Oakspear

That's the point Zix...lack of certainty.

Hey guys! Can you say "strawman"? - I knew you could ;)--> I am not saying that Wierwille's sins invalidates any truth that he taught. For you to argue as if that is what I said is a logical fallacy. You are setting up a position that is different than and weaker than my actual argument and arguing against that, rather than my actual point. My point is that a pattern of lying indicates that a person is not to be trusted. That doesn't mean that everything that the person says is a lie, or even that most is a lie, merely that a history of lying would indicate that what the person says cannot automatically be taken at face value. I say that if something is true then it should be easily arrived at by independent searchers. If, by independent effort you come to the same conclusions that Wierwille did, fine; if not, throw it out. What's wrong with that?

Yes, but first you have to first determine if it is truth. In the section of my post that you quoted I advocated questioning, not discarding. Oldies, somehow you are misunderstanding me. If it's truth, then by all means enjoy it. The relevance of Wierwille's sinning is not that it invalidates whatever truth is contained in his doctrine, but that it is a darn good reason to question it. My point is that unless you search for the truth yourself, you're never going to know if what TWI and Wierwille came up with is the truth. What have you retained and what have you rejected from TWI teaching, Oldies? How did you make the decision? I maintain that by retaining the TWI framework one will retain certain assumptions that may or may not be true and will not be noticed because TWI premises were not seriously challeneged.

This comes up pretty frequently here on GS. Somebody addresses one of Wierwille's or TWI's abuses (or alleged abuses if you prefer) and somebody else responds with a variation of: "It doesn't matter if he (fill in your favorite abuse or lie), he taught the Word like nobody else." 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. 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? 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. 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 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.

Coupla points: Back in my late teens, Christianity was starting to not maker sense to me; I was exploring Buddhism, Taoism and other paths. It was my involvement with The Way that kept me in Christianity for another twenty-three years. In my subsequent questioning of doctrine, The abuses and error in The Way were the catalyst for questioning, but was not the reason for going in different directions. As for the label "Christianity Rejectors", I question its accuracy. Most of the posters here have expressed the opinion that there is some good and some truth in Christianity, but have taken other paths. Your label implies a black or white position whereas most posters here have taken a gray approach.

Yes Shaz...you NEED to do that. Sorry Catcup. Hearing that someone NEEDS to do anything makes my TWI alergies flare up :D--> Actually it looks more like Shaz was using RG, a generally sober-minded and well-respected poster, as an example of how someone can make an innocent mistake. Kind of like confusing the Research Team with the Research Fellowship (How many people knew that there were two separate entities?) Sure there's a problem, if saying "Princeton" misleads one into thinking that they are one and the same. Why would it seem to indicate that, when Shaz writes: "I'm just reminding everybody that anybody can make an honest mistake, can remember things differently, or have a different interpretation of events. That is far removed from intentionally trying to skew the facts, but all possibilities need to be kept in mind when evaluating someone's post." Good advice...for everyone

To add to JT's comment: I don't believe that VPW ever dreamed that his children would not support his organization, and therefore not have access to it's benefits.

When the infamous and now dead Highlander came to our area, fresh from in-residence Corps training that included "how to confront", "smoking out homos", and "weeding out weakness" one of his missions was to teach us how to witness. As I stated above, he was no slouch at getting out there and speaking up, and even bringing folks to fellowship and getting them into the class, although they usually left pretty quickly because he was such an idiot. I think people came to fellowship because they were half afraid that this psycho would camp out at their door if not. Anyway: teaching us how to witness. Our area was full to bursting with folks who had been around for awhile when he showed up. Almost all the adults were advanced class grads and WOW vets. About half had coordinated fellowships at one time or another. My ex-wife had been involved since 1971, I had been around since 1978. Several others had been around since the late 70's and early 80's. We had all witnessed to hundreds, maybe thousands of people over the years, and signed up our fair share for PFAL. We had also gone through all of our family and friends (the ones we hadn't run off) and learned that the workplace is not the place to witness (it's the place to...work). To summarize: we already knew how to witness! Mr. & Mrs. Highlander were required to witness for three hours every day. They started insisting that one or more of us go with them each day. To teach us --> One particualr day we were annoying the shoppers in Kmart or Shopko or someplace when Mr. Highlander started talking to a Mormon couple. Well, Donnie & Marie gave back as good as they got, addressing each of Highlander's points until Highlander started yelling at them, IN THE STORE!!!! and called them INSANE at the top of his lungs. I didn't volunteer to go with them after that

The Way Corps that we had in the mid-nineties witnessed regularly, when they were on "full time" status it was three hours per day. One PFAL class had 6 of the 7 people witnessed to by him.

this or that :D-->

I don't think that a religious answer is necessary. The rich and powerful get that way for a variety of reasons: natural ability, luck, trickery, friends, what have you. Other than inherited wealth, I think that the rich and powerful are focussed on their goal and take advantage of any opportunity to get there.

Wait! He must have been a doctor...he had that robe...with all the stripes in the right place and in the right color!

Are you talking about mistakes in the category of picking the wrong kind of wood to make a table out of? Or accidently cutting himself with a sharp tool? If so, he could have done that and still always did the fathers's will and never sinned. I never liked Superman. Never liked DC Comics at all for that matter. Gimme Marvel and Spidey any day.

Wayfer Not!: In the traditions with which I am familiar each one stands for one; there is no racial guilt or original sin that stains all of humankind. Body, Soul, Mind, Spirit are one; differing aspects of the same person. Man is not in need of a savior because we are as we were created. Divinity is portrayed primarily as a mother goddess or earth goddess from which life springs. There are no requirements for blood sacrifices, neither animal nor human. I'm not recommending goddess worship, just that the divinity portrayed in these traditions appeals to me more than the divinity portrayed in the bible. You asked :D-->

I think that there is something to what you say.The following is just speculation, I don't know, it just makes sense, fits together: Whoever the people of Israel really were, the bible portrays them as arriving in the vicinity of Canaan ready to invade. When all was said and done the events were interpreted after the fact to show how God was with them; situations, such as Ai, when they lost, are covered by explaining how somebody was outside God's will. Nothing like putting the divine seal of approval on things to justify your genocide The books of the OT are chock full of explanations of why the rich & powerful are rich & powerful, why defeats took place, etc. Not all that different from what other cultures of that time did.

Uh huh -->

This isn't that different than what I believe For the most part I agree with you, although there are sub-themes within both that diverge. For instance the theme of the epistles is more complicated in it's theology than the gospels, which are pretty straightforward. The theme of the penteteuch through Kings is different than the latter prophets, mainly because of Israel's differing situation. Again, not that far off from what I believe about it Here is where we differ, at least on our conclusions. I see the god of the bible portrayed differently by the different writers, so that the view of one writer presents a very appealing god, while others do not. The god of Islam is not as inflexible as it appears from the outside (I'm reading "Islam for Dummies" right now :D-->), and is seen as quite merciful and flexible to Muslims - not much flexibility to us kafirs! For me, I find the goddess portrayed in most Wiccan and pagan traditions to be quite appealing. Agreed, it really is written for the believer. Yup, much wisdom and poetry. And for me the problem is digging the wisdom out from the pile of pro-Israel propaganda ;)-->A guy could live a pretty good life adhering to the basics of Christianity...as one could vby becoming a Buddhist.

dmiller: Let me clarify something: I am not calling God barbaric. I do not believe that the bible accurately describes the actions of God. And another thing, I understand the point of the death of Jesus in the context of the end result: the resurrection, ascension, glory, etc. I understand it as I would understand the plot of any book. I get it all...I just don't buy it. Why? Because I don't buy the PREMISE: that the actions of my alleged ancestors (Adam & Eve)have any bearing on my spirituality today, and that the creator of the heavens and earth needed BLOOD to appease him in the OT. The whole story about Jesus being the sacrificial lamb, and God needing him to die is based on the whole OT premise. I understand it dmiller, I just don't believe it.

The contradictions between the bible and the observed world are only applicable in my view to a literal view of the bible. Obviously there is no problem with light existing before the sun & stars if you don't take it literally. Those aren't the contradictions that I have a problem with. Wierwille promised to explain apparent bible contradictions in the PFAL class. Heck, at least he tried to reconcile contradictory passages, more than most denominations do, but oh the verbal gymnastics that we had to go through to make it "fit". I'm not going to dig out my bible and find any examples right now, maybe some other time, I'm sure you can all think of your own. But to me, the biggest contradiction is the difference between the bloody tribal god of the OT and the god of love and forgiveness in the NT. It's not the same god - okay, let me put it this way: in my opinion, it sure doesn't look like the same god! I know that this issue has been addressed at GS, and you're all welcome to your opinion, but I just don't see it keeds! Oh, Laleo, thanks for showing up :D--> - since it was YOU who suggested that I start the thread over here (I had started the same one at LES earlier)

Isn't the procedure at Moody that they only keep records of completed classes, so that he could have started them, but not finished?In #2, you are saying that he took one semester of Classical Greek, not that he onlt took one semester total at Princeton Theological, right?

More on the doctrine: I've seen several posters here and elsewhere defend their Christianity on logical grounds, or that the teachings in the bible made sense to them, appealed to them on some level. It's the opposite for me. While I find some aspects of Christianity (i.e. forgiveness, love, mercy) appealing, the whole idea of being in need of saving, or redeeming, because of something my long ago ancestor did is ridiculous. And further, that an all-powerful god would require a man who he describes as his only-begotten son to be tortured and killed to save me and make me worthy to be his son is barbaric.

More on personal experience: Most, if not all, supposedly supernatural excperiences, miracles, etc, that I have experienced have had an alternative explanation. There has been nothing that I could unambiguously attribute to God. I have prayed and gotten well, got raises, got parking spaces, all that stuff. I guess it could have been God, but there was nothing about it that convinced me that it was. In addition, I have never heard a "miracle" story from anyone which convinced me either. I recently read an article written by someone who debunks claims of ESP and other paranormal activity. One point that he brought up was that even if the "experiment" yields the desired results, there is often no reason to believe the cause was what they thought it was. For example, a group is testing ESP, using the symbol cards. The subject gets them 100% right, every time, for weeks on end. They've proved ESP, right? Well, another group might say it's divine revelation, another might credit aliens, still another fairies or angels, while others might have alternate explanations. I apply this (to some extent) to religion. What if I pray for a storm to stop, and it does. Aside from coincidence, how do I know it's Jesus' God? Maybe it's the Celtic god of the storm, or maybe I have a psychic power, or the aliens like my style... I'm not suggesting it is any of these things, just that I don't see Christianity having any claim to being more correct.

More on my opinion of the bible: I do not believe that everything in the bible is false, made up, or intended to deceive. I think that the bible, in some places, contains sounds moral codes of conduct and standards for living. However, there is not a lot of difference in what the bible says in the area of relations with our fellow man that is not also said in Buddhism. There is not much in the legal standards of the bible that is not also in the Code of Hammurabi. It is my opinion that much of what was written down was by people who genuinely thought that what they were writing was God's will. But I don't think we'll ever be able to distinguish those parts from the others. It is my opinion that sections like the Psalms were a sincere expression of one man's relationship with his god. Not necessarily God literally telling david what to write, but his heart overflowing with what he felt. It is also my opinion that large parts of the bible, especially the early parts of the Old Testament, were a people's attempt to write history in a way that gave legitimacy to that people. I don't believe that the New Testament is the jumble that the OT is, but while I hold out the possibility that it might be true in all particulars, it's pretty much just hearsay. True, the NT testament holds together a bit more coherently than does the OT, but the NT supposedly builds on the OT, so... Even if the bible was the revealed word of God, what version of Christianity do you want to believe? The Catholics and the Protestants are at odds, and don't forget the Eastern Orthodox. Within Protestantism there is a great difference between the Calvinists and others; Trinitarians and Unitarians are at oposite ends; even within an insignificant cult grouping we have differences between CES and TWI. Maybe God could have been a mite less obscure? I find nothing about the bible that leads me to believe that it is more "The Truth" than the Qu'ran, The Book of Mormon, or any other "scripture".

Why not? Several reasons, all of which are personal and not intended to be confrontational..."believe what you want" as another poster wrote recently. Category One: The Bible Christianity is based on the supposedly divinely-inspired bible. I find that the bible is full of contradictions with the observed world as well as internal contradictions. I cannot use such a book as my standard of what to believe about God. Category Two:Personal Experience I have had no experiences that I could unequivocally ascribe to the god of the bible. Category Three: The Doctrine Itself I've come to believe that I'm not a "child of wrath", and not in need of saving. Not to say I'm perfect, just that I'm not fallen or in possession of a "sin nature". Other more specific reasons fall within these two categories.

Does possession of or lack of a ThD affect my spirituality or walk with God? Of course not. Did I consider it at all when I was involved in TWI? No I didn't. However, it was part of what I considered when I evaluated Wierwille's trustworthiness to interpret the bible, and these days it's part of what I consider when I evalauate whether or not his "ministry" was a complete scam or not. Oldies, you said: Well, by all indications Wierwille's dad was all for an education and footed the bill for his bachelor's and master's degrees. So that leaves lazy. What are the implications of that?