T-Bone

Great post, Penworks! Let’s make that reason # 67 of why PFAL sucks: 67. wierwille / PFAL or any class isn’t the only way to interpret the Bible. A. It is the responsibility of the reader to interpret what he or she is reading

funny...so if I understand him correctly - he never said "mmmmmm you dirty rat" he said "come on out you dirty yellow-bellied rat" I've been quoting him wrong all these years

Then certain vagabond way corps, exorcists, took upon themselves to mark and avoid them which had ordered online from The Evil Spirits Catalog: Fog Years Edition, saying “we adjure you by the name of bossy-pants wierwille whom The Brow preacheth.” * * Acts 19:13 Alternate Expanded Translation That Was Literally Abused Beyond Belief (AETTWLABB)

Yeah, a few the things my wife and I learned in the way corps was to keep a stiff upper lip, going the second mile, and to walk circumspectly even when walking through a snake pit. Getting back into our careers – my wife and I would swap work-battle stories. Some of the challenges in the way corps prepared us for facing trouble in the real world – like: not giving up in the face of adversity, completing an assigned task whether I like doing it or not, and staying on top of details and taking deliberate thoughtful steps…That last point was critical working in security – save all emails – ask for verification or confirmation via email when a supervisor or client gave me a verbal “change order”…inspired by the way corps motto “it is written” Our silent mantra whenever we were under fire at work was “I’m corps dammit” now we're both retired...so we just have battles at home so we kinda cancel each other out "I'm corps dammit" versus "big deal, so am I" funny story my wife overhead a corps couple having a fight - the wife said to hubby "you're so perfect you're the antichrist" true story - I swear on my corps notes!

Say…you’ve got something there…I thought of another slogan for their insurance company It’s like going broke – only better Someday the windows of heaven will rain on your parade if it hasn’t already ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ Also, mentioning protection money in your post - I’m reminded of the protection racket run by gangsters Harry broke into a sweat as his Twig coordinator - Gimme DaLute - pointed a loaded cornucopia at him while going through Harry’s wallet

After killing time at the lake, little Teddy was wondering where to bury the body

Yeah – reminds me of the “group” lockbox that some way corps are familiar with…as each victim comes forth another padlock is removed

Waysider’s post on another thread - here - very much relates to this thread as well - I thought I’d repost it here: Waysider Friday October 28th, 2022, approximately 7 AM: At the most fundamental level, Wierwille sought to establish a loyal base of followers who would willingly supply financial support with consistent frequency. It was no mistake that "Christians Should Be Prosperous" was one of the first reading requirements. The foundational class on Power For Abundant Living (PFAL) was only the bait that lured people into the organization, with promises of newly found freedom and deliverance. The Intermediate and Advanced Classes, along with other classes, such as Dealing With The Adversary and Renewed Mind, were what set the hook and reeled us in. There was always an unofficial, undercurrent of teaching that flowed freely through the organization. Looking back, I believe it may have been done this way to distance the official organization from culpability. One of the concepts that seemed to gain a foothold quickly was the idea that, once you had heard "the truth", the devil would put a target on your back to keep you from spreading "the word". Bad things could happen to you if you ever left the hedge of protection that fellowshipping with likeminded believers provided. You could never go back to your old way of life. There were plenty of anecdotes being spread to fortify this thinking. One such example came straight from VPW when he brutally chastised the Way Corp, and one individual in particular, for the death of a Way Corp member who died in a car crash when he disobeyed the Man of God and left the HQ grounds, in violation of a directive not to do so. Supposedly, the believer's death was the result of defying revelation and walking out of fellowship... Well, you have to be En Garde! at all times, now, don't you? In the course of only a few short weeks or months, a new believer went from a feeling of exhilaration and liberation to a feeling of paranoia, always having to mentally sneak a peek over the shoulder to make sure the devil was still at bay. You could never contemplate leaving. You were trapped. When the subsequent classes failed to provide answers of how to deal with this, a feeling of hopelessness eventually replaced the original excitement. Being a promoter of PFAL is like being a drug dealer who gifts someone their first hit of heroin. The user goes from a euphoric rush to abject desolation. Staying addicted in hope of avoiding the inevitable is a painful act of futility. Edited 3 hours ago by waysider = = == =

The following is a summary of some stuff about death that I read in The International Standard Bible Encyclopedia - Kindle Edition - location 45009ff – sorry no page numbers this is Kindle version …anyway, here’s some stuff I thought was noteworthy. Because death did not immediately befall Adam and Eve on the day of transgression, but took hundreds of years later the expression “for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die” (as it so reads in Gen. 2:17 KJV ) must be conceived in a wider sense, or the delay of death must be attributed to the entering-in of mercy Gen. 3:15 . However, the Bible Encyclopedia states Gen. 2:17 may be showing a close connection of violating God’s commandment and the resultant consequences thereby attaching to death a religious and ethical significance and makes the lives of humankind dependent on obedience to God. The religious-ethical nature of life and death is not only decidedly and clearly expressed in the early chapters of Genesis, but we find it is the fundamental thought in the entire Bible and forms an essential element in many of the declarations of salvation. The Encyclopedia goes on to say some theologians past and present have denied the spiritual significance of death and have separated the connection of between ethical and physical life, usually base their opinions on passages that show death as a punishment for sin Rom. 5:12 Romans 6:23 I Cor. 15:21 …this opinion has some merit though – since we are made aware of the consequences of the weaknesses and frailty of human nature Job 14:1 Eccl. 3:20 …For the most part death is portrayed as something natural. What is the meaning of death? The Encyclopedia states that we are influenced by the Greek Platonic idea, that the body dies, yet the soul is immortal – but such an idea is utterly foreign to the ancient Hebrew concept of death – and is not found in the OT. The whole person dies, when in death the spirit Eccl. 12:7 or soul I Ki. 17:21 goes out of them. Death is not understood to be annihilation – as in complete extermination…utter destruction…obliterated, but rather deriving one of all that makes for life on earth. To the Israelites death meant separation from all that they loved – separation from God, and from His service, His law, His people, His land. The physical contrast between life and death gradually makes way for the moral and spiritual difference between life spent in the fear of the Lord, and a life in the service of sin.

I recently posted on another thread - here - and got into one theory on what the forbidden fruit was – I’ve reposted part of it here since it does relate to an aspect of the fall: PFAL endorses a rigid mindset of fundamentalism – and may give one a sense of pride and autonomy in “mastering” a book rather than submitting to a higher power. I’ve been reading a commentary of Genesis and on pages 163ff of The New International Commentary on the Old Testament Series – Genesis chapters 1-17 it mentions several theories that scholars have proposed as to what the tree of the knowledge of good and evil was. One suggestion was that it was sexual – to support this theory some scholars point out the couple’s first reaction after eating the forbidden fruit was that they knew they were naked ( Gen. 3:7 ) but the NICOT notes that we would have to apply sexuality to God for Gen. 3:22 states And the LORD God said, “The man has now become like one of us, knowing good and evil. in NICOT…the theory that “the knowledge of good and evil” indicates moral autonomy. The commentary says this view appeals to many OT passages where “good and evil” is essentially a legal idiom meaning to formulate and articulate a judicial decision. So, what it’s basically saying: What was forbidden to humankind is the power to decide for us what is in our best interest and what is not. Interpreting this Genesis account as an allegory seems to address the human condition more directly .

what an insightful post, Waysider!

Thanks for posting this, Nathan! I’m going to listen to the rest of it later today. I put his The Canon of the New Testament: Its Origin, Development, and Significance Kindle version on my wishlist . Also just wanted to mention I really appreciate you and FredGrant sharing stuff from Dr Michael Heiser on demons and exegetical fallacies. One of the many things I love about Grease Spot is the variety of sources and viewpoints that are brought to the table…I’m reading Heiser’s book on demons and I’m going to check out a few of his other books after that. I like his approach.

To clarify - I said it that way - from the standpoint of not knowing at the time the inner workings of TWI . But I can’t imagine leadership out in the field making a decision like that independent of wierwille’s say-so. If I’m not mistaken there’s an unforgivable sin chapter in the orange book. But for me seeing wierwille teach it on the tv screen had more dramatic impact. How you and I were affected differently by the initial presentation may indicate I was more impressed by his charisma than the written material- whereas you actually gave it more thought while reading it. In other words you’re the type of person who reads the fine print - and some sales reps don’t like it when you do that.

3. Promotes fundamentalism A. Under the guise of fundamentalism, wierwille built a culture of dogmatism and fanaticism . Dogmatism fallacy occurs when one doctrine is aggressively promoted as the only reasonable conclusion and as being unchallengeable. Dogmatists believe they are so right that they can’t even look at the evidence to the contrary and are unwilling to even consider an opposing argument. Some people even contend that it is incorrect to even consider challenging the position. Anyone who rejects the argument is either stupid or evil. It is a fallacy for various reasons. It not only prevents future communication but also shifts the burden of proof to the audience by implying that the truth is obvious without providing evidence to back it up, which is a type of fallacy in and of itself. Dogmatic people interpret the world through their beliefs, ignoring all other explanations or possibilities. They argue that anyone who disagrees with them is biased. Whereas they are the only ones who are objective. They frequently tell you not only what to think, but also how to think. When someone refuses to debate a topic or, in their attempts to debate, they are unwilling to actually examine positions that they are taking, even if they believe they are debating it, be suspicious. Whether or not what they are saying is true, if they insist on it being the only possible solution, it is a dogmatism fallacy. How Can You Identify Dogmatism? The best way to uncover dogmatism is to ask ‘why?’ Dogmatic individuals fail to answer to explain their stance logically, and resort to additional logical fallacies or admit that their viewpoint is faith blind. From: Grow Thoughtful: dogmatism fallacy

Speaking of the fall of humankind – I just wanted to add a subset to # 62 62. A. PFAL endorses a rigid mindset of fundamentalism – and may give one a sense of pride and autonomy in “mastering” a book rather than submitting to a higher power. I’ve been reading a commentary of Genesis and on pages 163ff of The New International Commentary on the Old Testament Series – Genesis chapters 1-17 it mentions several theories that scholars have proposed as to what the tree of the knowledge of good and evil was. One suggestion was that it was sexual – to support this theory some scholars point out the couple’s first reaction after eating the forbidden fruit was that they knew they were naked ( Gen. 3:7 ) but the NICOT notes that we would have to apply sexuality to God for Gen. 3:22 states And the LORD God said, “The man has now become like one of us, knowing good and evil. What also came to mind while reading this was wierwille’s screwy teaching in CF&S that the original sin was masturbation. I’ll tell you what – talk about hidden in plain sight – one way wierwille concealed being a sexual predator and to soften personal boundaries was to teach the class CF&S. Everything is cool – remember he claimed God would teach him the Word like it had not been known since the 1st century…Yeah – no need to be concerned that he’s a perverted old man – he’s a man of God…he’s got the title “doctor” and would never let you forget that. The man was unabashedly obsessed with sexually explicit and inappropriate stuff and let everyone know it - but put the spin on it that he so renewed his mind that he was above having sinful thoughts. Back to NICOT…the theory that “the knowledge of good and evil” indicates moral autonomy. The commentary says this view appeals to many OT passages where “good and evil” is essentially a legal idiom meaning to formulate and articulate a judicial decision. So what it’s basically saying: what is forbidden to humankind is the power to decide for us what is in our best interest and what is not. Interpreting this Genesis account as an allegory seems to address the human condition more directly . In light of being a cult-survivor I look at this and think about when I was following a cult-leader, I basically followed what the cult-leader said was in my best interest and what was not.

OldSkool, you got me thinking of some of what I was into before I got involved with TWI…I was a seeker for sure…figured I got all I was going to get out of the Roman Catholic church, so I got into other stuff, first it was mostly pot, occasional mescaline and acid. LSD was usually too intense for me – and after praying to Jesus during one bad trip, I didn’t mess with drugs anymore…then read some Edgar Cayce stuff, looked into ESP, meditation, Eastern religions…never got much out of any of that stuff – but I think it did leave some impression on me that there was more to life than meets the eye. And I guess that was what left the door open for me to accept what wierwille was saying as true…but I’m with you – now I realize wierwille didn’t know what he was talking about...I bet there's a lot more horror stories we've never heard about that prompted wierwille to pull the unforgiveable sin session from the PFAL class...I took that as a separate session some time after completing PFAL...damn wierwille and his hodge podge theology - playing with fire and he didn't even realize he was playing with fire. A sidenote from me for this thread is that I’m to the point on stuff I don’t know about or have not experienced – I’ll wait and see…for me I’ll believe it if I see it. The paranormal? UFOs? Life on other planets? Someone doing miracles? If any of that crosses my path – I’ll talk more about it then.

37. Misdiagnosis when operating revelation manifestations. wierwille claimed while ministering to a woman, he got revelation her ovaries hurt. I heard wierwille say that in an Advanced Class...Remembering that baloney today, I thought wouldn't it have been funny if he found out later after visiting a real doctor, he was suffering from sore lymph nodes in his groin area due to a sexually transmitted disease.

Part 2: Is preaching PFAL preaching Christ? I’ve heard some folks make an appeal to Philippians 1 where Paul says but what does it matter? The important thing is that in every way, whether from false motives or true, Christ is preached. A PFAL-“preacher” might argue that even if what I said about the 5 faulty assumptions is true, at least Christ is preached – regardless of his using plagiarized material, twisting Scripture and his overall incompetency and duplicity. However, the PFAL-“preacher” is missing the forest for the trees. They fail to understand the larger problem because they are considering only a few parts of it. The larger problem is that Christ is not being preached...instead PFAL is promoted as "The Word" Let’s take a look at Philippians 1: 12 Now I want you to know, brothers and sisters, that what has happened to me has actually served to advance the gospel. 13 As a result, it has become clear throughout the whole palace guard and to everyone else that I am in chains for Christ. 14 And because of my chains, most of the brothers and sisters have become confident in the Lord and dare all the more to proclaim the gospel without fear. 15 It is true that some preach Christ out of envy and rivalry, but others out of goodwill. 16 The latter do so out of love, knowing that I am put here for the defense of the gospel. 17 The former preach Christ out of selfish ambition, not sincerely, supposing that they can stir up trouble for me while I am in chains. 18 But what does it matter? The important thing is that in every way, whether from false motives or true, Christ is preached. And because of this I rejoice. Philippians 1: 12-18 Paul was saying that even though some were causing trouble for him, they are preaching Christ and advancing his cause. Maybe they’re motives were not right – but the content of their preaching was right – it was about Christ. A strong argument can be made – and wierwille even admitted to this in PFAL – that “the Word” – i.e., wierwille’s interpretation of the Bible takes the place of the absent Christ. If you haven’t read through The absent Christ thread, then you might want to do so to catch up to what’s really at stake here. In case you didn’t realize it – Jesus Christ is mentioned only at critical points in the PFAL class as more or less a bait-and-switch ruse. In the early sessions of PFAL Jesus Christ is presented as the key to a more materialistic life – even having more abundance…prosperity than unbelievers. At another critical point he uses Jesus Christ’s teaching on the 2 great commandments to promote situational ethics . He says along these lines as long as you love God and neighbor you can do as you full well please. I’ve never read THAT in Matthew 22 – have you? This brings to mind a related issue that can happen in any Christian group, though I’ve seen it in TWI too : The hired hand is not the shepherd and does not own the sheep. So, when he sees the wolf coming, he abandons the sheep and runs away. Then the wolf attacks the flock and scatters it. John 10:12 Ellicott's Commentary for English Readers says of this verse concerning “the hired hand”: The Greek word occurs again in the New Testament only in the next verse and in Mark 1:20. It implies a lower position than the household servant, and is more nearly what we should call the tramp-labourer. The thought follows from that of the good shepherd who in the time of danger will give his own life for the sheep. The hireling has no interest in the sheep, and cares for them only as far as to secure his own hire. Bible Hub: John 10:12 commentary Ever get to know some leaders and over time you can tell it’s just a job for them. And I bring this up for another reason too. In the John 10:12 scenario, it’s like wierwille had a dual-role – of being the hired hand (as president and founder of TWI it was a way for him to make money) and like the strange case of “doctor” Jekyll and Mister Hyde wierwille unleashed the other person inside – the sexual predator – when the circumstances were right. You can read one person’s account in Losing the Way: A Memoir of Spiritual Longing, Manipulation, Abuse, and Escape . So, is preaching PFAL preaching Christ? No. Preaching PFAL is preaching wierwille.

As promised - why defend or promote PFAL? Or Part 1: what is so great about PFAL? In response to that question, I will honestly say I cannot think of a valid reason to defend or promote PFAL. In my second post, I made reference to the thread The 2nd Wave of returning to PFAL has started. on page 4, in my June 6, 2021st post here I began my critical analysis of PFAL – setting aside the malfeasance of wierwille’s unabashed plagiarism momentarily – I exposed five faulty assumptions. There is so much more at issue than just wierwille stealing other people’s work. It’s actually more complex than that. There are at least 5 faulty assumptions that TWI ONCE had the greatest (superior to all others in the world) teacher and teachings (there’s definitely more than 5 faulty assumptions – I’m just limiting myself here for the sake of brevity ). How does one go about identifying a faulty assumption? The sure way to identify a faulty assumption is when there is lack of evidence that supports it. So anyway…here are 5 faulty assumptions that one might have to lean on, to justify defending or promoting PFAL: Faulty assumption #1: The material that wierwille copied from others was completely correct or valid. This does not refer to any particular passage of the Bible but rather to the ideas, principles, interpretations, doctrines and speculations that other authors would abstract from the Bible. (Bullinger’s teaching that there were 4 crucified with Jesus Christ and his ultra-dispensationalism come to mind). What I’ve noticed is that defenders/promoters of PFAL lack good cognitive skills. Instead, they rely on the content of PFAL to be a measuring rod when assessing the work of others. ~ ~ ~ ~ Faulty assumption #2: wierwille was competent...or qualified to understand, analyze, fine tune, correct, clarify, or improve the material of others. This has been proven false many times over – please refer to Actual errors in PFAL More Blatant errors in PFAL, PFAL errors – even deeper do-do and of course my other posts following the page 4 post of June 6, 2021st 2nd wave of returning to PFAL ~ ~ ~ ~ Faulty assumption #3: wierwille had help from God to synthesize and accurize the aggregate formed from the teachings of others. This has also been analyzed and proven false – please refer to: A vpw historical timeline Concerning the failure of the 1942 promise ~ ~ ~ ~ Faulty assumption #4: TWI became a HARMFUL cult after deviating from the teachings of wierwille; a cult is a system of religious veneration and devotion directed toward a particular person or object; a cult is considered HARMFUL ...DAMAGING...DETRIMENTAL ...ABUSIVE to others when what is venerated is a dishonest, delusional, narcissistic megalomaniac like wierwille. Please refer to the following links: the Advanced Class thread started June 23, 2021 TWI servitude vp was essential to a follower’s belief system Psychology Today: Dangerous Cult Leaders - Clues to what makes for a pathological cult leader ~ ~ ~ ~ Faulty assumption #5: TWI was a genuine Christian ministry...a biblical research, teaching and fellowship ministry and that through loss of wierwille’s leadership, negligence , erroneous judgments, bad decisions or whatever gave over control, possession or responsibility of TWI to the devil...to the contrary , there are actually much more plausible options than shifting blame to the devil - like basing a ministry on some lying, thieving, cheating, money grubbing sexual predator who lived like the devil - meaning wierwille with great speed, effort and intensity lived an amoral life. ~ ~ ~ ~ If you’re new to Grease Spot Café (then first off, welcome ) or if this post reactivated some red flags of doubt and questions you’ve had about wierwille and his classes then you might want to check out Why PFAL sucks Why the Intermediate and Advanced Classes suck well...That’s all for now... stay tuned for Part 2: Is preaching PFAL preaching Christ?

and that's truly sad

I don't doubt that - let's make that 66. PFAL was a form of hypnosis

I guess it depends on how one might define attempt and success. I lean toward attempt – as a noun - an act of trying to achieve something, typically one that is unsuccessful or not certain to succeed. As far as defining success – I look at the whole thread. There could be parts of a discussion that one has succeeded at obstructing a productive discussion or redirecting it off-topic. I’m certainly guilty of that on many threads. Take for example the 2nd wave of returning to PFAL has started . On that thread I have 61 posts compared to the thread starter’s 35. It appears the intent of the thread starter was to spin a yarn of 99% of the problems with PFAL reported on Grease Spot were due to us all not getting it right the first time. I took issue with that – and for most of my 61 posts I concentrated on exposing the critical errors in PFAL and challenging the poster as to why we ever needed PFAL. To the best of my recollection , he only responded to one of my critical posts – quibbling over my comment where I said wierwille’s theory of the inspiration of Scriptures was either the dictation theory or the plenary verbal inspiration theory (and he might well have thought in terms of both being valid). the difference between the two theories is small – wierwille saying God has a purpose for everything He says, where He says it, how He says it…etc. and the order of the words is perfect seems to lean on the dictation theory – whereas the plenary verbal inspiration theory asserts that God’s inspiration extends to ALL of Scripture – WHICH INCLUDES when the writers recorded any historical events, physical sciences and life science details. “Verbal” refers to the WORDS of Scripture “Verbal inspiration” means God’s inspiration extends to THE VERY WORDS the writers chose – but it is not the same as the dictation theory. The writers could have chosen other words, and God often allowed them the freedom to express their own personalities as they wrote – but the idea behind the plenary verbal inspiration theory is that Holy Spirit still guided the process so that the finished product faithfully conveyed God’s message – which means God was really responsible for the use of every word and every reference to the physical world, matters of science, history, geography, worldview, etc...what I don't like about that theory is that it looks like the Creator does not know how a lot of "the stuff" He created works. Probably a little late for this – but I do apologize for obstructing and redirecting the 2nd wave of returning to PFAL has started thread. Hi, my name is T-Bone, I am a recovering a$$-hole with smart-a$$ tendencies ...I am sorry for the times I've fallen off the wagon and really appreciate the helpful feedback of all Grease Spotters...Thanks for putting up with me.

Why promote or defend wierwille or PFAL? This thread was inspired by discussions on several other threads. What’s funny is that at some point in the discussions – rather than dealing with the main topic of a particular thread, a certain Grease Spotter would attempt to obstruct or redirect a thread by either defending wierwille or PFAL…Sometimes they’d simply promote wierwille or PFAL. The attempt usually involves crimes and misdemeanors against logic, Scripture, decency, and common sense. I think it’s ironic that even on the thread The New Testament canon that was started specifically to explore someone’s dubious proposition and to mitigate potential derailment of The Absent Christ? thread, the person who had posited the false premise would repeatedly shoot themselves in the foot – spouting logically fallacies, Scripture twisting, and fabricating alibis for the unintended consequences of PFAL. This person had made it all but impossible to defend his own theory – and wound up being the author of his own misfortune. At first, I thought of starting a thread on Why do people promote or defend wierwille/PFAL? . But then I thought it would be an attack on people or a challenge to their motives. After much consideration I shortened it to Why promote or defend wierwille/PFAL? To explore the reasons or purposes of promoting or defending wierwille/PFAL. I want to make it more of an exercise in critical thinking rather than inflammatory questions or remarks which would somehow predispose the listeners towards a subject in an unreasonable, prejudiced way. ~ ~ ~ ~ Defending wierwille One of the more popular defenses employed is Tu quoque – is a Latin phrase for "you also" - it’s a discussion technique that intends to discredit the opponent's argument by attacking the opponent's own personal behavior and actions as being inconsistent with their argument, therefore accusing hypocrisy. This specious reasoning is a special type of ad hominem attack. The Oxford English Dictionary cites John Cooke's 1614 stage play The Cittie Gallant as the earliest use of the term in the English language. "Whataboutism" is one particularly well-known modern instance of this technique. From: Wikipedia – tu quoque also see Wikipedia: whataboutism This distraction may be employed in any number of ways. Someone may bring up wierwille’s hypocrisy of being prim and proper in public but privately he is a sexual predator or committing other bad behavior. For some unknown reason a wierwille/PFAL devotee will then come to the defense by reminding everyone we are all sinners and therefore in no position to judge wierwille. An alternate version of this is to bring up King David’s adultery and his attempt to have Uriah killed to cover up his extramarital affair. wierwille himself used a different tact in PFAL – saying technically all the women in the kingdom belonged to the king – a false premise he concocted to justify King David’s actions. It’s a sneaky way to cast King David in the same light as wierwille – as if to say well gee, lookie here, great men of God have always had faults but God used them anyway. One needs only to read the Old Testament to see the seriousness of David’s sins and the consequences – even after his sins came to light and David repented. I’ll save you some “research time” by leaving you this hyperlink > Got Questions: David and Bathsheba which is probably one of the most soap-operatic dramas in the Old Testament – and has links to pertinent Scripture. ~ ~ ~ ~ Calling a spade, a spade Ephesians has some instructions on Christian living: 17 So I tell you this, and insist on it in the Lord, that you must no longer live as the Gentiles do, in the futility of their thinking. 18 They are darkened in their understanding and separated from the life of God because of the ignorance that is in them due to the hardening of their hearts. 19 Having lost all sensitivity, they have given themselves over to sensuality so as to indulge in every kind of impurity, and they are full of greed. 20 That, however, is not the way of life you learned 21 when you heard about Christ and were taught in him in accordance with the truth that is in Jesus. 22 You were taught, with regard to your former way of life, to put off your old self, which is being corrupted by its deceitful desires; 23 to be made new in the attitude of your minds; 24 and to put on the new self, created to be like God in true righteousness and holiness. 25 Therefore each of you must put off falsehood and speak truthfully to your neighbor, for we are all members of one body. 26 “In your anger do not sin”: Do not let the sun go down while you are still angry, 27 and do not give the devil a foothold. 28 Anyone who has been stealing must steal no longer, but must work, doing something useful with their own hands, that they may have something to share with those in need. 29 Do not let any unwholesome talk come out of your mouths, but only what is helpful for building others up according to their needs, that it may benefit those who listen. 30 And do not grieve the Holy Spirit of God, with whom you were sealed for the day of redemption. 31 Get rid of all bitterness, rage, and anger, brawling and slander, along with every form of malice. 32 Be kind and compassionate to one another, forgiving each other, just as in Christ God forgave you. Ephesians 4: 17-32 Did you notice I had verse 28 Anyone who has been stealing must steal no longer in bold red? Let me ask you a question. When is a thief NOT a thief? When he or she is not stealing? No – maybe they’re waiting for an opportune moment – or they haven’t been caught yet. A thief is no longer a thief when they BECOME something else. As the rest of the verse implies they BECOME an HONEST WORKER, doing something useful with their own hands, that they may have something to share with those in need. Something I’ve noticed in the Bible about labeling people. An appropriate label is applied depending on the person’s outstanding disposition. It could be good - Paul, an apostle of Christ Jesus by the will of God, To God’s holy people in Ephesus, the faithful in Christ Jesus Ephesians 1:1 … ...Or it could be bad - Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You travel over land and sea to win a single convert, and when you have succeeded, you make them twice as much a child of hell as you are. Matthew 23:15 It's been observed that when one has a life-dominating sin – that sin becomes their “nametag” in the Bible. Why was King David never labeled an adulterer? Because even with all his faults considered - adultery was NOT a life-dominating sin. He repented of that behavior. Why do I think wierwille deserves all the ugly labels we find of him on Grease Spot Café? Because he had many life-dominating sins! He was a repeat offender! And that was NOT the greatest secret in the world today. You can ask just about any way corps, and they’ll attest to his multifaceted bad behavior...oh yeah, he led by example - a bad example - his example taught others how to be hypocrites. the way corps' alternate motto could very well be "it is written... about us in Matthew 23" And while we’re referencing way corps – there is one particular Grease Spotter who has spoken authoritatively on the way corps program – usually very critically, like the way corps program was the idea of the participants or was even governed poorly by the participants. I should point out this person was NEVER in the way corps program – so he doesn’t know what the hell he is talking about! Attention all Grease Spotters, the way corps program was wierwille’s baby – he created it, he watched over it like a hawk, and ran it like a bootcamp for mini-wierwille Nazi wannabees. My next post will get address why defend or promote PFAL?... in the meantime, all Grease Spotters feel free to chime in.

One of the more popular defenses employed is Tu quoque – is a Latin phrase for "you also" - it’s a discussion technique that intends to discredit the opponent's argument by attacking the opponent's own personal behavior and actions as being inconsistent with their argument, therefore accusing hypocrisy. This specious reasoning is a special type of ad hominem attack. The Oxford English Dictionary cites John Cooke's 1614 stage play The Cittie Gallant as the earliest use of the term in the English language. "Whataboutism" is one particularly well-known modern instance of this technique. From: Wikipedia – tu quoque also see Wikipedia: whataboutism This distraction may be employed in any number of ways. A critic may bring up wierwille’s hypocrisy of being prim and proper in public but privately he is a sexual predator or committing other bad behavior. For some unknown reason a wierwille/PFAL devotee will then come to the defense by reminding everyone we are all sinners and therefore in no position to judge wierwille. An alternate version of this is to bring up King David’s adultery and his attempt to have Uriah killed to cover up his extramarital affair. wierwille himself used a different tact in PFAL – saying technically all the women in the kingdom belonged to the king – a false premise he concocted to justify King David’s actions. It’s a sneaky way to cast King David in the same light as wierwille – as if to say well gee, lookie here, great men of God have always had faults, but God used them anyway. One needs only to read the Old Testament to see the seriousness of David’s sins and the consequences – even after his sins came to light and David repented. I’ll save you some “research time” by leaving you this hyperlink > Got Questions: David and Bathsheba which is probably one of the most soap-operatic dramas in the Old Testament – and the article has links to pertinent Scripture. ~ ~ ~ ~ I’m in the middle of drafting a thread-starter about the use of illogical fallacies to promote or defend wierwille/PFAL…hope to see you there soon…I could certainly use your critical eyeballs and the help of the other sharp Grease Spotters on this thread - right now, this future thread is only a gleam in my greasy eyeball.

Ding ding ding ding !!!! That’s the $64,000 question! And I’ll take a stab at it. wierwille was a charismatic cult-leader…and by charismatic – I do NOT mean a movement in the Christian church - I mean he exercised a compelling charm which inspired devotion in others. In a 2013 digital article “What is character and why it really does matter” on Fordham Research Commons, authors Thomas A. Wright and Tyler L. Lauer wrote: “The cult of personality phenomenon refers to the idealized, even god-like, public image of an individual consciously shaped and molded through constant propaganda and media exposure. As a result, one is able to manipulate others based entirely on the influence of public personality. Max Weber long ago referred to this power of personality as ‘‘charismatic authority.’’ It is becoming evident that the charismatic leader, especially in politics, has increasingly become the product of media and self-exposure. At variance with traditional approaches to character that emphasize a moral based framework, the cult of personality perspective focuses on the often shallow, external images that many public figures cultivate to create an idealized and heroic image.” ( see full article > here ) To understand wierwille’s origin story is to peer through the smoke and mirrors of wierwille-mythology and comprehend the fascinating backstory. It is a very complicated narrative unfolding on Grease Spot Café that continues to reveal stuff about a sexual predator, a malignant narcissist, a megalomanic, an unabashed plagiarist, a chain-smoking drunkard, a pathological liar, a money-grubbing-glory-hound thief, and self-deluded cult-leader. If all this is news to anyone then please check out WordWolf’s thread The Way: Living in Wonderland ...also in a perceptive post on another thread PFAL Today WordWolf observed that wierwille portrayed himself as a maverick like Jesus Christ, in order to characterize the Establishment, religious authorities and all other Christian teachers as wrong. And for history’s sake don’t forget to read Skyrider’s thread – The wierwille legacy: who will write the book? I cannot emphasize this point enough - a harmful and controlling cult of personality like The Way International is so detrimental to one’s well-being because it is empowered with malignant narcissism. In case you’re not familiar with the term - “Malignant narcissism is a psychological syndrome comprising an extreme mix of narcissism, antisocial behavior, aggression, and sadism. Grandiose, and always ready to raise hostility levels, the malignant narcissist undermines families and organizations in which they are involved, and dehumanizes the people with whom they associate.” From: Wikipedia: malignant narcissism Steven Hassan the author of Releasing the Bonds: Empowering People to Think for Themselves and Combating Cult Mind Control: The #1 Best-selling Guide to Protection, Rescue, and Recovery from Destructive Cults has written another fascinating book about a cult of personality – but since politics is a no-no on Grease Spot Café I’ll leave it up to you to click on this hyperlink, that has been encrypted to protect the indolent > The Cult of Orange-Hole: A Leading Cult Expert Explains How the Orange-Hole Uses Mind Control Some other hyperlinks that might be of interest along the lines of why folks might follow cult-leaders: Psychology Today: Why Do People Follow Bad Leaders? Psychology Today: Dangerous Cult Leaders: Clues to what makes for a pathological cult leader Psychology Today: Why Do People Follow Authoritarian Leaders?