SIT, TIP, Prophecy and Confession

[johniam]

quote:

If your beliefs are worth keeping, then a thorough exploration of them will

DEEPEN YOUR FAITH.

If something ain't broke, I don't need to "fix it".

To me, this is a time for black and white thinking.

There's God / there's the devil. There's the wisdom of God / there's the wisdom of this world. Pretty much everything you all are saying is from the wisdom of this world. If something can't even pass THAT smell test, then why bother with an exploration of it, thorough or through?

[waysider]

chockful said:

Critical thinking is a little harder to come by when you are a walking encyclopedia of VPW "Lifelines" quotes.

johniam said:

It's all but impossible when you're convinced VP is the devil!

One's ability to engage in critical thinking is unrelated to one's opinion of VPW.

Willingness, on the other hand, is another kettle of fish.

Edited July 28, 2013 by waysider

[johniam]

WW didn't say that; Chockfull did.

[waysider]

WW didn't say that; Chockfull did.

Thanks for pointing that out. I'll edit it.

Pretty much everything you all are saying is from the wisdom of this world.

Can you explain what you mean by this and why, if true, that would make it a bad thing?

Or, if you prefer, you could explain why you've once again assumed it's your duty to drive this thread off topic again.

Edited July 29, 2013 by waysider

[WordWolf]

(snip)

While I do subscribe to a child-like trust of God, the sheer evidence of the potential for fraud perpetuated by men mean that you need to question things, and be what is the phrase? "wise as serpents harmless as doves". Without that people's opinion would be like I saw on TV on the "Hatfields and McCoys" - a little girl died and all the surrounding religious people were saying it was God's will. This type of thing involves critical thinking. Critical thinking is a little harder to come by when you are a walking encyclopedia of VPW "Lifelines" quotes.

quote:

Critical thinking is a little harder to come by when you are a walking encyclopedia of VPW "Lifelines" quotes.

It's all but impossible when you're convinced VP is the devil!

It would be, if anyone was convinced "VP is the devil."

Inventing a nonexistent position to make your own position look better

is a tired old gambit, and it keeps failing. Why bother?

It would sound more like you actually cared and were interested in the subject-

rather than just preserving your previous opinions without even exploring how they got there-

if you didn't just blow off questions and change the subject.

If your beliefs are worth keeping, than a thorough exploration of them will

DEEPEN YOUR FAITH.

Only a shallow, baseless faith need be "defended" by illogical tactics and troll-like

behavior. I've found it fascinating to see both the points people bring to the discussion

and the manner in which they bring them.

(snip)

quote:

If your beliefs are worth keeping, then a thorough exploration of them will

DEEPEN YOUR FAITH.

If something ain't broke, I don't need to "fix it".

To me, this is a time for black and white thinking.

There's God / there's the devil. There's the wisdom of God / there's the wisdom of this world. Pretty much everything you all are saying is from the wisdom of this world. If something can't even pass THAT smell test, then why bother with an exploration of it, thorough or through?

Ah, there we have it. John's PROUD of using "black and white thinking."

His position is supposedly from Scripture. (White.)

When his position is questioned (Black), anything that calls it into

question is categorically declared either "black" or

"wisdom of this world."

John's avoiding any possible deepening of his faith through a richer

understanding of Scripture than rote memorization of twi dogma

because of his FEAR that the dogma will be undermined and he will

risk questioning it. Thus the need to lash out, slap silly labels

on others, slap silly labels on logical discussion, and generally

distract from intelligent discussions at hand.

John will never define what he means by

"wisdom of the world" any more than our old poster the Meek Master

ever defined HIS critical terms. They HAVE to keep an impossible

target to hit, they HAVE to make their doctrine impossible to define,

because that way they can keep changing what they say and claim

others never understood them and are in error.

John's obviously trying to drag this thread off topic because he feels

threatened by it. The position of the original poster threatens his

beliefs, and the discussion showed that there is a wealth of evidence

that his beliefs are in error. Perhaps there might be something to

refute them-but John's not trying to refute anything-he's trying to

conceal it. That's not the position of someone who understands

things or has something to offer- that's the position of someone

who feels they have something to lose from open discussion and wants

to fossilize their beliefs in place for life.

[chockfull]

quote:

Critical thinking is a little harder to come by when you are a walking encyclopedia of VPW "Lifelines" quotes.

It's all but impossible when you're convinced VP is the devil!

He wasn't the devil. He was just a weak man who never developed academic discipline thus took the plagiarist way out, and an unfaithful husband who taught a doctrine of adultery to his inner circle and practiced it. I guess what stemmed from those two things probably gave the devil plenty to work with though.

There are others around who really like to make excuses for that stuff, so that they can continue to use his pithy statements as wisdom to live by. That's kind of weak too.

I guess the "wisdom of the world", which includes commandments like "Thou shalt not commit adultery", and "Thou shalt not steal" is just something we don't really need to live by. Why would we need that kind of wisdom when we can understand true spiritual wisdom, not wisdom of the world like God really meant "spiritual adultery" meaning "not standing on the Word" meaning not trusting VP's double-talk?

Edited July 29, 2013 by chockfull

[johniam]

quote:

John's obviously trying to drag this thread off topic because he feels

threatened by it.

No, WW, you are the one who continues to drive this thread off topic. I think it is you who find ME "threatening". Until couple pages ago, I hadn't even posted on this thread since post #190 or so. So I've had what? 1800 posts to "drive this thread off topic" if that were my agenda. I posted 3 pages ago to bring Earl Burton's intermediate class into the mix and to state my dissatisfaction with timing the interpretation and the tongue, which some people concurred with.

Then, as your manner is, it was you who took this thread off topic for the purpose of falsely accusing me of the same. You did this before 2008, when I stopped posting for almost 3 years, and then in late 2010, when I resumed posting, most people here at least welcomed me back just to be polite, but not you. You immediately started picking fights with me, your usual 'straining at a gnat' strategy, which created several 500 post threads which should have been 100 posts if not for your constant fault finding. Yes, IMO it is YOU who finds ME threatening.

Edited July 30, 2013 by johniam

[waysider]

OK, so, let's bring it back on topic, then.

If "scripture is the basis for all things spiritually energized", how do you explain revelation? (or, at least revelation as defined by VPW in the Advanced Class)

Wierwille maintained that word of knowledge involved that which is impossible to know by the five senses, which, of course, is the avenue by which we know scripture.

Edited July 30, 2013 by waysider

[Raf]

Came back from the mechanic today. He said there were two things wrong with my car.

First, he said, the engine was about to fall apart. If I waited another day to get it fixed or replaced, I would have needed a new engine or a new car in short order.

"That's strange," I said. "Normally if something's wrong with my engine, the check engine light comes on to warn me."

"That," my mechanic said, "is the second thing that's wrong with your car. The check engine light isn't working."

...

John, I respect your position of "if it ain't broke, don't fix it."

But I submit that it's broke, and you're missing it because you can't even see that your check engine light is broken.

...

I can't get past the fact that we were taught by a con man who employed a methodology indistinguishable from a fraud, producing results indistinguishable from fraud, yet somehow believe there's nothing fraudulent about what we did.

I understand that there's disagreement about this, and I respect it. But that's where I stand.

[johniam]

Came back from the mechanic today. He said there were two things wrong with my car.

First, he said, the engine was about to fall apart. If I waited another day to get it fixed or replaced, I would have needed a new engine or a new car in short order.

"That's strange," I said. "Normally if something's wrong with my engine, the check engine light comes on to warn me."

"That," my mechanic said, "is the second thing that's wrong with your car. The check engine light isn't working."

...

John, I respect your position of "if it ain't broke, don't fix it."

But I submit that it's broke, and you're missing it because you can't even see that your check engine light is broken.

...

I can't get past the fact that we were taught by a con man who employed a methodology indistinguishable from a fraud, producing results indistinguishable from fraud, yet somehow believe there's nothing fraudulent about what we did.

I understand that there's disagreement about this, and I respect it. But that's where I stand.

Funny you should say all this. First, check engine lights are man made. Holy spirit isn't. My work truck has had the check engine light on for 3 years. My mechanic says there's over 300 different things that could cause the check engine light to come on. So yours doesn't work and mine is a false alarm. Sounds man made to me. Mankind is fickle; always has been.

quote: I can't get past the fact that we were taught by a con man who employed a methodology indistinguishable from a fraud, producing results indistinguishable from fraud, yet somehow believe there's nothing fraudulent about what we did.

That's entirely your opinion. I can't get past the truth that ever since I started asking God for His help, including an 18 year head start in twi, life is good. Way better than it was. No comparison. The difference? Gift of holy spirit in operation as taught by VPW. What exactly is "fraudulent" about getting prayers answered, even trivial ones? Where you stand seems to ignore any possibility of holy spirit in action.

[WordWolf]

My work truck has had the check engine light on for 3 years. My mechanic says there's over 300 different things that could cause the check engine light to come on.

So you freely acknowledge that a warning system meant to warn against problems

or errors can fail to do so, and you understand that.

Naturally, you can't reason any further from that.

quote: I can't get past the fact that we were taught by a con man who employed a methodology indistinguishable from a fraud, producing results indistinguishable from fraud, yet somehow believe there's nothing fraudulent about what we did.

That's entirely your opinion. I can't get past the truth that ever since I started asking God for His help, including an 18 year head start in twi, life is good. Way better than it was. No comparison. The difference? Gift of holy spirit in operation as taught by VPW. What exactly is "fraudulent" about getting prayers answered, even trivial ones? Where you stand seems to ignore any possibility of holy spirit in action.

There's the PROUD "black and white thinking" again....

I learned SOME good stuff about praying, and SOME things improved.

Therefore, there is NOTHING harmful about the organization that taught it,

and the system it imparted.

How do I know this?

I learned how to parse all this out through the system it imparted.

According to its own rules, it says it works fine,

and examining it to see if there's a problem is as evil as

Eve considering in The Garden.

[Raf]

First, check engine lights are man made. Holy spirit isn't.

Assuming that to be true, the doctrine you assume regarding holy spirit may very well BE manmade. In fact, that is what you think about what many, many other religions and branches of Christianity teach about the Holy Spirit/holy spirit. So calling something "holy spirit" does not automatically mean you're dealing with something that's of God and not "manmade." If you have an incorrect understanding of "holy spirit" that IS manmade, and no "check engine" light to warn you something is amiss, you have no sense of anything being "broke."

What exactly is "fraudulent" about getting prayers answered, even trivial ones?

We're off topic here. The accuracy of TWI teaching on tongues, interpretation and prophecy is unrelated to the effectualness of prayer. You can have every prayer you want answered, and it still won't make your SIT experience Biblically genuine. Trinitarians say they have their prayers answered all the time, too. Does that mean the Trinity is true? One is not related to the other (and for those Trinitarians reading along, reverse it: people who don't believe in the divinity of Christ say they have their prayers answered all the time, too. Does that mean the Trinity is false?)

[Raf]

Anyway, I promised to get out of the serious side of this discussion and intend to keep that promise, so that's all you'll hear out of me in response to John. I just wanted to respond to his comments because I thought doing so would be constructive. Getting into another drawn out argument would not be constructive, so I'll let it go at that. John can have the last word on this exchange if he wants it.

[chockfull]

That's entirely your opinion. I can't get past the truth that ever since I started asking God for His help, including an 18 year head start in twi, life is good. Way better than it was. No comparison. The difference? Gift of holy spirit in operation as taught by VPW. What exactly is "fraudulent" about getting prayers answered, even trivial ones? Where you stand seems to ignore any possibility of holy spirit in action.

I like conversing with you. You are honest. I read this and think who among us hasn't done this kind of barometer smoke test about beliefs? I remember all this type of logic running around my brain when making the decision to either stay or leave TWI.

What I couldn't get past was the fruit evidenced in the leadership I was interacting with, to include the higher-ups, and most markedly the BOD. So my prayers led to a clear path.

I think one of the problems you are facing with is similar to many who used to be in TWI. Depending on when they left, and how much they actually saw of VP's fruit of his life, kind of sets the pace for how revered VPW is in what are called "splinter groups" or fellowships. I've seen several of those types of groups, ranging from one fellowship to a group of fellowships. One in particular close to me I know about are absolutely reverential about VP's teachings, and feel that LCM and then Rosalie ruined the ministry, so they left and are carrying on the true "heart of VP" unlike the corrupted people running TWI now. Many of these groups usually have an ex-Corps member leading them, and that person or persons while they may have great intentions they usually tie in financial to it where they now are drawing a salary, or being "tithed" to. Maybe some of the better ones wouldn't take that and would use the finances to help the needy, but most do. I've seen a couple miniature splinter cults where the leader draws a salary, is nice and loving, but does things like walk into someone's house without knocking and expect people to wait on them as they are the spiritual leader. Things that illustrate that they do not have normal boundaries.

Your particular fellowship may be a cool place to hang out. Maybe the leader is chill and genuine. Maybe there is just a loving fellowship, some Bible study, and finances are handled appropriately. Is this bad? No. It's a real problem where ex-Way people can go after they leave for spiritual needs and fellowship. If yours works great.

But it is also burying your head in the sand to not acknowledge an inappropriately reverent attitude towards a man whose fruit is very evidently rotten. Not the doctrine he taught in public. But the doctrine he taught, enforced, and lived in private. That doctrine and the behavior it fostered ruined many people's lives. There is clear evidence of that here at GSC.

[chockfull]

The accuracy of TWI teaching on tongues, interpretation and prophecy is unrelated to the effectualness of prayer.

Some people might take the stance if you're doing it wrong then it could hinder your answers to prayer.

I am more of the thought that God cares about us and looks past all our puny human thoughts to help us because He loves us. And smiles at our immaturity.

[waysider]

It's astounding how so much of the Way doctrine we based our lives on depended on this stuff being genuine. It's like finding out, on your 29th birthday, that you were really adopted.

Edited August 2, 2013 by waysider

[WordWolf]

Yes, let's not let the ad hominem attacks, and the strawmen,

drag us further off-topic. Delusions help no one.

OK, so, let's bring it back on topic, then.

If "scripture is the basis for all things spiritually energized", how do you explain revelation? (or, at least revelation as defined by VPW in the Advanced Class)

Wierwille maintained that word of knowledge involved that which is impossible to know by the five senses, which, of course, is the avenue by which we know scripture.

[waysider]

We were taught that TIP and Prophesy all always forth telling and never fore telling of future events. What is the basis for that idea?

It seems to me like that is merely a handy way to obviate a potential objection, rationalize an obvious flaw before it becomes an issue of contention..

Edited August 3, 2013 by waysider

[waysider]

We were taught that TIP and Prophesy are always forth-telling and never fore-telling of future events. What is the basis for that idea?

It seems to me like that is merely a handy way to obviate a potential objection, rationalize an obvious flaw before it becomes an issue of contention..

Re-posted to edit grammar.

[johniam]

quote: We were taught that TIP and Prophesy all always forth telling and never fore telling of future events. What is the basis for that idea?

Pfal! The first use of the word 'prophet' in scripture (Gen. 20:7) is referring to Abraham, who foretold nothing. As for the manifestations of interpretation of tongues and prophecy, they're by inspiration, not revelation. Foretelling the future would have to be by revelation.

I have recently had my own thoughts about the word 'prophet/prophecy'. Also from pfal, we were taught that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation, right? And that 'prophecy' meant anything foretold or forthtold. I question whether 'prophecy' in that verse means all scripture without exception, or a subset of all scripture. Is it possible that 'prophecy' in that verse means either foretelling the future or simply stating what God's will is? There are many narrative portions of scripture which do neither of those two. For instance...

A few years ago it was Easter and someone was teaching from the gospels where Jesus was arrested and Peter cut the soldier's ear off with his sword. The person teaching pointed out that Peter wasn't trying to cut off the guy's ear, he was trying to cut off his HEAD! In Luke it says it was the right ear, so earlier that evening Jesus told Peter that Peter would deny him. Peter must certainly have felt his commitment was being questioned, so he acts impulsively and tries to cut off the man's head with a sideways motion. The soldier sees it coming and ducks to his left, thus exposing his right ear, which means that Peter was left handed. In Jesus Christ Our Passover VP points out that Peter's deed could have potentially set in motion a fray of violence, but Jesus handled the situation.

Now back in the day in twi, someone would have riped up and said, "Aha! En garde! No PI, no PI!!!" But this is a narrative (historical) part of scripture documenting human generated facts, which lead to OTHER human generated facts. Whether from scripture or from what people write or say, it is intelligent, natural, normal for us to process what we hear daily, whatever comes our way. I just don't think it's wrong to try to read between the lines on those parts of scripture.

However, when God said to Adam, "Ye shall surely die!" that is 'prophecy of the scripture', and for the serpent to say, "Ye shall not surely die!" is evil which did start with privately interpreting what God had said.

[waysider]

So, then, your basis is because VPW said so in PFAL?

That doesn't sound like a very strong argument, in my opinion.

[WordWolf]

John, what's your definition of "foretold?"

I ask because Abraham DID foretell at least 1 thing, no matter what we were taught.

So, before I point that out, I want your definition of what foretelling is so you

don't change your definition as soon as I do to suddenly exclude it.

[chockfull]

Can my definition of "foretold" include a bookie?

[Raf]

SIT and TIP are by inspiration, not by revelation.

I love how VPW can invent distinctions out of whole cloth and have people parrot that opinion as gospel decades after he lost the ability to con anyone out of another dime.

Edited August 5, 2013 by Raf

[WordWolf]

quote: We were taught that TIP and Prophesy all always forth telling and never fore telling of future events. What is the basis for that idea?

Pfal!

And not FROM Scripture. Glad you could acknowledge your source correctly.

The first use of the word 'prophet' in scripture (Gen. 20:7) is referring to Abraham, who foretold nothing.

Incorrect-if Scripture is the standard. If pfal is the standard, then you reflected what it said.

As for the manifestations of interpretation of tongues and prophecy, they're by inspiration, not revelation. Foretelling the future would have to be by revelation.

That explanation ALSO does not correspond to Scripture.

Those of us who don't subscribe to "vpw/pfal said it, I believe it" anymore would need,

at the very least, a Scriptural basis for it, or even a logical basis for it.

A solely textual basis from pfal doesn't cut it- "vpw said it, that settles it, I believe it"

is not enough for ALMOST everyone.

I have recently had my own thoughts about the word 'prophet/prophecy'. Also from pfal, we were taught that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation, right? And that 'prophecy' meant anything foretold or forthtold.

That IS all out of pfal.

However, it is also wrong.

For startets, it's been over A DECADE since we first discussed that vpw's explanation of the phrase

"private interpretation" in the King James Version was incorrect and failed to address what the

verse was actually saying. He invented a different, cool meaning he could use because it reflected

what he wanted to teach. The verse was saying something simpler. However, vpw used what he referred

to as "private interpretation" to come up with his definition of "private interpretation."

A decade later (probably a lot more), you still don't have this down.

I question whether 'prophecy' in that verse means all scripture without exception, or a subset of all scripture. Is it possible that 'prophecy' in that verse means either foretelling the future or simply stating what God's will is? There are many narrative portions of scripture which do neither of those two. For instance...

That matter little with how badly you misunderstand that verse.

Fixing the understanding of one word won't correct the bigger problems.

A few years ago it was Easter and someone was teaching from the gospels where Jesus was arrested and Peter cut the soldier's ear off with his sword. The person teaching pointed out that Peter wasn't trying to cut off the guy's ear, he was trying to cut off his HEAD! In Luke it says it was the right ear, so earlier that evening Jesus told Peter that Peter would deny him. Peter must certainly have felt his commitment was being questioned, so he acts impulsively and tries to cut off the man's head with a sideways motion. The soldier sees it coming and ducks to his left, thus exposing his right ear, which means that Peter was left handed. In Jesus Christ Our Passover VP points out that Peter's deed could have potentially set in motion a fray of violence, but Jesus handled the situation.

Now back in the day in twi, someone would have riped up and said, "Aha! En garde! No PI, no PI!!!" But this is a narrative (historical) part of scripture documenting human generated facts, which lead to OTHER human generated facts. Whether from scripture or from what people write or say, it is intelligent, natural, normal for us to process what we hear daily, whatever comes our way. I just don't think it's wrong to try to read between the lines on those parts of scripture.

If we make it clear when we're giving our opinion or best understanding on something,

there's nothing wrong with that. I've given 2 explanations to the same verse together,

with their rationales, and said the listeners could pick their favorite.

In neither case did the overall meaning change, they both were going in the same

direction and disagreed on a tiny point.

However, when God said to Adam, "Ye shall surely die!" that is 'prophecy of the scripture', and for the serpent to say, "Ye shall not surely die!" is evil which did start with privately interpreting what God had said.

Except you're "privately interpreting" what privately interpreting MEANS.

That may or may not be evil, depending on the specifics, but it certainly

is neither God's will nor "best."

John, what's your definition of "foretold?"

I ask because Abraham DID foretell at least 1 thing, no matter what we were taught.

So, before I point that out, I want your definition of what foretelling is so you

don't change your definition as soon as I do to suddenly exclude it.