I think a fatal flaw in human nature that to try to discern spirits is much easier when looking at others than to apply our own remedy liberally to our own perceptions. In my splinter group leadership gladly portrayed me to be a devilish man behind my back while the supposed revelation that my splinter group leader shared proved to be lies and IMO often stupid when looked at in the light of day, but because of a clearly TWI method of crowd control and manipulation my views were rejected and I was kicked out.
I don't even like boasting that IMO I was right. I willingly share that my conscience is clear but still have to admit that the LORD is my judge, not my conscience.
Now as I look back at Wierwille knowing better the kind of man he was behind closed doors it seems real easy to see that he had absolutely no business teaching about receiving revelation or how to build a ministry. The leaven of hypocrisy that lived in his own life corrupted the whole lump of TWI as far as much of anything good goes.
The only conclusions that I consider to be valid now is that he either lied about the whole thing or that he turned to do evil just as quickly as others in the scriptures who did so right after hearing from God. The only reason that I don't go farther than that in my assessment is because I prefer to wait for the Lord to reveal the whole picture in HIS own time.
But for those who don't want to wait until that day I usually say something like," I hear you!"
(added in editing)
Besides, my position still leaves me open to learn more specifics. Usually a good idea IMO.
Heck, I'm only an intermediate class grad after all. ;)
Wierwille's theology was full of holes...his snow on the gas pumps story is ludicrous at best...but it served as the "hook" that snagged so many wayfers into the cult.
1. - The 1942 intervention by God was in the category of phenomena, not revelation. It was of God’s doing. We were taught that the revelation manifestations were operated BY US, and energized by God. Phenomena is operated by God.
2. - When Dr taught us in the Advanced Class that SIT was necessary for revelation he was talking about daily ongoing revelation for what’s important in our lives, jobs, and our relationship with God. He was NOT saying that SIT was necessary for ALL revelation, just for LOTS of it. This SHOULD be obvious. Before Pentecost and before SIT there WAS revelation, just not lots of it. Very few people, prophets mostly, could rise up from the senses and hear God. After Pentecost anyone could get spirit, but they still needed to built it up to rise above the senses with SIT to get lots of revelation.
When we more fully and more accurately embrace what we were taught, then apparent contradictions melt away.
1. - The 1942 intervention by God was in the category of phenomena, not revelation. It was of God’s doing. We were taught that the revelation manifestations were operated BY US, and energized by God. Phenomena is operated by God.
I see your point, Mike, however, Wierwille said he TOLD God to make it snow (phenomenon)
This is something he clearly taught was not possible. He used the example of the dew on the fleece to expound on it.
2. - When Dr taught us in the Advanced Class that SIT was necessary for revelation he was talking about daily ongoing revelation for what’s important in our lives, jobs, and our relationship with God. He was NOT saying that SIT was necessary for ALL revelation, just for LOTS of it. This SHOULD be obvious. Before Pentecost and before SIT there WAS revelation, just not lots of it. Very few people, prophets mostly, could rise up from the senses and hear God. After Pentecost anyone could get spirit, but they still needed to built it up to rise above the senses with SIT to get lots of revelation.
Mike, what is your scriptural basis that supports this line of thought?
When we more fully and more accurately embrace what we were taught, then apparent contradictions melt away.
Personally, I think the closer we examine what we were taught, the more the contradictions become apparent.
Since it didn't snow on those gas pumps, the problem is solved: he didn't ask for a sign and there is no need for a facile distinction between revelation/miracle and phenomena.
Since it didn't snow on those gas pumps, the problem is solved: he didn't ask for a sign and there is no need for a facile distinction between revelation/miracle and phenomena.
In the fall of the year you'd think somebody else other than the vicster would "notice" an event like this..
Delusions and deceptive fabrications are seldom noticed by bystanders when they are still in the conceptual stage. :)
Page 5
Word Of Knowledge
"The manifestation of Word of Knowledge is your operation of the God-given ability whereby you may receive from God, by His revealing it to you, certain truths or facts concerning any situation about which it is humanly impossible for you , by your five senses, to know anything."
Sooooo-- Looking at it from a strictly semantic angle, why couldn't phenomena be considered a form of revelation? Ya know, like a Poodle (such as CoCo) is still a dog. It's just a specific kind of dog. Didn't wierwille teach that God speaks to you within the framework of your personal understanding? Oh, wait. Then there's that part about"your operation". Well, wierwille taught that phenomena could be distinguished from ordinary miracles because it involved something that wasn't promised. Ergo, "your operation" in the matter is you telling God to give you a specific kind of sign that wasn't promised. His "revealing" it to you is revelation.
Get it? revealing---revelation?
Of course, this is all contingent upon the entire concept being valid in the first place.
And, if we assume it must be valid because it is part of the revelation that God gave wierwille that hadn't been known since Paul was sprouting Mung Beans, we will be sorely disappointed because the definitions for the manifestations found in the AC syllabus were lifted verbatim from another source that seems to have evaded any sort of bibliographical mention in the class texts.
Maybe if I SIT much it will come to me while my mind has turned off that part of the brain that is anesthetized while glossolalia is in progress.
In 2006, at the University of Pennsylvania, researchers, under the direction of Andrew Newberg, MD, completed the world’s first brain-scan study of a group of individuals while they were speaking in tongues. The study concluded that while participants were exercising glossolalia, activity in the language centers of the brain actually decreased, while activity in the emotional centers of the brain increased. During this study, researchers observed significant cerebral blood flow changes among individuals while exercising glossolalia, concluding that the observed changes were consistent with some of the described aspects of glossolalia. Further, the researchers observed no changes in any language areas, suggesting that glossolalia is not associated with usual language function. [21] [22] [23]
We were taught a rather different kind of SIT than I saw elsewhere in Christian circles. They were far more emotional about it.
Like my previous post indicated, we were heavily taught to note where OUR initiation action in the manifestations was crucial. Most other practitioners of “glossolalia” got into the idea of God operating it, while for what we did WE had to operate.
I’d discount any brain scan research done on glossolalia for this reason. What we did was different. Some of us even got into the idea of developing “fluency.” We strongly separated ourselves from the emotion based tradition of glossolalia.
***
In the fall of the year you'd think somebody else other than the vicster would "notice" an event like this..
Not necessarily so with rogue snowstorms in rural settings. Below is what Lifted Up posted on the subject of rogue snowstorms exactly 6 years ago to this day in a thread titled “Dr's Last Teaching - LOST for 17 Years!”
posted Jan 1 2003
Post #159
Lifted Up
Rafael wrote...
"It didn't snow. The weather reports from that day in that region prove it did not snow that day."
What weather reports? I have been staying out of this for some reasons, but I can't help being curious about that statement.
Just from a weather reporting point of view, a snow shower such as that in question would be unlikely to show up (or proof that it didn't happen) in any old weather reports, unless the point in question is precisely at an observing and reporting point for weather data. General conditions...the high and low temperature for that given day and whether or not there was precipitation...at even a very a nearby point...just will not tell you either way.
I experienced a very brief and local but intense snow shower one day back in 1979 when I was running near HQ. One minute it was not snowing, the next minute the snow was almost blinding, and fell hard enough to whiten the ground; five minutes later it was gone. Just a couple miles away, it evidently did not snow at all. I have actually seen that kind of thing a number of times; most noteably in the mountains of central PA, but here it was happening in fairly flat country.
The same idea of extreme local weather variations happens in warm weather. I sometimes have a fun time explaining to insurance people, or their clients, that I cannot tell them for sure that there was or was not a storm causing damaging winds at their precise location, because we had no reports either way at the particular time and date they are interested in. (It is easy to be out in the boonies around where I live and work). Sometimes of course I can tell them for sure there was nothing around...of course these calls are not for weather from sixty years ago, either.
Of course, if there were evidence that the temperature was close to, say eighty degrees at the time in question, then the occurrence of a snow shower at that time might be deemed implausible...just like the creation of a dry area across the red Sea by a strong east wind.
Wierwille himself taught (don't remember which class) about a guy who went to a large, busy train station and supposedly "believed" for God to tell him where to find his wife who was arriving on a train about which he had no scheduling information. According to wierwille, the guy found her immediately amidst the thousands of other arriving passengers. Supposedly, God gave him the specifics. Did the guy speak in tongues? No. Wierwille used this supposed event to illustrate the power of his magical "law of believing". It flat out contradicts his assertion in the AC that SIT daily is a prerequisite to revelation. (Key #3 to walking in the spirit)
Chemistry 101 is a prerequisite to Chemistry 201. If you place someone in 201 without the prerequisite of 101, you have made an exception. If God did something like that with SIT, it would be an exception and therefore make him a "respecter of persons". And before we get a volley going about "conditions, not persons". wierwille already stated what he claimed were "the conditions"----No SIT daily/ no revelation.
And again I pose the question-----When did wierwille supposedly receive the revelation associated with the gas pump story? When did he say he was "led into receiving the holy spirit?
Chemistry 101 is a prerequisite to Chemistry 201. If you place someone in 201 without the prerequisite of 101, you have made an exception.
In academics, it is often the instructor's perogative to do so.. but it is not done blindly. The "exception" generally must show mastery of the material in chemistry 101 before a reputable instructor would consider it.
Or one can merely "test out" of chemistry 101. Either way, one must know the material..
"theology 101" surely involves the knowlege to know when it's appropriate to keep one's weenie in one's pocket..
"theology 101" surely involves the knowlege to know when it's appropriate to keep one's weenie in one's pocket..
You'd think so, wouldn't you? But morality and purity are the marks of a newbie in der verd. Once you have ingested the "milk," then apparently you move on to "meat" which includes girls, other people's wives, and indentured servitude, so that at least someone is receiving the "more abundant life."
Oh, and Mike, the mental gymnastics one must do to solve the mystery of "apparent contradictions" is largely unnecessary. The contradictions aren't "apparent;" they are real and can't be massaged to the place where they fit without creating a new narrative, which kind of defeats the purpose of "sola scriptura." What VPW did was create a new narrative, particularly when it came to the gospels. The other area that he took special license in was his interpretation of government in Romans, the concept of private interpretation, and what scripture was considered "God breathed". But I don't want to confuse you with facts.
What VPW did (and I don't really care whether is was by mistake or by design) was do what every other denomination has done, which has treated scripture like an ala carte menu, only he spiced up his take with phenomenon and revelation.
new year, new hopes, new promises... same old excuses on behalf of the Predator.
The ONLY evidence that there was a snowstorm that day comes from the testimony of a man who is a DOCUMENTED LIAR when it comes to miraculous snowstorms that seemingly validate his ministry.
There is no other reason to believe there was a snowstorm that day.
The time of year is strongly against it.
The nearest weather report is strongly against it.
No contemporary documentation establishes it.
The ONLY reason to believe it happened is Wierwille said so. Wierwille also said he was snowed in while trying to get out of Tulsa, a documented, established, inescapable dungpile of horsehockey. But we're to believe this earlier snowstorm, which he told no one about for... how long? BECAUSE he said so and for no other reason...
Sorry. I might have made some excuses for him in 1989, but not in 2009.
I think the "meat" of da verd as referred to by vic was mutton..
I'm leaning more towards rump.
The ONLY evidence that there was a snowstorm that day comes from the testimony of a man who is a DOCUMENTED LIAR when it comes to miraculous snowstorms that seemingly validate his ministry.
There is no other reason to believe there was a snowstorm that day.
He wasn't the first to make things up. He probably won't be the last. But what is fantastic is that no one is required to believe his drivel. People can walk away and make a decision not to fear repercussions from God himself over the decision to put themselves out of (spiritual) harm's way.
what I wonder is.. does the sowers have or plan to have a shrine on the farm with life-size historical replicas of "doc" fervently praying, and the said gas pumps..
I mean, if they are buying into the "greatness" of the whole package.. that comes with it..
what I wonder is.. does the sowers have or plan to have a shrine on the farm with life-size historical replicas of "doc" fervently praying, and the said gas pumps..
I mean, if they are buying into the "greatness" of the whole package.. that comes with it..
Wouldn't that fall under the category of idolatry? Of course it was only idolatry when it was aimed at Jesus. Idolizing Vic or any of the other high-ups was not only nice, it appears to have been a requirement.
I’m sure this is not surprising to anyone, but I look at these things very differently. What MAY be surprising are the DETAILS in how I do (and resulting from) my differing observations, should anyone take the time to closely examine them.
I do not look closely at weather reports, nor anecdotal information. Though I did cite Lifted Up’s report, I wouldn’t want to base any aspect on my life on his report verifying VPW’s report.
What I, however, DO LOOK at is the heart of the matter regarding that day in 1942: that God promised to teach Dr His Word “like it had not been known since the first century” if he would teach it to others. Since I fall into the category of those “others” that Dr taught, I’m in a pretty good position to asses the validity of the heart of the incident, i.e., the reported promise of God.
Ten years ago I set out to closely study the FINAL WRITTEN FORM of that teaching of Dr’s to “others” that he often claimed to have received from God.
Contrary to my previous ten years of ministry investigations, these last ten years have TOTALLY ignored all other information (especially the negatives) on Dr’s ministry, no matter who offered it. For these past ten years I have focused greatly on the final written forms of that teaching only. In all my discourses here I have pointed out how there is considerable unawareness and/or forgetfulness in most grads with regards to this specific material. Ten years ago I included myself in this category and sought to correct it.
From my earlier ten years (1888-1998) of investigating the kinds of things commonly reported here, and from recent my ten years of investigating the written teachings, I conclude (1) that God did indeed promise to teach Dr on that day in 1942, (2) that Dr taught (or is teaching via print) these wonderful revelations to me, and (3) that Dr’s report of snow on that day is as believable (if not more) as Lifted Up’s report of rogue snowstorms.
I’ve done my best to cover all the bases, and I believe that if ANY of us grads choose to look away from what went wrong 25 and 40 years ago, they (like me) can then clearly see that we were given a lasting treasure to study and enjoy immensely.
***
God bless you all and I wish you all a great new year.
I don’t wish to get into another round of the “Mike Wars” here. We’ve been through this stuff ad infinitum. I’m only posting this as a possible last stand, seeing from another thread that open discussions of these matters may come to a halt or some other kind of change.
I’m grateful to Pawtucket for allowing me to present “ANOTHER other side” to the TWI story in huge quantities here.
Mike and Rafael on the same thread again... everybody duck!
Hi Mike. Glad to see that you're still kicking. Sad to see what you're still kicking. :)
What I, however, DO LOOK at is the heart of the matter regarding that day in 1942: that God promised to teach Dr His Word “like it had not been known since the first century” if he would teach it to others. Since I fall into the category of those “others” that Dr taught, I’m in a pretty good position to asses the validity of the heart of the incident, i.e., the reported promise of God.
The heart of the matter is not the reported promise of God: the promise of God in this story is as phony and manufactured as the snowstorm.
The heart of the matter is that you were lied to by a master manipulator.
Recommended Posts
cheranne
delusional drunk,sweet knights of columbus!
and all these freakn classes they are badges man made on a girl scouts wanna be
explorer of "faith" sash!
These people are no more enlightened about :blink: spiritual discernment and
debils than
the freakn man in the moon.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
JeffSjo
I think a fatal flaw in human nature that to try to discern spirits is much easier when looking at others than to apply our own remedy liberally to our own perceptions. In my splinter group leadership gladly portrayed me to be a devilish man behind my back while the supposed revelation that my splinter group leader shared proved to be lies and IMO often stupid when looked at in the light of day, but because of a clearly TWI method of crowd control and manipulation my views were rejected and I was kicked out.
I don't even like boasting that IMO I was right. I willingly share that my conscience is clear but still have to admit that the LORD is my judge, not my conscience.
Now as I look back at Wierwille knowing better the kind of man he was behind closed doors it seems real easy to see that he had absolutely no business teaching about receiving revelation or how to build a ministry. The leaven of hypocrisy that lived in his own life corrupted the whole lump of TWI as far as much of anything good goes.
The only conclusions that I consider to be valid now is that he either lied about the whole thing or that he turned to do evil just as quickly as others in the scriptures who did so right after hearing from God. The only reason that I don't go farther than that in my assessment is because I prefer to wait for the Lord to reveal the whole picture in HIS own time.
But for those who don't want to wait until that day I usually say something like," I hear you!"
(added in editing)
Besides, my position still leaves me open to learn more specifics. Usually a good idea IMO.
Heck, I'm only an intermediate class grad after all. ;)
Edited by JeffSjoLink to comment
Share on other sites
GrouchoMarxJr
waysider...Well said!
Wierwille's theology was full of holes...his snow on the gas pumps story is ludicrous at best...but it served as the "hook" that snagged so many wayfers into the cult.
Wierwille was a con man...plain and simple.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
waysider,
For those who want the more full story:
1. - The 1942 intervention by God was in the category of phenomena, not revelation. It was of God’s doing. We were taught that the revelation manifestations were operated BY US, and energized by God. Phenomena is operated by God.
2. - When Dr taught us in the Advanced Class that SIT was necessary for revelation he was talking about daily ongoing revelation for what’s important in our lives, jobs, and our relationship with God. He was NOT saying that SIT was necessary for ALL revelation, just for LOTS of it. This SHOULD be obvious. Before Pentecost and before SIT there WAS revelation, just not lots of it. Very few people, prophets mostly, could rise up from the senses and hear God. After Pentecost anyone could get spirit, but they still needed to built it up to rise above the senses with SIT to get lots of revelation.
When we more fully and more accurately embrace what we were taught, then apparent contradictions melt away.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
waysider
Personally, I think the closer we examine what we were taught, the more the contradictions become apparent.
Buy,hey, that's just my opinion.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
coolchef
some of us including me don't think sit was or is
mummble jumbble
i can sure believe in God with out that ninny sense
did i just creat a new word?! happy new year
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Oakspear
Since it didn't snow on those gas pumps, the problem is solved: he didn't ask for a sign and there is no need for a facile distinction between revelation/miracle and phenomena.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
waysider
Amen, Brother, Amen!
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Ham
here's a real world description of a snow storm thick enough to block out the sun.. "pitch black".. not just a whiteout.
http://rohnbayesjourney.typepad.com/my_web...a-snow-ode.html
In the fall of the year you'd think somebody else other than the vicster would "notice" an event like this..
Link to comment
Share on other sites
waysider
Delusions and deceptive fabrications are seldom noticed by bystanders when they are still in the conceptual stage. :)
Page 5
Word Of Knowledge
"The manifestation of Word of Knowledge is your operation of the God-given ability whereby you may receive from God, by His revealing it to you, certain truths or facts concerning any situation about which it is humanly impossible for you , by your five senses, to know anything."
Sooooo-- Looking at it from a strictly semantic angle, why couldn't phenomena be considered a form of revelation? Ya know, like a Poodle (such as CoCo) is still a dog. It's just a specific kind of dog. Didn't wierwille teach that God speaks to you within the framework of your personal understanding? Oh, wait. Then there's that part about"your operation". Well, wierwille taught that phenomena could be distinguished from ordinary miracles because it involved something that wasn't promised. Ergo, "your operation" in the matter is you telling God to give you a specific kind of sign that wasn't promised. His "revealing" it to you is revelation.
Get it? revealing---revelation?
Of course, this is all contingent upon the entire concept being valid in the first place.
And, if we assume it must be valid because it is part of the revelation that God gave wierwille that hadn't been known since Paul was sprouting Mung Beans, we will be sorely disappointed because the definitions for the manifestations found in the AC syllabus were lifted verbatim from another source that seems to have evaded any sort of bibliographical mention in the class texts.
Maybe if I SIT much it will come to me while my mind has turned off that part of the brain that is anesthetized while glossolalia is in progress.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glossolalia
Neuroscience
In 2006, at the University of Pennsylvania, researchers, under the direction of Andrew Newberg, MD, completed the world’s first brain-scan study of a group of individuals while they were speaking in tongues. The study concluded that while participants were exercising glossolalia, activity in the language centers of the brain actually decreased, while activity in the emotional centers of the brain increased. During this study, researchers observed significant cerebral blood flow changes among individuals while exercising glossolalia, concluding that the observed changes were consistent with some of the described aspects of glossolalia. Further, the researchers observed no changes in any language areas, suggesting that glossolalia is not associated with usual language function. [21] [22] [23]
"ninny-sense"---
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
We were taught a rather different kind of SIT than I saw elsewhere in Christian circles. They were far more emotional about it.
Like my previous post indicated, we were heavily taught to note where OUR initiation action in the manifestations was crucial. Most other practitioners of “glossolalia” got into the idea of God operating it, while for what we did WE had to operate.
I’d discount any brain scan research done on glossolalia for this reason. What we did was different. Some of us even got into the idea of developing “fluency.” We strongly separated ourselves from the emotion based tradition of glossolalia.
***
Not necessarily so with rogue snowstorms in rural settings. Below is what Lifted Up posted on the subject of rogue snowstorms exactly 6 years ago to this day in a thread titled “Dr's Last Teaching - LOST for 17 Years!”
posted Jan 1 2003
Post #159
Lifted Up
Rafael wrote...
"It didn't snow. The weather reports from that day in that region prove it did not snow that day."
What weather reports? I have been staying out of this for some reasons, but I can't help being curious about that statement.
Just from a weather reporting point of view, a snow shower such as that in question would be unlikely to show up (or proof that it didn't happen) in any old weather reports, unless the point in question is precisely at an observing and reporting point for weather data. General conditions...the high and low temperature for that given day and whether or not there was precipitation...at even a very a nearby point...just will not tell you either way.
I experienced a very brief and local but intense snow shower one day back in 1979 when I was running near HQ. One minute it was not snowing, the next minute the snow was almost blinding, and fell hard enough to whiten the ground; five minutes later it was gone. Just a couple miles away, it evidently did not snow at all. I have actually seen that kind of thing a number of times; most noteably in the mountains of central PA, but here it was happening in fairly flat country.
The same idea of extreme local weather variations happens in warm weather. I sometimes have a fun time explaining to insurance people, or their clients, that I cannot tell them for sure that there was or was not a storm causing damaging winds at their precise location, because we had no reports either way at the particular time and date they are interested in. (It is easy to be out in the boonies around where I live and work). Sometimes of course I can tell them for sure there was nothing around...of course these calls are not for weather from sixty years ago, either.
Of course, if there were evidence that the temperature was close to, say eighty degrees at the time in question, then the occurrence of a snow shower at that time might be deemed implausible...just like the creation of a dry area across the red Sea by a strong east wind.
The context of the discussion can be forund here:
http://www.greasespotcafe.com/ipb/index.ph...4226&st=140
Link to comment
Share on other sites
waysider
So then, what, God can't talk to anyone unless they initiate it?
"Hey, God, I'm going to the grocery store. Is anyone gonna T-Bone my car at the intersection of 12th St. and Vine"?
"Sorry, God, I haven't taken the class yet so I don't SIT."
Keys To Walking By The Spirit
page 10
15. Watch and be ready. Revelation may come at the most likely or unlikely places and times.
Yeah, I forgot. OUR speaking in tongues was different----We were "The Best".
Link to comment
Share on other sites
waysider
Wierwille himself taught (don't remember which class) about a guy who went to a large, busy train station and supposedly "believed" for God to tell him where to find his wife who was arriving on a train about which he had no scheduling information. According to wierwille, the guy found her immediately amidst the thousands of other arriving passengers. Supposedly, God gave him the specifics. Did the guy speak in tongues? No. Wierwille used this supposed event to illustrate the power of his magical "law of believing". It flat out contradicts his assertion in the AC that SIT daily is a prerequisite to revelation. (Key #3 to walking in the spirit)
Chemistry 101 is a prerequisite to Chemistry 201. If you place someone in 201 without the prerequisite of 101, you have made an exception. If God did something like that with SIT, it would be an exception and therefore make him a "respecter of persons". And before we get a volley going about "conditions, not persons". wierwille already stated what he claimed were "the conditions"----No SIT daily/ no revelation.
And again I pose the question-----When did wierwille supposedly receive the revelation associated with the gas pump story? When did he say he was "led into receiving the holy spirit?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Ham
In academics, it is often the instructor's perogative to do so.. but it is not done blindly. The "exception" generally must show mastery of the material in chemistry 101 before a reputable instructor would consider it.
Or one can merely "test out" of chemistry 101. Either way, one must know the material..
"theology 101" surely involves the knowlege to know when it's appropriate to keep one's weenie in one's pocket..
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Tzaia
You'd think so, wouldn't you? But morality and purity are the marks of a newbie in der verd. Once you have ingested the "milk," then apparently you move on to "meat" which includes girls, other people's wives, and indentured servitude, so that at least someone is receiving the "more abundant life."
Oh, and Mike, the mental gymnastics one must do to solve the mystery of "apparent contradictions" is largely unnecessary. The contradictions aren't "apparent;" they are real and can't be massaged to the place where they fit without creating a new narrative, which kind of defeats the purpose of "sola scriptura." What VPW did was create a new narrative, particularly when it came to the gospels. The other area that he took special license in was his interpretation of government in Romans, the concept of private interpretation, and what scripture was considered "God breathed". But I don't want to confuse you with facts.
What VPW did (and I don't really care whether is was by mistake or by design) was do what every other denomination has done, which has treated scripture like an ala carte menu, only he spiced up his take with phenomenon and revelation.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Ham
I think the "meat" of da verd as referred to by vic was mutton..
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
new year, new hopes, new promises... same old excuses on behalf of the Predator.
The ONLY evidence that there was a snowstorm that day comes from the testimony of a man who is a DOCUMENTED LIAR when it comes to miraculous snowstorms that seemingly validate his ministry.
There is no other reason to believe there was a snowstorm that day.
The time of year is strongly against it.
The nearest weather report is strongly against it.
No contemporary documentation establishes it.
The ONLY reason to believe it happened is Wierwille said so. Wierwille also said he was snowed in while trying to get out of Tulsa, a documented, established, inescapable dungpile of horsehockey. But we're to believe this earlier snowstorm, which he told no one about for... how long? BECAUSE he said so and for no other reason...
Sorry. I might have made some excuses for him in 1989, but not in 2009.
I do, however, wish you all a happy new year.
Edited by RafLink to comment
Share on other sites
Ham
Happy New year too, friend
:)
let's not be too hasty.. I'm sure it snowed SOMEWHERE.. like the northern parts of British Columbia.. Northwest Territories.. maybe even Alaska..
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Tzaia
I'm leaning more towards rump.
He wasn't the first to make things up. He probably won't be the last. But what is fantastic is that no one is required to believe his drivel. People can walk away and make a decision not to fear repercussions from God himself over the decision to put themselves out of (spiritual) harm's way.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Ham
what I wonder is.. does the sowers have or plan to have a shrine on the farm with life-size historical replicas of "doc" fervently praying, and the said gas pumps..
I mean, if they are buying into the "greatness" of the whole package.. that comes with it..
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Tzaia
Wouldn't that fall under the category of idolatry? Of course it was only idolatry when it was aimed at Jesus. Idolizing Vic or any of the other high-ups was not only nice, it appears to have been a requirement.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Ham
I would think so..
for that group, I think it is probably a REQUIREMENT to really buy into all that junk..
they probably even have some kind of special fellowship to commemorate the day.. like the parent organization.
maybe it takes a curious mixture of mushrooms, sterno and terpentine to fully bring oneself to unabashedly believing vic's snow story..
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
I’m sure this is not surprising to anyone, but I look at these things very differently. What MAY be surprising are the DETAILS in how I do (and resulting from) my differing observations, should anyone take the time to closely examine them.
I do not look closely at weather reports, nor anecdotal information. Though I did cite Lifted Up’s report, I wouldn’t want to base any aspect on my life on his report verifying VPW’s report.
What I, however, DO LOOK at is the heart of the matter regarding that day in 1942: that God promised to teach Dr His Word “like it had not been known since the first century” if he would teach it to others. Since I fall into the category of those “others” that Dr taught, I’m in a pretty good position to asses the validity of the heart of the incident, i.e., the reported promise of God.
Ten years ago I set out to closely study the FINAL WRITTEN FORM of that teaching of Dr’s to “others” that he often claimed to have received from God.
Contrary to my previous ten years of ministry investigations, these last ten years have TOTALLY ignored all other information (especially the negatives) on Dr’s ministry, no matter who offered it. For these past ten years I have focused greatly on the final written forms of that teaching only. In all my discourses here I have pointed out how there is considerable unawareness and/or forgetfulness in most grads with regards to this specific material. Ten years ago I included myself in this category and sought to correct it.
From my earlier ten years (1888-1998) of investigating the kinds of things commonly reported here, and from recent my ten years of investigating the written teachings, I conclude (1) that God did indeed promise to teach Dr on that day in 1942, (2) that Dr taught (or is teaching via print) these wonderful revelations to me, and (3) that Dr’s report of snow on that day is as believable (if not more) as Lifted Up’s report of rogue snowstorms.
I’ve done my best to cover all the bases, and I believe that if ANY of us grads choose to look away from what went wrong 25 and 40 years ago, they (like me) can then clearly see that we were given a lasting treasure to study and enjoy immensely.
***
God bless you all and I wish you all a great new year.
I don’t wish to get into another round of the “Mike Wars” here. We’ve been through this stuff ad infinitum. I’m only posting this as a possible last stand, seeing from another thread that open discussions of these matters may come to a halt or some other kind of change.
I’m grateful to Pawtucket for allowing me to present “ANOTHER other side” to the TWI story in huge quantities here.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
Mike and Rafael on the same thread again... everybody duck!
Hi Mike. Glad to see that you're still kicking. Sad to see what you're still kicking. :)
The heart of the matter is not the reported promise of God: the promise of God in this story is as phony and manufactured as the snowstorm.
The heart of the matter is that you were lied to by a master manipulator.
Be free!
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.