Raf

Honestly, I think most in TWI read it and tried to memorize it, but I wonder how many really tried to digest it and critique it. I daresay few. I tied to line my thinking up to it, supposing it to be a stronger argument than it was. Once I realized it was not that strong a presentation, I changed my approach. I don't think a vast majority of members of TWI were being dishonest. But I do think the vast majority were being uncritical. Who are they, after all, to say the MOG could have done a better job on John 1? We were living in a distorted little world where this guy was a pre-eminent scholar. Plagiarism? Why, other authors should have been HONORED to be plagiarized by VPW! So I don't think the John 1 presentation was effective at all. And I think that its "success" is not up for a vote. It's an individual opinion, no more disputable than someone saying they like the taste of organges.

Didn't mean to sound like I was reprimanding you. iwas just explaining why I wasn't going into further detail on my point here. :) If, however, what he set out to do was provide a logical and Biblically sound explanation of what John 1 is trying to communicate, he did not succeed (in my opinion). In dealing with this issue, I found very quickly that using JCING's explanation of John 1 was practically useless and involved logical leaps that were unsupported by the text itself. The other books make much better arguments, though Trinitarians will, of course, disagree with them.

Well, this isn't the place to get into a "what does John 1 say" discussion: I was merely pointing out that Wierwille's explanation of it doesn't do the job he set out to do, and I offer that as my opinion. Others will vary. I'm not even saying I disagree with his overall conclusion. Another example is his explanation of the verse in Philippians (thought it not robbery to be equal with God). Wierwille's explanation proves/disproves nothing. It's downright silly. But that doesn't mean I disagree with his overall conclusion on the identity of Jesus. By the way, here's a link to what was once Christian Biblical Counsel. http://www.kingdomready.org

If you believe JCING and want a stronger book to explain it than Wierwille's, then I recommend the CES book and the Buzzard book (Google "Christianity's self-inflicted wound" and you should find it easily). I also recommend becoming familiar with the counterarguments to those books. While you may not agree with them, they will help you better understand what people believe and why. I would also recommend getting on the mailing list for Glad Tidings, which is put out by the group once known as Christian Biblical Counsel (I've lost track of what their name is now). Sean F, the son of a well-known TWI minister, has been writing some interesting pieces on the subject lately.

The thought that Wierwille's book could have some kind of ripple effect presumes that it was some kind of seminal work in the field. It was not. Despite his protestation, it really was a johnny come lately idea set forth to be iconoclastic. It was not revolutionary. It was not unique. The whole reason we have the word "Unitarian" in our language is that there were Christians who did not believe Jesus is God. "Either JCING is the word or it is not." Wrong. The book presents a thesis that is either correct or not. That doesn't mean it's "the Word" by any stretch. Its presentation of history is downright laughable; it misrepresents (by omission) the position of Arius; it draws false comparisons between the Christian Trinity and the deities of other religions; and it provides a tortured explanation of the first chapter of John's gospel that no one merely reading the Bible, in any language, can draw from the words alone. He could be correct in his thesis and still have written a shoddy book about it.

The best thing I can say about JCING is that it inspired the CES book.

I meant that the concept of arguing about how big a deal TWI was in relationship to how sinister Wierwille was. TWI was a wannabe cult, but it was never the big deal threat to orthodox Christianity Wierwille wanted to be. It was a piddling piece of nothing.

I was going to cry foul because it's The Tonight Show, not the Johnny Carson Show. However, there was a variety show called The Johnny Carson Show for a year in the 1950s.

It's WordWolf's fault.

Then we have that gem from WTH: WW asks you to prove that people have accused VPW of always being anti-trinitarian, and WTH replies with a quote from JCING that does not even remotely address the question. Then he goes on to pretend to cite the introductions to other books. Since it's so difficult to prove a negative, let's ask WTH to establish a positive: Can you name one book that claims VPW was always anti-Trinitarian? Your claim was that MOST of his critics made this claim. I'm not asking you to prove that. I'm asking you to prove that ANY of his critics made that claim.

A lot of fur flying here over nothing. VPW had a profound effect on a relatively tiny number of people. More people believe JCING because of what the Jehovah's Witnesses teach than because of Wierwille. They've got 6.7 million members (that's ONLY counting the people who go witnessing. Another 10 million are considered adherents, believers who don't go that extra step of door knocking). The above is cited from Wikipedia, so not rock hard facts. But they agree with numbers I've seen elsewhere. That's somewhere between 75 and 150 people currently in the JW's for every ONE person who ever took PFAL (whether or not they stayed). We think Wierwille was profound because he had an effect on our lives. But our perspective on that is distorted for precisely that reason. Now, let's look at TWI's status as a cult. Type "Top Ten Cults" into your Google search. Top item that comes up is this: http://www.christiananswers.net/q-aiia/aiia-top10cults.html Please note what is NOT on that list. There was a time TWI was one of the fastest growing cults in America. That time was very, very short. Even looking at it as a 25-year phenomenon, its growth rate was not that impressive. Pick a 25 year span, and it will inevitably begin or end in a weak period. It simply was not a big deal. Ever. Books were written about cults, true. TWI was included in some of those books. The most influential of those books, Walter Martin's Kingdom of the Cults, mentions TWI on exactly one page. YAWN. For the effect that he had on our lives, we look at Wierwille's life and ministry. But let's try an experiment: go to 100 random people you've never met before and ask them if they've ever heard of The Way International. You'll be surprised how few have.

I think Wierwille's book is fine as a presentation of a point of view: a tract, if you will. Its arguments are too poorly constructed to withstand serious study or challenge. Listing a bunch of instances of "Son of God" as though that somehow proves he's not God merely underscores a lack of sophistication in understanding what Trinitarians believe. Some of the explanations of various verses were well-argued. Most are not. And some are curiously skipped outright. So, as has already been said, if you relied on it to win arguments, you were evenly matched with anyone from the Jack Chick school of browbeating Bible verses. They descended into shouting matches. The CES book (which, IMO, dishonestly fails to include Wierwille's book in its bibliography) does a much better job of anticipating and withstanding challenge. I agree with WTH in that I don't believe withstanding challenge was Wierwille's true purpose in writing JCING. I think his purpose was indoctrination and developing a following. Let's face it: it's a much easier read than the CES book. Even more difficult to read is Buzzard's book, which puts Wierwille's to absolute shame when it comes to detailed Biblical analysis and exposition, but suffers from being overloaded and somewhat unapproachable. If you're going to be a non-Trinitarian, non-Arian, but still Christian, Wierwille's book is sufficient for the vapid and/or the people who have other things to worry about, like jobs; the CES book is sufficient for the interested, and Buzzard's book is sufficient for those endeavoring deep study.

That's Nana Visitor with the gams. Nye Nana Half Freaks.

Anyone see this? Can someone tell me what happened? I mean, if I put a gun to your head and said, "three sentences or less: explain this movie to me..." Could you do it? To save your life?

Yeah, after I guessed, I checked and saw that I was wrong. i figured if any episode featured Q and had the word gumption in it, it would be the Q and the Gray. Oh well.

Lawdy, I reckon this is the Civil War among the Q episode from Voyager.

If no one gets this by August 3, I'll post the answer.

Oh, I forgot his name. I think it's Tom Everett Scott That Thing You Do! Steve Zahn

Their other big hits: Eye of the Tiger (of course) Burning Heart High on You The Search is Over (monster hit in its day, sappy wedding song now, if that). Their hit no one remembers... Is This Love Was that a hit or not?... Man Against The World Moment of Truth (theme from the Karate Kid)

Suda to the rescue!

I can feel you tremble when we touch And I feel the hand of fate reaching out to both of us this love affair can't wait .... I'm on the edge .... Your voice explodes inside my head. .... I won't back down Girl it's too late to turn back now. The "...."s above represent the song's title. I'm pretty sure the band members are all still alive (or they'd have to change the name of the band, no?)

Rube Goldberg would be proud.

Second quote is the giveaway for me.

:)