FYI, the Trinity thread has been cleaned up and unlocked. It took a bit of time to get it ready.
Well, if you think I’m gonna do an encore of my self-flagellation routine…you’re crazy !
Just kidding
Moderators, you all have done a great job of keeping Grease Spot on point with its mission…thanks so much…I might say something there if I can keep it from straying too off topic…I mean, the tag on this thread does say “CONFESSIONS of a former fundamentalist”…interesting problem though…explaining how my apology was prompted by things going on in more than one thread…this may wind up being a “what-came-first-the-chicken-or-the-egg” scrambled up mess – so I’m entertaining the idea of starting a new thread to show the timeline of it all…just kidding!
Hah! No. I was just confessing it took me too long but it was finally open in case anyone cared to know. Carry on amigos
Yeah I knew that...I was just using what you said as a springboard to launch my own superstring theory - how to tie together two threads using a common vibe in select particles of each thread...
...and hopefully it doesn’t turn into killing two threads with one post...well technically it would be two posts - one in each thread...hmmmm - guess that could be a quantum twin...yikes now we’re talking spooky physics in the fundamental parts of an ex-fundamentalist!
You spoke of genetics...I don’t know how much of it is genetics and how much of it is attributable to a fundamentalist-mindset-hangover or other bad habits -
To avoid (or lessen) any confusion that might have arisen as a result of my mention of genetics, perhaps I should say something else. Regardless of any reasons how or why we find ourselves where we are at in this life (and no, I don't think that we all came into this life equally equipped, nor is this life necessarily fair when viewed only in comparison to others), our life in the flesh now appears to me to be a proving (or, proofing, in baking terms) time of sorts that is somehow or in someway preparing us for the next (eternal) life (presuming one qualifies for it.) Therefore, I think God can and will have the means to make sense of it all, in spite of what we all might think things look like now. Consequently, any reasons for what (or why) we are who we are need to be relegated to the back of the bus, because it's how we deal with it (whatever "it" is) going forward that is going to make a difference for all eternity.
for me, the inherent difficulty (or problem, if you prefer) with that is where or what it leads to.
namely:
If it came forth like that for Paul, then why should what he wrote be all that much more credible or important than what I believe God inspires within me?
(And if that doesn't strike a chord within you, perhaps it will when your own understanding of the Word is more... how shall I say it... lifted up?)
Besides, exactly how does that fit with Proverbs 3:5?
Being somewhat familiar with what some number of things are said and taught to be Paul's thorn in the flesh... I've found myself wondering at times why it might have been so painful for Paul. If you suppose it to be something outside of himself (i.e., other people), then I'd imagine the very most painful for Paul would be beloved Israelite brethren, who's zealousness for the law was continually perverting his gospel of grace. But, if you suppose it to be more subjective - something wrong or at odds within himself - then it's hard to imagine anything much more troublesome or painful than his being driven to break away from so many years of his own fanaticism for the law.
Think it was hard for some of you to... what's the word used here at GSC... "decompress" after your years in TWI? Well, multiply the worst you can imagine by 1000 fold... and I'm still inclined to think it doesn't come close to being comparable to what Paul probably had to deal with in his mind. Trained at the feet of Gamaliel. Profited above many of his equals. But counted as dung.
Rely on his own understanding of the Word?
Nah. Don't think so. Galatians 1:12 says it about as plainly and as clearly as it can get. Revelation is not inspiration. (And there's a whale of a difference.) There is no mistake, no guesswork whatsoever involved. It hits the mark so cleanly and so spot on, it's... well, it's perfect!
Really cool. Interesting stuff. Nobody sees these men in the Bible as wrestling with their own angels, so to speak. Some of my view of Paul is that God gave him some really wild pictures to cope with his inner demons. I'm sure his daily mental process looked a whole lot more like wrestling with an angel than the norm. Perhaps also that is the reason for a greater recorded meditative discipline (i.e. SIT more than you all - rather than focus on the one side of that, what about the prayer/time/outlook side of that). I don't know.
When I was in TWI, two statements always use to bother me:
Religion is the opiate of the people
and
Religion is a crutch
These use to bother me because of the challenge they presented to my fundamentalist mindset. How dare they question “the accuracy and integrity of the word”!!!
But I’ve sort of returned to the way I use to think before my TWI daze - which was “live and let live”.
So I now have come to think there’s something to both of the above statements - and my old “live and let live” more or less translates to - if it works for you and it doesn’t hurt anyone then, cool !
I think my lifelong love of science and an interest in pragmatism has me leaning more toward Christian agnosticism.
And probably another thing which hastened the demise of my fundamentalist mindset was the fact that even though a lot of the tenets and supposed benefits of PFAL sounded good on paper (i.e. in theory) they pretty much failed the acid test - where the rubber meets the road - i.e. when i attempted to apply something of PFAL to a real-world situation...
...12 years of spinning your wheels may get you some aerobic points if it were an actual stationary bike but I use it figuratively - so the “PFAL-stationary-bike” gets you nowhere in life...I prefer a destination with a lot more prospects of progress or success.
Not finished yet…there’s a few more details to look at…
DWBH doesn’t need anyone to come to his defense – he does just fine by himself…But funny you should put it that way…because I think you were looking for a fight
Essentially you started the fight – and for no reason –since this was not a doctrinal debate; I think the reason you picked this particular post is because it was by DWBH…I mean, line up all the ideas and comments every poster made about their current state of beliefs on this thread – and it seems rather odd you home in on DWBH’s personal “canon” of the New Testament and try challenging that. This doesn’t appear to be a random drive-by shooting – but some personal vendetta…I dunno…I could be wrong…but that’s the way it hits me.
I can go on as long as you want to keep rehashing whatever alleged slight has got you so upset – because I thrive on controversy – although I must admit dialogs with you are not very challenging – more frustrating really – in that I have to make an extra effort to wade through all the smoke and mirrors of insinuations, innuendoes, distractions, complaints of victimization, fallacies of presumption, fallacies of relevance, and personal ad hominem (like your CNN jab to me at the end of your post..…maybe I should also include your go-to tactic for intimidation – that patronizing or condescending manner – obvious in your posts to me here and elsewhere.) yeah - I have to wade through all that to figure out what you’re actually saying…well…I say I can go on as long as you – but that’s Grease Spot moderators permitting – if they don’t wind up shutting this thread down first.
T-Bone, it sounds to me, that dealing with TLC, is like dealing with Donkey Dung. My words, not your's. You are far to polite to say that; not me!
and on that note (my post of apology to TLC) without reiterating the whole thought process that brought on a change of heart - I’d just like to say I’m learning to really appreciate the divergent thinking that TLC (and so many others) bring to Grease Spot. I realize in casting a wide net (as Raf described it) this thread was bound to generate some friction in the diverse haul.
I tend toward a synthesis of various thoughts from others…but when being too critical of others I guess I forget how much donkey dung that I generate by being verbose, contentious and stubborn…there’s no point in that…life is too short…love and peace !
When I was a kid, I found that the answers I was given in Roman Catholicism were grossly lacking and I rejected them as having the answers I needed. Since I thought they were THE Christian group, I concluded that NO Christian could give me the answers I needed, and rejected all of Christianity as I rejected Judaism, Islam, etc. Sounds like you may have made the same decision, T-Bone. If not, it at least sounded familiar to me.
When I was a kid, I found that the answers I was given in Roman Catholicism were grossly lacking and I rejected them as having the answers I needed. Since I thought they were THE Christian group, I concluded that NO Christian could give me the answers I needed, and rejected all of Christianity as I rejected Judaism, Islam, etc. Sounds like you may have made the same decision, T-Bone. If not, it at least sounded familiar to me.
I guess I’m at another phase of my journey…but don’t know if I’ve made a definite decision about anything – other than I find it advantageous to be open-minded… you talked about finding the answers in Roman Catholicism grossly lacking…I feel the same way with some of the things I was taught in TWI. Acknowledging that lack is good – then I may be more willing to consider new ideas – and that may lead to something good…it’s a journey.
Even though I said I may lean toward Christian agnosticism – I don’t mean it’s a constant struggle to believe there is a higher power or I don’t trust what the Bible says about Jesus Christ – I’m just saying I have my doubts at times…Maybe some of that is from deconstructing a former mindset…where I supposedly would know all I needed to know about God and the Bible as I continued to master PFAL…I’m just not 100% sure about anything anymore…
I had grown so tired of being let down in life, when I lived as a fundamentalist …I don’t like surprises…not after being led astray by wierwille…we all know of someone or perhaps experienced it ourselves – the utter shock of finding out you’ve been duped.....it’s traumatizing because we so trusted and respected wierwille…it’s a lot of work to deconstruct your belief system all the way back to find what it was that got you to buy into it all... maybe even against your better judgment…
...doubts and questions - - maybe that’s the “still small voice” of critical thinking.
Thinking over my navigation of a personal journey I wanted to make mention of a change in how I usually approach the lofty, heavy, “spiritual “, and - dare I say it - existential concerns.
It has been a shift from using a theological approach to more of a philosophical approach. To me “philosophical “ means more than just the study of knowledge, reality , and existence. It also refers to my attitude toward the difficult, unfathomable, mystifying or disappointing issues...basically I try to be patient and unruffled through it all...accepting the way things are and the idea that I may never find a definitive answer on many things.
Having dabbled in theology for a long spell I’ve noticed my tendency - when having a strictly theological approach - that one way or another I could squeeze some answers out of the Bible - which is indeed a very malleable resource.
At this stage of my journey if i had to list my most essential criteria for interpreting a passage of the Bible - it would be :
Point 1: What is the most obvious meaning of the text?
Point 2: Does it make sense to me?
Now I don’t mean to oversimplify this - for me point 1 takes into account biblical languages / syntax / historical, cultural & geographical context, etc. - I did say at this stage of my journey - so by now I’ve learned some of the nuts & bolts of the biblical data.
Point 2 - i consider more than the few systematic theologies and commentaries I’ve studied on the particular passage - I look at all the details from point 1 and see if it resonates with me as far as experiences in my life - can I wrap my mind around it ? Does it satisfy some question I have? Is it something I need to do ...or stop doing? Can I connect or relate to it somehow?
Having said all that I should also mention there’s a lot of things in the Bible that still elude me...intellectually, where do you go if your answer to point 1 is “i don’t know” or “not sure”? I don’t know ...maybe speculate...philosophize...not sure. and what if your answer to point 2 is “nope”?
I am not a theologian and don’t feel the pressure or see the need to formulate an answer for everything; I’m perfectly happy being a long-and-winding-roads-scholar - enjoying this strange journey called life.
Thinking over my navigation of a personal journey I wanted to make mention of a change in how I usually approach the lofty, heavy, “spiritual “, and - dare I say it - existential concerns.
It has been a shift from using a theological approach to more of a philosophical approach. To me “philosophical “ means more than just the study of knowledge, reality , and existence. It also refers to my attitude toward the difficult, unfathomable, mystifying or disappointing issues...basically I try to be patient and unruffled through it all...accepting the way things are and the idea that I may never find a definitive answer on many things.
Having dabbled in theology for a long spell I’ve noticed my tendency - when having a strictly theological approach - that one way or another I could squeeze some answers out of the Bible - which is indeed a very malleable resource.
At this stage of my journey if i had to list my most essential criteria for interpreting a passage of the Bible - it would be :
Point 1: What is the most obvious meaning of the text?
Point 2: Does it make sense to me?
Now I don’t mean to oversimplify this - for me point 1 takes into account biblical languages / syntax / historical, cultural & geographical context, etc. - I did say at this stage of my journey - so by now I’ve learned some of the nuts & bolts of the biblical data.
Point 2 - i consider more than the few systematic theologies and commentaries I’ve studied on the particular passage - I look at all the details from point 1 and see if it resonates with me as far as experiences in my life - can I wrap my mind around it ? Does it satisfy some question I have? Is it something I need to do ...or stop doing? Can I connect or relate to it somehow?
Having said all that I should also mention there’s a lot of things in the Bible that still elude me...intellectually, where do you go if your answer to point 1 is “i don’t know” or “not sure”? I don’t know ...maybe speculate...philosophize...not sure. and what if your answer to point 2 is “nope”?
I am not a theologian and don’t feel the pressure or see the need to formulate an answer for everything; I’m perfectly happy being a long-and-winding-roads-scholar - enjoying this strange journey called life.
Hey T-Bone,
Cool thoughts. I enjoy reading your posts they are full of deep thought.
I also personally enjoy when deep thought leaves to simple conclusions. Sometimes truth is complicated, but often times truth is simple and humans are what are complicated.
I like your 2 points on approaching scripture. On the point 1 I also have adopted more of that viewpoint. It more closely aligns with Occam's Razor which to me when we are approaching text with that many variants is a reasonable place to start. What is the most obvious meaning of the text? Could we break that down further? What are possible meanings of the text? Usually won't they classify into just a few buckets at most? Concordances and lexicons attempt this called "usages". But it's real hard to track through all of the fragments of texts they are finding in different languages - Greek and Aramaic and derivatives. And at its extreme I think you have the "How the Word Interprets Itself" types of teachings and approaches like Bullinger originated and VP purloined and we used in the Way, where we are closer to feeding the text through machine language analysis and coming up with patterns than we are looking at it from the perspective of how it impacts humans. Bu when you consider the Way to be a training ground for Scribes and Pharisees it all starts to make more sense.
That is where your Point 2 comes in, and I think for myself and most people whether they want to admit it or not there is an element of a "common sense" evaluator that we have in our makeup. "Does it make sense to me?" is good from a number of perspectives. First, as a personal faith, if it doesn't then how can you commit to it? So in a way we can view this in a personal scriptural journey perspective. Next, it places some form of a constraint upon extreme behavior. But of course where there is constraint there is a cult to test that constraint.
But what about collectives? Churches? Fellowships? Body of Christ?
Can "we" understand scripture together?
In law they have a constraint where they evaluate things against what they would consider the "average man". What would an "average man" do in this situation? What is an "average" response?
So I think to come to a collective agreement in Point 2 we are going to have to start talking in terms of shades as opposed to extremes.
Cool thoughts. I enjoy reading your posts they are full of deep thought.
I also personally enjoy when deep thought leaves to simple conclusions. Sometimes truth is complicated, but often times truth is simple and humans are what are complicated.
I like your 2 points on approaching scripture. On the point 1 I also have adopted more of that viewpoint. It more closely aligns with Occam's Razor which to me when we are approaching text with that many variants is a reasonable place to start. What is the most obvious meaning of the text? Could we break that down further? What are possible meanings of the text? Usually won't they classify into just a few buckets at most? Concordances and lexicons attempt this called "usages". But it's real hard to track through all of the fragments of texts they are finding in different languages - Greek and Aramaic and derivatives. And at its extreme I think you have the "How the Word Interprets Itself" types of teachings and approaches like Bullinger originated and VP purloined and we used in the Way, where we are closer to feeding the text through machine language analysis and coming up with patterns than we are looking at it from the perspective of how it impacts humans. Bu when you consider the Way to be a training ground for Scribes and Pharisees it all starts to make more sense.
That is where your Point 2 comes in, and I think for myself and most people whether they want to admit it or not there is an element of a "common sense" evaluator that we have in our makeup. "Does it make sense to me?" is good from a number of perspectives. First, as a personal faith, if it doesn't then how can you commit to it? So in a way we can view this in a personal scriptural journey perspective. Next, it places some form of a constraint upon extreme behavior. But of course where there is constraint there is a cult to test that constraint.
But what about collectives? Churches? Fellowships? Body of Christ?
Can "we" understand scripture together?
In law they have a constraint where they evaluate things against what they would consider the "average man". What would an "average man" do in this situation? What is an "average" response?
So I think to come to a collective agreement in Point 2 we are going to have to start talking in terms of shades as opposed to extremes.
Thanks Chockfull – likewise back atcha – your posts are a good springboard to dive in a little deeper into scripture.
Yeah I dig that Occam’s Razor thing… when I first joined Grease Spot, the first person I remember talking about that was WordWolf… now there is one top-notch-problem-solving Wolf!
I really like your line: “Can "we" understand scripture together?”…that is an interesting idea…I like hearing other folks’ ideas on scripture…ideally - if everyone had a good attitude about it – and not try to be competitive or one-up everyone else I think it might be something on the order of a prism effect – each person sharing something with a slightly different shade of meaning…resonance – but at alternate frequencies…
I like your talk of “the average man” response. I can identify with that.
Recently on another thread I offered a very brief analysis of one of The Way International’s favorite buzzwords (Way-speak or ministry jargon) which is simply “The Word”. From which Twinky suggested I start a thread "The Word of God is the Will of God??".
...(Snip)
A few more thoughts on my very first post - talking about “the word”:
In my humble opinion, wierwille in the PFAL class laid the groundwork for a slippery slope by gradually superimposing his own interpretation over a Bible text - and often , whether it was due to his incompetency, hidden agenda, personal bias, delusions of grandeur, narcissism, competing with legitimate churches and ministers - or a combination of things - - often what wierwille taught a passage meant ultimately became suffused with that particular text; in the minds of his many dedicated followers, wierwille’s interpretation often eclipsed other ways of understanding the text - and I might add even obscuring other ways that were honest and technically transparent that perhaps don’t follow such a strict...wooden...fundamentalist approach..
when I was in TWI - reading the Bible was often an experience of something like pop-ups or subliminal messages where I remembered what wierwille said about the verse. Sometimes it was almost Like experiencing translation in real-time ...I’m reading a passage in english while I listen to the “translation “ into cult-jargon and familiar wierwille concepts - in the back of my mind.
In PFAL, was the change in reference to the Bible deliberate? I don’t know...but if memory serves me well - allow me to articulate the fall from intelligence - that’s right - the road down the slippery slope ...in the class, wierwille starts out calling it “the Bible”...then it’s” the word of God” ...then simply “the word”...it has the feel of being authoritative...official...should I dare say it - “god-breathed”...”The word” became almost like a shorthand or code that was the sum or abbreviation for using all the “tools” you’ve learned in PFAL for “rightly dividing “ the Bible.
i mean Why settle for the raw, “organic” material of the plain old Bible - when you can have it all conveniently processed for mass consumption as provided in “the word”. Like many students I assumed wierwille was a legitimate theologian and an honest teacher....that he was competent and knew what he was talking about. So to me, condensing all the hard work (cough, cough) and research (ah ah plagiarism - oh excuse me, I just sneezed) was behind the simple term “the word”.
wierwille even makes the bold assertion at one point in the class - that “the word “ takes the place of the absent Christ....Yeah right.
(If Christ is absent, does he have to bring a note from his Dad when he returns? )
Gee whiz...what the heck does “the absent Christ “ even mean? Is he absent physically - so all I have is a bunch of words in a book called the Holy Bible to keep me company? Doesn’t the Bible say Christ is the head of the church? Did I miss the bulletin on the body of Christ being decapitated? And what about Matthew 28: 18 & 19 where Jesus said go and make disciples of all the nations...teaching them to observe all things that I have commanded you; and lo, I am with you always, even to the end of the age...this “absent Christ” idea and the recommended “replacement” - a book !!! - for us poor folks stuck in the here and now is utterly ridiculous...a treacherous ploy by a false teacher to undermine any Christian’s attempt to pursue knowing Christ and the power of his resurrection (see Philippians 3:10 ).
Thinking along these lines of “the word” taking the place of the absent Christ, a Christian’s relationship is really with a book and not a person! Even if you want to exclude any wierwille-centered theology - that winds up being a self-centered religion. You’re only feedback is from yourself ; whereas in any relationship - it’s more or less a two way street - each person is somewhat affected or “transformed” by the other. Do you think Christ derives any joy or feel proud when we follow his example ? Or how about when we feel down an out - does Hebrews 4:15 ring a bell - - For we do not have a high priest who is unable to sympathize with our weaknesses, but one who in every respect has been tempted as we are, yet without sin...Christ empathizes with our current condition. He is able to understand and share in our feelings...It’s some of that two way street dynamic in a relationship.
yeah relationships...connecting with another person...how about John 14 where Jesus said “Whoever has my commandments and keeps them, he it is who loves me. And he who loves me will be loved by my Father, and I will love him and manifest myself to him.” 22 Judas (not Iscariot) said to him, “Lord, how is it that you will manifest yourself to us, and not to the world?” 23 Jesus answered him, “If anyone loves me, he will keep my word, and my Father will love him, and we will come to him and make our home with him.”
Exactly how does that work? I don’t know…But I believe it has to be simple or simple folks like me would be totally in the dark. I tend to think following Christ is a very personal experience though it does not happen in a vacuum – unless you live in a cave and never leave it. I think there’s something that happens concurrently in our relationship with Christ as well as with our fellow man... or woman - when we love Christ and follow his directives. An obvious passage that comes to mind is Matthew 22 where Jesus teaches about the two great commandments “You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind. 38 This is the great and first commandment. 39 And a second is like it: You shall love your neighbor as yourself. 40 On these two commandments depend all the Law and the Prophets.”
The second great commandment (love your neighbor as yourself ) has more or less the same sentiment the golden rule in Luke 6: 31 – treat others as you would like to be treated. As a way-believer I was more of a Bible knowledge junkie. I felt my spiritual growth was contingent upon how much I knew of the Bible. It’s kind of weird when one fixates on taking the next class…or repeating the same class many times over…looking forward to the next issue of The Way Mag or the next conference or advance that might fill in the missing pieces of something...something almost like a personal knowledge base that would eventually enable me to solve any problem.
Since I left TWI and reconfigured my outlook to be more about relationships, empathy, connecting, appreciating the whole person (not just the people who think or believe like I do), trying to be true to myself and accepting who I am...I feel I’m on the right track … maybe that’s some of what Jesus Christ was talking about in John 14.
...That reminds me - At some point in a discussion on another thread a few folks criticized the hypocritical nature of wierwille’s teachings in general. Then someone cited Philippians 1:18 of Paul rejoicing over the fact that whether in pretense or in truth Christ is preached...after which I felt compelled to say - whether in pretense or in truth , it’s debatable as to how much of what wierwille taught was even about Christ...wierwille tended to toot his own horn...he wanted folks to recognize his great achievements in biblical research...in my humble opinion if ever Christ was mentioned it was more of a window dressing to give the appearance of Christianity...I think he wanted folks to be almost in reverential awe of his walk with the Father who guided him in rightly dividing “the word”.
I really don’t think the Apostle Paul would have been all that keen on wierwille’s hypocrisy…and I think his point in Philippians 1 was the priority of preaching Christ regardless of the motivation...we're not talking about a ravenous wolf dressing up in sheep's clothing ...There’s nothing in there that addresses - or justifies - wierwille’s malicious and predatory behavior – like it was ok because of the greater good that was done through his teaching “the word”…that’s some fvcked up scale of values in my book…I don’t think true ministers of Christ are that callous.... and I just can’t picture Jesus as some unsympathetic high priest - trying to give a pep talk to some woman who was just drugged and molested by wierwille saying something like “ just renew your mind and think of how you've blessed the man of god and ultimately helped move 'the word' ! ". and believe it or not - as weird, twisted and creepy as that sounds - that is the type of bull$hit wierwille would use to "comfort" his victims!...and how that flies in the face of what Jesus said about the worth of a soul in Luke 15 - his parables of the one lost sheep, the one lost coin, and the prodigal son all illustrate the importance and value of the individual. Outreach is not a numbers game...nor about percentages or trade-offs...and it's not just about getting people saved - in Matthew 18: 1 - 9 Jesus said it wasn't real cool to cause even just one believer to stumble...there will be consequences...really bad consequences...so I don't know - you tell me what is the worth of a soul?
In TWI it seemed “the word” had precedence over personhood. It wasn’t about you - the individual; it was about you being homogenized to think like the group...we're to be like-minded on "the word" don't ya know...…it doesn’t matter what you feel or what you think... What does “the word” say? That’s what counts…I remember wierwille's line in PFAL - "when it comes to 'the word' , I have no friends"...yeah I can see how that's entirely possible if one thinks their own interpretation of The Bible is more important than people.
I thought Jesus Christ came into the world to save sinners – not create a bunch of bookworms who imagine they're really working "the word" as they regurgitate some plagiarist's supposed "research"...oh yeah, rightly dividing "the word" ...custodians of the great accuracy and integrity of "the word"
I mean it's so laughable the way everyone throws around these scholarly and biblical sounding phrases...it's a bunch of fluff...hype to sell folks on how necessary The Way International is to getting "the word" out.... I’ve come to realize I don't need PFAL, The Advanced Class or some other supposedly specialized knowledge to unlock the secrets of the universe to be able to tap into the power of God…I just need Jesus to save my sinful a$$ .
...forsaking my former cult mindset I now ask if “the word” was supposed to take the place of the absent Christ - what or who takes the place of the absent “word”? In other words, who will fill in for “wierwille the Bible interpreter” ? Who or what group will carry on the legacy of wierwille’s twisted doctrine and practice? I guess that would depend on the particular “dispensation of pontification” - Craig, Rosie, the new prez.. or just name your favorite TWI-offshoot.
Here’s just a few qualities of the problematic TWI mindset: the habit of proof texting (using isolated or out of context scripture references) , ignoring logical fallacies of wierwille’s doctrine and holding him in high esteem like he was some modern day Apostle Paul...and just flat out being ignorant of the implanted (or if you prefer indoctrinated ) bias...close-minded to alternate viewpoints...Sadly when it comes to simply reading the Bible with an open mind - I think TWI followers and other “like-minded” folks are often lost in the morass* of wierwille’s convoluted and error-prone frame of thought...
(*“morass” : think more a$$ as in - your viewpoint is based mostly on a stupid person).
Edited by T-Bone The long-and-winding-roads-scholar
often what wierwille taught a passage meant ultimately became suffused with that particular text; in the minds of his many dedicated followers, wierwille’s interpretation often eclipsed other ways of understanding the text - and I might add even obscuring other ways that were honest and technically transparent that perhaps don’t follow such a strict...wooden...fundamentalist approach..
I wonder at times just what is actually meant or intended with this "fundamentalist approach," or why so many find it so reproachable. Surely the mere acceptance of the inerrancy and divine authority of scripture does not, in and of itself, merit such blatant disdain. And if that doesn't make one a fundamentalist, then neither should a confidence in one's own theological positions. However, perhaps the phrase embodies some kind of religious mentality that confidently asserts its own objectivity and unprejudiced reasoning, while at the same time condemns the biased and interest laden nature in the reasoning of others. Or maybe it simply denotes some brand of "Christian" ideology incapable of acknowledging any sort of incompleteness or inconsistency in their own beliefs, or of tolerating it in anyone else. In any event, the phrase itself carries with it such contempt, it's difficult to imagine anyone purposefully desiring to be the target of such opprobrium. Yet, by its simple and perhaps most basic definition - an unwavering attachment to a set of irreducible beliefs - I find myself aligned with it. (Albeit, my "irreducible beliefs" are probably far fewer than what you might think.)
The problem, as I see it, is not in a disagreement that vpw's interpretation might (or often) eclipse some other way to understand the text. Rather, it is in the possibility that the "some other way" to understand it might also be thought of and deemed as a "fundamentalist approach" which, at times, can differ radically from his (so-called) "fundamentalist approach. Consequently, the damage that results is not only an eclipsing of what might be found apart fundamentalism, but of what might be unknown and undiscovered within it. By this same line of reasoning, I suspect that far too many that were formerly associated with the way have turned aside from much of the truth contained in the Pauline epistles. It probably should also be said here that vpw may have been (and in certain respects, surely was) much more of a legalist than some (or many) of you know or ever thought possible...
I wonder at times just what is actually meant or intended with this "fundamentalist approach," or why so many find it so reproachable. Surely the mere acceptance of the inerrancy and divine authority of scripture does not, in and of itself, merit such blatant disdain. And if that doesn't make one a fundamentalist, then neither should a confidence in one's own theological positions. However, perhaps the phrase embodies some kind of religious mentality that confidently asserts its own objectivity and unprejudiced reasoning, while at the same time condemns the biased and interest laden nature in the reasoning of others. Or maybe it simply denotes some brand of "Christian" ideology incapable of acknowledging any sort of incompleteness or inconsistency in their own beliefs, or of tolerating it in anyone else. ..(snip)
I can only speak for myself, and I mainly take issue with the claim of biblical inerrancy; and I do NOT have a disdain for the scriptures nor for the basis of its authority (God); I wouldn’t say I have a “theological position” – which to me implies it’s set in stone – and besides I always have in the back of my mind I could be totally wrong; my pulling away from fundamentalism is an effort to try to get away from unrealistic expectations of the Bible. One small side note on unrealistic expectations of the Bible -I think that’s where the health and wealth gospel folks have a problem; gotta get your confessions and believing in line with the Bible and then you’ll have good health and wealth. Unrealistic expectations can also be things like believing the Bible will unlock all the mysteries of life, that it has the only solution you'll ever need in any situation.
Maybe you’ve got it wrong – I do acknowledge the incompleteness and inconsistency of my own beliefs. But let’s back track a little bit on why I’m not satisfied with a fundamentalist approach to the interpretation of the Bible. I believe there is a tendency in that approach to put God - and perhaps even the journey of faith – into a manageable format…a theology in a box…a tidy little package you could mass-market...fundamentalism being so literal, tends to ignore the cultural context and the adaptive nature of these ancient authors. You'll see it in passages where they may have borrowed or adapted stories from other cultures or how an author my reinterpret a passage used elsewhere. Another weakness - or confusing element of fundamentalism is that it does not recognize the ancient style of writing was observational. so if the sun looks like it rises (instead of the earth rotating) then that's what you write. However, we of modern times know that is not literally true.
I think fundamentalism just might be more about being in control – having the vague notion that one can sort of manipulate God and others – because the Bible is so pliable…we categorize scripture…organize our doctrine…and expect the Bible to bend to our viewpoint – or damn it, we’ll make it comply. I no longer feel the need to put my faith in a book that some folks claim is inerrant even though there are a lot of contradictions, scientific and historical inaccuracies. I put my faith in the God who inspired humans – you know, those imperfect creatures – to write such a book – that will lead folks on an interesting spiritual journey. Maybe I should be the one who is flexible – and bend to how and where it will inspire me to go.
Perhaps that is the problem with fundamentalism – it looks for perfection, completeness, consistency where there might not be any; for me , the most vivid example of taking fundamentalism to the extreme was wierwille in PFAL going on and on about the mathematical exactness and scientific precision of the Bible – all the while twisting and confusing similar accounts, resorting to his goofball pseudo-science, and mangling a lot of material he stole from his favorite ultra-dispensationalist Bullinger…wierwille’s mindset is closer to what you mentioned about “the kind of religious mentality that confidently asserts its own objectivity and unprejudiced reasoning, while at the same time condemns the biased and interest laden nature in the reasoning of others.”
One of the most laughable tricks that really highlighted wierwille’s extreme bias was when he got into his argument for Jesus Christ is NOT God; and it goes something like this: unclear verses must be understood in light of the clear verses on the same subject…not sure if that’s exactly how he put it – but hopefully it’s close…anyway that makes no sense. The problem I have with that is there’s an assumption that contradictory verses are addressing the same issue. It also takes a subtle jab at the critical thinking process - sort of a "hey, just ignore that problem verse when I've got all these other ones to prove my point."
Anyway, that’s all I’ve got for now, TLC…I appreciate the feedback and input…I’m always surprised when someone actually reads any of my loooooong posts - so thanks for reading it…peace and sweet dreams.
Edited by T-Bone the long-and-winding-roads-scholar stops at a convienence store
Going back and forth on what I think of this or that in my studies - - a few things seem to have been fairly constant in my belief system: there is a Creator, Jesus Christ is an actual person who once walked the earth, and the Bible is instrumental to informing me of the moral demands of the Creator.
And it’s really the last point – the Bible as part of my moral navigation system that has always captivated me. There’s been quite a few times while reading some theological work that I would get the feeling I’m a cop-out for not holding to the fundamentalist mindset that I had in The Way Ministry…that I am a sub-standard Christian…my faith being damaged goods…who knows…maybe so…
but if the will is still present to pursue a life of faith – then how screwed up is that? Okay – don’t answer that question - - I’ll just get to a quote from a book that offered me a glimmer of hope in understanding - at least in part “what a long strange trip it’s been.”
There is something a little scary but also exciting when you cut loose the moorings of familiar dogma and set a course for uncharted waters. Granted, many way-points are probably familiar to others but not for someone like me who started on a journey with the idea that PFAL was the end-all for everything you wanted to know about anything. This is not a post to defend the Bible or my beliefs but simply a declaration of the course I have set.
...(SNIP)
As far as there being any consistency in my beliefs I did want to remind any readers following this thread – that I did mention some abiding thoughts in my very first post – which I’ve quoted here.
And as a matter of fact, even long before my involvement with The Way International – as far back as I can remember – I believed in a Creator and that Jesus Christ is an actual person who once walked the earth. Notice I used the word “is” and not “was”...just trying to express my belief that he is still around...anyway... I don’t really get into super-analyzing myself to determine if those abiding thoughts are due to being raised in a God-fearing family of Roman Catholics, the nature of faith, being a stubborn knucklehead or some other form of dementia.
Speaking of my Roman Catholic upbringing as far as there being any consistency in my beliefs, I just wanted to remind anyone following this thread, of a few things I said and living in modern times – I never really had a “crisis of faith” over the Bible being true or not until I fell under the spell of a really sly con artist/fundamentalist by the name of wierwille. He’s the one who sold me on the idea that the Bible had to be perfect – that there could not be even one contradiction or error – or the whole Bible would fall to pieces.
I addressed this in my previous post – I’m getting away from having unrealistic expectations about the Bible. I tend to think – believing that the Creator is an infinite being – doing the unexpected would be his/hers modus operandi. Wrapping your mind around that concept might be frustrating to a lot of folks (including myself) who like everything to be predictable, explainable…we may become stymied or frustrated when we “find ourselves at the mercy of anyone or anything that cannot be programmed, categorized or easily referenced” (quoting special agent Fox Mulder of The X-Files ).... I often wonder why this journey winds up being so unpredictable and uncertain…maybe exploring one’s faith isn’t for the faint of heart…it’s certainly not for the lazy who might like the convenience of having a prepackaged set of beliefs handed to them…hmmmm do cults attract lazy people? I don’t know.
The best example I can think of in the Bible that shows how the Creator can pull off the unexpected is in John 1. The Word became flesh and dwelt among us. That’s a mind-blower if you think about it…The Word...in the fragile vessel of a human being was certainly unexpected! My goofball comic-book brain would have had some larger-than-life-otherworldly-looking dude come down to earth – kick some unbeliever a$$ and if even half the folks didn’t comply – he’d snap his fingers and poof they’re gone! (sorry – I should have announced a spoiler alert if you haven’t seen Avengers: Infinity War yet…my bad )...maybe the subtle grace of Jesus Christ not being a tyrant, conqueror or some super-duper-extraordinary-meta-human says something of what is expected of us...perhaps we are to be self-motivated to pursue him...Maybe our journey requires a lot of self-reflection…perhaps it's our responsibility to follow through on the things that make us feel the most fulfilled.
I can only speak for myself, and I mainly take issue with the claim of biblical inerrancy; and I do NOT have a disdain for the scriptures nor for the basis of its authority (God);
I'd hoped my post wouldn't be that hard to understand, but evidently it was. It's the "fundamentalist approach" that so many (here, and elsewhere) view with blatant disdain. Furthermore, it is scripture and not "the Bible" per se that I associated with inerrancy. (I could elaborate, but it would detract from all else that was said.)
11 hours ago, T-Bone said:
Maybe you’ve got it wrong – I do acknowledge the incompleteness and inconsistency of my own beliefs.
I never thought (said, or otherwise implied) that you don't. You seem to be inserting yourself into what I said about how "fundamentalism" can be (or likely is) viewed by others.
11 hours ago, T-Bone said:
I believe there is a tendency in that approach to put God - and perhaps even the journey of faith – into a manageable format…a theology in a box…a tidy little package you could mass-market...fundamentalism being so literal, tends to ignore the cultural context and the adaptive nature of these ancient authors.
Matter of fact, some of what I said (of how fundamentalism might be thought of), appears to align quite well with your view of it. And if you read "the problem, as I see it" part of my previous post, perhaps it didn't make any sense to you, so it went clean clear through.
I'd hoped my post wouldn't be that hard to understand, but evidently it was. It's the "fundamentalist approach" that so many (here, and elsewhere) view with blatant disdain. Furthermore, it is scripture and not "the Bible" per se that I associated with inerrancy. (I could elaborate, but it would detract from all else that was said.)
...snip
Sorry I guess it wasn’t clear enough for me; as far as inerrancy goes - whether one looks at the Bible (any translation / version) as a whole or whatever existing documents that have been found - there are still obvious scientific / historical errors and contradictions . So to rephrase “my position” - I don’t believe in the inerrancy of the scriptures - even the original-God-breathed-hot-off-the-press documents...scrolls...parchments...post-it notes or whatever the heck you want to call them.
Plato's cave is the problem with fundamentalism and the Bible.
It ends in a bunch of people skilled in making hand puppet forms to project shadows on the wall judging one another according to the detail and coherency of those shadows.
Plato's cave is the problem with fundamentalism and the Bible.
It ends in a bunch of people skilled in making hand puppet forms to project shadows on the wall judging one another according to the detail and coherency of those shadows.
Yes...yes!!!!
who knows what evil lurks in the hearts of men? The Shadow Puppets know!!!!
Sorry I guess it wasn’t clear enough for me; as far as inerrancy goes - whether one looks at the Bible (any translation / version) as a whole or whatever existing documents that have been found - there are still obvious scientific / historical errors and contradictions . So to rephrase “my position” - I don’t believe in the inerrancy of the scriptures - even the original-God-breathed-hot-off-the-press documents...scrolls...parchments...post-it notes or whatever the heck you want to call them.
So from your perspective, there's no difference... yet, perhaps you might consider that from my perspective, there is (and has been, for over 40 years.) Long ago (before twi) I came to the realization that whatever is spiritual: (1) is spiritual, (2) is not physical, and (3) is a reality beyond the reality that is common to all men. Of course, not only did that stir a certain hunger to learn more, it also established an "irreducible" premise within me. But, if that is wrong... then I suppose I might nearly well be in that category of men "most miserable" in this life.
That said, perhaps I'm inclined to see certain things a bit differently. For instance, although I'm not likely to ever speak out about it, within my mind I would probably not agree with someone that said, "The bible is the word of God." Because in my mind, the word of God is something spiritual, whereas the bible is something physical. Therefore, I would think and say, "The bible is the revealed word of God." However, I said "probably not," as there are times when I think I understand what they are intending to say, rather than focusing on what they actually said... and there are enough times in conversations with others where I myself more simply and casually refer to the bible as being "the Word of God." Yet, in the back of my mind, it's a distinction that is never very far away or hard to make, should the need for it ever arise. Furthermore, the relationship between "the Word of God" (which is spiritual) and God (who is spirit) is such that if we think or see God as being perfect (i.e., inerrant), then so is His word. What remains, then, is how any of us think that which is both (1) invisible and (2) inherently perfect, is revealed to man. Can scripture be perceived as something spiritual? Or do you say that it can only be that which is physical?
If you think that scripture is only that which is physical, then how or what do you perceive "the Word of God" as being? Something only breathed or "spoken"? Either way, our perception of it traverses our minds in physical terms, as that is the only language that our minds recognize. Somewhere, or somehow, there's a jump or transition point between the two. And just because you or I (or anyone else) might not see or understand how that happens or is possible, doesn't mean (much less prove) that it's not possible. Personally, I chose to believe that it is possible. And if it's possible to happen once, then it's possible to happen as often as God determines necessary. However, whether or not what He once determined to reveal to man was preserved perfectly is another matter altogether... and I do not believe that it was preserved perfectly. Pretty good... ? Sure. Maybe even, very good. But not, "perfectly." Nevertheless, when or where possible (i.e., more sensible), I prefer to see it (that is, what we do have or know of it - "it" being "the word of God") as a language that is painting the picture of a much greater "spiritual reality" that is, in any other way, invisible and unknown (and, for whatever it's worth, is that reality that actually does exist totally outside of the cave of man's senses, to which he is inextricably bound.)
Does that mark me as a fundamentalist? In the eyes of some, perhaps. But I doubt that much of what I believe conforms much to that mold.
Plato's cave is the problem with fundamentalism and the Bible.
It ends in a bunch of people skilled in making hand puppet forms to project shadows on the wall judging one another according to the detail and coherency of those shadows.
If so, then perhaps relativity is also a problem inherent in everything else. Because all reality is perceptual.
Upon detection, we define energy (in whatever form it exists) and then respond to our own definitions of it. If it's not detectable, it isn't definable, so it's concluded that it doesn't exist. However, at sub atomic levels, nothing is solid. So, one can speculate that the common (or literal) reality that we experience is an illusion. (Albeit, a very persistent one, according to Einstein.)
Does that mark me as a fundamentalist? In the eyes of some, perhaps. But I doubt that much of what I believe conforms much to that mold.
I don't think so. Labels can be helpful to group general behavior or approaches, but my beliefs are that when it comes down to the core and concepts like faith it is very much a personal thing how people put it together. And labels at that point only serve to divide....
Recommended Posts
Top Posters In This Topic
7
35
22
6
Popular Days
Aug 8
16
Aug 7
9
Mar 13
8
Nov 1
5
Top Posters In This Topic
Raf 7 posts
T-Bone 35 posts
TLC 22 posts
Taxidev 6 posts
Popular Days
Aug 8 2018
16 posts
Aug 7 2018
9 posts
Mar 13 2018
8 posts
Nov 1 2017
5 posts
Popular Posts
Twinky
I still don't feel that I have a proper concept of Jesus. At least - of Jesus now. I don't doubt the physical Jesus of two millennia ago. It occurs to me that I don't have a big enough concept
Twinky
I like to examine what I think, and ponder why I think it. I try to put Way doctrine out of my mind - after all, I had some Christian upbringing before I got involved with that - but TWI came along a
Raf
Ok, so, to sum up where I'm at now: I obviously don't believe there is such a thing as "god-breathed." Clearly these writings are not history. To the extent that they are sincere, they
Posted Images
T-Bone
Well, if you think I’m gonna do an encore of my self-flagellation routine…you’re crazy !
Just kidding
Moderators, you all have done a great job of keeping Grease Spot on point with its mission…thanks so much…I might say something there if I can keep it from straying too off topic…I mean, the tag on this thread does say “CONFESSIONS of a former fundamentalist”…interesting problem though…explaining how my apology was prompted by things going on in more than one thread…this may wind up being a “what-came-first-the-chicken-or-the-egg” scrambled up mess – so I’m entertaining the idea of starting a new thread to show the timeline of it all…just kidding!
there i did it - intergalactic travel is possible!
Edited by T-BoneLink to comment
Share on other sites
Modgellan
Hah! No. I was just confessing it took me too long but it was finally open in case anyone cared to know. Carry on amigos
Link to comment
Share on other sites
T-Bone
Yeah I knew that...I was just using what you said as a springboard to launch my own superstring theory - how to tie together two threads using a common vibe in select particles of each thread...
...and hopefully it doesn’t turn into killing two threads with one post...well technically it would be two posts - one in each thread...hmmmm - guess that could be a quantum twin...yikes now we’re talking spooky physics in the fundamental parts of an ex-fundamentalist!
Link to comment
Share on other sites
TLC
To avoid (or lessen) any confusion that might have arisen as a result of my mention of genetics, perhaps I should say something else. Regardless of any reasons how or why we find ourselves where we are at in this life (and no, I don't think that we all came into this life equally equipped, nor is this life necessarily fair when viewed only in comparison to others), our life in the flesh now appears to me to be a proving (or, proofing, in baking terms) time of sorts that is somehow or in someway preparing us for the next (eternal) life (presuming one qualifies for it.) Therefore, I think God can and will have the means to make sense of it all, in spite of what we all might think things look like now. Consequently, any reasons for what (or why) we are who we are need to be relegated to the back of the bus, because it's how we deal with it (whatever "it" is) going forward that is going to make a difference for all eternity.
Edited by TLCLink to comment
Share on other sites
chockfull
Really cool. Interesting stuff. Nobody sees these men in the Bible as wrestling with their own angels, so to speak. Some of my view of Paul is that God gave him some really wild pictures to cope with his inner demons. I'm sure his daily mental process looked a whole lot more like wrestling with an angel than the norm. Perhaps also that is the reason for a greater recorded meditative discipline (i.e. SIT more than you all - rather than focus on the one side of that, what about the prayer/time/outlook side of that). I don't know.
But it inspires some cool thoughts.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
T-Bone
When I was in TWI, two statements always use to bother me:
Religion is the opiate of the people
and
Religion is a crutch
These use to bother me because of the challenge they presented to my fundamentalist mindset. How dare they question “the accuracy and integrity of the word”!!!
But I’ve sort of returned to the way I use to think before my TWI daze - which was “live and let live”.
So I now have come to think there’s something to both of the above statements - and my old “live and let live” more or less translates to - if it works for you and it doesn’t hurt anyone then, cool !
I think my lifelong love of science and an interest in pragmatism has me leaning more toward Christian agnosticism.
And probably another thing which hastened the demise of my fundamentalist mindset was the fact that even though a lot of the tenets and supposed benefits of PFAL sounded good on paper (i.e. in theory) they pretty much failed the acid test - where the rubber meets the road - i.e. when i attempted to apply something of PFAL to a real-world situation...
...12 years of spinning your wheels may get you some aerobic points if it were an actual stationary bike but I use it figuratively - so the “PFAL-stationary-bike” gets you nowhere in life...I prefer a destination with a lot more prospects of progress or success.
Pragmatism
Christian agnosticism
Edited by T-BoneFormatting
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Grace Valerie Claire
T-Bone, it sounds to me, that dealing with TLC, is like dealing with Donkey Dung. My words, not your's. You are far to polite to say that; not me!
Link to comment
Share on other sites
T-Bone
Grace, I’ve already apologized to TLC – see here
and on that note (my post of apology to TLC) without reiterating the whole thought process that brought on a change of heart - I’d just like to say I’m learning to really appreciate the divergent thinking that TLC (and so many others) bring to Grease Spot. I realize in casting a wide net (as Raf described it) this thread was bound to generate some friction in the diverse haul.
I tend toward a synthesis of various thoughts from others…but when being too critical of others I guess I forget how much donkey dung
that I generate by being verbose, contentious and stubborn…there’s no point in that…life is too short…love and peace !
Edited by T-Boneformatting
Link to comment
Share on other sites
WordWolf
When I was a kid, I found that the answers I was given in Roman Catholicism were grossly lacking and I rejected them as having the answers I needed. Since I thought they were THE Christian group, I concluded that NO Christian could give me the answers I needed, and rejected all of Christianity as I rejected Judaism, Islam, etc. Sounds like you may have made the same decision, T-Bone. If not, it at least sounded familiar to me.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
T-Bone
I guess I’m at another phase of my journey…but don’t know if I’ve made a definite decision about anything – other than I find it advantageous to be open-minded… you talked about finding the answers in Roman Catholicism grossly lacking…I feel the same way with some of the things I was taught in TWI. Acknowledging that lack is good – then I may be more willing to consider new ideas – and that may lead to something good…it’s a journey.
Even though I said I may lean toward Christian agnosticism – I don’t mean it’s a constant struggle to believe there is a higher power or I don’t trust what the Bible says about Jesus Christ – I’m just saying I have my doubts at times…Maybe some of that is from deconstructing a former mindset…where I supposedly would know all I needed to know about God and the Bible as I continued to master PFAL…I’m just not 100% sure about anything anymore…
I had grown so tired of being let down in life, when I lived as a fundamentalist …I don’t like surprises…not after being led astray by wierwille…we all know of someone or perhaps experienced it ourselves – the utter shock of finding out you’ve been duped..... it’s traumatizing because we so trusted and respected wierwille…it’s a lot of work to deconstruct your belief system all the way back to find what it was that got you to buy into it all... maybe even against your better judgment…
...doubts and questions - - maybe that’s the “still small voice” of critical thinking.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
T-Bone
Thinking over my navigation of a personal journey I wanted to make mention of a change in how I usually approach the lofty, heavy, “spiritual “, and - dare I say it - existential concerns.
It has been a shift from using a theological approach to more of a philosophical approach. To me “philosophical “ means more than just the study of knowledge, reality , and existence. It also refers to my attitude toward the difficult, unfathomable, mystifying or disappointing issues...basically I try to be patient and unruffled through it all...accepting the way things are and the idea that I may never find a definitive answer on many things.
Having dabbled in theology for a long spell I’ve noticed my tendency - when having a strictly theological approach - that one way or another I could squeeze some answers out of the Bible - which is indeed a very malleable resource.
At this stage of my journey if i had to list my most essential criteria for interpreting a passage of the Bible - it would be :
Point 1: What is the most obvious meaning of the text?
Point 2: Does it make sense to me?
Now I don’t mean to oversimplify this - for me point 1 takes into account biblical languages / syntax / historical, cultural & geographical context, etc. - I did say at this stage of my journey - so by now I’ve learned some of the nuts & bolts of the biblical data.
Point 2 - i consider more than the few systematic theologies and commentaries I’ve studied on the particular passage - I look at all the details from point 1 and see if it resonates with me as far as experiences in my life - can I wrap my mind around it ? Does it satisfy some question I have? Is it something I need to do ...or stop doing? Can I connect or relate to it somehow?
Having said all that I should also mention there’s a lot of things in the Bible that still elude me...intellectually, where do you go if your answer to point 1 is “i don’t know” or “not sure”? I don’t know ...maybe speculate...philosophize...not sure.
and what if your answer to point 2 is “nope”?
I am not a theologian and don’t feel the pressure or see the need to formulate an answer for everything; I’m perfectly happy being a long-and-winding-roads-scholar
- enjoying this strange journey called life.
Edited by T-BoneFormatting & clarity
Link to comment
Share on other sites
chockfull
Hey T-Bone,
Cool thoughts. I enjoy reading your posts they are full of deep thought.
I also personally enjoy when deep thought leaves to simple conclusions. Sometimes truth is complicated, but often times truth is simple and humans are what are complicated.
I like your 2 points on approaching scripture. On the point 1 I also have adopted more of that viewpoint. It more closely aligns with Occam's Razor which to me when we are approaching text with that many variants is a reasonable place to start. What is the most obvious meaning of the text? Could we break that down further? What are possible meanings of the text? Usually won't they classify into just a few buckets at most? Concordances and lexicons attempt this called "usages". But it's real hard to track through all of the fragments of texts they are finding in different languages - Greek and Aramaic and derivatives. And at its extreme I think you have the "How the Word Interprets Itself" types of teachings and approaches like Bullinger originated and VP purloined and we used in the Way, where we are closer to feeding the text through machine language analysis and coming up with patterns than we are looking at it from the perspective of how it impacts humans. Bu when you consider the Way to be a training ground for Scribes and Pharisees it all starts to make more sense.
That is where your Point 2 comes in, and I think for myself and most people whether they want to admit it or not there is an element of a "common sense" evaluator that we have in our makeup. "Does it make sense to me?" is good from a number of perspectives. First, as a personal faith, if it doesn't then how can you commit to it? So in a way we can view this in a personal scriptural journey perspective. Next, it places some form of a constraint upon extreme behavior. But of course where there is constraint there is a cult to test that constraint.
But what about collectives? Churches? Fellowships? Body of Christ?
Can "we" understand scripture together?
In law they have a constraint where they evaluate things against what they would consider the "average man". What would an "average man" do in this situation? What is an "average" response?
So I think to come to a collective agreement in Point 2 we are going to have to start talking in terms of shades as opposed to extremes.
Edited by chockfullLink to comment
Share on other sites
T-Bone
Thanks Chockfull – likewise back atcha – your posts are a good springboard to dive in a little deeper into scripture.
Yeah I dig that Occam’s Razor thing… when I first joined Grease Spot, the first person I remember talking about that was WordWolf… now there is one top-notch-problem-solving Wolf!
I really like your line: “Can "we" understand scripture together?”…that is an interesting idea…I like hearing other folks’ ideas on scripture…ideally - if everyone had a good attitude about it – and not try to be competitive or one-up everyone else I think it might be something on the order of a prism effect – each person sharing something with a slightly different shade of meaning…resonance – but at alternate frequencies…
I like your talk of “the average man” response. I can identify with that.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
T-Bone
A few more thoughts on my very first post - talking about “the word”:
In my humble opinion, wierwille in the PFAL class laid the groundwork for a slippery slope by gradually superimposing his own interpretation over a Bible text - and often , whether it was due to his incompetency, hidden agenda, personal bias, delusions of grandeur, narcissism, competing with legitimate churches and ministers - or a combination of things - - often what wierwille taught a passage meant ultimately became suffused with that particular text; in the minds of his many dedicated followers, wierwille’s interpretation often eclipsed other ways of understanding the text - and I might add even obscuring other ways that were honest and technically transparent that perhaps don’t follow such a strict...wooden...fundamentalist approach..
when I was in TWI - reading the Bible was often an experience of something like pop-ups or subliminal messages where I remembered what wierwille said about the verse. Sometimes it was almost Like experiencing translation in real-time ...I’m reading a passage in english while I listen to the “translation “ into cult-jargon and familiar wierwille concepts - in the back of my mind.
In PFAL, was the change in reference to the Bible deliberate? I don’t know...but if memory serves me well - allow me to articulate the fall from intelligence - that’s right - the road down the slippery slope ...in the class, wierwille starts out calling it “the Bible”...then it’s” the word of God” ...then simply “the word”...it has the feel of being authoritative...official...should I dare say it - “god-breathed”...”The word” became almost like a shorthand or code that was the sum or abbreviation for using all the “tools” you’ve learned in PFAL for “rightly dividing “ the Bible.
i mean Why settle for the raw, “organic” material of the plain old Bible - when you can have it all conveniently processed for mass consumption as provided in “the word”. Like many students I assumed wierwille was a legitimate theologian and an honest teacher....that he was competent and knew what he was talking about. So to me, condensing all the hard work (cough, cough) and research (ah ah plagiarism - oh excuse me, I just sneezed) was behind the simple term “the word”.
wierwille even makes the bold assertion at one point in the class - that “the word “ takes the place of the absent Christ....Yeah right.
(If Christ is absent, does he have to bring a note from his Dad when he returns?
)
Gee whiz...what the heck does “the absent Christ “ even mean? Is he absent physically - so all I have is a bunch of words in a book called the Holy Bible to keep me company? Doesn’t the Bible say Christ is the head of the church? Did I miss the bulletin on the body of Christ being decapitated? And what about Matthew 28: 18 & 19 where Jesus said go and make disciples of all the nations...teaching them to observe all things that I have commanded you; and lo, I am with you always, even to the end of the age...this “absent Christ” idea and the recommended “replacement” - a book !!! - for us poor folks stuck in the here and now is utterly ridiculous...a treacherous ploy by a false teacher to undermine any Christian’s attempt to pursue knowing Christ and the power of his resurrection (see Philippians 3:10 ).
Thinking along these lines of “the word” taking the place of the absent Christ, a Christian’s relationship is really with a book and not a person! Even if you want to exclude any wierwille-centered theology - that winds up being a self-centered religion. You’re only feedback is from yourself ; whereas in any relationship - it’s more or less a two way street - each person is somewhat affected or “transformed” by the other. Do you think Christ derives any joy or feel proud when we follow his example ? Or how about when we feel down an out - does Hebrews 4:15 ring a bell - - For we do not have a high priest who is unable to sympathize with our weaknesses, but one who in every respect has been tempted as we are, yet without sin...Christ empathizes with our current condition. He is able to understand and share in our feelings...It’s some of that two way street dynamic in a relationship.
yeah relationships...connecting with another person...how about John 14 where Jesus said “Whoever has my commandments and keeps them, he it is who loves me. And he who loves me will be loved by my Father, and I will love him and manifest myself to him.” 22 Judas (not Iscariot) said to him, “Lord, how is it that you will manifest yourself to us, and not to the world?” 23 Jesus answered him, “If anyone loves me, he will keep my word, and my Father will love him, and we will come to him and make our home with him.”
Exactly how does that work? I don’t know…But I believe it has to be simple or simple folks like me would be totally in the dark. I tend to think following Christ is a very personal experience though it does not happen in a vacuum – unless you live in a cave and never leave it. I think there’s something that happens concurrently in our relationship with Christ as well as with our fellow man... or woman - when we love Christ and follow his directives. An obvious passage that comes to mind is Matthew 22 where Jesus teaches about the two great commandments “You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind. 38 This is the great and first commandment. 39 And a second is like it: You shall love your neighbor as yourself. 40 On these two commandments depend all the Law and the Prophets.”
The second great commandment (love your neighbor as yourself ) has more or less the same sentiment the golden rule in Luke 6: 31 – treat others as you would like to be treated. As a way-believer I was more of a Bible knowledge junkie. I felt my spiritual growth was contingent upon how much I knew of the Bible. It’s kind of weird when one fixates on taking the next class…or repeating the same class many times over…looking forward to the next issue of The Way Mag or the next conference or advance that might fill in the missing pieces of something...something almost like a personal knowledge base that would eventually enable me to solve any problem.
Since I left TWI and reconfigured my outlook to be more about relationships, empathy, connecting, appreciating the whole person (not just the people who think or believe like I do), trying to be true to myself and accepting who I am...I feel I’m on the right track … maybe that’s some of what Jesus Christ was talking about in John 14.
...That reminds me - At some point in a discussion on another thread a few folks criticized the hypocritical nature of wierwille’s teachings in general. Then someone cited Philippians 1:18 of Paul rejoicing over the fact that whether in pretense or in truth Christ is preached...after which I felt compelled to say - whether in pretense or in truth , it’s debatable as to how much of what wierwille taught was even about Christ...wierwille tended to toot his own horn...he wanted folks to recognize his great achievements in biblical research...in my humble opinion if ever Christ was mentioned it was more of a window dressing to give the appearance of Christianity...I think he wanted folks to be almost in reverential awe of his walk with the Father who guided him in rightly dividing “the word”.
I really don’t think the Apostle Paul would have been all that keen on wierwille’s hypocrisy…and I think his point in Philippians 1 was the priority of preaching Christ regardless of the motivation...we're not talking about a ravenous wolf dressing up in sheep's clothing ...There’s nothing in there that addresses - or justifies - wierwille’s malicious and predatory behavior – like it was ok because of the greater good that was done through his teaching “the word”…that’s some fvcked up scale of values in my book…I don’t think true ministers of Christ are that callous.... and I just can’t picture Jesus as some unsympathetic high priest - trying to give a pep talk to some woman who was just drugged and molested by wierwille saying something like “ just renew your mind and think of how you've blessed the man of god and ultimately helped move 'the word' ! ". and believe it or not - as weird, twisted and creepy as that sounds - that is the type of bull$hit wierwille would use to "comfort" his victims!...and how that flies in the face of what Jesus said about the worth of a soul in Luke 15 - his parables of the one lost sheep, the one lost coin, and the prodigal son all illustrate the importance and value of the individual. Outreach is not a numbers game...nor about percentages or trade-offs...and it's not just about getting people saved - in Matthew 18: 1 - 9 Jesus said it wasn't real cool to cause even just one believer to stumble...there will be consequences...really bad consequences...so I don't know - you tell me what is the worth of a soul?
In TWI it seemed “the word” had precedence over personhood. It wasn’t about you - the individual; it was about you being homogenized to think like the group...we're to be like-minded on "the word" don't ya know...…it doesn’t matter what you feel or what you think... What does “the word” say? That’s what counts…I remember wierwille's line in PFAL - "when it comes to 'the word' , I have no friends"...yeah I can see how that's entirely possible if one thinks their own interpretation of The Bible is more important than people.
I thought Jesus Christ came into the world to save sinners – not create a bunch of bookworms who imagine they're really working "the word" as they regurgitate some plagiarist's supposed "research"...oh yeah, rightly dividing "the word" ...custodians of the great accuracy and integrity of "the word"
I mean it's so laughable the way everyone throws around these scholarly and biblical sounding phrases...it's a bunch of fluff...hype to sell folks on how necessary The Way International is to getting "the word" out.... I’ve come to realize I don't need PFAL, The Advanced Class or some other supposedly specialized knowledge to unlock the secrets of the universe to be able to tap into the power of God…I just need Jesus to save my sinful a$$
.
...forsaking my former cult mindset I now ask if “the word” was supposed to take the place of the absent Christ - what or who takes the place of the absent “word”? In other words, who will fill in for “wierwille the Bible interpreter” ? Who or what group will carry on the legacy of wierwille’s twisted doctrine and practice? I guess that would depend on the particular “dispensation of pontification” - Craig, Rosie, the new prez.. or just name your favorite TWI-offshoot.
Here’s just a few qualities of the problematic TWI mindset: the habit of proof texting (using isolated or out of context scripture references) , ignoring logical fallacies of wierwille’s doctrine and holding him in high esteem like he was some modern day Apostle Paul...and just flat out being ignorant of the implanted (or if you prefer indoctrinated ) bias...close-minded to alternate viewpoints...Sadly when it comes to simply reading the Bible with an open mind - I think TWI followers and other “like-minded” folks are often lost in the morass * of wierwille’s convoluted and error-prone frame of thought...
(* “morass” : think more a$$ as in - your viewpoint is based mostly on a stupid person).
Edited by T-BoneThe long-and-winding-roads-scholar
Link to comment
Share on other sites
TLC
I wonder at times just what is actually meant or intended with this "fundamentalist approach," or why so many find it so reproachable. Surely the mere acceptance of the inerrancy and divine authority of scripture does not, in and of itself, merit such blatant disdain. And if that doesn't make one a fundamentalist, then neither should a confidence in one's own theological positions. However, perhaps the phrase embodies some kind of religious mentality that confidently asserts its own objectivity and unprejudiced reasoning, while at the same time condemns the biased and interest laden nature in the reasoning of others. Or maybe it simply denotes some brand of "Christian" ideology incapable of acknowledging any sort of incompleteness or inconsistency in their own beliefs, or of tolerating it in anyone else. In any event, the phrase itself carries with it such contempt, it's difficult to imagine anyone purposefully desiring to be the target of such opprobrium. Yet, by its simple and perhaps most basic definition - an unwavering attachment to a set of irreducible beliefs - I find myself aligned with it. (Albeit, my "irreducible beliefs" are probably far fewer than what you might think.)
The problem, as I see it, is not in a disagreement that vpw's interpretation might (or often) eclipse some other way to understand the text. Rather, it is in the possibility that the "some other way" to understand it might also be thought of and deemed as a "fundamentalist approach" which, at times, can differ radically from his (so-called) "fundamentalist approach. Consequently, the damage that results is not only an eclipsing of what might be found apart fundamentalism, but of what might be unknown and undiscovered within it. By this same line of reasoning, I suspect that far too many that were formerly associated with the way have turned aside from much of the truth contained in the Pauline epistles. It probably should also be said here that vpw may have been (and in certain respects, surely was) much more of a legalist than some (or many) of you know or ever thought possible...
Edited by TLCLink to comment
Share on other sites
T-Bone
I can only speak for myself, and I mainly take issue with the claim of biblical inerrancy; and I do NOT have a disdain for the scriptures nor for the basis of its authority (God); I wouldn’t say I have a “theological position” – which to me implies it’s set in stone – and besides I always have in the back of my mind I could be totally wrong; my pulling away from fundamentalism is an effort to try to get away from unrealistic expectations of the Bible. One small side note on unrealistic expectations of the Bible -I think that’s where the health and wealth gospel folks have a problem; gotta get your confessions and believing in line with the Bible and then you’ll have good health and wealth. Unrealistic expectations can also be things like believing the Bible will unlock all the mysteries of life, that it has the only solution you'll ever need in any situation.
Maybe you’ve got it wrong – I do acknowledge the incompleteness and inconsistency of my own beliefs. But let’s back track a little bit on why I’m not satisfied with a fundamentalist approach to the interpretation of the Bible. I believe there is a tendency in that approach to put God - and perhaps even the journey of faith – into a manageable format…a theology in a box…a tidy little package you could mass-market...fundamentalism being so literal, tends to ignore the cultural context and the adaptive nature of these ancient authors. You'll see it in passages where they may have borrowed or adapted stories from other cultures or how an author my reinterpret a passage used elsewhere. Another weakness - or confusing element of fundamentalism is that it does not recognize the ancient style of writing was observational. so if the sun looks like it rises (instead of the earth rotating) then that's what you write. However, we of modern times know that is not literally true.
I think fundamentalism just might be more about being in control – having the vague notion that one can sort of manipulate God and others – because the Bible is so pliable…we categorize scripture…organize our doctrine…and expect the Bible to bend to our viewpoint – or damn it, we’ll make it comply. I no longer feel the need to put my faith in a book that some folks claim is inerrant even though there are a lot of contradictions, scientific and historical inaccuracies. I put my faith in the God who inspired humans – you know, those imperfect creatures – to write such a book – that will lead folks on an interesting spiritual journey. Maybe I should be the one who is flexible – and bend to how and where it will inspire me to go.
Perhaps that is the problem with fundamentalism – it looks for perfection, completeness, consistency where there might not be any; for me , the most vivid example of taking fundamentalism to the extreme was wierwille in PFAL going on and on about the mathematical exactness and scientific precision of the Bible – all the while twisting and confusing similar accounts, resorting to his goofball pseudo-science, and mangling a lot of material he stole from his favorite ultra-dispensationalist Bullinger…wierwille’s mindset is closer to what you mentioned about “the kind of religious mentality that confidently asserts its own objectivity and unprejudiced reasoning, while at the same time condemns the biased and interest laden nature in the reasoning of others.”
One of the most laughable tricks that really highlighted wierwille’s extreme bias was when he got into his argument for Jesus Christ is NOT God; and it goes something like this: unclear verses must be understood in light of the clear verses on the same subject…not sure if that’s exactly how he put it – but hopefully it’s close…anyway that makes no sense. The problem I have with that is there’s an assumption that contradictory verses are addressing the same issue. It also takes a subtle jab at the critical thinking process - sort of a "hey, just ignore that problem verse when I've got all these other ones to prove my point."
Anyway, that’s all I’ve got for now, TLC…I appreciate the feedback and input…I’m always surprised when someone actually reads any of my loooooong posts - so thanks for reading it…peace and sweet dreams.
Edited by T-Bonethe long-and-winding-roads-scholar stops at a convienence store
Link to comment
Share on other sites
T-Bone
As far as there being any consistency in my beliefs I did want to remind any readers following this thread – that I did mention some abiding thoughts in my very first post – which I’ve quoted here.
And as a matter of fact, even long before my involvement with The Way International – as far back as I can remember – I believed in a Creator and that Jesus Christ is an actual person who once walked the earth. Notice I used the word “is” and not “was”...just trying to express my belief that he is still around...anyway... I don’t really get into super-analyzing myself to determine if those abiding thoughts are due to being raised in a God-fearing family of Roman Catholics, the nature of faith, being a stubborn knucklehead or some other form of dementia.
Speaking of my Roman Catholic upbringing as far as there being any consistency in my beliefs, I just wanted to remind anyone following this thread, of a few things I said and living in modern times – I never really had a “crisis of faith” over the Bible being true or not until I fell under the spell of a really sly con artist/fundamentalist by the name of wierwille. He’s the one who sold me on the idea that the Bible had to be perfect – that there could not be even one contradiction or error – or the whole Bible would fall to pieces.
I addressed this in my previous post – I’m getting away from having unrealistic expectations about the Bible. I tend to think – believing that the Creator is an infinite being – doing the unexpected would be his/hers modus operandi. Wrapping your mind around that concept might be frustrating to a lot of folks (including myself) who like everything to be predictable, explainable…we may become stymied or frustrated when we “find ourselves at the mercy of anyone or anything that cannot be programmed, categorized or easily referenced” (quoting special agent Fox Mulder of The X-Files ).... I often wonder why this journey winds up being so unpredictable and uncertain…maybe exploring one’s faith isn’t for the faint of heart…it’s certainly not for the lazy who might like the convenience of having a prepackaged set of beliefs handed to them…hmmmm do cults attract lazy people? I don’t know.
The best example I can think of in the Bible that shows how the Creator can pull off the unexpected is in John 1. The Word became flesh and dwelt among us. That’s a mind-blower if you think about it…The Word...in the fragile vessel of a human being was certainly unexpected! My goofball comic-book brain would have had some larger-than-life-otherworldly-looking dude come down to earth – kick some unbeliever a$$ and if even half the folks didn’t comply – he’d snap his fingers and poof they’re gone! (sorry – I should have announced a spoiler alert if you haven’t seen Avengers: Infinity War yet…my bad
)...maybe the subtle grace of Jesus Christ not being a tyrant, conqueror or some super-duper-extraordinary-meta-human says something of what is expected of us...perhaps we are to be self-motivated to pursue him...Maybe our journey requires a lot of self-reflection…perhaps it's our responsibility to follow through on the things that make us feel the most fulfilled.
Edited by T-BoneLink to comment
Share on other sites
TLC
I'd hoped my post wouldn't be that hard to understand, but evidently it was. It's the "fundamentalist approach" that so many (here, and elsewhere) view with blatant disdain. Furthermore, it is scripture and not "the Bible" per se that I associated with inerrancy. (I could elaborate, but it would detract from all else that was said.)
I never thought (said, or otherwise implied) that you don't. You seem to be inserting yourself into what I said about how "fundamentalism" can be (or likely is) viewed by others.
Matter of fact, some of what I said (of how fundamentalism might be thought of), appears to align quite well with your view of it. And if you read "the problem, as I see it" part of my previous post, perhaps it didn't make any sense to you, so it went clean clear through.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
T-Bone
Sorry I guess it wasn’t clear enough for me; as far as inerrancy goes - whether one looks at the Bible (any translation / version) as a whole or whatever existing documents that have been found - there are still obvious scientific / historical errors and contradictions . So to rephrase “my position” - I don’t believe in the inerrancy of the scriptures - even the original-God-breathed-hot-off-the-press documents...scrolls...parchments...post-it notes or whatever the heck you want to call them.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
chockfull
Plato's cave is the problem with fundamentalism and the Bible.
It ends in a bunch of people skilled in making hand puppet forms to project shadows on the wall judging one another according to the detail and coherency of those shadows.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
T-Bone
Yes...yes!!!!
who knows what evil lurks in the hearts of men? The Shadow Puppets know!!!!
Link to comment
Share on other sites
TLC
So from your perspective, there's no difference... yet, perhaps you might consider that from my perspective, there is (and has been, for over 40 years.) Long ago (before twi) I came to the realization that whatever is spiritual: (1) is spiritual, (2) is not physical, and (3) is a reality beyond the reality that is common to all men. Of course, not only did that stir a certain hunger to learn more, it also established an "irreducible" premise within me. But, if that is wrong... then I suppose I might nearly well be in that category of men "most miserable" in this life.
That said, perhaps I'm inclined to see certain things a bit differently. For instance, although I'm not likely to ever speak out about it, within my mind I would probably not agree with someone that said, "The bible is the word of God." Because in my mind, the word of God is something spiritual, whereas the bible is something physical. Therefore, I would think and say, "The bible is the revealed word of God." However, I said "probably not," as there are times when I think I understand what they are intending to say, rather than focusing on what they actually said... and there are enough times in conversations with others where I myself more simply and casually refer to the bible as being "the Word of God." Yet, in the back of my mind, it's a distinction that is never very far away or hard to make, should the need for it ever arise. Furthermore, the relationship between "the Word of God" (which is spiritual) and God (who is spirit) is such that if we think or see God as being perfect (i.e., inerrant), then so is His word. What remains, then, is how any of us think that which is both (1) invisible and (2) inherently perfect, is revealed to man. Can scripture be perceived as something spiritual? Or do you say that it can only be that which is physical?
If you think that scripture is only that which is physical, then how or what do you perceive "the Word of God" as being? Something only breathed or "spoken"? Either way, our perception of it traverses our minds in physical terms, as that is the only language that our minds recognize. Somewhere, or somehow, there's a jump or transition point between the two. And just because you or I (or anyone else) might not see or understand how that happens or is possible, doesn't mean (much less prove) that it's not possible. Personally, I chose to believe that it is possible. And if it's possible to happen once, then it's possible to happen as often as God determines necessary. However, whether or not what He once determined to reveal to man was preserved perfectly is another matter altogether... and I do not believe that it was preserved perfectly. Pretty good... ? Sure. Maybe even, very good. But not, "perfectly." Nevertheless, when or where possible (i.e., more sensible), I prefer to see it (that is, what we do have or know of it - "it" being "the word of God") as a language that is painting the picture of a much greater "spiritual reality" that is, in any other way, invisible and unknown (and, for whatever it's worth, is that reality that actually does exist totally outside of the cave of man's senses, to which he is inextricably bound.)
Does that mark me as a fundamentalist? In the eyes of some, perhaps. But I doubt that much of what I believe conforms much to that mold.
Edited by TLCLink to comment
Share on other sites
TLC
If so, then perhaps relativity is also a problem inherent in everything else. Because all reality is perceptual.
Upon detection, we define energy (in whatever form it exists) and then respond to our own definitions of it. If it's not detectable, it isn't definable, so it's concluded that it doesn't exist. However, at sub atomic levels, nothing is solid. So, one can speculate that the common (or literal) reality that we experience is an illusion. (Albeit, a very persistent one, according to Einstein.)
Link to comment
Share on other sites
chockfull
I don't think so. Labels can be helpful to group general behavior or approaches, but my beliefs are that when it comes down to the core and concepts like faith it is very much a personal thing how people put it together. And labels at that point only serve to divide....
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.