Leaderboard

Back there in the back back, the question about 'all men being liars' and if Jesus Christ was a man did He lie.... It is an excellent question! and one that allows vigorous discussion, discussion that ultimately leads to a greater appreciation for who and what Jesus Christ was and is. To me the answer is simple, if it's true that Jesus didn't lie it's true because he decided not to lie but decided to tell the truth. One could probably say it would be against his "nature", abnormal. (Example - I love my wife. I have never once in the 50 years I've known here said anything to anyone else about her that is critical or negative, and I have literally never whined over a beer with a buddy about how lousy she treats me. Why? First, she doesn't treat me lousy, second I don't have lingering negative feelings about her and lastly I would never go to someone else and tell them something we hadn't already worked out, because - I just wouldn't do that and have never had to do that. It's against the nature of our relationship and how I think about her. So it's a choice but it's not a difficult one to make. I just don't do it. Other things, not so much, so I'm not perfect in this regard by even the slightest bit but in regards to this I don't think of it as perfection I think of it as natural. I see Jesus, the Son of God, as having God's intentions and thoughts, His "will", foremost in his natural inclinations.) So - for a baseline, let's consider two verses we've all probably heard in relation to this and if not here 'tis: Numbers 23:19 - God is not a man that he should lie, neither the son of man that he should repent: hath he said and shall he not do it? or hath he spoken and shall he not make it good? And Psalm 116:11 - I said in my terror all men are liars. And to expand the topic a little Matthew 5: 33-37 - Again you have heard that it was said to those of old, ‘You shall not swear falsely, but shall perform to the Lord what you have sworn.’ 4 But I say to you, Do not take an oath at all, either by heaven, for it is the throne of God, or by the earth, for it is his footstool, or by Jerusalem, for it is the city of the great King. And do not take an oath by your head, for you cannot make one hair white or black. Let what you say be simply ‘Yes’ or ‘No’; anything more than this comes from evil. So - if Jesus was a man, part of humanity and with the faculties and capacities of humanity he clearly had the human faculty to, if not the capacity, to "Lie" and I would extend that to mean something different than telling someone their horrible haircut looked fine, or that Martha's lentil soup tasted good when it didn't. If Jesus dealt with his family and friends in the order of life and it's affairs to any degree I could probably assume that while he didn't get too wrapped up in things outside of his scope and interest he probably developed social skills to maintain a gracious presence in all his relationships. That's a guess, but it's arguable. On matters relating to God and our relationship with God Jesus was more specific - as in making oaths - don't use the values of things outside your range of authority like "by God I'll be there no matter what", or "as heaven and earth stand today, I will pay you back tomorrow" or such things. Just say what you mean and then do it, don't promise, as any number of things can, might and will change whatever it is you're swearing to do or be. Yes/No, and go with that. To me the answer is simple, if it's true that Jesus didn't lie it's true because he chose not to. A good example is the series of questions asked him in the desert after his fasting, in Matthew 4. We begin to see in the life of Jesus a different frame of reference than whether he would lie or not. We can examine this scenario in light of his humanity since the questions address things that he could choose how to respond and he didn't actually answer them all directly - And when the tempter came to him, he said, If thou be the Son of God, command that these stones be made bread. But he answered and said, It is written, Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God. He didn't answer no I can't or yes I can to provide proof of who He was, rather he answered by saying it was not most important. In fact for all three "temptations" he didn't argue whether he was able to do them, rather he placed them in a different or correct context. Imagine if he had said well, I could get angels to help me sure, but that wouldn't be profitable, as angels have better things to do. No, they do, you know that, I'm not going to waste God's time or theirs or - no, I'm sure they would if I asked but...." etc. etc. etc. Another place it says the people were amazed when he spoke to them with "authority" rather than like the teachers they were used to hearing. Like the time the man asked him to settle an inheritance squabble and Jesus told he wasn't a judge over him in those matters....who wouldn't want Jesus settling whether or not you get the vacation home or the dog house, in the will? He stayed out of it - "not my job, sorry". Anyhoo - did Jesus lie? No. Why? Because he chose not to. How did he accomplish that is another question really, but given that he was the Son of God, sent forth as the Living Logos and fathered by the Creator whatever genetics produced him were above average it would seem. It's not a case for having an "Uber Jesus-Man" like Martindale created to get Jesus down to his level, rather Jesus was literally "the son of God". And the bloodline of Adam is a non issue in this question IMO, as all men were under the "curse" at that time, and while you had a "believers line", it didn't endow any of those people with the ability to not be in sin and subject to the fruit of sin, death. All mankind was then born of a "human nature" that would ultimately die if not reborn as we see later, through Christ. David states this in - Psalm 51:5 - Surely I was sinful at birth, sinful from the time my mother conceived me... Romans 5:12 - Therefore, just as sin came into the world through one man, and death through sin, and so death spread to all men because all sinned... Romans 3:23 - for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God... And of course 1 Cor. 15:45 - "The first man Adam became a living being"; the last Adam, a life-giving spirit. Peace, beautiful people!

So, wierwille after NINE years.........needed a new strategy: A PLOY. ploy — keep a group of people stuck in a bad situation as long as possible in order to use them as pawns in a larger game of abusive power. exploit them -- use their youth, connections, talent as long as possible.......(and guitar singers got a direct-pass to the "green room" -- cha-ching) notice -- wierwille never had a long-range plan on anything. Whatever was "hot" at the moment was put to use. promoted corps graduate with "associates degree"........yet, it had to slip thru the backdoor via Rome City, Indiana Campus wanted sunset corps to "invest in own cabin" at camp Gunnison......and, upon death, twi-owned: NOT ONE PERSON FELL FOR IT. The corps program was the biggest ploy of all.........because it amplified wierwille's sphere to rule with unaccountability. A ploy NEEDS time to germinate........with the proper climate and conditions. Behind closed doors in isolated campuses........indoctrination ensued at an escalated pace. Anyone who quit was immediately labeled and ostracized from spiritual credibility or standing. Under the auspices of "spiritual training" and "spiritual maturity".......dissent was kept at bay. Those MOST obedient were promoted......and the self-referencing echo chamber got louder. Deep within an isolated campus, a private motor coach, guarded by a sycophant......sexual predation abounded. Bad situations got even worse........sexual abuse, psychological turmoil, abortion, excommunication, etc. Loss (extreme marginalizing) of family, opportunity, time, finances, support networks, educational pursuits............

A really great post, Rocky !!!! That Yale link is fascinating!!!! Awhile back I revisited an old thread I started called TWI’s Sedative to the Conscience - there was a poster or two that argued that basically the conscience was nothing more than what we have been taught what’s right or wrong. My last comment on that thread summarized...and perhaps refocused the thread to state that in my opinion - whether you believe the conscience was something a higher power endowed us with or that it was simply a function that developed in the evolutionary process - I think it is safe to say that the conscience is something innate to our makeup - and that one insidious aspect of the mindset that TWI promoted was how it tended to sabotage a follower’s conscience. Rocky, if you have time at some point - could you repost your post & link on that thread.

It's not proof. It's argument. Btw, your argument that all people are dead inside is one paradigm. I believed it 30 - 40 years ago... because Wierwille said that's what the bible meant. I no longer believe that to be the case. I read too much to still accept that paradigm. There are MANY references online to explore that issue. Here's one that I found. I didn't prove anything, but I did present an argument to support what I said I believe... (or don't believe) The significance of this paradigm, as I see it, is that the Wierwille fundamentalist (extremist) mindset is the basis for abusing children and spouses. I regret having bought into that paradigm for far too long. Yes, regrets... I have a few. (I think there's a song about that) I can also say that I'm thankful my daughter (and son-in-law) know(s) better than I did when she was the age my grandchildren are now.

"I like learning," in this statement IS evasion. The context is discussion, debate. If you really did like to learn, learn about how to productively conduct yourself in discussions and debates. Your understood expectation is to try to get people to see your side of things. You're not getting the job done. You consistently put more energy and effort into avoiding getting the job done... at least as it pertains to what you post at GSC.

The Way is certainly NOT the end-all be-all. But it did teach me a few lessons. All religions built of man are faulty. If you were in The Way and thought it was perfect, surely at some point that image was torn from you. But all churches are like that. Is there a man-made church anywhere that has no scandals? I do think that God led me to The Way for a purpose.

Mrs. Wierwille's book, page 233....... ......"When we rented our South Washington Street home in Van Wert, we didn't know how temporary this location would be, as we were very focused on getting the ministry up and running, self-supporting, and growing. Now it was becoming very apparent to us that a larger and more permanent headquarters for The Way needed to be established. So the representatives of the Board of Directors from the various branches looked around their areas for potential headquarters sites. Some of these people were eager to have the headquarters established in the localities where they lived, such as in Troy, Ohio. Fort Myers, Florida, and Chicago, Illinois. In one case where a property was found, the board of Trustees thought the site didn't have enough acreage so they decided not to pursue the location any further. But some of the members of the Board of Directors became so upset with this decision that they left the ministry. Dr. Wierwille stated that we must have lost thirty people because they thought he was totally wrong in his decision to reject that site. And the loss of thirty followers was a major blow to us in those transitional years." ** The Troy area was where wierwille had run advanced classes.......30 (or more) committed, advanced class grads rejected the direction to put headquarters at the family farm. They didn't trust victor and harry to keep monies separate from "the business of the farm." .....page 234, "Since the November 16, 1958, meeting, believers had again worked on plans for starting The Way Biblical Seminary. One proposed location for the seminary was the Wierwille farm. The solicitation of funds to begin work on the seminary found resistance at a meeting of the Miami Valley Group. The Way branch in Troy, Ohio, said that they wanted the farm of The Way in New Knoxville to be kept separate from the spiritual arm of the ministry. They wanted to be sure that their money was going to help spread the work of the ministry and not to help pay off the mortgage at the farm or for the business of the farm. They wanted a seminary to be started, but at a location other than the Wierwille farm." ~~~~~~~~~~~ From 1958-1966.........wierwille travels around the eastern part of USA to teach this foundational class. From the context of Mrs. W's writings, many of these classes were instigated by relatives and denominational laymen who wanted to delve into the scriptures with congregants. More often than not, after this class......most were non-committal to wierwille's ministry in the least. The number of committed followers who arose from those nine years was anemic. Wierwille's personal involvement was NOT working. Think about that.........averaging 10 classes per year for 9 years = 90 classes (and many classes had 20-30 students).........and still, twi was limping along. Even though wierwille boasts about people like Dr. Higgins and Rosalund Rinker........they never stayed with twi. What to do? What to do?.............well, set up a system with less direct involvement from wierwille, right? So, why not coerce people into taking a film class.....where they're subjected to 33-hrs of persuasion.....er, teaching with no questions allowed. Add some bluster and pre-emptive strikes in these stories to keep them focused on their inabilities to believe God's promises.....while never delivering evidence of his own. So, obviously.......after 9 years of road-traveling to teach this class, it needed a new approach: Film the class.......get class on film, then find committed instructors to run class and report back Target the youth........by 1967, time to ditch the concept of reaching church ministers Find a nucleus of fire-brands to assist.......needed Donnie Fugits to reach youth Build a Seminary program.......i.e. corps training program was on the horizon .

Hello. Your phrasing is somewhat awkward-unclear- here, so I will do my best to address what I THINK are your concerns. "I'M trying to figure out the profit here...the way internationals doctrine??????" Sorry, I can't tell what you mean. Are you asking the profit in the doctrine of twi, or why discuss it, or something else? "as far as the so-called Church on the local corner..you believe them...but through many years of experience I have not seen a lot of results...if any ..." Results vary depending on the churches local to you. And they're known as churches, generally, sometimes with a different name like "assemblies", but "church" is the name in common English, and that's what they're called. I've seen local churches that didn't seem particularly useful, and ones where lives where changed for the better-and that's only counting Roman Catholic Churches I've attended. In twi, I saw lives changed-generally for the worse if they stayed in twi for a decade or more. ".I have taken information from several sources to put together a teaching....does this mean I am stealing from someone else or am I smart enough to put truths together...to form the teaching" You might want to read up on what plagiarism is, what it isn't, and why it's a big deal. Only twi'ers and some ex-twi'ers seem to soft-pedal it, and only when discussing vpw- he's the only one excused for rampant plagiarism, and anyone plagiarizing HIM has no excuse. To answer your question directly, what you do specifically and how you do it makes a big difference. I once studied something, and came to a conclusion. When I checked, Bullinger made the same point, and improved on my work. If I had gone forward and presented Bullinger's work and claimed it was mine, it would have been plagiarism. If I had taught it and cited Bullinger, I would have done the right thing- which I did, and it only took a second to mention his name out of an entire teaching. If the sources you used didn't go in the direction you went nor made any of the same direct points, then there was no need to mention them if doing a teaching-but they should have been cited if you typed it out for reading. Of course, you could have cited them anyway, and that would have harmed nobody. If you read several sources and stitched the teaching together from their collective points, then citing them is the thing to do. (I did that once with 2 different things that, together, were more than either of my sources were by themselves.) Simply put, if you use someone else's work, you cite the source. That's morally correct (you're not claiming it's your work when it isn't) and it's legally correct (plagiarism is a crime, and it becomes a felony once $1001 US is involved, but it's a crime even if $0 US is involved.) Whether or not you're smart doesn't affect whether or not it's plagiarism if you don't cite your sources (it's plagiarism no matter how smart you are or are not. ) "..guess Philip shouldn't have boarded that chariot to explain what was being read nor Nehemiah making plain the scroll .." You really should make the effort to read what plagiarism is and is not, and understand it. Philip wasn't rehashing, say, Andrew's teaching on the same thing, he was teaching from his own understanding. ".nor Jesus Christ in Mathew 4:4..." These glib references don't sound like you actually want to know where you're mistaken, Jesus actually CITED HIS SOURCES ALL THREE TIMES in Matthew 4. Each time, he made it clear he was quoting the Bible and not just speaking for himself. "also I am hesitant to accuse ...here I go again..let he who is without sin..cast the first stone." Sounds like you're EAGER to accuse us of something. You don't sound "hesitant" at all. And Jesus gave that ruling about the stone one time, about a specific incident, where a woman was caught in the act of adultery (caught in the act, but the guy wasn't dragged out, just her. Obviously this wasn't about justice...) and those trying to get Jesus in trouble wanted her killed for adultery or Jesus caught contradicting Scripture (even though there were mitigations available, a canny spin-doctor could make it sound like Jesus was being unjust.) Jesus didn't invalidate the law, and Jesus didn't claim she didn't sin (he told her to STOP sinning), This was obviously never meant as a blanket "cover" for time someone was caught sinning. Jesus forgave THE REPENTANT often, but they actually repented. vpw went to his grave asserting he never did anything God Almighty would disapprove. (God Almighty disapproves of lies, rapes, molestations, and other things vpw did.) " How long ago did V.P.Wierwille die ....a long time now... " There's a common hypocrisy among vpw apologists. In one breath, they will condemn all sorts of things people from churches had done long before vpw was born, but give vpw a pass saying that it's in the past. If I were you, I'd consider whether that's what I was doing. As for vpw's evil works, some of them are still hurting people. So, people need to be warned before they're hurt. Other people are helped in their healing when they discover what they did NOT know about vpw's evil works.

Welcome to Grease Spot, Ziarnko ! I hope you stick around awhile and participate in the discussions…here and on other threads…you may find there’s quite a variety of perspectives on any given subject, a much more intellectually stimulating ambiance… without all those subliminal restrictions pervasive in certain groups like The Way International. As far as judging by results or benefits gained - going on my own experience and comparison of the local church I grew up in (Roman Catholic Church vs The Way International) I would have to say The Way International loses miserably. Because they promised so much more than my local church !!!!!! The Way International / wierwille / PFAL class / books claimed their knowledge and understanding of the Bible would enable me to: unleash the power of God in my life, separate truth from error, develop more harmony in the home, increase prosperity, pray effectually, overcome fear and worry…I could go on for days but the truth of the matter is that for all their enticing claims…and after 12 years of my heavy involvement, the results were negligible. You also bring up part of something I remember from the PFAL class - - wierwille’s criteria for determining validity…seeing if something is genuine or counterfeit…it went something along the lines of asking what is the profit? and who gets the glory?. As Waysider and Rocky mentioned…and a typical answer you’ll find on many other threads – it was wierwille and wierwille alone who had so much to gain monetarily in the sale of plagiarized material in classes and books as well as the praise and adulation for supposedly being God’s “mouthpiece” for our day and time and hour. You can fault The Roman Catholic Church for a lot of things – but something this little old parishioner still remembers learning as a kid are the simple moral standards of the Bible – like lying and stealing being a sin. In my opinion wierwille’s plagiarism is on the order of grand larceny to the nth degree (that’s lying and stealing for profit that is way over the minimum grand larceny amount). Growing up I’ve always believed you call a spade a spade – if you see someone doing something wrong you call them on it - you don’t sugarcoat it. I never was a big fan of The Way International’s misuse of whoever is without sin cast the first stone – that thinking reminds me of the I’m rubber you’re glue whatever you say bounces off me and sticks to you defense mechanism of little kids in the playground. stick around Grease Spot awhile you may begin to see through The Way International’s hypocrisy and use of the double standard. sorry for the long welcome...have a cup of Joe on me

You're misrepresenting, or, perhaps not understanding, the full scope of Wierwille's deception. Wierwille claimed to have taken his voluminous library to the dump and, instead, used the Bible as his sole source of reference. You may find this claim in the PFAL class if you need a source. Furthermore, he claimed God spoke to him in an audible voice and promised to teach him *the word* like it hadn't been known since the first century if he would, in turn, teach it to others. Well, here's the problem. This catalog of unique knowledge that Wierwille presented had, indeed, been known before Wierwille presented it .In academic terms, what Wierwille did was nothing short of plagiarism. He took sentences, paragraphs, chapters and, in some cases, entire books that other people had written and put his own name on them in order to mislead people into thinking they originated with himself. There are threads in the archives here that present exhaustive comparisons. Feel free to ask for directions in finding them. We will gladly assist you. You also posed this thought: Perhaps I have misunderstood your implication here but it appears to me that you are using that length of time to minimize the damage Wierwille caused. Make no mistake, the damage he caused lives on long after his own demise. In fact, this line of reasoning is, in itself, a testament to that reality. Oh, and by the way, welcome to the cafe. Have a cup of coffee on the house. I promise, it's not the *stretched* variety that became the norm at PFAL classes.