waysider

I know you like to use PFAL as a center of reference so that's what I'll use. In the PFAL foundational class, Wierwille stated that Heaven (or "the heavens") is Biblically defined as anything above the Earth's surface. In a later installment of the PFAL series of classes, (It might have been the Advanced Class...I'm not certain.) We were taught that there is a solid dome-like structure/membrane (firmament), beyond what we call Space, that holds back massive amounts of water. According to this teaching, the power struggle between God and Lucifer was so cataclysmic, it caused a temporary break in this structure, allowing huge quantities of water to leak through the barrier. This concept was used to explain The Great Flood, as well as explaining why comets are composed of ice crystals. Based on this, you could technically say that the firmament is a PART of "the heavens". Of course, scientific study (world wisdom) is responsibly for our knowledge of comet composition. Can we trust it to be true?

So, then, your basis is because VPW said so in PFAL? That doesn't sound like a very strong argument, in my opinion.

Re-posted to edit grammar.

There was an unwritten rule in The Way that you weren't supposed to date anyone who was not a Way believer. And, it follows suit that you obviously wouldn't marry anyone who you never dated. Ergo, you have to marry a Way Believer. And, not just any believer, but, one who is at the same "growth" level. (Corps marry Corps, etc.) Were we nuts to buy into this insanity?? Let the horror stories begin.

The same thing applied for guys, too. If you were an unbeliever you could ask out anybody you wanted to but, if you were a believer you had "these 5" to pick from. :( (That might be too far off-topic. Maybe I should start another thread.)

Yeah, retemory cards.... Got a problem opportunity? Just throw a scripture at it and SIT. Everything will be just peachy. SIGH

What was the big deal with definitions? It seemed like everything had to have some big, convoluted definition. (I think it was just a way to make things seem more important and relevant than they really were.)

We were taught that TIP and Prophesy all always forth telling and never fore telling of future events. What is the basis for that idea? It seems to me like that is merely a handy way to obviate a potential objection, rationalize an obvious flaw before it becomes an issue of contention..

"Just write The Teacher at P.O. Box........"

It's astounding how so much of the Way doctrine we based our lives on depended on this stuff being genuine. It's like finding out, on your 29th birthday, that you were really adopted.

Raf never said that.

World wisdom is anything that is not in alignment with the "teachings" of VPW.

OK, so, let's bring it back on topic, then. If "scripture is the basis for all things spiritually energized", how do you explain revelation? (or, at least revelation as defined by VPW in the Advanced Class) Wierwille maintained that word of knowledge involved that which is impossible to know by the five senses, which, of course, is the avenue by which we know scripture.

Why?

Thanks for pointing that out. I'll edit it. Can you explain what you mean by this and why, if true, that would make it a bad thing? Or, if you prefer, you could explain why you've once again assumed it's your duty to drive this thread off topic again.

One's ability to engage in critical thinking is unrelated to one's opinion of VPW. Willingness, on the other hand, is another kettle of fish.

John This is somewhat peripheral to the central discussion but I think it needs to be examined in order to gain more insight into the main topic. Scripture is known by the 5 senses. (seeing, hearing, touch, in the case of Braille) Wierwille said, in the AC, that revelation involves something that is IMPOSSIBLE to know by the five senses. Do you consider revelation to be be spiritually energized? If you do, it disproves your statement.

Your "argument" is totally disconnected from the point at hand. Simply try to answer the question without resorting to unrelated rhetoric. Am I asking you you do something unreasonable? This is the statement you made: "... scripture is the basis for all things spiritually energized." So, the onus is on you to illustrate how that statement applies to the examples you listed.

My condolences on your recent loss.

Interestingly, this contradicts the Advanced Class definitions for the revelation manifestations. Is word of knowledge considered to be spiritually energized? If so, here's what the A.C. syllabus has to say: ".....you may receive from God, by His revealing it to you, certain truths or facts concerning any situation about which it is humanly impossible for you by your five senses to know anything." Now, before you go off about how TIP/Prophesy is not done by revelation, I remind you that you said "all things spiritually energized".

The discrepancy in question here is whether he said, "One small step for Man, one giant leap for Mankind" ...or.... "One small step for a man, one giant leap for Mankind". Personally, I don't think he actually uttered the "a" but I believe that is what he was implying. If he had uttered the first statement verbatim, he would have been saying something that contradicts itself.

Here's a stray thought that passed through my mind: If TIP and Prophesy are really "spiritually energized", why is knowledge of scripture or scripture-related phraseology required to produce it?

On July 20, 1969, Apollo 11 landed on the Moon. HERE

Here's how TIP/Prophesy works: You fill your mind with "Bible-talk", via classes, twig meetings, so on and so forth. When the time comes, you simply recapitulate said Bible-talk in a manner that satisfies the rules that have been laid out. That's it, no mystery, no mystical power at work. Sorry if that sounds blunt and cold. That's how it happens. (IMO)

I have no idea where you are going with this, John. If you need an example, try Psalm 102:26,27. There are lots of other examples, as well. If the materials in TIP were based on something that is constant, why did the rules change and evolve? I think you already know the answer. It was man-made and contrived. If it wasn't, Wierwille would have had to say he had made a mistake the first time he presented it. As you know, Wierwille wasn't too big on saying he'd made a mistake about anything....ever.