waysider

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ekL7o8BQkZM

I'm not Raf but I have 2 problems with this post. 1. He is not *confirming there was a change in the gospel, nor is he saying the dispensational separations are valid. 2. Discussion of the legitimacy of dispensations belongs in a different thread. What you are doing with this post is what I would consider baiting.Baiting isn't cool.

For us, as survivors of the TWI experience, it started with PFAL. Session 5 was a real turning point. It was in that session we were instructed to "STAND", no matter what. We were taught to resist logical questioning and forgo the reasoning process in lieu of blind acceptance. I think you can trace some of the stubborn attitudes that have persisted all the way back to that session. Still, at that initial level, it was just an acceptance of evil's existence that we saw. The real solidifying lessons came a bit later, with classes like Dealing With The Adversary and Renewed Mind. In these classes we were exposed to the concept of evil not only existing but being pervasive. It's where we were schooled in the "En Gard!" mindset. These 2 classes probably instilled much more damaging thought patterns than we may realize. Now, how this ties into sociological problems for non-TWI people, I'm not sure. That's where I think the conversation really begins to take form.

It's a great topic for discussion. In my opinion, though, it's too broad in scope to give a fair treatment in a limited discussion forum. Maybe it can be broken down into smaller segments.

That topic belong somewhere else. edit: regarding dispensations/ dispensationalism.

I just come here for the refreshments. Let me know when the coffee's ready.

Welcome aboard. Raspberry scones are the special today.

Thanks for your take on the matter, Way back when. Not everyone reacts the same to adversity. I'm glad you were able to put yourself on a better course. Not everyone can do that on their own. And, sometimes things aren't as they appear to be. I suggest you stick around awhile and get to know people a bit more before you pass judgement. Well, anyhow, have a coffee on the house and look around a bit more.

Well, I try to entertain all possibilities. I mean, what's a party without a little entertainment, eh?

OR..the whole thing is metaphoric and was never meant to be taken literally.

Whipping a dead horse, in hopes it will spring back to life.

Label makers weren't invented until 1935. So, there's that....

I'm sure there must be a name for this kind of flawed logic. I just don't know what it is.

When I read this part, I believed it. Not in a literal sense, but metaphorically. My wife has an office in our home and works remotely. So, my mind automatically assumed you must have an office in your garage, the "teleporter" being a computer. Will people 2,000 years from now know what a computer was? I'm currently studying an Asian language. I have no delusions of ever becoming fluent. There just aren't enough years left in my life for that sort of growth. Someone once said that it's not about the destination, it's about the journey. That's how it is with me. Now, as part of my studies, I'm reading a book that is comprised of about a dozen classic folk stories that have been passed down through the ages by way of oral tradition. These stories have continued to survive because they have been used to teach certain values such as patience, diligence, modesty, wisdom and so on. Studying them is supposed to improve my reading skills. So far, so good. When I read these stories, am I to believe there was once a tortoise that raced with a hare and won? Or, that the sun and the moon were once a brother and sister who ascended into heaven on a rope to escape an evil tiger? Well, the answer is, of course, no. But, what I can believe is that these stories teach valuable life lessons that are worthy of preservation. Where I might get into trouble, though, is if I start believing I can climb up to heaven on a rope.

It's a variation of "I think, therefore I am." (You have to exist in order to think.)

I think you might have those shoes on backwards.

It makes sense to move it.

I'm not sure. The thread is over 9 years old. My thoughts on many things have certainly changed over that stretch of time. If I was starting the thread today, I would probably start it in Questioning Faith.

Here and now

...or so he claimed. (hence: Thus saith Paul.)

Nah. If these guys had really believed all that shtuff about devil spirits and the *law of believing* they wouldn't have felt the need for armed protection. Gun culture was really big in The Way back in the 1970's. Why is that? Could it have had something to do with VPW's ties to radical white supremacy groups? "Believing for thee, handguns for me" should have been their motto.

That's probably why he enlisted the aid of armed bodyguards or why, on at least one documented occasion, a loaded gun was kept under the podium in the BRC..

I meant to add that I first heard this story in 1972 from an Advanced Class grad.. It was told as if it had happened several years prior to the telling, in some non-TWI group. Then, I heard it again, being taught in the Advanced Class, by VPW, in 1973.

Here is where this thread started: Posted January 31, 2010 (edited) The "nostalgia for research" article/thread prompted me to contemplate the significance of "inerrancy". The Way Ministry focused primarily on study of The Pauline Epistles. This was a precedent that was established early in the PFAL class via the introduction of Biblical administrations (Dispensationalism), the concept of observing "To Whom It Is Written" and the idea behind all people belonging to three specific categories. ("Jew, Gentile or Church of God") In addition, it was established early in the PFAL class that what "Holy Men of God" spoke or wrote was tantamount to words directly from God, himself. Thus, we were to consider the contents of The Church Epistles to be equivalent to words from God (Holy Men Of God Spoke.), directly to us (To The Church of God), At one point during the course of the Fellow Laborer program, we were to read Ephesians a minimum of once a day. Then, we were to rehash it at our night twigs every night. Given the rigidness of the schedule we observed, this didn't last long nor were people very consistent in their diligence. That, however, is probably fodder for another topic. Here is were it gets sticky. Using the aforementioned criteria, it became an accepted "given" that whatever Paul said in Ephesians, Corinthians, etc was the same thing as God saying it directly to us. Suppose for a moment, though, that Paul was, perhaps, the VPW of his day. (So often, people would put forth the inverse idea that VPW was the Apostle Paul of our day and time.) Even now, years after his death, with the advent of the internet and the plethora of information it puts at our fingertips, some people still aren't able to see that VPW was really a con-man. People in the first century did not have access to resources that could prove or disprove Paul's legitimacy. We have heard people say that it's God's will we all speak in tongues (one example) because God said so in "His Word". Did He? Or, was it Paul who made that statement? Question five, of "listening with a purpose", in session eleven, poses the question, "Is it God's will that we all speak in tongues?" According to the answer key, the correct answer is "Yes". But think about it. Who really said "I would that ye all speak in tongues."? Wasn't it, in fact, Paul? Did he really say that "to us" or to a specific group of people two thousand years ago? There are many, many more examples of places where you could insert "Thus Saith Paul." What if Paul was really a forerunner of what we now call "con men"? What if Paul was the VPWFHDAT? (VPW for his day and time) It certainly shines a very different light on the importance and "inerrancy" of The Epistles.

Fortunately, though, history did preserve the memory of King Tut.