Goey

Sirguessalot, By Mike's logic, if he "sees" something that in his rather isolated and limited experience has not been brought to the front and elevated according to his standards, then is only stands to reason, that everyone else must have missed it. This is pure arrogance IMO. Goey

New Data? What new Data? Datum - Something given or admitted; a fact or principle granted; that upon which an inference or an argument is based; -- used chiefly in the plural. - (Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary, © 1996, 1998 MICRA, Inc.) Data implies facts or principles that are used to base an inference or an argument. This means a process of rational logic of some sort. In other words you use the "data" (facts) and apply logic to come to a conclusion. Mike, one of the problems here is that your "data" is missing. You have no data. What you are calling data are your concusions and theories. You present your theories as facts or "data." You have put your conclusions up front, making most ( if not all) of your logic circular and your conclusions invalid Take your word list for example. You postulate that these words empahasize the spiritual in VPW's writings, yet you offer no facts or examples to substiate this hypothesis - you just declare it to be so by fiat. Why? Because it fit's with your preconceived and rather absurd notion that PFAL is God-breathed. What data Mike? --- You have none. Goey

Shazdancer Asked: Good question. I am no expert, but I do not think the rehabilitation rate is too good for folks like VPW. You cannot work with someone who does not want to be worked with or does not see the problem. One of the symptoms of narccissim, sociopathy and alcoholism is that the person does not see that they have a problem. It is everyone else that has the problem. Once this kind of person is in a position of ultimate authority like VPW or LCM in TWI, they will run over and abuse folks until they die or until they get the boot. You might try an exorcism, but if it does not take, I'd run like hell. Most likely, you'll be the one getting M & A'd. -- :D--> Goey

VPW "mentally ill" ? Quite possible, and maybe even likely, but probably a little more than just a little more "mentally ill" than many of us who blindly or not so blindly followed him and TWI for large chunks of our lives. I only met VPW a couple of times and was not privy to his behind the scenes behavior. But if only half of the accounts are true, then he he had some pretty serious "character flaws." Habitual liar, plaigerist, sexual deviant, adulterer, cult leader, narccisistic, sociopath, depressed, histrionic, alcoholic... I have heard first-hand accounts of behaviours that may lead some to conclude all of these things. But these are psycological descriptions, the Bible just calls this kind of person a ravening wolf in sheep's clothing. Goey

Wow Mike, You got one person to agree with you in part. That really sets it in stone, huh ? Why? Because Wierwille made a mistake - that is why. It is not even a big mistake, but a mistake nonetheless. He got the chronology wrong. You do not see it because your hermeneutic approach will not allow you to see it. You have thus become blinded to any errors in PFAL. But as Zixar noted, not only did VP get the chronology wrong he also gets David's actions wrong as well. VPW writes: “Nathan said, "You are the man." At that moment David recognized the truth of what Nathan was bringing from God and David said, "Well, I am sorry." He turned to God and asked God to forgive him. This is a VPW's commentary on 2 Samuel 12:7 - 13. VPW claims that David turned to God and asked God to forgive him. Actually he did no such thing. The record in 2 Samuel 12:13 says: " And David said unto Nathan, I have sinned against the LORD. And Nathan said unto David, The LORD also hath put away thy sin; thou shalt not die." According to the record, David did not ask God for forgiveness, he instead confessed his sin to Nathan. Goey

Mike, Paul was speaking to the Corinthinans as a father because he had initiallly brought the Gospel of Christ to them. By his personal and direct preaching they got saved. They were made Christian's by his preaching of the Gospel. Paul then entreats them to "be ye followers of me". This entreatment is further qualified in Chapter 11 verse 1, where he says, "Be you followers of me, as I also am of Christ. In other words, "Follow me as far as I follow Christ." MJ got it right. VPW was an instructor - and a pretty bad one by his example. He did teach some good stuff at times but the bulk of it was not the Gospel of Christ. Some of it crossed purposes with the Gospel of Christ. I doubt that Wierwille, like Paul, directly "fathered" too many with his preaching. Others did that - those that went out on the field and actually preached the Gospel of Christ within the confines of TWI. That in itself was difficult. I got saved long before PFAL as did many others. Wierwille did not bring Christ to me. He is NOT my father in any sense of the word. Follow Wierwille? Many have, and look where it got them. I mean the MOG mimicks. They are pathetic and mindless immitators. Many became tyranical and hurtful - "even as they were led." Follow Christ instead. Master the teachings of Jesus and follow his example. If you must follow a man, choose one who follows Christ by example as well as by word. Wierwille missed the mark. Wierwille is dead and gone, yet by his example, has left us a legacy of how NOT not to follow Christ. Goey

Posted by Too Grey Now: I agree, if TWI is to sink it most likely needs to be from a direct and fatal hit. They can dodge and absorb a few minor blows forever. Even if all of the followers stopped giving their ABS or even if there were no followers, the BOD and core insiders would still be in control of about 65 million in cash and other assets. They would still be in high cotton. The only thing that I see that could really take TWI down for the count, would be a successful class action suit for fraud and for rackeetering. Once the civil suit was successful the State and the Feds could mop up with the criminal charges and convicions, and the court could order a disolvement of the corporation - something like what happened Jim Baaker and the PTL Club. I have heard rumors of a class action suit, but that was about a year or so ago. Nothing seems to have come if it. I don't know if the ex-TWI community could become organized or focused enough to actually put one together. It would not be easy. Short of a class action suit or someting like it, I see nothing else that could do it. But then, maybe there is something that I do not see. Goey

TGN, What if the deception is intentional and done with full knowledge? Dontcha think is is possible, if not likely, that TWI's BOD and other top leaders are in the business of deception? Isn't is possible, that it is not so much that they don't believe that deception exists( certainly they must) but that their denial of it is just another intentional part of the deception itself. I find it very difficult to believe that Rosie and gang actually do not believe that they have a problem. It seems much more likely to me that they are just rotten to the core and that that they know it. These folks are frauds and cons IMO. Unlike the alcoholic who does not really know he has a problem, the con and the fraud uses deception as one of the main tools in his bag of tricks. Goey [This message was edited by Goey on March 07, 2003 at 18:12.]

Also consider that TWI's corporate structure is such that only a handful of people, being the deceivers themsleves, control everyting. There is no process by which these deceicvers can be removed from their positions and be replaced with honest ones. Hoping to change TWI from the inside is noble, but is still an act of futility. Goey

Aw Heck! I guess that means Bo Dereck was a "seed girl." - I suspected there was something wrong with her. Goey

On a serious note. I do not think that the devil has the ability to create permanant seed within someone. Only God can do that. Neither do I believe that there is such a thing as being "born of the wrong seed". It is is a doctrine pretty much unique to TWI and it's offshoots. Biblically, Satan's "seed" are those that disobey God in a sinister/self- serving manner. - Like the Pharisees that Jesus confronted. (John 8:44) The Bible says by metpahor that we are Abrahams's seed ( Romans 4:16). Yet Abraham did not create any kind of seed within us. Abraham is our "father" because we followed his example of faith. Jesus referred to Satan as these Pharisse's "father" because they followed his example of disobedience. Satan being their "father", has nothing to do with being permanantly implanted with spiritual "devil seed". This is just another one of TWI's errant doctrines. Goey

Elvis Billy Graham Mohammad Ali Oral Roberts Ernest Angely The Pope - (any Pope) Most other religious leaders The Beatles Most all non-TWI musicians Nelson Rockefeller The Masons (Evil Devil Worshippers) Led Zepplin and..... . . . . . . . . . ME! . . . Mouuuu hoooou hooou hooou haaah haaah haaah! ... Goey

What? No Mowtown ? Or how about James Brown's "I feel good". Yaaaaoooooowh ! ----------------------- "Margaritaville" - Jimmy Buffet (I can't help but sing a long) ------ "Money" - Pink Floyd (Very distintctive opening) or "Sweet Judy Blue Eyes" - Crosby Stills Nash Goey [This message was edited by Goey on February 20, 2003 at 14:49.]

Rottie, You Posted: It bothers me too, but not too much anymore. But it is not the secular "cult experts" that normally bring the Trinity into the mix. It is mainstream Christians and some of their so-called "cult experts." I wrote to Matt Slick at www.carm.org about this a long time ago, and he believes that a group is a cult if it does not espouse and teach the doctrine of the Deity of Christ. It seems to be one of the primary criteria for determining a cult among many Protestant and Catholic organizations. The Trinity is considered by many to be an "essential doctrine" of Christianity - necessary in order to be Christian. So to these folks, if a group claims to be Christian or to follow Christ or the Bible, it must teach the Trinity or else it is not truly Christian and it's adherents are not saved. It is therefore considered a cult and a false religion. These "essential doctrines" according to Matt Slick are. 1. The Deity of Christ (Trinity) 2. The Resurrection 3. Salvation by Grace Here is what Matt Slick says on the CARM Web Site: So this is a lot of the "why" that the Trinity comes up in regards to cults. Not that I agree with it - I don't. But it is not a whole lot different than a non-Trinitarian referring to a Trinitarian an idoloter. Goey

Thomas Crown, Thank you for sharing your thoughts here. Very enlighteing. Let me address one minor thing. This is really very stupid. If the fellowship takes place at someone's private home, and TWI is not footing the bills there, then technically, TWI has no official corporate presence there. (Also they have no authority to tell folks what to do - it is not their property.) For example, if someone got hurt at TWI fellowship in a private home, TWI would most likely have no liability in the matter but the the homeowner might. Only if a corporate representative of TWI oficially collects the money in the form of ABS or the money goes through TWI's corporate accounts would this be an issue at all. A fellowship meeting taking place in a private home where TWI does not pay rent or own the property is not an extension of the corporation. It could not possibly be considered paying dues unless it was required in order to receive a certain tangible benefit and if the money went to the corporation prior to being distributed. Non-profit corporations are indeed allowed to collect dues. But they have to record these dues collections in the books. By collecting dues, it would then have members. Dues paying members must be allowed to review the corporate books. - Which TWI would not allow. TWI is simply afraid that they may have to open their books. However, after a home fellowship there is nothing to prevent folks from taking up a voluntary collection for flowers or cards as long as it is not sponsored or required by the corporation. The TWI coporation has no authority in a private home to tell folks what they can or cannot do. Goey

I left in 82. Probaly the main reason for me was the lack of humility, arrogance and haughtiness, of many of the Way Corps and leadership. Also, the legalism was setting in about that time and Way Corps began meddling more and more in folks personal affairs. Add to that, the screaming and yelling and foul language comming out of leaders mouths. Then there was this kinky headed pompous a$$ dressed in leotards trapsing around on a stage like a super athlete... I had enough. Oh, I forgot to mention, a leader(Reverend) tried to screw my fiance/girlfriend. That kinda ticked me off. Goey

Rafael, The word Larry used, "niggardly" is not a racist term. It has no racial implications. It just happens to sound like another "n" word. niggardly 1. Grudging and petty in giving or spending. 2. Meanly small; scanty or meager: left the waiter a niggardly tip. Goey

Erick, For the record, I do not think that you worship VPW. From what I have gathered from your posts, you seem to have bit of knowledge of scripture, but not too much understanding of how to truly be helpful here at GS. First. you really need to understand this. This place is not an exclusively Christian commuinity. Many folks here no longer believe that the Bible has the answers to everything. Some do not beleive it at all and and are not interested in help in the form of scripture quoting. "The Word says" means little to these folks. Others like myself still believe in the Bible, but no longer hold to all of the tennants of PFAL or other TWI literature. Others believe and follow PFAL pretty closely. One or two think PFAL was God- breathed. And some folks are on the fence and working things through. There is no concensus of belief here, although at times some seem to think there is. We are all free to think as we wish. You say you want to help. OK then consider what it is you can do to really be helpful here. Do you want to be helpful to as many as possible, or just to those who want to "hear the Word" or your version of it ? Comming to Greasespot and criticizing and reproving folks and making assumptions about how they spend their time is not likely to help too many people here. I doubt that few will be too receptive to that ( as you can see). It is like going into a Pentescostal Church and telling the folks to stop all that babbling because tongues ended with the apostles. You will probably get jumped on. Are there some bitter folks here? - You bet there are. Is it good to be bitter? - Not at all. But pointing out the bitterness in folks and throwing scripture at it is rubbing salt into wounds of many. It does not help very much. (Neither does answering tit for a tat in regards to the worship stuff.) Also consider that speaking out againt the abuse and betrayal perpetrated upon people by those entrusted to serve, or against perceived errors in TWI teachings and practices does not necessarily mean that someone is bitter or living in the past. If you go to the main web site you will see that GS's mission is to tell the other side of the story, and this what many of us are doing here. Others have other reasons - fellowship, information, doctrinal discussion, politics, etc. Why are you here? Seriously. If you really want to be helpful, I would suggest a bit of a different approach. Goey

Steve, This is a very interesting topic. As I understand VPW's explanation in section you quoted in RTHST, it has to do with different usages of the term "spirit". As I am sure you know spirit - is 'pneuma' in Greek and 'ruwach' in Hebrew. Both of these words are used figuratively quite often - the literal meaning beiing 'wind'. When VPW said that the "spirit of man" is his soul, he used "spirit" figuratively. If we replace 'spirit' with 'wind', it would say "the wind of man" is the soul". VPW is not using spirit and soul as synonyms here. He is actually attempting to use one term - "spirit", to explain the other - "soul", by employing a figure and to show a difference between the soul and the holy spirit - (little "h" little "s"). For example, I could say the spirit of a tree is it's sap. I am not using sap and spirit synonymously. Anyway, that is how I understand what VPW was doing in RTHST - not that I agree with it. Goey

Rafael, The angels singing stuff is interesting, but trivial. I agree that is is not an actual error. But Wierwille does in fact use an argument from silence when he says that "no scripture says that angels sing". VPW used arguments from silence all the time to bloster his points. You posted: I hate to disagree, but No, there IS NOT - at least not in any major Bible version. There is no scripture that specifically says that angels sing. There is a scripture that says "morning stars" sing. Translating 'morning stars' to 'angels' is interpretational on your part. While it may be the case ( arguable), VPW was technically correct in his statement. I agree that it would be stupid to surmise that angels can't sing. But actually, I think that this is exactly what VPW did. Why else would he even mention it and attempt to point out the "error" in a Christmas Hymn? Goey

Rottie, Job 38:7 Yes, morning stars could be very well be refering to angels. I did not consider this verse as specifically saying or recording that angels sing because some believe that "morning stars" in this verse is literal, refering to the stars at creation and the singing is figurative. The word for sing in this verse is the Hebrew 'ranan', which is also translated 'rejoice' and 'shout out'. It does not necesarily connote melodious singing. Melodious singing is usually represented by the Hebrew words shiyr or zamar. Goey

Rottie, What I recall is the teaching that there is no record in the Bible of angels ever singing. VPW used this to conculde that angels don't sing. What VPW did here is called an argument from silence. He reasons that because the Bible does not record an angel ever singing(true), that angles do not sing. An argument from silence can, at best, add strength or evidence to an argument, but by itself proves nothing at all. It is an extremely weak argument. For example, I could say that there is no record in the Bible of Jesus playing a musical instrument. But if I conclude that he did not or could not, based on silence alone, I could very likely be wrong. We need more evidence to conclude one way or another. The fact is, without more than the scripture's silence, it is erroneous to conclude that angels can't or don't sing. They may or may not. I no longer own a PFAL book, so I don't if this was in PFAL or not. What say ye Rafael, error or not ? Goey [This message was edited by Goey on January 28, 2003 at 19:35.]

Concerning VPW's take on Nathan Plots posted:

Zix, you did not address the point. I have no problem with # 1. Actually it is a given that the Word is perfect, the first part was unnecessary. The problem begins with # 2 and beyond. There is a leap from 1 to 2 and a giant leap from 2 to 3. I was discussing the conclusion and how it was arrived at. The final product, the Word, is perfect - given and agreed. But, the individual words alone need not be perfect in order to have a "Perfect Word" It is only when the words are combined to form the ideas and the concepts and the truths that God intended that we have "The Word" and perfection. Question 1: Assuming that the words themselves are "perfect", if I take one of them out of the Word, is that word still perfect? Question 2: Assuming the same, If I look at a individual word within the Word of God without looking at the words around it, ist that word still perfect ? Question 3: If I rearrange the order of the words that make up a precept in the Word of God and the precept is still conveyed as before, have I made the Word of God imperfect ? Human language is imperfect and the words that make up language are imperfect, yet in the case of the "Word", God used these imperfect words in an imperfect human language to convey his truths and precepts which are the Word. It is these truths and precept that are perfect. Zix, Look at VPW's 1-2-3 logic construct above one more time. Seriously - put down that hot dog and try to be objective and apply your normal standards. Do you really see no problem in the logic there? Do you see a valid argument there? I see no valid argument at all past the first given, which is rather typical of VPW. Where is the valid argument? ( I understand that conclusion based on an invalid argument *can* be true, as well as one with a false premise or even leaps). Now let me get this musterd out of my eye. Rafael, my mama ? Why them's fighting words! (Goey heaves a big hunk of greasy pot roast at Rafael and runs out the door) Goey

Zix, I mean you are really stretching here. Let me see. 1. "God is perfect; therefore, His Word is perfect. 2. Therefore the words in the Word are perfect, and 3. [therefore] the order of the words in the Word are perfect." What kind of logic is this? #3 looks like a leap to me. Order is not that significant in Greek many times. The Greek language was developed by humans. How can God take a human invention and make it perfect? Maybe God invented Greek, huh ? ... Yea, like Gore invented the Internet. Are you now saying that since VPW taught the logically flawed argument above that, he therefore did not imply that God *only* used figures for emphasis? And this somehow proves that VPW was not in error about emphasis, I mean importance. What was it the we were discussing anyway - importance or emphasis - I forgot. Oh yea, emphasis - it implies importance . And "perfect order" also implies "importance of varying degree to the verses" like figures of speech? And this somehow proves that Wierwille did not imply "only" when he taught about God's markings the Word with figures for emphasis? Give me a break! Zix, you are slipping. What would your logic professor say? This has digressed to silliness - not to imply that anyone is silly. ;)--> Wierwille was wrong dangit. I declare it by fiat. :D--> Goey