Rocky

It seems like, in the comments I quoted above, 1) you're arguing semantics, 2) trying to claim you didn't always submit and/or that 3) it wasn't necessarily the original intent. My impressions, however, are that despite your own possible original intent to not get caught up in the submission, you eventually did anyway. Have you ever heard of Peter Senge? He was (is) an MIT professor. His book, The Fifth Discipline, is about learning organizations. Wierwille's cult learned and developed alright, but not the way Senge suggests it should have. Twi adapted as it grew to become more like what VPee wanted it to be. I also suggest insight can be gathered from Noam Chomsky and his writings on manufacturing consent. Chomsky focuses, regarding this subject, on mass media. In twi, Wierwille controlled the media. It began with his directive in the PFLAP class to put away all of your other reading material for months. Of course, if you stayed around that long, you were hooked and then dismissed philosophy, "world wisdom" in favor of VPee's "wisdom."

An argument can easily be made from this that Wierwille stumbled upon something bigger than himself, his outrageous claim that he was taught by God and his narcissistic dreams that sparked the beginning of his cult. But because he and his early followers didn't really have a clue as to the real reasons why it grew like it did, they couldn't keep it growing. There's no question it collapsed. What they've got going now isn't anywhere close to what took place in the late 1960s and into the 1970s. Evidence that "we see through a glass darkly..." Love never fails... but predatory licentiousness always will. Not only did VPee and his crew take their eyes off of the goal, did they really ever have them on it to begin with?

<iframe src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/cb3TqXM1BtQ?rel=0" allowfullscreen="" frameborder="0" height="315" width="420"></iframe>

Indeed. I was definitely ready to leave in 1986. I had just completed a bachelor of science degree in accounting and reading the Book of Acts in that light and then seeing the bullspit that was twi made me intellectually ready. The fact that entire twigs left in the Phoenix area when JALvis, Reahard, Dubofsky, Belt and Pierce published their letter made it safer (socially) for me and plenty of others to leave at that time.

Further, the human social need -- to belong -- is extremely deep and powerful. It kept many of us in twi far longer than it took for us to realize VPee was a huckster. Not just Skyrider.

Clearly, the implication of the thread title question raise is to raise awareness of the methods and potentially the motives wierwille had for carving out his niche in the overall market known as Christianity. Personally, I think DWBH, in his essay yesterday laid bare those issues quite well. My question "when did Jesus start being God?" was intended to broaden readers' consideration of whether Christianity (and/or Judeo-Christian heritage) can legitimately be considered the ONLY way to a knowledge of and relationship with God. Somebody (probably not simply one charismatic person, but a community of people), at some finite point in historical time, adapted their notions of how the Earth and humankind came to be. That's directly relevant to any discussion of Christianity as "THE" only way to know or have a relationship with God. I'll grant that taken by itself, the question wouldn't necessarily be "about twi." But I posed it to inject some perspective into the discussion of this thread, wierwille and twi. VPee's frame of reference seemed to be that Christianity was the truth, i.e. "The Word of God is the Will of God." But how can any discussion of VPee and his personally engineered subculture be fully legitimate without consideration of the fact that up to some point in human history nobody had any idea about a coming Messiah? Plenty of people in the 21st century look at the OT and say, "That's a loving god?" But beyond that, how does Christianity in whatever flavor treat all of the humans prior to the Jews? As being damned to hell? My interest for this thread in posing the question is not to expand on the doctrinal tangent but to consider how in the world a loving God could be limited to what we have learned in the Bible.

Tough. It's related to the question posed in the title of this thread. What, are you now a self-appointed moderator?

BRAVO DWBH! That's an impressive and highly relevant essay. :eusa_clap:/>:eusa_clap:/>:eusa_clap:/>:eusa_clap:/>:eusa_clap:/>

I'd parse these points out. Technically, I don't believe we can truly know all of Wierwille's intentions. But, like Bolshevik indicated, Wierwille was a bad man. That's perhaps a valid assessment when considering what he did and the results thereof. To a degree, his intentions can be deduced from his words and actions.

I don't think in terms of PFLAP. My question relates to the real world of humanity and Humanities. From a historical perspective, at what point did some human declare that Jesus is God? It's really that simple. And I believe it's a salient question for this discussion. If nobody wants to discuss it, no big deal for me. However, doesn't the question "When did Jesus Stop Being God?" suppose that for all of human history there were people who believed Jesus was God? Correct.

No, you only get blocked by one person at a time. ;) But like (was it Raf?) said earlier, you don't have to use your real name.

Which word would you have preferred be inserted?

Okay, let's try this (related) question. When did Jesus START being God? From a historical writing standpoint, that is. I get that the bible says he was with God in the beginning. But there was a time before any people at all believed that to be the case.

Pay pal sucks. I much prefer gofundme. But I'm still donating donated via paypal.

Might another very significant question to ask be related to what people believed and did before Christianity, and before Judiasm? That is, why are we parsing the difference between trinitarianism and JCING anyway?

The "ladder" analogy does relate to scientology. But a good bit of the interpersonal dynamics also relate to twi. Perhaps the major departure from twi is that the meyerists eschew adultery.

The link appears to no longer be good.

Will after I get paid (this weekend).

DWBH, Twinky (btw, HBD, Twinky!) was asking for clarification and telling you the correct way to put it if (since) that's what you meant. It's not "je cuze" it's "j'accuse."

That's her alright.

The Path (on IMDB.com) An article on TVLINE highlights the reason the series had to change its name... original title was The Way. Some of you might find it intriguing. Others might get flashbacks. If you subscribe to HULU, you can watch it. Personally, I like another Hulu original (mini)series better 11.22.63, based on Stephen King's novel of the same name.

You don't speak for me. Just sayin'. Rocky USAF 1973-1976

Great insight in that post, T-Bone. Btw, I can't help but think Penworks' upcoming memoir on her seventeen years in twi might speak to those concerns. I hope it will.

Wow... took ten years to regroup!? That must be a heck of a project. I look forward to it.

Though staying on topic on a thread can be helpful, at times stream of consciousness meandering on related tangents isn't necessarily a bad thing.