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?
??????
I was taught by twi to be rude to outsiders, to be snob of Christian, that as the man I should dominate and micromanage my wife and kids, to "mark and avoid" everyone instead of loving them, that the rest of the world is tricked and I know the truth, how to ream people out and that this is how you love people, that I have secret knowledge of the Bible and even Politics that the rest of the world does not, that if I give all my money to them God will make my life abundant, that LCM was the MOGFART, the if I disobey the TC, LC, BC, RC etc the adversary will attack me, if I disobey my parents I would die young, if I left twi I would die, that the internet is the adversary's domain, that the truth eminates from New Knoxville,. . . . .
I learn more about the goodness of God from watching Vegie Tales than I ever did at twi.
and that has nothing to do with vpw or his sex life, aside from his imprint on my mind, toss the fish.
Oldie, I, for one, agree that throwing all TWI teachings out is not going to solve anything.....IF your reason for doing so is because vp was a bad boy.
But, my reasons, as I stated in my earlier post were quite different. I believe that vp subverted the meaning and intent of God's scriptural concepts to serve his own purposes. And because of that, I believe that TWI's, and vp's, teachings are contaminated and poisoned by this self-serving approach to "rightly-dividing" the Word. I don't feel any need or desire to rehash ol' vp's work in order to straighten it out...it's just too much of a tangled mess. If you want to hang onto what he taught, go right ahead. That's your right and priviledge.
"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.
I submit that not using VPW as a reference point...especially if that is not believing everything just because VPW taught it...is not the same as "rejecting everything that comes out of the mouth of VPW as untrustworthy". "Prove all things" does not mean you have to reject it...perhaps only that you reject the idea that it is the truth because VPW taught it. I think a lot pf people who learned things about God in TWI know that VPW teaching something is not what established its truth.
I believe that to honestly evaluate any of TWI's teachings, distance is required. There was a strong mentality of "reading the Bible through PFAL-colored glasses."
Add to that the oral doctrines and traditions that were handed down and you have a real mess.
I like Raf's procedure for searching for truth. I will add that distance from the cult is required. One needs time to detoxify and get perspective. I for one had to just live life for a long time. I had my first child about 4 years after leaving and I was so glad that I didn't have to even think about children's fellowship or dragging her to meetings. No one hounded me with the proper use and abuse of the wooden spoon.
I think about how TWI wanted every part of your life (part of the oral tradition I referred to) and I see how my kids wouldn't have had time for piano, ballet, sports, etc, if I had gone to meeting after meeting after meeting.
There is a poster in the school that I teach at:
"Those who stand for nothing Fall for anything."
In a funny twist of logic I see how TWI- thinking can get you caught up in "standing for nothing." If you have no life, no love, no passion - then all you have is a bunch of rules that TELL you what to do. If you aren't able to think for yourself then you can't reason when confronted.
About the Mona Lisa. If I had a painting in my house that I thought was an original and then discovered was a fake - I'd like to think I'd toss it just because it would be a daily reminder of my mistake.
A person could love an image that they find is a forgery and still love the image. The main problem would be that now they would KNOW it was fake and they certainly couldn't honestly claim it as an original. Forget about selling it through Sotheby's.
IMHO - the analogy is faulty because paintings don't really direct you like books do.
When I was a young lad, I couldn't STAND the smell of two things: 1. Swiss Cheese 2. Fish.
I grew out of the aversion to swiss cheese. But..
I hate fish.. always have. Awful, evil, disgusting stuff..
I have worse problems with fish than I do getting a shot at doctors office. And they practically have to use a rubber mallet to get me calm enough to get a needle of any kind into me..
I still find great joy and peace in an occasional listening of the old tapes. There are lots of goodies there.
I don't want to go to church; I have other interests.
I can't get rid of these and don't want to. To me, this is "holding fast that which is good".
Can something I find pleasure in be so bad?
"Occasional listening of the old tapes"/"There are lots of goodies there."
You may have stumbled on something here. The next time you notice one of these "goodies", do a little exploration and see if you can find one of these "goodies" in non-TWI sources. It shouldn't be too hard with everything that has been posted here on GSC. After you do so, re-examine the gist of this thread which is that VPW highjacked the works of others and claimed them for his own. He even went a step further and claimed , in some instances, that God gave these exclusively to him. You see, it's not about whether some of these concepts were valid or not, it's about determining origin and misrepresenting sources of information and using that information to fulfil personal agendas.
BTW-- Did you read my post on "context"?
What was taught from the pulpit and heard by the rank and file did not always parallel what was taught within the context of living some of TWI "leadership" programs.
I think we're getting semantical in the distinction here: the end result is the same. If I reject everything VPW taught and evaluate what I'm going to let back in, or filter out everything VPW taught and keep only those things I think are valuable and worth keeping, the end result is identical: I keep what I think is right and reject what I think is wrong. It's the NEXT STEP in both cases that makes the two options identical.
REJECT ALL: Re-admit some.
REJECT SOME: Retain some.
Either way, the same stuff ends up rejected and the same stuff ends up retained. Pick your method. Whatever makes you happier. What DIFFERENCE does it make, so long as you're being honest with yourself?
I think we're getting semantical in the distinction here: the end result is the same. If I reject everything VPW taught and evaluate what I'm going to let back in, or filter out everything VPW taught and keep only those things I think are valuable and worth keeping, the end result is identical: I keep what I think is right and reject what I think is wrong. It's the NEXT STEP in both cases that makes the two options identical.
REJECT ALL: Re-admit some.
REJECT SOME: Retain some.
Either way, the same stuff ends up rejected and the same stuff ends up retained. Pick your method. Whatever makes you happier. What DIFFERENCE does it make, so long as you're being honest with yourself?
May I suggest that this comparison seems to hinge on keeping vp's teachings as the focus of the investigation. In that case, yes, the results are the same.
I chose to throw them out and approach the learning process independent of TWI and vp altogether. That, I think, is the best approach if one wants to avoid the TWI lies.
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".
First of all, each one of us is "entitled", which I take to mean "has the right" (please correct me if I misunderstand you) to do what ever we want with what we learned in TWI for whatever reason we want. Frankly, I don't think God is overly concerned about where we learned what we believe. Second, I think that you're misunderstanding what people are saying about rejecting Wierwille and starting over.
Rejecting Wierwille's teachings, or rejecting Wierwille and/or PFAL as a basis or source for truth, is not about a wholesale rejection of "truth", it's about finding "truth" independent of TWI. Some choose to "chuck it all" and start all over again. During this new search for "truth", anything that coincidently lines up with what Wierwille taught in PFAL is not thrown out again, but accepted, the fact that Wierwille also taught it is no longer relevant. The rejection is only permanant for those things that are not deemed to be true. It's similar with those who don't throw it all out, but examine carefully everything that Wierwille taught to determine its truthfullness, if something that Wierwille taught meets whatever criteria the individual sets, then it is retained, held fast, and again, the fact that Wierwille taught it is irrelevant.
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.
That's exactly what most, if not all those who have rejected Wierwille have done.
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.
But that is not what is being done. Wierwille's sins and abuses are not a pretext for throwing away what one perceives as truth, but a reason for doubting that everything that the man said was truth, for carefully examining what he taught, or starting afresh.
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.... 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 either not understanding what people are saying, or you are deliberately twisting words, you certainly aren't accurately reflecting what the other side is saying...as WordWolf said, it's a strawman argument.
You are letting your emotions rule, which can be dangerous...
One might say the same of those who unquestioningly hold to PFAL.
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
Dude, stick to one analogy at a time. You've got a fraudulent piece of artwork hanging in your living room and you're talking about lunch.
How about going to MacDonald's for a Fillet-o-fish. It's boneless.
Edited by RafLink to comment
Share on other sites
Ham
who says? maybe they didn't see it in the original..
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bolshevik
??????
I was taught by twi to be rude to outsiders, to be snob of Christian, that as the man I should dominate and micromanage my wife and kids, to "mark and avoid" everyone instead of loving them, that the rest of the world is tricked and I know the truth, how to ream people out and that this is how you love people, that I have secret knowledge of the Bible and even Politics that the rest of the world does not, that if I give all my money to them God will make my life abundant, that LCM was the MOGFART, the if I disobey the TC, LC, BC, RC etc the adversary will attack me, if I disobey my parents I would die young, if I left twi I would die, that the internet is the adversary's domain, that the truth eminates from New Knoxville,. . . . .
I learn more about the goodness of God from watching Vegie Tales than I ever did at twi.
and that has nothing to do with vpw or his sex life, aside from his imprint on my mind, toss the fish.
Edited by BolshevikLink to comment
Share on other sites
Listener
Oldie, I, for one, agree that throwing all TWI teachings out is not going to solve anything.....IF your reason for doing so is because vp was a bad boy.
But, my reasons, as I stated in my earlier post were quite different. I believe that vp subverted the meaning and intent of God's scriptural concepts to serve his own purposes. And because of that, I believe that TWI's, and vp's, teachings are contaminated and poisoned by this self-serving approach to "rightly-dividing" the Word. I don't feel any need or desire to rehash ol' vp's work in order to straighten it out...it's just too much of a tangled mess. If you want to hang onto what he taught, go right ahead. That's your right and priviledge.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bolshevik
How bony is this fish we're talking about anyway? In the past there were fish completely covered with a bony shell. Choose your fish wisely.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
oldiesman
I still find great joy and peace in an occasional listening of the old tapes. There are lots of goodies there.
I don't want to go to church; I have other interests.
I can't get rid of these and don't want to. To me, this is "holding fast that which is good".
Can something I find pleasure in be so bad?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Listener
Not usually. Except when it's slowly poisoning your thinking processes without your realizing it....like carcinogens in food.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bolshevik
If you can discern, than that's your right.
I can't. But I do see the fruit.
Broccoli has lots of natural carcinogens in it. But it also has lots of benefits that outway that.
But there is some food I wouldn't feed to a stray dog.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Belle
I'm sure those cats enjoyed eating the Menu Foods cat food they were fed these past few months.
The fish that gave me food poisoning tasted good, too. <_<
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Listener
editted to correct emotion.
Edited by ListenerLink to comment
Share on other sites
Lifted Up
I submit that not using VPW as a reference point...especially if that is not believing everything just because VPW taught it...is not the same as "rejecting everything that comes out of the mouth of VPW as untrustworthy". "Prove all things" does not mean you have to reject it...perhaps only that you reject the idea that it is the truth because VPW taught it. I think a lot pf people who learned things about God in TWI know that VPW teaching something is not what established its truth.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
FullCircle
Da fish stinks at da head.
I've been waiting to say that.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
doojable
I believe that to honestly evaluate any of TWI's teachings, distance is required. There was a strong mentality of "reading the Bible through PFAL-colored glasses."
Add to that the oral doctrines and traditions that were handed down and you have a real mess.
I like Raf's procedure for searching for truth. I will add that distance from the cult is required. One needs time to detoxify and get perspective. I for one had to just live life for a long time. I had my first child about 4 years after leaving and I was so glad that I didn't have to even think about children's fellowship or dragging her to meetings. No one hounded me with the proper use and abuse of the wooden spoon.
I think about how TWI wanted every part of your life (part of the oral tradition I referred to) and I see how my kids wouldn't have had time for piano, ballet, sports, etc, if I had gone to meeting after meeting after meeting.
There is a poster in the school that I teach at:
"Those who stand for nothing Fall for anything."
In a funny twist of logic I see how TWI- thinking can get you caught up in "standing for nothing." If you have no life, no love, no passion - then all you have is a bunch of rules that TELL you what to do. If you aren't able to think for yourself then you can't reason when confronted.
About the Mona Lisa. If I had a painting in my house that I thought was an original and then discovered was a fake - I'd like to think I'd toss it just because it would be a daily reminder of my mistake.
A person could love an image that they find is a forgery and still love the image. The main problem would be that now they would KNOW it was fake and they certainly couldn't honestly claim it as an original. Forget about selling it through Sotheby's.
IMHO - the analogy is faulty because paintings don't really direct you like books do.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Ham
When I was a young lad, I couldn't STAND the smell of two things: 1. Swiss Cheese 2. Fish.
I grew out of the aversion to swiss cheese. But..
I hate fish.. always have. Awful, evil, disgusting stuff..
I have worse problems with fish than I do getting a shot at doctors office. And they practically have to use a rubber mallet to get me calm enough to get a needle of any kind into me..
Don't tell me I have to eat fish..
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bolshevik
I love fish. Yummy.
Then again, I don't crave acorns.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
waysider
"Occasional listening of the old tapes"/"There are lots of goodies there."
You may have stumbled on something here. The next time you notice one of these "goodies", do a little exploration and see if you can find one of these "goodies" in non-TWI sources. It shouldn't be too hard with everything that has been posted here on GSC. After you do so, re-examine the gist of this thread which is that VPW highjacked the works of others and claimed them for his own. He even went a step further and claimed , in some instances, that God gave these exclusively to him. You see, it's not about whether some of these concepts were valid or not, it's about determining origin and misrepresenting sources of information and using that information to fulfil personal agendas.
BTW-- Did you read my post on "context"?
What was taught from the pulpit and heard by the rank and file did not always parallel what was taught within the context of living some of TWI "leadership" programs.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
Lifted Up:
I think we're getting semantical in the distinction here: the end result is the same. If I reject everything VPW taught and evaluate what I'm going to let back in, or filter out everything VPW taught and keep only those things I think are valuable and worth keeping, the end result is identical: I keep what I think is right and reject what I think is wrong. It's the NEXT STEP in both cases that makes the two options identical.
REJECT ALL: Re-admit some.
REJECT SOME: Retain some.
Either way, the same stuff ends up rejected and the same stuff ends up retained. Pick your method. Whatever makes you happier. What DIFFERENCE does it make, so long as you're being honest with yourself?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bolshevik
I got it. Catch and release. If its little through it back. Catch it again in a couple years.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Listener
May I suggest that this comparison seems to hinge on keeping vp's teachings as the focus of the investigation. In that case, yes, the results are the same.
I chose to throw them out and approach the learning process independent of TWI and vp altogether. That, I think, is the best approach if one wants to avoid the TWI lies.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Oakspear
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Oakspear
Rejecting Wierwille's teachings, or rejecting Wierwille and/or PFAL as a basis or source for truth, is not about a wholesale rejection of "truth", it's about finding "truth" independent of TWI. Some choose to "chuck it all" and start all over again. During this new search for "truth", anything that coincidently lines up with what Wierwille taught in PFAL is not thrown out again, but accepted, the fact that Wierwille also taught it is no longer relevant. The rejection is only permanant for those things that are not deemed to be true. It's similar with those who don't throw it all out, but examine carefully everything that Wierwille taught to determine its truthfullness, if something that Wierwille taught meets whatever criteria the individual sets, then it is retained, held fast, and again, the fact that Wierwille taught it is irrelevant.
That's exactly what most, if not all those who have rejected Wierwille have done.Link to comment
Share on other sites
griffp
Hey Wierwille stole my idea.
Start a cult
Get a lot of chicks
Get drunk a lot.
Drive this big a$$ bus
and just screw around for 30 years.
Well I guess he just beat me to it.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Oakspear
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Ham
I trust my emotions a hundred times over what I trust anything that came out of that kornfield outfit..
but if you think my emotions are ruling, you simply don't know me.
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.