Oakspear

hey...don't bad mouth the witches!

It's "Wicca", by the way, not "Wiccanism" And yes, I'm serious, but that post was a joke...we don't have popcorn Wicca is a specific form of paganism, started in the 50's by Gerald Gardner in England. He claims to have "rediscovered" ancient rites of the Old Religion. I think he was scamming to a great extent myself. I participate in a eclectic circle of pagans, which includes some Wiccans. My wife and I presided at the Yule/Winter Solstice ritual this past December 21st.

Back To The Future Marty: "unh...why did I set the alarm for midnight for?....zzzzzzzzzzzzzz" Clerks Dante: "H*ll NO I won't come in...I'm not supposed to be there today!" National Lampoon's Summer Vacation Clark Griswold: "Hoooneeeeyyy...I just heard on the radio that Wally World is closed for repairs..." Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan Chekhov (before beaming down): "Keptin, I remember this planet..."

Aren't you married, JL?

Wow! Front row! I was in about the ninth or tenth row at Madison Square Garden in 1976. Aerosmith opened for them.

Like most of those afflicted with Waybrain, you don't understand what the image of Christ on the cross represents to Catholics. It represents what he endured and suffered for us. It's purpose is NOT to glorify death. It's what he went through so that he could be raised and ascended. All you know is what Wierwille and The Way told you that it meant, and they didn't get it either.

Come to the dark side, Allan...we have popcorn

The chanting of the magic formula of salvation doesn't mean much, in my not-so-humble opinion, if the so-called "believer' continues to act in hurtful, selfish, deceitful ways. I'm not at all impressed with someone who is saved, but is a son of a b---- otherwise. Some of you have said how you've seen plenty of church-going Christians who live in a godly manner. Let me expand that circle to include Jews, Wiccans, Hindus and follwers of Native American religions. By their fruit...

Geo: I read Lost Christianities by this guy this past year, and it wasn't too bad. He makes a good case for the bible that we have today being the end product of factional infighting among the differing versions of Christianity.

The word "Christian" didn't come from "Christ in"

Since we're already derailed... This is a false dilemma. Or a stupid example. I don't think anyone ever said to not defend oneself from physical violence by a woman. One would be an idiot to let oneself be run over simply becuase it was a woman behind the wheel. Not only is this a false dilemma, but it's a strawman: you take a position that Diazbro didn't take, argue against it, and then call him an idiot for holding the position that he didn't take. Perhaps, but you included verbal harrassment as an excuse for "clocking her like she deserves". As I recall, it was something about a man's superior physical strength countering a woman's biting tongue (I'm paraphrasing), and a woman's verbal sniping being a justification for the man to hit her.I don't know about this "can't be a Christian" business, but you have publically come out in favor of violence against women outyside of self-defense

The four (later five) Studies in Abundant Living books were originally tracts. Do you remember in PFAL, Wierwille holding up those little booklets? They all later were incorporated into books. PFAL itself was a "novelization" of the film class, with grammar cleaned up a little, and most of the jokes taken out.

If Mr. Wierwille was being honest, why would he say that he threw out all his theology books, and used the bible as his only textbook?I think the answer to the question, Oldies, is that Wierwille said different things depending on what image he was trying to put forward at the time. He said contradictory things because I doubt that he was keeping track of his lies, or expected anyone to question him. And few did during his lifetime. It's obvious that much of what he taught was not original, not even "putting it all together so that it fit", he said that someone (presumably Stiles) did that for him in the 2nd edition of RTHST. But we have him implying that what everyone else taught was second rate, so that he had to "fit it together" on one hand, and claiming that he got all of his info straight from the bible on the other hand, and a possibly third hand, that God taught it to him. And if it wasn't original, then I guess it had been taught "since the first century".

So we still are back to the question: "Why did he make these apparently contradictory statements?" What did he mean when he said "Not everything that I teach is original", or that he learned from others, in light of his other statements that he threw out all of his books, and used only the bible as his textbook? Or this statement about Leonard: "really learned a lot about the other manifestations of the holy spirit. But he worked from personal experiences. I worked what he taught from the accuracy of the Scriptures" Oldies, the reason that it appears to you that "it is hard to recognize", is that it doesn't add up. There's a lot more context than the appearingly simple statement: "lots of the stuff I teach is not original". Putting Bullinger on the shelf when you are also saying that you were teaching the same stuff before you had ever heard of him, is not the same as saying that you learnd from Bullinger. Crediting Leonard with providing experiential teaching which you later "worked from the Word", while presnted his class as your own, is claiming credit for the research yourself. I don't know why you can't see this as a contradiction.

About the only time I regret throwing out my TWI books is when we have one of these discussions. Think about when Wierwille does mention other people, often he pays them left-handed compliments, like saying BG Leonard was great on experience, and poor on documentation, or how Stiles is never mentioned again after that passage in TW:LIL. Does he ever say "So-and-so taught me such-and-such", no, he throws out names, then about the best he can bring himself to say is that he kept what was accurate and threw out the rest. Specific credit and recognition was not ever given. Forget about footnotes, forget about endnotes, forget about a bibliography, he never, ever, mentions what he learned from whom, all he says is "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." - a pretty lukewarm recognition of men that he copied from!

1. You read right 2. There are a few 3. Yes 4. No thanks

But, according to Wierwille, there will be a time when what was available at Pentecost will not be available, and there was a time when it was not, so I guess God does change! Either that, or maybe he should have either thought again about whether it's still available, or have come up with a better argument. Bullinger and others have made the case biblically that tongues are not avilable today. ******************************************************************************** ********* Okay, so, according to Wierwille himself he didn't learn from other people, he figgered it all out hisself from the bible. This is where the idea that Wierwille claimed that he originated it all, the quotes from The Way: Living in Love notwithstanding. So, how can we reconcile these two statements? and They appear to be contradictory? Was Wierwille, perhaps, lying? If so, why print these two apparently contradictory statements in his own publications? And then, of course, there's this:

maybe in Minnesota!~

Mark, the debate is ongoing, and has never really stopped. WW has done a good job IMHO of documenting what Wierwille actually said about various TWI doctrines and positions, as opposed to what we remember about them, all in TWI-published materials. No matter what debate it engenders, it gets it out there. never noticed this before. Let's see, he went to Mission House/Lakeland Collge for his bachelor's (I guess that's the college) He went to Princeton Theological Seminary for his Master's (That's either the university or the seminary, maybe both) He got his "doctorate" from Pike's Peak (Maybe he's considering this a seminary too) Where else does he mention any others?

That Thing You Do: "Hey...get that dumbass drummer away from those parking meters..."

Apology accepted Not so much a "conspiracy", or a necessarily overt effort "planted" to take advantage in the future, but in my opinion an indication of the man's inclinations, which are certainly borne out by some posters here, and by testimony in other places. I can't see Vic Wierwille secretly plotting to add subliminal messages to PFAL in order to take advantage at some unspecified future date. But I do believe that the statement is a clue to his mindset. As TWI grew Wierwille had the opportunity to do what may have only been a fantasy when it was not more than a storefront operation. Neither you or I can go back in time or read a dead man's motives, but what I wrote, while only my opinion, fits the known facts and is far from ridiculous.

Loosely translated, "namaste" means 'The divine in me recognizes and honors the divine in you' - I forget what language, it may be Hindi, not sure.

Maybe they were pulling my leg...now that would be funny You are right about Vic Wooten...does he only have five fingers on each hand? Seems like more He does solo tours, as do the rest of the Flecktones, that weave in and out of the Flecktones tour. And how about his brother's synthaxe drumitar? We went to see Electric Soul Method as planned Thursday; even after a long day of work, we burned up the dance floor.

Somebody in your life has a good sense of humor...and knows that you have one! My wife and stepdaughter got me the 5-CD box set of Martin Scorsese's The Blues and my stepson got me all three DVD's of The Lord of the Rings. Somebody at work got me a wonderfully tacky light-up Spider-Man head. :blink:

Whoa! Did I accidently step on your pecker or something to rate that bullshirt response? We may disagree as to the purpose of including that remark in the class, but there is no argument as to its inaccuracy. There is no part of the O.T. law that gives the king the right to all the women in the kingdom, "technically" or otherwise, and the prohibition against adultery specifically would argue against it. Granted, there have been times and places where the droit de signeur was the custom, but one can hardly argue that a culture where "God's Law" was the law of the land was one of them. There is simply no evidence outside of Wierwille's statement in PFAL that "all of the women belong to the king". So, no, I don't need a better argument than that "bro" - we may reasonably disagree on why Wierwille included that remark, but it's wrong, unless you have something to prove me wrong. This does, however, illustrate another point about PFAL: Wierwille's propensity for pulling things like this out of his ear, or citing "old documents" that no one else has ever seen to make his point. For a guy who claimed he was showing us how to research the bible on our own, he sure made a lot of undocumented statements. Merry Christmas