Oakspear

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.

Are you referring to 06-06-06 being 06-06-03 because you think that Jesus was born 09-11-03BC? If so, consider this Let's assume that 09-11-3BC is correct. The Gregorian calendar assumes that Jesus was born on December 25th, 1BC, the first complete year of his life being 1 AD. So, Dionysius Exiguus was off by 2 years and 3 months, not 3 years. So, the year 2006 AD, if corrected to begin counting from Jesus birthdate calculated as 09-11-3BC, would be 2004 not 2003. Since there is no "zero year" in our calendar system, you can't simply subtract 3 from the current year like you can on those number lines we learned about in elementary school; 3BC is not equivalent to -3 since there is no zero. Boy, do I need to take up a hobby or something!

You're welcome. I do have a favor to ask though: Can all you believers please stay off the agnostic thread down in the Doctrinal forum? We're all feeling very threatened with people questioning our thinking and suggesting that there are possibly other ways to oook at what we believe. We are all very comfortable with our agnosticism and don't want to be confused with other viewpoints. Thanks!

You did not respond to a question with "WhaT??? " you responded to a statement

WhaT??? ck What part don't you understand? This part is pretty self explanatory. Let me know if you need further explanation This part is saying that I "get" that you have stated your beliefs, this is mainly in response to your previous post asking if I wasn't "getting it" Here I am saying that there is a difference bewteen stating your beliefs and discussing them. In the part of my post that you didn't quote, as well as in posts by several others, that distinction is explained.

What? What did I say? My comment was meant humorously...

Did somebody just wave some fresh meat in front of us skeptical dogs?

Amen! Very true. While I find Mormonism tobe pretty implausible, it's no more implausible that most other beliefs, including mainstream Christianity, and for that matter, my own

Yet, many people use the incidence of prayers that elicited the answer that they predecided on as an indication that prayer "works". This is what's known as a false dilemma. Two choices are presented: Jesus told the truth, or Jesus lied. What about: Jesus never existed Jesus existed, but was not the man presented in the bible Jesus was the son of God (or God), but was seriously misquoted Jesus was mistaken Add your own

ya just can't resist the name-calling, can ya?

No I am sorry for not answering but I have decided that VPW did the best he could and I quote ICOR 13:4 Thinketh no evil. In the old testament God closed his eyes to the sins of Israel. So I have done the same thing with VPW, LCM, and TWI. CK Ah...you decided that...

CK:Goey has stated very succinctly what I would have if I had gotten here first Thanks Goey. You have pretty clearly stated what you believe, that I get. What you have failed to do is discuss your beliefs. Part of "discussion" is explaining and defending your beliefs. No one is attacking your beliefs, but several of us are questioning their basis. You were never in The Way, but your parents apparently brought you up using core Way doctrine. Nothing wrong with that, but regardless of the "truth" or "error" of what Wierwille taught, many, if not most of us, no longer accept what he taught as an infallible source. So, if you are going to engage in discussions here, you must be prepared to cite sources beyond Wierwille. An argument or disagreement cannot be resolved by quoting Wierwille, PFAL, or a TWI version of biblical doctrine.

Another reason for my foray into agnosticism was when I decided to stop "holding things in abeyance". Much of what Martindale was teaching in WayAP made no sense to me, so I spent a year analyzing his class, one session at a time, using principles that I learned in PFAL. I found many inconsistancies, and "errors". These errors led to beginning to find inconsistancies and problems with PFAL. Eventually, after checking out various ex-Way web sites, I saw the diversity of opinions about the bible, all using Wierwille's "keys to research". There was no agreement about "The Word", even from people supposedly schooled in letting "The Word interpret itself". Outside "The Way" and it's offshoots and refugees, there were hundreds, even thousands of differences of opinion among Christians. They all thought that they were right. Add to that Jews, Muslims, Hindus. Take your pick. Why are agnostics skeptics and doubters? Why isn't everybody?

One thing that always perplexes me about the so-called "power of prayer" (and for that matter, "alternative healing" and any other claim of the supernatural) is that usually there are built-in weasel words to account for why it doesn't always bring the desired results. So what exactly are we talking about when we say "prayer works"? If we can't know in advance what prayers are going to elicit the desired results, and "answers to prayer" are entirely dependent on the whim of a god who's not going to tell us what prayers he's going to answer and what ones he's not, then obviously there can be no scientific test that will measure that, because it's not cause-and-effect, it's the volition of a thinking being..."God".The problem I see with that point of view is that many Christians use their experience with "answered prayers" as their personal proof that God as they envision him (or her) exists, yet receive results that statistically are equal to random chance. Does this mean that there is no God? Does this mean that there are no miracles or answered prayers? In my opinion, no. But there is enough doubt to warrant an agnostic position: "I don't know".

Completely different. That's part of a predetermined ritual.

You see things happen in your life and attribute them to God; others see the same thing and attribute them to random occurences, karma, hard work, or any number of other things. None of us really know for sure, but we choose to asign a source to the events in our lives. I'm no less happy if one of my children recovers from a deadly illness if I attribute it to a really sharp doctor and my kid's immune system than if I believe that God did it. With all respect suda, save your pity. Those of us who don't believe as you do are not lacking any depth in our lives, it's just different.

Yeah, "nice" verseI'm disappointed that you've chosen (or unable) to discuss any of this intelligently, but chosen instead to throw out one liners and regurgitated Wierwillisms.

Not a lot of time right now, maybe tomorrow

"Thus Saith The Lord Statement"#1 Clearly he is not referring to every word without exception, but every word that he has written previously on the subject that he is writing about. So what is Wierwille saying here? That his words in the previous section are the equivalent to scripture? Or that they are true because they line up with what the bible says? It would really be a stretch to suppose that he was saying anything other than his words line up biblically, therefore they are true. "Thus Saith The Lord Statement"#2 I'd be interested in the broader context here. Is what he wrote previous to this quote Wierwille quoting scripture? Or is it Wierwille speaking on his own? (or claiming to speak by revelation) In both of these statements we have Wierwille very obviously claiming that what he has taught is true. He is considering no other possibility. But is he suggesting that what he is writing can in any way replace, or supercede 'the bible'? If he is saying it, it's not in these two statements. I've no time to look at any others today.