Hopefully, I will answer you well enough for you to feel that I have given you a legitimate answer. :)-->
There were some basic teachings of twi that led to the wrong god, imo. (I use the past tense here because I have no idea what twi is teaching now.)
Let's look at some of these things, OK?
First, believing=receiving.
This was taught by twi as an absolute...that it worked regardless of anything else in life...and worked for saint and sinner alike.
Nobody even thought for one moment to ask this one simple question that would debunk this theory: What about those who believe that it doesn't matter what one believes?
See?
Automatically the thought that believing=receiving is debunked by the bible itself in that even if someone truly believed that it doesn't matter what one believes, well, they're either going to heaven or to hell...regardless of their believing.
The bible sets up absolutes that do not change because of someone's believing. Believing is not the absolute.
Second, tithing.
TWI used tithing as a protection racket: the more one tithed, the more blessings one would buy from god; the less one tithed, the less protection one would buy from god.
Tithing is not even brought forward into the new testament. Instead, the new testament calls for one to be a living sacrifice, giving all of one's self, having no pluralities, having all things common.
Tithing smacks the face of the new testament in that it allows people to give only part of themselves and be selfish with the rest.
TWI isn't the only organization to get this one wrong, btw.
Third, the manifestations.
As twi taught the manifestations, they were limited and legalized and separated the gift from the giver.
This robbed people of fully realizing the Christ within if they couldn't live up to twi's standards.
It also robbed people of the opportunity to see god manifested in other ways.
Fourth, the administrations.
Dividing the bible and, therefore, god into segments prevented people from being able to grasp when god was working in their lives or other's lives.
Many things that were "available" in the OT were disregarded and even considered "off".
An excellent example of this is something I learned in my own life when it came to raising someone from the dead. TWI had no clue how to do this so they just said that the believing wasn't there if nobody got raised from the dead.
The old testament gave us a perfect example of raising someone from the dead, but since it was "in the wrong administration", it wasn't taught.
Another example is the "rod".
TWI stole the very power out of people's hands when it taught that the rod was a thing used on people, particularly children, when they disobeyed!
The OT is very clear about how to use the rod...and it ain't to beat on somebody with...but to be used to wield power.
Moses comes to mind.
Fifth, the one body.
TWI skewed the understanding of this to the point that twi had many heads...none of them being Christ.
There are more things twi taught erroneously, but my point is not to dissect everything twi taught, but to exemplify the need to toss out everything and start again.
When the basics are so very wrong, the rest cannot be right. A little leaven, ya know.
One last thing...
When I dumped everything I ever knew and began seeking without a particular spin, I found Jesus and he taught me.
oldies...I'm not exactly sure what you're talking about when you say "throw the baby out with the bath water"...I think that both you and John Lynn are guilty of over rating what twi actually offered by way of it's teachings.
To me, the "word" represents such values as love, faith, trust, compassion, forgiveness, honesty, gentleness, caring, giving, integrity, kindness, goodness...shall I go on? Much of the new testament deals with "behavior". There's not much emphasis placed on splitting doctrinal hairs and arguing about the "4 crucified" or whatever...The message of the new testament is to have faith and endeavor to incorporate godly behavioral traits.
I don't know about you, but I was taught all these traits LONG before I ever heard of twi. I am thankful to my mother and father and all those who provided examples of godly behavior for me growing up. In church,I learned the basic "Christian doctrine" of salvation LONG before I had ever heard of twi...So, to equate rejecting "twi doctrine" and rejecting "the word" as being the same in invalid. Just what did they teach that made them singularly significant? What part of your "baby" cannot be found or was not found by most of us without any help from twi? If there was part of their doctrine that WAS true...well, that's swell but I think you're over rating them.
The "word" is something that is intangible and either lives within a person's experiences or it doesn't. You can't lable it with earthly credentials and then assign the credit to some corporate entity. So Veepee taught you some cool stuff...big deal, who cares. It has nothing to do with Veepee or any other person...it has everything to do with your own personal faith or lack thereof. To assume that the rejection of twi as a whole means rejecting "the word" that they purportedly taught, is both arrogant and wrong.
Wow, one loaded or misleading question or statement after another:
"We learned God's Word in TWI."
First, not everyone agrees with you. Second, "God's Word" is a wayferism that means different
things to different people. Does that mean the printed Bible, the Bible as interpreted (or whatever you want to call it) by Vic Weirwille's borrowed material or something else?
"Not everything we were taught is the truth, but what is truth, is truth, and is God's will for us to know and believe. There are some basic truths we learned in twi that are common Christian beliefs."
Here again, I'm sure you believe you learned truth in TWI. For me, I probably got more wrong
information than right. It has taken a lot to sift through it and am still going. PJ is right, IMO, that it can be almost impossible to pull out all the weeds because there were so many. As for them being common Christian beliefs, there does not seem to be one other Christian group that agrees with them. Which Christians do you mean exactly?
"And so I wonder why some folks find it wrong that some folks cling on to these truths, even though mindful of sins committed in twi."
I can't speak for others but I personally don't care what you believe or don't.
"I think some folks think we who still believe these truths, should renounce them, because of the evil deeds of some in twi. Are folks like myself being selfish because we refuse to renounce our beliefs?"
Nice trick question. Ask in such a way as to only allow an answer that appears to back you up.
If I say you are selfish:
I would be saying you should give up your beliefs because I say so. Hardly defensible.
If I say you are not selfing:
I appear to be supporting your views.
Very good! You win either way.
"I just don't get it, so I'd like to know if there are any biblical or logical viewpoints out there that throwing the baby out with the bathwater is something God expects of us? That we should renounce our beliefs because of the evils of twi?
I checked my concordance and the word "bath water" does not appear to be in there. Another trick question but not nearly as good as the others. Who is really going to say "I think we
should throw the baby out with the bathwater?" They may agree with your view or, as PJ said, feel that there is either no baby there or it is hopelessly intermixed. Regardless, I doubt
anyone has actually said that to you. It is more likely simply your interpretation of their view. If you can point to a response to you where someone has actually recommended that in those words, please do so.
"That those folks who choose to do so, should feel ashamed, for retaining and being thankful for learning the Wuuuuuurd, even though others got hurt in twi ... "
I can't remember anyone here ever saying you should feel ashamed for having a particular belief. Could you please point us to a thread where someone said exactly that? Not something you took that way but was exactly put to you that way? Your interpretation would be unfair to attribute to someone so a link to their post would be better.
Let me add that I am not trying to be harsh. Your post just comes across as someone who has made up his/her mind and is looking for validation of one's own views. You are certainly welcome to have them but you start off in your title by telling me I'm already wrong. It is hard to feel, at that point, that you really want to consider my view.
quote:... I was taught the Wuuuuuurd. I got mine, it doesn't matter how many were hurt." Geeze, what a j@ckfoot.
om, you know full well that the context of my post was not about the quality or lack thereof of what we learned while in TWIt.
The context was excusing the sins of docvic(praise be his name) because you learned some good things.
It's as if you are excusing a pedophile (NO, I'M NOT CALLING docvic(praise be his name) A PEDOPHILE) because the little kid got candy. Well, he gave the child some Swiss chocolate! And he knew some really good people! You should just get over the fact that that guy was a pedophile!
It's something of a trick question, don't you think?
We all have our reason for leaving TWI. Fair enough. We who question the fundamentlist view of Christianity might very well have a whole nuther set of reasons for that. I myself question lots of things. Like whether or not Paul's words were God-breathed, etc, etc.
I think, for many of us, the act of walking away from TWI opened our eyes to question many theological and leadership issues unrelated to the err of TWI.
Not that I agree with everything OM says, but I do sympathize. Let me propose a parable:
Suppose I were to write out, longhand, a verbatim copy of the Gospel of Mark and attempted to pass it off as my own account of the life of Jesus Christ. Obviously, I would be a liar. There might be a plethora of other sins and faults of which I could be guilty, as well. But anyone reading "my" account of Jesus's life would have as accurate a version as Mark's gospel. No matter how evil I may be, the Word is still the Word, and will bless those who believe it.
Now, how much of VP's doctrine is accurate interpretation is obviously the subject of much debate, but whatever he got right will bless those who believe it.
Why do we have to credit any organization for truth learned? If the REAL heart of teaching the Word is to teach people HOW to have a real relationship with God and to know Jesus, why does it have to be credited somewhere?
The real issue is that a lot of those who were hurt by twi don't want to credit twi for any good. I am one of those, and I sure don't think God is unhappy with me for that. I've learned wayyyy more about a true, vital relationship with God in church in the last year and a half than I did with 20 years in twi. But those churches don't want the credit. They'll give it to God. Big difference in heart there.
CoolWaters: I agree with your points. Great things to point out.
It is very evident that TWI was able to crystalize the love for God that many of us already had but did not know how to express it in our lives. The fault was that we thought we had all the answers because this was taught to us by TWI.
The fact of the matter is that none of us have the answers to life. I do not believe that God has and will ever tell us why life is the way it is. So we keep banging our heads against the wall trying to figure it out. We will never figure it out.
I believe TWI taught the word. My parents weren't the only people who ever produced a child and they certainly weren't perfect, but they were the ones who produced ME!
Similarly, TWI aren't the only ones who ever taught God's word to anyone, but they were the ones who taught ME! It's OK to expect perfection from God, but never from people. Why doesn't this simple concept sink in? Why do we have to expect perfection from people just because said people talk about God?
"Why do we have to expect perfection from people just because said people talk about God?"
Expecting basic morality and human decency from those who "talk about God" is a far cry different than expecting perfection. I don't think any of us expected the latter, but we damned well ought to expect the former.
Let me add that I am not trying to be harsh. Your post just comes across as someone who has made up his/her mind and is looking for validation of one's own views. You are certainly welcome to have them but you start off in your title by telling me I'm already wrong. It is hard to feel, at that point, that you really want to consider my view.
"Why do we have to expect perfection from people just because said people talk about God?"
Expecting basic morality and human decency from those who "talk about God" is a far cry different than expecting perfection. I don't think any of us expected the latter, but we damned well ought to expect the former.
I generally try to believe and let believe, so to say (at least I try to).
But for me, the "sins of others" was the attention getter that said this needs further investigation.
Upon examining the fragments lying on the floor of 10 wasted years in that group, a busted marriage, and kids caught in the middle -- I tried putting the pieces together and they didn't fit.
At that point, the fundamental assumptions had to be called into question:
A) There is a God.
B) He wrote a book.
C) That book exists today.
After doing some not-so-slight research, it became obvious that B and C had no basis in reality and if A is true, he's never shown himself.
In other words, what I found in the bath water was a scorpian. No matter how much I washed it, it still stung me.
Now the bath water and the baby scorpian have been given the boot and I'm all the happier for it.
Why do we have to credit any organization for truth learned? If the REAL heart of teaching the Word is to teach people HOW to have a real relationship with God and to know Jesus, why does it have to be credited somewhere?
quote: Expecting basic morality and human decency from those who "talk about God" is a far cry different than expecting perfection. I don't think any of us expected the latter, but we damned well ought to expect the former.
True, but if someone throws the baby out with the bath water that says to me that they WERE expecting not just moral and human decency, but perfection.
The honest thing would be for me to say "Yeah! That's right! I threw the baby out with the bath water and right now I'm comfortable with that. I don't care who doesn't like it!"
But if I'm not sure there isn't a real baby in there, it's going to bug me from time to time...like when somebody starts a confrontational thread like this???? You know who you are.
quote:We learned God's Word in TWI. Not everything we were taught is the truth, but what is truth, is truth, and is God's will for us to know and believe. There are some basic truths we learned in twi that are common Christian beliefs.
So far, so good.
quote:And so I wonder why some folks find it wrong that some folks cling on to these truths, even though mindful of sins committed in twi.
What "basic truths?" And who are these "some folks" that say it's wrong to believe them? ...
quote:I think some folks think we who still believe these truths, should renounce them, because of the evil deeds of some in twi. Are folks like myself being selfish because we refuse to renounce our beliefs?
Same old stuff Oldies. Folks say one thing and you hear another. So far as I can tell, no one here has ever stated that TWI's evil deeds are cause for renouncing any of the "basic truths" of Christianity. Can you give one clear example where anyone has suggested that?
As you stated, "truth is truth". So "truth" from the mouth of an evildoer would still be "truth" - like in the case of many of the teachings of Wierewille/PFAL or Martindale/WAP. The moral character of the person speaking/teaching the truth is irrelevant to the truth itself. Wierwille's sex perversion has nothing to do with whether or not Jesus died on the cross and rose from the dead.
quote:I just don't get it, so I'd like to know if there are any biblical or logical viewpoints out there that throwing the baby out with the bathwater is something God expects of us? That we should renounce our beliefs because of the evils of twi?
Oldies, I think your argument amounts to little more than a strawman - either intentional (since you have been told this numerous times), or because you suffer from a case of chronic and possibly incurable selective hearing. You are arguing and complaing againt something that I think few if any at all have ever said.
No one has ever said that you should renounce your Christianity (basic truths) because of the evils of TWI/Wierwille/Martindale. Not even the atheists and agnostics here promote that kind of logic.
Now, some folks have said that because of Wierwille's "sins", (Adultery, plagairism, etc) that certain doctrines he taught may be suspect and need to be re-examined. Others have suggested that it may be helpful to throw it all out and start over - not in the sense of renouncing Christianity or "basic truths", (the baby) but in the sense of temporarily setting aside those things that were taught that are mostly specific or unique to our TWI experience, and then beginning anew - without bias and with the understanding that some things may end up being retained and others may end up being discarded.
Oldies, what is your "baby?" Mine is is God, Jesus Christ, the Gospel of salvation through Christ, love (and maybe a few others "basic truths".)
Now if one's "baby" (basic truths) amount to blindly espousing the teachings of one man/group - doctrines like the law of believing, four crucified, the six denials of Peter, mastubation is the original sin, or any other such doctrines/dogmas specific to VPW or TWI - then I just don't know what to tell them - except that as Christians I think they are missing the boat. It's not that these things are necessarily wrong, it's just that they hardly constitute "the baby" and some of these (along with a few others) could possibly be bathwater.
quote: Why do we have to expect perfection from people just because said people talk about God?
Who expects "perfection"? Anyone here ever say that they expected perfection? - Another strawman.
Let's cut to the chase. This is about Wierwille and those of us that point out and expose his "sins". We are being falsely portrayed as expecting perfection, when we do no such thing.
Wierwille was supposed to be a Christian leader, a pastor, a teacher, an evangelist and to some an apostle. The Bible establishes clear and concise minimum standards for those who are to lead within the church. What is expected is nit perfection, but rather for those who seek to lead to meet those minimum standards - no more - no less.
Wierwille (and quite a few others in TWI and in Christianity in general) did/do not meet those minimum standards and were/are therefore unfit to be leaders within the body of Christ.
Recommended Posts
Top Posters In This Topic
70
52
27
32
Popular Days
Oct 22
47
Oct 18
41
Oct 21
35
Oct 20
35
Top Posters In This Topic
rascal 70 posts
oldiesman 52 posts
WordWolf 27 posts
Oakspear 32 posts
Popular Days
Oct 22 2004
47 posts
Oct 18 2004
41 posts
Oct 21 2004
35 posts
Oct 20 2004
35 posts
pjroberge
The problem with the assumption that there was some good in TWI's teachings is that someone could separate the baby from the bath water.
Most of the time, the crap is so integral in the baby so that even though you have thrown out the bath water, you still have a crap filled baby.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
CoolWaters
OM,
You pose a legitimate question.
Hopefully, I will answer you well enough for you to feel that I have given you a legitimate answer.
:)-->
There were some basic teachings of twi that led to the wrong god, imo. (I use the past tense here because I have no idea what twi is teaching now.)
Let's look at some of these things, OK?
First, believing=receiving.
This was taught by twi as an absolute...that it worked regardless of anything else in life...and worked for saint and sinner alike.
Nobody even thought for one moment to ask this one simple question that would debunk this theory: What about those who believe that it doesn't matter what one believes?
See?
Automatically the thought that believing=receiving is debunked by the bible itself in that even if someone truly believed that it doesn't matter what one believes, well, they're either going to heaven or to hell...regardless of their believing.
The bible sets up absolutes that do not change because of someone's believing. Believing is not the absolute.
Second, tithing.
TWI used tithing as a protection racket: the more one tithed, the more blessings one would buy from god; the less one tithed, the less protection one would buy from god.
Tithing is not even brought forward into the new testament. Instead, the new testament calls for one to be a living sacrifice, giving all of one's self, having no pluralities, having all things common.
Tithing smacks the face of the new testament in that it allows people to give only part of themselves and be selfish with the rest.
TWI isn't the only organization to get this one wrong, btw.
Third, the manifestations.
As twi taught the manifestations, they were limited and legalized and separated the gift from the giver.
This robbed people of fully realizing the Christ within if they couldn't live up to twi's standards.
It also robbed people of the opportunity to see god manifested in other ways.
Fourth, the administrations.
Dividing the bible and, therefore, god into segments prevented people from being able to grasp when god was working in their lives or other's lives.
Many things that were "available" in the OT were disregarded and even considered "off".
An excellent example of this is something I learned in my own life when it came to raising someone from the dead. TWI had no clue how to do this so they just said that the believing wasn't there if nobody got raised from the dead.
The old testament gave us a perfect example of raising someone from the dead, but since it was "in the wrong administration", it wasn't taught.
Another example is the "rod".
TWI stole the very power out of people's hands when it taught that the rod was a thing used on people, particularly children, when they disobeyed!
The OT is very clear about how to use the rod...and it ain't to beat on somebody with...but to be used to wield power.
Moses comes to mind.
Fifth, the one body.
TWI skewed the understanding of this to the point that twi had many heads...none of them being Christ.
There are more things twi taught erroneously, but my point is not to dissect everything twi taught, but to exemplify the need to toss out everything and start again.
When the basics are so very wrong, the rest cannot be right. A little leaven, ya know.
One last thing...
When I dumped everything I ever knew and began seeking without a particular spin, I found Jesus and he taught me.
It's a wonderful way to learn!
Link to comment
Share on other sites
TheSongRemainsTheSame
oldiesman,
Have you ever considered that the Adversary spoke the truth to Jesus?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
GrouchoMarxJr
oldies...I'm not exactly sure what you're talking about when you say "throw the baby out with the bath water"...I think that both you and John Lynn are guilty of over rating what twi actually offered by way of it's teachings.
To me, the "word" represents such values as love, faith, trust, compassion, forgiveness, honesty, gentleness, caring, giving, integrity, kindness, goodness...shall I go on? Much of the new testament deals with "behavior". There's not much emphasis placed on splitting doctrinal hairs and arguing about the "4 crucified" or whatever...The message of the new testament is to have faith and endeavor to incorporate godly behavioral traits.
I don't know about you, but I was taught all these traits LONG before I ever heard of twi. I am thankful to my mother and father and all those who provided examples of godly behavior for me growing up. In church,I learned the basic "Christian doctrine" of salvation LONG before I had ever heard of twi...So, to equate rejecting "twi doctrine" and rejecting "the word" as being the same in invalid. Just what did they teach that made them singularly significant? What part of your "baby" cannot be found or was not found by most of us without any help from twi? If there was part of their doctrine that WAS true...well, that's swell but I think you're over rating them.
The "word" is something that is intangible and either lives within a person's experiences or it doesn't. You can't lable it with earthly credentials and then assign the credit to some corporate entity. So Veepee taught you some cool stuff...big deal, who cares. It has nothing to do with Veepee or any other person...it has everything to do with your own personal faith or lack thereof. To assume that the rejection of twi as a whole means rejecting "the word" that they purportedly taught, is both arrogant and wrong.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
JustThinking
Wow, one loaded or misleading question or statement after another:
"We learned God's Word in TWI."
First, not everyone agrees with you. Second, "God's Word" is a wayferism that means different
things to different people. Does that mean the printed Bible, the Bible as interpreted (or whatever you want to call it) by Vic Weirwille's borrowed material or something else?
"Not everything we were taught is the truth, but what is truth, is truth, and is God's will for us to know and believe. There are some basic truths we learned in twi that are common Christian beliefs."
Here again, I'm sure you believe you learned truth in TWI. For me, I probably got more wrong
information than right. It has taken a lot to sift through it and am still going. PJ is right, IMO, that it can be almost impossible to pull out all the weeds because there were so many. As for them being common Christian beliefs, there does not seem to be one other Christian group that agrees with them. Which Christians do you mean exactly?
"And so I wonder why some folks find it wrong that some folks cling on to these truths, even though mindful of sins committed in twi."
I can't speak for others but I personally don't care what you believe or don't.
"I think some folks think we who still believe these truths, should renounce them, because of the evil deeds of some in twi. Are folks like myself being selfish because we refuse to renounce our beliefs?"
Nice trick question. Ask in such a way as to only allow an answer that appears to back you up.
If I say you are selfish:
I would be saying you should give up your beliefs because I say so. Hardly defensible.
If I say you are not selfing:
I appear to be supporting your views.
Very good! You win either way.
"I just don't get it, so I'd like to know if there are any biblical or logical viewpoints out there that throwing the baby out with the bathwater is something God expects of us? That we should renounce our beliefs because of the evils of twi?
I checked my concordance and the word "bath water" does not appear to be in there. Another trick question but not nearly as good as the others. Who is really going to say "I think we
should throw the baby out with the bathwater?" They may agree with your view or, as PJ said, feel that there is either no baby there or it is hopelessly intermixed. Regardless, I doubt
anyone has actually said that to you. It is more likely simply your interpretation of their view. If you can point to a response to you where someone has actually recommended that in those words, please do so.
"That those folks who choose to do so, should feel ashamed, for retaining and being thankful for learning the Wuuuuuurd, even though others got hurt in twi ... "
I can't remember anyone here ever saying you should feel ashamed for having a particular belief. Could you please point us to a thread where someone said exactly that? Not something you took that way but was exactly put to you that way? Your interpretation would be unfair to attribute to someone so a link to their post would be better.
JT
Link to comment
Share on other sites
JustThinking
OM,
Let me add that I am not trying to be harsh. Your post just comes across as someone who has made up his/her mind and is looking for validation of one's own views. You are certainly welcome to have them but you start off in your title by telling me I'm already wrong. It is hard to feel, at that point, that you really want to consider my view.
JT
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Steve!
om, you know full well that the context of my post was not about the quality or lack thereof of what we learned while in TWIt.
The context was excusing the sins of docvic(praise be his name) because you learned some good things.
It's as if you are excusing a pedophile (NO, I'M NOT CALLING docvic(praise be his name) A PEDOPHILE) because the little kid got candy. Well, he gave the child some Swiss chocolate! And he knew some really good people! You should just get over the fact that that guy was a pedophile!
And I repeat, what a j@ckfoot.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Jim
It's something of a trick question, don't you think?
We all have our reason for leaving TWI. Fair enough. We who question the fundamentlist view of Christianity might very well have a whole nuther set of reasons for that. I myself question lots of things. Like whether or not Paul's words were God-breathed, etc, etc.
I think, for many of us, the act of walking away from TWI opened our eyes to question many theological and leadership issues unrelated to the err of TWI.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
GeorgeStGeorge
Not that I agree with everything OM says, but I do sympathize. Let me propose a parable:
Suppose I were to write out, longhand, a verbatim copy of the Gospel of Mark and attempted to pass it off as my own account of the life of Jesus Christ. Obviously, I would be a liar. There might be a plethora of other sins and faults of which I could be guilty, as well. But anyone reading "my" account of Jesus's life would have as accurate a version as Mark's gospel. No matter how evil I may be, the Word is still the Word, and will bless those who believe it.
Now, how much of VP's doctrine is accurate interpretation is obviously the subject of much debate, but whatever he got right will bless those who believe it.
George
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Nottawayfer
Why do we have to credit any organization for truth learned? If the REAL heart of teaching the Word is to teach people HOW to have a real relationship with God and to know Jesus, why does it have to be credited somewhere?
The real issue is that a lot of those who were hurt by twi don't want to credit twi for any good. I am one of those, and I sure don't think God is unhappy with me for that. I've learned wayyyy more about a true, vital relationship with God in church in the last year and a half than I did with 20 years in twi. But those churches don't want the credit. They'll give it to God. Big difference in heart there.
CoolWaters: I agree with your points. Great things to point out.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Sweetpea
It is very evident that TWI was able to crystalize the love for God that many of us already had but did not know how to express it in our lives. The fault was that we thought we had all the answers because this was taught to us by TWI.
The fact of the matter is that none of us have the answers to life. I do not believe that God has and will ever tell us why life is the way it is. So we keep banging our heads against the wall trying to figure it out. We will never figure it out.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
johniam
I believe TWI taught the word. My parents weren't the only people who ever produced a child and they certainly weren't perfect, but they were the ones who produced ME!
Similarly, TWI aren't the only ones who ever taught God's word to anyone, but they were the ones who taught ME! It's OK to expect perfection from God, but never from people. Why doesn't this simple concept sink in? Why do we have to expect perfection from people just because said people talk about God?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Abigail
"Why do we have to expect perfection from people just because said people talk about God?"
Expecting basic morality and human decency from those who "talk about God" is a far cry different than expecting perfection. I don't think any of us expected the latter, but we damned well ought to expect the former.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
WordWolf
Link to comment
Share on other sites
WordWolf
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bob
I generally try to believe and let believe, so to say (at least I try to).
But for me, the "sins of others" was the attention getter that said this needs further investigation.
Upon examining the fragments lying on the floor of 10 wasted years in that group, a busted marriage, and kids caught in the middle -- I tried putting the pieces together and they didn't fit.
At that point, the fundamental assumptions had to be called into question:
A) There is a God.
B) He wrote a book.
C) That book exists today.
After doing some not-so-slight research, it became obvious that B and C had no basis in reality and if A is true, he's never shown himself.
In other words, what I found in the bath water was a scorpian. No matter how much I washed it, it still stung me.
Now the bath water and the baby scorpian have been given the boot and I'm all the happier for it.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
WordWolf
Link to comment
Share on other sites
johniam
Abigail:
quote: Expecting basic morality and human decency from those who "talk about God" is a far cry different than expecting perfection. I don't think any of us expected the latter, but we damned well ought to expect the former.
True, but if someone throws the baby out with the bath water that says to me that they WERE expecting not just moral and human decency, but perfection.
The honest thing would be for me to say "Yeah! That's right! I threw the baby out with the bath water and right now I'm comfortable with that. I don't care who doesn't like it!"
But if I'm not sure there isn't a real baby in there, it's going to bug me from time to time...like when somebody starts a confrontational thread like this???? You know who you are.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Goey
As you stated, "truth is truth". So "truth" from the mouth of an evildoer would still be "truth" - like in the case of many of the teachings of Wierewille/PFAL or Martindale/WAP. The moral character of the person speaking/teaching the truth is irrelevant to the truth itself. Wierwille's sex perversion has nothing to do with whether or not Jesus died on the cross and rose from the dead.
Oldies, I think your argument amounts to little more than a strawman - either intentional (since you have been told this numerous times), or because you suffer from a case of chronic and possibly incurable selective hearing. You are arguing and complaing againt something that I think few if any at all have ever said.No one has ever said that you should renounce your Christianity (basic truths) because of the evils of TWI/Wierwille/Martindale. Not even the atheists and agnostics here promote that kind of logic.
Now, some folks have said that because of Wierwille's "sins", (Adultery, plagairism, etc) that certain doctrines he taught may be suspect and need to be re-examined. Others have suggested that it may be helpful to throw it all out and start over - not in the sense of renouncing Christianity or "basic truths", (the baby) but in the sense of temporarily setting aside those things that were taught that are mostly specific or unique to our TWI experience, and then beginning anew - without bias and with the understanding that some things may end up being retained and others may end up being discarded.
Oldies, what is your "baby?" Mine is is God, Jesus Christ, the Gospel of salvation through Christ, love (and maybe a few others "basic truths".)
Now if one's "baby" (basic truths) amount to blindly espousing the teachings of one man/group - doctrines like the law of believing, four crucified, the six denials of Peter, mastubation is the original sin, or any other such doctrines/dogmas specific to VPW or TWI - then I just don't know what to tell them - except that as Christians I think they are missing the boat. It's not that these things are necessarily wrong, it's just that they hardly constitute "the baby" and some of these (along with a few others) could possibly be bathwater.
Again Oldies, what is your "baby"?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
herbiejuan
My baby is:
*love God and love yer neighbor as yerself*
I threw everything else out because as in the words of a wiseman: on these hang all the law and the prophets.
Me
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bob
Mine's shorter:
"love yer neighbor as yerself"
I kicked the law and prohpets out. I don't need the bums hanging around. Told them to go get a job and support themselves.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
JustThinking
Bob,
The Laws and the profits went back to TWI. ;-)
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bob
Ah, I see. Now it makes sense.
Blue forms and all that damn reporting back.
TWI can keep 'em.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Goey
Who expects "perfection"? Anyone here ever say that they expected perfection? - Another strawman.
Let's cut to the chase. This is about Wierwille and those of us that point out and expose his "sins". We are being falsely portrayed as expecting perfection, when we do no such thing.
Wierwille was supposed to be a Christian leader, a pastor, a teacher, an evangelist and to some an apostle. The Bible establishes clear and concise minimum standards for those who are to lead within the church. What is expected is nit perfection, but rather for those who seek to lead to meet those minimum standards - no more - no less.
Wierwille (and quite a few others in TWI and in Christianity in general) did/do not meet those minimum standards and were/are therefore unfit to be leaders within the body of Christ.
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.