Oakspear

And you are operating on the idea that there is some reason why Wierwille had to be right in all that he wrote. There is not. :D-->While it is true that words have definitions that are sometimes flexible to an extent, it seems that if what you say is true, Wierwille flexed the meaning pretty far. Maybe God shouldn't have bowed so much. Maybe then somebody other than you would have understood what "Doctor" *gag* really meant, since he was apparently incapable of expressing himself clearly in such an "important revelation".Keep in mind that Wierwille made the point that the David's sin was killing off Uriah, not the adultery with Bathsheba. David was sinning because of his having sexual relations with Bathsheba because the torah said so. Wierwille brought up his view that "technically" all the women in the kingdom belonged to the king to illustrate how the sexual relations between David & Bathsheba were not a sin. If he was referring merely to custom, or prevailing "devilish" mentality, how would that make their act not sinful? Ya? We're talking about the word technically, not technicality.

It is obvious, IMHO, that Wierwille believed that God gave "holy men of God" the revelation to write the bible "in olden times"; that errors crept in (both intentional and unintentional) over the years and that no modern written bible can be properly called "THE Word of God". However, I believe it is equally obvious that he believed that through using "the keys" one could determine what that original word of God said. Did he believe that his PFAL book replaced the bible? No; but he did believe that his translations and his interpretation were superior to any and all that came before him. Not only did he believe that his handling of the "original" texts was superior to all, but lacking textual evidense his insights were to be given more credence than any written evidense. In effect whatever he said was "The Word of God" was "the Word of God". For all practical purposes, on some levels the words of Wierwille were the words of God. Not technically though :D--> The so-called keys were a distraction, a way to make us think that we could "work the Word" on our own and be free from popes and theologians and priests and ministers. They were a hook to draw us in to Wierwille's world.

Mike: Your explanation of what Wierwille was actually saying when he declared that "technically" the King owned, or had a right to, every woman in the kingdom is wrong. When "technically" is used the way Wierwille used it, it carries the meaning of "according to the law, or rules". It is often used in the sense of something that is legally true, but not carried out in practice. For example, if I buy a car and then give it to my son, expecting him to pay for insurance and registration costs, take care of all upkeep, and allow him exclusive use of the car, the car is technically mine, but for all practical purposes the car is my son's. In effect the car is my son's, but technically it is mine. While I agree that David, as the King, could have for all practical purposes had any woman in the kingdom due to his influence and possibily charisma, and maybe fear of consequenses, it is incorrect to state that it was "technically" true. By stating that "technically" David, as King, had a right to any woman in the kingdom, he was communicating that there was either a biblical or legal right that no one could argue with. Since there was no such right, Nathan was right in confronting David. The fact that you thought he was saying "that IN HUMAN NATURE (which is devil sculpted or modified from Adam) the king technically (or according to the techniques that predominate in man's fallen nature) has his "pick of the litter" or has the last say, or has the upper hand, or "owns" all the women. " only shows that you don't understand how the word "technically" is used. IF Wierwille meant what you thought he meant, then he should have said something like "In effect, the King could have any woman in the kingdom" or "For all practical purposes, the king could have any woman in the kingdom". That would match your perception. Wierwille either Purposely taught it the way he did to biblically justify his own behavior or Didn't understand the proper use of the word "technically" in this context You stated that anyone who thought that Wierwille was saying that all women in the kingdom should belong to the king was crazy (in your opinion). I have yet to see anyone actually claim that Wierwille was teaching that, only that he taught that they did. Put that strawman to bed.

The initial response to an a registration is automatic. Roy-Year2027 questioned the contradiction between the "welcome" in the original response and the rejection in the follow-up. He was told that he was accusing a machine of lying. Surly and arrogant? While the initial response that I got from Brown when I emailed him back when we first discovered FT was polite, subsequent communications could easily be characterized as "surly and arrogant". Responses to other GSers were about the same. I guess when you are part of "the one, true household" and are standing in the crap, I mean gap, and "backing down the adversary", you can be nasty to devil spirits or those posessed with 'em. As I'm sure they believe we are.

"The Truth Needs No Defense" - remember that one? It was used regularly to shut off questions and debate.

One of the things that is, for most people, a healthy outlet is "venting". You're p.o.'d about something, and you yell or fume about it to someone who cares to get it off your chest. Venting "wasn't available" in TWI. At work I was recently passed over for a promotion. The way in which it was handled was less than professional, and exposed some double-talk by upper management. I was furious about the situation, and talked about it to people I trusted. I'll get over it, I'll move on, I'll do my job in a professional manner, but I needed to "vent". Blowing off some steam was, for me, the way that I could get over it and move on. In TWI that would have never been allowed to go on. I would have been "confessing negative" or some such b.s. So when things came up, they were bottled up inside with no real outlet.

In 1979 three carloads of us drove from NYC to New Knoxville for the weekend; attended a Sunday service in the BRC, slept in the cabin. One of the guys claimed that he was receiving revelation on where the cops were so we could safely exceed the speed limit. Until we got that speeding ticket on the way home :D-->

well, there always was quite a bit of "shoveling" going on :D-->

less filling!

I knew it! You're a vampire!I went to an all boys' high-school. No prom for me, although I think that they did have one.

Johniam: The big difference between God and Karma, as I see it, is that believers in the Christian God believe that he wrote a book with plenty of information about himself. It says in the book that God is their sufficiency. I guess you have to figure out what that means :D-->. With karma, there is no supreme being who told anyone "there is such a thing as karma and here's how it works", rather some folks have come up with the idea based on their perceptions of how things work. But I do agree with you that people can and do become overly concerned about how they can get God or karma or whatever to work in their favor, or tip the odds their way.

Cathy: Please excuse me if I don't spell the Greek words just right, but I'm winging it here! One of the countless theological debates "back in the day" was whether Mary should be called christotokos (bearer of Christ) or theotokos (bearer of God). Since the debate was between two factions that both believed that Jesus was God, any consideration that Jesus maybe wasn't God did not enter into the discussion. The translation of "-tokos as "mother" somewhat muddies the watwers regarding the position of the theotokos fans, who wanted to honor Mary for being one who bore God in her womb. The term in no way suggested that Mary was literally God's mother, insofar as she predated him, but merely that she gave birth to God in human form. I am by no means a trinitarian, but suggesting that trinitarians believe that Mary was the mother of the eternal God, rather than the human aspect of God, misrepresents their actual belief.

It's a TWI/PFAL myth that applying the biblical research keys would necessarily yield "the truth" in all cases. Go visit the doctrinal forum and see people arguing opposite sides of an isssue, and both sides can cite scripture to back up their point. Just because we learned something in PFAL, and it still makes sense, and the opposite view seems to not make sense, and we've worked it ourselves, doesn't necessarily mean it's "truth". There are too many points along the way where our own understanding, faulty translations or definitions, or just lack of cultural context could lead us to the wrong conclusion. Yet we feel qualified to judge a church's doctrine as unambiguously "false".

...about how "blessed" everyone is --> -->

...and another thing :P-->... PFAL really wasn't what it was billed as: a class on "keys" It was to promote Wierwille's doctrine, using those keys to illustrate the new and groovy doctrine.

Even if one assumes that Wierwille was "right on" with his PFAL class, is that the best that can be done almost forty years after it was filmed? Can't you PFAL fans take what was learned and expand on it? Build on it? Teach the same basic stuff with your own lame jokes? :D-->

igotout: I think you have clearly and boldly ;)--> made your point! Nonetheless, I think I'll still discuss it, if it's okay with you :D--> The way things turned out pretty much proves our point about lack of openess at TWI, discussion about it here keeps it in the open for any "innie" lurkers, since they can't get real debate on their own site.

Initially I thought Family Tables would be a great opportunity for GSers and "innies" to interact and ask and answer honest questions. Although some of the questions and comments from GSers were pointed, we were all respectful, and played by their rules. What I didn't take into account was that "leadership" was probably paying close attention, especially after we all showed up to crash the party. But even before we were locked out (and I don't believe for a minute that the refurbishing just coincidently happened after a rush of "cop-outs" arrived, or that the new, more restrictive rules had been planned from before the GSers showd up) it seemed that people were terrified to think, deathly afraid to express an opinion. "Talk to your leadership about this" was the most common anser to any question. One night another poster asked me "were we this bad?" - at first I said "yes", but recalled that 'back in the day' we freely expressed our opinions and argued with leadership; something that could never be done now.

No Mike, it's not a surprise, the only surprise is that any of us got in in the first place.

All of our names that were temporaily on the member list have been removed. (Sorry Roy, they didn't buy your explanation), other than Galen's.

I guess the !'s wedding wasn't the only one with a "spiritual ring", huh Rev. Raf?

duuuude

Who notified you?

CFO = Chief Financial Officer = Treasurer That would be Jean-Yves DeLilse aka The Pink Panther

Great point skyrider. You sure can't "confess a negative" or you "aren't believing". Full sharing would involve all concerns, doubts, and even *gasp* FEARS!