All kidding aside, what the heck does that really mean?
Integrity means "wholeness." I think God, objective reality and the Word of God (not the words of the Bible, but the meanings behind the words) have wholeness. For all his preaching about the "integrity of the Word," Wierwille was certainly willing to slice and dice it like a Japanese chef when it suited his purposes.
HEHEHE.............."what do you care?'...............real wit there johni!.......it's still got me chuckling.............but, perhaps a better question regarding the "integrity of the word" , and what it really means is, what did der victster care????...........Just like steve L said, der victoid sliced it , diced it , and served it up all cut to shreds by the fine steel precision blades of his own private interpretation, and.......... what it really means in the greek, (as if he knew!), and,,,,,,,,, what it says in the aramaic, (which he misunderstood and misinterpreted even more ignorantly than his "weak greek", barely keeping up enough to clumsily parrot Lamsa!)), and,.......... best of all,,,,,,,, vic's own made up "Holy Writ", otherwise known as his "literal translations according to biblical useage", on which vic spent only the time necessary to browbeat Walter into making the bible say what victor "just knew" it had to say "in the original"!!!..............hahahahaha!........of which " originals" der victoid stated himself in piffle "we have none left!", and, "there are none in extant".....that's what "the integrity of the word" meant to vic...........nothing any more than filthy lucre!!!! soooooooo...............what did der vicster care about the meaning of "the integrity of god's wonderful, matchless word"??.....................frankly my dear...........HE DID'NT GIVE A DAMN!........AND COULD NOT HAVE CARED LESS!!.............IMHO.............................peace.
Edit: By the way, Johnny, whether I care or not does nothing to invalidate the question.
The fact that you obviously already think you know the answer to the question DOES invalidate the question, at least, from an "integrity" pov. BUT, dear friends....
You can't care, because you don't believe in the devil. You buy all that psychobabble that there's no God, no devil, it's all in your mind, right? Why is anything at stake?
Why is your car at stake? Because someone might try to steal it. That's why you lock the doors, have a car alarm, put the club on it, whatever. Why is your identity at stake? Because someone might try to steal it as well. Who might try to steal the word of God? Who comes not but for to steal, kill, and destroy? Duh!
Of course, this led to people being nit picky about words and phrases. Calling it an advance instead of a retreat, etc. That was always fun. Slip up just a tad and hear someone say "en garde"! Nice.
Today we have another belief system which encourages followers to be nit picky about words and phrases. It's called politically correct. I guess the integrity of non white, non male, and non Christian peoples' dignity is always at stake. Can't even call them 'oriental' anymore; gotta call them Asian. Europe isn't the center of the world! C'mon, get with the program!
Integrity implies a 2 party transaction. The word is quick and powerful; all that good stuff, but the 2nd party is...US! Integrity is not an island, in other words. It requires someone else to benefit from said integrity. Whether or not any individual believes the word of God is always at stake. You just refuse to see it. Your mind is already made up. You manifest your OWN version of 'black and white thinking' when it comes to twi.
You need to come up with a new pick up line, btw. You always say my posts "have nothing to do with the discussion". Shelf life is expired on that one. Just last week I sent an email to the STL post-dispatch and they printed it. Two emails on the issue in question and one of them was mine. Who knows how many were rejected? The issue? Saggy pants. The practice in hip hop/ prison culture of wearing pants half way down the butt. It was outlawed in Collinsville, IL. First offense - ticket, 2nd offense - fine and community service. There was an article about it, editorial cartoons, internet discussion, etc. My email made an analogy between this issue and my own experience 40 years ago of being a guy with long hair. It was never illegal for a guy to have long hair, but there was definitely a backlash. A guy in my high school was shot and killed by a Nebraska farmer in 1970 for the crime of having long hair. He had been hitching and the farmer picked him up.
But if you, Waysider, had been working at the post-dispatch letters dept. then you'd no doubt have sent me an angry email asking what possible connection does saggy pants today have with long haired men 40 years ago????? But, seriously, you need to come up with a different strategy. You must really feel that the integrity of GSC is at stake.
Integrity...just is. I don't agree there has to be another party. It's a state of mind and behavior from which others may benefit.
As to
"Why is your car at stake? Because someone might try to steal it. That's why you lock the doors, have a car alarm, put the club on it, whatever. Why is your identity at stake? Because someone might try to steal it as well. Who might try to steal the word of God? Who comes not but for to steal, kill, and destroy? Duh!"
That's also nothing to do with it, but if you want to take it as simply meaning "steal" - Vic stole the Word from us by planting some counterfeit (very close to the original, doncha know?) in our minds. Most of us here are still trying to work out which bits are real and which bits are counterfeit.
As to what the phrase means... :wacko: whatever Vic wanted it to mean, really. The conman has defined the terms, given us a catchy little phrase - to stop us thinking what it means.
He had no integrity. His state of mind and his behavior was seriously compromised. Which may or may not (and I know that you, Johniam, don't agree) compromise what he says "the Word" says.
Vic was the one who stole, killed and destroyed the Word for many people here. There are some who have been so disgusted (or worse) by what he "taught" that they have turned their backs on Christianity and follow other religions - or none. Remind me again - on whose behalf was Vic working?
You need to come up with a new pick up line, btw. You always say my posts "have nothing to do with the discussion".
Maybe that's because they frequently don't have anything to do with the discussion.
Shelf life is expired on that one.
There is no expiration on relevance.
Here is a perfect example.
Just last week I sent an email to the STL post-dispatch and they printed it. Two emails on the issue in question and one of them was mine. Who knows how many were rejected? The issue? Saggy pants. The practice in hip hop/ prison culture of wearing pants half way down the butt. It was outlawed in Collinsville, IL. First offense - ticket, 2nd offense - fine and community service. There was an article about it, editorial cartoons, internet discussion, etc. My email made an analogy between this issue and my own experience 40 years ago of being a guy with long hair. It was never illegal for a guy to have long hair, but there was definitely a backlash. A guy in my high school was shot and killed by a Nebraska farmer in 1970 for the crime of having long hair. He had been hitching and the farmer picked him up.
Can you explain the relevance of that?
But if you, Waysider, had been working at the post-dispatch letters dept. then you'd no doubt have sent me an angry email asking what possible connection does saggy pants today have with long haired men 40 years ago?????
You know me well enough to know what my reaction would have been?
But, seriously, you need to come up with a different strategy.
Why? Because you get tired of being called on it?
You must really feel that the integrity of GSC is at stake.
Even if I did, it still wouldn't explain what Wierwille meant (ie: moot point)
How would I judge that statement, given my pre-supposition that the Word (not the literal words on the page, but the totality of the meanings behind those words) has the same kind of integrity as God and objective reality.
I would have to judge it as false, or at least incomplete. The wholeness of God and objective reality is NEVER at stake. We can't change a dang thing about either one of them.
If I remember correctly, Wierwille brought it up in connection with the subject of how Eve was deceived by the serpent, how she added words, left words out, and changed words. But she didn't change the integrity of the Word. She simply expressed her lack of appreciation for the integrity of the Word.
If Wierwille had said "My appreciation for the wholeness of the Word is always at stake!" then I could agree with that as a plausible statement (I'm starting to sound like Mythbusters).
Wierwille said that Eve's first step on the slippery slope was to consider what the serpent said. For Wierwille, the statement "The integrity of the Word is always at stake!" meant "NEVER stop and consider whether the things I am saying are true or not!"
When Wierwille taught that Eve was wrong in considering what the serpent said, he was doing violence to the integrity of God's Word as expressed in Proverbs 18:13, "He that answereth a matter before he heareth it, it is folly and shame unto him."
yeah, I don't think that record about Eve has really been heard yet
we have been schooled in one way of seeing it, there are more then one
I have a slightly different view of that passage. I've posted it in the Doctrinal forum before but I'll be darned if I can find it now. Too tired to rehash it now, maybe tomorrow.
What do you find so comical, John? Look in a dictionary. One definition of integrity is "the quality or state of being undivided: COMPLETENESS." In short, integrity means "wholeness."
If a person takes one section of the Word and magnifies it over another section of the Word so as to negate the effect of the Word as a WHOLE, as Wierwille did with his "administrations," then that person has attempted to do violence to the integrity of God's Word.
The dispensationalist obsession with "rightly dividing the word of truth," which Wierwille parroted so often, was an effrontery to the integrity of the Word.
Recommended Posts
johniam
What do you care?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Steve Lortz
Integrity means "wholeness." I think God, objective reality and the Word of God (not the words of the Bible, but the meanings behind the words) have wholeness. For all his preaching about the "integrity of the Word," Wierwille was certainly willing to slice and dice it like a Japanese chef when it suited his purposes.
Love,
Steve
Link to comment
Share on other sites
DontWorryBeHappy
HEHEHE.............."what do you care?'...............real wit there johni!.......it's still got me chuckling.............but, perhaps a better question regarding the "integrity of the word" , and what it really means is, what did der victster care????...........Just like steve L said, der victoid sliced it , diced it , and served it up all cut to shreds by the fine steel precision blades of his own private interpretation, and.......... what it really means in the greek, (as if he knew!), and,,,,,,,,, what it says in the aramaic, (which he misunderstood and misinterpreted even more ignorantly than his "weak greek", barely keeping up enough to clumsily parrot Lamsa!)), and,.......... best of all,,,,,,,, vic's own made up "Holy Writ", otherwise known as his "literal translations according to biblical useage", on which vic spent only the time necessary to browbeat Walter into making the bible say what victor "just knew" it had to say "in the original"!!!..............hahahahaha!........of which " originals" der victoid stated himself in piffle "we have none left!", and, "there are none in extant".....that's what "the integrity of the word" meant to vic...........nothing any more than filthy lucre!!!! soooooooo...............what did der vicster care about the meaning of "the integrity of god's wonderful, matchless word"??.....................frankly my dear...........HE DID'NT GIVE A DAMN!........AND COULD NOT HAVE CARED LESS!!.............IMHO.............................peace.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
DontWorryBeHappy
double post..sowwy......it's been awhile!
Edited by DontWorryBeHappyLink to comment
Share on other sites
DontWorryBeHappy
triple?!!!!!!
Edited by DontWorryBeHappyLink to comment
Share on other sites
DontWorryBeHappy
OMG!!!!!! almost couldda been a quadruple!!!!..........i really am rusty..........sorry..............peace.
Edited by DontWorryBeHappyLink to comment
Share on other sites
waysider
So, then, how/why is it "always at stake"?
Edit: By the way, Johnny, whether I care or not does nothing to invalidate the question.
Edited by waysiderLink to comment
Share on other sites
johniam
The fact that you obviously already think you know the answer to the question DOES invalidate the question, at least, from an "integrity" pov. BUT, dear friends....
You can't care, because you don't believe in the devil. You buy all that psychobabble that there's no God, no devil, it's all in your mind, right? Why is anything at stake?
Why is your car at stake? Because someone might try to steal it. That's why you lock the doors, have a car alarm, put the club on it, whatever. Why is your identity at stake? Because someone might try to steal it as well. Who might try to steal the word of God? Who comes not but for to steal, kill, and destroy? Duh!
Of course, this led to people being nit picky about words and phrases. Calling it an advance instead of a retreat, etc. That was always fun. Slip up just a tad and hear someone say "en garde"! Nice.
Today we have another belief system which encourages followers to be nit picky about words and phrases. It's called politically correct. I guess the integrity of non white, non male, and non Christian peoples' dignity is always at stake. Can't even call them 'oriental' anymore; gotta call them Asian. Europe isn't the center of the world! C'mon, get with the program!
Link to comment
Share on other sites
waysider
None of this has the least bit to do with answering the question.
If "the word" is everything it declares itself to be in Proverbs and Psalms, how can its integrity possibly be "always at stake"?
It really doesn't matter who asks the question or what their beliefs are, there should be a consistant answer.
Edited by waysiderLink to comment
Share on other sites
johniam
Integrity implies a 2 party transaction. The word is quick and powerful; all that good stuff, but the 2nd party is...US! Integrity is not an island, in other words. It requires someone else to benefit from said integrity. Whether or not any individual believes the word of God is always at stake. You just refuse to see it. Your mind is already made up. You manifest your OWN version of 'black and white thinking' when it comes to twi.
You need to come up with a new pick up line, btw. You always say my posts "have nothing to do with the discussion". Shelf life is expired on that one. Just last week I sent an email to the STL post-dispatch and they printed it. Two emails on the issue in question and one of them was mine. Who knows how many were rejected? The issue? Saggy pants. The practice in hip hop/ prison culture of wearing pants half way down the butt. It was outlawed in Collinsville, IL. First offense - ticket, 2nd offense - fine and community service. There was an article about it, editorial cartoons, internet discussion, etc. My email made an analogy between this issue and my own experience 40 years ago of being a guy with long hair. It was never illegal for a guy to have long hair, but there was definitely a backlash. A guy in my high school was shot and killed by a Nebraska farmer in 1970 for the crime of having long hair. He had been hitching and the farmer picked him up.
But if you, Waysider, had been working at the post-dispatch letters dept. then you'd no doubt have sent me an angry email asking what possible connection does saggy pants today have with long haired men 40 years ago????? But, seriously, you need to come up with a different strategy. You must really feel that the integrity of GSC is at stake.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Twinky
Way off relevance, Johniam.
Integrity...just is. I don't agree there has to be another party. It's a state of mind and behavior from which others may benefit.
As to
That's also nothing to do with it, but if you want to take it as simply meaning "steal" - Vic stole the Word from us by planting some counterfeit (very close to the original, doncha know?) in our minds. Most of us here are still trying to work out which bits are real and which bits are counterfeit.
As to what the phrase means... :wacko: whatever Vic wanted it to mean, really. The conman has defined the terms, given us a catchy little phrase - to stop us thinking what it means.
He had no integrity. His state of mind and his behavior was seriously compromised. Which may or may not (and I know that you, Johniam, don't agree) compromise what he says "the Word" says.
Vic was the one who stole, killed and destroyed the Word for many people here. There are some who have been so disgusted (or worse) by what he "taught" that they have turned their backs on Christianity and follow other religions - or none. Remind me again - on whose behalf was Vic working?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
waysider
Link to comment
Share on other sites
frank123lol
Double standard: We care about you=We want your money.
Truth needs no defense=we(twi)has to approve it.
Cancer is a devil spirit=only if your name is'nt doc vic.
History is important=Again only if it is the way.
Integrity of tghe word=As has been said vic's version.
If the bible is true,it has been around a long time,men and women have come and gone
It will be here after we are gone.Point?It ain't based on one individual unless his name is Jesus
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Steve Lortz
"The integrity of the Word is always at stake!"
How would I judge that statement, given my pre-supposition that the Word (not the literal words on the page, but the totality of the meanings behind those words) has the same kind of integrity as God and objective reality.
I would have to judge it as false, or at least incomplete. The wholeness of God and objective reality is NEVER at stake. We can't change a dang thing about either one of them.
If I remember correctly, Wierwille brought it up in connection with the subject of how Eve was deceived by the serpent, how she added words, left words out, and changed words. But she didn't change the integrity of the Word. She simply expressed her lack of appreciation for the integrity of the Word.
If Wierwille had said "My appreciation for the wholeness of the Word is always at stake!" then I could agree with that as a plausible statement (I'm starting to sound like Mythbusters).
Wierwille said that Eve's first step on the slippery slope was to consider what the serpent said. For Wierwille, the statement "The integrity of the Word is always at stake!" meant "NEVER stop and consider whether the things I am saying are true or not!"
Love,
Steve
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Steve Lortz
When Wierwille taught that Eve was wrong in considering what the serpent said, he was doing violence to the integrity of God's Word as expressed in Proverbs 18:13, "He that answereth a matter before he heareth it, it is folly and shame unto him."
Love,
Steve
Link to comment
Share on other sites
cman
yeah, I don't think that record about Eve has really been heard yet
we have been schooled in one way of seeing it, there are more then one
Link to comment
Share on other sites
waysider
Something else to consider:
The same guy who said, "The integrity of 'the word' is always at stake!" also said "It's still 'the word', even if NOBODY believes it!"
How does one reconcile those two statements?
If something retains its integrity, it remains intact.
If it can remain intact, even when no one believes it, how can its integrity be in jeopardy?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Twinky
Are you sure he didn't say, the integrity of the world is always at steak? Waiter, mine's medium rare, please!
Link to comment
Share on other sites
waysider
Very well, then.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Jbarrax
I think you just hit the nail on the head. :-)
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Jbarrax
I have a slightly different view of that passage. I've posted it in the Doctrinal forum before but I'll be darned if I can find it now. Too tired to rehash it now, maybe tomorrow.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
johniam
This is so unbelievable it's comical.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Steve Lortz
What do you find so comical, John? Look in a dictionary. One definition of integrity is "the quality or state of being undivided: COMPLETENESS." In short, integrity means "wholeness."
If a person takes one section of the Word and magnifies it over another section of the Word so as to negate the effect of the Word as a WHOLE, as Wierwille did with his "administrations," then that person has attempted to do violence to the integrity of God's Word.
The dispensationalist obsession with "rightly dividing the word of truth," which Wierwille parroted so often, was an effrontery to the integrity of the Word.
What do you find so funny about that, John?
Love,
Steve
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Twinky
Very tasty, Froggy, thanks. Let's dine together again sometime.
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.