Oakspear

Ah, then you haven't heard that I'm omniscient Since there is a real difference between the two, I feel free to make said judgement.

Folks can use the information any way that they please. EWhy would pawtucket want to even try to dictate that? While accepting that some posters cross the line on occassion (some more occassionally than others ) I must ask - "What do you expect?" This is a forum for discussion. No one is expecting you to pretend that you believe something other than what you do. But to think that your opinions will be given a pass is not being realistic. Value everyone? Sure value everything? No. If your opinions are such that they support what many here are passionately against, then they will be spoken against. Prejudice? Is it prejudiced to speak against something that your experience has shown you is harmful? You said it. But perhaps you're not capable of playing in this particular playground. and for that, I thank you.

In which case, your "case" would be in error

Information overload. Interesting observation. We had so much information thrown at us, with little opportunity to digest or analyze it, no opportunity to question until the end. is taht the way that the bible ought to be taught? Sure, and for many, the supposed gems would overshadow the false definitions, the made-up stories and the illogical conclusions, leading one to believe that it was a great class, when a huge percentage of the information wasn't even getting through (information overload?) Does it? So if you kept so little, what was the point? Seems to me that someone posing as an expert would present inforation that wouldn't require so much "sifting" and throwung away. Actually, I believe that the VP apologist/defender label is used primaraily for those who dismiss or minimize Wierwille's abuses because they got some goodies. I don't believe that I've ever seen you do that. Others have. And if you do love all or part of PFAL or are thankful to Wierwille, why is it a problem if others call you that? If PFAL was ever presented by TWI as some gems in a pile of rubble that you would have to sift through, I doubt very many would have taken it.

Kind of like the "real" world, huh? In my experience, a small minority of posters consider the thoughts and ideas of other posters and respond accordingly, the rest talk past each other. I disagree with you there. Not that these labels aren't used pecipitously at times, but my observation is that those newbies who "uses some “Way Speak” verbiage and hits the hot buttons of “good associated with PFAL” and “due respect accorded to vpw as teacher of PFAL”, get tarred and feathered and labelled predominantly when they make a judgement against those of us who have no use for Wierwille and PFAL, or offer some "helpful" advice about how we should "get back to the Word", or move on or be positive or whatever, with no consideration as to why we feel the way we do, and with the condescending attitude that we have somehow "lost our way". Your characterization of how the newbies are treated is very much a one-size-fits-all description. I wouldn't argue too much with this. For those of us who see Wierwille as a vile predator and as a poor teacher and plagiarist, of course we want to set people straight!I've got more comments on your post, but I have to go to work

I would guess that some thought that they were the true spiritual successors to Wierwille & PFAL and that Martindale was illegitimate. Kind of ironic since Wierwille stole the class in the first place

Part of what fuels discussions/arguments here is that there is no clear consensus on what was "good" in PFAL and what was "bad". What one person throws out for what they consider sound reasons is viewed as "throwing the abby out with the bathwater" by others. Like the phenomena whereas many posters feel that TWI was great until the exact moment where they realized that it wasn't, and that anyone who stayed one minute past their departure was foolish, many of us view the TWI teaching that we have retained and those that we have discarded as just the right mix.

For what it's worth.... I personally believe the accounts by women who were raped. I wasn't there, obviously, but it all seems plausible to me. On the other hand, I can understand why not everyone would accept these accounts as 100% accurate. We all have different threshholds of credulousness (is that a word? ). Some of us have differing experiences within TWI that make certain things that happened to others seem unbelieveable. A skeptic might also recall that people have been known to make false accustations. Then there's the fragile thing called memory. The mind will "fill in the blanks" when it has incomplete information and stories change in the telling. That being said, once again, I overall personally believe the accounts. Could some of the details be off? Probably. Could there be some confusion about some of the facts? Maybe. But the main points have convinced me. If it was just one account I may have remained skeptical. But it's not just one account. For me, the main point is that Wierwille, the so-called "Man of God" either raped or otherwise took advantage of women sexually. The fact of his actions is all that I need to know to form an opinion about his morals. Whether any of these girls or women were willing participants is, to me, irrelevant to my opinion of Wierwille. None of those women made a claim on my allegience or obedience. On the other hand, to vilify other posters who have their doubts, or who are not convinced 100% is wrong. When I first came to Waydale and Grease Spot cafe, I doubted them too. I doubted a lot of what I read. I still stuck up for certain TWI practices and doctrines and had my cyber foot handed to me by certain posters. Vigorous debate, passionate persuasion: yes; name calling and character assasination: no.

Interesting points T-Bone. I didn't think that you were setting doctrinal standards for God supplying, just was throwing it out there. Yes, actions do speak louder than words.

Thanks T-Bone, I'll adjust again... 1. Recognize the existance and have a loving relationship with the heavenly father 2. Trust that this heavenly father will meet all your needs simply because he is a loving father 3. Asking for specific things in prayer is okay, as long as you don't expect any specific timetable, and aren't disappointed if the results are different than what you expected or are non-existant I also see points of disagreement: * "Believe" when you pray * Understand that God expects certain conditions to be met before he meets those needs Perhaps the "conditions" can be understood in light of the details of 1, 2 & 3. After all, exactly what is a relationship with God? At one point to you pass from “seek first the kingdom of God and His righteousness," and not doing the same? Does God honor intent? If you think that you seeking first, does that mean that you are? Is there some kind of doctrinal standard for seeking first? Is there a definition of "God" that one has to accept?

T-Bone, I don't think that johniam is saying anything that much different than you. Just wording it differently.

One way to interpret this verse is that he translated from Hebrew to Aramaic. Another is that he explained it to them. Which is more accurate? Hmmm...not familiar with that one, I'll have to look it up. Yes, but does everyone agree on what he wrote? Or even that Luke wrote it? What Pond saidI think we're arguing two different things here. It seems like you're arguing that God (and by extention his "word") is accurate. What I'm saying is that there are so many interpretations by many people all saying different things. Does nitpicking the details make sense when there is absolutely no consensus on what God said or still less what he meant.

With the story suitably embroidered...

The private label or store brands products often generate a higher profit margin for the grocery stores than do national brands, despite being priced lower, since the cost to the retailer is lower. Anyone remember the movie "They Love" with Roddy Piper? Put on the magic sunglasses and all the products were the black & white generic labels. "I'm here to kick foot and chew bubble gum...and I'm all out of bubble gum"

So there must be verses that address the "bible subject" of accuracy then? If, of course, accuracy is a "bible subject". I think that the discussion is actually about arguing about minutia, not the big issues. For example, do you think it's worth arguing about, or is extremely important how many were crucified with Jesus? Or how many times Peter denied him? Or what exactly was written above Jesus' head on the cross? Even on the "big" issues, does whether Jesus is God or not affect in any discernable way how you carry on your life from day to day?

Okay, let me adjust my list accordingly:1. Recognize the existance and have a loving relationship with the heavenly father 2. Trust that this heavenly father will meet all your needs simply because he is a loving father 3. Understand that God expects certain conditions to be met before he meets those needs 4. Asking for specific things in prayer is okay, as long as you don't expect any specific timetable, and aren't disappointed if the results are different than what you expected or are non-existant For all have sinned and come short of the glory of God. Can you document your definition? I think that they have become interwoven because Wierwille interwove them. His "Law of Believing" examples and analogies involved prayer. It's difficult to ascertain whether Wierwille's "Law of Believing" is correct or not without reference to prayer.

If you had read this thread from the beginning you should realize that this thread was started in response to a poster who claimed that PFAL was godbreathed and had for all intents and purposes replaced the bible. And I would venture to say that exposing lies as truth would most assuredly build one up.

I believe I see a general consensus building here regarding prayer: 1. Recognize the existance and have a loving relationship with the heavenly father 2. Trust that this heavenly father will meet all your needs simply because he is a loving father 3. Asking for specific things in prayer is okay, as long as you don't expect any specific timetable, and aren't disappointed if the results are different than what you expected or are non-existant I also see a point of disagreement: * "Believe" when you pray If God is going to supply your every need, what difference does it make whether you believe or not, or the degree of your believing? Espcially since, even if you do believe, God is going to at times turn down your request, delay it, or fullfill it in a way that you had not envisioned.

A few big things that I learned while taking PFAL: 1.The Word of God is the Will of God, i.e. the bible is inerrant without contradictions I no longer believe this. I view the bible as a collection of men's opinions about God, as well as myths and legends and some tracts that support one or another of the Christian factions. 2. Jesus Christ is not God I still believe this, but not for the reasons taught in PFAL. Assuming that there was a Jesus that the gospel accounts was based on, I dion't believe that he claimed to be God. I believe that some of the biblical writers thought that he was God, or part God (or something) and that the contradictions among the various writers' opinions gave rise to the cobbled together doctrine of the Trinity. I don't believe that Wierwille's refutation of the Trinity satisfactorily explains the contradictions. 3. The bible interprets itself, i.e. there are keys to reading and understanding that will inevitably lead one to one unambiguous interpretation I no longer believe this. I have seen too many perfectly logical and reasonable interpretations of the same section of scripture by people who all believe that they are interpreting it correctly. Seeing the differing doctrinal positions by TWI offshoots (not to mention Bullinger over 100 years ago) all using the same "keys" helped me to see this. 4. The dead are not alive. I no longer believe this. I don't think that Wierwille (or Bullinger) effectively rebutted all of the so-called unclear scriptures. There are some definite contradictions that are not resolved. 5. Body-Soul-Spirit I no longer believe this. I don't think that you can separate body from soul or spirit. 6. Nine manifestations I don't believe that Wierwille's teaching that the 9 things mentioned in I Corithians 12 are distinct "manifestations" as opposed to "gifts". It says that the manifestation (singular) of the spirit is given to every man... It doesn't say manifestations (plural) and it doesn't say that every person gets every one of the 9 things mentioned. A plain reading of what is written indicates that one person gets one thing, another person gets another. 7. Speaking in Tongues is prof that you're going to heaven and all hell can't stop you. I no longer believe this. Speaking in tongues existed before the day of pentecost and it exists outside of Chistianity today

In some things, accuracy is useless. Sure it makes a difference how far the earth is from the sun, but what difference does it amke whether you or I know what the correct number is, and I doubt there is anyone here (unless Zixar is lurking) that knows it down to the last digit. Same with the salary, sure it's important that I get paid the right amount, but does it matter to you. Part of the issue with determining biblical accuracy is that no one seems to be able to do it! Oh yeah, many claim to be able to, but can anyone really do it? So if there are always ghoing to be grey areas, why argue and fight over it? is it vital to know whether there were 2 or 4 people crucified with Jesus? How does that affect anything?

Oh, it makes sense, you just don't understand it. First, who says sinners don't pray? Maybe atheists don't, but that's another issue. Secondly, that is what Wierwille said about the "Law of Believing", that it "works for saint and sinner alike" - and he definitely was talking about of believing when you pray. No, you don't have to prove anything to ham or anyone else, but this is a discussion and you did make a point...

...but people still die

I also agree with you, and like WordWolf, believe that it contradicts what TWI taught, what the verses literally say and what most folks actually believe. The TWI model of prayer takes the relationship out of the picture (remember: saint & sinner alike) To address the parent-child analogy: most parents tell their children why they are not receiving something that they asked for, the answer from God appears to be silence. But to me, the model that posits a loving father who takes care of his children and loving children who simply trust their heavenly father to do the best for them over the long term seems to fit the facts better than "believing = receiving" or other versions of "answered prayer".

Thank you dooj and excie. Frankly I don't think most people understand prayer, nor do they have a clear idea of what they mean when they say "prayer". You make a good point with your "stones for bread" example. The whole "thy will be done" mindset seems more in line with what actually happens, notwithstanding verses that imply "believing" for things. Seems like a contradiction to me, but contradictions within the bible are not a problem from my end of the pool ...and dooj, I think what most people mean when they talk about answers to prayer are the yeses. Lots of folks, even on this board, use tangible results from prayer as a "proof", or a witness of the truth of the bible. The "nos" are ignored or glossed over.

Oh, good idea, no one has ever tried to start a thread about anything positive that happened in TWI. When all the Wierwille apologists and PFAL fans stop putting their positive spin on threads that are seeking to point out the negative in TWI, maybe I'll respect a request to keep it positive. You want to hear good things about TWI? There are TWI fellowships in at least 40 states.