quote:If his standard practice was to lie and cheat, if he his way of life was to use people, why would any of his teachings be kept and revered as truth? ... It seems to me that Wierwille's way of life would cause anyone who followed him or his "ministry" to question every one of his assumptions.
On the contrary, isn't it foolish to discard truth, because of a person's sins? Yes, I believe it's best and necessary to examine each doctrine and let it stand or fall, on its own; but, IRRESPECTIVE of Wierwille's sinning. Why allow his sins to keep you from enjoying and believing the truth?
quote:Any "truths" that lie at the heart of all the muck of Wierwille's teachings and the evil application of them can be replaced, i.e. arrived at by methods other than PFAL...if they are truths.
But if truth has already been arrived at through Wierwille and twi, why is it necessary for it to be replaced, through other methods? Truth is truth.
Insisting on a sinless human to bring forth God's written Word will forever postpone receiving such truth.
All the Biblical writers were sinners, and trying to ferret out who among them sinned less is as hopeless as it frivolous.
Religion busies itself with sorting through VISIBLE sins, entirely ignorant of the dark hidden secrets deep inside every (save Jesus Christ's) human heart.
If God (who sees all) had insisted on good moral character there’d be no one to bring forth His Word as well as receive it.
I say we start all over and ONLY pay close attention to what is written. It is this written part that got the least ammount of our attention while we were in the ministry, and it's this written part that gets the least attention now.
It is in this written part that we will find not only closure, but many positive surprises.
quote:If God (who sees all) had insisted on good moral character there’d be no one to bring forth His Word as well as receive it.
This is true. Paul of Tarsus was a murderer. If God focused on those evil deeds alone (as some wish to focus only on VPW's evil deeds alone), I think we may have much less truth than we do now.
"If God (who sees all) had insisted on good moral character there’d be no one to bring forth His Word as well as receive it."
Which author do you contend did NOT have good moral character when writing a book(s) of the Bible?
Personally, I know many people who have what I consider good moral character. Perhaps you should meet more people? Your statement implies there are none on the planet now nor ever have been. To say this is ludicrous and contradicts what I read about people like Moses, Esther, Adam and many others. "NO ONE to bring forth His Word as well as receive it?!" You may want to reconsider that view.
On the contrary, isn't it foolish to discard truth, because of a person's sins?
Yes, but first you have to first determine if it is truth. In the section of my post that you quoted I advocated questioning, not discarding.
quote:Yes, I believe it's best and necessary to examine each doctrine and let it stand or fall, on its own; but, IRRESPECTIVE of Wierwille's sinning. Why allow his sins to keep you from enjoying and believing the truth?
Oldies, somehow you are misunderstanding me. If it's truth, then by all means enjoy it. The relevance of Wierwille's sinning is not that it invalidates whatever truth is contained in his doctrine, but that it is a darn good reason to question it.
quote:But if truth has already been arrived at through Wierwille and twi, why is it necessary for it to be replaced, through other methods? Truth is truth. :)-->
My point is that unless you search for the truth yourself, you're never going to know if what TWI and Wierwille came up with is the truth.
What have you retained and what have you rejected from TWI teaching, Oldies? How did you make the decision?
I maintain that by retaining the TWI framework one will retain certain assumptions that may or may not be true and will not be noticed because TWI premises were not seriously challeneged.
Hey guys! Can you say "strawman"? - I knew you could ;)-->
I am not saying that Wierwille's sins invalidates any truth that he taught. For you to argue as if that is what I said is a logical fallacy. You are setting up a position that is different than and weaker than my actual argument and arguing against that, rather than my actual point.
My point is that a pattern of lying indicates that a person is not to be trusted. That doesn't mean that everything that the person says is a lie, or even that most is a lie, merely that a history of lying would indicate that what the person says cannot automatically be taken at face value.
I say that if something is true then it should be easily arrived at by independent searchers. If, by independent effort you come to the same conclusions that Wierwille did, fine; if not, throw it out. What's wrong with that?
I've got news for anyone who doesn't want to throw the baby out with the bathwater:
The baby is too big to get sucked down the drain.
Toss it out. Toss it all out.
Then re-examine everything.
Why take the word of a man who obviously plagiarized and lost his moral compass?
Don't believe it because "Dr. Wierwille taught it."
Go beyond him. Exactly where did he get his ideas? Who were his sources? Where did they get their ideas?
Go back to the genuine sources and THEN see if the ideas are valid and make your decision.
Although I too, learned some good things, met some good people, and did have some beneficial experiences in TWI, I refuse to let previous doctrines rule my beliefs.
Toss them all out, and start all over again. If what you learned previously is true, you will discover it again.
But this time, you will learn it for YOURSELF, and verify it for YOURSELF from the real sources.
And this time you will know that you believe it because you REALLY know that it is true, not because it was part and parcel of a package of plagiarized material from a man too many put too much trust in for too long.
quote: This is true. Paul of Tarsus was a murderer. If God focused on those evil deeds alone (as some wish to focus only on VPW's evil deeds alone), I think we may have much less truth than we do now.
Paul of Tarsus repented, and changed. So far as we know (victor) Paul of KN did not.
Mike says: "All the biblical writers were sinners..." I understand that all the biblical writers were sinners, but Wierwille should not be counted amoung them because one of his sins was that he pretended to be a biblical writer.
I believe that the bible is quite clear concerning the behavior of Christian leaders. Are not Christians advised in the bible to be wise in whom they choose to follow? ...of good report and all that...Wierwille trashed his ministry and therefore his credibility, when he decided to violate the "principles of God" in order to satiate his own belly. If he was right about anything he taught, it was because Bullinger or some of the others that Veepee stole from, were right.
Wierwille was a perfect example of a carnal Christian...he confused godliness with gain...his own gain, that is. It's doubtful that Wierwille EVER received any "revelation", and the only spirits he truly understood, came from a bottle. The guy was a grifter and a sleaze. He was a dirty old man who bedded down young girls and then called them his "kids".
...But yet, the wierwille apologists continue to worship their "father in the word"...kinda pathetic, don't ya think?
Mike says: "All the biblical writers were sinners..." I understand that all the biblical writers were sinners, but Wierwille should not be counted amoung them because one of his sins was that he pretended to be a biblical writer.
I believe that the bible is quite clear concerning the behavior of Christian leaders. Are not Christians advised in the bible to be wise in whom they choose to follow? ...of good report and all that...Wierwille trashed his ministry and therefore his credibility, when he decided to violate the "principles of God" in order to satiate his own belly. If he was right about anything he taught, it was because Bullinger or some of the others that Veepee stole from, were right.
Wierwille was a perfect example of a carnal Christian...he confused godliness with gain...his own gain, that is. It's doubtful that Wierwille EVER received any "revelation", and the only spirits he truly understood, came from a bottle. The guy was a grifter and a sleaze. He was a dirty old man who bedded down young girls and then called them his "kids".
...But yet, the wierwille apologists continue to worship their "father in the word"...kinda pathetic, don't ya think?
Hey, good thread. I've long contended that trying to sift through piffle's morass (as I did) to find & keep the good is a certain way to retain some Wayish leaven. Tell me what offshoot isn't poisoned by the same?
This comes up pretty frequently here on GS. Somebody addresses one of Wierwille's or TWI's abuses (or alleged abuses if you prefer) and somebody else responds with a variation of: "It doesn't matter if he (fill in your favorite abuse or lie), he taught the Word like nobody else."
I think most of us would agree that no evil behavior on the part of Wierwille or his lieutenants would _necessarily_ invalidate any truth contained in the teachings.
But if Wierwille was the adulterous, plagiarizing, scam artist that he appears to have been, why would anyone take anything he said at face value? If his standard practice was to lie and cheat, if he his way of life was to use people, why would any of his teachings be kept and revered as truth?
It seems to me that Wierwille's way of life would cause anyone who followed him or his "ministry" to question every one of his assumptions.
Many ex-Way people are afraid of throwing the baby out with the bathwater. I believe that that is a seriously flawed analogy. A baby is irreplaceable. Any "truths" that lie at the heart of all the muck of Wierwille's teachings and the evil application of them can be replaced, i.e. arrived at by methods other than PFAL..._if_ they are truths.
What many people do is keep the basic structure of Wierwille doctrine and compare them to the bible, or their opinion of what the bible says.
I believe that tearing down the whole edifice and building anew is a better way to go. Start from scratch and learn what truth is independent of anything Wierwille said.
Oak, that is exactly what I did and that's how I have come to stand for topics vpw considered heresy.
I believe because his character was so tarnished, his words are not to be trusted.
The "I don't care what/if … " lines show me the speaker has no desire for truth, just an itchy ear for feel-good theology.
quote:I say that if something is true then it should be easily arrived at by independent searchers. If, by independent effort you come to the same conclusions that Wierwille did, fine; if not, throw it out. What's wrong with that?
What's so significant about independent effort as opposed to twi, if what twi said in a certain topic was true? Unless you think we weren't taught the truth in twi in a certain area, which is certainly possible, what's the problem with taking it as it was, from twi?
Your apparent zeal to divorce yourself from every aspect of your experience in twi is your choice, but it doesn't have to be that way for someone who is satisfied with certain truths being taught there. I'd be happy about, and say the same good things about, every other denomination that teaches truth, in a certain area. This reminds me a little of the Apostle Paul who said he was happy Christ was being preached and he gloried in that, even from not-so-reputable sources. With that attitude, he'd be happy that twi was around even today.
Go ahead and question everything. But my view is that what I believe today is firmly set in my heart, and only when one comes up with some serious, rational challenges that make sense, I'll continue to say "where's the beef".
The whole concept of questioning everything is reasonable. I think we should do that anyway, irrespective of Wierwille's behavior, which is the context you have put this discussion in.
quote:I say that if something is true then it should be easily arrived at by independent searchers. If, by independent effort you come to the same conclusions that Wierwille did, fine; if not, throw it out. What's wrong with that?
I suppose another way of saying this is, if you make the Word "your own", as VPW suggested we do, then you have come to the conclusion that what he taught in certain topics is truth, and you've gotten that in your heart by "independent" means, other than what you think is twi brainwashing and mind control. ...
Let's see now...There seems to be certain folks who INSIST on kissing the hem of wierwilles garment. Look...the guy was a lying scumbag. If you feel it's worth even 1 minute of your time to "consider" his theology...to study the "great man's" teachings...go for it. I can't imagine spending any of my precious time on this earth trying to seperate the truth from the error that some cornfield preacher pasted together from other Christian writers. You like pfal? Read Bullinger's "How to enjoy the bible"...it's where wierwille stole his material from for the first 8 sessions of his "class".
Why give this plagerizing bastard any credit for anything? Mike...he lied to us in God's name. He hurt countless people with his obsession for booze and illicit sex. His false doctrines have put thousands into mental bondage...and he turned people AWAY from a relationship with Christ, substituting himself for the absent savior. You should be ashamed of yourself for supporting such evil...did you say you were a Christian?
Recommended Posts
Top Posters In This Topic
16
25
15
32
Popular Days
Aug 26
59
Aug 25
48
Aug 27
33
Aug 31
27
Top Posters In This Topic
excathedra 16 posts
oldiesman 25 posts
Oakspear 15 posts
Mike 32 posts
Popular Days
Aug 26 2004
59 posts
Aug 25 2004
48 posts
Aug 27 2004
33 posts
Aug 31 2004
27 posts
oldiesman
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
Insisting on a sinless human to bring forth God's written Word will forever postpone receiving such truth.
All the Biblical writers were sinners, and trying to ferret out who among them sinned less is as hopeless as it frivolous.
Religion busies itself with sorting through VISIBLE sins, entirely ignorant of the dark hidden secrets deep inside every (save Jesus Christ's) human heart.
If God (who sees all) had insisted on good moral character there’d be no one to bring forth His Word as well as receive it.
I say we start all over and ONLY pay close attention to what is written. It is this written part that got the least ammount of our attention while we were in the ministry, and it's this written part that gets the least attention now.
It is in this written part that we will find not only closure, but many positive surprises.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
oldiesman
Link to comment
Share on other sites
JustThinking
OM quote:
"This is true. Paul of Tarsus was a murderer."
Before he got born again! Not while he was writing Ephesians! How about a little objective thought here, OM?
JT
Link to comment
Share on other sites
JustThinking
Mike quote:
"If God (who sees all) had insisted on good moral character there’d be no one to bring forth His Word as well as receive it."
Which author do you contend did NOT have good moral character when writing a book(s) of the Bible?
Personally, I know many people who have what I consider good moral character. Perhaps you should meet more people? Your statement implies there are none on the planet now nor ever have been. To say this is ludicrous and contradicts what I read about people like Moses, Esther, Adam and many others. "NO ONE to bring forth His Word as well as receive it?!" You may want to reconsider that view.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Oakspear
What have you retained and what have you rejected from TWI teaching, Oldies? How did you make the decision?
I maintain that by retaining the TWI framework one will retain certain assumptions that may or may not be true and will not be noticed because TWI premises were not seriously challeneged.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Oakspear
Hey guys! Can you say "strawman"? - I knew you could
;)-->
I am not saying that Wierwille's sins invalidates any truth that he taught. For you to argue as if that is what I said is a logical fallacy. You are setting up a position that is different than and weaker than my actual argument and arguing against that, rather than my actual point.
My point is that a pattern of lying indicates that a person is not to be trusted. That doesn't mean that everything that the person says is a lie, or even that most is a lie, merely that a history of lying would indicate that what the person says cannot automatically be taken at face value.
I say that if something is true then it should be easily arrived at by independent searchers. If, by independent effort you come to the same conclusions that Wierwille did, fine; if not, throw it out. What's wrong with that?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Steve!
Gee, there's a surprise!
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Catcup
I've got news for anyone who doesn't want to throw the baby out with the bathwater:
The baby is too big to get sucked down the drain.
Toss it out. Toss it all out.
Then re-examine everything.
Why take the word of a man who obviously plagiarized and lost his moral compass?
Don't believe it because "Dr. Wierwille taught it."
Go beyond him. Exactly where did he get his ideas? Who were his sources? Where did they get their ideas?
Go back to the genuine sources and THEN see if the ideas are valid and make your decision.
Although I too, learned some good things, met some good people, and did have some beneficial experiences in TWI, I refuse to let previous doctrines rule my beliefs.
Toss them all out, and start all over again. If what you learned previously is true, you will discover it again.
But this time, you will learn it for YOURSELF, and verify it for YOURSELF from the real sources.
And this time you will know that you believe it because you REALLY know that it is true, not because it was part and parcel of a package of plagiarized material from a man too many put too much trust in for too long.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
TheSongRemainsTheSame
Did the people that VP learned from lived the same life "style" VP did?
Did they base the truth upon their lies or the lies upon the truth?
How honerable were those VP learned from?
Or did VP learn the same from those that taught him?
Catcup,
Am I saying the same thing as you?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
excathedra
i always think about david from fordham univ. explaning to me that you can't walk in love and truth without walking in truth and love
Link to comment
Share on other sites
dmiller
Paul of Tarsus repented, and changed. So far as we know (victor) Paul of KN did not.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
GrouchoMarxJr
Mike says: "All the biblical writers were sinners..." I understand that all the biblical writers were sinners, but Wierwille should not be counted amoung them because one of his sins was that he pretended to be a biblical writer.
I believe that the bible is quite clear concerning the behavior of Christian leaders. Are not Christians advised in the bible to be wise in whom they choose to follow? ...of good report and all that...Wierwille trashed his ministry and therefore his credibility, when he decided to violate the "principles of God" in order to satiate his own belly. If he was right about anything he taught, it was because Bullinger or some of the others that Veepee stole from, were right.
Wierwille was a perfect example of a carnal Christian...he confused godliness with gain...his own gain, that is. It's doubtful that Wierwille EVER received any "revelation", and the only spirits he truly understood, came from a bottle. The guy was a grifter and a sleaze. He was a dirty old man who bedded down young girls and then called them his "kids".
...But yet, the wierwille apologists continue to worship their "father in the word"...kinda pathetic, don't ya think?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
WordWolf
Well, I think it's SAD, anyway.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
It's cheap and easy to label or call names,
but it IS the case
that Dr. Victor Paul Wierwille
taught me about the loving God
I never knew
and about His wonderful sinless Son
Jesus Christ.
No one on this board EVER taught me such
but him.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
TheEvan
Hey, good thread. I've long contended that trying to sift through piffle's morass (as I did) to find & keep the good is a certain way to retain some Wayish leaven. Tell me what offshoot isn't poisoned by the same?
A faster & purer track is to seek Truth Himself.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
George Aar
UH,
Re:"kinda pathetic, don't ya think?"
No, it's way past "kinda"...
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Steve!
As usual, smikeol's lips are planted firmly on docvic's(praise be his name) backside.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
def59
Oak, that is exactly what I did and that's how I have come to stand for topics vpw considered heresy.
I believe because his character was so tarnished, his words are not to be trusted.
The "I don't care what/if … " lines show me the speaker has no desire for truth, just an itchy ear for feel-good theology.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
WordWolf
Ah,
no one on this board ever got 1/2 the carte blanche to
teach you as vpw.
Level the playing field a little, standardize the rules a bit,
and we might surprise the heck out of you.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
oldiesman
Oakspear:
What's so significant about independent effort as opposed to twi, if what twi said in a certain topic was true? Unless you think we weren't taught the truth in twi in a certain area, which is certainly possible, what's the problem with taking it as it was, from twi?Your apparent zeal to divorce yourself from every aspect of your experience in twi is your choice, but it doesn't have to be that way for someone who is satisfied with certain truths being taught there. I'd be happy about, and say the same good things about, every other denomination that teaches truth, in a certain area. This reminds me a little of the Apostle Paul who said he was happy Christ was being preached and he gloried in that, even from not-so-reputable sources. With that attitude, he'd be happy that twi was around even today.
Go ahead and question everything. But my view is that what I believe today is firmly set in my heart, and only when one comes up with some serious, rational challenges that make sense, I'll continue to say "where's the beef".
The whole concept of questioning everything is reasonable. I think we should do that anyway, irrespective of Wierwille's behavior, which is the context you have put this discussion in.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
oldiesman
Link to comment
Share on other sites
GrouchoMarxJr
Let's see now...There seems to be certain folks who INSIST on kissing the hem of wierwilles garment. Look...the guy was a lying scumbag. If you feel it's worth even 1 minute of your time to "consider" his theology...to study the "great man's" teachings...go for it. I can't imagine spending any of my precious time on this earth trying to seperate the truth from the error that some cornfield preacher pasted together from other Christian writers. You like pfal? Read Bullinger's "How to enjoy the bible"...it's where wierwille stole his material from for the first 8 sessions of his "class".
Why give this plagerizing bastard any credit for anything? Mike...he lied to us in God's name. He hurt countless people with his obsession for booze and illicit sex. His false doctrines have put thousands into mental bondage...and he turned people AWAY from a relationship with Christ, substituting himself for the absent savior. You should be ashamed of yourself for supporting such evil...did you say you were a Christian?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
UncleHairy,
Are you a religious person?
I don't need to ask.
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.