Oakspear

this sounds like a science fiction movie Buckaroo Banzai! all the aliens were named John!

By the way, giving examples and analogies to illustrate a point is not off topic.

I knew I liked that guy!

Like Evan said, Trinitarians don't believe that there are three gods. That is a misrepresentation. I do think that a biblical case for unitarianism can be more easily made than trinitarianism, but there are verses and sections of scripture that lean toward both. You'd do well to argue your point straight from the bible, rather than from Wierwille;'s assumptions. :huh: What? You're talking about the gospel of John, right? If we're having a biblical discussion , why not use the bible? Funny thing though. You never see the Romans 10:9-10 "formula" used in Acts, anywhere. Why do you believe that? Okay, so why had we "better not" quote John? Does this necessarily mean what Wierwille said it means? So....why is it there? Good for you and good luck We know the rules, and we'll disregard them when we're feeling cranky May she bless you as well

I think it was both :P I do think you're correct on this allan, the so-called "keeping 'The Word' simple" was one of the big attractions for Wierwille and PFAL. However we disagree on whether 'The Word' really is simple. Much of Wierwille's teaching involved picking one point of view and ignoring or belittling or explaining away all evidense to the contrary. Of course, he's not the only one to do that, there are plenty of other denominations out there who base their existence on a narrow view of scripture.

Mike, correct me if I'm misunderstanding you, but regarding your "not all necessarily" exposition: This is another area where the interpretation that you place on things is wholly dependent on a pre-conceived notion that PFAL is god-breathed. You use the idea that PFAL is god-breathed to show that the section of the book indicated that Wierwille is claiming god-breathed status for the book; then use the statement in the book to show how PFAL was claimed as god-breathed by Wierwille. I know how much you love circular reasoning, so I'm sure that you'll send me a case of Leinenkugel just for pointing it out to you IMHO the "not all necessarily" line indicates that he thought that some of what he said would line up with the bible and be equivalent to "thus saith the Lord" just as Luther and the other men that he mentioned did the same. He is quite obviously putting himself in the category of men who could sometimes hit the mark and speak as God directed them, but that there words could not be counted on to be 100% god-breathed, that he reserved for the bible. On another note, I have difficulty accepting your premise that the written PFAL was considered the canon of TWI, rather than just an aid to the filmed class. I recall Wierwille in the advanced class contradicting something that he taught in the foundational, saying that he "had to teach it that way". It was about counterfeiting speaking in tongues. In the AC he say that it could be counterfeited. More on this line of thought tomorrow. i have to go to work

Is it annoying and distracting because that's the way you were trained, or are used to? Or is there something intrinsicly or biblically wrong with it? If the former, which I suspect it is, then you should definitely stay away from that kind of stuff. B) (I guess either way, you should stay away :ph34r: )One thing that a NBW (never been Way) friend of mine who had attended a few twigs once pointed out was the lack of emotion during the "worship manifestations". Many people speak in tongues with a bit more, let's say passion, then we did in TWI. Diifferent strokes for different folks

When he was alive there were allegations. The reason that they weren't widely known was that there was no internet.

Why?

Mark: While monophysites did believe that Jesus had but one nature, I believe that it was another group that believed that his physical bvody was an illusion. There were several types of monophysites http://www.reference.com/browse/wiki/Monophysitism

In the interest of full disclosure...I'm one of the ones who are NOT. But seriously, like allan said, if you're looking for "The Word", there are other places to get it, in various forms. The purpose of GS is not, nor has it ever been, to promote any form of religion...but to "provide information that tells the other side of the story about The Way International and its trustees. Our hope is that GreaseSpot Cafe serves as a place where those who have been impacted by The Way can make connections with people and information which will support their particular process of recovery. We want people to be able to make informed decisions regarding their past, present, and future affiliations with The Way International (TWI). Whether you are standing with TWI, thinking about leaving, trying to help someone else get out, or looking for support from others who have left, we believe the information here is highly relevant and well worth considering."

Feel free to do so yourself, but exposing what Wierwille and Martindale and TWI in general did is part of the purpose of GS. I intend to continue to stay on the subject while keeping things in perspective and not becoming hysterical about it. Like when Jesus called the Pharisees whited sepulchres? Or when Paul mentioned that someone (I forget who) did much evil? But you're talking about all that love and forgivenes stuff, right? Go for it. Many GSers do believe the bible, some don't. No, we don't NEED to do that. Whether one agrees with "the Word" that was taught in TWI or not, the actions of it's leaders is relevant. It doesn't chnage the truth (if any) that was taught, but it's fair game. Anything wrong with the rest of the bible? So what's stopping you? Some folks here have started fellowships, and are teaching everything they know to the best of their ability. ckmckeon, stick around, see what this place is all about; don't just be a drive-by poster

Since the majority of the remarks on this thread have addressed what was actually taught, and have been fairly non-hysterical, I would say that any criticism of Wierwille, his actions, his teachings, or his organization gets some Wierwillites angry.

Is the greatest secret in the world today that the bible is the revealed word and will of God? Is it true? Is it a secret?

There is no such person as a 'Wicca'Wicca is the religion a Wiccan is a practicioner of Wicca

A reasonable person's reading of these two statements would lead one to believe that he had spent an unspecified amount of time reading what other people said about the bible, "reading around the Word", and that at another unspecified time he decided to throw out all of his commentaries and start fresh, having determined that he could find out what the will of God was by simply reading the bible. A reasonable person would then assume that his conclusions that we now have are the result of the fresh start that took place after the books were thrown out and he had gone back to the bible, and excluded things that he had learned before the trip to the dump. Assuming that he wasn't lying, one way that I can reconcile the preceeding statements with is to assume that when he says "I learned wherever I could", he is talking about considering the viewpoints of others, but that his own research, arrived at independently, would determine whether a doctrine was true or not. If this is what he did, then there would be little problem. He hears about, or reads about something that he had not considered before, gets out his bible, researches the subject, comes to a conclusion based solely on what the bible tells him, and then decides to include the doctrine, based 100% on his own independent study, and in his own words; or he decides to not include it, again based on his own research. Claiming that something wasn't original just means that someone else had come up with it before he did, not that he was admitting that he copied it wholesale. BUT This isn't exactly what happened. Wierwille strongly implies that he reached many of the same conclusions as Bullinger, before he had ever heard of Bullinger. However, it is obvious that Wierwille quotes Bullinger without understanding the point Bullinger is making in several places. Wierwille's books contain passages that are virtually word-for-word copies of other authors. If he was learning from these authors and then independently working 'The Word', then it is extremely unlikely that the wording would be so close. Wierwille saying "Lots of the stuff I teach is not original" is his way of saying that he was not teaching some new, off-the-wall heresy. "Putting it all together so that it fit -- that was the original work" is his way of claiming that no one else was as smart as he was, to fit all the different pieces of the bible together into a coherent, fits-like-a-hand-in-a-glove package, not that he had taken a piece of Stiles, and a piece of Leonard and a piece of Bullinger and stitched the all together. Even in that seemingly humble statement he was still exalting himself.

"He still taught the Word" There's an argument to be made that he didn't exactly do that. People like Eagle, and many others, have challenged, not Wierwille's "lifestyle", but what he actually taught. What I have seen in some staunch Wierwillites is an equating of Wierwille's doctrine with their own worth. After all, they have based years of their lives, and built their whole belief system, their whole way of looking at the world and "The Word", on Wierwille's teachings. In most cases, Wierwille and PFAL was the first and only thing to make any sense of God and the bible. Many Wierwillites therefore see a questioning of Wierwille's conclusions as a questioning of their own judgement. If Wierwille is wrong, then they are wrong as well. Who wants to see what they have based their whole life upon undermined? What's left then? Now many Wierwillites have questioned small parts of the PFAL canon, or reworked insignificant sections, thereby convincing themselves that they can think and do biblical research, while retaining that core of Wierwillism like a security blanket. It's no surprise that some would shun you, Eagle.

There are some here on GS who rip PFAL apart (all of it, without distinction ), who will deny that there is any redeeming qualities to it or truth in it. Raf, however, isn't one of them. The "Actual Errors" thread (which I am proud to have been a contributor) was not about trashing PFAL, but demonstrating that PFAL was not perfect. There have been many stimulating discussions about PFAL and other Wierwille publications over the years, but these Mike-centered "discussions" get bogged down over whether PFAL is without error, and over Mike's methodology. Mike, this isn't a defense of you, by the way! You might get more of PFAL's message out there if you concentrated on the message itself, rather than focussing on whether it was perfect or not. After all, very few will accept your premise that PFAL is without error, but most will accept that some, or most of PFAL is helpful, or true, or godly, etc. In fact, most of your more vociferous critics actually agree with some or most of PFAL. For instance, most would agree that PFAL was their first introduction to considering the bible as something that could be studied and understood.

good book...I just read it a few months ago

There's also credits, which are over and above what you paid in. We would have owed about $300 if not for child tax credits and educational credits of about $3000. A lot of folks can take the earned Income Credit too.

One opinion on "gave the sense" was that they translated the Hebrew into Aramaic, since Hebrew was no longer their first language. Don't know how plausible that is.

Yup, you're right. I forgot abot Kenyon.

Raf and Doojable abley answered the question posed to me about the 3000 books

That's a good question, Oldies. Another good question is: If he was claiming that he was a compiler of others' works, and a judge of what fit and what didn't, why would he say that he "decided to quit reading around The Word. Consequently, I have spent years studying The Word- its integrity, its meaning, its words." and "I started anew with the Bible as my handbook as well as my textbook." same questions as above. I believe that the only thing that was offered in the Way bookstore was Bullinger, and he claimed that he came to his conclusions independent of Bullinger. I think you're assuming a lot there. Maybe you wouldn't, and I probably wouldn't either, but when you are in the position of unquestioned power than Wierwille was in, who knows? Whether we agree about whether plagiarism was bad or not, or whether it affects the work itself, it is not arguable that Wierwille's works contained sections that were virtually word-for-word reproductions of publications by Stiles and Leonard, and others as well. You would think that having done this, he would make no mention of either man, but he does. Why? I have no friggin' idea. But there is a contradiction. Some of it goes to the contradictions in Wierwille's life. Sometimes he wanted to portray himself as the apostle, the guy who was teaching the bible like it hadn't been taught since the days of Paul; other times he wanted to come across as the humble country preacher who was just reading what was written.

How do the preceeding segments fit with: They don't. Not reallyThe quotes from PFAL and RHST say that he studied theologians, but subsequently rejected them, and started "anew" using the bible as his handbook and textbook. The quote from TW:LIL seems to say that he considered the works of others worth studying, but that he would decide what was worth keeping and what should be discarded.