penworks

Not to my knowledge. You can keep up with Kristen at her blog: http://losingtheway.blogspot.com/

Howard was a construction guy who helped build the old BRC. In around 1969 or so, he also helped VP build the little BRC wannabe building in Greenville, NC in the backyard of the Limb Way Home, a nice house on Fifth Street in Greenville near ECU. That's where I first took PFAL.

It was, believe me. What use is this teaching? If you ask me, it's crazy talk.

Bingo. Lately I've been thinking about how magicians use misdirection to fool their onlookers. In other words, keep them entertained with the left hand while the right hand stuffs the rabbit under the hat, then lift the hat with the left hand and WOW, the tricky rabbit appears seemingly out of nowhere. Something like that. That was VP's M.O.

For me when I came to understand the idea that religions are like masks for this invisible force we call God, then things made more sense. Joseph Campbell has done tons of work in this comparative religion field. Bill Moyers interviewed him in the 1980s and there's a book, The Power of Myth, which is pretty much a transcription of their conversation. I found it helpful as it points out the common ground in religions, which is pretty much the golden rule. But by their actions many times you woulnd't know that's the main idea, sadly. I'll go out on a limb here and say I'm feeling that I'm at the stage where I feel I am part of the fabric of "god" just like everyone and everything else. Those who say Jesus is the only way to God forget that they are reading the gospel of John, written down by someone (or several sources) who heard oral traditions and decided to use that idea as a way to leverage power over other competing ideas about Jesus that were floating around at the time. This is my opinion influenced by people like Elaine Pagels in Beyond Belief, etc. What interests me more these days is the question of consciousness. What is it? Perhas that is meant by "god." There are lots of brilliant minds working on the question that you can read. I like some (and I emphasize SOME) of the articles in the magazine, EnlightenNEXT. It's online and in print. NOTE to Composer: I understand your frustrations with the lame explanations that God has a reason when a baby dies, for instance. They are more than lame, they are offensive and disgusting to me. At any rate, this topic is personal to me because this idea was what kicked off my search for answers in 1968 which led me to accept TWI's lame and offensive answers until I left and kept searching. I watched my mother die when I was 16. The Catholic church told me God wanted her in heaven. I thought, why would he need her more than I do? I don't need a god like that. So, long story short, there I was in TWI brushing off this trauma with the dogma that essentially said, Oh no big deal. You'll see her again at the gathering together (if she was born again). The devil killed her not God. Something about this chills me even now. It dishonors the value of human life. But that's another topic. It makes you value only an imaginary afterlife and not pay attention to making this current life a better one. Anyhow, I appreciate the ideas in this thread but I would caution Composer in two ways: first, try and write your posts with more respect for us who read them. We are people like you, we have feelings, and we might be smarter than you think, so give us some credit before putting us down. Put yourself in our shoes for a minute before posting and ranting - think about how your posts might be received...if the goal is genuine inquiry, a respectful tone can be communicated I think, even inspite of the shortcomings of this way of dialogue - typed words on a screen. Secondly, before you call the Bible a story book in a derogatory way, think about how sacred it is to some people...try and get some more information about just what it is and its history. That can make your critiques of it more readily accepted...at least perhaps more people will listen to your core ideas like how awful it is to tell suffering people God loves them and has a reason for their suffering, which have value to some of us who share them. What helps me in this ecounter at GSC is to try and get some perspective on how emotional I might be feeling at the time I type. If I'm too intense, I try and wait to post until later. I ain't perfect at this but I am trying to be more aware...religious ideas seem to be inherently emotionally charged for lots of people... Hope this is useful. If not, there's file 13. Cheers, Pen

For me Composer raises an issue that's important and I agree with George that we've kept playing this same card handed down to us from a long Christian theological tradition. So here are a few of my thoughts, ones that I've wrestled with for more than 20 years since leaving TWI...and a few book titles that have helped me. I have found books like God's Problem by Bart Ehrman (who is agnostic for the very reason Composer raises and that is that if God causes suffering, then who needs that?) I agree, I can say that I am agnostic if you are referring to the kind of God depicted in the Bible. But I do think there's something invisible that we don't understand completely. All the major religions have tried to articulate it. I've adjusted what I refer to as God as simply the creative/destructive energy that's in the world. For me, there is no God's will vs. Satan's type of theology anymore, but that's just me. Ehrman is helpful in outlining the different sorts of depictions of "Gods" in the O.T. and the new. Marcion taught this long ago, too, saying they were two different gods altogether. I believe I have my info straight on this, but you should check if you are interested. I think we need to remember that man's perception of God recorded in the Bible varied culture to culture, age to age. In my view, the writers used a metaphor, a word, to try and identify the energy the cause of events, etc. around them and explain things. The Bible attributes characteristics to God that are man-like, using metaphors. I think the problem is that readers of the Bible forget they are only reading metaphors (like God is our Father) and they make the metaphor the real thing. And they mistakenly say God says stuff when in actuality they are quoting the men's writings that ended up in the Bible. For myself, the history of the idea of God is well articulated by Karen Armstrong in her book, A History of God. DEFINITELY worth checking out. Just for kicks, I'll tell you that in 1991 I wrote a college paper for a college class on creation. For what it's worth, here is a bit from it: "...in Theology for a Nuclear Age, Gordon D. Kaufman makes the point that metaphors from religious traditions have caused more harm than good: for instance, in the name of God as King, nations have slaughtered other peoples, claiming them as the enemies of God. " Maybe this info is helpful to some here...perhaps food for thought anyhow... Peace, Pen

I helped do that . See my post in Relics: http://www.greasespo...c/20652-relics/

Thanks, Steve. I'll look into Philo and the rest. The "where did that idea come from" sort of question always interests me and naturally, this one does very much because in my view it affects the main premise of TWI research - inerrancy... Cheers!

Hi everyone, Perhaps this info would be more useful here in this thread rather than where I posted it yesterday in response to a comment by Robert on the old thread about my article. Anyhow, for what it's worth...I've found James Barr's works very helpful in understanding the issue of inerrancy of the scriptures, so maybe some of you might, too. roberterasmus, on 08 March 2010 - 11:25 AM, said: The inerrancy issue is very important to some who do think the the originals were "perfect". RE Posted Yesterday, 08:16 AM Indeed, it is. Most of us acknowledge that the inerrancy of the Bible (that it is free of errors or discrepancies of any kind) is not only a hallmark of fundamentalist thought, but of many evangelical positions, as Bob points out it is addressed in many institutions of higher learning. We understand it comes from the idea of divine perfection, i.e. that "God is perfect," so His Word (the Bible) must be "perfect." This is an idea VP inherited and propounded in PFAL over and over again. Where this idea comes from is interesting to me, so I thought the following info might be useful to others interested in this thread. This is from the biblical scholar, James Barr, in his book Fundamentalism, pg. 277: "When conservatives say that the Bible is inspired by God, this means for them that it is completely without faults, failings, errors or discrepancies of any kind, or that such as exist are so absolutely minimal as not to count. What is the basis for this conclusion? There is no biblical or exegetical ground upon which it can be made, and conservative apologists do not even pretend to attempt an exegetical demonstration of it. [ Penworks note: exegetical means explanatory, in this case explain from the Bible.] The implication is a philosophical one. The nature of God is to be perfect; and if he involves himself in something, as he would do in inspiring a collection of books, these books would partake in the divine qualities of perfection...This way of thinking about God does not come from the Bible. In the Bible God is presented above all as active and personal: he can be argued out of positions he has already taken up, he operates in a narrative sequence and not out of a static perfection. The picture of God which presents perfection as the essence of the doctrine of God is clearly of Greek origin and is well represented in the Platonic and Aristotelian traditions. It was incorporated into Christian thought at a very early date and has remained extremely influential. " I'd like to know when this "very early date" was. Does anyone participating in this discussion happen to know? James Barr's credentials are outlined in several places, including in this tribute by Vanderbuilt University upon his death: James Barr Cheers, Pen

Can you please clarify what you mean a bit more?

Indeed, it is. Most of us acknowledge that the inerrancy of the Bible (that it is free of errors or discrepancies of any kind) is not only a hallmark of fundamentalist thought, but of many evangelical positions, as Bob points out it is addressed in many institutions of higher learning. We understand it comes from the idea of divine perfection, i.e. that "God is perfect," so His Word (the Bible) must be "perfect." This is an idea VP inherited and propounded in PFAL over and over again. Where this idea comes from is interesting to me, so I thought the following info might be useful to others interested in this thread. This is from the biblical scholar, James Barr, in his book Fundamentalism, pg. 277: "When conservatives say that the Bible is inspired by God, this means for them that it is completely without faults, failings, errors or discrepancies of any kind, or that such as exist are so absolutely minimal as not to count. What is the basis for this conclusion? There is no biblical or exegetical ground upon which it can be made, and conservative apologists do not even pretend to attempt an exegetical demonstration of it. [ Penworks note: exegetical means explanatory, in this case explain from the Bible.] The implication is a philosophical one. The nature of God is to be perfect; and if he involves himself in something, as he would do in inspiring a collection of books, these books would partake in the divine qualities of perfection...This way of thinking about God does not come from the Bible. In the Bible God is presented above all as active and personal: he can be argued out of positions he has already taken up, he operates in a narrative sequence and not out of a static perfection. The picture of God which presents perfection as the essence of the doctrine of God is clearly of Greek origin and is well represented in the Platonic and Aristotelian traditions. It was incorporated into Christian thought at a very early date and has remained extremely influential. " James Barr's credentials are outlined in several places, including in this tribute by Vanderbuilt University upon his death: James Barr

This cannot be said enough!

In that situation, yes, I agree that hypocrisy is only the beginning of what is revealed - abuse (and criminal behavior in some cases that unfortunately went unprosecuted) is also revealed...

Yeah, when you begin to apply VP's "dogmas" or "standards" like this to him, it gets very interesting... it's like flipping the switch of perspective to turn it on him...it reveals a lot of hypocrisy quite fast.

I've kept mine around in case I ever wanted to write a memoir and refer to what those notes might have to offer...

Agree. This is one of the most outrageous ideas coming from TWI I've heard yet. I can say I NEVER heard it when I was in from 1970-1987.

And if you can get a copy of The Way Living in Love, by Elena Whiteside, you can read VP's own words that, even if read with as objective an eye as you can muster, in my view clearly show how pompous, self-righteous, deluded, etc. etc. he was in all the accounts of himself and how he began TWI. Good grief...and I'm embarrassed to say part of my story is in that book, too. The book is a piece of blantant propaganda, no matter how well intended the author, and I am now ashamed that I let myself be used as part of it. It ain't easy living with that ... thankfully, I feel I can now make some reparations. Here at GSC, for instance...

No, come to think of it, he was no match for Robert but he was a close second... maybe...

Well, yes, Geer gave a major boost to "get back to VP" um, I mean "get back to the basics of the Word" dogma, but LCM did his part in pushing the VP worship thing, too, with his "VP and ME" book especially...

I think if you search around here you'll find plenty on his qualitites as a person. I think he fits the criteria of a sociopath (you can find definitions on the web). He could be charming and funny, and that helped him manipulate us. I interpreted his boldness and abusive language as being "bold for God's Word" like the O.T. prophets. How dumb of me. IMO love and respect for him depends on a person's belief in his being "the man of God for this day and time" and his teaching the "accuracy of the Word." Until a persons gives up those ideas, the worship continues, I think...

Yes, I am aware of that. For me, I wanted no more additional info added to it. Why keep giving free info about myself and my life. I don't have any idea how they are using it. IMO, FB is not transparent. They have info on me but I have no info on "the man behind the curtain." I think it's a lopsided system.

This is a long complicated story. The short answer is yes. Sometimes it wasn't that clear cut. Sometimes rationalization or double-talk was involved. Sometimes he wasn't confronted. By the time I left research in 1986, he'd been dead over a year. His authority lived on, however. For instance, when I asked W*lter Cum*mins, the head of research, whether George Lamsa misled VP on Aramaic issues (which could be a way to explain the errors in the Eli Eli interpretation), he told me VP was more spiritual than any of us. That was supposed to mean that no matter what question we might ask, in the end VP had the final word. The appeal to his spiritual insight, often made both by himself and others like W*lter Cum*ins, kept questions at bay. Or else the questioner was kicked out and a smear campaign began. Evidence of this was when several in the 8th Corps raised questions about "the end times" and pointed out VP's research had holes in it. Although I don't happen to agree with what they were claiming any more than I accept VP's theology (if you can call it that), what I think is atrocious is the fact they were kicked out and publically shunned. That tells you how closed a system TWI was and still is. In my view, TWI left me, I didn't leave it. TWI claimed in the early 1970s to be open to new insights, new things learned from the Bible and would change when they found "new light." This appealed to me. I have the information sheet handed out by The Way that states this claim. This so-called promise was not kept. But to be fair, it was silly of me to believe it. I should have asked the hard questions like: who decided what to change and when and how to let followers know of the changes. etc. But since teachings were taught as "the truth" how could you go back and change them? How can you change what you once taught was the "truth?" That would mean truth changes and that idea was the opposite of what they taught. But at 18 years old and hungry for answers, I swallowed the promises without thinking critically. The original so-called open-ness I liked might have existed on the surface and may have actually happened in small twigs, but officially with PFAL on tape and books printed, it became impossible to change anything. No processes were in place for making changes to any of that. But you know what? That is all irrelevant because in the end, in my view, VP's approach to the Bible was to harmonize (or in other words make up his own interpretation of) scriptures in order to avoid accepting any contradications or errors or different points of view found in books like the gospels, for instance. He bent over backwards to support the "inerrancy" doctrine that he and other Fundamentalists honor without question. Inerrancy at all costs! For me, the cost was too high. Sometimes it cost the reputations and years of effort of people who loved truth. In my view, the TWI system of belief, with inerrancy of the scriptures at its heart, is a defensive one, based on fear. It fears questions and other ways of valuing the Bible. There are plenty of threads here about the TWI so-called research, so if you want to search for them, you'll find more on this topic. Cheers.

Hey, Paw and everyone here, thanks for Greasespot and the courage you have to keep it going! Happy 10th anniversary! Pen

For me, the reasons were cummulative, but I guess this section from my story, An Affinity for Windows, says it in a nutshell: "I began to understand that fundamentalism held the Way hostage in its research efforts. But expecting the Way to change was like expecting an oak tree to grow tulips – it's impossible. Its nature can't permit it." Shamelessly, I'll give you the link to it : An Affinity for Windows