Oakspear

Let's leave aside for a moment the theory that God gave Wierwille PFAL by revelation, since it has been thoroughly debunked (unless God gave him revelation for errors as well). Wierwille was a guy who had decided that plagarism was okay. He was stealing and he was lying about it. Not once, not twice, but consistantly. This is the guy that you want to teach you the bible? You're not going to question the veracity of EVERYTHING that he taught? Are you insane? Wierwille was a guy who rationalized that the scripture gave him the right to have sex with any of the women in "his kingdom". Not only that but he was a serial adulterer who taught his ideas about sex to others. This is the guy who you want to accept as your teacher? You're not going to question his explanations of the application of the Word of God that he talked about? Are you on crack? As a previous poster mentioned, even the stuff that he plagarized from, he often diluted, or mixed with other sources as to change or confuse the meaning. Compare something from Bullinger to Wierwille's version of it and see how he often misunderstood the point. What a scholar! This is the guy who you're going to allow to set the framework for truth for you? Have you been eating lead paint? Figure it out for yourself...you don't need Wierwille

Good one!

The only reason that it's "open for debate" is that there are some here who Don't think that the lack of accreditation is significant Have rationalized that a "doctorate" from Pikes Peak Seminary & Grill is equivalent to a doctorate from someplace like...oh, Princeton Theological Seminary Don't care, since he "taught us The Word" other half-baked reasons

I'll probably roll in within an hour of you. It's looking like I'll have some food as well to feed the barbarian hordes. :D-->

Laleo: I think you are giving Zixar too much credit. The death bed analogy is only part of his presentation, he began with his invitation for the non-Christians to renounce Christ. Any who refused were called liars (by implication) and had their beliefs and opinions branded "lawyering" (if LarryP was here, would he consider that an insult?) and "pontificating (if the pope were here, would he consider that an insult?)The death-bed scenario was a refinement, or perhaps a detour. If Zixar is claiming that faith is visceral, rather than rational, he is going against his history of posts here on GS. Zix is the poster-boy for rational Christianity. It depends on the person. I am looking for a little of both. I have to have the experience, yet it has to make sense. Don't bother asking me just what I mean by that, I'll let you know when I figure it out for myself :D-->

d: yeah, well one of 'em ain't canonical

Why yes I do :)--> Thanks for caring...I most certainly will convert (or revert) on my deathbed now. And back to your question. There is no gray area to the question, since it only assumes that there are two options, but there is to the answer, your refusal or inability to see nothwithstanding.

Same personality type, I see where you would think that! TH was our LC and was the guy who threw me out

Perhaps if you cut & pasted the sections you don't understand, then someone could explain it to you. You don't understand that veepee and his trstworthiness to teach is the subject here? You don't understand that sex is part of the "evil" perpetrated by Wierwille and therefore relevant to the discussion? Okay, the Mary thing I see why you wouldn't get it. Mike somehow equated the sexual attitudes of some churches to Mary worship. I lost track myself. Maybe Mike will explain it to us. :D-->

From the original post: I think most of us would agree that no evil behavior on the part of Wierwille or his lieutenants would necessarily invalidate any truth contained in the teachings. Okay! No more making the argument about rejecting Wierwille's teachings because he was evil :D--> But if Wierwille was the adulterous, plagiarizing, scam artist that he appears to have been, why would anyone take anything he said at face value? If his standard practice was to lie and cheat, if he his way of life was to use people, why would any of his teachings be kept and revered as truth? I guess if you don't believe any of the bad stuff that's printed about him, that's another story It seems to me that Wierwille's way of life would cause anyone who followed him or his "ministry" to question every one of his assumptions. In other words, check it out for yourself Many ex-Way people are afraid of throwing the baby out with the bathwater. I believe that that is a seriously flawed analogy. A baby is irreplaceable. Any "truths" that lie at the heart of all the muck of Wierwille's teachings and the evil application of them can be replaced, i.e. arrived at by methods other than PFAL...if they are truths. What? Anyone here think that the truths that are embedded in Wierwillism are lost to us if we don't unquestioningly accept PFAL? What many people do is keep the basic structure of Wierwille doctrine and compare them to the bible, or their opinion of what the bible says. I believe that tearing down the whole edifice and building anew is a better way to go. Start from scratch and learn what truth is independent of anything Wierwille said. That's WORK, but if the TRUTH isn't worth a little work...

Oldies: So it was "obvious" that some things were wrong and others weren't. What made it obvious? It couldn't have been whether it conformed to mainstream Christianity or not, because you retained some things that are at odds with most churches. Was it that your experience with things like tithing and the law of believing didn't line up what was taught? Sounds like it. That makes sense. If following the plan doesn't bring the advertised results, there's something wrong. And understand this: when I talk about "tearing down", I don't necessarily mean making a decision one way or another. What I'm talking about is going back to the baseline, the starting line, and getting re-convinced of what I believe. Some things I will end up believing the same things as before, others I will reject. In the context of what I'm discussing, "tearing down the edifice" does not mean condemning, but questioning everything. From what you've described you rejected things where you saw a clear contradiction between what was taught and what you experienced: tithing didn't make you prosperous, believing didn't equal receiving, etc. Everything else that didn't jar your senses in some way, you kept. That's what I get from your words. And actually, yes, I am asking you to question Christianity, in the sense that your view of Christianity is shaped in large part by what Wierwille taught. Of all the Wierwille teachings that are common to Christianity, you say that you didn't know them before encountering TWI. Your view of "the truth" is shaped by TWI; you still largely define truth as what you were taught in TWI.

Actually Zixar, if you would read with any level of understanding, you would see that lack of surety is my position. A-G-N-O-S-T-I-C...get it? It is a false dilemma, it is simplistic, and here's why: Your question, and your subsequent explanations assume that there are only two choices: accept Christ or reject Christ. I, and others here have given our opinion that there is more to it than that. You have seemingly locked yourself into that position and apparently refuse to acknowledge that things might be different than you have decided they ought to be. Maybe for you there ARE only two choices because that's all that you can see; your inability to understand what some of us are talking about doesn't negate our point of view. No temper involved. Your understanding, at least at this time, is limited, you're ignorant of the nuances of spirituality that exist, and it looks like you want to stay that way. And, the way I see it, the last part of my post that you addressed is not strictly an ad hominem argument, it's purely an observation (admittedly an insulting observation, but an observation nonetheless). In that statement I am making no argument to you; I am not saying I believe such and such because you are "arrogant, closed-minded, pseudo-intellectual, smug", but that these qualities that I observe in you will in no way influence me towards Christianity. Frankly, I am tired of dealing with you in a civil manner, you implied that I, and others who posted here, lied, among other things. You mock our beliefs and describe our explanations as "lawyering". I don't expect you to agree, just make an effort to understand.

Oldies: You've demonstrated that there are at least some portions of Wierwille's teaching that you have rejected. Although you don't go along with my "tear it all down and start all over again" theory, you have made decisions about what you would keep and what you would retain. How did you make those decisions? Have you looked at every aspect of Wierwillism, or did you leave some stones unturned?

are you really excathedra?

AlaP: You worked under the Highlander? --> Are you sure we're talking about the same guy? His first name rhymes with red.

Herbal: How do you spell "third"?

That count seems right to my "pahr juice" addled memory rascal :P--> CW: I will indeed be passing KC. I welcome car-poolers. My current plan is to leave Lincoln sometime on Thursday afternoon, no later than 4:00 pm, drive until I can't stand it any more and get a hotel room for the night (probably the other side of St. Louis somewhere), then start driving again in the morning. Last year I arrived about 3:00 pm and the pole-dancin' dentist and I hosted the opening events at our cabin, featuring Sudo's "Better Than Sex" Stew. I am working on contributing a second dish for the Friday night dinner. I am putting on an event at my store that involves lots of food. We will be cooking up sausages and peppers & onions and cryo-vaccing them for storage. I have a big ol' catering type roaster that will accomadate mass quantities. If I sucessfully solve the issue of keeping them cold through Friday night, we'll be eating some sausage and peppers with the BTS stew. You know what might be nice? If someone of the Friday arrival could bring some cornbread, or rolls, or something to go with Sudo's stew. Hey Sudo, are you still shooting for a mid-afternoon arrival?

Accepting someone who denied the clear biblical teaching about adultery, promoting the same; who dissembled and misdirected, if not out-and-out lied, about the sources of his teachings, and his academic background; who connived and schemed to push out people like Heefner & Doop, who made the growth of his ministry a reality; as a source of truth is somewhat insane. Questioning in this situation is the mark of a sound mind. Throwing it all out and starting over would be prudent. What are you afraid of? Would it be too hard? Not worth the effort? You're not smart enough? Don't worry, I'll make you a Doctor. Ask Rascal, I presented her with her certificate last year :D--> I guess it's real easy, real comfortable to sit back and accept what that con man peddled. No need to think, no need to make any choices; just throw out what you feel is inconvenient and keep the rest...it's "Truth", ain't it?

Mike: Your position that PFAL is God's Word reissued hardly gives you credentials as a rational participant in this discussion. To you it's a question of master vs. don't master, assuming all along that it's right. You accept that Wierwille was sinful in many of his actions but rationalize them with "everybody is tempted" and deny the possibility that the actions could have affected his ability to teach the truth.

Nope...in this game of chutes and ladders, you slide down the chute to square #1...that's not what I said. If the man is wrong, question. Bzzzzt. Thanks for playing

to you it's a simple question, to me, it's simplistic. Well I'm presented with a false dilemma like yours I generally don't fall for it. Why should I (or any of the other non-Christians) be required to fit our beliefs into your little box? Yes Bramble was honest. So am I, so is Lindy, so is Abigail. It just doesn't fit into your limited understanding. If I ever turn to Christ it will because I sincerely believe, because I have been convinced to my satisfaction, not because I'm trying to hedge my bets. Is that why you're a Christian, Zixar? Because you have nothing to lose? Wow! What a great testimony. -->Maybe I'll decide to become a Christian someday. Maybe something about it will click and I'll be "glory bound" - but it sure won't be because of arrogant, closed-minded, pseudo-intellectual, smug, Xians like yourself Zixar.

okay, thanks

What I have endeavored to do, since leaving TWI, is to start over, with a clean slate with regard to spirituality. Yes, I do realize that that is all but impossible to do, but I am doing my best. What I am not doing is looking exclusively at Christianity and accepting or rejecting it; I am trying to choose my path as if I am being presented with a limitless set of spiritual possibilities. In doing this, I have not seen a good reason to embrace Christianity over any other path. The state of my mind post-TWI was confusion: not only were there a multitude of competing Christian denominations, but even within ex-TWI people there was a wide range of beliefs about what "The Word" actually meant, even using the same "keys". I needed to take a step, maybe many steps, back and regroup. From my point of view, it's not a rejection as such, merely a lack of acceptance.

Hmm... . . . . . ...the more that I look at it... . . . . . . . ...the more it looks like... . . . . . . ...a bondage face!!!! . . . . ...ya gotta love the classics

yeah sky, I'm sure