Oakspear

What I see is a fundamental difference in approaches. One side sees the teachings in PFAL as fundamentally sound, maybe a few errors here and there, but for the most part consistant with the bible. This side sees no connection between the actions and what was taught. Another side sees the actions as fundamentally affecting what was in the teachings. That the actions were inseparable from how the teachings were developed and therefore how they should be regarded. This side sees the "fuit" as being indicative of what was taught. Technically, I suppose one could come up with scenarios where a person's lack of morals and what he said were totally unrelated. But does it usually work that way in the real world? Did it work that way in Wayworld? Is "truth" something that can be broken up in bite-sized parts? 73.6% true, 26.4% false? Or is it a sum total of everything that is being said including the purpose for which it is said? Is anyone saying that something that is demonstrably true becomes magically false because someone like Wierwille utters it. No, no one is. Arguing against that point is setting up a strawman. DWBH only seems to be saying that if you don't take the time to read all of what he is saying. To go back to the Satan quoting scripture angle: Satan said to Jesus that the angels would bear him up lest he dash a foot against a stone [excuse the very loose paraphrase, I don't have time to find a bible]. Is that statement false because the devil said it? No, that truth is still truth as long as it is uttered in context and in the manner which the author meant it. Satan meant it as a reason for Jesus to take a foolhardy "leap of faith" and jump off the pinacle of the temple. So was it "truth" as Satan uttered it? No. Wierwille may have reliably quoted scripture and may have even interpreted it in an biblically consistant manner, but if his purpose was to defraud and control, to abuse and lie, was it "truth"? No more than when Satan had his say.

I agree that there are differences, but the similarity is that martyrs from both Christianity and Islam are both convinced of the absolute rightness of their faith. The Muslim using the Koran is just as successfull as the Christian using the Bible at documenting their position.

I guess it would have depended on what phase of my following of Jesus that this had occured in: If it was in the early stages when I was just checking him out, I probably would have figured that he was a nut and gone back home. Now if I had been following him around for a while, and maybe even be considered a "disciple", it probably would have been easier to do.

I went through several phases in dealing with verbal abuse after leaving TWI. My first phase was the "I don't give a sh** what anyone thinks" phase. I was not very pleasant to be around and had zero tolerance for any crap from anybody. It was kind of rough on the people around me, but it desensitized me to hurtfull words from others. The next phase was the "laugh it off" phase. I would literally laugh or chuckle when people gave me crap. I started seeing verbal abuse as something that was ultimately powerless unless I allowed it to be. When at work, sometimes a co-worker will talk about an especially nasty customer. I'll remind the co-worker that they will be able to sleep soundly tonight knowing that they are not an @$$hole, but that the nasty customer will not. The third phase involves my "religious" beliefs, which are based strongly on individual responsibility and the rejection of the belief that there is a spiritual being that I am accountable to or in thrall to. I'm pretty bulletproof in the verbal abuse category these days.

Some people just like to make things up. Or post undocumented ramblings. Sounds like one side of the story.

What DWBH has said is that ungodly actions negate scriptural truth as spoken by the one doing the acting, not that scriptural truth itself is negated. Wierwille didn't just read the bible out loud in his classes and teachings, he provided a context and an interpretation to what he read. Like the example of Satan quoting scripture that other posters have brought up, Satan accurately quoted the bible, but was his interpretation, that Jesus should therefore cast himself off the pinnacle of the temple or turn stones into bread "truth"? Continuing to pick through Wierwille's teachings for truth is like looking for a sandwich in the trash bin.

Didn't mean to imply that I was disagreeing with you Lingus...I also think that as time went by the number of leaders who agreed with the top down control agenda increased, making it much easier to control the masses. By the mid to late 90's I believe fewer and fewer people went into the Corps for godly reasons and more and more to push the "purify the household" agenda of King Okie

Why was that do you think? I don't think it was because Martindale just lost his mind one day. The seeds of control and legalism were always there, think back to Wierwille's takeover of The Way East and The Way West and his attempted takeover of Wade's Australia work. Why do you think that The Way Corps and WOW Ambassadors were instituted? So that Wierwille would have control over leadership and outreach, instead of letting it develop naturally and organically. Martindale saw the relative freedom that wayfers had pre-1988 as a weakness that needed to be eliminated. Of course he lacked the skill and subtlty at manipulation that Wierwille had, Martindale was a sledgehammer compared to Wierwille's scalpel.

hapy birthday...even though you're mad at me

Demons?! Holy crap. What the h#ll is wrong with people?

I did not "rebuke" you for anything. I made a comment. This is a discussion forum, you know, we...discuss things :o No you don't, and you've never commented on my faith directly, however you regularly comment on other people's beliefs and spiritual relationships when they did not agree with yours. I think I covered the "rebuking" part, but no, I don't think your family is fair game to make wisecracks about, and (1) I didn't make any wisecracks and (2)If you're talking about Invisible Dan, he didn't eitherIf you're including Jesus in your "family", you have every right to consider him as such, but he is not exclusively yours, he's somewhat in the "public domain" so to speak. I don't recognize him as being off limits in any doctrinal discussion. ******************************************************************************** ***************************************************** I shouldn't waste my time arguing with nitwits, but here I go:First of all, I'm not trying to get anyone's dander up, I made a point. Arguing with demons? What your point bud? ******************************************************************************** ****************************************************** Yeah, what nerve I've got for stating an opinion. <_<What? Being a pagan means that I have to shut up and not express my opinion? I stood up for you the other day when one of my fellow pagans suggested you find a Christian forum. You judge Dan's "relationship" with Jesus to be non-existant or inferior to yours...based on your own subjective standards. Don't presume to suggest what I have the right to talk about and what I don't.

Actually, it has nothing to do with liking or disliking what you said. It was my perception that you were using your own beliefs as a standard for everyone else, or at least for Invisible Dan. You presume to judge his faith and knowledge. I commented on it. Gee Jeno-O, I've found our discussions in the past to be much more civil than this, even when we disagree. Having a bad day? Invisble Dan was making some observations. You made some statements that put your "knowledge" about Jesus over his. I commented on it. Not so much a like or a dislike, just don't think that the analogy was applicable. Pretty much the same analogy. I still don't think it applies. But I guess that it's "too damn bad" Whether you "made" them or not, you attempt to apply them and your perceptions to everyone. You did insofar as you exclude anyone whose perceptions of Jesus is different from yours is Jesus so small that he can be constrained by your perception? I would hope not. I guess if I was as hostile as you seem to be, I might say that it too, is "too damn bad" if you don't like what I have to say, but I'm a bit more tolerant than that. What does that mean to you? You rip into me, tell me that it's "too damn bad" if i don't like what you're saying, but it's okay because you say "peace" at the end? Seems somewhat hypocritical to me.

It's not false information pinky, it's a mistaken perception. Polar Bear may not be familiar with Oldies' tradition of posting only Monday - Friday and your fervant disregard for any evidence that doesn't support your POV. Well, thanks for small favors! :unsure: When you come by for that Leinenkugel you can tell me some more funny ones And of course there's VP's brains and brawn, making the earth shake even lo, these many years after his demise.

says DWBH. Didn't you read who the post was from? Ah...so you make the rules. I was wondering whose job that was. <_<

Another related topic that I'd like to bring up is our supposed ability, as PFAL grads, to "work the Word" ourselves, supposedly enabling us to verify the accuracy of what we were taught. Did we really think that some basic facility with a Young's concordance made us biblical researchers? Did most of us ever verify from non-TWI sources whether Wierwille's definitions were based on anything beyond wishful thinking? How can you separate the fish from the bones when you accept a definition of "fish" which most would recognize as the one for "bones"? So much of what's in PFAL we had to take Wierwille's word for. Definitions of words, "orientalisms", application of figures of speech, literals according to usage, msyterious old documents, etc. Start throwing all of that out as untrustworthy and the foundation starts to look pretty weak. Yet we took the word of someone who was so biblically savvy that he used the bible to justify sexual assaults and adultery. That's not exactly what he said:

Martindale inherited an organization, as has been said before, based on a man's personality. Wierwille could get away with a lot simply because he was a good enough con man to fool people. He kept enough of a veneer of "biblical research, teaching and fellowship" that people thought they were involved in a godly organization. Really, what did Martindale do that was, at the heart, any different than what Wierwille did? The adultery wasn't new, and the research wasn't any worse, so what was different? Martindale had Wierwille's ability to rip the heart out of a person but without Wierwille's skill at covering his tracks and making it look like it was "according to the Word". In my opinion, Martindale believed the hype about himself as God's spokesman, while Wierwille never really did. Wierwille used the perception that he was the MOG, Martindale's belief in the concept took away any restraint that he may have had.

That's right, it only makes sense if it's your opinion <_< There you go folks, Jen-o's knowledge and perception is THE STANDARD by which all else must be judged! :blink: Not the same thing at all. Jesus is not physically living in your house, eating your food, forgetting to clean his room and asking for the car keys. Jesus is not your sole province. No one has the access to your kids that you do; you're claiming the same exclusive rights to Jesus?

Do you really know where people get "the majority of their knowledge"? This seems like a reference to Romans 1 (maybe not, correct me if I'm mistaken please) - but I've never, not even wheen I was a Christian understood this. The whole "creation" testifies to the biblical god's exiistance only if that existance is already accepted. The same "creation" testifies to the existance of pagan pantheons to those who hold that worldview. Are you suggesting that without what you call false prophets and teachers no one would come to the conclusion that there is no God? Unlike sister Bramble, I will not suggest that you go find a Christian site, but among people who may or may not accept your premises about the bible, simply refering to it doesn't make your point.

I tell people a variety of things, depending on whether I think it's any of their business, what I think that they could handle, or just how good a friend that person is. Since I decided to stay in Nebraska after a year as a WOW, and I'm from New York, many people are curious why I live here. Mostly I just tell them that I moved around a lot in my younger days and stopped in Nebraska when I met a woman and married her. This is not untrue, since I may have moved back East if I hadn't gotten married when I did. I don't really have any big gaps in my employment history, since I wasn't in the Way Corps, except for being Apprentice 13. I was a WOW at 22, before really starting a career, so that doesn't raise any eyebrows. My career path isn't all that different from others who didn't have a degree, married young and had a lot of kids, so that doesn't set me apart either. My current wife didn't blink an eye when I told her that I had been in a cult...part of the reason that she is my current wife. What I think is ironic is that many people who think that I was an idiot for putting up with some of the things that I endured in TWI put up with similar things in their own lives, but don't see the similarity.

In the mid-nineties during a "Rise & Expansion" class our Limb Coordinator (who is out and has posted here) referred to us as "the incredible shrinking household" and to the class we were taking as "Rise & Reduction". This occurred several years after the great post-POOP exodus of the late 80's. Every week it seemed another family left or was kicked out or was M&A'd. Despite these dwindling numbers, there always seemed to be plenty of titles to go around. At the peak of TWI's membership, alte 70's - early 80's there was 7 or 8 regions, each with 6 or 7 states, some of which were divided into Areas or Territories that were bigger than some states. Branches typically were made up of 7 or more twigs. But in the 90's, cities with barely enough wayfers to make up a decent-sized twig were split into 2 twigs and called a branch, the U.S. was divded into 12 regions, sometimes with the region leader directly coordinating 2 or 3 states. Plenty of chiefs, the illusion of numbers due to bigger infrastructure, yet fewer and fewer indians.

Gotcha

Thanks everybody.

Naw, I'll find another cause soon enough Long live free speech

Who told who to shut up? Excathedra expressed her opinion. I objected to it, so I expressed my opinion. You apparently didn't like mine, so now you're expressing yours...no personal attacks, so I don't see a problem.

Yeah, I get your point...but entering a discussion to simply state that you don't care about the subject of the discussion irritates me for some reason. Sure, I can find bigger things to get irritated about, like thread titles that give no hint as to the subject of the initial post...now that gets my blood boiling