Oakspear

Sure that happens...but does it happen a high enough percentage for it to be a "law"? Someone would have to keep track, but I doubt it. Then there's what rascal said...I doubt that a careful scrutiny would show that it makes any difference one way or another.

Do you have to believe in hell to go there? (Oh, and a belated welcome to sudossuda...I roomed with Sudo for 2 weenie roasts...how do you restrain yourself from killing him when he's that f---in' happy in the morning?)

thanks WW

The following quote has been throw into the mix several times lately: "“Lots of the stuff I teach is not original. Putting it all together so that it fit -- that was the original work. I learned wherever I could, and then I worked that with the Scriptures. What was right on with the Scriptures, I kept; but what wasn't, I dropped". Taken by itself it seems to put to rest any claim that Wierwille was passing PFAL off as 100% his own, when in fact he "borrowed" from others. I don't have it at my fingertips, but WordWolf probably does; in the preface to RHST Wierwill says the opposite. I'm sure most of us remember the statement in PFAL about hauling the 3000 theological works to the city dump and thenceforth only using the bible. Besides, there is a great difference between reading widely and synthesizing a practical theology from the various sources and copying sections almost word-for-word. Wierwille didn't always present himself in the same way: sometimes he was the lone cowboy, blazing new trails, sometimes he was the humble compiler, just "putting it together so it fit".

Well, I would have to start actually believing it first

My opinion is that most people who hold to PFAL, or retain a high percentage of Wierwille-taught doctrine don't critically examine what he taught. This opinion is based only on what I see printed here, and from the few people who believe that way that I know personally. Since I don't physically interact with most of youse guys, that's all I have to go on. What I mean by critically examine, is to start from scratch. This doesn't necessarily mean to throw everything out, but it does mean to look at everything with a fresh set of eyes. To me, this means to not just re-read the verse, check the Young's concordance and say "Yup, makes sense to me,VP was right", but to question ALL of his assumptions, his definitions, his methods. Is your view of a section of scripture based upon a definition of a Greek word that you have only seen in Wierwille's works? Are all the "keys" to interpreting the bible actually true? Can you spot all the doctrinal strawmen that Wierwille throws out in his effort to discredit opposing ideas? Have you looked at the opposing doctrinal positions that make sense? None of this has anything to do with Wierwille's character or originality. As Raf said, Wierwille's works stand or fall on their own merits. BUT... ...someone whose moral character is reprehensible, who lies and plagiarizes, etc, etc, etc... ...is not someone who we should take at their word.

After hearing about the All*n lawsuit, and being told not to troll the internet for info, I waited until everybody went to bed and started looking for Way-related sites. I found Juedes' site and Waydale in the same night. I felt like puking.

I doubt if we were the only ones that understood that, Mike. However, I am as unwilling to accept the bible (in concrete or abstract form ) as "god-breathed" as am to accept PFAL in that manner. I did not encounter TWI until 1978. I would disagree with your assessment for the late 70's, early 80's. I think that the attitude was that we were all able to determine what "The Word" said and meant because of what we were taught by Wierwille in PFAL, not that Wierwille was speaking ex cathedra or by revelation, just that his opinion was to be respected and given precedence due to his years of experience in "working the Word". It's only in looking back that I see that Wierwille was really saying that only his opinion mattered. Wierwille, and the whole TWI system, was great at getting us to take dissenting opinions and "hold them in abeyance", and convincing us to put our common sense on hold, not because we thought that he was incapable or error, but because we assumed that he was utilizing those "keys" that he taught us about. If I had thought, in my early days in TWI, that we should swallow what Wierwille said, just because he said it, I doubt that I would have stuck around.

First of all, I have never considered myself an atheist, let alone "proclaimed" myself as one.Seeing that Wierwille set himself up as the final arbiter of truth is different than believing that he was saying that PFAL is on par with the bible. Yes, he was very clear that he thought that no translation or version could be termed THE WORD OF GOD, but he was equally emphatic that with study of the early texts, and applying the "keys", one could determime what the originals said.

What can I say about PFAL? It came along at a time when I wanted to believe that the bible was THE Word of God, was getting inconsistant and contadictory messages from my church and others that I investigated, and wanted to "make a difference". So, whether PFAL was right or wrong or somewhere in between, I was fertile ground for the message. By the time the class was filmed, Wierwille had been teaching it live for 15 years or so. He had plenty of time to work out the kinks, and perfect his approach. Without reference (at this time) to PFAL's "accuracy", Wierwille did a great job of convincing folks that: The churches weren't doing the job of teaching the bible by demonstrating how several widely accepted doctrines didn't line up with (his interpretation of) the bible The bible could be understood by anyone by simply utilizing certain "keys" HE was the best one around to tell you what it really meant By setting that groundwork, Wierwille, for good or evil, established himself as THE authority on the bible

clues are okay...sometimes these lyrics are a bit too obscure (see the Morphine lyrics on the last page) :blink:

The flip side of living in a small town where everybody knows everybody is that sometimes things like that go unpunished, because the miscreant knows the right people. And forget about it if you're an outsider. I've lived in both: big, big cities, and small, small towns. Both have their good points and their bad.

Oh great, now I'm going to be up all night checking your math

Can you expand on that? I'm not sure that you need gravity to prove gravity...maybe I just don't understand your point. I don't think you can ever "prove" that the bible or "the Word of God" is actually from God. Most of what I see here and elsewhere is along the lines of "it worked for me". IT being speaking in tongues, answers to prayer, miracles, etc. It all comes down to personal experience, i.e. experiencing what the bible says that you should experience, or interpreting your experience in light of the bible. Does that experience make the bible any more "true" than anything else? Subjectively, maybe, but lots of folks have varying experiences. All "true" in their own context, but not to others.

Kee-rekt on the Floyd

We had one of those, too. The guy was a pretty good businessman, but he got his home, and the majority share in a family farm, because his parents died in a car wreck. Always irked me

"Shattered" by The Rolling Stones No question about that one; how about this'un" Hanging on in quiet desperation is the English way The time is gone the song is over, thought I'd something more to say

...is that a lyric, or a complaint?

Here's another point about metaphors: they mostly just illustrate a point that is already established, they in no way prove the point. For johniam, who as far as I know believes in the inerrancy of the bible, the driver's license analogy makes sense. For him, the bible is the standard against which everything else is measured. For others, who don't hold such a belief, the analogy is flawed. The bible as driver's license only works if one already accepts the premise that the bible is "right". One of the things that I saw recur in TWI was the use of illustrations to prove the point. An example is the teaching on epiluo, which Bullinger taught was "to let loose", and illustrated the letting loose, by comparing it to dogs being unleashed to run down the game. The definition, filtered through Wierwille and later Martindale, focussed on the dogs and not the letting loose itself, establishing in TWI minds that interpretation was bad. Another poster and I questioned the TWI definition on biblical grounds, as well as showing how Bullinger was misunderstood by Wierwille (I understand that other posters may disagree with me on this...my main problem was how TWI leaders handled the question...). Rather than "going to the Word", or going to a lexicon other some other source that would better explain the TWI position, both sets of leaders proceeded to explain the analogy, lecturing on dogs and hunting and training, etc. The example became equal to the bible!

"Be Strong in The Lord" was the yearly theme at ROA 1991.

That's it! Your turn

It doesn't matter what I say As long as sing with inflection That makes you feel that I'll convey Some inner truth of vast reflection But I've said nothing so far And I can keep it up as long as it takes And it don't matter who you are If I'm doing my job its your resolve that breaks Think harmonica

Donna's M's alleged lesbianism is discussed mainly because it stands in stark contrast to TWI's public stance against homosexuality. Kinda like finding out that a KKK leader had an affair with a black woman. It's the irony, doncha know? And what are you suggesting for "making him pay"? A lynching? :blink:

....and yet...we drew you in....