penworks

I'm having the same issue. How do I fix it?

Sirguess... Thanks for reminding us of certain developments...we do well to remember these points you made: simply develops...and development occurs in stages... faith develops in stages self-awareness develops in stages cognition develops in stages morals develop in stages consciousness develops in stages yada yada yada stages build sequentially on failures of previous stages...all stages eventually run their course (fail)...out of the ashes rise a higher order....such is the wisdom of folly all are forgiven...all is beautiful, good and true life is indeed a stage

http://www.jhm.org/ME2/Default.asp Geisha, IMO, adamant fundamentalists like John Hagee, for example [web site above], are dangerous because of the hate-filled speech he spews using the Bible as his authority and source for judgment on others during his T.V. services. Hundreds of people believe him; I’d venture to say thousands do. Emotional damage, split-up families, all manner of divisions and hurts can be caused by his teachings - that's what I think makes his mindset dangerous...dangerous to people’s well-being. On the very extreme end of his kind of thinking can be physical violence. I don't think this is news to any of us... What I use to define Fundamentalism can be found in my article, expressed in the quotes from James Barr and Karen Armstrong. Armstrong's in-depth book, The Battle for God - A History of Fundamentalism, which I list at the end of my article, offers a detailed account of the histories of fundamentalism spawned by the three major monotheistic religions. (she doesn't cover Buddhists or any other group in her book). Here's another example: Joel Osteen Cheers!

I think we're not connecting very well. I don't believe I have ever said that because the Bible is not perfect it cannot contain any truth. But what those truths are to me may not include the things you think are true. The truths I see are things like the golden rule, the fruit of the spirit, general principles of ethical behavior that are also found elsewhere. Nor do I believe I ever said a person can't believe in Christ if the Bible is not perfect. People do it all the time. I just chose not to. Perhaps the problem in our communication here is that there are too many topics tangled up that we may or may not feel differently about. No problem. I try to make every effort not to hold extreme views (what I consider extreme may not be what you think are extreme, though), so where I have done so in my previous posts, point it out clearly so I can address it. I will do my best. Here's a list of the many topics mashed together, in my opinion. I'm not able to address each one and doing that is really beyond my ability. My interest in these things is more like a hobby than anything else right now, mainly because I'm still working on writing my story and these things play into it: The Bible's history The cultures of the writers of the Bible Textual errors in the Bible Inerrancy of the Bible Bibliolatry - the worship of the Bible which to me means placing it as the final authority on everything Truth - which can be found in and outside the Bible Theology - the study of God Interpretations of the scriptures A belief in Christ that depends on inerrancy A belief in Christ that does not depend on inerrancy A belief in Christ that includes bibliolatry A belief in Christ that does not include bibliolatry At this point, I guess I'm at a loss as to how to contribute much of anything else to the discussion right now...and since I've been hogging a good deal of the posts today, I'll let others chime in...

I see where you are coming from - Christ is the "answer" for you. We are in different rooms on this...I left the Christianity room awhile ago. What prompted my leaving is a long story but it was prompted when I questioned the authority of the text when I came to see discrepancies in it. I think my story Affinity shows that. But giving up Christianity was a much more complex journey than getting upset over a few Bible contradictions. As I said, Bible study does not have to necessarily be tied to having faith in Christianity or in Judaism, if you’re studying only the Hebrew Bible. I think in this world, religion may not have been the sole cause of major conflicts but without an academic understanding of it (knowledge for understanding’s sake not knowledge for knowledge’s sake as you pointed out) we’ll have a hard time solving those conflicts. Regarding faith...I’ve said in other posts that faith and study of the Bible (or any other book) are separate issues to me. People believe all sorts of “spiritual” things, faith in God, faith in Christ being God’s Son or the second person of the trinity, or some other sort of being - without their belief being tied to a verse in any book, or an alternate reading of a verse, or on a Syriac reading instead of a Greek one. I do want to say I like the description of authorship in ancient times that you copied above: Not surprisingly, ancient views about 'authorship' are not quite the same as modern views which assume 'individual' authors for almost all documents that aren't collections of essays by some group of scholars. However in ancient collectivistic cultures this was not the norm. Many, if not most ancient documents were anthological in character--- a compilation of traditions from various different persons and ages through time. That’s a good example of the book being a product of a different way of life (culture) and a different world view. Inerrancy and resulting bibliolatry has no interest in considerations of this sort, because to acknowledge such things would undercut the basis of their authority...that the Bible is God’s perfect Word (albeit in the originals) and our only rule of faith and practice. That to me is a dangerous world view. I held it for 17 years in TWI. I held a similar view as a Catholic the 18 years before TWI – that the Catholic Church was the one true faith and everyone else was going to hell. That’s just as fundamentalist as TWI in that one regard. I think we cannot underestimate the important fact that the Bible is a culturally-tied book and the implications of that fact are deep and wide. Faith is a personal matter, some say, and I agree. When it becomes a problem is when we think ours is the right or true one and everyone else’s is of the devil, or at least misguided. Mmmm...there must be a better way...

Very insightful posts by Ben Witherington. I like the way he examines Bart Ehrman's work, especially, because I like a lot of what he writes. But since I am not a scholar, I have to weigh what lots of these people write with my own common sense and try to think of what assumptions they begin with to build their arguments. After reading Ben’s posts, I notice there is still a lot of theology behind his views. It is probably unavoidable. For instance, I think he still begins from the assumption that there is a “personal” God who mysteriously guides situations certain ways. For example, you see this below: Witherington: “The bigger issue that Bart wants to raise is of course how one could think the Bible as we have it is the inspired Word of God when, 1) this concept is limited to the original autographs of the Bible, and 2) we don’t have them anymore, and anyway 3) the canon of Scripture was compiled by fallible human beings, not by God. Penworks: The following statements show Ben’s theology kicking in: Witherington: “For him [bart], the deeper theological problem here is why God would allow us to lose the original manuscripts if it was so important to have the inspired Word of God. This is a perfectly appropriate question, and it deserves a fair answer.” Penworks: I haven’t read any theological question from Bart. He is a student of historical criticism of the texts, not theology which is the study of God, what or who God is and in so doing, seems to interpret the Bible according to a particular view of what or who God is and what He does. Often, I think theologians forget they are using metaphors to refer to the unknowable (God) and turn that creative, unknowable force into an entity. But that idea stems from the one Israel had in the O.T. about their monotheistic god. For more on this, I suggest the book, A History of God by Karen Armstrong. Witherington: “If we wanted to give a theological answer, [some of us are not looking for one] we could immediately remind the reader of the problem with golden calves… namely in the hands of fallen human beings they tend to get worshipped. It is entirely believable to me that God allowed things to go as they did in regard to the original manuscripts of the Bible to prevent mistaking the means for the end, and even worshipping the means, by which I mean the original autographs of the Bible. In other words, bibliolatry, the worship of a perfect book, was and is a real possibility for fallen human beings.” Penworks: I agree that bibliolatry is a huge problem. But Theology is man’s way of slapping an explanation on an event that somehow drags in an invisible God and makes claims about what that God does or does not do, think, or say. My guesses about those matters would be as good as the next guy’s. Penworks: I don’t agree bibliolatry exists because we are theologically “fallen” because that is a Christian theology type of answer. Who says were “fallen” to begin with? Christians! I think it’s because people are afraid to think for themselves, in general, and so we look to a book to tell us what to do. What better book than one that some say is “inspired by God.” But remember, to believe that, a person must assume at least two major things: 1) there is only one God; hence monotheism is the only way to describe the unknowable 2) there is the sort of God that intervenes with human affairs. If one holds those two ideas as true, then all sorts of “us vs. them” scenarios play out, i.e. which side of a war is God supporting? The list of problems is endless. Although the problem of bibliolatry is a point well made by Witherington, I think he misses the fact that his own theology is supplying explanations that may be satisfactory to him but leave many of us unsatisfied because we don’t hold the same assumptions about his God that he does. The Bible, no matter how we got it, no matter how we feel about its authority or lack thereof, still remains a culturally-bound book, and there's no end of ignorance about that fact and its implications - I’ll be the first one to admit I’m still getting educated about that! What I do know from my life experience in TWI and thereafter, and from the evidence of many other people’s stories, is that bibliolatry perpetuated by Christian fundamentalism is a serious issue of enormous importance. Fundamentalist Bible cults will continue to sprout up because the “general public” seems okay with the basis for these groups – a belief that a particular book has all the answers they need in this life. Bibliolatry of necessity involves a denial of anyone else’s differing interpretations of what the book says and means...interpretations offered by none other than...theologians.

Along these lines of thinking about Genesis, a very helpful book is Who Wrote the Bible by Richard Elliott Friedman, which I first read in about 1989 and it only enriched my understanding about who wrote the Bible (a question I had not allowed myself to ask aloud while in TWI). To me, that's the first question I ask now when I pick up any book. Here's a portion from it: "The hypothesis that the Five Books of Moses were the result of such a combining of several older sources by different authors was exceptionally important because it prepared the way to deal with a new item of evidence that was developed by three investigators in the following century [after 1688 A.D.]: the doublet. A doublet is a case of the same story being told twice. Even in translation it is easy to observe that biblical stories often appear with variations of detail in two different places in the Bible. There are two different stories of the creation of the world. There are two stories of the covenant between God and the patriarch Abraham, two stories of the naming of Abraham's son Isaac...” (pg 22).

Fantastic. Love the point made so clearly!

Due to the interest in this sort of topic in the Nostalgia thread, here's a link to a site with an article quoting the same book I've read by Eric Hoffer called The True Believer - Thoughts on the Nature of Mass Movements. The True Believer - quotes used in article on Fort Hood tragedy

Due to the interest in this thread, I'll start a topic called True Believers?

For more about this TWI offshoot read:

On the topic of nostalgia for the old TWI research, etc., someone recently asked me what were the hallmarks of an "offshoot" leader. I found this quote in a book called The True Believer - Thoughts on the Nature of Mass Movements, by Eric Hoffer published in 1951 and think it is apt for such a discussion. I've put a couple of my own comments in [ ]: Pg. 150 : “...he cannot help being awed by the tremendous achievements of faith and spontaneity in the early days of the movement [nostalgia for the good old TWI days?] when a mighty instrument of power was conjured out of the void. The memory of it is still extremely vivid. He takes, therefore, great care to preserve in the new institutions an impressive façade of faith, and maintains an incessant flow of fervent propaganda, though he relies mainly on the persuasiveness of force [psychological not physical necessarily]. His orders are worded in pious vocabulary, and the old formulas and slogans are continually on his lips. The symbols of faith are carried high and given reverence [the Bible, the classes, etc.]. The men of words and the fanatics of the early period are canonized. Though the steel fingers of coercion make themselves felt everywhere and great emphasis is placed on mechanical drill [mindless repetition of verses, theological ideas], the pious phrases and fervent propaganda give to coercion a semblance of persuasion, and to habit a semblance of spontaneity.”

Someone recently asked what were the hallmarks of an "offshoot" leader. I found this quote in a book called The True Believer - Thoughts on the Nature of Mass Movements, by Eric Hoffer published in 1951 (before much was published about cults) and think it is apt for such a discussion. I've put a couple of my own comments in [ ]: Pg. 150 : “...he cannot help being awed by the tremendous achievements of faith and spontaneity in the early days of the movement [nostalgia for the good old TWI days?] when a mighty instrument of power was conjured out of the void. The memory of it is still extremely vivid. He takes, therefore, great care to preserve in the new institutions an impressive façade of faith, and maintains an incessant flow of fervent propaganda, though he relies mainly on the persuasiveness of force [psychological not physical necessarily]. His orders are worded in pious vocabulary, and the old formulas and slogans are continually on his lips. The symbols of faith are carried high and given reverence [the Bible, the classes, etc.]. The men of words and the fanatics of the early period are canonized. Though the steel fingers of coercion make themselves felt everywhere and great emphasis is placed on mechanical drill [mindless repetition of verses, theological ideas], the pious phrases and fervent propaganda give to coercion a semblance of persuasion, and to habit a semblance of spontaneity.”

Hi Taxicab, Yeah, there's so much to choose from in the Bible when one wants to slant theology in their own special direction. The Red Thread is a great example. I do want to add that my comments about the Bible are not meant to be disrespectful of it. There's no doubt it has truths in it that are helpful and shed light on the human condition. The problem is as I see it, people use it to make money off of other people's ignorance of it, use it to control people, and misrepresent what's in the text in ways that are disrespectful and recklessly misrepresentative (is that a word?) of the writers of each document, their times, their intentions, their culture, etc. Cheers and see you 'round the cafe!

Glad you liked the article. The Bible is a book of literature, as you pointed out, but the interesting aspect of it to me is that it is an anthology - a group of separate writings. They don't constitute a book in the sense we usually approach a book. The Bible is like about 60 books bound together. No statement can be made in it that speaks about it as a whole since it was not written as a whole. There's no ONE writer. There are many. So, IMO, VPW's claim that the Bible can even say anything about itself is erroneous. I should have stood up in the PFAL class and said, "Wait, show me the verse that says the Bible is God's Word." I think the typical answer was John 17:17, "Thy word is truth." BUT wait! VPW took that verse out of context, which was something he accused others of incorrectly doing. That verse is part of a prayer that the gospel writer recorded as Jesus was praying to his Father. It is not referring to the Bible, for heaven's sake. THERE WAS NO BIBLE YET.

You are not the first person I've heard who has made that deduction!

IMO this group is continuing to propound TWI errors and false claims, stating as truth their own beliefs beginning with stating "The Bible is the Word of God." This is the definition of the Bible that VPW began with. He defined what the Bible was. We all know, he denounced anyone with an educated differing opinion on what the documents were. In my view, it is dishonest to say that is biblical research. It does not seem that these groups will ever come clean and state that what they are teaching is their BELIEF, and if anyone wants to join in and believe with them, fine. But they continually claim their beliefs as THE TRUTH and that everyone else should believe it or else go to hell or lose rewards or suffer some other demise. This system is intolerant and has caused more trouble than healing IMO. Don't hold your breath if you think they will change. They've invested too much.

...and those trying to "clean up" the research even when VP contradicted himself often failed, for example, his two different teachings on when soul life begins. 1971: PFAL book Pg. 237 “The soul life is in the blood and is passed on when the sperm impregnates the egg at the time of fertilization.” Contradicts these two later teachings: 1977: Christian Family and Sex class, 1977 syllabus Pg. 12 “The most dramatic part of the birth is the crowning because this is when the baby takes its first breath of life and becomes a living soul.” 1979: Advanced Class Segment 9 (on tape which I no longer have): “The first breath of a child is soul life, until that time, there’s no soul life.” So between 1971 when the PFAL book first came out, and 1977, only a six-year span of time, something changed for VPW regarding this topic. Again, in 1979 he repeated the 1977 version. Anyone who continues to claim we were "taught The Word" needs to think again!

Just for the record, it doesn't apply in my case either.

Quote from Oldschool's transcription of the podcast: "...the Word of God says that Christians should give their very lives as living sacrifices and that certainly includes giving; giving time, material goods, and money. Although some people's situation may be such that they cannot give ten percent to the work of God, many people can and should give more than that. This teaching not only covers giving and tithing, but also provides biblical information about what to give and where Christians should give." The above is a rehash of TWI dogma, as most of us can see. I'm reminded of this quote from The True Believer - Thoughts on the Nature of Mass Movements by Eric Hoffer, " It is startling to realize how much unbelief is necessary to make belief possible." p79.

Hi Greasespotters: In my files I recently found this page of propaganda written for VPW in the 1970s by a Corps grad - it is not copyrighted. I am posting it here because I think it illustrates the old "likeminded" dogma we heard all the time in TWI. But this thinking is not over yet. Recently I was told something like it from a TWI offshoot leader (I will leave his name out of this) who said "I am sorry about the strife that seems to constantly occur in the Body of Christ. Our best bet is to stay holy and stay obedient." I'm not sure who he includes in the Body of Christ, but I do believe he got this way of thinking from TWI in the old days when we thought "we" were unified... The following is the retyped page: II Corinthians 1:5 - A literal translation Demolish your human logic from the high position to which you have lifted it vertically against the knowledge of God which you have known by experience. Be wise, lead captive everything to Christ which you attentively listened to and heard. Retention statistics 25% of all people forget what they have learned in 24 hours 50% of all people forget what they have learned in 48 hours 15% of all people forget what they have learned in 96 hours In 16 days practically everyone has forgotten what they have learned. 62% of ideas people accept and retain come with the 6th hearing. Noteworthy notes: “Now I beseech you brethren, by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that ye all speak the same thing, and that there be no divisions among you, but that ye be perfectly joined together in the same mind and in the same judgment.” I Cor. 1:10 Our ministry in the midst of our times is continually reminded of this verse. As believers of the Word, we must be in complete agreement when it comes to voicing The Word. It is vitally important for our leaders to “speak the same thing.” There may be occasional instances, however, where some of us disagree. In a case where there is not complete agreement among the believers, let us refrain from teaching our individual positions on that matter until we are sufficiently instructed so as to be in agreement. There are numerous areas where there is no question or controversy or disagreement. To prevent divisions in the body [implied to be the Way ministry] let us emphasize those areas where we agree and not publically discuss the areas of disagreement. “Truth needs no defense.” How often have we heard this statement; yet how quickly do we endeavor to defend the truth of The Word when challenged by unbelievers and others. Since truth needs no defense, we should develop a strong offense in challenging those who question the truth. Error must be defended, and we of The Way ministry must develop the technique of challenging those who propound error. An effective strategy is to answer a question with a question. This shifts the burden of proof to the person who refutes the truth. The technique of following up a question with an answer in the form of a question is a great skill which must be developed and utilized as we hold forth the truth of God’s Word. By (I am omitting his name) at the request of Dr. Wierwille. Written in the 1970s by a Second Corps graduate (it wasn't me).

In my view, the "default" position about "the truth" as you expressed it, is that we have lots of these documents that are considered sacred. IMO men came along and made the claim that all of the documents in a certain canon are God-breathed, using a verse out of context in II Peter to "prove" this. I find that "proof" inappropriate as far as applying it to the canon "they" chose. There's a very long history of the texts and on top of that, a complex history of all the translations made of those texts and more translations continue to this day. I've read some books about all this, but don't have the kind of time to put into it that I think would be needed to come up with a "final" answer, although I don't really think there is one. Keep in mind that new MSS have been discovered within the last 100 years and they probably affect some of what's been already accepted as "the truth," so it seems to me that we will never know for sure...and that's okay with me but I realize it is unsettling for many others. So I say it's just my opinion and leave it at that.

You may not like my answer, but IMO it's because there are 4 different writers with 4 different interpretations of what happened. When you look at the history of when these gospels were written, Mark was first and is said to be the basis for Matthew and Luke. John was written much later. Some scholars say John had reasons for touting Jesus as God, not the son of God, and for writing his gospel account in certain ways so as to fend off other types of ideas regarding who or what Jesus was, i.e. the Gnostics, etc. I'm not a scholar or historian but there are plenty of books out there where you can read more about this...

I remember that thread and I posted there. When I use that term it is to identify groups that use TWI as their base in what they teach and/or do. Maybe other people use the term to "put people down" but I use it to identify those groups. That's why I used the term in my article recently; it is important to understand what groups we're talking about. That said, I think it's important to remember that when spin-off groups continue to repeat TWI errors, we should ask some serious questions, no matter how sincere they are...

To me, you have spelled out what was the matter with VP's theology taken in large part from Bullinger - the frantic chase to explain away "contradictions." My question is what exactly is the problem with simply letting go of the idea that God authored the Bible and admit these are men's writings, men who may have been considered by other men to have been inspired in what they wrote, but still men with viewpoints and vocabularies all their own? I think that in so doing we can still value these writings but in a more realistic way.