waysider

Oh, my! What a loving, caring individual VPW must have been. (You know he wasn't really a "Dr.", don't you?)

"Given that it produces the same intended effect or benefits (if it does), is proof enough of the authenticity or "realness" of it." Except it doesn't. If it did, it would be easy to authenticate. In fact, when coupled with the bogus law of believing (camera analogy from The Bible Tells Me So), it can have gravely damaging effects. Case in point: People have tried to use this method to resolve complex, serious issues while ignoring proven methods of intervention. Some paid dearly. Some even died. So, when people tell me it couldn't hurt, my response would be that the outcome is relative to the situation. edit: grammar

Yes, I can see that now. I really must speak in tongues more. Where, oh where, was my believing?

Confounding the wise........It's the loving thing to do.

"Debate is combative" Debate is not a combative endeavour. It would be more accurate for you to say you perceive it to be combative. Perception and reality do not always agree. "So, for any that claim or seem to think that they have really escaped from the "unable to think outside the box" syndrome that is generally attributed here to TWI... TWI wasn't and isn't the only place were such boxes exist." You are correct in noting TWI is not the only place such boxes exist. However, this forum is concerned with TWI, in particular, not those other places. Can we return to topic now?

Thank you, shortfuse. Time and time again, people come here and try to minimize the gravity of Wierwille's plagiarism. "Oh, well, at least he got us to read the Bible", or "Yes, but I spoke in tongues.", etc. In a sense, his plagiarism was far worse than the average variety where a song or book or paper is plagiarized. Not only did he claim the work was his own, he claimed his work was the result of a special divine, connection. What he did was seriously wrong on multiple levels. And, he was aware that he was doing it. Adding to that, a good deal of what he promoted has been debunked as being inaccurate. Where is the value in that?

Thank you, Steve. That is my recollection of that session, as well.

“Nay, if there be any mistakes in the Bible, there may as well be a thousand. If there be one falsehood in that book, it did not come from the God of truth.” ..................John Wesley

"I think we all repackage ideas in our ways, and categorically declaring what some one else's motive is behind it far more dangerous and difficult than perceiving where the idea might have originated from. Apart from the plagiarism, if "many of Wierwille's words" stopped people from thinking, it might as also be said that many of his words started people thinking. What remains unanswered in either of those statements, is what kind of thinking stopped (in some?) and what kind started (in some?), and what evidence there is of his intent for either." Correct me if I'm wrong. From this unfortunate statement I surmise you minimize the blatant (and, yes, I do mean blatant.) plagiarism of VPW. I can only assume you have not given due diligence to examining the extent of his plagiarism or are, alternatively, excusing it. Wierewille lifted entire chapters, almost word for word. In some cases, he lifted the entire work and claimed it as his own, despite lying by saying he hauled all his references to the dump and relied on God teaching him. (How's that for understanding his intent?). If you do not yet fully understand the impact of his actions in this regard, I suggest you dig a good bit deeper into some of the sources on this site or ask for help. (suggested reading: HERE) "The ideas of Martin Luther and John Wesley have weathered a storm or two, don't you think?" How does that show relevance? Now, back to topic.

"Consider, for example, the lives of men like Martin Luther or John Wesley." Relevance?

My apologies to all for allowing myself to engage in a discussion that has driven this thread off topic.

TLC/post #222: "But I honestly don't (and never did, as best I can recall) associate that (what you say above) being taught in session#7." Holy Bibles, Batman!! Did we even take the same class?? That's the very essence of the whole three hour drivel fest. Indoctrination at its finest. If the Listening With A Purpose questions give any indication, here is the very first one: 1. What are the 5 steps the serpent used to deceive Eve? post #220: "The original sin was taught wrong, so I don't give a flip about your alluding to it." Session #8 is the session that introduces the *unforgivable* sin. (not the original sin) It's defined in part as Sin against the Holy Ghost/Blasphemy Against the Holy Spirit and results in being Born Again of the Seed of Satan. (according to the 1971 syllabus) The first teaching I ever heard on the "original sin" was contained in the Christian Family and Sex class. edited yet again: When Wierwille taught the original sin in CF&S, he said he had no scripture references and we were supposed to just "trust" him..... (Cuz ya know, he was such a fine, upstanding and trust worthy guy. ....don't cha know?)

I'm not sure what you call them in U.K., but here in the States we call those kind of people *fair-weather friends*.

Maybe you can chalk it up to evolution. (or de-evolution, if you prefer) Like when you go to see one of those old musical groups from your past and discover there hasn't been an original member in the group for the last 2 decades. The name is the same and that's about it. Everything else has changed, and not always in a good way. The other side of the coin is that there are groups that have chucked the name but continue on with business as usual. S.O.W.E.R.S. comes to mind at the moment. And, who even knows how many other splinters are out there, waiting to garner your interest? What they lack, for the most part, is that central, driving personality that started it all. Groups that are built on the personality of an individual leader tend to be short lived. Unless, of course, they fit the profile I described, in which case you might ask if they genuinely exist beyond the brand name.

You can add boredom and attrition to the mix. I'm sure there must be plenty of others.

These two are my only options?

It seems so crazy now that it felt *normal* to us to distance ourselves from our friends and family. How absurd that must have looked from the outside looking in.

We like to think that, unlike other cult-like, personality-centric movements and organizations that have come along, somehow The Way was different, special in its own way. It wasn't. It met a fate that is typical for such activity. We like to think we were special and unique because we were a part of it. We weren't. While we may very well be special and/or unique as individuals, it's not because of Way involvement. We're just like the people that got sucked into Scientology, Jehovah's Witnesses and so on. The main difference is that they haven't fallen apart yet. It's only a matter of time.

Yeah, it amazes me, too. Especially when I see them proclaiming the *greatness* of some particular thing or another, such as the law of believing, that has been debunked time and time and time again. As if proclaiming its greatness will somehow make it real. So, it appears that, while the organization itself went swiftly swirling down the crapper, the ideas and dogmas that drove it keep coming back like a bad penny on payday.

There were things I was told about or saw that I assumed were isolated incidents. Later, I discovered said activities were widespread. The sexual escapades are a common example. Another was the exploitation of others' resources, whether money, material goods, labor or special talents. My point here is that I did not realize these things were present throughout the *cough* ministry. I thought they existed only in the isolated observations I had made. Adding to the obscuring of facts was the idea you weren't supposed to talk about such matters with other believers. In fact, even voicing an acknowledgement signaled unrenewed mind on your own part for thinking evil of your brother or sister. So, a lot of misdeeds remained hidden. Is this related to what you mean or do you mean they do know but remain indifferent?

Fo' Shizzle!

No, I'm not a very good salesperson. But then, I'm not really selling anything so it doesn't matter. I'm not sure why you keep giving this reference to the original sin. That's not what session #7 is about. It may be mentioned in there but the essence of the session is that we are never to question what we believe to be the truth. (whatever that is) Instead, we're supposed to "STAND!" and not budge, no matter what. Bad things can happen if we don't. We could end up a grease spot by midnight. I assume you're very familiar with that expression, no? "So, if you suppose there is something new that I haven't already heard or considered, and can condense it to a hundred or so words or less, I'd be more than happy to read and consider it. But if you think I'm going to spend hours and hours looking down some rabbit hole looking for some, as of yet unknown or new (to me), thing." HERE is something to chew on for a while. It's definitely NOT 100 words or less. Well, I guess you could just take the session #7 route. "STAND!" on what you already think you know.....or give some careful consideration to other viewpoints. There are lots of other thought provoking discussions here on a variety of subjects. You'll never know that if you're focused on falling down rabbit holes.

You asked about session #7?

Well, if he does come back, I'm sure he'll have a PFAL book in his hand.

No, that's not it. What I'm referring to is the teaching on the 5 steps the serpent used to deceive Eve. She gave conscious thought to what he was presenting. We're not to be like Eve. We are to stand firmly on what we've been taught and never budge. Don't entertain thoughts that contradict Way theology. It led to the downfall of Eve and it will lead to yours too if you allow your mind to explore other possibilities. Get the picture?