Oakspear

Ambushed? I didn't feel that way. You could see it coming in the last few sessions, and everybody else spoke in tongues, right? SIT was something i wanted to do, i thought it was "cool". Regarding those excellors "sessions": never thought it made sense. If "the spirit gave the utterance", why would you need to build fluency? Getting more comfortable speaking in tongues out loud? Yeah, I can see that. And that alphabet thing, how can you decide, with your "understanding" what sound each word will start with if God is providing the words? In later years I would screw around a bit in those sessions. Someone once described my tongue as a cross between a Thai sportscaster and a Klingon. Sometimes when asked to SIT with a specific letter I'd open my mouth and not say anything...get an innocent look on my face a nd say "I guess my tongue doesn't have that sound".

Main Entry: di·a·tribe Pronunciation: 'dI-&-"trIb Function: noun Etymology: Latin diatriba, from Greek diatribE pastime, discourse, from diatribein to spend (time), wear away, from dia- + tribein to rub -- more at THROW 1 archaic : a prolonged discourse 2 : a bitter and abusive speech or writing 3 : ironical or satirical criticism

Oh yeah I am here I thought everyone needed some time for the information already provided. CK <_<

Our understanding of what is written down, no matter how authoritative, can also be illusory.

Pointing out errors in other religious systems when confronted with errors in TWI doctrine and practice is a logical fallcy of distraction, specifically the fallacy of changing the subject, subcategory, attacking the person or position of the one bringing up the error. This board is about TWI, set up to "give the other side", the answer to TWI's claims. The Catholics, Mormons, whoever else has error; so what? We're talking about TWI. Another thing that I see that gets out of hand IMHO is the use of analogy. Analogies illustate the point, they aren't the point themselves. Comparing something in TWI to something else doesn't prove anything, and finding a point of dissimilarity in the analogy doesn't disprove anything either.

Even from a "believing that the bible is true" point of view, a contradictory experience might be helpful in analyzing whether what you thought the bible said was true. Of course, if you're locked into one view, you'll ignore what's before your eyes.

Speaking of vague definitions of manifestations...are the manifestations defined in the bible? Or are the definitions Wierwille uses "private interpretation"? Tongues, Interpretation and Prophecy are laid out in I Corinthians 12 & 14, miracles & gifts of healing can be seen all through the bible, but what about the others?

Yup. Works real well. Agreed. It's not easy

The position that "it's truth no matter who taught it" starts from the assumption that it was "truth". Someone mentioned earlier about the problem of using Wierwille as a reference point. You want to learn about the bible? Go back to the bible. Why start with Wierwille? Why examine everything he taught, as if it were the starting point for all learning? Or worse, hold on to what he taught without critical examination because we're too lazy, or because we somehow were "blessed"?

Garth: I wasn't talking about you and Cynic when I mentioned dreams and scrawls on subway cars being the inspiration for doctrinal threads. Sorry, poor sentence structure. I was obliquely referring to one of our number who starts discussions about flying whales in Genesis, or posts 'words of prophecy'. Carry on

Pfal, as originally filmed, had twelve sessions. Several 1/2 hour segments were later left out: The Unforgiveable Sin The Day Jesus Christ Died (with his famous line about breaking their legs 'so they wouldn't run away') The T.I.P. (Tongues, Interpretation and Prophesy) segment - which included information that was later expanded upon in the Intermediate Class For a time in the late 70's, the 3 (or maybe 4) session Intermediate class, which was filmed a few years later, was included as part of the PFAL package. I took "the class" in 1978 and took a 15 (or 16) sesssion class that included the later-filmed intermediate.

White Dove: Here is where we differ I just don't think that has anything to do with it. Biblical truth stands on it's own regardless of moral character ,obviously it makes it easier to accept with good moral character. I'll give him the benefit of the doubt until otherwise proven. Truth is truth be it a priest or a thief who say's it. Perhaps I didn't explain myself clearly enough, or perhaps the context got by you: I am not saying disagreeing with this: Of course it does. What I'm saying is that I think it is foolish to accept that something is truth just because Wierwille said it was truth. IMHO it takes more than just looking up a bible verse to see if it reads the same as Wierwille quoted it to check it out for ones self. It goes back to whether or not you accept his premises, his definitions, his view of the world and the bible. For example, in the Doctrinal forum a relatively new poster started a thread about "love" in I Corinthians 13. Several others of us are challenging Wierwille's definition of agapē: "the love of God in the renewed mind in manifestation". maybe we'll find out it's accurate, maybe not, but the originator of that thread is unwilling to consider that the definition is wrong. While Wierwille's moral character does not invalidate the truth, if any, in his teachings, what it does do is undermine his credibility. One of his alleged moral failings is lying. It has been documented (at least to my satisfaction) that he lied about any number of things, enough that I should probably doubt whether "VP" actually stood for "Victor Paul" So, anything that he said without documentation is therefore suspect. For example, he claimed that there was "an old document" that stated that illegitimate sons were bar-mitzvahed at 12 - throw it out, no documentation. So, I'm not saying that accepting what is taught in PFAL is foolish, what I am saying is that accepting it without corroberation is foolish.

Really?Would you care to address each of our posts point by point? Or are you intellectually unable to do so? What, specifically, about them are insufficient? This is a discussion forum, so let's discuss As far as I can tell, Wierwille declared the definition of agapē "the love of God in the renewed mind in manifestation" without explaining why. He did this fairly often. If he, the great biblical researcher, is right, then then you should be able to easily rebut my claim that he was wrong, as well as the evidense that I have cited. I'm willing to change my mind if some evidense can be supplied that the definition didn't come out of thin air. Frankly, ck, I think you're too lazy to try, too weak in biblical research skills get very far if you do try, and too ill-equipped intellectually to present your case intelligebly even if you are right. But have a nice weekend anyway. There's got to be some Dragonball-Z reruns on.

Just between you and me and the emoticons, I like that you have to travel a bit to find the Doctrinal Forum. Call me an elitist, but I've always viewed the Doctrinal area as a place where the discussion is a bit more reasoned, a bit more logical, where people actually trot out *gasp* the bible to back up their biblical positions. This is not to say that there isn't some shedding of blood down there, Cynic and Garth rumble from time to time about Calvin and predestination for instance, and there are stretches where threads get started based on a dream or something they saw scrawled on the side of a subway car. But on average, Doctrinal shouldn't be the place for the masses.

WD: I'm not speaking for anyone else, but here's what I think: Some of what Wierwille taught was plagiarized. Of that plagiarized material, some is biblically accurate, some is not. The original authors are no more infallible than Wierwille. Some of what Wierwille taught was original. Of that original material, some is biblically accurate, some is not. Wierwille was not immune from being right, despite his moral failings. :o Some of what Wierwille taught, while not plagiarized, is not strictly original either, but reworked from other sources. Some plagiarized material was combined with other plagiarized material or with his own work to make a point that the original author was not making, sometimes this was deliberate, sometimes it betrays a lack of understanding by Wierwille of what the original author was trying to say. Some of what Wierwille taught was based on definitions of words in biblical languages that cannot be backed up by any other sources, in other words he made them up. There are also claims of fact that are also apparently made up. This undermines much of what he taught, it being based on unsupportable foundations. IMHO Wierwille had many moral failings and abused his position as a minister. He was a liar, a bully and a braggart. While none of this invalidates any truth that may be mixed in with the error, it does eliminate any benefit of the doubt anything he said or taught can be realistically given. And in order to accept PFAL as is, one has to accept much of what Wierwille says without documentation, simply because he says so. The man's character makes it foolish for anyone to take what he taught at face value. Based on what is posted on GS (since I obviously don't know what goes on in people's lives outside of GS unless they choose to tell me) not a lot of questioning goes on in the minds of posters who still hold PFAL in high regard. If it does, it certainly isn't reflected in their posts.

That's no figment, Mark; the incorrect definition of "research" has been thrown around in the 80's and the 90's, it does not mean "to search again"; its another example of TWI's creating definitions out of the literal meanings of segments of words without regard to the actual meaning.re·search noun Etymology: Middle French recerche, from recerchier to investigate thoroughly, from Old French, from re- + cerchier to search -- more at SEARCH 1 : careful or diligent search 2 : studious inquiry or examination; especially : investigation or experimentation aimed at the discovery and interpretation of facts, revision of accepted theories or laws in the light of new facts, or practical application of such new or revised theories or laws 3 : the collecting of information about a particular subject verb transitive senses 1 : to search or investigate exhaustively <research a problem> 2 : to do research for <research a book> intransitive senses : to engage in research - re·search·able /ri-'s&r-ch&-b&l, 'rE-"/ adjective - re·search·er noun

I guess all of us Wierwille detractors should get together and agree on one gripe...after all, we are one monolithic group who don't have differing opinions. :blink:

If you say so, but you guys were already pretty deep into a ....ing contest, or so it seemed to me. "Say that to my face" when in the midst of a "battle" of words on an internet forum seemed to be frustration with getting bested in said "battle". But I guess I'm wrong. Do you lash out at the Mormons, Catholics, et al because you think that they are pushing their religions, you're irritated that so many bash your beliefs, or you just have a hard-on for these churches? Or another choice that I haven't thought of? Why thank you Allan, that's right nice of you. :unsure: I'm sure glad that I'm not bound by your view of my ultimate destination!

Ah, the elusive context...

JL, I think what is being referred to was CG wearing a handgun under his suit coat, which was open so that the gun was somewhat visible. I was not there, I'm just attempting to recall what has been said in the past by eyewitnesses. The poster who called it "brandishing" was giving the legal dfinition of what he was doing : displaying a weapon for the purpose of intimidation, which is not necessarily waving the thing around, the image which the word "brandishing" evokes in my mind.

It's about experience with the man, your age indicates that you had NO experience with the man that we are discussing. A difference in age is irrelevant, what is relevant is experience with what we're talking about. You may notice that I'm not weighing in with an opinion about what went on in the clergy meeting because I wasn't there You telling us what you say that your parents said is second hand information. If either of your parents want to post here (for real this time), and tell us of their experiences, then that's their business.

Sure, I can remind you of John 10:10 The THEIF cometh not but for to steal, KILL, and destroy. I am come that they might have life and that they might have it more abundantly. The Thief (Devil) Kills and Destroys (murder) I hope the bible is enough documentation CK Not bad CK, not bad. But what you've done is point out a major inconsistancy, or contradiction in the bible. The writer of the Gospel of John is claiming that Jesus said what you quoted above. Yet there are many, many clear verses where God slays people, or has his followers slay people. Jesus is quoted as saying that The Thief (presumably the devil) comes for no other reason but for to steal, kill and destroy. Yet in every place in the bible where there's some killing done, other than one human killing another, the bible says that its God that did it. Even in Job, one of the few places where Satan is actually clearly named in the OT, the bible says that it was God that smote Job. I hope the bible is enough documentation

Wierwille taught, in my opinion rightly, that you read what is written to understand what the bible says. Right in the verse, in the context, previous usage, all that stuff is pretty good advice on how to read and understand the bible. The word agapē undoubtedly means "love" in some fashion, but does it mean "the love of God"? I John 3:17 But whoso hath this world's good, and seeth his brother have need, and shutteth up his bowels of compassion from him, how dwelleth the love of God in him? The phrase "the love of God" is (loosely) agapē theos; so if agapē is translated "the love of God", then this verse (redundantly) says "the love of God of God" or "God's love of God"; so why would the "of God" be added if "of God" is understood to be part of the definition?There's a few other places where it is phrased thus. I John 3:19 And this is the condemnation, that light is come into the world, and men loved darkness rather than light, because their deeds were evil. If agapē means "the love of God", then how can men love darkness with the love of God? That's one reason why I think that he may be wrong. The second is the whole "in the renewed mind" thing (doesn't he add "in manifestation"?) - there is no scriptural, textual, contextual or grammatical reason to add "in the renewed mind" that I can see. So, since Wierwille taught biblical keys, let's use some of them in this thread. I'm willing (as are others here in doctrinal) to concede that Wierwille is correct when the evidense supports him, not just because he says so. This is one of the times when its "just because he says so".

Ignoring and excusing the sins of the dead man when he was alive allowed the sins to continue.

allan, though I often (okay, usually) disagree with you, I'd have never thought that you'd be at a loss for words. Sudo's just dealing you what you frequently deal out to others. No need to imply...whatever it is you're implying.