PFAL Class

[templelady]

If you want to toss out the stuff in pfal, just because of the teacher of it

I would say that depends on if you are throwing out good because the teacher is bad

or

if because the teacher is bad you are taking the time to figure out what isn't good

Me, I'm in the second camp

[WhiteDove]

David you got it just fine! that was my only beef

Tom we have so many pages because as David noted people assume I said or stand for things that I did not say or stand for. Dealing with those accusations then takes up space. My point has been consistent since page 6. I take issue with the premise that someone's morals somehow morphs the truth contained in a class into untruth.

Edited March 25, 2006 by WhiteDove

[Tom Strange]

Dave, my responses in bold:

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!

David you got it just fine! that was my only beef

Tom we have so many pages because as David noted people assume I said or stand for things that I did not say or stand for. Dealing with those accusations then takes up space. My point has been consistent since page 6. I take issue with the premise that someone's morals somehow morphs the truth contained in a class into untruth.

WD:

And (again) I'll point out that no one has said that "truth becomes untruth"... but that so much of veepee's personal agenda is woven into PFAL, amongst the truths that are taught... that the effect is that people tended (and tend) to take veepee's personal aganda as 'truth' as well... and I'm pretty sure that's what everyone else has been saying as well.

If you want a good Bible class... keys to unlocking the scriptures... life more than abundant... then why not just teach the PFAL stuff that deal with that and skip the rest? You'll have a class that's at least half as long IMO...

Edited March 25, 2006 by Tom Strange

[WhiteDove]

Tom I think you misunderstood me, I did not say stirring the pot or arguing the other side. I said keeping the record straight or honest. We are in agreement pretty much with the exception of the morals issue which people did argue both here and on other threads it is a common perception.

From this thread

The man's character makes it foolish for anyone to take what he taught at face value.

Tom if I was interested in a class I probably would at this point anyway do BG Leonards

Edited March 25, 2006 by WhiteDove

[dmiller]

Tom --- good post. :) However I've gotta disagree with a point or two. Ya got a minute here??)

You said ----

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.

What you said was true, but look at what you said??? You are equating the teaching (music) with the qualities of the teacher (picker), and are negating what is actually going on, by looking at the person doing the *performing*, rather than looking at the performance itself.

Now -- both you and I (and I suspect WD also), realize that docvic stole a lot of what he taught, had a less than perfect life (moral-wise), and taught pfal at the same time.

Now --- He might have been the south end of a north bound horse, but that was his problem, not ours. To be [sure he (docvic) screwed up in his life, and pfal was a flawed class, but to categorically toss out SOME of the teachings in pfal merely because docvic taught it is like saying *I won't drive a Chevy, since records show they have been in more accidents, than Fords.

Does that make sense to you?? I hope not, cause it doesn't to me either.

And then you said ---

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).

Do you see what you just said?? People are castigasting the *SOME OF THE TRUTH* that is found in pfal,

BECAUSE OF DOCVIC, WHO HE WAS, AND HOW HE ACTED,

NOW --- Let me say this, and understand it now, cause I don't intend to repeat it.

If you don't like docvic ---------say so.

If you don't like pfal ------------ say so.

If you don't find truth in pfal --- say so.

I personally find LOTS of flaws in docvic, AND pfal ---

but, DON'T tell me ANY MAN'S teaching is flawed ~~~~~~~~

JUST BECAUSE OF HIS CHARACTER!

(Cause if you do -- you need to go back to your childhood,

and toss out every thing you have ever learned,

and start on your own, with NO outside references.)

You're usually an astute person ,Tom.

Examine the evidence.

Everyone else, can do the same. :)

Edited March 25, 2006 by dmiller

[templelady]

If you don't like docvic ---------say so.

If you don't like pfal ------------ say so.

If you don't find truth in pfal --- say so.

I personally find LOTS of flaws in docvic, AND pfal ---

but (byGod), DON'T tell me ANY MAN'S teaching is flawed ~~~~~~~~

JUST BECAUSE OF HIS CHARACTER!

(GRAPES)

I had to!! I just had too!!

But then I agree with those grapes cause Grapes is my favorite :)

Edited March 25, 2006 by templelady

[Tom]

Now, class, in this session on pooower for abundant living, I want you to take your biybles, and I want you to turn to Proverbs chapter 26, verses 7-9 [barf bags are not included in the price of the class, your on your own - at least Galen might find this interesting].

In these classes, we are not afraid to tackle the really tough questions.

The one great requirement of every Biblical student is to rightly divide the Word of Truth. The Bible, the Word of God in its originally-revealed form, is the Word of Truth. But when it is wrongly divided, the true Word does not exist. We have the Word of Truth only to the extent that the Word of God is rightly divided. THe question is not whether we are dividing the Truth. The question is are we rightly dividing it.

Proverbs 26:7  The legs of the lame are not equal: so is a parable in the mouth of fools.

8  As he that bindeth a stone in a sling, so is he that giveth honour to a fool.

9  As a thorn goeth up into the hand of a drunkard, so is a parable in the mouth of fools.

Proverbs 26:9 says "As a thorn goeth up into the hand of a drunkard, so is a parable in the mouth of fools." Please note with an alacrity of mind that the fool is still speaking a parable of the Word of Truth, but it is no longer the True Word because he has not rightly divided it because he is a fool.

The Word of God is the true Word only when it is rightly divided. When it is wrongly divided, we have error at the particular place where it is wrongly divided.

This Word of God is the greatest thing in the whole world and rightly divided it gives us the true Word; it gives efficacy, power, exuberance and the more abundant life which Jesus Christ made available. Wrongly divided, it is like a thorn going up into the hand of a drunkard.

In this class on power for abundant living I teach you both HOW with a capital H, a capital O, and a capital W, to have power because sometimes I got it right, AND, with a capital A, a capital N, and a capital D, how to be a drunkard, spiritually and in every other way because sometimes I'm a real fool.

When you eat this Word in this class that is rightly divided, you will have power.

When you eat this other bull dinky in this class, you will become drunk and have a thorn go up into your hand, and you won't even know it until you wake up with a nasty hangover and a thorn in your hand - if you ever wake up.

In both cases, you will have the Word of Truth - big f'n woopdidoo - but only when I'm (and you're) not a fool will you have the true Word - and power.

It's not whether you have the Word of Truth that matters (if it is no longer the truth because it has been morphed into error), it's whether you have the true Word.

And don't forget verse 8 As he that bindeth a stone in a sling, so is he that giveth honour to a fool.

Tom

Edited March 25, 2006 by Thomas Heller

[rascal]

Brilliant Thomas Heller!!! LMAO

[skyrider]

.....

(paraphrased)

Tom has said toss out the bad, keep the good (paraphrased),

WD has said that truth is truth, reguardless of who says it.

Others have castigated WD for *defending* pfal.

WD has said he *deep-six's* some teachings in file 13, and keeps others.

WD has NOT said that pfal is 100% correct.

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.

David.....your analogy communicates to me. Thanks. :)

Like so many other discussions here on GS.....too much ambiguity leads to miscommunication. So often, many of us are in agreement on certain points.

But yes........pfal had some good, some bad.

....and some really UGLY distorted concepts that were very distructive. But one has to travel down those roads for many years to see how FAR they've veered from God's heart, His truth. "Good versus bad" hardly qualify to describe the journey that each one of us have taken since signing the green card.

<_<

[CoolWaters]

My problem with pfal is that the focus was turned from 'the Word' to 'the rightly divided word', and from Jesus to 'the teacher'.

Why do I have a problem with these things?

1. The bible clearly and repeatedly states that Jesus is the Word.
   PFAL leads one away from the Word and into worshiping the bible itself as a false idol.
   
2. The bible clearly and repeatedly states that Jesus is the Teacher.
   PFAL leads one away from Jesus and into following a false teacher.
   

I fully believe that the moral character of the teacher of pfal is the root of this leading away unto a false idol and a false teacher.

Did vpw mean to do that? I dunno. I do know that, having his moral character, he could not have led people to anything else...could not possibly have led people to the Word and the Teacher...because that was not in his moral makeup...as is evidenced by his fruit.

Does anybody's moral character make the truth a lie?

I can only answer that with what the bible says:

Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen. Romans 1:25 (KJV)

[Linda Z]

Dave said:

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.

Those are my sentiments exactly.

I learned American History from a male high school teacher who, as we found out later, had a proclivity for boffing his teenage (female) students. I learned English from a woman who turned out to be a drunk. Heck, I was led into SIT (pre-twi) by a guy who turned out to be a stinker and who later denounced any belief in God whatsoever.

I still enjoy American history. Some of what that teacher taught us, I'm quite sure, was accurate; some was not. It's been up to his students to figure that out as we've continued growing and learning in life.

I still use English--it became the basis for my career, in fact. I didn't toss out the points of grammar Mrs. Vodka taught us because of her romance with the bottle. What she taught has served me very well.

And I still SIT. Not because the guy who introduced me to it was so great, but because it struck a chord in my heart that rang more true than anything I'd ever experienced, in terms of my desire to have a real and personal connection with God.

I see PFAL the same way as I see anything else I've been taught. It's up to each of us to decide what to keep and what to toss as we grow and learn in life. If some want to toss the whole thing, that's their business. If some want to keep the whole thing, that's their business, too. I disagree with both those extremes.

[Linda Z]

Tom S. said to Dave:

See... your music is good or bad but the way it's played cannot subtly change peoples opinions on totally different unrelated topics.

I get Socksie’s and your points, Tom—basically that VP had an agenda that went beyond the apparent purpose of PFAL. But I think all teachers (of any subject) influence the subject matter to some degree by who they are. Their opinions (and yes, many times their agendas) get mixed in with the subject at hand. It's up to the students to use their powers of perception to figure out what to accept and what to reject.

Granted, many students of PFAL were young kids who were wowed by the whole thing and bought the whole package. But most of the posters in this thread are no longer in that category. We have grown up and, hopefully, our powers of perception have become sharper. So now, as adults, we should be capable of deciding for ourselves what we believe. To say we believe everything in PFAL because it was all God inspired (sorry, Mike) is, to me, foolish. But to say we believe nothing that was in PFAL because VPW was a scoundrel is, to me, equally foolish. That's just my opinion. Everyone else is welcome to theirs, of course.

[CoolWaters]

Linda,

I understand what you are saying.

If I found out my children's pediatrician was a pedophile, would I quit taking my children to him/her? Absolutely! But I'd find another pediatrician.

If I found out that my American Government teacher was a dyed-in-wool Nazi (which actually happened, btw), would I dump everything she taught me? Maybe not, but I did question everything she taught me and had to unlearn many things...stuff like the holocaust never happened. But I still went on to study American Government.

I'm not advocating anyone to dump what they learned in pfal, but to dump the mindset learned in pfal.

I've learned that handling holy scripture requires one to live according to holy scripture to the best of their understanding. I've learned that the reason for this requirement is so that one does not become a wolf in sheep's clothing that ends up devouring the flock instead of tending the flock.

[justloafing]

I do too understand what Linda Z is saying. Each of us take away from whatever we are taught and try our best to figure out what is right or wrong and time helps us sort those things out.

I understand that a lot of people are not what they may appear to be. I guess my biggest problem is people that we trusted with our lives. I never had to trust a teacher with my life. Yep I did have to trust my parents with my life and I am on the lucky side of that(they were good to me). vp,cm and rr were supposed to bring us to God and teach us from the bible how to live the more abundant life. Atleast I trusted them with my life. It really was a scam. The truths I hold on to have weighed out in time that they taught and some of the false things they taught I have found out too. Problem is I do not know about the rest of what they taught to be true or not.

Some may say go to the scriptures and research them. I don't know if the way they taught us to research is right?

Bottom line is I did trust them with my life and then to see what my life meant to them(nothing but greed and to bring in more people for them).

I do think that our Father loves us a whole lot more. He wants people brought to him so he can love us and us Him, not steal,kill and destroy.

[Goey]

An English teacher is not likely to change the rules of grammar in order to boff a student. Likewise a history teacher, or a math teacher. Changing or modifying the rules of grammar, compositional theory, or mathematical theorems would not motivate or lure the naive into back of a motorcoach.

However in the case of the Bible teacher where the bible is looked too for moral standards, and taught as the WORD AND WILL WIILL OF GOD, and the teacher is looked up to by those he teaches as THE MAN OF GOD and as representing GOD'S WILL, the case is much much different. A not so honorable bible teacher by changing/perverting the truth of GOD's WORD could indeed lure the naive into the back of a motor coach.

Apples and oranges.

Edited March 25, 2006 by Goey

[Linda Z]

Okay, this is what I've been chewing on since last night.

One thing from PFAL I no longer believe is that I should be so obsessed with the "accuracy of the Word" that was driven home so hard in that class. Why? Not because I don't think God's Word is inherently accurate (I do think it is!), but because I believe we all "see through a glass darkly," if I may borrow that truth to make my point. I don't think any of us (and that includes both the PFAL proponents and the PFAL detractors, EW Bullinger, VP Wierwille, BG Leonard, and the most popular preachers on television today) are as smart about God and God's Word as we think we are.

I'm going to go out on a limb here and risk getting some people from both sides of the "PFAL is accurate" vs. "PFAL has errors" arguments mad at me. I think it's quite possible that you can trot out all the "proof" from Greek words and Hebrew phrases and the like that you want, but I don't think that approach enables us, as imperfect humans, even with holy spirit within, to absolutely prove/disprove what we believe about the Bible. We can convince ourselves and each other that way, but by study alone, we don't prove anything. We confirm what's true from the Bible by acting on the knowledge we do have in a loving way, not by picking it apart under our not-so-perfectly focused microscopes. I don't "prove" gravity by reciting everything Isaac Newton said about it; I "prove" it by not floating into space when I walk around on this earth or by dropping a can of Pepsi on my foot.

I'm not saying studying the Bible is bad. Not at all. I'm just saying it's more limited (and limiting) as a means of arriving at truth than some of us are willing to acknowledge. Limited by our humanity and our inability to always listen to God's still, small voice. Limited by the changes in culture and language that have occurred since the Bible was written. Limited by preconceived notions that we might not even be aware that we have.

I find it ironic that the quest to prove or disprove what's in PFAL, which seems to be at the root of both sides of the PFAL argument sprang, for most of us, right out of Session 1 of PFAL. Maybe you all are different, but I had never, in my 26 years of life before PFAL, heard anyone harp so much on the accuracy of the Word, as if it's something we can attain in this life. I doubt we can.

For sure, there are certain truths in the Bible that ring true in my heart of hearts: Jesus is Lord. We can and should trusst in God. God is love. Love overcomes--a LOT. And of course there's lots more. But no one has proven to me, for example, whether Mary Magdalene slept with Jesus or whether there were four or two crucified with Christ. And you know what? I don't care. I do care that Jesus is Lord, that God is love, etc. I didn't learn any of those things from study alone, but from a combination of study and living.

One thing that contributed to my leaving twi was the growing overemphasis on study coupled with the growing underemphasis on applying what we were learning by walking in love and genuinely looking to God to guide us. Collectively, twi became one big puffed-up Bible-headed beast. In short, twi (the organization and its "leaders") broke all its own rules. For example, the flowers did have to be on the altar just so. Wearing a three-piece suit to a Sunday night service became more important than showing up with a heart to love and serve God and each other. I realized twi was just another church, like the ones twi criticized, and that I didn't want to "go to that church" anymore.

Love does edify. and knowledge does puff up. Does that mean we shouldn't seek knowledge. I don't think so, but I do think it means that having/imparting knowledge, without love, is worth squat. I'm not saying or implying that anyone here is puffed up and unloving. I'm just saying it's something we all need to beware of.

So to address the original post in this thread. If you want to provide PFAL for people, I think that's fine, so long as you present it as a class on the Bible and not the class on the Bible, and so long as you and your home fellowship are willing to study other sources, as well.

[Galen]

Okay, this is what I've been chewing on since last night.

One thing from PFAL I no longer believe is that I should be so obsessed with the "accuracy of the Word" that was driven home so hard in that class. Why? Not because I don't think God's Word is inherently accurate (I do think it is!), but because I believe we all "see through a glass darkly," if I may borrow that truth to make my point. I don't think any of us (and that includes both the PFAL proponents and the PFAL detractors, EW Bullinger, VP Wierwille, BG Leonard, and the most popular preachers on television today) are as smart about God and God's Word as we think we are.

I'm going to go out on a limb here and risk getting some people from both sides of the "PFAL is accurate" vs. "PFAL has errors" arguments mad at me. I think it's quite possible that you can trot out all the "proof" from Greek words and Hebrew phrases and the like that you want, but I don't think that approach enables us, as imperfect humans, even with holy spirit within, to absolutely prove/disprove what we believe about the Bible. We can convince ourselves and each other that way, but by study alone, we don't prove anything. We confirm what's true from the Bible by acting on the knowledge we do have in a loving way, not by picking it apart under our not-so-perfectly focused microscopes. I don't "prove" gravity by reciting everything Isaac Newton said about it; I "prove" it by not floating into space when I walk around on this earth or by dropping a can of Pepsi on my foot.

I'm not saying studying the Bible is bad. Not at all. I'm just saying it's more limited (and limiting) as a means of arriving at truth than some of us are willing to acknowledge. Limited by our humanity and our inability to always listen to God's still, small voice. Limited by the changes in culture and language that have occurred since the Bible was written. Limited by preconceived notions that we might not even be aware that we have.

I find it ironic that the quest to prove or disprove what's in PFAL, which seems to be at the root of both sides of the PFAL argument sprang, for most of us, right out of Session 1 of PFAL. Maybe you all are different, but I had never, in my 26 years of life before PFAL, heard anyone harp so much on the accuracy of the Word, as if it's something we can attain in this life. I doubt we can.

For sure, there are certain truths in the Bible that ring true in my heart of hearts: Jesus is Lord. We can and should trusst in God. God is love. Love overcomes--a LOT. And of course there's lots more. But no one has proven to me, for example, whether Mary Magdalene slept with Jesus or whether there were four or two crucified with Christ. And you know what? I don't care. I do care that Jesus is Lord, that God is love, etc. I didn't learn any of those things from study alone, but from a combination of study and living.

One thing that contributed to my leaving twi was the growing overemphasis on study coupled with the growing underemphasis on applying what we were learning by walking in love and genuinely looking to God to guide us. Collectively, twi became one big puffed-up Bible-headed beast. In short, twi (the organization and its "leaders") broke all its own rules. For example, the flowers did have to be on the altar just so. Wearing a three-piece suit to a Sunday night service became more important than showing up with a heart to love and serve God and each other. I realized twi was just another church, like the ones twi criticized, and that I didn't want to "go to that church" anymore.

Love does edify. and knowledge does puff up. Does that mean we shouldn't seek knowledge. I don't think so, but I do think it means that having/imparting knowledge, without love, is worth squat. I'm not saying or implying that anyone here is puffed up and unloving. I'm just saying it's something we all need to beware of.

So to address the original post in this thread. If you want to provide PFAL for people, I think that's fine, so long as you present it as a class on the Bible and not the class on the Bible, and so long as you and your home fellowship are willing to study other sources, as well.

I agree. [though it has been said before]

:)

[Linda Z]

Goey said:

An English teacher is not likely to change the rules of grammar in order to boff a student. Likewise a history teacher, or a math teacher. Changing or modifying the rules of grammar, compositional theory, or mathematical theorems would not motivate or lure the naive into back of a motorcoach.

No, but lots of things were said and done by those teachers that had nothing to do with history or grammar. Their "agendas," so to speak, were part of them and therefore part of their interaction with the kids, and that came through subtly in their classes. For example, the girl-molesting teacher was extremely flirtatious with the girls in the class. You don't think that set up some of the more vulnerable ones for getting boffed by a young, fairly attractive male teacher? And the English teacher once allowed one of my classmates, in the public speaking class she also taught, to open a can of beer and drink it in an exercise where the student was supposed to speak on "how to do something." Teachers have influence over students no matter what they teach, and when they have an agenda, it comes through. So no, I don't think it's apples and oranges at all. Their bad behavior didn't wipe out what they taught that was accurate.

Any teacher, preacher, doctor, or other person of influence and authority, has a responsibility NOT to use his/her influence and authority to take advantage of those in his/her care. The sins of VPW rest on his head and I'm sure he'll answer for them. Don't think for one second I'm defending his behavior. But frankly, I heard nothing in PFAL that would make me want to--or worse yet, feel like I had to--get into bed with the man. Now, did he say other things at other times, particularly to Way Corps women, that furthered his agenda. Yep, I'd agree. But in PFAL? I don't see it.

Edited March 25, 2006 by Linda Z

[Oakspear]

Oakspear:

The man's character makes it foolish for anyone to take what he taught at face value.

White Dove:

Here is where we differ I just don't think that has anything to do with it. Biblical truth stands on it's own regardless of moral character ,obviously it makes it easier to accept with good moral character. I'll give him the benefit of the doubt until otherwise proven. Truth is truth be it a priest or a thief who say's it.

Perhaps I didn't explain myself clearly enough, or perhaps the context got by you:

Oakspear:

IMHO Wierwille had many moral failings and abused his position as a minister. He was a liar, a bully and a braggart. While none of this invalidates any truth that may be mixed in with the error, it does eliminate any benefit of the doubt anything he said or taught can be realistically given. And in order to accept PFAL as is, one has to accept much of what Wierwille says without documentation, simply because he says so. The man's character makes it foolish for anyone to take what he taught at face value.

I am not saying disagreeing with this:

White Dove:

Biblical truth stands on it's own regardless of moral character

Of course it does.

What I'm saying is that I think it is foolish to accept that something is truth just because Wierwille said it was truth. IMHO it takes more than just looking up a bible verse to see if it reads the same as Wierwille quoted it to check it out for ones self. It goes back to whether or not you accept his premises, his definitions, his view of the world and the bible.

For example, in the Doctrinal forum a relatively new poster started a thread about "love" in I Corinthians 13. Several others of us are challenging Wierwille's definition of agapē: "the love of God in the renewed mind in manifestation". maybe we'll find out it's accurate, maybe not, but the originator of that thread is unwilling to consider that the definition is wrong.

While Wierwille's moral character does not invalidate the truth, if any, in his teachings, what it does do is undermine his credibility. One of his alleged moral failings is lying. It has been documented (at least to my satisfaction) that he lied about any number of things, enough that I should probably doubt whether "VP" actually stood for "Victor Paul" So, anything that he said without documentation is therefore suspect. For example, he claimed that there was "an old document" that stated that illegitimate sons were bar-mitzvahed at 12 - throw it out, no documentation.

So, I'm not saying that accepting what is taught in PFAL is foolish, what I am saying is that accepting it without corroberation is foolish.

[WhiteDove]

White Dove:

Here is where we differ I just don't think that has anything to do with it. Biblical truth stands on it's own regardless of moral character ,obviously it makes it easier to accept with good moral character. I'll give him the benefit of the doubt until otherwise proven. Truth is truth be it a priest or a thief who say's it.Perhaps I didn't explain myself clearly enough, or perhaps the context got by you:

I am not saying disagreeing with this: Of course it does.

What I'm saying is that I think it is foolish to accept that something is truth just because Wierwille said it was truth. IMHO it takes more than just looking up a bible verse to see if it reads the same as Wierwille quoted it to check it out for ones self. It goes back to whether or not you accept his premises, his definitions, his view of the world and the bible.

For example, in the Doctrinal forum a relatively new poster started a thread about "love" in I Corinthians 13. Several others of us are challenging Wierwille's definition of agapē: "the love of God in the renewed mind in manifestation". maybe we'll find out it's accurate, maybe not, but the originator of that thread is unwilling to consider that the definition is wrong.

While Wierwille's moral character does not invalidate the truth, if any, in his teachings, what it does do is undermine his credibility. One of his alleged moral failings is lying. It has been documented (at least to my satisfaction) that he lied about any number of things, enough that I should probably doubt whether "VP" actually stood for "Victor Paul" So, anything that he said without documentation is therefore suspect. For example, he claimed that there was "an old document" that stated that illegitimate sons were bar-mitzvahed at 12 - throw it out, no documentation.

So, I'm not saying that accepting what is taught in PFAL is foolish, what I am saying is that accepting it without corroberation is foolish.

Thanks Oak I did miss your point and we are in agreement .

[templelady]

"Satan's greatest trick isn't convincing us the counterfeit is real, it's convincing us he real is counterfeit"

Learned that in TWI it has stood me in good stead over the years

Have just started reading ( as in the last 2 hours) the book "Misquoting Jesus The Story Behind Who changed the Bible and Why" by Bart D Ehrman --Chairman of the Department of Religious Studies at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill

I will share any tidbits I find that pertain to this or other discussions. So far It's a good read, clear and understandable to us lay folk without being condescending

[socks]

Thanks Mr. Heller. :)

Tom, I think we're saying the same thing, maybe or pret' near?

Linda Z, I agree too, that a teacher has an agenda, always. Bottom line, communicate information and develop understanding. Perhaps even to encourage further development.

[Jbarrax]

Whew. You spend a few days away from one of these PFAL threads and you have to read four pages to catch up.

There have been several great posts here. We were all indoctrinated in WD's mantra about truth being truth no matter who says it. That is, imo, a very carnal and shallow, almost cynical approach to Christian ministry. That means, I can steal from you, rape your children, and drive people to madness, but there's nothing wrong with me standing in a pulpit and claiming to be a Man of God. Sorry, the Bible itself disputes that.

By the way, WD posted that Jesus said the Pharisees may have missed a few things. That has to be the understatement of the century. He didn't say they had missed a few things. He called them children of the Devil! Furthermore, he accused them of making their converts even more wicked than they were. Look it up.

So the "truth is truth" mindset is clearly at odds with the teaching of Our Lord Jesus Christ. Anyone who wants to maintain that thinking and throw out what Jesus taught to keep what VP taught is a good exapmple of what's really wrong with PFAL. Which Tom's post illustrated beautifully.

Thom's post about the difference between the Word of Truth and the Rightly Divided Word is a fabulous (inspired?) statement on why the class is dangerous. And the most powerful aspect of the post is that he used something VP taught to contradict the mindset of VP's supporters.

Linda, I generally find you to be levelheaded, pragmatic and wise. But I must agree that the example of your high school teachers being compared with a minister is an apples to oranges mismatch. 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 this is the crucial difference between Bible teachers and every other kind of teacher. This is the biggest, most heinous, error in PFAL. Weirwille's dogged comparisons of the Bible to math and science lead us to think of the Bible, and GOD as elements in a test tube that we could approadh with an empirical, "scientific" and yes, carnal mindset. "1=1+2" has no friggin brearing on " God is love". The Bible is NOT mathematically exact and scientifically precise and it's not SUPPOSED to be. It's full of contradictions, parallel truths, paradoxes and mysteries. Those who approach the Bible as a field manual for leading a healthy, wealthy, happy life are completely missing the point. And that's what PFAL does to is adherents. It tempts us to completely miss the point of being a Christian. It's not about who's right and how much truth we have, it's about making sacrifices to follow the will of God and obey our Lord Jesus Christ, and about living with a humility and self sacrificial love that enables us to "esteem others better than ourselves."

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.

Belle stated that I started the PFAL Review as a proponent of the class. For the record, that's not exactly the case. I started my online discussions with people as a Weirwillite and staunch supporter of PFAL, and in trying to quote the class to prove others wrong, I started finding inconsistencies in the class. Hebrews chapter 12 vs. VP's "faith of Jesus Christ" teaching was what started the ball rolling. When I found that error, some WC who were impressed with my desire to study and learn the Bible to the best of my ability, had just given me a copy of the class on VHS, so I decided to take a closer look. I was shocked and apalled at the amount of clear documentable error in it. So that's when I started the PFAL Review thread. I started by seeing that VP's facts didn't line up with the Scripture. Eventually, I figured out that the Scripture's not about facts after all.

Peace

JerryB

Edited March 26, 2006 by Jbarrax

[Raf]

By the way, WD posted that Jesus said the Pharisees may have missed a few things. That has to be the understatement of the century. He didn't say they had missed a few things. He called them children of the Devil! Furthermore, he accused them of making their converts even more wicked than they were. Look it up.

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. ;)

[WhiteDove]

We were all indoctrinated in WD's mantra about truth being truth no matter who says it. That is, imo, a very carnal and shallow, almost cynical approach to Christian ministry. That means, I can steal from you, rape your children, and drive people to madness, but there's nothing wrong with me standing in a pulpit and claiming to be a Man of God. Sorry, the Bible itself disputes that.

I don't believe I said that at all JB I said only Truth is Truth and morals of the speaker does not change it. I did not absolve the immoral behavior you made a large leap to that conclusion a wrong one! People can claim anything they want to, it's a free world. If it is true is another issue. NOT one in the same!

That said things that are true do not somehow become untrue based on who says them .That is ludicrous!! Do you really want us to believe that you accept the idea that a truth has the ability to discern what type of person is speaking and then changes accordingly to that .. Pleeeeze.......

I'll say it again 1+1=2 that's truth if a priest or Charlie Manson says it -it is still true. This is not a hard concept to grasp.