Oakspear

CW: My firewall blocked your attempt at emailing me...try a PM please

Let's be clear on our terms: an atheist believes that there is no god. There can be a variety of reasons why an atheist believes this, but there is no question in an atheist's mind that there is no God. An agnostic claims not to know. What they don't know varies from person to person. Some think that you can't know. Many agnostics believe that there is a God, but are unsure about the form which God takes. An atheist generally has his or her mind made up on the subject, an agnostic is often still searching for answers. Using the term atheist/agnostic would be similar to the term Christian/Muslim or a Christian/Wiccan. A bit too inclusive for everyday use.

Yes indeed

Cool. I'll check in later or tomorrow.

So, Clay, is your point to really discover why atheists think the way that they do, or to convince them that there really is a god? I've got no problem either way, jsut want to know where we're going with this

What one person considers proof, another would not. So many experiences are subjective, i.e. dependent on the viewpoint and interpretation of the individual.For example, now and again a thread gets started on 'miracles'. Those who believe are convinced that it's God who intervened. For them, it's 'proof'. On the other hand, when I read these accounts, although I generally believe that the poster is being truthful about what happened, I usually don't see the divine in action. It's all in the interpretation.

There are explanations other than theistic of how it all came together. Most, if not all, would be not be considered adequate by a theist.

It's more than just an absence of proof. It's also that, for an atheist, there's no reason to suppose that there's a god when the laws of physics does a pretty good job of accounting for 'stuff'. And just to be clear, I'm not an atheist.

Yeah, me too. I think that it's not arguable that PFAL taught a basic biblical study methodology, what is open to discussion is just how valuable the 'keys' were. The 'keys' taught in PFAL, if nothing else, got many of us to view the bible as something that could be understood. That's why I titled this thread 'Did The Way Int'l REALLY promote biblical research?, rather than ask if they taught biblical research. Even the posters who claimed that they learned how to do biblical research through PFAL make my point: one talks about how they did word studies and such in a fellowship removed from the control of the Way Tree, and another talks about how anyone who disagreed with what Wierwille was teaching just left (or should have left). The point is that the organization (including its leader, Vic Wierwille) did not promote or encourage biblical research by its followers, other than exercises that confirmed what had already been taught, or had not been touched upon by 'official' teaching. What's ironic is that in many cases it was the use of PFAL learned 'research skills' that gave people the ammunition to take on leadership at times, and gave many the reasons to leave TWI. My own initial questioning of Way doctrine in 2000 & 2001 was entirely within the confines of Way-taught 'research keys'. problems that I found with martindale & later Wierwille's teachings was based on internal contradictions, not on failure to match 'orthodox' Christianity.

The logic is that pretty much that anything ascribed to God or gods can usually be explained without having to believe that there is a god. Nothing more complicated than that. The arguments for the existance of God usually are only effective on those who already believe that there is a God, or want to be convinced that there is.

I agree, it was about believing the Word of God that Dr. Wierwille was teaching. All those who chose not to believe, left. This concept is not different from many religions who stick with their own ideology and interpretations and those who disagree or cannot accept those ideologies, leave. The church of my youth is like that, among others. Oldiesman @ Today, 08:57 AM That is true, at least for me.

Wow! And you have scripture to back all this up, right?. . . . . . . . . Right?

Good point. If the conclusions that you reach are based on false premises, or a flawed methodology, the ansers that you get are going to be skewed. For example: if you base your research on a definition of the Greek word pros that is incorrect, it will affect your conclusions. What about even "common sense" keys like "first usage" determining the meaning? Is that necessarily true? Or the TWI habit of breaking down Greek and Hebrew words into their component parts and assigning the meaning based on the definition of the root without regard to the word's evolution? How about the key that the few "unclear" verses should be understood in light of the many "clear" verses? Often "clear" meant whatever Wierwille had already decided. Perhaps the few "unclear" verses should alert us to the possibility that we don't understand the subject as well as we thought.

I agree, it was about believing the Word of God that Dr. Wierwille was teaching. All those who chose not to believe, left. This concept is not different from many religions who stick with their own ideology and interpretations and those who disagree or cannot accept those ideologies, leave. The church of my youth is like that, among others. Yes, but Wierwille claimed to be different, PFAL was promoted as a method to make the bible your own so that you wouldn't have to depend on ministers and professors and priests. That never happened, and those who thought it did, ended up leaving for one reason or another.

As Paul Harvey says, that's "the rest of the story", Allan. You made it sound like the husband made a few stupid remarks about her church and she left. I guess it doesn't make so good a "stow-ry" when you have all the facts.

Wierwille taught that the gift of holy spirit was given by Holy Spirit, which is God. Templelady's statements fit whether she is talking about holy ghost as the third person of the trinity, or as God the Giver.

It is certainly off base for a husband to be saying things like you related Allan, but is that grounds for divorce? And what was the wife saying to the husband? Surely nothing along the lines of condemning his choices, or questioning where he'd end up in the "afterlife" either, I'm sure. Doesn't your bible say: "If any brother hath a wife that believeth not, and she be pleased to dwell with him, let him not put her away. And the woman which hath an husband that believeth not, and if he be pleased to dwell with her, let her not leave him." ?

You can say that again For the most part, the Way Corps were the mechanism by which Wierwille kept control over the organization. Since you usually were outside the direct supervision of those loyal to Wierwille you were able to set your own agenda, and from what you have said in these forums, stood up to those who tried to coerce you to go in a different direction. I have never been in an area, even those run by "clergy" who didn't encourage people to read their own bibles. Discouraged from having thoughts about that same bible that didn't line up with "doctor's" thoughts? You bet!

Maybe, maybe not. Like all people, there is good and bad...the person that you have encountered held virtually unlimited power over peoples' lives...kind of brings out the worst in people, absolute power does.

Yes, I know they talked about biblical research, and I know that they actually taught some principles that proved handy, but were they really serious about it? How many times did somebody do "independent" biblical research only to have their ideas unceremoniously quashed by "leadership"? How often were ideas that ran counter to Wierwille's (and later Martindale's) doctrine dismissed out of hand? What happened to people who really went out and learned how to do biblical research? Shown the door. For that matter, how many people in TWI actually did any real research? My guess would be "not that many". For each of you who can say that you "worked the Word", do you really think that you were in the majority? For most of us TWI was our first exposure to biblical research in any form, no surprise that we internalized Wierwille's assumptions, definitions, and even his errors. We based our "research" on unsupported statements and definitions. It was never about "Biblical research" - it was about grooving our minds to match what Wierwille was putting out. In my opinion of course

Thanks for "sharing" Maybe you can suggest that he get his butt on this and other ex-Way sites and apologize. maybe then I'll give a rat's foot about his "recent personal issues"

Suda: check your private messages please

:blink:

when T*m H*rr*cks, the region coordinator told me that he didn't need to work the Word, if the WayAP class was good enough for the Trustees, it was good enough for him...

I think that this about says it all