Oakspear

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

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)