I'm all in favor of the rule of law protecting both the marketplace and the academic institutions with patents and copyrights. I've posted much on this. In addition to this I also see a higher complication, also heavily posted, but worth repeating, when God is the owner of some piece of intellectual property. The devil owns all the rest.
If God gives a revelation to BG Leonard it's really a loan. God still owns it, even though BG gets a copyright on it.
If God gives a revelation (to) VPW to study BGL and then sort through the material and use some of it, that's God's right. If you read the very short and very interesting "Introduction to the Appendixes" to RHST we were given some profound words on this topic there.
I realize it's pretty dicey when man's law comes in conflict with God's. This is what the classical notion of Civil Disobedience is all about.
If it's REALLY God's property, and VPW retrieves it for God's further uses from BGL, Bullinger, Keynon, Styles, then VPW can expect God to protect him from harsh consequences if man's law gets in the way. It seems that happened. I used this EXACT type of protection 30 years ago when I told Howard Allen that we in San Diego had a plenty of copies of the class here in 1988.
If I were to write the book, I'd not copyright it maybe, unless I needed to to protect it from being altered. Maybe I could write it on a discussion forum in public, and the web WayBack machine will keep my originals protected. Hmmm. I'll have to ponder that. That would save a lot of copyright paperwork. I hate filling out forms.
1 hour ago, Mike said:
I don't get it.
Don't get what's funny, and don't get what your partial quote means, except that I have a typo in it.
It should read:
"If God gives a revelation to VPW to study BGL..."
This is what VPW did actually claim in WLIL to Elena Whiteside. He said he did NOT originate most of the material. God did not give divine dictation for the collaterals. Maybe in a few places. But mostly VPW claimed that God taught him WHERE to get taught the truth........<snip>
No, Mike.......I wasn't making fun of your spelling, just your logic.
Wierwille gives one little snippet to "claim that he did NOT originate anything"......but put it together.
YET, he boasted how Father talks to him, how he could just reach up into "Daddy's cookie jar," walk with "all nine all the time" and dozens of other snappy lines. All those corps nights I sat thru, all those hours of corps teachings, University of Life tapes, and Sunday Night Teachings.......where wierwille was "The Teacher."
The guy's narcissism was so embellished that he wore a bracelet with the inscription "Man of God."
And, now.......you come here to GSC and proclaim that God gave revelation to wierwille to be "A Student?" That's rich.
Well then, with that "divine analysis"........I could simply refute your claim and say, "God wanted ME to take pfal to find the 3% of good in it and toss the 97% of garbage regarding wierwille's seductive doctrine and private interpretation." Everyone of us would have been better off with that "revelation." The Scripture in the Book of Timothy instruct the faithful to seek ministers/overseers whose MANNER OF LIFE is in accordance with godliness and uprightness. Wierwille was a striker, deceiver, drunkard, bully, etc.......unfit to lead others, when he couldn't properly lead himself out of his own demise. He failed on all accounts according to I Timothy 3.
............Although I saw lots of red flags, in my youth.......I didn't realize that wierwille's driving agenda was to build a cult.
It's hard to get away from this place. It's like FaceBook!
In summary: if the PFAL collaterals are not God-breathed then all my bets are off, and all you folks are right about theft.
HOWEVER, if they ARE God-breathed, then there is a whole other perspective that none of you have ever thought through in any detail.
I think this has been discussed on several other threads before
However….whether we discuss here or start a new thread – I think it is necessary that there is criteria that we ALL agree upon – such as but not limited to the following:
What is the definition of a God-breathed document?
How can one prove if a document is God-breathed?
What are the qualities of a document that is God-breathed?
In summary: if the PFAL collaterals are not God-breathed then all my bets are off, and all you folks are right about theft.
We can agree on this point, since the collaterals are not God breathed. Heck, not even twi makes that claim and they still peddle the collaterals and include them into the way of abundance and power series. And btw, twi aggressively pursues legal action on all their copyrighted works including the collaterals. Even the moral derelicts on the board of dummies recognize stealing, at least when copyrighted works are stolen from them. Like you, Mike, they blatantly disregard VPW plagiarism and write it off as God brought people to vpw so he could "package" it all together. Nevermind that what he reconstituted wasnt supposed to have been known since the first century, but I digress.
Hi WordWolf. Sorry to neglect your posts. To deal with the detail I'll comment in bright blue over your text.
On 12/16/2017 at 5:29 PM, WordWolf said:
Let's see...
"lacking depth as do all intellectual inbreedings." We still represent more points of view than just the "praise vpw" "discussions" you prefer.
Actually, I agree in some ways here, but it depends on what you mean by “represent.”
GreaseSpot allows ME to post. That's pretty diverse.
What I was referring to, though, was what deep thoughts are pondered and brainstormed, and not merely what postings are allowed.
For example, the "Pure Evil" model of VPW is an example of what I see as a totally prevailing point of view among almost all active posters. You folks are noble in allowing me to post, but in the models that you seriously entertain and develop, I see intellectual inbreeding.
My point of view is ONLY studied here to the extent that I can be silenced through shame or embarrassment, or nullified. Mostly you folks don't discuss things with me as much as you look for targets to shoot at in my text. That’s why so many things are misunderstood and then mis-represented.
"One is the supremacy of BG Leonard’s class. I heard that on production/market side it sucked, and that BG was an even bigger jerk than VPW. " You heard incorrectly. We heard from people who actually attended it. It was live so it was better "in production" than audio or video of vpw with errors left in. It was meant specifically for ministers and pastors, not the general public. It was meant so ministers and pastors could go bless their congregations. It was not meant as a source of revenue. BGL was a genuinely nice guy, and even vpw said so. He could have thrown vpw out when vpw was told the class was closed, then showed up to insist on being included in a class already in progress. He chose not to. He could have sued vpw when he found out about the plagiarism. but was so serious about Christian not suing Christian (based on the Bible) that he refused to, instead adding notices to his books on how plagiarism was wrong. And all the people who actually worked with him or took his classes said he was nice.
"BG could have never marketed his product to the hippies and the baby boomers…. Just never!" It was never about marketing. He aimed his classes at pastors and ministers, to equip them to be better pastors and ministers. He succeeded there.
My use of the word marketing here was figurative. Sorry if I did not make that clear. I meant it in the sense of "moving the Word" and distributing the material far and wide. I meant it in the sense of more souls saved and not more dollars made.
My impression is that BGL was not able to get his product to interest the common man or hippie even if he tried. I believe that ONE of the reasons God gave His revelations to VPW was to get it into print and distributed around the entire Globe. That happened. I don't think Kenyon was capable of moving God's Word over the World either, not Bullinger, nor Styles. The only man who could get through to the baby boomers and hippioes was VPW. That's a fact.
"BG was in great error in that he taught SIT was a gift." He was not in GREAT error because his vocabulary referred to SIT as a gift, but his explanations and instructions all reflected a position that it was not a separate gift (all Christians were automatically entitled to it, etc.) Now, if twi and BGL are correct, this is actually a minor point because the practice taught doesn't reflect the poor vocabulary choice. If twi and BGL are both incorrect because the modern thing is not the SIT used at Pentecost, then he's less bad off than vpw, since BGL spent more time on healing, word of knowledge, etc, and vpw built up 2 whole classes on TIP.
"And did you already forget about Oldiesman’s post on VPW admitting in writing that he was not into originality? I see zero references to it, even though I reposted it a few months ago here." Buried about 100 pages into one single book advertising twi which was never a collateral reading (The Way-Living in Love) was vpw's off-hand comment that "Nothing I do is original" and claimed his originality was in putting the class together. Anyone except someone desperate to exonerate vpw of rampant plagiarism would say that was nothing like an admission. He certainly never said that Leonard's class was the exact same class vpw taught, in every particular, a few months after taking BGL's class. THAT would have been an admission of something. It's a non-issue, because it wasn't an admission of anything, and WAS an evasion about the class already having been put together-which it had been. We've mentioned this lots of times, but someone around here forgets lots of stuff and doesn't admit it.
==========================================
For those who arrived late to the party, this was Mike. Some of Mike's posts have contained the following:
that vpw had an "OVERABUNDANCE of brains and brawn" and was "OVERgifted."
When you post this, and you do often, why do you leave out the context? Don't you rremember that I said I thought VPW was in the 1% bracket in a lot of IQ and drive measures? One full percent of the population is a LOT of people. Remember how I said I thought Mickey Mantle was in the same category. It's the high end tail on several Bell Curves that I thought he was in. I think there are even posters on GreseSpot that are over gifted, in that 1%, really smart, a master working with people, etc, etc. Yes, I think there are a few here, and in every graduating class at Harvard, Princeton, and Yale. Not all of them, but some.
In summary, VPW was gifted enough, IF YOU FOLKS ARE RIGHT, to have fooled you all, and me too. But I don,t think that happened. I think he was a sinner who had all the natural talents and the willingness and the believing to move God's 1942 message into printed form and around the world.
When Jesus returns, he will have a copy of the Orange Book in his hands and be teaching you from it. He wasn't joking either. "Quite serious. I've seen him this way several times." He thinks the Bible is inaccurate, but has called the written pfal materials and twi materials "GOD-BREATHED."
I made a serious and detailed effort a few months ago to answer this but you and everyone else were not interested. Are you now interested? Should I resume y explanation the orange book in LJC's hand, or do you prefer to keep it in a form that is a useful influence tool, extremely lacking context as it is?
I swear, I'm neither making this up, nor exaggerating, nor changing his meaning by removing relevant context.
This is debatable. I see a lot of missing context.
For example, the "Pure Evil" model of VPW is an example of what I see as a totally prevailing point of view among almost all active posters. You folks are noble in allowing me to post, but in the models that you seriously entertain and develop, I see intellectual inbreeding.
And, of course, there's no intellectual inbreeding at The Way, right?
Then how do you arrive at contradictions like God owns all intellectual property, so its okay to steal the scholarly works of others. God also owns everything on earth, yet it's wrong to steal from others. So, despite the fact God claims ownership in both realms, in one realm its okay to steal, in the other its wrong.
My point of view is ONLY studied here to the extent that I can be silenced through shame or embarrassment, or nullified. Mostly you folks don't discuss things with me as much as you look for targets to shoot at in my text. That’s why so many things are misunderstood and then mis-represented.
What you call looking for targets in your text is called offering an opposing view. Say, isn't that's what your claiming to do? So why is it okay for you, but when someone else does it they're trying to silence you through shame, embarrassment, or nullification?
When you post this, and you do often, why do you leave out the context? Don't you rremember that I said I thought VPW was in the 1% bracket in a lot of IQ and drive measures?
One percent bracket in IQ? Talk to some real bibical scholars, they'll tell you bibically Saint Vic couldn't find his tail end with both hands and radar. The only thing he had going for him was he was good at conning and stealing other people's work.
the "Pure Evil" model of VPW is an example of what I see as a totally prevailing point of view among almost all active posters. You folks are noble in allowing me to post, but in the models that you seriously entertain and develop, I see intellectual inbreeding.
13 hours ago, So_crates said:
And, of course, there's no intellectual inbreeding at The Way, right?
There was a TON of intellectual inbreeding done by many TWI people back in the day.
I eschewed it then, as I do now.
Not only that, but I also avoided the wierwille worship I saw at times. One theory I entertain at times is that the most vociferous anti-PFAL grads were once the biggest wierwille worshipers. All that worship energy got turned by bitterness into hate. Just a theory.
Mike, if you will take a bit of your busy time to simply look at some of the actual errors in PFAL, you will find that we're not talking about confirmation bias.
These are factual errors that are not subject to opinion or bias.
Mike, if you will take a bit of your busy time to simply look at some of the actual errors in PFAL, you will find that we're not talking about confirmation bias.
These are factual errors that are not subject to opinion or bias.
How can something be God breathed and inaccurate at the same time? (PFAL materials have been shown to be inaccurate.)
2 hours ago, Mike said:
Two words that best describe "have been shown" are CONFIRMATION BIAS .
1 hour ago, waysider said:
Mike, if you will take a bit of your busy time to simply look at some of the actual errors in PFAL, you will find that we're not talking about confirmation bias.
These are factual errors that are not subject to opinion or bias.
Mike, what’s so difficult about discussing just one of the factual errors in link provided by Waysider? And how about everyone staying on point while we’re at it.
the "Pure Evil" model of VPW is an example of what I see as a totally prevailing point of view among almost all active posters. You folks are noble in allowing me to post, but in the models that you seriously entertain and develop, I see intellectual inbreeding.
There was a TON of intellectual inbreeding done by many TWI people back in the day.
I eschewed it then, as I do now.
Not only that, but I also avoided the wierwille worship I saw at times. One theory I entertain at times is that the most vociferous anti-PFAL grads were once the biggest wierwille worshipers. All that worship energy got turned by bitterness into hate. Just a theory.
I'll blow your theory out of the water right now. I've never been a Saint Vic worshipper. As a matter of fact, I had many a person try to tell me how charismatic he was. Maybe its borderline Asperger"s, but I've looked at Saint Vic and thought,"Him?"
I don't think worship energy has turned into hate. I think your seeing the same reaction as anybody who's been betrayed by a trust. Remember, people have been conned. How would you expect them to react?
Mike, what’s so difficult about discussing just one of the factual errors in link provided by Waysider? And how about everyone staying on point while we’re at it.
It's not difficulty; it's time priorities, AND it's research technique selection. I discussed this before, if not on the early pages of that linked thread, then on concurrent threads, way back then. I'll repeat it a tiny here.
We were taught in the class how attitude towards the ancient scriptures will affect how people interpret them. Wrong attitudes can skew the way the materials are handled. In the class we were taught ON PRINCIPLE, the originals had to be perfect.
That perfection is a guiding principle to one researcher, that the goal is TOWARDS the Word of God and away from man’s interferences through miscopying and mistranslation and wrong dividing.
Another researcher, having the OPPOSITE principle in operation, will regard ALL of the stages of the ancient scriptures was totally from the hand of man.
We were taught that it should be no surprise that the unbeliever researcher is going to get different results from the believer researcher. How does this happen?There are many forks in the road of a research project; different methods are employed; differing priorities in attitudes develop further; final results are totally different.
Even if there are zero forks in those roads, determining when the end point has been reached is another subjective call, and the unbeliever researcher may halt too early, reading too much into a preliminary result, and not able to anticipate and way out of a concluding argument.
Meanwhile the believer researcher keeps at it, not giving up, and suddenly a surprise answer pops up!The other unbeliever researcher simply didn’t look hard enough, due to bias attitude.
Remember how we were taught in the class that sometimes a biblical research problem could sit on VPW’s desk for 15 years before being solved?
Well, it’s been almost 15 years since that thread started, and it just so happens I got a surprise answer to one of the items you challenged me to work with you folks. I think it’s time to work that one item a little farther than I could back then.
It's not difficulty; it's time priorities, AND it's research technique selection. I discussed this before, if not on the early pages of that linked thread, then on concurrent threads, way back then. I'll repeat it a tiny here.
We were taught in the class how attitude towards the ancient scriptures will affect how people interpret them. Wrong attitudes can skew the way the materials are handled. In the class we were taught ON PRINCIPLE, the originals had to be perfect.
And what of the attitude of someone that wants to con followers into believing he's a MOG? How would that affect how scriptures are interpreted?
2 minutes ago, Mike said:
That perfection is a guiding principle to one researcher, that the goal is TOWARDS the Word of God and away from man’s interferences through miscopying and mistranslation and wrong dividing.
Another researcher, having the OPPOSITE principle in operation, will regard ALL of the stages of the ancient scriptures was totally from the hand of man.
We were taught that it should be no surprise that the unbeliever researcher is going to get different results from the believer researcher. How does this happen?There are many forks in the road of a research project; different methods are employed; differing priorities in attitudes develop further; final results are totally different.
Even if there are zero forks in those roads, determining when the end point has been reached is another subjective call, and the unbeliever researcher may halt too early, reading too much into a preliminary result, and not able to anticipate and way out of a concluding argument.
And naturally, a cornfield con man who declares, "I know this is true, I just haven't found the manuscript to back it up yet," will be able to get at what the scriptures actually say.
2 minutes ago, Mike said:
Meanwhile the believer researcher keeps at it, not giving up, and suddenly a surprise answer pops up!The other unbeliever researcher simply didn’t look hard enough, due to bias attitude.
Yah, without scripture backing that what the ministry calls private interpretation.
2 minutes ago, Mike said:
Remember how we were taught in the class that sometimes a biblical research problem could sit on VPW’s desk for 15 years before being solved?
I bet it sit on his desk for 15 years. Why not do what he's done every other time: Either claim God ttold him and make something up or look for someone to plagerize.
I'll blow your theory out of the water right now. I've never been a Saint Vic worshipper. As a matter of fact, I had many a person try to tell me how charismatic he was. Maybe its borderline Asperger"s, but I've looked at Saint Vic and thought,"Him?"
I don't think worship energy has turned into hate. I think your seeing the same reaction as anybody who's been betrayed by a trust. Remember, people have been conned. How would you expect them to react?
Interestingly, I felt similarly towards him back then.
Timing is critical here. In the early 70's he was younger and more energetic. That was when I saw the worship happen. Like a rockstar in style. By 1980 and beyond the worship seemed to shift to Craig and become corporate style.
The thousands of thankful blessed grads I talk about were from the early years. After the mega WOW years the 1980s had a lot more betrayal and control.
I can agree with you and sympathize with those later grads who did not see good years. I saw many good years. By lucky coincidence I happened to move about those years in a way that JUST missed being affected dingbat leadership screw-ups. I lucked out a lot that way, until around 1984ish.
The thousands of thankful blessed grads also are far less seen in the ranks of the Corps. I see more blessings going to those who stuck around for only a few years, took the class about 4 times, and moved on away from the control and the 1980s calamities. I deliberately contacted a lot of this type of grad when the Internet suddenly made that easy. They had no idea the ministry had collapsed and still had their books and were never betrayed one bit in the least. There are more of these non-Corps people than you know. I spent years, even decades now, looking for them.
So, instead of taking me up on working #8, you'd rather post like that? Ok.
That response of yours conjures a funny mind picture:
I'm a geometry teacher going through a proof on the blackboard, and you're a drunk who stumbles in thinking you're in a Comedy Club. Your comments reminded me of jeering. I laughed.
But you did say one lucid thing:
9 minutes ago, So_crates said:
And naturally, a cornfield con man who declares, "I know this is true, I just haven't found the manuscript to back it up yet," will be able to get at what the scriptures actually say.
Me too!!!!
Oops! Sorry ladies. I didn't mean that.
I too would PULL MY HAIR out when VPW would say things like that. I'd be embarrassed, then revolted. It was like he was breaking hiw own rules. The only thing I could think was brain fart. But he did it at least 3 times that I heard myself. It bothered me a lot. It was one the things that I finally soured on, and by the time of his death My attitude was that Craig was much better. BOY! Did I feel conned a few years later !
But then in 1998 I found the answer to those very unusual and difficult remarks of his. I've posted it here many times.
So, instead of taking me up on working #8, you'd rather post like that? Ok.
That response of yours conjures a funny mind picture:
I'm a geometry teacher going through a proof on the blackboard, and you're a drunk who stumbles in thinking you're in a Comedy Club. Your comments reminded me of jeering. I laughed.
But you did say one lucid thing:
Actually, every statement is lucid and been arrive at through careful thought and logic.
For example, you claim I'm jeering when I ask how a con man would approach scriptures.
If your going to claim believer will get one interpretation and non-believers another, then asking how a con man running a con would interpret scriptures is a legitimate question
Then of course the question becomes did Saint Vic interpret scriptures like a con man running a con?
23 minutes ago, Mike said:
Me too!!!!
Oops! Sorry ladies. I didn't mean that.
I too would PULL MY HAIR out when VPW would say things like that. I'd be embarrassed, then revolted. It was like he was breaking hiw own rules. The only thing I could think was brain fart. But he did it at least 3 times that I heard myself. It bothered me a lot. It was one the things that I finally soured on, and by the time of his death My attitude was that Craig was much better. BOY! Did I feel conned a few years later !
But then in 1998 I found the answer to those very unusual and difficult remarks of his. I've posted it here many times.
A geometry teacher? Then you should be familiar with logic and scientific method. And the above should show you lack of scientific method.
It's not difficulty; it's time priorities, AND it's research technique selection. I discussed this before, if not on the early pages of that linked thread, then on concurrent threads, way back then. I'll repeat it a tiny here.
We were taught in the class how attitude towards the ancient scriptures will affect how people interpret them. Wrong attitudes can skew the way the materials are handled. In the class we were taught ON PRINCIPLE, the originals had to be perfect.
That perfection is a guiding principle to one researcher, that the goal is TOWARDS the Word of God and away from man’s interferences through miscopying and mistranslation and wrong dividing.
Another researcher, having the OPPOSITE principle in operation, will regard ALL of the stages of the ancient scriptures was totally from the hand of man.
We were taught that it should be no surprise that the unbeliever researcher is going to get different results from the believer researcher. How does this happen?There are many forks in the road of a research project; different methods are employed; differing priorities in attitudes develop further; final results are totally different.
Even if there are zero forks in those roads, determining when the end point has been reached is another subjective call, and the unbeliever researcher may halt too early, reading too much into a preliminary result, and not able to anticipate and way out of a concluding argument.
Meanwhile the believer researcher keeps at it, not giving up, and suddenly a surprise answer pops up!The other unbeliever researcher simply didn’t look hard enough, due to bias attitude.
Remember how we were taught in the class that sometimes a biblical research problem could sit on VPW’s desk for 15 years before being solved?
Well, it’s been almost 15 years since that thread started, and it just so happens I got a surprise answer to one of the items you challenged me to work with you folks. I think it’s time to work that one item a little farther than I could back then.
if you follow that Amazon link you’ll note there’s now a newer edition than the one I have... but anyway I prefer using an interpretive process like the one shown in this book (but I'm flexible and consider many valid methods) rather than something that is subjective (like one’s attitude, as you suggested wierwille taught) since the authors describe hermeneutics which is the science of Biblical interpretation; the authors also survey the literary, cultural, social, and historical issues that impact the text and evaluate the different approaches to Bible interpretation, and they even get into what I think is extremely important because it’s something that relates to what you said - the role of the interpreter and identifying what we bring to the text that could distort the message...
I believe everyone has some bias on different things - - but an important consideration is whether or not one is aware of that...and I'll be upfront with you in that regard; I do not trust anything that wierwille said. It's a bias I adopted after I realized I was conned by him. However, when it comes to analyzing anything he said - I suspend that bias and focus not on wierwille but on the content of what he said. Is that such a hard thing to understand? I tell you what – it’s a very easy thing to do – once you separate the myth from the reality – look past your bias - then it’s easy to assess the facts; honestly, I think you spend too much time trying to shore up some fond memories of wierwille or maybe you’re just afraid to admit you’ve invested all you’ve got on a flimflam man...I mean, why else would you avoid reading Mrs wierwille's book for some 20 years? afraid your image of wierwille would not jibe with her perspective on the man? Her own husband - in her own words!
...Well, Mike before life is over, think long and hard about this - it's never too late to cut your losses and move on.
when analyzing the content of what he said - I will often discover a serious flaw in the logic he used or incompetency in the way he handles a subject - this really becomes evident if you review one of wierwille's sources that he heavily plagiarized and made a part of PFAL - Bullinger's How to Enjoy The Bible. You might want to mull that over as you ponder the last few sentences of this post.
I think the concern over validating any of the wierwille’s works is pointless when you consider his plagiaristic tendencies and self-promotion. If there’s anything of merit once you sift through his mangled cobbling together of other folks’ ideas and works then , by golly, you have merely found the window dressing of a con man. It was part of the web of deceit to entangle folks around his ego- trip.
It was a grand misrepresentation – he actually claimed God spoke to him and would teach him “the word”. He led people to believe the only way to see the greatness of “the word” was through him. He discouraged critical thinking in any who followed him. Once a person gets out of the TWI-frame-of-mind they realize the predominant theme in all of wierwille’s works is actually just the greatness of wierwille’s works. There's really a subtext that runs along the lines of you won't find this stuff out there in the churches...no one is concerned about the accuracy and integrity of the word like I am...where else are you going to find someone who can put the word together like a hand fits in a glove....we've all heard him say things like that throughout his "career"....
whether followers realized it or not - wierwille set himself up as the gatekeeper for truth...the middle man - - so in effect folks assumed God, as the inspiration behind scripture - would provide wierwille with the inside scoop on the Bible - which in turn was funneled through him to you...followers assumed God would guide wierwille to rightly divide the word and he would then teach it to everyone.......How belittling that is of God…how that trivializes the scriptures…how that disparages the wonderfully intricate brain that he created with its profound capacity for insight, emotion, logic, analysis, language, creativity etc.
I think it’s disappointing you put so much stock in wierwille’s spiel on “man’s interferences through miscopying and mistranslation and wrong dividing” rather than in the facts of the matter. I think wierwille’s rigmarole over that was a clever way to entice students and followers to join him in the pursuit of that ever elusive thing of "getting back to original God-breathed Word” with wierwille leading the way, of course. I mean really now – what qualified him to be a teacher or interpreter of the Bible? Are you familiar with the fact that he lied about taking courses through the Moody Bible College correspondence program?
Bruce presents compelling historical evidence to defend the trustworthiness of the New Testament manuscripts.
Mike, I think you need to get a better yardstick rather than measuring everything by the standard of PFAL…I don’t care if you want to look into some other scholarly works than the ones I mentioned – and believe me there’s a lot of great stuff out there – by great stuff I mean books on hermeneutics that follow a scientific discipline which is honestly handling the facts in a consistent and systematic way as well as just being competent in the grammar of the biblical languages…
Now be honest, Mike - do you still believe the Bible interprets itself? wierwille made such a big deal over that in PFAL - "the Bible is of no private interpretation" remember? Truthfully now - do you still believe the Bible interprets itself? What verse or verses in the Bible support that premise?
It's not difficulty; it's time priorities, AND it's research technique selection. I discussed this before, if not on the early pages of that linked thread, then on concurrent threads, way back then. I'll repeat it a tiny here.
We were taught in the class how attitude towards the ancient scriptures will affect how people interpret them. Wrong attitudes can skew the way the materials are handled. In the class we were taught ON PRINCIPLE, the originals had to be perfect.
That perfection is a guiding principle to one researcher, that the goal is TOWARDS the Word of God and away from man’s interferences through miscopying and mistranslation and wrong dividing.
Another researcher, having the OPPOSITE principle in operation, will regard ALL of the stages of the ancient scriptures was totally from the hand of man.
We were taught that it should be no surprise that the unbeliever researcher is going to get different results from the believer researcher. How does this happen?There are many forks in the road of a research project; different methods are employed; differing priorities in attitudes develop further; final results are totally different.
Even if there are zero forks in those roads, determining when the end point has been reached is another subjective call, and the unbeliever researcher may halt too early, reading too much into a preliminary result, and not able to anticipate and way out of a concluding argument.
Meanwhile the believer researcher keeps at it, not giving up, and suddenly a surprise answer pops up!The other unbeliever researcher simply didn’t look hard enough, due to bias attitude.
Remember how we were taught in the class that sometimes a biblical research problem could sit on VPW’s desk for 15 years before being solved?
Well, it’s been almost 15 years since that thread started, and it just so happens I got a surprise answer to one of the items you challenged me to work with you folks. I think it’s time to work that one item a little farther than I could back then.
It’s item #8 “all without distinction”
Clearly, you haven't read Charlene Edge's personal history. She worked for several years in Dictor's "research" department. Dictor very much was insistent on his own private interpretation holding sway.
Recommended Posts
Top Posters In This Topic
136
56
78
57
Popular Days
Jan 2
61
Dec 27
47
Dec 22
46
Jan 5
37
Top Posters In This Topic
Mike 136 posts
T-Bone 56 posts
So_crates 78 posts
Grace Valerie Claire 57 posts
Popular Days
Jan 2 2018
61 posts
Dec 27 2017
47 posts
Dec 22 2017
46 posts
Jan 5 2018
37 posts
Popular Posts
skyrider
Those of us who exited twi, AND have now done extensive background research on the cult (as opposed to being carried away by youthful groupthink and peer pressure).....maintain strong convictions of t
T-Bone
After thinking about one poster’s recent attempt at revising history...or was it creative writing....I dunno - whatever the he11 you want to call his perspective on PFAL ‘77 - - I thought I’d give it
skyrider
Thanks guys….. life is good, all is well. It’s good to see GSC continuing to sound the alarm as we move into the 2023 new year. Even though twi tries to guilt advanced class grads and corps to *
Posted Images
skyrider
No, Mike.......I wasn't making fun of your spelling, just your logic.
Wierwille gives one little snippet to "claim that he did NOT originate anything"......but put it together.
YET, he boasted how Father talks to him, how he could just reach up into "Daddy's cookie jar," walk with "all nine all the time" and dozens of other snappy lines. All those corps nights I sat thru, all those hours of corps teachings, University of Life tapes, and Sunday Night Teachings.......where wierwille was "The Teacher."
The guy's narcissism was so embellished that he wore a bracelet with the inscription "Man of God."
And, now.......you come here to GSC and proclaim that God gave revelation to wierwille to be "A Student?" That's rich.
Well then, with that "divine analysis"........I could simply refute your claim and say, "God wanted ME to take pfal to find the 3% of good in it and toss the 97% of garbage regarding wierwille's seductive doctrine and private interpretation." Everyone of us would have been better off with that "revelation." The Scripture in the Book of Timothy instruct the faithful to seek ministers/overseers whose MANNER OF LIFE is in accordance with godliness and uprightness. Wierwille was a striker, deceiver, drunkard, bully, etc.......unfit to lead others, when he couldn't properly lead himself out of his own demise. He failed on all accounts according to I Timothy 3.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
T-Bone
I think this has been discussed on several other threads before
However….whether we discuss here or start a new thread – I think it is necessary that there is criteria that we ALL agree upon – such as but not limited to the following:
What is the definition of a God-breathed document?
How can one prove if a document is God-breathed?
What are the qualities of a document that is God-breathed?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
OldSkool
We can agree on this point, since the collaterals are not God breathed. Heck, not even twi makes that claim and they still peddle the collaterals and include them into the way of abundance and power series. And btw, twi aggressively pursues legal action on all their copyrighted works including the collaterals. Even the moral derelicts on the board of dummies recognize stealing, at least when copyrighted works are stolen from them. Like you, Mike, they blatantly disregard VPW plagiarism and write it off as God brought people to vpw so he could "package" it all together. Nevermind that what he reconstituted wasnt supposed to have been known since the first century, but I digress.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
Hi WordWolf. Sorry to neglect your posts. To deal with the detail I'll comment in bright blue over your text.
Edited by MikeLink to comment
Share on other sites
So_crates
Link to comment
Share on other sites
waysider
Here's where cognitive dissonance gets thick:
How can something be God breathed and inaccurate at the same time? (PFAL materials have been shown to be inaccurate.)
Edited by waysiderLink to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
Previously, I had written:
the "Pure Evil" model of VPW is an example of what I see as a totally prevailing point of view among almost all active posters. You folks are noble in allowing me to post, but in the models that you seriously entertain and develop, I see intellectual inbreeding.
There was a TON of intellectual inbreeding done by many TWI people back in the day.
I eschewed it then, as I do now.
Not only that, but I also avoided the wierwille worship I saw at times. One theory I entertain at times is that the most vociferous anti-PFAL grads were once the biggest wierwille worshipers. All that worship energy got turned by bitterness into hate. Just a theory.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
Two words that best describe "have been shown" are CONFIRMATION BIAS .
Edited by MikeLink to comment
Share on other sites
waysider
Mike, if you will take a bit of your busy time to simply look at some of the actual errors in PFAL, you will find that we're not talking about confirmation bias.
These are factual errors that are not subject to opinion or bias.
LINK
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Grace Valerie Claire
Way, thanks for the link!!
Link to comment
Share on other sites
T-Bone
Mike, what’s so difficult about discussing just one of the factual errors in link provided by Waysider? And how about everyone staying on point while we’re at it.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
So_crates
I'll blow your theory out of the water right now. I've never been a Saint Vic worshipper. As a matter of fact, I had many a person try to tell me how charismatic he was. Maybe its borderline Asperger"s, but I've looked at Saint Vic and thought,"Him?"
I don't think worship energy has turned into hate. I think your seeing the same reaction as anybody who's been betrayed by a trust. Remember, people have been conned. How would you expect them to react?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
It's not difficulty; it's time priorities, AND it's research technique selection. I discussed this before, if not on the early pages of that linked thread, then on concurrent threads, way back then. I'll repeat it a tiny here.
We were taught in the class how attitude towards the ancient scriptures will affect how people interpret them. Wrong attitudes can skew the way the materials are handled. In the class we were taught ON PRINCIPLE, the originals had to be perfect.
That perfection is a guiding principle to one researcher, that the goal is TOWARDS the Word of God and away from man’s interferences through miscopying and mistranslation and wrong dividing.
Another researcher, having the OPPOSITE principle in operation, will regard ALL of the stages of the ancient scriptures was totally from the hand of man.
We were taught that it should be no surprise that the unbeliever researcher is going to get different results from the believer researcher. How does this happen? There are many forks in the road of a research project; different methods are employed; differing priorities in attitudes develop further; final results are totally different.
Even if there are zero forks in those roads, determining when the end point has been reached is another subjective call, and the unbeliever researcher may halt too early, reading too much into a preliminary result, and not able to anticipate and way out of a concluding argument.
Meanwhile the believer researcher keeps at it, not giving up, and suddenly a surprise answer pops up! The other unbeliever researcher simply didn’t look hard enough, due to bias attitude.
Remember how we were taught in the class that sometimes a biblical research problem could sit on VPW’s desk for 15 years before being solved?
Well, it’s been almost 15 years since that thread started, and it just so happens I got a surprise answer to one of the items you challenged me to work with you folks. I think it’s time to work that one item a little farther than I could back then.
It’s item #8 “all without distinction”
Link to comment
Share on other sites
So_crates
And what of the attitude of someone that wants to con followers into believing he's a MOG? How would that affect how scriptures are interpreted?
And naturally, a cornfield con man who declares, "I know this is true, I just haven't found the manuscript to back it up yet," will be able to get at what the scriptures actually say.
Yah, without scripture backing that what the ministry calls private interpretation.
I bet it sit on his desk for 15 years. Why not do what he's done every other time: Either claim God ttold him and make something up or look for someone to plagerize.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
Interestingly, I felt similarly towards him back then.
Timing is critical here. In the early 70's he was younger and more energetic. That was when I saw the worship happen. Like a rockstar in style. By 1980 and beyond the worship seemed to shift to Craig and become corporate style.
The thousands of thankful blessed grads I talk about were from the early years. After the mega WOW years the 1980s had a lot more betrayal and control.
I can agree with you and sympathize with those later grads who did not see good years. I saw many good years. By lucky coincidence I happened to move about those years in a way that JUST missed being affected dingbat leadership screw-ups. I lucked out a lot that way, until around 1984ish.
The thousands of thankful blessed grads also are far less seen in the ranks of the Corps. I see more blessings going to those who stuck around for only a few years, took the class about 4 times, and moved on away from the control and the 1980s calamities. I deliberately contacted a lot of this type of grad when the Internet suddenly made that easy. They had no idea the ministry had collapsed and still had their books and were never betrayed one bit in the least. There are more of these non-Corps people than you know. I spent years, even decades now, looking for them.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
So_crates,
So, instead of taking me up on working #8, you'd rather post like that? Ok.
That response of yours conjures a funny mind picture:
I'm a geometry teacher going through a proof on the blackboard, and you're a drunk who stumbles in thinking you're in a Comedy Club. Your comments reminded me of jeering. I laughed.
But you did say one lucid thing:
Me too!!!!
Oops! Sorry ladies. I didn't mean that.
I too would PULL MY HAIR out when VPW would say things like that. I'd be embarrassed, then revolted. It was like he was breaking hiw own rules. The only thing I could think was brain fart. But he did it at least 3 times that I heard myself. It bothered me a lot. It was one the things that I finally soured on, and by the time of his death My attitude was that Craig was much better. BOY! Did I feel conned a few years later !
But then in 1998 I found the answer to those very unusual and difficult remarks of his. I've posted it here many times.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
waysider
Time is of the utmost importance so I'll be brief.
Where was the Council of Nicaea held?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
Do you mean the one in France or the one in Turkey?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
So_crates
Actually, every statement is lucid and been arrive at through careful thought and logic.
For example, you claim I'm jeering when I ask how a con man would approach scriptures.
If your going to claim believer will get one interpretation and non-believers another, then asking how a con man running a con would interpret scriptures is a legitimate question
Then of course the question becomes did Saint Vic interpret scriptures like a con man running a con?
A geometry teacher? Then you should be familiar with logic and scientific method. And the above should show you lack of scientific method.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
If I said an Art teacher, would you laugh then?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
So_crates
Only if your name was Art Painter...
Or you told me you taught cubist art...
Edited by So_cratesLink to comment
Share on other sites
T-Bone
Mike, have you ever thought about looking at how other authors interpret the scriptures? There’s one book in particular that I’m fond of it’s Introduction to Biblical Interpretation by Klein, Blomberg, and Hubbard Jr.
if you follow that Amazon link you’ll note there’s now a newer edition than the one I have... but anyway I prefer using an interpretive process like the one shown in this book (but I'm flexible and consider many valid methods) rather than something that is subjective (like one’s attitude, as you suggested wierwille taught) since the authors describe hermeneutics which is the science of Biblical interpretation; the authors also survey the literary, cultural, social, and historical issues that impact the text and evaluate the different approaches to Bible interpretation, and they even get into what I think is extremely important because it’s something that relates to what you said - the role of the interpreter and identifying what we bring to the text that could distort the message...
I believe everyone has some bias on different things - - but an important consideration is whether or not one is aware of that...and I'll be upfront with you in that regard; I do not trust anything that wierwille said. It's a bias I adopted after I realized I was conned by him. However, when it comes to analyzing anything he said - I suspend that bias and focus not on wierwille but on the content of what he said. Is that such a hard thing to understand? I tell you what – it’s a very easy thing to do – once you separate the myth from the reality – look past your bias - then it’s easy to assess the facts; honestly, I think you spend too much time trying to shore up some fond memories of wierwille or maybe you’re just afraid to admit you’ve invested all you’ve got on a flimflam man...I mean, why else would you avoid reading Mrs wierwille's book for some 20 years? afraid your image of wierwille would not jibe with her perspective on the man? Her own husband - in her own words!
...Well, Mike before life is over, think long and hard about this - it's never too late to cut your losses and move on.
when analyzing the content of what he said - I will often discover a serious flaw in the logic he used or incompetency in the way he handles a subject - this really becomes evident if you review one of wierwille's sources that he heavily plagiarized and made a part of PFAL - Bullinger's How to Enjoy The Bible. You might want to mull that over as you ponder the last few sentences of this post.
I think the concern over validating any of the wierwille’s works is pointless when you consider his plagiaristic tendencies and self-promotion. If there’s anything of merit once you sift through his mangled cobbling together of other folks’ ideas and works then , by golly, you have merely found the window dressing of a con man. It was part of the web of deceit to entangle folks around his ego- trip.
It was a grand misrepresentation – he actually claimed God spoke to him and would teach him “the word”. He led people to believe the only way to see the greatness of “the word” was through him. He discouraged critical thinking in any who followed him. Once a person gets out of the TWI-frame-of-mind they realize the predominant theme in all of wierwille’s works is actually just the greatness of wierwille’s works. There's really a subtext that runs along the lines of you won't find this stuff out there in the churches...no one is concerned about the accuracy and integrity of the word like I am...where else are you going to find someone who can put the word together like a hand fits in a glove....we've all heard him say things like that throughout his "career"....
whether followers realized it or not - wierwille set himself up as the gatekeeper for truth...the middle man - - so in effect folks assumed God, as the inspiration behind scripture - would provide wierwille with the inside scoop on the Bible - which in turn was funneled through him to you...followers assumed God would guide wierwille to rightly divide the word and he would then teach it to everyone.......How belittling that is of God…how that trivializes the scriptures…how that disparages the wonderfully intricate brain that he created with its profound capacity for insight, emotion, logic, analysis, language, creativity etc.
I think it’s disappointing you put so much stock in wierwille’s spiel on “man’s interferences through miscopying and mistranslation and wrong dividing” rather than in the facts of the matter. I think wierwille’s rigmarole over that was a clever way to entice students and followers to join him in the pursuit of that ever elusive thing of "getting back to original God-breathed Word” with wierwille leading the way, of course. I mean really now – what qualified him to be a teacher or interpreter of the Bible? Are you familiar with the fact that he lied about taking courses through the Moody Bible College correspondence program?
I would also suggest another book for your reading list The New Testament Documents: Are They Reliable by FF Bruce
Bruce presents compelling historical evidence to defend the trustworthiness of the New Testament manuscripts.
Mike, I think you need to get a better yardstick rather than measuring everything by the standard of PFAL…I don’t care if you want to look into some other scholarly works than the ones I mentioned – and believe me there’s a lot of great stuff out there – by great stuff I mean books on hermeneutics that follow a scientific discipline which is honestly handling the facts in a consistent and systematic way as well as just being competent in the grammar of the biblical languages…
Now be honest, Mike - do you still believe the Bible interprets itself? wierwille made such a big deal over that in PFAL - "the Bible is of no private interpretation" remember? Truthfully now - do you still believe the Bible interprets itself? What verse or verses in the Bible support that premise?
love and peace
T-Bone
Edited by T-Boneneeded more time
Link to comment
Share on other sites
waysider
The ecumenical council held in France is known as The Council of Lyon.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Rocky
Clearly, you haven't read Charlene Edge's personal history. She worked for several years in Dictor's "research" department. Dictor very much was insistent on his own private interpretation holding sway.
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.