Goey

There ya go folks. CK is aparantly not interested in real doctrinal dialog, honest handling of the sciptures or even truth for that matter. Wierwille/PFAL is the alpha and omega of "biblical understanding" for him. Too bad cause there is so much more out there. But weren't many of us all kinda intellectually lazy when WE subscribed to PFAL. Here is a young cock-sured fellow (much like many of us were back in our way daze) who can' t/won't even consider anything that seems to challenge what he has deemed to be true. He won't even use the basic tools that VPW laid out in PFAL. VPW said it, I believe it, and that settles it. CK won't address the points concerning VPW's "translation according to usage" of agape because he is both unwilling and unable. Unwilling, because in practice he has put PFAL and the teachings of VPW above the scriptures themselves and see's no need to "defend the truth" taught by VPW. Unable, (even if he wanted to) because Wierwille declared his definition of agape by fiat and provided no exegesis or explanation for this "doctrine" for CK to draw from. Remember guys and gals, in Way World we were not trained in apologetics, ecclesiology, soteriology, exegesis, hermeneutics, or even basic logic. We were basically taught to throw that stuff aside. Didn't Wierwille tell us that apologetics was "apologizing for being a Christian" ? Got to chuckle at that one now. My point being I suppose ....that it may be unreasonable to try to hold CK to any higher standard of discussion than what he has presently demonstrated in this thread. He's not ready to critically examine his own beliefs or the sacred cow teachings of VPW. I know I wasn't way back when......

No drooling alowed !

Good points. Yes, you would ask that ... IF you were actually wanting know who was best. Yet one can certainly word a poll and carefully select the choices in an attempt to support a predetermined conclusion. For example, I could do a poll to ask who was the best leader and give 4 choices when what I really wanted to know was who would come in last in the poll. The choices I give could then be selected to skew the outcome towards a pretetermined conclusion. especially if the poll were given to a somewhat predictable group of people.

Assuming Bullinger's work to be 100 percent true and that VPW added or subtracted nothing at all, then this would be true. I do not make these assumptions. Sure it can, and here's how. Let's say someone wrote a small 20 page book on figures of speech and copied 10 pages word for word from Bullinger (plagairism). But the same author in the same small book takes some more information from Bullinger but changes (perverts) it slightlyto give it a different meaning than what Bullinger gave it. We certainly have a plagiaized work. Ten pages are true to Bullinger's original and 10 pages borrowed from Bullinger, yet changed (perverted). The fact that something is plagairized does not necessarily mean that 100 percent of the original meaning remains intact.

Hi WW, Yup, Consider the choices: VPW, LCM, Geer, Rivenbark and the Pope. Four TWI "leaders" and then the current Pontiff. Pretty odd, huh? My best guess is that that the cholces were selected, not necessarily to pick the worst leader, but rather to have VPW float to the top by default, therefore giving some validation to the author's current position. I think the assumption may have been made that all ex-way must still be anti-Catholic and hate the pope. Rivenbark and LCM are no-brainers. That leaves Geer and Wierweille. Geer didnt see the snow on the gas pumps. So what we really have here is a false dilemma disguised as poll.

Rest easy folks, TWI hasn't sold its Copyrights to anything. At least not according to the U.S. Copyright Office. There is no record of an ownership change for the Foundational Class. The Way International still retains the copyright to everything produced there, including the foundational class. Mrs Wierwille did have the copyright to "Are the Dead Alive Now " but the Way International got that from her sometime in 2000. Search it for yourself. Copyright Search

Posted by ckmkeon: Yes, let's ignore and/or gloss over what happens when men abuse people in the name of God and handle God's word deceitfully. And in the context established in the first quote what does the bible say to do ? Oh, I know .... the Bible says don't discusss false prophets, and evildoers who pervert the word of God for personal gain .. right ? I don't think so .... Agreed What "all things"? Paul says in Philppians 4:13: "I can do all things through Christ which strengtheneth me." In the context Paul is referring to suffering and abounding - being both full and hungry. These are the "all things" that Paul is refering to. In it's context, this verse has nothing to do with the so-called law of believing. Furthermore it says "through Christ" not by believing the Bible or some particular interpretation of it. "All things" must be understood in light of the context. Knowledge of "the Word" is good but highly overrated sometimes. But's lets not confuse "the Word" with a particular interpretation of the Bible, or with collection of so-called immutable spiritual laws that are claimed by some to allow people to "do all things."(out of context). I have met a lot of fine Christians, many with oodles of biblical knowledge, but I have yet to meet anyone who can "do all things." because of a vast knowledge of scripture.1 Cor 13:2: "And though I have [the gift of] prophecy, and understand all mysteries, and all knowledge; and though I have all faith, so that I could remove mountains, and have not charity, I am nothing. " I would suggest that Charity far outweighs knowledge. Seek that first. I would say, start wherever the spirit of God guides you and go from there. Maybe attend a Bible Study in a mainstream Church. Learn how to learn from others who you may even disagree with on certain things. Only start a fellowship if God directs you to do so. Knowledge alone is not enough to effectively lead a "fellowship".

Without defining what a leader is or what qualities are relevant, the question is impossible to answer. But I'll try. Wierwille was good at leading young vunerable girls into his motor coach for one-on-one counseling sessions - much better than LCM in this regard. Wierwille had "charisma" far beyond any of the others listed. What he lacked in biblical understanding, spirituality, and human compassion, he made up for with charisma. Charisma is everything when it comes to leading a cult. Kudos for VPW and his chaisma. Wierwille had a knack for getting folks unquestioned loyalty, cause well, he was the MOGOFT donchaknow. There is very little that VPW's minions and henchmen wouldn't do for him. Lie, cheat, steal. etc .... Wierwille was good at slamming down drambuies and still pulling of a "hot teaching" to his adoring followers. Alcoholism and excess didn't seem to stop him. Wierwille was good at teaching glassy-eyed adorers the "keys to research" (which he himself failed to use in his own so-called research). Who needs research anyway? Just let Wierwille do it for us and tell us what to believe! Afterall he saw the snow on the gas pumps..... didnt he? "It's the Word people! - I didn't write the book" ( But I am goona interpret it for ya and tell ya what it means). Best I can tell, LCM wasn't too good at much of anything, except tearing people down and destroying that little Ohio-based Cult of Cornfield Consciousness that Wierwille worked so hard to build. VPW had it all laid out for LCM. Gave it to him on a silver platter -- The power, the money, the babes, and of course, "Da Word". And what did LCM do? He screwed it all up and let a drawling (alleged) lesbian who was (allegedly) doing his wife take over his little Cornfield Utopia. What a dumbass. Geer has the charisma of a hoe handle and could only lead by bullying. His attempted coup failed in the long run and he was never truly able to get the keys to TWI's coffers. Good with guns, but not too good at counseling the girls. Not cut out for leadership. Rosie is good at back stabbing. No charisma at all. Keeps good books. (Both sets) Since I don't know anything about this new Pope, I have to say that Wierwille was by far the best "leader" of the bunch. Someone to really look up to .

The term "Father in the Word" does not appear in any Bible. It is strictly a TWI take off from 1 Corinthians 4:15. "For though ye have ten thousand instructors in Christ, yet [have ye] not many fathers: for in Christ Jesus I have begotten you through the gospel." These were the words of Paul to the Corinthians. "Father in the word" does not appear here. The first related term is "instructors in Christ" ... followed by "not many fathers" implying "in Christ". He goes on to say "in Christ I have begotten you through the Gospel" So Paul implied the term "father in Christ" , speaking of himself in regards to his relationship to the Corinthinans. He did not say "father in the word". For TWI's "Father in the Word" teaching to pass any kind of muster, the meaning to the individual using the term should correlate to Paul's intended meaning in 1 Corinthians 4:15. So what did Paul mean by "father [in Christ]" ? And is it the same meaning that TWI/VPW taught? Paul was making a point to the Corinthians. He was not telling them to start calling him "father in the word" as some kind of honorific title. So how was Paul a father to the Corinthians? Paul said "I have begotten you through the Gospel". Paul estabished the church at Corinth. He was there for about 18 months (if I remember correctly) where he worked as a tentmaker and where he taught Jesus as the Messiah, the good news of salvation and redemption in Jesus Christ. What was the crux of VPW's teachings? Was it Christ centered? Did he work among us as did Paul? Were we or anyone "begotton in Christ" by VPW ? Can we honestly equate VPWs ministry with that of Paul's very unique ministry.? Can somone honestly say (biblicaly I mean) that by simply taking PFAL via film, video or audio that VPW then becomes one's "father in the Word" ? Is this what Paul meant in 1 Cor 4:15? I don't think so. However, if someone wants to refer to VPW as their Father in the Word, that's their perogative. Old habits die hard especially for those prone to adoration of religious "leaders" It is similar to the Catholics having a Pope ( father) But it is an extreme twisting of scripture top say it is a biblical practice. Now read chapter 5 of 1st Corinthians where Paul says not to keep company with, and to put away from ourselves; fornicators, extortioners, drunkards, railers, etc ..... he furthermore calls someone like this a "wicked person". Why in the world anyone want to refer to VPW as "father in the word", beats the hell out of me. I see no basis for it whatsoever.

Hi George, Evidence that you would accept? Probably none. But haven't we been there before? Why bother? George, George, George, its a matter of faith - not credentuals or intellect. You and Sudo are both quite bright and probably smarter than I am. That's not the issue though. We all believe what we want to believe or what we are 'compelled' to believe. Based upon the evidence that I choose to accept (according to my standards) I chose to and am compelled to believe in the existence of God and that there is truth to be gleaned from what is commonly referred to as scripture (writings). Howerver, I don't subscribe to the idea of inerrerancy of scripture and readilly concede inconsistancies and errors in what is referred to as the BIble. Actually, I believe that it is mostly a human work - especially the New testament. Does this surprise you? I understand your point when you rhetorically ask for evidence that ANY book is divinely inspired. Its a good point. For the sake of brevity I didn't qualify or expound upon several of my points which may may have answered that question. If any NT books at all are divinely inspired in the manner that TWI teaches, ie given by God word for word, I would be very surprised. Actually, I think it highly unlikely. The same goes for much of the Old Testament. The 'evidence' of inspiration via the dictation theory that VPW and many others espouse is only internal to one or two biblical works and is therefore quite weak in the whole scope of things - and certainly wouldnt or shouldn't apply to say, personal letters that Paul wrote to an individual or to a specific church somewhere. Or to a "gospel" which is basically a short story of the life of Jesus. Take Luke 1:1 - 3 for example: The writer says: Forasmuch as many have taken in hand to set forth in order a declaration of those things which are most surely believed among us, Even as they delivered them unto us, which from the beginning were eyewitnesses, and ministers of the word; It seemed good to me also, having had perfect understanding of all things from the very first, to write unto thee in order, most excellent Theophilus, That thou mightest know the certainty of those things, wherein thou hast been instructed. It seems clear to me that the writer says that others, possibly the writers of Matthew and Mark of other writings floating around at the time, took it upon themselves to put on paper the things that had already been taught and were commonly believd concerning Jesus. He then says that it seemed like a good idea for him to do the same. Nowhere does he mention or claim that God told him or anyone else exactky what to write, or that God dictated the words to him or others. So, for example I imagine the gospels to be the works of men. HONEST men and eyewitness of the events of which they write. Where they were not eye-witnesses, they may have drawn from folks who were. Even so, Mark may have recalled something differently than Luke or Matthew. And since these books were written many years after the events actually took place, it would not be unusuall for there to be a difference here and there, like an error in in the time or place of an event. My point here being, that the records they provided, even though written and authored by men, were "good enough" to get the message through. Inspired or not. I regard it more highly becasuse I find the historical, traditional and experiencal evicence compelling - and because I want to. I find it difficult if not impossible not to believe in God or in the precpets and ideals contained in "the Bible" via my own canon of scripture. Why do you regard the BIble seemingly less than the THE ILIAD, or the Bhagavagita, or The Saturday Evening Post? .............. Compelled? or is it strictly an intellectual thingy? Something else maybe?

Belle, Many Christians have never really looked beyond the sacred cow of our accepted canon of scripture. To those who have really studied the history of the church, the things you brought up are fairly comon knowledge. This may be the reason that quite a few theologians do not accept "the Bible" as the inerrant word of God and have no problem with the notion that there may be errors, contradictions, and inconsistancies - even in the so-called originals. When folks accept the Bible as the inerrant word of God, they are also accepting that the men who complied the Bible were inerrant when they decided which books went in and which were rejected. The question then is, were these men inerrant ot infallible in their decision? I kind of doubt it. As Oldies mentioned, there is debate as to whether James belongs in the Bible. Martin Luther rejected James as well as the book of Revelation and maybe a few others if I recall correctly. As Danny will attest, others theologians/men of God like Marcion rejected the authority of many of the now included books of the Bible. These revelations may shake the faith of some folks, but I dont think it really needs to. I suppose though that if somone's spiritual world and their faith hinged upon the Bible ( 39 OT Books and 27 NT books) being the inerrant word of God that fits together "like a hand in a glove" and with a "mathematical exactness and scientific precision" these things may be disheartening. I guess George and Sudo and quite a few others believed Wierwille when he said, "But to be logical and consistent, either the entire Bible is the Word of God from Genesis to Revelation or it is not the Word of God anywhere." ( PFAL p 5) Actually, Wiereille presented us with flawed logic in the form or a false dilemma. There are other choices, as anyone who takes the time to think about it should be able to see. The folks who decided the canon clearly saw the choices and made their decision. What prevents us from deciding for ourselves? In any case, it should be clear that if one or several books was errantly selected, it would not negate the authority of all the rest. Or if one or several deserving books were omitted that this would not be cause to reject the whole. However if a theological system or a doctrine is built upon a particular book or scripture that really didn't belong in the Bible - it does open up a whole can of worms. If one is of the school that insists upon inerrancy and perfect accuracy, to be "accurate" and not have your Bible "fall to pieces" you then have to make the errant book or verse fit (like a hand in a glove) with those books or verses that do belong. This, of course would and does IMO result in gross error. So what's the answer? Reject the Bible as a whole? Or look beyond the errors and inconsistancies try to understand the consistent messages and ideals that the scriptures offer us? I chose the latter.

I never heard anyone in TWI teach that if you don't speak in tongues you are not saved - or that you must speak in tongues to be saved. Not once. It was taught that tongues was proof (evidence) of the spirit within. And that you couldn't REALLY say that Jesus was Lord except by the spirit (which TWI errantly interpreted to mean speaking in tongues). However, that teaching presumed that the tongues we did in TWI was genuine, which many have testified that they copied, memorized, or faked. There is a big difference in the 2 statements below: "If you don't speak in tongues you arent saved" If you can't speak in tongues you arent saved" Don't implies willingness or instruction. Can't implies lack of ability ie no spirit, no tongues. If tongues is indeed a manifestation of the spirit and only those who have spirit can do it, then statement 2 above would be correct in a sense. Those without spirit CANT speaks in tongues - the are unable. It's all really moot though as far as I am concerned. It seems like any Joe Blow can be taught to to what we did in TWI and call it "tongues". So, at the end of the class, after much instruction and probably several months of observation in felllowships and meetings, Joe Blow moves his mouth, his lips, and "speaks in tongues" while those running the class rejoice at another soul saved being saved via PFAL. Yet in light of the testimony of many, the hearers in TWI couldn't tell the genuine from fakers anyway. I woudn't assume that anyone is saved by hearing them "speak in tongues" . It is an extremely poor test of salvation.

So how did this all happen ? VPW was the MOGFOT, assumed by many (only within TWI) to be the apostle of our time. VPW was the modern day Paul. Paul said, "be ye followers [imitators] of me." Logically then, folks who wanted to be spiritual leaders should imitate Paul, er VPW, being as he was supposed, the MOGFOT. It's the word people! -- I didnt write the book ! So, folks set on really doing The Word stared smoking Kools, drinking Drambuei and became anal about such trivial things as raking carpet and stringing chairs (just like VPW). Folks observed VPW's butt chewings, obsessiveness, and abusiveness and against common sense and possibly their gut feelings, supposed it to be spirituality. So the imitations followed. Enter L. Craig Martindale and a host of other VPW imitators .. After VPW died LCM was the standard to imitate....The rest is history. One thing of note - is that many of us lower level wayfers accepted the abusive crapola from these VPW/LCM imitators, also supposing against common sense and our own gut feelings that these imitators were actually demonstrating spirituality. Instead of revolting against these imitating leaders as we should have, we followed them. How sick is that? The Way Tree

Ok, for the gramatically accurate minded , Lindy is corrrect. The 11 million is in total assets which is comprised MOSTY of money deposited by its members added to investment gains. The returns have not been stellar. However, as of June 2005 the average member/ shareholder had about $10,091 on account not $9,500. But not enough difference to quibble over for accuracy's sake. If we multiply that by 1006 members we get total of a little over 10 million on account. Also note that the number of members does not recessarily reflect the actual number of accounts. A member could have more than one account. The $10,091 average figure is probably misleading though. I wonder how many of the 1006 members have little to nothing on account and how much money is in each of the top 20 accounts and who these top 20 account holders are. I wonder how much Rosie, Donna, Howard and a few others have managed to sock away on thier humble and meager salaries. Here's another little tidbit. According to the records on file, all audits of The Way Credit Union since June 2000 have been done by its own Supervisory Committee and not by any external or state licensed auditors. If any of you folks who are or were members of the Way Credit Union think that it should be independantly audited, you can email the NCUA inspector general at the address below. oigmail@ncua.gov Now, I am not one that is easily taken by conspiracy theories, but given TWI's history and the BOT's obsession with money, it does not seem too far-fetched that the Credit Union may not be what it seems on the surface. If the Way Credit Union is indeed a kind of "money laundering" institutution, then an audit by the NCUA Inspector General's Office may be in order. I would think that the fact that they offer their members no services whatsoever other than a simple account would be reason to be suspicious. The Office of Inspector General (OIG) promotes the economy, efficiency and effectiveness of NCUA programs and operations, and detects and deters fraud, waste and abuse, thereby supporting NCUA's mission of monitoring and promoting safe and sound federally insured credit unions. The OIG conducts independent audits, investigations and other activities, and keeps the NCUA Board and U.S. Congress fully and currently informed of their work.

Wednesdays - eh ?

To get the financial data for the The Way Credit Union, Click Here Then enter Charter # 66066 This is probably the only credit union on earth that doesn't loan money to it's members.

Hey Jet, lighten up, This is not a gender issue. There is a lot of experiece available here from many posters. Your opinion is one of many. I would think you would welcome concuring opinions. Certainly you don't expect everyone else to shut up anfer you give your opinion, do you ?

Sounds like an operating system problem rather than a bad drive. Like GT said try safe mode and see if is starts up. If is does then it is probably a wayward driver, or possibly a virus. If it wont start up in safe mode I would seek professional help.

The trinity is not a big deal for me anymore. That's why I let other folks hash it out here. I don't see where being trinitarian or not makes a whole lot of difference. There are wonderful Christians on both sides - bad ones too. The trinity only becomes a problem when belief in it or rejection of it is met with condemnation. We should be tolerant regardles of which side we are on. I dont think anyone is going to hell because they do or don't believe in the trinity. However, those who murdered over it might have a problem.

Posted by Ex10. Ok, now I get it! - Duh! (Flew right over my head)..... :blink:

Ex10, Is this how you support your opinion? -- With ad hominem? Thats not normally like you. I would expect that kind of reply from clergy who loves their honorific title, special priviliges, and the adoration of their followers. But you have kinda surprised me here. Must have struck a sensitive nerve for you to lash out like that. But, certainly you can do better than ad hominem. Maybe you could try addressing the points I made and show where they are wrong. Or maybe even read the articles I linked to (if you didn't} and make your case against them. Maybe even use your Bible... Sheesh, It's funny how some folks react when they are disagreed with.

This virus is particularly bad because it the death rate in humans is about 50 percent. As of Oct 21, there were 118 documented cases and of these, there have been 61 deaths.

I think it is a rather unblblical thing that unnecessarily divides the church into two separate classes of people. I seriously doubt that when the early church began to divide itself into clergy and laity that it did so to "protect the unsuspecting public". However, I have heard much worse attempts to justify the status quo of the mainstream churches. While in some denominations clergy is held accountable to a certain extent, in many others such is not the case. The clergy is typically closed system with lay folks having little say in church matters. Having clergy accountable to clergy alone has led to corruption and abuse, (kind of like having the police repsonsible to to police themselves.) It just doesn't work that well. What "protection" a traditional clergy system may seem to offer is far outweighed by the split between clergy and laity. But in fairness, since traditional churches will probably never abandon the unbiblical clergy system, ordination can give some protection, but only if strict requirements are met for ordination and swift action is taken when ordained folks abuse their positions.

Posted By Oldies: How would you know what most people did? I know lots of folks who contacted the BOT over this.

Martindale Replies ! Click HERE