There are scriptures talking about where folks assume that they were ....and Jesus in the end says *depart for I knew you not*
I think that you are probably correct Evan....given the fruit in the lives of some the people that followed vp`d formulas. That just isn`t the way people who are born again act.
Oldies, I utterly & profoundly disagree with Wierwille's "how to get saved" formula.
"I wonder how many thousands of people believe that they are born again of God's spirit but are not?"
Yeah, I wonder how many Wayfers (and ex) are convinced they are born again and are not...
Evan/Rascal,
If you actually look at the verses that Oldies quoted from that PFAL segment, above, you note a few interesting things.
Romans 10:17 --
The word "word" is the word "rhema" versus "logos" (if you look at the usages of the two words, rhema emphasizes the "utterance" of the word vice the "content" of the word)
The word "God" is, in almost every critical text, the word "Christos" (in fact, I believe that the majority of modern translations use the phrase "word of Christ" versus the "word of God")
Romans 10:9 --
Both of the words "confess" and "believe" are in the aorist tense and the subjunctive mood. That dramatically changes the way that the English should be translated. It is a rather dramatic contrast to the future indicative use of the word "saved."
(the aorist is "typically" translated into English as the simple past)
Secondly, if one was to look at the context throughout Romans 9:3ff, one can clearly see that the Apostle is speaking to the Israelites and that their salvation comes through trust in God and not through the empty works of the Mosaic law.
Looking at the section in context, it is clear that the Apostle is making the statement that if they have confessed the Lord Jesus and they have believed that God raised Him from the dead, they will be saved in the future (kept, reserved, remembered), as opposed being saved, kept, reserved, remembered as the result of the fulfillment of the Mosaic law (which Christ fulfilled by the sacrifice of Himself as the Lamb of God).
Yeah, Evan, it is amazing how VP ended up teaching that one...
Thanks, WordWolf. Sufficient evidence and comments from people here have been provided. I think this discussion has reached the level of PFAL/Smikeol discussion and WD and OM can now be considered to be in his camp. ;)
NO evidence has been provided on what Craig taught on "how to get born again", which would be sufficient evidence whether or not his teaching varied from VP's teaching.
I could be wrong, but it looks to me like folks don't want to actually admit that Craig didn't teach what some are accusing him of?
Hey, where's the beef?
If you please, I'm still waiting for answers to my two questions.
Thanks, WordWolf. Sufficient evidence and comments from people here have been provided. I think this discussion has reached the level of PFAL/Smikeol discussion and WD and OM can now be considered to be in his camp. ;)
EXCUSE ME? I'm not in anybody's camp I just prefer to have some tangible evidence before I believe someone's hearsay.
I'm sorry I looked again but I must have missed that evidence for the Direct Quote session 12
"If you can't speak in tongues you aren't saved."
Did someone have a page number or a tape number or anything to back up this idea. That was your claim, lots of people posted that they taught differently, hard evidence. Do you have any? If it is a direct quote from that session then there must be some. I said so....does not qualify as proof.
Much like the Advanced Class "secret initiation" was real claim Cough** (Good thing we did not "just accept their word for that as truth" with no proof. )
It looks like this is just another Way Urban legend also we can now put to rest.........
Just checking back to see if anyone had SEEN THIS direct quote yet?
Direct Quote
"If you can't speak in tongues you aren't saved."
Guess not.....................
For me, it's been a while since I took any of the Way class PFAL or WayAP, and I don't have any of the written materials anymore, so I can't document anything, one way or the other.
I know that I never heard anyone say that if you DON'T speak in tongues you're not saved, acknowledging that some folks get saved and don't choose to speak in tongues.
But, WD, the way you've got it written, may have been what was taught. If you CAN'T speak in tongues, as in, you don't have the ABILITY to speak in tongues, wouldn't that mean one wasn't saved? After all, according to Wierwille, if you were not saved, you COULDN'T speak in tongues.
That being said, I have no memory of anyone in TWI every saying that NOT speaking in tongues was evidence that someone wasn't saved. Only that speaking in tongues WAS evidence that you were. I do have admittedly hazy memories of people occassionally being maligned, it being suggested that maybe they weren't born again because they had never been heard to speak in tongues.
As far as I remember, without having the WayAP syllabus in front of me, Martindale taught Wierwille's formula for salvation, Romans 10:9-10 in his classes. Of course, he was a lot more wordy about it, but I recall that the basic teaching remained the same. He spent a lot of time expounding on what acquiring salvation was not. For example, it was not "accepting Jesus as your personal savior", it was not "reciting the sinners prayer", etc.
I would just like to see the source of this mysterious very large change in TWI doctrine as I was departed by then. So far I can find no one that can document this quote. It seems that so far only a couple of people remember it that way. Everyone that I have found remember it taught the way you and the others that have posted here do the same as in TWI 1 & 2. Something so radically opposite I would think would be easy to document but so far "no go"
Belle seems to think I've gone camping (maybe in Canaan's Happy Land) but really I'd just like to see one way or another some evidence for this position. To Believe rightly requires that you have something to believe in. We all have memories of things taught and like you mine are not always as they seem. This happens for a variety of reasons but these days I try to be careful to make sure I am believing in something that is believable as opposed to something that is a faded memory. So the request stands I'd like to see the quote and any Wayspeak about it...
I knew that you were quoting another poster, but thanks for clarifying anyway.
But I'll say it again, based on Wierwille's doctrine that you couldn't speak in tongues unless you were saved, wouldn't the opposite be true? (or maybe it's inverse or converse? Where's Zixar when you need him?) - that if you couldn't speak in tongues (not won't speak in tongues, not doesn't speak in tongues) than you aren't saved?
If I CAN'T speak in tongues, what are the reasons for that inability? Anything other than "not saved" comes down to "not believing to speak in tongues", according to Wierwille's teachings.
While I don't recall that exact quote, or anything like it, wouldn't that be a natural extension of what was taught?
While I don't recall that exact quote, or anything like it, wouldn't that be a natural extension of what was taught?
Yes oak it would . However I don't believe that you can then make the leap to say that The Way taught: This would imply that Christians who do not speak in tongues are not actually saved as the article said. The quote was ofered as proof that this was their teaching. I don't believe that is correct.
While I would agree that unless I was napping when it was taught, it wasn't taught that Christians who DON'T speak in tongues aren't saved. However, it was often taught that if someone didn't speak in tongues then you couldn't know, there was no proof, no evidence, that they were saved.
It appears that in TWI there were things that were enshrined in PFAL, other things that Wierwille taught at advanced classes or to the Corps that weren't in PFAL, and still other things that Wierwille didn't directly teach, but allowed his people to teach. Sometimes these things were contradictory.
I recall that in the first session of the advanced class Wierwille teaches that you can counterfeit speaking in tongues, contrary to what he says in the foundational class. That's one example. An example of Wierwille allowing people to teach something that he rarely or never taught is the MOG concept. He doesn't come out and say it, but he implies it and allows people to make the connection and run with it.
I can live with you and me having different standards and threshholds for what we'll believe about Wierwille and TWI; I don't necessarily need to see documentation for everything, since in many cases there is no documentation, despite it being true. It does need (for me) to make sense and fit with the pattern.
So, while I agree that "no speaking in tongues = not saved" was not officially taught, cannot be found on the PFAL tape or book, and probably isn't in any other published material, I would bet big money that it was taught unofficially.
So, while I agree that "no speaking in tongues = not saved" was not officially taught, cannot be found on the PFAL tape or book, and probably isn't in any other published material, I would bet big money that it was taught unofficially.
I would bet big money that twi1, twi2, twi3, NEVER taught that speaking in tongues is a requirement for salvation. Never never never never never never never never never never never never.
Any takers?
I can live with you and me having different standards and threshholds for what we'll believe about Wierwille and TWI ...
I cannot. I cannot accept that there are ex-twi folks believing that TWI taught that speaking in tongues is a requirement for salvation.
The fact that there are ignorant folks out there teaching that TWI taught speaking in tongues is a requirement for salvation is bad enough....
But for ex-twi folks to believe this too? No way Jose.
I think some folks are either lying, mentally ill, or too self absorbed in Internet Spin.
I would bet big money that twi1, twi2, twi3, NEVER taught that speaking in tongues is a requirement for salvation. Never never never never never never never never never never never never.
Any takers?
How many times does veepee ELABORATE on his years of questing to "find God's power?"
The trip to Tulsa, and to FINALLY SPEAK IN TONGUES.....ohhhhhh, to finally KNOW that he was heaven-bound and all hell couldn't stop him from going. Remember this?
Veepee searched the country for someone who could LEAD HIM (or prove to him) into this holy spirit power. Didn't wierwille even doubt his salvation throughout this period of time. I think so......and he was ready to "chuck the whole thing" if he couldn't find it.
The lead-up in Session 12........the verses that showed when people were saved, they spoke in tongues. Nobody got missed, right? You wanna be pleasing to God, I know you do? Now, just put your Bible aside and in the next few minutes, you too will be speaking the wonderful works of God.
Class coordinators were to meet with ANYONE who didn't speak in tongues. Nobody gets missed......or, the class coordinator somehow screwed up. Yeah.......corps were pressured on this one.
Heavy, heavy implication............IF SOMEONE DIDN'T SPEAK IN TONGUES, THEN HOW DO YOU KNOW THAT THEY HAVE ARE REALLY SAVED?
The granddaddy exclamation point in pfal, the chewy caramel dessert with a cherry on top, the know that you know that you know HEAVILY IMPLICATED BUILD-UP FROM SESSION 9 - 12...........was to speak in tongues assuring salvation.
After 33-hours of scripture buildup and the first century church believers, the ALL-IMPORTANT CONCLUSION TO THE MATTER was that every student MUST speak in tongues. God does HIS job.....and HE WANTS YOU TO KNOW THAT YOU'RE A CHILD OF HIS.....and the early christians did it........and, its still the grace administration........and it's still available.
NOBODY GETS MISSED........sound like a requirement to me?
Skyrider, it is my humble opinion that you are way too absorbed in Internet Spin. :D
Uh, Oldies........don't you mean "veepee spin?" All of the above references were from your beloved, heavily-implicated, hand-fits-in-money-pocket, plagerizing piffle class and idolatrous worship of veepee.
Trying to sidestep the obvious??.............nice try.
I agree Oak people can have whatever standard for belief they want in their life, it's only when that standard is then applied and passed off as truth regarding what someone or some organization did or did not say or do that it becomes a problem. I've come too far in these last years to go back to believing in things that are not there to believe in. The days of the red drapes system of belief are over. I'm perfectly happy to believe in something that has tangible evidence of existence ,or something that is promised by God or in scripture.
It is interesting that when disputes over a subject happen here we seem to employ a belief I'll call the duck theory.
If it walks like a duck, talks like a duck It's probably a duck. This seems to be an acceptable belief system as long as it agrees with the posters agenda. It seems however when the agenda is not served (particularly I have noticed when one attempts to keep the record of what the Way did or did not teach honest.) then we switch standards for belief.
In this case the majority of people yourself included posted that was not how they remember the Way's teaching on SIT and being saved. Many offered quotes from books and classes to show it was not. This was from TWI 1,2 and 3. No one ever produced any evidence for the quote from any TWI materials. I asked some in now what I would call TWI 4 and they never heard such a thing either. We have this overwhelming evidence on one side saying DUCK! DUCK! and then nothing on the other side except that's what I say ,it's true. And yet although it looks ,walks, and is waving it's arms and quacking here, because it does not fit the agenda of some that if it's about the way there has to be something wrong with it. We then change our system of acceptance. Lets ignore all the evidence and believe something that has no shred of tangible proof. I just think we need to keep the system of evaluation the same and let the chips fall where they may. If your going to use the duck system to evaluate the Way's moral record then you should use the same when it comes to the teachings. If you want me to believe that this quacking sound is not a duck then as I said before show me some tangible evidence as such otherwise my money is on the Duck here!
I know that everything is not written down and recorded but in all the hours of video tape,books,notes, and teachings not anywhere? Hard to believe Especially when it was a direct quote from a class, it has to be there to quote it. Honestly why would The Way care anyway they have taught a lot worse and doccumented it plenty. Sorry it is just too many reasons why it makes no sense and none why it does.
Recommended Posts
Top Posters In This Topic
21
15
22
11
Popular Days
Dec 21
49
Dec 5
17
Dec 20
17
Nov 24
14
Top Posters In This Topic
oldiesman 21 posts
Belle 15 posts
WhiteDove 22 posts
dmiller 11 posts
Popular Days
Dec 21 2005
49 posts
Dec 5 2005
17 posts
Dec 20 2005
17 posts
Nov 24 2005
14 posts
rascal
There are scriptures talking about where folks assume that they were ....and Jesus in the end says *depart for I knew you not*
I think that you are probably correct Evan....given the fruit in the lives of some the people that followed vp`d formulas. That just isn`t the way people who are born again act.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
markomalley
Evan/Rascal,
If you actually look at the verses that Oldies quoted from that PFAL segment, above, you note a few interesting things.
Romans 10:17 --
The word "word" is the word "rhema" versus "logos" (if you look at the usages of the two words, rhema emphasizes the "utterance" of the word vice the "content" of the word)
The word "God" is, in almost every critical text, the word "Christos" (in fact, I believe that the majority of modern translations use the phrase "word of Christ" versus the "word of God")
Romans 10:9 --
Both of the words "confess" and "believe" are in the aorist tense and the subjunctive mood. That dramatically changes the way that the English should be translated. It is a rather dramatic contrast to the future indicative use of the word "saved."
(the aorist is "typically" translated into English as the simple past)
Secondly, if one was to look at the context throughout Romans 9:3ff, one can clearly see that the Apostle is speaking to the Israelites and that their salvation comes through trust in God and not through the empty works of the Mosaic law.
Looking at the section in context, it is clear that the Apostle is making the statement that if they have confessed the Lord Jesus and they have believed that God raised Him from the dead, they will be saved in the future (kept, reserved, remembered), as opposed being saved, kept, reserved, remembered as the result of the fulfillment of the Mosaic law (which Christ fulfilled by the sacrifice of Himself as the Lamb of God).
Yeah, Evan, it is amazing how VP ended up teaching that one...
Link to comment
Share on other sites
oldiesman
Evan and Mark,
Whether one agrees or disagrees with VP's teaching on "how to get born again" is irrelevant to what we have been discussing.
However I am always interested in hearing other views on salvation, perhaps that is something you may want to start in the doctrinal section?
My two requests are still on the table:
(1) Would someone who has taken "Way of Abundance and Power" please let me know if Craig wrote anything in the syllabus, on "how to get born again"?
(2) If something is there, please share it?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
WordWolf
I noticed that you switched topics on us....
We were discussing how twi tought that people
not born again are "spiritual empties",
and not worth consideration.
I noticed you skipped over my post on this.
So, since you missed it,
here it is again.
(You're welcome.)
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Belle
Thanks, WordWolf. Sufficient evidence and comments from people here have been provided. I think this discussion has reached the level of PFAL/Smikeol discussion and WD and OM can now be considered to be in his camp. ;)
Link to comment
Share on other sites
oldiesman
NO evidence has been provided on what Craig taught on "how to get born again", which would be sufficient evidence whether or not his teaching varied from VP's teaching.
I could be wrong, but it looks to me like folks don't want to actually admit that Craig didn't teach what some are accusing him of?
Hey, where's the beef?
If you please, I'm still waiting for answers to my two questions.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
WhiteDove
EXCUSE ME? I'm not in anybody's camp I just prefer to have some tangible evidence before I believe someone's hearsay.
I'm sorry I looked again but I must have missed that evidence for the Direct Quote session 12
"If you can't speak in tongues you aren't saved."
Did someone have a page number or a tape number or anything to back up this idea. That was your claim, lots of people posted that they taught differently, hard evidence. Do you have any? If it is a direct quote from that session then there must be some. I said so....does not qualify as proof.
Much like the Advanced Class "secret initiation" was real claim Cough** (Good thing we did not "just accept their word for that as truth" with no proof. )
It looks like this is just another Way Urban legend also we can now put to rest.........
Edited by WhiteDoveLink to comment
Share on other sites
oldiesman
WhiteDove, may I be in your camp on this issue? :P
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Oakspear
I know that I never heard anyone say that if you DON'T speak in tongues you're not saved, acknowledging that some folks get saved and don't choose to speak in tongues.
But, WD, the way you've got it written, may have been what was taught. If you CAN'T speak in tongues, as in, you don't have the ABILITY to speak in tongues, wouldn't that mean one wasn't saved? After all, according to Wierwille, if you were not saved, you COULDN'T speak in tongues.
That being said, I have no memory of anyone in TWI every saying that NOT speaking in tongues was evidence that someone wasn't saved. Only that speaking in tongues WAS evidence that you were. I do have admittedly hazy memories of people occassionally being maligned, it being suggested that maybe they weren't born again because they had never been heard to speak in tongues.
As far as I remember, without having the WayAP syllabus in front of me, Martindale taught Wierwille's formula for salvation, Romans 10:9-10 in his classes. Of course, he was a lot more wordy about it, but I recall that the basic teaching remained the same. He spent a lot of time expounding on what acquiring salvation was not. For example, it was not "accepting Jesus as your personal savior", it was not "reciting the sinners prayer", etc.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
WhiteDove
Thanks Oak for your thoughts.
I should have posted that the quote was from
I would just like to see the source of this mysterious very large change in TWI doctrine as I was departed by then. So far I can find no one that can document this quote. It seems that so far only a couple of people remember it that way. Everyone that I have found remember it taught the way you and the others that have posted here do the same as in TWI 1 & 2. Something so radically opposite I would think would be easy to document but so far "no go"
Belle seems to think I've gone camping (maybe in Canaan's Happy Land) but really I'd just like to see one way or another some evidence for this position. To Believe rightly requires that you have something to believe in. We all have memories of things taught and like you mine are not always as they seem. This happens for a variety of reasons but these days I try to be careful to make sure I am believing in something that is believable as opposed to something that is a faded memory. So the request stands I'd like to see the quote and any Wayspeak about it...
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Oakspear
WD:
I knew that you were quoting another poster, but thanks for clarifying anyway.
But I'll say it again, based on Wierwille's doctrine that you couldn't speak in tongues unless you were saved, wouldn't the opposite be true? (or maybe it's inverse or converse? Where's Zixar when you need him?) - that if you couldn't speak in tongues (not won't speak in tongues, not doesn't speak in tongues) than you aren't saved?
If I CAN'T speak in tongues, what are the reasons for that inability? Anything other than "not saved" comes down to "not believing to speak in tongues", according to Wierwille's teachings.
While I don't recall that exact quote, or anything like it, wouldn't that be a natural extension of what was taught?
Edited by OakspearLink to comment
Share on other sites
WhiteDove
Yes oak it would . However I don't believe that you can then make the leap to say that The Way taught: This would imply that Christians who do not speak in tongues are not actually saved as the article said. The quote was ofered as proof that this was their teaching. I don't believe that is correct.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Oakspear
While I would agree that unless I was napping when it was taught, it wasn't taught that Christians who DON'T speak in tongues aren't saved. However, it was often taught that if someone didn't speak in tongues then you couldn't know, there was no proof, no evidence, that they were saved.
It appears that in TWI there were things that were enshrined in PFAL, other things that Wierwille taught at advanced classes or to the Corps that weren't in PFAL, and still other things that Wierwille didn't directly teach, but allowed his people to teach. Sometimes these things were contradictory.
I recall that in the first session of the advanced class Wierwille teaches that you can counterfeit speaking in tongues, contrary to what he says in the foundational class. That's one example. An example of Wierwille allowing people to teach something that he rarely or never taught is the MOG concept. He doesn't come out and say it, but he implies it and allows people to make the connection and run with it.
I can live with you and me having different standards and threshholds for what we'll believe about Wierwille and TWI; I don't necessarily need to see documentation for everything, since in many cases there is no documentation, despite it being true. It does need (for me) to make sense and fit with the pattern.
So, while I agree that "no speaking in tongues = not saved" was not officially taught, cannot be found on the PFAL tape or book, and probably isn't in any other published material, I would bet big money that it was taught unofficially.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
oldiesman
I would bet big money that twi1, twi2, twi3, NEVER taught that speaking in tongues is a requirement for salvation. Never never never never never never never never never never never never.
Any takers?
I cannot. I cannot accept that there are ex-twi folks believing that TWI taught that speaking in tongues is a requirement for salvation.
The fact that there are ignorant folks out there teaching that TWI taught speaking in tongues is a requirement for salvation is bad enough....
But for ex-twi folks to believe this too? No way Jose.
I think some folks are either lying, mentally ill, or too self absorbed in Internet Spin.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
rascal
I suppose that one would HAVE to believe that in order to dismiss so much evidence to the contrary oldies <_<
Link to comment
Share on other sites
skyrider
Per Oldies:
How many times does veepee ELABORATE on his years of questing to "find God's power?"
The trip to Tulsa, and to FINALLY SPEAK IN TONGUES.....ohhhhhh, to finally KNOW that he was heaven-bound and all hell couldn't stop him from going. Remember this?
Veepee searched the country for someone who could LEAD HIM (or prove to him) into this holy spirit power. Didn't wierwille even doubt his salvation throughout this period of time. I think so......and he was ready to "chuck the whole thing" if he couldn't find it.
The lead-up in Session 12........the verses that showed when people were saved, they spoke in tongues. Nobody got missed, right? You wanna be pleasing to God, I know you do? Now, just put your Bible aside and in the next few minutes, you too will be speaking the wonderful works of God.
Class coordinators were to meet with ANYONE who didn't speak in tongues. Nobody gets missed......or, the class coordinator somehow screwed up. Yeah.......corps were pressured on this one.
Heavy, heavy implication............IF SOMEONE DIDN'T SPEAK IN TONGUES, THEN HOW DO YOU KNOW THAT THEY HAVE ARE REALLY SAVED?
The granddaddy exclamation point in pfal, the chewy caramel dessert with a cherry on top, the know that you know that you know HEAVILY IMPLICATED BUILD-UP FROM SESSION 9 - 12...........was to speak in tongues assuring salvation.
After 33-hours of scripture buildup and the first century church believers, the ALL-IMPORTANT CONCLUSION TO THE MATTER was that every student MUST speak in tongues. God does HIS job.....and HE WANTS YOU TO KNOW THAT YOU'RE A CHILD OF HIS.....and the early christians did it........and, its still the grace administration........and it's still available.
NOBODY GETS MISSED........sound like a requirement to me?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
oldiesman
Skyrider, it is my humble opinion that you are way too absorbed in Internet Spin. :D
Link to comment
Share on other sites
skyrider
Uh, Oldies........don't you mean "veepee spin?" All of the above references were from your beloved, heavily-implicated, hand-fits-in-money-pocket, plagerizing piffle class and idolatrous worship of veepee.
Trying to sidestep the obvious??.............nice try.
Edited by skyriderLink to comment
Share on other sites
oldiesman
If what you say is true, why would VP teach on "how to get born again"?
You are sidestepping the obvious.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
rascal
Ummm bait for the trap?
Possibly camoflage for the snare?
necessary sheeps wool to disguise the nature of the wolf so as to remain hidden from the sheep?
Did vp devour the sheep while looking and acting like one of them? One might assume then that this would place him in the catagory of *wolf* :(
Link to comment
Share on other sites
oldiesman
What does all that have to do with the topic we are discussing?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
rascal
Well I THOUGHT that I was providing a plausible scriptural based answere/explanation for the question that YOU asked :)
Edited by rascalLink to comment
Share on other sites
WhiteDove
I agree Oak people can have whatever standard for belief they want in their life, it's only when that standard is then applied and passed off as truth regarding what someone or some organization did or did not say or do that it becomes a problem. I've come too far in these last years to go back to believing in things that are not there to believe in. The days of the red drapes system of belief are over. I'm perfectly happy to believe in something that has tangible evidence of existence ,or something that is promised by God or in scripture.
It is interesting that when disputes over a subject happen here we seem to employ a belief I'll call the duck theory.
If it walks like a duck, talks like a duck It's probably a duck. This seems to be an acceptable belief system as long as it agrees with the posters agenda. It seems however when the agenda is not served (particularly I have noticed when one attempts to keep the record of what the Way did or did not teach honest.) then we switch standards for belief.
In this case the majority of people yourself included posted that was not how they remember the Way's teaching on SIT and being saved. Many offered quotes from books and classes to show it was not. This was from TWI 1,2 and 3. No one ever produced any evidence for the quote from any TWI materials. I asked some in now what I would call TWI 4 and they never heard such a thing either. We have this overwhelming evidence on one side saying DUCK! DUCK! and then nothing on the other side except that's what I say ,it's true. And yet although it looks ,walks, and is waving it's arms and quacking here, because it does not fit the agenda of some that if it's about the way there has to be something wrong with it. We then change our system of acceptance. Lets ignore all the evidence and believe something that has no shred of tangible proof. I just think we need to keep the system of evaluation the same and let the chips fall where they may. If your going to use the duck system to evaluate the Way's moral record then you should use the same when it comes to the teachings. If you want me to believe that this quacking sound is not a duck then as I said before show me some tangible evidence as such otherwise my money is on the Duck here!
I know that everything is not written down and recorded but in all the hours of video tape,books,notes, and teachings not anywhere? Hard to believe Especially when it was a direct quote from a class, it has to be there to quote it. Honestly why would The Way care anyway they have taught a lot worse and doccumented it plenty. Sorry it is just too many reasons why it makes no sense and none why it does.
Edited by WhiteDoveLink to comment
Share on other sites
Oakspear
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.