I don't think it is to hard to understand whether or not the moral character of someone speaking/teaching a mathematical equation changes the result of the equation. A sub-moronic idiot should be able to figure that out.
I ask the question instead, could the moral character, purpose or motivation of someone interpretating and teaching the scriptures affect the way he or she interprets and teaches the scriptures?
Could a person motivated by greed, power, lust, possibly misuse the scriptures for personal gain? Could scripture be selectively and intentionally "wrongly divided" in order bring about certain self-serving effects? Is the "truth" of a verse or section of scrpture still "truth" if is it presented out of context and misapplied?
Now what if we know for a fact from the first hand accounts of many eye-witnesses that someone who was greedy, abusive, power hungry and so forth, wrote many books that expound the scriptures and lay out what are presented as spiritual truths and laws?
Wouldn't folks be wise to critically examine those books and the proposed spiritual truths and laws taught within them?
What about credibility? Would it be totally unreasonble to cast that author's works aside and use other more credible sources references. In regards to credibility, what if I want to witness Christ to folks and I keep using that author as my main source of reference. How do I answer when somone does an Internet search and sees all the things out there about the author. How does that affect my own credibility? Do I really want to keep fighting that battle?
Naw, I guess we just want to argure about whether or not the Word of God is still the Word of God on the lips of Charlie Manson...... or if 1+1 is still = 2 if said by a bank robber.
Why on earth would someone want to learn the word of God from Charlie Manson anyway? Or Wierwille for that matter ......... knowing what we know.
Hey wanna go to a hot bible teaching tonight? Yeah the guy teaching will probably try to screw your wife or your daughter and get you to dontate your farm. But hey, that doesn't change the Word that he teaches, its still the Word no matter who teaches it. BTW, did I tell you about the snow on the gas pumps? ..........
Kool- Aid, Kool-Aid ..... tastes great ! Wish I had some......Can't wait !
Socks, I'm not saying that all teachers have hidden agendas beyond wanting to impart knowledge. I'm simply saying that I don't think something is untrue or true just because of who taught it.
Jerry said:
Despite the fact that your history teacher was a letch, you got a good enough grounding in history to be able to continue to study and appreciate it. Most of us are so screwed up after taking PFAL that it literally takes us YEARS to figure out what the Bible is for and how to appreciate it.
History is a bunch of information, facts. The Bible is not a book of facts.
And I'm saying I gained an appreciation of the Bible and a greater love for God in PFAL, despite the sins of the man who taught it. It's up to me to continue to build on the good things I learned, weed out the bad things, and keep moving ahead.
I understand the difference between the Bible and the facts of history. That's why I said I don't think we're ever going to fully understand the Bible by putting it under a microscope, as I said in my earlier post.
PFAL was, for me, at the time when I first took it, a good starting point for me. Just the idea that I could read the Bible for myself and understand some of it was worth parking my behind in a hard chair for 30-some hours. I don't think it messed me up or hindered my appreciation of the Bible.
Please understand: I'm not a big PFAL cheerleader today. Recently someone asked if I wanted to sit through it again, and I said, "What in the world for?" She also asked if I thought her son should take it, and I said, "No. Teach him yourself--you don't need PFAL to do that."
Don't know what else to say.
Goey asked:
Wouldn't folks be wise critically examine those books and the proposed spiritual truths and laws taught within them?
Of course it would. I, for one, never said it wouldn't.
This is why I seldom get into these types of discussions. If you don't agree with every criticism of PFAL, you're mocked as a Kool-Aid drinker. That just ticks me off. If I don't see it YOUR way, then I'm submoronic. Nice. That really helps me see things your way.
The position that "it's truth no matter who taught it" starts from the assumption that it was "truth".
Someone mentioned earlier about the problem of using Wierwille as a reference point. You want to learn about the bible? Go back to the bible. Why start with Wierwille? Why examine everything he taught, as if it were the starting point for all learning? Or worse, hold on to what he taught without critical examination because we're too lazy, or because we somehow were "blessed"?
I have not looked it up lately, but didn't Jesus say something along the lines of "do as they say, not as they do" when it comes to the Pharisees? I really have almost no problem listening to Wierwille and appreciating what he taught without allowing my opinion of his character to get in the way. But I can easily understand how others would not share my feelings on that matter. My deal is, don't make Wierwille the reference point. And if you so distrust his legacy that you can't or won't separate man from message, then apply your free thinking to the Bible itself and/or to other teachers whose characters you don't know well enough to distrust. :)
If you knew my sins, you wouldn't trust what I have to say either. ;)
How odd that I find myself referring again to principles taught by Wierwille to refute the proposition that his character did not affect the truthfulness of the Word of Truth that he taught! That he indeed morphed it, so that, although it was still the Word of Truth, it was no longer the True Word. Not every place, he spoke, but in the places where he let the unsavory aspects of his character through. And he HAD to let the unsavory aspects of his character through in places because out of the abundance of he heart the mouth speaks.
Indeed, in either case, whether it be from purity or impurity of heart, out of the abundance of the heart the mouth speaks. It has to.
Raf, you say that you "have not looked it up lately, but didn't Jesus say something along the lines of..." I suggest you do look it up. It certainly warrants looking up.
Why? Because it appears to contradict many clear verses on the same subject. Basic logic, taught by Wierwille, that we shouldn't accept one verse as truth that appears to contradict many clear verses on the same subject.
Verses, many of which have been shared here - that much to my alarm I see people whose ability with the Word, like yourself, I respect, ignoring.
Verses like out of the abundance of the heart the mouth speaks.
The legs of the lame are not equal: so is a parable in the mouth of fools.
Yes, I know that even a fool, if he keeps his mouth shut will be esteemed a wise man.
But every fool will open his mouth & tell the world that he is a fool. It is a law of life. In that case, he may be speaking the Word of Truth, but it will no longer be the True Word.
As a thorn goeth up into the hand of a drunkard, so is a parable in the mouth of fools. The parable is no longer the True Word giving life; although, it is still the Word of Truth.
I don't think that everwhere Wierwille spoke an evil heart "changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator." Sometimes, I believe Wierwille was doing a fine job of worshipping and serving the Creator "who is blessed for ever." Amen? Either way, his character showed through - as all those verses, & paraphrases of verses, above show.
So, what do we do, Raf, with your verse about "do[ing] as they say, not as they do?"
Wierwille taught us (isn't this fun?) that if we find a verse that appears to contradict other clear verses, the error has to be either in our understanding or in translation.
So, we look at what's been written. Do we understand what's been written? It seems pretty plain:
Matthew 23:1  ¶Then spake Jesus to the multitude, and to his disciples,
2 Â Saying, The scribes and the Pharisees sit in Moses' seat:
3 Â All therefore whatsoever they bid you observe, that observe and do; but do not ye after their works: for they say, and do not.
So, we check translation:
Notice that "that" is in italics (I'm scaring myself here). If we scratch it out as possibly wrongly supplied, we've got this word "observe" used twice in a row - I wonder if it is in the Greek twice, & if King James is truly giving the sense of it in this verse. I don't have a Greek interlinear - anybody?
Anyway, what I'm thinking is that if we leave "that" out as having been incorrectly supplied, we're pretty darn close to not having Jesus command to do all the Pharisees say, but having him say everything the Pharisees bid you to observe and do, don't do. Any people adept at Greek out there that can check that out for us, please do.
I don't know, but check this out, Raf. These verses introduce a whole chapter condemning not only what the Pharisees do, but also what they say, & even think in their hearts.
The next verse says Matthew 23:4 Â For they bind heavy burdens and grievous to be borne, and lay them on men's shoulders; but they themselves will not move them with one of their fingers.
I don't believe that this refers to them actually physically binding heavy burdens on people, but putting heavy burdens, grevous to be borne on them by the things that they say to them. Jesus wouldn't want this for the people. This is not the result of the True Word in people's lives.
Same chapter: Matthew 23:13  ¶But woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye shut up the kingdom of heaven against men: for ye neither go in yourselves, neither suffer ye them that are entering to go in.
The Pharisees shut up the kingdom of heaven against men by the things that they TOLD them. Certainly, Jesus, the Saviour of men, wouldn't want to shut up the kingdom of heaven to men by telling them to listen to the hypocritical Pharisees.
Speaking of the hypocrisy of the Pharisees, Jesus told his followers to beware of the leaven of the Pharisees which was hypocrisy, speaking to them of the DOCTRINE of the Pharisees. Certrainly, Jesus wouldn't tell people to beware of the doctine of the Pharisees which was hypocrisy in one place and tell people to do what they told them in another.
Matthew 23:15 Â Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye compass sea and land to make one proselyte, and when he is made, ye make him twofold more the child of hell than yourselves.
Do what someone is telling you who is going to make you twice the child of hell that they are if you do? I don't think so.
Heck, later, the Pharisees BID the people to demand the release of Barabas and the destruction of Jesus. Somehow, I don't think Jesus would have his followers do that.
If you knew my sins, you wouldn't trust what I have to say either. ;)
Raf, no offense, but we're not supposed to put that kind of trust in man because of who they are or who they are not, but we're supposed to line up what people say with the Word because people blow it - that was one of the reasons Wierwille liked the inspiration manifestations so much, because every man screws up the Word here and there except Jesus who had no sin.
Well, besides some great logic that warrants re-reading from Mr. Heller (nice to see you stop in for spring break ), Goey and Jerry above, I didn't want this gem in Jerry's post to get lost in a long post:
We can't get to the real heart of what's wrong with the class until we stop thinking of the Bible as a set of quantifiable facts akin to math and history. "
I think that's at the heart of it for many of us who, like Linda, feel like PFAL was a starting point for their life's journey attempting to live a life that is reverent to God partially due to our studying, reflecting on, and understanding the scriptures. That class was first taken by me when I was 18, but now, the breadth and depth of what I know and believe about God, Jesus Christ and the scriptures is a culmination of further study, experience, worship, prayer, living - - some 33 years later. Even as I don't use the Communications 101 class that I took my first year of college as some sort of pedigree to my career in international marketing, 33 years later, there are a few elements that are always applicable - - but I don't use that class as a basis for my resume, but rather the culmination of my education and career experience.
The scriptures are A PART of how we can know God. Our hearts, lifestyle, reverence of God, meditation of scripture/God, service, obedience to Christ, prayer, etc, etc. are PARTs also.
We can't get to the real heart of what's wrong with the class until we stop thinking of the Bible as a set of quantifiable facts akin to math and history.
So, yes, morals, lifestyle, motive, character would ALL have to play a part in that. I would suggest that people, like Johniam, who say
we believe that VPW was a man of god who happened to sin in his flesh as opposed to a sexual predator who happened to have a bible ministry..." - - have other things motivating them to so desperately want to defend this man when there is such a body of evidence which, IMHO, can no longer be dismissed.
I don't think it is to hard to understand whether or not the moral character of someone speaking/teaching a mathematical equation changes the result of the equation. A sub-moronic idiot should be able to figure that out.
Ok so you got that point,we are in agreement.
I ask the question instead, could the moral character, purpose or motivation of someone interpretating and teaching the scriptures affect the way he or she interprets and teaches the scriptures?
Yes it could, then again it does not mean it had to or it did. Sure it's possible and if it altered the truth then it would no longer be such. Of course if you plagiarize other peoples work as is, then it would still remain truthful (if it was to begin with that is) PFAL contained some work that is acceptable as true in the Christian belief system. It has some that is not. That which is is still true regardless of the person speakings lifestyle,faults,morals.
Could a person motivated by greed, power, lust, possibly misuse the scriptures for personal gain? Could scripture be selectively and intentionally "wrongly divided" in order bring about certain self-serving effects? Is the "truth" of a verse or section of scripture still "truth" if is it presented out of context and misapplied?
Yes, Yes, No
Now what if we know for a fact from the first hand accounts of many eye-witnesses that someone who was greedy, abusive, power hungry and so forth, wrote many books that expound the scriptures and lay out what are presented as spiritual truths and laws?
I'll accept your point here for the sake of argument ,but those are judgments that may change with each persons evaluation . It does not mean that they are true, I might think of you as being one way someone else another doesn't make either true.
Wouldn't folks be wise to critically examine those books and the proposed spiritual truths and laws taught within them?
Yes
What about credibility? Would it be totally unreasonable to cast that author's works aside and use other more credible sources references.
No, but it does not mean you have to either. You could choose to use that which is usable. That which is True is still True.
In regards to credibility, what if I want to witness Christ to folks and I keep using that author as my main source of reference. How do I answer when someone does an Internet search and sees all the things out there about the author. How does that affect my own credibility? Do I really want to keep fighting that battle?
Answer with the truth, That would be each persons choice, I don't mind because I think that the benefit sometimes out ways the alternative.
Naw, I guess we just want to argue about whether or not the Word of God is still the Word of God on the lips of Charlie Manson...... or if 1+1 is still = 2 if said by a bank robber.
Why on earth would someone want to learn the word of God from Charlie Manson anyway? Or Wierwille for that matter ......... knowing what we know.
You can pick and choose anyone you wish to place in there Goey , the point as I'm sure a bright man like you understood is that it is still truth ,it does not change because a type of person says it.
Hey wanna go to a hot bible teaching tonight? Yeah the guy teaching will probably try to screw your wife or your daughter and get you to donate your farm. But hey, that doesn't change the Word that he teaches, its still the Word no matter who teaches it. BTW, did I tell you about the snow on the gas pumps? ..........
Like I said I learn things all the time from people, books and other media that I don't micro-analyze their life to see if they have any moral faults. I assume they do like all of us. Why heck Goey if I let that stop me I wouldn't have read any of your posts, the things you say that are true and useful don't change on your moral standard either . People are people we do not always act the way we should.
Kool- Aid, Kool-Aid ..... tastes great ! Wish I had some......Can't wait !
The position that "it's truth no matter who taught it" starts from the assumption that it was "truth".
Someone mentioned earlier about the problem of using Wierwille as a reference point. You want to learn about the bible? Go back to the bible. Why start with Wierwille? Why examine everything he taught, as if it were the starting point for all learning? Or worse, hold on to what he taught without critical examination because we're too lazy, or because we somehow were "blessed"?
Didn't say one should ,but the truth is it is a done deal for most of us we have years of info already referenced. So why waste that which is true. I see no point to that . That does not mean you have to forgo critical examination or that you should but if after the test it still remains to be true and useful no point in not using it now is there . If I am hanging a picture and determined from all the objects in front of me that what I suspected was a hammer is in fact a hammer I would not throw it away. I'd use it as such and hang my picture.
PS even if the guy who made it at the factory was a thief.
Wow! Great discussion here! And I really like that it's remain civilized and respectful. That's when we make progress in our discussions and can learn from each other. :)
The difference, Linda, I see between your assessment of PFAL and the beliefs of those who still hold to vee pee's teachings and still study and teach from PFAL is that you have indeed moved on. You no longer hold to and subscribe to PFAL as the be all, end all and infallible teachings that those others still do. You've re-evaluated, you've dismissed and you've recognized the teachings for what they are. And you may hold onto some of those things you were taught, but you share it from having "made it your own" and not from vee pee, the honorable awesome "teacher" and "man of God" taught this. I would suspect that you don't even mention vee pee with those who are not familiar with TWI at all. (I could be wrong, but that's the impression I get).
The people who are most staunch supporters of PFAL are still holding onto the class and vee pee's teachings like a security blanket. They go to great lengths to support vee pee and his teachings and continue to teach those things to unsuspecting peope despite knowing the great deal of harm that can come to the lives of those who consider vee pee's words as the standard by which they evaluate scripture and how to live their lives. I hardly think that having a bad teacher in shool equates to having a bad teacher in the Bible. I just think that religious teaching and training is much more important and more serious as far as the individual goes than school subjects.
If PFAL proponents were to really evaluate the class and the things that they hold to - and I don't mean just looking up the scriptures that are used in the class and reading the "assigned TWI reading materials" - they would come to very different conclusions than what they currently believe. Not that we would all come to the same conclusion, but at least PFAL would have been taken out of the picture. THEN they have a foundation to start from in their lives an IF they decide then that they want to teach others. THEN they have built a foundation they can be sure of and that they KNOW is the truth (in their opinion). THEN they would have no need of PFAL and no need (or desire, I hope) to subject people to the burdens, guilt and wrongs that we have had to weed out of our lives. They also have a teacher with more integrity than vee pee ever dreamed of having.
Again, this is all my opinion. But it seems pretty pathetic for people to continue using vee pee and PFAL as the guidepost, standard and measuring stick by which they evaluate everything else.
IF you find something in PFAL to be correct then it was probably plagarized. Why not go to the plagarized source to teach people? At least then it's not laced and worded in vee pee's personal agenda and it's the honest thing to do since it would be giving credit to the true author and not the criminal lying sob.
How odd that I find myself referring again to principles taught by Wierwille to refute the proposition that his character did not affect the truthfulness of the Word of Truth that he taught!
I thought the same thing. Apparently it was truthful enough for you to accept it and find some use for it. (which was My point) The fact that you use it to defend your position must mean that you accept it as logical otherwise why use it? I guess there is some truth when it benefits our point of view.....
The difference, Linda, I see between your assessment of PFAL and the beliefs of those who still hold to vee pee's teachings and still study and teach from PFAL is that you have indeed moved on. You no longer hold to and subscribe to PFAL as the be all, end all and infallible teachings that those others still do. You've re-evaluated, you've dismissed and you've recognized the teachings for what they are. And you may hold onto some of those things you were taught, but you share it from having "made it your own" and not from vee pee, the honorable awesome "teacher" and "man of God" taught this. I would suspect that you don't even mention vee pee with those who are not familiar with TWI at all. (I could be wrong, but that's the impression I get).
I should note at this point that I have said the same thing a gazillion times....... None the less nothing wrong with giving credit to a source where you learned from either. Someone else we know did that and it gets pointed out on a regular basis here.
IF you find something in PFAL to be correct then it was probably plagarized. Why not go to the plagarized source to teach people? At least then it's not laced and worded in vee pee's personal agenda and it's the honest thing to do since it would be giving credit to the true author and not the criminal lying sob.
I often do Belle. I have most of the books he used bought some of them in the Way Bookstore by the way. Then again there is the parts that were not plagiarized that are still none the less true, in which case I refer to the source PFAL or VP Wierwille.
If PFAL proponents were to really evaluate the class and the things that they hold to - and I don't mean just looking up the scriptures that are used in the class and reading the "assigned TWI reading materials" - they would come to very different conclusions than what they currently believe. Not that we would all come to the same conclusion, but at least PFAL would have been taken out of the picture
Not Really Belle I was evaluating and re-evaluating material for years, while you were in and supporting Craig in his teachings.
I left because I could not see biblical basis for many of the teachings. It was a conscious choice due to dishonest doctrine that I left for . Not because I was forced out or hung around supporting a crazy man, until I was $*@! on long enough to where I left because I was PO'd ,not due to biblical error.
Hello.......I am new here. But I just recieved the PFAL class on dvd and I am going to hold a class here in my home Daytona Florida. The people who attend will be new and will not know anything about twi, all they will get is a real Bible study. I am excitied about this. I took the class in 74 and moved away and was blessed to meet someone a few months ago who could get me the class. Because I have never forgotten the studies. I guess I am lucky I didn't go through what you all did. And I don't know anyone in twi now. I just want people to hear what I heard back then.
This is the post that started this thread.
I bristled when I read, "The people who attend will be new and will not know anything about twi, all they will get is a real Bible study."
Why? Because these people who will be taking this class will be kept in the dark about what is really going to happen to them.
Freelady later says:
Sorry to hear that. I work a full time job and am a cookie designer. I have a good life, I also have attended alot of "churches" and have never had the teachings or studies that I learned in PFAL class. It hurts to know such a good thing went bad. But when I ran into a twi member at in 74 i prayed that God would help me. I had such a bad life and I knew there was a God and prayed that he would show me how to get out of my situtation. And along came a girl named Candy in Montgomery Al, it took her 10 trys to get me to a class but when I did, I knew that it was from God (you may not believe that) and I was shown that there was Power in the word of God. I grew up penacostal and all I ever heard was your headed to hell. I am so sorry for the hurt everyone recieved. I am hoping to change a life the way mine was changed. my classes will never hear about TWI if I can help it. only the teachings.
Already the badmouthing of churches...and the reiteration of keeping her 'students' in the dark about what they are really being introduced to.
A little later is this exchange:
(oldiesman @ Mar 10 2006, 01:45 PM)
I'd love to see PFAL on the net one day.
Each 28 minute segment there, for whoever wants to view it.
And dang it, it should be for free!
Come to my class it will be free.........
Out-and-out bait a la twi style.
Then, later on, this post:
I have been reading everyone's response to my class. I am not saying that this class is THE ONLY TRUTH, but this class is a kick start to knowing the Bible, especially for those who have never studied the Bible. God is so good and I don't care if 4 were on the cross with Jesus or if Adam and Eve had a belly button or not et. Those are personal beliefs, I don't think will get you in or out of Heaven. Have none of you that oppose this class ever had anything good happen to them after they took this class, has not some of this knowledge helped them in any way. I never agreed with a lot of actions that I saw 30 years ago that is one reason why I never stayed in, BUT the scriptures that I learned in the PFAL class always stuck with me. And I want to give others the opportunity to hear what I did. There has to be a lot of hurt and I pray God will give each one the peace to get over it. ( I know I am going to get slammed now) I won't charge for this class and maybe I can help someone else get a new lease on life. I have gotten alot of good response to this class which made me smile. Agape Love Everyone Margaux
Now it's 'her' class. She still doesn't care about 4 cruicified or belly buttons. And in this post she admits that what she saw in twi was so bad that she didn't stick around.
And later even:
I am so sorry you feel that way. Even the law of giving is evident in the secular world. I am sorry you had to sit under a dictatorship, as I see it, it was short of being a cult. I guess I was lucky and took the good and ran with it, although I wish I had ran harder. I personally know the power of speaking in tongues and I knew about that before the PFAL class when I knew nothing of twi. We live in a spiritual realm and there are laws we should live by, and I prefer to take Gods way. You can change lives with alot of the knowledge in the class. Look at the people that follow Benny Hinn (I spell that right?) that man will really answer to God, for ripping people off. so gotta go just my thoughts, thank you for listening.
She calls twi a "dictatorship" and says "it was short of being a cult". Then she says "I guess I was lucky and took the good and ran with it, although I wish I had ran harder."
And even later on:
I understand you so much. To me the class is a way to get the word out to people who don't know the word.
My brain is hardly ever in neutral. I hate to say this, but I left twi early because I knew something wasn't right to begin with in the way it was being ran. I liked the drs teachings. But everyone put him up on a pedestal and there was something weird to me about that. I was not going to be in any group that I had to separate myself from my family because they didn't believe like I did," Jevoah Witness" came to mind. But I did understand the Bible more, thank you for the heads up and I will bring out my concordance. And I also have all the written scripts which will help. And see to me if there was 4 with Jesus on the cross or if Adam and Eve had a belly button or not is a personal belief, and I don't think it will get you in or keep you out of Heaven. Thank you for your kind words. I just want to be more like my friends in Tenn. I want to be able to have a home fellowship and teach the word. And the PFAL class is a start. I also read alot in the www.truthortradition.com site.
I have a wonderful friend who believes more strongly than I do about this. I hope he won't ever be mad at me.
Wow. She says, "I hate to say this, but I left twi early because I knew something wasn't right to begin with in the way it was being ran." And follows that with, "I liked the drs teachings. But everyone put him up on a pedestal and there was something weird to me about that. I was not going to be in any group that I had to separate myself from my family because they didn't believe like I did," Jevoah Witness" came to mind."
She still doesn't care about 4 crucified or belly buttons.
After that, nothing from her.
My problem with this whole thread is that it was started by somebody who has nothing but praise for pfal, but who then also has nothing but criticism for the monster that was spawned by pfal...and who is going to do the same thing with an unsuspecting group of people who she is purposely going to keep in the dark.
My problem with this whole thread is that it was started by somebody who has nothing but praise for pfal, but who then also has nothing but criticism for the monster that was spawned by pfal...and who is going to do the same thing with an unsuspecting group of people who she is purposely going to keep in the dark.
This is why I seldom get into these types of discussions. If you don't agree with every criticism of PFAL, you're mocked as a Kool-Aid drinker. That just ticks me off. If I don't see it YOUR way, then I'm submoronic. Nice. That really helps me see things your way.
Linda, that is a gross misrepresentation of my post and I really don't appreciate that too much. Is it an intentional misrepresentation or lack of careful reading on your part.? Generally you are more honest than that.
Where have I or anyone else mocked someone because they "dont agree with every criticism of PFAL" Where Linda?
I instead mock those who would sit at the feet of a known liar, abuser, and pervert in order to hear "the truth". I mock argument that truth is still truth when taught by the morally corrupt as a defense for continuing in ignorant bliss. ( Kool-aid Drinkers)
Where did I state or imply that it is submoronic not to see "it" my way. (Whatever you mean by "it".) The submoronic reference was in regards to the silly debates about whether 2+2 still equals 4 from a person of bad character.
I generally expect better from you than a gross misrepresentation....
I instead mock those who would sit at the feet of a known liar, abuser, and pervert in order to hear "the truth". I mock argument that truth is still truth when taught by the morally corrupt as a defense for continuing in ignorant bliss. ( Kool-aid Drinkers)
I think the truth is found in PFAL in some cases. IT remains the truth even though VPW taught it. And one is certainly entitled to treasure those nuggets they find.
However, I think the point being made here, is that VPW with his Me, me, me personality used those nuggets of truth for his own purposes. HE used them as hooks for the unwary so that he could interject that which was not true or at the very least , a truth which had been compromised with , word changes, figures of speech, literal according to use etc etc etc.
This is most subtle and devilish, remember the statement "the trick isn't getting someone to accept the counterfeit as real, its getting them to accept the real as counterfeit. That was the goal of TWI, not to teach any thing really "New" but to undermine the "Old" in such a way that it's injunctions and precepts could be ignored.
Hence the plagiarism etc -worked just great for that purpose--since construction of new was not the goal but deconstruction of the old.
Goey, I apologize for my defensiveness. I just reread your post and my response, and yes, I did misread/misinterpret. I did not, however, do so intentionally or dishonestly. I should know better than to post when it's late and I'm tired (and apparently grumpy). I think we are actually closer to agreement than disagreement. I just overreacted to what I thought you were saying.
Belle, you're right--I can't remember the last time (it was probably more than a decade ago) that I quoted VPW in sharing anything from the Bible or cited PFAL, for that matter. If discussing the Bible, I quote the Bible, not a person.
well... I wasn't around yesterday and I think some missed my points entirely but posting responses to all of these things would now be untimely...
I would like to AGAIN restate though...
All I am saying is... IF you believe there is TRUTH in PFAL, and you had that available to you, for you to use, why wouldn't you just (as was suggested way back in the beginning of this thread) TEACH IT (THE TRUTH) YOURSELF AND LEAVE veepee AND HIS 'ASIDE RANTS' OUT OF IT?
And that has absolutely nothing to do with Truth being changed to unTruth or saying that Truth is not Truth because veepee taught it... which I (nor do I think any others) never said.
If I may -- I would like to clarify something here (that has been brought to my attention in PM).
QUOTE(dmiller @ Mar 24 2006, 10:32 PM) *
And if I can add my two cents here about this thread --- I'm thinking Tom and WD are somewhat on the same page.
yes, but WD has said he's arguing the opposing point just to keep it honest... so he really pretty much agrees but enjoys 'stirring the pot' it would seem. (not that there's any law against pot stirring)
If WD had said that pfal was 100% correct, I would be in agreement with the majority here. But what he DID say is truth is truth, reguardless of who says it -- and that I can agree with. If you put a bow to some fiddle strings -- yer gonna get some music. The music may be good, may be bad, but the result is music -- depends on who is applying the bow to the strings as to whether or not it is good or bad.
The ONLY thing I can definitavely say about the music, is whether it is good or bad -- I can't pass judgement and say there was no music, because it in fact it was there -- be it good (correct), or bad (incorrect).
And with my (woefully) inadequate analogy, I think the same can be said about docvic, and his teachings.
I get your analogy, but it's apples and oranges (I have to be careful here or MO will make fruit salad again). See... your music is good or bad but the way it's played cannot subtly change peoples opinions on totally different unrelated topics. As Soques pointed out, veepee threw in all sorts of stuff to slant people's opinions about organized religion, tithing, sex, etc. in PFAL. There was no other need to do that kind of stuff IF all he was trying to do was "teach you keys to unlocking the Bible". And as we've later found out these were all seeds being planted so that the bigger picture of what he wanted to do with TWI could come to fruition.
If you are going to judge the teachings by the character of the man teaching them,
you may as well toss out everything you have learned in life from others.
not necessarily, I would agree that if 'everything' you were ever taught was taught to you with an ulterior motive that had nothing to do with what you were being taught.
Seriously.
If you want to toss out the stuff in pfal, just because of the teacher of it,
then you may as well go back to your childhood, and start tossing out everything
your parents taught you, your peers taught you, your teachers taught you, etc.
NO, because they were (hopefully) teaching you things for the 'right' reasons.
After all, they were imperfect also, eh?
Not the point Dave, no one that I know of here is arguing whether or not veepee was perfect or not. People are arguing the merits of the class, in it's entirity, because it was interlaced throughout with all of veepee's personal motivations (or whatever you want to call them).
Carry the equation through to it's logical conclusion.
While NOT defending docvic -- every last somebody here has learned from others.
And (while I don't know about you), my teachers in life were imperfect also.
Again, respectfully, I think you're not getting the point being made... because this was not it...as far as I could see.
(Ps --- I am not defending WD here as much as I am defending his premise.)
he's already said that he's just doing it to argue the other side.
Like I said --- meebe I read it wrong, but that is my take on it.
well... one of us did... either you or me!
What I said here --- refers to Tom Heller, and NOT to Tom Strange.
Recommended Posts
Top Posters In This Topic
19
16
16
32
Popular Days
Mar 24
58
Mar 23
35
Mar 26
33
Mar 25
23
Top Posters In This Topic
Tom 19 posts
Belle 16 posts
CoolWaters 16 posts
WhiteDove 32 posts
Popular Days
Mar 24 2006
58 posts
Mar 23 2006
35 posts
Mar 26 2006
33 posts
Mar 25 2006
23 posts
Goey
I don't think it is to hard to understand whether or not the moral character of someone speaking/teaching a mathematical equation changes the result of the equation. A sub-moronic idiot should be able to figure that out.
I ask the question instead, could the moral character, purpose or motivation of someone interpretating and teaching the scriptures affect the way he or she interprets and teaches the scriptures?
Could a person motivated by greed, power, lust, possibly misuse the scriptures for personal gain? Could scripture be selectively and intentionally "wrongly divided" in order bring about certain self-serving effects? Is the "truth" of a verse or section of scrpture still "truth" if is it presented out of context and misapplied?
Now what if we know for a fact from the first hand accounts of many eye-witnesses that someone who was greedy, abusive, power hungry and so forth, wrote many books that expound the scriptures and lay out what are presented as spiritual truths and laws?
Wouldn't folks be wise to critically examine those books and the proposed spiritual truths and laws taught within them?
What about credibility? Would it be totally unreasonble to cast that author's works aside and use other more credible sources references. In regards to credibility, what if I want to witness Christ to folks and I keep using that author as my main source of reference. How do I answer when somone does an Internet search and sees all the things out there about the author. How does that affect my own credibility? Do I really want to keep fighting that battle?
Naw, I guess we just want to argure about whether or not the Word of God is still the Word of God on the lips of Charlie Manson...... or if 1+1 is still = 2 if said by a bank robber.
Why on earth would someone want to learn the word of God from Charlie Manson anyway? Or Wierwille for that matter ......... knowing what we know.
Hey wanna go to a hot bible teaching tonight? Yeah the guy teaching will probably try to screw your wife or your daughter and get you to dontate your farm. But hey, that doesn't change the Word that he teaches, its still the Word no matter who teaches it. BTW, did I tell you about the snow on the gas pumps? ..........
Kool- Aid, Kool-Aid ..... tastes great ! Wish I had some......Can't wait !
Here, Have a glass !
Edited by GoeyLink to comment
Share on other sites
Linda Z
Socks, I'm not saying that all teachers have hidden agendas beyond wanting to impart knowledge. I'm simply saying that I don't think something is untrue or true just because of who taught it.
Jerry said:
And I'm saying I gained an appreciation of the Bible and a greater love for God in PFAL, despite the sins of the man who taught it. It's up to me to continue to build on the good things I learned, weed out the bad things, and keep moving ahead.I understand the difference between the Bible and the facts of history. That's why I said I don't think we're ever going to fully understand the Bible by putting it under a microscope, as I said in my earlier post.
PFAL was, for me, at the time when I first took it, a good starting point for me. Just the idea that I could read the Bible for myself and understand some of it was worth parking my behind in a hard chair for 30-some hours. I don't think it messed me up or hindered my appreciation of the Bible.
Please understand: I'm not a big PFAL cheerleader today. Recently someone asked if I wanted to sit through it again, and I said, "What in the world for?" She also asked if I thought her son should take it, and I said, "No. Teach him yourself--you don't need PFAL to do that."
Don't know what else to say.
Goey asked:
Of course it would. I, for one, never said it wouldn't.
This is why I seldom get into these types of discussions. If you don't agree with every criticism of PFAL, you're mocked as a Kool-Aid drinker. That just ticks me off. If I don't see it YOUR way, then I'm submoronic. Nice. That really helps me see things your way.
Edited by Linda ZLink to comment
Share on other sites
Oakspear
The position that "it's truth no matter who taught it" starts from the assumption that it was "truth".
Someone mentioned earlier about the problem of using Wierwille as a reference point. You want to learn about the bible? Go back to the bible. Why start with Wierwille? Why examine everything he taught, as if it were the starting point for all learning? Or worse, hold on to what he taught without critical examination because we're too lazy, or because we somehow were "blessed"?
Edited by OakspearLink to comment
Share on other sites
pond
That is a good idea Oak.
Have you tried to actualy do that?
easier said than done .
for me it is like an echo , that does not disappear .
years and years of trying and it is still very difficult for me to shake it.
good luck with that, I hope it works for you.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Oakspear
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Tom
How odd that I find myself referring again to principles taught by Wierwille to refute the proposition that his character did not affect the truthfulness of the Word of Truth that he taught! That he indeed morphed it, so that, although it was still the Word of Truth, it was no longer the True Word. Not every place, he spoke, but in the places where he let the unsavory aspects of his character through. And he HAD to let the unsavory aspects of his character through in places because out of the abundance of he heart the mouth speaks.
Indeed, in either case, whether it be from purity or impurity of heart, out of the abundance of the heart the mouth speaks. It has to.
Raf, you say that you "have not looked it up lately, but didn't Jesus say something along the lines of..." I suggest you do look it up. It certainly warrants looking up.
Why? Because it appears to contradict many clear verses on the same subject. Basic logic, taught by Wierwille, that we shouldn't accept one verse as truth that appears to contradict many clear verses on the same subject.
Verses, many of which have been shared here - that much to my alarm I see people whose ability with the Word, like yourself, I respect, ignoring.
Verses like out of the abundance of the heart the mouth speaks.
The legs of the lame are not equal: so is a parable in the mouth of fools.
Yes, I know that even a fool, if he keeps his mouth shut will be esteemed a wise man.
But every fool will open his mouth & tell the world that he is a fool. It is a law of life. In that case, he may be speaking the Word of Truth, but it will no longer be the True Word.
As a thorn goeth up into the hand of a drunkard, so is a parable in the mouth of fools. The parable is no longer the True Word giving life; although, it is still the Word of Truth.
I don't think that everwhere Wierwille spoke an evil heart "changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator." Sometimes, I believe Wierwille was doing a fine job of worshipping and serving the Creator "who is blessed for ever." Amen? Either way, his character showed through - as all those verses, & paraphrases of verses, above show.
So, what do we do, Raf, with your verse about "do[ing] as they say, not as they do?"
Wierwille taught us (isn't this fun?) that if we find a verse that appears to contradict other clear verses, the error has to be either in our understanding or in translation.
So, we look at what's been written. Do we understand what's been written? It seems pretty plain:
Matthew 23:1  ¶Then spake Jesus to the multitude, and to his disciples,
2 Â Saying, The scribes and the Pharisees sit in Moses' seat:
3 Â All therefore whatsoever they bid you observe, that observe and do; but do not ye after their works: for they say, and do not.
So, we check translation:
Notice that "that" is in italics (I'm scaring myself here). If we scratch it out as possibly wrongly supplied, we've got this word "observe" used twice in a row - I wonder if it is in the Greek twice, & if King James is truly giving the sense of it in this verse. I don't have a Greek interlinear - anybody?
Anyway, what I'm thinking is that if we leave "that" out as having been incorrectly supplied, we're pretty darn close to not having Jesus command to do all the Pharisees say, but having him say everything the Pharisees bid you to observe and do, don't do. Any people adept at Greek out there that can check that out for us, please do.
I don't know, but check this out, Raf. These verses introduce a whole chapter condemning not only what the Pharisees do, but also what they say, & even think in their hearts.
The next verse says Matthew 23:4 Â For they bind heavy burdens and grievous to be borne, and lay them on men's shoulders; but they themselves will not move them with one of their fingers.
I don't believe that this refers to them actually physically binding heavy burdens on people, but putting heavy burdens, grevous to be borne on them by the things that they say to them. Jesus wouldn't want this for the people. This is not the result of the True Word in people's lives.
Same chapter: Matthew 23:13  ¶But woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye shut up the kingdom of heaven against men: for ye neither go in yourselves, neither suffer ye them that are entering to go in.
The Pharisees shut up the kingdom of heaven against men by the things that they TOLD them. Certainly, Jesus, the Saviour of men, wouldn't want to shut up the kingdom of heaven to men by telling them to listen to the hypocritical Pharisees.
Speaking of the hypocrisy of the Pharisees, Jesus told his followers to beware of the leaven of the Pharisees which was hypocrisy, speaking to them of the DOCTRINE of the Pharisees. Certrainly, Jesus wouldn't tell people to beware of the doctine of the Pharisees which was hypocrisy in one place and tell people to do what they told them in another.
Matthew 23:15 Â Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye compass sea and land to make one proselyte, and when he is made, ye make him twofold more the child of hell than yourselves.
Do what someone is telling you who is going to make you twice the child of hell that they are if you do? I don't think so.
Heck, later, the Pharisees BID the people to demand the release of Barabas and the destruction of Jesus. Somehow, I don't think Jesus would have his followers do that.
Raf, no offense, but we're not supposed to put that kind of trust in man because of who they are or who they are not, but we're supposed to line up what people say with the Word because people blow it - that was one of the reasons Wierwille liked the inspiration manifestations so much, because every man screws up the Word here and there except Jesus who had no sin.
That's just the way it is.
Edited by Thomas HellerLink to comment
Share on other sites
jardinero
Well, besides some great logic that warrants re-reading from Mr. Heller (nice to see you stop in for spring break
), Goey and Jerry above, I didn't want this gem in Jerry's post to get lost in a long post:
Edited by jardineroLink to comment
Share on other sites
WhiteDove
I don't think it is to hard to understand whether or not the moral character of someone speaking/teaching a mathematical equation changes the result of the equation. A sub-moronic idiot should be able to figure that out.
Ok so you got that point,we are in agreement.
I ask the question instead, could the moral character, purpose or motivation of someone interpretating and teaching the scriptures affect the way he or she interprets and teaches the scriptures?
Yes it could, then again it does not mean it had to or it did. Sure it's possible and if it altered the truth then it would no longer be such. Of course if you plagiarize other peoples work as is, then it would still remain truthful (if it was to begin with that is) PFAL contained some work that is acceptable as true in the Christian belief system. It has some that is not. That which is is still true regardless of the person speakings lifestyle,faults,morals.
Could a person motivated by greed, power, lust, possibly misuse the scriptures for personal gain? Could scripture be selectively and intentionally "wrongly divided" in order bring about certain self-serving effects? Is the "truth" of a verse or section of scripture still "truth" if is it presented out of context and misapplied?
Yes, Yes, No
Now what if we know for a fact from the first hand accounts of many eye-witnesses that someone who was greedy, abusive, power hungry and so forth, wrote many books that expound the scriptures and lay out what are presented as spiritual truths and laws?
I'll accept your point here for the sake of argument ,but those are judgments that may change with each persons evaluation . It does not mean that they are true, I might think of you as being one way someone else another doesn't make either true.
Wouldn't folks be wise to critically examine those books and the proposed spiritual truths and laws taught within them?
Yes
What about credibility? Would it be totally unreasonable to cast that author's works aside and use other more credible sources references.
No, but it does not mean you have to either. You could choose to use that which is usable. That which is True is still True.
In regards to credibility, what if I want to witness Christ to folks and I keep using that author as my main source of reference. How do I answer when someone does an Internet search and sees all the things out there about the author. How does that affect my own credibility? Do I really want to keep fighting that battle?
Answer with the truth, That would be each persons choice, I don't mind because I think that the benefit sometimes out ways the alternative.
Naw, I guess we just want to argue about whether or not the Word of God is still the Word of God on the lips of Charlie Manson...... or if 1+1 is still = 2 if said by a bank robber.
Why on earth would someone want to learn the word of God from Charlie Manson anyway? Or Wierwille for that matter ......... knowing what we know.
You can pick and choose anyone you wish to place in there Goey , the point as I'm sure a bright man like you understood is that it is still truth ,it does not change because a type of person says it.
Hey wanna go to a hot bible teaching tonight? Yeah the guy teaching will probably try to screw your wife or your daughter and get you to donate your farm. But hey, that doesn't change the Word that he teaches, its still the Word no matter who teaches it. BTW, did I tell you about the snow on the gas pumps? ..........
Like I said I learn things all the time from people, books and other media that I don't micro-analyze their life to see if they have any moral faults. I assume they do like all of us. Why heck Goey if I let that stop me I wouldn't have read any of your posts, the things you say that are true and useful don't change on your moral standard either . People are people we do not always act the way we should.
Kool- Aid, Kool-Aid ..... tastes great ! Wish I had some......Can't wait !
Here, Have a glass !
Link to comment
Share on other sites
WhiteDove
Didn't say one should ,but the truth is it is a done deal for most of us we have years of info already referenced. So why waste that which is true. I see no point to that . That does not mean you have to forgo critical examination or that you should but if after the test it still remains to be true and useful no point in not using it now is there . If I am hanging a picture and determined from all the objects in front of me that what I suspected was a hammer is in fact a hammer I would not throw it away. I'd use it as such and hang my picture.
PS even if the guy who made it at the factory was a thief.
Edited by WhiteDoveLink to comment
Share on other sites
Belle
Wow! Great discussion here! And I really like that it's remain civilized and respectful. That's when we make progress in our discussions and can learn from each other. :)
The difference, Linda, I see between your assessment of PFAL and the beliefs of those who still hold to vee pee's teachings and still study and teach from PFAL is that you have indeed moved on. You no longer hold to and subscribe to PFAL as the be all, end all and infallible teachings that those others still do. You've re-evaluated, you've dismissed and you've recognized the teachings for what they are. And you may hold onto some of those things you were taught, but you share it from having "made it your own" and not from vee pee, the honorable awesome "teacher" and "man of God" taught this. I would suspect that you don't even mention vee pee with those who are not familiar with TWI at all. (I could be wrong, but that's the impression I get).
The people who are most staunch supporters of PFAL are still holding onto the class and vee pee's teachings like a security blanket. They go to great lengths to support vee pee and his teachings and continue to teach those things to unsuspecting peope despite knowing the great deal of harm that can come to the lives of those who consider vee pee's words as the standard by which they evaluate scripture and how to live their lives. I hardly think that having a bad teacher in shool equates to having a bad teacher in the Bible. I just think that religious teaching and training is much more important and more serious as far as the individual goes than school subjects.
If PFAL proponents were to really evaluate the class and the things that they hold to - and I don't mean just looking up the scriptures that are used in the class and reading the "assigned TWI reading materials" - they would come to very different conclusions than what they currently believe. Not that we would all come to the same conclusion, but at least PFAL would have been taken out of the picture. THEN they have a foundation to start from in their lives an IF they decide then that they want to teach others. THEN they have built a foundation they can be sure of and that they KNOW is the truth (in their opinion). THEN they would have no need of PFAL and no need (or desire, I hope) to subject people to the burdens, guilt and wrongs that we have had to weed out of our lives. They also have a teacher with more integrity than vee pee ever dreamed of having.
Again, this is all my opinion. But it seems pretty pathetic for people to continue using vee pee and PFAL as the guidepost, standard and measuring stick by which they evaluate everything else.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Belle
IF you find something in PFAL to be correct then it was probably plagarized. Why not go to the plagarized source to teach people? At least then it's not laced and worded in vee pee's personal agenda and it's the honest thing to do since it would be giving credit to the true author and not the criminal lying sob.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
WhiteDove
I thought the same thing. Apparently it was truthful enough for you to accept it and find some use for it. (which was My point) The fact that you use it to defend your position must mean that you accept it as logical otherwise why use it? I guess there is some truth when it benefits our point of view.....
Link to comment
Share on other sites
WhiteDove
I should note at this point that I have said the same thing a gazillion times....... None the less nothing wrong with giving credit to a source where you learned from either. Someone else we know did that and it gets pointed out on a regular basis here.
Edited by WhiteDoveLink to comment
Share on other sites
TheEvan
pond, the Holy Spirit will teach you.
The greatest preparation is the simple prayer, "Lord, I don't understand. Please teach me what you want me to know."
Link to comment
Share on other sites
WhiteDove
I often do Belle. I have most of the books he used bought some of them in the Way Bookstore by the way. Then again there is the parts that were not plagiarized that are still none the less true, in which case I refer to the source PFAL or VP Wierwille.
If PFAL proponents were to really evaluate the class and the things that they hold to - and I don't mean just looking up the scriptures that are used in the class and reading the "assigned TWI reading materials" - they would come to very different conclusions than what they currently believe. Not that we would all come to the same conclusion, but at least PFAL would have been taken out of the picture
Not Really Belle I was evaluating and re-evaluating material for years, while you were in and supporting Craig in his teachings.
I left because I could not see biblical basis for many of the teachings. It was a conscious choice due to dishonest doctrine that I left for . Not because I was forced out or hung around supporting a crazy man, until I was $*@! on long enough to where I left because I was PO'd ,not due to biblical error.
Edited by WhiteDoveLink to comment
Share on other sites
CoolWaters
This is the post that started this thread.
I bristled when I read, "The people who attend will be new and will not know anything about twi, all they will get is a real Bible study."
Why? Because these people who will be taking this class will be kept in the dark about what is really going to happen to them.
Freelady later says:
Already the badmouthing of churches...and the reiteration of keeping her 'students' in the dark about what they are really being introduced to.
A little later is this exchange:
Out-and-out bait a la twi style.
Then, later on, this post:
Now it's 'her' class. She still doesn't care about 4 cruicified or belly buttons. And in this post she admits that what she saw in twi was so bad that she didn't stick around.
And later even:
She calls twi a "dictatorship" and says "it was short of being a cult". Then she says "I guess I was lucky and took the good and ran with it, although I wish I had ran harder."
And even later on:
Wow. She says, "I hate to say this, but I left twi early because I knew something wasn't right to begin with in the way it was being ran." And follows that with, "I liked the drs teachings. But everyone put him up on a pedestal and there was something weird to me about that. I was not going to be in any group that I had to separate myself from my family because they didn't believe like I did," Jevoah Witness" came to mind."
She still doesn't care about 4 crucified or belly buttons.
After that, nothing from her.
My problem with this whole thread is that it was started by somebody who has nothing but praise for pfal, but who then also has nothing but criticism for the monster that was spawned by pfal...and who is going to do the same thing with an unsuspecting group of people who she is purposely going to keep in the dark.
It's twi all over again.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
skyrider
CW.......nice synopsis.
I agree. :)
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Goey
Posted by Linda Z
Linda, that is a gross misrepresentation of my post and I really don't appreciate that too much. Is it an intentional misrepresentation or lack of careful reading on your part.? Generally you are more honest than that.
Where have I or anyone else mocked someone because they "dont agree with every criticism of PFAL" Where Linda?
I instead mock those who would sit at the feet of a known liar, abuser, and pervert in order to hear "the truth". I mock argument that truth is still truth when taught by the morally corrupt as a defense for continuing in ignorant bliss. ( Kool-aid Drinkers)
Where did I state or imply that it is submoronic not to see "it" my way. (Whatever you mean by "it".) The submoronic reference was in regards to the silly debates about whether 2+2 still equals 4 from a person of bad character.
I generally expect better from you than a gross misrepresentation....
Link to comment
Share on other sites
T-Bone
Way to go, Goey !!!!!!!!!!!
Edited by T-BoneLink to comment
Share on other sites
templelady
I think the truth is found in PFAL in some cases. IT remains the truth even though VPW taught it. And one is certainly entitled to treasure those nuggets they find.
However, I think the point being made here, is that VPW with his Me, me, me personality used those nuggets of truth for his own purposes. HE used them as hooks for the unwary so that he could interject that which was not true or at the very least , a truth which had been compromised with , word changes, figures of speech, literal according to use etc etc etc.
This is most subtle and devilish, remember the statement "the trick isn't getting someone to accept the counterfeit as real, its getting them to accept the real as counterfeit. That was the goal of TWI, not to teach any thing really "New" but to undermine the "Old" in such a way that it's injunctions and precepts could be ignored.
Hence the plagiarism etc -worked just great for that purpose--since construction of new was not the goal but deconstruction of the old.
Edited by templeladyLink to comment
Share on other sites
Linda Z
Goey, I apologize for my defensiveness. I just reread your post and my response, and yes, I did misread/misinterpret. I did not, however, do so intentionally or dishonestly. I should know better than to post when it's late and I'm tired (and apparently grumpy). I think we are actually closer to agreement than disagreement. I just overreacted to what I thought you were saying.
Belle, you're right--I can't remember the last time (it was probably more than a decade ago) that I quoted VPW in sharing anything from the Bible or cited PFAL, for that matter. If discussing the Bible, I quote the Bible, not a person.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Tom Strange
well... I wasn't around yesterday and I think some missed my points entirely but posting responses to all of these things would now be untimely...
I would like to AGAIN restate though...
All I am saying is... IF you believe there is TRUTH in PFAL, and you had that available to you, for you to use, why wouldn't you just (as was suggested way back in the beginning of this thread) TEACH IT (THE TRUTH) YOURSELF AND LEAVE veepee AND HIS 'ASIDE RANTS' OUT OF IT?
And that has absolutely nothing to do with Truth being changed to unTruth or saying that Truth is not Truth because veepee taught it... which I (nor do I think any others) never said.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
dmiller
If I may -- I would like to clarify something here (that has been brought to my attention in PM).
What I said here --- refers to Tom Heller, and NOT to Tom Strange.
Sorry for the mix-up. :)
David
Edited by dmillerLink to comment
Share on other sites
dmiller
and when I said this ---
I did forget to mention the teaching of something that was truth,
vs. the personal agenda of the teacher.
(which we all know vpw had going on -- agenda -- that is).
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.