Oakspear

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

speaking of misrepresentation... ...and yet, you cared enough to respond...with a slam on his religion...

Anyway...you don't hear too many (if any) defenses of Martindale, but many of Wierwille. Just how well did martindale pass on Wierwille's legacy? Did he ruin a good scam? Sink a formerly godly 'ministry'? Was he too stupid to continue what Wierwille did? Or just believed his own press?

There is a lot of arguing about how to relate to Wierwille's behavior to what he taught. Personally, I think that they're separate issues. Some of what he taught was right, some wrong, none of it has anything to do with his morality, ethics, motives, or anything else, the teaching stands or falls on its own. I do believe that his consistant and repeated lying about matters great and small makes it difficult for me to give him the benefit of the doubt on anything. He is not a source to be trusted. I also believe that his predatory actions, his shabby treatment of people, his plagiarism, and many other things make him someone that is unworthy of respect, and therefore someone who should not be followed. There were undoubtedly times when Wierwille was a great guy, and personally helped and "blessed" people. There were also undoubtedly times when he was a consumate S.O.B. who used and abused people. At times the former was am open door for the latter. To me, this is not someone desrving of respect and admiration. PFAL was without question helpful to many people and was the vehicle with which they got to know more about the bible. It's also a rat's nest of shaky logic, false assumptions and bad research, full of assertions that cannot be documented, the foundation being the reputation of 'the teacher'. There is so much error mixed in with the truth that it's not worth the effort IMHO to untangle it. Was TWI, based on both PFAL and Wierwille's charismatic leadership, an organization where people were able to grow, learn, and enjoy 'sweet fellowship' and get prayers answered? For many, sure. It was also a place where lives were sucked dry wasted. Just because Wierwille plagiarized, lied, raped, drank, and told bad jokes doesn't invalidate whatever was truthful in PFAL. Just because some people "got blessed" doesn't validate it either. I'm sure I missed more than one, my mackeral-snapping fellow poster - you make a good point, but it wasn't really where I was going.

Yeah, well sometimes it's REAL evidence appearing real! I'm not in favor of being overcome with worry, fear, and soiling my pants over nothing; getting all worked up about something that isn't there or may never come to pass is pretty unproductive, but there are times when there is something that you should very definitely fear. Ignoring reality is just plain dumb.

In a "nut shell", this is b.s.Can't address the actual arguments, so construct a strawman.