Bolshevik

I agree. The Bible is a translation of a translation of a translation by various people of various cultures with wildly different perspectives and methods of engaging with reality. It's the game of telephone ad infinitum. Life is chaos. IMO everyone has to derive some consistent viewpoints just for the sake of sanity. Some mental anchors, if only temporary, are needed. There is a comfortable feeling, a sense of control, in thinking we've got some aspects of life figured out. In "The Way" I think this need was taken to the extreme. Absolutely everything about life was forced to consistency. After awhile that can also drive a person nuts, and the need to force issues arises. You can hold the Biblical Creationist viewpoint and the scientific Theory of Evolution in the same mind with going insane. So what if they conflict? Don't keep them in the same mental file, and don't use them to solve the same problems. I'm reminded now of the book, "Life of Pi". It's a quick read. Saying "what the Word says" I think is too assuming and dismissive of others views, or at least it can be that way. It's nice to have a reference outside two parties to help settle arguments, but maybe people are deflecting the issue at hand when quoting scripture?

Outsiders often do understand. And they use that information to their advantage. That's just a cruel truth of our culture.

Nonsensical doctrine should draw attention to ulterior motives. Instead people seem to want to force it to work. Why would VPW teach 3-part being? Why did he put a limit on what the God of The Bible can give?

We come back with already-renewed minds. Memories and personality are off the Word. :P God can only give that which He is. Spirit. So he gives the gift of holy spirit. He gave the earth. He gave his only begotten son. Therefore the Earth and Jesus are spirits. Jesus was a spirit being. The earth is spirit. Therefore our bodies are made of spirit. Our being is a convergence of spirits.

Interesting history HERE. I don't know that there's three distinct parts . . . there might be many more. However, overlapping terms covering a plethora of concepts in the effort to describe our being I think is most likely. You can't really pin down any one part without touching all or some of the others. Just starting with trying to conceptually separate the Mind from the Body is difficult enough . . . how distinct are they from each other really? As an aside: VPW's The Dead Are not Alive and how your spirit "goes back to God" . . . but you're dead, not alive . . . I always found odd, perhaps a blatant contradiction within his doctrine.

Thanks Rocky. The emphasis on *HOW* I know was used in the 90s . . . I remember using it as a teenager . . . I know I was parroting the adults because I had no clue what to say when I was forced to go witnessing (ever find witnessing and prophecy similar in practice?) . . . VPW may have used the Drunk story to reason away his own behavior and justify it somehow . . . but the HOW I think took on a life of it's own. People were talking about it . . . and clearly still are. edited for grammar

So basically, Study up on psychopathic thinking. EXAMPLE Then look at every story and topic in PFAL as a psychopath would use it for their purposes.

If he rose from the dead than he is around somewhere. Can't prove that he's not somewhere. If he rose from the dead, entropy was reversed. Perhaps a computer someday could calculate that anomaly occurring 2000 years ago. It wouldn't prove he rose from the dead. But that something or someone rose from the dead 2000 years ago, barring alternate explanations, might . . . well . . . start more arguments.

I'm thinking now there's a relationship between faith and deception, there's certainly one between freedom and responsibility. (Likely off-topic, but interesting). Deferring to a leadership's phrases to make a point, well, at least it's not plagiarism. You're at least citing the source of your mindless drivel.

I also don't plan to invest in watching a long video. I'm sure it's interesting. I have no idea of a real Jesus Christ existed ever, let alone rise from dead. So by that line of thought, no, the question is nonsense. Did a symbolic/metaphorical Jesus rise from the symbolic/metaphorical dead? (or something of that nature) Sure. Why not?

"Everything has a place and is in it's place", referring to organization. Something I was surprised by was that a lot of Wayisms are not Wayisms. They're phrases spoken in rural Western Ohio by folks not associated with TWI. They may have sounded unique 1000 miles away.

Followers use these "fathers in The Word" to back their own sloppy thinking. It's laziness. It's selfishness. It's their ego identifying with those men. They want to relieve uncomfortable thoughts of responsibility. It ties right into "leadership made me do it . . my hands are clean!" If YOU join/follow a cult, YOU are responsible for YOUR actions, words, decisions, and emotions.

I'm aware of all the posts on my own thread. I come from a different viewpoint than yourself, so we likely won't highlight all the same items in a thread as important or relevant.

Do you happen to remember how the *HOW* it struck you then? What emotions were conveyed? (We've got the HOW-Drunk origin established, I think. It's interesting. Can't connect with a Wayfer today with that story though, HA!)

Obviously, they do remember to some nostalgic-like effect. TWI's website I cited I think is from over 30 years past VPW's death. And why else would they write it? I don't know why another poster has been called out, but maybe they have some insight?

Can't really follow any of this. I'm sure this can be a topic for another thread.

I agree. I think PFAL was like a net, there were many stories, right? If one didn't catch the way intended, another might, and in conjunction with others maybe? And if a story didn't tangle you the first time, your own peers might discuss it with you later. For every soft-spoken word, there were much harsher words later in the timeline. He had to lower your guard first, then deliver the damage. By "old-timers", I meant currently involved in TWI. I think we might agree then? Edited to add, I see "importance of the vpw-ministry", I'll get back on that. You've got the emotional work-up with the Drunkard, and the "HOW" to rally around.

Awesome, Thanks DWBH. So here, VPW neatly nestles in a little story, preparing the PFAL grad's mind on HOW to respond when the truth happens to be revealed down the road? Got a problem with VPW's drunkenness? YOU, PFAL grad, agreed that it was okay many, many YEARS ago! But HOW you ask!? HA!

Yes, Thank you Raf. I personally don't care about the truthfulness of whether it happened or not. Assuming he made it up, I don't think VPW even made up a good story. Within VPW's telling of the story (from the collective memory here) I think there may be problems with the way VPW handled the Drunk, and that says something about VPW, and the people he "reached". Most folks who took "The Class" were very young the first time (early 20s?), is what I understand. I'd like to find and articulate the error in the class-takers judgment. I'm hopeful understanding that can be helpful. The "HOW" also serves today for "old-timers" as nostalgic, probably reinforcing old Waybrain thinking, and probably in a very subtle way.

Could you elaborate?

It was deliberately placed, by chance you heard it, why did it stick? What role did it play? Weren't you aghast the first time you heard it? Should you have been?

Thanks, Steve. I have vague memories of it as well. I was 12 years of age watching VPW's PFAL. One of the last years that it was run. I do picture PFAL as a swath trolling lines, this HOW story is one of the hooks set in a Wayfer's mind. It had to attract something off in a thinking process. Identifying what that is can help the de-hooking? The story sounds like he's trying to relate to life being difficult (a reason people drink). The drunk was blaming VPW for his inability to stay sober ("I came here to change, you ruined my chance, boo hoo"). VPW suddenly feels responsible? VPW then sets out to fix this problem? (By not being honest about life's hardships?) My take is that this is avoidance to the work required to change. VPW is promoting a passive attitude, if you take the story, you accept that?

Yertle the Turtle was a good story. Good lesson. Not a true story. Disregard it. Who cares. Good memories are for the weak. WHY would VPW use the alcohol story? WHAT was he HOWing?

"HOW not to be a drunk" Step 1. Don't.