Trinitarians aren't "bad," just mistaken. And many are right on in other areas of doctrine (salvation by grace, etc.). And, since the trinitarians outnumber the one-Godders (unitarian means something else, unfortunately) by a wide margin, it's not surprising that they would have the greatest share of written works.
I have found that most members of a trinitarian church just go along with the program and mouth the words of that doctrine. I spent over a decade in my early ministry years talking to trinitarians. I wanted to be sure we were correct so I sought out trinitarians to hear their side. I went to their churches and spent many hours observing and discussing. Sometimes I did run into the evil types, but most were not.
Nearly every church I visited had one or two evil “trinitarian cops” who patrolled about making sure everyone mouthed the right words. Even if I kept mum on my TWI affiliation, they’d sniff me out very quickly and attack, just from the kinds of questions I’d ask.
My position is that most triniarians are not so evil that we can’t be friendly.
I no longer feel a need to glean truths from them, but I know that VPW did, and I receive from him what he got from trinitarians. Probably most (if not all) of his teachers believed that Jesus was God.
I don't think trinitarians are bad. (imho) the doctrine is wrong, but the folks who believe it are not "bad", simply because they believe it. I've many friends who are trinitarian, and that "doctrinal disagreement" doesn't stop our friendship.
Also -- the further (time-wise) that I get away from twi, I've found myself more accepting of many things that I personally don't agree with. I think one can learn from many sources.
quote: ...then why were all of the Christian books that were read and quoted by the teachers at Emporia and used to back up Way doctrine written by TRINITARIANS (other than vps stuff, of course)?
quote:...then why were all of the Christian books that were read and quoted by the teachers at Emporia and used to back up Way doctrine written by TRINITARIANS (other than vps stuff, of course)?
Because like VPW the Emporia "teachers" were also hipocrites. In one breath trinitarians were condemned as evil, possessed scumbags and in the next, many of their teachings were held up to support and give credibility to select TWI doctrines.
I wonder how all these evil, possessed Trinitarians, were able to come up with the canon of scripture (accepted by TWI) - translate the scriptures, and produce 99 percent of everything that VPW/TWI ever taught?
Ah...the flawed logic question. Two parts, which are independent, are made to appear related. How can [pick your subject] who is [negative but indefensible attribute] be [seemiingly connected but not really, good attribute]? How can a monster do good kind of dichotomy. Unfortunately, if one takes the bait, you have a problem that can't solved because one part does not control the other.
The neat thing is that it works in reverse. Just put the good attribute first and it makes it seem less likely that a good person/thing/ etc. could do bad/evil, etc. Oops, did I just give Mike ammo? Uh oh. ;-)
Does using their teachings (especially now that they're dead) change whether they were good or bad? Of course not. The nazis invented aspirin and produced the Volkswagon Beatle. I have used both but don't think that validates their views.
IMNSHO they are not bad or evil or wrong. It's those who deny the trinity I believe who are in error. Doesn't negate their worth as people or Christians, just gives them something to grow in.
.If using a dictionary or textbook means "using" its author, then I advocate "using" people, though that wouldn't be in a bad sense, then. I have no idea how doctrine was taught at Emporia, etc., but I've never heard the same authors being quoted by TWI teachers being also slammed by them, so I haven't experienced any hypocrisy in that context
You wrote: “Ah...the flawed logic question. Two parts, which are independent, are made to appear related. How can [pick your subject] who is [negative but indefensible attribute] be [seemingly connected but not really, good attribute]? How can a monster do good kind of dichotomy. Unfortunately, if one takes the bait, you have a problem that can't solved because one part does not control the other. __ The neat thing is that it works in reverse. Just put the good attribute first and it makes it seem less likely that a good person/thing/ etc. could do bad/evil, etc. Oops, did I just give Mike ammo? Uh oh. ;-)”
No, don’t worry. I’ve been painfully aware of that trick and others like it. They are often used by posters here to make their points SEEM more believable. The greatest use of these kinds of false persuasion is the repeated litany of nasty descriptions of Dr that people pepper their posts with. It seems to me that the more eloquent the rant, the more they think they’ve proved their point.
Many people here use great repetition and great negative emotion to try and “prove” that Dr was a bad guy. It doesn’t work on me, although I do feel the tug. I think it does work on less aware readers, because I’ve seen some posters turn more and more negative toward Dr when compared to their initial posting style.
I think it also works on the authoring poster as well. Many seem to be talking themselves into a deep commitment of hating Dr by using the same system they used to talk themselves into worshipping him in decades past. I saw this brainwashing of self and others going on all the time in the 70’s as the cultist worship of Dr grew. I resisted this systematic positive brainwashing back then like I do now the negative.
JustThinking, if you see me employing such techniques, please let me know. Maybe PT or e-mail would be best to spare my embarrassment.
I find it most curious that so many folks here still adhere to wierwille's most controversial and heretical doctrine. It seems that if so few Christian writers back up wierwille's claim, and so many extwiers still adhere to this doctrine...hmmm, can anybody say "waybrain"?
I think that "wierwille's most significant contribution"...as it was described by many twi leaders..."Jesus Christ is not God" was a joke to say the least. The book was an embarrassment...sophmoric at best. It was an indication, that when wierwille was not plagerizing other people's work...his own work resembled something written by a high school freshmen. Why would any intelligent Christian toss out centuries of theology, written by some fabulous minds...and replace it with the anomaly doctrine of a slow witted cornfield preacher? I mean, c'mon, the whole book was about 100 pages of double spaced, one syllable words...I could have written it better myself.
I'm not saying that I personally agree with the doctrine of the trinity...but I am curious as to how and why so many of you still cleave to what wierwille taught on this subject. Besides giving credibility to wierwille, what other reasons do you non-trinitarians base your belief?
"Being right" has nothing whatsoever to do with loving God and loving others. You love God by loving those that God has put in your life.
"Loving God" is the greatest commandment, as stated by Jesus Christ. The second is loving others as you love yourself.
The point I'm trying to make is that walking in love is what it's all about, not having right doctrine. I can have all the right doctrine, but if I'm not walking in love, I am nothing, not pleasing God. Life is about "relationship", not "being right".
You cant have it "goin' on" with God if you dont have it "goin on" with those God has put in your life--no matter how "right" your doctrine is.
I allowed The Way to turn me into "the self appointed leader of the doctrine police--a doctrinal Nazi".
No one cares what you know till they know that you care.
I attend a church which believes in the trinity, that the dead are alive etc. I could care less. The mission of the church is to lead people into a growing relationship with Jesus Christ and to learn to love one another.It is the most wonderful place I've ever experienced. Even better than the Rock of Ages. 17,000 members and growing like wildfire. God's hand is on this place and it is because of the love there, not right doctrine.
Good doctrine is necessary to know what genuine love is, as opposed to counterfeits.
Good doctrine is necessary to know who the real Jesus Christ is, as opposed to the counterfeits.
Counterfeits, if they are well constructed, will feel very good, and get a lot of people co-operating and having fun… for a while.
If doctrine is not given heed, and we try and “wing it” on crucial issues, things may go well for a while, but there won’t be the GREAT power God wants us to have.
If there was no devil, or if he were less intelligent than us, there would be no counterfeits to be concerned with, and winging it may well bring us closer and closer to the truth. But there is a smart devil, and he tricks people into getting sloppy with doctrine. Add one word, subtract one word, change one word, and things still feel the same… then swallow a big lie and everything goes down the tubes.
Good doctrine is necessary to know who the real Jesus Christ is, as opposed to the counterfeits.
Counterfeits, if they are well constructed, will feel very good, and get a lot of people co-operating and having fun… for a while.
If doctrine is not given heed, and we try and “wing it” on crucial issues, things may go well for a while, but there won’t be the GREAT power God wants us to have.
Yes, I wholeheartedly agree, which describes precisely how Wierwille's erroneous doctrines led to his group splintering and falling apart.
You wrote: "...Wierwille's erroneous doctrines led to his group splintering and falling apart."
It was the erronious TVTs that led to the downfall. The written doctine of PFAL was only a dim, partial, distorted memory in most leaders towards the end.
Come back to the written form of PFAL and you'll see doctrines differing from the ones you mention.
Uncle Hairy, believing that Jesus Christ is not God was taught to me many many years prior to TWI. I believe it started out with John 3:16, which is one of many verses referring to JC as his son, as a small child. In my heart I truly believe that he did send his only son...Why would he lie about it? I will not argue my beliefs with you nor will I say that you are wrong.
To make it known, I was never taught anything by VPW, only by his followers. I would also like to add that TWI claimed they were the only ones who taught what I had been taught many years prior and was surprised that they were just finding out this information from the word.
VPees interpretation of the word is appalling in many areas and those who believed him are suffering the aftermath. As far as being a part of TWI during the mass destruction and the fatalities of souls, I'm thankful to have never known he even existed.
You wrote: "...Wierwille's erroneous doctrines led to his group splintering and falling apart."
It was the erronious TVTs that led to the downfall. The written doctine of PFAL was only a dim, partial, distorted memory in most leaders towards the end.
Come back to the written form of PFAL and you'll see doctrines differing from the ones you mention.
Thanks, but for what it's worth I already have a hard copy of "PFAL"...there's little therein to actually "come back to" - for example, why would I want to "come back" to disregarding the ethical sayings of Jesus in the four gospels, as part of the OT and therefore not "addressed" to us - so one could become as Christless and godless and blind and hard-hearted to one's own abusive and destructive thinking and behavior, just as Wierwille became?
Shifting the blame to his subsequent imitators and followers for all the evil that's occurred in the Way is not going to make Wierwille's erroneous, written doctrines resolve themselves or go away. And putting a fresh coat of paint on them is not going fix anything either.
In the end you only end up deluding yourself, IMHO.
Recommended Posts
Top Posters In This Topic
22
12
26
12
Popular Days
Aug 29
31
Aug 30
29
Aug 26
22
Aug 27
17
Top Posters In This Topic
rascal 22 posts
oldiesman 12 posts
Mike 26 posts
dmiller 12 posts
Popular Days
Aug 29 2004
31 posts
Aug 30 2004
29 posts
Aug 26 2004
22 posts
Aug 27 2004
17 posts
GeorgeStGeorge
Trinitarians aren't "bad," just mistaken.
And many are right on in other areas of doctrine (salvation by grace, etc.). And, since the trinitarians outnumber the one-Godders (unitarian means something else, unfortunately) by a wide margin, it's not surprising that they would have the greatest share of written works.
George
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
I agree, they’re not bad, just mistaken.
I have found that most members of a trinitarian church just go along with the program and mouth the words of that doctrine. I spent over a decade in my early ministry years talking to trinitarians. I wanted to be sure we were correct so I sought out trinitarians to hear their side. I went to their churches and spent many hours observing and discussing. Sometimes I did run into the evil types, but most were not.
Nearly every church I visited had one or two evil “trinitarian cops” who patrolled about making sure everyone mouthed the right words. Even if I kept mum on my TWI affiliation, they’d sniff me out very quickly and attack, just from the kinds of questions I’d ask.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
waterbuffalo
So it's all right for us to USE them and their knowledge for the parts they got right? Am I hearing you both correctly?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
waterbuffalo,
I wouldn’t advocate using people.
My position is that most triniarians are not so evil that we can’t be friendly.
I no longer feel a need to glean truths from them, but I know that VPW did, and I receive from him what he got from trinitarians. Probably most (if not all) of his teachers believed that Jesus was God.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
JustThinking
But they taste like chicken. ;-)
Link to comment
Share on other sites
dmiller
Link to comment
Share on other sites
dmiller
I don't think trinitarians are bad. (imho) the doctrine is wrong, but the folks who believe it are not "bad", simply because they believe it. I've many friends who are trinitarian, and that "doctrinal disagreement" doesn't stop our friendship.
Also -- the further (time-wise) that I get away from twi, I've found myself more accepting of many things that I personally don't agree with. I think one can learn from many sources.
docvic sure did!
:D-->
Link to comment
Share on other sites
dmiller
Can you say selective quoting?
;)-->
Link to comment
Share on other sites
dmiller
And -- if someone (anyone) has something valuable to offer -- why not pick up on it if it has "scriptural truth" attached to it?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Goey
Because like VPW the Emporia "teachers" were also hipocrites. In one breath trinitarians were condemned as evil, possessed scumbags and in the next, many of their teachings were held up to support and give credibility to select TWI doctrines.
I wonder how all these evil, possessed Trinitarians, were able to come up with the canon of scripture (accepted by TWI) - translate the scriptures, and produce 99 percent of everything that VPW/TWI ever taught?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
JustThinking
Ah...the flawed logic question. Two parts, which are independent, are made to appear related. How can [pick your subject] who is [negative but indefensible attribute] be [seemiingly connected but not really, good attribute]? How can a monster do good kind of dichotomy. Unfortunately, if one takes the bait, you have a problem that can't solved because one part does not control the other.
The neat thing is that it works in reverse. Just put the good attribute first and it makes it seem less likely that a good person/thing/ etc. could do bad/evil, etc. Oops, did I just give Mike ammo? Uh oh. ;-)
Does using their teachings (especially now that they're dead) change whether they were good or bad? Of course not. The nazis invented aspirin and produced the Volkswagon Beatle. I have used both but don't think that validates their views.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
def59
The remark was If they are so bad.
IMNSHO they are not bad or evil or wrong. It's those who deny the trinity I believe who are in error. Doesn't negate their worth as people or Christians, just gives them something to grow in.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
sadie
Def, I deny the trinity and do not believe I am in error...
Link to comment
Share on other sites
GeorgeStGeorge
.If using a dictionary or textbook means "using" its author, then I advocate "using" people, though that wouldn't be in a bad sense, then. I have no idea how doctrine was taught at Emporia, etc., but I've never heard the same authors being quoted by TWI teachers being also slammed by them, so I haven't experienced any hypocrisy in that context
George
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
JustThinking,
You wrote: “Ah...the flawed logic question. Two parts, which are independent, are made to appear related. How can [pick your subject] who is [negative but indefensible attribute] be [seemingly connected but not really, good attribute]? How can a monster do good kind of dichotomy. Unfortunately, if one takes the bait, you have a problem that can't solved because one part does not control the other. __ The neat thing is that it works in reverse. Just put the good attribute first and it makes it seem less likely that a good person/thing/ etc. could do bad/evil, etc. Oops, did I just give Mike ammo? Uh oh. ;-)”
No, don’t worry. I’ve been painfully aware of that trick and others like it. They are often used by posters here to make their points SEEM more believable. The greatest use of these kinds of false persuasion is the repeated litany of nasty descriptions of Dr that people pepper their posts with. It seems to me that the more eloquent the rant, the more they think they’ve proved their point.
Many people here use great repetition and great negative emotion to try and “prove” that Dr was a bad guy. It doesn’t work on me, although I do feel the tug. I think it does work on less aware readers, because I’ve seen some posters turn more and more negative toward Dr when compared to their initial posting style.
I think it also works on the authoring poster as well. Many seem to be talking themselves into a deep commitment of hating Dr by using the same system they used to talk themselves into worshipping him in decades past. I saw this brainwashing of self and others going on all the time in the 70’s as the cultist worship of Dr grew. I resisted this systematic positive brainwashing back then like I do now the negative.
JustThinking, if you see me employing such techniques, please let me know. Maybe PT or e-mail would be best to spare my embarrassment.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
GrouchoMarxJr
I find it most curious that so many folks here still adhere to wierwille's most controversial and heretical doctrine. It seems that if so few Christian writers back up wierwille's claim, and so many extwiers still adhere to this doctrine...hmmm, can anybody say "waybrain"?
I think that "wierwille's most significant contribution"...as it was described by many twi leaders..."Jesus Christ is not God" was a joke to say the least. The book was an embarrassment...sophmoric at best. It was an indication, that when wierwille was not plagerizing other people's work...his own work resembled something written by a high school freshmen. Why would any intelligent Christian toss out centuries of theology, written by some fabulous minds...and replace it with the anomaly doctrine of a slow witted cornfield preacher? I mean, c'mon, the whole book was about 100 pages of double spaced, one syllable words...I could have written it better myself.
I'm not saying that I personally agree with the doctrine of the trinity...but I am curious as to how and why so many of you still cleave to what wierwille taught on this subject. Besides giving credibility to wierwille, what other reasons do you non-trinitarians base your belief?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
chwester
"Being right" has nothing whatsoever to do with loving God and loving others. You love God by loving those that God has put in your life.
"Loving God" is the greatest commandment, as stated by Jesus Christ. The second is loving others as you love yourself.
The point I'm trying to make is that walking in love is what it's all about, not having right doctrine. I can have all the right doctrine, but if I'm not walking in love, I am nothing, not pleasing God. Life is about "relationship", not "being right".
You cant have it "goin' on" with God if you dont have it "goin on" with those God has put in your life--no matter how "right" your doctrine is.
I allowed The Way to turn me into "the self appointed leader of the doctrine police--a doctrinal Nazi".
No one cares what you know till they know that you care.
I attend a church which believes in the trinity, that the dead are alive etc. I could care less. The mission of the church is to lead people into a growing relationship with Jesus Christ and to learn to love one another.It is the most wonderful place I've ever experienced. Even better than the Rock of Ages. 17,000 members and growing like wildfire. God's hand is on this place and it is because of the love there, not right doctrine.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
Good doctrine is necessary to know what genuine love is, as opposed to counterfeits.
Good doctrine is necessary to know who the real Jesus Christ is, as opposed to the counterfeits.
Counterfeits, if they are well constructed, will feel very good, and get a lot of people co-operating and having fun… for a while.
If doctrine is not given heed, and we try and “wing it” on crucial issues, things may go well for a while, but there won’t be the GREAT power God wants us to have.
If there was no devil, or if he were less intelligent than us, there would be no counterfeits to be concerned with, and winging it may well bring us closer and closer to the truth. But there is a smart devil, and he tricks people into getting sloppy with doctrine. Add one word, subtract one word, change one word, and things still feel the same… then swallow a big lie and everything goes down the tubes.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
TheInvisibleDan
Yes, I wholeheartedly agree, which describes precisely how Wierwille's erroneous doctrines led to his group splintering and falling apart.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
Dan,
You wrote: "...Wierwille's erroneous doctrines led to his group splintering and falling apart."
It was the erronious TVTs that led to the downfall. The written doctine of PFAL was only a dim, partial, distorted memory in most leaders towards the end.
Come back to the written form of PFAL and you'll see doctrines differing from the ones you mention.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Steve!
As usual, smikeol's lips are firmly embedded in docvic's (praise be his name) backside.
Taste good, smikeol?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
Thou almost persuadeth me to be a Rabble Rouser.
-->
Link to comment
Share on other sites
sadie
Uncle Hairy, believing that Jesus Christ is not God was taught to me many many years prior to TWI. I believe it started out with John 3:16, which is one of many verses referring to JC as his son, as a small child. In my heart I truly believe that he did send his only son...Why would he lie about it? I will not argue my beliefs with you nor will I say that you are wrong.
To make it known, I was never taught anything by VPW, only by his followers. I would also like to add that TWI claimed they were the only ones who taught what I had been taught many years prior and was surprised that they were just finding out this information from the word.
VPees interpretation of the word is appalling in many areas and those who believed him are suffering the aftermath. As far as being a part of TWI during the mass destruction and the fatalities of souls, I'm thankful to have never known he even existed.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
TheInvisibleDan
Thanks, but for what it's worth I already have a hard copy of "PFAL"...there's little therein to actually "come back to" - for example, why would I want to "come back" to disregarding the ethical sayings of Jesus in the four gospels, as part of the OT and therefore not "addressed" to us - so one could become as Christless and godless and blind and hard-hearted to one's own abusive and destructive thinking and behavior, just as Wierwille became?
Shifting the blame to his subsequent imitators and followers for all the evil that's occurred in the Way is not going to make Wierwille's erroneous, written doctrines resolve themselves or go away. And putting a fresh coat of paint on them is not going fix anything either.
In the end you only end up deluding yourself, IMHO.
Danny
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.