Oakspear

Raf was adressing WTH, not WD WD responded as if he had been addressed Raf was addressing WTH's assertion that some people could not believe that anything good came from Wierwille by contrasting it with the opposite, that some people could not believe that Wierwille did anything bad. In the course of the discussion, WD stated that he had not seen any evidence of the bad things, only opinions. In response to this, Raf stated that WD wants proof, which WD denies. It seems to me that Raf is making a valid point (which all are free to agree or disagree with) but that WD is claiming comes out of nowhere

WD responds to various posters:

WD quotes Raf & responds: WD responds to Jeff's question about the monnwalking bear: Raf responds to WD:

Here’s the history: make up your own minds: What the Hey makes a statement: Raf quotes WTH & responds: WD quotes Raf and responds, even though WTH was being responded to by Raf: Even though later WD says that he has not asked for hard evidence, he says in the previous exchange that he is waiting to see some, seems like splitting hairs to me The initial exchange was Raf responding to something WTH said, WD of course is free to respond, but he is not being addressed at this point, nor are his positions being misrepresented Jeff Stj quotes WD & responds: Groucho quotes WD & responds: WD quotes Jeff & resonds Then quotes Groucho & responds: Raf had not mentioned hard evidence, only a hypothetical situation where he expresses his opinion that even if such evidence appeared, some would still not believe it Raf responds to WD's staement that trhere is no "hard evidence":

For a full (8 hour) shift we allow one meal break of a 1/2 hour to one hour (usually agreed upon between the employee & the department manager), and two 15-minutes breaks. Smokers are not supposed to take additional breaks, but sometimes some will try it. I worked with a couple of smokers a few years back who did as you described, but tried to convince us that they were taking six 5-minute breaks instead of two 15's. Except the walk to the front, getting the cigs, walking back, hanging up the coat etc always turned into 10+ anyway. My personal peeve is the smokers who flick their used butts on the ground rather than using the ashtray.

Potato didn't use the word "permanently". Many people were kicked out. I was one of them.

I thought that was obvious. I got involved in TWI long before I ever posted here. I recall the vague outlines of the conversation, but I highly doubt that I ever believed that Wierwille was getting revelation, I have however believed for quite some time that the rule of faith and practice was what Wierwille said it was, despite his pretence or pose of being a biblical reseracher Well, we disagree on something else :o I think he hid it because he was dishonest, you think he hid it for other reasons. The "deep thinkers" who figured it out left in disgust, or compromised. From quotes that have been posted by you, DWBH and others and my own memories, it doesn't appear that Wierwille was saying that he was getting revelation that overrode what the actual texts were saying, but that there were what he called apparent contradictions that weren't resolved by existing available texts; framing it as a biblical research question. What I believe it was in reality was Wierwille being so enamoured of his theology that he couldn't bear to admit that he might be wrong. Naturally you'll have a different opinion.

It was my understanding that Wierwille was getting his understanding of the bible through...(drum roll)...reading the bible and that he was teaching me (and everybody else) to read the bible and understand it, using the tools that he taught us, so that I would no longer have to depend on the interpretation of others (you know, Right Rev. So-and-So and Professor So-and-So). If I had known the process, and that he was in effect short circuiting the research by claiming to "just know", I doubt that I would have been as interested in PFAL. To me it would have been just one more scam by someone claiming to speak for God.

Man, it's deja vu all over again! Yes, Wierwille did say, “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.” But he also said (someone with the books handy can supply the exact quotes) that he hauled over 3000 volumes to the city dump and used the bible as his only handbook and source for truth and that he was teaching "The Word" like it hadn't been known since the First Century. I'm sure that somebody can make these and other statements fit like a hand in a glove, but what it communicates to me was that the man was inconsistant about the image that he wanted to project. He was by turns self-aggrandizing or humble. Did he tell people that PFAL was somebody else's class that he tweaked and changed over the years? Did he tell us that he lifted teachings wholesale from other authors, sometimes virtually word-for-word in some sections? No, he put his name on the books as an author with no footnotes or other citation. He told us that he holed up in a hotel eating grapes and sprang forth with PFAL. The above quote describes a man that carefully weighed and sifted the evidence and came to his own conclusions, unlike what Wierwille did, which was to sign his name to other people's work.

It seemed like Wierwille liked the idea of biblical research, but not the hard work that went into it.

I don't remember what year I noticed it, but I eventually did...I probably decided to "hold it in abeyance". Like what part of speech, voice, mood, tense, etc. jsut for starters.

And we all allowed ourselves to be convinced that we were biblical scholars ourselves because we could look up "receive" in a concordance and determine if it was dechomai or lambano. So often we used faulty information such as what you mentioned as the basis for our "research". Many of us had interlinears and lexicons on our bookshelves without even the slightest idea how to use them.

That's certainly an interesting take on what I said, somewhat different than my actual point, which was that sometimes posts aren't clear, not that they can't be backed up or can't be argued. If someone misunderstands my point, it's my place to explain it more thoroughly, not the other person's place to tell me what I really meant. Like I just did.

More like the first 7, possibly 8 sessions, John. I believe the point that Mike was making was that the written materials were more authoritative, not comprehensive, than the tapes. If I remember correctly minor errors were edited out and some other changes made.

Yes, it was me who said that. (What? Do you have a file somewhere? Are you stalking me? ) I agree that Mike has a right to offer his opinion. In this case his opinion doesn't have much to support it, other than wishful thinking. Wierwille, for all that I disagree with many, if not most of his conclusions, taught and wrote that it was possible to determine what the originals said by keys to research, Mike denies that this is what Wierwille taught and offers that what Wierwille was really teaching was that you couldn't determine what the originals contained, which is why PFAL was written. Of course you have the right and privelege to maintain that this is a legitimate, logical argument based on some posters arguing that Wierwille didn't mean what he said. I maintain that your argument is illogical and irrelevant. It has no bearing on the strength of Mike's position. Another point is that generally those who take the position that Wierwille didn't mean what he said he meant say so because either his actions didn't agree with what he said, or he spoke or wrote contradictory things. The snowstorm. I believe there are more reasons to disbelieve it than to believe it.

So, you agree with Mike that Wierwille didn't say what he meant in the PFAL book and other quoted writings? That Mike's interpretation is to be preferred over what Wierwille clearly wrote?

Last night I prayed...I said God could have it all...I was ready to check the whole thing...and he spoke to me audibly and said "It's chuck, not check you idiot, use a spell checker"...then I said, "if PFAL is really a bunch of hokum, make it snow". And sure enough it snowed last night, check the weather report for Lincoln Nebraska. There was even snow on the gas pumps.

You are addressing statements that are not being made on this thread in order to make your point. The poster that made the point that Mike was representing Wierwille's words as meaning something different than what he actual said or wrote did not, at least on this thread, make the argument that Wierwille's words did mean something different than what he actually said or wrote. If a poster did this, i.e. claiming that at the same time Wierwille's words did mean exactly what he said and that they didn't mean exactly what he said, that could be construed as inconsistancy, or maybe even hypocrisy, if both situations were identical. Each situation must be looked at indivdually, not generalized.

The existance of posts claiming that Wierwille did not say what he meant do not at all invalidate the claims in other posts that Wierwille did mean what he said. The claim should be evaluated based on its merits, not on whether all posts by a variety of different posters are consistant with each other.

No, a strawman argument is when you present an position that is different and usually weaker than your opponenent's actual argument as his actual argument. You have a point about Mark's point...but it's not a strawman. Carry on...

He does what? Quote only what he feels backs up his position or has another witness? Mike is perfectly capable of responding to anything I say to or about him. Despite our opposing viewpoints we get along pretty well. And he owes me a Leinenkugel.

...and I continue to believe that John Entwhistle (sp?) was one of the best rock bass players ever....but then again, no one's claimed that he wasn't. Looks like a moon walking strawman

If entire teachings were copied word-for-word, and if Wierwille's writing style was sophmoric, then yes, the writing style of the original author would necessarily also be sophmoric. I've seen side-by-side comparisons that showed how certain sections of books by Stiles and Leonard were copied pretty close to word-for-word, with a few terms or some words changed here and there, but have not heard or seen anything to indicate that whole chapters, books or teachings were copied wholesale. As far as error-ridden teachings of Wierwille being derived from others; sure, that does mean that the underlying teachings are error-ridden as well. Although I've seen several instances where Wierwille used Bullinger to back up his teachings, but misunderstood or misrepresented what Bullinger actually wrote, thereby changing the teaching.

I have learned that there is no entity who is minutely concerned about what I believe or do or pulling strings behind the scenes running the world. There is no entity answering my prayers or providing me with a book containing the rules for living life. I have learned that I am capable of figuring out how to live life myself. I have learned that there are few things that are black or white, but that there are infinite shades of grey. I have learned that t5here is great joy to be had in living life.

The post that you quoted does not say that they do.I for one consider Wierwille's character a good reason to not give him the benefit of the doubt; my opinion that his teachings are faulty is based on the teachings themselves. Tzaia's post seems to be saying something similar. Be careful not to light any matches around that strawman.