Even if today's twi is less confrontational......

[GeorgeStGeorge]

Now there is a NOT so profound statement from the dumb@$$ wanna be. You mean that if you get in a car accident from practical error you will now become a habitual bad driver doctrinally?

No, but if you run red lights and DON'T get into an accident, you'll start to believe that it's an okay practice. Bad practice becomes bad doctrine because people often don't immediately suffer from the former. I've worked in one chemical lab or another now for over thirty years. I see people with incorrect protective equipment who continue to do so because they haven't been hurt YET. If they had, I'm sure their "doctrine" about personal protective equipment would be quite different!

George

[RumRunner]

I'll give you that point George - however you are talking about repeat or habitual practical error. Note that Marintdork was quoted as saying practical "always" leads to doctrinal - hence every time you make a mistake your doctrine goes down the toilet (properly pronounced twalay). That is illogic. Further if I separate practical as actions I practice from doctrinal being things I believe in - well we all know the folks that do the "California stop sign" (the slow roll through the sign) - they know they are wrong - so they have practical error and dangerous practice (per your lab example) but I doubt they truly believe that running a stop sign is, in fact, legal

No, but if you run red lights and DON'T get into an accident, you'll start to believe that it's an okay practice. Bad practice becomes bad doctrine because people often don't immediately suffer from the former. I've worked in one chemical lab or another now for over thirty years. I see people with incorrect protective equipment who continue to do so because they haven't been hurt YET. If they had, I'm sure their "doctrine" about personal protective equipment would be quite different!

George

Edited December 2, 2008 by RumRunner

[Ham]

Interesting point there..

so, what constituted "practical error" in twi terms? The concept was so vague.. vague enough that one could dismiss a *small* matter as adultery and such..

was it using "devilish" words such as "christmas".. "good luck.." "fortune.." "demons" instead of "devil spirits"..

or choosing to spend time with family, instead of going to the latest "advance".. or "special"..

or not giving more than 12.9 percent of one's income..

or talking to "possessed" trinitarians..

or was it a blank check. One could fill in the blank for whatever one found was "inconvenient" in another's life?

obviously from those in the upper ranks, practical error conveniently omitted unbridled rage, adultery, druggings and rapes.. drunkenness.. all kinds of uncleanness..

but show up late to a meeting.. "gotta be careful brotha.. pretty soon the debil will have you talked out of everything.."

as far as running a stop sign, even on a continual basis.. I've never seen drivers form the opinion that stop signs are simply unneeded.. and lobby to change the laws of the road to eliminate them.. or think that it is a good thing to run stop signs.. in a strict sense I don't think actually causes a doctrinal change.

[Oakspear]

I'll give you that point George - however you are talking about repeat or habitual practical error. Note that Marintdork was quoted as saying practical "always" leads to doctrinal - hence every time you make a mistake your doctrine goes down the toilet (properly pronounced twalay). That is illogic.

As I remember it, Martindale was talking about habitual practical error leading to doctrinal error, not that every single instance of practical error lead to doctrinal error.

Not to beat the traffic analogy to death but there's quite a few people who believe that it's legal to drive up to 5 mph over the speed limit, or that keeping up with traffic that is exceeding the speed limit is legal.

[Ham]

for a lot of corps and staff, at least at one time, wasn't the mere fact that one had a dog or a cat "practical error"?

I bet they STILL have to check with their overseer, and the overseer's overseer's overseer before making such a "big decision"..

I can almost hear some of the "meetings" in the no pet days..

"whadda ya mean nobody will take it? Are you are going to let a little thing like a pet get between you and Gawd Almighty? We can have L*nder come over and help you *overcome* this little *opportunity* for fifty eight cents.. you need to work on the practical error in your life.."

I may have a vivid imagination, but I know this is not far from the truth..

[RumRunner]

Good timing Oakspear - I was about to amend my post to say something similar. My objection is to the use of the word "always." I can indeed see how someone who habitually runs the stop sign (or if you prefer we can beat up on another analogy) could become calloused enough to decided "That law doesn't apply to me" - yes indeed that becomes doctrinal error - BUT I do not think you can apply that across the board to everyone every time (i.e. the use of the word "always").

As I remember it, Martindale was talking about habitual practical error leading to doctrinal error, not that every single instance of practical error lead to doctrinal error.

Not to beat the traffic analogy to death but there's quite a few people who believe that it's legal to drive up to 5 mph over the speed limit, or that keeping up with traffic that is exceeding the speed limit is legal.

Edited December 2, 2008 by RumRunner

[frank123lol]

for a lot of corps and staff, at least at one time, wasn't the mere fact that one had a dog or a cat "practical error"?

I bet they STILL have to check with their overseer, and the overseer's overseer's overseer before making such a "big decision"..

I can almost hear some of the "meetings" in the no pet days..

"whadda ya mean nobody will take it? Are you are going to let a little thing like a pet get between you and Gawd Almighty? We can have L*nder come over and help you *overcome* this little *opportunity* for fifty eight cents.. you need to work on the practical error in your life.."

I may have a vivid imagination, but I know this is not far from the truth..

ham,After I sold my house,They(local scum of the twi kind) wanted me to put my kittie cat to sleep,

well it cost big bucks for a rent fee,I am happy to report she is alive and well and going on 17 years old.No thanks to "them'

Oh by the way "they" kept thier dog,Makes ya wonder,maybe I twerent spurtual enouf!!

[Nottawayfer]

Geez, I didn't realize a point would be beat beyond death....LOL!!

I made the point that Martinpuke taught "Practical error always leads to doctrinal error" because of the fact that he was obviously practicing error, so why would we trust the doctrine he taught? Same thing with Wierwille. The practical part of their lives stunk, so why would we trust what they taught??

I think it's really ironic, and that is the REAL point I wanted to make.

Edited December 3, 2008 by Nottawayfer

[Ham]

well.. what good is a point if one cannot beat it beyond death..

[Nottawayfer]

Ham,

Don't you need to collect some more nuts before it gets too cold?

[socks]

"Practical error always leads to doctrinal error"...

Pretty much a useless proverb, if it can be called even that.

Practice makes perfect would be far more correct and succinct, IMO. Keep doing something, right or wrong, and you have a decent shot at becoming reasonably facile in whatever it is you're trying to do. Either good at doing it well or good at doing it badly.

I guess he meant that if what you do is wrong by the standard of the Word, and you do it long enough - and you LIKE it, then you'll formulate a corresponding belief or doctrine out of it. Or just give up and accept it for what it is and take that. He would know.

It's not a statement that really stands up to any scrutiny or hmmm, practical application IMO, whoever said it.

Pack those nuts up warm and snug, it's getting cold!!

[cheranne]

Teach? These clowns didn't teach us sheet! It was a milli vanilli wanna be award winning lie!

Beginning with vp's little snow storm and gas pumps (I will teach da wurd like it has never been taught)

well....that much is true!

Fake people make me sick and especially greedy fake people.

[Oakspear]

Geez, I didn't realize a point would be beat beyond death....LOL!!

That is an example of doctrinal error, since the dead are dead

[skyrider]

I guess he meant that if what you do is wrong by the standard of the Word, and you do it long enough - and you LIKE it, then you'll formulate a corresponding belief or doctrine out of it. Or just give up and accept it for what it is and take that. He would know.

Kinda like that twi sex-reference.........."If you're spiritually mature enough to handle it, sex [adultery] is not a sin."

[WordWolf]

BTW, vpw himself taught this "practical error leads to doctrinal error."

At least some of the time, he said it when covering the spread of the Church Epistles.

He said that the "doctrinal" Epistles gave doctrine, and then the "reproof" Epistles

addressed practical error for failing to adhere to the doctrine.

Then, if people failed to heed the warnings, and continued to perform practical error,

people then make a doctrine of it, and the "correction" Epistles address the

correctional error for failing to heed the warnings and need correction.

When I heard it, he was addressing the subject at the end of pfal.

Edited December 4, 2008 by WordWolf

[Ham]

Yeah.. he said it. But it is so vague..

did they EVER define what they would consider practical error?

or was it left so vague, that one could simply fill in the blanks?

"well.. it's not *doing* da word.."

such as?

Generalities may be necessary .. but eventually people need a few specifics and concrete examples if one has any hope of connecting with them in a real genuine manner..

All I ever saw was a set of vague generalities..

[cheranne]

You can put a peach label on a can of goose a$$holes all you want,it is still stinking goose a$$holes!

[Ham]

so.. was sex before marriage practical error?

the answer I perceived.. "well.. it'd be legalistic.. we can't say.."

how about adultery?

"well.. It'd be legalistic.. we can't exactly say.."

they finally drew the line at beastiality the last I heard.. long after I left.

[Ham]

maybe in their own *little* minds.. practical error was homosexuality. How one can go from rampant sex (it'd be too legalistic to try to regulate it) to adultery (only if the ends justify the means.. serve the MOGSTER for christ's sake.. or at least be quiet about it..) to another sexual act.. which is "my gawd.. debils from hell.."

I mean.. isn't the line rather arbitrarily drawn?

[waysider]

I think practically the whole thing was in error.

(That's my doctrine and, having done all, I'm going to STAND! by it.)

[skyrider]

I think practically the whole thing was in error.

Here is my "literal usage according to translation and experience"..............The practical error in following twi's cult-ure of culpability ALWAYS leads to doctrines of exploitation and destruction.