or what is it about the tithe.. the tithe is a divine income tax.. I don't have the book now so I can't entirely quote the rest of the reference..
That entire pamphlet is based on erroneous interpretation. Why teach any of it? Oh, yeah, now I remember.....you have to give so God can spit at you. (Per LCM)
Some clarification is in order. When I ask, "What's left to teach?", I mean specifically from the body of various information and teachings we used to draw from. I'm sure there is a multitude of subject matter still waiting to be taught, but that's not the material I'm referring to here.
They could try teaching about the generosity and lovingness of God.
They could try reading and teaching from the gospels, about the exemplary life of Jesus.
They could try teaching humility, respect, generosity, not esteeming others greater than oneself, making themselves servants (ie really serving) others.
They could try teaching "love" as being tender, and being like a nursing mother with their flock - instead of practicing "tough love" and bullying their flock.
They could try teaching hospitality, and opening their doors to all, including the homeless and filthy off the street (think: what might be in Plurality Palace), those with addiction problems; those who need a break from the hardness of their lives.
By "teaching" of course that would be by example, not by the mere words of their mouths.
Waysider...really...there is sooo much more that they can teach.
As to the things you mention in your opening post - can't say they've ever helped me in my relationship and walk with my Father. Worse, they've been a hindrance.
Yes, there is much more they could be teaching. Not much of it is found in their classes and reading materials, though. And, of course, if you ever ventured beyond the prescribed doctrine in your presentation, chastisement was imminent.
How about that through the accomplished works of God through Jesus Christ that mankind has an antedote for sin. That mankind has access to God, to eternal life, to peace, joy and the other fruit of the spirit, SPEAKING of which, that by SIT mankind has absolute proof of Christ's finished works and that he's coming back to reward us and ever be with us. How about THAT? That's something worth teaching.
How about that through the accomplished works of God through Jesus Christ that mankind has an antedote for sin. That mankind has access to God, to eternal life, to peace, joy and the other fruit of the spirit, SPEAKING of which, that by SIT mankind has absolute proof of Christ's finished works and that he's coming back to reward us and ever be with us. How about THAT? That's something worth teaching.
OK, I get it, John, you teach "the hope". What about those other things that have been shown to be erroneous, such as throughly/thoroughly, kingdom of heaven/kingdom of God, etc.....Can you still teach those now that you know they're inaccurate?
So Johniam, do you believe all those things that were in PFAL? You know, the ones I listed above that have been specifically proven to be wrong?
Then I said:
Sorry, can't discuss that here. Wrong thread. Must be nice that they let you be off topic but not me. You must have some special decoder ring.
Now comes Waysider:
OK, I get it, John, you teach "the hope". What about those other things that have been shown to be erroneous, such as throughly/thoroughly, kingdom of heaven/kingdom of God, etc.....Can you still teach those now that you know they're inaccurate?
It is one dimensional to try to put a 34 hour class in a little box. As though anything that (IYNSHO) applies to one part of the 34 hours also applies to everything in the 34 hours.
I don't "know" that those things are inaccurate. "Proven to be wrong"??? PHD scientists believe that it is "proven" that there's no God, no creation, etc. I'll concede one thing.
In pfal there's the trimmings and there's the turkey. The things I listed in my other post are the 'turkey'. The most important things to be gleaned from pfal. The things you listed are the 'trimmings'. These things VP used to support his claim that there is a God breathed word that didn't come from the minds of the writers. These things VP used to whet our collective appetite for the words of scripture, word studies, collaterals, etc. VP was always encouraging us to just read the word. At a weekend in the word he once said that the best scope of spirituality you could possibly build in your own life was done by just reading the KJV. No collaterals, no word studies, just read the word. That doesn't fit the often accused profile of VP wanting to control our every thought. LCM morphed into that, but VP wanted us to read the word for ourselves.
Out of one side of your mouth, you say that VP/pfal was rigid; either his way or the highway. Now you yourself are rigid. You say, "now that I know they're inaccurate". Again, I don't "know" they're inaccurate. I don't "know" that there's no God like some PHD scientist does. So, Waysider, who is REALLY narrow minded? Who has really been "tampered with".
One more thing. As I said, there's the trimmings and there's the turkey. The turkey stuff (IMO) is set in stone. Salvation by Jesus Christ is a done deal. The gift of holy spirit is unto and upon all them that believe. The hope is guaranteed. But the trimmings are open to debate. Is it wrong to disect pfal? No. Is it wrong for you or anybody else to conclude something different than VP did about 4 crucified, dechomai/lambano, etc.? No. I think God wants people to do just that. I think God would rather we spent some of our time examining His word like that then spending ALL our time in the world.
What I question about you is, that like you accuse VP of, you aren't doing "research". You already have your mind made up about VP and that's all you're going to ever see no matter what. BTW, I expect Kris' book to arrive in my mail in a few days. For whatever that is worth.
You have obviously never bothered to read the "Actual Errors in PFAL". If you had, you would know that I'm not referring to things that are arbitrary. I'm talking about things that are clear-cut. Throughly and thoroughly do not have different definitions, as Wierwille insisted. One is simply an obsolete form of the other. That's not an opinion, it's a fact. There are, likewise, factual errors in the way Wierwille dealt with apistia and apathia....kingdom of heaven and kingdom of God...lambano and dechomai.....Bar Mitza in the O.T....and more. These are not subjective opinions, they are factual observations. Do you still teach these things the way they were presented in PFAL?....If so, why?
Remember the old story of the bumblebee?....Too heavy to fly, but it does it anyway? Turns out it was really a myth. Probably originated at a time when the laws of aerodynamics were not yet as fully understood as they are today. So, suppose you are an eighth grade science teacher who has been repeating this myth for years. Now you stumble upon the truth of the matter. Do you continue to teach your classes that the bumble bee is too heavy to fly, now that you know it isn't?
You have obviously never bothered to read the "Actual Errors in PFAL".
Not in years, but I probably posted on it. So what?
quote: I'm talking about things that are clear-cut. Throughly and thoroughly do not have different definitions, as Wierwille insisted.
Every single word that has ever existed in any language started out with one meaning only. It is a natural occurance that more meanings evolve. I have an Oxford dictionary which gives 134 different shades of meaning for the English word 'run'. VPs point is good that you can wash your hands thoroughly, but you can't wash them throughly. He's allowed to make that distinction. Speaking of "facts"........
Kris' book arrived at my house yesterday. I've read almost half of it. She doesn't use some peoples' actual names. I'm sure she got plenty of legal advice along these lines. She also said that Uncle Harry day corresponded to the day of his death. He died in Oct. of '77; Uncle Harry day was observed in March every year. If I was like you, I would dismiss the whole book as "unfactual". This leads to a question.
Waysider, you seem to be as informed as anyone about all things GSC. Is there a thread which discusses Kris' book, Losing the Way?
Sure, he's allowed to make up words. No law against it. That doesn't mean the words will have any sort of universally understood meaning, though, or that the words will have the same meaning as other words. No problem... plenty of other straightforward errors to choose from. I won't bother to list them, as there is both an editorial and a seperate thread set aside for this purpose.
You are correct in observing that Kris has changed names and other details. Some of this is done for obvious legal reasons. Also, some changes were made as a vehicle of literary license so that the gist of the book would appeal to a broader audience than just Way followers. (An example of this is when she refers to baby dedications as baptisms. Even though this isn't specifically accurate, it is a way to state it that will be understood by a broad audience in a general sense.)
Yes, there is a thread that deals with the book as well as an audio interview on the front page.
From my studies of VPWs books he tends to redefine words in his teachings. This is against common scholarly works not something debated in that community. I don't know if it ok on the thread to bring out greek words to prove points as there is doctrine sections but this is more about how VPW interprets and teaches the Word, I will try not too. I recommend reading the Jesus Christ is not God book and actually look up the words in other sources. Another way VPW works in his book is by redefining the way you read. Bringing up the word thoroughly is not a good comparative example to the way VPW changes definitions. It is spelled differently and even if it is the word light as in illumination of the world around us or the way describe how heavy an object is. The change of definition has to make since with in the sentence. But VPW teaches the opposite. Words change definition even when it doesn't make since with in the structure of the paragraph. Only to make the Word fit his own presupposition. In VPWs mind everything will automatically fit his theology even if the grammar and sentience structor will not support it.
Of value to examine here is the underlying premise behind what VP and even more so now TWI teach that "research" consists of. This is valuable in answering the question "what's left to teach"?
In the current TWI, "research" is defined as "re-search", or in other words searching out that which has already been searched before. Now if you take that at face value, it would be a similar approach to common academics in religious studies where they use sources from many backgrounds, examine commentaries, Dead Sea scrolls, historians, popular theologians through the ages, etc.
But with TWI, what is meant is re-searching the materials that TWI has previously published. In this they are standing up their Publishing Department as the guardians and watchdogs of Biblical research. That department in the history of TWI has NEVER had qualified personnel trained in research. RFR is the prime example - no training in research, masters degree in English, and a schoolteacher.
All previous forms of talent that there were at TWI in the form of research were decimated at various times. This is well documented on this site - penworks, Jon N*sle, the whole research department. Of course one of the most ignomious incidents retold on this site is John Sch*nh*t's being fired over doing a base level word study paper writeup on the word "adultery" in the Bible. The so-called "research department" of TWI has since its inception been powerless to effect any change, and only existed to establish and back up VP's doctrine. Later permutations of this department have consisted of one to two people. In Martinpuke's regime, N*ssle and W*yne Cl*pp fulfilled this, both of which had their character assassinated and were driven out and now are with another offshoot - Cl*pp is the head honcho of one.
From TWI's perspective, "what's left to teach" is an endless treadmill of re-spouting VPW's materials and the subsequent refinement of them. That, along with cleaning up VP's image and whitewashing the public image of TWI, and sweeping under the carpet any negative material consists of TWI's complete current strategy.
This differentiate's from an honest and truthful approach in that there are NO checks and balances upon TWI's leadership. They are free to dream evil and execute it, all in the name of "that the ministry be not blamed". Their main tools are a paint brush and a bucket of whitewash.
What's left to teach? There is NOTHING left to teach. They should shut it down if they were honest, but they aren't. They have to preserve all the millions that were earned between '72 and '86 basically. Their goal is to be self-sufficient on that farm and live in their own little permutation of absolute control.
Leave them alone. Migrate to different Christian channels, where the evil is not rampant and unchecked. God is bigger than all that.
How about that through the accomplished works of God through Jesus Christ that mankind has an antedote for sin. That mankind has access to God, to eternal life, to peace, joy and the other fruit of the spirit, SPEAKING of which, that by SIT mankind has absolute proof of Christ's finished works and that he's coming back to reward us and ever be with us. How about THAT? That's something worth teaching.
And that, to me, encapsulates the whole problem with TWI. Yes, that was taught, I learned it first in Sunday school in a Methodist church but I digress. TWI taught that but in practice they acted as though Jesus Christ never existed. That all we had to do was say, "I'm sorry" when we sinned. No mention (in my memory) that a Christian should seek Christ's help in turning our lives from sin to live more lovingly. Speaking in tongues was vaunted above the accomplished work of Christ its meaning and its purpose...in my opinion.
If I remember correctly "Dr." went as far as to say, "The Word takes the place of the absent Christ." That's very serious error and borders on blasphemy.
What's left to? by sheer volume, tonnage, pages stacked, words counted thus far and hot air expounding out of New Knocksville.....
...not much.
PFAL and it's 36 hours of material alone is plenty.
The endless rewording and re presenting of the same thing with an endless effort to find or add a new twist to what's been turned a 1,000 times already...?
Perhaps the time spent would be better invested in actually doing some things with it, acting on it, encouraging efforts to make the world a better place and building something worth keeping.
In the current TWI, "research" is defined as "re-search", or in other words searching out that which has already been searched before. Now if you take that at face value, it would be a similar approach to common academics in religious studies where they use sources from many backgrounds, examine commentaries, Dead Sea scrolls, historians, popular theologians through the ages, etc.
But with TWI, what is meant is re-searching the materials that TWI has previously published.
Re-searching the material that twi has previously published has ALWAYS been their standard m.o. In 1978, three 8th corps guys were heavily confronted for their research project/paper that did NOT align with pfal theology.
Yes, by 1978.......some corps were upsetting wierwille's apple cart and challenging the "man of God" on his research.
Nevermind "current" twi-policy......anyone who was paying attention KNOWS that you cannot improve on the pfal material. That stuff was handed down from the Mountain and breathed from the mouth of God......donchaknow.
Nevermind "current" twi-policy......anyone who was paying attention KNOWS that you cannot improve on the pfal material. That stuff was handed down from the Mountain and breathed from the mouth of God......donchaknow.
Yeah - it just passed through a few hands and got plagiarized on the way down.
You are correct in observing that Kris has changed names and other details. Some of this is done for obvious legal reasons. Also, some changes were made as a vehicle of literary license so that the gist of the book would appeal to a broader audience than just Way followers. (An example of this is when she refers to baby dedications as baptisms. Even though this isn't specifically accurate, it is a way to state it that will be understood by a broad audience in a general sense.)
Yes, there is a thread that deals with the book as well as an audio interview on the front page.
I tried to access the losing the way stuff on the home page. Denied. Guess I'll have to hold those thoughts in abeyance.
Recommended Posts
Top Posters In This Topic
8
11
15
6
Popular Days
Aug 27
8
Aug 28
7
Aug 23
6
Sep 5
6
Top Posters In This Topic
socks 8 posts
johniam 11 posts
waysider 15 posts
Broken Arrow 6 posts
Popular Days
Aug 27 2011
8 posts
Aug 28 2011
7 posts
Aug 23 2011
6 posts
Sep 5 2011
6 posts
Popular Posts
socks
Hmmm....actually yes, the quote is from the "Advanced Class" part of the series, and as you probably remember VPW stated "everything" was in the PFAL Foundational class itself, the Intermediate and Ad
Ham
What's left to teach?
Maybe.. The Magic of Believing..
sowie
or what is it about the tithe.. the tithe is a divine income tax.. I don't have the book now so I can't entirely quote the rest of the reference..
Link to comment
Share on other sites
waysider
That entire pamphlet is based on erroneous interpretation. Why teach any of it? Oh, yeah, now I remember.....you have to give so God can spit at you. (Per LCM)
Edited by waysiderLink to comment
Share on other sites
waysider
Some clarification is in order. When I ask, "What's left to teach?", I mean specifically from the body of various information and teachings we used to draw from. I'm sure there is a multitude of subject matter still waiting to be taught, but that's not the material I'm referring to here.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Twinky
They could try teaching about the generosity and lovingness of God.
They could try reading and teaching from the gospels, about the exemplary life of Jesus.
They could try teaching humility, respect, generosity, not esteeming others greater than oneself, making themselves servants (ie really serving) others.
They could try teaching "love" as being tender, and being like a nursing mother with their flock - instead of practicing "tough love" and bullying their flock.
They could try teaching hospitality, and opening their doors to all, including the homeless and filthy off the street (think: what might be in Plurality Palace), those with addiction problems; those who need a break from the hardness of their lives.
By "teaching" of course that would be by example, not by the mere words of their mouths.
Waysider...really...there is sooo much more that they can teach.
As to the things you mention in your opening post - can't say they've ever helped me in my relationship and walk with my Father. Worse, they've been a hindrance.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
waysider
Thanks, Twinky.
Yes, there is much more they could be teaching. Not much of it is found in their classes and reading materials, though. And, of course, if you ever ventured beyond the prescribed doctrine in your presentation, chastisement was imminent.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
OldSkool
Ahh......they call that sort of thing "undershepherding", at least in the beginning of the indoctrination process.....
http://www.theway.org/article.php?page=aug_11&lang=en
Link to comment
Share on other sites
johniam
How about that through the accomplished works of God through Jesus Christ that mankind has an antedote for sin. That mankind has access to God, to eternal life, to peace, joy and the other fruit of the spirit, SPEAKING of which, that by SIT mankind has absolute proof of Christ's finished works and that he's coming back to reward us and ever be with us. How about THAT? That's something worth teaching.
Edited by johniamLink to comment
Share on other sites
waysider
OK, I get it, John, you teach "the hope". What about those other things that have been shown to be erroneous, such as throughly/thoroughly, kingdom of heaven/kingdom of God, etc.....Can you still teach those now that you know they're inaccurate?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
mstar1
Tonights teaching:
A new series-
"70 years of screwing up a good thing-How we were wrong-The dark underbelly of TWI"
They have plenty of new material there
Link to comment
Share on other sites
johniam
Jbarrax said:
So Johniam, do you believe all those things that were in PFAL? You know, the ones I listed above that have been specifically proven to be wrong?
Then I said:
Sorry, can't discuss that here. Wrong thread. Must be nice that they let you be off topic but not me. You must have some special decoder ring.
Now comes Waysider:
OK, I get it, John, you teach "the hope". What about those other things that have been shown to be erroneous, such as throughly/thoroughly, kingdom of heaven/kingdom of God, etc.....Can you still teach those now that you know they're inaccurate?
It is one dimensional to try to put a 34 hour class in a little box. As though anything that (IYNSHO) applies to one part of the 34 hours also applies to everything in the 34 hours.
I don't "know" that those things are inaccurate. "Proven to be wrong"??? PHD scientists believe that it is "proven" that there's no God, no creation, etc. I'll concede one thing.
In pfal there's the trimmings and there's the turkey. The things I listed in my other post are the 'turkey'. The most important things to be gleaned from pfal. The things you listed are the 'trimmings'. These things VP used to support his claim that there is a God breathed word that didn't come from the minds of the writers. These things VP used to whet our collective appetite for the words of scripture, word studies, collaterals, etc. VP was always encouraging us to just read the word. At a weekend in the word he once said that the best scope of spirituality you could possibly build in your own life was done by just reading the KJV. No collaterals, no word studies, just read the word. That doesn't fit the often accused profile of VP wanting to control our every thought. LCM morphed into that, but VP wanted us to read the word for ourselves.
Out of one side of your mouth, you say that VP/pfal was rigid; either his way or the highway. Now you yourself are rigid. You say, "now that I know they're inaccurate". Again, I don't "know" they're inaccurate. I don't "know" that there's no God like some PHD scientist does. So, Waysider, who is REALLY narrow minded? Who has really been "tampered with".
One more thing. As I said, there's the trimmings and there's the turkey. The turkey stuff (IMO) is set in stone. Salvation by Jesus Christ is a done deal. The gift of holy spirit is unto and upon all them that believe. The hope is guaranteed. But the trimmings are open to debate. Is it wrong to disect pfal? No. Is it wrong for you or anybody else to conclude something different than VP did about 4 crucified, dechomai/lambano, etc.? No. I think God wants people to do just that. I think God would rather we spent some of our time examining His word like that then spending ALL our time in the world.
What I question about you is, that like you accuse VP of, you aren't doing "research". You already have your mind made up about VP and that's all you're going to ever see no matter what. BTW, I expect Kris' book to arrive in my mail in a few days. For whatever that is worth.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
waysider
John
You have obviously never bothered to read the "Actual Errors in PFAL". If you had, you would know that I'm not referring to things that are arbitrary. I'm talking about things that are clear-cut. Throughly and thoroughly do not have different definitions, as Wierwille insisted. One is simply an obsolete form of the other. That's not an opinion, it's a fact. There are, likewise, factual errors in the way Wierwille dealt with apistia and apathia....kingdom of heaven and kingdom of God...lambano and dechomai.....Bar Mitza in the O.T....and more. These are not subjective opinions, they are factual observations. Do you still teach these things the way they were presented in PFAL?....If so, why?
Edited by waysiderLink to comment
Share on other sites
waysider
Remember the old story of the bumblebee?....Too heavy to fly, but it does it anyway? Turns out it was really a myth. Probably originated at a time when the laws of aerodynamics were not yet as fully understood as they are today. So, suppose you are an eighth grade science teacher who has been repeating this myth for years. Now you stumble upon the truth of the matter. Do you continue to teach your classes that the bumble bee is too heavy to fly, now that you know it isn't?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
johniam
quote:
You have obviously never bothered to read the "Actual Errors in PFAL".
Not in years, but I probably posted on it. So what?
quote: I'm talking about things that are clear-cut. Throughly and thoroughly do not have different definitions, as Wierwille insisted.
Every single word that has ever existed in any language started out with one meaning only. It is a natural occurance that more meanings evolve. I have an Oxford dictionary which gives 134 different shades of meaning for the English word 'run'. VPs point is good that you can wash your hands thoroughly, but you can't wash them throughly. He's allowed to make that distinction. Speaking of "facts"........
Kris' book arrived at my house yesterday. I've read almost half of it. She doesn't use some peoples' actual names. I'm sure she got plenty of legal advice along these lines. She also said that Uncle Harry day corresponded to the day of his death. He died in Oct. of '77; Uncle Harry day was observed in March every year. If I was like you, I would dismiss the whole book as "unfactual". This leads to a question.
Waysider, you seem to be as informed as anyone about all things GSC. Is there a thread which discusses Kris' book, Losing the Way?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
waysider
Sure, he's allowed to make up words. No law against it. That doesn't mean the words will have any sort of universally understood meaning, though, or that the words will have the same meaning as other words. No problem... plenty of other straightforward errors to choose from. I won't bother to list them, as there is both an editorial and a seperate thread set aside for this purpose.
You are correct in observing that Kris has changed names and other details. Some of this is done for obvious legal reasons. Also, some changes were made as a vehicle of literary license so that the gist of the book would appeal to a broader audience than just Way followers. (An example of this is when she refers to baby dedications as baptisms. Even though this isn't specifically accurate, it is a way to state it that will be understood by a broad audience in a general sense.)
Yes, there is a thread that deals with the book as well as an audio interview on the front page.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Naten00
From my studies of VPWs books he tends to redefine words in his teachings. This is against common scholarly works not something debated in that community. I don't know if it ok on the thread to bring out greek words to prove points as there is doctrine sections but this is more about how VPW interprets and teaches the Word, I will try not too. I recommend reading the Jesus Christ is not God book and actually look up the words in other sources. Another way VPW works in his book is by redefining the way you read. Bringing up the word thoroughly is not a good comparative example to the way VPW changes definitions. It is spelled differently and even if it is the word light as in illumination of the world around us or the way describe how heavy an object is. The change of definition has to make since with in the sentence. But VPW teaches the opposite. Words change definition even when it doesn't make since with in the structure of the paragraph. Only to make the Word fit his own presupposition. In VPWs mind everything will automatically fit his theology even if the grammar and sentience structor will not support it.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
chockfull
Of value to examine here is the underlying premise behind what VP and even more so now TWI teach that "research" consists of. This is valuable in answering the question "what's left to teach"?
In the current TWI, "research" is defined as "re-search", or in other words searching out that which has already been searched before. Now if you take that at face value, it would be a similar approach to common academics in religious studies where they use sources from many backgrounds, examine commentaries, Dead Sea scrolls, historians, popular theologians through the ages, etc.
But with TWI, what is meant is re-searching the materials that TWI has previously published. In this they are standing up their Publishing Department as the guardians and watchdogs of Biblical research. That department in the history of TWI has NEVER had qualified personnel trained in research. RFR is the prime example - no training in research, masters degree in English, and a schoolteacher.
All previous forms of talent that there were at TWI in the form of research were decimated at various times. This is well documented on this site - penworks, Jon N*sle, the whole research department. Of course one of the most ignomious incidents retold on this site is John Sch*nh*t's being fired over doing a base level word study paper writeup on the word "adultery" in the Bible. The so-called "research department" of TWI has since its inception been powerless to effect any change, and only existed to establish and back up VP's doctrine. Later permutations of this department have consisted of one to two people. In Martinpuke's regime, N*ssle and W*yne Cl*pp fulfilled this, both of which had their character assassinated and were driven out and now are with another offshoot - Cl*pp is the head honcho of one.
From TWI's perspective, "what's left to teach" is an endless treadmill of re-spouting VPW's materials and the subsequent refinement of them. That, along with cleaning up VP's image and whitewashing the public image of TWI, and sweeping under the carpet any negative material consists of TWI's complete current strategy.
This differentiate's from an honest and truthful approach in that there are NO checks and balances upon TWI's leadership. They are free to dream evil and execute it, all in the name of "that the ministry be not blamed". Their main tools are a paint brush and a bucket of whitewash.
What's left to teach? There is NOTHING left to teach. They should shut it down if they were honest, but they aren't. They have to preserve all the millions that were earned between '72 and '86 basically. Their goal is to be self-sufficient on that farm and live in their own little permutation of absolute control.
Leave them alone. Migrate to different Christian channels, where the evil is not rampant and unchecked. God is bigger than all that.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
waysider
For those who are still involved with TWI or an offshoot
What items from the list of Actual Errors in PFAL do you still include in your teachings or hear being included in others' teachings?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Broken Arrow
And that, to me, encapsulates the whole problem with TWI. Yes, that was taught, I learned it first in Sunday school in a Methodist church but I digress. TWI taught that but in practice they acted as though Jesus Christ never existed. That all we had to do was say, "I'm sorry" when we sinned. No mention (in my memory) that a Christian should seek Christ's help in turning our lives from sin to live more lovingly. Speaking in tongues was vaunted above the accomplished work of Christ its meaning and its purpose...in my opinion.
If I remember correctly "Dr." went as far as to say, "The Word takes the place of the absent Christ." That's very serious error and borders on blasphemy.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
socks
What's left to? by sheer volume, tonnage, pages stacked, words counted thus far and hot air expounding out of New Knocksville.....
...not much.
PFAL and it's 36 hours of material alone is plenty.
The endless rewording and re presenting of the same thing with an endless effort to find or add a new twist to what's been turned a 1,000 times already...?
Perhaps the time spent would be better invested in actually doing some things with it, acting on it, encouraging efforts to make the world a better place and building something worth keeping.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
skyrider
Re-searching the material that twi has previously published has ALWAYS been their standard m.o. In 1978, three 8th corps guys were heavily confronted for their research project/paper that did NOT align with pfal theology.
Yes, by 1978.......some corps were upsetting wierwille's apple cart and challenging the "man of God" on his research.
Nevermind "current" twi-policy......anyone who was paying attention KNOWS that you cannot improve on the pfal material. That stuff was handed down from the Mountain and breathed from the mouth of God......donchaknow.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
chockfull
Yeah - it just passed through a few hands and got plagiarized on the way down.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Ham
then again, maybe it passed down through the bowels and colon of herr manogawd.. and ended up.. where?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
waysider
"That stuff was handed down from the Mountain and breathed from the mouth of God......donchaknow."
First there is a mountain, then there is no mountain, then there is.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
johniam
quote:
You are correct in observing that Kris has changed names and other details. Some of this is done for obvious legal reasons. Also, some changes were made as a vehicle of literary license so that the gist of the book would appeal to a broader audience than just Way followers. (An example of this is when she refers to baby dedications as baptisms. Even though this isn't specifically accurate, it is a way to state it that will be understood by a broad audience in a general sense.)
Yes, there is a thread that deals with the book as well as an audio interview on the front page.
I tried to access the losing the way stuff on the home page. Denied. Guess I'll have to hold those thoughts in abeyance.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.