Did they really believe it?

[waysider]

White Dove

As you know, many times a thread will go off on an unrelated tangent and the essence of a previous post may be obscured in the process.

This particular post of mine was in regard to a line of thinking that was being discussed about a page back.

I should have referenced that before my post.

The particular line of thought that was under discussion was whether devil spirits(according to the teachings of The Way) can possess just the body, just the mind, or both. The context of the of the material I referred to( as far as I recall after many, many years) illustrated how both can be involved at the same time and used alcoholism as an example of both being in play at the same time.

I hope that clarifies my intent.

I'm sorry I did not make that clearer.

On the other hand, I do see you point about how even one single word can affect the overall essence or even change a meaning completely.

[WhiteDove]

Thanks Waysider

I did read the exchange I may be wrong in how I read your post but it looked like you were reaching a conclusion here

That's only if it was strictly an "or" scenario.

What if it was also an "and" scenario?

(Possessed in body and mind.)

Either we followed the teachings of a *possessed* man or he was wrong about possession, thereby negating his credibility on that issue as well as others.

It appeared to me that you went from the may and/or situation that VP wrote about in your quote to an and only with no "may" qualifier. He said may be in body or mind not that they were in all cases, you then asumed that vp was either possesed or that he was wrong in his teaching. Two choices, there is a third..... May It may be that he was not either as well.

It is hand written and denoted with parentheses.(ie: It is a quote from the live class.)

The idea of a particular disease having its origins in workings of the Devil was also taught in that same class.

This has been an interesting thread the truth is I was not sure at some point what was said so I started digging through some material. Funny thing the more I dug the less I saw that he said that I looked through a couple of AC syllabuss a class one ,and a Corps one and all my notes as well, could'nt find it. I read through a word by word transcript of the video class still could not find it where he said all or any cancer was a devil spirit. I think that this may be one of those Way myths that we sometimes think was said and it is passed on until it becomes he said it. Sometimes I have found I wrote notes thinking he said something he did not ,at the time it may have seemed that is what he said, but in looking back it ws not ,just the way I heard it maybe. I have one other place to look and that is the video itself, sometimes things said don't always make it into notes, although the transcript is pretty much word for word even including pauses in his words where he was thinking faster than he was talking and had to catch up and other notations as to what he was doing ie laughing, gesturing ect. Anyway just wanted to note that the and /or which ever it was ,is tempered with a may . found some other interesting things as well I may post later.

Edited August 31, 2007 by WhiteDove

[GeorgeStGeorge]

Wierwille, et al., said many things in open meetings that weren't taped or transcribed. I seem to recall VPW stating that because it was "life of itself" cancer was a spirit. The syllogism "Cancer is life of itself"; "All life is spirit"; therefore, "Cancer is a spirit" is faulty, of course. The first statement is wholly untrue. Cancer has no "life of itself"; when it's cut out, it dies. The second statement is also untrue; even allowing that soul life is "spiritual," this ignores plant life altogether.

I admit, however, that I cannot document an exact time and place where I heard VP declare this.

George

[Larry N Moore]

Wierwille, et al., said many things in open meetings that weren't taped or transcribed. I seem to recall VPW stating that because it was "life of itself" cancer was a spirit. The syllogism "Cancer is life of itself"; "All life is spirit"; therefore, "Cancer is a spirit" is faulty, of course. The first statement is wholly untrue. Cancer has no "life of itself"; when it's cut out, it dies. The second statement is also untrue; even allowing that soul life is "spiritual," this ignores plant life altogether.

I admit, however, that I cannot document an exact time and place where I heard VP declare this.

George

How can cancer die, if it isn't alive to begin with?

I don't think plant life is excluded in the saying (and this also applies to cancer per se). Plant life has growth life and so likewise does cancer. I think that that is what is referred to in the syllogism. In the case of cancer, however, the question arises -- If cancer is a mutation of healthy cells what caused the cells to mutate? If a "spirit" being has the power to take a healthy cell and turn it into an unhealthy one (either directly or through a process of genetic engineering -- passing it down from one generation to the next) couldn't it be said that ultimately cancer is a spiritual malady having it's origin in the Adversary of God? That is not to say that cancer itself is an indication of possession -- at least not today or in all cases -- but it's very likely that it might have been when cancer first made its appearance in mankind.

[WhiteDove]

Wierwille, et al., said many things in open meetings that weren't taped or transcribed.

Which is why I said

I have one other place to look and that is the video itself, sometimes things said don't always make it into notes, although the transcript is pretty much word for word

The problem with "I seem to remember is that not everyone seems to remember the same" The claim if you look was specifically that he said it in the Advanced Class. Logically it would follow that it would then appear in a word by word transcript or at the least would be in the filmed version unless of course it was edited out, then again who would have known to edit that part out because years later a discussion on GreaseSpot ( aplace that did not even exist)may come up and we don't want someone to prove that. Pretty far fetched so we can assume that the video is in fact intact and it is lacking any place where he said that. It may have been said in classes in the years following I just can't document any place were it turned up . Generally speaking when something is not there it's safe to assume it was not said rather than assume it was said and just not noted. especially in the case of a transcript.

Edited August 31, 2007 by WhiteDove

[GeorgeStGeorge]

How can cancer die, if it isn't alive to begin with?

I didn't say cancer wasn't alive. It has no "life of itself" any more than any healthy cells have. The cells in my finger are alive, but they die if separated from the body. The same with cancer.

George

[doojable]

It has been shown that when a tumor grows it stimulates it's own blood supply. In fact, one of the new anti-cancer drugs target that tendency and prevent the supply from forming. (It's been a while so I'd have to look it up to be more accurate - but I saw it on Nova.)

[Larry N Moore]

I didn't say cancer wasn't alive. It has no "life of itself" any more than any healthy cells have. The cells in my finger are alive, but they die if separated from the body. The same with cancer.

George

I'm not so sure that's entirely accurate. I don't mean to bog down the central discussion but, this cite states the following:

Normal cells: when placed on a tissue culture dish, they proliferate until the surface of the dish is covered by a single layer of cells just touching each other. Then mitosis ceases. This phenomenon is called contact inhibition.

Cancer cells show no contact inhibition. Once the surface of the dish is covered, the cells continue to divide, piling up into mounds.

And from this cite this:

Under the proper conditions, an E. coli cell can split like this every 20 or 30 minutes! The enzymatic process of growing the cell, replicating the DNA loop and splitting happens very rapidly.

Obviously you're right in so far as cells (both normal and cancerous) will eventually die -- all living things (composed of cells) will -- but life, itself, is a product of cells growing and multiplying. That seems to be "life of itself" to me.

The field of biology is a fascinating one. You begin to appreciate just how wondrous the human body is and how cancer (although life in itself) actively attacks and shortens life. Something that doesn't seem to be part of God's plan. Which brings up the question: If death is not part of God's plan, whose plan is it? But of course -- that's a question more appropriately asked (and answered) in the Doctrinal forum. Yet, much of this topic, itself, belongs down there imo.