being around them you could tell they were gay? What do I need discerning of spirits for? My 5 senses told me the situation clear enough. I didn't need to "operate" a manifestation of the spirit. I just didn't understand how to tell the difference. I often felt weak spiritually because I was unsure. It just did not add up. BTW - I had a family member who was gay and I resented this whole teaching! I loved that person and accepted her the way she was. I could not accept that she was possessed. The twi history DWBH recounts of the "counseling" class that came in later years is on the mark. I remember all those people he mentioned and the parts they played in the story. From my perspective, I saw some people getting degrees in college only to gain that worldly knowledge so they could somehow "make it accurate" and use it in the ministry. The degrees were to make twi look respectable to the world so we would seem more credible in whatever we did. vpw himself, while I was in the Corps, told us that. Let's all hope people get the kind of help they need when they need it...it's not always easy and sometimes it takes awhile to find the right sort of counsel. But for heaven's sake, who can honestly think Jesus or God or Buddha, or anyone spiritually minded would label people who are trying to provide mental health solutions to others as "of the devil." Let's crawl out of the dark ages... Peace

Krysilis, I, too, am terribly sorry to hear this happened. Thanks for telling us. And thanks to Skyrider, also. My heart just aches for you all and your families. Perhaps knowing you have supportive people here helps a bit. For me, having known these top "leaders," I am especially terribly sad over all the corruption and hurt through the years that was kept in the shadows from so many of us. I left HQ in 1987 and have known little about things that happened after that until coming here to gsc. It's about time these stories are told and listened to. One question: can you tell us what action, if any, you know of that Rev. WC might have taken after this incident? Did he leave HQ then? You can PM me with the answer if you want. Peace to you.

Well said, George. And IMO it's quite correct that the poll question frames inerrancy as a "belief." Beliefs can often NOT be proven. Beliefs are powerful, though, as we know from our own experiences in twi. Anyhow, any good book on the history of the N.T. texts (and Hebrew Bible) describes how and when the canon was formed. It does not seem clear that inerrancy was a claim they made back then - they just figured those documents were inspired and authored by either the original apostles or disciples who were followers of the original apostles. Nor did they think the books were historically "correct" as far as I can find out. There's much scholarly doubt today that Paul wrote all the N.T. books that are ascribed to him, i.e. I and II Timothy and Titus were NOT written by him, and II Peter was not written by the apostle Peter, etc. There's a lot more of that info out there... Seems to me that inerrancy is farcical. About 20 years ago I never dreamed I'd ever think this!!!

For those who did not get this info in college (or anywhere else) but are interested in the first few centuries of "church" history, IMO here is a site worth investigating. The info on the site is in connection with a video documentary put out by Frontline on PBS: http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/sh...religion/jesus/ From my local library, I borrowed and watched these videos. I daresay they provide a source of info on this topic that most of us did not get while in twi. Maybe there was a reason... After gaining this sort of education, some of us pause to question the claim that vpw taught the Word since it had not been known since the first century...

I did. One thing: Because she writes it in present tense, I think the snippets of conversation at the start of each chapter are a good way to show the reader the thoughts of the "present day" Kristen. The story moves along fast, except for the times I have to put it down and mourn over her ordeal for a few minutes.

Although late, I send you best wishes on your birthday. Hope it was wonderful for you. You've come a long way, lady! Cheers, penworks

For those of us who were around vpw, I think we can verify that the following info written by Dr. Sam Vaknin is a pretty good description of the way vpw (and some other twi leaders) acted much of the time. The court's findings referenced above make a distinction between belief and actions. Actions that betray the trust people put in their religious leaders are WRONG. Actions like the ones described below, IMO, are in this catagory. Regardless of what vpw or others like him have taught about the Bible, I think it's safe to say it's more than wise to avoid the company of a person who behaves in ways described below, and at the very least we should regard as suspect anything they might teach. Keep in mind that vpw's teachings and the teachings of twi at present are founded on a way of interpreting the Bible that is fabricated by Christian fundamentalists and are not the ONLY or right way to view the books of the Bible... and some of vpw's teachings IMO are downright manipulation of the scriptures, such as 4 crucified, Eli Eli, spiritual adultery, etc. etc. There are many references to these sorts of teachings here at gsc, like the article called Actual errors in PFAL, etc Info source: http://www.meadowhaven.org/psychissues/cultofnarcissist.html The Cult of the Narcissist By: Dr. Sam Vaknin Sam Vaknin ( http://samvak.tripod.com ) is the author of Malignant Self Love - Narcissism Revisited and After the Rain - How the West Lost the East. He served as a columnist for Central Europe Review, PopMatters, E-BookWeb, and Bellaonline, and as a United Press International (UPI) Senior Business Correspondent. He is the the editor of mental health and Central East Europe categories in The Open Directory and Suite101. The narcissist is the guru at the center of a cult. Like other gurus, he demands complete obedience from his flock: his spouse, his offspring, other family members, friends and colleagues. He feels entitled to adulation and special treatment by his followers. He punishes the wayward and the straying lambs. He enforces discipline, adherence to his teachings, and common goals. The less accomplished he is in reality – the more stringent his mastery and the more pervasive the brainwashing. The – often involuntary – members of the narcissist’s mini-cult inhabit a twilight zone of his own construction. He imposes on them a shared psychosis, replete with persecutory delusions, “enemies”, mythical narratives, and apocalyptic scenarios if he is flouted. The narcissist’s control is based on ambiguity, unpredictability, fuzziness, and ambient abuse. His ever-shifting whims exclusively define right versus wrong, desirable and unwanted, what is to be pursued and what to be avoided. He alone determines the rights and obligations of his disciples and alters them at will. The narcissist is a micro-manager. He exerts control over the minutest details and behaviors. He punishes severely and abuses withholders of information and those who fail to conform to his wishes and goals. The narcissist does not respect the boundaries and privacy of his reluctant adherents. He ignores their wishes and treats them as objects or instruments of gratification. He seeks to control both situations and people compulsively. He strongly disapproves of others’ personal autonomy and independence. Even innocuous activities, such as meeting a friend or visiting one’s family require his permission. Gradually, he isolates his nearest and dearest until they are fully dependent on him emotionally, sexually, financially, and socially. He acts in a patronizing and condescending manner and criticizes often. He alternates between emphasizing the minutest faults (devalues) and exaggerating the talents, traits and skills (idealizes) of the members of his cult. He is wildly unrealistic in his expectations – which legitimizes his subsequent abusive conduct. The narcissist claims to be infallible, superior, talented, skillful, omnipotent, and omniscient. He often lies and confabulates to support these unfounded claims. Within his cult, he expects awe, admiration, adulation, and constant attention commensurate with his outlandish stories and assertions. He reinterprets reality to fit his fantasies. His thinking is dogmatic, rigid, and doctrinaire. He does not countenance free thought, pluralism, or free speech and doesn’t brook criticism and disagreement. He demands – and often gets – complete trust and the relegation to his capable hands of all decision-making. He forced the participants in his cult to be hostile to critics, the authorities, institutions, his personal enemies, or the media – if they try to uncover his actions and reveal the truth. He closely monitors and censors information from the outside, exposing his captive audience only to selective data and analyses. The narcissist’s cult is “missionary” and “imperialistic”. He is always on the lookout for new recruits – his spouse’s friends, his daughter’s girlfriends, his neighbors, and new colleagues at work. He immediately attempts to “convert” them to his “creed” – to convince them how wonderful and admirable he is. In other words, he tries to render them Sources of Narcissistic Supply. Often, his behavior on these “recruiting missions” is different to his conduct within the “cult”. In the first phases on wooing new admirers and proselytizing to potential “conscripts” – the narcissist is attentive, compassionate, empathic, flexible, self-effacing, and helpful. At home, among the “veterans” he is tyrannical, demanding, willful, opinionated, aggressive and exploitive. As the leader of his congregation, the narcissist feels entitled to special amenities and benefits not accorded the “rank and file”. He expects to be waited on hand and foot, to make free use of everyone’s money and dispose of their assets liberally, and to be cynically exempt from the rules that he himself established (if such violation is pleasurable or gainful). In extreme cases, the narcissist feels above the law – any kind of law. This grandiose and haughty conviction leads to criminal acts, incestuous or polygamous relationships, and recurrent friction with the authorities. Hence the narcissist’s panicky and sometimes violent reactions to “dropouts” from his cult. There’s a lot going on that the narcissist wants kept under wraps. Moreover, the narcissist stabilizes his fluctuating sense of self-worth by deriving Narcissistic Supply from his victims. Abandonment threatens the narcissist’s precariously balanced personality. Add to that the narcissist’s paranoid and schizoid tendencies, his lack of introspective self-awareness, and his stunted sense of humor (lack of self-deprecation) and the risks to the grudging members of his cult are clear. The narcissist sees enemies and conspiracies everywhere. He often casts himself as the heroic victim (martyr) of dark and stupendous forces. In every deviation from his tenets he espies malevolent and ominous subversion. He, therefore, is bent on disempowering his devotees. By any and all means. The narcissist is dangerous.

Back to the thread's topic regarding this second interview... Thanks again to Paw and Kristen. I can hardly imagine how challenging it must be to "go on the record" with your story, Kristen. And as difficult as it may be for some people to stomach listening to this sad story, I think it is important to listen. It speaks to many issues surrounding how something like this happens, denial being one of the most powerful ones. As humans, when we invest our hearts in a cause we believe to be true, we want so badly for it to be true that we'll avoid considering any doubts about its value, often to our own disadvantage, or even our own destruction. Take any intro psychology class and you'll probably learn this or browse the aisle of the self-help section at Borders and you'll see dozens of books on this topic of denial, not to mention cult awareness books... BTW: Other sources of info that happend to help me leave The Way in 1987: The Way International and Victor Paul Wierwille published in 1979 by The Moody Bible Institute of Chicago, written by J.L. Williams, ISBN 0-8024-9233-9. It's a little paperback of 159 pages including cult info references, notes, bibliography etc. I first found it in a used bookstore in Fort Wayne, Indiana in 1986. It helped me get out of The Way and understand some major issues, and although some of the theological points discussed are not ones I necessarily agreed with, the writer helped open my eyes to some things. In 1987, a friend recommended reading From Ashes to Gold by Patti Roberts, which tells of her experiences at Oral Roberts University (there are some similarities with The Way Corps training, etc.). She describes her disillusionment with the cause and her eventual divorce from Oral Robert's son, Richard. Although I did not (nor do now) espouse many of her religious beliefs, her understanding of the power that Oral Roberts had over her life and how the groupthink of the organization controlled her were things I could relate to first-hand. To her credit, she began questioning and stood up for herself, got out and started a new life. Needless to say, I'm surely thankful you did, too, Kristen.

Since this post, much of what Oakspear and Lindy have said pretty much reflect my feelings and thoughts, too. I have no intention [nor the power] of "shutting down the conversation." What I have to add, I feel, is just repetitive of what I've already offered. And besides, quite frankly, I'm getting tired of listening to myself I'm truly glad you've found a path for you that "works," brideofjc, and ask that you understand I need to be on my way. Let the conversation continue, ya'll! besides that...we have a family member who is near dying, so I probably won't be around here for awhile. peace

Well, thanks everyone for taking the time you have with this topic. Guess all I have left to say is that I vote for the Golden Rule... as far as a spiritual journey goes, it's clear each of us has a unique path... peace

Very interesting turns this topic takes... Just one comment [and I know it's not popular] and I give it with respect, as I trust my viewpoint will be respected, about the following belief which brideofjc shared: "While Matthew, Mark et al may have been penned by those names, the true author is the LORD GOD ALMIGHTY" Although for years I would have agreed with you, my quest for understanding of this book called the Bible has led me to the place of questioning this assumption. Many people have various understandings about what or who God is [even in the O.T. different names were used and some say they refer to different "gods"]. For me, this affects the idea of an "authorship" by God of the Bible. Surely, many of these scriptures were and are considered sacred to some people, obviously. There are also many other "scriptures" belonging to other cultures that are sacred to them, too. Where is the "right" one, which is the "right" God? I have honestly asked myself this question for the past 20 years since leaving twi and I can say it's not easy to even present it here because of the "heretical" stigma it carries. But some of us really, deeply are concerned about this subject and the implications of it we see in the world around us. I welcome conversation about it. IMO, humankind has tried to relate to the unseen power around it since developing consciousness and has come up with various ways. May I be so bold as to suggest reading something like A History of God for further enlightenment for those interested? From what I know, when monotheism developed, it ruled out other ideas of God, at least this seems to have happened in the area of the world we know of as the Near East today. Monotheism is one way of relating to the creative universe. There are other ways, too, just as good and productive, and creative and loving... just a few thoughts...now I need to get back to yard work...how mundane... <_<

Hi everyone, First, Lindy, I love what you said, "A light in total darkened emptiness doesn't illuminate anything. There needs to be something there to absorb and reflect it." Gonna think about that one for while. Sometimes your writing is very poetic... Anyhow, getting back to the first question about how "scripture" was taught in twi to mean the Bible (KJV canon) Here's just a bit of info about where this idea came from: that the scriptures, i.e. the Bible, is The Word of God and the "only rule of faith and practice" (as pointed out by a post in this thread by DontWorryBeHappy) . I realize vpw credited Rosalind Rinker as the person who influenced him to believe this, but this idea has a long history starting pretty much with Luther's 95 thesis, the first item on his list pitted the authority of the Bible against tradition found in the Catholic Church [not a bad idea, but he became extreme about it IMO]. Some of you may know how vpw loved Luther. Luther claimed that no church tradition could claim divine sanction unless it was supported by scripture. So he decided scripture (which version? which translation?) was the only godly authority over our lives. This set in motion a wild chain of events... "In his public debate in Leipzig with Johann Eck, theology professor at Ingolstadt (1519), Luther made his controversial new doctrine sola scripture ('scripture alone') explicit for the first time. How could Luther understand the Bible, Eck asked, without the popes, councils and universities? Luther replied: 'A simple layman armed with scripture is to be believed above a pople or council without it.' This was an unprecendented claim. Jews and Christians had always upheld the sacred importance of inherited tradition." The Bible - A Biography by Karen Armstrong, pg. 165. IMO, its good idea to question tradition; however, this stance, because of ignorance of so many things about the Bible, has led to all the conflicting interpretations, sects, denominations, and yes - cults - in the world, and caused monstrous bloodshed, bigotry, mark and avoid tactics, hateful speech, bad behavior, etc. you name it, promulgated by people who believe they are "right" in their interpretation and application of scripture in our modern world. Read about Luther and his life; you may begin to question his ideas, ideas which some of us inherited from twi. I've cited Armstrong's work here before. But any history of the Bible could provide this same information. What I like about her book is that it is so concise . It's a very easy read. Read a few pages on your lunch hour. It is only 229 pages. The are extensive notes with other works cited that you can read, too, if you're interested. Publishers Weekly wrote: "...Armstrong not only describes how, when, and by whom the Bible was written, she also examines some two thousand years of biblical interpretation by rabbis and bishops, scholars and mystics, pietists and critics, thus opening up a myriad of exegetical [exegesis is the interpretation and understanding of a text on the basis of the text itself] approaches and dispelling any fundamentalist notion that only one view can be correct." Also, Wide as the Waters - the History of the English Bible and the Revolution it Inspired by historian Benson Bobrick is great. It blew my mind! I saw how some of us have not only repeated the gross mistakes of others because of our ignorance but also out of our deliberate narrow-mindedness. I'm on a campaign (can you tell ) to stamp out ignorance of the history of this text. It has influenced our lives in such profound ways - some good, some bad. The Golden Rule, as many have suggested, can help us get past old forms of narrow thinking about how we treat others; that "rule" may be the only hope we have of surviving in this crazy world. Okay, enough from the book nerd...