Goey

Yep, they are thinking alright. "Membership" is declining as well as the associated ABS. Lawsiuts are chiping away at the cash reserves. The kids are leaving. It is obvious that what they have been doing for the last 10 years is not working. Bookstore revenue is insignificant to TWI in the whole scope of things, but ABS is not. So, they open the bookstore to everyone and sell Wierwille's old wineskins. Now who will buy them? Wierwerille fans, loners and those that long for the good old days of pre- Martindale TWI. And where are these folks? In the offshooots and doing it alone. But they are out there. Quite a few I imagine. And quite a few did not want to leave TWI when they got the boot. So why not open the bookstore and sell them the books they love. Create a making list. Promote yourself as changed and nicer. Enter the New And Improved TWI! We are nicer now, and see we are bringing back the good old days. Come back and fellowship with us! We forgive you! (See how nice we are now?) Let's see, (assuming 30,000 annual income) each person they could get back would mean about 4,500 per year in ABS plus revenue from any classes they take. So one thousand people back in the fold would mean about 4.5 million in ABS each year. That will buy an awful lot of familia. Just a thought.

Johniam, Actually, Dicks is not doing the same thing as Wierwille. I am not even sure that Dicks is quoting Wierwille there. What Dicks is doing is testing Wierwille's logic and reasoning and showing how it is faulty. Wierwille states that spirit cannot communicate with flesh. Wierwille states this as a "law" (definition). Dicks argues (correctly I think) that in Wierwille's theology that this "Law" defines how the scripures are to be understood in regards to such question as "How can God, who is spirit, communicate with man, who is flesh?" Dicks then goes on to question and test Wierwille's "law" by asking the question,"can spirit communicate with flesh?" he goes on to say: "To say that "spirit cannot communicate with flesh" and establish it as such an authoritative statement as a "law of logic" is to establish an irrefutable position by means of a definition and not by means of empirical investigation. Thus, Wierwille begs the question at issue. Dicks is correct. Wierwille offers no emperical data or scriptural evidence to support his Law. It is a classical example of logic fallacy. It does not necessarily mean that Wierwille is wrong, just that his logic and reasoning are fallacious. Dicks goes on to note that Wierwille never defines "communicate" or why spirit cannot communicate with flesh. Dick also notes as I did in a previous post here that this law contratdicts Wierwilles own argument. Wiewille says that God being spirit cannot communicate with the mind. As proof he cites his "law" that "spirit cannot communicate with flesh". By Wierwille's own law then one must conclude that holy spirit, being spirit, also cannot communicate with flesh. However, Wierwille's doctrine on the holy spirit, renewed mind, etc contradicts this law since Wierwille clearly taught the the holy spirit can communicate with the mind (flesh). Again, we can see the faulty logic and reasoning. And again it does not necessiarily mean that all that Wierwille taught in this area is wrong (a fallacious argument can sometimes come to a correct conclusion). However, seeing this faulty logic should highly suggest to those of us that rely on Wierwille's laws - to take a much deeper look.

Rascal, Rascal, my suggestion is to simply ignore that person and give them no space between your ears. No one likes being called a liar, but consider the source. The opinion of one sycophant does nothing to affect your credibility.

Rascal, No matter what facts you offer, Oldies will not be swayed. He has made up his mind and is closed to any facts or to any prospectives other then his own. He is in effect incorrigable. His own opinions on matters related on TWI far outweigh any facts that anyone may offer. Arguing with Oldies on this with the hope of changing his mind is like trying to break steel with a rubber hammer. It is a waste of time and effort.

Man, I hate it when people say that! To me it seems that the person is really saying, "Challenging me is challenging God and calling God a liar". It is so stupid and lame. Reminds me of Pat Robertson - he is always saying stuff like that. So did my first WOW coordinator. There are one or two here that do that to sometimes. Nowadays, if given opportunity, when I hear that I will ask, "Just exactly how did God tell you that? Was is audible, in a vision or a dream or did it just pop into your mind all of a sudden? - How do you know that is was really God telling you that?" Usually it is none of the above and the answer is "I just know it". Not good enough.

Anyone wanna bet? I'll bet a beer against a cup of coffee that PFAL is not in TWI's bookstore of public purchase within the next six months - Oh what the heck, I'll give it a year. Any takers ?

Raf, For 50 bucks I'll send you a Masters degree from the Silicon Hills Institute of Theology. For 50 bucks more, I'll make it a PhD. You can even pick the paper - single or double ply?

I ran across this thesis a couple of years ago when doing a Google search on "Pike's Peak Theological Seminary" One of the best pieces I have read so far on Wierwille. I recommend it.

Get a known good disk, maybe a new one - format it and copy som data to it. If it works the drive is good and the old disks are bad. If not, the drive is probably bad. I had 100's of disks that went bad in storage. Heat will destroy them.

To officially bring back PFAL, TWI would have to eat crow. It would be an admission of being wrong about "old wineskins". TWI/BOD will never admit that they were wrong about anything.

Posted By George: George, "Some" theology - or even "most" theology may hold to these rationalizations - but not all theology. (Just for the record) :)--> Goey

Nope, you missed mine. Def, I submit that you still cling to many of "VPW's doctrines". Didn't VPW teach that Jesus died and then rose from the dead? Didn't he teach many other more mainstream doctrines? Have you abandoned all of these becasuue of VPW's ungodly behavior? Of course not. VPW's doctrines encompass more than just non-trinitarianism and the law of believing or twisted private teachings about adultry. When we mention "VPW's doctrines" I think is is probably a good idea to distinguish what particular doctrines we are are refering too rather than making sweeping statements like the one above. A natural reading of the post quoted above and the one that I first responded to, pretty much implies that folks should not believe (cling to) VPW's teachings (doctrines -plural) because VPW personal life was a sham. Granted, VPW's chartacter, plaigerism, and sloppy research are reason to question just about everything he taught, but not reason to reject them all outright. Even a blind hog finds an acorn every now and then. Again my point was simply that VPW's sins do not make his teachings wrong or unworthy of being believed. Each teaching/doctrine stands or falls on it's own merits.

Yeah, y'all could emulate VPW and get things right back to the "good old days". - Oh Goody! Better get your orders in for your motorcoaches early.

At first I thought that might be the case. However what I really saw was quite a few folks trying to love a do good within an organization whose leadership was corrupt at the core. I never saw any abundant "power". But I heard a lot of rumors about it, many of which were embelishments or downright fabrications.

TWI's BOD is not part of my "family" - displaced or otherwise.

Posted by Mike: Yeah Mike, and it's all becasue Rosie has been reading your posts here at GS had a change of heart. And before you know it the BOD will be calling you to head up their new Research Department - Or maybe they'll fire Harve or Jean and give you a seat on the BOD. I think I feel the earth shaking ! Mike, if I were you, I'd stay real close to the phone.

Danny, You have a point, but only if you add the "absent Christ" , ultra-dispensationalism and a psycopath like Wierwille into the mix. My point was that becausue Wierwille was an abuser in the area of sex, is not suficient of itself to disgard all that he taught as wrong. I think that was the point that Def was trying to make - that since Wierwille was a bad guy folks should not believe anything that he taught. Since Def is a staunch Trintiarian and the majority of his posts are about that, it seemed likely to me that this was specifically what he was referring to. In a nutshell - the Trinity is true because Wierwille was bad. Of course a logical fallacy of major proportions. Folowing that logic we should all throw away our Bibles and become athesits. (Some have) You are dealing with a posible *reason* that VPW may have espoused a non-trinitarian belief which again says nothing about the validity of that belief itself. Trinitarinism, dispensationalism, etc, stand or fall on thier own merits. A non-trinitarian view of God does not by necessity have to include ultradispensatinalism, make Christ "absent", negate his teachings, or exalt the one teaching such to the status of "lord". Personally I don't think that Wierwille was intelligent enough or stupid enough to preconceive and implement a dispensational theological system that rejects the Trinity, makes Christ absent, and negates most of Jesus teachings for the sole purpose of being "lord" and able to control and abuse his subjects. It seems more likely to me that he kinda fell into it. Then as he realized the power he had - he took advantage of it.

I doubt that PFAL will ever go back into print and be sold by TWI - not as long as WAP is still around anyway.

Posted by Def59: Nice try Def, but Wierwille's evil in regards to adultery/sexual abuse is irrelevant to doctrines like the Trinity - which I suspect is your point here. Wierwille's past evil validates the Trinity about as much as the Inquisition invalitates it - none. Discarding a non-Trinitarian view because Wierwille abused women makes about as much sense as replacing the tires on your car because the transmission is leaking. However where the belief is self-serving it would certainly make suspect any teachings or beliefs that support or hide the self-serving actions of the "teecher". Things like adultery, tithing and the lock box come to mind.

Yes, and those people as well as those who did not hold them accountable make up "the ministry".

Royal Gorge, Where did you hear this? What about the Way Magazine? Can anyone get a subscription now? If you take away the WAP Class and other class materials, what in the heck do they have to sell? Photos of the BOD? Pat, you may be right. "IF" Royal Gorge heard right, TWI may have opened the store to the public to at least give the appearance of trying to generate revenue from its "goods and services". What they do now though will not affect the lawsuits. Too late now.

This says more about the state of mind of those that "went their merry way" than about Shoenheit being some kind of hero. He did what just about any half-fast Christian in their right mind should have done.

I don't think you can be sued for what you say about a dead person.

IMO, many anti-cults writers as just as disingenouus as the cults they attempt to expose. Like others have said, they tend not to get their facts straight. I read quite a bit of anti-TWI stuff back in the mid to late 70's. In one cult book I found at the a mall bookstore, TWI was 5th on the list, wedged in between the Unification Church and Alcohlics Anomymous. As I recall, the main complaint by anti-cultists was TWI's rejection of the Trinity. It seem apparent to me that most of the these anti-cult writers were really only defending their own sacred cow in the Trinity (as if a groups that espouses the Trninity cannot be a cult). Considering TWI's growth in the 70's/ 80's, TWI was a threat to mainstreamers whose children might could be pulled away from the sacred cow of the Trinity. The Trininty complaint was usually followed by an expose on Wierwille's phoney academic credentials, and then some usually inaccurate descriptions of Way Corps and WOW programs. If the writer was a Cessationist (mostly Southern Baptists) they might attack TWI's practice of speaking in tougues, healing, etc. It probably wasn't until after I got out of TWI that many of the anti-cult writers had much of a clue about the true nature of cults and what made TWI one. It was much deeper than the Trinity and other doctrinal issues. But anyway, back then when I heard negatives about TWI, I just shrugged them off because they were mostly inaccurate or just doctrinal disputes. It was the inside stuff that bugged me.