Raf

Oh, great, here we go with the anti-German slurs now. What are you, some kind of anti-German Nazi? My goodness, I can't believe your callous disregard for Germans. It disgusts me.

Happpeeeee birthday robeeeeee

Oh, great, now you have to get all racist in your posts. My God, people, why do we have to resort to such blatant racism in order to make our points? This is so wrong. Look, there are valid questions to be answered here, but once you start injecting racism into the equation, all bets are off. Dang, I'm so sick of racism. I'll bet you think the missing PFAL hours are ALIEN hours, don't you. In fact, it's probably a crime to possess them, so they're ILLEGAL ALIEN hours, aren't they? Don't you see how dehumanizing that is?

Larry: Rafaelian? I guess that's because first-year members of the Living Epistles Society used to go around talking about "Rafael in you!" Of course, if you had read my last/lost To Wit article, you would know that forgotten and unremembered are the same Greek word, and therefore, to say someone in the Old Testament could no have unremembrance, but they could have forgetfulness, is just plain silly. So the last teaching was not forgotten. It was just unremembered. Had we mastered the unremembered last teaching, we would have realized sooner that Clement was a lousy choice to succeed Peter as Pope, not to mention we would have been able to warn Van Halen about Sammy Hagar. By the way: I was kidding about voting incorrectly. The two yea votes are fair and square (as far as I know). The Living Epistles Society

Actually, the one vote for "I'd look at them" was from me. But I MEANT to vote for hell no.

Indiana Jones and the Metamucil Curse. Indiana Jones and the Mystery of Ally McBeal's Weight. Indiana Jones and the Viagra Bottle. Indiana Jones and the Thurmond Legacy. Indiana Jones and the Motorized Wheelchair.

Ok def, let me put it like this and see if you can see what I'm saying. I don't doubt your support of this thread. Do you agree that the subject of the Trinity is a huge theological debate, and that there's more than one point of view on the subject (regardless of how strongly you feel about your point of view)? Do you agree that the same is true for dispensationalism? Ok, good. Do you expect those issues to be resolved on this thread? Oooooof course not. You're not going to convert a single anti-trinitarian, and no one else is going to convert you. I'm looking for, and listing, errors that are indisputable. I have no interest in the grand arguments of Wierwillism because they are not necessary to accomplish the purpose of this thread (which is to show that Wierwille's books do not meet their own definition of what it means to be "God-breathed"). We won't all agree that Jesus Christ is/ain't God. But we can all agree that David was called a man after God's own heart BEFORE the Bathsheba incident, not after (as Wierwille said). There's simply no argument about that. I think the purpose of this thread, and the propriety of limiting its scope, became very clear once the "official minority voice" began posting and even ADMITTED that his method of dealing with the errors we've noted is to dodge, distract, change the subject and do ANYTHING except admit an error is an error. I hope the power of that confrontation, and the powerless response to it, can help others devoted to Wierwille see that the little orange book they hold in their hands does not deserve the devotion they pour into it. They will never question the larger issues that you and Steve present if they are not at least willing to acknowledge the smaller, more verifiable, 2+2=5 errors addressed on this thread. Besides, these are my rules. I make 'em up. :)--> Edit: Trinitarianism and dispensationalism are not actual errors. If they are errors at all, they are interpretational. HOWEVER: any of Wierwille's methods of proving his point of view on these issues may qualify as actual errors. I think one error, as implied by def, is Wierwille's insistence that people were considered Jews or Gentiles, but that the Church of God is distinct from them. I see Paul constantly referring to believing Christians as Gentiles, showing that he did not see the sharp division between the terms that Wierwille did. [This message was edited by Rafael 1969 on February 04, 2003 at 5:44.]

Dot, thanks for clearing up Charlie's point. Charlie, thanks for verifying it. Forgive me for not getting it right away. I actually wrote a long response to your statement here, but it's so off-topic that I'm not going to bother. So I deleted it. I've made my feelings on Wierwille clear. That's what matters for the purpose of this thread. If you want to discuss it further, write to me privately.

Charlie, Maybe my reading comprehension ain't what it used to be, but rather than "privately interpret" what you just said, I'd rather just ask you what you mean. :)--> In other words... huh?

I've just received, from Mike, Earl Burton's article on the meaning of "private interpretation." In it, he directly confronts Bullinger's explanation of that verse and tries to show how Wierwille was right and Bullinger was wrong. Let me state first, unequivocally, that I disagree with Burton. I think his analysis is simply incorrect, an attempt to validate Wierwille's position, not to objectively analyze the passage in question. Most of the proofs he employs actually prove Bullinger right. For example, he states that "cunningly devised fables" are the result of incorrect interpretations of the Bible. Misinterpreting the Bible is not "cunningly devising." Cunningly devising means making up something clever. In contrasting cunningly devised fables with the inspired Word of God, Peter is distinguishing between source: The source of God's Word is "moved by the Holy Ghost". The source of fables is "cunningly devised", ie, men. This lends support to Bullinger's contention that "private interpretation" refers to the source, not the meaning, of scripture. Nonetheless, Burton does make a valiant attempt to prove Wierwille right. I disagree with his conclusion, but the article convinces me that Wierwille's error concerning private interpretation is, itself, an error of interpretation. Maybe after a couple of Coronas, I'll feel differently. Raf

Excy was absolutely right to call me on my use of the word "horndog" in the other thread. I've called him adulterer, I've called him abuser. And as I've said over and over again, I find his actions reprehensible and indefensible. Using a word like "horndog" might be interpreted as minimizing my feelings about what Wierwille did. I hope not. I hope my record on this issue speaks louder than my casual use of a single word. Nonetheless, I apologize. It was thoughtless. I haven't said "rapist" in describing Wierwille. It's instinctual at this point: call it a job hazard. I tend not to call people criminals until after they are convicted, or at least tried. Osama's the exception. Violating that rule can get me sued. Incidentally, no one can sue for libel on behalf of a dead man. You can say whatever you want about a dead person, but a legacy cannot be libeled, legally. Isn't that fascinating? I know, not the point of this thread. Or this post for that matter. I simply and unreservedly apologize for anything I said that made light of Wierwille's behavior. I view his actions with the utmost gravity, and I have nothing but contempt for those who casually dismiss these stories while accepting Wierwille's snowstorms as divine revelation.

Excy.... Hey, you don't have to apologize to me for what you call Vic. Ever.

I've been thinking of this issue a lot lately. Dot, that post was awesome. So was Long Gone's. I hope the Wierwille worshipping skeptics (I don't include oldiesman in that bunch) can see the importance and relevance of these stories. They are heartbreaking. Between this and the yeah, but thread, I'm encouraged by the progress of this discussion. So as someone who should have stayed out of it ( ;)--> ), thank you.

The problem with pros... The problem with the pros error is, Wierwille's all over the map on this one. He's so insistent on its meaning in John 1:1 that the whole Bible falls apart if any other word is used. But in other places, he translates pros as "with a view toward..." So the meaning is A when convenient, and B when convenient. The fact that one word can have multiple meanings seems to have escaped him (which is amusing, considering that pistis has only one meaning, yet he gives it two). The statement that "The Bible would fall to pieces if any other word was used" is silly. I believe there's an error involved here. I'll jsut be darned if I know what it is. I can't narrow it down. Does he ever write that pros ALWAYS means together with yet distinctly independent? If he does, that settles it. If not, the error is in the statement that the Bible would fall to pieces etc. There's a lot of wiggle room for Wierwille's precioussss defenders on this one. I'm a tad uncertain.

Exy: I hope you don't think anyone here is questioning your integrity or your reasons for posting. I certainly am not. Your story needs to be told, repeatedly. I had a really long post here, but I'm deleting it because I've re-read oldies' posts and mine did not put it as well as his. Guys, listen to him. Talk to him. I assure you, he can, does and will listen to you. And Dot, please don't leave. Your input is far more important on this thread than mine. [This message was edited by Rafael 1969 on February 03, 2003 at 6:19.]

Hey, I could be wrong too, but that's really up to oldies. I've been speaking about him like he's not in the room, for which I apologize. Bottom line for me is, I really think he's a nice guy and if you guys would communicate with him, rather than at him, it might help everyone involved. As a matter of fact, that's good advice all around (for myself included). I think I'll tape it to my keyboard. The Living Epistles Society

What's upsetting to me, QQ, is that the things you said above are EXACTLY what I've been saying, coupled with the repeated insistence that Wierwille's behavior is inexcusable no matter what, and yet you come in and accuse me of enabling the enabler. For what? For a point you CONCEDE? Holy happy horse hockey! So I reject, again, the ridiculous assertion that I am enabling enablers. I have said NOTHING that you didn't say above. I enable the enablers no more than you just did. (But please, never, EVER write "shag me daddy" again. I almost puked when I read that). Your question regarding the "yeah-buts" is valid. If I answer it, it will be on that thread. And to those who think oldies and I should not be participating in this conversation, all I can say is, hod the conversation in a private topic or by e-mail if you don't want anyone butting into it. If I'm off-topic, then you have a point. But to say we shouldn't be here, that we weren't invited, that we should stay out of this, is completely out of line in an open forum. Oldiesman has as much right to post his view, or to challenge yours, as you have. Wayfer Not: you say oldiesman is not helping these women. Can I turn that around on you? What are you doing to help oldiesman shake off any inappropriate admiration of Wierwille. This man who has such a fondness for TWI-1 is slowly but surely seeing that there were things that went on, even then, that were spiritually repugnant. Telling him to go away won't bring him any closer to our point of view: that Wierwille's flaws were far deeper than Oldies was ever willing to concede. Accuse me of enabling an enabler. Go ahead. But I think some of you (not all) are missing a golden opportunity to help someone who is willing to listen, if you are willing to talk to him without resorting to those asterisks.

One thing that amazes me is that I can say in EACH and EVERY post that I've made on this thread that NOTHING excuses Wierwille's repugnant, reprehensible behavior, and STILL be accused of either being an ebabler or aiding and abetting enablers. My goodness, Ginger, you actually felt the need to inform me that OCD was right? My friend, I WAS AGREEING WITH OCD!!! I've been agreeing with OCD all along! What I'm trying to say is that you folks can be 100% right - 100% - and still leave room for the possibility that not every example will fit the critical view we have of Wierwille. Excath, Dot: I'm sorry. I have no intent to hurt you. I believe you both, and I believe there were many, TOO many more like you. I do not excuse Wierwille. Do I need to put that sentence in BOLD before anyone reads it? Because I know that Wierwille put a lot of people through a lot of pain. And I know that he did so in God's name. And I know the damage that does not only to those people, but to God's name. IT IS INEXCUSABLE. I really wish you folks saw Oldiesman the way I do: as someone seeking to come to terms with the dismantling of a belief system he once held dear: as someone who's recognizing, slowly but surely, that a man he really looked up to did some things that at first seem just dishonest, but increasingly realizing how horrible they were. You want him to join you in your point of view instantly? He's not going to. But he's going to start by recognizing, as I believe he has, that at least SOME of what you guys are saying is true. That there WERE times when Wierwille did exactly what he's been accused of doing. Do you have any idea how much it takes for him to concede that point? It's HUGE. So forgive me for recognizing that breakthrough and encouraging him onward in at least small steps. Take a look at oldies' posts on the Actual Errors thread. You want to call him a Wierwille worshipper? Take a look over there and recognize, as I clearly do, that he's got an open mind to Wierwille's faults, and he's working them through in his mind and heart with prayer. Maybe if you helped him along in his journey instead of calling him a multiple-asterisk, maybe, just maybe, you'll see him as I do. Forgive me if I'm out of line. Rafael

I appreciate everyone's understanding of my sometimes obsessive need to play thread cop. I hope the "appetizer v. main course" analogy makes my policing duties easier to accept. Hey, I even kept out some of my own pet peeves (nothing on the Law of Believing? Really? Nothing? Nothing on "fear is believing in reverse?"). Anyway, Steve, I think you're suggesting some phenomenal threads that would generate tons of discussion. Def, You're suggesting errors that have been the subject of threads that have generated tons of discussion already. :)--> I just don't want to replicate the discussion here only to not reach a consensus on the error. Write to me privately to discuss journalism.

I feel like I need to stick up for oldiesman here. I don't think he's saying that NO ONE was a victim, or that NO ONE was manipulated, or that NO ONE was abused, misused and discarded by VPW. I think (correct me if I'm mistaken here) he's saying that NOT EVERYONE who was with Wierwille was his victim. This idea that all the interactions between Wierwille and women - ALL of them - were Predator-Prey relationships, is unprovable. Again (and again and again), even if a woman threw herself at Wierwille, it was his responsibility as a minister to get them to back off. That's not the whole point. Do you all contend that EVERY SINGLE SEXUAL ENCOUNTER between Wierwille and someone else was de facto non-consensual? I can't honestly argue that because I wasn't there. I consider that position extreme, just as extreme as arguing that EVERY SINGLE WOMAN was asking for it and just as responsible as Wierwille. And again, that does not invalidate a single horror story. It doesn't invalidate a single malicious abuse of power. It doesn't invalidate the torment he put people through. I know there are those who believe that EVERY case was one in which the woman came onto Wierwille and he succumbed to temptation. I find that position morally, ethically and spiritually repugnant, not to mention insulting. But I don't buy the opposite extreme either. I guess neither is provable, so the point is really difficult to discuss. But I don't see where oldiesman is saying anything that's all that unreasonable. And AGAIN! AGAIN! AGAIN!!!!! I'm not excusing or denying ANY of Wierwille's indiscretions or abuses. I'm just saying it's possible that some SOME (not a lot, not a majority, SOME) of the encounters may have possibly been just a tad consensual. OCD Wrote: Come on, this is unfair. How many ways until Sunday do I have to say that I wasn't excusing Wierwille's behavior or denying his culpability? [This message was edited by Rafael 1969 on February 01, 2003 at 16:01.]

Jerry: Your proposed error 31 strikes me as interpretational. Maybe I'm just sleepy. Your proposed error 32 is on target. WordWolf: I didn't mean to say that I taught the Jew/Judean thing in a formal setting. I mean I used to teach it when "witnessing" to people. For some reason, it did come up: but that was probably due to my own arrogance and not to need. Earth. Hitler. 1938. As for all the women in the kingdom belonging to the king, and how that relates to MOG status, I specifically stated that I didn't want to use this list to challenge Wierwille's motives. Frankly, I think the leap from that statement to Wierwille's behavior is logically tenuous (that is, I don't think you can create a logical chain linking that belief to Wierwille's behavior). I don't know, as a matter of logical certainty, that there is such a link. Which is not to say I don't believe the allegations against Wierwille. I do. I just don't know how they tie into this verse. I suppose if this were to become a book, and each error a chapter, we could get into that. But yikes. ---- Thank you for pointing out Galatians 1. I will include it in the explanation of heteros and allos. ----

Def, You're a good soul. You and I can agree to disagree about any number of major doctrinal issues. You claim that you see more errors than we do. I disagree. You see different errors. But some are a matter of interpretation of major doctrinal issues, and the purpose of this thread is NOT to discuss those issues. It's to discuss those errors about which there can be no room for disagreement. I don't mean to invalidate the errors you pointed out (not here, anyway. :)--> ). The only thing I mean to do is separate out one type of error from another. I see all sorts of errors that I won't address here (like when Judas hanged himself, Abraham's attempt to sacrifice Isaac, and the meaning of "falling away"). But even those cause debates, and I'm not looking for debatable errors. I'm looking for places where Wierwille writes that 2+2=5. I'm looking for places where Wierwille writes "Greek word B always means ABC," and then finding verses in which B clearly means DEF and G. Indisputable, unarguable errors. I think we have a pretty good list and I think you can contribute to it. Earlier I told Steve that the kind of errors we're looking at are "appetizers." The kind of errors he was pointing out are the "main course." I submit the same is true of the ones you're pointing out (certainly the second one, if not the first). The Living Epistles Society

It's up. We are now at 29 actual errors in PFAL. And I still haven't gotten to "faith v. believing" which will make 30.

Well, that pretty well nails it, eh? I'll post it right away.

Steve: Karl Kahler suggested several companion threads to this one. "Probable errors in PFAL" and "Strange Doctrines of the Way." Each would be larger in scope. My contention is that neither of those threads would result in a consensus, whereas this one would. That's why I didn't start the others. But such threads would be totally in keeping with the spirit of Jerry's PFAL review and my old Blue Book review (and the late lamented Green Book review, which died young). ........................................ We now pause for a lighthearted derailment. ZIX!!! I thought my method of counting allowed for the least amount of double counting. My way, 26% of Jews would have to have SOME Khazar ancestry. Your way, 50% + 1 Jews have to have 50% + 1 Khazar ancestry. Yours is truer to what Wierwille said, mine is just giving him as much benefit of the doubt as I can without saying he's outright wrong. By the way, he's outright wrong. .................. Now, back to our program. I made some fixes on the page, but haven't added anything to it. Updated Page [This message was edited by Rafael 1969 on January 31, 2003 at 13:36.]