Oakspear

I see what you're saying, but the proximity of these two verses: But I would not have you to be ignorant, brethren, concerning them which are asleep, that ye sorrow not, even as others which have no hope. and For if we believe that Jesus died and rose again, even so them also which sleep in Jesus will God bring with him. Seem to indicate that physical death (plainly stated in reference to Jesus) is the same as the figurative sleep. And compare and contrast "alive" with "sleep" in this verse: that we which are alive and remain unto the coming of the Lord shall not prevent them which are asleep. and this one: For the Lord himself shall descend from heaven with a shout, with the voice of the archangel, and with the trump of God: and the dead in Christ shall rise first: maybe it can mean both.

No, it's not a university, but it can be a place for learning. One of the things that it is a forum for is sorting out what was harmful and what was helpful from our Way days. An important part of both the harm and the help was what was taught. I don't expect PFAL fans like yourself to type out why they believe "95% of 7 collaterals, JCOPS, JCOpassover, the orange book, not to mention the little paper back word studies", but when a specific point is being discussed, it only makes sense to give reasons why a certain position is taken. Else what basis is there for disagreeing?

In my observation the Wierwille PFAL supporters not treated the same way by everyone. There is a wide variety of beliefs regarding PFAL and of Wierwille himself at GS. To some extent the treatment is based on preconceived notions, to some extent to how the poster presents his or her opinions. It also appears to me that the higher the percenatge of PFAL that is retained, the less likely it seems to be that the psoter will be willing or able to discuss why they believe something, other than "I learned it in PFAL". When in the midst of a discussion of TWI doctrine, a position of "I learned THE TRUTH in PFAL and that's that" without any reasons why tends to cause the opposing side want to explain, to convince, to document. I'm not saying here that no PFAL doctrine is defensible, or can't be explained, but that most, if not all, PFAL fans decline to do so. Maybe that makes for some "hounding".

Geez Allan, I'm disappointed, you seem to have witnessed or experienced every other kind of biblical miracle due to your days in TWI and the application of PFAL after you left.

Just for the record gents, I have no problem accepting that you or anyone else can "know" or experience something that is beyond mundane understanding: "inner" enlightenment, so to speak. I do have a problem when that "inner" understanding is presented as the last word, since there is absolutely no way that it can be analyzed, critiqued (sp?), or possibly even rationally discussed. I re-read it this morning. You presented an interesting proposition. It then appears that you apply your alternative interpretation to a number of verses and sections without really giving a reason why this alternative interpretation is valid. Any time someone claims "special knowledge" that only some can know or understand, it appears to be the assumption of an elitist position. In my opinion, that's condescending. Actually no, but thanks for playing. Well, I've got to go to work and otherwise live life. Enjoy yourselves, and try not to beat up on Allan too bad.

:wub:

Why did I post here? Because I thought the idea was intriguing, but wasn't seing any reason, compelling or otherwise, to go with any interpretation for "sleep" other than physical death. I find the approach that one needs some kind of special "inner" understanding to get something condescending. If you have a position that differs from the so-called accepted or mainstream thinking, present the basis, expound on the logic, geez, say something convincing. On the other hand, if you don't agree with my opinion regarding how discussions should be carried out, feel free to ignore me, I don't get to set the guidelines of how everyone else has to behave, however, I do get to express my opinion. And I will probably still express it sarcastically from time to time.

well, we are both from south Queens

If any of my family (immediate or remote) look at any of these posts I just want them to know that I for one remain very thankful for their "ministry". They may have had some personal short-comings, but spiritually they set me and mine on the 'right track'. In fact, as I have posted before, some of my childrens lives were spared as a direct result of what I learnt through their "ministry". For that I will remain ever thankful. I'm sure they were tempted at times to be a 'bit closer' to mainstream thinking in order to 'get me to listen', which is a very common thing for parents to do, but they 'stuck to their guns', so to speak. Any of my family should feel more pride than shame. As for Wierwille's family, I never had anything to do with them one way or another, and they have their own lives, so discerning or measuring shame or pride doesn't seem to be relevant. Wierwille himself set something in motion that did, in my life, more harm than good.

Doonsebury is on our side, Raf! And pizza is serious!

Must restrain gratutitous pun....Must restrain gratutitous pun....Must restrain gratutitous pun....Must restrain gratutitous pun....

Even a cursory read of church or European history will attest to the continual presence of Jews from biblical times through the middle ages and on to present times. By the time the Romans destroyed the temple and and the Judean nation in AD 69 or 70 there were already Jews scattered throughout the empire, in some places in large, established communities.

The specific post, or in general? Actually, no, it's not. I'll grant you, it's an interesting idea, but I haven't seen any reason to asign a deeper figurative meaning to "sleep" than a euphemism for physical death. Sorry Charlie, you don't get to decide who's thinking and whose not. failure to see your nebulous point is not failure to think My point, CM, is a response to this post: This is a discussion forum, and in that discussion you were asked by WordWolf "do you have some compelling evidence arguing for the figurative/spiritualized interpretation of these verses?...Other than CM's say-so, what "argument" do you offer for a change of position?" - and you have offered nothing other than some mumbo-jumbo about those who "are ready" seeing it. You want to put it out "for consideration"? Cool. But what's YOUR point? Ah, friggin' demonstartions, my favorite.

Wow! What a rebuttal!

Ooookay...throw out an idea that sounds interesting, but no one demonstrates any basis for the idea, but it is suggested that "those who are ready" will see it.

In so many areas, what Wierwille, Martindale et al said and what they promoted where not always the same thing. Umm...yeah, they didn't cut the verse out of the bible, but did their actions and words promote that verse? As WordWolf said, what I saw promoted was a mechanistic, or formulaic approach to God...do steps A, B, and C and God will jump through your hoops for you.

Bramble, the sickness thing brings up some memories: I raised 6 children. Sometimes they got ill, and sometimes they got ill and passed it on to another child or a parent. We were criticized by our WC BC for not "believing", since it semed like one of us were always missing fellowship due to a sick child. I thought that the fact that we had 8 people in our family just made it appear that we were sick more often than others, and said so. I was reamed for resisting leadership. For the next several months I kept a calendar. I noted whenever each of my family were sick, and when the BC or his wife were ill. Sure enough, the next time my BC "confronted" us about sickness, I produced my calendar, which showed that on average, each of my family members were sick less than either the BC or his wife :blink: That "evidence" was brushed aside with the observation that... ...I don't remember what the observation was!

...and another thing... The pressure referred to in the title to this thread was the doctrine that believing, if you were really believing, always worked. The whole "saint & sinner alike" thing. It's got nothing to with with whether miracles happened, or God talked to people or intervened in situations. I doubt that even the staunchest proponents of "the law of believing" can say that it worked every time in every situation. We were taught that it worked every time, for everyone, but were then taught explanations for when it didn't work. And it was usually our fault!

There's a "Believing" thread going on that your view might benefit from. Whether I or anyone else believe you is irrelevant, really. Actually you're one of the few on this board who talk about miracles that, if true, are a bit more miraculous than the usual "I found a parking space! Right out front!" variety.

The biggest difference IMHO between "believeing" as taught in TWI and plain ol' praying as taught in most churches is blame. Most people don't look to condemn you or cover you with guilt if you didn't see the answer to prayer that you expected, but in TWI "not receiving" was analyzed to death. And then there was the double standard: if you were one of the favored elite, bad things happened because the adversary was attacking you because of your great stand; if you were one of the peons, bad things happened because you weren't believing.

True, atheists see divine nonexistance as a conclusion. Some, do come to this conclusion primarily due to absence of evidence, while others come to this conclusion based on what they consider evidence of absence. My point was mainly addressing the position that atheisim is a lack of belief, like Wierwille's incorrect definition of atheism in PFAL (they don't believe, but they believe that they don't believe, therefore they believe... :blink: )

I don't see anywhere where JL suggested that what people posted here was "not of interest" or that there was anything that he didn't want people to see. He was simply giving additional sources for information.

Some within both the religious and the atheist camps insist that the other group conform to their own definitions: atheists refuting a version of god that the Christians don't subscribe to and Chrsitians insisting that any belief or opinion is a religion. While I disagree that atheism is necessarily a religion, I would agree that some atheists hold to the belief that there is no god with the same tenacity and refusal to reason as religious folk often do. You'll find the same single-minded tunnel vision and blindness to opposing evidence among followers of political parties as well.

QED. :) If I was being indirectly addressed hereA)I'm not an atheist B)Stating one's case and clarifying definitions isn't nitpicking and rationalizing If I wasn't being addressed....then never mind

Interesting about the letter to the prez of TWI. Igotout wrote one of those about 5 years ago (same prez) and it was not received well; I wrote one shortly thereafter to the sec'y-treasurer, and was passed down to the region coordintor. Shortly thereafter we were both out. As far as change goes, unlike, say 20 or 30 years ago, there are organizations aplenty to satisfy any vision of what a changed TWI would be like, ex-Way leaders run groups which are very much like the 'good 'ol days' TWI, complete with PFAL, others have evolved to include different teachings, while otehrs have gone in different directions altogether. In some ways, these groups are the "changed" Way International, without legal title to the name.