Could I get a link to where I said that last year? I want to check the context before I respond.
I will say, however, that I never claimed to be God-breathed and can certainly adjust my thinking. I can also say that both statements I made are true. They do not contradict each other at all. Just because it would be better to do one thing doesn't mean it would be ineffective to do something else. Frankly, I can no more erase the existence and teaching of VPW from my head after accepting it in general for more than a decade than I can erase my ability to ride a bike. I learned it. Now, I can learn more, and adjust and adapt, but I can't unlearn something. I can forget something I've learned, but not intentionally. I can "reject" what I've learned, but that would require replacing it with something else in most cases.
Remember that place in PFAL where VP is teaching about context?
He says you can even take things out of context to prove "There is no God".
Well, that is ,in fact, what the scripture says.
Of course, we also remember that he went on to show that in context it said,"The fool hath said in his heart there is no God."
I believe that in order for something to fit with the context, it must be understood in a larger sense than verse, chapter, book, or even the whole Bible.
It has to be understood in relation to life itself in a moment to moment sense.
One of the advantages of having spent time in a program that required spending an inordinate amount of time with other believers, was that the context of the big picture became more than a class or twig meeting and, in fact, became a situation that required participants to be "on stage" 24/7. I don't think people who were not in some of these programs such as WC or Way Home or HQ Staff or Fellowlaborers, etc. really understand how much the lifestyle itself impacted the participants. You couldn't just take a class session and go back home. You were home. You didn't discuss it . You didn't question it. You didn't vocalize any disagreement with leadership. You just ate the whole blasted fish, bones and all and didn't dare to say the taste was foul.
"Better to reject everything that comes out of the mouth of VPW as untrustworthy, and start the search for truth from scratch. Those things that are true will resurface independently of VPW's "work.""
"I think what he did was dishonest and self-promoting, but I have for so long separated what was taught from who taught it that the undeniable fact of his plagiarism doesn't make me lose much sleep. Truth is truth, error is error, and the works published under his name contained both. ...
Prove all things. Hold fast to that which is good. I know I read that somewhere."
Could I get a link to where I said that last year? I want to check the context before I respond.
I will say, however, that I never claimed to be God-breathed and can certainly adjust my thinking. I can also say that both statements I made are true. They do not contradict each other at all. Just because it would be better to do one thing doesn't mean it would be ineffective to do something else. Frankly, I can no more erase the existence and teaching of VPW from my head after accepting it in general for more than a decade than I can erase my ability to ride a bike. I learned it. Now, I can learn more, and adjust and adapt, but I can't unlearn something. I can forget something I've learned, but not intentionally. I can "reject" what I've learned, but that would require replacing it with something else in most cases.
Whatever.
I find that these 2 statements are not CONTRADICTORY, despite Oldies' suggestion that they are.
Step 1.
Put aside all vpw/twi reading materials,
get a clean Bible with no notes,
then go off and learn some stuff.
Presume you need to learn all the fundamental basics, and proceed from there.
Step 2.
Learn a bunch of stuff, carefully monitoring your filtering media and translator, making sure
you are judging things on their own merits rather than whether or not they are
saying the same thing that vpw/twi said.
Step 3.
Pick up some vpw/twi reading materials,
and see if they hold up to any real scrutiny.
Thus, discard everything he taught, start over, and later re-evaluate what he taught.
And it is okay to admit that we just don't know, that we don't have all the answers all the time. The world won't come to an end if we don't know.
For some reason when I came out of TWI, speaking for myself here, I felt I had to KNOW everything now. I had to have all the answers, which doctrine was right, soul sleep or not, JC is not God or what, tithing, speaking in tougnes what was the right doctrine?
I felt at least for the first year or so that I was worse off than before I got into TWI because even then I didn't know, but it was worse thinking I did know then to find out it may have been all wrong.
I learned to live without knowing everything about everything concerning these issues and I learned answers took time and I learned it was a search and a work in progress and to have patience and as long as I did, the answers I wanted would come. And they did. I evolved. I expanded where I looked and read and studied. I pondered and sifted and discussed and came to my own conclusions. The world didn't end while in that process and I am still in that process of learning and growing and building.
It really is okay to start over with a blank slate.
Just a question.. how does entitlement fit into this?
Entitled, to what?
What's supposedly owed to the victim? I don't see it..
I'll try to explain this better. Some may think they're entitled to dispose of all they learned in twi just because of the sins of VP, and that God is ok with that. I don't think he would be. The scriptures say "prove all things, hold fast that which is good".
If one tests the scriptures VP taught based upon their merit alone, and come to the conclusion they can't believe because the scruptures taught don't make sense to them or they just don't believe it, fine. No problema. By the way, VP wanted us to do precisely this, and asked us many times to do this.
On the other hand, if one believes the scriptures VP taught, finds them good, and profitable; one is not entitled to throw it away as trash because of VP sins and abuses. I think that would be victim entitlement. One is a victim of Victor Paul Wierwille therefore you are entitled to keep on playing the victim card, keep on being a victim, and reject everything he taught....
I don't see that in the scripture, especially when one considers we are to "hold fast that which is good".
Are you trying to say that if a person had a rotten abusive enough relationship with der "verdmeister" that they have the mindset of being "entitled" if they simply throw away everything they ever learned from the lousy scumbag?
Yes.
If you throw it all away based on him being a lousy scumbag alone, do you think that is God's will? I don't. I assert that that is a form of victim entitlement. You were victimized by VP, therefore you have a right to reject the teachings based on that alone. You are letting your emotions rule, which can be dangerous...
... I'm no psychologist, but this makes sense to me.
I'll try to explain this better. Some may think they're entitled to dispose of all they learned in twi just because of the sins of VP, and that God is ok with that. I don't think he would be. The scriptures say "prove all things, hold fast that which is good".
If one really wants to go beyond all the crippling deficiencies inflicted on them as a result
of the crippling deficiencies vpw taught (as a result of his own crippling deficiences),
then one must put aside twi/vpw mode, and learn things in patterns vpw never saw,
in fashions vpw never used, using tools vpw never did, from people and places
that never heard of vpw.
At the very least, one needs to put them aside for a time.
On the other hand, if one wishes to remain hobbled by wrong twi thinking and wrong twi teaching,
by all means, one should cling closely to vpw/twi doctrine, books, methodology....
If one tests the scriptures VP taught based upon their merit alone, and come to the conclusion they can't believe because the scruptures taught don't make sense to them or they just don't believe it, fine. No problema.
Which, BTW, can be done BADLY by using ONLY twi methods,
or can be done EFFECTIVELY by using the entire spectrum of Christian tools and not just the twi crayon.
By the way, VP wanted us to do precisely this, and asked us many times to do this.
He said those words on a number of occassions.
However, if you search, you'd BETTER end with a conclusion that agrees with vpw,
or you'd BETTER keep it to yourself.
vpw NEVER tolerated the slightest deviations from his doctrines,
ESPECIALLY face-to-face.
So, I'd say he CLAIMED he wanted us to do this, but actually wanted us to ENDORSE him
in any searches we did.
That's why the methodology always stuck close to what he taught, "his" books, etc.
On the other hand, if one believes the scriptures VP taught, finds them good, and profitable; one is not entitled to throw it away as trash because of VP sins and abuses.
After being taught specific limitations were the key to ALL knowledge, and discovering that
a lot of the doctrine was arranged to facilitiate criminal conspiracies,
it is eminently logical to question just how well one believes anything vpw taught,
or that they know what the Scriptures really say after all.
Therefore, the idea that someone would say
"I'm confident that the Bible is completely true, and that I truly understand it,
but I'm trashing it because my teacher was the lowest form of whale blubber in the ocean depths"
is rather silly,
and a scenario manufactured by Oldiesman so he has something to distinctly condemn.
This is also known as the "Strawman."
I think that would be victim entitlement.
Ok, I'll agree.
If we should ever find a human being who said "I believe that the Bible is Truth, and I believe I
understand the true doctrines contained in it, and those doctrines are congruent in ALL RESPECTS
with what vpw taught in twi,
but I'm discarding it all ANYWAY because vpw was a wiggly worm",
then we should say that person is using "victim entitlement."
Signal me if you ever find such a person.
I'll dust them off and check for straw.
One is a victim of Victor Paul Wierwille therefore you are entitled to keep on playing the victim card, keep on being a victim, and reject everything he taught....
I don't see that in the scripture, especially when one considers we are to "hold fast that which is good".
Yes.
I don't either.
Then again, only you were even suggesting that position.
If you throw it all away based on him being a lousy scumbag alone, do you think that is God's will? I don't. I assert that that is a form of victim entitlement. You were victimized by VP, therefore you have a right to reject the teachings based on that alone. You are letting your emotions rule, which can be dangerous...
... I'm no psychologist, but this makes sense to me.
Of course, if one doesn't make a REAL investigation, how does one know if it's God's Will that
one remain ensorcelled by vpw worship,
as opposed to freeing their understanding for all the OTHER things God wished to show them,
and to enlighten their eyes with,
but they're too busy shutting their eyes and huddling around the collaterals to see it?
If one NEVER puts it all down to look OUTSIDE the groupthink and partyline of twi,
one will NEVER know which is which. They certainly can't claim they've "tested" their
doctrine and it's held up to anything resembling a "fair" test.
That, of course, means when a REAL crisis comes, the answers can slip past you due
to mental hobbling.
Instead, to clutch the collaterals to one's chest tightly, to insist that only their twi education
has the answers when there's many Christians with BETTER answers,
Therefore, the idea that someone would say "I'm confident that the Bible is completely true, and that I truly understand it, but I'm trashing it because my teacher was the lowest form of whale blubber in the ocean depths" is rather silly, ...
This is not what I said or asserted. You're great at your own strawmen, Wordwolf.
What I'm saying is something like this:
Therefore, the idea that someone would say "I'm confident that Wierwille taught truth, and that I truly understand it, but I'm trashing it and starting over because he was the lowest form of whale blubber in the ocean depths" is rather silly, ...
Make up your mind, please? This is what Rafs statements lead me to believe, he can't make up his mind. On the one hand he writes "prove all things hold fast that which is good", on the other "throw it all out".
Bottom Line: " If you hold it fast, you don't throw it out. "
Folks have advocated this, because of his sins and abuses. I am certain of this. Throw it all out, it's tainted, it is poison, the fish is rotten, a little arsenic in the stew, etc...
You know what I'm saying Wordwolf, you're an intelligent guy.
BTW, please use larger, darker fonts. I can't see.
I'm not sure what it was that was just said here. But something bugged me.
Everyday I find another aspect of twi teachings (vpw, lcms, all of it) to be anywhere from doubtful to a devilish doctrine. Everytime my wife and I decide to give up another way doctrine, we really do "let the foot off the hose" a little more. We've gone stepwise from TWI is God's ministry, to lcm made a mistake, to "it was all lcm's fault", to the ministry's just made up of people-it's the Word that matters, Now we're considering that vpw was a crook, and looks like it won't be long before we consider twi truly to be the devil's church.
vpw stole material, cut and paste a ministry together. Taking his doctrines and scrutinizing all new information based on his way of thinking is not "proving all things" and therefore you can't "hold fast to that which is good" if your whole sense of right and wrong is twisted.
Toss the whole fish. No, soak it in acid and flush it. God is big enough. There's plenty of fish in the sea.
If you throw it all away based on him being a lousy scumbag alone, do you think that is God's will? I don't. I assert that that is a form of victim entitlement.
It still doesn't make sense to me.
Who, pray tell, is doing the "entitling"?
See.. you do not sit in that position. Your permission or empowerment is not necessary. Nor is mine.
On the other hand, I do not feel any thing that came from vic is "entitled" a FAIR SHAKE.
vpw stole material, cut and paste a ministry together. Taking his doctrines and scrutinizing all new information based on his way of thinking is not "proving all things" and therefore you can't "hold fast to that which is good" if your whole sense of right and wrong is twisted.
...
How is your whole sense of right and wrong twisted?
Perhaps we can debate this from a different perspective, although I'd still like to hear what Raffy thinks.
Let's say you learned great truths about Christ from Billy Graham on television. You heard, assimilated, received, retained it with conviction, for years. You know and believe its the truth and on these truths you are unmovable. "holding fast the faithful word".
Then you find out 20 years later, after Graham's death, that he was an adulterer, and he abused women, and he plagiarized, he was not the man you thought he was after all.
Is your whole sense of right and wrong twisted? will you allow Graham's screw ups to effect your faith?
Do you throw out that which you have assimilated, received, retained, and loved for years, because Graham wasn't really the man you knew him to be?
Whether vic happened to be "right" about something, at least to me, is not relevant. It's merely, stolen property, stolen goods.. and some of it laced with spiritual rat poison.
I got tired of peddling stolen merchandise.
Even if it's the Mona Lisa, you can't exactly enjoy it, or show it off.. what do you do with something like that? Hang it in your living room?
What's to say that those of us who do toss it all away and begin afresh don't add some stuff back into our bucket that just happens to also be what TWI teaches? :blink:
If you had the Mona Lisa hanging in your living room for 20 years loving it there, then you find out that the person you bought it from actually stole it, what would you do?
Thanks for providing the link. I stand by what I said then and it doesn't conflict with what I say now. They're perfectly consistent.
"Better to reject..." The word "better" means I'm comparing one method to another. What are the methods? Starting a search from scratch compared to using VPW as a reference point. What would be better? Starting from scratch.
However, that does not conflict with what I said earlier, that "starting from scratch" is not something that's particularly practical. Hey, if you can do it, great, it would be better. But I can no more unlearn what VPW taught than I can unlearn how to ride a bicycle.
So I emulate "starting from scratch" by disregarding VPW as the author/writer/presenter of whatever doctrine I happen to be reviewing. the effect is the same: I have rejected him as an authority, and resume my search for the truth disregarding his input. If he taught something and I conclude through my own research he was right, to God be the glory. If he taught something and I conclude through my own research that he was wrong, to God be the glory. And I have NO PROBLEM WHATSOEVER with taking my entire VPW collection to the town dump and lighting a match to it. I no longer feel any need to pore over his presentations for any valuable purpose, because any value that comes from "his" books or tapes will come from elsewhere.
However, I also see no particular need to take all his stuff to the dump either. It's valuable to me in evaluating my own thought process to go over what has influenced my thought process in the past.
So: toss out all his stuff and start from scratch. Go through all his stuff and weed out what you want to keep and what you want to toss. End result is the same: you've removed VPW as an authority.
If you had the Mona Lisa hanging in your living room for 20 years loving it there, then you find out that the person you bought it from actually stole it, what would you do?
Bad analogy. Try this instead:
If you had what you thought was the Mona Lisa hanging in your living room for 20 years, then you find out that the person you bought it from was actually not DaVinci but D'Olmeda, and that the real Mona Lisa did not have red hair and was not missing a tooth, and that the background of the painting should not have a Warner Bros. watermark, would you still value the painting as a priceless work of art?
Victor Paul Wierwille taught truth mixed with comically bad and tragically bad error.
The Mona Lisa doesn't have a mustache. Her hair was not red. The painting you have in your living room is a fake. You're pointing to it as great art. You can't even SEE that it's a forgery. Here's my suggestion: Toss it, and begin a new search for the Mona Lisa. You'll be glad you did. Everything in the fake that was worth salvaging will be in the real Mona Lisa that you find.
Recommended Posts
Top Posters In This Topic
13
16
12
17
Popular Days
Apr 13
44
Apr 9
28
Apr 12
22
Apr 8
21
Top Posters In This Topic
oldiesman 13 posts
Ham 16 posts
FullCircle 12 posts
Bolshevik 17 posts
Popular Days
Apr 13 2007
44 posts
Apr 9 2007
28 posts
Apr 12 2007
22 posts
Apr 8 2007
21 posts
Raf
Could I get a link to where I said that last year? I want to check the context before I respond.
I will say, however, that I never claimed to be God-breathed and can certainly adjust my thinking. I can also say that both statements I made are true. They do not contradict each other at all. Just because it would be better to do one thing doesn't mean it would be ineffective to do something else. Frankly, I can no more erase the existence and teaching of VPW from my head after accepting it in general for more than a decade than I can erase my ability to ride a bike. I learned it. Now, I can learn more, and adjust and adapt, but I can't unlearn something. I can forget something I've learned, but not intentionally. I can "reject" what I've learned, but that would require replacing it with something else in most cases.
Whatever.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
waysider
Re: separate the fish from the bones.
Remember that place in PFAL where VP is teaching about context?
He says you can even take things out of context to prove "There is no God".
Well, that is ,in fact, what the scripture says.
Of course, we also remember that he went on to show that in context it said,"The fool hath said in his heart there is no God."
I believe that in order for something to fit with the context, it must be understood in a larger sense than verse, chapter, book, or even the whole Bible.
It has to be understood in relation to life itself in a moment to moment sense.
One of the advantages of having spent time in a program that required spending an inordinate amount of time with other believers, was that the context of the big picture became more than a class or twig meeting and, in fact, became a situation that required participants to be "on stage" 24/7. I don't think people who were not in some of these programs such as WC or Way Home or HQ Staff or Fellowlaborers, etc. really understand how much the lifestyle itself impacted the participants. You couldn't just take a class session and go back home. You were home. You didn't discuss it . You didn't question it. You didn't vocalize any disagreement with leadership. You just ate the whole blasted fish, bones and all and didn't dare to say the taste was foul.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Ham
I've vomited up more rotten fish than I care to enumerate..
Link to comment
Share on other sites
waysider
Link to comment
Share on other sites
WordWolf
"Better to reject everything that comes out of the mouth of VPW as untrustworthy, and start the search for truth from scratch. Those things that are true will resurface independently of VPW's "work.""
"I think what he did was dishonest and self-promoting, but I have for so long separated what was taught from who taught it that the undeniable fact of his plagiarism doesn't make me lose much sleep. Truth is truth, error is error, and the works published under his name contained both. ...
Prove all things. Hold fast to that which is good. I know I read that somewhere."
I find that these 2 statements are not CONTRADICTORY, despite Oldies' suggestion that they are.
Step 1.
Put aside all vpw/twi reading materials,
get a clean Bible with no notes,
then go off and learn some stuff.
Presume you need to learn all the fundamental basics, and proceed from there.
Step 2.
Learn a bunch of stuff, carefully monitoring your filtering media and translator, making sure
you are judging things on their own merits rather than whether or not they are
saying the same thing that vpw/twi said.
Step 3.
Pick up some vpw/twi reading materials,
and see if they hold up to any real scrutiny.
Thus, discard everything he taught, start over, and later re-evaluate what he taught.
This isn't a one-weekend process!
Edited by WordWolfLink to comment
Share on other sites
Bolshevik
Right, you need to replace the old way of thinking and stick to it. 'cause once you stop, you will revert back to your old TWI way of thinking. . . .
Edited by BolshevikLink to comment
Share on other sites
FullCircle
And it is okay to admit that we just don't know, that we don't have all the answers all the time. The world won't come to an end if we don't know.
For some reason when I came out of TWI, speaking for myself here, I felt I had to KNOW everything now. I had to have all the answers, which doctrine was right, soul sleep or not, JC is not God or what, tithing, speaking in tougnes what was the right doctrine?
I felt at least for the first year or so that I was worse off than before I got into TWI because even then I didn't know, but it was worse thinking I did know then to find out it may have been all wrong.
I learned to live without knowing everything about everything concerning these issues and I learned answers took time and I learned it was a search and a work in progress and to have patience and as long as I did, the answers I wanted would come. And they did. I evolved. I expanded where I looked and read and studied. I pondered and sifted and discussed and came to my own conclusions. The world didn't end while in that process and I am still in that process of learning and growing and building.
It really is okay to start over with a blank slate.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
oldiesman
I'll try to explain this better. Some may think they're entitled to dispose of all they learned in twi just because of the sins of VP, and that God is ok with that. I don't think he would be. The scriptures say "prove all things, hold fast that which is good".
If one tests the scriptures VP taught based upon their merit alone, and come to the conclusion they can't believe because the scruptures taught don't make sense to them or they just don't believe it, fine. No problema. By the way, VP wanted us to do precisely this, and asked us many times to do this.
On the other hand, if one believes the scriptures VP taught, finds them good, and profitable; one is not entitled to throw it away as trash because of VP sins and abuses. I think that would be victim entitlement. One is a victim of Victor Paul Wierwille therefore you are entitled to keep on playing the victim card, keep on being a victim, and reject everything he taught....
I don't see that in the scripture, especially when one considers we are to "hold fast that which is good".
Yes.
If you throw it all away based on him being a lousy scumbag alone, do you think that is God's will? I don't. I assert that that is a form of victim entitlement. You were victimized by VP, therefore you have a right to reject the teachings based on that alone. You are letting your emotions rule, which can be dangerous...
... I'm no psychologist, but this makes sense to me.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
WordWolf
If one really wants to go beyond all the crippling deficiencies inflicted on them as a result
of the crippling deficiencies vpw taught (as a result of his own crippling deficiences),
then one must put aside twi/vpw mode, and learn things in patterns vpw never saw,
in fashions vpw never used, using tools vpw never did, from people and places
that never heard of vpw.
At the very least, one needs to put them aside for a time.
On the other hand, if one wishes to remain hobbled by wrong twi thinking and wrong twi teaching,
by all means, one should cling closely to vpw/twi doctrine, books, methodology....
Which, BTW, can be done BADLY by using ONLY twi methods,or can be done EFFECTIVELY by using the entire spectrum of Christian tools and not just the twi crayon.
He said those words on a number of occassions.
However, if you search, you'd BETTER end with a conclusion that agrees with vpw,
or you'd BETTER keep it to yourself.
vpw NEVER tolerated the slightest deviations from his doctrines,
ESPECIALLY face-to-face.
So, I'd say he CLAIMED he wanted us to do this, but actually wanted us to ENDORSE him
in any searches we did.
That's why the methodology always stuck close to what he taught, "his" books, etc.
After being taught specific limitations were the key to ALL knowledge, and discovering thata lot of the doctrine was arranged to facilitiate criminal conspiracies,
it is eminently logical to question just how well one believes anything vpw taught,
or that they know what the Scriptures really say after all.
Therefore, the idea that someone would say
"I'm confident that the Bible is completely true, and that I truly understand it,
but I'm trashing it because my teacher was the lowest form of whale blubber in the ocean depths"
is rather silly,
and a scenario manufactured by Oldiesman so he has something to distinctly condemn.
This is also known as the "Strawman."
Ok, I'll agree.
If we should ever find a human being who said "I believe that the Bible is Truth, and I believe I
understand the true doctrines contained in it, and those doctrines are congruent in ALL RESPECTS
with what vpw taught in twi,
but I'm discarding it all ANYWAY because vpw was a wiggly worm",
then we should say that person is using "victim entitlement."
Signal me if you ever find such a person.
I'll dust them off and check for straw.
I don't either.Then again, only you were even suggesting that position.
Of course, if one doesn't make a REAL investigation, how does one know if it's God's Will that
one remain ensorcelled by vpw worship,
as opposed to freeing their understanding for all the OTHER things God wished to show them,
and to enlighten their eyes with,
but they're too busy shutting their eyes and huddling around the collaterals to see it?
If one NEVER puts it all down to look OUTSIDE the groupthink and partyline of twi,
one will NEVER know which is which. They certainly can't claim they've "tested" their
doctrine and it's held up to anything resembling a "fair" test.
That, of course, means when a REAL crisis comes, the answers can slip past you due
to mental hobbling.
Instead, to clutch the collaterals to one's chest tightly, to insist that only their twi education
has the answers when there's many Christians with BETTER answers,
THAT's letting one's emotions rule, too....Nostalgia replaces truth...
That doesn't make sense to me,
but I can understand the appeal.
Edited by WordWolfLink to comment
Share on other sites
oldiesman
This is not what I said or asserted. You're great at your own strawmen, Wordwolf.
What I'm saying is something like this:
Therefore, the idea that someone would say "I'm confident that Wierwille taught truth, and that I truly understand it, but I'm trashing it and starting over because he was the lowest form of whale blubber in the ocean depths" is rather silly, ...
Make up your mind, please? This is what Rafs statements lead me to believe, he can't make up his mind. On the one hand he writes "prove all things hold fast that which is good", on the other "throw it all out".
Bottom Line: " If you hold it fast, you don't throw it out. "
Folks have advocated this, because of his sins and abuses. I am certain of this. Throw it all out, it's tainted, it is poison, the fish is rotten, a little arsenic in the stew, etc...
You know what I'm saying Wordwolf, you're an intelligent guy.
BTW, please use larger, darker fonts. I can't see.
Edited by oldiesmanLink to comment
Share on other sites
act2
On a local church sign recently:
Tell one lie and a thousands truths will be doubted.
That is my opinion of victor paul wierwille and the way international corporation.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
oldiesman
Raffy, the link is below, look near the bottom of the page is where our debate started,
http://www.greasespotcafe.com/ipb/index.ph...aven&st=220
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bolshevik
I'm not sure what it was that was just said here. But something bugged me.
Everyday I find another aspect of twi teachings (vpw, lcms, all of it) to be anywhere from doubtful to a devilish doctrine. Everytime my wife and I decide to give up another way doctrine, we really do "let the foot off the hose" a little more. We've gone stepwise from TWI is God's ministry, to lcm made a mistake, to "it was all lcm's fault", to the ministry's just made up of people-it's the Word that matters, Now we're considering that vpw was a crook, and looks like it won't be long before we consider twi truly to be the devil's church.
vpw stole material, cut and paste a ministry together. Taking his doctrines and scrutinizing all new information based on his way of thinking is not "proving all things" and therefore you can't "hold fast to that which is good" if your whole sense of right and wrong is twisted.
Toss the whole fish. No, soak it in acid and flush it. God is big enough. There's plenty of fish in the sea.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Ham
It still doesn't make sense to me.
Who, pray tell, is doing the "entitling"?
See.. you do not sit in that position. Your permission or empowerment is not necessary. Nor is mine.
On the other hand, I do not feel any thing that came from vic is "entitled" a FAIR SHAKE.
Of course, the same can be said of me.
Edited by Mr. HammeroniLink to comment
Share on other sites
oldiesman
How is your whole sense of right and wrong twisted?
Perhaps we can debate this from a different perspective, although I'd still like to hear what Raffy thinks.
Let's say you learned great truths about Christ from Billy Graham on television. You heard, assimilated, received, retained it with conviction, for years. You know and believe its the truth and on these truths you are unmovable. "holding fast the faithful word".
Then you find out 20 years later, after Graham's death, that he was an adulterer, and he abused women, and he plagiarized, he was not the man you thought he was after all.
Is your whole sense of right and wrong twisted? will you allow Graham's screw ups to effect your faith?
Do you throw out that which you have assimilated, received, retained, and loved for years, because Graham wasn't really the man you knew him to be?
Edited by oldiesmanLink to comment
Share on other sites
Ham
Whether vic happened to be "right" about something, at least to me, is not relevant. It's merely, stolen property, stolen goods.. and some of it laced with spiritual rat poison.
I got tired of peddling stolen merchandise.
Even if it's the Mona Lisa, you can't exactly enjoy it, or show it off.. what do you do with something like that? Hang it in your living room?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Ham
Of course I could do what vic did. Cut it out of it's frame, paste it on a poster, draw a mustache on it.. nobody would ever suspect..
Edited by Mr. HammeroniLink to comment
Share on other sites
Belle
What's to say that those of us who do toss it all away and begin afresh don't add some stuff back into our bucket that just happens to also be what TWI teaches? :blink:
Link to comment
Share on other sites
oldiesman
If you had the Mona Lisa hanging in your living room for 20 years loving it there, then you find out that the person you bought it from actually stole it, what would you do?
Edited by oldiesmanLink to comment
Share on other sites
Ham
After figuratively "sundialing" the guy, and wiping off the greasy mustache, I'd probably give it back..
One of my daughter's original work looks nicer anyway..
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
Thanks for providing the link. I stand by what I said then and it doesn't conflict with what I say now. They're perfectly consistent.
"Better to reject..." The word "better" means I'm comparing one method to another. What are the methods? Starting a search from scratch compared to using VPW as a reference point. What would be better? Starting from scratch.
However, that does not conflict with what I said earlier, that "starting from scratch" is not something that's particularly practical. Hey, if you can do it, great, it would be better. But I can no more unlearn what VPW taught than I can unlearn how to ride a bicycle.
So I emulate "starting from scratch" by disregarding VPW as the author/writer/presenter of whatever doctrine I happen to be reviewing. the effect is the same: I have rejected him as an authority, and resume my search for the truth disregarding his input. If he taught something and I conclude through my own research he was right, to God be the glory. If he taught something and I conclude through my own research that he was wrong, to God be the glory. And I have NO PROBLEM WHATSOEVER with taking my entire VPW collection to the town dump and lighting a match to it. I no longer feel any need to pore over his presentations for any valuable purpose, because any value that comes from "his" books or tapes will come from elsewhere.
However, I also see no particular need to take all his stuff to the dump either. It's valuable to me in evaluating my own thought process to go over what has influenced my thought process in the past.
So: toss out all his stuff and start from scratch. Go through all his stuff and weed out what you want to keep and what you want to toss. End result is the same: you've removed VPW as an authority.
Bad analogy. Try this instead:
If you had what you thought was the Mona Lisa hanging in your living room for 20 years, then you find out that the person you bought it from was actually not DaVinci but D'Olmeda, and that the real Mona Lisa did not have red hair and was not missing a tooth, and that the background of the painting should not have a Warner Bros. watermark, would you still value the painting as a priceless work of art?
Edited by RafLink to comment
Share on other sites
oldiesman
I think my analogy was correct because Victor Paul Wierwille taught truth.
Would you give the painting back?
Well I am amazed.
After 20 years, I would keep it.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Ham
I think that it is up to the individual.
Oldies, you wanna hold onto it, fine by me. Personally, for me, I see no merit in it.
Like some others, I've filled my bucket with lots of other stuff..
and Raf, I do respect you and what you've done sorting through all that stuff.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
Victor Paul Wierwille taught truth mixed with comically bad and tragically bad error.
The Mona Lisa doesn't have a mustache. Her hair was not red. The painting you have in your living room is a fake. You're pointing to it as great art. You can't even SEE that it's a forgery. Here's my suggestion: Toss it, and begin a new search for the Mona Lisa. You'll be glad you did. Everything in the fake that was worth salvaging will be in the real Mona Lisa that you find.
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.