Do you remember how he went to California to supposedly check out the *Jesus* movement there...and all he seemed interested in was the orgies...the free sex and the porn flicks??
It puts new light on the accounts where he waxed nostaglic about how some woman who educated him on the beauties of how the human body operated.
I guess what got me to thinking about this was the sources being quoted by some one to make their point seem more plausible.
The podcasts they listen to..the authors quoted....the quotations that automatically appear after their posts.
It seems like no matter how outragious a point may seem...you can find a source somehow somewhere that will appear to support your postion.
I realize even in my own family that this is a trap that we fall into. The only sources worth listening to or to give credence is those whom support our already preconceived notions.
I realize how limiting this can be in our outlook. It can sure hinder the post cult healing process.
Good posts, necessary IMO, but not easy things to look at.
In my case I feel that when I ran into a minister who refused to change a darn thing he did no matter what the scriptures say, neither of us changed our mind.
I felt and still feel that it was my duty to God to hang in their and fight for the truth no matter how screwed up the minister was clearly becoming in my view.
One of the key points for me in terms of how I think is let my best understanding of scripture be my guide, but keep listening and thinking. Try not to set myself up in standing on lies.
Often the best things that I hear come from folks who make no reference to scripture whatsoever because that's not who they are, but when I think about what they said the scriptures become more clear to me. I think that this is how wisdom works. I have failed at times by not recognizing the truth because of an arrogant notion that nobody can speak the truth unless they care about the Bible like I do.
On the flip side of this the most pernicious lies come from sources that we estimate as the most reliable.
In general I think the hardest truths to hear come from sources that we look down on and the hardest lies to catch come from people that we rely on.
For years I thought that if someone would have stood up for the truth in Dr.'s face then maybe things would have been different, but now that I'm listening to you'all here I'm certain that many tried but were foiled by deliberate wickedness, as I have faced in my life.
It's looking to me that many toes will need to be stepped on very hard to help folks heal.
I guess what got me to thinking about this was the sources being quoted by some one to make their point seem more plausible.
The podcasts they listen to..the authors quoted....the quotations that automatically appear after their posts.
It seems like no matter how outragious a point may seem...you can find a source somehow somewhere that will appear to support your postion.
I realize even in my own family that this is a trap that we fall into. The only sources worth listening to or to give credence is those whom support our already preconceived notions.
I realize how limiting this can be in our outlook. It can sure hinder the post cult healing process.
If you also remember, Rascal, VPW was even TELLING us way back then that he himself was doing that very thing. Remember his little anecdote about "the man who wanted to justify that there really was no God, and so he partially quotes Psalms, but then VPW oh so cleverly fills in the missing verse, The fool hath said...." He should have either remembered his own teaching or he was subtley informing us that he only partially remembers verses himself.
Good posts, necessary IMO, but not easy things to look at.
In my case I feel that when I ran into a minister who refused to change a darn thing he did no matter what the scriptures say, neither of us changed our mind.
I felt and still feel that it was my duty to God to hang in their and fight for the truth no matter how screwed up the minister was clearly becoming in my view.
One of the key points for me in terms of how I think is let my best understanding of scripture be my guide, but keep listening and thinking. Try not to set myself up in standing on lies.
It is supposed to be the HOLY SPIRIT that is to be your guide and HE will take you into the Scriptures to confirm HIS WORD!
Often the best things that I hear come from folks who make no reference to scripture whatsoever because that's not who they are, but when I think about what they said the scriptures become more clear to me. I think that this is how wisdom works. I have failed at times by not recognizing the truth because of an arrogant notion that nobody can speak the truth unless they care about the Bible like I do.
On the flip side of this the most pernicious lies come from sources that we estimate as the most reliable.
You know what is cool, is that in my post cult experience, I have had a serious distrust of anyone who could teach me.
I remember telling God that I didn`t trust anyone to teach me about him...not even the guys who wrote the scriptures.
The neat thing is rather than striking me dead with lightening, or turning his back on me for failure to operate the correct principals necessary to interact with him..... The doors were opened up in a variety of ways through of variety of teachers....that could teach me within the parameters in which I could accept. Some christian, some not, some sources pretty unlikely to help me out of my confined thinking. The neat thing is...anything important ...it seemed would be taught from 3 different sources...the last always accompanied by a dig in the ribs with an elbow....(not real it was just the mental picture that accompanied it) and a chuckle...yes but it IS in the scriptures too :)
This thread wasn`t to point fingers at anyone, but an observation about all of ourselves. We all tend to do it. My husband does, I do....If we only give credence to the sources that voice what we want to think, it limits our potential to grow and understand...we remain narrow in our thinking.
For me, one of the first thing that I spot when looking at a teacher is whether they are as meek as they can be bold. Moses was written of as the meekest man on earth.
But having said that I've found that I'm as fallible as anyone to the prospect of "Being wise in my own conceits." I think that the very prospect of thinking that we are tied into God with our words and intentions most often brings out the worst in us in terms of pride and/or arrogance.
For me, I look to the same thing as Brideofjc said to look to, the spirit of God.
But I'm pretty sure that many people who CLAIM that source for their wisdom at best are engaging in wishfull thinking. Still, for me, it's the understanding that I desire the most.
I find it most comforting when I'm lovingly taught and/or reproved and I can percieve the growth in myself and also can give God the credit.
TWI was a closed system, except for one point. It was alike a dark brown bottle without a cork. Everyone inside the "biottle" of TWI couldn't look outside. That was forbidden. Only inside TWI was truth, or so they were told.
But Wierwille was like the bottleneck without the cork. He let into the bottle all kinds of false or perverse things. But they could only come in through him, which became very self-serving.
Wierwille was like a window without a screen. He had no discernment, so let in all kinds of malaria carrying mosquitos and vampire bats, flase teachings and practices.
...This thread wasn`t to point fingers at anyone, but an observation about all of ourselves. We all tend to do it. My husband does, I do....If we only give credence to the sources that voice what we want to think, it limits our potential to grow and understand...we remain narrow in our thinking.
A very thought provoking thread, Rascal! After I left TWI, I spent a long time reflecting on my belief system – why I believed this or that, what parts were "negotiable" or unimportant [which grew as time went on] and what was essential. It slowly dawned on me how mind-numbing and boring life was in TWI. It was a comfortable zone, I'll give you that – but the rigid mindset was almost like drug to escape the realities of life…If life were likened to a journey on the river – there I was with typical TWI-bravado, shouting "I'm king of the world" while standing in a boat safely tied to the dock.
Here I am almost 22 years down the road from TWI-world, with perhaps a more flexible belief system and tenets of my own choosing. I think it's cool to check out other viewpoints. There's a lot of turns and things unknown on this journey, so input from fellow-travelers can be helpful at times. Sure, we all have a core set of beliefs by which we "measure" things and negotiate this journey – but in my humble opinion learning and growth come to those who have the courage to step outside their comfort zone…it makes for a more interesting experience, anyway. And I find as I explore someone else's beliefs – I really wind up exploring my own – even when their beliefs are very different from mine. It reminds me of something I found in The Baker Encyclopedia of Christian Apologetics by Norman Geisler, on Atheism:
"The Loyal Opposition. Atheists are the loyal opposition to theists. It is difficult to see the fallacies in one's own thinking. Atheists serve as a corrective to invalid theistic reasoning. Their arguments against theism should give pause to dogmatism and temper the zeal with which many believers glibly dismiss unbelief. In fact, atheists serve a significant corrective role for theistic thinking. Monologues seldom produce refined thought. Without atheists, theists would lack significant opposition with which to dialogue and clarify their concepts of God."
End of excerpts
…So, I agree with your point…and summing up my two cents into one fat penny [and don't spend it all in one place ] – we are drawn to that which agrees with our viewpoint – but as we broaden our thinking there's the potential for deepened understanding and growth.
I think he was just a used car sales man,he knew beyond a shadow of a doubt this power for bundent living would leave
us all broken down in the middle of nowhere
That just about says it all...The guy was a huckster, a flimflam man... a con artist. His "research" doesn't exist...unless of course, you desire to read the books that Wierwille copied from...He spent most of his time getting drunk and chasing skirts.
...but what about God?...As far as it goes, I don't seek God through the filters of money making organizations. I think it's a personal thing...it has nothing to do with "study habits" but in how I live.
...and "research" just isn't part of the equation for me anymore.
...but what about God?...As far as it goes, I don't seek God through the filters of money making organizations. I think it's a personal thing...it has nothing to do with "study habits" but in how I live.
I think we all can lear alot from that statement, thankx
A very thought provoking thread, Rascal! After I left TWI, I spent a long time reflecting on my belief system – why I believed this or that, what parts were "negotiable" or unimportant [which grew as time went on] and what was essential. It slowly dawned on me how mind-numbing and boring life was in TWI. It was a comfortable zone, I'll give you that – but the rigid mindset was almost like drug to escape the realities of life…If life were likened to a journey on the river – there I was with typical TWI-bravado, shouting "I'm king of the world" while standing in a boat safely tied to the dock.
Here I am almost 22 years down the road from TWI-world, with perhaps a more flexible belief system and tenets of my own choosing. I think it's cool to check out other viewpoints. There's a lot of turns and things unknown on this journey, so input from fellow-travelers can be helpful at times. Sure, we all have a core set of beliefs by which we "measure" things and negotiate this journey – but in my humble opinion learning and growth come to those who have the courage to step outside their comfort zone…it makes for a more interesting experience, anyway. And I find as I explore someone else's beliefs – I really wind up exploring my own – even when their beliefs are very different from mine. It reminds me of something I found in The Baker Encyclopedia of Christian Apologetics by Norman Geisler, on Atheism:
"The Loyal Opposition. Atheists are the loyal opposition to theists. It is difficult to see the fallacies in one's own thinking. Atheists serve as a corrective to invalid theistic reasoning. Their arguments against theism should give pause to dogmatism and temper the zeal with which many believers glibly dismiss unbelief. In fact, atheists serve a significant corrective role for theistic thinking. Monologues seldom produce refined thought. Without atheists, theists would lack significant opposition with which to dialogue and clarify their concepts of God."
End of excerpts
…So, I agree with your point…and summing up my two cents into one fat penny [and don't spend it all in one place ] – we are drawn to that which agrees with our viewpoint – but as we broaden our thinking there's the potential for deepened understanding and growth.
Wonderful, insightful post, T-Bone. Thank you very much! This sentence of yours is one I hope to keep in mind a long time and remember in times of complacency: "...in my humble opinion, learning and growth come to those who have the courage to step outside their comfort zone…it makes for a more interesting experience, anyway."
Indeed, patience is sorely lacking nowadays when it comes to Bible topics, I've found.
In response to this thread's title, Wierwille's *research* I can add a few comments, which I've posted elsewhere on gsc, but they may shed some light for readers of this thread, also.
A common sentiment of many former twi followers seems to be "too bad twi turned sour, it could've been so great," or similar wishes. I felt that myself for a little while [very little] back in 84-86 when I was struggling. It was not easy to face my dream's disintegration.
The assumptions on which vpw built his ministry were not clear or understandable to me when I first took PFAL as a teenager. And I wasn't aware of what questions to ask, etc. Years later, I came to understand the system was a closed one from the beginning. He based his ministry on the "truth" that the Bible was perfect and it was God's Word from Genesis to Revelation. He said he threw out all his textbooks (probably including textual criticism, etc.) and decided Rosalind Rinker had the truth: that The Bible was the Word of God, and the Word of God was the Will of God. Info on her is available on the Internet.
IMO the religious context of a group like twi is part Fundamentalism and part Evangelicalism, neither of which leaves much wiggle room for questions like we've been asking over in the post, "what does 'scripture' refer to."
In general, the questions there are in the catagory of what's known as textual and historical criticism which is NOT encouraged in twi or similar groups. Why? Those questions seem to undercut the assumptions that the Bible, from Genesis to Revelation, has to be perfect, without contradictions, historically accurate, etc. etc. and be the only truth in the universe in order to make life worth living. Seems to me people found life worth living for YEARS before the Bible was around, but that's just me.
When I got involved (during the dinosaur era of 1970 ) this ministry promoted itself as one devoted to biblical research. The people who witnessed to me claimed that if "we" learned more, we would teach it, that if "we" discovered that "we" were wrong in something we already had taught, we could change as "we" learned new things in research. Sounded good to me. I think vp tried this approach back in Van Wert when he first left the organized church but after the PFAL class was recorded, changing anything in it would have been pretty hard. Even now, although the current twi group no longer runs this original class, I've heard that the teachings are very similar, and the same is pretty much true for some of the twi "offshoot ministries" as they are called. I could be wrong, but that's what I've seen so far on their web sites.
Anyway, some folks seem to like the framework of Fundamentalism and Evangelicalism, but some of us eventually realized that wasn't for us. The sad part for me was that in the end, it became clear that twi had an agenda different than those words I initially heard long ago [not to mention that I discovered how some of the teachings were copied from other people, etc. even though they were claimed to be original twi teachings.]
The Word over the World was the goal, and to my understanding that came to be defined as letting everyone in the world say yes or no to The Word that twi taught. The "accuracy of the Word" was for the most part defined in the PFAL class and other twi teachings.
Perhaps this sheds some light on the topic of this thread...
Life is short. Follow your bliss, as Joseph Campbell would say.
I'm going to do some more gardening while the weather is lovely.
My question now is....how many of us still operate that way? Have we too been trained to only listen to and give credence to that which supports what we wish to believe? That which allows God to put his seal of approval on the actions we wish to indulge?
I hope I don't. Never bought it in the first place. God was good enough to give me a set of parents who instilled some good sense even LCM couldn't remove. Thank God for parents!
I now attend a church and sometimes they drive me mad with what they say. The vicar is fine, very thoughtful and considered (a man with real study credentials) but the house group makes me feel like running out screaming. For one thing, they think healing is not always God's will and he sends sickness to people; or that God will allow healing in his own time. Last week someone came out with (and others agreed) that God kills people (but it's okay, because he takes no pleasure in that). OT thinking.
But I always try to consider why they think what they think. Is there any sort of truth that I haven't considered? Did I miss something - in TWI? What I do see is that this house group spends a lot of time praying for people in other countries; missionaries/church members who (of their own choice) have chosen to work in other countries; and their prayers ALWAYS evince a genuine concern for other people and there is very little "personal" prayer such as was so common in twig.
Sometimes now I read the Bible with a view to seeing the opposite of what I know/believe. For instance - what do they base the belief that JC=God? (NIV is wacky for that). Why do some of them think that healing is not what God wants? (That's not what the vicar teaches; he knows healing is "available" - sorry about the Wayspeak). And I think much more about what I do read, even that which "fits" with my own beliefs (mostly TWI formed).
GSC is a great place for trying to sort out some of this stuff. Like, the thread concerning what is scripture/the scriptural canon?
For one thing, they think healing is not always God's will and he sends sickness to people; or that God will allow healing in his own time. Last week someone came out with (and others agreed) that God kills people (but it's okay, because he takes no pleasure in that). OT thinking.
The "apparent contradiction" in a subject like healing is a difference between theory and practice. In theory, God heals, doesn't want people sick, etc, yet in practice people get sick and die. Not just the ungodly, but folks who you would think God would go out of his way to heal.
So people try to come up with a way to explain it all.
Why do some people suffer, why do some people die young?
People have to make sense of it all somehow.
But I always try to consider why they think what they think. Is there any sort of truth that I haven't considered? Did I miss something - in TWI?
For one thing, they think healing is not always God's will and he sends sickness to people; or that God will allow healing in his own time. Last week someone came out with (and others agreed) that God kills people (but it's okay, because he takes no pleasure in that). OT thinking.
So what heve you found regarding WHY they believe this way?
What I have found is that the Bible doesn't guarantee perfect physical wholeness at all times in this life. You begin to see this when you realize how big a deal the hope is. God promised a kingdom on earth where there will be perfect health, and if we get healed now it's only temporary anyway. Eventually we will die unless the Lord returns first. But when we are resurrected, we will have complete wholeness for all eternity. God's view is in light of the ultimate goal. Sometimes God lets us go through things in this life in order to learn to trust Him. This is seen in the New Testament as well as the old.
If you want to consider this, check out what I wrote at length on my website:
Recommended Posts
rascal
Do you remember how he went to California to supposedly check out the *Jesus* movement there...and all he seemed interested in was the orgies...the free sex and the porn flicks??
It puts new light on the accounts where he waxed nostaglic about how some woman who educated him on the beauties of how the human body operated.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
rascal
I guess what got me to thinking about this was the sources being quoted by some one to make their point seem more plausible.
The podcasts they listen to..the authors quoted....the quotations that automatically appear after their posts.
It seems like no matter how outragious a point may seem...you can find a source somehow somewhere that will appear to support your postion.
I realize even in my own family that this is a trap that we fall into. The only sources worth listening to or to give credence is those whom support our already preconceived notions.
I realize how limiting this can be in our outlook. It can sure hinder the post cult healing process.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
JeffSjo
Hi Rascal,
Good posts, necessary IMO, but not easy things to look at.
In my case I feel that when I ran into a minister who refused to change a darn thing he did no matter what the scriptures say, neither of us changed our mind.
I felt and still feel that it was my duty to God to hang in their and fight for the truth no matter how screwed up the minister was clearly becoming in my view.
One of the key points for me in terms of how I think is let my best understanding of scripture be my guide, but keep listening and thinking. Try not to set myself up in standing on lies.
Often the best things that I hear come from folks who make no reference to scripture whatsoever because that's not who they are, but when I think about what they said the scriptures become more clear to me. I think that this is how wisdom works. I have failed at times by not recognizing the truth because of an arrogant notion that nobody can speak the truth unless they care about the Bible like I do.
On the flip side of this the most pernicious lies come from sources that we estimate as the most reliable.
In general I think the hardest truths to hear come from sources that we look down on and the hardest lies to catch come from people that we rely on.
For years I thought that if someone would have stood up for the truth in Dr.'s face then maybe things would have been different, but now that I'm listening to you'all here I'm certain that many tried but were foiled by deliberate wickedness, as I have faced in my life.
It's looking to me that many toes will need to be stepped on very hard to help folks heal.
Let the healing continue.
(Edited to add a little bit)
Edited by JeffSjoLink to comment
Share on other sites
brideofjc
If you also remember, Rascal, VPW was even TELLING us way back then that he himself was doing that very thing. Remember his little anecdote about "the man who wanted to justify that there really was no God, and so he partially quotes Psalms, but then VPW oh so cleverly fills in the missing verse, The fool hath said...." He should have either remembered his own teaching or he was subtley informing us that he only partially remembers verses himself.
You know....selective memory retention!
Link to comment
Share on other sites
brideofjc
Link to comment
Share on other sites
rascal
You know what is cool, is that in my post cult experience, I have had a serious distrust of anyone who could teach me.
I remember telling God that I didn`t trust anyone to teach me about him...not even the guys who wrote the scriptures.
The neat thing is rather than striking me dead with lightening, or turning his back on me for failure to operate the correct principals necessary to interact with him..... The doors were opened up in a variety of ways through of variety of teachers....that could teach me within the parameters in which I could accept. Some christian, some not, some sources pretty unlikely to help me out of my confined thinking. The neat thing is...anything important ...it seemed would be taught from 3 different sources...the last always accompanied by a dig in the ribs with an elbow....(not real it was just the mental picture that accompanied it) and a chuckle...yes but it IS in the scriptures too :)
This thread wasn`t to point fingers at anyone, but an observation about all of ourselves. We all tend to do it. My husband does, I do....If we only give credence to the sources that voice what we want to think, it limits our potential to grow and understand...we remain narrow in our thinking.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
JeffSjo
For me, one of the first thing that I spot when looking at a teacher is whether they are as meek as they can be bold. Moses was written of as the meekest man on earth.
But having said that I've found that I'm as fallible as anyone to the prospect of "Being wise in my own conceits." I think that the very prospect of thinking that we are tied into God with our words and intentions most often brings out the worst in us in terms of pride and/or arrogance.
For me, I look to the same thing as Brideofjc said to look to, the spirit of God.
But I'm pretty sure that many people who CLAIM that source for their wisdom at best are engaging in wishfull thinking. Still, for me, it's the understanding that I desire the most.
I find it most comforting when I'm lovingly taught and/or reproved and I can percieve the growth in myself and also can give God the credit.
P.S.
I really like this thread Rascal.
(edited for grammar and spelling)
Edited by JeffSjoLink to comment
Share on other sites
johnj
TWI was a closed system, except for one point. It was alike a dark brown bottle without a cork. Everyone inside the "biottle" of TWI couldn't look outside. That was forbidden. Only inside TWI was truth, or so they were told.
But Wierwille was like the bottleneck without the cork. He let into the bottle all kinds of false or perverse things. But they could only come in through him, which became very self-serving.
Wierwille was like a window without a screen. He had no discernment, so let in all kinds of malaria carrying mosquitos and vampire bats, flase teachings and practices.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
cheranne
I think he was just a used car sales man,he knew beyond a shadow of a doubt this power for bundent living would leave
us all broken down in the middle of nowhere,unable to even be close enough(to walk to t gas station)to ask fo help spirituall
speaking(made us feel the local church was wrong)when all along he was wrong.decietful and he knew it but .....he lived off
all of us.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
T-Bone
A very thought provoking thread, Rascal! After I left TWI, I spent a long time reflecting on my belief system – why I believed this or that, what parts were "negotiable" or unimportant [which grew as time went on] and what was essential. It slowly dawned on me how mind-numbing and boring life was in TWI. It was a comfortable zone, I'll give you that – but the rigid mindset was almost like drug to escape the realities of life…If life were likened to a journey on the river – there I was with typical TWI-bravado, shouting "I'm king of the world" while standing in a boat safely tied to the dock.
Here I am almost 22 years down the road from TWI-world, with perhaps a more flexible belief system and tenets of my own choosing. I think it's cool to check out other viewpoints. There's a lot of turns and things unknown on this journey, so input from fellow-travelers can be helpful at times. Sure, we all have a core set of beliefs by which we "measure" things and negotiate this journey – but in my humble opinion learning and growth come to those who have the courage to step outside their comfort zone…it makes for a more interesting experience, anyway. And I find as I explore someone else's beliefs – I really wind up exploring my own – even when their beliefs are very different from mine. It reminds me of something I found in The Baker Encyclopedia of Christian Apologetics by Norman Geisler, on Atheism:
"The Loyal Opposition. Atheists are the loyal opposition to theists. It is difficult to see the fallacies in one's own thinking. Atheists serve as a corrective to invalid theistic reasoning. Their arguments against theism should give pause to dogmatism and temper the zeal with which many believers glibly dismiss unbelief. In fact, atheists serve a significant corrective role for theistic thinking. Monologues seldom produce refined thought. Without atheists, theists would lack significant opposition with which to dialogue and clarify their concepts of God."
End of excerpts
…So, I agree with your point…and summing up my two cents into one fat penny [and don't spend it all in one place
] – we are drawn to that which agrees with our viewpoint – but as we broaden our thinking there's the potential for deepened understanding and growth.
Edited by T-BoneLink to comment
Share on other sites
GrouchoMarxJr
That just about says it all...The guy was a huckster, a flimflam man... a con artist. His "research" doesn't exist...unless of course, you desire to read the books that Wierwille copied from...He spent most of his time getting drunk and chasing skirts.
...but what about God?...As far as it goes, I don't seek God through the filters of money making organizations. I think it's a personal thing...it has nothing to do with "study habits" but in how I live.
...and "research" just isn't part of the equation for me anymore.
Edited by GrouchoMarxJrLink to comment
Share on other sites
copenhagen
GrouchoMarxJr said
...but what about God?...As far as it goes, I don't seek God through the filters of money making organizations. I think it's a personal thing...it has nothing to do with "study habits" but in how I live.
I think we all can lear alot from that statement, thankx
copenhagen
Link to comment
Share on other sites
penworks
Wonderful, insightful post, T-Bone. Thank you very much! This sentence of yours is one I hope to keep in mind a long time and remember in times of complacency: "...in my humble opinion, learning and growth come to those who have the courage to step outside their comfort zone…it makes for a more interesting experience, anyway."
Thanks and cheers!
Edited by penworksLink to comment
Share on other sites
sirguessalot
started typing a short response to this interesting thread
but my fingers exploded instead
i am not as good at participating in threaded conversations as many of you are
so i started this thread in the dungeon on shadows and taboos and such
here is a snippet that seems to relate the most...
...
as it pertains to VPW's kind of approach to research
and whatever similar habits we have
it seems that the books and doctrines and philosophies we ignore, reject, avoid
may tell us more about our spiritual approach and condition than that which we seek
the ones we react to with anger and fear and prejudice
are perhaps the ones that will teach us the most in the end
for example...such as the way VP went on a crusade to india to convert the heathen
without ever really being interested in grasping the wide variety of depth and span in indian thought and practice
it seems he never did learn much about silence or stillness...or any of the "noble truths" of Buddha
instead...almost always finding ways for us to fill the space with activity, noise, distractions and other busy-ness
he would done well to break bread with a vedantist, or advaitist
and actually compare recipes by practicing...as in tasting, touching, handling
it may have helped keep him from being so driven by his impulses
and so concerned with his needs and wants
i doubt he ever read deeply into any of the philosophies and religions he claimed to trump
before running off to fix and heal (and judge and condemn) them
a huge part of his whole spiritual claim involved basically scrubbing away 2000 years of global spiritual discovery and inquiry
as well as most all previous spiritual thought prior to that
i doubt he knew how soaking wet with inter-cultural influence every world scripture is
and how that is a GOOD thing...not some sign of impurity or unholiness
not that we have to somehow research every book ever written to be good or wise
but at least get a genuine idea before going on a white-horsed salvation mission
and yes...sometimes it may take many years of looking into such things
before being able to wrap our cognitive arms around them
or perhaps even before finding someone who actually represents some sense of historic version of a tradition
and this is perhaps more and more true as history unfolds and while burying all old things in some pop-version
simply adds more and more pages to what has been known and said about this that and the other
layers and layers of truths and meanings hiding in the shadows of our own taboos
perhaps this is why the real saints
were real patient
Edited by sirguessalotLink to comment
Share on other sites
penworks
Indeed, patience is sorely lacking nowadays when it comes to Bible topics, I've found.
In response to this thread's title, Wierwille's *research* I can add a few comments, which I've posted elsewhere on gsc, but they may shed some light for readers of this thread, also.
A common sentiment of many former twi followers seems to be "too bad twi turned sour, it could've been so great," or similar wishes. I felt that myself for a little while [very little] back in 84-86 when I was struggling. It was not easy to face my dream's disintegration.
The assumptions on which vpw built his ministry were not clear or understandable to me when I first took PFAL as a teenager. And I wasn't aware of what questions to ask, etc. Years later, I came to understand the system was a closed one from the beginning. He based his ministry on the "truth" that the Bible was perfect and it was God's Word from Genesis to Revelation. He said he threw out all his textbooks (probably including textual criticism, etc.) and decided Rosalind Rinker had the truth: that The Bible was the Word of God, and the Word of God was the Will of God. Info on her is available on the Internet.
IMO the religious context of a group like twi is part Fundamentalism and part Evangelicalism, neither of which leaves much wiggle room for questions like we've been asking over in the post, "what does 'scripture' refer to."
In general, the questions there are in the catagory of what's known as textual and historical criticism which is NOT encouraged in twi or similar groups. Why? Those questions seem to undercut the assumptions that the Bible, from Genesis to Revelation, has to be perfect, without contradictions, historically accurate, etc. etc. and be the only truth in the universe in order to make life worth living. Seems to me people found life worth living for YEARS before the Bible was around, but that's just me.
When I got involved (during the dinosaur era of 1970
) this ministry promoted itself as one devoted to biblical research. The people who witnessed to me claimed that if "we" learned more, we would teach it, that if "we" discovered that "we" were wrong in something we already had taught, we could change as "we" learned new things in research. Sounded good to me. I think vp tried this approach back in Van Wert when he first left the organized church but after the PFAL class was recorded, changing anything in it would have been pretty hard. Even now, although the current twi group no longer runs this original class, I've heard that the teachings are very similar, and the same is pretty much true for some of the twi "offshoot ministries" as they are called. I could be wrong, but that's what I've seen so far on their web sites.
Anyway, some folks seem to like the framework of Fundamentalism and Evangelicalism, but some of us eventually realized that wasn't for us. The sad part for me was that in the end, it became clear that twi had an agenda different than those words I initially heard long ago [not to mention that I discovered how some of the teachings were copied from other people, etc. even though they were claimed to be original twi teachings.]
The Word over the World was the goal, and to my understanding that came to be defined as letting everyone in the world say yes or no to The Word that twi taught. The "accuracy of the Word" was for the most part defined in the PFAL class and other twi teachings.
Perhaps this sheds some light on the topic of this thread...
Life is short. Follow your bliss, as Joseph Campbell would say.
I'm going to do some more gardening while the weather is lovely.
Edited by penworksLink to comment
Share on other sites
JustThinking
I hope I don't. Never bought it in the first place. God was good enough to give me a set of parents who instilled some good sense even LCM couldn't remove. Thank God for parents!
Edited by JustThinkingLink to comment
Share on other sites
Twinky
I now attend a church and sometimes they drive me mad with what they say. The vicar is fine, very thoughtful and considered (a man with real study credentials) but the house group makes me feel like running out screaming. For one thing, they think healing is not always God's will and he sends sickness to people; or that God will allow healing in his own time. Last week someone came out with (and others agreed) that God kills people (but it's okay, because he takes no pleasure in that). OT thinking.
But I always try to consider why they think what they think. Is there any sort of truth that I haven't considered? Did I miss something - in TWI? What I do see is that this house group spends a lot of time praying for people in other countries; missionaries/church members who (of their own choice) have chosen to work in other countries; and their prayers ALWAYS evince a genuine concern for other people and there is very little "personal" prayer such as was so common in twig.
Sometimes now I read the Bible with a view to seeing the opposite of what I know/believe. For instance - what do they base the belief that JC=God? (NIV is wacky for that). Why do some of them think that healing is not what God wants? (That's not what the vicar teaches; he knows healing is "available" - sorry about the Wayspeak). And I think much more about what I do read, even that which "fits" with my own beliefs (mostly TWI formed).
GSC is a great place for trying to sort out some of this stuff. Like, the thread concerning what is scripture/the scriptural canon?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Oakspear
So people try to come up with a way to explain it all.
Why do some people suffer, why do some people die young?
People have to make sense of it all somehow.
That's good thinking. :)Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mark Clarke
So what heve you found regarding WHY they believe this way?
What I have found is that the Bible doesn't guarantee perfect physical wholeness at all times in this life. You begin to see this when you realize how big a deal the hope is. God promised a kingdom on earth where there will be perfect health, and if we get healed now it's only temporary anyway. Eventually we will die unless the Lord returns first. But when we are resurrected, we will have complete wholeness for all eternity. God's view is in light of the ultimate goal. Sometimes God lets us go through things in this life in order to learn to trust Him. This is seen in the New Testament as well as the old.
If you want to consider this, check out what I wrote at length on my website:
http://godskingdomfirst.org/MoreAbundantLife.htm
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.