Raf

The Point of "Actual Errors" Since it's been a while, I thought I'd remind people of the purpose of this thread. The point of this thread is to show that Wierwille's works are not free from error or contradiction, and as such, they do not meet Wierwille's own standard for what it means to be "God-breathed." It was never this thread's purpose to delve into doctrinal differences with Wierwillian theology. I thought that if we could show, with clarity, that Wierwille sometimes made mistakes, we could establish that he, and not God, was the author of the books that bear his name (plagiarism aside). I was, frankly, unprepared for the brutal intellectual dishonesty and sycophantic idolatry of my "debate" opponent. If people want to believe that Wierwille's works are God-breathed, then so be it. It's not my concern. Nothing in Christ's directives to the church instruct us to contend with lunacy. And clearly, dialogue is only a motivating factor on one side of this discussion. Last I checked, it's hard to have a constructive discussion when only one side is actually listening and while the other side has repeatedly declared its intention not to listen to anything that would contradict its preconceived conclusions. Good advice.

I'm putting the "David was a man after God's own heart" error back on the list. After learning that David is called "a man after God's own heart" in Acts 13:22, long after the events recorded in II Samuel, my original response was to remove this error from the list. I am no longer inclined to do so. I believe a plain reading of PFAL indicates that, according to Wierwille, David is called "a man after God's own heart" when speaking specifically of a time after the incidents recorded in II Samuel 12. Acts 13:22 is rather plainly speaking of a time before those recorded events. The error stands. Actual Errors in PFAL Raf

I actually don't have much of a problem with that board (aside from the fact that there's one or two posts a month). If people want to concentrate on "the baby," what's wrong with that? They're not looking to expose TWI or re-examine their beliefs. Hey, more power to them. They don't seem to be spending any time talking about this place. Live and let live, far as that goes.

Folks are so nice. Sirguess: the spirit of your post was received as intended. No hard feelings. Different posts have exhibited one or all of the above qualities. Cynic: Oh, I apologize. I didn't realize you were trying to be nasty. Here I thought you were trying to be nasty. I do sometimes get confused you know. Sorry about the mix-up. You know, people, one doesn't have to feel THREATENED by an opposing point of view in order to express opposition to it.

Goodness, some people. I apologize for having a sense of humor. I've always advocated avoiding the extremist positions. I've always advocated NOT throwing out the baby with the bathwater. But go ahead and insult us all for opposing Mike's thesis. And insult us all for holding him to some level of honesty in his discussions/defense of his position. Yeah, we're freaks for standing up for our beliefs. Mike, oh, he's only to be defended. Poor poor Mike. But the rest of us are soooooo mean and cruel and heartless and freakish for actually engaging him in conversation. Go to. And I don't mean "come, now."

To play Wierwille's advocate: Soul life was originally made in man when God blew into his nostrils the breath of life. Therefore, man blows soul life right back out at his last breath. Just as the soul had no independence or personality before God blew it into Adam, it has no independence or personality when man blows it back out. But God will restore it to us at the resurrection. The "law" then, remains intact. Regardless of whether you accept the above explanation, it is sufficiently reasonable to keep this off the actual errors list (that, and the fact that I get to make up the rules as I go along, which I imagine must be getting a tad frustrating by now).

An OVERDOSE of brains and brawn. The earth shook when he walked. He spent an INORDINATE amount of time on the "good side." And they wonder why I use the word idolatry. [This message was edited by Rafael 1969 on April 15, 2003 at 20:13.]

I forgot who started this, but it wasn't me... Carpe Diem! Seize the Day! Carpe Noctum! Seize the Night! Carpe Carpum! Seize the Seas! Carpe Nostra! Seize the Mob!

Anyone? Anyone? I'd like to look at that a little bit more, Jerry. If I'm reading you right, you're saying the following: Wierwille used Hebrews 13:8 to prove something it does not prove. He drew conclusions based on that verse, but later contradicted those conclusions when they were inconvenient. I'm not sure it's 2+2=5. It looks more like "The Square Root of X PLUS the Square Root of Y is equal to the Square Root of Z when X=4, Y=X and Z=25." In other words, it may be an error, but it's going to take a little head scratching before I agree that it's not interpretational.

Oh my God, he's not joking. You guys don't mind if I go back into retirement now, right? See you later everyone.

Helen Waite approves all credit applications. If you want credit, go to Helen Waite.

Because it's a DODGE, Mike. You're not asking because you want an answer. You're asking because you want to draw attention away from your own thesis. It's clever, but it's a dodge. I doubt your sincerity.

You know, I really used to think that to prove Mike's thesis wrong, I would have to present a strong case. Little did I know: To prove Mike's thesis wrong, all you have to do is allow him to present HIS case! So all Wierwille had to do is succumb to the devil spirit of sexual depravity once, and he was immune to it for a day, maybe two! Yep. That proves... plenty.

I don't recall asking you. Yes, yes, I know. I'm not meek to my teacher and I'm failing to master the material. YAWN. And an incorrect one. By dodging, evading, and refusing to admit an error is an error. Consider your dishonest "mastery" exposed. But then you stopped using your brain. I remember. You told us. I firmly disagree with your use of the word "yet."

I wrote... Mike replied... My reply: WordWolf is correct, but I'll put it more simply. My comments were qualitative, not merely chronological. They were not dealing with the timing of your answers, but the quality of them. Further, they were dealing with the fact that your method of dodging and delaying made an honest discussion impossible, as an honest discussion requires you to make an honest admission. You can make that honest admission tomorrow or a year from now, but until you do, the next step of the conversation cannot be taken. So no, I'm not rushing you. Take your time. But until you admit that errors are errors and not just ink blotches that accidentally fell onto the page and accidentally formed a major thesis, I will NEVER trust your honesty in handling this material. Clear enough for you, or should I use smaller words?

Mike, when we try to discuss the so-called "purity" of the books, you attack our integrity. When we try to discuss errors in the books, you attack the Bible. When we show inconsistencies in the book, you tell us we have to adopt your position in order to see things your way (well, DUHHH). Your reasonings are circular, your methods dishonest, and your canon impure and riddled with errors FAR more significant than those we've listed. It took you 32 years to come to us with this thesis, and I know you want us to take a fraction of that time to come to agree with you. But it takes far less time, and far more reason, to show that your thesis is flawed - and to see what those flaws are. But we can't argue with you. We can't even get you to admit that the book has mistakes introduced by the fact that their author was imperfect. I'm not talking about typos and ink blotches, I'm talking about flaws in its thesis and its conclusions. But we can NEVER get to those flaws, because you won't even admit that the black-and-white errors are errors. It's pathetic. Why should I trust your analysis on important matters when your analysis on simpler matters are so filled with deception, when indeed your very modus operandi is to dodge, evade and refuse to admit the black-and-white truth before you? Wierwille's works are less than perfect. They are NOT the God-breathed Word, even if they did help point many people to it. Your house is built on sinking sand. Keep the door open if you want, but don't expect me to walk through it anytime soon. And it's not because I'm not an "older grad." It's because I have enough sense in my head to see just how pathetically erroneous your thesis is.

I'll agree with you on certain points and disagree on others. 1. It does not take "revelation" to judge someone. Sometimes all it takes is evidence. That is, the testimony of more than one credible witness. I believe there is more than enough evidence to conclude Wierwille's attitude toward sex and sexuality tainted his presentation of God's Word on the subject. His written works are all but silent on the matter. He has his most devout followers thinking that "Victorian" (ie, BIBLICAL) attitudes about sex are somehow LESS damaging to individuals and society than rampant promiscuity. Laughable. 2. You claim to be unwilling to peer into other people's hearts, yet you judge our motives in coming to you with "actual errors." You mock our integrity and call us "unfit" researchers. Yeah, whatever. Some display of reluctance on your part. 3. Jesus NEVER tells us to wait for revelation in determining "judgments." He tells us very simply that we will know them by their fruits. He doesn't say "ye shall know them by what God tells you about their fruits." Revelation sometimes comes into play, but there are times you don't need revelation to tell you that someone is motivated by money and lust. All you have to do is look at the fruit of the person's life. 4. I totally agree that judging another person's eternal rewards is not my call. Or anyone else's on these boards. Any statement made to the contrary is speculation. 5. In criticizing the "Esteemed Panel of GS Cafe Character Judges," you sure leave the impression that you're above such behavior. As I've repeatedly shown, you're not. And by the way, in reference to your earlier post, I KNOW I'm not going to change your mind about Wierwille's character. I'm not out to change your mind on the subject. All I'm saying is YOU HAVE NO RIGHT, Biblically or otherwise, to criticize or condemn someone else's decision to dismiss your thesis based on their assessment of VPW's character.

FINE! You're still JUDGING. Period. Goodness, won't admit an error is an error. Won't admit that judging is judging. And hasn't used his brain in five years. Why am I arguing with this guy? :)-->

Sounds like judging to me. Sounds like judging Wierwille's critics as being less trustworthy than your own experience. Hey, you've got the right to do that. But you're still judging. So cut the hypocrisy.

Look, let's get this real clear... Wierwille's standing/state before God is between him and God. What God thinks of him and what God plans to do with him, I am in no condition to judge. But Wierwille's behavior left a lot to be desired, and it's an object lesson for us to look at his life and know how depraved people can be. The same goes for Solomon. The same goes for David. The same goes for countless other people. Mike has decided that Wierwille's behavior, the accusations against him, are not enough to dissuade him from his thesis. Mike is entitled to that point of view, but in exercising his right, he is just as guilty of JUDGING as the people he crticizes. He judges Wierwille's accusers. He judges those that disagree with him. He condemns the people he criticizes as... JUDGES! That's judging. Along comes Johniam, and accuses us of judging according to the flesh. He goes on to deride us by saying "Those folks (you know them) will NEVER understand." My, what an interesting JUDGMENT. He even writes of an assumption that we make (unless it's the Bible, it isn't the Word of God). I must congratulate Johniam on exercising his JUDGMENT. So, I'll say again, come off of your high horses, people. Mike's thesis rises and falls on its merits. The namecalling should end. Judging people does nothing but degenerate into endless finger-pointing that does NOTHING to answer the questions being raised.

Jesus said you'll know them by their fruit. Can you tell me how to know them by their fruit without exercising what you so derisively call "judgment"?

Any number of us could have told you that. With all due respect, Mike, you don't get the privilege of just declaring the matter settled. Each of us has as much right to weigh these matters as you do. And each of us has the right to come to a different conclusion. So, again, with all due respect to the 27 years you took to come to your erroneous conclusion, it did not take me NEARLY as long to come to a conclusion that is respectful of the Bible, respectful of Wierwille's presentation of the significance of the Bible, and the polar opposite of your sycophantic foolishness. So, I guess I'm done too: except I will continue using my brain, whereas you seem to have stopped using yours a few years ago.

The issue of discernment and judging is far more complex than the simple black and white ban imposed by Wierwille and company. It sounds SO PIOUS to say, "I'm not going to judge anyone." But refusing to judge anyone puts you in the position of being powerless to ascertain whether someone's behavior belies his pretty words. Jesus called people HYPOCRITES. We are to be imitators of Christ. We have Christ in us. When we see hypocrisy, therefore, we can call people on it without crossing any Biblical lines or mandates. Mike, Wierwille was a serial adulterer and abuser of women. I'm not judging him. It's a fact. Whether someone wants to consider that fact in determining whether to accept Wierwille's works as God-breathed is between them and God, and YOU, sir, have NO RIGHT to criticize them for exercising their Biblical responsibility to see to it that no one takes us captive through hollow and deceptive philosophy. Jesus said "by their fruits, ye shall know them." That means he expects us to recognize good fruit from bad, and he expects us to exercise a little (shudder) judgment in this area. Look, there are Christian ministers who are out to deceive us. The Bible warns us about them. Without "judgment" or discernment, we WILL be tossed about with every wind of doctrine, because we will be unwilling to "criticize" to the extent of cowardice. That's another reason TWI fell. So go ahead and tell me again that God is the one who judges, not me. But tell me, how do you know that God isn't the one allowing Wierwille's true legacy to be known? Use your brains, Mike. For once.

Sorry, I'm not with you on this one, Mr. H. In the book, Wierwille puts an ellipsis ("...") at the part where "ye think" should be, clearly indicating that he recognized those words are in the text. He skipped them because they were not central to his point. Does removing the words "ye think" substantively change the meaning of the verse? Does the alteration improve or detract from the point he's making in the PFAL book? My personal belief is that he could have left the words "ye think" in there without causing the confusion he apparently sought to avoid by omitting them. However, I am not prepared to call his editorial decision "an error." Not for the purposes of this forum.

Correction: Solomon wrote scripture too, but not while steeped in idolatry and disobedience to God. I'm not saying that to judge Solomon. Just stating a fact. Get it? You can recognize that someone was an idolater and disobeyed God without being their "judge." It's called discernment, and it's something God REQUIRES.