There's a wide variety of beliefs represented here, across decades and threads.
Don't be surprised if discussing whether something is true gets Pilate's response
of "what is truth?"
Quite okay, I'd surmised that some time ago...
But to be fair, I personally believe there are two (inextricably woven) realities that are spoken of in scripture. At times, it may be necessary to clarify "which" of these realities we're talking about, and unless someone has a better way to do it, I'm accustomed to thinking of them in terms of "physical" (or tangible) and "spiritual." Given that our language and ability to communicate is typically framed by a similar mental conditioning to the physical, it's not always easy to make the distinction (especially on the first try.) Undoubtedly, not everyone here will agree with any of this. Nevertheless, it's how I see it.
Then please note that if I don't understand your question or see how it relates to something I've said, then I'm probably not going to post a reply.
Well, I'm certainly not a mind reader, if it's something rolling around in your head.
That's not how I wrote it, but if that's the way you care to see it, so be it. What one thinks is real may or may not be real. But if it's not real, does it make a hoot of a difference whether or not it's "new"? However, if it truly is "real", it'd be rather egotistical to think that it's "new," don't ya think?
I replied to that once already.
Lordy Pete. Is that your only view of God?
I typically post in "about The Way" . . . context being "About The Way" . . . My interest, generally, is how to deal with Wayfers (a general term for followers of VPW's thinking). That might help narrow things down in the future if topics seem to get too broad.
I'm going to step in and ask everyone to take a breath.
TLC is new to these parts. Most of us have had time to get to know each other. We don't know him. He doesn't know us. Let's let each other breathe.
New, yes. But not a neophyte by any means...
(nor am I easy to offend, not that I prefer any try.)
TLC, some free advice:
Start a thread in New Members introducing yourself and giving us a feel for where you come from, ideologically/philosophically/"religiously" speaking, plus some history of where/when you were connected to TWI. It will help foster understanding. If you're in an offshoot now or a mainstream church, let us know. This is advice. You are not being "commanded" to do any of this, and there will be absolutely no consequences if you choose not to follow the advice.
Thanks again for seeking to join the conversation.
Thanks for the advice, but I'm really not into some big or splashy intro or starting a thread. (I really didn't expect to post as much as is out there already.) Perhaps it will suffice to say that we (being married) were around in the heyday of TWI, and rather hoped that anonymity would allow for more credence being given to what is actually said, rather than associating with some hierarchy of what was. (Needless to say, I think the nametags, the "Rev's", and the Corps program itself did sufficient damage on their own. They all did a swell job of inflating ego's and puffing heads... and I'm unaware of any exceptions, if there were any.)
You and/or your god seem pretty intolerant of questions.
Would it make any more sense to you to say that it's knowing things of the spirit, or things which are spiritual?
Of course, that still probably makes little or no sense for anyone that lacks either the concern or the ability to discern where certain knowledge originates. If, for example, one thinks (or "knows") that there is no real knowledge that extends beyond what can be scientifically known or analyzed, then any and all "spiritual knowledge" is axiomatically relegated to foolishness, or mysticism, or whatever other fantasy branding happens to be in vogue.
Capeesh?
You're apparently assuming things not in evidence... like what I do or do not understand.
Also, you didn't define spiritual knowledge, or even what you understand it to mean.
Then please note that if I don't understand your question or see how it relates to something I've said, then I'm probably not going to post a reply.
A reasonable response to not understanding a question (if one is aware the s/he doesn't understand it) is to ask for clarification.
You're apparently assuming things not in evidence... like what I do or do not understand.
Not knowing what you do or don't understand, I tried to allow for a couple of different possibilities.
The first was a response to what might have been someone "probing" my thoughts on the matter (which I don't mind.) In other words, I simply restated what I had said previously in another way. It usually helps (or starts to help) clarify what is meant and show how well something is or isn't understood.
The second was essentially an introductory statement to communicate the probability that it wasn't going to be possible to explain "spiritual knowledge" in a tangible or meaningful way to anyone that either didn't care to know, or couldn't know for the very reason stated in 1 Cor. 2:14.
Also, you didn't define spiritual knowledge, or even what you understand it to mean.
Well that's odd, because at least in part, I thought I did. Being what is it, I'm really not sure how well or how completely anyone is able to define it. But, as you ask for more, I say this. If spiritual knowledge isn't discerned as something of spiritual origination, then it will not be recognized or acknowledge as being "spiritual knowledge." In other words, as I see it, whether or not any piece of information or knowledge is spiritual depends primarily on where it originates from.
If you need or want something more than that, perhaps it would help me to know where you're at or coming from. What do you suppose it is (or isn't), or how do you see it?
Not knowing what you do or don't understand, I tried to allow for a couple of different possibilities.
. . .
The second was essentially an introductory statement to communicate the probability that it wasn't going to be possible to explain "spiritual knowledge" in a tangible or meaningful way to anyone that either didn't care to know, or couldn't know for the very reason stated in 1 Cor. 2:14.
Well that's odd, because at least in part, I thought I did. Being what is it, I'm really not sure how well or how completely anyone is able to define it. But, as you ask for more, I say this. If spiritual knowledge isn't discerned as something of spiritual origination, then it will not be recognized or acknowledge as being "spiritual knowledge." In other words, as I see it, whether or not any piece of information or knowledge is spiritual depends primarily on where it originates from.
If you need or want something more than that, perhaps it would help me to know where you're at or coming from. What do you suppose it is (or isn't), or how do you see it?
Light comes from the sun. Or a lamp. Or something else. I can perceive some of it. Other people are capable of perceiving more than I do, others less. My eyeball isn't made of light. Neither is the network of neurons behind it. The source of the light isn't always important.
Other creatures have ways of perception, other senses, that I do not. So do other people.
Maybe I perceive the spiritual things you can, but maybe I call it something else, maybe I ignore it. I don't know at this point.
To say someone can perceive things another can't, and then say, "well it can't be explained, not to YOU anyway" . . . to me that begs the question.
Not knowing what you do or don't understand, I tried to allow for a couple of different possibilities.
The first was a response to what might have been someone "probing" my thoughts on the matter (which I don't mind.) In other words, I simply restated what I had said previously in another way. It usually helps (or starts to help) clarify what is meant and show how well something is or isn't understood.
The second was essentially an introductory statement to communicate the probability that it wasn't going to be possible to explain "spiritual knowledge" in a tangible or meaningful way to anyone that either didn't care to know, or couldn't know for the very reason stated in 1 Cor. 2:14.
Well that's odd, because at least in part, I thought I did. Being what is it, I'm really not sure how well or how completely anyone is able to define it. But, as you ask for more, I say this. If spiritual knowledge isn't discerned as something of spiritual origination, then it will not be recognized or acknowledge as being "spiritual knowledge." In other words, as I see it, whether or not any piece of information or knowledge is spiritual depends primarily on where it originates from.
If you need or want something more than that, perhaps it would help me to know where you're at or coming from. What do you suppose it is (or isn't), or how do you see it?
Well, the first time, you appeared to assume one thing. This time, you seem to assume something a little bit different, that I don't care to know, or that somehow I don't have "the spirit of God" and therefore cannot know.
But I do appreciate you seeking clarification this time.
I'm not sure you and I could get to a common understanding of what is genuine spiritual knowledge, especially by way of posts on an internet forum.
Where I'm coming from is that it has become abundantly obvious that Wierwille was, first and foremost, a self-promoter, a con man.
His class was all about, first and foremost, establishing himself as the foremost authority on any and all things spiritual.
He built an organization to provide him with an abundant living and plenty of adulation. It was far more about him than about either the Bible or God or Jesus Christ.
Discerning whether or to what degree his doctrines and private interpretations -- and they very much were private interpretations -- of the Bible were true and
genuine godly spiritual knowledge is a conundrum that perhaps nobody really is capable of achieving.
We had to "take it on faith" that the claims he made to set himself up as the only legitimate authority were legitimate. But do you know how many other
charlatans make the same claim?
Snow on the gas pumps? Never happened. But believing that story was fundamental to taking Wierwille as a spiritual and biblical authority.
So, what really is spiritual knowledge... as opposed to utter nonsense ("utter nonsense" being a euphemism)?
At times, it seemed like everything was "spiritual" in the wacky world of Wayferville. Anger was spiritual, love was spiritual, criticism was spiritual, and, of course, knowledge was spiritual. I think, in a way, it was really a type of rationalization..... "Sure, I'm angry, but it's a spiritual anger." "I'm only pointing out your flaws so you can experience spiritual growth." And, of course, some types of knowledge were spiritual, as well. Especially those which weren't fully understood in the first place from a "senses" perspective. "You don't understand it? Well, that's because it's spiritual."
"I wish you could see it in the original. It was really.....so-so"
Light comes from the sun. Or a lamp. Or something else. I can perceive some of it.
(No analogy is perfect, but... here goes)
You can, if you have an eye. But without an eye, you can only feel the effects of it.
Other people are capable of perceiving more than I do, others less.
Requires them to likewise have an eye, but yes, some may be able to focus or see things more clearly than others.
Other creatures have ways of perception, other senses, that I do not. So do other people.
An eye is an eye, regardless of how (or how well) it works.
To say someone can perceive things another can't, and then say, "well it can't be explained, not to YOU anyway" . . . to me that begs the question.
If there is no eye, then there is no apparatus to receive or perceive light. Even if you want to contend that they might feel or notice the effects of it some other way, there is no way around the simplicity of saying that they cannot see it because there being no apparatus to detect light.
Likewise, if the detection apparatus for spirit (or spiritual information) is not there (or turned off... however you want to think of it), then there will axiomatically be no recognition or acknowledgement of spirit (or spiritual information).
I've made no implication that you or anyone else here doesn't have the ability to receive or recognize spiritual knowledge, so please don't try to pin that on me - it won't stick. The point of my saying what I said previously (and relating it back to 1Cor.2:14) was to clear the deck and note that there may be some that will never see or get the difference between spiritual knowledge and a whole bunch of other worthless donkey do, no matter what else is said.
Well, the first time, you appeared to assume one thing. This time, you seem to assume something a little bit different, that I don't care to know, or that somehow I don't have "the spirit of God" and therefore cannot know.
Actually, there was virtually no difference between my two earlier posts, and in neither did I assume (or intend to imply) that you didn't care to know, or that you somehow don't have the spirit of God. (Perhaps my last post to Bolshevik helps explain the reason for it.)
But I do appreciate you seeking clarification this time.
I'm not sure you and I could get to a common understanding of what is genuine spiritual knowledge, especially by way of posts on an internet forum.
Perhaps not. Probably not in only a post or two.
But you never know...
Discerning whether or to what degree his doctrines and private interpretations -- and they very much were private interpretations -- of the Bible were true and
genuine godly spiritual knowledge is a conundrum that perhaps nobody really is capable of achieving.
I skipped over some of the VPW comments, as they don't seem to add anything particularly significant to the discussion. However, I am inclined to agree that his personal faults and failures do complicate the issue.
We had to "take it on faith" that the claims he made to set himself up as the only legitimate authority were legitimate.
Well, I never heard him make such a claim. (And I am all too familiar with a much of what he taught.)
Don't take that to mean that I don't now (not back then) see or acknowledge the pride or arrogance that was there.
I simply see what you stated as being "over the top" of the way it was.
Snow on the gas pumps? Never happened. But believing that story was fundamental to taking Wierwille as a spiritual and biblical authority.
To be frank about it, I don't care about the snow. And neither do I think it matters how much it may have played into his positioning as a spiritual and biblical authority. Except to say this... if it was so fundamental to that, then how tethered to the truth could anyone possibly be before that? Sure, it was an impressive thing to hear about at the time. And, I won't deny that it seemed (at the time) to add a morsel to his credibility. Nor will I dispute that he was given far too much credence as a spiritual and biblical authority. But this snow thingy being FUNDAMENTAL to taking him as a spiritual and biblical authority? Nope. Not for me (and I'm not so different or unique that it was just me.)
So, what really is spiritual knowledge... as opposed to utter nonsense ("utter nonsense" being a euphemism)?
What do you know or think or suppose that spirit is?
(I'll state in advance that you'll probably have to forgive my rather Socratic style of discussion, but it may be somewhat of a genetic thing with me, which some have taken offense to at times.)
TWI fizzled out for the same reason some of those "As Seen On TV" products disappear from the market place. It looked like it had great promise to offer results but in the end turned out to be a cheaply constructed, ineffectual dud. There's nothing spiritual about that. VPW gave birth to a scam, a con, a flim-flam operation or whatever term you prefer to use.. It eventually got old, started falling apart and is currently it's in its terminal stages..
You can, if you have an eye. But without an eye, you can only feel the effects of it.
Yes, you can feel heat when light is absorbed.
Requires them to likewise have an eye, but yes, some may be able to focus or see things more clearly than others.
An eye is an eye, regardless of how (or how well) it works.
I believe there are different types of eyes in the animal kingdom. As far as human eyes go, some people have more rods and cones, and are able to see parts of the spectrum others cannot.
If there is no eye, then there is no apparatus to receive or perceive light. Even if you want to contend that they might feel or notice the effects of it some other way, there is no way around the simplicity of saying that they cannot see it because there being no apparatus to detect light.
Without seeing all wavelengths of light, because of the limitations of my eyes, I can still believe they exist. I can acquire instruments that detect them.
Likewise, if the detection apparatus for spirit (or spiritual information) is not there (or turned off... however you want to think of it), then there will axiomatically be no recognition or acknowledgement of spirit (or spiritual information).
I'm saying this is a false conclusion. If spirit exists, and other people have that "detection apparatus", those who do not have that apparatus would take notice. There should be some way to demonstrate the existence of spirit.
I've made no implication that you or anyone else here doesn't have the ability to receive or recognize spiritual knowledge, so please don't try to pin that on me - it won't stick. The point of my saying what I said previously (and relating it back to 1Cor.2:14) was to clear the deck and note that there may be some that will never see or get the difference between spiritual knowledge and a whole bunch of other worthless donkey do, no matter what else is said.
I believe inability was implied. I will pin that on whoever wrote I Corinthians.
But you can see your last statement (in bold) can be viewed as manipulative? (I'm not saying that is your intent) It reminds me of some links that can be found HERE.
I'm saying this is a false conclusion. If spirit exists, and other people have that "detection apparatus", those who do not have that apparatus would take notice.
Why suppose if they did notice it that they would waste any more thought or attention on something they regard as foolishness (which is how they'll view it, according to 1Cor.2:14)?
There should be some way to demonstrate the existence of spirit.
So what if there is? What would be the purpose of it? Did the demonstration of it to the nation of Israel over about a 1500 year time span help move them any closer to the truth? Nope. And they stoned Stephen when he pointed it out to them. If such powerful demonstrations of spirit so plainly didn't help them believe much of anything beyond what they could know by their senses, why suppose that it would have any greater or better effect on you or me or any of the rest of the Gentile nations?
I believe inability was implied. I will pin that on whoever wrote I Corinthians.
Whether or not there are people that don't have the ability is more than implied, it's rather plainly stated. At least you see where that thought comes from.
Why suppose if they did notice it that they would waste any more thought or attention on something they regard as foolishness (which is how they'll view it, according to 1Cor.2:14)?
Because curiosity. Exploration. Some desire to understand the world around them.
But the writer of I Corinthians seems to have prejudged everyone on that account.
So what if there is? What would be the purpose of it? Did the demonstration of it to the nation of Israel over about a 1500 year time span help move them any closer to the truth? Nope. And they stoned Stephen when he pointed it out to them. If such powerful demonstrations of spirit so plainly didn't help them believe much of anything beyond what they could know by their senses, why suppose that it would have any greater or better effect on you or me or any of the rest of the Gentile nations?
LCM did a STS called "Both Guns Blazing", if I remember correctly. You'd probably like it.
Whether or not there are people that don't have the ability is more than implied, it's rather plainly stated. At least you see where that thought comes from.
If you draw a big enough circle, it encapsulates (spelling corrected) the reality that any of us adhere to in our minds. There are always premises involved, regardless of whether we recognize, acknowledge, or are even aware of them.
If you draw a big enough circle, it encapsulated the reality that any of us adhere to in our minds. There are always premises involved, regardless of whether we recognize, acknowledge, or are even aware of them.
It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it.
If you draw a big enough circle, it encapsulated the reality that any of us adhere to in our minds. There are always premises involved, regardless of whether we recognize, acknowledge, or are even aware of them.
I'm not sure what that even means. We're not talking about a philosophical approach to life, we're talking about a situation that has finite explanations. We may not know what all those explanations are but they do, indeed, exist. With that in mind, what is your take on why the whole thing crashed and burned? (Yeah, I know, the ashes are still smoldering.)
I'm not sure what that even means. We're not talking about a philosophical approach to life, we're talking about a situation that has finite explanations. We may not know what all those explanations are but they do, indeed, exist. With that in mind, what is your take on why the whole thing crashed and burned? (Yeah, I know, the ashes are still smoldering.)
Not that I've spent (or intend on spending) an extreme amount of time or effort dissecting it, as some here have or might, and I suppose the simpler the response the better it might be.
In short, I'm not persuaded that any such hierarchy or structured organization should be (or ever should have been) built.
I don't see that Paul did it, or even tried to do it. In fact, there were such significant issues stemming from the church in Jerusalem that he had to contended with, the problems that would arise in trying to model a ministry after the church in Jerusalem should have been much more obvious than they were. (In a certain sense, perhaps it's now easier to relate to or understand what was probably happening in the early church. But given the cultural differences, maybe that's too bold a claim.)
So, at this point in time, it no longer surprises me that it (as you put it) "crashed and burned." If you care for a reason being assigned to it, I'll leave it at a failure to properly or adequately differentiate the gospel of Paul from the gospel of the kingdom (which was directed towards Israel.)
The reason TWI originally flourished was because Wierwille was a narcissistic, sociopathic con man. Every other factor was incidental to that one. TWI fell apart soon after Wierwille died because he NEVER raised anybody up as an alternate leader, but surrounded himself with incompetent sycophants. The current leader of TWI came to that position because she also is a narcissistic, sociopathic con woman, but she doesn't have the same set of skills that Wierwille used to build the organization. Her skill set was in the sack instead of on the main stage at the Rock of Ages.
-----
I Corinthians 2 has intrigued me for some time now. A few years ago I wrote a paper on 1 Corinthians 8:1-6 which deals with knowledge. A little over a year ago I wrote a 38 page paper on I Corinthians 12-14, and it strikes me that an understanding of 1 Corinthians 2 is foundational for both 1 Corinthians 8:1-6 AND 1 Corinthians 12-14. I intend to write my exegesis paper for BIST 6220 this semester on 1 Corinthians 2.
There is one thing I can say for sure though, based on the research I did for 1 Corinthians 8:1-6, the cosmology the Corinthians held and understood was Stoic, not Platonic. When Wierwille taught that there are two realms, the spiritual realm and the senses realm, and that the laws of the spirit realm take precedence over the laws of the senses realm, he was blowing Platonic bovine fecal matter!
The literal meaning of "spirit" is "air in motion." Things that have air moving in and out of them are alive. Things that no longer have air moving in and out of them are dead. So the word "spirit" took on the figurative meaning of "life-force", or "that which makes something otherwise dead alive." What 1 Corinthians 2 means needs to be re-thought.
Recommended Posts
Top Posters In This Topic
17
30
43
38
Popular Days
Jan 26
37
Jan 24
26
Jan 22
17
Jan 20
16
Top Posters In This Topic
skyrider 17 posts
waysider 30 posts
Bolshevik 43 posts
TLC 38 posts
Popular Days
Jan 26 2016
37 posts
Jan 24 2016
26 posts
Jan 22 2016
17 posts
Jan 20 2016
16 posts
Popular Posts
Twinky
How ridiculous, Mrs A has a wealth of knowledge. And that's appropriate to share. It's part of the Body of Christ working together, every part contributing what it can. Mrs A, having raised all you
waysider
It all goes back to the non-existent *law of believing*. You were supposed to *believe* for things to get better. If they didn't, it was your own fault. Then, to add insult to injury, you were consid
Rocky
Alas and alak, we get to the roots of the thing. Btw, this might also be the roots/foundation of the concept of gaslighting as we've experienced it in twi. It is inherently human to be curious. To e
TLC
Quite okay, I'd surmised that some time ago...
But to be fair, I personally believe there are two (inextricably woven) realities that are spoken of in scripture. At times, it may be necessary to clarify "which" of these realities we're talking about, and unless someone has a better way to do it, I'm accustomed to thinking of them in terms of "physical" (or tangible) and "spiritual." Given that our language and ability to communicate is typically framed by a similar mental conditioning to the physical, it's not always easy to make the distinction (especially on the first try.) Undoubtedly, not everyone here will agree with any of this. Nevertheless, it's how I see it.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bolshevik
I typically post in "about The Way" . . . context being "About The Way" . . . My interest, generally, is how to deal with Wayfers (a general term for followers of VPW's thinking). That might help narrow things down in the future if topics seem to get too broad.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
TLC
New, yes. But not a neophyte by any means...
(nor am I easy to offend, not that I prefer any try.)
Thanks for the advice, but I'm really not into some big or splashy intro or starting a thread. (I really didn't expect to post as much as is out there already.) Perhaps it will suffice to say that we (being married) were around in the heyday of TWI, and rather hoped that anonymity would allow for more credence being given to what is actually said, rather than associating with some hierarchy of what was. (Needless to say, I think the nametags, the "Rev's", and the Corps program itself did sufficient damage on their own. They all did a swell job of inflating ego's and puffing heads... and I'm unaware of any exceptions, if there were any.)
A rather hasty assessment, don't ya think?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
modcat5
How dare you defy me!
I mean, cool. Whatever makes you happy.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Rocky
You're apparently assuming things not in evidence... like what I do or do not understand.
Also, you didn't define spiritual knowledge, or even what you understand it to mean.
A reasonable response to not understanding a question (if one is aware the s/he doesn't understand it) is to ask for clarification.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
TLC
Not knowing what you do or don't understand, I tried to allow for a couple of different possibilities.
The first was a response to what might have been someone "probing" my thoughts on the matter (which I don't mind.) In other words, I simply restated what I had said previously in another way. It usually helps (or starts to help) clarify what is meant and show how well something is or isn't understood.
The second was essentially an introductory statement to communicate the probability that it wasn't going to be possible to explain "spiritual knowledge" in a tangible or meaningful way to anyone that either didn't care to know, or couldn't know for the very reason stated in 1 Cor. 2:14.
Well that's odd, because at least in part, I thought I did. Being what is it, I'm really not sure how well or how completely anyone is able to define it. But, as you ask for more, I say this. If spiritual knowledge isn't discerned as something of spiritual origination, then it will not be recognized or acknowledge as being "spiritual knowledge." In other words, as I see it, whether or not any piece of information or knowledge is spiritual depends primarily on where it originates from.
If you need or want something more than that, perhaps it would help me to know where you're at or coming from. What do you suppose it is (or isn't), or how do you see it?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bolshevik
Light comes from the sun. Or a lamp. Or something else. I can perceive some of it. Other people are capable of perceiving more than I do, others less. My eyeball isn't made of light. Neither is the network of neurons behind it. The source of the light isn't always important.
Other creatures have ways of perception, other senses, that I do not. So do other people.
Maybe I perceive the spiritual things you can, but maybe I call it something else, maybe I ignore it. I don't know at this point.
To say someone can perceive things another can't, and then say, "well it can't be explained, not to YOU anyway" . . . to me that begs the question.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Rocky
Well, the first time, you appeared to assume one thing. This time, you seem to assume something a little bit different, that I don't care to know, or that somehow I don't have "the spirit of God" and therefore cannot know.
But I do appreciate you seeking clarification this time.
I'm not sure you and I could get to a common understanding of what is genuine spiritual knowledge, especially by way of posts on an internet forum.
Where I'm coming from is that it has become abundantly obvious that Wierwille was, first and foremost, a self-promoter, a con man.
His class was all about, first and foremost, establishing himself as the foremost authority on any and all things spiritual.
He built an organization to provide him with an abundant living and plenty of adulation. It was far more about him than about either the Bible or God or Jesus Christ.
Discerning whether or to what degree his doctrines and private interpretations -- and they very much were private interpretations -- of the Bible were true and
genuine godly spiritual knowledge is a conundrum that perhaps nobody really is capable of achieving.
We had to "take it on faith" that the claims he made to set himself up as the only legitimate authority were legitimate. But do you know how many other
charlatans make the same claim?
Snow on the gas pumps? Never happened. But believing that story was fundamental to taking Wierwille as a spiritual and biblical authority.
So, what really is spiritual knowledge... as opposed to utter nonsense ("utter nonsense" being a euphemism)?
Edited by RockyLink to comment
Share on other sites
waysider
At times, it seemed like everything was "spiritual" in the wacky world of Wayferville. Anger was spiritual, love was spiritual, criticism was spiritual, and, of course, knowledge was spiritual. I think, in a way, it was really a type of rationalization..... "Sure, I'm angry, but it's a spiritual anger." "I'm only pointing out your flaws so you can experience spiritual growth." And, of course, some types of knowledge were spiritual, as well. Especially those which weren't fully understood in the first place from a "senses" perspective. "You don't understand it? Well, that's because it's spiritual."
"I wish you could see it in the original. It was really.....so-so"
------VPW------
Link to comment
Share on other sites
TLC
(No analogy is perfect, but... here goes)
You can, if you have an eye. But without an eye, you can only feel the effects of it.
Requires them to likewise have an eye, but yes, some may be able to focus or see things more clearly than others.
An eye is an eye, regardless of how (or how well) it works.
If there is no eye, then there is no apparatus to receive or perceive light. Even if you want to contend that they might feel or notice the effects of it some other way, there is no way around the simplicity of saying that they cannot see it because there being no apparatus to detect light.
Likewise, if the detection apparatus for spirit (or spiritual information) is not there (or turned off... however you want to think of it), then there will axiomatically be no recognition or acknowledgement of spirit (or spiritual information).
I've made no implication that you or anyone else here doesn't have the ability to receive or recognize spiritual knowledge, so please don't try to pin that on me - it won't stick. The point of my saying what I said previously (and relating it back to 1Cor.2:14) was to clear the deck and note that there may be some that will never see or get the difference between spiritual knowledge and a whole bunch of other worthless donkey do, no matter what else is said.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
TLC
Actually, there was virtually no difference between my two earlier posts, and in neither did I assume (or intend to imply) that you didn't care to know, or that you somehow don't have the spirit of God. (Perhaps my last post to Bolshevik helps explain the reason for it.)
Perhaps not. Probably not in only a post or two.
But you never know...
I skipped over some of the VPW comments, as they don't seem to add anything particularly significant to the discussion. However, I am inclined to agree that his personal faults and failures do complicate the issue.
Well, I never heard him make such a claim. (And I am all too familiar with a much of what he taught.)
Don't take that to mean that I don't now (not back then) see or acknowledge the pride or arrogance that was there.
I simply see what you stated as being "over the top" of the way it was.
To be frank about it, I don't care about the snow. And neither do I think it matters how much it may have played into his positioning as a spiritual and biblical authority. Except to say this... if it was so fundamental to that, then how tethered to the truth could anyone possibly be before that? Sure, it was an impressive thing to hear about at the time. And, I won't deny that it seemed (at the time) to add a morsel to his credibility. Nor will I dispute that he was given far too much credence as a spiritual and biblical authority. But this snow thingy being FUNDAMENTAL to taking him as a spiritual and biblical authority? Nope. Not for me (and I'm not so different or unique that it was just me.)
What do you know or think or suppose that spirit is?
(I'll state in advance that you'll probably have to forgive my rather Socratic style of discussion, but it may be somewhat of a genetic thing with me, which some have taken offense to at times.)
Edited by TLCLink to comment
Share on other sites
Twinky
Interesting discussion, but way off track. Maybe Raf can split off part of this into a separate thread? (A "spiritual divorce," if you will)
Link to comment
Share on other sites
waysider
TWI fizzled out for the same reason some of those "As Seen On TV" products disappear from the market place. It looked like it had great promise to offer results but in the end turned out to be a cheaply constructed, ineffectual dud. There's nothing spiritual about that. VPW gave birth to a scam, a con, a flim-flam operation or whatever term you prefer to use.. It eventually got old, started falling apart and is currently it's in its terminal stages..
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bolshevik
Yes, you can feel heat when light is absorbed.
I believe there are different types of eyes in the animal kingdom. As far as human eyes go, some people have more rods and cones, and are able to see parts of the spectrum others cannot.
Without seeing all wavelengths of light, because of the limitations of my eyes, I can still believe they exist. I can acquire instruments that detect them.
I'm saying this is a false conclusion. If spirit exists, and other people have that "detection apparatus", those who do not have that apparatus would take notice. There should be some way to demonstrate the existence of spirit.
I believe inability was implied. I will pin that on whoever wrote I Corinthians.
But you can see your last statement (in bold) can be viewed as manipulative? (I'm not saying that is your intent) It reminds me of some links that can be found HERE.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
TLC
Why suppose if they did notice it that they would waste any more thought or attention on something they regard as foolishness (which is how they'll view it, according to 1Cor.2:14)?
So what if there is? What would be the purpose of it? Did the demonstration of it to the nation of Israel over about a 1500 year time span help move them any closer to the truth? Nope. And they stoned Stephen when he pointed it out to them. If such powerful demonstrations of spirit so plainly didn't help them believe much of anything beyond what they could know by their senses, why suppose that it would have any greater or better effect on you or me or any of the rest of the Gentile nations?
Whether or not there are people that don't have the ability is more than implied, it's rather plainly stated. At least you see where that thought comes from.
Edited by TLCLink to comment
Share on other sites
Bolshevik
Because curiosity. Exploration. Some desire to understand the world around them.
But the writer of I Corinthians seems to have prejudged everyone on that account.
LCM did a STS called "Both Guns Blazing", if I remember correctly. You'd probably like it.
The mind of the writer of I Corinthians?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
waysider
It's somewhat circular in nature.
Q: How do you know that's true?
A: It says so in the Bible.
Q: How do you know the Bible is true?
A: It's spiritual. You wouldn't understand.
Q: Well, how do you know that's true?
A: It says so in the Bible.
It reminds me of the II Timothy argument.
Q: How do you know the Bible is God Breathed?
A: It says so in the Bible.
Q: How do you know the Bible is true?
A: It has to be, it's God Breathed..
Link to comment
Share on other sites
TLC
Like Eve did, I suppose.
Unfortunately, that world drew them in to its beauty and temporality, and mankind became ensnared in selfishness and its own mortality.
It's the author's view that's of importance to me.
Don't bother trying to send it. Long after my time around him, I'm sure.
It's obvious enough that we see the issue from different vantage points.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
TLC
If you draw a big enough circle, it encapsulates (spelling corrected) the reality that any of us adhere to in our minds. There are always premises involved, regardless of whether we recognize, acknowledge, or are even aware of them.
Edited by TLCLink to comment
Share on other sites
Bolshevik
It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it.
- Aristotle
(Source: Google Search)
Link to comment
Share on other sites
waysider
I'm not sure what that even means. We're not talking about a philosophical approach to life, we're talking about a situation that has finite explanations. We may not know what all those explanations are but they do, indeed, exist. With that in mind, what is your take on why the whole thing crashed and burned? (Yeah, I know, the ashes are still smoldering.)
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Rocky
Alas and alak, we get to the roots of the thing.
Btw, this might also be the roots/foundation of the concept of gaslighting as we've experienced it in twi.
It is inherently human to be curious. To explore.
How can that be a bad thing?
I gave Wierwille's organization 12 years in which I built my mental framework around his version of the Judeo-Christian origin story and world view.
And several more years in which that framework kept me prisoner after I rejected the subculture.
It was all a sham.
As Twinky suggested, this seems like a tangent from the original question at the top of the thread. But really,
I see it as getting to one answer to that original question. Twi isn't as big now as it was in the 1970s because
so many people who experienced twi in the 1970s realized, for whatever reason, that Wierwille's flavor of Christianity
(or maybe Christianity itself) doesn't provide a fulfilling, satisfying spiritual or otherwise experience.
It also brings to life what so many people throughout the last few centuries have observed about religion.
Here's one that speaks to me:
"Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind."
― Albert Einstein
Link to comment
Share on other sites
TLC
Not that I've spent (or intend on spending) an extreme amount of time or effort dissecting it, as some here have or might, and I suppose the simpler the response the better it might be.
In short, I'm not persuaded that any such hierarchy or structured organization should be (or ever should have been) built.
I don't see that Paul did it, or even tried to do it. In fact, there were such significant issues stemming from the church in Jerusalem that he had to contended with, the problems that would arise in trying to model a ministry after the church in Jerusalem should have been much more obvious than they were. (In a certain sense, perhaps it's now easier to relate to or understand what was probably happening in the early church. But given the cultural differences, maybe that's too bold a claim.)
So, at this point in time, it no longer surprises me that it (as you put it) "crashed and burned." If you care for a reason being assigned to it, I'll leave it at a failure to properly or adequately differentiate the gospel of Paul from the gospel of the kingdom (which was directed towards Israel.)
Edited by TLCLink to comment
Share on other sites
Steve Lortz
The reason TWI originally flourished was because Wierwille was a narcissistic, sociopathic con man. Every other factor was incidental to that one. TWI fell apart soon after Wierwille died because he NEVER raised anybody up as an alternate leader, but surrounded himself with incompetent sycophants. The current leader of TWI came to that position because she also is a narcissistic, sociopathic con woman, but she doesn't have the same set of skills that Wierwille used to build the organization. Her skill set was in the sack instead of on the main stage at the Rock of Ages.
-----
I Corinthians 2 has intrigued me for some time now. A few years ago I wrote a paper on 1 Corinthians 8:1-6 which deals with knowledge. A little over a year ago I wrote a 38 page paper on I Corinthians 12-14, and it strikes me that an understanding of 1 Corinthians 2 is foundational for both 1 Corinthians 8:1-6 AND 1 Corinthians 12-14. I intend to write my exegesis paper for BIST 6220 this semester on 1 Corinthians 2.
There is one thing I can say for sure though, based on the research I did for 1 Corinthians 8:1-6, the cosmology the Corinthians held and understood was Stoic, not Platonic. When Wierwille taught that there are two realms, the spiritual realm and the senses realm, and that the laws of the spirit realm take precedence over the laws of the senses realm, he was blowing Platonic bovine fecal matter!
The literal meaning of "spirit" is "air in motion." Things that have air moving in and out of them are alive. Things that no longer have air moving in and out of them are dead. So the word "spirit" took on the figurative meaning of "life-force", or "that which makes something otherwise dead alive." What 1 Corinthians 2 means needs to be re-thought.
Love,
Steve
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.