Why PFAL sucks

[Nathan_Jr]

44 minutes ago, Mike said:

There are two major attitudes a reader can take while reading anything:
(1) I want to get the author's exactly intended meanings, in spite of how they make me feel, and
(2) I want to embrace whatever feeling I get from reading this piece.

Are those the two major attitudes?

[Twinky]

3 minutes ago, Mike said:

How can I know, except some man should teach me?

God gave you a brain and intelligence, so that you could work it out.

He also provides a wealth of counsellors to help you "clarify" your ideas.  Y'know: iron sharpens iron.  Does require holding your own "iron" in the correct manner so that other irons don't in fact blunt it.   If you want to understand this more, go visit your local butcher, chef, or similar and see how s/he sharpens knives.

[Rocky]

12 hours ago, T-Bone said:

Cool.

My wife suggested my tombstone should read:

He meant well

 

[Mike]

2 minutes ago, Twinky said:

Very long way to go there, Mike.  Very, very long way.

I have not written much on this topic, so I was feeling it out a little.  The Bible interpreting itself occupies nearly 80 pages in the PFAL book, so I may have to review that to clarify my posting better.

[Rocky]

10 hours ago, Mike said:

If they were really vain babblings everyone would ignore what I write. But because they are right on target, many feel a need to counter them.

As if you're inside anyone's head (beside your own)?

Right on target? Give me a break. Nobody's really doing anything but toying with you.

[Mike]

Just now, Rocky said:

As if you're inside anyone's head (beside your own)?

Right on target? Give me a break. Nobody's really doing anything but toying with you.

I know that and can handle it.  I can still get my message out and discuss it with some people.  I can ignore the toying.

[Rocky]

Just now, Mike said:

I know that and can handle it.  I can still get my message out and discuss it with some people.  I can ignore the toying.

https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/4069.Man_s_Search_for_Meaning

[Nathan_Jr]

31 minutes ago, Mike said:

 

Try writing for clarity. The confusion starts with how you compose a sentence. Understand what words mean. Meanings of words must be established and accepted by all parties communicating.

To interpret is to provide meaning. So, to interpret a meaning is a cumbersome redundancy.

Hey! I didn't write your sentences.

[Rocky]

GSC is Mike's addiction, isn't it? He thinks it gives him meaning, doesn't he?

[Nathan_Jr]

22 minutes ago, Mike said:

How can I know, except some man should teach me?

 

Then your knowledge will be limited to what your teacher taught you. 

There are other ways to know, to learn.

[OldSkool]

10 minutes ago, Nathan_Jr said:

To interpret is to provide meaning. So, to interpret a meaning is a cumbersome redundancy.

Kinda like International Outreach Countries.

[OldSkool]

2 minutes ago, Nathan_Jr said:

There are other ways to know, to learn.

And various places one can store coins.

[Nathan_Jr]

Just now, OldSkool said:

Kinda like International Outreach Countries.

Ha! Kinda, but worse.

[Nathan_Jr]

Just now, OldSkool said:

And various places one can store coins.

Yeah. The bank and, well....

[OldSkool]

Oh well....enough bullshonta for one night....or at least now...

[OldSkool]

26 minutes ago, Nathan_Jr said:

Are those the two major attitudes?

I mean, why does it have to be only two?

On another note:try and tell someone from the way that there really are more than just 5 senses....

[OldSkool]

Just now, OldSkool said:

I mean, why does it have to be only two?

 

Oh wait...its a top from the right side of the bottom approach thhat goes yabadabado

[Nathan_Jr]

9 hours ago, OldSkool said:

Ok. Modern books to ancient is a misnomer. There were no ancient books but handwritten tablets, scrolls, papyrus, etc. Most people in ancient times were illeterate and ancient literary works were typically read aloud in group settings. One of the things you are stumbling with is reading modern day practices into ancient history. These practices were not limited to secular works but religous as well. In Israel the scrolls were kept in the temple until Israel was carried away by the Assyrians. Same holds true for the souther kingdom as well, scrolls were in the temple until they were carried away into Babylon. The synagogues that cropped up in these conquering empires was where the scrolls were eventually kept. So there is no apples to apples comparison with ancient lit vs. modern lit. So there were no Bibles in homes because the first printed Bible didn't come into existance until 1455 with the invention of the printing press that produced the Gutenberg Bible.

Jesus understood his mission from scripture but he most likely used the Septuagint, which will likely make you flip your fundamentalist bic. The Septuagint was translated into Greek from Hebrew and was very common in Jesus day and came into prominence around the 200 B.C. Why was the Septuagint popular? Because many, many Judeans no longer spoke Hebrew or understood it after long captivities inside conquering empires. So, there were multiple intrepretation everywhere. Not to mention that the Babylonian Talmud had come into prominence amongst jews all across the ancient world. That book is extremely twisted but it was the basis of the religious leaders of their day. Jesus confronted this practice when referring to the traditions of men that religious leaders held in greater esteem than the Torah, and other Old Testament writings. To say Jesus was kept from multiple intrepretations ignores history and also runs cross purposes with scripture because Jesus was tempted in all things as we are yet without sin. Naturally he would have been tempted to use ungodly intrepretations of scripture and the earth was steeped in them then, same as today. The world was no less a wilderness in Jesus day from today.

 

Do you really think that Jesus had access to a book that gave him "tight, precise, detailed, TECHNICAL advice on how to do it."?

Life didn't work that way back then. He would have first been taught orally by his parents and then from the synagogues and temples. Culturally and historically how it worked. I can garuantee you that Joseph never gave Jesus "The Messiah's Manual to Saving the World" that had all this tight, precise, detailed, TECHNICAL advice on how to do it. Technical writing wasnt a thing back then.

I give you the example of Jesus spending a few days in the Temple reasoning and disputing with the elders and Drs when he was 12. That's how they did it back then. They would discuss scriptural matters in the temple/synagogues where they would be exposed to any number of intrepretations from any number of people present. That's why Paul went to the Synagogues to reason with Judeans concerning Christ. They had scrolls there for reference and discussion.

This is a really nice summary of a complex subject, OS. Well done.

I missed it this morning because I was so shaken by the rape apologetics from Oldies.

[OldSkool]

22 minutes ago, Nathan_Jr said:

This is a really nice summary of a complex subject, OS. Well done.

I missed it this morning because I was so shaken by the rape apologetics from Oldies.

Thanks! I started to chime in on that alter boy stuff ant thought better of it. Im sure I would have said something totally effd up and appropriate at the same time...lol....I was really apalled that came up though.

Edited November 1, 2022 by OldSkool

[Nathan_Jr]

4 hours ago, T-Bone said:

34. Encourages an us-versus-them mindset - great for fortifying groupthink and isolation. “I have no friends when it comes to the Word.”

     A.  wierwille’s animosity toward Christians outside of TWI was camouflaged by his self-righteous stand on “rightly-dividing the Word”.

wierwille’s claptrap on handling the Greek word for “rightly dividing” – I will try to handle in another post – but for now I’ll just say he laid it out as more of an intellectual pursuit rather than paying attention to any ethical demands.

In the green book The New Dynamic Church, in chapter 13 Why Division, on page 171 wierwille explains

The leaders of the spiritual movements in the Church have always been ridiculed and maligned. The confusing element in the entire situation is that it is the religious people, those who are deeply sincere, who cause the division.

End of excerpt

~ ~ ~ ~ 

Notice how wierwille paints with broad brush strokes…he makes vague generalizations that could encompass just about anyone, and he also uses stereotyping – an oversimplified and often biased idea of the typical characteristics of a certain group of people. A person can plug in any one they want to for “leaders of the spiritual movements in the Church” as well as pick any religious people they’d like to blame for causing the division.

On page 172 wierwille concludes this chapter with the following remarks:

May God deliver us as the Church from being contentious and difficult, from maligning our brethren, from bickering and quarrelsomeness, from dividing the Body of Christ by our lack of enlightenment  . There is too much division outside the Church; our solidarity is imperative to give us strength to move forward in spite of the opposition. May the Father in heaven, for the sake of the only-begotten Son, bless us with such an abundance that we may cease to be part of the problem and become part of the answer. May we as members of Christ’s Body become so filled with love that we may be teachable and have our hearts opened to His Holy Word. And may we receive of Him and carry the blessing to all we meet, that they may see us and know we are His.

End of excerpt

~ ~ ~ ~

What did wierwille mean by our lack of enlightenment? He is obviously addressing Christians here. Is he talking about a lack of a special type of knowledge? Gnosticism?

After being involved with The Way International for 12 years I now see the hypocrisy of wierwille’s words. I’ve been in open meetings when wierwille would get on one of his anti-Trinitarian rants – and he’d say such hateful stuff along the lines of  in order to really believe in the Trinity you’ve got to be possessed by a devil spirit…a lot of the leaders in big denominations, including the Roman Catholic Church are born again of the seed of the serpent. Now is not the time or place to get into analyzing the Trinitarian doctrine – but let’s leave it at this – the Trinity is not as big a deal in Trinitarian groups as it is in wierwille’s polarizing rants. 

Always within “the household of faith” – wierwille used manipulative threats  to keep us from breaking ranks – I still vividly remember his teaching from    John 13   to us the way corps – it’s when Judas left Jesus and the disciples to carry out his betrayal and in verse 30 it reads in NIV  As soon as Judas had taken the bread, he went out. And it was night. wierwille dialed the amp up to 11 with the symbolism of Judas leaving the fold and it was night – then presented us with a dire scenario – if we as way corps leave God’s ministry of the rightly-divided Word the only alternative is oblivion. He'd ask Where else are you going to go?  implying there's nothing else out there like his great ministry of the rightly-divided word.

Penworks started a thread - Evidence: Letters VPW wrote to the Way Corps  I think anyone who has a strong sense of disillusionment from the failure of wierwille / TWI to fulfill the declared goals and the perception of inconsistencies between the actions of certain TWI-leaders and the ideals they supposedly represent should check out that thread.

I could go on about the Mark and Avoid process too but enough on this stuff for now.

Excellent, T-Bone.

A lot to unpack here. All of it so important. So much. For now, I want to highlight one item that is probably always missed. It's subtle, cunning and sinister.

May we as members of Christ’s Body become so filled with love that we may be teachable and have our hearts opened to His Holy Word.

Is this what it means to be so filled with love? Teachable? What does it mean to be teachable? What does he mean by teachable? The intended meaning.

I've pointed to this problem of indoctrination more than any other over the past ten months. I think this is one of the most important issues facing mankind today. We are all so eager to get taught, and teachers are so eager to teach, but no one is interested in how to learn, how to find out. It seems no one is paying attention. The mouth is open, but no one is inspecting the spoon.

I don't know what else to say at this moment. I pray that everyone will deeply contemplate what this means. Understand the intended meaning. It is implicit. It is subtle. It is dark.

Great post, T-Bone. A lot going on here. Thanks.

Edited November 1, 2022 by Nathan_Jr
You absolutely can and MUST go beyond what you were taught.

[Nathan_Jr]

3 minutes ago, OldSkool said:

Thanks! I started to chime in on that alter boy stuff ant thought better of it. Im sure I would have said something totally effd up and appropriate at the same time...lol....I was really apalled that came up though.

I find it hard to beleeve it could be more effd up than what he wrote.

[Nathan_Jr]

54 minutes ago, Rocky said:

https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/4069.Man_s_Search_for_Meaning

Mmmmph

[OldSkool]

14 minutes ago, Nathan_Jr said:

I find it hard to beleeve it could be more effd up than what he wrote.

You are correct, I do not have that sort of filth in me. Plenty screwed up in other areas though.

[T-Bone]

12 hours ago, Mike said:

1. I think you nailed it accurately, for modern literature. 

But I don't think God had His writers handle things that way.
There the Author's interpretation of what the Author meant is TRUE, and the reader's interpretation, where it differs, is WRONG.

 

9 hours ago, T-Bone said:

 2.   How do you know what the author’s interpretation is or what the author meant?

And how do you know where the reader's interpretation differs and is wrong?

 

2 hours ago, Mike said:

3. How can I know, except some man should teach me?

Then, after that teaching, it is a lot of working it in Receive, Retain, Release, and walking in love.

For context and continuity, I inserted a  bold red 1 , 2 and 3 in each quote, so I can reference each one in my reply below; hopefully this will make sense; each number below will correspond to the numbered quote above:

1.   You asserted God did not have His writers handle things the way of modern literature; you also used circular reasoning to state that truth is what the authors (making it plural since it’s God-inspired writers) define as truth. That’s like saying “the Bible is true because it says it’s true”…then you assert when a reader's interpretation contradicts what is true – then the reader is wrong…Not sure if I’ve restated correctly what you were saying – please clarify. This could be a big deal in the discussion if we don’t clear up the vagueness – you could be interpreting a verse literally and I might interpret it as allegorical, symbolic or someway other than literal. For instance – in PFAL wierwille teaching from Genesis says the world was created in 6 literal days – 6 periods of 24 hours each. That’s interpreting it literally.

 

I interpret Gen 1,   Gen 2   ,  and  Gen 3   as an ode to the Creator and His creation. It wasn’t meant to be a scientific textbook. If one presses it as such, it will result in pseudoscience which consists of statements and beliefs that claim to be both scientific and factual but are incompatible with the physical evidence and scientific method.  see  pseudoscience ...FYI - wierwille's pseudoscience is a ploy to get people to believe in the mathematical exactness and scientific precision of the Bible...and further you are actually putting your faith in wierwille's interpretation of the Bible - - that's a misplaced faith. He does not deserve your trust. Trust God...Trust Christ...trust the Holy Spirit...you might need to rebuild your self-confidence - that's one of the many things that wierwille's manipulative tactics just made mincemeat of.

So I ask you - which interpretation is right?

 

~ ~ ~ ~ 

 

2.   My questions to you were challenges to expose your circular reasoning (in 1. ) – to put it a little differently - HOW do you KNOW when and where the Bible is meant to be taken literally, figuratively etc. ? and further HOW do you KNOW when a reader’s interpretation of a Bible passage is wrong? My example of wierwille’s /PFAL literal interpretation of Genesis 1-3 versus my interpretation of it being poetic in # 1 might be a good place for us to start.

 

~ ~ ~ ~

 

3.   Your question in # 3 is rather disappointing. It's like you’re asking “how can I know if the interpretation of Genesis 1-3 is supposed to be literal or poetic unless someone teaches me? That’s where those cognitive skills should come into play. I’ve witnessed you bragging about your analytical powers, how you hang out with brain surgeons, understanding the theory of relativity to the point you used to teach it to fellow students in high school. You’re an adult – you should be able to figure this problem out without having to depend on some incompetent plagiarist’s pseudoscience.

Come on, Mike you said you checked all this out before buying into it – you should be running rings around me – NOT reasoning in circles. After I left TWI I had to just about dismantle my entire belief system to unravel the nonsense of wierwille’s theology and to be able to look at the Bible with the fresh eyes of a Christian babe and learn to develop my atrophied cognitive skills and become sensitive to the Spirit of God.

That receive, retain, release mumbo jumbo you can forget - that was a sneaky indoctrination gimmick wierwille pushed.

 

 

Edited November 1, 2022 by T-Bone
installed hyperlink drive...3...2...1...ignition

[So_crates]

2 hours ago, Mike said:

I know that and can handle it.  I can still get my message out and discuss it with some people.  I can ignore the toying.

YOUR message, not GOD'S?