TLC

Beats me. That's only said in case you want to blow the first reason off.

So, that's what you think or take to be "fact"? (Which is a bit strange, wouldn't you say, coming from one that was quick to elucidate my "reality" as only being my perception of it.) Perhaps the mere indication (from what I had posted previously) that I might not have been as "clueless as the rest of [some of you] back then" is part of the reason (having pondered it from very early on) I have a bit different take and understand of what believing/faith is, biblically speaking. But then again, perhaps there are other, more significant reasons for it.

I put it in quotes for a reason. Namely, because of the repeated accusations from a boisterous soul towards (what seems like) anyone posting something not in complete alignment and accord with the "it was all BS and crap" sentiment of many here, of being a "TWIt N Vic apologist." I guess I'm surprised you didn't get that. Furthermore, as for some of the rest of your post, I'm not motivated simply to "win an argument," so most of it just doesn't stir or mean much to me. And perhaps what I experienced and referred to in my previous statements might only make sense (or not) to those that likewise were there. It's simply, another side of the story.

Well, I'll concede that it was far more obscure than it should have been, especially at WC level. But that said, I'd think it be difficult for anyone that was a part of or somewhat close to the research fellowship to have been unaware that there were unresolved issues with how pistis (faith / believing) were being taught. Perhaps it just wasn't an issue that was as widely discussed or talked as I may have presumed at the Corps level (especially in later years.) The problem, of course, is that none of us had enough of a handle on the truth at the time to know or realize what the truth was. It was, more or less, shelved until a "better understanding" arrived. And looking back, things take on yet another perspective altogether. "Practice believing"? ...To do what, you say? phhftt...! (to both of those.) Wowser. (Such a different take on that at this point in life...)

Incidentally, even Geer took a stab at it in the late 80, early 90's.

It can rain all you want. I'm merely sayin' that its effect (and/or lack of effect) was not an invisible issue in the 70's.

Sure, I could be. But on this thread... that would invariably rain fire and brimstone down on it? Are you nuts? Perhaps if there were a doctrinal thread that related to or touched on the matter, I would be more at ease voicing my thoughts further on the matter.

I don't think there's any doubt that there are/were issues in the way "believing" was talked about or taught, but along with that it should be noted that this really isn't (or perhaps, shouldn't be) something new or only recently discovered. Because even back in the heydays of the ministry (i.e., the 70's) there were "known issues" with it. Unfortunately, not only were they never sufficiently addressed or resolved, evidently they continued to be ignored, cast aside and/or simply forgotten entirely in later years. However, "believing" was not - and is not - thought of by everyone (in TWI, at least, back then) in the way and manner that it is described in this thread. And I'm no "apologist." I'm merely stating the reality of the situation. edited: thought talked

I'd think that'd be too difficult for anyone to disagree with, WW... except, I think there's probably sufficient evidence to prove that David screwed up more than once. I also think there was far, far, FAR too much uncalled for, unnecessary, and... oh, let's just say it like it was (and still is for some)... bad and wrongly made comparisons to (and "wannabees like") the prophets of old in Israel's history. Personally, I see it as a failure (of VPW and of TWI) to understand and see certain differences between Paul's gospel (of the resurrected and ascended Christ) and the gospel of the Kingdom (which Jesus and his 12 apostles preached.) The ministry took parts of Israel's history that it liked, tossed other parts aside, blended certain legalistic (and controlling) stuff into the gospel of grace, and ladled it out as "the truth" (like it hadn't been known since the 1st century!)... which evidently served their needs for a while. So, though I see VPW and TWI as having had some truth (which is undoubtedly why it grew the way that it did for a while), it certainly isn't anywhere near as unique, as pure, or as right as it was once thought or perpetrated as... and once sucked into its crevices (and the mindset that "you have more truth than anyone else around you"), it can be mighty, mighty hard to find the humility that's so inherent with and integral to the truth.

Not only is the evidence for his crucifixion occurring in 28AD very strong, I seem to recall the old Cosmos 4.0 program I used to have placing an alignment of certain planets with the 3BC date. Both of which give further credence to the probability that Jesus Christ was about 31 years old when he laid his life down at Calvary... which also fits well with his ministry being shorter (~1.2 years), rather than longer (~3 years.) Okay, I realize that Daniel 9:26 can (and probably does) refer to weeks of years. Still, given the double entendre that prophecies so often have, I would not be the least surprised if his ministry from start up to the point of crucifixion was... well, exactly as written. 62 weeks.

Well according to you, Wilbur, it appears that anyone here that differs with your "superior" understanding is afflicted with insanity, worships VPW, and/or (in the most lenient of your terms) is a "TWIt-N-Vic apologist." Which, in short, is reflective of some serious mental damage left behind by "TWIt-N-Vic" inside your own head. And for the record, I didn't ask you to prove anything (especially not to me.) Maybe it's voices inside your head that made you think I did. edited: for grammar

That's about as twisted and as perverted a perspective on Pauline Christology as anything I've heard or read in quite a while. Did you manage to siphon that off somebody else's writings or dream that up all on your own? Given that they were contemporaries (and probably quite close to the same age), I'd actually be surprised it they never met. I'm inclined to think it was much shorter (probably less than half that.) And just how long do you suppose Paul was in Arabia after he fled Damascus? In fact, why did he go to Arabia? Suppose it had nothing to do with Mt. Sinai being there? And the "abundance of the revelations" Paul speaks of... well, that's just a myth in your mind, eh? Not related at all to any personal communications with the ascended Christ during his stay in Arabia?

Heck, it don't affect you much at all if you know the truth... and we knew we had that. Isn't that the same way you look at it? Ah, well... that kite won't fly in a wind tunnel. (You'd have better luck with a balloon that you just let loose. Though, darts will eventually find and strike it too.) Even if I didn't adhere to the same worthlessness that some propound, the mere wisp of anything more than lowly pond scum draws gunfire. Maybe you'll have better luck in the doctrinal forums. (But, not necessarily.) Wow. I would have never guessed that anyone could think those spies knew or thought anything whatsoever about the ending times and Christ's return to set up his kingdom here on earth. Did you hear someone teach that, or did you come up with that on your own? Same here? Seriously? Ah, me thinks the air is getting a bit thick here. I needs to step out for a breather... Nay. I think they're just wanting to (i.e., trying to) let some air out of that buff balloon of yours.

The context of the letter should have made it clear enough that I was referring to their grandiose out to lunch effort in eschatology (which you've not cleared up a speck of), not Bernegger and McRae's work on JCOPS (which has already been discussed elsewhere here on GSC.) But speaking of JCOPS, perhaps rather than making a blanket accusation that "truth" was subsequently edited out of the work these young boys did you care to identify exactly what was changed (from truth to error.) If you can, that is. (Otherwise, it probably doesn't amount to much more than a lot of blind accusations and hot air... because without any better or more accurate information or insight into what was or wasn't changed, whatever edits were made might just as easily have been corrections as they were mistakes.) Furthermore, it is not really all that unique, uncommon or unheard of for a prominently positioned individual (be it a "boss" at work, a team leader, a university professor, or any number of other "responsible" parties) to "assume command" and take over a project once it reaches a certain stage of development or success and "put their name on it." Seems these boys just happen to encounter it a little earlier or sooner in life than others may have, and it ....ed them off. I ain't sayin' what happened was justified or right. But frankly speaking, I'm just not convinced it's as big a deal as some have made it out to be. Right or wrong, seems chit like that happens, and it'll really mess your head up if you can't see or deal with it from a less emotional, more pragmatic perspective (which is something young people often struggle with.)

Perhaps if you took the effort to honestly try to understand what I said you wouldn't act or speak so condescendingly.

Well, you (and who knows who else here) probably ain't going to like this, but if it's true that they first went to those around them with their contradictory research findings before taking them to VP (whether they did or didn't, I don't know), which of you wouldn't also be rather upset if you were in his shoes? You'd still say, "Good for them. Bravo." Seriously? (And no one has mentioned yet anything about this great "research" they did uncovered and/or taught others. I guess that don't matter one whit. They MUST have been right, given how wrong VP was on everything else...)

Hey TLC... your comment seems more like an assumption than a request for clarification. Is that what you meant to do? It wasn't so much what I'd think of or call an assumption, but rather, to point out the arrogance built, bred, and/or inherent within WC. Maybe big fat egos were just part of that "natural" talent or ability that you were supposed to have when applying for WC. But whatever the cause or reason for it, these 3 had it in spades. They weren't alone (by any stretch of the imagination)... so, I was merely stating that IF that were the reason or basis for johniam to say they were "your kind of people," I wasn't going to disagree. (Of course, if that isn't his reason or basis for saying that, he's free to say otherwise. It's simply the first and most prominent characteristic that came to my mind when reflecting on that whole "brain trust" situation ...)

If by that you mean and intend to include them in the category of inflated egotism par excellence (that the WC program was so well geared towards and reputed for)... yeah. Because anyone that thought of and referred to themselves as "the brain trust" of TWI were certainly no exception to that.

Raf, do you think or suppose there is (or might be) a difference between knowing or believing (or, without defining it any further, "appreciating") that there is only one God, versus deriving any benefit from it? If so, then does it even matter what a person knows or believes (or worships) if the result (or in effect, the non-result) of such knowing/belief/worship is... nothing for that person? So, it appears to me that (as you may have alluded to once already) the underlying question of this thread is mute apart from some sort of reasonable definition and understanding of what is meant by "worship." Do Muslims and Christians worship the same?

What else would you expect, when they gave out Associate (or Bachelor) of Theology Certificates - suitable for framing and mounting on the wall in any office? (Had Rome City's name on it, though...) Looks just like one of those college degree things, don't you know?

Then should WW be thought of as Steven Seagal with a knife?

I realize you didn't mean the first year (which is why I asked), as the first (starting) year was the Fall of '75 (when WC could and did "pal around" with the CD.)

Which year was that, sky? (Because I don't recall it starting like that.)

Simply put, had DWBH (in post #17) left it alone after asking the first three questions (i.e., his first paragraph), I would have interpreted the challenge to be genuine. However, after reading the rest of the post, it left me doubting the sincerity of the inquiry. Which, for better or for worse, stirred me to say so (...though, evidently in a more sarcastic or snarky manner than may have been necessary or appropriate.) My apologies. Quite frankly, of all of you I might be (probably am) the most unfamiliar with what TLTF did and/or does teach or believe, so unless something started here moves over to the doctrinal forums, I'll refrain from further comment.

I appreciate that comment and agree with the sentiment, Rocky, but given that from before the start of posting here I've never been supportive of TWI or of any offshoot dogma position (that I'm aware of), I'm inclined to think the chances of that happening here are probably about as close to nil as you can get. Of course, if you (or anyone) think(s) I'm wrong or mistaken about that and have been... well then, you're certainly free to prove me wrong by pointing out said post. (But do keep in mind that truth is truth, even if or when carved off the heel of the devil, and there's a great distance between finding any truth in what was/is taught - in spite of where it might have been plagiarized from - and being "supportive" of how it was/is done.) As for the earlier statement that "everyone's honest opinion is valued here equally"... well, that's a joke. Okay, sure.... some here probably do live or think by that creed. But not all, that's for darn sure. Personally, I'd much rather leave all the personal drama behind, and am far more intrigued and interested in the doctrinal side of what others do (or don't) think.