So, I'm sure this is in the wrong section but I've been invited to...

[Ham]

... then again, according to _some_ trinitarians I _could_ name ;), Unitarians (socinian or otherwise :unsure: ) are just too stupid to see it the "right" way.

And thus, ... the beat goes on, ... (and the beat goes on) .........

quite true..

I've found a remedy.. just agree with everybody..

doesn't seem to be catching on though..

[potato]

teaching makes more sense

"teaching",

that word makes me vibrate . . .

yeah, "teaching" is way-speak for "I'm about to bore you to death for 20 minutes" or "I'm going to make you regret you were ever born, today, next week, in fact as many times as I can so the cumulative effects will last for years".

[What The Hey]

You remind me of one thing Ham!

Wierwille said that in order to really believe in the Trinity someone had to be possessed.

Dear Brushstroke,

I'm wondering how they'd respond to you asking them if they feel that is true. You could say,"Am I possessed because I believe in the Trinity like Wierwille said?" But you seem to more than capable of deciding how you want to handle it to me.

I never heard VPW say that, but I do recall hearing him say, "You gotta be stupider than a dead jack a$$ to believe in the trinity."

If dead jack a$$="possessed" well, that's a new one on me.

[Brushstroke]

Brush - you here in Indy? The names sounded familiar.

What "Matt" was talking about concerning Jesus is the concept of Jesus, in his exalted state, having a "functional equality" with God. It is very similar to the "economic trinity" of some trinitarian believers.

Doctrine matters - a lot. The reason why they aren't attending a local church is that doctrine matters. It matters more than the 2 greatest commandments when it comes right down to it.

To the rest of you - the dinner thing is not all that uncommon. These guys work, socialize, eat, and live with each other.

Nah, I'm in Arkansas. And yeah, I know what he was talking about. He seemed to make a distinction between what is commonly thought as unitarianism and called their unitarianism, biblical unitarianism. I guess he meant to imply that their unitarian beliefs can somehow be supported by Scripture. I would agree. I say this, because with the general ambiguity (though certainly leaning towards the concept of His deity) of the New Testament concerning Christ's deity compared to other Christian writings of the same time period, a case can be made either way: for Jesus being God, or for Him not being God, for the Trinity, or not for the Trinity.

And yeah, doctrine matters to me too. It's why I said I found some things that I thought were not quite right. Indeed, heretical.

There's that magnet of yours turned on again... "Maybe/Maybe not.." Yikes... Sounds like you're looking for the other magnet searchers to just turn the right neon lights on and you'd be coming.

Personally, I'd stay away from any group that doesn't allow you to hold your "OWN" thoughts that are different than theirs AND allow you to voice those said objections at any point in time, including during the 'teaching/lesson"..

Else.. Just another darn cult if I ever saw one...

Well, I was going to say something during the teaching but I wasn't sure if I should, so I didn't. I mentioned this to Chris (someone else at fellowship) and he said I could have said whatever I wanted to say. Matt also said that they've had people come to fellowship and teach on the Trinity or teach that Jesus is God before, and they don't have a problem with people believing that. They simply choose unitarianism because it is what they see in the Scriptures. However, I'm going to assume that he and Chris said and implied this just to say, "Hey, we'll accept you even if your beliefs are misguided. And with time you'll come to know what we think is the truth too!"

I often wonder what the first century would have been like had the synagogues been as closed off like most churches and cults today. It's a complete rarity today, and I do mean, extremely rare, where you could walk into a church or a "bible study/fellowship" and share your thoughts that contradict their doctrine.. Yeah, just doesn't quite exist much these days.. And then.. I think back to what the scriptures say Paul did back in Acts..

"On the Sabbath day they went into the synagogue and sat down. After the reading from the Law and the Prophets, the rulers of the synagogue sent a message to them, saying, “Brothers, if you have any word of encouragement for the people, say it. So Paul stood up, and motioning with his hand said: “Men of Israel and you who fear God, listen...."

or

"Now at Iconium they entered together into the Jewish synagogue and spoke in such a way that a great number of both Jews and Greeks believed."

or

"They came to Thessalonica, where there was a synagogue of the Jews. And Paul went in, as was his custom, and on three Sabbath days he reasoned with them from the Scriptures, explaining and proving that it was necessary for the Christ to suffer and to rise from the dead, and saying, “This Jesus, whom I proclaim to you, is the Christ.”

Interesting, how even after the first time of letting this guy come in and share "something different" then the Jews believed, was still allowed to come and speak again!

What ever happened to this openness, this honesty? Personally, I think most Christian churches and cults are scared someone might actually persuade someone concerning truth! God forbid, someone else might be more right!!

Ahhh well, that's why I say, unless they allow you openly share different thoughts, I'd count them as scared little cult sheep huddling around their cult leaders.

But you know.. I could be wrong! So I welcome any "differing" thoughts! Maybe I'll actually learn something other than one denomination/cult's agenda.

Oh yes, I welcome differing thoughts as well. You can still accept something without believing it to be true. You can accept that some particular belief has value and meaning without subscribing to it yourself.

Brushie, TWI as you know teaches there is only one God, our Father; and Jesus is a human being, a man, just like you except that he was divinely conceived. He was not God, he was not around before he was born, he isn't God now. We ex-Wayfers all believed that at one time and some of us still do. Some of us have espoused trinitarian teaching; and some state they don't believe any of it. This shouldnl't be a surprise to you.

TWI never had "lessons" - just "teachings."

Whate else happened that made you thing that something's not right? Can you verbalize it (or more precisely, write it)?

You may meet some very nice people. They probably have a great heart for God. Stay at low levels and you will probably enjoy it. If there is any pressure to "take the class," whatever class they are offering - run.

It's not a surprise for me. Just recounting what happened, is all.

Mainly what made me feel that something wasn't right was the love bombing. I was showered with so much attention to the point of creepiness, and I was asked with such enthusiasm, "So, do you think you'll come again?" and "Did you enjoy the teaching?" over and over and over again ad nauseum.

Wierwille said that in order to really believe in the Trinity someone had to be possessed.

How very strange...

Did he ever give support of his reasoning, or was it just a pointless ad hominem?

Dear Brushstroke,

I'm wondering how they'd respond to you asking them if they feel that is true. You could say,"Am I possessed because I believe in the Trinity like Wierwille said?" But you seem to more than capable of deciding how you want to handle it to me.

I might continue going every so often, and offer my opinions where I see fit and ask some penetrating questions. In so doing, I expect I'll become the black sheep, but if I help them to see another perspective, then a black sheep I shall be.

[What The Hey]

No, they will probably tell him he is "Doing the best he can" with his limited understanding. Or, think him "Misguided" in his beliefs. They may tell him he doesn't really "understand" what he believes. . . they can "Help" him.

Come on, it is kinder and more gentle now.

Christians are no longer possesed. . . . they are just too stupid to see it the "right" way.

Ditto. What VPW initially said before.

[potato]

I never heard VPW say that, but I do recall hearing him say, "You gotta be stupider than a dead jack a$$ to believe in the trinity."

If dead jack a$$="possessed" well, that's a new one on me.

that doctrine was firmly in place by the late 80s, but I don't know where it originated. there was a difference in believing the trinity because you didn't know any better (devil spirit influence) and being "sold out" to (possessed by) the trinity, which was supposedly a big-time devil spirit.

[What The Hey]

that doctrine was firmly in place by the late 80s, but I don't know where it originated. there was a difference in believing the trinity because you didn't know any better (devil spirit influence) and being "sold out" to (possessed by) the trinity, which was supposedly a big-time devil spirit.

You're probably pointing out what Mike here calls a "TVT", but not necessarily would this be considered doctrine. What often happens in Christiandom (and it happens not just in TWI but also in other Christian circles as well) is that the pre-concieved truth (or truths) I hold to often creates in me an intolerance for those who happen to believe differently than what I do. We tend to think there must be something wrong with those who are not completely on the "same page" with us doctrinally. It shouldn't be that way in Christianity, but the sad truth of the matter is, it often is.

[Cynic]

... then again, according to _some_ trinitarians I _could_ name ;), Unitarians (socinian or otherwise :unsure: ) are just too stupid to see it the "right" way.

And thus, ... the beat goes on, ... (and the beat goes on) .........

I do not recall ever maintaining Unitarians – or agnostics or atheists, for that matter – generally are “too stupid” to “see it.”

I actually figure Unitarians and atheists range intellectually and ethically from gifted and functionally sensitive humans (in non-theistic matters) to intellectually somewhat other-than-honest-or-gifted little fellows who live in chronic irritation and/or have some never-reachable desire to attain and exert their manhood.

Edited February 18, 2009 by Cynic

[potato]

You're probably pointing out what Mike here calls a "TVT", but not necessarily would this be considered doctrine. What often happens in Christiandom (and it happens not just in TWI but also in other Christian circles as well) is that the pre-concieved truth (or truths) I hold to often creates in me an intolerance for those who happen to believe differently than what I do. We tend to think there must be something wrong with those who are not completely on the "same page" with us doctrinally. It shouldn't be that way in Christianity, but the sad truth of the matter is, it often is.

would it be considered doctrine if it was taught at the advanced class?

[What The Hey]

I do not recall ever maintaining Unitarians – or agnostics or atheists, for that matter – generally are “too stupid” to “see it.”

I actually figure Unitarians and atheists range intellectually and ethically from gifted and functionally sensitive humans (in non-theistic matters) to intellectually somewhat other-than-honest-or-gifted little fellows who live in chronic irritation and/or have some never-reachable desire to attain and exert their manhood.

No matter how you put it, if your inner belief about someone is, "Man, there must be something REALLY wrong with this person if they can't recognize these 'simple' truths from the bible!" then your intolerance for others is showing.

Here's something to ponder. Jesus Christ had crowds of people following him as he was a friend to many politicians, tax collectors and sinners, yet no one was more astute in telling others just where they were off doctrinally than he did. So many times I see in other people (as I also see it even in myself at times) those who elevate their doctrine above the relationship they have with others. Well, guess who never did that?

[waysider]

It's been a really long time since I heard this but I think he called it a "spirit of whoredoms" in the Advanced Class.

It's on page 20 of the syllabus.

(Hosea 4: 6-14/ 5: 1-4)

I wouldn't swear that to be a correct interpretation of what he said. That's how I remember it, though.

[What The Hey]

would it be considered doctrine if it was taught at the advanced class?

I don't think the place where anything is taught is what matters and what cannonizes something as doctrine. If doctrine="right believing" the only question one must ask is whether or not it is right believing - not necessarily the place where it was taught.

[waysider]

I don't think the place where anything is taught is what matters and what cannonizes something as doctrine. If doctrine="right believing" the only question one must ask is whether or not it is right believing - not necessarily the place where it was taught.

So you're saying that Wierwille taught us something inaccurate at The AC?

[JeffSjo]

I never heard VPW say that, but I do recall hearing him say, "You gotta be stupider than a dead jack a$$ to believe in the trinity."

If dead jack a$$="possessed" well, that's a new one on me.

You're probably pointing out what Mike here calls a "TVT", but not necessarily would this be considered doctrine. What often happens in Christiandom (and it happens not just in TWI but also in other Christian circles as well) is that the pre-concieved truth (or truths) I hold to often creates in me an intolerance for those who happen to believe differently than what I do. We tend to think there must be something wrong with those who are not completely on the "same page" with us doctrinally. It shouldn't be that way in Christianity, but the sad truth of the matter is, it often is.

No matter how you put it, if your inner belief about someone is, "Man, there must be something REALLY wrong with this person if they can't recognize these 'simple' truths from the bible!" then your intolerance for others is showing.

Here's something to ponder. Jesus Christ had crowds of people following him as he was a friend to many politicians, tax collectors and sinners, yet no one was more astute in telling others just where they were off doctrinally than he did. So many times I see in other people (as I also see it even in myself at times) those who elevate their doctrine above the relationship they have with others. Well, guess who never did that?

So when Wierwille said "Stupider than a dead jacka$$ to believe in the trinity" was he speaking for God or was he BEING a jacka$$?

[What The Hey]

So you're saying that Wierwille taught us something inaccurate at The AC?

No, but your recollection of what was taught could be inaccurate. It seems to me whatever was taugth at the AC often reflected whatever was happening or happened to be occurring in TWI at the time. For example, there is nothing about a "spirit of whoredoms" on p.20 of my AC syllabus, and my AC syllabusis probably different than yours. My syllabus does mention "possession" however. In regards to possession it says it is recognizeable by someone's speach, and often refers to itself as a "person" or as "it", but there is nothing there about a "spirit of whoredoms" in regards to equalling possession.

[Ham]

I never heard VPW say that, but I do recall hearing him say, "You gotta be stupider than a dead jack a$$ to believe in the trinity."

If dead jack a$$="possessed" well, that's a new one on me.

and that is the undercurrent that flows beneath about ninety some percent of offshoots Brushstroke..

oh.. did they do the tongues and interpretation thingy or "prophecy" for you?

[What The Hey]

So when Wierwille said "Stupider than a dead jacka$$ to believe in the trinity" was he speaking for God or was he BEING a jacka$$?

Hard to say, since at one time VPW says he believed in the trinity. (He points out this fact on the first page of the "Introduction" to JCING.)

I imagine what it depends upon is whether you happen to know better or if you don't know any better.

Apparently at one time, VPW didn't know any better when he believed in it.

(Where you a dead jacka$$ when you didn't know how to add/subtract/mulitpy/divide in kindergarten?

No. You just didn't know any better.)

[waysider]

No, but your recollection of what was taught could be inaccurate. It seems to me whatever was taugth at the AC often reflected whatever was happening or happened to be occurring in TWI at the time. For example, there is nothing about a "spirit of whoredoms" on p.20 of my AC syllabus, and my AC syllabusis probably different than yours. My syllabus does mention "possession" however. In regards to possession it says it is recognizeable by someone's speach, and often refers to itself as a "person" or as "it", but there is nothing there about a "spirit of whoredoms" in regards to equalling possession.

So then disregard the actual page number. I only listed it as a reference convenience. Mine is the 1971 version.

Look at whatever page you have that lists the functions of 14 different spirits. These include Anti-Christ, Bondage, Error, Fear, Jealousy, Slumber, Emulation, Strife, Whoredoms, Perversion, Envy, Infirmity, Leviathan and Iniquity. Not only are they listed, there are notes detailing what he verbally expounded about each one. If what he was teaching was merely a reflection of current events in TWI and not some Divinely given gem of Truth, it wouldn't seem to have much lasting value, would it?

Now, if you are saying he was wrong when he taught this, his credibility isn't really worth a hill of beans, anyhow, is it?

[Cynic]

No matter how you put it, if your inner belief about someone is, "Man, there must be something REALLY wrong with this person if they can't recognize these 'simple' truths from the bible!" then your intolerance for others is showing.

1. I do not hold that theology and Christology are "simple."

2. I am theologically and Christologically intolerant, though I am not intolerant to the same degree about every subject.

3. Why not be intolerant?

a. Theological and Christological relativism or apathy is a spiritual disaster.

b. Epistemological relativism is a philosophical heresy.

4. YOU are making an issue of my intolerance? HAH!

Edited February 18, 2009 by Cynic

[Ham]

the last "fellowship" I went to that was loosely affiliated with ces, cff, etc..

the "teacher" carefully analyzed why liberals were supposedly so "screwed up"..

that they have no logic.. just throw their minds to debils, or the least, are under their influence.. that one might not turn "homo" overnight, but slowly, gradually, one day..

that *they* are so deceived, unlike *us*, who "know the truth.."

I was polite. I sat there, jangled my head up and down like the rest of the crowd.. (didn't want them to think *I* held a few liberal ideas, and subsequently, was "screwed up" or "posessed).

But I "escaped" their spiritual "radar".. the possessed Squirrel slowly made his way for the door..

The teaching was over.. had a cup of coffee.. shook a few hands.. and I NEVER WENT BACK.

that was during the last election. No, not 2008. The one before.

[JeffSjo]

Hard to say, since at one time VPW says he believed in the trinity. (He points out this fact on the first page of the "Introduction" to JCING.)

I imagine what it depends upon is whether you happen to know better or if you don't know any better.

Apparently at one time, VPW didn't know any better when he believed in it.

(Where you a dead jacka$$ when you didn't know how to add/subtract/mulitpy/divide in kindergarten?

No. You just didn't know any better.)

I remember the intro in JCING. Wierwille sounded meek and gentle in it.

What you remember Wierwille saying sounds like a jacka$$ speaking.

And either way, it should not be "hard to say", What The Hey.

I was just wondering how you'd respond to Wierwille's words out of you mouth being at such blatant contradiction with your own version of Christian ethics. They both came out in your posts in quick succession. Post numbers 28, 32, and 35. I put these three together in post #39.

(edited for spelling and clarity)

Edited February 18, 2009 by JeffSjo

[What The Hey]

So then disregard the actual page number. I only listed it as a reference convenience. Mine is the 1971 version.

Look at whatever page you have that lists the functions of 14 different spirits. These include Anti-Christ, Bondage, Error, Fear, Jealousy, Slumber, Emulation, Strife, Whoredoms, Perversion, Envy, Infirmity, Leviathan and Iniquity. Not only are they listed, there are notes detailing what he verbally expounded about each one. If what he was teaching was merely a reflection of current events in TWI and not some Divinely given gem of Truth, it wouldn't seem to have much lasting value, would it?

Now, if you are saying he was wrong when he taught this, his credibility isn't really worth a hill of beans, anyhow, is it?

No. What I am saying is 'learning' is not a "one-time" static event. I believe I answered that question in the example I gave JeffSio.

(How credible were you in kindergarten when you didn't know how to add/subtract/multiply/divide numbers?)

Like I said earlier. I see people today whose doctrine only creates in them an intolerance for others. Does that mean I think doctrine is unimportant? NO. I think doctrine is very important. But doctrine is not the real problem. What the real problem is, we often wrap our doctrine so tightly around ourselves just like a security blanket (i.e. like Linus from Peanuts) we often feel like we are losing our "security blanky" when our doctrine is being challenged or somehow is not right.

[waysider]

No. What I am saying is 'learning' is not a "one-time" static event. I believe I answered that question in the example I gave JeffSio.

(How credible were you in kindergarten when you didn't know how to add/subtract/multiply/divide numbers?)

Like I said earlier. I see people today whose doctrine only creates in them an intolerance for others. Does that mean I think doctrine is unimportant? NO. I think doctrine is very important. But doctrine is not the real problem. What the real problem is, we often wrap our doctrine so tightly around ourselves just like a security blanket (i.e. like Linus from Peanuts) we often feel like we are losing our "security blanky" when our doctrine is being challenged or somehow is not right.

In case you missed it, I never said the Advanced Class represented my doctrine.

You are not challenging my "doctrine" in the least bit.

This so-called class is something Mr. Wierwille committed to writing as an example of what he presented to be Truth. Not a dissertation on current events at HQ, but rather, never ending, never changing Truth. If he didnm't intend for it to have any permanence, he should not have committed it to print.

[Bolshevik]

. . .

I might continue going every so often, and offer my opinions where I see fit and ask some penetrating questions. In so doing, I expect I'll become the black sheep, but if I help them to see another perspective, then a black sheep I shall be.

So do you have a gameplan? Questions ready to go? Remember, if you get stuck, you can use one of three lifelines. . .

If they're like twi, nearly any subject can be turned into a "discussion" on the trinity . . .

Ask them how they know that god even exists. It probably has something to do with how they know there is no trinity.

[waysider]

So do you have a gameplan? Questions ready to go? Remember, if you get stuck, you can use one of three lifelines. . .

If they're like twi, nearly any subject can be turned into a "discussion" on the trinity . . .

Ask them how they know that god even exists. It probably has something to do with how they know there is no trinity.

I'm not so sure I would go with the existence of God thing.

That would probably lead you straight to a discussion of speaking in tongues.

(Unless that's already a part of the game plan)