Rocky

Here's a simple thought experiment for readers on this thread, Victor fancied himself as MOGFODAT, man of god for our day and time. Since the archetype seemingly was Paul the Apostle, how do each of us imagine Paul conducted himself in discussion sessions on Mars Hill? The biblical significance of Mars Hill is that it is the location of one of Paul’s most important gospel presentations at the time of his visit to Athens during his second missionary journey (Acts 17:16–34). It was where he addressed the religious idolatry of the Greeks who even had an altar to the “Unknown God.” It was this altar and their religious idolatry that Paul used as a starting point in proclaiming to them the one true God and how they could be reconciled to Him. Paul’s sermon is a classic example of a gospel presentation that begins where the listeners are and then presents the gospel message in a logical and biblical fashion. In many ways it is a classic example of apologetics in action. Paul started his message by addressing the false beliefs of those gathered there that day and then used those beliefs as a way of presenting the gospel message to them. We know that when Paul arrived in Athens he found a city “given over to idols” (Acts 17:16). In his usual manner, Paul began presenting the gospel to both Jews and Gentiles. He started by “reasoning in the synagogue with the Jews and with the Gentile worshipers” (Acts 17:17) and then also proclaimed the gospel “in the marketplace daily with those who happened to be there” (Acts 17:17). While at the marketplace he encountered some Epicurean and Stoic philosophers (Acts 17:18) who, having heard Paul proclaim the resurrected Jesus Christ, wanted to learn about “this new doctrine” he was teaching, so they “brought him to the Areopagus” to hear more from him (Acts 17:19–20). We know from history that the Epicurean philosophers generally believed that God existed but that He was not interested or involved with humanity and that the main purpose of life was pleasure. On the other hand, the Stoic philosophers had the worldview that “God was the world’s soul” and that the goal of life was “to rise above all things” so that one showed no emotional response to either pain or pleasure. These groups and others with their dramatically opposing worldviews loved to discuss and debate philosophy and religion. Intrigued by what they considered Paul’s “babblings” about the resurrection of Christ, they brought him to the Areopagus where the Athenians and foreigners “spent their time in nothing else but to tell or hear some new thing” (Acts 17:21). As mentioned earlier, Paul’s presentation of the gospel is a great example for us, both as a pattern for how Paul identified with his audience and as an example of apologetics in action. His connection with his audience is seen in how he begins addressing those gathered at the Areopagus. He begins with the observation that they were “very religious,” based on the fact that they had many altars and “objects of worship” (Acts 17:23) including an altar to “the Unknown God.” Paul uses that altar to introduce them to the one true God and the only way of salvation, Jesus Christ. His apologetic method and his knowledge that they did not even know what God is really like leads him to go back to Genesis and to the beginning of creation. Having a completely wrong view of God, those gathered that day needed to hear what God really was like before they would understand the message of the gospel. Paul begins explaining to them the sovereign God who created all things and gives life and breath to all things. He continues to explain that it was God who created from one individual all men and nations and even appointed the time and boundaries of their dwelling (Acts 17:26). His message continues as he explains the closeness of God and their need to repent of their rebellion against Him. Paul completes his message by introducing them to the One before whom they would all stand one day and be judged—Jesus Christ, whom God had raised from the dead. Of course, many in the audience scoffed at the idea that Christ was crucified and rose from the dead on the third day because the idea of the resurrection to the Greeks was foolishness (1 Corinthians 1:23). Yet a few believed what Paul said and joined him. What happened on Mars Hill is important because of the many lessons that can be learned, not only from how Paul presented the gospel and presented a biblical worldview, but also in the varied responses he received.

I observed no such Q/A sessions either. Indeed, it certainly is somehow related to the brainwashing to which we willingly but not knowingly subjected ourselves and each other. Thanks for your insight.

Perhaps he KNEW on a subconscious level. That could account for why he could never tolerate disagreement or anyone showing him up or exposing his bullshonta.

Your point is? I hope you're not offended that I redirected the focus of the thread I started. I had a couple of days to chew on it. I still thank you for reading and offering your thoughts. Eventually it occurred to me that you missed what I was getting at and therefore I needed to clarify. Please pardon me for being fallible.

Completely understandable.

I apologize for giving you that impression. Bottom line is STL missed my point, pretty much altogether. I simply wanted to refocus the thread. Do what you want, reply or don't, as you wish.

Is it possible they could have actually believed it? Is it possible any of us actually did trust them, should we have? What might the implications or ramifications be one way or the other? Things like that.

YIKES! Glad you're still alive and kicking. Thanks for letting us know.

On the topic of self-deprecating humor, this YT clip provides some hints about why Victor and Loy would have benefited from use of self-deprecation but, only for an example, doing so might not work for Mike.

The THIRD point I intended to make about Victor and Loy, to illustrate the underlying fault with them and the organization they started and took over relates to HOW they handled CONFLICT. Did they approach or handle conflict in constructive ways? I'm reasonably confident their (practical/practiced) approach did NOT reflect the love, mercy, and peace one finds in the Acts of the Apostles other books of the New Testament. Please, by all means expound on THESE THREE main topics of this thread. Preferably reflecting on your experience in Victor's private interpretation ministry. Also, I commend STL and chockfull especially for having identified tangents and enabled me to redirect and distill my intentions on this thread. You're wonderful.

The SECOND point I intended to make about Victor Wierwille and Loy C Martindale was with regard to AUTHENTICITY. To illustrate authenticity or lack thereof, I (perhaps not as successfully as I had hoped) the concept of self-deprecation and related humor. I did so because establishing legitimate connection with people a leader wishes to lead requires a willingness to become vulnerable with and to those people. Did Victor Wierwille or Loy C Martindale, in YOUR experience, establish a compassionate connection with you or did they influence you by other tactics/strategy?

Herein, I will try to narrow down what I presented in the first few posts/comments I used to begin this thread. Among the subterfuge Victor Wierwille used to trap each of us in his subculture organization, was that HE knew that he knew that he knew? But DID HE REALLY? We don't and can't know to what degree he knew what he claimed. But he made outrageous claims nevertheless. Was HE more fallible IN the private interpretation of the Bible than he both claimed and otherwise alluded to? THIS is point ONE of this thread. And WERE/ARE each of us fallible/infallible in the degree to which we fell for his schtick... hook, line, and sinker?

I'm not discounting the insight you presented in the comment from which the above quoted excerpt originated... however, it is totally For this thread's discussion topic.

Hmmm... wow, thank you for illuminating how UNCLEAR I was in conveying my intended message in the OP and for the discussion on this thread. Forgiveness was STL's topic. Mine IS about whether and to what extent WE knew that we knew that we knew. Perhaps STL or you, chockfull, might be interested in starting a discussion thread about forgiveness.

So you're saying somehow Twi is a major cult? How so? Please clarify.

Completely without data or any other kind of potential rational information. In doing so, they build their own parochial mental construct. Overall your comment is salient and well spoken (written). However, I suggest this tweak...

This too... a subject adjacent to the question of free will. It also strikes me as somewhat bizarre that Wierwille and the Advanced class taught this phenomenon as exclusive to Christians. All the arts depend upon telepathy to some degree, but I believe that writing offers the purest distillation. I didn’t tell you. You didn’t ask me. I never opened my mouth and you never opened yours. We’re not even in the same year together, let alone the same room … except we are together. We’re close. —Stephen King Roorbach, Bill. Writing Life Stories (p. 7). Penguin Publishing Group. Kindle Edition.

I have to figure you know/knew what message you were trying to get across with that post/comment. But I sure as heck can't discern what that message/idea was or may have been. By all means, please expound further.

Please explain further. How do or would you define freedom, in the context of what you're trying to communicate here. There's freedom OF something and freedom FROM other thing(s). Thanks.

The primary (and underlying) point I intended in the first posts on this thread was how Victor Wierwille and Loy C Martindale presented themselves to followers in extremely INAUTHENTIC ways. My point was not to color them unforgivable, for they were/are human. What they were NOT is honest brokers of God to followers who purchased their classes and books and who took part in their outreach and leadership training programs. Self-deprecating humor is, or can be, a much more authentic way to CONNECT emotionally.

This seems scarier than Idalia was. https://www.washingtonpost.com/weather/2023/08/28/record-heat-gulf-coast-water-temperatures/?pwapi_token=eyJ0eXAiOiJKV1QiLCJhbGciOiJIUzI1NiJ9.eyJyZWFzb24iOiJnaWZ0IiwibmJmIjoxNjkzMzY4MDAwLCJpc3MiOiJzdWJzY3JpcHRpb25zIiwiZXhwIjoxNjk0NzUwMzk5LCJpYXQiOjE2OTMzNjgwMDAsImp0aSI6IjgwMGFkY2ZkLTBlNzItNDhlNi05OGQ2LWU1MGZjODA1Y2VmMyIsInVybCI6Imh0dHBzOi8vd3d3Lndhc2hpbmd0b25wb3N0LmNvbS93ZWF0aGVyLzIwMjMvMDgvMjgvcmVjb3JkLWhlYXQtZ3VsZi1jb2FzdC13YXRlci10ZW1wZXJhdHVyZXMvIn0.MxEg0KirYv_yN9cNpV_5WPyCfr1L1aOpb6ylK_0EgGM

Forgiveness and critical analysis of the Victor Wierwille private interpretation ministry are complicated matters. Doing so requires assessment of the emotional fallout on the people who had been subject to abuse, whether it was emotional abuse or sexual abuse or anything else. Nevertheless, I appreciate your feedback, STL.

Well... thank you, you made an excellent point. 1) I didn't say they were undeserving of forgiveness. I didn't think I was implying it either. 2) Looking back on the post and comments I made above, I'm wondering how you may have come to conclude, or even infer I was equating either of them to murderers. If you'd be so kind, I would appreciate you expounding about that on this thread. 3) Considering the two decades of people writing about their experiences on GSC, let me clarify my intent as being to criticize the actions each of the two of them took as cult leaders, and criticize the cult structure and conduct related thereto. There's plenty to show and tell about the power dynamics in and of themselves. 4) Again, thank you for reading and watching the videos.

Here's another thing to consider. Intuitively, we know politics is as polarized as ever in today's society. Why is that? Could it be related to something Victor W and other religious leaders pushed about us all being in the world but not of the world? Is that why so many people are immune to exploring and considering common ground?

Wierwille's private interpretation ministry established outreach programs. WOW Ambassadors made commitments of a year at a time to go in teams of about 4 at a time to a city or town to sell the foundational class and try to graft new believers onto The Way Tree. Then there was the Way Corps leadership training program. Colloquially referred to at times by former followers as the Way Corpse. That program was sold (or appealed to) as for committed Bible believers who wanted to be and do their best for God. The training consisted of a year at a time in a ministry location (i.e. HQ in New Knoxville, OH; The Way College of Emporia, in Kansas a ranch in Gunnison, CO and a campus in Rome City, IN) Much of the abusive conduct wannabe leaders endured and learned to repeat took place in the WOW Ambassador and Way Corps programs.