Actually, I've been reading several of them and slowly seeing how they are organized. There's a lot that's been posted here in the years I've been gone.
Anyway, my interest in this one red flag issue is broader that the TWI application you folks have in mind. I mentioned that in this flurry of posting, I think to someone else.
Then you should check out Youtube's videos on narcissism. Apparently there's a whole cottage industry built around helping people deal with egomaniacs and the psychological damage they do.
Then you should check out Youtube's videos on narcissism. Apparently there's a whole cottage industry built around helping people deal with egomaniacs and the psychological damage they do.
I've seen a huge number of similar articles on FaceBook on narcissism. Some looks useful.
I step back a little from narcissism diagnosis experts, though, because there are too many of them. It reminds me EXACTLY of how idiots at TWI were always looking for devil spirits. It looks like the same human mechanics at play.
Spirit Sniffers and Narcissism Cops are both cut from the same cloth IMO when they get extreme, and it does.
I also often see the some of the same human mechanics of strict fundamentalist Bible thumpers being used by smart University science grad students in their atheistic fits.
Has anyone looked for self referential greatness elsewhere?
How about Jesus? Paul? Luke? John? *snip*
Let's take the first 2, since we have something about them.
A) Jesus said he couldn't do anything of himself. Nevertheless, his healings made the news and got crowds looking for healing, and other crowds wanted miraculous bread and fish after the loaves and fishes incident. He was also introduced by the biggest prophet of his time, John the Baptizer.
B) Paul called himself LEAST of all the apostles, and worked a secular job to avoid causing problems if people complained he was living off the ministry.
You mentioned Moses separately, the man who was "MEEK" over all the Earth, the man who begged God Almighty to send ANYONE ELSE rather than himself.
Self-referential? Of that group, possibly The Son of God qualifies, but he's The Son of God. He STILL said he could do nothing of himself.
Knowledge PUFFS up, God's love BUILDS up. I think of the difference between a building (built up) and a giant balloon SHAPED like a building (puffed up, puffed full of air.) They can look similar to an unobservant bystander, but the differences are dramatic. Something built up is SOLID. Something puffed up collapses with the first hit.
I'm trying to make one tiny point about self referential greatness. I think about this topic from many angles. My Babe Ruth example is needed in our cultural mind-set IMO. We over condemn ego sometimes.
I'm also trying to keep my promise to NOT be in your face(s) with a lot of counter info on VPW to balance your statements.
Did you provide chapter and verse on your claims that various individuals in the biblical records made self-referential statements about themselves before doing anything to so demonstrate... and I just missed it?
Wierwille was The Teacher................because he said he was.
TWI is the true household of God......because they say it is.
Elena Whiteside wrote The Way: Living in Love.......because she said they were.
Mrs. Wierwille wrote Born Again to Serve............... because she said he was.
What we have here is.....Self-Referential Greatness.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
EVERYTHING we ever learned from wierwille or twi was self-referential?
EVERYTHING........was spoon-fed to us via in-house messaging...
EVERYTHING........was tweaked and skewed to place wierwille as "the teacher"
EVERYTHING........fake doctorate, plagiarized books, stolen class, no research skills
Circular logic: The Way Ministry is great, because they say it's great.
No matter how many people exit..........twi still "has the word that no one else has."
No matter how many people exit..........twi is still "the faithful remnant," because they say it is.
No matter how many people expose their fraud..........they still label the dissenters "possessed."
Self-Referential Greatness: Never admit faults, failures, fissures or fraud.
Wierwille closes the 12th Session of pfal ......... just write "The Teacher."
His self-referential title was a red flag..........he proclaimed to be THE ONE who could/would do the teaching as well as THE ONE to answer all questions. This self-claimed authority should have alerted us. And, when we received his books during pfal..........did we take the time to check any bibliographies? What were his sources? Did the book reference credible sources or were his sources self-referential?
Who was this Victor Paul Wierwille? Where did he learn language/research skills? Where did he get his doctorate?
Looking back, I see how he framed his persona in a self-referential cloak........similar to one like L. Ron Hubbard. While wierwille framed his allure with "keys to biblical research" and classes structured for spiritual enlightenment.......L. Ron Hubbard is best known for his science fiction and fantasy stories and a tiered-system called Dianetics.
Wierwille had his stories too, but they were designed to illustrate "believing"......or believing in reverse, fear. Were these stories real, or fiction? As students, we were subjected to this meandering journey of cherry-picked verses from hither and yon, new testament to old testament.....back and forth we went. Some things were eternal truths and some were subjected to the dispensation that you were in. But the grand finale of it all......was to stand up and utter in an unknown language.
But the question that continued to surface in my mind, year after year.........Why have I never seen wierwille operate any of 'the big six manifestations?' And, that year at the rock of ages when wierwille led a "healing service" .........why did he summon all the advanced class grads and corps to come forward to minister healing while he stood on stage and DID NOTHING? Put up or shut up, wierwille. Actions speak louder than words. I'd rather see WHAT YOU DO, than what you say.
Shrouded in mystique, wierwille subtly built walls of defense to separate himself from scrutiny. He surrounded his "self-referential greatness" with enablers, bodyguards and sycophants as they hailed his arrival with jubilant applause. But as the circus left town..........all that was left from this event was elephant dung.
But the question that continued to surface in my mind, year after year.........Why have I never seen wierwille operate any of 'the big six manifestations?' And, that year at the rock of ages when wierwille led a "healing service" .........why did he summon all the advanced class grads and corps to come forward to minister healing while he stood on stage and DID NOTHING? Put up or shut up, wierwille. Actions speak louder than words. I'd rather see WHAT YOU DO, than what you say.
This is along the lines of the question I keep asking: if Saint Vic was everything he claimed he was, where are those "signs, miracles, and wonders that follow the Man of God the way a tail follows a dog"?
BTW, his calling himself "THE TEACHER" began YEARS EARLIER with that cheap film class he did before pfal. We never heard much about it, but he called the series "THE TEACHER." Yes, he was the only one teaching it.
Wierwille closes the 12th Session of pfal ......... just write "The Teacher."
His self-referential title was a red flag..........he proclaimed to be THE ONE who could/would do the teaching as well as THE ONE to answer all questions. This self-claimed authority should have alerted us. And, when we received his books during pfal..........did we take the time to check any bibliographies? What were his sources? Did the book reference credible sources or were his sources self-referential?
Who was this Victor Paul Wierwille? Where did he learn language/research skills? Where did he get his doctorate?
Looking back, I see how he framed his persona in a self-referential cloak........similar to one like L. Ron Hubbard. While wierwille framed his allure with "keys to biblical research" and classes structured for spiritual enlightenment.......L. Ron Hubbard is best known for his science fiction and fantasy stories and a tiered-system called Dianetics.
Wierwille had his stories too, but they were designed to illustrate "believing"......or believing in reverse, fear. Were these stories real, or fiction? As students, we were subjected to this meandering journey of cherry-picked verses from hither and yon, new testament to old testament.....back and forth we went. Some things were eternal truths and some were subjected to the dispensation that you were in. But the grand finale of it all......was to stand up and utter in an unknown language.
But the question that continued to surface in my mind, year after year.........Why have I never seen wierwille operate any of 'the big six manifestations?' And, that year at the rock of ages when wierwille led a "healing service" .........why did he summon all the advanced class grads and corps to come forward to minister healing while he stood on stage and DID NOTHING? Put up or shut up, wierwille. Actions speak louder than words. I'd rather see WHAT YOU DO, than what you say.
Shrouded in mystique, wierwille subtly built walls of defense to separate himself from scrutiny. He surrounded his "self-referential greatness" with enablers, bodyguards and sycophants as they hailed his arrival with jubilant applause. But as the circus left town..........all that was left from this event was elephant dung.
In light of what you and certain other folks have said, I don’t think self-referential is necessarily a bad thing - if the person is honest and their point is valid - i.e. they truly are a credible source, in other words they have earned the right to be a “reference point” for something...
Jesus showed himself to be the son of God in words, deeds, signs, miracles, and wonders - and as Luke who wrote one of the gospels and probably Acts said Jesus even showed himself alive after his crucifixion by many infallible proofs...Jesus’ self-references are critical to the faith: I and my Father are one...I am the way, the truth, and the life, etc....so I think he earned the right to be THE reference point for his followers - I mean, a major religion bears his name for Christ’s sake (Christianity).
Paul the apostle, occasionally referenced his own experiences and knowledge (his conversion on the road to Damascus, being a Hebrew of the Hebrews, according to the law a Pharisee - things that would have been excellent legitimate credentials in his culture - yet he considered it all dung compared to the surpassing knowledge of actually knowing Christ - Philippians 3)...So the sense I get from reading his epistles is that his self-references were more along the lines of a self-conscious awareness of the process of change ...of how his life and knowledge of the scriptures were being re-oriented to a new reference point - Christ!
John could be considered self-referencing when he said that which we have seen and heard declare we unto you (I John 1:3 )... this is speaking from their genuine experiences of being around Jesus Christ...
...so all the above were NOT like wierwille and company relying on phony credentials, fabricated stories of phenomena, plagiarized material and the coercive power of a cult.
In light of what you and certain other folks have said, I don’t think self-referential is necessarily a bad thing - if the person is honest and their point is valid - i.e. they truly are a credible source, in other words they have earned the right to be a “reference point” for something...
Correct. Self-referencing can be and is a solid, valid point........IF you can "walk the talk."
No matter how many people expose their fraud..........they still label the dissenters "possessed."
Self-Referential Greatness: Never admit faults, failures, fissures or fraud.
An odd thing nowadays- when I read in the gospels about the sin against the Holy Spirit (see below ) and then I recall how frequently wierwille would label dissenters and even those who believed in the Trinity as possessed....I’m not saying what wierwille did relates to the passage below - - though this is one subject that does fascinate me.
..funny, in PFAL wierwille asks what is the greatest sin one can commit - and he says it’s to break one of the two great commandments to love God and neighbor...however this sin in Mark 3 seems to have graver consequences for all eternity over what it seems to me has something to do with attributing to the devil the work of the Holy Spirit....
this is an awfully treacherous subject ...maybe more appropriate in doctrinal....but wierwille’s teaching on the unforgivable sin - being born again of the wrong seed - I mean, how goofy and unbiblical is that? I don’t think wierwille would have recognized a work of the Holy Spirit if it hit him over the head with a ball bat...a known plagiarist, sexual predator, narcissist, etc. who was able to spot when the devil was working in others...yeah right.
22 And the teachers of the law who came down from Jerusalem said, “He is possessed by Beelzebul! By the prince of demons he is driving out demons.”
23 So Jesus called them over to him and began to speak to them in parables: “How can Satan drive out Satan? 24 If a kingdom is divided against itself, that kingdom cannot stand. 25 If a house is divided against itself, that house cannot stand. 26 And if Satan opposes himself and is divided, he cannot stand; his end has come. 27 In fact, no one can enter a strong man’s house without first tying him up. Then he can plunder the strong man’s house. 28 Truly I tell you, people can be forgiven all their sins and every slander they utter, 29 but whoever blasphemes against the Holy Spirit will never be forgiven; they are guilty of an eternal sin.”
30 He said this because they were saying, “He has an impure spirit.” ...Mark 3: 22-30 NIV
Word Wolf, I agree with all the mitigating angles you posted.
However, I was not talking about THOSE statements from those wonderful men. I was talking about some of the isolated "self referential" statements that atheists, New Agers, and similar people bandy about, that make them SOUND very egotistic. Do you know which ones I'm talking about? I could go look, but there are bunches. Even some fundamentalist Bible thumpers who don't like Paul will call him on some of his self references.
For Moses, I was thinking of how he INITIALLY approached the children of Israel with his story of the burning bush. I often wonder how he did that. Moses himself was worried about how he would do it. God tells him to say "I am" sent me. Great! How did that go over? How did that do the trick. Wouldn't they be bothered by his self referential greatness then?
***
I understand how SERVICE with great gifts is the best way to not go off on a self worship trip.
If I was endowed the gift of great physical height, my proper response is NOT to seek worship for it. I could set my dreams on Basketball and be famous! But that would not be the best goal.
If, while young, I set my dreams on serving others, like reaching for things stored on the high shelves in the kitchen, like Solomon asking for wisdom to serve, THEN my path can be a good one with my gift. If I make a self referential statement like “Hey, I can reachthat box of cereal for you.” That kind of statement should not be regarded as the kind that reeks of ego and is self serving and leads to cultiness..
Did you provide chapter and verse on your claims that various individuals in the biblical records made self-referential statements about themselves before doing anything to so demonstrate... and I just missed it?
Sorry, I did not provide. I mentioned this later and do provide hints. I don't know where they are right now.
But the question that continued to surface in my mind, year after year.........Why have I never seen wierwille operate any of 'the big six manifestations?' And, that year at the rock of ages when wierwille led a "healing service" .........why did he summon all the advanced class grads and corps to come forward to minister healing while he stood on stage and DID NOTHING? Put up or shut up, wierwille. Actions speak louder than words. I'd rather see WHAT YOU DO, than what you say.
I had similar questions.
At one point I was even worried that VPW's operation of SIT was repetitive and lacking fluency. I had hardly ever heard him SIT, except some in a few parts of the film class. Then one day at an Advanced Class (San Diego 1983) I heard him SIT and interpret. It was very fluent. Can't remember if the interpretation was or not.
The way I answer this best, though, is when I look at my life I see times when I was walking well with God, and then there were times, even years, when my walk was terrible and my operation of any manifestations was questionable at best.
At one point I was even worried that VPW's operation of SIT was repetitive and lacking fluency. I had hardly ever heard him SIT, except some in a few parts of the film class. Then one day at an Advanced Class (San Diego 1983) I heard him SIT and interpret. It was very fluent. Can't remember if the interpretation was or not.
So did he do the Lo shantra bit? So, if I accept they were real manifestations, then he operated two out of nine once. Hardly, "signs, miracles, and wonders following the man of God like a tail follows a dog." Hardly proof he was in fellowship. Can I SIT when I'm out of fellowship? Yes. Can I interpret? Yes. I think one or two people here even said they made up their interpretation beforehand just in case they were called on.
1 hour ago, Mike said:
The way I answer this best, though, is when I look at my life I see times when I was walking well with God, and then there were times, even years, when my walk was terrible and my operation of any manifestations was questionable at best
We are talking about the person that once said: "The leader sets the example," right? We are talking about the person who expected me to follow his lead, right? Did Paul womanize then rationalize it as well my walk was terrible, you know how that goes. How many people do you think would have followed him?
Saint Vic knew full well he was doing evil, that's why he worked so diligently to cover it up. And, when you think about it, covering it up is compounding the sin, not asking forgiveness.
1 hour ago, Mike said:
Thanks to both you and T-Bone.
I was only trying to make that one little point.
And the little point we were trying to make is that Saint Vic never lived up to his self-referencing.
George Carlin once said: "I have as much authority as the Pope, it's just not as many people follow."
Well, to paraphrase, I have as much authority as Saint Vic, it's just not as many people follow
So did he do the Lo shantra bit? So, if I accept they were real manifestations, then he operated two out of nine once. Hardly, "signs, miracles, and wonders following the man of God like a tail follows a dog." Hardly proof he was in fellowship. Can I SIT when I'm out of fellowship? Yes. Can I interpret? Yes. I think one or two people here even said they made up their interpretation beforehand just in case they were called on.
We are talking about the person that once said: "The leader sets the example," right? We are talking about the person who expected me to follow his lead, right? Did Paul womanize then rationalize it as well my walk was terrible, you know how that goes. How many people do you think would have followed him?
Saint Vic knew full well he was doing evil, that's why he worked so diligently to cover it up. And, when you think about it, covering it up is compounding the sin, not asking forgiveness.
And the little point we were trying to make is that Saint Vic never lived up to his self-referencing.
George Carlin once said: "I have as much authority as the Pope, it's just not as many people follow."
Well, to paraphrase, I have as much authority as Saint Vic, it's just not as many people follow
Soc, good post! I think if the majority of his followers, had known the extent of his evilness, they would have left, years before they did, and taken their money with them. I think VPW, covered his tracks, to avoid this from happening. Money was VPW's true God, IMO.
BTW, his calling himself "THE TEACHER" began YEARS EARLIER with that cheap film class he did before pfal. We never heard much about it, but he called the series "THE TEACHER." Yes, he was the only one teaching it.
It was local television program shown weekly, not a class, broadcasted from Lima
But the question that continued to surface in my mind, year after year.........Why have I never seen wierwille operate any of 'the big six manifestations?'
That was easy, though.
The "little three" were faked. Anyone can do it. [Everyone did, coff coff]
(Now Moses was a very humble man, more humble than anyone else on the face of the earth.)
Now, if you take for granted that Moses wrote Numbers, then what you have here is Moses calling himself more humble than anyone else on the face of the earth.
Which I suppose can be written off as hyperbole. I mean, really, no one more humble? Yuhrite.
But I submit that qualifies as self-referential greatness.
[This, of course, evaporates when you realize Moses probably didn't write Numbers, if he existed at all. But that
The "little three" were faked. Anyone can do it. [Everyone did, coff coff]
The reason I highlighted "the big SIX manifestations".......because that is what is supposed to be where the ACTION and POWER come into evidence. And, it's one thing to be self-referencing greatness, but quite another to back it up.
Yes, I have many times posted that wierwille's speaking in tongues was ridiculously repetitive......and highly suspect.
In twi.........at the end of session 12.......anyone could "do it" or fake it. But just because wierwille taught this in his fraudulent wheelhouse.......doesn't negate those nine manifestations and their authenticity. Of course......that's where the doctrinal forum comes into play, right?
Yes, I have many times posted that wierwille's speaking in tongues was ridiculously repetitive......and highly suspect.
For years in the 70s, I was suspecting that VPW's public operation of SIT would be repetitive, and maybe at times it was. I don't remember why I worried about that, though. Maybe I heard it once. But at one later date AC (I think 1983) I clearly remember hearing him and it was extremely fluent.
I was extremely sensitive to this topic right from the start. I made many notes on it, and after I grew with it a little, I made it my business to lead excellor's sessions during Intermediate classes.
I failed at many things in the ministry and in life, but somehow I was very good at helping others develop fluency in SIT. [There's a self referential greatness statement. I got the results.]
I used the alphabet method and could (back then) handle everyone's objections to it being fake and mechanical. So when I finally heard VPW and his fluency (late in my ministry life) I was especially alert in my observations.
One time, early 70s, I heard VPW gently say after a SIT manifestation was given "Don't you think you ought to work on your fluency a little?"
In 2002 I found a tape (7th Corps or maybe Indianan?) where VPW teaches the alphabet method for fluency.
For years in the 70s, I was suspecting that VPW's public operation of SIT would be repetitive, and maybe at times it was. I don't remember why I worried about that, though. Maybe I heard it once. But at one later date AC (I think 1983) I clearly remember hearing him and it was extremely fluent.
Well that PROVES it... (rolleyes)
I was extremely sensitive to this topic right from the start. I made many notes on it, and after I grew with it a little, I made it my business to lead excellor's sessions during Intermediate classes.
I failed at many things in the ministry and in life, but somehow I was very good at helping others develop fluency in SIT. [There's a self referential greatness statement. I got the results.]
I used the alphabet method and could (back then) handle everyone's objections to it being fake and mechanical. So when I finally heard VPW and his fluency (late in my ministry life) I was especially alert in my observations.
One time, early 70s, I heard VPW gently say after a SIT manifestation was given "Don't you think you ought to work on your fluency a little?"
Well... if it was inspired by the spirit rather than just something mechanical a person can control (other than starting and stopping)... ? I had never heard of the so-called alphabet method.
Recommended Posts
Top Posters In This Topic
11
22
7
13
Popular Days
Feb 3
31
Feb 7
19
Feb 4
11
Feb 6
11
Top Posters In This Topic
skyrider 11 posts
Mike 22 posts
T-Bone 7 posts
So_crates 13 posts
Popular Days
Feb 3 2018
31 posts
Feb 7 2018
19 posts
Feb 4 2018
11 posts
Feb 6 2018
11 posts
Popular Posts
skyrider
Wierwille was The Teacher................because he said he was. TWI is the true household of God......because they say it is. Elena Whiteside wrote The Way: Living in Love.......because she
OldSkool
Yes, the alphabet, singing in tongues, silently, outloud, etc. TWI teaches that sit actually builds up the spirit within a born again believer, makes it stronger like spiritual weight lifting.
So_crates
You mean like proclaiming you have the only true word of God than stealing others ideas and raping women?
So_crates
Then you should check out Youtube's videos on narcissism. Apparently there's a whole cottage industry built around helping people deal with egomaniacs and the psychological damage they do.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
I've seen a huge number of similar articles on FaceBook on narcissism. Some looks useful.
I step back a little from narcissism diagnosis experts, though, because there are too many of them. It reminds me EXACTLY of how idiots at TWI were always looking for devil spirits. It looks like the same human mechanics at play.
Spirit Sniffers and Narcissism Cops are both cut from the same cloth IMO when they get extreme, and it does.
I also often see the some of the same human mechanics of strict fundamentalist Bible thumpers being used by smart University science grad students in their atheistic fits.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
WordWolf
Let's take the first 2, since we have something about them.
A) Jesus said he couldn't do anything of himself. Nevertheless, his healings made the news and got crowds looking for healing, and other crowds wanted miraculous bread and fish after the loaves and fishes incident. He was also introduced by the biggest prophet of his time, John the Baptizer.
B) Paul called himself LEAST of all the apostles, and worked a secular job to avoid causing problems if people complained he was living off the ministry.
You mentioned Moses separately, the man who was "MEEK" over all the Earth, the man who begged God Almighty to send ANYONE ELSE rather than himself.
Self-referential? Of that group, possibly The Son of God qualifies, but he's The Son of God. He STILL said he could do nothing of himself.
Knowledge PUFFS up, God's love BUILDS up. I think of the difference between a building (built up) and a giant balloon SHAPED like a building (puffed up, puffed full of air.) They can look similar to an unobservant bystander, but the differences are dramatic. Something built up is SOLID. Something puffed up collapses with the first hit.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
WordWolf
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Rocky
Did you provide chapter and verse on your claims that various individuals in the biblical records made self-referential statements about themselves before doing anything to so demonstrate... and I just missed it?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
skyrider
Wierwille closes the 12th Session of pfal ......... just write "The Teacher."
His self-referential title was a red flag..........he proclaimed to be THE ONE who could/would do the teaching as well as THE ONE to answer all questions. This self-claimed authority should have alerted us. And, when we received his books during pfal..........did we take the time to check any bibliographies? What were his sources? Did the book reference credible sources or were his sources self-referential?
Who was this Victor Paul Wierwille? Where did he learn language/research skills? Where did he get his doctorate?
Looking back, I see how he framed his persona in a self-referential cloak........similar to one like L. Ron Hubbard. While wierwille framed his allure with "keys to biblical research" and classes structured for spiritual enlightenment.......L. Ron Hubbard is best known for his science fiction and fantasy stories and a tiered-system called Dianetics.
Wierwille had his stories too, but they were designed to illustrate "believing"......or believing in reverse, fear. Were these stories real, or fiction? As students, we were subjected to this meandering journey of cherry-picked verses from hither and yon, new testament to old testament.....back and forth we went. Some things were eternal truths and some were subjected to the dispensation that you were in. But the grand finale of it all......was to stand up and utter in an unknown language.
But the question that continued to surface in my mind, year after year.........Why have I never seen wierwille operate any of 'the big six manifestations?' And, that year at the rock of ages when wierwille led a "healing service" .........why did he summon all the advanced class grads and corps to come forward to minister healing while he stood on stage and DID NOTHING? Put up or shut up, wierwille. Actions speak louder than words. I'd rather see WHAT YOU DO, than what you say.
Shrouded in mystique, wierwille subtly built walls of defense to separate himself from scrutiny. He surrounded his "self-referential greatness" with enablers, bodyguards and sycophants as they hailed his arrival with jubilant applause. But as the circus left town..........all that was left from this event was elephant dung.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
So_crates
This is along the lines of the question I keep asking: if Saint Vic was everything he claimed he was, where are those "signs, miracles, and wonders that follow the Man of God the way a tail follows a dog"?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
WordWolf
BTW, his calling himself "THE TEACHER" began YEARS EARLIER with that cheap film class he did before pfal. We never heard much about it, but he called the series "THE TEACHER." Yes, he was the only one teaching it.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
T-Bone
In light of what you and certain other folks have said, I don’t think self-referential is necessarily a bad thing - if the person is honest and their point is valid - i.e. they truly are a credible source, in other words they have earned the right to be a “reference point” for something...
Jesus showed himself to be the son of God in words, deeds, signs, miracles, and wonders - and as Luke who wrote one of the gospels and probably Acts said Jesus even showed himself alive after his crucifixion by many infallible proofs...Jesus’ self-references are critical to the faith: I and my Father are one...I am the way, the truth, and the life, etc....so I think he earned the right to be THE reference point for his followers - I mean, a major religion bears his name for Christ’s sake
(Christianity).
Paul the apostle, occasionally referenced his own experiences and knowledge (his conversion on the road to Damascus, being a Hebrew of the Hebrews, according to the law a Pharisee - things that would have been excellent legitimate credentials in his culture - yet he considered it all dung compared to the surpassing knowledge of actually knowing Christ - Philippians 3)...So the sense I get from reading his epistles is that his self-references were more along the lines of a self-conscious awareness of the process of change ...of how his life and knowledge of the scriptures were being re-oriented to a new reference point - Christ!
John could be considered self-referencing when he said that which we have seen and heard declare we unto you (I John 1:3 )... this is speaking from their genuine experiences of being around Jesus Christ...
...so all the above were NOT like wierwille and company relying on phony credentials, fabricated stories of phenomena, plagiarized material and the coercive power of a cult.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
skyrider
Correct. Self-referencing can be and is a solid, valid point........IF you can "walk the talk."
Link to comment
Share on other sites
T-Bone
An odd thing nowadays- when I read in the gospels about the sin against the Holy Spirit (see below ) and then I recall how frequently wierwille would label dissenters and even those who believed in the Trinity as possessed....I’m not saying what wierwille did relates to the passage below - - though this is one subject that does fascinate me.
..funny, in PFAL wierwille asks what is the greatest sin one can commit - and he says it’s to break one of the two great commandments to love God and neighbor...however this sin in Mark 3 seems to have graver consequences for all eternity over what it seems to me has something to do with attributing to the devil the work of the Holy Spirit....
this is an awfully treacherous subject ...maybe more appropriate in doctrinal....but wierwille’s teaching on the unforgivable sin - being born again of the wrong seed - I mean, how goofy and unbiblical is that? I don’t think wierwille would have recognized a work of the Holy Spirit if it hit him over the head with a ball bat...a known plagiarist, sexual predator, narcissist, etc. who was able to spot when the devil was working in others...yeah right.
22 And the teachers of the law who came down from Jerusalem said, “He is possessed by Beelzebul! By the prince of demons he is driving out demons.”
23 So Jesus called them over to him and began to speak to them in parables: “How can Satan drive out Satan? 24 If a kingdom is divided against itself, that kingdom cannot stand. 25 If a house is divided against itself, that house cannot stand. 26 And if Satan opposes himself and is divided, he cannot stand; his end has come. 27 In fact, no one can enter a strong man’s house without first tying him up. Then he can plunder the strong man’s house. 28 Truly I tell you, people can be forgiven all their sins and every slander they utter, 29 but whoever blasphemes against the Holy Spirit will never be forgiven; they are guilty of an eternal sin.”
30 He said this because they were saying, “He has an impure spirit.” ...Mark 3: 22-30 NIV
Edited by T-BoneClarity
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
Word Wolf, I agree with all the mitigating angles you posted.
However, I was not talking about THOSE statements from those wonderful men. I was talking about some of the isolated "self referential" statements that atheists, New Agers, and similar people bandy about, that make them SOUND very egotistic. Do you know which ones I'm talking about? I could go look, but there are bunches. Even some fundamentalist Bible thumpers who don't like Paul will call him on some of his self references.
For Moses, I was thinking of how he INITIALLY approached the children ofIsrael
***
I understand how SERVICE with great gifts is the best way to not go off on a self worship trip.
If I was endowed the gift of great physical height, my proper response is NOT to seek worship for it. I could set my dreams on Basketball and be famous! But that would not be the best goal.
If, while young, I set my dreams on serving others, like reaching for things stored on the high shelves in the kitchen, like Solomon asking for wisdom to serve, THEN my path can be a good one with my gift. If I make a self referential statement like “Hey, I can reach that box of cereal for you.” That kind of statement should not be regarded as the kind that reeks of ego and is self serving and leads to cultiness..
Edited by MikeLink to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
Sorry, I did not provide. I mentioned this later and do provide hints. I don't know where they are right now.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
I had similar questions.
At one point I was even worried that VPW's operation of SIT was repetitive and lacking fluency. I had hardly ever heard him SIT, except some in a few parts of the film class. Then one day at an Advanced Class (San Diego 1983) I heard him SIT and interpret. It was very fluent. Can't remember if the interpretation was or not.
The way I answer this best, though, is when I look at my life I see times when I was walking well with God, and then there were times, even years, when my walk was terrible and my operation of any manifestations was questionable at best.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
Thanks to both you and T-Bone.
I was only trying to make that one little point.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
So_crates
So did he do the Lo shantra bit? So, if I accept they were real manifestations, then he operated two out of nine once. Hardly, "signs, miracles, and wonders following the man of God like a tail follows a dog." Hardly proof he was in fellowship. Can I SIT when I'm out of fellowship? Yes. Can I interpret? Yes. I think one or two people here even said they made up their interpretation beforehand just in case they were called on.
We are talking about the person that once said: "The leader sets the example," right? We are talking about the person who expected me to follow his lead, right? Did Paul womanize then rationalize it as well my walk was terrible, you know how that goes. How many people do you think would have followed him?
Saint Vic knew full well he was doing evil, that's why he worked so diligently to cover it up. And, when you think about it, covering it up is compounding the sin, not asking forgiveness.
And the little point we were trying to make is that Saint Vic never lived up to his self-referencing.
George Carlin once said: "I have as much authority as the Pope, it's just not as many people follow."
Well, to paraphrase, I have as much authority as Saint Vic, it's just not as many people follow
Edited by So_cratesLink to comment
Share on other sites
Grace Valerie Claire
T-Bone, thanks for the link. I think NPD fits VPW, like a hand in a glove.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Grace Valerie Claire
Soc, good post! I think if the majority of his followers, had known the extent of his evilness, they would have left, years before they did, and taken their money with them. I think VPW, covered his tracks, to avoid this from happening. Money was VPW's true God, IMO.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Thomas Loy Bumgarner
It was local television program shown weekly, not a class, broadcasted from Lima
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
That was easy, though.
The "little three" were faked. Anyone can do it. [Everyone did, coff coff]
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
Now, if you take for granted that Moses wrote Numbers, then what you have here is Moses calling himself more humble than anyone else on the face of the earth.
Which I suppose can be written off as hyperbole. I mean, really, no one more humble? Yuhrite.
But I submit that qualifies as self-referential greatness.
[This, of course, evaporates when you realize Moses probably didn't write Numbers, if he existed at all. But that
is another story.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
skyrider
The reason I highlighted "the big SIX manifestations".......because that is what is supposed to be where the ACTION and POWER come into evidence. And, it's one thing to be self-referencing greatness, but quite another to back it up.
Yes, I have many times posted that wierwille's speaking in tongues was ridiculously repetitive......and highly suspect.
In twi.........at the end of session 12.......anyone could "do it" or fake it. But just because wierwille taught this in his fraudulent wheelhouse.......doesn't negate those nine manifestations and their authenticity. Of course......that's where the doctrinal forum comes into play, right?
.
Edited by skyriderLink to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
For years in the 70s, I was suspecting that VPW's public operation of SIT would be repetitive, and maybe at times it was. I don't remember why I worried about that, though. Maybe I heard it once. But at one later date AC (I think 1983) I clearly remember hearing him and it was extremely fluent.
I was extremely sensitive to this topic right from the start. I made many notes on it, and after I grew with it a little, I made it my business to lead excellor's sessions during Intermediate classes.
I failed at many things in the ministry and in life, but somehow I was very good at helping others develop fluency in SIT. [There's a self referential greatness statement. I got the results.]
I used the alphabet method and could (back then) handle everyone's objections to it being fake and mechanical. So when I finally heard VPW and his fluency (late in my ministry life) I was especially alert in my observations.
One time, early 70s, I heard VPW gently say after a SIT manifestation was given "Don't you think you ought to work on your fluency a little?"
In 2002 I found a tape (7th Corps or maybe Indianan?) where VPW teaches the alphabet method for fluency.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Rocky
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.