Oakspear

I don't remember what year I noticed it, but I eventually did...I probably decided to "hold it in abeyance". Like what part of speech, voice, mood, tense, etc. jsut for starters.

And we all allowed ourselves to be convinced that we were biblical scholars ourselves because we could look up "receive" in a concordance and determine if it was dechomai or lambano. So often we used faulty information such as what you mentioned as the basis for our "research". Many of us had interlinears and lexicons on our bookshelves without even the slightest idea how to use them.

That's certainly an interesting take on what I said, somewhat different than my actual point, which was that sometimes posts aren't clear, not that they can't be backed up or can't be argued. If someone misunderstands my point, it's my place to explain it more thoroughly, not the other person's place to tell me what I really meant. Like I just did.

More like the first 7, possibly 8 sessions, John. I believe the point that Mike was making was that the written materials were more authoritative, not comprehensive, than the tapes. If I remember correctly minor errors were edited out and some other changes made.

Yes, it was me who said that. (What? Do you have a file somewhere? Are you stalking me? ) I agree that Mike has a right to offer his opinion. In this case his opinion doesn't have much to support it, other than wishful thinking. Wierwille, for all that I disagree with many, if not most of his conclusions, taught and wrote that it was possible to determine what the originals said by keys to research, Mike denies that this is what Wierwille taught and offers that what Wierwille was really teaching was that you couldn't determine what the originals contained, which is why PFAL was written. Of course you have the right and privelege to maintain that this is a legitimate, logical argument based on some posters arguing that Wierwille didn't mean what he said. I maintain that your argument is illogical and irrelevant. It has no bearing on the strength of Mike's position. Another point is that generally those who take the position that Wierwille didn't mean what he said he meant say so because either his actions didn't agree with what he said, or he spoke or wrote contradictory things. The snowstorm. I believe there are more reasons to disbelieve it than to believe it.

So, you agree with Mike that Wierwille didn't say what he meant in the PFAL book and other quoted writings? That Mike's interpretation is to be preferred over what Wierwille clearly wrote?

Last night I prayed...I said God could have it all...I was ready to check the whole thing...and he spoke to me audibly and said "It's chuck, not check you idiot, use a spell checker"...then I said, "if PFAL is really a bunch of hokum, make it snow". And sure enough it snowed last night, check the weather report for Lincoln Nebraska. There was even snow on the gas pumps.

You are addressing statements that are not being made on this thread in order to make your point. The poster that made the point that Mike was representing Wierwille's words as meaning something different than what he actual said or wrote did not, at least on this thread, make the argument that Wierwille's words did mean something different than what he actually said or wrote. If a poster did this, i.e. claiming that at the same time Wierwille's words did mean exactly what he said and that they didn't mean exactly what he said, that could be construed as inconsistancy, or maybe even hypocrisy, if both situations were identical. Each situation must be looked at indivdually, not generalized.

The existance of posts claiming that Wierwille did not say what he meant do not at all invalidate the claims in other posts that Wierwille did mean what he said. The claim should be evaluated based on its merits, not on whether all posts by a variety of different posters are consistant with each other.

No, a strawman argument is when you present an position that is different and usually weaker than your opponenent's actual argument as his actual argument. You have a point about Mark's point...but it's not a strawman. Carry on...

He does what? Quote only what he feels backs up his position or has another witness? Mike is perfectly capable of responding to anything I say to or about him. Despite our opposing viewpoints we get along pretty well. And he owes me a Leinenkugel.

...and I continue to believe that John Entwhistle (sp?) was one of the best rock bass players ever....but then again, no one's claimed that he wasn't. Looks like a moon walking strawman

If entire teachings were copied word-for-word, and if Wierwille's writing style was sophmoric, then yes, the writing style of the original author would necessarily also be sophmoric. I've seen side-by-side comparisons that showed how certain sections of books by Stiles and Leonard were copied pretty close to word-for-word, with a few terms or some words changed here and there, but have not heard or seen anything to indicate that whole chapters, books or teachings were copied wholesale. As far as error-ridden teachings of Wierwille being derived from others; sure, that does mean that the underlying teachings are error-ridden as well. Although I've seen several instances where Wierwille used Bullinger to back up his teachings, but misunderstood or misrepresented what Bullinger actually wrote, thereby changing the teaching.

I have learned that there is no entity who is minutely concerned about what I believe or do or pulling strings behind the scenes running the world. There is no entity answering my prayers or providing me with a book containing the rules for living life. I have learned that I am capable of figuring out how to live life myself. I have learned that there are few things that are black or white, but that there are infinite shades of grey. I have learned that t5here is great joy to be had in living life.

The post that you quoted does not say that they do.I for one consider Wierwille's character a good reason to not give him the benefit of the doubt; my opinion that his teachings are faulty is based on the teachings themselves. Tzaia's post seems to be saying something similar. Be careful not to light any matches around that strawman.

I agree with Mike that many of us in TWI didn't always remember exactly what we heard and when. I remember being very surprised, for example, when I couldn't find the whole "It's Christ in you!...what power we have if we only knew it" was not in the book. There were so many classes, commentaries and teachings based on the classes, advances, books, articles, tapes, etc, it's a wonder we could keep any of it straight. That's just the way human memory works, I don't care who you are. However does that mean that Mike is recalling them correctly? <_< Now, if Mike has a copy of the video or audio class (one & the same) or an dependable transcript, I would tend to believe him, but would feel better if an additional witness could verify what he's saying. I've not found Mike to be a liar, but he does tend to quote what backs up his position while ignoring the rest. What I don't agree with is that anyone who doesn't come to the same conclusions about PFAL as Mike did hasn't "mastered" the material. His stance that a different viewpoint is prima facie evidence of non-mastery is a circular argument.

Since I left in 2001 I have not had one single person that I mentioned it to have any idea who or what TWI was/is. Maybe that number would be different if I ran in evangelical Christian circles, maybe not. The other day a co-worker & I found out that we had an aquaintance in common: my last twig coordinator. All he asked me was if I had anything to do with "that church in his house". Every once in a while I respond to "So, what brought you to Nebraska?" with "I was in a religious cult" and watch the reaction. Most don't no what to say and seem to quickly forget about it.

Well bro', we agree for different reasons. The Oldiesman quote was from, I believe, The Way Living in Love. We disagree on the significance of that statement too. Frankly, I'm glad that you have found a solid relationship with your God, even if it is via PFAL At least you've never told me I'm going to hell...or was possessed

Sorry, this post was supposed to be part of the first post on the next page, but waysider was too fast

I just thought this statement deserved to be highlighted.

Along the lines of "God can only give that which he is...spirit" It falls apart with light prodding

IIRC the "mantle" kind of looked like a shawl. Early in my TWI career I was somewhat put off by all the ceremony in a supposedly non-religious "ministry". Why on earth did they think that they needed clerical robes for the people who were ordained? And the academic robes.

Upon reflection, I don't think it's so much that people pray for us disbelievers, but that they feel the neeed to tell us about it, which, to me, is close to "witnessing". It isn't so much that I think that a prayer on my behalf is going to have any effect, but the notion that someone thinks that I need to be interceded for that irks me just a little. But just a little. I don't sit up at night fuming over the Christians who are praying for my soul (or my foot :lol: ) - but I did think it was an interesting subject for a thread.

Dat's riiiight.

It's just a personal preference, you're right, it could go either way. It was just part of my sparring with Geisha. No, we're not posting on the same computer, but I was able to recognize that he was using "sale" figuratively without being part of a mind-meld, or being his wife. I think Garth's latest post bears out my observation.