I must disagree with you on that point. While it may not have been invisible to you or a small minority of other Way followers, it was certainly highly touted and considered a crucial tenet of The Way in the 1970's. In fact, if you review the Way Corps principles (which are identical to the FellowLaborer principles), you will note that it is listed as part of #4.--Practice believing to bring material abundance to you and the Ministry.)
Even today, S.O.W.E.R.S lists this as being one of its 5 principles.
Well, I'll concede that it was far more obscure than it should have been, especially at WC level. But that said, I'd think it be difficult for anyone that was a part of or somewhat close to the research fellowship to have been unaware that there were unresolved issues with how pistis (faith / believing) were being taught. Perhaps it just wasn't an issue that was as widely discussed or talked as I may have presumed at the Corps level (especially in later years.) The problem, of course, is that none of us had enough of a handle on the truth at the time to know or realize what the truth was. It was, more or less, shelved until a "better understanding" arrived.
And looking back, things take on yet another perspective altogether. "Practice believing"? ...To do what, you say?
phhftt...! (to both of those.)
Wowser. (Such a different take on that at this point in life...)
I don't think there's any doubt that there are/were issues in the way "believing" was talked about or taught, but along with that it should be noted that this really isn't (or perhaps, shouldn't be) something new or only recently discovered. Because even back in the heydays of the ministry (i.e., the 70's) there were "known issues" with it. Unfortunately, not only were they never sufficiently addressed or resolved, evidently they continued to be ignored, cast aside and/or simply forgotten entirely in later years.
However, "believing" was not - and is not - thought of by everyone (in TWI, at least, back then) in the way and manner that it is described in this thread. And I'm no "apologist." I'm merely stating the reality of the situation.
edited: thought talked
According to some online definitions an apologist is a person who offers an argument in defense of something controversial; a person who defends or supports something (such as a religion, cause, or organization) that is being criticized or attacked by other people.
I will admit I am an outright apologist who wholeheartedly argues for the defense of using honest intellectual standards when it comes to discussing all things related to TWI. And I feel TWI has attacked the lives of good honest people as a parasite or some other gawd-awful soulless mooching creature thru the use of their mind-numbing doctrines and soul crushing practices....yeah let's talk turkey about the practical consequences of doctrine shall we.
You have stated in this post that you are not an apologist – I never said you were; I merely challenged you to provide clearly identified and defined hardcore facts instead of spouting vague generalities, speculations and assumptions. Without providing counterpoints to those made on this thread I for one am at a loss for understanding why you would make such bold declarations without any basis in facts.
Speaking for myself - on this thread or any other thread where i criticize some aspect of TWI you will notice i quote from TWI material, refer to a live teaching or some other personal experience or incident that i had witnessed. I may not be the most articulate person or even half way decent when it comes to debates - but i have yet to lose an argument over what I experienced. />....so if you could pleeeeeeease be more specific in what you experienced.
by the way - at best you have been stating your perception of the situation - maybe we'll get a better idea of the "reality" of the situation as you relate some real facts......just sayin'
Sure, I could be. But on this thread... that would invariably rain fire and brimstone down on it? Are you nuts?
Perhaps if there were a doctrinal thread that related to or touched on the matter, I would be more at ease voicing my thoughts further on the matter.
Well, I just might be nuts but that's beside the point.
As stated on the main page – and with a little help of Waysider's fine tuning in post # 22 discussions about TWI doctrines, practices, and leadership usually go in the About the Way forum – which is appropriate AND necessary for telling the other side of the TWI story (exposing the ugly, dark, evil, underbelly of this two faced beast); whereas discussions of general religious/ spiritual doctrinal beliefs go in the Doctrinal forum, that is also stated on the main page.
I don't understand why you feel the doctrinal forum is any "safer" than the About the Way forum when it comes to discussing doctrinal stuff. If the $hi_t don't fly in About the Way it sure as hell won't fly in doctrinal – it will be shot down – unless you have something substantial to back it up. That's just my opinion of course - I could be wrong. But on the other hand speculation is ok too – and that should be recognized as such…. sometimes speculation gets you thinking outside the box – that's why I think it's ok.
Anyway I just feel it's best to be upfront about any bias you have; unless, of course you have an aversion to taking a beating every now and then . I'm not kidding! Last year I got into a discussion in the doctrinal forum – and you know what? I got a tremendous whoopin. I think it's partly because I'm unskilled in the art of debate. I do tend to punch above my weight class anyway /> .
It can rain all you want.
I'm merely sayin' that its effect (and/or lack of effect) was not an invisible issue in the 70's.
I'm sorry but you'll have to be more specific....can you cite teachings, letters, anything that made the issues apparent to others?
Incidentally, even Geer took a stab at it in the late 80, early 90's.
To be honest a typical tactic of any leader vying for control is to pull the carpet out from under folks' feet; and it's not like they're yanking out any real support; it's all in their "critique" of your spiritual status; was it John T_wns3nd or some other yoyo who remarked on stage that collectively as a ministry we don't have the believing to float a turd. I mean…what the hell is that all about?!?! I did not sign up for PFAL for the express purpose of floating turds! I will NOT back down on that point - />
Well, I'll concede that it was far more obscure than it should have been, especially at WC level. But that said, I'd think it be difficult for anyone that was a part of or somewhat close to the research fellowship to have been unaware that there were unresolved issues with how pistis (faith / believing) were being taught. Perhaps it just wasn't an issue that was as widely discussed or talked as I may have presumed at the Corps level (especially in later years.) The problem, of course, is that none of us had enough of a handle on the truth at the time to know or realize what the truth was. It was, more or less, shelved until a "better understanding" arrived.
And looking back, things take on yet another perspective altogether. "Practice believing"? ...To do what, you say?
phhftt...! (to both of those.)
Wowser. (Such a different take on that at this point in life...)
Did you conduct a survey of TWI followers to surmise what doctrines people had issues with back then? I don't mean to give you a hard time – but putting this post together with your other ones I get the impression you're in denial and don't want to accept the fact that you were as clueless as the rest of us back then....but again - that's just my impression i could be wrong.
The whole "believing expedition" encompassed supplies, hitch-hiking, two-by-two communication,
positive attitude/believing to press on thru challenging situations and rocky elements, sent out
on your solo...er, duo.......and hitch-hike your butt back to campus without your partner
getting raped.
Heck, wierwille always bloviated about his "believing exploits"......he championed hitch-hiking.
Hell.....he was indeed the biggest spiritual hitch-hiker in all of twi. />
.
oh yeah Skyrider - going L.E.A.D. was a tremendous "gimmick" - it had no real value other than attracting attention as in an ad "hey, we've put the law of believing to the acid test ! Thumbs up for thumbs out !"
in my humble opinion it's just bravado to make you and others think that you're capable of doing great things for God - it was obviously nothing more than a merit badge you earned; you've gotta pay your dues if you want to be considered a success - - a "BELIEVER" .
maybe there was a "bright side" to it, though....i remember this one young lady constantly whining about the poor riding "accommodations" in the vehicles and the depressing conditions around truck stops.In one of my "finest" callous wise-cracking moments i said to her now you can sing the blues.
seriously - now i shudder to think how we - especially the women - put ourselves at risk to all kinds of dangers!!!! there's been threads that have covered such horrifying incidents while going to and from or at LEAD.
You have stated in this post that you are not an apologist – I never said you were; I merely challenged you to provide clearly identified and defined hardcore facts instead of spouting vague generalities, speculations and assumptions. Without providing counterpoints to those made on this thread I for one am at a loss for understanding why you would make such bold declarations without any basis in facts.
I put it in quotes for a reason. Namely, because of the repeated accusations from a boisterous soul towards (what seems like) anyone posting something not in complete alignment and accord with the "it was all BS and crap" sentiment of many here, of being a "TWIt N Vic apologist." I guess I'm surprised you didn't get that.
Furthermore, as for some of the rest of your post, I'm not motivated simply to "win an argument," so most of it just doesn't stir or mean much to me. And perhaps what I experienced and referred to in my previous statements might only make sense (or not) to those that likewise were there. It's simply, another side of the story.
I put it in quotes for a reason. Namely, because of the repeated accusations from a boisterous soul towards (what seems like) anyone posting something not in complete alignment and accord with the "it was all BS and crap" sentiment of many here, of being a "TWIt N Vic apologist." I guess I'm surprised you didn't get that.
Furthermore, as for some of the rest of your post, I'm not motivated simply to "win an argument," so most of it just doesn't stir or mean much to me. And perhaps what I experienced and referred to in my previous statements might only make sense (or not) to those that likewise were there. It's simply, another side of the story.
Perhaps if we knew a bit of your personal history, it would make it easier to consider your points. You don't have to divulge anything that would sacrifice your identity or any such thing. It's just that, when somebody gets on here and generically declares "I saw bad stuff, too", it doesn't do much to bolster their credibility.
Yeah, I know, you never wrote those words I encompassed in quotation marks. That' the message that comes across, though
I put it in quotes for a reason. Namely, because of the repeated accusations from a boisterous soul towards (what seems like) anyone posting something not in complete alignment and accord with the "it was all BS and crap" sentiment of many here, of being a "TWIt N Vic apologist." I guess I'm surprised you didn't get that.
Furthermore, as for some of the rest of your post, I'm not motivated simply to "win an argument," so most of it just doesn't stir or mean much to me. And perhaps what I experienced and referred to in my previous statements might only make sense (or not) to those that likewise were there. It's simply, another side of the story.
fair enough - point taken....thanks for your response
and i wholeheartedly agree with you - everyone's input contributes to Grease Spot's compendium that tells many sides of the story
Did you conduct a survey of TWI followers to surmise what doctrines people had issues with back then? I don't mean to give you a hard time – but putting this post together with your other ones I get the impression you're in denial and don't want to accept the fact that you were as clueless as the rest of us back then....but again - that's just my impression i could be wrong.
So, that's what you think or take to be "fact"? (Which is a bit strange, wouldn't you say, coming from one that was quick to elucidate my "reality" as only being my perception of it.)
Perhaps the mere indication (from what I had posted previously) that I might not have been as "clueless as the rest of [some of you] back then" is part of the reason (having pondered it from very early on) I have a bit different take and understand of what believing/faith is, biblically speaking. But then again, perhaps there are other, more significant reasons for it.
"Perhaps the mere indication (from what I had posted previously) that I might not have been as "clueless as the rest of [some of you] back then" is part of the reason (having pondered it from very early on) I have a bit different take and understand of what believing/faith is, biblically speaking."
"Perhaps the mere indication (from what I had posted previously) that I might not have been as "clueless as the rest of [some of you] back then" is part of the reason (having pondered it from very early on) I have a bit different take and understand of what believing/faith is, biblically speaking."
So, maybe you could elaborate on that?
Indeed. So elaborating could help us understand your perspective better. That is, unless you're satisfied that you've effectively made your case despite the fact that nobody seems to see it the way you (TLC) do.
Oops – stupid me – I thought you were done with me in your post # 31 – I do apologize for that.
Anyway to reiterate – here is what you said
I don't think there's any doubt that there are/were issues in the way "believing" was talked about or taught, but along with that it should be noted that this really isn't (or perhaps, shouldn't be) something new or only recently discovered. Because even back in the heydays of the ministry (i.e., the 70's) there were "known issues" with it. Unfortunately, not only were they never sufficiently addressed or resolved, evidently they continued to be ignored, cast aside and/or simply forgotten entirely in later years.
However, "believing" was not - and is not - thought of by everyone (in TWI, at least, back then) in the way and manner that it is described in this thread. And I'm no "apologist." I'm merely stating the reality of the situation.
edited: thought talked
then concerning that post about you merely stating the reality of the situation – I said
(SNIP)
by the way - at best you have been stating your perception of the situation - maybe we'll get a better idea of the "reality" of the situation as you relate some real facts......just sayin'
(SNIP)
When someone says "here's the reality of the situation" it usually means the truth or actuality of the situation; the way the situation really is; what is really going on; a person could use the phrase otherwise of course - but if their version of the situation does not line up with what others have observed with their eyeballs and ears - then, in my opinion it's more along the lines of their perception of the situation.
perception is the operative word - and can refer to a way of regarding, understanding, or interpreting something; a mental impression (i'm merely giving some online definitions of "perception" here); we sometimes hear people say "perception is reality".
And that's all i'm trying to do in my line of questioning to you. I would like to know - really know - if you saw and heard specific things that made these issues known to you and others - or was this just something YOU were aware of for some as yet unspoken reason.
i enjoy watching magic shows; but know what i enjoy even more - when magicians like Penn and Teller reveal how the magicians are able to pull off their tricks; what Penn and Teller reveal is the truth of the situation - the reality of the situation - It was sleight of hand...diverting my attention...It wasn't really magic after all....or was it.... mmmwha ha ha ha ha ha ? (that bit at the end was just for comedic relief btw :rolleyes:/> )
That's why I suggested you relate some real facts. Without getting to the point of what specific incidents, alternate teachings, rogue teachings, conversations with other TWI followers – besides yourself - you appear to be talking in circles to me...and then again maybe it's just me.
At least then I might consider the possibility that some sort of status report of known issues of what TWI taught about believing doesn't just exist in your head alone….sometimes we see what we want to see – even in retrospect – that happens to anyone; it's like a nasty little flip flop of some pet axiom but this time it's only "evident" to oneself – maybe it could be stated as believing equals perceiving.
So, that's what you think or take to be "fact"? (Which is a bit strange, wouldn't you say, coming from one that was quick to elucidate my "reality" as only being my perception of it.)
Perhaps the mere indication (from what I had posted previously) that I might not have been as "clueless as the rest of [some of you] back then" is part of the reason (having pondered it from very early on) I have a bit different take and understand of what believing/faith is, biblically speaking. But then again, perhaps there are other, more significant reasons for it.
Without specifics, facts, narratives, incidents, documents, conversations…or really anything that has come into concretion in the senses realm I can only assume you have come to possess this knowledge – "a different take and understand of what believing/faith is, biblically speaking. But then again, perhaps there are other, more significant reasons for it" by supernatural or philosophical means. And if that is the case – then perhaps you can elaborate on that as well.
….and don't know if you have the time and …..actual substance to share about the more significant reasons. I look forward to your clarifying response in these matters.
"Perhaps the mere indication (from what I had posted previously) that I might not have been as "clueless as the rest of [some of you] back then" is part of the reason (having pondered it from very early on) I have a bit different take and understand of what believing/faith is, biblically speaking."
So, maybe you could elaborate on that?
Well, for starters, how has anyone really been far even as decided to use even go want to do look more like? Not that there isn't, unless there is. Not that I'm saying you did, but you did.
Well, for starters, how has anyone really been far even as decided to use even go want to do look more like? Not that there isn't, unless there is. Not that I'm saying you did, but you did.
I did not mean to give anyone the idea that one's perception of a situation is necessarily a bad thing. But factual details about the same situation may be just as important too. Facts of the situation provide the context by which we may assess the situation – perhaps to give an evaluation of what happened.
Since I said earlier that we often see what we want to see – i.e. believing equals perceiving – then our perception of a situation can change if our beliefs change. And as I said earlier I'm using "perception" here in a typical fashion as one would use it to express a way of regarding, understanding, or interpreting something; a mental impression.
As an example of how perception of a situation can change – pivoting on a change of beliefs I will relate a specific incident – the facts only, mind you – of something I experienced while in the way corps. I have related this story before – but I will keep it brief here – only using it as an example here of how one's own perception of a situation can change if one's mind chooses how to re-interpret it. I will not include names of those present except for the "master of ceremonies" out of respect for the privacy, safety and security of folks; nor will I give the exact date of when this occurred – because I am lazy and don't want to dig out one of my corps journals in the attic to nail down the exact date. So I will just give general information on facts so you get the context.
The Incident – I list only highlights of certain things said and done: It happened at the Ways Corps campus in Rome City, Indiana; It is evening; we are having a pajama party and VP is the master of ceremonies; I am Family 11 (younger corps) and also present are Family 10 (elder corps); since this is a Family Corps event – teens are also present; VP holds up something he tries to describe along the lines of a pornographic pen and said it has a small image of a man and woman screwing on the side of the pen – he explained you have to jiggle the pen – to make the screwing action happen; VP invites a very attractive sixteen year old girl to come to the front so he can show her this pen up close; VP shows us a porn video – two women screwing a dog; while the video plays, one of the elder corps quips "Lord I've got a beagle inside" – some awkward chuckles pepper our group; after the video, VP tells us I've so renewed my mind that this stuff doesn't bother me; he also explains his reasoning in showing us the porn video – he said he wanted to prepare us for counseling situations so that nothing should shock us.
My original perception of that incident – from the night it happened up until I joined Grease Spot was that VP was always a true teacher at heart and would use every opportunity to train his loyal followers. However, over the course of hearing accounts of VP's licentiousness and sexual molestations (sometimes from the victims themselves – even from the wives of leadership that I was under – most of the leadership in my state were leaving TWI after POP – and they were breaking open the lock box !); now that i think of it - maybe this new perception of VP was slowly percolating in my heart - the cumulative effect of processing those accounts of VP even before I came to Grease Spot.
it didn't take long for my perception of VP to change – I should add it changed rather quickly since it was coupled with my pursuit of finding out the quality of his scholarship. So now instead of a "seeing" (perceiving) him as a teacher I "see" him as a shyster who also happens to be a sexual predator.
So to reiterate my point – the facts did not change my perception of that incident. That's merely the context; what changed was my attitude towards VP…what changed was the reawakening of my sense of appropriateness and morality – probably from growing up in the Roman Catholic Church….ironic – after seeing the movie Spotlight I'm glad I was just a little old parishioner and wasn't interested in the priesthood. Feeling guilty about stuff probably helped keep me in line (sort of) during my teen years anyway .
That's why I think it would be very interesting if TLC would share some hard facts about the situation or situations he refers to with "the known issues of TWI's teaching on faith/believing" ; that would allow others to get a sense of the context and decide for themselves….as with my incident of the pajama party – any poster reading of my incident may still consider VP a consummate teacher with a heart of gold. And that's ok – you have the right to interpret, perceive or understand my incident - or even your own incidents - any way you like. And you may post it here in response to my post. I will not bite your head off. I will not lambast you - maybe your interpretation of the facts I'll criticize - but not you. I will not harass you. I believe Grease Spot is still a great place to be honest and think out loud.
"the ultimate truth", spiritual matters, fantasies, speculations, theories, daydreams, nightmares, philosophies and what not – may only have some form of "existence" in the mind; but when something inhabits the real world - be it facts, books, an actual event, a conversation with someone, a physical experience – then one has something to latch onto and evaluate;
since i've been talking about perception - this "evaluating" is often an exercise in abstract thought anyway - and that's where having some critical thinking skills comes in handy; if you were a mechanic and asked to evaluate the design of a car for functionality and reliability - you would probably conduct lots of road tests and use diagnostic tools to check all that out. When we discuss TWI doctrines - it's sort of like that. Sometimes folks' perception of TWI doctrine may change - simply because they're using a different set of diagnostic tools and have re-visited some of their experiences during the road tests.
Hmmm after I said all this it occurred to me I may be talking about magical thinking after all....I just looked up magic online and found this – "the power of apparently influencing the course of events by using mysterious or supernatural forces." Well I'll be!!!!! I was talking about believing equals perceiving – and there you have it. I have changed my perception of an incident by a very mysterious force – my mind…
....mysterious indeed.
Grease spotters, I am sorry for hogging this thread…I'm just having so much fun thinking out loud!
PS - The above incident is a defining moment in my TWI experience - and you might find interesting a thread that I started with this incident, TWI's sedative to the conscience.
I did not mean to give anyone the idea that one's perception of a situation is necessarily a bad thing. But factual details about the same situation may be just as important too. Facts of the situation provide the context by which we may assess the situation – perhaps to give an evaluation of what happened.
Since I said earlier that we often see what we want to see – i.e. believing equals perceiving – then our perception of a situation can change if our beliefs change. And as I said earlier I'm using "perception" here in a typical fashion as one would use it to express a way of regarding, understanding, or interpreting something; a mental impression.
As an example of how perception of a situation can change – pivoting on a change of beliefs I will relate a specific incident – the facts only, mind you – of something I experienced while in the way corps. I have related this story before – but I will keep it brief here – only using it as an example here of how one's own perception of a situation can change if one's mind chooses how to re-interpret it. I will not include names of those present except for the "master of ceremonies" out of respect for the privacy, safety and security of folks; nor will I give the exact date of when this occurred – because I am lazy and don't want to dig out one of my corps journals in the attic to nail down the exact date. So I will just give general information on facts so you get the context.
The Incident – I list only highlights of certain things said and done: It happened at the Ways Corps campus in Rome City, Indiana; It is evening; we are having a pajama party and VP is the master of ceremonies; I am Family 11 (younger corps) and also present are Family 10 (elder corps); since this is a Family Corps event – teens are also present; VP holds up something he tries to describe along the lines of a pornographic pen and said it has a small image of a man and woman screwing on the side of the pen – he explained you have to jiggle the pen – to make the screwing action happen; VP invites a very attractive sixteen year old girl to come to the front so he can show her this pen up close; VP shows us a porn video – two women screwing a dog; while the video plays, one of the elder corps quips "Lord I've got a beagle inside" – some awkward chuckles pepper our group; after the video, VP tells us I've so renewed my mind that this stuff doesn't bother me; he also explains his reasoning in showing us the porn video – he said he wanted to prepare us for counseling situations so that nothing should shock us.
My original perception of that incident – from the night it happened up until I joined Grease Spot was that VP was always a true teacher at heart and would use every opportunity to train his loyal followers. However, over the course of hearing accounts of VP's licentiousness and sexual molestations (sometimes from the victims themselves – even from the wives of leadership that I was under – most of the leadership in my state were leaving TWI after POP – and they were breaking open the lock box !); now that i think of it - maybe this new perception of VP was slowly percolating in my heart - the cumulative effect of processing those accounts of VP even before I came to Grease Spot.
it didn't take long for my perception of VP to change – I should add it changed rather quickly since it was coupled with my pursuit of finding out the quality of his scholarship. So now instead of a "seeing" (perceiving) him as a teacher I "see" him as a shyster who also happens to be a sexual predator.
So to reiterate my point – the facts did not change my perception of that incident. That's merely the context; what changed was my attitude towards VP…what changed was the reawakening of my sense of appropriateness and morality – probably from growing up in the Roman Catholic Church….ironic – after seeing the movie Spotlight I'm glad I was just a little old parishioner and wasn't interested in the priesthood. Feeling guilty about stuff probably helped keep me in line (sort of) during my teen years anyway .
That's why I think it would be very interesting if TLC would share some hard facts about the situation or situations he refers to with "the known issues of TWI's teaching on faith/believing" ; that would allow others to get a sense of the context and decide for themselves….as with my incident of the pajama party – any poster reading of my incident may still consider VP a consummate teacher with a heart of gold. And that's ok – you have the right to interpret, perceive or understand my incident - or even your own incidents - any way you like. And you may post it here in response to my post. I will not bite your head off. I will not lambast you - maybe your interpretation of the facts I'll criticize - but not you. I will not harass you. I believe Grease Spot is still a great place to be honest and think out loud.
"the ultimate truth", spiritual matters, fantasies, speculations, theories, daydreams, nightmares, philosophies and what not – may only have some form of "existence" in the mind; but when something inhabits the real world - be it facts, books, an actual event, a conversation with someone, a physical experience – then one has something to latch onto and evaluate;
since i've been talking about perception - this "evaluating" is often an exercise in abstract thought anyway - and that's where having some critical thinking skills comes in handy; if you were a mechanic and asked to evaluate the design of a car for functionality and reliability - you would probably conduct lots of road tests and use diagnostic tools to check all that out. When we discuss TWI doctrines - it's sort of like that. Sometimes folks' perception of TWI doctrine may change - simply because they're using a different set of diagnostic tools and have re-visited some of their experiences during the road tests.
Hmmm after I said all this it occurred to me I may be talking about magical thinking after all....I just looked up magic online and found this – "the power of apparently influencing the course of events by using mysterious or supernatural forces." Well I'll be!!!!! I was talking about believing equals perceiving – and there you have it. I have changed my perception of an incident by a very mysterious force – my mind…
....mysterious indeed.
Grease spotters, I am sorry for hogging this thread…I'm just having so much fun thinking out loud!
PS - The above incident is a defining moment in my TWI experience - and you might find interesting a thread that I started with this incident, TWI's sedative to the conscience.
No need to apologize. Perception is intrinsically tied into magical thinking. Frankly, I think you make an excellent point about believing equals perceiving. :)
I've thought (many times) back to when I first sat through the advanced class on PFLAP. Trying my darnedest to figure out if I was receiving revelation, I perceived that I was doing so when now I believe differently -- that I was learning how to intuitively add 2 + 2 and come up with a reasonable answer without necessarily having to think it through.
That skill has served me well even though I no longer believe it to be revelation from God.
but seriously Bolshevik - great post ! i checked out your link on ego inflation - and it goes along nicely with what i was saying about what's actually happening externally and how you're processing it internally; thanks for that !
No need to apologize. Perception is intrinsically tied into magical thinking. Frankly, I think you make an excellent point about believing equals perceiving.
I've thought (many times) back to when I first sat through the advanced class on PFLAP. Trying my darnedest to figure out if I was receiving revelation, I perceived that I was doing so when now I believe differently -- that I was learning how to intuitively add 2 + 2 and come up with a reasonable answer without necessarily having to think it through.
That skill has served me well even though I no longer believe it to be revelation from God.
Rocky that reminds me of something i read about ages ago - i thought it was gambler's fallacy but looking that up now i don't think that was it;but anyway - it went along a similar vein of what you said about operating intuitively - but it had to do with guessing; and i think the movieFocus incorporates this idea - that sometimes we think we're making an absolutely arbitrary choice in a set of options (like if you to say to me pick a number from 1 to 100) but when rushed to make a choice we often tend to choose something from a palette of "preferences" or "odd associations" at the subconscious level; I may choose the number 22 because that was the number of my old football jersey; or i may say 50 because i just lost $50 in a poker game with you ....let's add emotions as a factor too, as well as memories.
Anyway, you'll know what i'm talking about if you've seen the movie Focus - the scene after the big con of betting on various things happening at the football game - where Will Smith explains to his associate how he "pre-programmed" the guy with subconscious prompts to "randomly" pick jersey number 55.
it may be comforting to think our brains have the potential to function with the cold calculating efficiency of a computer -but there's a lot more going on down there at the subconscious level....there is sort of a mysterious and magical quality about all that - - don't you think?
but seriously Bolshevik - great post ! i checked out your link on ego inflation - and it goes along nicely with what i was saying about what's actually happening externally and how you're processing it internally; thanks for that !
. . .
I got the idea from the JP sears video earlier in this thread on the law of attraction . . . I thought it fit.
Also . . . when you changed your perception of your experience of VPW's intent with the dog video, . . did you change the past? Because you can't change the past.
Edited to add
I've wondered if the "ego inflation" aspect of The Law of Believing acted as a positive feedback mechanism to keep people coming back for more. People who join cults are often in a weakened state? So wouldn't ego inflation/believing make them feel better?
"Perhaps the mere indication (from what I had posted previously) that I might not have been as "clueless as the rest of [some of you] back then" is part of the reason (having pondered it from very early on) I have a bit different take and understand of what believing/faith is, biblically speaking."
So, maybe you could elaborate on that?
Well, I suppose I could... so, maybe I will. But, the time it might take me to consider the most effective way to do it might be longer than you'd like. I'll need to think about it.
When someone says "here's the reality of the situation" it usually means the truth or actuality of the situation; the way the situation really is; what is really going on; a person could use the phrase otherwise of course - but if their version of the situation does not line up with what others have observed with their eyeballs and ears - then, in my opinion it's more along the lines of their perception of the situation.
perception is the operative word - and can refer to a way of regarding, understanding, or interpreting something; a mental impression (i'm merely giving some online definitions of "perception" here); we sometimes hear people say "perception is reality".
And that's all i'm trying to do in my line of questioning to you. I would like to know - really know - if you saw and heard specific things that made these issues known to you and others - or was this just something YOU were aware of for some as yet unspoken reason.
That's why I suggested you relate some real facts. Without getting to the point of what specific incidents, alternate teachings, rogue teachings, conversations with other TWI followers besides yourself - you appear to be talking in circles to me...and then again maybe it's just me.
At least then I might consider the possibility that some sort of status report of known issues of what TWI taught about believing doesn't just exist in your head alone….sometimes we see what we want to see even in retrospect that happens to anyone; it's like a nasty little flip flop of some pet axiom but this time it's only "evident" to oneself maybe it could be stated as believing equals perceiving.
I've already stated in a previous post that anyone that was involved in, or that was reasonably close to, the research fellowship at TWI (circa '83-'85) surely was aware that there were unresolved issues around how pistis was being handled and taught in the ministry. (Perhaps you missed that.) At the very least, DWBH or Charlene ought to be able to confirm the reality of at least that much of what I said for you. Maybe there's others here that were aware of it at the time. Otherwise, you probably won't think or take it as anything other than something which uniquely existed in my own head.
(Though it may have started with trying to delineate what the "household of faith" meant or referred to, it necessitated a better handle on - or understanding of - "pistis.")
Did any of you ever wonder what "the household of faith" really was, or was the meaning of it so smooth and polished by the time you heard it that it never crossed your mind (back in the day) to question it?
Well, I suppose I could... so, maybe I will. But, the time it might take me to consider the most effective way to do it might be longer than you'd like. I'll need to think about it.
There used to be a guy who posted here (His name rhymes with psych.) who would carry on for a page and a half about how he didn't have time to post.
I've already stated in a previous post that anyone that was involved in, or that was reasonably close to, the research fellowship at TWI (circa '83-'85) surely was aware that there were unresolved issues around how pistis was being handled and taught in the ministry. (Perhaps you missed that.) At the very least, DWBH or Charlene ought to be able to confirm the reality of at least that much of what I said for you. Maybe there's others here that were aware of it at the time. Otherwise, you probably won't think or take it as anything other than something which uniquely existed in my own head.
(Though it may have started with trying to delineate what the "household of faith" meant or referred to, it necessitated a better handle on - or understanding of - "pistis.")
Did any of you ever wonder what "the household of faith" really was, or was the meaning of it so smooth and polished by the time you heard it that it never crossed your mind (back in the day) to question it?
Yes, the Greek word "pistis" as VPW taught it presented problems, although I don't have the details of why or how at my fingertips. I do remember this issue coming up while I was on the research team 84-86 at HQ. I suggested that perhaps someone in the graduating corps might do a research paper on "pistis" (a paper like that was required to graduate), but I was told no, no, no, that topic is a problem, i.e. certain team members knew "we" could not substantiate what VPW taught about it. Maybe VP "borrowed" his teachings about faith/believing from some other man's book/teachings. He was known for doing that.
Recommended Posts
Top Posters In This Topic
23
20
15
29
Popular Days
Jul 26
28
Jul 24
19
Jul 23
16
Jul 21
11
Top Posters In This Topic
T-Bone 23 posts
waysider 20 posts
Bolshevik 15 posts
TLC 29 posts
Popular Days
Jul 26 2016
28 posts
Jul 24 2016
19 posts
Jul 23 2016
16 posts
Jul 21 2016
11 posts
Popular Posts
waysider
Well, OK, here's the first part: "Perhaps the mere indication (from what I had posted previously) that I might not have been as "clueless as the rest of [some of you] back then" is part of the reason
T-Bone
Rocky thanks for that link to magical thinking – I've bookmarked it so I can review it a few times – good stuff. VP's skewed version of Christianity was a lot about being in control and manipulati
penworks
If I could put these two sentences in a flashing neon sign, I would. Speaking from experience, this lies at the heart of fanaticism.
TLC
Well, I'll concede that it was far more obscure than it should have been, especially at WC level. But that said, I'd think it be difficult for anyone that was a part of or somewhat close to the research fellowship to have been unaware that there were unresolved issues with how pistis (faith / believing) were being taught. Perhaps it just wasn't an issue that was as widely discussed or talked as I may have presumed at the Corps level (especially in later years.) The problem, of course, is that none of us had enough of a handle on the truth at the time to know or realize what the truth was. It was, more or less, shelved until a "better understanding" arrived.
And looking back, things take on yet another perspective altogether. "Practice believing"? ...To do what, you say?
phhftt...! (to both of those.)
Wowser. (Such a different take on that at this point in life...)
Edited by TLCLink to comment
Share on other sites
T-Bone
According to some online definitions an apologist is a person who offers an argument in defense of something controversial; a person who defends or supports something (such as a religion, cause, or organization) that is being criticized or attacked by other people.
I will admit I am an outright apologist who wholeheartedly argues for the defense of using honest intellectual standards when it comes to discussing all things related to TWI. And I feel TWI has attacked the lives of good honest people as a parasite or some other gawd-awful soulless mooching creature thru the use of their mind-numbing doctrines and soul crushing practices....yeah let's talk turkey about the practical consequences of doctrine shall we.
You have stated in this post that you are not an apologist – I never said you were; I merely challenged you to provide clearly identified and defined hardcore facts instead of spouting vague generalities, speculations and assumptions. Without providing counterpoints to those made on this thread I for one am at a loss for understanding why you would make such bold declarations without any basis in facts.
Speaking for myself - on this thread or any other thread where i criticize some aspect of TWI you will notice i quote from TWI material, refer to a live teaching or some other personal experience or incident that i had witnessed. I may not be the most articulate person or even half way decent when it comes to debates - but i have yet to lose an argument over what I experienced.
/>....so if you could pleeeeeeease be more specific in what you experienced.
by the way - at best you have been stating your perception of the situation - maybe we'll get a better idea of the "reality" of the situation as you relate some real facts......just sayin'
Well, I just might be nuts but that's beside the point.
As stated on the main page – and with a little help of Waysider's fine tuning in post # 22 discussions about TWI doctrines, practices, and leadership usually go in the About the Way forum – which is appropriate AND necessary for telling the other side of the TWI story (exposing the ugly, dark, evil, underbelly of this two faced beast); whereas discussions of general religious/ spiritual doctrinal beliefs go in the Doctrinal forum, that is also stated on the main page.
I don't understand why you feel the doctrinal forum is any "safer" than the About the Way forum when it comes to discussing doctrinal stuff. If the $hi_t don't fly in About the Way it sure as hell won't fly in doctrinal – it will be shot down – unless you have something substantial to back it up. That's just my opinion of course - I could be wrong. But on the other hand speculation is ok too – and that should be recognized as such…. sometimes speculation gets you thinking outside the box – that's why I think it's ok.
Anyway I just feel it's best to be upfront about any bias you have; unless, of course you have an aversion to taking a beating every now and then . I'm not kidding! Last year I got into a discussion in the doctrinal forum – and you know what? I got a tremendous whoopin. I think it's partly because I'm unskilled in the art of debate. I do tend to punch above my weight class anyway
/> .
I'm sorry but you'll have to be more specific....can you cite teachings, letters, anything that made the issues apparent to others?
To be honest a typical tactic of any leader vying for control is to pull the carpet out from under folks' feet; and it's not like they're yanking out any real support; it's all in their "critique" of your spiritual status; was it John T_wns3nd or some other yoyo who remarked on stage that collectively as a ministry we don't have the believing to float a turd. I mean…what the hell is that all about?!?! I did not sign up for PFAL for the express purpose of floating turds! I will NOT back down on that point -
/>
Did you conduct a survey of TWI followers to surmise what doctrines people had issues with back then? I don't mean to give you a hard time – but putting this post together with your other ones I get the impression you're in denial and don't want to accept the fact that you were as clueless as the rest of us back then....but again - that's just my impression i could be wrong.
Edited by T-BoneLink to comment
Share on other sites
T-Bone
oh yeah Skyrider - going L.E.A.D. was a tremendous "gimmick" - it had no real value other than attracting attention as in an ad "hey, we've put the law of believing to the acid test ! Thumbs up for thumbs out !"
in my humble opinion it's just bravado to make you and others think that you're capable of doing great things for God - it was obviously nothing more than a merit badge you earned; you've gotta pay your dues if you want to be considered a success - - a "BELIEVER" .
maybe there was a "bright side" to it, though....i remember this one young lady constantly whining about the poor riding "accommodations" in the vehicles and the depressing conditions around truck stops.In one of my "finest" callous wise-cracking moments i said to her now you can sing the blues.
seriously - now i shudder to think how we - especially the women - put ourselves at risk to all kinds of dangers!!!! there's been threads that have covered such horrifying incidents while going to and from or at LEAD.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bolshevik
Magical thinking is a mental tool used by all minds (human and animal). It is an evolved mental process.
The Law of Believing is specifically conditioning your own magical thinking to the completely imagined reality of The Way. Group self-delusion.
Which is why nobody, ever, has been able to explain The Law of Believing in practical terms.
Just throwing that out there.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
TLC
I put it in quotes for a reason. Namely, because of the repeated accusations from a boisterous soul towards (what seems like) anyone posting something not in complete alignment and accord with the "it was all BS and crap" sentiment of many here, of being a "TWIt N Vic apologist." I guess I'm surprised you didn't get that.
Furthermore, as for some of the rest of your post, I'm not motivated simply to "win an argument," so most of it just doesn't stir or mean much to me. And perhaps what I experienced and referred to in my previous statements might only make sense (or not) to those that likewise were there. It's simply, another side of the story.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
waysider
Perhaps if we knew a bit of your personal history, it would make it easier to consider your points. You don't have to divulge anything that would sacrifice your identity or any such thing. It's just that, when somebody gets on here and generically declares "I saw bad stuff, too", it doesn't do much to bolster their credibility.
Yeah, I know, you never wrote those words I encompassed in quotation marks. That' the message that comes across, though
Edited by waysiderLink to comment
Share on other sites
T-Bone
fair enough - point taken....thanks for your response
and i wholeheartedly agree with you - everyone's input contributes to Grease Spot's compendium that tells many sides of the story
Link to comment
Share on other sites
TLC
So, that's what you think or take to be "fact"? (Which is a bit strange, wouldn't you say, coming from one that was quick to elucidate my "reality" as only being my perception of it.)
Perhaps the mere indication (from what I had posted previously) that I might not have been as "clueless as the rest of [some of you] back then" is part of the reason (having pondered it from very early on) I have a bit different take and understand of what believing/faith is, biblically speaking. But then again, perhaps there are other, more significant reasons for it.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
waysider
"But then again, perhaps there are other, more significant reasons for it."
It might help us to understand if you would elaborate on those "more significant reasons".
Link to comment
Share on other sites
TLC
Beats me. That's only said in case you want to blow the first reason off.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
waysider
Well, OK, here's the first part:
"Perhaps the mere indication (from what I had posted previously) that I might not have been as "clueless as the rest of [some of you] back then" is part of the reason (having pondered it from very early on) I have a bit different take and understand of what believing/faith is, biblically speaking."
So, maybe you could elaborate on that?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Rocky
Indeed. So elaborating could help us understand your perspective better. That is, unless you're satisfied that you've effectively made your case despite the fact that nobody seems to see it the way you (TLC) do.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
T-Bone
Oops – stupid me
– I thought you were done with me in your post # 31 – I do apologize for that.
Anyway to reiterate – here is what you said
then concerning that post about you merely stating the reality of the situation – I said
When someone says "here's the reality of the situation" it usually means the truth or actuality of the situation; the way the situation really is; what is really going on; a person could use the phrase otherwise of course - but if their version of the situation does not line up with what others have observed with their eyeballs and ears - then, in my opinion it's more along the lines of their perception of the situation.
perception is the operative word - and can refer to a way of regarding, understanding, or interpreting something; a mental impression (i'm merely giving some online definitions of "perception" here); we sometimes hear people say "perception is reality".
And that's all i'm trying to do in my line of questioning to you. I would like to know - really know - if you saw and heard specific things that made these issues known to you and others - or was this just something YOU were aware of for some as yet unspoken reason.
i enjoy watching magic shows; but know what i enjoy even more - when magicians like Penn and Teller reveal how the magicians are able to pull off their tricks; what Penn and Teller reveal is the truth of the situation - the reality of the situation - It was sleight of hand...diverting my attention...It wasn't really magic after all....or was it.... mmmwha ha ha ha ha ha ? (that bit at the end was just for comedic relief btw :rolleyes:/> )
That's why I suggested you relate some real facts. Without getting to the point of what specific incidents, alternate teachings, rogue teachings, conversations with other TWI followers – besides yourself - you appear to be talking in circles to me...and then again maybe it's just me.
At least then I might consider the possibility that some sort of status report of known issues of what TWI taught about believing doesn't just exist in your head alone….sometimes we see what we want to see – even in retrospect – that happens to anyone; it's like a nasty little flip flop of some pet axiom but this time it's only "evident" to oneself – maybe it could be stated as believing equals perceiving.
Without specifics, facts, narratives, incidents, documents, conversations…or really anything that has come into concretion in the senses realm I can only assume you have come to possess this knowledge – "a different take and understand of what believing/faith is, biblically speaking. But then again, perhaps there are other, more significant reasons for it" by supernatural or philosophical means. And if that is the case – then perhaps you can elaborate on that as well.
….and don't know if you have the time and …..actual substance to share about the more significant reasons. I look forward to your clarifying response in these matters.
(edited for clarity and hilarity)
Edited by T-BoneLink to comment
Share on other sites
Bolshevik
Well, for starters, how has anyone really been far even as decided to use even go want to do look more like? Not that there isn't, unless there is. Not that I'm saying you did, but you did.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
waysider
Thanks for making that so clear.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
T-Bone
A few afterthoughts on perception:
I did not mean to give anyone the idea that one's perception of a situation is necessarily a bad thing. But factual details about the same situation may be just as important too. Facts of the situation provide the context by which we may assess the situation – perhaps to give an evaluation of what happened.
Since I said earlier that we often see what we want to see – i.e. believing equals perceiving – then our perception of a situation can change if our beliefs change. And as I said earlier I'm using "perception" here in a typical fashion as one would use it to express a way of regarding, understanding, or interpreting something; a mental impression.
As an example of how perception of a situation can change – pivoting on a change of beliefs I will relate a specific incident – the facts only, mind you – of something I experienced while in the way corps. I have related this story before – but I will keep it brief here – only using it as an example here of how one's own perception of a situation can change if one's mind chooses how to re-interpret it. I will not include names of those present except for the "master of ceremonies" out of respect for the privacy, safety and security of folks; nor will I give the exact date of when this occurred – because I am lazy and don't want to dig out one of my corps journals in the attic to nail down the exact date. So I will just give general information on facts so you get the context.
The Incident – I list only highlights of certain things said and done: It happened at the Ways Corps campus in Rome City, Indiana; It is evening; we are having a pajama party and VP is the master of ceremonies; I am Family 11 (younger corps) and also present are Family 10 (elder corps); since this is a Family Corps event – teens are also present; VP holds up something he tries to describe along the lines of a pornographic pen and said it has a small image of a man and woman screwing on the side of the pen – he explained you have to jiggle the pen – to make the screwing action happen; VP invites a very attractive sixteen year old girl to come to the front so he can show her this pen up close; VP shows us a porn video – two women screwing a dog; while the video plays, one of the elder corps quips "Lord I've got a beagle inside" – some awkward chuckles pepper our group; after the video, VP tells us I've so renewed my mind that this stuff doesn't bother me; he also explains his reasoning in showing us the porn video – he said he wanted to prepare us for counseling situations so that nothing should shock us.
My original perception of that incident – from the night it happened up until I joined Grease Spot was that VP was always a true teacher at heart and would use every opportunity to train his loyal followers. However, over the course of hearing accounts of VP's licentiousness and sexual molestations (sometimes from the victims themselves – even from the wives of leadership that I was under – most of the leadership in my state were leaving TWI after POP – and they were breaking open the lock box !); now that i think of it - maybe this new perception of VP was slowly percolating in my heart - the cumulative effect of processing those accounts of VP even before I came to Grease Spot.
it didn't take long for my perception of VP to change – I should add it changed rather quickly since it was coupled with my pursuit of finding out the quality of his scholarship. So now instead of a "seeing" (perceiving) him as a teacher I "see" him as a shyster who also happens to be a sexual predator.
So to reiterate my point – the facts did not change my perception of that incident. That's merely the context; what changed was my attitude towards VP…what changed was the reawakening of my sense of appropriateness and morality – probably from growing up in the Roman Catholic Church….ironic – after seeing the movie Spotlight I'm glad I was just a little old parishioner and wasn't interested in the priesthood. Feeling guilty about stuff probably helped keep me in line (sort of) during my teen years anyway
.
That's why I think it would be very interesting if TLC would share some hard facts about the situation or situations he refers to with "the known issues of TWI's teaching on faith/believing" ; that would allow others to get a sense of the context and decide for themselves….as with my incident of the pajama party – any poster reading of my incident may still consider VP a consummate teacher with a heart of gold. And that's ok – you have the right to interpret, perceive or understand my incident - or even your own incidents - any way you like. And you may post it here in response to my post. I will not bite your head off. I will not lambast you - maybe your interpretation of the facts I'll criticize - but not you. I will not harass you. I believe Grease Spot is still a great place to be honest and think out loud.
"the ultimate truth", spiritual matters, fantasies, speculations, theories, daydreams, nightmares, philosophies and what not – may only have some form of "existence" in the mind; but when something inhabits the real world - be it facts, books, an actual event, a conversation with someone, a physical experience – then one has something to latch onto and evaluate;
since i've been talking about perception - this "evaluating" is often an exercise in abstract thought anyway - and that's where having some critical thinking skills comes in handy; if you were a mechanic and asked to evaluate the design of a car for functionality and reliability - you would probably conduct lots of road tests and use diagnostic tools to check all that out. When we discuss TWI doctrines - it's sort of like that. Sometimes folks' perception of TWI doctrine may change - simply because they're using a different set of diagnostic tools and have re-visited some of their experiences during the road tests.
Hmmm after I said all this it occurred to me I may be talking about magical thinking after all....I just looked up magic online and found this – "the power of apparently influencing the course of events by using mysterious or supernatural forces." Well I'll be!!!!! I was talking about believing equals perceiving – and there you have it. I have changed my perception of an incident by a very mysterious force – my mind…
....mysterious indeed.
Grease spotters, I am sorry for hogging this thread…I'm just having so much fun thinking out loud!
PS - The above incident is a defining moment in my TWI experience - and you might find interesting a thread that I started with this incident, TWI's sedative to the conscience.
TWi's sedative to the conscience
(edited for clarity)
Edited by T-BoneLink to comment
Share on other sites
Bolshevik
Hahahahaha!!
Ego Inflation
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Rocky
No need to apologize. Perception is intrinsically tied into magical thinking. Frankly, I think you make an excellent point about believing equals perceiving. :)
I've thought (many times) back to when I first sat through the advanced class on PFLAP. Trying my darnedest to figure out if I was receiving revelation, I perceived that I was doing so when now I believe differently -- that I was learning how to intuitively add 2 + 2 and come up with a reasonable answer without necessarily having to think it through.
That skill has served me well even though I no longer believe it to be revelation from God.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
T-Bone
curses - foiled again
but seriously Bolshevik - great post ! i checked out your link on ego inflation - and it goes along nicely with what i was saying about what's actually happening externally and how you're processing it internally; thanks for that !
Rocky that reminds me of something i read about ages ago - i thought it was gambler's fallacy but looking that up now i don't think that was it;but anyway - it went along a similar vein of what you said about operating intuitively - but it had to do with guessing; and i think the movie Focus incorporates this idea - that sometimes we think we're making an absolutely arbitrary choice in a set of options (like if you to say to me pick a number from 1 to 100) but when rushed to make a choice we often tend to choose something from a palette of "preferences" or "odd associations" at the subconscious level; I may choose the number 22 because that was the number of my old football jersey; or i may say 50 because i just lost $50 in a poker game with you
....let's add emotions as a factor too, as well as memories.
Anyway, you'll know what i'm talking about if you've seen the movie Focus - the scene after the big con of betting on various things happening at the football game - where Will Smith explains to his associate how he "pre-programmed" the guy with subconscious prompts to "randomly" pick jersey number 55.
it may be comforting to think our brains have the potential to function with the cold calculating efficiency of a computer -but there's a lot more going on down there at the subconscious level....there is sort of a mysterious and magical quality about all that - - don't you think?
(edited for clarity)
Edited by T-BoneLink to comment
Share on other sites
Bolshevik
I got the idea from the JP sears video earlier in this thread on the law of attraction . . . I thought it fit.
Also . . . when you changed your perception of your experience of VPW's intent with the dog video, . . did you change the past? Because you can't change the past.
Edited to add
I've wondered if the "ego inflation" aspect of The Law of Believing acted as a positive feedback mechanism to keep people coming back for more. People who join cults are often in a weakened state? So wouldn't ego inflation/believing make them feel better?
Edited by BolshevikLink to comment
Share on other sites
TLC
Well, I suppose I could... so, maybe I will. But, the time it might take me to consider the most effective way to do it might be longer than you'd like. I'll need to think about it.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
TLC
I've already stated in a previous post that anyone that was involved in, or that was reasonably close to, the research fellowship at TWI (circa '83-'85) surely was aware that there were unresolved issues around how pistis was being handled and taught in the ministry. (Perhaps you missed that.) At the very least, DWBH or Charlene ought to be able to confirm the reality of at least that much of what I said for you. Maybe there's others here that were aware of it at the time. Otherwise, you probably won't think or take it as anything other than something which uniquely existed in my own head.
(Though it may have started with trying to delineate what the "household of faith" meant or referred to, it necessitated a better handle on - or understanding of - "pistis.")
Did any of you ever wonder what "the household of faith" really was, or was the meaning of it so smooth and polished by the time you heard it that it never crossed your mind (back in the day) to question it?
Edited by TLCLink to comment
Share on other sites
waysider
There used to be a guy who posted here (His name rhymes with psych.) who would carry on for a page and a half about how he didn't have time to post.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
penworks
Yes, the Greek word "pistis" as VPW taught it presented problems, although I don't have the details of why or how at my fingertips. I do remember this issue coming up while I was on the research team 84-86 at HQ. I suggested that perhaps someone in the graduating corps might do a research paper on "pistis" (a paper like that was required to graduate), but I was told no, no, no, that topic is a problem, i.e. certain team members knew "we" could not substantiate what VPW taught about it. Maybe VP "borrowed" his teachings about faith/believing from some other man's book/teachings. He was known for doing that.
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.