Then there are those that can carterize their conscience so they feel nothing at all. (I have always wondered if these would be the children of the debil? Just a thought
Some of those people whom Christ identified as children of the devil worried a great deal about insignificant portions of the law and left the weightier matters undone as in Matthew 23:23 & following and Luke 11:42 & following. Some of those verses seem to get back to what you said about God placing a high value on the intentions of the heart and not only being concerned with actions.
As far as the law of believing goes, I had no problem praying using the words of the father of the devil-possessed son; " Lord, I believe. Help thou mine unbelief." It may not be strictly accurate as far as a prayer goes, but I think God understands.
Oops, I forgot to switch AGAIN. This is Jean, not John. Mea culpa.
Some of those people whom Christ identified as children of the devil worried a great deal about insignificant portions of the law and left the weightier matters undone as in Matthew 23:23 & following and Luke 11:42 & following. Some of those verses seem to get back to what you said about God placing a high value on the intentions of the heart and not only being concerned with actions.
I think a lot of what God says about the conscience has to do with intent. Observe the verses from Romans 14 that T-Bone just posted. In verse 6 it clearly shows a correlation between intent (ie do this for the Lord not something else) and conscience. A similar correlation occurs in the Corinthians quote in verse 30 & 31. I am not certain of the exact significance but I am fairly sure there is one or God wouldn't have put it there.
You can take a person out of twi, but it’s kinda hard to take twi out of the person…not only that, twi isn’t “user friendly.” (Some of my weird thoughts for today).
That's the quote of the day to be certain! And aint it the truth! Couldn't I just be trailer trash Barbie trying to move on up?
quote: I was also considering the phrase, “law written in their hearts.” What does that mean, exactly? I still don’t know,
The law God gave to Moses was written on tablets of stone. This was one of the many times God had to come into concretion during the OT. "Written in their hearts" is referring to the new birth. We now have God's nature inside us; we're not dead in trespasses and sins anymore. "Written in their hearts" is phrased that way to compare the new with the old, just like the new man and the old man.
Great input everyone – thanks!!!!!!!!!! I have been thinking a lot about everyone's recent posts, especially Bolshevik's question in post # 142 – the effects of sin on the conscience. It also appears we are all in agreement on there being some "training" or assimilating role we assume – affecting our own conscience in some way. Listener – you mentioned in post # 146 – lumping conscience with other aspects of the mind. I haven't been as concerned about picking the conscience out of the psychological line up – as in seeing how it all works together. One of my favorite authors Jay Adams, addresses the effects of sin to the mind in many of his books on Christian counseling. Thought I'd post some excerpts from one of his books that I think will go well with the flow of things. Adams has a unified view of our psychological makeup – the way I tend to view it also. Being a technician, I often jump back and forth between the system and components when troubleshooting. When there is a failure in one component, it has an impact on the system.
From More than Redemption: A Theology of Christian Counseling by Jay Adams, 1979, pages 114-115:
"…In modern thought, the Western view equates heart with feelings or emotion…Consequently, this concept has carried over into preaching and writing, where, e.g., "head knowledge" is set over against "heart knowledge." The former is said to be merely intellectual understanding and assent, whereas the latter denotes a commitment with feeling. But the distinction is unbiblical. Nowhere in the Bible is the head set over against the heart…
…The reason why head and heart are not set over against one another in the Scriptures is that the term heart includes the intellectual side [ cf. Job 12:24; 36:13; Jer. 17:9, 10; 23:20; Ezek. 11:5; Hos. 7:11; Matt. 13:15; Mark 7:19-23; 11:23; Luke 5:22; Acts 5:4; II Cor. 9:7; Heb. 4:12; James 1:26…]…In the Bible, human beings are said to talk, reason, plan, understand, think doubt, perceive, make mistakes, purpose, intend, etc. in their hearts…
…'What then, is set over against the heart, if anything?' The answer is always, without exception, the visible, outer man. Worship that one gives with his lips [outer, visible, audible worship] when his heart [inner, invisible, inaudible] is far from God is a good example of this contrast [Matt. 15:8]…
…It is natural, therefore, to identify the heart with the conscience, as some writers do [cf. Heb. 10:22; I John 3:19-21]. And it is in the heart that the fool [Ps. 14;1] or evil slave [Luke 12:45] speaks to himself. From the heart [which is the source or treasure-house from which the outer words and actions spring] come sins [Matt. 15:18 ff.; Mark 7:19-23; Luke 6:45]. May sin in his heart even though he has not sinned outwardly [Matt. 5:28]…To believe with the heart and to confess with the mouth [Rom. 10:8-10] leads to salvation because both inner and outer man conform – there is a genuine [not hypocritical or only outward] faith…"
End of excerpts
I see a merged process happening in the conscience – I think we evaluate the moral implications of plans and actions partly from something intrinsic [like an embedded template] and partly from what we have assimilated. From The Baker Encyclopedia of Psychology and Counseling, Edited by David Benner and Peter Hill, 1985, pages 253-254:
"…The processes we know as conscience develop out of the complex interaction between one's God-given moral potential, which is rooted in the image of God and progressively unfolds with the development of one's cognitive capacities; one's own desires and attempts to merit acceptance and avoid punishment; and the impact of socializing agents, particularly parents…
…Beyond humanity's innate moral propensity, the unique shape of one's conscience is highly influenced by one's interaction with significant socializing agents…As these ideals and expectations are internalized and merged with one's innate moral awareness and individual desires, they come together to form what is generally called the ideal self or the ego ideal. This set of ideals becomes the standard by which one judges himself or herself. These deep beliefs may or may not be congruent with the truth about human moral potential. In the case of inappropriate models of internalization, the dictates of conscience form a dilemma for the person. To act against conscience is to violate one's own psychological functioning, which is designed to lead the individual into the good and to avoid evil. Yet, to follow the dictates of an ill-informed conscience may lead to a life of unnecessary suffering and moral ruin…"
Murder-- by which I mean the wanton killing of another person for reasons other than the protection of ones home, life, another innocent life, the termination of anothers life as an act of mercy, (I do not say I condone this last but I understand it) or the execution of a criminal.
Theft-- the taking of anothers material goods without permission unless society recognizes that certain things while belonging to the individual belong to the community as a whole. in the Inuit society for example if your axe for cutting firewood disappears you are free to take your neighbors and use it since fire is the difference between life and death. ( it was hard to get use to this essentials belong to the community when I was married to my first husband as his brothers descended on my refrigerator at the end of the month just before thier paydays LOL)
Adultry--no matter whether practicing monogamy, polygamy, or polyandry, the bonds formed by such groups are generally regarded as inviolate.
I cannot think of any society or group which condones the above three actions except as outlined
The following are considered neccessary
The support and honoring of the family as central --family being a fluid term which can extend beyond the nuclear family to extended family and friends who become family.
The extending to others outside of the core family group, who are not enemies, general good will and wishes for sucess in their endeavors.
A consideration for those less fortunate, outside of the family/friend core, which is exemplified by assitance with food, housing, clothing , medical whether done individually or by contributing money and time to a group dealing with these issues.
I cannot think of any society or group which does not espouse these in some manner
Therefore, it is clear that there are universal guidelines which mankind as a whole has discovered are necessary for the peaceful continuation of the species and has thus universally adopted no matter what religious persuasion or lack thereof may exist in the group.
Religion seeks to codify exactly how the good is to be accomplished, how the bad is to be avoided, and the relationship of the individual to God. But it is clear that "good" is not only practiced by Christians no more than "bad" is only practiced by non-Christians
Obviously, according to Genesis, Adam and Eve had no 'conscience', no internal indicator of good and evil. At the time they were created, they knew only good. Where they blew it was because they failed to rely on the external instructions that Adam had been given by God, and Eve had been given by Adam. They had no internal 'warning system that alerts even when a threat hasn't been fully articulated'. That was the 'convincing-sounding argument' that the serpent used to deceive Eve; that by tasting the fruit of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil man would become as God and know the difference between good and evil, thus probably acquiring the 'conscience' everyone keeps talking about.
As far as what was written in the stars, and when God wrote it; I think it is entirely possible that God foresaw the need for a redeemer before man ever fell or was expelled from Eden, and wrote that in the stars at the time of Creation, because I believe that the way God sees time and history is entirely different than the way we human beings see it.
Probably off topic, but I'll risk posting it anyways.
I don't believe that eating of the tree of knowledge of good and evil resulted in man becoming like God. (That was a lie, much like "thou shalt not surely die.") As far as what was written in the stars, maybe it was more like a road map... not necessarily dictating the exact path man would go, but there to guide him in the right direction no matter what pit or hole he might encounter or fall into. What you see or get from it largely depends upon what enlightens it or what perspective you view it from. Which is perhaps not unlike much of scripture, as well as many other things we cross paths with in life (including TWI.)
And yet I seem to remember a twi teaching where devil spirits first put out the feelers to see a reaction, i.e. uncle How!e touching a girls bum to see the reaction and if he can push for the next level etc...how do you spell 'ironic'?! on the conscience thingy, someone recently gave me their idea and that is that the conscience is kinda like our 'default mode' when we're not listening to God...I like that !!
didn't eve clearly recall that God told her not to do something? She knew what God would allow and wouldn't.
so in her mind she would be saying "God said don't do this"
and then TLC responded by saying:
Not so. Perhaps you've never been deceived.
Or, maybe you just haven't yet figured out that you have been.
(or, maybe you've learned more in the nearly 9 years since this was posted...)
Interesting points Bolshevik & TLC…when we fall prey to deception we don't realize it until after the trap has sprung. In II Corinthians 11:3 Paul fearing the Corinthians would fall for the craftiness of the false apostles, warned them by comparing their deviousness to that of the Serpent's way with Eve.
== == == ==
Probably off topic, but I'll risk posting it anyways.
I don't believe that eating of the tree of knowledge of good and evil resulted in man becoming like God. (That was a lie, much like "thou shalt not surely die.") As far as what was written in the stars, maybe it was more like a road map... not necessarily dictating the exact path man would go, but there to guide him in the right direction no matter what pit or hole he might encounter or fall into. What you see or get from it largely depends upon what enlightens it or what perspective you view it from. Which is perhaps not unlike much of scripture, as well as many other things we cross paths with in life (including TWI.)
Another interesting point TLC ! No harm in speculating – I often do that too – as I will now – so just thinking out loud here folks: in some respects Adam & Eve were already LIKE God (as indicated in Genesis 1:26); the fall of man in Genesis 3 makes me think of the Wizard of Oz (woohoo the daily double entendre! referring to both the character in the 1939 movie and the "character" in PFAL); in the 1939 movie the Wizard did not give anything to the scarecrow, lion or tin man that they didn't already have (hey there's even a song about it!); PFAL gave me nothing – and darn I already had that before I took the class.
As far as what was written in the stars…I don't know; I do believe in the sovereignty of God – a God who inhabits eternity (Isaiah 57:15) – speculating a little deeper I would think He was not surprised by anything even when Adam and Eve fell to sin. All the prophecies in Scripture would also indicate God has always been well prepared for any curve ball that man or the devil would throw at Him.
so God knew I would be deceived by TWI – and maybe that's why there's tons of warnings in the Bible – like Matthew 7:16 – you'll know they are false prophets by their fruits; but how would I know to look at the practical effects of TWI's doctrine if I was not aware of that warning in Scripture in the first place? Or what if I knew of that passage but thought it didn't apply to TWI? There's a lot of truth in something Walter Martin said in Kingdom of the Cults....it was something along the lines of cults are the unpaid bills of the church (that was one of the first books I read after leaving TWI, btw) – and I agree – being an old Roman Catholic boy – I did not know squat about doctrine – it was either catechism stuff, formalized prayers you recite or priests speaking in another tongue (Latin, it was Latin...Latin i say...Charismatics i beg of you please stand down ).
== == == ==
And yet I seem to remember a twi teaching where devil spirits first put out the feelers to see a reaction, i.e. uncle How!e touching a girls bum to see the reaction and if he can push for the next level etc...how do you spell 'ironic'?! on the conscience thingy, someone recently gave me their idea and that is that the conscience is kinda like our 'default mode' when we're not listening to God...I like that !!
Ha! that is ironic…hey, has anyone ever heard VP teach on how devil spirits will throw pajama parties to show porn videos with the express purpose of numbing one's moral sensitivity? I have – didn't you read my very first post on this thread ?
yeah - about this "conscience thingy" - reviewing this thread since I last posted on it – I don't think I'm as dogmatically inclined as I was then; and if I had to re-do some of the direction my thoughts went I probably would not have focused so much of my thinking (and verbosity ) on trying to show the conscience from a Christian viewpoint; whether you believe the conscience is something God given or that the capacity for moral judgement is simply a thing that evolved through the natural course of developing civilizations..….well… uhm …..actually there's a whole boatload of theories on how the conscience came to be….i'm just saying it BE – and TWI tried to make it NOT be….hopefully that's a lot gooder English to reflect how much I've matured on this topic .
Another interesting point TLC ! No harm in speculating – I often do that too – as I will now – so just thinking out loud here folks: in some respects Adam & Eve were already LIKE God (as indicated in Genesis 1:26);
Right you are. Else, when it comes to the Garden of Eden, how else would Adam have known how to dress it and keep it?
But afterwards, how much is man like God? Evidently, not much...
Isa.55
[8] For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways, saith the LORD.
[9] For as the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways, and my thoughts than your thoughts.
I'M trying to figure out the profit here...the way internationals doctrine?????? as far as the so-called Church on the local corner..you believe them...but through many years of experience I have not seen a lot of results...if any ...I have taken information from several sources to put together a teaching....does this mean I am stealing from someone else or am I smart enough to put truths together...to form the teaching ..guess Philip shouldn't have boarded that chariot to explain what was being read nor Nehemiah making plain the scroll ..nor Jesus Christ in Mathew 4:4....also I am hesitant to accuse ...here I go again..let he who is without sin..cast the first stone....probably should have worn my Ephesians 6:
How long ago did V.P.Wierwille die ....a long time now...
...I have taken information from several sources to put together a teaching....does this mean I am stealing from someone else or am I smart enough to put truths together...to form the teaching .
You're misrepresenting, or, perhaps not understanding, the full scope of Wierwille's deception.
Wierwille claimed to have taken his voluminous library to the dump and, instead, used the Bible as his sole source of reference. You may find this claim in the PFAL class if you need a source. Furthermore, he claimed God spoke to him in an audible voice and promised to teach him *the word* like it hadn't been known since the first century if he would, in turn, teach it to others. Well, here's the problem. This catalog of unique knowledge that Wierwille presented had, indeed, been known before Wierwille presented it .In academic terms, what Wierwille did was nothing short of plagiarism. He took sentences, paragraphs, chapters and, in some cases, entire books that other people had written and put his own name on them in order to mislead people into thinking they originated with himself. There are threads in the archives here that present exhaustive comparisons. Feel free to ask for directions in finding them. We will gladly assist you.
You also posed this thought:
55 minutes ago, Ziarnko said:
How long ago did V.P.Wierwille die ....a long time now...
Perhaps I have misunderstood your implication here but it appears to me that you are using that length of time to minimize the damage Wierwille caused. Make no mistake, the damage he caused lives on long after his own demise. In fact, this line of reasoning is, in itself, a testament to that reality.
Oh, and by the way, welcome to the cafe.
Have a cup of coffee on the house. I promise, it's not the *stretched* variety that became the norm at PFAL classes.
I'M trying to figure out the profit here...the way internationals doctrine?????? as far as the so-called Church on the local corner..you believe them...but through many years of experience I have not seen a lot of results...if any ...I have taken information from several sources to put together a teaching....does this mean I am stealing from someone else or am I smart enough to put truths together...to form the teaching ..guess Philip shouldn't have boarded that chariot to explain what was being read nor Nehemiah making plain the scroll ..nor Jesus Christ in Mathew 4:4....also I am hesitant to accuse ...here I go again..let he who is without sin..cast the first stone....probably should have worn my Ephesians 6:
How long ago did V.P.Wierwille die ....a long time now...
Just curious, did you sell any publications containing those ideas you got from other sources... you know, without crediting said other sources?
I'M trying to figure out the profit here...the way internationals doctrine?????? as far as the so-called Church on the local corner..you believe them...but through many years of experience I have not seen a lot of results...if any ...I have taken information from several sources to put together a teaching....does this mean I am stealing from someone else or am I smart enough to put truths together...to form the teaching ..guess Philip shouldn't have boarded that chariot to explain what was being read nor Nehemiah making plain the scroll ..nor Jesus Christ in Mathew 4:4....also I am hesitant to accuse ...here I go again..let he who is without sin..cast the first stone....probably should have worn my Ephesians 6:
How long ago did V.P.Wierwille die ....a long time now...
You'd have to define what results are and give examples. Chances are "put together a teaching" in this context means you put together random information that you subconsciously made to agree with previously accepted ideas.
It isn't so much stealing as generating intelligently sounding gibberish.
I could be wrong, since you haven't put forth an example.
I'M trying to figure out the profit here...the way internationals doctrine?????? as far as the so-called Church on the local corner..you believe them...but through many years of experience I have not seen a lot of results...if any ...I have taken information from several sources to put together a teaching....does this mean I am stealing from someone else or am I smart enough to put truths together...to form the teaching ..guess Philip shouldn't have boarded that chariot to explain what was being read nor Nehemiah making plain the scroll ..nor Jesus Christ in Mathew 4:4....also I am hesitant to accuse ...here I go again..let he who is without sin..cast the first stone....probably should have worn my Ephesians 6:
How long ago did V.P.Wierwille die ....a long time now...
Welcome to Grease Spot, Ziarnko !
I hope you stick around awhile and participate in the discussions…here and on other threads…you may find there’s quite a variety of perspectives on any given subject, a much more intellectually stimulating ambiance… without all those subliminal restrictions pervasive in certain groups like The Way International.
As far as judging by results or benefits gained - going on my own experience and comparison of the local church I grew up in (Roman Catholic Church vs The Way International) I would have to say The Way International loses miserably. Because they promised so much more than my local church !!!!!!
The Way International / wierwille / PFAL class / books claimed their knowledge and understanding of the Bible would enable me to: unleash the power of God in my life, separate truth from error, develop more harmony in the home, increase prosperity, pray effectually, overcome fear and worry…I could go on for days but the truth of the matter is that for all their enticing claims…and after 12 years of my heavy involvement, the results were negligible.
You also bring up part of something I remember from the PFAL class - - wierwille’s criteria for determining validity…seeing if something is genuine or counterfeit…it went something along the lines of asking what is the profit? and who gets the glory?.
As Waysider and Rocky mentioned…and a typical answer you’ll find on many other threads – it was wierwille and wierwille alone who had so much to gain monetarily in the sale of plagiarized material in classes and books as well as the praise and adulation for supposedly being God’s “mouthpiece” for our day and time and hour.
You can fault The Roman Catholic Church for a lot of things – but something this little old parishioner still remembers learning as a kid are the simple moral standards of the Bible – like lying and stealing being a sin. In my opinion wierwille’s plagiarism is on the order of grand larceny to the nth degree (that’s lying and stealing for profit that is way over the minimum grand larceny amount).
Growing up I’ve always believed you call a spade a spade – if you see someone doing something wrong you call them on it - you don’t sugarcoat it. I never was a big fan of The Way International’smisuse of whoever is without sin cast the first stone – that thinking reminds me of the I’m rubber you’re gluewhatever you say bounces off me and sticks to you defense mechanism of little kids in the playground. stick around Grease Spot awhile you may begin to see through The Way International’s hypocrisy and use of the double standard.
sorry for the long welcome...have a cup of Joe on me
I'M trying to figure out the profit here...the way internationals doctrine?????? as far as the so-called Church on the local corner..you believe them...but through many years of experience I have not seen a lot of results...if any ...I have taken information from several sources to put together a teaching....does this mean I am stealing from someone else or am I smart enough to put truths together...to form the teaching ..guess Philip shouldn't have boarded that chariot to explain what was being read nor Nehemiah making plain the scroll ..nor Jesus Christ in Mathew 4:4....also I am hesitant to accuse ...here I go again..let he who is without sin..cast the first stone....probably should have worn my Ephesians 6:
How long ago did V.P.Wierwille die ....a long time now...
Hello. Your phrasing is somewhat awkward-unclear- here, so I will do my best to address what I THINK are your concerns.
"I'M trying to figure out the profit here...the way internationals doctrine??????"
Sorry, I can't tell what you mean. Are you asking the profit in the doctrine of twi, or why discuss it, or something else?
"as far as the so-called Church on the local corner..you believe them...but through many years of experience I have not seen a lot of results...if any ..."
Results vary depending on the churches local to you. And they're known as churches, generally, sometimes with a different name like "assemblies", but "church" is the name in common English, and that's what they're called. I've seen local churches that didn't seem particularly useful, and ones where lives where changed for the better-and that's only counting Roman Catholic Churches I've attended. In twi, I saw lives changed-generally for the worse if they stayed in twi for a decade or more.
".I have taken information from several sources to put together a teaching....does this mean I am stealing from someone else or am I smart enough to put truths together...to form the teaching"
You might want to read up on what plagiarism is, what it isn't, and why it's a big deal. Only twi'ers and some ex-twi'ers seem to soft-pedal it, and only when discussing vpw- he's the only one excused for rampant plagiarism, and anyone plagiarizing HIM has no excuse.
To answer your question directly, what you do specifically and how you do it makes a big difference. I once studied something, and came to a conclusion. When I checked, Bullinger made the same point, and improved on my work. If I had gone forward and presented Bullinger's work and claimed it was mine, it would have been plagiarism. If I had taught it and cited Bullinger, I would have done the right thing- which I did, and it only took a second to mention his name out of an entire teaching. If the sources you used didn't go in the direction you went nor made any of the same direct points, then there was no need to mention them if doing a teaching-but they should have been cited if you typed it out for reading. Of course, you could have cited them anyway, and that would have harmed nobody. If you read several sources and stitched the teaching together from their collective points, then citing them is the thing to do. (I did that once with 2 different things that, together, were more than either of my sources were by themselves.)
Simply put, if you use someone else's work, you cite the source. That's morally correct (you're not claiming it's your work when it isn't) and it's legally correct (plagiarism is a crime, and it becomes a felony once $1001 US is involved, but it's a crime even if $0 US is involved.) Whether or not you're smart doesn't affect whether or not it's plagiarism if you don't cite your sources (it's plagiarism no matter how smart you are or are not. )
"..guess Philip shouldn't have boarded that chariot to explain what was being read nor Nehemiah making plain the scroll .."
You really should make the effort to read what plagiarism is and is not, and understand it. Philip wasn't rehashing, say, Andrew's teaching on the same thing, he was teaching from his own understanding.
".nor Jesus Christ in Mathew 4:4..."
These glib references don't sound like you actually want to know where you're mistaken, Jesus actually CITED HIS SOURCES ALL THREE TIMES in Matthew 4. Each time, he made it clear he was quoting the Bible and not just speaking for himself.
"also I am hesitant to accuse ...here I go again..let he who is without sin..cast the first stone."
Sounds like you're EAGER to accuse us of something. You don't sound "hesitant" at all. And Jesus gave that ruling about the stone one time, about a specific incident, where a woman was caught in the act of adultery (caught in the act, but the guy wasn't dragged out, just her. Obviously this wasn't about justice...) and those trying to get Jesus in trouble wanted her killed for adultery or Jesus caught contradicting Scripture (even though there were mitigations available, a canny spin-doctor could make it sound like Jesus was being unjust.) Jesus didn't invalidate the law, and Jesus didn't claim she didn't sin (he told her to STOP sinning), This was obviously never meant as a blanket "cover" for time someone was caught sinning. Jesus forgave THE REPENTANT often, but they actually repented. vpw went to his grave asserting he never did anything God Almighty would disapprove. (God Almighty disapproves of lies, rapes, molestations, and other things vpw did.)
" How long ago did V.P.Wierwille die ....a long time now... "
There's a common hypocrisy among vpw apologists. In one breath, they will condemn all sorts of things people from churches had done long before vpw was born, but give vpw a pass saying that it's in the past. If I were you, I'd consider whether that's what I was doing.
As for vpw's evil works, some of them are still hurting people. So, people need to be warned before they're hurt. Other people are helped in their healing when they discover what they did NOT know about vpw's evil works.
yeah - about this "conscience thingy" - reviewing this thread since I last posted on it – I don't think I'm as dogmatically inclined as I was then; and if I had to re-do some of the direction my thoughts went I probably would not have focused so much of my thinking (and verbosity ) on trying to show the conscience from a Christian viewpoint; whether you believe the conscience is something God given or that the capacity for moral judgement is simply a thing that evolved through the natural course of developing civilizations..….well… uhm …..actually there's a whole boatload of theories on how the conscience came to be….i'm just saying it BE – and TWI tried to make it NOT be….hopefully that's a lot gooder English to reflect how much I've matured on this topic .
Hi Grease Spotters,
I wanted to revisit my post after some things I read on another thread.
Recently on a couple of questions thread, Rocky had a great post with some fascinating links that addressed the question “are humans fundamentally good or bad?” here are partial excerpts from those links:
"Fundamentally speaking, are humans good or bad? It's a question that has repeatedly been asked throughout humanity. For thousands of years, philosophers have debated whether we have a basically good nature that is corrupted by society, or a basically bad nature that is kept in check by society. Psychology has uncovered some evidence which might give the old debate a twist.
One way of asking about our most fundamental characteristics is to look at babies. Babies' minds are a wonderful showcase for human nature. Babies are humans with the absolute minimum of cultural influence – they don't have many friends, have never been to school and haven't read any books. They can't even control their own bowels, let alone speak the language, so their minds are as close to innocent as a human mind can get.
The only problem is that the lack of language makes it tricky to gauge their opinions. Normally we ask people to take part in experiments, giving them instructions or asking them to answer questions, both of which require language. Babies may be cuter to work with, but they are not known for their obedience. What's a curious psychologist to do?
Fortunately, you don't necessarily have to speak to reveal your opinions. Babies will reach for things they want or like, and they will tend to look longer at things that surprise them. Ingenious experiments carried out at Yale University (see also Yale abstract excerpt and link below) in the US used these measures to look at babies' minds. Their results suggest that even the youngest humans have a sense of right and wrong, and, furthermore, an instinct to prefer good over evil"...from a BBC.com article
== == == ==
the Yale abstract:
"The capacity to evaluate other people is essential for navigating the social world. Humans must be able to assess the actions and intentions of the people around them, and make accurate decisions about who is friend and who is foe, who is an appropriate social partner and who is not. Indeed, all social animals benefit from the capacity to identify individual conspecifics that may help them, and to distinguish these individuals from others that may harm them. Human adults evaluate people rapidly and automatically on the basis of both behaviour and physical features1,2,3,4,5,6, but the ontogenetic origins and development of this capacity are not well understood. Here we show that 6- and 10-month-old infants take into account an individual’s actions towards others in evaluating that individual as appealing or aversive: infants prefer an individual who helps another to one who hinders another, prefer a helping individual to a neutral individual, and prefer a neutral individual to a hindering individual. These findings constitute evidence that preverbal infants assess individuals on the basis of their behaviour towards others. This capacity may serve as the foundation for moral thought and action, and its early developmental emergence supports the view that social evaluation is a biological adaptation."...from Yale abstract link
== == == == ==
In my above comment (way up there at that top of this post ) I tried to summarize...and perhaps refocus this thread…in my opinion - whether you believe the conscience was something a higher power endowed us with or that it was simply a function that developed in the evolutionary process - I think it is safe to say that the conscience is something innate to our makeup and furthermore from those links one possible inference we could make is that the conscience may initially be already setup…preprogrammed, if you will…to act as a guide – to give one a moral sense of what is right or wrong.
In considering another insidious aspect of the mindset that TWI promoted and how it tended to sabotage a follower’s conscience, one particular passage usually comes to mind:
Now the Spirit speaketh expressly, that in the latter times some shall depart from the faith, giving heed to seducing spirits, and doctrines of devils; Speaking lies in hypocrisy; having their conscience seared with a hot iron… I Timothy 4: 1, 2 KJV
One commentary on that passage really dramatizes the destruction of the conscience by the cauterizing agent of hypocrisy:
"Having their conscience seared with a hot iron - The allusion here is doubtless to the effect of applying a hot iron to the skin. The cauterized part becomes rigid and hard, and is dead to sensibility. So with the conscience of those referred to. It has the same relation to a conscience that is sensitive and quick in its decisions that a cauterized part of the body has to a thin, delicate, and sensitive skin. Such a conscience exists in a mind that will practice delusion without concern; that will carry on a vast system of fraud without wincing; that will incarcerate, scourge, or burn the innocent without compassion; and that will practice gross enormities, and indulge in sensual gratifications under the mask of piety." from Barnes' Notes on the Bible
Recommended Posts
Top Posters In This Topic
16
49
25
15
Popular Days
May 7
29
May 5
22
May 4
19
May 3
18
Top Posters In This Topic
Jeaniam 16 posts
T-Bone 49 posts
Bolshevik 25 posts
another spot 15 posts
Popular Days
May 7 2007
29 posts
May 5 2007
22 posts
May 4 2007
19 posts
May 3 2007
18 posts
Popular Posts
waysider
You're misrepresenting, or, perhaps not understanding, the full scope of Wierwille's deception. Wierwille claimed to have taken his voluminous library to the dump and, instead, used the
Bolshevik
I think it was Himmler, kept a small book on his person, probably Mein Kampf. But he had to remind himself why he was doing what he was doing. (I'm searching for a source). I thought is was notewo
WordWolf
Hello. Your phrasing is somewhat awkward-unclear- here, so I will do my best to address what I THINK are your concerns. "I'M trying to figure out the profit here...the way internationals doctrin
Bolshevik
or your learning how to receive revelation as to what to put on your toast.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
johniam
Some of those people whom Christ identified as children of the devil worried a great deal about insignificant portions of the law and left the weightier matters undone as in Matthew 23:23 & following and Luke 11:42 & following. Some of those verses seem to get back to what you said about God placing a high value on the intentions of the heart and not only being concerned with actions.
As far as the law of believing goes, I had no problem praying using the words of the father of the devil-possessed son; " Lord, I believe. Help thou mine unbelief." It may not be strictly accurate as far as a prayer goes, but I think God understands.
Oops, I forgot to switch AGAIN. This is Jean, not John. Mea culpa.
Edited by johniamLink to comment
Share on other sites
Eyesopen
I think a lot of what God says about the conscience has to do with intent. Observe the verses from Romans 14 that T-Bone just posted. In verse 6 it clearly shows a correlation between intent (ie do this for the Lord not something else) and conscience. A similar correlation occurs in the Corinthians quote in verse 30 & 31. I am not certain of the exact significance but I am fairly sure there is one or God wouldn't have put it there.
That's the quote of the day to be certain! And aint it the truth! Couldn't I just be trailer trash Barbie trying to move on up?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
johniam
quote: I was also considering the phrase, “law written in their hearts.” What does that mean, exactly? I still don’t know,
The law God gave to Moses was written on tablets of stone. This was one of the many times God had to come into concretion during the OT. "Written in their hearts" is referring to the new birth. We now have God's nature inside us; we're not dead in trespasses and sins anymore. "Written in their hearts" is phrased that way to compare the new with the old, just like the new man and the old man.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
T-Bone
Great input everyone – thanks!!!!!!!!!! I have been thinking a lot about everyone's recent posts, especially Bolshevik's question in post # 142 – the effects of sin on the conscience. It also appears we are all in agreement on there being some "training" or assimilating role we assume – affecting our own conscience in some way. Listener – you mentioned in post # 146 – lumping conscience with other aspects of the mind. I haven't been as concerned about picking the conscience out of the psychological line up – as in seeing how it all works together. One of my favorite authors Jay Adams, addresses the effects of sin to the mind in many of his books on Christian counseling. Thought I'd post some excerpts from one of his books that I think will go well with the flow of things. Adams has a unified view of our psychological makeup – the way I tend to view it also. Being a technician, I often jump back and forth between the system and components when troubleshooting. When there is a failure in one component, it has an impact on the system.
From More than Redemption: A Theology of Christian Counseling by Jay Adams, 1979, pages 114-115:
"…In modern thought, the Western view equates heart with feelings or emotion…Consequently, this concept has carried over into preaching and writing, where, e.g., "head knowledge" is set over against "heart knowledge." The former is said to be merely intellectual understanding and assent, whereas the latter denotes a commitment with feeling. But the distinction is unbiblical. Nowhere in the Bible is the head set over against the heart…
…The reason why head and heart are not set over against one another in the Scriptures is that the term heart includes the intellectual side [ cf. Job 12:24; 36:13; Jer. 17:9, 10; 23:20; Ezek. 11:5; Hos. 7:11; Matt. 13:15; Mark 7:19-23; 11:23; Luke 5:22; Acts 5:4; II Cor. 9:7; Heb. 4:12; James 1:26…]…In the Bible, human beings are said to talk, reason, plan, understand, think doubt, perceive, make mistakes, purpose, intend, etc. in their hearts…
…'What then, is set over against the heart, if anything?' The answer is always, without exception, the visible, outer man. Worship that one gives with his lips [outer, visible, audible worship] when his heart [inner, invisible, inaudible] is far from God is a good example of this contrast [Matt. 15:8]…
…It is natural, therefore, to identify the heart with the conscience, as some writers do [cf. Heb. 10:22; I John 3:19-21]. And it is in the heart that the fool [Ps. 14;1] or evil slave [Luke 12:45] speaks to himself. From the heart [which is the source or treasure-house from which the outer words and actions spring] come sins [Matt. 15:18 ff.; Mark 7:19-23; Luke 6:45]. May sin in his heart even though he has not sinned outwardly [Matt. 5:28]…To believe with the heart and to confess with the mouth [Rom. 10:8-10] leads to salvation because both inner and outer man conform – there is a genuine [not hypocritical or only outward] faith…"
End of excerpts
I see a merged process happening in the conscience – I think we evaluate the moral implications of plans and actions partly from something intrinsic [like an embedded template] and partly from what we have assimilated. From The Baker Encyclopedia of Psychology and Counseling, Edited by David Benner and Peter Hill, 1985, pages 253-254:
"…The processes we know as conscience develop out of the complex interaction between one's God-given moral potential, which is rooted in the image of God and progressively unfolds with the development of one's cognitive capacities; one's own desires and attempts to merit acceptance and avoid punishment; and the impact of socializing agents, particularly parents…
…Beyond humanity's innate moral propensity, the unique shape of one's conscience is highly influenced by one's interaction with significant socializing agents…As these ideals and expectations are internalized and merged with one's innate moral awareness and individual desires, they come together to form what is generally called the ideal self or the ego ideal. This set of ideals becomes the standard by which one judges himself or herself. These deep beliefs may or may not be congruent with the truth about human moral potential. In the case of inappropriate models of internalization, the dictates of conscience form a dilemma for the person. To act against conscience is to violate one's own psychological functioning, which is designed to lead the individual into the good and to avoid evil. Yet, to follow the dictates of an ill-informed conscience may lead to a life of unnecessary suffering and moral ruin…"
End of excerpts
Edited by T-BoneLink to comment
Share on other sites
Jeaniam
T-Bone, is that the same Jay Adams that wrote the book 'Competent to Counsel' in 1970?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
templelady
The following are not acceptable
Murder-- by which I mean the wanton killing of another person for reasons other than the protection of ones home, life, another innocent life, the termination of anothers life as an act of mercy, (I do not say I condone this last but I understand it) or the execution of a criminal.
Theft-- the taking of anothers material goods without permission unless society recognizes that certain things while belonging to the individual belong to the community as a whole. in the Inuit society for example if your axe for cutting firewood disappears you are free to take your neighbors and use it since fire is the difference between life and death. ( it was hard to get use to this essentials belong to the community when I was married to my first husband as his brothers descended on my refrigerator at the end of the month just before thier paydays LOL)
Adultry--no matter whether practicing monogamy, polygamy, or polyandry, the bonds formed by such groups are generally regarded as inviolate.
I cannot think of any society or group which condones the above three actions except as outlined
The following are considered neccessary
The support and honoring of the family as central --family being a fluid term which can extend beyond the nuclear family to extended family and friends who become family.
The extending to others outside of the core family group, who are not enemies, general good will and wishes for sucess in their endeavors.
A consideration for those less fortunate, outside of the family/friend core, which is exemplified by assitance with food, housing, clothing , medical whether done individually or by contributing money and time to a group dealing with these issues.
I cannot think of any society or group which does not espouse these in some manner
Therefore, it is clear that there are universal guidelines which mankind as a whole has discovered are necessary for the peaceful continuation of the species and has thus universally adopted no matter what religious persuasion or lack thereof may exist in the group.
Religion seeks to codify exactly how the good is to be accomplished, how the bad is to be avoided, and the relationship of the individual to God. But it is clear that "good" is not only practiced by Christians no more than "bad" is only practiced by non-Christians
Link to comment
Share on other sites
T-Bone
Yup
Link to comment
Share on other sites
TLC
Probably off topic, but I'll risk posting it anyways.
I don't believe that eating of the tree of knowledge of good and evil resulted in man becoming like God. (That was a lie, much like "thou shalt not surely die.") As far as what was written in the stars, maybe it was more like a road map... not necessarily dictating the exact path man would go, but there to guide him in the right direction no matter what pit or hole he might encounter or fall into. What you see or get from it largely depends upon what enlightens it or what perspective you view it from. Which is perhaps not unlike much of scripture, as well as many other things we cross paths with in life (including TWI.)
Link to comment
Share on other sites
TLC
Not so. Perhaps you've never been deceived.
Or, maybe you just haven't yet figured out that you have been.
(or, maybe you've learned more in the nearly 9 years since this was posted...)
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Allan
And yet I seem to remember a twi teaching where devil spirits first put out the feelers to see a reaction, i.e. uncle How!e touching a girls bum to see the reaction and if he can push for the next level etc...how do you spell 'ironic'?! on the conscience thingy, someone recently gave me their idea and that is that the conscience is kinda like our 'default mode' when we're not listening to God...I like that !!
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bolshevik
ha ha! . . . yeah my views have changed since then
I was probably going by what LCM said in the WAP class.
I have no idea lol
Link to comment
Share on other sites
T-Bone
TLC quoted an old post of Bolshevik (post # 76):
and then TLC responded by saying:
Interesting points Bolshevik & TLC…when we fall prey to deception we don't realize it until after the trap has sprung. In II Corinthians 11:3 Paul fearing the Corinthians would fall for the craftiness of the false apostles, warned them by comparing their deviousness to that of the Serpent's way with Eve.
== == == ==
Another interesting point TLC ! No harm in speculating – I often do that too – as I will now – so just thinking out loud here folks: in some respects Adam & Eve were already LIKE God (as indicated in Genesis 1:26); the fall of man in Genesis 3 makes me think of the Wizard of Oz (woohoo the daily double entendre! referring to both the character in the 1939 movie and the "character" in PFAL); in the 1939 movie the Wizard did not give anything to the scarecrow, lion or tin man that they didn't already have (hey there's even a song about it!); PFAL gave me nothing – and darn I already had that before I took the class.
As far as what was written in the stars…I don't know; I do believe in the sovereignty of God – a God who inhabits eternity (Isaiah 57:15) – speculating a little deeper I would think He was not surprised by anything even when Adam and Eve fell to sin. All the prophecies in Scripture would also indicate God has always been well prepared for any curve ball that man or the devil would throw at Him.
so God knew I would be deceived by TWI – and maybe that's why there's tons of warnings in the Bible – like Matthew 7:16 – you'll know they are false prophets by their fruits; but how would I know to look at the practical effects of TWI's doctrine if I was not aware of that warning in Scripture in the first place? Or what if I knew of that passage but thought it didn't apply to TWI? There's a lot of truth in something Walter Martin said in Kingdom of the Cults....it was something along the lines of cults are the unpaid bills of the church (that was one of the first books I read after leaving TWI, btw) – and I agree – being an old Roman Catholic boy – I did not know squat about doctrine – it was either catechism stuff, formalized prayers you recite or priests speaking in another tongue (Latin, it was Latin...Latin i say...Charismatics i beg of you please stand down
).
== == == ==
Ha! that is ironic…hey, has anyone ever heard VP teach on how devil spirits will throw pajama parties to show porn videos with the express purpose of numbing one's moral sensitivity? I have – didn't you read my very first post on this thread
?
yeah - about this "conscience thingy" - reviewing this thread since I last posted on it – I don't think I'm as dogmatically inclined as I was then; and if I had to re-do some of the direction my thoughts went I probably would not have focused so much of my thinking (and verbosity
) on trying to show the conscience from a Christian viewpoint; whether you believe the conscience is something God given or that the capacity for moral judgement is simply a thing that evolved through the natural course of developing civilizations..….well… uhm …..actually there's a whole boatload of theories on how the conscience came to be….i'm just saying it BE – and TWI tried to make it NOT be….hopefully that's a lot gooder English to reflect how much I've matured on this topic 
.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
TLC
Right you are. Else, when it comes to the Garden of Eden, how else would Adam have known how to dress it and keep it?
But afterwards, how much is man like God? Evidently, not much...
Isa.55
[8] For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways, saith the LORD.
[9] For as the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways, and my thoughts than your thoughts.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Ziarnko
I'M trying to figure out the profit here...the way internationals doctrine?????? as far as the so-called Church on the local corner..you believe them...but through many years of experience I have not seen a lot of results...if any ...I have taken information from several sources to put together a teaching....does this mean I am stealing from someone else or am I smart enough to put truths together...to form the teaching ..guess Philip shouldn't have boarded that chariot to explain what was being read nor Nehemiah making plain the scroll ..nor Jesus Christ in Mathew 4:4....also I am hesitant to accuse ...here I go again..let he who is without sin..cast the first stone....probably should have worn my Ephesians 6:
How long ago did V.P.Wierwille die ....a long time now...
Link to comment
Share on other sites
waysider
You're misrepresenting, or, perhaps not understanding, the full scope of Wierwille's deception.
Wierwille claimed to have taken his voluminous library to the dump and, instead, used the Bible as his sole source of reference. You may find this claim in the PFAL class if you need a source. Furthermore, he claimed God spoke to him in an audible voice and promised to teach him *the word* like it hadn't been known since the first century if he would, in turn, teach it to others. Well, here's the problem. This catalog of unique knowledge that Wierwille presented had, indeed, been known before Wierwille presented it .In academic terms, what Wierwille did was nothing short of plagiarism. He took sentences, paragraphs, chapters and, in some cases, entire books that other people had written and put his own name on them in order to mislead people into thinking they originated with himself. There are threads in the archives here that present exhaustive comparisons. Feel free to ask for directions in finding them. We will gladly assist you.
You also posed this thought:
Perhaps I have misunderstood your implication here but it appears to me that you are using that length of time to minimize the damage Wierwille caused. Make no mistake, the damage he caused lives on long after his own demise. In fact, this line of reasoning is, in itself, a testament to that reality.
Oh, and by the way, welcome to the cafe.
Have a cup of coffee on the house. I promise, it's not the *stretched* variety that became the norm at PFAL classes.
Edited by waysiderLink to comment
Share on other sites
Rocky
Just curious, did you sell any publications containing those ideas you got from other sources... you know, without crediting said other sources?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bolshevik
You'd have to define what results are and give examples. Chances are "put together a teaching" in this context means you put together random information that you subconsciously made to agree with previously accepted ideas.
It isn't so much stealing as generating intelligently sounding gibberish.
I could be wrong, since you haven't put forth an example.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
T-Bone
Welcome to Grease Spot, Ziarnko !
I hope you stick around awhile and participate in the discussions…here and on other threads…you may find there’s quite a variety of perspectives on any given subject, a much more intellectually stimulating ambiance… without all those subliminal restrictions pervasive in certain groups like The Way International.
As far as judging by results or benefits gained - going on my own experience and comparison of the local church I grew up in (Roman Catholic Church vs The Way International) I would have to say The Way International loses miserably. Because they promised so much more than my local church !!!!!!
The Way International / wierwille / PFAL class / books claimed their knowledge and understanding of the Bible would enable me to: unleash the power of God in my life, separate truth from error, develop more harmony in the home, increase prosperity, pray effectually, overcome fear and worry…I could go on for days but the truth of the matter is that for all their enticing claims…and after 12 years of my heavy involvement, the results were negligible.
You also bring up part of something I remember from the PFAL class - - wierwille’s criteria for determining validity…seeing if something is genuine or counterfeit…it went something along the lines of asking what is the profit? and who gets the glory?.
As Waysider and Rocky mentioned…and a typical answer you’ll find on many other threads – it was wierwille and wierwille alone who had so much to gain monetarily in the sale of plagiarized material in classes and books as well as the praise and adulation for supposedly being God’s “mouthpiece” for our day and time and hour.
You can fault The Roman Catholic Church for a lot of things – but something this little old parishioner still remembers learning as a kid are the simple moral standards of the Bible – like lying and stealing being a sin. In my opinion wierwille’s plagiarism is on the order of grand larceny to the nth degree (that’s lying and stealing for profit that is way over the minimum grand larceny amount).
Growing up I’ve always believed you call a spade a spade – if you see someone doing something wrong you call them on it - you don’t sugarcoat it. I never was a big fan of The Way International’s misuse of whoever is without sin cast the first stone – that thinking reminds me of the I’m rubber you’re glue whatever you say bounces off me and sticks to you defense mechanism of little kids in the playground. stick around Grease Spot awhile you may begin to see through The Way International’s hypocrisy and use of the double standard.
sorry for the long welcome...have a cup of Joe on me
Edited by T-Boneclarity & emphasis
Link to comment
Share on other sites
WordWolf
Hello. Your phrasing is somewhat awkward-unclear- here, so I will do my best to address what I THINK are your concerns.
"I'M trying to figure out the profit here...the way internationals doctrine??????"
Sorry, I can't tell what you mean. Are you asking the profit in the doctrine of twi, or why discuss it, or something else?
"as far as the so-called Church on the local corner..you believe them...but through many years of experience I have not seen a lot of results...if any ..."
Results vary depending on the churches local to you. And they're known as churches, generally, sometimes with a different name like "assemblies", but "church" is the name in common English, and that's what they're called. I've seen local churches that didn't seem particularly useful, and ones where lives where changed for the better-and that's only counting Roman Catholic Churches I've attended. In twi, I saw lives changed-generally for the worse if they stayed in twi for a decade or more.
".I have taken information from several sources to put together a teaching....does this mean I am stealing from someone else or am I smart enough to put truths together...to form the teaching"
You might want to read up on what plagiarism is, what it isn't, and why it's a big deal. Only twi'ers and some ex-twi'ers seem to soft-pedal it, and only when discussing vpw- he's the only one excused for rampant plagiarism, and anyone plagiarizing HIM has no excuse.
To answer your question directly, what you do specifically and how you do it makes a big difference. I once studied something, and came to a conclusion. When I checked, Bullinger made the same point, and improved on my work. If I had gone forward and presented Bullinger's work and claimed it was mine, it would have been plagiarism. If I had taught it and cited Bullinger, I would have done the right thing- which I did, and it only took a second to mention his name out of an entire teaching. If the sources you used didn't go in the direction you went nor made any of the same direct points, then there was no need to mention them if doing a teaching-but they should have been cited if you typed it out for reading. Of course, you could have cited them anyway, and that would have harmed nobody. If you read several sources and stitched the teaching together from their collective points, then citing them is the thing to do. (I did that once with 2 different things that, together, were more than either of my sources were by themselves.)
Simply put, if you use someone else's work, you cite the source. That's morally correct (you're not claiming it's your work when it isn't) and it's legally correct (plagiarism is a crime, and it becomes a felony once $1001 US is involved, but it's a crime even if $0 US is involved.) Whether or not you're smart doesn't affect whether or not it's plagiarism if you don't cite your sources (it's plagiarism no matter how smart you are or are not. )
"..guess Philip shouldn't have boarded that chariot to explain what was being read nor Nehemiah making plain the scroll .."
You really should make the effort to read what plagiarism is and is not, and understand it. Philip wasn't rehashing, say, Andrew's teaching on the same thing, he was teaching from his own understanding.
".nor Jesus Christ in Mathew 4:4..."
These glib references don't sound like you actually want to know where you're mistaken, Jesus actually CITED HIS SOURCES ALL THREE TIMES in Matthew 4. Each time, he made it clear he was quoting the Bible and not just speaking for himself.
"also I am hesitant to accuse ...here I go again..let he who is without sin..cast the first stone."
Sounds like you're EAGER to accuse us of something. You don't sound "hesitant" at all. And Jesus gave that ruling about the stone one time, about a specific incident, where a woman was caught in the act of adultery (caught in the act, but the guy wasn't dragged out, just her. Obviously this wasn't about justice...) and those trying to get Jesus in trouble wanted her killed for adultery or Jesus caught contradicting Scripture (even though there were mitigations available, a canny spin-doctor could make it sound like Jesus was being unjust.) Jesus didn't invalidate the law, and Jesus didn't claim she didn't sin (he told her to STOP sinning), This was obviously never meant as a blanket "cover" for time someone was caught sinning. Jesus forgave THE REPENTANT often, but they actually repented. vpw went to his grave asserting he never did anything God Almighty would disapprove. (God Almighty disapproves of lies, rapes, molestations, and other things vpw did.)
" How long ago did V.P.Wierwille die ....a long time now... "
There's a common hypocrisy among vpw apologists. In one breath, they will condemn all sorts of things people from churches had done long before vpw was born, but give vpw a pass saying that it's in the past. If I were you, I'd consider whether that's what I was doing.
As for vpw's evil works, some of them are still hurting people. So, people need to be warned before they're hurt. Other people are helped in their healing when they discover what they did NOT know about vpw's evil works.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bolshevik
"ziarnko" appears to mean grain, or penny, or small measure.
Which I find ironic at the moment.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Rocky
bump
Link to comment
Share on other sites
T-Bone
Hi Grease Spotters,
I wanted to revisit my post after some things I read on another thread.
Recently on a couple of questions thread, Rocky had a great post with some fascinating links that addressed the question “are humans fundamentally good or bad?” here are partial excerpts from those links:
"Fundamentally speaking, are humans good or bad? It's a question that has repeatedly been asked throughout humanity. For thousands of years, philosophers have debated whether we have a basically good nature that is corrupted by society, or a basically bad nature that is kept in check by society. Psychology has uncovered some evidence which might give the old debate a twist.
One way of asking about our most fundamental characteristics is to look at babies. Babies' minds are a wonderful showcase for human nature. Babies are humans with the absolute minimum of cultural influence – they don't have many friends, have never been to school and haven't read any books. They can't even control their own bowels, let alone speak the language, so their minds are as close to innocent as a human mind can get.
The only problem is that the lack of language makes it tricky to gauge their opinions. Normally we ask people to take part in experiments, giving them instructions or asking them to answer questions, both of which require language. Babies may be cuter to work with, but they are not known for their obedience. What's a curious psychologist to do?
Fortunately, you don't necessarily have to speak to reveal your opinions. Babies will reach for things they want or like, and they will tend to look longer at things that surprise them. Ingenious experiments carried out at Yale University (see also Yale abstract excerpt and link below) in the US used these measures to look at babies' minds. Their results suggest that even the youngest humans have a sense of right and wrong, and, furthermore, an instinct to prefer good over evil"...from a BBC.com article
== == == ==
the Yale abstract:
"The capacity to evaluate other people is essential for navigating the social world. Humans must be able to assess the actions and intentions of the people around them, and make accurate decisions about who is friend and who is foe, who is an appropriate social partner and who is not. Indeed, all social animals benefit from the capacity to identify individual conspecifics that may help them, and to distinguish these individuals from others that may harm them. Human adults evaluate people rapidly and automatically on the basis of both behaviour and physical features1,2,3,4,5,6, but the ontogenetic origins and development of this capacity are not well understood. Here we show that 6- and 10-month-old infants take into account an individual’s actions towards others in evaluating that individual as appealing or aversive: infants prefer an individual who helps another to one who hinders another, prefer a helping individual to a neutral individual, and prefer a neutral individual to a hindering individual. These findings constitute evidence that preverbal infants assess individuals on the basis of their behaviour towards others. This capacity may serve as the foundation for moral thought and action, and its early developmental emergence supports the view that social evaluation is a biological adaptation."...from Yale abstract link
== == == == ==
In my above comment (way up there at that top of this post
) I tried to summarize...and perhaps refocus this thread…in my opinion - whether you believe the conscience was something a higher power endowed us with or that it was simply a function that developed in the evolutionary process - I think it is safe to say that the conscience is something innate to our makeup and furthermore from those links one possible inference we could make is that the conscience may initially be already setup…preprogrammed, if you will…to act as a guide – to give one a moral sense of what is right or wrong.
In considering another insidious aspect of the mindset that TWI promoted and how it tended to sabotage a follower’s conscience, one particular passage usually comes to mind:
Now the Spirit speaketh expressly, that in the latter times some shall depart from the faith, giving heed to seducing spirits, and doctrines of devils; Speaking lies in hypocrisy; having their conscience seared with a hot iron… I Timothy 4: 1, 2 KJV
One commentary on that passage really dramatizes the destruction of the conscience by the cauterizing agent of hypocrisy:
"Having their conscience seared with a hot iron - The allusion here is doubtless to the effect of applying a hot iron to the skin. The cauterized part becomes rigid and hard, and is dead to sensibility. So with the conscience of those referred to. It has the same relation to a conscience that is sensitive and quick in its decisions that a cauterized part of the body has to a thin, delicate, and sensitive skin. Such a conscience exists in a mind that will practice delusion without concern; that will carry on a vast system of fraud without wincing; that will incarcerate, scourge, or burn the innocent without compassion; and that will practice gross enormities, and indulge in sensual gratifications under the mask of piety." from Barnes' Notes on the Bible
Edited by T-Boneneeded more time
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Rocky
Glad you added this comment T-Bone.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.