It isn't necessarily required that one be personally acquainted with someone to see evidence of their true character. It says so in the Bible. Something about knowing them by their fruits or some such thing.
To a certain degree. But motives of the heart are often (and sometimes easily) hidden, even with those that we have close and/or frequent contact with. So please don't overlook the "posing as if you know much more than you really do" part of what I wrote.
To a certain degree. But motives of the heart are often (and sometimes easily) hidden, even with those that we have close and/or frequent contact with. So please don't overlook the "posing as if you know much more than you really do" part of what I wrote.
I'm not pretending to know more than I do, I'm simply stating what is written in the Bible......"By their fruits you shall know them."
Well, it sure as heck looked (still does, actually) doctrinal to me.
(Maybe it's just the way my brain works.)
Yes, it could be approached from a doctrinal perspective, examining scripture that relates to the matter. However, Rocky clearly indicated his interest was in understanding where and when, historically, Christianity adopted the said belief. This is the type of question one might find in a secular class comparing various religious beliefs and histories.
My perspective on it is one that you will undoubtedly never really know, much less understand, Bolshevik.
(So "laugh" about it all you want...)
Technically no, I won't, as was pointed out in this thread before.
I also think Hitler was a bad individual. I never met the guy, so, I could be wrong. Which means everything else I know about existence must be wrong . . . so . . .
VPW constructed a doctrine and ministry for purposes that did not involve a search for truth and helping other people. The Trinity is important to discuss. I think you carry valuable insight into that matter. I don't know you, so I might be wrong.
sonder ‎(countable and uncountable, plural sonders)
(neologism) The profound feeling of realizing that everyone, including strangers passed in the street, has a life as complex as one's own, which they are constantly living despite one's personal lack of awareness of it.
n. the frustration of being stuck in just one body, that inhabits only one place at a time, which is like standing in front of the departures screen at an airport, flickering over with strange place names like other people’s passwords, each representing one more thing you’ll never get to see before you die—and all because, as the arrow on the map helpfully points out, you are here.
I'll never "really" know you. You'll never "really" know me. Hence, the need to ponder the fruit another's life has produced in an effort to more clearly understand them and the motives that drive/drove them.
Well, that certainly appears (to me) to be doctrinal in nature... and therefore qualifies as something that would be inappropriate for this thread.
Tough. It's related to the question posed in the title of this thread.
Obviously not the right thread to discuss this DWBH, but I am curious as to what your view or opinion is concerning the existence of the devil. Something real? (Or, just some word or figure of speech used to depict our adversity and separation from God?)
Clearly, the implication of the thread title question raise is to raise awareness of the methods and potentially the motives wierwille had for carving out his niche in the overall market known as Christianity. Personally, I think DWBH, in his essay yesterday laid bare those issues quite well.
My question "when did Jesus start being God?" was intended to broaden readers' consideration of whether Christianity (and/or Judeo-Christian heritage) can legitimately be considered the ONLY way to a knowledge of and relationship with God.
Somebody (probably not simply one charismatic person, but a community of people), at some finite point in historical time, adapted their notions of how the Earth and humankind came to be. That's directly relevant to any discussion of Christianity as "THE" only way to know or have a relationship with God.
I'll grant that taken by itself, the question wouldn't necessarily be "about twi." But I posed it to inject some perspective into the discussion of this thread, wierwille and twi.
VPee's frame of reference seemed to be that Christianity was the truth, i.e. "The Word of God is the Will of God."
But how can any discussion of VPee and his personally engineered subculture be fully legitimate without consideration of the fact that up to some point in human history nobody had any idea about a coming Messiah?
Plenty of people in the 21st century look at the OT and say, "That's a loving god?" But beyond that, how does Christianity in whatever flavor treat all of the humans prior to the Jews? As being damned to hell?
My interest for this thread in posing the question is not to expand on the doctrinal tangent but to consider how in the world a loving God could be limited to what we have learned in the Bible.
My interest for this thread in posing the question is not to expand on the doctrinal tangent but to consider how in the world a loving God could be limited to what we have learned in the Bible.
Obviously, that type of God would not have those limits.
My understanding is that VPW put limits on people's thinking with many phrases, should they chose to accept them. (i.e., you can't go beyond what you are taught)
I remember obscure verses like "he magnified his Word above His Name" to stress that focus of The Word over God. In TWI, The Word is something to control God with.
(My guess) is the non-Trinitarian view was a more simplified, limiting, approach. Easier for VPW to control his followers with.
It also helped define Wayfers between "other Christians". Non-Trinitarian is part of a Wayfer's identity. It distinguishes folks more starkly between "US" and "THEM".
It is interesting that Wayfers don't typically say they're "Unitarian" or some other term. They repeatedly attack The Trinity, instead.
Letting go of the anti-Trinity stance is an admission that you don't have the powers you once thought you had. The world is a big, scary, uncontrollable place.
Letting go of the anti-Trinity stance is an admission that you don't have the powers you once thought you had. The world is a big, scary, uncontrollable place.
Yeah, letting go of it can be scary, as can letting go of believing or tithing or speaking in tongues. There's a certain sense of liberation that comes with the scariness, though.
I'm not pretending to know more than I do, I'm simply stating what is written in the Bible......"By their fruits you shall know them."
Neither was the context of it directed towards you.
Yes, it could be approached from a doctrinal perspective, examining scripture that relates to the matter. However, Rocky clearly indicated his interest was in understanding where and when, historically, Christianity adopted the said belief. This is the type of question one might find in a secular class comparing various religious beliefs and histories.
Doctrinal discussions (most especially concerning the Trinity) frequently encompass a lot of material apart from scripture. But as there's obviously no doctrinal intent or interest, then have at it.
The Trinity is important to discuss. I think you carry valuable insight into that matter. I don't know you, so I might be wrong.
In short, aside from certain doctrinal aspects of it (which without a doubt weigh very heavily on the church, and on how people think), I don't think it makes a hill of beans worth of difference.
When old man wierwille died and ownership of the farm changed?
There's a timeline that probably should have its own thread by now...
In short, aside from certain doctrinal aspects of it (which without a doubt weigh very heavily on the church, and on how people think), I don't think it makes a hill of beans worth of difference.
Letting go of the anti-Trinity stance is an admission that you don't have the powers you once thought you had. The world is a big, scary, uncontrollable place.
Yeah, letting go of it can be scary, as can letting go of believing or tithing or speaking in tongues. There's a certain sense of liberation that comes with the scariness, though.
Hi Waysider, I agree. TWI is about control.
The Trinity, IMO, is one of the bigger hurdles, more so than tithing, I think.
It appears to me, right now anyway, that the non-Trinitarian view in more conducive to certain types of thinking than the Trinitarian view. The types of thinking that comes from minds like VPW. In TWI, people drill their own minds to think like VPW (Or at least once did). When wayfers argue against the Trinity they may really be having another argument entirely.
(That's not to support The Trinity, it is a argument against VPW's overall thought process).
The original premise of the thread was that TWI's doctrine on the nature of God, Jesus, and Holy Spirit served to isolate way followers from the rest of Christianity. (Indeed, some people would not even consider TWI Christian because of this doctrine.) The payoff to followers while inside the group was a feeling of superiority over the rest of the Christian (we sometimes added "so called") world. We understood something about the nature of God that eluded almost everyone else. They were ignorant and/or deceived. Let's be honest with ourselves about the appeal of that insider knowledge. It feels good. It allows you to over look other less appealing aspects of participation.
When people eventually decide to leave TWI, and most do, if they have internalized this idea that Jesus Christ is not God, it is difficult if not impossible to find somewhere they feel they can belong. They cannot find a "church home" they feel comfortable in. Is the Trinity a better explanation of the nature of God? I don't know. But choosing to believe or at least allow the possibility of a trinitarian God opens up many more possibilities for fulfilling Christian fellowship and experience.
The original premise of the thread was that TWI's doctrine on the nature of God, Jesus, and Holy Spirit served to isolate way followers from the rest of Christianity. (Indeed, some people would not even consider TWI Christian because of this doctrine.) The payoff to followers while inside the group was a feeling of superiority over the rest of the Christian (we sometimes added "so called") world. We understood something about the nature of God that eluded almost everyone else. They were ignorant and/or deceived. Let's be honest with ourselves about the appeal of that insider knowledge. It feels good. It allows you to over look other less appealing aspects of participation.
When people eventually decide to leave TWI, and most do, if they have internalized this idea that Jesus Christ is not God, it is difficult if not impossible to find somewhere they feel they can belong. They cannot find a "church home" they feel comfortable in. Is the Trinity a better explanation of the nature of God? I don't know. But choosing to believe or at least allow the possibility of a trinitarian God opens up many more possibilities for fulfilling Christian fellowship and experience.
The original premise of the thread was that TWI's doctrine on the nature of God, Jesus, and Holy Spirit served to isolate way followers from the rest of Christianity. (Indeed, some people would not even consider TWI Christian because of this doctrine.) The payoff to followers while inside the group was a feeling of superiority over the rest of the Christian (we sometimes added "so called") world. We understood something about the nature of God that eluded almost everyone else. They were ignorant and/or deceived. Let's be honest with ourselves about the appeal of that insider knowledge. It feels good. It allows you to over look other less appealing aspects of participation.
When people eventually decide to leave TWI, and most do, if they have internalized this idea that Jesus Christ is not God, it is difficult if not impossible to find somewhere they feel they can belong. They cannot find a "church home" they feel comfortable in. Is the Trinity a better explanation of the nature of God? I don't know. But choosing to believe or at least allow the possibility of a trinitarian God opens up many more possibilities for fulfilling Christian fellowship and experience.
When people eventually decide to leave TWI, and most do, if they have internalized this idea that Jesus Christ is not God, it is difficult if not impossible to find somewhere they feel they can belong. They cannot find a "church home" they feel comfortable in.
It took me a while but I am comfortable in the two churches I attend regularly. I do listen to things through the non-Trini filter though. And I find extemporary prayers rather garbled at times as to whom they are addressed, and in whose "name" they are prayed.
I try to see beyond that. The people in the congregation are believers in God, in Jesus Christ and his accomplishments (even though their view and mine differ) and they pray with fervency of believing and expectation. I work in voluntary groups with other Christians and the trini idea never comes up; we all just love getting out there being the church in action and serving the people of this city with all our hearts, souls and strength.
I have to say that though I may not be fully "onside" in a church (ie, a "church home"), I'm comfortable, happy, feel cared for and supported.
AND, I feel a jolly sight more "at home" than I did when attending a splinter group for a short while or even just visiting a couple of Wayfer friends who regrettably are still seriously Waybrained. Now those fellowships (agh!) - they give me the creeps.
Recommended Posts
Top Posters In This Topic
8
18
23
27
Popular Days
Apr 3
30
Apr 1
28
Dec 3
14
Apr 2
13
Top Posters In This Topic
Rocky 8 posts
waysider 18 posts
Bolshevik 23 posts
TLC 27 posts
Popular Days
Apr 3 2016
30 posts
Apr 1 2016
28 posts
Dec 3 2015
14 posts
Apr 2 2016
13 posts
Popular Posts
shortfuse
The original premise of the thread was that TWI's doctrine on the nature of God, Jesus, and Holy Spirit served to isolate way followers from the rest of Christianity. (Indeed, some people would not e
Bolshevik
This incredibly important IMO. Growing up I would make the effort to learn about other religions, the Trinity among other topics . . but TWI would literally stop me with direct confrontation. (Happe
WordWolf
That settles that. As for the Martin Luther imitation, I thought that was too interesting not to explain. vpw announced, at the end of one ROA (77), that they were going to go to the local churc
TLC
To a certain degree. But motives of the heart are often (and sometimes easily) hidden, even with those that we have close and/or frequent contact with. So please don't overlook the "posing as if you know much more than you really do" part of what I wrote.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
TLC
My perspective on it is one that you will undoubtedly never really know, much less understand, Bolshevik.
(So "laugh" about it all you want...)
Link to comment
Share on other sites
TLC
Well, it sure as heck looked (still does, actually) doctrinal to me.
(Maybe it's just the way my brain works.)
Link to comment
Share on other sites
TLC
Do you know when was this? (Curious on how providential the timing of it was...)
Link to comment
Share on other sites
waysider
I'm not pretending to know more than I do, I'm simply stating what is written in the Bible......"By their fruits you shall know them."
Yes, it could be approached from a doctrinal perspective, examining scripture that relates to the matter. However, Rocky clearly indicated his interest was in understanding where and when, historically, Christianity adopted the said belief. This is the type of question one might find in a secular class comparing various religious beliefs and histories.
Edited by waysiderLink to comment
Share on other sites
Bolshevik
Technically no, I won't, as was pointed out in this thread before.
I also think Hitler was a bad individual. I never met the guy, so, I could be wrong. Which means everything else I know about existence must be wrong . . . so . . .
VPW constructed a doctrine and ministry for purposes that did not involve a search for truth and helping other people. The Trinity is important to discuss. I think you carry valuable insight into that matter. I don't know you, so I might be wrong.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
waysider
sonder ‎(countable and uncountable, plural sonders)
(neologism) The profound feeling of realizing that everyone, including strangers passed in the street, has a life as complex as one's own, which they are constantly living despite one's personal lack of awareness of it.
SOURCE
onism
n. the frustration of being stuck in just one body, that inhabits only one place at a time, which is like standing in front of the departures screen at an airport, flickering over with strange place names like other people’s passwords, each representing one more thing you’ll never get to see before you die—and all because, as the arrow on the map helpfully points out, you are here.
SOURCE
I'll never "really" know you. You'll never "really" know me. Hence, the need to ponder the fruit another's life has produced in an effort to more clearly understand them and the motives that drive/drove them.
Edited by waysiderLink to comment
Share on other sites
WordWolf
When old man wierwille died and ownership of the farm changed?
There's a timeline that probably should have its own thread by now...
Ok, here's the new thread:
And the answer to your question:
"In 1957, vpw returned to Van Wert. He cut his ties with the Evangelical and Reformed
Church, and took "his" PFAL class with him.In 1957, he and Harry bought out
their brothers and bought the family farm outright. Rather than take ownership
themselves, they declared it the property of "the Way", a church organization
(thus tax-exempt.)(Per TW:LIL, Harry said this was the time they chose the name
"the Way".) Work began on fixing up the farm."
I'd have to check if "The Way: Living in Love" explicitly states old man Wierwille's
death that year was the reason they bought out the farm that specific year.
"In the transaction of the legal settlement of the estate in
January, 1957, VP and I paid cash to Reuben and Charles for their
shares. The we, VP and I, bypassed ownership and put the deed directly
in the name of The Way, Incorporated. We took the name from the book of
Acts where people who believed were called followers of 'that way.' "
That's from page 78. He either died in December of 1956 or January of 1957.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
shortfuse
Yes, THIS.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Rocky
Tough. It's related to the question posed in the title of this thread.
What, are you now a self-appointed moderator?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Rocky
Clearly, the implication of the thread title question raise is to raise awareness of the methods and potentially the motives wierwille had for carving out his niche in the overall market known as Christianity. Personally, I think DWBH, in his essay yesterday laid bare those issues quite well.
My question "when did Jesus start being God?" was intended to broaden readers' consideration of whether Christianity (and/or Judeo-Christian heritage) can legitimately be considered the ONLY way to a knowledge of and relationship with God.
Somebody (probably not simply one charismatic person, but a community of people), at some finite point in historical time, adapted their notions of how the Earth and humankind came to be. That's directly relevant to any discussion of Christianity as "THE" only way to know or have a relationship with God.
I'll grant that taken by itself, the question wouldn't necessarily be "about twi." But I posed it to inject some perspective into the discussion of this thread, wierwille and twi.
VPee's frame of reference seemed to be that Christianity was the truth, i.e. "The Word of God is the Will of God."
But how can any discussion of VPee and his personally engineered subculture be fully legitimate without consideration of the fact that up to some point in human history nobody had any idea about a coming Messiah?
Plenty of people in the 21st century look at the OT and say, "That's a loving god?" But beyond that, how does Christianity in whatever flavor treat all of the humans prior to the Jews? As being damned to hell?
My interest for this thread in posing the question is not to expand on the doctrinal tangent but to consider how in the world a loving God could be limited to what we have learned in the Bible.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bolshevik
Obviously, that type of God would not have those limits.
My understanding is that VPW put limits on people's thinking with many phrases, should they chose to accept them. (i.e., you can't go beyond what you are taught)
I remember obscure verses like "he magnified his Word above His Name" to stress that focus of The Word over God. In TWI, The Word is something to control God with.
(My guess) is the non-Trinitarian view was a more simplified, limiting, approach. Easier for VPW to control his followers with.
It also helped define Wayfers between "other Christians". Non-Trinitarian is part of a Wayfer's identity. It distinguishes folks more starkly between "US" and "THEM".
It is interesting that Wayfers don't typically say they're "Unitarian" or some other term. They repeatedly attack The Trinity, instead.
Letting go of the anti-Trinity stance is an admission that you don't have the powers you once thought you had. The world is a big, scary, uncontrollable place.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
waysider
Letting go of the anti-Trinity stance is an admission that you don't have the powers you once thought you had. The world is a big, scary, uncontrollable place.
Yeah, letting go of it can be scary, as can letting go of believing or tithing or speaking in tongues. There's a certain sense of liberation that comes with the scariness, though.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
TLC
Neither was the context of it directed towards you.
Doctrinal discussions (most especially concerning the Trinity) frequently encompass a lot of material apart from scripture. But as there's obviously no doctrinal intent or interest, then have at it.
Edited by TLCLink to comment
Share on other sites
TLC
In short, aside from certain doctrinal aspects of it (which without a doubt weigh very heavily on the church, and on how people think), I don't think it makes a hill of beans worth of difference.
Thanks, WW.
Lucky timing, I suppose.
Edited by TLCLink to comment
Share on other sites
Bolshevik
TLC,
HERE
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bolshevik
Hi Waysider, I agree. TWI is about control.
The Trinity, IMO, is one of the bigger hurdles, more so than tithing, I think.
It appears to me, right now anyway, that the non-Trinitarian view in more conducive to certain types of thinking than the Trinitarian view. The types of thinking that comes from minds like VPW. In TWI, people drill their own minds to think like VPW (Or at least once did). When wayfers argue against the Trinity they may really be having another argument entirely.
(That's not to support The Trinity, it is a argument against VPW's overall thought process).
Link to comment
Share on other sites
TLC
That's probably true, but why do you conclude that the Trinitarian view is better?
How many discussion have you ever really had with a staunch Trinitarian?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bolshevik
"staunch"
Link to comment
Share on other sites
shortfuse
The original premise of the thread was that TWI's doctrine on the nature of God, Jesus, and Holy Spirit served to isolate way followers from the rest of Christianity. (Indeed, some people would not even consider TWI Christian because of this doctrine.) The payoff to followers while inside the group was a feeling of superiority over the rest of the Christian (we sometimes added "so called") world. We understood something about the nature of God that eluded almost everyone else. They were ignorant and/or deceived. Let's be honest with ourselves about the appeal of that insider knowledge. It feels good. It allows you to over look other less appealing aspects of participation.
When people eventually decide to leave TWI, and most do, if they have internalized this idea that Jesus Christ is not God, it is difficult if not impossible to find somewhere they feel they can belong. They cannot find a "church home" they feel comfortable in. Is the Trinity a better explanation of the nature of God? I don't know. But choosing to believe or at least allow the possibility of a trinitarian God opens up many more possibilities for fulfilling Christian fellowship and experience.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
shortfuse
*double post deleted*
Edited by shortfuseLink to comment
Share on other sites
waysider
Well said.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
T-Bone
i agree !
Great post Shortfuse !
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Twinky
It took me a while but I am comfortable in the two churches I attend regularly. I do listen to things through the non-Trini filter though. And I find extemporary prayers rather garbled at times as to whom they are addressed, and in whose "name" they are prayed.
I try to see beyond that. The people in the congregation are believers in God, in Jesus Christ and his accomplishments (even though their view and mine differ) and they pray with fervency of believing and expectation. I work in voluntary groups with other Christians and the trini idea never comes up; we all just love getting out there being the church in action and serving the people of this city with all our hearts, souls and strength.
I have to say that though I may not be fully "onside" in a church (ie, a "church home"), I'm comfortable, happy, feel cared for and supported.
AND, I feel a jolly sight more "at home" than I did when attending a splinter group for a short while or even just visiting a couple of Wayfer friends who regrettably are still seriously Waybrained. Now those fellowships (agh!) - they give me the creeps.
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.