Oakspear

Bramble: I've a similar path from Christianity to my current faith. When I was in the process of extricating myself from TWI, one of the things that I questioned was the truism "The Word of God is the Will of God", that the bible was self-evidently given by inspiration of God. The more that I looked at it the less that I held to my long held belief that the bible was "THE" holy book. I had decided to throw out, first what I had accepted in the martindale years, then what I had learned in PFAL and finally Christianity itself, and to the best of my ability start from scratch and see where my search led me. While still in a Christian mindset I read a book by my uncle called "Celtic Christianity" which outlined the Celtic contributions to modern Christianity. This got me curious about the ancestral Celtic religions and their modern reconstructions and interpretations. 20th/21st century paganism resonated with me and I have found it to be very satisfying and helpful in my life.

I know this civil discourse can't last...it's not natural A point was made about the bible being a reliable historical document, referring to the number of copies. As far as I know, that's true, that there are more copies and fragments of copies made of the bible than anything else from that time period. Attests to the importanace that people placed on it. The biggest logical step, or more likely, leap, that I cannot make is from verifiability of historical persons and events to the truth of the doctrine. Muhammed was an historical figure, the Koran contains references to verifiable historical events; L. Ron Hubbard was an historical figure, there are many still alive that have met the late Mr. Hubbard; Sun Myung Moon is still alive, yet from a Christian point of view these men promulgated lies. Many religions have at their root an historical figure. Many of these religions have "sacred" writing that refer to verifiable persons and events. What cannot be verified is whether any of these people, including Jesus, Moses, Paul, Peter and Isaiah are telling the truth. And even if they are telling the truth as the see it, what they experienced was internal; there are precious few incidents recorded in anybody's "holy" book where God spoke out loud for everybody to hear. That's what some of us mean by subjective vs. objective. The Invisible Dan can address this more intelligently than I can, but even stipulating that Jesus did exist, where the gospels faithful recordings of what Jesus actually did and said? There's evidence that I consider convincing that the canon of scripture we have today is the result of one faction within early Christianity emerging victorious after a decades-long battle of words. The winning faction could now point to the "scriptures" as backing up their position, since the competing "scriptures" were supressed and the competing factions marginilized or exiled. The bible in the NT becomes, not an accurate historical document, but a series of pamphlets pushing one faction's agenda.

Yeah, how is it going now that you've got all that oil money coming in? Why do you think Bumpy was booted for his "dissenting opinion"? Despite several posters, including me, making mention of opinions that distract from the "mission of GSC", pawtucket never said that Bumpy was out due to his "dissent". The only thing that pawtucket mentioned was: - apparently he used his skills at personal attacks once too often.

The past is always rosier when viewed from down the road. Things always look better in hindsight than they do when they are actually happening Geisha: For the most part, Lindy speaks for me as well as himself. While I'm aware that I don't know it all, there are some categories in which it is unlikely that I'm going to see any new startling information. I'm always seeking, but my seeking these days is in other directions besides Christianity.

Okay, now you're going too far

Well, in your post you said that Bumpy was wanting to know why. So I guess that's why pawtucket asked why he didn't email him. Why is it that every time somebody get suspended or moderated there's a new thread talking about it? Even though I'm no fan of censorship, I'm real tired of some of these boneheads who undermine what this site is about. Free speech is incidental, this site is about telling the other side of the story. So what do we get? People who work real hard at telling the story that we're trying to counter. TWI has their own web site, the offshoots have their own, and there are private web sites and home fellowships, all who tell the Wierwille/PFAL/TWI side of the story...and don't allow any dissent. I'm freakin' tired of "free speech" being used as a pretext to undermine telling that story. Why is Bumpy suspended? I have no idea, but I won't miss him. He contributed nothing to this site.

By the way, I found several articles that made the opposite point than the one that I copied and cited did. I'm sure that I haven't read everyting that there is to read on the subject. You find that the archeological evidence supports the historical accuracy of the bible which in turn supports the doctrinal accuracy. Okay, makes sense to me. I can see where you might find that the evidence of archeology is enough. Got it. I know that you haven't attributed this attitude to me, but I don't feel that you're stupid or superstitious for accepting the evidence that you have and coming to the conclusions that you do. However, I don't find the "evidence" nearly as compelling as you do. And even if every character's existance as well as every reference to towns, cities and rivers was supported by archeology and third-party historical documents, that, in my opinion, does not guarantee that what these characters said and believed about their God is true or applicable. Anyway, you've done a fine job of explaining your position and helping me understand it. You haven't persuaded me however I'd be willing to agree to disagree and stop badgering you

One view of the bible as an historical document (obviously not the only POV) http://www.theskepticalreview.com/tsrmag/982front.html Has archaeology proven the historical accuracy of the Bible? If you listened only to biblical inerrantists, you would certainly think so. Amateur apologists have spread this claim all over the internet, and in a letter published in this issue, Everett Hatcher even asserted that archaeology supports that "the Bible is the inerrant word of God." Such a claim as this is almost too absurd to deserve space for publication, because archaeology could prove the inerrancy of the Bible only if it unearthed undeniable evidence of the accuracy of every single statement in the Bible. If archaeological confirmation of, say, 95% of the information in the Bible should exist, then this would not constitute archaeological proof that the Bible is inerrant, because it would always be possible that error exists in the unconfirmed five percent. Has archaeology confirmed the historical accuracy of some information in the Bible? Indeed it has, but I know of no person who has ever tried to deny that some biblical history is accurate. The inscription on the Moabite Stone, for example, provides disinterested, nonbiblical confirmation that king Mesha of the Moabites, mentioned in 2 Kings 3:4-27, was probably an actual historical character. The Black Obelisk provides a record of the payment of tribute to the Assyrian king Shalmaneser III by Jehu, king of the Israelites (2 Kings 9-10; 2 Chron. 22:7-9). Likewise, the Babylonian Chronicle attests to the historicity of Nebuchadnezzar, king of Babylon, and his conquest of Jerusalem as recorded in 2 Kings 25. Other examples could be cited, but these are sufficient to show that archaeology has corroborated some information in the Bible. What biblicists who get so excited over archaeological discoveries like these apparently can't understand is that extrabiblical confirmation of some of the Bible does not constitute confirmation of all if the Bible. For example, the fact that archaeological evidence confirms that Jehu was an actual historical character confirms only that he was an actual historical character. It does not confirm the historical accuracy of everything that the Bible attributed to him. Did a "son of the prophets" go to Ramoth-gilead and anoint Jehu king of Israel while the reigning king was home in Jezreel recovering from battle wounds (2 Kings 9:1-10)? Did Jehu then ride to Jezreel in a chariot and massacre the Israelite royal family and usurp the throne (2 Kings 9:16 ff)? We simply cannot determine this from an Assyrian inscription that claimed Jehu paid tribute to Shalmaneser, so in the absence of disinterested, nonbiblical records that attest to these events, it is hardly accurate to say that archaeology has proven the historicity of what the Bible recorded about Jehu. Likewise, extrabiblical references to Nebuchadnezzar may confirm his historical existence, but they do not corroborate the accuracy of such biblical claims as his dream that Daniel interpreted (Dan. 2) or his seven-year period of insanity (Dan. 4:4-37). To so argue is to read entirely too much into the archaeological records. The fact is that some archaeological discoveries in confirming part of the Bible simultaneously cast doubt on the accuracy of other parts. The Moabite Stone, for example, corroborates the biblical claim that there was a king of Moab named Mesha, but the inscription on the stone gives a different account of the war between Moab and the Israelites recorded in 2 Kings 3. Mesha's inscription on the stone claimed overwhelming victory, but the biblical account claims that the Israelites routed the Moabite forces and withdrew only after they saw Mesha sacrifice his eldest son as a burnt offering on the wall of the city the Moabites had retreated to (2 Kings 3:26-27). So the Moabite Stone, rather than corroborating the accuracy of the biblical record, gives reason to suspect that both accounts are biased. Mesha's inscription gave an account favorable to the Moabites, and the biblical account was slanted to favor the Israelites. The actual truth about the battle will probably never be known. Other archaeological discoveries haven't just cast doubt on the accuracy of some biblical information but have shown some accounts to be completely erroneous. A notable example would be the account of Joshua's conquest and destruction of the Canaanite city of Ai. According to Joshua 8, Israelite forces attacked Ai, burned it, "utterly destroyed all the inhabitants," and made it a "heap forever" (vs:26-28). Extensive archaeological work at the site of Ai, however, has revealed that the city was destroyed and burned around 2400 B. C., which would have been over a thousand years before the time of Joshua. Joseph Callaway, a conservative Southern Baptist and professor at Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, spent nine years excavating the ruins of ancient Ai and afterwards reported that what he found there contradicted the biblical record. The evidence from Ai was mainly negative. There was a great walled city there beginning about 3000 B. C., more than 1,800 years before Israel's emergence in Canaan. But this city was destroyed about 2400 B. C., after which the site was abandoned. Despite extensive excavation, no evidence of a Late Bronze Age (1500-1200 B. C.) Canaanite city was found. In short, there was no Canaanite city here for Joshua to conquer (Biblical Archaeology Review, "Joseph A. Callaway: 1920-1988," November/December 1988, p. 24, emphasis added). This same article quoted what Callaway had earlier said when announcing the results of his nine-year excavation of Ai. Archaeology has wiped out the historical credibility of the conquest of Ai as reported in Joshua 7-8. The Joint Expedition to Ai worked nine seasons between 1964 and 1976... only to eliminate the historical underpinning of the Ai account in the Bible (Ibid., p. 24). The work of Kathleen Kenyon produced similar results in her excavation of the city of Jericho. Her conclusion was that the walls of Jericho were destroyed around 2300 B. C., about the same time that Ai was destroyed. Apparently, then, legends developed to explain the ruins of ancient cities, and biblical writers recorded them as tales of Joshua's conquests. Information like this, however, is never mentioned by inerrantists when they talk about archaeological confirmation of biblical records. Archaeological silence is another problem that biblical inerrantists don't like to talk about. According to the Bible, the Israelite tribes were united into one nation that had a glorious history during the reigns of king David and his son Solomon, yet the archaeological record is completely silent about these two kings except for two disputed inscriptions that some think are references to "the house of David." This is strange indeed considering that references to Hebrew kings of much less biblical importance (Omri, Ahab, Jehu, Zedekiah, etc.) have been found in extrabiblical records. This archaeological silence doesn't prove that David and Solomon did not exist, but it certainly gives all but biblical inerrantists pause to wonder. Another case in point is the biblical record of the exodus of the Israelites from Egypt and their subsequent 40-year wandering in the Sinai wilderness. According to census figures in the book of Numbers, the Israelite population would have been between 2.5 to 3 million people, all of whom died in the wilderness for their disobedience, yet extensive archaeological work by Israeli archaeologist Eliezer Oren over a period of 10 years "failed to provide a single shred of evidence that the biblical account of the Exodus from Egypt ever happened" (Barry Brown, "Israeli Archaeologist Reports No Evidence to Back Exodus Story," News Toronto Bureau, Feb. 27, 1988). Oren reported that although he found papyrus notes that reported the sighting of two runaway slaves, no records were found that mentioned a horde of millions: "They were spotted and the biblical account of 2.5 million people with 600,000 of military age weren't?" Oren asked in a speech at the Royal Ontario Museum. That is certainly a legitimate question. Up to 3 million Israelites camped in a wilderness for 40 years, but no traces of their camps, burials, and millions of animal sacrifices could be found in ten years of excavations. This may be an argument from silence, but it is a silence that screams.

Agreed, the whole question of the historical accuracy of the bible deserves more than what either one of us can devote to it. Well, the parts that you refer to are not ascribed to Peter. The agenda, as I put it, wasn't to make themselves look good or bad, but to make Jesus look good. Most of it was written decades or a century after the events that it describes, the agenda of which I speak was partly to get Christians unified under one doctrne, one view of Jesus, which was hardly the case when the canon of scripture was being compiled. An agenda isn't necessarily bad, but it is biased. Me neither, no dying for a lie for me either. But people do do it. Islamists die for what you would consider a lie every day. Actually I have. I believe that archeology supports some of the PT and NT. The bible wasn't written in a vacuum, nor do I believe it is straight fiction. But finding evidence, even if 100% verified, of a person or place mentioned in the bible is a long way from verifying what a spirit was doing or telling people. Well, there is a letter claiming that, sure. Sure, that's not really arguable, but the accounts of where he was born, what he did to fullfil those prophesies etc were written long after he died. But your posts about how you came to believe is very enlightening, and makes sense to me and is internally consistant, even though I disagree with a number of the premises that you utilize to come to your conclusions. Peace

Hiya Geish. I appreciate you taking the time to engage me in discussion in a friendly way. I appreciate it, I really do. When I ask questions, it is not to disparage or put down, but to spur dialog, and frankly, to get answers. So, thanks for keeping it civil. Well, the bible was written about historical times, and it was written by people quite a long time ago. From a secular point of view the bible, or parts of it, is our only reference to certain individuals or events, for others there is complementary records. (For example, Roman government references to Pilate, Moabite references to Omri King of Israel etc.)Paul? I think that the bible is the only contemporary mention of him, so it would make sense for a secular institution to refer to the bible for information about him. However, the bible's purpose is to promote its god, and as such is subject to the biases and point of view of its authors. This does not mean that it's all a fake, hardly! But from a secular or neutral POV, it must be assessed for what it is, a document who's authors had an agenda. Other historical documents contained their authors' agendas as well. The geneology of Darius on the plains of Behustan (sp?) is viewed with suspicion and some think it contains a fake list of ancestors to make Darius' bloodline look better than it was. Herodotus, Josephus, American history, Soviet history...they all contain biases, and these must be accounted for when reading them. The same is true for the bible when viewed from a secular perspective. Basically what you're saying bis that the bible conforms to God's reality because it says it does. That is a textbook example of circular reasoning. Whoa! Your example of your professors accepting the bible as a source in a paper about Paul is not the same as the bible being a credible histrical document. I personally believe that there was an historical Jesus on whom the gospel accounts are based. Sure I consider it. I'm just not convinced. Other books make that same claim based on just as little external evidense. Just because it is written down somewhere does not make it true. And regarding the Declaration...there are things in there that were argued, like whether a people actually hadthe right to throw off their King, and the Magna Carta asserted the rights of nobles against those of the King. Just to be clear, I'm not saying that theer aren't true things in the bible, that historical events and personages are not described therein, or that it's worthless as a source, just that I see no evidense that it is the ultimate source of truth; and citing the bible as proof that the bible is what the bible says it is is classic circular reasoning.

That's a good question. No I don't. But I think that the way reality is perceived will vary and the interpretation of what it means can also varyIn what way does the bible conform to God's reality? How do you know hat this "reality" is? By your experience, or by the bible? If by your experience, or five senses, then how are they superior to anyone else's? If the bible, then that is circular reasoning. I base my beliefs on what I can see & hear, not what somebody else had told me that they see and hear. What I said was that in theory truth can be determined, I'll add that it very well may have been done. It's just that I've never seen it done in a non-subjective manner. Am I the standard for truth? Hardly, but I'm only talking about my own perception. This may appear to be backpedalling, but I'm just going by what I see & hear; I presuppose or assume that there is no objective verifiable measurement, it wasn't my intention to state that such couldn't exist, but if it does, it hasn't come to my attention, and I am open to see the evidence. No, you never said that, but it appears to be true nonetheless. If not, what is the objective evidence?

Self edited to avoid engaging a nitwit in discussion.

For the sake of discussion I'll stipulate that it can. How then can you determine which of the competing "truths" is THE TRUTH? Interesting take, similar to the atheism = religion argument. I suppose if one were to say "there is no way that your "truth" can be TRUTH, I might agree with you. It goes back for me to theory vs. practice. In theory truth can be determined, in practice I haven't seen it done. Not at all. All that it presupposes is that no one has come up with an objective verifiable measurament of that "knowing".

Well written Lingus. I hope I don't come across as negating your experience before and during TWI, but I think it's sad that so many of us had a desire to learn and experience the biblical god and got TWI instead. I didn't have the shocking experience that you did, but I came to a point in life where I really wanted answers and to know God, but I got TWI. Because the biblical god sent TWI people my way? I believe it was more like I was vulnerable enough to settle for the fast talking arrogance and doubletalk. I was just telling my wife the other day how being involved in TWI got me away from harmful behaviors, but at what price? That being said, you do have a way with words and our differences in our view of Wierwille, PFAL & TWI aside, you can spin a yarn.

Makes sense to me. Since leaving TWI I no longer try to prove what I believe, or insist that there is some fundamental "rightness" or truth to what I believe. It doesn't matter to me if the gods & goddesses walked the earth in physical form or are myths. It doesn't matter to me if seemingly supernatural occurences are miracles or coincidences, if healings are the happy result of my own genetics and a good diet or a friendly deity intervened. I walk the path that I walk because it works for me, not because a spiritual being said I should. Jesus and the religion that claims to follow him is a legitimate path in my opinion, just not the only correct path.

What I see is a fundamental difference in approaches. One side sees the teachings in PFAL as fundamentally sound, maybe a few errors here and there, but for the most part consistant with the bible. This side sees no connection between the actions and what was taught. Another side sees the actions as fundamentally affecting what was in the teachings. That the actions were inseparable from how the teachings were developed and therefore how they should be regarded. This side sees the "fuit" as being indicative of what was taught. Technically, I suppose one could come up with scenarios where a person's lack of morals and what he said were totally unrelated. But does it usually work that way in the real world? Did it work that way in Wayworld? Is "truth" something that can be broken up in bite-sized parts? 73.6% true, 26.4% false? Or is it a sum total of everything that is being said including the purpose for which it is said? Is anyone saying that something that is demonstrably true becomes magically false because someone like Wierwille utters it. No, no one is. Arguing against that point is setting up a strawman. DWBH only seems to be saying that if you don't take the time to read all of what he is saying. To go back to the Satan quoting scripture angle: Satan said to Jesus that the angels would bear him up lest he dash a foot against a stone [excuse the very loose paraphrase, I don't have time to find a bible]. Is that statement false because the devil said it? No, that truth is still truth as long as it is uttered in context and in the manner which the author meant it. Satan meant it as a reason for Jesus to take a foolhardy "leap of faith" and jump off the pinacle of the temple. So was it "truth" as Satan uttered it? No. Wierwille may have reliably quoted scripture and may have even interpreted it in an biblically consistant manner, but if his purpose was to defraud and control, to abuse and lie, was it "truth"? No more than when Satan had his say.

I agree that there are differences, but the similarity is that martyrs from both Christianity and Islam are both convinced of the absolute rightness of their faith. The Muslim using the Koran is just as successfull as the Christian using the Bible at documenting their position.

I guess it would have depended on what phase of my following of Jesus that this had occured in: If it was in the early stages when I was just checking him out, I probably would have figured that he was a nut and gone back home. Now if I had been following him around for a while, and maybe even be considered a "disciple", it probably would have been easier to do.

I went through several phases in dealing with verbal abuse after leaving TWI. My first phase was the "I don't give a sh** what anyone thinks" phase. I was not very pleasant to be around and had zero tolerance for any crap from anybody. It was kind of rough on the people around me, but it desensitized me to hurtfull words from others. The next phase was the "laugh it off" phase. I would literally laugh or chuckle when people gave me crap. I started seeing verbal abuse as something that was ultimately powerless unless I allowed it to be. When at work, sometimes a co-worker will talk about an especially nasty customer. I'll remind the co-worker that they will be able to sleep soundly tonight knowing that they are not an @$$hole, but that the nasty customer will not. The third phase involves my "religious" beliefs, which are based strongly on individual responsibility and the rejection of the belief that there is a spiritual being that I am accountable to or in thrall to. I'm pretty bulletproof in the verbal abuse category these days.

Some people just like to make things up. Or post undocumented ramblings. Sounds like one side of the story.

What DWBH has said is that ungodly actions negate scriptural truth as spoken by the one doing the acting, not that scriptural truth itself is negated. Wierwille didn't just read the bible out loud in his classes and teachings, he provided a context and an interpretation to what he read. Like the example of Satan quoting scripture that other posters have brought up, Satan accurately quoted the bible, but was his interpretation, that Jesus should therefore cast himself off the pinnacle of the temple or turn stones into bread "truth"? Continuing to pick through Wierwille's teachings for truth is like looking for a sandwich in the trash bin.

Didn't mean to imply that I was disagreeing with you Lingus...I also think that as time went by the number of leaders who agreed with the top down control agenda increased, making it much easier to control the masses. By the mid to late 90's I believe fewer and fewer people went into the Corps for godly reasons and more and more to push the "purify the household" agenda of King Okie

Why was that do you think? I don't think it was because Martindale just lost his mind one day. The seeds of control and legalism were always there, think back to Wierwille's takeover of The Way East and The Way West and his attempted takeover of Wade's Australia work. Why do you think that The Way Corps and WOW Ambassadors were instituted? So that Wierwille would have control over leadership and outreach, instead of letting it develop naturally and organically. Martindale saw the relative freedom that wayfers had pre-1988 as a weakness that needed to be eliminated. Of course he lacked the skill and subtlty at manipulation that Wierwille had, Martindale was a sledgehammer compared to Wierwille's scalpel.

hapy birthday...even though you're mad at me

Demons?! Holy crap. What the h#ll is wrong with people?