Oakspear

Whose kid is V2P2 anyway? JP's? I'm pretty sure he's not one of Don's. How old is he? He'd have to be under 30 I'd think.

Seth: You're right, if it's a Law it would be measurable, repeatable, I doubt that it is. I can't think of anything supernatural that's been tested in that manner. At least not tested sucessfully. And it's not just PFAL..I know plenty of folks who believe that prayer "always works", or who swear by The Secret, practice magick that "really works" or a host of others. The thing that they all have in common is that none of them produce the advertised results all the time, or even consistantly and all of them have some kind of weasel words or exceptions which explain why they apparently didn't work in this instance or that. Personally I'm open to the supernatural, I just try not to depend on it!

That's a great question Todd.My opinion is that neither is proof of anything other than failure to follow a faith's dictates in the case of being the persecutor and being in the wrong place at the wrong time without power in the case of being persecuted. Too often we get caught up in proving our faith right or in debunking another's. On large scales, and with worldly power behind it, this can lead to persecution. Faith is a personal, individual thing. It is true because it lives in one's heart, not because it can be proved or demonstrated.

I was active in TWI from 1978 - 1983 and again from 1990 - 2001. I was in New York until ROA 1980 and only laid eyes on Wierwille at the ROA's: teaching on the main stage and at my first ROA shook his hand in the registration tent. Also at Advanced Class '80 where I discussed TWI's outreach in the Cuban detention camps in Arkansas. During the time I was active in Nebraska he visited once, in October 1981. He and Howard Allen were on a hunting trip and he detoured long enough to do an open meeting, followed by a meeting with WOW's/WOWvets and another one with the Way Corps. During the previous year Don Wierwille was visiting some former colleagues from his days as a school administrator and had an open meeting in North Platte Nebraska. I recall that one because I was reproved by the region coordinator John Bvtler for helping myself to a beer that had been designated for Way Corps.

I was recently reading about this stele. There's another one from Moab that mentions Ahab. I'm not saying that the bible is all wrong, or even that most, if not all the people mentioned in there were real people. And I'm sure that there are people who make it their life work to belittle Christianity. In my opinion, the effort that some Christians put into showing that the bible is an historical book is a waste of time. If David wasn't a real person would that make the Psalms any less beautiful, any less evocative of a man's devotion to his god? If the gospel accounts are fabrication, are the principles and insights in there any less applicable? As part of my faith I am familiar with various myths and stories that illustrate my faith's principles. I'm pretty sure that none of them are literally true in all particulars, but I honor their content. I'd say any holy book, including the Koran. But from a Christian perspective, I can see why it would seem so to a Christian. Now that's an interesting take on it. Not all that different than Bullinger or Wierwille though, who both allowed for the fact of mistranslations, additions, "forgeries" etc. But you are saying (it seems to me) that it's essentially given by God and therefore inerrant in its original. So I retain my initial position that anyone with that mindset will never see errors, debunking, etc because they don't believe it can exist. Not that there's anything wrong with that Thanks! But when you only take part of the quote it is difficult to get the full flavor. I had to go back up to the original post to get it so that I could read it in order to be able to understand your answer. That's why I suggested to not isolate or take only a part of the quote, it tends to be confusing. Gotcha, I understand. Thanks for the response to the response. It is by far the most conciliatory of your posts lately.

If Galen is around he can correct me if I'm wrong, but it had something to do with the classes supposedly being the property of the individual limbs and that The Way of California being a corporation legally separate from The Way International (plausible IMHO, since The Way West was originally independent from TWI and The Way of California may have been a sucessor organization to TWW) they had the legal right to assign the rights to use the PFAL class and Galen was supposedly given that right from a bigwig within the Way of California during the late-80's exodus. That's what I remember him saying anyway. Sounds like a rationalization to me, but I gues it could be true.

Hey...I said you weren't being a jerk Go Jayhawks

What do you mean by "bears itself out"? Sure, when it's obvious that an author has an agenda or an obvious non-neutral point of view. For example, one of the Dariuses inscribed his geneology on the side of a mountain in what is now Iran. Modern historians believe that he "padded his resume" and that his list of ancestors in not genuine. When one assumes an inerrant bible, and any contradictions are only "apparent contradictions", any debunking will of course have a facile explanation. Don't know if this is what you do... Of course there are historical events detailed in these books. Probably on par with the records of Krishna in the Baghavad Gita. Right, that's what I said You shouldn't isolate the quote: here is more of it: That you question the "spirituality" or perhaps the "truth" of a Christian's "experiences", therefore, did I say, "I am using you as my proof."First of all, if I want to isolate a quote, that's what I'll do. The question that I had about that part of the quote was separate from what I didn't understand about the earlier part of the quote. You're using me as proof that I question the spirituality or truth of a Christian's experiences? I don't question your experiences, their spirituality or truth. What I question is whether your experiences, spirituality or truth (as well as your scriptures) can be used as a standard of truth for everyone else. I believe that there is room for a multitude of experiences, spiritualities and truths...you apparently don't.

Maybe it happened, maybe it didn't, but "Kings" isn't an historical book and it does not pretend to be. I think the only thing that we can "safely conclude" is that the writer was a Yahweh fan! Good example. No one seriously believes that George Washington cut down a cherry tree. It's a story to illustrate his honesty. It's circular reasoning when they do it too. Matthew and John, if they were the ones who wrote the gospels attributed to them, personally interacted with Jesus. Mark & Luke, if they are the Mark & Luke of Acxts, apparently did not. What exactly do you mean by "questions the authenticity"? I assume it means that if I experience communication with the Hindu goddess Kali, or the Celtic god Lugh I may be really experiencing something, but it's a devil spirit or something. Please correct me if I'm wrong. I don't understand. You are using me as proof of what?

There's plenty of old PFAL copies floating around. Can they be legally distributed? I doubt it, but other opinions are out there. As I recall, TWI retained ownership of the tapes, videos, etc.

No, not an historical incident. A story in a religious book. My take as well, but I include Christianity in those things that aren't necessarily truth. Yes you do. What Hindu or other non-Christian for that matter is, on this board, using their scriptures to prove any points? Yes, I agree that the bible is a result of people's personal experiences and their interpretation of them. The difference between those who have "holy books" and those who don't is that those with scriptures use their experiences to prove their scriptures and their scriptures to prove their experiences and invalidate others' experiences because they don't line up with their writings.

Bride: Just in case it's not clear, I have nothing against Christianity, Jesus, the biblical god, faith, miracles, etc. I don't believe that Christianity is demonstrably false or that the biblical god doesn't exist. My points are not made out of disrespect, or to try to prove my view is superior to yours. They're just points to ponder. Lindy's last post sums up a lot of my thinking as well, so I won't take up bandwidth by repeating it all. God or holy spirit communicates with you...I say "cool"...I'm glad it works for you. One of the things that I have observed over the years here at GSC is that whenever a discussion wanders into a debate over where scripture came from, or whether it was really from the biblical god, most posters will serve up their experiences as validation that what the bible says is true. And that makes sense, because you really can't prove (or disprove) the veracity of the bible just by reading the text. If there was no experience of what was written there what good would it be? But when you get down to experience, my experience will be different than yours, and Lindy's will be different than mine and so on. If a subjective, internal experience, and a personal subjective interpretation of that experience is the standard, then one person's experience and take on spirituality is just as valid as anyone else's.

How about the Hindu culture in India? Both the religion, the writings and the people survived. So where is the God of Elijah today? According to the story, it was kind of a showdown between Elijah, the representative of Yahweh, and the priests of Baal, or maybe directly between Yahweh and Baal. Yahweh won hands down, according to the story. There's also a story inscribed on a stone pillar (can't remember its name, it is in the Companion Bible though) about the god of one of Moab being credited with winning a battle over Yahweh because Moab kicked the stuffing out of Israel. And if this kind of showdown that Elijah is said to have engaged in is so effective, why doesn't it happen today?

Jeff, my southern neighbor White Dove is just messin' wit' ya. Psalmie is a poster who has a flying pig for an avatar. She doesn't take kindly to mention of bacon, ham or any other pork products being consumed for food. You said this: and WD responded tongue in cheek. He's not really being a jerk...not now anyway

Martindale claimed in his WayAP teaching on the original sin of mankind that many of the words found in Genesis 3 had sexual connotations, I don't have a syllabus, but if I recall it was the bolded words: Each of those words was defined by Martindale as if the primary and common meaning of each was sexual in nature. A cursory look at a Young's concordance showed him to be incorrect, they were each the ordinary, run-of-the-mill words used in non-sexual situation. I think that maybe desire was the only one that couild even be sometimes used sexually. The stupidest thing that he came up with was his definition of the word "eyes". He claimed that a homonym of the word for "eyes", 'ayin was translated "fountain", so therefore the correct translation was "fountain", which he claimed obviously referred to an orgasm. (To me this also showed that he didn't understand what a hopmonym was - they're two distinct words that just happen to be spelled or pronounced the same - their not synonyms) The word 'ayin literally refers to physical eyes, but also figuratively referred to a fountain. According to blueletterbible.com it is because fountains "resembled eyes". I seem to recall (perhaps it was in the New Bible Dictionary?) that fountains were figuratively referred to as the "eye of the [insert landscape feature here] because of their central location. This was one of the things that I argued strongly against during my last several years in TWI. Tom Horrocks told me that it may not be able to be supported by scripture, but it "must be right because of what we know about homosexuality. My discussions on WayDale & GSC about this doctrine caught the eye (or maybe it caught the fountain) of the WayGB and was a key factor in my expulsion from TWI.

Bingo! What does it matter what it literally was?

Sure is If we assume that Luke wrote "Luke", he never claims to be an eyewitness, Lindy covers that in his post. But there is scant evidense, if any, to show that the writer of "Luke" was Luke. Nowhere is his name mentioned in the body of the gospel, like Paul's is at the beginning of his Epistles. It seems probable that the writer of the gospel of Luke and Acts are the same, and that due to the "we" sections, the writer of Acts was a companion of Paul. I don't think it was a hoax, if by hoax you mean a deliberately contrived lie. I believe it is plausible that the story just grew in the telling, little bit by little bit. Since we don't have any contemporaneous writings by any of the eyewitnesses, we really don't know if any of those original followers of Jesus were willing to die. Since I don't think that Christians thought that it was a lie, I can't provide you an comparisons, but many groups were persecuted and killed over the centuries, one (not the only) example would be witches and suspected witches in medieval Europe and North America. I'm sorry, I don't understand the point that you're making by quoting this section. can you elaborate? Hey, we can use a fork and spoon here!

I agree, people aren't that logical or methodical; I thinking the "weighing" takes place on an emotional level. Everybody has a "tipping point", where the crap just isn't worth it any more. Few if any have the exact location of that tipping point figured out in advance and don't know it until they've shot past it. Amen to that. You, my friend of gotten my point!

Inquiring minds want to wave their hands

According to the only accounts that mention Luke, he never was with Jesus and wasn't a witness to the events of his life, and there is no mention in "Luke" that Luke wrote it. And I'm not saying that the events in the bible definitely didn't happen. What I'm saying is that just because they're written down in the bible doesn't mean that they did. Another thing is, even if nothing in the gospels is historically accurate, I can easily imagine people feeling that the message of the gospels was worth taking a stand and even dying for. There were plenty of sects in the Roman Empire that didn't even pretend to be based on an historical figure. By the time the gospels were written down at least a full generation had passed, even the early epistles were not written down until several decades had passed. Plenty of time for myth and legend and embellishments to make it into verbal and later written accounts. Some scholars, like Bart Ehrman, theorize that the many writings about Jesus were the position papers, the pamphlets, of the various "Christianities" at the time. You can see it in the canonical books as well as the apocrypha and pseudopegrapha where the authors are defending their position and demonizing their opponants. The faction that became orthodox/catholic Christianity got to write the history, with few exceptions, their's were the only books that made it, so they got to declare anyone who disagreed as heretics. So it's not as simple as either the gospel writer was faithfully recording what happened or he was lying.

Yes, I am a big boy, but I have lost a few pounds since I was last seen or photographed by any GSers - but yes, I can and did speak for myself. Personally I believe that the vast majority of folks who suffered abuse at the hands of Wierwille and other TWI leaders fall into two major categories: Those who completely bought into TWI's spin on sin and fully believed that the MOG and MOGlets could do no wrong. Those who knew there were problems, that unbiblical things were going on, but weighed the problems against the perceived benefits and decided to stick it out, it is my thought that this was the larger group I can't imagine too many people putting up with abuse because they liked abuse. The people in the second category can be compared to somebody in one of those company towns where there is only one major employer. Someone without a lot of skills or education might be stuck working at "the company", despite unfair labor practices, unpaid overtime, sexual harrassment etc. Sure they don't have to work there, but their choices are limited. One might point out that in TWI we had many other churches or religions to turn to, but that isn't what we thought then, and many pro-Wierwille folks still think so know (expanding the definition of "where the Word is taught" to offshoots). If this employer is investigated by whatever agency investigates, is the fact that people were theoretically free to leave considered a mitigating factor. Doubt it. If an employee was told that the way to advancement was sex with the CEO, it would still be sexual harrassment. That all being said, for the sake of discussion I'm willing to stipulate that those of us who remained in TWI bear some responsibility for our lives, for not running like h#ll at the first sign of trouble...but but but There was no reason why we should have expected to be abused, especially by those who supposedly were teaching us God's Word. Those we trusted. There is no reason why we should be diverting attention to the poor schmucks who got talked into enduring crap at the hands of our spiritual "leaders".

I guess Pawtucket can speak for himself.

Until posters like you attempt to change the emphasis from the founder and longtime leader of TWI to those he screwed over. I think that your change of emphasis is wrong. In other words, I disagree with your opinion that the spotlight should be shifted. Are you talking hypothetically, or do you think that censorship is being advocated? If so, I must have missed something. I'm certainly not advocating intolerance of viewpoints that I disagree with. I'm not afraid. I disagree with what you say most of the time. I wouldn't think of eliminating your opinion, but think that it is wrongheaded at the very least.

Groucho: In post #189 you are quoting White Dove, who is actually quoting me. Scroll up to the post that he's quoting for the full context of my point. My point is that the emphasis should be on Wierwille's (and other TWI leaders') behavior, not on to what degree, if any, those who he screwed over were responsible for the screwing. Theoretically women who had sex with Werwille (unless drugged) could have said no, theoretically those who didn't like what was going on could have walked away...but so what? It was okay for a married minsiter to have sex with a woman who wasn't his wife if she was consenting? It was okay for ministers to verbally abuse, lie to and whatever else as long as the abused didn't walk away? Nutty questions!?! Is that a personal attack?