T-Bone

What is the Easter Bunny’s favorite place to eat breakfast? IHOP

Subvert One of the most demoralizing experiences of my life was going through way corps training…there was the public shaming, frequent berating, lots of teachings and one-on-one reproof-themed counseling, one-on-one force-feeding of PFAL-ideology to squelch my creative writing which was done while in front of other band members...there was emotional abuse, there was manipulative tactics to reenforce groupthink...The myriad of ways they shoved down my throat acceptance of their image of the ideal believer - to the destruction of my true self. In way corps training - intellectual and emotional beatings were routine! Many years after I left TWI, while on vacation at Cannon Beach I spotted a T-shirt in a “tourist trap” window – it was black, and had the skull and crossbones icon of pirates and these words in white: The beatings will continue until morale improves This spoke to me. I had to have it! The T-Shirt came in handy – I wore it for Pirate Night on a Disney Cruise with my family…and just for the record my favorite Disney character is Goofy – not to brag but our family got a picture with Goofy on Disney’s Castaway Key Island. The meaning of “the beatings will continue until morale improves” is that until people (often soldiers) start to fall in line and show confidence in their ranks, they will not be given freedom or liberty. The beatings are there to punish them until they work as a team. The saying is most commonly seen in a military sense. From: Grammar How: beatings will continue meaning ( *see notes below for more on origin) The military sense mentioned in the above quote is spot on with Way Corps training! I know it’s wishful thinking…I mean a sneaky harmful and controlling cult like The Way International is not going to be upfront about their subversive tactics – but it would have been nice if they had a sign on the main entrance door to the Rome City campus: * note: for other links about its origin - and for extra credit – Grease Spotters are encouraged to check out these hyperlinks below …further note - extra credit will be manifested in the form of upvotes for your post…just relax and think goofy thoughts…now…you move your fingers, your eyeballs, your coffee mug and you’ll be posting the wonderful works of goofy sarcasm as a countermeasure to TWI’s subversive operations: Huffpost Blog: The Beatings Will Continue Until Morale Improves English Stack Exchange: origin of beatings will continue Quora: what’s the origin of the saying beatings will continue? Ask Meta filter: Whence the beatings?

You’re welcome, Annio – and thanks for the feedback.

Thanks, Annio – I always appreciate the feedback! Continue reading this thread to uplift your mood…and contributions are always welcome…for me, it’s a way to vent holy sarcasm on my way corps training experience:

Okay Nathan – don’t know if this will answer your question but for now all I can think of is this… On page 233ff of the PFAL book, the chapter titled Body, Soul, Spirit – Formed, Made, Created, wierwille says this: The next word to observe is the word “soul” which in Hebrew is nephesh. What is soul? The soul in man is that which gives the body its life, its vitality. Look again at Genesis 2:7 And the Lord God formed man [man’s body] of the dust of the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul. …The soul is nothing more and nothing less that that which gives life to a person’s body. Sometimes it is called “the spirit of man.” Soul has nothing to do with whether you are a Christian or a non-Christian. As long as a person breathes, he has a soul. The confusion between the soul and the spirit has caused no end of difficulty for people. They say the soul is immortal, for instance. They talk about transmigration of the soul, the immortality of the soul. These are all erroneous usages of words which are used with exactness and precision in the Word of God. End of excerpts ~ ~ ~ ~ In my opinion wierwille’s dogmatic fundamentalism has probably caused no end of difficulty for folks if they try to untangle his hodge-podge of pseudoscience and authoritarianism. wierwille acknowledges in the above quote that sometimes soul is called the spirit of man. Yet he claims, “words which are used with exactness and precision in The Word of God.” Ha ! his contradictory mumbo jumbo is exposed on the same page !!!!!! What a sloppy con artist! Am I right or am I right? As far as his other pseudoscientific claim on soul-life I quoted earlier - “God, to produce a sinless man yet one who was of the line of Adam, had to provide a way whereby Jesus would have a human body derived from Adam and yet not have soul-life from Adam’s sinful blood… footnote #9 God created the sperm that impregnated the ovum (egg) of Mary in the Fallopian tube. This created sperm carried only dominant characteristics and did what ordinarily any sperm would do to an impregnated ovum” – wierwille has used the following proof-text from Leviticus: For the life of the flesh is in the blood: and I have given it to you upon the altar to make an atonement for your souls: for it is the blood that maketh an atonement for the soul. Leviticus 17:11 KJV ~ ~ ~ ~ In thinking about Gnosticism’s paradigm of disconnecting the material world from the spiritual world, it makes me wonder if that was a factor in wierwille rationalizing his licentious behavior. I recall the many times I’ve heard him teach on the renewed mind and the Christian lifestyle and he often seemed to imply that the spiritual and physical realms had little to do with each other – and he would emphasize we should focus on the spiritual by saying things like “our old man nature is totally corrupt and unsalvageable – but our spiritual nature that we received when we got born again is perfect and needs no improvement”. Nowadays with a mind that is not Kool-Aid drenched, reexamining those kinds of statements he had made – it's obvious to me that wierwille was unmoored from any of the simple moral demands of the Bible. I think what may be a related issue is Gnosticism’s spirit good / matter evil maxim - this correlates to wierwille’s body, soul, and spirit teaching – the trichotomy view of a Christian . wierwille defined soul as breath-life - which is an organic function of the body (matter) which is evil. Maybe I’m being picayune – but I lean toward a dichotomy view of humankind. I don't think the Bible differentiates between soul and spirit - but that's just my opinion - I could be wrong. I also recall something – I think I heard Craig Martindale as one of the first TWI-leaders to refer to natural men and women (who do not have spirit) by the derogatory term “empties floating by”. Basically, this trichotomy view of a Christian goes against the biblical view that men and women ARE created in God’s image. The Bible gives no indication that spirit was lost in the Fall. An interesting study is a look into the Hebrew definition of “death” – not that I will go into great detail here – but you’ll find basically it means “separation” rather than annihilation or total obliteration – i.e., cease to exist. That human beings still retain the image of God – though it may be tarnished is suggested in such passages as Genesis 9:6 and James 3:9 BOTH passages refer to a time AFTER the Fall in Genesis 3. As it is, being a staunch fundamentalist is problematic hermeneutical-wise. In my opinion the problems are compounded when you throw in wierwille’s Gnosticism and spiritualism. wierwille’s signature intuition is adept at switching gears – sort of like a manual transmission. Something not “geared” for amateur con artists . But “fortunately” for diehard-PFAL-fans, by absorbing wierwille-doctrine his signature-intuition-manual-transmission - through the miracle of indoctrination – is converted into an automatic transmission - that does not require any driver (aka Bible student) input to change gears – as long as they follow wierwille’s roadmap of Bible interpretation. I’m not saying diehard-PFAL-fans won’t get lost – just that diehard-PFAL-fans won’t know they’re lost – which takes all the stress out of Bible study.

Yeah – wierwille’s bull$hit does get confusing – and here you’ve pointed out his typical pseudoscience gibberish – life is in the blood - or is it soul life is breath life? What’s worse than a fundamentalist using the Bible like a technical manual? A con artist who uses the Bible to steal people’s money, time, energy, etc.

Analyzing some of wierwille’s nonsense in Jesus Christ Is Not God In the book Jesus Christ Is Not God, wierwille makes several dubious statements on pages 72 to 74: Adam is the head of all the races of men on earth, and Jesus had to be of the line of Adam in order to fulfill the law. God, to produce a sinless man yet one who was of the line of Adam, had to provide a way whereby Jesus would have a human body derived from Adam and yet not have soul-life from Adam’s sinful blood… [the above last sentence has footnote #9 on the bottom of page 73 and reads: 9. God created the sperm that impregnated the ovum (egg) of Mary in the Fallopian tube. This created sperm carried only dominant characteristics and did what ordinarily any sperm would do to an impregnated ovum…] …If Jesus Christ had had the same source of soul-life as other men, he could not have legally redeemed man for he would not have been a perfect sacrifice. Similarly if Jesus Christ had been God, he would not have legally redeemed man for he could not have wilfully [sic] chosen to do so. If God did not care to act within legal boundaries, He could have rectified the situation immediately after Adam and Eve’s fall. But, had God done this, he would not have been all good and all perfect. End of excerpts ~ ~ ~ ~ The fallacies and pseudoscientific speculations of wierwille in the above quote are problematic. 1. “Adam is the head of all the races of men on earth, and Jesus had to be of the line of Adam in order to fulfill the law”…I disagree - first off, wierwille makes it sound like even God Almighty the creator of the cosmos must submit to some law in order to redeem man. What are laws? They are a system of rules which a particular country or community recognizes as regulating the actions of its members and which it may enforce by the imposition of penalties. If the governing body is fair and upfront these laws are usually made public so everyone is informed of the rules and hopefully will comply. What laws were in effect in the account of Adam and Eve? I am only aware of one prohibition: 15 The Lord God took the man and put him in the Garden of Eden to work it and take care of it. 16 And the Lord God commanded the man, “You are free to eat from any tree in the garden; 17 but you must not eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, for when you eat from it you will certainly die.” Genesis 2:15-17 NIV This is a clear statement of a law and the penalty for violators. There is no hint at a plan for redemption. But if God is all-powerful, all-knowing, loving and wise we assume there must be a plan of action for saving human beings from sin, error, or evil. One of the problems I have with wierwille’s redemption theory is that he makes it sound like God is subject to our concept of laws. But I believe God Almighty does not fit inside anyone’s theological or legal box – and concerning redemption I touched on this earlier in my July 31st post - here - quoting from Frame’s Systematic Theology: …God could have remedied the fall in an instant, sending his Son in an accelerated time frame, bringing him to death, resurrection, ascension, and triumphal return in a matter of seconds. Or he might have accomplished this work in a matter of decades, allowing for a somewhat more normal kind of historical development. But instead, he determined a process spread over millennia. He spent centuries narrowing the messianic line to a chosen family, bringing then into the Land of Promise, ordaining the birth of his Son in the “fullness of time” (Gal.4:4), accomplishing redemption in thirty-three more years, and sending his disciples on a journey of several thousand years at least to bring this good news to all the nations. Why he chose to stretch out the drama of salvation over so long a time is a mystery. The length of this time is related to other mysteries of Scripture, such as the problem of evil…If God had determined to complete his purposes in an instant, and the sting of pain and suffering would be much less if God were to abbreviate his story to a few decades. But God’s decision is clear: that the history of redemption will take millennia, leaving space for dramatic movements, ups and downs, twists and turns, longings and astonishments. Salvation is to be a great epic, not a short story. God will glorify himself, not by measuring his kingdom in time spans appropriate to human kings, but by revealing himself as “King of the ages” (Rev. 15:3 NIV). End of excerpts From: page 87 & 88 of Systematic Theology: An Introduction to Christian Belief by John M. Frame ~ ~ ~ ~ 2. “God, to produce a sinless man yet one who was of the line of Adam, had to provide a way whereby Jesus would have a human body derived from Adam and yet not have soul-life from Adam’s sinful blood… footnote #9 God created the sperm that impregnated the ovum (egg) of Mary in the Fallopian tube. This created sperm carried only dominant characteristics and did what ordinarily any sperm would do to an impregnated ovum”… Oh really? Where does it say in the Bible that God created the sperm that impregnated the ovum of Mary? Did wierwille obtain genetic material from Adam, Mary, and Jesus Christ to compare the genomes of all three individuals? wierwille throws this pseudoscientific stuff around like it’s all facts – but it’s based on nothing more then his shoehorn bias. It's like any other wierwille mumbo jumbo. He would say God who is spirit can only speak to what He is, which is spirit – oh yeah? Who says? Other than wierwille saying that – where does it say that in the Bible? Maybe he forgot about passages like Genesis 3:8-19 and Numbers 22:21-30 . In my opinion, wierwille’s speculations are indicative of his Gnostic tendencies – in reflecting the same idea of a huge seemingly unbridgeable gap between spirit and matter AND the assumption of having a special knowledge…being a know-it-all wierwille thought he could explain everything…I remember from one Advanced Class session wierwille offering a scientific explanation for how the Great Principle works (“God who is spirit teaches His creation in you…”etc.), by saying in a very excited tone something like “the neuroglia cells of the brain respond to the direct application of energy – that’s revelation, Baby!” If you’re familiar with E=mc2 you know that energy and matter are really the same thing. Completely interchangeable. Also see The Universe Today: How are Energy and Matter the Same? According to wierwille-doctrine spirit is beyond the five senses - and yet – here we see him commingling everything. That was his specialty – by using his signature intuition he could blend Gnosticism’s paradigm of disconnecting the material world from the spiritual world and yet pontificate over demonology / spiritualism pretending to explain the “mechanics” of EXACTLY HOW stuff works in the spiritual realm…Herein is another problematic hermeneutic of fundamentalism – a belief in the inerrancy of Scripture while holding to a literal AND inerrant interpretation of Scripture – the result is impractical and NOT even possible…well…if you’re a diehard-wierwille-fan it probably doesn’t bother you that with wierwille being in the driver’s seat of interpreting the Bible for you and his popping the clutch by using his signature intuition like a manual transmission to abruptly reengage fundamentalism, spiritualism and Gnosticism – for whatever best suits his agenda. If his shifting does bother you – it might be because you’ve got your eyes on the road (what the Bible actually reads) instead of your eyes and trust placed upon wierwille. ~ ~ ~ ~ 3. “…If Jesus Christ had had the same source of soul-life as other men, he could not have legally redeemed man for he would not have been a perfect sacrifice...” I beg to differ with wierwille. “…the same source of soul-life as other men…” is such a nebulous phrase! According to John 1:14 NET Jesus Christ was totally unique: Now the Word became flesh and took up residence among us. We saw his glory--the glory of the one and only, full of grace and truth, who came from the Father. In the Greek text of John 1:14 “the one and only” is - μονογενοῦς - monogenous could be translated as one of a kind ! I won’t even attempt to speculate the commingling of the divine and the human – since that would involve guesswork regarding divine attributes – but if anything Jesus Christ might be considered a hybrid - the offspring of two different species…and in light of my argument in point #1, there was no legal requirement for God to redeem man this way…rather it seems like the most relevant way for God to compensate for the poor past performance of human beings. You have heard the law that says the punishment must match the injury: ‘An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth. But I say, do not resist an evil person! If someone slaps you on the right cheek, offer the other cheek also. Matthew 5:38 NLT As Ellicott’s Commentary of Matthew 5:38, 39 points out in remembering that our Lord Himself, when smitten by the servant of the high priest, protested, though He did not resist (John 18:22-23), and that St. Paul, under like outrage, was vehement in his rebuke (Acts 23:3); and (2) in the fact that the whole context shows that the Sermon on the Mount is not a code of laws, but the assertion of principles. And the principle in this matter is clearly and simply this, that the disciple of Christ, when he has suffered wrong, is to eliminate altogether from his motives the natural desire to retaliate or accuse…And I think it might be simply a matter of principle – like an eye for an eye – a life for a life - a sacrifice – a surrender of something of equal value as a means of gaining something desirable or of preventing some evil. Ideas like sacrifice, sin offering, and redemption are conveyed through symbols used in the cultures/languages of the Bible. Language can be thought of as a system of communication that uses symbols to convey deep meaning. Symbols can be words, images, body language, sounds, etc. Language is symbolic in more ways than can be summarized in a sentence or paragraph, but generally we are talking about how symbols can stand for something else, how they can be used to communicate, and how they can be imbued with meaning. For a simple example of symbolic language: the word cat is symbolic of the idea of a cat, a dollar is a symbol of $1 of economic value, the word yes or a nod is a symbol of confirmation, a grimace is a symbol of disapproval, and a smiley face emoji is a symbol of happiness . From: Language is a System of Communication that Uses Symbolism Humans, consciously and subconsciously, are always striving to make sense of their surrounding world. Symbols—such as gestures, signs, objects, signals, and words—help people understand that world. They provide clues to understanding experiences by conveying recognizable meanings that are shared by societies. The world is filled with symbols. Sports uniforms, company logos, and traffic signs are symbols. In some cultures, a gold ring is a symbol of marriage. Some symbols are highly functional; stop signs, for instance, provide useful instruction. As physical objects, they belong to material culture, but because they function as symbols, they also convey non-material cultural meanings. Some symbols are valuable only in what they represent. Trophies, blue ribbons, or gold medals, for example, serve no other purpose than to represent accomplishments. But many objects have both material and non-material symbolic value. From: Intro to sociology – symbols and language Now the main point of what we are saying is this: We do have such a high priest, who sat down at the right hand of the throne of the Majesty in heaven, 2 and who serves in the sanctuary, the true tabernacle set up by the Lord, not by a mere human being. 3 Every high priest is appointed to offer both gifts and sacrifices, and so it was necessary for this one also to have something to offer. 4 If he were on earth, he would not be a priest, for there are already priests who offer the gifts prescribed by the law. 5 They serve at a sanctuary that is a copy and shadow of what is in heaven. This is why Moses was warned when he was about to build the tabernacle: “See to it that you make everything according to the pattern shown you on the mountain.” 6 But in fact the ministry Jesus has received is as superior to theirs as the covenant of which he is mediator is superior to the old one, since the new covenant is established on better promises. Hebrews 8:1-6 NIV Ellicott’s commentary of Hebrews 8:5 speaks to ideas expressed through symbols, images, metaphors, allegories and such: “Copy,” not in the sense of perfect resemblance, but rather a token suggesting and designed to suggest the original. (See Note on Hebrews 9:23, where the same word is used.) “Shadow,” as the shadow has no substance or independent existence, but represents only the outline of an object. (Comp. Hebrews 10:1, where “shadow” is contrasted with “the very image”; and Colossians 2:17, where it is opposed to “the body.”) We must not confound these words, “token” and “shadow,” with “the pattern” mentioned in Exodus 25:40, quoted later in this verse. The “heavenly things” are “the sanctuary” and “the tabernacle “of Hebrews 8:2, the realities to which the true earthly tabernacle corresponded; their nature can be understood only when Christ has come as High Priest of the good things to come. (See Hebrews 9:11; Hebrews 10:1.) That every part of God’s earthly house might be a fitting emblem of spiritual truth to be afterwards revealed. Moses was charged in all respects to follow the pattern which had been shown him in the mount (Exodus 25:40). Jewish tradition understood these words to imply the presentation of a heavenly tabernacle to the sight of Moses, as a model to be imitated with exactness; and Stephen’s words in Acts 7:44, “according to the pattern” (the same word is here used) “which he had seen,” convey the same meaning. From: Bible Hub: Hebrews 8:5 commentaries The sacrificial laws of the Old Testament were meant to foretell of the sacrificial work of Jesus Christ. wierwille seems to suggest that Jesus Christ had to meet some legal requirement to redeem humankind. I think that is rather presumptuous of wierwille to dictate how God is to accomplish something. ~ ~ ~ ~ 4. “Similarly if Jesus Christ had been God, he would not have legally redeemed man for he could not have wilfully [sic] chosen to do so…” Does God have freedom of will? Human beings have some measure of free will. But God’s volition is truly free. What would compel God to lie or sin? If God is all-loving, righteous and everything about His intrinsic nature is perfect – then external influences have no hold on Him. It is my contention that both God as well as Jesus Christ willfully choose to take certain actions. Clark H. Pinnock (February 3, 1937 – August 15, 2010) was a Christian theologian, apologist, author, and Professor Emeritus of Systematic Theology at McMaster Divinity College – and he was a proponent of open theism which states In short, open theism says that since God and humans are free, God's knowledge is dynamic and God's providence flexible. While several versions of traditional theism picture God's knowledge of the future as a singular, fixed trajectory, open theism sees it as a plurality of branching possibilities, with some possibilities becoming settled as time moves forward. In Philosophy of Religion: An Anthology 7th Edition Pinnock says on pages 31 & 32 concerning the immutability of God: The Trinity is unchangeably what it is from everlasting to everlasting – and nothing can change that. Furthermore, we can always rely on God to be faithful to his promises; he is not in any way fickle or capricious… …But the tradition has taken immutability far in the direction of immobility and inertness…They have equated the biblical idea of faithfulness with the Greek idea that requires any changes related to God to occur only on the human side. This is the error that tempted some of the early theologians to explain the incarnation without admitting that God changed, and to explain away dozens of biblical references to God’s repenting and changing. This is a mistake from a biblical standpoint. The God of the Bible is a God of action, not inaction. God is immutable in essence and in his trustworthiness over time., but in other respects God changes. For example, God changes in his response to events in history. The Bible states that when God saw the extent of human wickedness on the earth, he was sorry that he had made humankind (Gen. 6:5)… …God’s immutability does not rule out God’s responsiveness, the quality that enables God to deal with every new happening and to bend it toward his objectives without violating its integrity… End of excerpts ~ ~ ~ ~ DVD bonus features: Hey Grease Spotters, check out these other interesting discussions on the Trinity Honest discussion of the Trinity with Apologies to Jesus and the Trinity The Trinity - April 2016 thread Doctrine of the Trinity The Trinity Glue The Trinity – August 2008 thread Why is the Trinity such a big deal? born again with/without the Trinity The Trinity has met its match

Rocky, yeah before I posted it - I looked up “ert” online ( acronym finder dot com ) and all I found was it could be an acronym for Estrogen Replacement Therapy or Enzyme Replacement Therapy or Emergency Response Team (FEMA)… so in the Private Benjamin film I think the sarge came up with his own version of what’s the opposite of “inert”...as Steve Martin used to say in his stand-up (fyi Steve Martin is probably the most quoted person in our house) Some people have a way with words - and some people not have a way....anywho...I’m impressed with the transitivity in your post…somehow in the grand scheme of things it’s probably all related anyway. Waysider, obviously there’s some folks who consider this world a turd planet cuz they treat it like crap.

Inert In the 1980 film Private Benjamin, Goldie Hawn plays a sheltered young high-society woman who joins the United States Army on a whim and finds herself in a much more problematic situation than she ever expected. One of my favorite scenes is during basic training when Sgt. Ross says to her “Beware - there are mine fields out there. Most of them are inert. However, some of them are ert.” ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ I used to think of PFAL as like a basic training for new recruits – and we were encouraged to sit through the class again and again until a PFAL-mindset was forged through a strict discipline. Like newborn babies, crave pure spiritual milk, so that by it you may grow up in your salvation I Peter 2:2 Way back in my TWI-daze I remember a young lady who would introduce someone she was “under-shepherding” through the PFAL class as “This is my babe, Fred.” And Fred was this 6-foot 2 guy built like a linebacker with a sheepish grin on his face. Silly – yes – but she reflected an attitude many of us had about the PFAL class – that it was pure spiritual milk…But if you recall in our last exciting episode about the mom who put Dr. Pepper in her baby’s bottle – that just didn’t work out too well for the kid. I saw this vintage ad “We wrapped these twins in Cellophane to prove our product keeps things fresh”. Now that’s a novel idea – if the twins were THINGS recently made, grown, picked, or otherwise obtained. How old would you say these twins look? How long have they been wrapped in Cellophane? Maybe these twins are of an anaerobic design like Data and Lore of Star Trek: The Next Generation and then they were vacuum sealed for freshness. Yeah…it’s possible. Sometimes I reflect on how stifling PFAL-dogma was. In the class, wierwille set up these ridiculous expectations of the Bible interpreting itself…of a magical power being in certain words and thoughts and much of which had caveats that revolved around wierwille-specified-conditions (such as your believing, if it’s available, needs and wants parallel, blah-de-blah-blah) or other “mysterious forces” that you will learn more about later in the Advanced Class. Attempting to live life inside the protective Cellophane of the PFAL-mindset may feel oppressive and suffocating at times – but at least it was predictable - you could always count on PFAL to explain WHY you didn’t succeed. It sounds weird but inside that “protective bubble” (the PFAL-mindset) I did feel safe most of the time – cramped quarters yes – but what a comfortable feeling that imaginary sense of control gave me. What a lethargic way to live. PFAL was inert.

Another thing that comes to mind is the duplicitous nature of The Way International. After thinking about everyone’s comments, for some reason I thought about chapter 13 “Why Division” in wierwille’s book “The New Dynamic Church”. I reread the chapter but the final paragraph on page 172 really grabbed my attention: May God deliver us as the Church from being contentious and difficult, from maligning our brethren, from bickering and quarrelsomeness, from dividing the Body of Christ by our lack of enlightenment. There is too much division outside the Church; our solidarity is imperative to give us strength to move forward in spite of the opposition. May the Father in heaven, for the sake of the only-begotten Son, bless us with such an abundance that we may cease to be part of the problem and become a part of the answer. May we as members of Christ’s Body become so filled with love that we may be teachable and have our hearts opened to His Holy Word. And may we receive of Him and carry the blessing to all we meet, that they may see us and know we are His. End of excerpt ~ ~ ~ ~ In stark contrast to the above amicable tone in Why Division and the mostly generic statement of beliefs on TWI’s website, several two-faced incidents keep replaying in memory: * At a Weekend in the Word, a Heartbeat Festival and a few other open meetings, wierwille would get into one of his anti-Trinity rants saying that in order for a person to really believe in the Trinity they would have to be possessed by a devil spirit. How does that jive with his easygoing sentiment in “Why Division”? And how does that harmonize with what Jesus Christ said in John 13:35 By this everyone will know that you are my disciples, if you love one another. This seems very divisive…polarizing…polemic…I mean - who wants to be possessed by a devil spirit? * When I was in residence at Rome City, one night wierwille was expounding on the greatness and uniqueness of his ministry and drew a comparison to Jesus’ ministry. Reading about Judas taking the sop from Jesus in John 13:30 He then having received the sop went immediately out: and it was night. wierwille then made a very heavy-handed point of emphasizing when Judas left the fold he went out into spiritual darkness. To make it relevant to the corps he then reiterated Judas’ choice as being a devilishly influenced desire for self-destruction - and that we as way corps must be strong in our commitment to this ministry since the only other choice outside this ministry is oblivion. Close to the end of his talk he spelled it out even further by saying something along the lines that if we were to trip out or cop out where else would we go? In other words, there’s no other viable options – there are no other church groups, offshoots, ministries, etc., that are feasible and will be satisfactory to one's needs. This seems very manipulative…very us-versus-them mentality. * I think of all the character assassinations I’ve witnessed over my years of involvement - “maligning our brethren” – got to see some of it firsthand when I was in the way corps. The malicious and unjustified harming of a person's good reputation – because that person disagreed with the cult-leader - wierwille, LCM, campus coordinator…or the person had some misfortune befall them or whatever it was that seemed to threaten leadership’s authority or could possibly shatter the illusions of The Way International’s perfect little world. It's in the great chapter on the religious leaders…hypocrites…Pharisees…and certain aforementioned cult-leaders that you will find this gem They crush people with unbearable religious demands and never lift a finger to ease the burden. Matthew 23:4 NLT

monkey hate email

Before Potato Head there was Bread Head

our research team spent all night trying to figure out what the internet was.

enjoy smoking vicariously!

if you want your lamp shade back then you must give me one million dollars...mwha-ha-ha-ha-ha-ha-ha

That is a great point, Chockfull ! In my opinion, wierwille/TWI use Jesus Christ and the trappings of Christianity like window dressing on a store front display. “If any of this looks like something you want, then come on in to our store and take the class!” It’s the old switcheroo…bait and switch. But the thing is – if items 1, 9, and 10 are true – then WHY do I need to take their stupid class?????? 1.We believe the scriptures of the Old and New Testaments were “given by inspiration of God” [theopneustos, “God-breathed”] (II Timothy 3:16) and perfect as originally given; that the God-breathed Word is of supreme, absolute, and final authority for believing and godliness. 9. We believe in the receiving of the fullness of the holy spirit, the power from on high, and the corresponding nine manifestations of the holy spirit for all born-again believers. 10. We believe it is available to receive all that God promises us in His Word according to our believing faith. We believe we are free in Christ Jesus to receive all that he accomplished for us by his substitution. From: The Way org: statement of beliefs ~ ~ ~ ~ If the Old and New Testament are indeed the God-breathed Word…if we’ve received the holy spirit…if we are free in Christ Jesus to receive all that he accomplished – then again, I ask – why in the hell do we need PFAL, WAP, PFAL Today or any of their other stupid classes?!?!?! Geez, typical sleazy-money-grubbing-sales-reps/cult-leaders trying to sell me $hit I don’t need! Oh, and don’t give me that “we’re a research ministry – so we’re experts on what the Bible really says and promises – how to receive the promises and how to operate the manifestations” …wierwille and everyone else that follows in his deceitful, abusive, manipulative, and exploitative path are so full of $hit and have NOTHING to support their claims!!!!

True that! and in a similar vein...and maybe I’m being picayune…but it seems to me there’s an unintended allusion to the Trinity in item # 2, with Holy Spirit being capitalized. But if memory serves, wierwille taught that Holy Spirit (with capitals) referred to God whereas as holy spirit (lower case h and s - as in item # 9 ) referred to what’s in born-again believers: 2. We believe in one God, the Creator of the heavens and earth; in Jesus Christ, God’s only begotten Son, our lord and savior, whom God raised from the dead; and we believe in the workings of the Holy Spirit. 9. We believe in the receiving of the fullness of the holy spirit, the power from on high, and the corresponding nine manifestations of the holy spirit for all born-again believers. From: The Way org: statement of beliefs ~ ~ ~ ~ Of course, as a disenchanted cult-follower I could also see item 2 as TWI’s typical sneaky misrepresentation of something. A Trinitarian reading item # 2 might understand that to mean TWI believes in the Trinity…until they happen to look at the bookstore and see wierwille’s Jesus Christ is Not God book…Doctrine-and-practice-wise I don’t think there’s an issue when one is a true follower of Jesus Christ – whether Jesus Christ is or not - he’s still Lord - so what’s the problem? Why do I say TWI’s typical sneaky misrepresentation of something? Because that is their standard of deception to rope you in. Like them saying the Way Corps Rome City campus was an accredited college. Well, it wasn’t! Of course I didn’t find out until after I attended it for 2 years and they had taken 2 years out of my life that I will never get back as well as the money from my sponsors. So, sometimes the deception is pulled off by what they don't say...and sometimes they just flat out lie !

Ah yes, the old switcheroo game! Switcheroo: an unexpected change, especially one in which one thing or person is quickly or secretly exchanged for another from: Cambridge Dictionary: switcheroo Also see Wikipedia - bait and switch

Skyrider, thanks to you and so many other Grease Spotters for the relentless efforts to chronicle, analyze and expose TWI’s unscrupulous strategies!

Seared conscience to lock in that great wierwille flavor

Besides wierwille having zilch hermeneutical skills, what was passed off as divine illumination was simply his “signature intuition” – which was nothing more than what he felt a passage meant. And I term it “wierwille’s signature intuition” because in TWI-culture an explanation or interpretation was not considered acceptable unless wierwille signed off on it – in other words it came from him so it was approved by him. Signature intuition refers to what wierwille felt was true regardless of what a passage might really mean; though incompetent with the biblical languages and having a penchant for plagiarism and logical fallacies he was able to cobble together something he was proud of; Signature intuition is wierwille's unique sixth sense of nonsense to divine Scripture, so it always suited his lifestyle - and the devil be damned! It seemed to me wierwille was usually flying by the seat of his pants – using his own initiative and “perceptions” and during live teachings he frequently strayed from the very interpretative keys he taught in PFAL. I think he lacked the discipline, wisdom, experience and honesty of a seasoned researcher and so relied more on intuition to pull off his act. He would often play his trump card “Father revealed it to me” As far as hermeneutics goes - real Bible scholars focus on trying to properly understand the Scriptures through the context, biblical languages, cultural context, historical context, the systematic study of the texts, and plain logic – it really is a discipline, a science and an art – if any intuition is involved it's in gaining a feel for the significance to ascribe to certain data and where more attention would prove to be most beneficial. Intuition is not a bad thing. Matter of fact, I believe our intuition should be integral with our more analytical study of the Scriptures...But it’s important to realize that it’s not perfect and it can be misinterpreted or even compromised by a seared conscience… and there’s also something else to consider – the doctrine of illumination. In An Old Testament Theology the authors discuss the method of sacred hermeneutics, on page 79ff, they say: The inherent nature of any object to be studied dictates the best method for elucidating its properties…To study the stars, one must first gaze up at them to recognize their nature before crafting a telescope, not a microscope, to see them better… …The well-known text “All Scripture is given by inspiration of God (2 Tim. 3:16 KJV) implies that we recognize three inherent qualities of the biblical text. Each quality demands that we fashion a proper instrument (i.e., method) for understanding it. “Of God,” a genitive of authorship, names God as the Author; “inspiration” implies a human author; and “Scripture” denotes a text. All three demand an appropriate approach, and these three approaches must be practiced at one and the same time because the Bible is a unity that is formed by all three. The first two qualities demand a spiritual commitment on the part of the interpreter, and the third paradoxically calls for his or her approaching the text with the detached objectivity of a scientist. Immanuel Kant and Paul Ricoeur make a fundamental distinction between “explanation” and “understanding.” In truth, however, one cannot understand without explanation, and our explanations depend on our prior understanding of reality. As Gerard Manley Hopkins, one of the great poets of the Victorian era, expresses it: “our inscape determines the way we view the landscape.” …inscape…the presuppositions we bring to the task…the perspective and presuppositions with which the interpreter approaches the text… …The doctrine of illumination demands that Scripture be read in a spirit that is harmonious with God’s Spirit…We cannot make God talk through the scientific method (cf. Matt. 11: 25-27 Matthew 16: 13-17 ; Luke 24: 27, 45 ; John 5:45-47 * ) To correlate Word and Spirit with human spirit, we need humility, wholehearted devotion, prayer, meditation, and contemplation.” End of excerpts From: An Old Testament Theology: An Exegetical, Canonical, and Thematic Approach by Bruce K. Waltke with Charles Yu ~ ~ ~ ~ *Note as a convenience, I have inserted hyperlinks to the passages that the authors cited - as these were not in the text I quoted from the hardback edition I have at home. ~ ~ ~ ~ Additional note: I recently got into divine illumination on another thread - here

Thanks for sharing your story, STL – that’s some tough experiences I’m not a big fan of putting labels on people anyway…since I left TWI and stopped doing that, I‘ve found I appreciate the perspective of others a lot more. “being an atheist allows me to expand my knowledge of life. I cannot explain it all for sure, but can study things I do not understand”… kudos to you, man! Thanks for your input on numerous threads – I know belief-wise we’re a gazillion miles apart but folks like you help keep the journey to understand real and grounded.

The Trinity – asset or liability? In considering the typical methods of asset valuation as described by Corporate Finance Institute com: Asset Valuation I believe the cost method is the easiest way of asset valuation. It is done by basing the value on the historical price for which the asset was bought… In production, research, retail, and accounting, a cost is the value of money that has been used up to produce something or deliver a service, and hence is not available for use anymore. In business, the cost may be one of acquisition, in which case the amount of money expended to acquire it is counted as cost. In this case, money is the input that is gone in order to acquire the thing. ( Wiki - cost ) At first, I thought the idea behind this thread was silly and appeared to be a ploy to push a particular wierwille-doctrine. As I expressed in point # 6 in my first post on this thread - here the terms needed to be defined. I said An asset is something tangible or intangible and is a resource that is owned or controlled by an individual, a company, a government, or an economic entity for accounting purposes with an expectation to produce positive economic value and benefit in the future. A liability is a business’s financial or service-based debt or obligation payable to another individual or business entity at the end of an accounting period to settle past transactions or events. the Trinity is certainly NOT something we own or control – but we can say we own it, in a certain sense – if we acknowledge or accept it – like when we take responsibility for making a certain choice, we say “I own that decision”. What is the cost to acquire spiritual or divine illumination ? Thinking about my own experiences – I would say the cost is very pricey – I had to be honest in my sense of self-esteem…make some concessions regarding my self-importance…that came into play in acceptance of the faith (in my case even growing up in a Christian family – childlike faith comes naturally ) and it’s ongoing as I continue to grow in my faith. I found an interesting article on illumination and how that is accomplished through the work of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit as detailed in the gospel of John – and I hope you find the following excerpts stimulating: Illumination has traditionally been discussed in two contexts: illumination in conversion and illumination of the Word of God. The first is the ‘aha!’ of coming to understand who Christ is, the second is the Spirit taking the words that fall upon our ears and applying them to our heart and mind. One of the peculiarities of John’s Gospel is his tendency to tell long narratives of individual encounters with Christ. These narratives capture for us ‘Aha’ moments—moments of illumination when God makes sense in a way that transcended their ability to make sense of. And yet, they would never be the same again (i.e., woman at the well, the man born blind). John’s Gospel is replete with references to Jesus as this agent of illumination: “In him was life, and that life was the light of men” (John 1:4). He was the light that “shines in the darkness” but is not overcome (1:5), He is the light which enlightens all humanity (John 1:9), and John the Baptist was witness to this light (1:8, 5:35). He is the light who has come into the world (3:19), indeed, the light of the world (8:12, 9:5) and it is in his light that we walk and do not stumble (11:9-10). Those who believe in this light become children of the light (12:36). Therefore, the very reason he came into the world was illumination (12:46). But what did Christ illumine? Lights shines not only so that we may see it, but in order that by it, we may see something else. A hallmark of John’s Gospel is the unique language Jesus uses to speak of his own relationship to the father. Beyond any other Gospel, Jesus speaks intimately of the Son’s relationship to the Father, that he was sent by the Father so that in knowing and seeing him, they may know and see the Father also (Jn. 3:17, 34-36; 5:36-40; 6:29, 57; 7:29; 8:42; 10:36, 11:42, 17:3, 8, 18,21,23,25; 20:21). Jesus speaks intimately of the Son’s relationship to the Father, that he was sent by the Father so that in knowing and seeing him, they may know and see the Father also. The light that Christ shines is none other than the light of the Father who sent him (1 John 1:5). George Stevens writes, “What God has done in revelation and redemption it was according to his nature to do. If God has loved the world, it is because he is love. If God has enlightened the world, it is because he is light.” That is to say, God’s mission to illumine people is grounded in his nature as light. This reveals two elements to John’s triune doctrine of illumination that reflect two categories of theological inquiry more generally: The immanent trinity and the economic trinity. Simply put, the immanent trinity speaks of God in himself (nature, essence, and attributes), the economic trinity speaks of God in his work toward the world. All of God’s actions are rooted in God’s being. This is not a philosophical principle, but the conclusion to the argument over the correspondence between who God is, and what God does. “Light” as a concept is ambiguous, and as an aspect of God’s nature, seems undefinable. However, God’s nature as light pertains to God’s holiness and God’s glory. God’s nature as light means God is wholly separate from darkness and so his light is the radiance of his holiness. Likewise, glory is the brilliance of his own perfections. Glory is an inherently self-communicating attribute. It shines in itself with a light all its own. Therefore, the mutual glorification of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit (John 8:54, 14:13, 16:14) in the immanent trinity is each of the persons of the trinity putting on display the glory of the others. It is this kind of illuminating communication that the Gospel of John displays in the economic trinity… …It is no coincidence that it is at this point that John introduces us to the paraclete. Not only is Jesus nearing the end of his ministry, but his disciples are nearing the entrance into a new reality. Jesus commissions the new chapter of the divine mission in the world. In this chapter the light of the World gives his Spirit to the disciples so that they may now go and be the light of the World themselves (Matt. 5). John 14:15-17, 26; 15:26; 16:12-15, the most commonly cited Johannine passages in doctrinal constructions of illumination, articulates how the disciples will go on to participate in Christ’s work in the world as the Spirit of God makes it possible. The Spirit will speak and teach about the Son, The Spirit will glorify him and remind them of all that he said. The Spirit will guide them into truth and pass on what the Son has heard from the Father. As Karl Barth puts it, in all of this, Jesus “gives us his Holy Spirit in order that His own relationship to His Father may be repeated in us” … …In the wake of his work he leaves a people who live by the power of his Spirit’s illumination. For this reason, we conclude that triune Illumination is participation in the Son’s knowledge of the Father by the power of the Holy Spirit. ~ ~ ~ ~ End of excerpts From: Credo Magazine: The Trinitarian Doctrine of Illumination in John

“It means what it says and says what it means”, is a nifty pat answer – and it’s right up there with “The Bible interprets itself”. But there’s a subtle fallacy here – it’s an assumption the Bible is a living sentient being. What’s the diff? let’s substitute “boss” for “the Bible” in a workplace scenario: Administrative assistant: Our boss means what she says and says what she means. She said there’s no smoking in the office – and that means there’s no smoking in the office. Dang it, T-Bone – take that cig outside! T-Bone: But I’m not smoking – I’m vaping. Administrative assistant: grrrrrrr…(emails boss T-Bone is smoking in the office. I reminded him of your no smoking policy – and he said he’s not smoking, he’s vaping) Boss: (steps out of her office) T-Bone, what are you doing? T-Bone: I’m vaping. Boss: That’s the same as smoking to me. You can vape in the parking garage. T-Bone: Understood (stands and starts to walk away from desk) Boss: you can vape on your break – so get back to work on your TPS report. T-Bone: will do. ~ ~ ~ ~ As human beings we usually speak with intent to convey a certain meaning. When someone asks for clarification about something we’ve said, it is common courtesy to explain ourselves further. We can’t do that with the Bible – because the authors are long gone! There is an art and a science to hermeneutics – but given the huge temporal, geographical, cultural gaps – at best we can try to understand what the authors had in mind…that doesn’t mean we will always be able to.

That’s a great question, cman! And I agree with your guesstimate “It must be talking about something other than what we were taught”. And in my humble opinion, trying to wade through the mishmash of confusing, eclectic, and sometimes contradictory ideas of what wierwille/TWI taught is more than just a daunting task – it’s downright absurd to the Nth degree…but limiting your “guesstimate statement” to just the fundamentalism aspect of TWI-doctrine - I’ll take a stab at it – merely as food for thought on this discussion. Fundamentalism takes a strictly literal approach to interpreting the Bible. The Bible says Jesus Christ ascended into heaven – so he’s gone. He’s at the right hand of God…someday he’s coming back as King of kings…so he’s not here…but what about verses like: I’m with you always…it’s God in Christ in you…so which is it? Is he here or there? I think it’s possibly both. I don’t know how…but trying to wrap my mind around stuff that may go way beyond our concepts of matter, energy, space and time is fun to try...and investigating and explaining the unseen and unknown is the passion of theorists who get into stuff like string theory , superstring theory and the theory of everything …and there may even be more ways for spiritual beings and the spiritual realm to be immanent and yet at the same time transcendent – maybe that info is classified . A fascinating subject though – I’ve touched on this here and here . Fundamentalism won’t allow for reasoning, speculating, or theorizing outside its rigid dogma. You might enjoy exploring philosophy and philosophy of religion. There’s a lot more wiggle room in both. DVD extras: quantum mechanics immanence transcendence