It may be risky, but I need to put this out here......The past 48 - 72 hours have been perhaps the most influential in my life. Talk about shaking yourself up!!!!
Yes, it's been a roller coaster but I am so very glad that some of these things have been discussed. I find myself more open in that I think I'm more able to accept ideas that were foreign and unacceptable before. It will be interesting to see where this eventually leads me.
Appreciate the article and the perspective that was given.
For me, personally, any nostalgia I had after leaving was the "good times" I had with people...and the relationships. The so called "family" that was now missing. I longed for that many times over.
It's difficult to "let go" of something when you see nothing to takes it's place. It's painful even.
Now, after being out of TWI for 22 years my life is totally different, totally satisfying, and I don't long for anything in the past that I had in TWI. Today, My life is full and it could noy have come from anyone but God.
As far as the research goes....I didn't buy a lot of it when I was in....Red flags would go up all the time when I would hear something being taught and I'd go...What? But what did I know? I hadn't researched all those years that we were told that TWI had done....so of course, I threw out my gut feeling about it all. Now, I've pretty much thrown all of it out....
Research? What I am glad of is...I know how to use a concordance, interlinears, bible dictionaries and all the other research sources that I was introduced to in TWI. I know that there are such a thing as figures of speech and orientalisms. I learned the value of reading and believing the Bible.
These are the things I gleaned....
Since out, I've learned "Go to God for yourself"......
This post probably isn't exactly on the money for the topic, but thought I'd share my thoughts.
But the past is the past. It's on the other side of the gate and I can't go there again. But what I can do is learn a better way.
So I have some questions:
What do we do now with speaking in tongues?
what about some of the manifestations?
Was there even a resurrection?
I normally steer clear of these discussions, careful to not discourage any questions that were suppressed in the first place. Nobody wants to hear that they were wrong and told years of their lives were wasted in smoke and mirrors. That is clear in your doctrinal forums. I read there and will post on occasion.
What is it about an article written by another ex-cult member who obviously leans heavily on someone else's insight, Karen Armstrong, that has you questioning the very basis of your faith? The resurrection of Jesus.
That is not a judgment it is a question. What are Penwork's qualifications in this area? Is He/she a bible scholar?
How are you so easily swayed?
Maybe you never believed it or understood it in the first place? Fine. If that is the case, wouldn't you go to the experts, like William Lane Craig who has for years studied the evidence for the resurrection and is a qualified and credentialed scholar? No, we have been taught to distrust them.
In six weeks it could be someone else here and their opinion and will that make you question this?
Wierwille trained us well. He trained us to follow people and their "new light."
I am surprised that in 72 hours you can question the basis of your faith on the basis of a few people's opinons. Every author I read on that list is refuted by another scholar. Are you going to read them all?
There is always Oprah, Eckhart Tolle, or Doctor Oz. Long after this crop of pop culture critics is gone the bible will still be here and Jesus will still have been raised from the dead.
According to VP, it was searching something that had already been searched, thus, re-search. What kind of backwoods logic is that????
This is a plagiarist's logic. It values and promotes taking another man's work and "making it your own". While there is value in building a foundation upon what is already been done, to restrict expanding upon it is to orient yourself towards dogma and away from innovation.
I normally steer clear of these discussions, careful to not discourage any questions that were suppressed in the first place. Nobody wants to hear that they were wrong and told years of their lives were wasted in smoke and mirrors. That is clear in your doctrinal forums. I read there and will post on occasion.
What is it about an article written by another ex-cult member who obviously leans heavily on someone else's insight, Karen Armstrong, that has you questioning the very basis of your faith? The resurrection of Jesus.
That is not a judgment it is a question. What are Penwork's qualifications in this area? Is He/she a bible scholar?
How are you so easily swayed?
Maybe you never believed it or understood it in the first place? Fine. If that is the case, wouldn't you go to the experts, like William Lane Craig who has for years studied the evidence for the resurrection and is a qualified and credentialed scholar? No, we have been taught to distrust them.
In six weeks it could be someone else here and their opinion and will that make you question this?
Wierwille trained us well. He trained us to follow people and their "new light."
I am surprised that in 72 hours you can question the basis of your faith on the basis of a few people's opinons. Every author I read on that list is refuted by another scholar. Are you going to read them all?
There is always Oprah, Eckhart Tolle, or Doctor Oz. Long after this crop of pop culture critics is gone the bible will still be here and Jesus will still have been raised from the dead.
Thanks for chiming in here. You raise important issues. I would like to refer back to the statements I made in post #25 above as a reminder that I am asking questions, just like everyone else. That's what led me to the place where I am in now.
I lean heavily on the still small voice and find inspiration in the words of many writers on these topics, and as I said in the statement above the booklist, " Here is a reading list that may be useful."
If it is not useful to you, don't read them.
That list and the article were intended to be my personal contributions to the conversations here at GSC.
I'd like to point out that even though you might not have intended this, when the following types of statements are made they come across as trying to intimidate the reader:
"I am surprised that in 72 hours you can question the basis of your faith on the basis of a few people's opinons. Every author I read on that list is refuted by another scholar. Are you going to read them all?"
Maybe she is going to read them all. She's a grown up, she can make up her own mind. It's safe to say she's on her own journey like the rest of us who are sorting things out.
At this point, I'd like to remind everyone of the opening line of my article which makes it clear who my intended audience was:
"Are you someone questioning the value of Biblical research done by The Way International (TWI) or groups run by former Way followers? I am. If you are, then what I have to say may interest you."
If you're not questioning, then disregard my article in good old File 13. It's only my contribution, one person's opinion, not the "truth" of the matter certainly nor the end of my own "reading" life certainly.
No, I'm not a bible scholar. That's clear from my memoir and bio at the end.
I just ask questions. I just like to think and read...
"Are you someone questioning the value of Biblical research done by The Way International (TWI) or groups run by former Way followers? I am. If you are, then what I have to say may interest you."
You know, I go back and forth on some of this. I have an underlying trust in God that, like a tapestry, is woven throughout all these stories and my years of effort involved. In some ways it exposed me to much more of the Bible than I would have outside of my involvement. I think all that is good. The quality of the research wasn't great and under the test of time is proving to be more shoddy, but I believe God has honored my heart and intentions. The only reason I involved myself in any of the research was to get closer to my Father. Sometimes, with my trust, I feel that like Egypt for Israel He led me in and He led me out.
I appreciate your perspective, Charlene, and thanks for your writings both here and your "Windows" piece. I really liked that.
I have no trouble in mixing my axiomatic belief in the Bible as inspired writing with the pragmatic approach that anything man touches will never be perfect. It doesn't all fit in nice little compartments, but then again neither does life.
Okay, one last book recommendation and I'm done for now.
Emotional Awareness - A Conversation Between the Dalai Lama and Paul Ekman, PhD. Forward by Daniel Goleman.
It's about overcoming the obstacles to psychological balance and compassion. I read it because religious issues are often emotional ones and I needed help in dealing with them. I'm still working on it.
Actually, fundamentalist conclusions are not the result of true and genuine research in any real meaning of the word, as research doesn't start with presuppositions. Ie., a presupposed conclusion. All a fundamentalist conclusion is is a _belief_. ... Period. ... Nothing more, and nothing less.
Then I saw George's argument here:
Which just illustrates my point further. In spades! :blink: And the fact that he views it as reasonable cinches the deal. ... True without proof? ... Reasonable?
You illustrate TWI as a classic case of fundamentalism, Charlene. More than I think you realize. ;)
First, I have to wonder if Garth thinks he lives in a world without axioms, where somehow everything can be proven.
Garth, do you believe that X=X? Prove it!
Do you believe that X+Y=Y+X? Prove it!
These are just basic mathematical axioms which most high-schoolers know. (And, at least when I was in school, they were taught AS AXIOMS.)
Do you believe that God exists? Prove it!
Do you believe that God does not exist? Prove it!
Again, either of these statements, if accepted (and since they are mutually exclusive, one or the other must be true), is an axiom.
From a set of axioms, logical conclusions can be drawn; but there are no "first principles" which are not axioms.
For me, it is axiomatic that if the Bible is God's Word, then it is inerrant. (I suppose the actual axiom is that God is inerrant.) A conclusion from this axiom is that if I accept the Biblical assertion of Jesus Christ as God's Son, I must also accept that Moses parted the Red Sea. Others may pick and choose what particular parts of the Bible they wish to believe, but there are axioms underlying any such choices.
So, perhaps I should re-state my thesis: ASSUMING the axiom of an inerrant Bible, the fundamentalist methods used to interpret it (as per Bullinger and many others) are logical. Feel free to disagree with my axiom, but don't pretend that you don't have others.
I was in The Way from 1974-1989. 14th Corps until I saw what it did to people. There is no Way blood left in me. I am a trinitarian far removed from all Way doctrine. I am a cessationist when it comes to SIT.
I thought I drew a distinction between the 3 questions posed in the blurb I responded to, but maybe not clearly enough. I agree it is good to question the research methods of The Way and Wierwille. I said nothing about the nine manifestations or SIT because these are unique to what we learned in The Way.
The resurrection is not.
It is unique to Christianity. It is what draws the distinction between Christianity and other faiths. Without it you have a nice collection of wisdom literature. Which may be a point some are trying to make.
I have not doubt someone could read all the books mentioned on the list and those refuting them. My question was in no way meant to be intimidating. It was meant to show that these are deep issues not to be taken lightly and convinced of quickly. For every point made in the discussion on the inerrant nature of scripture or the resurrection of Christ there is a counterpoint made. I would sincerely hope that people take the time to educate themselves, and not be swayed easily.
There is a difference between questioning your entire faith and having questions about The Way. If someone is doing both I just hope they don't do it based on anything less than good scholarship and a well rounded argument.
In looking back, the claim of TWI to being a "research ministry" rings the most false.
I have no desire to get into arguments with my Christian brothers & sisters over the inerrancy of the bible, the existence of God or why the spell checker will accept no possible spelling of inerrancy, innerrancy, inerrency...
Wierwille's "research", when it wasn't plagiarized, was simplistic in the extreme and depended heavily on faulty logic and outright falsehoods regarding translations of various Hebrew and Greek words as well as the creation of "shadow texts" that must exist or The Word (i.e. Wierwille's theology) would fall to pieces. While some of what Wierwille taught pointed out (apparent) contradictions between what most Christians believed and what most translations of the bible said, in many cases he avoided truly resolving the contradiction by mocking what he saw as an illogical conclusion and stacking the scriptural deck by emphasizing verses that backed up his own theology while discarding those that didn't by calling them forgeries, even when the evidence was lacking. (Apologies to all for the run-on sentence)
While at one time I was dazzled by the b.s. and parroted the company line with the best of 'em, I cringe when I hear old friends talk about PFAL made more sense than anything else they ever heard...when know d*mn well that their choices have been [list1][*]The mainstream church (usually catholic)they were raised in which didn't teach any research principles[*]PFAL[*]Their offshoot which still reveres PFAL & Wierwille
Nostalgia for the Good Ol' Way Days is usually a fondness for a time of ignorant innocence, when a genuine love among pals who were in the local twig overshadowed the b.s. that was coming down the doctrinal chute.
I wonder what you who always keep silence around here actually think. Exchange of information, even if for a time it is disturbing, is a way a polishing your own thoughts and is, therefore very beneficial. However, I do understand that if one is always silent, there is a great place of safety....nobody can criticize, huh?
Also, a lot of the young folks today in twi, who were born in the 80s and 90s, seem to be nostalgic for the 70s. They weren't there. . . . Don't know what to think about that . . . My word is as good as theirs.
This is a major reason I wrote my article. Some of my daughter's friends who were raised in twi still believe VPW is their father in "the word." They have no idea of the meaning of these terms, or rather the FALSITY of them.
These people are now more than 30 years old and swimming around in a fog believing this hideous assertion of VP as their spiritual Father in The Word and are clueless as to what the term "The Word" means, which I was too because I didn't stop and realize it refers to something that does not exist: the originals of the Bible texts.
VPW himself pointed this out in PFAL. I just didn't THINK about the implications back then when I was only 18 years old.
PFAL book, pg.128: "What students or scholars refer to as originals really date from 430 and later. These manuscripts are not originals [he's right about that]...at best we have copies of the originals. [most scholars say we have copies of copies of copies of copies etc. of the originals]. When I refer to the Word of God, I do not mean a copy or a translation or a version; I mean that Word of God which was originally given by revelation to holy men."
BUT NO ONE HAS THEM. ORIGINALS DO NOT EXIST. How do you refer to something that does not exist? The term "the Word of God" does not refer to any thing in our possession.
These kids have no knowledge of the fact that there are no originals of the Bible texts about which the claim of "perfect" was made by VPW and is made by Fundamentalists. It's made about something THAT DOES NOT EXIST. Am I repeating myself? Yes. On purpose.
My daughter struggles with how to penetrate this thinking her friends have, that NEVER was addressed by their own parents. For various reasons, I'm sure.
As a parent, I felt it imperative that I try and sort out what the heck I had been believing all those years so I could explain to my child why I left such a system and just why it was not good for me or for her. She was 12 years old when we left. It's an ongoing process but thankfully has not held us back from creating new, productive lives.
BTW - I'm sure some readers will not agree with me about the non-existence of "The Word" but I welcome their ideas. But I'll say right off that I think most of those "keys to research" that VPW preached in order to "get back to the original" don't fit the locks. They are subjective tools used to create someone's interpretation of whatever version they're using. That's another thread or topic or article, though...
For this second generation, there are sources of Way history and practices that cover the 1970s like The Cult that Snapped, Losing The Way, 2 books by TheWritingMachine, a couple of other memoirs, and tons of information written here at GSC by people who were around in the 70s.
Of course, the problem is, as I have heard it, may of these kids (who are adults now) would NEVER DARE read any of it for fear of getting possessed by devil spirits or something. Has anyone else heard this fear they have? Good grief. Are we still living in the dark ages?
I've heard rumors that these kids (again, they're actually adults now) think GSC is full of "negatives" about twi and that's just not "acceptable" to say the least. On the other hand, I had a professor from Rollins write me today and say how civil the dicussion on this thread was and complimented the people here at GSC on that. Kudos to ya'll.
It's my hope that somehow this second generation can start thinking for themselves...it may take more work than they expect, so I suggest they start ASAP.
That's it for tonight. Thanks everyone for listening and contributing to this thread. I've learned so much from you.
"Is the Spanish Inquisition next on the calendar?"
:biglaugh: :biglaugh:
Ha, I edited that out just as you commented on it...but glad you liked it. I felt it was too snippy but since you liked it, enjoy! Thanks and good night.
First, I have to wonder if Garth thinks he lives in a world without axioms, where somehow everything can be proven.
Garth, do you believe that X=X? Prove it!
Do you believe that X+Y=Y+X? Prove it!
These are just basic mathematical axioms which most high-schoolers know. (And, at least when I was in school, they were taught AS AXIOMS.)
Do you believe that God exists? Prove it!
Do you believe that God does not exist? Prove it!
Again, either of these statements, if accepted (and since they are mutually exclusive, one or the other must be true), is an axiom.
From a set of axioms, logical conclusions can be drawn; but there are no "first principles" which are not axioms.
For me, it is axiomatic that if the Bible is God's Word, then it is inerrant. (I suppose the actual axiom is that God is inerrant.) A conclusion from this axiom is that if I accept the Biblical assertion of Jesus Christ as God's Son, I must also accept that Moses parted the Red Sea. Others may pick and choose what particular parts of the Bible they wish to believe, but there are axioms underlying any such choices.
So, perhaps I should re-state my thesis: ASSUMING the axiom of an inerrant Bible, the fundamentalist methods used to interpret it (as per Bullinger and many others) are logical. Feel free to disagree with my axiom, but don't pretend that you don't have others.
George
*BAMM* I must have hit a nerve there.
;)
First off, your examples of "Garth, do you believe that X=X? Prove it! Do you believe that X+Y=Y+X? Prove it!" and following are straw man arguments, using deliberately vague examples. Flawed guy, really flawed, and (usually) reflective of someone who is fundamentalist in practice.
There is a massive difference between 'having faith' (<-- notice the quotes please) in axioms that are arrived at based on already proven/established logic and evidence, and 'having faith' (<-- again notice the quotes) in axioms that are arrived at based on presupposed premises (ie., that which is arrived at due to sole acceptance of information from an authority figure, to the point where it is not held up to scrutiny, ... usually based upon getting said deity angry with you.). It is that 2nd item that I categorically reject if indeed 1) no proof has been given for it, and 2) the believer takes offense to it being questioned in the first place. The fact that you put a rather annoyed (to say the least) tone in your response of "Garth, do you believe that X=X? Prove it! Do you believe that X+Y=Y+X? Prove it!" helps illustrate (yet again) my point.
Oh by the way, re: "So, perhaps I should re-state my thesis: ASSUMING the axiom of an inerrant Bible, the fundamentalist methods used to interpret it, ...", with your emphasis of the word 'ASSUMING', (yet again! ;) ) helps establish my point, ... and I'd be willing to bet you don't really realize it.
Nostalgia for the Good Ol' Way Days is usually a fondness for a time of ignorant innocence, when a genuine love among pals who were in the local twig overshadowed the b.s. that was coming down the doctrinal chute.
axioms that are arrived at based on already proven/established logic and evidence
Do not exist. These would be conclusions, not axioms.
I don't know what "your point" is. My point is that we all make assumptions upon which we base our conclusions.
The examples I gave were not "straw men"; they were accepted examples of axioms to demonstrate my point. What "proven/established logic and evidence" is the basis for your belief system?
Excuse me in advance if I'm not using the correct definition of axiom, but I'm going to take a stab at talking about axioms in mathematics and axioms in areas of "faith".
The examples of mathematical axioms like A=A or A+B=B+A cannot, it is true, be mathematically proven, in other words there is no simpler premise from whence you can deduce that A=A. But you can easily test and demonstrate their truth even to a skeptic. I'm sure though, that if we worked at it, we could easily come up with examples of axioms that can't be satisfactorily demonstrated to a skeptic. (I'm not working at it, so I've got nothin' )
The difference that I see in the existence of God as axiomatic is that while mathematics generally falls apart without the basics axioms or assumptions, one can function in this world without belief in a God or gods. I understand why someone might conclude that a creator God makes sense logically and build their worldview based upon that assumption, that premise, but other logical worldviews can be imagined that don't assume a creator. While you can't do even basic math without the axioms of mathematics, you can construct a worldview without assuming a creator.
Mathematical axioms are necessary, assuming the existence of a god is not.
(By the way, I'm not an atheist - but I sometimes play one on Grease Spot )
I would suggest that mathematical axioms are necessary only insofar as one needs mathematics. The rules of mathematics are based on definitions of operators and some axioms, from which the remainder can be deduced.
One doesn't need to presuppose a God in order to have a worldview, but one either believes that God exists or does not exist. Either belief is a non-falsifiable assumption, i.e., an axiom; and one's worldview will be based on it and conclusions derived from it. I also want to make clear that every axiom is an assumption, but not every assumption is an axiom. If the assumption is testable or can be derived from other, more basic, concepts, it is not an axiom.
Hold everything. Some people can believe that they are not sure they believe in God.
That is another topic that belongs in a different thread, IMO.
I appreciate these lessons in mathmatics and logic lately, but I'd like to drag the conversation back to point of the article:
To show that inerrancy is a premise that disallows genuine research to be done. Why? Because a person who thinks the scriptures must be perfect will only look at evidence to back up their claim.
Part of the post I made last night, which is #38 in this thread)reminded us that:
There are no originals of the text(s) of the Bible to make this claim about.
Fundamentalist are making a claim about something that does not exist. No one has seen the original(s), they were destroyed long ago.
Get it?
I cannot overstate the importance of this point.
I'll use VPW's quote here because we are dicussing TWI and its offshoots that adopt the same premises he did for researching the Bible:
PFAL book, pg.128:
"What students or scholars refer to as originals really date from 430 and later. These manuscripts are not originals [he's right about that]...at best we have copies of the originals. [most scholars say we have copies of copies of copies of copies etc. of the originals]. When I refer to the Word of God, I do not mean a copy or a translation or a version; I mean that Word of God which was originally given by revelation to holy men."
Did VPW ever show us these originals? NO. He did not have them. Nobody does.
When he refered to "the Word of God" he refered to what he THOUGHT the Word of God must be.
The claim of inerrancy is an assumption made about something that does not exist.
No one can point to the originals and say, "See these are perfect, without contradiction, they are inerrant."
Why? Because no one has them. Cough, cough. They should be embarrassed if nothing else about making such a claim.
It is easy to make a claim about something that does not exist.
I can claim the "original" moon was made of cheese and no one can prove me wrong. There's no original moon for anyone to examine who might want to prove me wrong.
The amazing thing is that I could get some people to BELIEVE my claim about the original moon made of cheese or something else that does not exist.
There are always people, given certain circumstances, who will believe (and I was one in TWI and may very well be one again some other time) even the most outrageous claims made by the most sincere and kind people.
I suspect we all can think of examples...
Topic Disclaimer:
What this post is NOT:
This post is not intended to destroy anyone's belief in God or the sacredness of the scriptures, or any religious beliefs or lack of them.
This post is not an attack on God or a way to dispute His (or Her) existence or non-existence.
These ideas IMO would be
What this post IS:
An attempt to use critical thinking regarding the physical texts of the Bible and to remind everyone of the fact - which most of us already know - that there are no original texts of the scriptures about which we can even make a claim of inerrancy. Most people seem to forget this.
Why remind us of this?
Because inerrancy is the cornerstone of TWI research and is till being perpetuated in offshoot groups who claim their beliefs as THE TRUTH OF THE WORD OF GOD. This has been proven time and time again to lead people into making bad decisions for their lives and families. That's what I find a problem with. If you want examples, roam around the topics here at GSC and you'll find them aplenty.
If some people still want to BELIEVE in inerrancy, fine, they have that choice.
I simply ask those people one thing:
Please have the courtesy to say inerrancy is your BELIEF, and not say it is THE TRUTH which everyone else must accept.
Peace,
Charlene
Now, back to the "Nobody expects the Spanish Inquisition" shared with us on the previous page...now THAT'S funny!
Recommended Posts
Top Posters In This Topic
43
39
63
36
Popular Days
Feb 8
30
Nov 3
21
Nov 4
20
Feb 12
18
Top Posters In This Topic
geisha779 43 posts
waysider 39 posts
penworks 63 posts
spectrum49 36 posts
Popular Days
Feb 8 2010
30 posts
Nov 3 2009
21 posts
Nov 4 2009
20 posts
Feb 12 2010
18 posts
Popular Posts
penworks
Hold everything. Some people can believe that they are not sure they believe in God. That is another topic that belongs in a different thread, IMO. I appreciate these lessons in mathmatics and lo
Sunesis
With all due respect Spectrum, who cares when this thread will end? Most people here have enjoyed reading the posts and having their say. Sure, threads meander here, there, everywhere. Its the Body
penworks
I've been thinking about these sorts of things a long time, myself. One thing I found is that there are other ways to value the Bible besides thinkig it is has to be either "God's Word" (thereby it h
krys
It may be risky, but I need to put this out here......The past 48 - 72 hours have been perhaps the most influential in my life. Talk about shaking yourself up!!!!
Yes, it's been a roller coaster but I am so very glad that some of these things have been discussed. I find myself more open in that I think I'm more able to accept ideas that were foreign and unacceptable before. It will be interesting to see where this eventually leads me.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
newlife
Appreciate the article and the perspective that was given.
For me, personally, any nostalgia I had after leaving was the "good times" I had with people...and the relationships. The so called "family" that was now missing. I longed for that many times over.
It's difficult to "let go" of something when you see nothing to takes it's place. It's painful even.
Now, after being out of TWI for 22 years my life is totally different, totally satisfying, and I don't long for anything in the past that I had in TWI. Today, My life is full and it could noy have come from anyone but God.
As far as the research goes....I didn't buy a lot of it when I was in....Red flags would go up all the time when I would hear something being taught and I'd go...What? But what did I know? I hadn't researched all those years that we were told that TWI had done....so of course, I threw out my gut feeling about it all. Now, I've pretty much thrown all of it out....
Research? What I am glad of is...I know how to use a concordance, interlinears, bible dictionaries and all the other research sources that I was introduced to in TWI. I know that there are such a thing as figures of speech and orientalisms. I learned the value of reading and believing the Bible.
These are the things I gleaned....
Since out, I've learned "Go to God for yourself"......
This post probably isn't exactly on the money for the topic, but thought I'd share my thoughts.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Spoudazo
I normally steer clear of these discussions, careful to not discourage any questions that were suppressed in the first place. Nobody wants to hear that they were wrong and told years of their lives were wasted in smoke and mirrors. That is clear in your doctrinal forums. I read there and will post on occasion.
What is it about an article written by another ex-cult member who obviously leans heavily on someone else's insight, Karen Armstrong, that has you questioning the very basis of your faith? The resurrection of Jesus.
That is not a judgment it is a question. What are Penwork's qualifications in this area? Is He/she a bible scholar?
How are you so easily swayed?
Maybe you never believed it or understood it in the first place? Fine. If that is the case, wouldn't you go to the experts, like William Lane Craig who has for years studied the evidence for the resurrection and is a qualified and credentialed scholar? No, we have been taught to distrust them.
In six weeks it could be someone else here and their opinion and will that make you question this?
Wierwille trained us well. He trained us to follow people and their "new light."
I am surprised that in 72 hours you can question the basis of your faith on the basis of a few people's opinons. Every author I read on that list is refuted by another scholar. Are you going to read them all?
There is always Oprah, Eckhart Tolle, or Doctor Oz. Long after this crop of pop culture critics is gone the bible will still be here and Jesus will still have been raised from the dead.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
chockfull
This is a plagiarist's logic. It values and promotes taking another man's work and "making it your own". While there is value in building a foundation upon what is already been done, to restrict expanding upon it is to orient yourself towards dogma and away from innovation.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
penworks
Thanks for chiming in here. You raise important issues. I would like to refer back to the statements I made in post #25 above as a reminder that I am asking questions, just like everyone else. That's what led me to the place where I am in now.
I lean heavily on the still small voice and find inspiration in the words of many writers on these topics, and as I said in the statement above the booklist, " Here is a reading list that may be useful."
If it is not useful to you, don't read them.
That list and the article were intended to be my personal contributions to the conversations here at GSC.
I'd like to point out that even though you might not have intended this, when the following types of statements are made they come across as trying to intimidate the reader:
"I am surprised that in 72 hours you can question the basis of your faith on the basis of a few people's opinons. Every author I read on that list is refuted by another scholar. Are you going to read them all?"
Maybe she is going to read them all. She's a grown up, she can make up her own mind. It's safe to say she's on her own journey like the rest of us who are sorting things out.
At this point, I'd like to remind everyone of the opening line of my article which makes it clear who my intended audience was:
"Are you someone questioning the value of Biblical research done by The Way International (TWI) or groups run by former Way followers? I am. If you are, then what I have to say may interest you."
If you're not questioning, then disregard my article in good old File 13. It's only my contribution, one person's opinion, not the "truth" of the matter certainly nor the end of my own "reading" life certainly.
No, I'm not a bible scholar. That's clear from my memoir and bio at the end.
I just ask questions. I just like to think and read...
Cheers!
Link to comment
Share on other sites
chockfull
You know, I go back and forth on some of this. I have an underlying trust in God that, like a tapestry, is woven throughout all these stories and my years of effort involved. In some ways it exposed me to much more of the Bible than I would have outside of my involvement. I think all that is good. The quality of the research wasn't great and under the test of time is proving to be more shoddy, but I believe God has honored my heart and intentions. The only reason I involved myself in any of the research was to get closer to my Father. Sometimes, with my trust, I feel that like Egypt for Israel He led me in and He led me out.
I appreciate your perspective, Charlene, and thanks for your writings both here and your "Windows" piece. I really liked that.
I have no trouble in mixing my axiomatic belief in the Bible as inspired writing with the pragmatic approach that anything man touches will never be perfect. It doesn't all fit in nice little compartments, but then again neither does life.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
penworks
Okay, one last book recommendation and I'm done for now.
Emotional Awareness - A Conversation Between the Dalai Lama and Paul Ekman, PhD. Forward by Daniel Goleman.
It's about overcoming the obstacles to psychological balance and compassion. I read it because religious issues are often emotional ones and I needed help in dealing with them. I'm still working on it.
I found it HELPFUL, just sayin'...
Cheers,
Penworks
Link to comment
Share on other sites
GeorgeStGeorge
First, I have to wonder if Garth thinks he lives in a world without axioms, where somehow everything can be proven.
Garth, do you believe that X=X? Prove it!
Do you believe that X+Y=Y+X? Prove it!
These are just basic mathematical axioms which most high-schoolers know. (And, at least when I was in school, they were taught AS AXIOMS.)
Do you believe that God exists? Prove it!
Do you believe that God does not exist? Prove it!
Again, either of these statements, if accepted (and since they are mutually exclusive, one or the other must be true), is an axiom.
From a set of axioms, logical conclusions can be drawn; but there are no "first principles" which are not axioms.
For me, it is axiomatic that if the Bible is God's Word, then it is inerrant. (I suppose the actual axiom is that God is inerrant.) A conclusion from this axiom is that if I accept the Biblical assertion of Jesus Christ as God's Son, I must also accept that Moses parted the Red Sea. Others may pick and choose what particular parts of the Bible they wish to believe, but there are axioms underlying any such choices.
So, perhaps I should re-state my thesis: ASSUMING the axiom of an inerrant Bible, the fundamentalist methods used to interpret it (as per Bullinger and many others) are logical. Feel free to disagree with my axiom, but don't pretend that you don't have others.
George
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Spoudazo
Hi,
I was in The Way from 1974-1989. 14th Corps until I saw what it did to people. There is no Way blood left in me. I am a trinitarian far removed from all Way doctrine. I am a cessationist when it comes to SIT.
I thought I drew a distinction between the 3 questions posed in the blurb I responded to, but maybe not clearly enough. I agree it is good to question the research methods of The Way and Wierwille. I said nothing about the nine manifestations or SIT because these are unique to what we learned in The Way.
The resurrection is not.
It is unique to Christianity. It is what draws the distinction between Christianity and other faiths. Without it you have a nice collection of wisdom literature. Which may be a point some are trying to make.
I have not doubt someone could read all the books mentioned on the list and those refuting them. My question was in no way meant to be intimidating. It was meant to show that these are deep issues not to be taken lightly and convinced of quickly. For every point made in the discussion on the inerrant nature of scripture or the resurrection of Christ there is a counterpoint made. I would sincerely hope that people take the time to educate themselves, and not be swayed easily.
There is a difference between questioning your entire faith and having questions about The Way. If someone is doing both I just hope they don't do it based on anything less than good scholarship and a well rounded argument.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Oakspear
In looking back, the claim of TWI to being a "research ministry" rings the most false.
I have no desire to get into arguments with my Christian brothers & sisters over the inerrancy of the bible, the existence of God or why the spell checker will accept no possible spelling of inerrancy, innerrancy, inerrency...
Wierwille's "research", when it wasn't plagiarized, was simplistic in the extreme and depended heavily on faulty logic and outright falsehoods regarding translations of various Hebrew and Greek words as well as the creation of "shadow texts" that must exist or The Word (i.e. Wierwille's theology) would fall to pieces. While some of what Wierwille taught pointed out (apparent) contradictions between what most Christians believed and what most translations of the bible said, in many cases he avoided truly resolving the contradiction by mocking what he saw as an illogical conclusion and stacking the scriptural deck by emphasizing verses that backed up his own theology while discarding those that didn't by calling them forgeries, even when the evidence was lacking. (Apologies to all for the run-on sentence)
While at one time I was dazzled by the b.s. and parroted the company line with the best of 'em, I cringe when I hear old friends talk about PFAL made more sense than anything else they ever heard...when know d*mn well that their choices have been [list1][*]The mainstream church (usually catholic)they were raised in which didn't teach any research principles[*]PFAL[*]Their offshoot which still reveres PFAL & Wierwille
Nostalgia for the Good Ol' Way Days is usually a fondness for a time of ignorant innocence, when a genuine love among pals who were in the local twig overshadowed the b.s. that was coming down the doctrinal chute.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
krys
This has been a most illuminating thread.
I wonder what you who always keep silence around here actually think. Exchange of information, even if for a time it is disturbing, is a way a polishing your own thoughts and is, therefore very beneficial. However, I do understand that if one is always silent, there is a great place of safety....nobody can criticize, huh?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
penworks
This is a major reason I wrote my article. Some of my daughter's friends who were raised in twi still believe VPW is their father in "the word." They have no idea of the meaning of these terms, or rather the FALSITY of them.
These people are now more than 30 years old and swimming around in a fog believing this hideous assertion of VP as their spiritual Father in The Word and are clueless as to what the term "The Word" means, which I was too because I didn't stop and realize it refers to something that does not exist: the originals of the Bible texts.
VPW himself pointed this out in PFAL. I just didn't THINK about the implications back then when I was only 18 years old.
PFAL book, pg.128: "What students or scholars refer to as originals really date from 430 and later. These manuscripts are not originals [he's right about that]...at best we have copies of the originals. [most scholars say we have copies of copies of copies of copies etc. of the originals]. When I refer to the Word of God, I do not mean a copy or a translation or a version; I mean that Word of God which was originally given by revelation to holy men."
BUT NO ONE HAS THEM. ORIGINALS DO NOT EXIST. How do you refer to something that does not exist? The term "the Word of God" does not refer to any thing in our possession.
These kids have no knowledge of the fact that there are no originals of the Bible texts about which the claim of "perfect" was made by VPW and is made by Fundamentalists. It's made about something THAT DOES NOT EXIST. Am I repeating myself? Yes. On purpose.
My daughter struggles with how to penetrate this thinking her friends have, that NEVER was addressed by their own parents. For various reasons, I'm sure.
As a parent, I felt it imperative that I try and sort out what the heck I had been believing all those years so I could explain to my child why I left such a system and just why it was not good for me or for her. She was 12 years old when we left. It's an ongoing process but thankfully has not held us back from creating new, productive lives.
BTW - I'm sure some readers will not agree with me about the non-existence of "The Word" but I welcome their ideas. But I'll say right off that I think most of those "keys to research" that VPW preached in order to "get back to the original" don't fit the locks. They are subjective tools used to create someone's interpretation of whatever version they're using. That's another thread or topic or article, though...
For this second generation, there are sources of Way history and practices that cover the 1970s like The Cult that Snapped, Losing The Way, 2 books by TheWritingMachine, a couple of other memoirs, and tons of information written here at GSC by people who were around in the 70s.
Of course, the problem is, as I have heard it, may of these kids (who are adults now) would NEVER DARE read any of it for fear of getting possessed by devil spirits or something. Has anyone else heard this fear they have? Good grief. Are we still living in the dark ages?
I've heard rumors that these kids (again, they're actually adults now) think GSC is full of "negatives" about twi and that's just not "acceptable" to say the least. On the other hand, I had a professor from Rollins write me today and say how civil the dicussion on this thread was and complimented the people here at GSC on that. Kudos to ya'll.
It's my hope that somehow this second generation can start thinking for themselves...it may take more work than they expect, so I suggest they start ASAP.
That's it for tonight. Thanks everyone for listening and contributing to this thread. I've learned so much from you.
Charlene
Edited by penworksLink to comment
Share on other sites
Oakspear
The Mithra/Devil's Counterfeit is an interesting discussion, I have asked the mods to move it to it's own thread.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
waysider
"Is the Spanish Inquisition next on the calendar?"
Link to comment
Share on other sites
penworks
Ha, I edited that out just as you commented on it...but glad you liked it. I felt it was too snippy but since you liked it, enjoy! Thanks and good night.
Charlene
Link to comment
Share on other sites
GarthP2000
*BAMM* I must have hit a nerve there.
;)
First off, your examples of "Garth, do you believe that X=X? Prove it! Do you believe that X+Y=Y+X? Prove it!" and following are straw man arguments, using deliberately vague examples. Flawed guy, really flawed, and (usually) reflective of someone who is fundamentalist in practice.
There is a massive difference between 'having faith' (<-- notice the quotes please) in axioms that are arrived at based on already proven/established logic and evidence, and 'having faith' (<-- again notice the quotes) in axioms that are arrived at based on presupposed premises (ie., that which is arrived at due to sole acceptance of information from an authority figure, to the point where it is not held up to scrutiny, ... usually based upon getting said deity angry with you.). It is that 2nd item that I categorically reject if indeed 1) no proof has been given for it, and 2) the believer takes offense to it being questioned in the first place. The fact that you put a rather annoyed (to say the least) tone in your response of "Garth, do you believe that X=X? Prove it! Do you believe that X+Y=Y+X? Prove it!" helps illustrate (yet again) my point.
Oh by the way, re: "So, perhaps I should re-state my thesis: ASSUMING the axiom of an inerrant Bible, the fundamentalist methods used to interpret it, ...", with your emphasis of the word 'ASSUMING', (yet again! ;) ) helps establish my point, ... and I'd be willing to bet you don't really realize it.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Broken Arrow
"Nobody suspects the Spanish inquisition!"
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Jim
Damn straight.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
GeorgeStGeorge
Do not exist. These would be conclusions, not axioms.
I don't know what "your point" is. My point is that we all make assumptions upon which we base our conclusions.
The examples I gave were not "straw men"; they were accepted examples of axioms to demonstrate my point. What "proven/established logic and evidence" is the basis for your belief system?
George
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Oakspear
Excuse me in advance if I'm not using the correct definition of axiom, but I'm going to take a stab at talking about axioms in mathematics and axioms in areas of "faith".
The examples of mathematical axioms like A=A or A+B=B+A cannot, it is true, be mathematically proven, in other words there is no simpler premise from whence you can deduce that A=A. But you can easily test and demonstrate their truth even to a skeptic. I'm sure though, that if we worked at it, we could easily come up with examples of axioms that can't be satisfactorily demonstrated to a skeptic. (I'm not working at it, so I've got nothin'
)
The difference that I see in the existence of God as axiomatic is that while mathematics generally falls apart without the basics axioms or assumptions, one can function in this world without belief in a God or gods. I understand why someone might conclude that a creator God makes sense logically and build their worldview based upon that assumption, that premise, but other logical worldviews can be imagined that don't assume a creator. While you can't do even basic math without the axioms of mathematics, you can construct a worldview without assuming a creator.
Mathematical axioms are necessary, assuming the existence of a god is not.
(By the way, I'm not an atheist
- but I sometimes play one on Grease Spot 
)
Link to comment
Share on other sites
GeorgeStGeorge
I would suggest that mathematical axioms are necessary only insofar as one needs mathematics. The rules of mathematics are based on definitions of operators and some axioms, from which the remainder can be deduced.
One doesn't need to presuppose a God in order to have a worldview, but one either believes that God exists or does not exist. Either belief is a non-falsifiable assumption, i.e., an axiom; and one's worldview will be based on it and conclusions derived from it. I also want to make clear that every axiom is an assumption, but not every assumption is an axiom. If the assumption is testable or can be derived from other, more basic, concepts, it is not an axiom.
George
Link to comment
Share on other sites
waysider
So, what, then? There's no room at the inn for people who aren't sure either way?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
penworks
Hold everything. Some people can believe that they are not sure they believe in God.
That is another topic that belongs in a different thread, IMO.
I appreciate these lessons in mathmatics and logic lately, but I'd like to drag the conversation back to point of the article:
To show that inerrancy is a premise that disallows genuine research to be done. Why? Because a person who thinks the scriptures must be perfect will only look at evidence to back up their claim.
Part of the post I made last night, which is #38 in this thread)reminded us that:
There are no originals of the text(s) of the Bible to make this claim about.
Fundamentalist are making a claim about something that does not exist. No one has seen the original(s), they were destroyed long ago.
Get it?
I cannot overstate the importance of this point.
I'll use VPW's quote here because we are dicussing TWI and its offshoots that adopt the same premises he did for researching the Bible:
PFAL book, pg.128:
"What students or scholars refer to as originals really date from 430 and later. These manuscripts are not originals [he's right about that]...at best we have copies of the originals. [most scholars say we have copies of copies of copies of copies etc. of the originals]. When I refer to the Word of God, I do not mean a copy or a translation or a version; I mean that Word of God which was originally given by revelation to holy men."
Did VPW ever show us these originals? NO. He did not have them. Nobody does.
When he refered to "the Word of God" he refered to what he THOUGHT the Word of God must be.
The claim of inerrancy is an assumption made about something that does not exist.
No one can point to the originals and say, "See these are perfect, without contradiction, they are inerrant."
Why? Because no one has them. Cough, cough. They should be embarrassed if nothing else about making such a claim.
It is easy to make a claim about something that does not exist.
I can claim the "original" moon was made of cheese and no one can prove me wrong. There's no original moon for anyone to examine who might want to prove me wrong.
The amazing thing is that I could get some people to BELIEVE my claim about the original moon made of cheese or something else that does not exist.
There are always people, given certain circumstances, who will believe (and I was one in TWI and may very well be one again some other time) even the most outrageous claims made by the most sincere and kind people.
I suspect we all can think of examples...
Topic Disclaimer:
What this post is NOT:
This post is not intended to destroy anyone's belief in God or the sacredness of the scriptures, or any religious beliefs or lack of them.
This post is not an attack on God or a way to dispute His (or Her) existence or non-existence.
These ideas IMO would be
What this post IS:
An attempt to use critical thinking regarding the physical texts of the Bible and to remind everyone of the fact - which most of us already know - that there are no original texts of the scriptures about which we can even make a claim of inerrancy. Most people seem to forget this.
Why remind us of this?
Because inerrancy is the cornerstone of TWI research and is till being perpetuated in offshoot groups who claim their beliefs as THE TRUTH OF THE WORD OF GOD. This has been proven time and time again to lead people into making bad decisions for their lives and families. That's what I find a problem with. If you want examples, roam around the topics here at GSC and you'll find them aplenty.
If some people still want to BELIEVE in inerrancy, fine, they have that choice.
I simply ask those people one thing:
Please have the courtesy to say inerrancy is your BELIEF, and not say it is THE TRUTH which everyone else must accept.
Peace,
Charlene
Now, back to the "Nobody expects the Spanish Inquisition" shared with us on the previous page...now THAT'S funny!
Edited by penworksLink to comment
Share on other sites
waysider
I'm reminded of a movie I saw many years ago called The Gods Must Be Crazy.
HERE is part #1.
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.