Every person thinks he's correct about pretty much everything... at least at first. With a humble (and in the words of Cesar Millan, the Dog Whisperer, calm/confident) outlook, the person can be willing to embrace his uncertainty. This is something Wierwille seems not to have been capable of, for the most part.
Perhaps this is something he re-evaluated at the end when he was willing to express his wish to have been a better man.
Every person thinks he's correct about pretty much everything... at least at first. With a humble (and in the words of Cesar Millan, the Dog Whisperer, calm/confident) outlook, the person can be willing to embrace his uncertainty. This is something Wierwille seems not to have been capable of, for the most part.
Perhaps this is something he re-evaluated at the end when he was willing to express his wish to have been a better man.
I think VPW wanted to distort reality.
The Bible is often looked at as objective truth. Unless it is argued it is a subjective truth. Then there's no one truth or even consistency. Reality itself is not.
Whereas VPW being the main interpretor means there's possibility for consistency.
Problem is he didn't write the book. So he needs to negate the writers.
This guy, if I read it right, argues you need to understand linguistics (the language it was written in) and the psychology of the author to interpret The Bible.
Unlike Schleiermacher, Schlegel emphasizes that works typically contain confusions that the interpreter needs not only to identify but also to explain:
It is not enough that one understand the actual sense of a confused work better than the author understood it. One must also oneself be able to know,characterize, and evenconstruethe confusion even down to its very principles. (KFSA18:63)
Edited by Bolshevik Quoted from link in previous text
Unlike Schleiermacher, Schlegel emphasizes that works typically contain confusions that the interpreter needs not only to identify but also to explain:
It is not enough that one understand the actual sense of a confused work better than the author understood it. One must also oneself be able to know,characterize, and evenconstruethe confusion even down to its very principles. (KFSA18:63)
Of course, some forced meanings were a lot more forced than others. My personal favorite came from when vpw questioned Jlm D00p at length about what it was like to ATTEND AN ORGY, despite Jlm's obvious discomfort over the subject. vpw then mentioned I Corinthians 7:1. For those following along without a Bible, here's I Corinthians 7:1 (KJV.)
"Now concerning the things whereof ye wrote unto me: It is good for a man not to touch a woman."
NASB: "Now concerning the things about which you wrote, it is good for a man not to touch a woman."
NIV: "Now for the matters you wrote about: “It is good for a man not to have sexual relations with a woman.”
Now, that's pretty straightforward to just about anyone. Based solely on that verse, would you think the implication was that Scripture was saying there- and probably in general- that orgies were seriously wrong? If it's good for a man not to "touch" a woman, or for him to refrain from sexual relations with a woman, then it's bad for a man to have sexual relations with A woman. Multiply the women and you multiply how bad it is. That doesn't take much reading ability. And there isn't much room for disagreement as to what it says right there. (Any disagreement would be on what it says elsewhere, other implications of the verse, whether the verse is canonical, but not as to what the verse actually says and means.)
That having been said, Jlm D00p remembers what vpw said rather clearly- because of how shocking it was. vpw, when speaking about ATTENDING AN ORGY, said "That's all available." He said that if God Almighty had meant ATTENDING ORGIES was to be avoided, He would have said "BEST" rather than "GOOD" in that verse."
To me, that's about as forced a meaning as one can get on a verse. The Bible said to avoid sexual relations, and someone else comes along and says that same verse actually means that it's OK with God if you ATTEND AN ORGY.
Isaiah 5:20 (KJV)Woe unto them that call evil good, and good evil; that put darkness for light, and light for darkness; that put bitter for sweet, and sweet for bitter!
Of course, some forced meanings were a lot more forced than others. My personal favorite came from when vpw questioned Jlm D00p at length about what it was like to ATTEND AN ORGY, despite Jlm's obvious discomfort over the subject. vpw then mentioned I Corinthians 7:1. For those following along without a Bible, here's I Corinthians 7:1 (KJV.)
"Now concerning the things whereof ye wrote unto me: It is good for a man not to touch a woman."
NASB: "Now concerning the things about which you wrote, it is good for a man not to touch a woman."
NIV: "Now for the matters you wrote about: “It is good for a man not to have sexual relations with a woman.”
Now, that's pretty straightforward to just about anyone. Based solely on that verse, would you think the implication was that Scripture was saying there- and probably in general- that orgies were seriously wrong? If it's good for a man not to "touch" a woman, or for him to refrain from sexual relations with a woman, then it's bad for a man to have sexual relations with A woman. Multiply the women and you multiply how bad it is. That doesn't take much reading ability. And there isn't much room for disagreement as to what it says right there. (Any disagreement would be on what it says elsewhere, other implications of the verse, whether the verse is canonical, but not as to what the verse actually says and means.)
That having been said, Jlm D00p remembers what vpw said rather clearly- because of how shocking it was. vpw, when speaking about ATTENDING AN ORGY, said "That's all available." He said that if God Almighty had meant ATTENDING ORGIES was to be avoided, He would have said "BEST" rather than "GOOD" in that verse."
To me, that's about as forced a meaning as one can get on a verse. The Bible said to avoid sexual relations, and someone else comes along and says that same verse actually means that it's OK with God if you ATTEND AN ORGY.
Isaiah 5:20 (KJV)Woe unto them that call evil good, and good evil; that put darkness for light, and light for darkness; that put bitter for sweet, and sweet for bitter!
One of the concerns with ChapGPT and AI generated images is the competition OnlyFans will receive. Online prostitutes will lose their income to robots. Nobody is actually touching each other. And if the other isn't even a biological being, what evil is there? How will women make a living though? Will our taxes increase now?
Transmaxing is also a word. People are changing their gender simply for a better opportunities.
Nearly half of kids live in single parent homes because that's what's profitable.
The population implosions that are taking place are because nobody is touching each other. The government of Denmark started a campaign with commercials begging folks to get it on. They need more babies. Is that evil?
And how is it wrong to touch a woman if woman can't be defined? Gender is a made up construct, right?
Orgies don't sound so shocking. At least it involves more than one person in the same room. And Jim Doop did not do the right thing and show VPW the door at the first red flag. His senses are questionable, if it was shocking, why was no action taken? Wasn't this the 60s? There was a revolution taking place.
So I don't think that Mr d00p was very firm on his views in that story. VPW warned Jim of VPW's intent.
This idea that the reader knows the writing better than the writer, is apparently centuries old.
One of the concerns with ChapGPT and AI generated images is the competition OnlyFans will receive. Online prostitutes will lose their income to robots. Nobody is actually touching each other. And if the other isn't even a biological being, what evil is there? How will women make a living though? Will our taxes increase now?
Transmaxing is also a word. People are changing their gender simply for a better opportunities.
Nearly half of kids live in single parent homes because that's what's profitable.
The population implosions that are taking place are because nobody is touching each other. The government of Denmark started a campaign with commercials begging folks to get it on. They need more babies. Is that evil?
And how is it wrong to touch a woman if woman can't be defined? Gender is a made up construct, right?
Orgies don't sound so shocking. At least it involves more than one person in the same room. And Jim Doop did not do the right thing and show VPW the door at the first red flag. His senses are questionable, if it was shocking, why was no action taken? Wasn't this the 60s? There was a revolution taking place.
So I don't think that Mr d00p was very firm on his views in that story. VPW warned Jim of VPW's intent.
This idea that the reader knows the writing better than the writer, is apparently centuries old.
Did VPW study hermeneutics?
Arguments can certainly be made for and against each item you listed. But therein lies the problem. All this knowledge of good and evil thing and the war thats still being waged between God and satan come down to two basic factors: Does one want to live God's way with boundaries set in place for decency, love, and order or does one want to live Lucifers ways of there is no sin or boundaries and one can do whatever they will, because do what thoug wilt shall be the whole of the law. I understand that's broad and extremely overgeneralized and I phrased it that way on purpose because I really don't want to get into various discussions that would ensue if I were any less general. My 2 cents anyways.
Correct me if Im wrong, didnt wierwille state that they approached the Bible with an objective viewpoint through inductive reasoning?
I distinctly remember them saying that their research methods are based on inductive reasoning. And I distinctly remember at other times the way international saying that scripture isn't subjective but objective because it intreprets itself.
Not according to scripture, scripture states that God has dealt the same amount to every believer and we shouldnt think of ourselves more highly than we ought to think. However, according to wierwille, he was the most gifted, most athletic, most intelligent and had the strongest believing of anyone else. Martindale said the same crap regarding himself. In fact, it was a paragraph or two in the old class coordinators manual for the way of abundance and power that stated as much.
Arguments can certainly be made for and against each item you listed. But therein lies the problem. All this knowledge of good and evil thing and the war thats still being waged between God and satan come down to two basic factors: Does one want to live God's way with boundaries set in place for decency, love, and order or does one want to live Lucifers ways of there is no sin or boundaries and one can do whatever they will, because do what thoug wilt shall be the whole of the law. I understand that's broad and extremely overgeneralized and I phrased it that way on purpose because I really don't want to get into various discussions that would ensue if I were any less general. My 2 cents anyways.
Well Genesis says be fruitful and multiply. That could mean anything.
VPW has been dead for an eternity. He may have posed as a leader, his malleable nature means he was influenced by greater forces.
Not according to scripture, scripture states that God has dealt the same amount to every believer and we shouldnt think of ourselves more highly than we ought to think. However, according to wierwille, he was the most gifted, most athletic, most intelligent and had the strongest believing of anyone else. Martindale said the same crap regarding himself. In fact, it was a paragraph or two in the old class coordinators manual for the way of abundance and power that stated as much.
Hmm.
You know, TWI claims to focus on the Bible. We know that's BS. It's a red herrings for their own Rosie fox glasses.
So the snow on the gas pumps,
It's a claim to reset Christianity. It's tabula rasa, blank slate thinking.
Blank slate comes up in other philosophy, I think.
Recommended Posts
Bolshevik
Death of the Author
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Rocky
Every person thinks he's correct about pretty much everything... at least at first. With a humble (and in the words of Cesar Millan, the Dog Whisperer, calm/confident) outlook, the person can be willing to embrace his uncertainty. This is something Wierwille seems not to have been capable of, for the most part.
Perhaps this is something he re-evaluated at the end when he was willing to express his wish to have been a better man.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bolshevik
I think VPW wanted to distort reality.
The Bible is often looked at as objective truth. Unless it is argued it is a subjective truth. Then there's no one truth or even consistency. Reality itself is not.
Whereas VPW being the main interpretor means there's possibility for consistency.
Problem is he didn't write the book. So he needs to negate the writers.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Rocky
Ya think? He probably didn't word it as such in his own mind, but yeah, the end result would be the same.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bolshevik
Right, he would have thought his idea and strategy was original. As a plagiarist, he would have not understood what he was doing.
The ability to think around the text without reading the text itself.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
OldSkool
Correct me if Im wrong, didnt wierwille state that they approached the Bible with an objective viewpoint through inductive reasoning?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bolshevik
I don't know.
Scripture interprets itself. That is subjective?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
OldSkool
Im thinking he did....someone will be along that can straighten me out...where the heck is mike when you need him?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bolshevik
Mike is able to talk to Paul by reading The Bible.
This is getting behind the text. Knowing the mind of the writer.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bolshevik
Oldies posted an article about the Catholic Church claiming authority on the Bible's interpretation.
Martin Luther famously said "sola scriptura" . . . Which removes Catholic authority and tradition and corruption.
VPW needed snow on the gas pumps. People apparently bought that. Which sounds insane.
But obviously, there's a void in how to read the Bible.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bolshevik
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/schleiermacher/#HermIeTheoInte
This guy, if I read it right, argues you need to understand linguistics (the language it was written in) and the psychology of the author to interpret The Bible.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bolshevik
Unlike Schleiermacher, Schlegel emphasizes that works typically contain confusions that the interpreter needs not only to identify but also to explain:
Edited by BolshevikQuoted from link in previous text
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bolshevik
VPW trying to codify forced meaning is not new.
So this practice is bigger than him.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
WordWolf
Of course, some forced meanings were a lot more forced than others. My personal favorite came from when vpw questioned Jlm D00p at length about what it was like to ATTEND AN ORGY, despite Jlm's obvious discomfort over the subject. vpw then mentioned I Corinthians 7:1. For those following along without a Bible, here's I Corinthians 7:1 (KJV.)
" Now concerning the things whereof ye wrote unto me: It is good for a man not to touch a woman."
NASB: "Now concerning the things about which you wrote, it is good for a man not to touch a woman."
NIV: "Now for the matters you wrote about: “It is good for a man not to have sexual relations with a woman.”
Now, that's pretty straightforward to just about anyone. Based solely on that verse, would you think the implication was that Scripture was saying there- and probably in general- that orgies were seriously wrong? If it's good for a man not to "touch" a woman, or for him to refrain from sexual relations with a woman, then it's bad for a man to have sexual relations with A woman. Multiply the women and you multiply how bad it is. That doesn't take much reading ability. And there isn't much room for disagreement as to what it says right there. (Any disagreement would be on what it says elsewhere, other implications of the verse, whether the verse is canonical, but not as to what the verse actually says and means.)
That having been said, Jlm D00p remembers what vpw said rather clearly- because of how shocking it was. vpw, when speaking about ATTENDING AN ORGY, said "That's all available." He said that if God Almighty had meant ATTENDING ORGIES was to be avoided, He would have said "BEST" rather than "GOOD" in that verse."
To me, that's about as forced a meaning as one can get on a verse. The Bible said to avoid sexual relations, and someone else comes along and says that same verse actually means that it's OK with God if you ATTEND AN ORGY.
Isaiah 5:20 (KJV) Woe unto them that call evil good, and good evil; that put darkness for light, and light for darkness; that put bitter for sweet, and sweet for bitter!
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bolshevik
One of the concerns with ChapGPT and AI generated images is the competition OnlyFans will receive. Online prostitutes will lose their income to robots. Nobody is actually touching each other. And if the other isn't even a biological being, what evil is there? How will women make a living though? Will our taxes increase now?
Transmaxing is also a word. People are changing their gender simply for a better opportunities.
Nearly half of kids live in single parent homes because that's what's profitable.
The population implosions that are taking place are because nobody is touching each other. The government of Denmark started a campaign with commercials begging folks to get it on. They need more babies. Is that evil?
And how is it wrong to touch a woman if woman can't be defined? Gender is a made up construct, right?
Orgies don't sound so shocking. At least it involves more than one person in the same room. And Jim Doop did not do the right thing and show VPW the door at the first red flag. His senses are questionable, if it was shocking, why was no action taken? Wasn't this the 60s? There was a revolution taking place.
So I don't think that Mr d00p was very firm on his views in that story. VPW warned Jim of VPW's intent.
This idea that the reader knows the writing better than the writer, is apparently centuries old.
Did VPW study hermeneutics?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
OldSkool
Arguments can certainly be made for and against each item you listed. But therein lies the problem. All this knowledge of good and evil thing and the war thats still being waged between God and satan come down to two basic factors: Does one want to live God's way with boundaries set in place for decency, love, and order or does one want to live Lucifers ways of there is no sin or boundaries and one can do whatever they will, because do what thoug wilt shall be the whole of the law. I understand that's broad and extremely overgeneralized and I phrased it that way on purpose because I really don't want to get into various discussions that would ensue if I were any less general. My 2 cents anyways.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
OldSkool
I distinctly remember them saying that their research methods are based on inductive reasoning. And I distinctly remember at other times the way international saying that scripture isn't subjective but objective because it intreprets itself.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
cman
VPW invented problems that were not real and offered solutions that enslaved people with fear.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
OldSkool
Good point, that was all part of the sales schtik to get students in the net.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
OldSkool
Not according to scripture, scripture states that God has dealt the same amount to every believer and we shouldnt think of ourselves more highly than we ought to think. However, according to wierwille, he was the most gifted, most athletic, most intelligent and had the strongest believing of anyone else. Martindale said the same crap regarding himself. In fact, it was a paragraph or two in the old class coordinators manual for the way of abundance and power that stated as much.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bolshevik
Well Genesis says be fruitful and multiply. That could mean anything.
VPW has been dead for an eternity. He may have posed as a leader, his malleable nature means he was influenced by greater forces.
Edited by BolshevikCommas are comical
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bolshevik
Hmm.
You know, TWI claims to focus on the Bible. We know that's BS. It's a red herrings for their own Rosie fox glasses.
So the snow on the gas pumps,
It's a claim to reset Christianity. It's tabula rasa, blank slate thinking.
Blank slate comes up in other philosophy, I think.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
waysider
It's all a facade. Like flats in a stage production.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bolshevik
Yes. In this thread that is assumed. 99% of the population knows that.
VPW may have set his trap, being such a dunce, what hooks did he pass on that he was unaware of?
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.