Yet another take

[Mike]

2 hours ago, Nathan_Jr said:

We're talking past each other, again. When you say greatest commandment, I think of Jesus's explaining of the greatest commandment: love God; and like it, love your neighbor as yourself.

What you are talking about, I understand, but please know, your word choice can be confusing for those of us keeping it simple. Please consider an alternate wording of the greatest commandment simplification. Because, what you are talking about is NOT the greatest commandment as revealed by Christ. Maybe sin simplification would be more throughly effectual.

 

I never, ever, believed there were any saint goodydoody types to be found. And I never heard nor considered the guilt trip of being habitually guilty of the greatest sin. That guilt trip was first taught to me and laid on me in the class.

My heart isn't desperately evil. Paul wasn't accurate about EVERYTHING.

I never heard the guilt trip of falling short of the glory of God, and was never taught I was dead in sins until I took the class. You can't tell me I live my life focused only on my pleasure and not focused on God. You, nor victor, nor the priestly class, nor the clergy, nor Saul of Tarsus, knows anything about me. This is religious, gaslighting dogma that I reject.

We can agree to disagree on your religious, doctrinal dogmatism.

I read you whole post, and want to thank you for this discussion. 

*/*/*/*/*

We're talking past each other, again. When you say greatest commandment, I think of Jesus's explaining of the greatest commandment: love God; and like it, love your neighbor as yourself.

We are close here. I differ only in that loving your neighbor is the second great commandment, I think.  I’m typing fast finish soon, and will look it up later.

*/*/*/*/*

What you are talking about, I understand, but please know, your word choice can be confusing for those of us keeping it simple. Please consider an alternate wording of the greatest commandment simplification. Because, what you are talking about is NOT the greatest commandment as revealed by Christ. Maybe sin simplification would be more throughly effectual.

You could be right, so let’s look it up later.  I type many of my posts fast and on the fly and off to the next one, almost always with proofreading, but often no time for style considerations.  I’m not at all committed to the title of how I started this topic.  I would be happy to consider alternate wording next time I write on this topic.

The sin simplification I see is located in the PFAL teaching on “the greatest sin being breaking the greatest commandment,” or possibly the first half of the greatest commandment if I understood you correct, above. 

*/*/*/*/*/*

I never, ever, believed there were any saint goodydoody types to be found.

I surely did believe in them. All Catholics believe in their “saints” as strongly as they believe in God and Jesus. Saint Mary is really the hidden Goddess for most RCs, who calls the shots on forgiveness when God and Jesus are ....ed at us for sinning after Jesus went and died for our sins, we were taught in Catlick School.  This was the scene when I graduated 8^th Grade in 1963. I understand this was pretty universal in that church until the around 1967 or so, when the Folk Mass happened with guitarists on the alter with the priest. Then things changed, but I was pretty much gone by then.

*/*/*/*/*/*

And I never heard nor considered the guilt trip of being habitually guilty of the greatest sin.

Here we totally mis-communicated.

Knowing that everyone else ALSO habitually commits the greatest sin (not loving God first), was a great RELIEF of guilt for me. 

My reaction was now I don’t have to worry that maybe I am in the lower percentiles of who qualifies for heaven, and thereby not make it in.  We’ve ALL blown it for deserving heaven by ALL committing the greatest sin. Sorting through the smaller sins was no longer meaningful, if we all were already guilty of the greatest sin.

*/*/*/*/*/*

That guilt trip was first taught to me and laid on me in the class.

Hmmm?  Can you explain “That guilt trip…” because I thought I just nullified the big guilt trip with my explanation above. Or at least it was nullified for me, and I am unaware of any other guilt trip emanating from this early Session One section on the greatest sin.

*/*/*/*/*

My heart isn't desperately evil. Paul wasn't accurate about EVERYTHING.

Well that is to be expected after you are born again, and learn to distance yourself from your old man nature, which is where Paul was saying the desperately evil heart is. 

Later, in Romans 7, he magnifies this idea, by applying it to himself, where he sees his old man nature as “oh wretched man that I am.”  But in the same chapter he also says that his new man nature is not like that at all.

*/*/*/*/*/*

I never heard the guilt trip of falling short of the glory of God, and was never taught I was dead in sins until I took the class.

Had you read Romans before the class you’d have been taught you (before born again) were dead in sins. And First John re-iterates this a few times as it opens up.

I never heard of a guilt trip associated with “falling short of the glory of God” either.  When that phrase is written there is a context that plainly says this falling short happens before the new birth.

*/*/*/*

You can't tell me I live my life focused only on my pleasure and not focused on God.

Right, and I wouldn’t try to tell you that.

But I know we all occasionally get caught up in loving something more than God, someone or some thing, “the lust of the flesh, the lust of the eyes, the pride of life” etc….

Some of our missing the mark in loving God first is subtle, in the way we neglect the proper focus on God, like the pride in our life’s accomplishments forgetting God’s grace, or improper anger at someone, forgetting God’s attitudes towards forgiveness.

We are commanded to be anxious for nothing, so allowing anxious thinking to grow can be missing the mark. If we are actively loving God first, trusting this Loved One to always be looking out for us is a duty and simply logical.   

I can see situations where chemical imbalances can make anxiety a bit out of the reach of our free will to snuff out, but given a healthy brain, we have a duty to “think on these things” that are listed after the Paul’s commandment to not allow anxiety, and to shift into thankfulness mode to snuff it out when it starts.

All these subtle things emanate from not having God as our top priority as Jesus did: “…nevertheless, not my will, but Thy will…” was his attitude to the death.

*/*/*/*/*/*

You, nor victor, nor the priestly class, nor the clergy, nor Saul of Tarsus, knows anything about me. This is religious, gaslighting dogma that I reject.

My take is that it is that God, knows you well, even better than you know yourself.

My chosen belief system sees God giving revelations to His writers that sometimes are a “one size fits all” piece of knowledge from our manufacturer, that we all can employ for our benefit.  I see the universality of all humans dying in span of a small bunch of decades as testifying that we universally commit this greatest sin of not loving God and not loving His Word.  First John is clear that loving God means keeping His commandments, and to know what His commandments are means knowing His Word.

*/*/*/*/*

 

We can agree to disagree on your religious, doctrinal dogmatism.

Oky Doky.

I never know what a person’s definition of “dogma” is.  I don’t think it’s a Bible word, but there are a lot of translations, and it may be there. It sounds harsh and is usually used in our culture to indicate unwise and harmful restrictions.  For me, believing the Bible is God’s Word has none of that flavor of the word dogma. 

Laws of Physics, in a sense, should be called “dogma” in the literal sense, but that violates the common usage of dogma.  Knowing and respecting the Laws of Physics means opportunities for great freedom and flexibility, and avoidance of calamity. The same should be true for knowing and respecting the Laws of God and His Word.

Our culture allows the ugly word “dogma” to be attached to the Bible, but “The Dogma of Physics” is not allowed.  

*/*/*/*/*

We had a few communications glitches there, IMO, but I think they were minor and I hope they are straightened out now.  I would more celebrate what we can agree on here, and not say we were totally talking past each other.

 

[Mike]

1 hour ago, So_crates said:

Again you contradict yourself. Two weeks ago you were pontificating about how everything is already determined. So, by your own admission, what damage has been done has been done regardless.

Well, unlike Nathan_Jr's post that I read in its entirety before posting, this one of yours I stopped after the opening 3 sentences.

What I "pontificated" weeks ago was that everything in the micro world of atoms, and molecules, and even cells is determined by the Laws of Physics (which encompasses the laws of chemistry and biology) AND the initial conditions those exceedingly small objects are subject to. At these low levels, there is no free will, and everything is determined.

But then I further theorized that when you look up to the level of a brain, there can be some free will there. 

I further theorized that this type of free will is not as strong as the classically defined type of free will, but it does get the job done, just not as fast and not as effortlessly as the classical free will definition promised.

So your second sentence is totally wrong, nullifying your first sentence completely.

*/*/*/*

Now this phrase in your third sentence: "...what damage has been done has been done regardless" makes no sense to me at all.  I need an explanation of what this means before I can proceed with reading carefully, the rest.  I'll glance at it tomorrow when I have sleep and time, but now it's too much for me to try.

If you take to heart my correction of your second sentence's missing my position on this, and then re-write the remainder of your post to reflect that, I feel that would be the best way for me to proceed.

 

[Nathan_Jr]

37 minutes ago, Mike said:

We are close here. I differ only in that loving your neighbor is the second great commandment, I think.  I’m typing fast finish soon, and will look it up later.

That's right. And the second is LIKE the first -- Loving your neighbor as yourself is LIKE loving God. They seem to me to fit together seamlessly, reflexively, like a hand in a... One must find out for oneself the deep meaning of the two greatest commandments. It's silly for me to explain it.

He didn't lay out more than two, and he said the two are like each other. To make a hard distinction between the two greatest commandments potentially hinders a higher level of understanding. And notice, he doesn't limit love to your fellowship brother or your fellow twig laborer or the girl that shares your commitment to some guru -- he says your NEIGHBOR, yourself and GOD. There are no contingencies, no numbers by which to paint, no complex, systematic, theological formulations. It's so simple, yet so, so profound.

I was taught with great deceptive subtlety by my twig commander to not even waste spit on my neighbor. This twig commander follows the original books and collaterals of victor paul wierwille ONLY. He is unwilling to go beyond what he was taught.

Edited December 19, 2022 by Nathan_Jr

[WordWolf]

3 hours ago, T-Bone said:

Jesus summarized the entire Jewish law with love - love for God and love for others . He did NOT simplify the law. There is a difference!

 

Jesus spoke of the first and great commandment and the second is like unto it - to love God and to love neighbor - He said the entire law and the prophets hang on that. That is a summary- He indicated all prohibitions to sin - i.e., to NOT commit adultery, to NOT lie, to NOT steal, etc., He recapitulated all the main points of the law showing how they all relate to loving God and neighbor.

 

In PFAL wierwille taught it WRONG! He simplified it - he said Jesus reduced all the law down to just 2 commandments. To reduce or simplify is to eliminate or lessen components. Knowing about wierwille’s moral depravity, it makes perfect sense he would like to blur boundaries and obfuscate what is right and wrong. There’s no specifics…it’s left up to the individual to determine what is right and wrong….That’s how he could commit unconscionable acts and rationalize sin out of it by saying “anything done in the love of God is okay”

 

Jesus didn’t teach THAT! He summarized! It’s like He drew a big umbrella over all the specific prohibitions and said the love for God and others are the prime directives - that love covers every scenario! If you love God and others you should not commit adultery, you should not lie, steal, etc. Love was the basis for the law! 

 

The summary does not eliminate any components - it merely gives the big picture of how we conduct our lives should always reflect loving God and others.

In short, if you love God with everything you've got, and love your neighbor like you love yourself, nobody has to tell you not to steal, not to kill, etc,- BECAUSE YOU'LL AVOID DOING THEM WITHOUT SPECIFIC RULES.

vpw's own rule was different: "If you love God, and you love your neighbor, you can do as you fool well please."     He started with loving God and neighbor, but changed that you would follow the rules automatically (which is interesting because he mentioned that quickly in passing.)   Why the difference?  vpw went in small steps from what the verses said, to what he WANTED the verses to say.  He went from "If you love God and love your neighbor, you'll follow the whole law automatically" to "so long as you love God and love your neighbor, you can do as you fool well please" to "anything done with the love of God is pure" "to the pure, all things are pure" etc.    In small steps, he went from "obey the law out of love"  to "you can do whatever you want and it's fine".   Why did he want that?  He wanted to justify doing whatever he wanted and wanted to pretend God Almighty was fine with that.  It's no different than when he told Jim D00p that God Almighty was fine with ORGIES and tried to use a verse to justify it.  

For those who wonder where you've seen the small steps before, it's a very old technique.  Someone went from "Has God said 'you shall not eat of every tree in the garden?"  step by step to go from "you shall surely die" to "you shall not surely die".   Whose techniques did vpw copy?    BTW, did vpw do that knowing enough about the Bible to know whose work he was copying (knowing he was copying the devil's playbook to rationalize the sin he himself wanted to do)  or was vpw that deficient in the meaning of Scripture that he ripped off the devil's own techniques, techniques mentioned right in pfal, out of ignorance?  It was either one or the other.

(Usually, when there's a conundrum like this, where all possible answers are bad, someone makes a personal attack on me, so it's probably time for that very thing now, for those arriving late.)

[WordWolf]

1 hour ago, Nathan_Jr said:

That's right. And the second is LIKE the first -- Loving your neighbor as yourself is LIKE loving God. They seem to me to fit together seamlessly, reflexively, like a hand in a... One must find out for oneself the deep meaning of the two greatest commandments. It's silly for me to explain it.

He didn't lay out more than two, and he said the two are like each other. To make a hard distinction between the two greatest commandments potentially hinders a higher level of understanding. And notice, he doesn't limit love to your fellowship brother or your fellow twig laborer or the girl that shares your commitment to some guru -- he says your NEIGHBOR, yourself and GOD. There are no contingencies, no numbers by which to paint, no complex, systematic, theological formulations. It's so simple, yet so, so profound.

I was taught with great deceptive subtlety by my twig commander to not even waste spit on my neighbor. This twig commander follows the original books and collaterals of victor paul wierwille ONLY. He is unwilling to go beyond what he was taught.

Who is my neighbor?

Jesus explained that one with a parable about a Jew who needed help, and, of all people, one of those stinking, lousy, no-good, low-down SAMARITANS was the person who helped him.    Jesus made it clear that SAMARITAN was the one who "was neighbor" to the Jew who needed help.  It was such a noxious concept that the Jew who asked him couldn't bring him to say "the SAMARITAN who helped him", but said "the one who showed mercy on him."   Jesus, having told the parable of the Good Samaritan, said to do like that guy.  "Go and do thou likewise" is how the KJV renders it.

So, who's your neighbor?

According to Jesus, you can't exclude that Muslim, that Jew, that Black guy, that Asian guy, that Pakistani, that African dude,  that redneck,  that smug anti-Christian, that Pastafarian, etc. 

Jesus set the standard very high, and said to do that.

[WordWolf]

3 hours ago, Mike said:

Their business model has an internal conflict, best I can see, and that means it is a difficult and messy process to resolve lots of these matters.

On one hand it is a love based spiritual family, and family matters like this MUST be resolved.  When the parents have dirty secrets in their past, telling their very young children about them may not be good for the children's welfare.

But SURELY as the the children age and mature, those secrets better be told in a calm, loving atmosphere at home by a certain time. Neglecting disclosure at that time would VERY BAD for the older children's welfare, because they will probably find disclosure out in the cold cruel world sooner or later.

On the other hand, and in great opposition to the loving family hand, TWI is a marketing corporation.  In marketing, ugly secrets of the company or product are NEVER willingly disclosed, and ALWAYS shoved under the rug, if possible.

It is also the case that personal ego slows down the process for those who are even remotely connected to (like by having first-hand knowledge of) the ugly secrets. Loss of stature is a fear that ruins many men's ministries.

I am seriously considering the possibility that the solution to this is to dissolve the corporation, and split up the two opposing functions into two new, separate corporations.  This is a new idea and I'd appreciate help brainstorming this.

Also in the works is an essay that the Way Tree is over. It was only supposed to be temporary, the great centralization of everything it teaches.

Especially egregious is the notion of God's revelation exclusively going through the Way Tree from the roots up.  The centralized money thing is puny in my eyes compared to this major doctrinal abomination. 

But this too is in the brainstorming stages, and (who knows?) I may want to eat those words someday. I am thinking out loud, searching for solutions.  I need help here.

This may be a new idea TO YOU, but it's an old idea to nearly 100% of everyone who ever took a pfal class, because they all left twi and did something else.  Many left to join smaller, decentralized groups, if only for a time.   So, let the people who care more about the organization than about what God said and what the Bible ACTUALLY said have the buildings and pay the rent, and the rest went off to serve God somewhere else.  This is an old idea that goes all the way back to the book of Acts and the School of Tyrannus.

[WordWolf]

2 hours ago, Nathan_Jr said:

Since day one.

The cornerstones of the foundational foundation are selling classes and literature. Everything else is propaganda bullshonta to serve that end.  Victor was riding the wave of huckster evangelism when he launched this churchianity enterprise with dollar signs in his eyes.

Branham was doing the same, as were many others. He pivoted from a healing ministry to a teaching ministry, because there was more money in the teaching. And the Bible, and salvation, and "spirituality" were the hooks to reel in the dupes.

 

 

It also played to his strengths.  You can plagiarize your way into faking a TEACHING ministry, but you can't plagiarize your way into a HEALING ministry.    He could take the work of others, stand up, and with the skill of the barker fake a teaching ministry because it looked like he was really a teacher.   He couldn't use the skills of a barker and plagiarizing the writings of others to fake HEALINGS.   That's often been a weakness of twi, and some point to that as why its founder wore glasses when he supposedly could believe for perfect eyesight, and he died YOUNG of extensive cancer as the result of decades of chain smoking and heavy drinking when he supposedly could believe for perfect health.

[Twinky]

1 hour ago, WordWolf said:

You can plagiarize your way into faking a TEACHING ministry, but you can't plagiarize your way into a HEALING ministry.    He could take the work of others, stand up, and with the skill of the barker fake a teaching ministry because it looked like he was really a teacher.  

Not much of a teacher, either.  Not  really.  Left confusion in people's minds.

And not much of a teacher because he couldn't even teach himself to believe for what he needed.

[OldSkool]

6 hours ago, Mike said:

On one hand it is a love based spiritual family, and family matters like this MUST be resolved.  When the parents have dirty secrets in their past, telling their very young children about them may not be good for the children's welfare.

But SURELY as the the children age and mature, those secrets better be told in a calm, loving atmosphere at home by a certain time. Neglecting disclosure at that time would VERY BAD for the older children's welfare, because they will probably find disclosure out in the cold cruel world sooner or later.

Mike - your rationalizations make no sense. Trinitarians use similar rationalizations, like the trinity is like water...it can be a vapor or in solid form...God is just like that and he took a body to save mankind from their sins. Im not anti-trinity either, just believe there is more to the God head than what TWI is willing to admit but I digress..

My point is none of these little pseudo pithy statements actually agree with scripture that lying and telling half truths is NOT God's will or way. You are willing to intentionally cover-up very egregious sins for the sake of a stolen class and a deceased creep that you idolize. That's not gonna work out well when you explain that to Jesus Christ someday. 

Edited December 19, 2022 by OldSkool

[OldSkool]

3 hours ago, Mike said:

Had you read Romans before the class you’d have been taught you (before born again) were dead in sins

I doubt you have ever read Romans with any clear comprehension as to what is actually being said versus what wierwille says on Romans in pflap...he says very little on Romans in PFLAP...however, I did follow along on his university of life tapes on Romans. I also followed along in Charles Welsh's book The Just and the Justifier and wierwille basically taught that book almost line for line in the university of life tapes....and you probably wonder why they pulled that series...lol

[OldSkool]

3 hours ago, Mike said:

Well that is to be expected after you are born again, and learn to distance yourself from your old man nature, which is where Paul was saying the desperately evil heart is. 

Complete lack of comprehension as to what is actually written. We are never told to DISTANCE ourselves from our old man nature. We are told to reckon it dead. Really big difference there mike.

[Bolshevik]

Rome conquered Judea.

So a whole book is titled "Romans".

Nobody has a problem with that?

 

 

Sorry

[OldSkool]

6 hours ago, Mike said:

I agree that truth changing like that is crazy. Now the APPLICATIONS of some eternal truths may change some.... I guess.

No they don't. Eternal truth: thou shalt not commit adultery....oh yeah wierwille changed that to spiritual adultery and ran through every young lady he could get on the motor coach. Yeah - eternal truths don't change - unethical people change the Bible to suit their lusts.

[OldSkool]

6 hours ago, Mike said:

From what I see so far, TWI-4 has gone back to the original class, just in abbreviated form, never contradicting PFAL'68, and adding nothing that I noticed.

 

Thanks for confirming the whitewash I have been telling you has occurred. It never contradicts pflap68 because it's the same class with material missing...why would they remove material mike? Why would the greatest class on earth need to have hours of material removed?

Could it be that the way internationl is still coverin wierwille's plagaristic tracks? Or maybe they remove outright lies and inconsistencies...thats what a lot of the editing has been about over the years. Clean up the works of a narcissisctic drunk who used the Bible for his own greedy base gain and lusts.

[waysider]

5 hours ago, Nathan_Jr said:

The cornerstones of the foundational foundation are selling classes and literature. Everything else is propaganda bullshonta to serve that end.

This is just my opinion, but I think the real cornerstone of Wierwille's plan was to establish a base of followers who would consistently tithe, providing him with an endless stream of income. No work required beyond cashing the checks. Funds resulting from sale of the classes and books were icing on the cake. That's why "Christians Should Be Prosperous"  became the focal point of those early sessions. There was no internet, no instant access to information. Who was ever going to find out the true nature of a scheme cooked up by a guy in the middle of rural Ohio? Or so he might have thought. I don't think he ever envisioned how big the ministry would become, but, when it did, he was perceptive enough to recognize the opportunities, some quite sinister, unfolding in front of him. It snowballed out of control and overwhelmed him. It grew like a cancer. And here we are today.

[T-Bone]

16 minutes ago, waysider said:

This is just my opinion, but I think the real cornerstone of Wierwille's plan was to establish a base of followers who would consistently tithe, providing him with an endless stream of income. No work required beyond cashing the checks. Funds resulting from sale of the classes and books were icing on the cake. That's why "Christians Should Be Prosperous"  became the focal point of those early sessions. There was no internet, no instant access to information. Who was ever going to find out the true nature of a scheme cooked up by a guy in the middle of rural Ohio? Or so he might have thought. I don't think he ever envisioned how big the ministry would become, but, when it did, he was perceptive enough to recognize the opportunities, some quite sinister, unfolding in front of him. It snowballed out of control and overwhelmed him. It grew like a cancer. And here we are today.

great post, Waysider 

that makes a lot of sense of how things actually evolved

[Bolshevik]

17 minutes ago, waysider said:

This is just my opinion, but I think the real cornerstone of Wierwille's plan was to establish a base of followers who would consistently tithe, providing him with an endless stream of income. No work required beyond cashing the checks. Funds resulting from sale of the classes and books were icing on the cake. That's why "Christians Should Be Prosperous"  became the focal point of those early sessions. There was no internet, no instant access to information. Who was ever going to find out the true nature of a scheme cooked up by a guy in the middle of rural Ohio? Or so he might have thought. I don't think he ever envisioned how big the ministry would become, but, when it did, he was perceptive enough to recognize the opportunities, some quite sinister, unfolding in front of him. It snowballed out of control and overwhelmed him. It grew like a cancer. And here we are today.

 

Pleasure Island.  Story old as time.

[waysider]

10 minutes ago, Bolshevik said:

 

Pleasure Island.  Story old as time.

Someday, you'll be a real boy.

[Bolshevik]

5 minutes ago, waysider said:

Someday, you'll be a real boy.

Believe Utopian lies, and become a pack mule.

[T-Bone]

yet another take...

       ...on Pinocchio

watched this one recently - I liked it - quirky...a little dark...some very interesting adult  themes...2 thumbs up

 

Edited December 19, 2022 by T-Bone
typos

[chockfull]

8 hours ago, Mike said:

Thanks. That helps.  "Present truth" is a term pretty new to me, and knowing it is connected with the wineskins definitely helps.

*/*/*/*

You wrote:
"In my experience 'truth' only changes that much when someone is fibbing a lot."

I agree that truth changing like that is crazy. Now the APPLICATIONS of some eternal truths may change some.... I guess.

The big thing that said "red flag" to me, was that if truth itself changes with the calendar, what does say about the VERY old truths in the Bible ???

I wonder if others had that suspicion?

From what I see so far, TWI-4 has gone back to the original class, just in abbreviated form, never contradicting PFAL'68, and adding nothing that I noticed.

Because some of the missing parts are crucial for more mature students, I look at it as a good introduction to PFAL'68. 

The parts missing in PFAL-T are still in the PFAL book and RHST. 

I had heard several times that the PFAL book was declared old wineskin at one time, but I don't know by whom or when.

Present truth teachings stem from 2Peter 1:12

They vary in message and scope but VPW I believe erroneously interpreted that verse from a dispensationalism perspective.

Berean Bible translates it “truth you now have”

ASV “truth that is with you”

Dispensationalist dispositions lead themselves to an “administration” focused truth.  Bullinger slices them up in Companion Bible.  PFAL is very dispensationalist.

But the illogic comes in waffling back and forth.  Like on the tithe, and on debt and so forth.  Illogic creeps in because God is no respecter of persons.

TWI leadership functions 100 percent on the “administration “ perspective.  This makes it easier to hide from making tough decisions to deal with the previous administration.

Likewise hyper focus on dispensationalist interpretations leaves the Christian belittling Christs teachings in many cases valuing them less than Paul’s letters.

[chockfull]

55 minutes ago, waysider said:

This is just my opinion, but I think the real cornerstone of Wierwille's plan was to establish a base of followers who would consistently tithe, providing him with an endless stream of income. No work required beyond cashing the checks. Funds resulting from sale of the classes and books were icing on the cake. That's why "Christians Should Be Prosperous"  became the focal point of those early sessions. There was no internet, no instant access to information. Who was ever going to find out the true nature of a scheme cooked up by a guy in the middle of rural Ohio? Or so he might have thought. I don't think he ever envisioned how big the ministry would become, but, when it did, he was perceptive enough to recognize the opportunities, some quite sinister, unfolding in front of him. It snowballed out of control and overwhelmed him. It grew like a cancer. And here we are today.

My cult studies class highlights a free proselytizing workforce and an obligatory teaching regarding finances as common factors to all cults.

They all hustle the same way regardless of the product they are hustling - tablets from an angel, reaching “clear” state in Scientology, or snowstorms and tales of hidden secrets from a couple millennia ago in the Bible.

 

Edited December 19, 2022 by chockfull

[chockfull]

8 hours ago, Mike said:

Their business model has an internal conflict, best I can see, and that means it is a difficult and messy process to resolve lots of these matters.

On one hand it is a love based spiritual family, and family matters like this MUST be resolved.  When the parents have dirty secrets in their past, telling their very young children about them may not be good for the children's welfare.

But SURELY as the the children age and mature, those secrets better be told in a calm, loving atmosphere at home by a certain time. Neglecting disclosure at that time would VERY BAD for the older children's welfare, because they will probably find disclosure out in the cold cruel world sooner or later.

On the other hand, and in great opposition to the loving family hand, TWI is a marketing corporation.  In marketing, ugly secrets of the company or product are NEVER willingly disclosed, and ALWAYS shoved under the rug, if possible.

It is also the case that personal ego slows down the process for those who are even remotely connected to (like by having first-hand knowledge of) the ugly secrets. Loss of stature is a fear that ruins many men's ministries.

I am seriously considering the possibility that the solution to this is to dissolve the corporation, and split up the two opposing functions into two new, separate corporations.  This is a new idea and I'd appreciate help brainstorming this.

Also in the works is an essay that the Way Tree is over. It was only supposed to be temporary, the great centralization of everything it teaches.

Especially egregious is the notion of God's revelation exclusively going through the Way Tree from the roots up.  The centralized money thing is puny in my eyes compared to this major doctrinal abomination. 

But this too is in the brainstorming stages, and (who knows?) I may want to eat those words someday. I am thinking out loud, searching for solutions.  I need help here.

The issue is that the marketing corporation drives everything.   Look at this years poster.  Christ is absent, the tree of life masquerading as the Way Tree is front and center with Living Victoriously as theme.

The love based spiritual family is called Christianity.  It exists spread throughout the world inside and outside of corporations and entities constructed by mankind.

It requires no Tower of Babel structure with multiple approval levels to do basic things involved with living a Christian life.

It does not lead the believer to isolation from the rest of the body ( I.e. eye can’t say to hand no need) and works with the rest of the body.

It shows forth love and not hate towards despised groups in religion like LGBTQ+
 

It is not bound pouring new wine into old wineskins by corporate tradition and lawyers instructions.

It doesn’t ruin other Christians lives by shunning them.

It is inclusive, empathetic, reasonable, and loving.

You should try it sometime it beats the prisons of a cult any day of the week.

Edited December 19, 2022 by chockfull

[Nathan_Jr]

2 hours ago, Bolshevik said:

Rome conquered Judea.

So a whole book is titled "Romans".

Nobody has a problem with that?

 

 

Sorry

Interesting. 

Doesn't Paul salute a Herodian at the end of Romans?

A case could be made that most of the NT is written from a pro-Roman and anti-Jewish perspective. A curious irony.

[Nathan_Jr]

1 hour ago, waysider said:

This is just my opinion, but I think the real cornerstone of Wierwille's plan was to establish a base of followers who would consistently tithe, providing him with an endless stream of income. No work required beyond cashing the checks. Funds resulting from sale of the classes and books were icing on the cake. That's why "Christians Should Be Prosperous"  became the focal point of those early sessions. There was no internet, no instant access to information. Who was ever going to find out the true nature of a scheme cooked up by a guy in the middle of rural Ohio? Or so he might have thought. I don't think he ever envisioned how big the ministry would become, but, when it did, he was perceptive enough to recognize the opportunities, some quite sinister, unfolding in front of him. It snowballed out of control and overwhelmed him. It grew like a cancer. And here we are today.

I think your opinion is probably right on accurate about this.

It's all (without exception or distinction) about the money.