To get to the bottom of it we'd need to be able to document the source and intentions behind the TVT's. I don't believe we're able to prove much of anything about that at this point. I do believe that according to God's Word that the Lord Jesus Christ knows the truth and will punish them.
I'll throw this point out for consideration though. TVT's that covered up wicked and lewd behavior, and then continued to ruin folk's lives for years eventually are bound to GREIVE GOD himself, it's inevitable. The prospects for those responsible are not pleasant, Dr. Wierwille himself mentioned the Lord "taking it out of their hides" in "The Passing of a Patriarch."
Since the events in our times were not handled with the same wisdom and Love that the apostle Paul walked in it is inevitable that the WHOLE LUMP is leavened.
Yes, the whole lump of leadership is leavened by now, and probably was in 1985. But the written doctrine is a whole different story. That stuff is pure.
The TVTs are untraceable except in faulty memory.
As far as what actually went on over twenty years ago, I have NO CONFIDENCE in the reporters who have show up here to get the story completely straight, even if they were involved in the first person. I have NO CONFIDENCE in any ancient story reported here being complete in any way. Scads of info is missing from every report regarding context and the complete dialog. The supposed destruction of lives and family due to TWI is, IMHO, wildly exaggerated. People and families get destroyed all the time without any help from a corrupt organization. I don't mean to belittle anyone's pain here: THAT can be very real and needing prompt attention. I just suspect the detailed roots of that pain are long dried up and decayed and gone.
Yes, some nasty things did go on at times, but it wasn't the norm. When it was the norm, it wasn’t VPW but the leadership under him. I figure if VPW blew it bigtime twice a year, that would generate at least 40 HORROR STORIES where the fish gets bigger with each passing year. That COULD pretty much account for all the grief mentioned here, while leaving out all the probably hundreds (even thousands) of temptations where Dr successfully walked the Word, and leaving out the many, many thousands of times he walked and taught the Word accurately.
Of course the mindless copying of what Dr blew it on, and passing it on as doctrine is the responsibility of the individuals who were our leaders, some of whom have posted here, and still “ministering.” Going after them, like Don’tWorryBeHappy was doing, can be seen as useful if done properly.
I find it a dangerous thing to focus on these matters for to long. We're warned against it.
It's interesting to me that you clarified by saying "the whole lump of leadership". In 1st Corinthians it doesn't say leadership. I think the real effects of the leaven being allowed to continue is very much more devastating than simply confining it to leadership.
I empathise with you about acknowledging that the stories may be incomplete or worse, but the thing that's made me mad here is when someone is attacked or put down for simply sharing what happened to them. Those type of bullies are something that I've had entirely too much exposure to and I will do my best to not tolerate that here or anywhere else.
It's painfull to me that the ones who are doing the bullying are often the ones who claim to be trying to remember the good like I do.
I know that it's not a good thing to focus completely on injustice, it just makes life harder than it already is. But for someone who's been hurt badly, I think it's almost always bad to be hard on them. Job's comforters did not do a good thing either.
In general I have issues with some of the abundance of accusations on this site, and I think I probably could argue that some are false accusations. But I'd rather not accuse one hurting person of being a liar or worse. Why would I would argue a point that doesn't do anyone any good. I think that maybe when the time is right that I might be able to help someone get past these things. In the mean time I think it'll do more good to allow folks to read it all and consider the whole matter than to beat down any opposing viewpoint.
No one has been able to point out poison doctrine in the written collaterals. It was all in TVTs.
Page 3/ PLAF silly-bus (1968 edition)
This is not a TVT as you call it.
It's written in black and white.
"What you fear, you will receive- it is a law"
That's poison, Mike.
The whole "law of believing" concept is flawed and inaccurate.
It's poison. It's never called a "law" in God's Word.
But most importantly, in relation to your emphasis on TVT's, it's not a TVT, it's written in the class materials in several places and in various forms.
Do you personally know of anyone who suffered serious or even fatal consequences because they ignored good sense and followed this doctrine instead? Well I do and I'm sure there are countless others.
Now follow me on how this logic unfolds, Mike.
You have stated that it is your belief that the written materials were given by revelation.
Yet, from even this one simple example, we can see that the written class material contradicts God's Word.
And isn't there a place in The Bible where it is stated that if a man thinks he is a prophet and has his prophesy proven false, even so much as one time, we are not to pay attention to him or his prophesies?
And there's more poison, Mike.
How about session #7 where we are taught that if we even consider alternative concepts, we will fall victim to the same fate as Eve who considered what the serpent said?
That's the granddaddy of all poisons.Once that poison takes hold, the other poisons are free to run unchecked, laughing in the face of antidotes.
Did you know that in Christian Family and Sex, Dr. taught that the original sin was not that she listened to the Devil but that she and Adam masturbated and consumed the results?
So here again, Mike, VPW's "revelation" fails the litmus test of proving to be consistent.
Your contention is that the problem is in TVT's.
I have shown you that there are problems with the written material as well.
Selah!-------That's from God's Word.
One translation indicates it means -----"Consider what I say".
It's interesting to me that you clarified by saying "the whole lump of leadership". In 1st Corinthians it doesn't say leadership. I think the real effects of the leaven being allowed to continue is very much more devastating than simply confining it to leadership.
I empathise with you about acknowledging that the stories may be incomplete or worse, but the thing that's made me mad here is when someone is attacked or put down for simply sharing what happened to them. Those type of bullies are something that I've had entirely too much exposure to and I will do my best to not tolerate that here or anywhere else.
It's painfull to me that the ones who are doing the bullying are often the ones who claim to be trying to remember the good like I do.
I know that it's not a good thing to focus completely on injustice, it just makes life harder than it already is. But for someone who's been hurt badly, I think it's almost always bad to be hard on them. Job's comforters did not do a good thing either.
In general I have issues with some of the abundance of accusations on this site, and I think I probably could argue that some are false accusations. But I'd rather not accuse one hurting person of being a liar or worse. Why would I would argue a point that doesn't do anyone any good. I think that maybe when the time is right that I might be able to help someone get past these things. In the mean time I think it'll do more good to allow folks to read it all and consider the whole matter than to beat down any opposing viewpoint.
Excellent point! Now this is what I have been looking for. I too have been troubled with "the abundance of accusations", but I am still looking forward to listening and learning. I am pretty simple so I try to narrow things down to the basics. You know like, Believing...Faith or Fear. What kind of fruit is coming off this tree. Love, joy, peace etc, or bitterness, confusion and contention. I am encouraged when I read your post. Thanks.
He's not serious. He's pulling your chain and trying to rile the audience... Trying to get the crowd to chant, "YEA! Hang the SOB!"
sigh.....
All this mucking around and posturing for a show.
The temple is not the individual. The temple is the Church. "Ye" is the equivalent of "all of y'all" here in Texas. (T-Bone, that's "you guys" for us New Yawkers ;))
I still see a warning here for the likes of someone like VP.
Walter taught this to the 11th and 13th Corps in a Corps Night....
The temple is both, Dooj. But here in this verse of 3:17 of which following is a very rough translation so that you can see how
it is worded from the Greek.
If anyone the temple of God destroys, destroys this one [variant reading is: him] God; (this part is singular)
For the temple of God holy is, what you are. (Plural)
Now to smooth it out:
"If anyone destroys the temple of God, God shall destroy this one [him];
For the temple of God is holy, [which is] what you are."
Starting back in verse 10, it is singular, "but let EACH ONE" and I emphasize "each one" because the Greek word that is used does just that and so
to carry the thought through to english, you could CAP it.
In v12, a generic use is given and should be "anyone"
But in v13, Paul repeats and returns to "EACH MAN'S work" 2x in the verse
In v14-15, again it is generic and should be rendered "any one"
but then in v16, Paul returns again to "know not that you (plural) are the temple."
and "the Spirit of God lives in you (plural).
v17 a generic use of "if any one (singular) defile the temple of God, God shall destroy this one [him].
So why the interchange between singular and plural? Because EACH ONE is a living stone and EACH ONE will be held accountable for
how you built upon the foundation which is the Lord Jesus Christ in the process of building the collective temple. Why? Because
the temple of God is holy, [which is] what you are. Collectively, we make up the temple of God and one can say that each one is
also the temple of God because we are each a living stone that is being put into the building of the temple.
And yes, this is a warning for VP, but you too, and me and all the rest who call themselves Christian.
So you see, there are not any real contradictions in this verse as Mike alluded to at the beginning of this foo hah hah.
T-Bone wrote: “It seems verses 11-15 addresses the quality of workmanship and making wise choices of what we build upon and what we build with. Verses 16 & 17 hit me as what God thinks about those who vandalize His church.”
Then I wrote: “Yes, but remember, His church is the PEOPLE not the building. It's an act of "vandalizing" THE PEOPLE that God will not tolerate.”
Seeing that the temple here is PEOPLE is a key to unscrambling the problem with verse 17. That God will not tolerate the desecration of His called out PEOPLE is an idea that comes up repeatedly in that chapter. The people are protected by God, so SOMETHING has to be wrong with the first half of verse 17 where a person seems to be in grave danger of being destroyed.
Just fix one little word and that verse fits seamlessly with all the rest of the chapter.
And which word would you like to FIX?
Yeah, I posted to Dooj's post and then I read T-Bones...Geez, I could of saved my breath and then I read White Dove....
Well, I already covered it....
"The Greek is used for "touton" which = "this", which then requires you use the word "one" with it so that it makes sense in the context.
But the textual apparatus in NA27, lists "auton" = him, as the variant reading.
Either way, whether you use "this one" or "him' it is still singular.
Jeast and Jeff, I understand how troubling these accusations are. I know that you haven`t been here long enough to know who is speaking of what, but please suffice it to say that there are many many accounts of the atrocities of which I speak. In the cases that I speak of, if I wasn`t a direct participant, I know personally at least one person that endured these abuses.
Sure, I am nobody that you would know or trust per say....but would you believe the words of leadership that saw it personally in the past? There has been more than one that has admitted to the drugging and rape, the forced abortions, the adultery and alcohol issues. There is more than one sight where people have finally been brace enough to come forth and share what happened. There have been multiple first hand accounts of these atrocities....and in each of the instances that I listed, in addition to my own personal testimoney...I know at least one person whom has come forward.
That these things happened is no longer in doubt. What these signify in the life of our leaders...is what we now question.
Were they good guys who slipped up and went bad, or were they simply deceivers from the start?
It's interesting to me that you clarified by saying "the whole lump of leadership". In 1st Corinthians it doesn't say leadership. I think the real effects of the leaven being allowed to continue is very much more devastating than simply confining it to leadership.
The context of my remark on the whole lump was not an application of that verse in Corinthians, but more of what I see as a practical measure. That practicality is that I no longer seek out (after many years of doing so) former leadership for guidance of any sort. I do seek them out to help THEM, though. Chances are pretty high that many of them STILL have no clue as to what Dr's final instructions were. My remark on leaven was aimed SOLELY at discerning the difference between what DID get corrupted (leadership minds) and what did not get corrupted (the printed forms of PFAL).
In other words, when I saw your reference to the whole lump being leavened, I wanted to caution you that there WAS something genuinely great and wonderful that went on in Dr’s ministry and it is still here today in pure form.
I empathise with you about acknowledging that the stories may be incomplete or worse, but the thing that's made me mad here is when someone is attacked or put down for simply sharing what happened to them. Those type of bullies are something that I've had entirely too much exposure to and I will do my best to not tolerate that here or anywhere else.
Yes, there were and still are plenty of bullies. Quite a few tried to bully me here for speaking up in the last 5 years, but most of the more intelligent would-be bullies have eventually backed off after seeing that I am too well armed with information.
I have seen the bullying that you just described and it is neither good nor effective. However, I do draw a distinction between a person seeking help in private versus one with an obvious public agenda of their own. For those kinds of complainers I look at how much they are willing and able to bless God's people and it's is often quite low. The bullies you decry may have a sense of what I am describing right now, but are hopelessly dull in their perceptions of detail and clumsy in their application techniques. Genuine tough love can only come after tender love is mastered. Tough love without this mastery is not love at all, but bullying.
It's painfull to me that the ones who are doing the bullying are often the ones who claim to be trying to remember the good like I do.
There’s often a lot of fur flying here, and unless you are in on the past histories of two squabblers, their thread record, then it’s often very easy to make interpretation mistakes. Plus, many people write in obtuse ways and fail to clearly state their case as they intend. Then there is also the inaccurate reading of something that may make it look more of a bully job than it was intended.
I try to remember here that we only have access to a tiny slice of the personalities posting. What we do have great access to is God’s heart, though, so as we lean on that we can then better understand and treat each other.
I know that it's not a good thing to focus completely on injustice, it just makes life harder than it already is. But for someone who's been hurt badly, I think it's almost always bad to be hard on them. Job's comforters did not do a good thing either.
Yes. But remember that being hurt twenty years ago and having a present public agenda to rip the Word to shreds are two different things. The first calls for tender love, and the second calls for tough love.
I also feel for those who WILL BE hurting badly because they got talked out of the PFAL revelations.
In general I have issues with some of the abundance of accusations on this site, and I think I probably could argue that some are false accusations. But I'd rather not accuse one hurting person of being a liar or worse. Why would I would argue a point that doesn't do anyone any good. I think that maybe when the time is right that I might be able to help someone get past these things.
My rule of thumb here is to FIRST discern what is going down in public, and then try to get deal with it in private. Some people LIKE having a curse or a wound, because it makes them special. This possibility needs to be looked into, but again, in private it’s far better.
In the mean time I think it'll do more good to allow folks to read it all and consider the whole matter than to beat down any opposing viewpoint.
You seem to have a good handle on the skill of civil discourse and friendly debate. You are a good example.
GOSH! I didn't know I even HAD credibility here! Thanks! :)
You also wrote: "It seems verses 11-15 addresses the quality of workmanship and making wise choices of what we build upon and what we build with. Verses 16 & 17 hit me as what God thinks about those who vandalize His church."
Yes, but remember, His church is the PEOPLE not the building. It's an act of "vandalizing" THE PEOPLE that God will not tolerate.
T-Bone: I thought that was pretty obvious in the way I put it "…who vandalize Hischurch" – Did you think I meant an actual building made of wood, stone, and such?…come on, Mike!
***
So, maybe my treatment of verse 17 needs a little more work. Of course, that was not only a tongue in cheek translation I gave for verse 17, but it was also a quite common traditional and SERIOUS handling of that verse. How many of you folks smoke cigarettes and ever tried to go to a fundamentalist church? I might have overdone the ridiculous parts, but I've seen preachers and congregationalists who DO maintain that verse 17 is an anti-smoking verse. I've heard it quoted out of context just like I did it up for laughs, only they were dead serious.
I think I have shown how the traditional (and also the humorous) translation of that verse violates the context in which it resides. If no posters here want to admit that, I will find sufficient comfort in seeing the steady stream of visitors who can read without such egotistic blinders.
Yes, doojabble, the temple is "you" plural. That's not an issue here, though, so I didn't divert there.
The context of I Cor 3 is one of safety and comfort. Constant re-assurances are given that God's reward process does not involve human like retribution against the PERSON, but only a loss of rewards, even though that can be a substantial loss. Verse 17 violates that and needs help disparately. It's a sore thumb in the flow...
T-Bone: Perhaps you're having a problem with verse 17 because you're assuming it's talking about the same person/situation as verses 11-15. That was the point of my post # 810 – pointing out distinctions – it appears that we're dealing with two different persons/situations.
T-Bone,
You wrote (facetiously): "...Watching 'the adversary's tricks' lest I should think vic's oil to be that of snake..."
I think it's odd how often the doctrine taught in the class and collaterals is treated in some contexts (like you did here) as poisonous. Then the same posters can turn around in a different context on a different thread (or even the same one!) and bemoan how vpw "stole" good doctrine from good teachers like Bullinger, Kenyon, Styles, and Leonard.
So which is it? PFAL is poison doctrine, or stolen good doctrine?
I've noted this before here (without serious reply), like in Post #463:
This is why I could say to rascal in Post # 479
I'm just bringing it up this third time now to show how desperate the criticisms of VPW here can be.
The Poison Doctrine Theory contradicts the Stolen Light Theory!
...You wrote: "Mike It dies NOT apply to me.... *I* am not hurting people in the name of God. I am not lying stealing killing and destroying, using my reputation as God`s leader to intimidate and scriptures as my weapons to enforce compliance to my will... ...Not even CLOSE!!!!!"
If PFAL is God-breathed, then you are hurting people, and I'll promise to help you heal from it all when you finally realize it.
If PFAL is not God-breathed, then I'm not hurting anyone any more than Kenyon, Bullinger, Stiles, or Leonard did.
Your assumption isthat PFAL doctrine is nothing more than an assemblage of doctrines from others. But there's a self-deceptive aspect of plagiarism to think about also. Since it was not by his own intellectual efforts – he lacked the discipline, the skills, the experience and wisdom to handle the material properly. It's like letting a salesman for a chemical manufacturing company go in the lab, play chemist and see what neat stuff he can concoct.
And another thing – besides the fact that some of the doctrines he plagiarized are questionable as to being doctrinally sound and biblically accurate – the problem is compounded by vp's personal agenda – which really puts the toxic spin on the practical consequence of his doctrines. How he loved to throw around that verse unto the pure all things are pure or say stuff likeanything done in the love of God is okay – which really was just a license to sin.
The poison of vpw's doctrine delivers a numbing toxin to the conscience and intellect. The TWI mindset does a good job of sabotaging the moral compass; I talked about the cheap grace so cherished and promoted by vp in my post # 638 – it's nothing more than a sedative to the conscience.
vp's cheap grace corrupted his conscience to the point that he didn't see the need to seek the forgiveness of those he hurt – he figured he already had the blank check of God's forgiveness.
PFAL is not brain-friendly. I remember a discussion with one poster over vp'syou can't go beyond what you're taught. I said, if that were true how would people invent things or improve technology. He replied – that these things come by revelation. Oh yeah – I remember that old Sunday Night Teaching Tape – Carnal versus Spiritual.
Perhaps the most telltale sign of the mind-numbing poison in PFAL is when people can't separate Scripture from PFAL. Had a recent discussion about this on another thread [my post # 593 on How About Some Responses Like Chapter and Verse]
You know…folks really should have thought more about vp saying he'd have failed a sanity test. That might have been one of the rare times when he actually spoke the truth.
I'm not sure if I have mentioned this before, but VPW was a con man, a shyster, a flim flam man.
The PFAL class was a rip-off, paste-together of stolen materials.
(Though some of the contents had merit of their own.)
VPW misrepresented it and pretended that God gave it to him so he could show the world secrets that had been hidden for thousands of years.
In reality, he was an alcoholic, sexual predator who didn't give a rat's toe nail whether you or I lived or died.
He lived a lavish lifestyle that was characterized by a fleet of vintage motorcycles, classic cars, a private airplane, a motor coach, tax free housing, a staff of personal servants who clamored to satisfy his every whim, valuable real estate, expensive guns and hunting dogs and hunting gear as well as an ever flowing source of Drambuie.
He proclaimed that anyone who had cancer was possessed by devil spirits and then proceeded to die from cancer himself as did his son Donald.
He promoted an agenda, as well as reading material, that condoned Antisemitism and White Supremacy.
He stated that the US fought on the wrong side in WWII and denied The Holocaust.
He had direct ties to the radical group known as The Liberty Lobby and openly promoted their conspiracy propaganda.
He promoted poisonous doctrines, such as "the law of believing" that, in some cases, cost people their very lives.
You wrote: “I thought that was pretty obvious in the way I put it ‘…who vandalize His church’ – Did you think I meant an actual building made of wood, stone, and such?…come on, Mike!”
I wasn’t sure what you thought, but I know some others might have needed my comment to that effect. Even you could benefit from it because that Paul was talking about PEOPLE in that context is crucial. I was emphasizing that context of “people preservation” in my remark.
***
You wrote: “Your assumption is that PFAL doctrine is nothing more than an assemblage of doctrines from others. But there's a self-deceptive aspect of plagiarism to think about also. Since it was not by his own intellectual efforts – he lacked the discipline, the skills, the experience and wisdom to handle the material properly. It's like letting a salesman for a chemical manufacturing company go in the lab, play chemist and see what neat stuff he can concoct.”
The self deception on the plagiarism charge is that you and many others either don’t remember (or are conveniently suppressing it) that Dr frequently TOLD us he got most of it from other sources.
Maybe you didn’t see the following, but this has been discussed MANY times here. It is often conveniently forgotten, but just to make that more difficult I’ll repost it here:
(With my re-formatting and truncation
in re-presenting the following quotes)
First dmiller wrote:
Docvic (plain and simple) took from other's works,
and passed it off as his own.
Then oldiesman wrote:
dmiller,
sorry but I am going to have to disagree in part with you,
and I base my belief on the following:
“Lots of the stuff I teach is not original.
Putting it all together so that it fit -- that
was the original work. I learned wherever
I could, and then I worked that with the
Scriptures. What was right on with the
Scriptures, I kept; but what wasn't, I dropped.”
Victor Paul Wierwille,
1972 The Way Living In Love
Elena Whiteside page 209
The previous statement by VP disproves that he “passed it off as his own.”
In 1972 he said it wasn't original; ... if you don't believe he said that,
there it is, right before your eyes.
He deserves credit for not passing it off as his own,
but rather saying “lots of the stuff I teach is not original.”
If he was trying to hide something, and pass off all of this as his own,
he would not have made the previous statement, nor have other authors' books,
from whence he learned, selling in the Way Bookstore for all to read.
***
Now, T-Bone, when you mention things like “lacked the discipline, the skills, the experience and wisdom to handle the material properly.” It makes me think of all us grads who did that very thing with the written materials, but not Dr. It looks to me he had what was necessary to run a very large organization that blessed many thousands of people. At the CES Tenth Anniversary they admitted that PFAL was the greatest presentation of the Word in 2000 years. Did you know that?
Then you wrote: “It's like letting a salesman for a chemical manufacturing company go in the lab, play chemist and see what neat stuff he can concoct.”
Oh WOW! That’s us to a T... no pun intended.
In my post to waysider (coming up next) I get into this a lot, that the evil came from our lack of knowledge, thinking that we really knew something.
The whole "law of believing" concept is flawed and inaccurate.
It's poison. It's never called a "law" in God's Word.
-What you mean to say here is that it’s never called a “law” in your KJV. In that man-made publication, it’s never called a “law” because the language of that book (and of the ancient times) reserved the word “law” for the legal statutes, whether they be of God or men.
When Dr used the word “law” in PFAL he used it in the CURRENT sense. Remember how we were taught to distinguish definitions of words? Sometimes they change over time or new elements are added.
The current use of the word “law” in PFAL is much more like a scientific law than an legal law. Do you know how scientific laws work? How they are formulated and how they are tested? Maybe you should find out before you go labeling something evil but which you know nothing about.
Do you know about the law of gravity? Roughly speaking, and simply speaking it says "Things Fall." So what about a baseball ascending higher and higher right after the crack of the bat? Would you say that the law of gravity is bunk? There are other things besides gravity working on the ball as it rises and seems to be violating gravity. Eventually those other factors diminish and the ball finally descends.
Working with a rough and simple formulation of the law of gravity is guaranteed to run into complications. To say “things fall” is actually TOO rough a way to put it if you want to actually put it to use.
A better formulation would be “Things fall at about 9.8 meters per second per second.” That would work much better, but IT TOO breaks down at higher altitudes and an even more exact formulation of the law is necessary. For teaching Science 101 students, though, “things fall” works well for a while.
Ditto for Dr’s formulation of the law of believing as you quoted from the syllabus. That mere phrase taken alone, is a rough and relatively useless way of putting it. But for first time students it works well enough.
Another over simplistic formulation of the law of believing is “Believing equals receiving.” That’s great for new students because it rhymes and is easy to remember. It’s not accurate or complete, though. More reading is required for that.
As the new student grows, though, he finds out that there are other aspects of the law of believing to be aware of if it is to be used in everyday life. Most grads (and I suspect you fall in this category) are still at the new student stage. If you want to understand the full law of believing then you must look at ALL of what PFAL says about it, and not merely an outline like a syllabus is, and certainly not just one line in the syllabus.
Fear is definitely a law but there are other laws also in the mix.
Plus, you probably are confusing doubt and worry with the much stronger item of fear. Doubt and worry are much milder forms, and we were taught about them too. Do you see them in your syllabus?
The evil in what you are complaining about here is not in the printed materials but in your own ignorance of the more detailed formulations of the law of believing. The evil is in having a little knowledge and thinking that’s all there is. If you had studied this material better you would know that there is no evil in it, just in arrogant ignorance. Lots of evil comes from that. Lots of evil came from leaders squawking about believing and fear, but not having a sufficient knowledge of it themselves.
***
But most importantly, in relation to your emphasis on TVT's, it's not a TVT, it's written in the class materials in several places and in various forms.
-Yes it is written, but so are many other things written on the same subject that you are omitting. If you isolate phrases or single sentences out of ANY material, lots of confusion (evil) can come from it.
Do you personally know of anyone who suffered serious or even fatal consequences because they ignored good sense and followed this doctrine instead? Well I do and I'm sure there are countless others.
-Yes, I do know some. Plus, I am one of them. There are aspects of PFAL that I did not adequately study and it hurt me much in later years.
***
Now follow me on how this logic unfolds, Mike.
-So far, I see your logic merely unraveling.
You have stated that it is your belief that the written materials were given by revelation.
Yet, from even this one simple example, we can see that the written class material contradicts God's Word.
- Nope! Your over abbreviation of it seems to contradict your KJV. Your KJV is not God’s Word; it’s man’s word. In some places, even lots of places, it lines up well with God’s Word; in other places your KJV contradicts God’s Word and even itself.
And isn't there a place in The Bible where it is stated that if a man thinks he is a prophet and has his prophesy proven false, even so much as one time, we are not to pay attention to him or his prophesies?
-What I see here proven is that you don’t know the material very well.
***
And there's more poison, Mike.
-Hey, I don’t doubt that you were poisoned and I don’t doubt that it hurt. I just have a little more insight as to what the ROOT causes were and want to help you so that you don’t get poisoned again.
***
How about session #7 where we are taught that if we even consider alternative concepts, we will fall victim to the same fate as Eve who considered what the serpent said?
That's the granddaddy of all poisons. Once that poison takes hold, the other poisons are free to run unchecked, laughing in the face of antidotes.
-Many did over-apply or misapply that idea of not considering. A lot of this comes from not taking into full account that Adam and Eve had perfectly renewed minds and were in paradise and had total access to God. For THEM consideration of anything outside God’s Word was extremely dangerous and stupid.
We do not live in paradise nor do we have perfectly renewed minds. For US, we need to consider MANY things in order to GET TO a perfectly renewed mind, at least on one specific issue. This is called seeking or having an open mind. Some of those things we must consider in a search will be off the Word and we need God’s protection there because there's no other way.
But once we HAVE the answer on that one issue, and we KNOW it’s the truth, THEN we need to close our minds, halt the search, and no longer consider alternatives.
Most of what I’m writing here is common sense, and it can be picked up from the broad scope PFAL. It must be studied and pondered, though. People who merely read their syllabus, and listened to teachings, and hob-knobbed around the coffee discussing doctrine seemed to not pick this up and got full of poisonous fear.
***
Did you know that in Christian Family and Sex, Dr. taught that the original sin was not that she listened to the Devil but that she and Adam masturbated and consumed the results?
So here again, Mike, VPW's "revelation" fails the litmus test of proving to be consistent.
-I think you got some things wrong here.
She listened and acted. He listened and acted. The listening and considering LED TO the acting. It's like a package deal. The sin was the acting, but the softening up was in the considering.
I NEVER heard the part about consuming the results. I don’t think that was in Dr’s class at all. I think you blurred it in from somewhere else. Actually, Dr’s teaching in that class (which was NOT written PFAL) on this subject seemed pretty logical. But again, many failed to properly pick up the WHOLE story.
Again, Adam and Eve had perfectly renewed minds and were in paradise and had total access to God. (sound familiar?) They had NOTHING LACKING in their marriage, so FOR THEM it was pure selfishness. It was a turning away from blessing a partner.
***
Your contention is that the problem is in TVT's.
- Well, another problem with any TVT is that it has to be SWALLOWED. If we had done our homework better that TVT would not be accepted and not be passed on. I’d say a better use of words might be to say the TVTs were a symptom and the lack of study was the cause.
I have shown you that there are problems with the written material as well.
-No, like many here, your lack of knowledge of the written PFAL materials comes through loud and clear. It’s an ongoing phenomenon here with many posters who try to tear down what I am posting.
Selah!-------That's from God's Word.
One translation indicates it means -----"Consider what I say".
(and I didn't write the book, either.)
-and you didn’t read the book, either, or not enough.
Yeah, I posted to Dooj's post and then I read T-Bones...Geez, I could of saved my breath and then I read White Dove....
Well, I already covered it....
"The Greek is used for "touton" which = "this", which then requires you use the word "one" with it so that it makes sense in the context.
But the textual apparatus in NA27, lists "auton" = him, as the variant reading.
Either way, whether you use "this one" or "him' it is still singular.
I do not feel compelled by context to supply the word “one” along with “this.”
It’s traditional fire and brimstone and hell that urge most theologians to lean on “this one” or “this person” or “him” to fill that slot. They just HAVE to find a way to throw SOMEONE into hell. I don’t feel that compulsion at all.
In fact, I feel the context urging something completely different. Let’s look at the verse without the “one” supplied. Remember that Bullinger has a note that indicates an emphasis in this word “touton.” For that reason I’ll use ALL-CAPS for “this.”
I Cor 3:17
If any man defile the temple of God, THIS shall God destroy;
for the temple of God is holy, which temple ye are.
Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm! :)
Notice I painted the fonts warm red for the WHOLE verse this time, and not just the second half.
There’s more, much more, but it’s late. I’ll put it all together tomorrow if it rains, and maybe even if it doesn’t.
“Let a smile be your umbrella, but don’t get a mouthful of rain.” Joey Reynolds 1962
The answer is "yes." Of course I have thought that through, and many times. In fact, it was a PREVALENT thought for many years.
Now, may I turn the non-malevolence back? Have YOU thought through the possibility that YOU have left some crucial stones unturned? Have you thought through the possibility that the adversary’s tricks (and with those unturned stones) are better than your intellect, even the collective intellect of GSC, and that you’ve been talked out of the treasure in PFAL?
***
In review, we looked at both Corinthians epistles and how one situation in their fellowship was dealt with. A certain man was acting way out of bounds. Paul told the young and still somewhat uneducated twig that they had to get rid of that guy, Old Testament style or face bigger growing problems.
Then later, after the Corinthians had absorbed and digested the first epistle, Paul told them in the second that they could now better distinguish between that one man and his actions. They were told to bring that guy back into the loving arms of the fellowship after some temporary shame to him, and some temporary protection for the rest of the twig.
This more mature form of loving that they were instructed to show to the man who sinned forms the context for the often heard phrase “we are not ignorant of his [the adversary’s] devices.
Part of the teaching in the first epistle (the third chapter) was to show the Corinthians how God recognizes this difference between the man and the action. The real man was the Christ within that man and his tripping out was the old man nature.
Before getting to that third chapter, let’s look a little closer at the second epistle and exactly what was said.
II Cor.2:5-11
But if any have caused grief, he hath not grieved me,
but in part: that I may not overcharge you all.
Sufficient to such a man is this punishment,
which was inflicted of many.
So that contrariwise ye ought rather to forgive him, and comfort him,
lest perhaps such a one should be swallowed up with overmuch sorrow.
Wherefore I beseech you that ye would confirm your love toward him.
For to this end also did I write,
that I might know the proof of you,
whether ye be obedient in all things.
To whom ye forgive any thing, I forgive also:
for if I forgave any thing, to whom I forgave it,
for your sakes forgave I it in the person of Christ;
Lest Satan should get an advantage of us:
for we are not ignorant of his devices.
This is one of God’s contributions to “A note on forgiving.”
More review:
What I shared has to do with forgiveness in general, and is not at all confined to forgiving Dr and leadership. The Corinthians had to apply what Paul taught on forgiving amongst themselves, and so do we, all the time.
When forgiveness is difficult, then we learn the most about it IF we press on and TRY to love and downplay the urge to “get even,” as if that has ever happened.
Have you ever gotten even with someone? What happened the NEXT day, though? It seems to disappear with time and more must be sought. Revenge seeking is an addiction.
***
Way back in Post #548 I mentioned that a lot of I Cor 3 is warming, EVEN the part where Paul calls them babes. At least that meant they were in the family and loved. Nowadays some may take that as an insult, but it’s usually still true. Hardly anyone has grown up in Christ. Those who do are not struggling with whether to forgive or not or how. In many areas we all are babes... don’t like that? ... grow up.
Back in Post #548 I mentioned the warming areas of I Cor 3 as being important, so I painted those fonts red, while the more difficult reproof parts are blue. The warm areas tell me I have something to be thankful for. I received pneuma hagion so it has benefits that the warm portions remind me of. This helps me handle the carnal accusations at the beginning, which I know still apply to some areas in my life. It also helps me with the fire coming later in the chapter.
Paul is saying that after teaching pneuma hagion to them, there was still more for believers to advance towards. He was leading them and teaching them.
Again, for review here’s what we’ve covered so far with a few more verses added and a few liberties taken with formatting punctuation and translation:
I Corinthians 3:1-16
1 And I, brethren, could not speak unto you as unto spiritual,
but as unto carnal, even as unto babes in Christ.
2 I have fed you with milk, and not with meat,
for hitherto ye were not able to bear it,
neither yet now are ye able.
3 For ye are yet carnal,
for whereas there is among you envying, and strife, and divisions,
are ye not carnal, and walk as men?
4 For while one saith, I am of Paul; and another, I am of Apollos;
are ye not carnal?
5 Who then is Paul, and who is Apollos,
but ministers by whom ye believed,
even as the Lord gave to every man?
6 I have planted, Apollos watered; but God gave the increase.
7 So then neither is he that planteth any thing, neither he that watereth;
but God that giveth the increase.
8 Now he that planteth and he that watereth are one,
but every man shall receive his own reward according to his own labour.
9 For we are labourers together with God.
You are God's husbandry, you are God's building.
10 According to the grace of God which is given unto me,
as a wise masterbuilder, I have laid the foundation,
and another buildeth thereon.
But let every man take heed how he buildeth thereupon.
11 For other foundation can no man lay than that is laid,
13 then every man's WORK shall be made clear, open, public, and obvious.
for the day shall declare it,
because it shall be revealed by fire.
And the fire shall try every man's WORK
of what sort it is.
14 If any man's WORK abide
which he hath built thereupon,
he shall receive a reward.
15 If any man's WORK shall be burned,
he shall suffer loss,
but he himself shall be saved,
like narrowly escaping from a housefire.
16 Know ye not that ye are the temple of God,
and that the Spirit of God dwelleth in you?
Notice how Paul is so tender with them, reminding them that they are special, all the while letting them know how some heavy stuff was going to come down in the future.
Notice how I put “work” in ALL-CAPS to help US distinguish between the man (Christ within) and the work (from the dead old man nature). Paul talks about these two competing entities waging war within him in Romans 7.
Notice how in verse 8 the oneness we enjoy in some things does NOT extend to the rewards. This is why the “de” needs to be translated “but” in that verse. If we all got the same rewards, there would be no righting of wrongs in I Cor 3 to enjoy and no rewarding of extra effort as well. Sometimes I think this is where our heads go if we are having trouble with forgiveness. We think God will NOT even the score, so we have to do it for Him. God says He will reward with justice. "Vengance is mine saith ther Lord, I will repay," is just not believed. Are you afraid your God will not re-pay properly? Maybe it’s time to go God-shopping.
Notice verse 13. It’s in the same line of thought, that no one is going to hide anything from God or exposure at that time. Remember how I showed you in I John 2:28 the shame that some can have at the Return. I think many here have trouble believing that one too. I’ve had feelings like that before, many times. It’s like I want to see that shame NOW! Impatience is not a fruit of the spirit. Take heed how you build.
Finally! We get to the seventeenth verse.
Now brothers and cisterns, let me tell you that if you smoke cigarettes and defile the temple, God is going to destroy YOU! So have FEAR of the Lord and His destruction! Have FEAR when you tithe to me! Have FEAR when you read the holy scriptures! Why it says it right here in the holy book. I’ll read it to you, you don’t have to go there yourselves. It says as plain as day in I Corinthians 3:17 “If any man defile the temple of God, him shall God destroy!” And the context, folks, is loaded with FIRE! I didn’t write the book! There it says that God will destroy YOU if you don’t line up with me in this church. And now we'll take up a collection for the work of the Lord.
You mean I sat here and waited and waded through this thread in eager anticipation of THAT??
For the record, I never said that "believing" is a law in the legal sense, yet that is how you have portrayed my comments in your last post.
Yes, dr. did say "believing" was a law in the same sense as gravity.
That is incorrect , Mke.
Dance around it all you like if it makes you feel better but it won't change reality.
Believing is not a "law" in any sense.
You made a big deal out of your self-named TVT's and said that the misunderstandings are in these TVT's, not in the written material.
That is also incorrect, Mike.
I showed you in a very straightforward fashion that these things, whose existence you deny, are, in fact, written.
The problems are in the written material.
I believe you may have missed the point in my example of the CF&S class.
If a man is to represent himself as one who speaks for God, he simply cannot teach contradicting versions of the same materials and then tell us that we should just trust him despite the fact that he has no scriptural proof.
You wrote: "I thought that was pretty obvious in the way I put it '…who vandalize His church' – Did you think I meant an actual building made of wood, stone, and such?…come on, Mike!"
I wasn't sure what you thought, but I know some others might have needed my comment to that effect. Even you could benefit from it because that Paul was talking about PEOPLE in that context is crucial. I was emphasizing that context of "people preservation" in my remark.
***
You wrote: "Your assumption is that PFAL doctrine is nothing more than an assemblage of doctrines from others. But there's a self-deceptive aspect of plagiarism to think about also. Since it was not by his own intellectual efforts – he lacked the discipline, the skills, the experience and wisdom to handle the material properly. It's like letting a salesman for a chemical manufacturing company go in the lab, play chemist and see what neat stuff he can concoct."
The self deception on the plagiarism charge is that you and many others either don't remember (or are conveniently suppressing it) that Dr frequently TOLD us he got most of it from other sources.
Maybe you didn't see the following, but this has been discussed MANY times here. It is often conveniently forgotten, but just to make that more difficult I'll repost it here:
(With my re-formatting and truncation
in re-presenting the following quotes)
First dmiller wrote:
Docvic (plain and simple) took from other's works,
and passed it off as his own.
Then oldiesman wrote:
dmiller,
sorry but I am going to have to disagree in part with you,
and I base my belief on the following:
"Lots of the stuff I teach is not original.
Putting it all together so that it fit -- that
was the original work. I learned wherever
I could, and then I worked that with the
Scriptures. What was right on with the
Scriptures, I kept; but what wasn't, I dropped."
Victor Paul Wierwille,
1972 The Way Living In Love
Elena Whiteside page 209
The previous statement by VP disproves that he "passed it off as his own."
In 1972 he said it wasn't original; ... if you don't believe he said that,
there it is, right before your eyes.
He deserves credit for not passing it off as his own,
but rather saying "lots of the stuff I teach is not original."
If he was trying to hide something, and pass off all of this as his own,
he would not have made the previous statement, nor have other authors' books,
from whence he learned, selling in the Way Bookstore for all to read.
***
Now, T-Bone, when you mention things like "lacked the discipline, the skills, the experience and wisdom to handle the material properly." It makes me think of all us grads who did that very thing with the written materials, but not Dr. It looks to me he had what was necessary to run a very large organization that blessed many thousands of people. At the CES Tenth Anniversary they admitted that PFAL was the greatest presentation of the Word in 2000 years. Did you know that?
Then you wrote: "It's like letting a salesman for a chemical manufacturing company go in the lab, play chemist and see what neat stuff he can concoct."
Oh WOW! That's us to a T... no pun intended.
In my post to waysider (coming up next) I get into this a lot, that the evil came from our lack of knowledge, thinking that we really knew something.
Interesting…vp re-defines plagiarism as assembling bits and pieces from other people's work to make them "fit". Funny, how he claims he learned wherever he could and sorted out what was right with Scripture – but he also claimed God taught him the Word like it hadn't been known since the first century.
Obviously vp had a long suit in lying – and through the wonders of make-believing and salesmanship he hides the truth in plain sight. Oh, he's got nothing to hide – puts the books he plagiarized in TWI's bookstore, makes reference to them in a false humility how he learned wherever he could – but belittles them all by insinuating only he could make it all fit together. But so much for how vp hoodwinked folks. Honest…sane folks call that plagiarism.
vp also lied about other things in Whiteside's book. Like on page 175 where he claimed he took everything he could from the Moody Correspondence School. In my post # 500 of The Way: Living in Wonderland thread I posted a letter from Moody Correspondence School that states otherwise:
vp was a boldfaced liar. No doubt about it. His toxic doctrine/mindset has poisoned thousands for sure – who follow in the footsteps of the imaginary alchemist of theology.
“It's like letting a salesman for a chemical manufacturing company go in the lab, play chemist and see what neat stuff he can concoct.”
Maybe that would have solved our little problem here.. let the vicster in a lab.. maybe he could try to make some "soap".
"hmm, what's this? I wonder what toluene is.. *huffff, huffff, snifffff*.. sure smells pretty. Well, I've got about a gallon of it.. *hums* *ladee dee, ladee dah..* add about five pounds of glycerine.. ma always said it made soap better.. *la dee dee, la dee da..* *adds a liter of 20 molar sulfuric acid..* *lah dee dee...* *adds a liter of 20 molar nitric acid..* man this stinks.. I wonder if it will smell better if I cook it up on the stove over there.. *brings "soap" to a hard boil.."
next morning, Sydney Daily Gazette:
"Local dumbass mogster perishes in lab explosion unlike any known since the first century.."
One would have to be an academic nincompoop to think that casually saying, "Well I got some of this stuff from other people" is a valid substitute for formally documenting one's sources.
The man represented himself as having a "doctorate".
You simply can't rise to that level of academic accomplishment without a thorough understanding of honesty in writing.
Come to think of it, you can't even get away with using such a slovenly approach to citation in a high school term paper.
Not only was he a con man, he was a fraud.
He misrepresented his ability to produce works that were academically honest.
Recommended Posts
Top Posters In This Topic
128
169
106
102
Popular Days
Feb 19
54
Feb 26
50
Feb 22
47
Apr 2
40
Top Posters In This Topic
rascal 128 posts
Mike 169 posts
Ham 106 posts
waysider 102 posts
Popular Days
Feb 19 2008
54 posts
Feb 26 2008
50 posts
Feb 22 2008
47 posts
Apr 2 2008
40 posts
Posted Images
Mike
Twi Verbal Traditions = TVT
Thanks for asking. There were probably others wondering the same thing.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
JeffSjo
Hi Mike,
To get to the bottom of it we'd need to be able to document the source and intentions behind the TVT's. I don't believe we're able to prove much of anything about that at this point. I do believe that according to God's Word that the Lord Jesus Christ knows the truth and will punish them.
I'll throw this point out for consideration though. TVT's that covered up wicked and lewd behavior, and then continued to ruin folk's lives for years eventually are bound to GREIVE GOD himself, it's inevitable. The prospects for those responsible are not pleasant, Dr. Wierwille himself mentioned the Lord "taking it out of their hides" in "The Passing of a Patriarch."
Since the events in our times were not handled with the same wisdom and Love that the apostle Paul walked in it is inevitable that the WHOLE LUMP is leavened.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
Yes, the whole lump of leadership is leavened by now, and probably was in 1985. But the written doctrine is a whole different story. That stuff is pure.
The TVTs are untraceable except in faulty memory.
As far as what actually went on over twenty years ago, I have NO CONFIDENCE in the reporters who have show up here to get the story completely straight, even if they were involved in the first person. I have NO CONFIDENCE in any ancient story reported here being complete in any way. Scads of info is missing from every report regarding context and the complete dialog. The supposed destruction of lives and family due to TWI is, IMHO, wildly exaggerated. People and families get destroyed all the time without any help from a corrupt organization. I don't mean to belittle anyone's pain here: THAT can be very real and needing prompt attention. I just suspect the detailed roots of that pain are long dried up and decayed and gone.
Yes, some nasty things did go on at times, but it wasn't the norm. When it was the norm, it wasn’t VPW but the leadership under him. I figure if VPW blew it bigtime twice a year, that would generate at least 40 HORROR STORIES where the fish gets bigger with each passing year. That COULD pretty much account for all the grief mentioned here, while leaving out all the probably hundreds (even thousands) of temptations where Dr successfully walked the Word, and leaving out the many, many thousands of times he walked and taught the Word accurately.
Of course the mindless copying of what Dr blew it on, and passing it on as doctrine is the responsibility of the individuals who were our leaders, some of whom have posted here, and still “ministering.” Going after them, like Don’tWorryBeHappy was doing, can be seen as useful if done properly.
I find it a dangerous thing to focus on these matters for to long. We're warned against it.
Edited by MikeLink to comment
Share on other sites
JeffSjo
It's interesting to me that you clarified by saying "the whole lump of leadership". In 1st Corinthians it doesn't say leadership. I think the real effects of the leaven being allowed to continue is very much more devastating than simply confining it to leadership.
I empathise with you about acknowledging that the stories may be incomplete or worse, but the thing that's made me mad here is when someone is attacked or put down for simply sharing what happened to them. Those type of bullies are something that I've had entirely too much exposure to and I will do my best to not tolerate that here or anywhere else.
It's painfull to me that the ones who are doing the bullying are often the ones who claim to be trying to remember the good like I do.
I know that it's not a good thing to focus completely on injustice, it just makes life harder than it already is. But for someone who's been hurt badly, I think it's almost always bad to be hard on them. Job's comforters did not do a good thing either.
In general I have issues with some of the abundance of accusations on this site, and I think I probably could argue that some are false accusations. But I'd rather not accuse one hurting person of being a liar or worse. Why would I would argue a point that doesn't do anyone any good. I think that maybe when the time is right that I might be able to help someone get past these things. In the mean time I think it'll do more good to allow folks to read it all and consider the whole matter than to beat down any opposing viewpoint.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
waysider
Page 3/ PLAF silly-bus (1968 edition)
This is not a TVT as you call it.
It's written in black and white.
"What you fear, you will receive- it is a law"
That's poison, Mike.
The whole "law of believing" concept is flawed and inaccurate.
It's poison. It's never called a "law" in God's Word.
But most importantly, in relation to your emphasis on TVT's, it's not a TVT, it's written in the class materials in several places and in various forms.
Do you personally know of anyone who suffered serious or even fatal consequences because they ignored good sense and followed this doctrine instead? Well I do and I'm sure there are countless others.
Now follow me on how this logic unfolds, Mike.
You have stated that it is your belief that the written materials were given by revelation.
Yet, from even this one simple example, we can see that the written class material contradicts God's Word.
And isn't there a place in The Bible where it is stated that if a man thinks he is a prophet and has his prophesy proven false, even so much as one time, we are not to pay attention to him or his prophesies?
And there's more poison, Mike.
How about session #7 where we are taught that if we even consider alternative concepts, we will fall victim to the same fate as Eve who considered what the serpent said?
That's the granddaddy of all poisons.Once that poison takes hold, the other poisons are free to run unchecked, laughing in the face of antidotes.
Did you know that in Christian Family and Sex, Dr. taught that the original sin was not that she listened to the Devil but that she and Adam masturbated and consumed the results?
So here again, Mike, VPW's "revelation" fails the litmus test of proving to be consistent.
Your contention is that the problem is in TVT's.
I have shown you that there are problems with the written material as well.
Selah!-------That's from God's Word.
One translation indicates it means -----"Consider what I say".
(and I didn't write the book, either.)
Edited by waysiderLink to comment
Share on other sites
jeast
Excellent point! Now this is what I have been looking for. I too have been troubled with "the abundance of accusations", but I am still looking forward to listening and learning. I am pretty simple so I try to narrow things down to the basics. You know like, Believing...Faith or Fear. What kind of fruit is coming off this tree. Love, joy, peace etc, or bitterness, confusion and contention. I am encouraged when I read your post. Thanks.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
brideofjc
The temple is both, Dooj. But here in this verse of 3:17 of which following is a very rough translation so that you can see how
it is worded from the Greek.
If anyone the temple of God destroys, destroys this one [variant reading is: him] God; (this part is singular)
For the temple of God holy is, what you are. (Plural)
Now to smooth it out:
"If anyone destroys the temple of God, God shall destroy this one [him];
For the temple of God is holy, [which is] what you are."
Starting back in verse 10, it is singular, "but let EACH ONE" and I emphasize "each one" because the Greek word that is used does just that and so
to carry the thought through to english, you could CAP it.
In v12, a generic use is given and should be "anyone"
But in v13, Paul repeats and returns to "EACH MAN'S work" 2x in the verse
In v14-15, again it is generic and should be rendered "any one"
but then in v16, Paul returns again to "know not that you (plural) are the temple."
and "the Spirit of God lives in you (plural).
v17 a generic use of "if any one (singular) defile the temple of God, God shall destroy this one [him].
So why the interchange between singular and plural? Because EACH ONE is a living stone and EACH ONE will be held accountable for
how you built upon the foundation which is the Lord Jesus Christ in the process of building the collective temple. Why? Because
the temple of God is holy, [which is] what you are. Collectively, we make up the temple of God and one can say that each one is
also the temple of God because we are each a living stone that is being put into the building of the temple.
And yes, this is a warning for VP, but you too, and me and all the rest who call themselves Christian.
So you see, there are not any real contradictions in this verse as Mike alluded to at the beginning of this foo hah hah.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
brideofjc
And which word would you like to FIX?
Yeah, I posted to Dooj's post and then I read T-Bones...Geez, I could of saved my breath and then I read White Dove....
Well, I already covered it....
"The Greek is used for "touton" which = "this", which then requires you use the word "one" with it so that it makes sense in the context.
But the textual apparatus in NA27, lists "auton" = him, as the variant reading.
Either way, whether you use "this one" or "him' it is still singular.
Edited by brideofjcLink to comment
Share on other sites
rascal
Jeast and Jeff, I understand how troubling these accusations are. I know that you haven`t been here long enough to know who is speaking of what, but please suffice it to say that there are many many accounts of the atrocities of which I speak. In the cases that I speak of, if I wasn`t a direct participant, I know personally at least one person that endured these abuses.
Sure, I am nobody that you would know or trust per say....but would you believe the words of leadership that saw it personally in the past? There has been more than one that has admitted to the drugging and rape, the forced abortions, the adultery and alcohol issues. There is more than one sight where people have finally been brace enough to come forth and share what happened. There have been multiple first hand accounts of these atrocities....and in each of the instances that I listed, in addition to my own personal testimoney...I know at least one person whom has come forward.
That these things happened is no longer in doubt. What these signify in the life of our leaders...is what we now question.
Were they good guys who slipped up and went bad, or were they simply deceivers from the start?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
Link to comment
Share on other sites
T-Bone
Your assumption is that PFAL doctrine is nothing more than an assemblage of doctrines from others. But there's a self-deceptive aspect of plagiarism to think about also. Since it was not by his own intellectual efforts – he lacked the discipline, the skills, the experience and wisdom to handle the material properly. It's like letting a salesman for a chemical manufacturing company go in the lab, play chemist and see what neat stuff he can concoct.
And another thing – besides the fact that some of the doctrines he plagiarized are questionable as to being doctrinally sound and biblically accurate – the problem is compounded by vp's personal agenda – which really puts the toxic spin on the practical consequence of his doctrines. How he loved to throw around that verse unto the pure all things are pure or say stuff like anything done in the love of God is okay – which really was just a license to sin.
The poison of vpw's doctrine delivers a numbing toxin to the conscience and intellect. The TWI mindset does a good job of sabotaging the moral compass; I talked about the cheap grace so cherished and promoted by vp in my post # 638 – it's nothing more than a sedative to the conscience.
http://www.greasespotcafe.com/ipb/index.ph...st&p=399640
vp's cheap grace corrupted his conscience to the point that he didn't see the need to seek the forgiveness of those he hurt – he figured he already had the blank check of God's forgiveness.
PFAL is not brain-friendly. I remember a discussion with one poster over vp's you can't go beyond what you're taught. I said, if that were true how would people invent things or improve technology. He replied – that these things come by revelation. Oh yeah – I remember that old Sunday Night Teaching Tape – Carnal versus Spiritual.
Perhaps the most telltale sign of the mind-numbing poison in PFAL is when people can't separate Scripture from PFAL. Had a recent discussion about this on another thread [my post # 593 on How About Some Responses Like Chapter and Verse]
http://www.greasespotcafe.com/ipb/index.ph...st&p=399035
You know…folks really should have thought more about vp saying he'd have failed a sanity test. That might have been one of the rare times when he actually spoke the truth.
Edited by T-BoneLink to comment
Share on other sites
waysider
I'm not sure if I have mentioned this before, but VPW was a con man, a shyster, a flim flam man.
The PFAL class was a rip-off, paste-together of stolen materials.
(Though some of the contents had merit of their own.)
VPW misrepresented it and pretended that God gave it to him so he could show the world secrets that had been hidden for thousands of years.
In reality, he was an alcoholic, sexual predator who didn't give a rat's toe nail whether you or I lived or died.
He lived a lavish lifestyle that was characterized by a fleet of vintage motorcycles, classic cars, a private airplane, a motor coach, tax free housing, a staff of personal servants who clamored to satisfy his every whim, valuable real estate, expensive guns and hunting dogs and hunting gear as well as an ever flowing source of Drambuie.
He proclaimed that anyone who had cancer was possessed by devil spirits and then proceeded to die from cancer himself as did his son Donald.
He promoted an agenda, as well as reading material, that condoned Antisemitism and White Supremacy.
He stated that the US fought on the wrong side in WWII and denied The Holocaust.
He had direct ties to the radical group known as The Liberty Lobby and openly promoted their conspiracy propaganda.
He promoted poisonous doctrines, such as "the law of believing" that, in some cases, cost people their very lives.
Other than that, though, he was a real swell guy.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
T-Bone
You wrote: “I thought that was pretty obvious in the way I put it ‘…who vandalize His church’ – Did you think I meant an actual building made of wood, stone, and such?…come on, Mike!”
I wasn’t sure what you thought, but I know some others might have needed my comment to that effect. Even you could benefit from it because that Paul was talking about PEOPLE in that context is crucial. I was emphasizing that context of “people preservation” in my remark.
***
You wrote: “Your assumption is that PFAL doctrine is nothing more than an assemblage of doctrines from others. But there's a self-deceptive aspect of plagiarism to think about also. Since it was not by his own intellectual efforts – he lacked the discipline, the skills, the experience and wisdom to handle the material properly. It's like letting a salesman for a chemical manufacturing company go in the lab, play chemist and see what neat stuff he can concoct.”
The self deception on the plagiarism charge is that you and many others either don’t remember (or are conveniently suppressing it) that Dr frequently TOLD us he got most of it from other sources.
Maybe you didn’t see the following, but this has been discussed MANY times here. It is often conveniently forgotten, but just to make that more difficult I’ll repost it here:
(With my re-formatting and truncation
in re-presenting the following quotes)
First dmiller wrote:
Docvic (plain and simple) took from other's works,
and passed it off as his own.
Then oldiesman wrote:
dmiller,
sorry but I am going to have to disagree in part with you,
and I base my belief on the following:
“Lots of the stuff I teach is not original.
Putting it all together so that it fit -- that
was the original work. I learned wherever
I could, and then I worked that with the
Scriptures. What was right on with the
Scriptures, I kept; but what wasn't, I dropped.”
Victor Paul Wierwille,
1972 The Way Living In Love
Elena Whiteside page 209
The previous statement by VP disproves that he “passed it off as his own.”
In 1972 he said it wasn't original; ... if you don't believe he said that,
there it is, right before your eyes.
He deserves credit for not passing it off as his own,
but rather saying “lots of the stuff I teach is not original.”
If he was trying to hide something, and pass off all of this as his own,
he would not have made the previous statement, nor have other authors' books,
from whence he learned, selling in the Way Bookstore for all to read.
***
Now, T-Bone, when you mention things like “lacked the discipline, the skills, the experience and wisdom to handle the material properly.” It makes me think of all us grads who did that very thing with the written materials, but not Dr. It looks to me he had what was necessary to run a very large organization that blessed many thousands of people. At the CES Tenth Anniversary they admitted that PFAL was the greatest presentation of the Word in 2000 years. Did you know that?
Then you wrote: “It's like letting a salesman for a chemical manufacturing company go in the lab, play chemist and see what neat stuff he can concoct.”
Oh WOW! That’s us to a T... no pun intended.
In my post to waysider (coming up next) I get into this a lot, that the evil came from our lack of knowledge, thinking that we really knew something.
Edited by MikeLink to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Neo
Thanks!
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Neo
Sorry! Thanks for your support.
Ha-Ha thanks
Edited by NeoLink to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
Hi Neo.
Welcome back.
*******
I do not feel compelled by context to supply the word “one” along with “this.”
It’s traditional fire and brimstone and hell that urge most theologians to lean on “this one” or “this person” or “him” to fill that slot. They just HAVE to find a way to throw SOMEONE into hell. I don’t feel that compulsion at all.
In fact, I feel the context urging something completely different. Let’s look at the verse without the “one” supplied. Remember that Bullinger has a note that indicates an emphasis in this word “touton.” For that reason I’ll use ALL-CAPS for “this.”
I Cor 3:17
If any man defile the temple of God, THIS shall God destroy;
for the temple of God is holy, which temple ye are.
Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm! :)
Notice I painted the fonts warm red for the WHOLE verse this time, and not just the second half.
There’s more, much more, but it’s late. I’ll put it all together tomorrow if it rains, and maybe even if it doesn’t.
“Let a smile be your umbrella, but don’t get a mouthful of rain.” Joey Reynolds 1962
Edited by MikeLink to comment
Share on other sites
Ron G.
You mean I sat here and waited and waded through this thread in eager anticipation of THAT??
*YAWN*
Link to comment
Share on other sites
waysider
Hello, Mike
For the record, I never said that "believing" is a law in the legal sense, yet that is how you have portrayed my comments in your last post.
Yes, dr. did say "believing" was a law in the same sense as gravity.
That is incorrect , Mke.
Dance around it all you like if it makes you feel better but it won't change reality.
Believing is not a "law" in any sense.
You made a big deal out of your self-named TVT's and said that the misunderstandings are in these TVT's, not in the written material.
That is also incorrect, Mike.
I showed you in a very straightforward fashion that these things, whose existence you deny, are, in fact, written.
The problems are in the written material.
I believe you may have missed the point in my example of the CF&S class.
If a man is to represent himself as one who speaks for God, he simply cannot teach contradicting versions of the same materials and then tell us that we should just trust him despite the fact that he has no scriptural proof.
That is the point.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
-"What you mean to say here is that it’s never called a “law” in your KJV."
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In the future, I would appreciate it if you did not tell me what I "meant to say".
Link to comment
Share on other sites
T-Bone
Interesting…vp re-defines plagiarism as assembling bits and pieces from other people's work to make them "fit". Funny, how he claims he learned wherever he could and sorted out what was right with Scripture – but he also claimed God taught him the Word like it hadn't been known since the first century.
Obviously vp had a long suit in lying – and through the wonders of make-believing and salesmanship he hides the truth in plain sight. Oh, he's got nothing to hide – puts the books he plagiarized in TWI's bookstore, makes reference to them in a false humility how he learned wherever he could – but belittles them all by insinuating only he could make it all fit together. But so much for how vp hoodwinked folks. Honest…sane folks call that plagiarism.
vp also lied about other things in Whiteside's book. Like on page 175 where he claimed he took everything he could from the Moody Correspondence School. In my post # 500 of The Way: Living in Wonderland thread I posted a letter from Moody Correspondence School that states otherwise:
http://www.greasespotcafe.com/ipb/index.ph...st&p=213920
vp was a boldfaced liar. No doubt about it. His toxic doctrine/mindset has poisoned thousands for sure – who follow in the footsteps of the imaginary alchemist of theology.
Edited by T-BoneLink to comment
Share on other sites
Ham
Maybe that would have solved our little problem here.. let the vicster in a lab.. maybe he could try to make some "soap".
"hmm, what's this? I wonder what toluene is.. *huffff, huffff, snifffff*.. sure smells pretty. Well, I've got about a gallon of it.. *hums* *ladee dee, ladee dah..* add about five pounds of glycerine.. ma always said it made soap better.. *la dee dee, la dee da..* *adds a liter of 20 molar sulfuric acid..* *lah dee dee...* *adds a liter of 20 molar nitric acid..* man this stinks.. I wonder if it will smell better if I cook it up on the stove over there.. *brings "soap" to a hard boil.."
next morning, Sydney Daily Gazette:
"Local dumbass mogster perishes in lab explosion unlike any known since the first century.."
Edited by HamLink to comment
Share on other sites
Ham
If you read the above earlier, you may want to read the final edited form
Link to comment
Share on other sites
waysider
One would have to be an academic nincompoop to think that casually saying, "Well I got some of this stuff from other people" is a valid substitute for formally documenting one's sources.
The man represented himself as having a "doctorate".
You simply can't rise to that level of academic accomplishment without a thorough understanding of honesty in writing.
Come to think of it, you can't even get away with using such a slovenly approach to citation in a high school term paper.
Not only was he a con man, he was a fraud.
He misrepresented his ability to produce works that were academically honest.
I am of the opinion that he did so intentionally.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
Other than that, Mrs. Lincoln, what did you think of the play?
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.