Oakspear

Dan...stop it...you're boring Larry.

No offense intended, but you (and all of us who took PFAL) see those gospel records through a PFAL colored lens. Give the same records to anyone without a doctrinal axe to grind and the number will be 2. (IMHO of course...I haven't actually performed this study ) - the 6 denials are explained in much the same manner as 4 crucified, using the supposed "key" of scripture buildup. Assuming that God wants us to know that there was 4, not 2 crucified with Jesus, why (as Sprawled Out asked in another thread) doesn't God just say that? I think Juedes has an alternate explanation that's quite plausible on his website, pointing out several of Wierwille's errors. We naturally, as former students of Wierwille's have internalized those errors and hardly realize they're there unless we really push to read the records objectively.

There is a balance to be struck bewteen speaking one's mind, being true to one's own beliefs on one hand, and being respectful of others on the other hand. It's possible to do both. For an non-Christian, it's possible to be against Christianity, but not against Christians, just as it's possible for Christians to believe that atheists are wrong in their beliefs, while being understanding of why they might believe as they do. Every question, every expression of doubt, all opposition is not an attack. We can have a discussion about our beliefs without p i s s i n g on each others' shoes. Right?

The "Six Denials" and "Four Crucified" (and maybe the "Two Entries into Jerusalem") are examples of a flawed "research principle", in my opinion. Every mention of the denials lists three. Every mention of others crucified lists two. You can't get to six and four by just reading what is written, you can only get there by assuming that differences in detail translate into a total difference.

Warren Buffet is an atheist? I don't think that the rest of Nebraska knows

Although I didn't single Seth out by name, I did:

I just spent 2 1/2 weeks reading all seven books. I enjoyed them, maybe when I recover I'll go back and analyze them!

I agree Garth. I'm just suggesting that we don't get carried away and tar all of Christians with the same brush as those who deserve it.

To the Christians and other theists who have kept their posts respectful, thank you. You don't have to agree with atheism, agnosticism, humanism, paganism, or anything else to treat its adherants properly. To the atheists, agnostics, humanists, pagans, and other non Christians, don't rise to the bait of the s h i t h e a d s and sink to their level. The presence of a moron shouldn't cause us to malign our Christian fellow posters. Where did you get that from what I posted? Sure, there are atheists who do live like that, just as there are Christians who live that way, certain that their slate will be wiped clean and they'll enjoy a cool afterlife. My point was that an atheist wouldn't necessarily look at the lack of an afterlife, or the absolute certainty of death, as bleak.

One could look at it as bleak, or one could grab for all the gusto now, make life worth living now, cram as much living as can be crammed into the years one has now!

Suda: I think that we agree insofar as Wierwille did evil but that any good derived from his teachings must be evaluated separately from that evil. I also agree that good things happened to people while they were involved in TWI and that people affiliated with TWI did much good. Where you and I disagree is that you apparently believe that "da class" was overall a good thing and that it overall contained "accurate" bible teachings. Let me clarify that a little, I'm not saying that every single thing in it was at odds with what's in the bible, or that there was nothing in it that was helpful. Not at all. But that PFAL, as a foundation for studying and understanding the bible was not what it was claimed to be. Wierwille does a good job early in the class of convincing us that he is a guy who "reads what is written" and lets the bible "interpret itself". But as the class goes on more and more of what he says is backed up by "old documents" that nobody has ever seen, definitions of Greek and Hebrew words that are found in no other concordance or lexicon, and conclusions that are pulled out of the air. Sure, we were taught by Wierwille methods of "researching" the bible, and "working the Word", but how much of what we were taught enabled us not to determine what God's will was, but to confirm what Wierwille taught? Even post-TWI, so many statements by ex-wayfers are based not on an objective reading of the bible, but are colored by what we learned in TWI.

Who taught you that, and what reasons were given for it being "possession"?

:o

One of my favorite guitarists is Chris Duarte, I try to see him when he's here in Lincoln every year. He's on tour now, on the west coast this week, then over to Oklahoma & Kansas. He'll also be touring with Bluestone a Japanese band in September & early October on the east coast then over to Ohio, Minnesota etc. http://www.chrisduartegroupfans.org/dates.htm

From the beginning of my association with twi I took statements such as those (heard many similar things from other believers before taking the class) to heart. That as a Research ministry, twi was dynamic, not static. I always felt encouraged to bring up questions when my study or gut feel, even, contradicted what twi was teaching. The great majority of the time, the questions were encouraged and there was no “VP says it, that settles it” attitude, but rather, “if that what your heart tells you to believe, then stick with it.” When I did run into VP=Truth, I would remind them that it contradicted what he, himself, had said. Too bad twi didn't stick to this. It was the core reason for the downfall, imo. Just thought those quotes were worth repeating. Suda I don't know if they ever really had that attitude Suda, let alone stuck with it. True, Wierwille said that we shouldn't follow men, and that we shouldn't take his or anyone else's word for it, but when you come down to it, isn't that what he expected us to do? Despite the large number of bible verses that are read straight from the KJV, how many things did we accept just because he said so? When he said this means such-and-such, or defined Greek or Hebrew wordss in such a way that his view was backed up, or camed to conclusions that had no visible means of support? Sure, there were people who would tell you things like “if that what your heart tells you to believe, then stick with it.” - but were you ever allowed to teach those things? Yeah, I had the occassional person tell me stuff like that, but the more common response was to "hold it in abeyance" until I saw what Wierwille's point was; someday I'd "get it".

We were discussing giving people enough information to make an informed decision on the last page... A national political talk show host, when criticized for not giving "equal time" to those of opposing opinions, responds by saying "I am the equal time", in other words, the other guys have their say in their corner of the media, he'll have my say in his corner of the media. I have a similar opinion of "both sides" of the TWI story. TWI has the Way Magazine, Sunday Service tapes, classes and fellowships to get their point across. TWI doctrine lives on in some of the offshoots as well. They have a platform for deseminating their views. The anti-TWI view is not given equal time in any of their publications or classes. Why would I want to give both sides of the story, when the other side is perfecty capable of speaking up for itself?

Did any of us join TWI because they already taught what we had decided to believe? No, in most cases what we learned in TWI was a marked departure from what we believed previously, we wanted a change. Maybe TWI was right on those 2 "main" points, maybe not. I would venture to say that the meager research skills that we learned in TWI were insufficient for us to be able to discern truth from error with a 100% accuracy.

Some questions can't be answered with a simple "yes" or "no". One who sees the issues of a particular question in black or white terms might believe so, another who views the same issue in shades of grey would want to clarify terms before answering. A wordy, roundabout response is not necessarily a non-answer.

I was a WOW in Sidney and Kearney Nebraska 1980-81 We had only one car in our WOW family. Two of us hitched a ride with some wayfers who owned a bus wwhile the other two drove my WOW sisters car with some folks from another WOW family as passengers. The bus threw a rod in the middle of Iowa. We ended up living in tents behind the gas station for three days while we waited for a new engine for the bus. We met up with the rest of our WOW family and finally made it to our destination on Friday (the ROA has ended on Saturday). The town was fortified against us before we even witnessed to anyone. Radio programs preaching against us, churches holding vigils outside our home, local youth ministers attempting to "rebuke" us in the name of Jesus in grocery store aisles, teenagers trying to run us over with their cars, people picking fights with us. The 10th Corps family coordinator was only 20 years old and made sexual advances on both of my WOW sisters, various locals and any woman who regularly came to twigs. A local guy who was in the county lock up found out about Romeo spending time with his wife in the family trailer and things almost got ugly. Once Romeo engaged in foreplay in front of a mentally challenged twig member, he counselled a young man in the twig to "just get laid" in order to solve some problem he was having. He impregnated a woman and used family funds to get an abortion. One WOW sister showed up pregnant and got an abortion. She later was sexually involved with one of the two new people that we had signed up for PFAL. Yup, it felt like 10 years...

Regarding impolite disagreement, I have found that I find it easier to be rude to the people who I have never met and have no outside contact with. With posters whom I knew before GS, or whom I have met at Weenie Roasts or in my travels I find myself making more of an effort to be patient with when I have a difference of opinion. I like to think that most of the time I am making an effort to be respectful of other people. Even considering all of that, a discussion forum is still a different atmosphere than a Sunday dinner at someone's house. Topics are started and opinions expressed for what reason? Supposedly to engage others in debate and discussion. Of course there are exceptions to that. It would be inappropriate for me to post my opinions about prayer on a prayer thread in the prayer forum, but it would be appropriate for me to exprress my opinion about it in a thread about the efficacy of prayer. It would be inappropriate for me to start debating whether the dead were alive after death on a memorium thread, but not in a doctrinal thread about death and the afterlife. There are many here with some very strong opinions about our time in TWI, why think that some strong statements aren't going to provoke some of the others here? Regarding the worth and value of PFAL specifically and TWI's teachings in general, I am not so stubborn that I won't admit that I heard things taught that made sense while I was in TWI, and there were surely things that lined up with the bible, and there were times when I was around some good people, and even had some experiences that I could choose to chalk up to divine intervention. However... I don't see the PFAL class as anything special. Oh I did at one time, but in hindsight it was not what it claimed to be. It claimed to be the work of a man who had received a promise from God to be taught (by God) "the Word" since it hadn't been known for almost two millenia if he would teach it to others. In my opinion it was nothing of the sort, but a motley collection of material, some plagiarized, some original, and some reworked from other sources. His conclusions betrayed, not a devotion to biblical "accuracy", but often a woeful lack of understanding of what his sources were saying, a virtual absence of logic and common sense, nad a devotion rather to push his own agenda, his own views, no matter what the bible actually said. The class was full of made-up definitions, analogies and illustrations that he pulled out of the air, references to "old documents" that no one else had access to and declarations that had no scriptural or any other kind of backup. Another poster wrote of mining gems out of all the rubble, as if these supposed gems were worth all the trouble. To take the analogy futher, the gems were setting out in the open for all to see and claim while we were sifting through the rubble! the problem with using PFAL as any kind of source is that there is all that rubble to go through. All of that dirty bathwater to get through When "working the Word", how easy is it to rely on an incorrect Wierwille definition, or accept an unsupported Wierwille conclusion when "working" a verse or a section of scripture? That's why some of us have thrown it all out and started over, not because we necessarily thought everything was wrong, but because it is not worth the time to separate out all the garabage, all the lies, all the little things that can get you going down a blind alley. That's what I'm talking about when I use the term "Waybrained". It's an unconscious use of Wierwillisms or PFAL jargon without thinking. Like making a point in an argument by quoting PFAL, especially when the quote is demonstrably wrong. Again, this doesn't mean that PFAL is all wrong, or even mostly wrong. Just that it's a rat's nest of error and that it makes little sense to use it as a source

Christian = believes in a god or gods Pagan = believes in a god or gods Voila! There's no "real" difference!

Whoever taught you that was incorrect. I recall Wierwille made that statement in "da class". It probably counts as one of the "Actual errors". Maybe you learned it somewhere else, but it still reflects a misunderstanding of what an atheist is. An atheist is not someone who is without belief, but someone who is without God. Maybe some agnostics "don't care", but that's hardly the definition.

Oh, so now you wanna stay on topic Okay, you can make a case, I reverse my earlier remark...still disagree with it, but it's a valid argument to make...carry on

http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/mathew/intro.html Is there any difference between atheists and agnostics? An agnostic is one who claims not to know whether or not there is a god or gods, some agnostics claim that one cannot know. An atheist is one who does not believe that there is a god or gods. Is there a "real" difference? http://atheism.about.com/od/aboutagnosticism/a/atheism.htm

How do you measure volume on a discussion forum New thread in doctrinal: http://www.greasespotcafe.com/ipb/index.php?showtopic=15046