Oakspear

I don't know what it means, and I haven't investigated it lately. My point is that I don't believe that you did either and that a lot of what Wierwille taught us stuck in our brains simply because it sounded good or was comforting in some manner, not because he could back it up with any kind of evidence.Yes, it makes sense it light of the belief that God doesn't kill people, but does the word translated "precious" actual mean "costly"?

Let's see, you were there, but you found out about it a week later? :huh:

Huh? What is your point? (No sarcasm or rudeness intended)

IMHO he confused "literal" seed with figurative.

Indeed, I think that helps make the point that WW was making. People at different points in the cycle, experiencing and interpreting things differently...there was no "one" TWI...I'll PM you to see if I can guess who the a-hole was

I don't have anybody on "ignore" - must have missed your mention of it. I just went back and found it 2 pages back.

Sprawled - I was on Long Island that same year, although not in your branch; it was right before I went WOW and less than 2 years after I first took PFAL. Overall I'd say that most of you Branch Leaders were decent folks, and as I recall, none of you were Corps grads either. But absence of BS? No way. There were red flags even then.

Would it have been just as "beautiful" if Mr. Erection had placed a man's hand on his pants (containing the erection), remarking that he hadn't had one of those in 20 years?

I think it was Ryebread, a poster we don't see around these days, who said that she got out in 1973 and things were getting ugly then.

To be consistant, you had to believe that the country was going to h*ll in a handbasket, and like those who spout false prophesies everywhere, you have to backpedal when it doesn't come true.

I also agree that the purpose of the 4 crucified teaching was to show that all bible contradictions were only apparent, not actual. I'm not so sure that he was successful though. The problem that I see with the position that the bible "fits like a hand in a glove" is that it doesn't, unless you sew on some extra fingers, cut some holes, reinforce the stitching and redefine both "hand" and "glove". Okay, I'm exaggerating a little ;) - but I think that the point is valid. The problems go away when you give up the idea that the bible is 100% internally consistant. And I'm not saying that to put down Christians or the bible, plenty of Christians live a godly life without believing that the bible is inerrant and totally from the lips of God. But I do see where it all came from, a desire to believe that "The Book" is a foolproof guide to life. That desire is frustrated when glaring inconsistancies and contradictions stare you in the face, so you have to find a way to reconcile them. The result is 4 crucified, or 6 denials, or for that matter the doctrine of the Trinity <_<

Larry: I'm not an atheist, but am a non-Christian, maybe some of my reasons are the same: 1. I enjoy the intellectual give-and-take. It's fun 2. I'm interested in discussing whether what we learned in TWI was legitimate bible or was a bunch of b.s. - one of the common reasons why people stayed in TWI and some are still in is that they believe that what we were taught was "THE Word of God" and that fact alone makes it worth enduring any of the negatives. When specific TWI teachings are shown to be at odds with what the bible says, then that foundation is undermined. Getting involved in these doctrinal discussion cam help do that. 3. I enjoy hearing why some Christians believe the way that they do - I like knowing what makes people tick 4. I no longer accept the bible as god-breathed or as my standard in any fashion - but I'm not irrational about it. If there is good to be gleaned from it then I'm in!

Dan...stop it...you're boring Larry.

No offense intended, but you (and all of us who took PFAL) see those gospel records through a PFAL colored lens. Give the same records to anyone without a doctrinal axe to grind and the number will be 2. (IMHO of course...I haven't actually performed this study ) - the 6 denials are explained in much the same manner as 4 crucified, using the supposed "key" of scripture buildup. Assuming that God wants us to know that there was 4, not 2 crucified with Jesus, why (as Sprawled Out asked in another thread) doesn't God just say that? I think Juedes has an alternate explanation that's quite plausible on his website, pointing out several of Wierwille's errors. We naturally, as former students of Wierwille's have internalized those errors and hardly realize they're there unless we really push to read the records objectively.

There is a balance to be struck bewteen speaking one's mind, being true to one's own beliefs on one hand, and being respectful of others on the other hand. It's possible to do both. For an non-Christian, it's possible to be against Christianity, but not against Christians, just as it's possible for Christians to believe that atheists are wrong in their beliefs, while being understanding of why they might believe as they do. Every question, every expression of doubt, all opposition is not an attack. We can have a discussion about our beliefs without p i s s i n g on each others' shoes. Right?

The "Six Denials" and "Four Crucified" (and maybe the "Two Entries into Jerusalem") are examples of a flawed "research principle", in my opinion. Every mention of the denials lists three. Every mention of others crucified lists two. You can't get to six and four by just reading what is written, you can only get there by assuming that differences in detail translate into a total difference.

Warren Buffet is an atheist? I don't think that the rest of Nebraska knows

Although I didn't single Seth out by name, I did:

I just spent 2 1/2 weeks reading all seven books. I enjoyed them, maybe when I recover I'll go back and analyze them!

I agree Garth. I'm just suggesting that we don't get carried away and tar all of Christians with the same brush as those who deserve it.

To the Christians and other theists who have kept their posts respectful, thank you. You don't have to agree with atheism, agnosticism, humanism, paganism, or anything else to treat its adherants properly. To the atheists, agnostics, humanists, pagans, and other non Christians, don't rise to the bait of the s h i t h e a d s and sink to their level. The presence of a moron shouldn't cause us to malign our Christian fellow posters. Where did you get that from what I posted? Sure, there are atheists who do live like that, just as there are Christians who live that way, certain that their slate will be wiped clean and they'll enjoy a cool afterlife. My point was that an atheist wouldn't necessarily look at the lack of an afterlife, or the absolute certainty of death, as bleak.

One could look at it as bleak, or one could grab for all the gusto now, make life worth living now, cram as much living as can be crammed into the years one has now!

Suda: I think that we agree insofar as Wierwille did evil but that any good derived from his teachings must be evaluated separately from that evil. I also agree that good things happened to people while they were involved in TWI and that people affiliated with TWI did much good. Where you and I disagree is that you apparently believe that "da class" was overall a good thing and that it overall contained "accurate" bible teachings. Let me clarify that a little, I'm not saying that every single thing in it was at odds with what's in the bible, or that there was nothing in it that was helpful. Not at all. But that PFAL, as a foundation for studying and understanding the bible was not what it was claimed to be. Wierwille does a good job early in the class of convincing us that he is a guy who "reads what is written" and lets the bible "interpret itself". But as the class goes on more and more of what he says is backed up by "old documents" that nobody has ever seen, definitions of Greek and Hebrew words that are found in no other concordance or lexicon, and conclusions that are pulled out of the air. Sure, we were taught by Wierwille methods of "researching" the bible, and "working the Word", but how much of what we were taught enabled us not to determine what God's will was, but to confirm what Wierwille taught? Even post-TWI, so many statements by ex-wayfers are based not on an objective reading of the bible, but are colored by what we learned in TWI.

Who taught you that, and what reasons were given for it being "possession"?

:o