Broken Arrow

.

TWI, IMO, moved people around in order to maintain control. If a person stayed in an area too long they would gain a personal following. Then if TWI wanted to ram something...er...I mean make a change...they would be forced to get a buy-in from the local leader. Worse, someone may even start to revere someone else besides VPW! Even worse...the abs might quit flowing to HQ. No, VP learned his lesson well from his experiences with The Way West, and The Way East, which I believe were independent organizations. Wierwille conspired to have them shut down if I have my story straight.

Remember "The Great Principle" from the Advanced Class? The Great Principle says, "God's Spirit teaches His creation in you which is now your spirit and your spirit teaches your mind. Then it becomes manifest in the senses realm as you act." What strikes me about this is the differentiation between "the spirit (small s)" and the person themselves. Even though TWI was/is not a gnostic religion, this is a type of gnostic belief if I understand things correctly. That is, a person can do whatever they wish with the body and it doesn't matter because the spirit is not affected. I believe this type of thinking opens the door for all types of illicit behavior in "the name of God". I would be interested in hearing others' ideas about this. Also, does anyone know where Wierwille might of come up with this so-called "Great Principle"?

Nevermind. :)

I read what you're saying here, Waysider but your words seem to be inconsistent with other posts you've written. Namely: " 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." "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." "What do we really know about this cat named Paul? I mean, he had a pretty lengthy rap sheet before he made the old switchola. Personal credibility does not work heavily in his favor...." "If Paul was a flim-flam man on the order of VPW, maybe the comparisons are warranted." "there are at least weather records on file that refute Wierwille's gas pump Stowwwry. We don't even have any traffic logs for Damascus Road." This next was was bit vicious in my opinion: "A thousand years from now----- "He sacrificed his very own eye for his keeeds. And, when that wasn't enough, he turned his face to the wall and, with a broken heart and shattered liver, was heard to say, 'I wish I was a man. I know I could have been.'" A comparison, it seems, to Paul discussing how he was beaten etc. and what it would have sounded like if it were being written about VPW. I could have picked other quotes...but you catch my drift. Now in this post you say you're not attacking Paul? With all due respect, and I do respect you by the way, these look like attacks to me. So, can you help me out here? Am I completely misunderstanding your words? Looks plain to me, but we're all guilty of reading into things. So I'm open. How do you reconcile some of these statements that look (to me) like attacks on Paul with, "I'm not attacking Paul".

Actually, history points out that women had more voice and more involvement in church administration under early Christendom then they had historically up to that point. The same held true when Jesus walked the earth. There were actually women in leadership in the early church. This is in comparison to the Jewish, Greek, and Roman religions of the time. I have to admit I do not understand the passage about women not cutting their hair. While Paul and Christianity often get tagged for being chauvenistic, in reality the opposite is true.

What a fine group of bonified, trained counselors we were!

I agree, except that I believe Paul is implying the same holds true for all believers. That is, we are adequate and should be content regardless of our physical state. One thing I'd like to add, the idea of being content with what you have, trusting God, as it were, is not unique to Paul's teachings. Jesus taught it, Psalmists (David?) wrote about it, even other religions teach it. I heartily agree with you, however, that TWI butchered the application of this verse. In the WC, you were put to shame if you didn't make it to LEAD within a certain timeframe. I was shocked my first year when a team of 3 were arrested by the Kansas Highway Patrol as hitchhiking on the freeway is illegal! I thought, "Gosh, if people are getting arrested, maybe we should think of another way of doing this. But no, TWI just posted their bail and back on the road they went not being given any consideration for the time they spent in jail! To justify themselves, TWI used this verse to knock us over the head. You know, you look back and ask yourself if there were ever warning signs you might have missed. Well, duh! BTW, I wrote my last post as I was running out the door. The comment I made about "meaningless" doesn't fit with what you were saying and I would like to "strike it from the record". I think so.

I BELIEVE THE CONTEXT OF THIS VERSE IS PAUL TALKING ABOUT LIVING CONDITIONS. THAT IS, HE IS ADEQUATE WITHIN CHRIST HIMSELF IN ALL SITUATIONS. IT DOES NOT MEAN, AS TWI SUPPOSED THAT HE COULD DO ANYTHING SUPERNATURAL OR OTHERWISE BECAUSE HE HAD THIS "FORCE" HIM. I SUPPOSE YOU CAN TAKE THIS AND MAKE IT MEANINGLESS IF YOU WISH BUT I THINK IT TRANSLATES INTO A LIFE LESSON. THAT IS "BE CONTENT".

Yeah, well, maybe I'll just mind my own business. Sorry.

I'm not trying to defend the guy...but I always assumed this was the school he was referring to: http://www.lakeland.edu/ This school still exists and it's been around since the 1890's I believe. It's also in Sheboygan, Wisconsin which is where VP said he attended. I had a friend that went there in the 70's. The story goes that he was offered a basketball scholarship at Ohio State but his father wanted him to go to Lakeland. You'll remember from the class he said he played college ball and a "little bit of professional basketball...." He said he invented the hook shot. I guess this has nothing at all to do with his doctorate. But I thought someone might be interested that there is at least one actual school.

Now I'm embarrassed! I really did think all this time he went to THE Princeton...sheesh!

JeffSjo, one of the downsides of a site like this is we can't see who we're talking to. Caribou might be some young guy or girl just trying to find their voice and maybe haven't mastered the best way to frame something. You seem a bit more seasoned. How about we give this guy some room?

Thanks Tzaia. I heard about the book you're referring to. I even picked it up and thumbed through it a little. It looked like it would be interesting. I'll have to check it out.

I think he got it from that Bishop Pillai guy. But I might be wrong about that.

I don't expect this to "rock anyone's world" nor do I think this post is going to last very long. Do you remember this teaching from "The Blue Book"? Behold I have graven thee upon the palms of my hands; they walls are continually before me.Isaiah 49:16 The teaching was that the word "graven" meant "tatoo". VPW further commented that one never saw anyone with a tatoo on their palms. He said the reason no one did this is that there were too many nerve endings in the human palms and that having a tatoo there would be too painful and that no human could stand it. But God, said Wierwille, loved us so much that He was willing to undergo the pain of having our names tatooed on His palms so that he would always have our names in front of him. Not on his arm that could be covered up by a sleeve, but always in front of Him. The teaching may be accurate as far as God always having us in mind. But the tatoo/pain thing was wrong. More than 30 years after reading this I talked to a tatoo "artist" and asked him why people didn't get tatoos on their palms. His answer was that of all parts of the body, the skin on one's palms replaces itself much faster and more frequently. Moreover, since we use our hands so much, skin is constantly being rubbed off. This man told me that a tatoo on a palm would only last 3 months or so. In other words people didn't get tatoos on their palms because it would be a waste of money. He also went on to say that Sandra Bullock's boyfriend, Jesse James, got a tatoo on his palms that contained obscenities. According to him, the tatoos were unreadable in about 4 months. Maybe I never asked before now because I didn't want to take the risk that the man to whom God was giving the greatest revelation on God's Word since the first century would be wrong. Anyway, like I said, not earth shattering or life-changing. Just one more thing to add to the pile.

The whole reason I jumped into this topic is because of what you stated in your original post. That is, "Suppose for a moment though, that Paul was the VP of his day...." and "What if Paul was really a forerunner of what we now call con men". I just don't see it the way you do. I think there was more criteria to his credibility than what he alone established. I'm beginning to sound like a broken record. (Is that metaphor outdated? Should I say repititive CD now?) Paul himself and his writings were also accepted by his contemporaries. His writings were respected enough that many of them were preserved. In the 2nd century, you will find communications between churches in Phillipi and (I think) Galatia requesing for them to send them their copy of one of Paul's epistles. One sees Peter referring to Paul's writings as "scripture". These actions on the part of his contemporaries and other actions are testimony to Paul's credibility. Some in this thread have refuted this argument by saying that people who spoke well of Paul were those who loved and respected him. The implication is that these assessments by his peers are irrelevant. But even this position refutes your claim that his credibility is "based on criteria that he himself established". Let's not forget that we were taught Paul's teachings through the lens of VP Wierwille. What is more suspect, in my opinion, is the credibility of what we were taught. I regard as suspect some of the things I came to believe were taught by Paul such as some of the things you've mentioned. But as to the man himself I do not believe there is any comparison to him and VPW or any con man for that matter. I also believe his credibility is valid.

I see things differently. I don't see the disparity between what the two of them taught. As far as Jesus not demanding worship, he said things like, "I am the Way, the Truth, and the Life. No one comes to the Father but by me." I think Paul held the same belief regarding Jesus. Jesus also referred to himself as the "Bread from Heaven". I don't think Paul would have had a problem with that either. Maybe that's not requiring worship, but it would suggest at the very least that Jesus had a very high opinion of himself. Paul seemed to have a high regard as well. I don't see where Paul referred to himself in these ways. In fact, what I see is Paul point to Jesus, his teaching, and his person.

I'm not sure I can improve on the way I stated this previously. I don't believe that I'm being "circular". I know I know that is not my intention. I am not personally trying to make a statement as the right-ness or righteousness of the Apostle Paul. I am attempting to respond to those who are suggesting that Paul was a fraud, a womanizer, drunkard etc. I am saying there is no evidence to suggest that he was any of those things. The evidence would strongly suggest otherwise. Yes, the records were written by people who loved Paul. Those were people like the Apostle Peter and Luke. One a direct disciple of the Christ and recognized church leader during the same time period as Paul, and the other a respected believer. There are other writings not directly about Paul per se but about Christians and their activities. There was no mention of Paul. I am not aware of any writings from other believers who accused Paul of any wrongdoings. You're right, we don't know anything about much of anything. We only have evidence and I am pointing out that there is ample evidence as to the authenticity of Paul's character. There is none to suggest otherwise. Only those who say, "Well he could have been like Wierwille, we don't really know." Well, yeah, he could have been a lot of things I suppose but without any evidence it is speculation and only speculation. As far as Paul's right-ness or wrong-ness, that's another issue for another time. I am not familiar with Mohammad. Are there people accusing him of raping and seducing young girls, being a drunkard, or a thief? If they are and there happens to be no evidence to support their claim, then my tendency would be to not accept their viewpoint. I appreciate your question. Oh...you might be right. If that's the case, Taz...nevermind!

Thanks for your reply. I simply don't see where Jesus is more demanding than Paul nor do I see 2 different theologies.

You don't need me to point out there are many different "flavors" of Christianity. My experience of the modern Christian faith differs from what you state here. Namely, "...a good part...is not so much based on Jesus but on what Paul said in the Epistles." The type of faith I've experienced as of late is entirely based not just on what Jesus said, but on Jesus himself. I see Paul's writings as expounding upon the teachings and life of Jesus. I fully agree with you, however, that TWI vaunted the Apostle Paul above Jesus Christ. It was as if VPW did not like Christ. I'm curious as to whether he did not like the fact that something or somebody besides him was Lord. He even referred to the "absent Christ" and spent a lot of time discussing who Jesus Christ is not. The Apostle Paul on the other hand was spoken of reverently. LCM vaunted him even higher with his false teaching on the "Rise and Expansion of the Christian Church". I understand the backlash against Paul that is being shown by some in this post since so many were injured by The Way's approach to Christianity. VPW pointed to Paul as the "Man of God for his day and time". With that he could name himself (VP) as the Man of God for his day and time. That gave him license for untold abuse against a group of mostly young people. He blatantly took a phrase spoken by Paul, "You have had many instructors but I have fathered you all...." and coined a phrase, "Father in The Word". I suppose we could launch into a very interesting discussion just as to what Paul meant when he spoke this in Corinthians. But he never said he was the MOG and he never said he was anybody's "father in the Word". Paul and his writings pointed to Christ. It can be hard to see that after someone has used certain scriptures and people to slap you around and control you. It's hard, at least for me, to read the Pauline epistles and not hear Way tapes playing in my head. I try to pretend I never heard of TWI and that I'm reading it with a different perspective...it's hard. But Paul's writings do provide a wonderful contribution to living the Christian faith. I remember sitting in the Renewed Mind class. In that, Walter Cummins goes into a rather involved teaching that related to studying other men who exhibit the renewed mind. I recall him going into the life of Paul and quoting scripture from Paul's epistles. One of those was the one I referred to above. There were others and I can't recall them right now. Until right now I forgotten how my stomach turned when Cummins said something like, "study men like the Apostle Paul. Who in our generation exhibits the renewed mind? Men like, Dr. Wierwille!" I remember thinking, "You've gotta be kidding me! This really is Wierwille worship!" But, being the "cultie" that I was, I suppressed my doubt and my shock. Soon I was a Wierwille worshipper myself. That was in 1975 and I had entirely forgot that memory until just now. Wow! Sorry if my rambling was a bit boring, but I just had one of my own "moments" that is going to contribute to my own healing. Thanks for listening.

Um...okay..."whoops!"

So much for you not wanting to impugn the character of the Apostle Paul, eh? There is not one shred of evidence that equates the conduct of the Apostle Paul with VPW. There are other profane writings that were written during the time of Paul plus I've already mentioned in other posts the way the believers, especially the Apostles related and approached Paul. There is no evidence that he was a womanizer, drunkard, glutton, thief etc. after his conversion.

I don't have to wait 7/10 of a second...I'm wrong about stuff all the time not the least of which was TWI. I would say, in the most authoritative, spiritual tone I could muster..."oops!" Hell, that could be a mantra for me! Is there some deep point you're trying to make here that I'm not seeing?