Wierwille makes an argument and then comes to a conclusion. He then uses that conclusion
as part of the premise for the next argument. And so on and on.
< a few snips from the original posts>
Wierwille: If God is perfect and Christ is perfect and The Word is given as holy men of God spake as they
were moved by the Holy Spirit, then God's Word must be perfect also.
This one breaks down like this.
Premises
1. God is perfect
2. Jesus is perfect
3. The word was given as holy men were moved by by the Holy Spirit
Conclusion: Therefore ...
God's Word is perfect
As you can see the argument is completely circular. God is assumed to be perfect because the
Word says so. And Word is perfect because it came from God.
OK, but let's assume the conclusion to be correct in spite if Wierwille's circular and flawed logic.
Let's assume that the Word of God is perfect. But Wierwille changes it to the "revealed word of God and says:
Wierwille: " so the revealed Word of God is perfect. Consequently the words which make up The Word must also be perfect.
Premises:
1. The "revealed Word" is Perfect .. therefore
Conclusion:
The words which make up The Word must also be perfect.
Many of Wierwille's core teachings are based upon his use of flawed logic as in the example above.
TWI took it one more step. Wierwille would have never ascribed to the following publicly - but he sure didn't dismiss it either.
If I give you items 1-3 above then:
if you believe wierwille when he said "the word takes the place of the absent christ"
God told me he would teach me the word like it hasn't been known since the first century.
conclusion:
Wierwille is the only modern day keeper of the perfect word - which takes the place of the absent christ.
Hence wierwille can take the place of the absent christ by virtue of being the only keeper of the perfect word in the 20th century. (BTW - anyone ever wonder why God would call it the first century? Surely God new that a few centuries preceded what christians call the first century eh?)
Again the reasoning (I can't bring myself to call it logic) is flawed - but you can see how people could make those mental leaps.
Love ya Vic - especially now that you are dead and can't abuse people any more with your sadistic temper and your pornographic sexual appetite.
These last few posts are especially helpful and fabulous to me...sure appreciate the participation!
Just a quick update on the content of the original article, where I said the following:
During the past few years I’ve read many comments from others who also left TWI. I’ve read them not only here at GSC, but at web sites of former Way followers who started offshoot groups, and at the Way Corps web site open to Corps grads. While reading, I've noticed a general theme cropping up in a number of them: a wish for "the old TWI days," and more importantly, a desire to re-create them. Because my interest lies in research and I see nostalgia for it in many people’s comments, I focus on that aspect of the “old TWI days” in this article.
As of last Thursday, Jan. 14, I can no longer speak from personal experience about the Way Corps site, which I referred to above. That day I deleted my profile page, voluntarily removing myself from the site. For further info on the site, interested parties would need to contact someone else who has a page there.
The fact is. that any logical argument to prove either God or the scriptures to be perfect will be circular.
Hey, great writeup on the logical fallacies of Wierwille's "Biblical research".
I would think that to derive a belief system with accurate logic you'd have to start with truths that are axiomatic. For example, Euclidean geometry is completely derived from point, line, and plane as axioms. Do these always hold up? Not necessarily. The work Einstein did on theory of relativity seems to indicate that as mass approaches the speed of light, these simple axioms start bending.
Your observations of logic flaws in Wierwille's teaching is very astute. From my perspective, VP kind of mixes in and up what he wants the reader / video viewer to consider as axioms and logical syllogisms as he doesn't really understand how either of those works. And absolutely he uses these flawed syllogisms to build up a logical case for him being THE person God chose to help the world understand the Bible. And believing his logic has opened up so many for exploitation.
So what is really true regarding God and the Bible? What truths can we hold as axiomatic?
I think people have to develop their own conclusions and build their belief systems from there.
For me, IMO the simple truths about God I can read in the Bible are axiomatic:
1) God is love
2) God is light
3) God is my Father (in a spiritual sense)
4) God inspired scripture so that I can know Him and His plan of redemption for mankind through His Son
Those are kind of what I consider for my life to be axioms. They absolutely require believing, "faith", trust in a higher power, or however you want to term it that communicates. I cannot prove them. In a sense they are "Christian" axioms if you want to label them. If they are my axioms, then I can start to derive logically my belief system. And just because I have a certain belief system doesn't mean I'm better than anyone else, and it also doesn't mean I can always live up to it.
But if I have to be totally honest here about my belief system, it would be constructed of a part logically derived system of truths, and a part from the heart - "feel", or "conscience". They work together so I have to feel good about it and it has to make sense.
So I think when we're talking about belief systems, one of the most important things to define (at least for ourselves) is "What are the axioms we are working from?" They may not be the same, but when we're talking together I think we can get a feel for each other's logic, and their character - the "makes sense" and "feels" part of our interaction.
Another thing, on my #4 axiom that doesn't mean I'm going to follow all VP's leaps of logic regarding order of the words, every word, etc. There have been too many hands in the soup pot for me to accept that.
I would think that to derive a belief system with accurate logic you'd have to start with truths that are axiomatic. For example, Euclidean geometry is completely derived from point, line, and plane as axioms. Do these always hold up? Not necessarily. The work Einstein did on theory of relativity seems to indicate that as mass approaches the speed of light, these simple axioms start bending...
...For me, IMO the simple truths about God I can read in the Bible are axiomatic:
1) God is love
2) God is light
3) God is my Father (in a spiritual sense)
4) God inspired scripture so that I can know Him and His plan of redemption for mankind through His Son
Those are kind of what I consider for my life to be axioms. They absolutely require believing, "faith", trust in a higher power, or however you want to term it that communicates. I cannot prove them. In a sense they are "Christian" axioms if you want to label them. If they are my axioms, then I can start to derive logically my belief system. And just because I have a certain belief system doesn't mean I'm better than anyone else, and it also doesn't mean I can always live up to it...
Good for you, chockfull! We all have to start somewhere. And to me, what you wrote is perfectly logical. However, I warn you there are many here who would question how you derived these in the first place, knowing they were written in scripture, and profess from the start that they are "invalid", questioning the scriptures themselves as being TRUTH, and "demanding" they be proven.
Such are similar to those who say they do not believe in God at all, because you cannot show them any "physical evidence" of him, despite the fact they suspect He is spiritual and cannot be seen. But the moment you quote "God is spirit" from the Bible to assert your point, they will again question the very validity of the scripture to deny it yet again.
If you read this entire thread, you will see what I mean.
But it remains that at least I BELIEVE one (of necessity) must start "somewhere", and that your beginning place (your "Christian axioms", as they were) are as good as any -- and CERTAINLY better than NONE at all!
Good for you, chockfull! We all have to start somewhere. And to me, what you wrote is perfectly logical. However, I warn you there are many here who would question how you derived these in the first place, knowing they were written in scripture, and profess from the start that they are "invalid", questioning the scriptures themselves as being TRUTH, and "demanding" they be proven.
Such are similar to those who say they do not believe in God at all, because you cannot show them any "physical evidence" of him, despite the fact they suspect He is spiritual and cannot be seen. But the moment you quote "God is spirit" from the Bible to assert your point, they will again question the very validity of the scripture to deny it yet again.
Thanks!! You know I have absolutely no problem with people questioning how I derived these in the first place, saying they aer invalid, demanding proof. I fully out front state that as axioms they are things I accept at face value as true. I've come to that conclusion through my life's experiences. I can't prove a single one of them to another soul, and furthermore I wouldn't try. I would encourage all of those questioning to prove them true or false for themselves and to do the same with other axioms they hold dear to themselves. I'm sure that people can question the validity of scripture and criticize me for that being a portion of my unquestioned belief system.
Furthermore I don't believe that where I choose to obtain my inspiration makes me any better or worse than anyone else on this planet. In TWI I used to have such an elitist attitude. I was healed of that once being out and seeing what richness I had all around me in other people.
I'm sure people also could try and get me into a debate about "absolute truth". Do I believe in "absolute truth"? Is truth relative or absolute? I would have to answer I don't know. What I do know is that my Lord Jesus Christ is a personal savior and that is on the individual level. He came for each person, not to bring the absolute truth of the law to judge. The law was already there. He came to fulfill it with a higher law, the law of love. And you know, that is absolutely freeing. I can converse with a Buddhist, a Muslim, an atheist, and appreciate them for their own personality and beliefs and experiences, and learn something from each of them. I don't have to have ulterior motives of dragging them to a meeting or worse yet a phone hookup. I can share my beliefs with them, and honestly have had plenty more opportunities to do so with this attitude than I ever did have in TWI, being under forced labor there to try and produce blood from a stone, and a free movement from a morose religion.
...there are many here who would question how you derived these in the first place, knowing they were written in scripture, and profess from the start that they are "invalid", questioning the scriptures themselves as being TRUTH, and "demanding" they be proven.
Such are similar to those who say they do not believe in God at all, because you cannot show them any "physical evidence" of him, despite the fact they suspect He is spiritual and cannot be seen. But the moment you quote "God is spirit" from the Bible to assert your point, they will again question the very validity of the scripture to deny it yet again.
Personally, I embarked on my journey into the bible as an attempt to reinforce, or re-create, my belief in a loving God because -- even though I consider myself Christian -- I still need to be convinced of that. (I also find the bible very interesting to read.)
As far as the events in the bible themselves, or the accuracy of the descriptions of them: it always irked me that those who believe in the bible in a literal sense (for example that Adam and Eve lived 900+ years, or that Noah managed to get every species of land-dwelling animal onto his ark, etc.), and who also believe in the laws of physics, chemistry and biology; will completely abandon those beliefs in the physical sciences to accommodate their religious beliefs. Why can't the Christian world sort of relax, take a deep breath, come together, and agree that there is no physical evidence that any man or woman ever lived 900 years? Because once we get past the apparent physical contradictions, then we can talk about 1) the underlying message of scripture (which I think is a very important message), and 2) why these seeming contradictions exist. Invoking faith as a sort of spiritual mulligan is not going to convince many non-believers.
With regard to scripture being inspired by God -- I can accept that much of it was. But I wonder if you or chockfull can accept that many other things in this world -- for example, certain artistic performances or even ideas -- can be inspired by God? There are many, many truths that are not described in the bible. I'm not talking about "technical" or mathematical truths. I'm talking about things like mental illness, which wasn't even recognized as a possible cause of behavior until hundreds of years after the NT was completed.
As far as the bible being "perfect"...how can it be? Taking music as an example, a musical piece may be perfect when represented on paper with musical notes. Is every performance of the song perfect? Not any more "perfect" than the men and women who perform it. Is any performance of it ever "perfect" in a mathematical sense? I don't think so (but there is beauty in that imperfection!).
So the bible doesn't have to be perfect, or even accurate, for me to enjoy it. I read it and use it within the context of modern realities.
What the hell does that really mean anyway? Isn't that contrary to research? True, objective research would have to mean that you are willing to re-examine your conclusions to see if they still fit in light of new findings that may have a shared context. Currently at TWI - they have what they term "proven ministry research". It's silently considered above any further "research". And yes, this means that the so called research Department, which is really President's Publications, spends time working things from what has already been published as a first, and almost always final, authority. The logic you may ask? What has been published is "proven ministry research". To me it would be more honest to call it "enshrined conclusions from supposed research that happened a long time ago by people who are either dead or long gone".
I only wish I was as cynical as this sounds...it's true.
From OldSkool's comments: Currently at TWI - they have what they term "proven ministry research".
My questions:
Do they say that they have "unproven ministry research," too?
Do they list anywhere the people doing "research" or their credentials?
Do they publish in any journals anywhere?
After 60 years of "reconstructing the original" of the Bible, have they done it yet?
Do they access the databases in other organizations that track all the varients in extant manuscripts?
I'm joining this topic as I catch up on Charlene's article and the posts thus far. I'm going to give a bit of a different take on "research" than might have been mentioned. I also was in the research portion of TWI and it is always fascinating how much tunnel vision TWI gave everyone. But I'd like to ask the posters here: How many of you started thinking outside the TWI bathwater and didn't necessarily throw out the baby?
Oh, I did that very early in my involvement. It got me into plenty of hot water. Before I "got in the word", my basic train of thought was that God talks to you in a non-verbal fashion. Talks to you in ways that are tailored to your personal makeup. (ie: being present at the birth of a baby, witnessing the vast beauty of nature, etc. Like when you lock eyes with someone very close to you and no words are needed to understand each other) Hey! Didn't somebody write a song like that? I think it was called
or somethin'. Anyhow, fast forward to my first twig, circa 1972. "WHAT!!!! Oh no, that simply can't be! Ya see, ya gotta put God in a little box where you can look at Him real up-close like with a spurchal magnifying glass. Gotta learn whole bunches of Greek and Aramaic and all kinds of other languages and speak in tongues of angels (or men from fur away places) 'til the cows all come home to roost if you ever want to have any hope at all that God will 'speak' to you". Uhmmmmmmm.....OK.
Then, about 1979 or so, when the "paid according to needs" stuff started to surface at the local level, my first wife and I had a major knock-down, drag out confrontation with each other about the "accuracy" of this crap. (If I recall correctly, my position was that it was a wagon load of soil enrichment material.) Did I mention we got divorced not too awful long after that?
I gather from what I read in bunches of places that they expect a Big % to be given to them, but are stingy (not thrifty) when it came to paying their people honestly, for the actual worth of their work.
But what I seem to be getting here is that they also didn't appreciate the people "treading the corn", for them?
Oh, I did that very early in my involvement. It got me into plenty of hot water. Before I "got in the word", my basic train of thought was that God talks to you in a non-verbal fashion. Talks to you in ways that are tailored to your personal makeup.
Thanks waysider! You just reminded me of "before I got in the word". Perhaps this is a tangent to the topic, but what the heck?
As a young child I remember looking at the stars at night and somehow realized space must go forever. That is when I decided there must be "something in control". I didn't even care to call it "GOD". (or "creative universalism", either! LOL) But I do now, 'cause you gotta call it SOMETHING - so what the heck - Call it GOD.
I used to try and speak with this "entity", but without result. I never actually heard any audible response.
My parents used to send me off on a bus to church. (They didn't attend themselves, so it was a nice way to get rid of me for a bit!) I can't remember anything they taught. Maybe I got born again - I just don't know. I was much too young.
But I'll tell you what! When I had a NEED, this God came through! I didn't "bug him" often, thinking he was busy enough with everybody else on the planet, so I only asked for stuff in an emergency situation.
Once, when I was about 16 my younger brother had gotten so far into drugs that the people he was hanging with had guns - and I think they may have been connected with organized crime. I was scared for my brother, who lived with mother 200 miles away. I lived with dad. (They had divorced when I was 5.)
I went outside and looked up at the stars and simply asked for help for my brother.
Only 3 days later did we get a call from him. It seems that he was at a party, and friends of friends were there. He said he was talking to this new guy. (Maybe it was an angel, I don't know for sure.) Anyway, he said the way this guy was talking about the Army sounded so appealing that he had actually gone and signed up. HMMM - I thought!
I went outside, looked up and thanked this "God".
He eventually became a Sgt Major and retired after 30 years with a nice pension! (He should give me some of that - LOL!)
When I was 19, my mother had divorced my step-father and (having no place to live) decided to voluntarily commit herself to the State Mental Instuitution as a "ward of the state". Dumb move, huh?
She wasn't crazy, but every time I visited her she got worse and worse. They had filled her with so many drugs - thorazine, stellazine, elerill, melerill - that she was slowly losing her mind.
When enough was enough - I think I was about 21, she had gotten so bad that sometimes she could hardly even remember who I was!
So I went "to the stars" again. And again - 3 days later she called and said she had decided to check herself out. I am glad she had originally done this voluntarily so she always had the option to leave! I thanked God again.
She was fine in a month or so - all back to normal! She had found a place to stay, and community work to do to suppliment her social-security.
I had learned to trust this God because He always came through so quickly! (There were other occasions I won't go into.)
But it seemed that I was always asking for stuff for OTHERS. I thought it greedy to ask for stuff for myself.
At 22, I had joined the Air Force. I was transferred a few times, and my mother had moved. We had gotten lost from each other. I was coming up on Christmas leave and wanted to see her so badly! So I prayed again outside one night, but I was crying and was somehow not confident, as when I asked for stuff for everybody else. The next day I went to the base chaplain - he was enouraging.
Again - 3 days later, I got a letter from her she had written some time ago. It had about 7 or 8 postmarks on it. It was so messed up - stuff crossed off and new stuff replaced EVERYWHERE. You could barely ready my name on it any more!
But somehow, it had gotten to me in time. Less than a week later I was on leave at her NEW PLACE!
Not too long after that in 1975 TWI sucked me in. I can't say they ever improved upon how I prayed and got answers. I learned a bit about research - and that was enough to get me the HECK OUT in 2008. I had learned some things on my own that they were not interested in - so I left!
I still ask for things and I still get them. And it's better now, for I have learned God is never too busy for anyone or anything. I ask for stuff "big" and "small" - why not?
Bemoaning the fact that TWI and it’s research arm (attached as it was to the torso of VP, nourished by the same and eventually cut off…amputation is such a messy thing…) did not exist in a manner to which you now ascribe is one thing; trying to figure out what it was, why it was and what went wrong is another. The splinter groups that purport to “carry on” this work in a manner that takes only the “good things” of VP and perfects them need scrutiny too (as those here can well imagine). None of them, as some one astutely pointed out, have research groups within them. It’s quite telling, IMHO.
My name is Bob Wassung and my involvement with the TWI “arm” began when I was a student at a Bible college (’73) and continued through about 1988. I’m a classically trained theologian with degrees in the field (Bible/ Greek in my undergrad and Aramaic/Hebrew/Theology in graduate school). Add to that the pseudo-associates degree in theology for my Way Corps training (ha!) and you have me sitting in a theological bouillabaisse for the most part…it is my life to this very day.
TWI’s “Bible study system” (penworks – post #1) left much to be desired, but the system itself has roots that go far back into the 18th century. The cultish status of TWI became more pronounced as VP gained more and more status and power ("Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely. Great men are almost always bad men." – thank you Lord Acton). When I came to the group it was more fun than anything else; more honest with the texts and more detailed in analysis. Don’t get me wrong, some of my professors hated me (they were protecting their own chalice, BTW) and I was almost tossed out on my proverbial, but the fresh new outlook on the Scriptures, for me, was exciting. TWI became a festering wound that excluded any ideas from the outside, any reproof from those of us in the know theologically. I also left.
Sure it was (and is) a fundamentalist group; there are thousands of them worldwide (after some wise soul decided to categorized a particular brand). And let’s understand something; what’s a fundamentalist for some is just an evangelical for another. Meanings in the theological world are used as clubs so often it would surprise you (or not). And mincing over words and placing names for effect probably isn’t the best way to get to the roots of a problem (fun though it is…).
There is a dearth of Biblical research around it is true, but let me say this as well; there is a dearth of qualified Biblical researchers as well. Those who would like to research often do not have the skills to do so and others with the skills are so steeped in their own denominational cesspools (think TWI and a million other cults…excuse me…denominations) that they cannot think or write outside their own box. Then there are the flamethrowers that just whitewash anything that formerly hurt them and say “the hell with it all”. I respect those who are searching, but get easily tired of blowhards, as I’m sure you all do. It’s not fun; there’s usually nothing but negatives with no advancement toward answering questions or solving problems.
BTW, any group (gaggle, cult, coven, whatever you want to call it) hunts for their own “holy grail”. In the case of Evangelical Christianity (those, in my definition, who believe Jesus was Messiah and believe God raised him from the dead…and a few other things) the grail is getting the truth out of the written Scriptures. The definition of “inerrancy” varies from one group to the next, but centers around making the “historical Jesus” real. I have my own definition of what makes the Christian Scriptures…well...Scriptures (usually that means looking at them in the manner and with a reference that Jesus did his own Scriptures). You have your own.
Then there are a million methods of interpretation; each with their own slant on the text and “system” in which to place themselves . Ya’ gotta love hermeneutics and text critical studies to do battle there. I’m blathering and I don’t mean to. I’m at post 93 and trying to read them all so I don’t miss anything, but I decided to weigh in a little prematurely. Hope no one minds. And if you said something already about a subject that I touch on (and I haven’t read it…) please be patient with me.
Hi there, Bob. It's great to have you here, and I for one appreciate your willingness to post on this ever-meandering topic. Thanks for your perspective and insights...we've sure come a long way from those old TWI "research" days, huh?
I hope you'll post more on these pertinent topics that affected so many ex-TWI folks. As you said, it's valuable to understand how the research got the way it was...as you look around GSC, you'll find many other voices that add to the history of it all, too...
Im lovin theologicalsclerosis (Tbone - post #92)! This happens all the time in theology, not just at TWI. Its rare that you see a group or its offshoots stay supple and changing to the conditions in their culture. And change is what God is all about, IMHO. One of the big deals in systematic theology today is Open Theism (aka the open view of God). It says, in essence, the God can change and that He doesnt have a perfect knowledge of the future. It drives Calvinists crazy and yet it is quite an encouraging step to me. It fits like a hand in a glove with a dispensational view of the Scriptures.
Lots of us took crap, but Ill never blame someone else for my buttheadedness or ignorance (shame on us…). If it doesnt fit, I usually dig deeper for the answers that do. Just ask my wife; shes had to endure my, Hey, take a look at this! for over thirty years. And I still speak in tongues.
Post #98 (SethR) A scientist always starts with I don't know, not I believe, so in research you can't start with an assumption and treat it as evidence for the types of experiments you will and will not do. I disagree. Scientists start with what they know and test their ideas against what they know to see if their reality is not real.
Post #126 (Geisha 779) I read Francis Collins The Language of God over the summer last year (my daughter who is studying Political Science and Bioethics leant it to me). Cool dude and a good writer; massive intellect…scary those types… (whether that matters is not for me to decide). Oh, and I liked what you said in post #132 The issue becomes is scripture reliable? To me thats always the question. Has been the question for over 40 years now.
Post #134 (penworks) I left the Christianity room awhile ago. Im not so much shocked as I am saddened. The baby with the bathwater, eh?
Post #126 (Geisha 779) – I read Francis Collin's The Language of God over the summer last year (my daughter who is studying Political Science and Bioethics leant it to me). Cool dude and a good writer; massive intellect…scary those types… (whether that matters is not for me to decide). Oh, and I liked what you said in post #132 "The issue becomes is scripture reliable?" To me that's always the question. Has been the question for over 40 years now.
I don't know if you are familiar with Anthony Flew? Another massive intellect . .. and yes, scary type. He too is so interesting to read. . . .although different from Collins. . . . . as Anthony Flew is a philosopher. He was the Richard Dawkins of his day. . . . an Oxford Don and devout atheist who would regularly debate with CS Lewis while participating in Lewis' Socratic Club.
His father was a minister. I only mention this because I find it so fascinating that many of the people we read who come out in such stark opposition to the God revealed in scripture have a background of some sort in Christianity. Nietzsche for example, his father and grandfather were both ministers. On this thread, Karen Armstrong was a nun and Bart Ehrman was raised in an evangelical home. As an aside, Nietzsche died quoting scripture.
Flew is now a theist. . . . the radical nature of his conversion from atheism to theism is really lost without some understanding of his former position and how wedded he was to it. He is not a Christian. . .. yet.
If you have not heard of him. . .I thought you might enjoy checking him out. It was DNA and the structure of a single cell that got him questioning his former position.
I do not believe you can discount the philosophical related to the questions concerning scripture. They go hand in hand with any reasoned and rounded approach to scripture and its reliability.
Huge topic.. . . .some great minds to read for sport!! :)
Post #134 (penworks) "I left the Christianity room awhile ago." I'm not so much shocked as I am saddened. The baby with the bathwater, eh?
RE
I appreciate and thank you for your feelings - I'll just say it's been a long personal journey. Although some people may assume from my article and story posted here it's because I had issues with inerrancy or the history of the text or something like that...they would be wrong. Nope, that's not the case. Nor is it because of anything TWI did or didn't do or research "correctly." That experience just set me on a path of discovery for myself.
It has to do with what I see as the starting point or basic assumption of Christianity - that man comes into the world fallen or separate from his "maker" and is inadequate. However, on the bright side, I see religions often valuable in ways of creating community and providing social support when they're not dogmatic, but I shy away from adapting any one of them for myself.
Over the years, writers like Joseph Campbell have been helpful to me and I've found loads of enlightenment from literature of various sorts...but that's just me.
I realize as you do that Christianity, in it's simplest form, is as dogmatic as say...radical Muslim fundamentalism. The question of sin and sin nature (or "original sin" as my Catholic upbringing would force upon us...) can be daunting. Starting out in life with one foot on a bannana peel sometimes just doesn't feel right.
Add to that a dose of guilt and shame at how we act as humans and haughtiness on the part of our society and the Christian outlook can be a laughingstock to the "progressives" of the world. And the seminaries of the world cannot keep up with our changing society. They, for the most part, deal with a static presence in the heavenlies and force that down the throats of the unsuspecting. Remember VP was a Dutch Reformed theologian in his background (Lakeland College in Sheboygan and United Theological Seminary in Minneapolis before his taking the Master's at Princeton). With all his dispensational tendancies he was grounded in the Calvinist traditions.
I only mention this because I find it so fascinating that many of the people we read who come out in such stark opposition to the God revealed in scripture have a background of some sort in Christianity.
Atheists in general aren't "starkly opposed to God", but don't believe that he exists. Big difference.
Atheists in general aren't "starkly opposed to God", but don't believe that he exists. Big difference.
Yes, there's a big difference.
And there is also a big difference between rejecting the inherited Hebrew interpretation of God that I think the Christians use, which includes the metaphors and the attributes, and viewing "God" in an entirely different way, as I've come to do, which is sort of like Einstein's creative force, or the life force, as ancient sages refer to it. It's what I sense as the creative process, since I'm a writer and that's the way I account for the inexplicable whatever it is...and besides that, I like meditation while sitting next to the lake and watching the turtles in the sun...that's all part of it, too...
I think many of us get caught in the metaphors and mistake them for the realities they only point to...just some food for thought...
So in traditional terms, I suppose I would be labeled an agnostic, as far the Hebrew or Christian God is concerned. What interests me more is the experience of life. But now I digress...
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
excathedra
goey, i love you, how are you ?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
RumRunner
TWI took it one more step. Wierwille would have never ascribed to the following publicly - but he sure didn't dismiss it either.
If I give you items 1-3 above then:
if you believe wierwille when he said "the word takes the place of the absent christ"
God told me he would teach me the word like it hasn't been known since the first century.
conclusion:
Wierwille is the only modern day keeper of the perfect word - which takes the place of the absent christ.
Hence wierwille can take the place of the absent christ by virtue of being the only keeper of the perfect word in the 20th century. (BTW - anyone ever wonder why God would call it the first century? Surely God new that a few centuries preceded what christians call the first century eh?)
Again the reasoning (I can't bring myself to call it logic) is flawed - but you can see how people could make those mental leaps.
Love ya Vic - especially now that you are dead and can't abuse people any more with your sadistic temper and your pornographic sexual appetite.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
penworks
Hi everyone,
These last few posts are especially helpful and fabulous to me...sure appreciate the participation!
Just a quick update on the content of the original article, where I said the following:
During the past few years I’ve read many comments from others who also left TWI. I’ve read them not only here at GSC, but at web sites of former Way followers who started offshoot groups, and at the Way Corps web site open to Corps grads. While reading, I've noticed a general theme cropping up in a number of them: a wish for "the old TWI days," and more importantly, a desire to re-create them. Because my interest lies in research and I see nostalgia for it in many people’s comments, I focus on that aspect of the “old TWI days” in this article.
As of last Thursday, Jan. 14, I can no longer speak from personal experience about the Way Corps site, which I referred to above. That day I deleted my profile page, voluntarily removing myself from the site. For further info on the site, interested parties would need to contact someone else who has a page there.
Cheers!
Link to comment
Share on other sites
chockfull
Hey, great writeup on the logical fallacies of Wierwille's "Biblical research".
I would think that to derive a belief system with accurate logic you'd have to start with truths that are axiomatic. For example, Euclidean geometry is completely derived from point, line, and plane as axioms. Do these always hold up? Not necessarily. The work Einstein did on theory of relativity seems to indicate that as mass approaches the speed of light, these simple axioms start bending.
Your observations of logic flaws in Wierwille's teaching is very astute. From my perspective, VP kind of mixes in and up what he wants the reader / video viewer to consider as axioms and logical syllogisms as he doesn't really understand how either of those works. And absolutely he uses these flawed syllogisms to build up a logical case for him being THE person God chose to help the world understand the Bible. And believing his logic has opened up so many for exploitation.
So what is really true regarding God and the Bible? What truths can we hold as axiomatic?
I think people have to develop their own conclusions and build their belief systems from there.
For me, IMO the simple truths about God I can read in the Bible are axiomatic:
1) God is love
2) God is light
3) God is my Father (in a spiritual sense)
4) God inspired scripture so that I can know Him and His plan of redemption for mankind through His Son
Those are kind of what I consider for my life to be axioms. They absolutely require believing, "faith", trust in a higher power, or however you want to term it that communicates. I cannot prove them. In a sense they are "Christian" axioms if you want to label them. If they are my axioms, then I can start to derive logically my belief system. And just because I have a certain belief system doesn't mean I'm better than anyone else, and it also doesn't mean I can always live up to it.
But if I have to be totally honest here about my belief system, it would be constructed of a part logically derived system of truths, and a part from the heart - "feel", or "conscience". They work together so I have to feel good about it and it has to make sense.
So I think when we're talking about belief systems, one of the most important things to define (at least for ourselves) is "What are the axioms we are working from?" They may not be the same, but when we're talking together I think we can get a feel for each other's logic, and their character - the "makes sense" and "feels" part of our interaction.
Another thing, on my #4 axiom that doesn't mean I'm going to follow all VP's leaps of logic regarding order of the words, every word, etc. There have been too many hands in the soup pot for me to accept that.
Edited by chockfullLink to comment
Share on other sites
spectrum49
Good for you, chockfull! We all have to start somewhere. And to me, what you wrote is perfectly logical. However, I warn you there are many here who would question how you derived these in the first place, knowing they were written in scripture, and profess from the start that they are "invalid", questioning the scriptures themselves as being TRUTH, and "demanding" they be proven.
Such are similar to those who say they do not believe in God at all, because you cannot show them any "physical evidence" of him, despite the fact they suspect He is spiritual and cannot be seen. But the moment you quote "God is spirit" from the Bible to assert your point, they will again question the very validity of the scripture to deny it yet again.
If you read this entire thread, you will see what I mean.
But it remains that at least I BELIEVE one (of necessity) must start "somewhere", and that your beginning place (your "Christian axioms", as they were) are as good as any -- and CERTAINLY better than NONE at all!
Good for you, sir!
Link to comment
Share on other sites
chockfull
Thanks!! You know I have absolutely no problem with people questioning how I derived these in the first place, saying they aer invalid, demanding proof. I fully out front state that as axioms they are things I accept at face value as true. I've come to that conclusion through my life's experiences. I can't prove a single one of them to another soul, and furthermore I wouldn't try. I would encourage all of those questioning to prove them true or false for themselves and to do the same with other axioms they hold dear to themselves. I'm sure that people can question the validity of scripture and criticize me for that being a portion of my unquestioned belief system.
Furthermore I don't believe that where I choose to obtain my inspiration makes me any better or worse than anyone else on this planet. In TWI I used to have such an elitist attitude. I was healed of that once being out and seeing what richness I had all around me in other people.
I'm sure people also could try and get me into a debate about "absolute truth". Do I believe in "absolute truth"? Is truth relative or absolute? I would have to answer I don't know. What I do know is that my Lord Jesus Christ is a personal savior and that is on the individual level. He came for each person, not to bring the absolute truth of the law to judge. The law was already there. He came to fulfill it with a higher law, the law of love. And you know, that is absolutely freeing. I can converse with a Buddhist, a Muslim, an atheist, and appreciate them for their own personality and beliefs and experiences, and learn something from each of them. I don't have to have ulterior motives of dragging them to a meeting or worse yet a phone hookup. I can share my beliefs with them, and honestly have had plenty more opportunities to do so with this attitude than I ever did have in TWI, being under forced labor there to try and produce blood from a stone, and a free movement from a morose religion.
But anyway, I do ramble...
Link to comment
Share on other sites
soul searcher
Personally, I embarked on my journey into the bible as an attempt to reinforce, or re-create, my belief in a loving God because -- even though I consider myself Christian -- I still need to be convinced of that. (I also find the bible very interesting to read.)
As far as the events in the bible themselves, or the accuracy of the descriptions of them: it always irked me that those who believe in the bible in a literal sense (for example that Adam and Eve lived 900+ years, or that Noah managed to get every species of land-dwelling animal onto his ark, etc.), and who also believe in the laws of physics, chemistry and biology; will completely abandon those beliefs in the physical sciences to accommodate their religious beliefs. Why can't the Christian world sort of relax, take a deep breath, come together, and agree that there is no physical evidence that any man or woman ever lived 900 years? Because once we get past the apparent physical contradictions, then we can talk about 1) the underlying message of scripture (which I think is a very important message), and 2) why these seeming contradictions exist. Invoking faith as a sort of spiritual mulligan is not going to convince many non-believers.
With regard to scripture being inspired by God -- I can accept that much of it was. But I wonder if you or chockfull can accept that many other things in this world -- for example, certain artistic performances or even ideas -- can be inspired by God? There are many, many truths that are not described in the bible. I'm not talking about "technical" or mathematical truths. I'm talking about things like mental illness, which wasn't even recognized as a possible cause of behavior until hundreds of years after the NT was completed.
As far as the bible being "perfect"...how can it be? Taking music as an example, a musical piece may be perfect when represented on paper with musical notes. Is every performance of the song perfect? Not any more "perfect" than the men and women who perform it. Is any performance of it ever "perfect" in a mathematical sense? I don't think so (but there is beauty in that imperfection!).
So the bible doesn't have to be perfect, or even accurate, for me to enjoy it. I read it and use it within the context of modern realities.
@chockfull: Nice post. Well put.
Edited by soul searcherLink to comment
Share on other sites
penworks
From OldSkool's comments: Currently at TWI - they have what they term "proven ministry research".
My questions:
Do they say that they have "unproven ministry research," too?
Do they list anywhere the people doing "research" or their credentials?
Do they publish in any journals anywhere?
After 60 years of "reconstructing the original" of the Bible, have they done it yet?
Do they access the databases in other organizations that track all the varients in extant manuscripts?
Just asking...
Link to comment
Share on other sites
roberterasmus
Hi, all,
I'm joining this topic as I catch up on Charlene's article and the posts thus far. I'm going to give a bit of a different take on "research" than might have been mentioned. I also was in the research portion of TWI and it is always fascinating how much tunnel vision TWI gave everyone. But I'd like to ask the posters here: How many of you started thinking outside the TWI bathwater and didn't necessarily throw out the baby?
RE
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Ham
Greetings friend.
I think, one would have to define the "baby" to me, before I could comment..
Link to comment
Share on other sites
roberterasmus
Yeah, I suppose you're right...
And define the bathwater.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Ham
if it were some bastard conceived by vic.. well.. I dunno..
there probably were several..
as I said, greetings. Don't let a crazy squirrel scare you off..
Link to comment
Share on other sites
waysider
Oh, I did that very early in my involvement. It got me into plenty of hot water. Before I "got in the word", my basic train of thought was that God talks to you in a non-verbal fashion. Talks to you in ways that are tailored to your personal makeup. (ie: being present at the birth of a baby, witnessing the vast beauty of nature, etc. Like when you lock eyes with someone very close to you and no words are needed to understand each other) Hey! Didn't somebody write a song like that? I think it was called
Then, about 1979 or so, when the "paid according to needs" stuff started to surface at the local level, my first wife and I had a major knock-down, drag out confrontation with each other about the "accuracy" of this crap. (If I recall correctly, my position was that it was a wagon load of soil enrichment material.) Did I mention we got divorced not too awful long after that?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Gen-2
I gather from what I read in bunches of places that they expect a Big % to be given to them, but are stingy (not thrifty) when it came to paying their people honestly, for the actual worth of their work.
But what I seem to be getting here is that they also didn't appreciate the people "treading the corn", for them?
Edited by Gen-2Link to comment
Share on other sites
Ham
Yep..
Link to comment
Share on other sites
spectrum49
Thanks waysider! You just reminded me of "before I got in the word". Perhaps this is a tangent to the topic, but what the heck?
As a young child I remember looking at the stars at night and somehow realized space must go forever. That is when I decided there must be "something in control". I didn't even care to call it "GOD". (or "creative universalism", either! LOL) But I do now, 'cause you gotta call it SOMETHING - so what the heck - Call it GOD.
I used to try and speak with this "entity", but without result. I never actually heard any audible response.
My parents used to send me off on a bus to church. (They didn't attend themselves, so it was a nice way to get rid of me for a bit!) I can't remember anything they taught. Maybe I got born again - I just don't know. I was much too young.
But I'll tell you what! When I had a NEED, this God came through! I didn't "bug him" often, thinking he was busy enough with everybody else on the planet, so I only asked for stuff in an emergency situation.
Once, when I was about 16 my younger brother had gotten so far into drugs that the people he was hanging with had guns - and I think they may have been connected with organized crime. I was scared for my brother, who lived with mother 200 miles away. I lived with dad. (They had divorced when I was 5.)
I went outside and looked up at the stars and simply asked for help for my brother.
Only 3 days later did we get a call from him. It seems that he was at a party, and friends of friends were there. He said he was talking to this new guy. (Maybe it was an angel, I don't know for sure.) Anyway, he said the way this guy was talking about the Army sounded so appealing that he had actually gone and signed up. HMMM - I thought!
I went outside, looked up and thanked this "God".
He eventually became a Sgt Major and retired after 30 years with a nice pension! (He should give me some of that - LOL!)
When I was 19, my mother had divorced my step-father and (having no place to live) decided to voluntarily commit herself to the State Mental Instuitution as a "ward of the state". Dumb move, huh?
She wasn't crazy, but every time I visited her she got worse and worse. They had filled her with so many drugs - thorazine, stellazine, elerill, melerill - that she was slowly losing her mind.
When enough was enough - I think I was about 21, she had gotten so bad that sometimes she could hardly even remember who I was!
So I went "to the stars" again. And again - 3 days later she called and said she had decided to check herself out. I am glad she had originally done this voluntarily so she always had the option to leave! I thanked God again.
She was fine in a month or so - all back to normal! She had found a place to stay, and community work to do to suppliment her social-security.
I had learned to trust this God because He always came through so quickly! (There were other occasions I won't go into.)
But it seemed that I was always asking for stuff for OTHERS. I thought it greedy to ask for stuff for myself.
At 22, I had joined the Air Force. I was transferred a few times, and my mother had moved. We had gotten lost from each other. I was coming up on Christmas leave and wanted to see her so badly! So I prayed again outside one night, but I was crying and was somehow not confident, as when I asked for stuff for everybody else. The next day I went to the base chaplain - he was enouraging.
Again - 3 days later, I got a letter from her she had written some time ago. It had about 7 or 8 postmarks on it. It was so messed up - stuff crossed off and new stuff replaced EVERYWHERE. You could barely ready my name on it any more!
But somehow, it had gotten to me in time. Less than a week later I was on leave at her NEW PLACE!
Not too long after that in 1975 TWI sucked me in. I can't say they ever improved upon how I prayed and got answers. I learned a bit about research - and that was enough to get me the HECK OUT in 2008. I had learned some things on my own that they were not interested in - so I left!
I still ask for things and I still get them. And it's better now, for I have learned God is never too busy for anyone or anything. I ask for stuff "big" and "small" - why not?
SPEC
:)
Edited by spectrum49Link to comment
Share on other sites
roberterasmus
IMHO,
Bemoaning the fact that TWI and it’s research arm (attached as it was to the torso of VP, nourished by the same and eventually cut off…amputation is such a messy thing…) did not exist in a manner to which you now ascribe is one thing; trying to figure out what it was, why it was and what went wrong is another. The splinter groups that purport to “carry on” this work in a manner that takes only the “good things” of VP and perfects them need scrutiny too (as those here can well imagine). None of them, as some one astutely pointed out, have research groups within them. It’s quite telling, IMHO.
My name is Bob Wassung and my involvement with the TWI “arm” began when I was a student at a Bible college (’73) and continued through about 1988. I’m a classically trained theologian with degrees in the field (Bible/ Greek in my undergrad and Aramaic/Hebrew/Theology in graduate school). Add to that the pseudo-associates degree in theology for my Way Corps training (ha!) and you have me sitting in a theological bouillabaisse for the most part…it is my life to this very day.
TWI’s “Bible study system” (penworks – post #1) left much to be desired, but the system itself has roots that go far back into the 18th century. The cultish status of TWI became more pronounced as VP gained more and more status and power ("Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely. Great men are almost always bad men." – thank you Lord Acton). When I came to the group it was more fun than anything else; more honest with the texts and more detailed in analysis. Don’t get me wrong, some of my professors hated me (they were protecting their own chalice, BTW) and I was almost tossed out on my proverbial, but the fresh new outlook on the Scriptures, for me, was exciting. TWI became a festering wound that excluded any ideas from the outside, any reproof from those of us in the know theologically. I also left.
Sure it was (and is) a fundamentalist group; there are thousands of them worldwide (after some wise soul decided to categorized a particular brand). And let’s understand something; what’s a fundamentalist for some is just an evangelical for another. Meanings in the theological world are used as clubs so often it would surprise you (or not). And mincing over words and placing names for effect probably isn’t the best way to get to the roots of a problem (fun though it is…).
There is a dearth of Biblical research around it is true, but let me say this as well; there is a dearth of qualified Biblical researchers as well. Those who would like to research often do not have the skills to do so and others with the skills are so steeped in their own denominational cesspools (think TWI and a million other cults…excuse me…denominations) that they cannot think or write outside their own box. Then there are the flamethrowers that just whitewash anything that formerly hurt them and say “the hell with it all”. I respect those who are searching, but get easily tired of blowhards, as I’m sure you all do. It’s not fun; there’s usually nothing but negatives with no advancement toward answering questions or solving problems.
BTW, any group (gaggle, cult, coven, whatever you want to call it) hunts for their own “holy grail”. In the case of Evangelical Christianity (those, in my definition, who believe Jesus was Messiah and believe God raised him from the dead…and a few other things) the grail is getting the truth out of the written Scriptures. The definition of “inerrancy” varies from one group to the next, but centers around making the “historical Jesus” real. I have my own definition of what makes the Christian Scriptures…well...Scriptures (usually that means looking at them in the manner and with a reference that Jesus did his own Scriptures). You have your own.
Then there are a million methods of interpretation; each with their own slant on the text and “system” in which to place themselves . Ya’ gotta love hermeneutics and text critical studies to do battle there. I’m blathering and I don’t mean to. I’m at post 93 and trying to read them all so I don’t miss anything, but I decided to weigh in a little prematurely. Hope no one minds. And if you said something already about a subject that I touch on (and I haven’t read it…) please be patient with me.
RE
Link to comment
Share on other sites
penworks
Hi there, Bob. It's great to have you here, and I for one appreciate your willingness to post on this ever-meandering topic. Thanks for your perspective and insights...we've sure come a long way from those old TWI "research" days, huh?
I hope you'll post more on these pertinent topics that affected so many ex-TWI folks. As you said, it's valuable to understand how the research got the way it was...as you look around GSC, you'll find many other voices that add to the history of it all, too...
Cheers!
Charlene
Link to comment
Share on other sites
roberterasmus
Im lovin theologicalsclerosis (Tbone - post #92)! This happens all the time in theology, not just at TWI. Its rare that you see a group or its offshoots stay supple and changing to the conditions in their culture. And change is what God is all about, IMHO. One of the big deals in systematic theology today is Open Theism (aka the open view of God). It says, in essence, the God can change and that He doesnt have a perfect knowledge of the future. It drives Calvinists crazy and yet it is quite an encouraging step to me. It fits like a hand in a glove with a dispensational view of the Scriptures.
Lots of us took crap, but Ill never blame someone else for my buttheadedness or ignorance (shame on us…). If it doesnt fit, I usually dig deeper for the answers that do. Just ask my wife; shes had to endure my, Hey, take a look at this! for over thirty years. And I still speak in tongues.
Post #98 (SethR) A scientist always starts with I don't know, not I believe, so in research you can't start with an assumption and treat it as evidence for the types of experiments you will and will not do. I disagree. Scientists start with what they know and test their ideas against what they know to see if their reality is not real.
Post #126 (Geisha 779) I read Francis Collins The Language of God over the summer last year (my daughter who is studying Political Science and Bioethics leant it to me). Cool dude and a good writer; massive intellect…scary those types… (whether that matters is not for me to decide). Oh, and I liked what you said in post #132 The issue becomes is scripture reliable? To me thats always the question. Has been the question for over 40 years now.
Post #134 (penworks) I left the Christianity room awhile ago. Im not so much shocked as I am saddened. The baby with the bathwater, eh?
RE
Edited by roberterasmusLink to comment
Share on other sites
geisha779
I don't know if you are familiar with Anthony Flew? Another massive intellect . .. and yes, scary type. He too is so interesting to read. . . .although different from Collins. . . . . as Anthony Flew is a philosopher. He was the Richard Dawkins of his day. . . . an Oxford Don and devout atheist who would regularly debate with CS Lewis while participating in Lewis' Socratic Club.
His father was a minister. I only mention this because I find it so fascinating that many of the people we read who come out in such stark opposition to the God revealed in scripture have a background of some sort in Christianity. Nietzsche for example, his father and grandfather were both ministers. On this thread, Karen Armstrong was a nun and Bart Ehrman was raised in an evangelical home. As an aside, Nietzsche died quoting scripture.
Flew is now a theist. . . . the radical nature of his conversion from atheism to theism is really lost without some understanding of his former position and how wedded he was to it. He is not a Christian. . .. yet.
If you have not heard of him. . .I thought you might enjoy checking him out. It was DNA and the structure of a single cell that got him questioning his former position.
I do not believe you can discount the philosophical related to the questions concerning scripture. They go hand in hand with any reasoned and rounded approach to scripture and its reliability.
Huge topic.. . . .some great minds to read for sport!! :)
Link to comment
Share on other sites
penworks
I appreciate and thank you for your feelings - I'll just say it's been a long personal journey. Although some people may assume from my article and story posted here it's because I had issues with inerrancy or the history of the text or something like that...they would be wrong. Nope, that's not the case. Nor is it because of anything TWI did or didn't do or research "correctly." That experience just set me on a path of discovery for myself.
It has to do with what I see as the starting point or basic assumption of Christianity - that man comes into the world fallen or separate from his "maker" and is inadequate. However, on the bright side, I see religions often valuable in ways of creating community and providing social support when they're not dogmatic, but I shy away from adapting any one of them for myself.
Over the years, writers like Joseph Campbell have been helpful to me and I've found loads of enlightenment from literature of various sorts...but that's just me.
Cheers!
Link to comment
Share on other sites
roberterasmus
Charlene,
I realize as you do that Christianity, in it's simplest form, is as dogmatic as say...radical Muslim fundamentalism. The question of sin and sin nature (or "original sin" as my Catholic upbringing would force upon us...) can be daunting. Starting out in life with one foot on a bannana peel sometimes just doesn't feel right.
Add to that a dose of guilt and shame at how we act as humans and haughtiness on the part of our society and the Christian outlook can be a laughingstock to the "progressives" of the world. And the seminaries of the world cannot keep up with our changing society. They, for the most part, deal with a static presence in the heavenlies and force that down the throats of the unsuspecting. Remember VP was a Dutch Reformed theologian in his background (Lakeland College in Sheboygan and United Theological Seminary in Minneapolis before his taking the Master's at Princeton). With all his dispensational tendancies he was grounded in the Calvinist traditions.
Bob
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Oakspear
Link to comment
Share on other sites
penworks
Yes, there's a big difference.
And there is also a big difference between rejecting the inherited Hebrew interpretation of God that I think the Christians use, which includes the metaphors and the attributes, and viewing "God" in an entirely different way, as I've come to do, which is sort of like Einstein's creative force, or the life force, as ancient sages refer to it. It's what I sense as the creative process, since I'm a writer and that's the way I account for the inexplicable whatever it is...and besides that, I like meditation while sitting next to the lake and watching the turtles in the sun...that's all part of it, too...
I think many of us get caught in the metaphors and mistake them for the realities they only point to...just some food for thought...
So in traditional terms, I suppose I would be labeled an agnostic, as far the Hebrew or Christian God is concerned. What interests me more is the experience of life. But now I digress...
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.