Ick...I stand corrected oldiesman and beg your pardon.....That could definatly be taken to mean that it id ok to use God`s grace as our license to sin... :(
"When the devil quoted scripture it was truth (God's Word) The words he spoke were true his motive however was not. Unfortunately for the devil Jesus had taken the time to learn scripture so no he did not learn anything as he already had learned it. Had he not known the scripture already,( given the fact that the words but not the motive were true) he could have learned something by the devil quoting God. Truth is truth regardless of who shares it or their good or bad moral character. It's just easier to swallow when the moral character is good. If a car is sitting on the street it is still a car if a priest or a rapist says hey there is a car sitting there."
The devil suggested Jesus throw himself off the Temple and referred to Psalm 91: 11 & 12 implying God's angels would catch him. The words were "true" – in that the devil quoted from Scripture. Jesus quoted Scripture back to him, referring to Deuteronomy 6: 16 – don't test God! Both quoted Scripture. Were they both right?
So how is truth still truth regardless of who shares it? It looks like Jesus was refuting the devil's attempt to twist Scripture out of context, out of harmony with other Scripture. Read II Corinthians 4: 2 where Paul talks about the ministry and renouncing secret and shameful ways, not using deception, not distorting the Word of God – we all know that can happen![new bumper sticker: "Cults Happen"]
Yeah, okay – there's a car over there – you're right – it's still a car whether a priest or a rapist points it out. But wouldn't you be a little concerned about their motive or moral character if either one of them invites you into their motor coach?
trying to lecture another poster on such things...]
AAAH Wolfman
Just returning the shot you fired over my bow, no sweat I didn't loose any sleep or miss lunch over it.
[it was their material. However, there were fundamental
differences that were introduced-and those made a difference-
not because the material was factually different,
but because it was placed in a framework that specifically
used the material to make claims that had nothing to do
with the material.
Furthermore, there IS a difference between, say, teaching a
class in Intro to Psychology in college-which will of course use
textbooks by others, an outline by others, and lecture material
by others-
and teaching a class supposedly only on the Bible-
using a textbook with your name on it,
and leaving out all names of anyone whose material
was lifted, and then teaching it.
In the first case, it is understood that the teacher is
drawing from the textbook-which lacks his name-
and the work of many others-which is often SPECIFIED
and is always expected in college.]
We all start out in life saying GOO GOO DADA or some such jiberish what we speak or say today is a compilation of all we have absorbed along the way. We are a product of our family, friends, teachers and so on.... When teaching I don't always stop and credit each person with their part in my life. Sometimes I don't even remember where I learned things from. Every preacher that speaks in a pulpit learned from their instructors who in turn learned from theirs who in turn ..... I hear people speak all the time and never stop to say gee now I learned this from so and so as a rule people just don't do this.
As far as printed matter as I said
I'll give you that the work should have been referenced in the books and credited. For an organization that was so nit picky about research papers being right it is inexcusable
["The words he spoke were true, his motive, however, was not."
The concept is certainly one you can grasp, understand and articulate-
when you wish to. (Perhaps my previous comment applied to you,
and you did not find this hard.)
"Truth is truth, regardless of who shares it, or their good or bad moral character."
That is technically true-but not the WHOLE truth.
When a person devoid of guile speaks the truth,
there is no subtext apart from the meaning of the words.
When a deceptive person speaks the truth,
EVEN IF WHAT THEY SAID WAS TECHNICALLY TRUE,
the truth "can dance a fine jig."
Words that are truthful can be used to imply something
false, or lead someone to a false conclusion.
I don't have far to go to give an example.
Luke 4:9-11 gives one.
satan says something true-he quotes Scripture.
He takes that truth, and uses it to justify a falsehood-
that the Son of God should demonstrate his identity
by flinging himself off a roof, to supposedly demonstrate
the quoted Scripture.
Granted, it was possible to receive the technical information
of the verse, when satan quoted Deuteronomy.
However, since the truth came from the mouth of a deceiver,
what was true was then used to suggest a falsehood was ALSO
true. That's why someone lacking in integrity is useless as an
information resource-or nearly so.
If Jesus had been less familiar with Scripture, and he heard
that true verse coupled with the untrue implication from the
mouth of the deceiver, he may well have recognized
Deuteronomy (or not) and otherwise been tricked into
believing the deception-that he was SUPPOSED to jump off
the roof, thinking that truth ALWAYS remains unaffected
when it is said by a deceiver. As we can all see,
this would have been incorrect. As God's Word shows us
in Luke 4, when the truth comes from the mouth of a
deceiver, it should be examined carefully-for it may be
used to hide or justify a lie.]
I agree so examine it! but as I said either it is true or it is not. How one uses truth does not change the fact that it is true. That’s like saying how one uses a gun changes the fact that it is a gun. If you use a gun wrongly it is the wrong use of a gun nothing more If you use the bible wrongly it is the wrong use of the Bible nothing more.
Their work was what was used as a resource.
Those men did not teach you.
You were taught by "THE Teacher."
He said so. He gave you a mailing address to write to him,
giving his name as "The Teacher".
Are you saying that you don't believe vpw was the teacher of pfal?
You said that he was the "instructor"-and that's synonymous with "teacher".
(At least, it's listed as such in a collegiate dictionary.)
I believe he was an instructor as I said for lack of a better word. I use that word because of I Corinthians 4:15
For though ye have ten thousand instructors in Christ, yet have ye not many fathers: for in Christ Jesus I have begotten you through the gospel.
Instructor- being translated as tutor,guide,guardians.
Yes I am aware that he was called The Teacher I'd say he was a instructor or teacher if you prefer in the sense that he did teach some of PFAL I would say he was more of a compiler. None the less the parts he contributed were his instruction the parts others contributed were their instruction. As I said that was no surprise to me, but I guess to some it was. That as I said is why they were my instructors collectively as each authored their part.
Did vpw make predictions that failed to come to pass?
Well, I read a wealth of predictions from him regarding 1976 and
some conspiracies that failed to come to pass.
I bet you heard him make some of them.
I don't think I ever heard him declare himself to be a prophet nor did I hear any prophesies by him in regards to conspiracies. I did hear him discuss the subject much like we are discussing this subject. But not as a prophesy. I'm sure some of the things he spoke about did not come to pass so his opinion was wrong? That is not the same as a prophesy.
[so, at the time you FIRST took pfal,
you came away from the sessions saying
"all this material came from others,
but vpw assembled their work into classes"?
That's REALLY what you said?]
No I said some of this material came from others some came from VP Wierwille. I don't recall if I said that but that is what I thought.
vpw claimed he was THE TEACHER. You said he was your "INSTRUCTOR",
which means exactly the same thing as he was your "TEACHER."
If you had made the claim to vpw-aka "THE Teacher", that
others "taught" you during the 12 sessions of pfal,
you would have been subjected to one of the famed face-melting
sessions he showed lcm how to conduct.
When he called himself "The Teacher", did you actually
come away saying, "No, he didn't 'teach' during those 12 sessions'?
And if he really was incidental to everything you learned,
why try to defend him so vociferously?]
Actually it is translated
Instructor- being translated as tutor,guide,guardians.
As I said he did instruct part of the class. I was not defending him vociferously. I was asking for a clarification on an issue that seems contradictory. It is either his teaching or it is not can't be both.
Quote:
I'm a little confused here. It is well documented here ,geese there have been several threads on where book by book the teaching In PFAL came from.
If one would choose to hold on to something they learned in PFAL wouldn't it be correct to say they were holding on to BG Leonard or Charles Welch or Kenyon's teaching ,not VP Wierwille. On one thread the work was plagiarized and wasn't his teaching on the other thread we were now to move beyond his teaching(which wasn't his teaching) that we were taught by a false prophet. If VP plagiarized others work then we were taught by them. If we were taught by a false prophet then that would rule out Kenyon Leonard or Welch. Seems it cant work both ways.
[You said it, but that's not what happened.
vpw spent one of his hour-blocks on the whole thing.
Then the students were shown a photograph from a page in a book.
If what you're saying was true, the students would have been
told, "vpw got this section from Bullinger, and this is one of the
things Bullinger used to back up his claim of this material."
Instead, they were told
"this is a picture that supports vpw's claims in this session."
That's what I heard EVERY TIME I sat thru that session,
from a variety of teachers, mostly corps.
If it was an attempt for vpw to say "I got this from
Bullinger", then he did a pretty poor job of it-
vpw "forgot" to mention it in the taped session
vpw "forgot" to mention it in the edited books
vpw "forgot" to mention it in the syllabus-even the Advanced class version
vpw "forgot" to mention it in the Home Studies]
If what you're saying was true, the students would have been
told, "vpw got this section from Bullinger, and this is one of the
things Bullinger used to back up his claim of this material
That’s exactly what people were told at least in the classes I was around or instructed.
By the way for the record I never thought or said that WW posts were not
laid out completely and "thoroughly". I just don't always agree with the conclusions he arrives at.
"When the devil quoted scripture it was truth (God's Word) The words he spoke were true his motive however was not. Unfortunately for the devil Jesus had taken the time to learn scripture so no he did not learn anything as he already had learned it. Had he not known the scripture already,( given the fact that the words but not the motive were true) he could have learned something by the devil quoting God. Truth is truth regardless of who shares it or their good or bad moral character. It's just easier to swallow when the moral character is good. If a car is sitting on the street it is still a car if a priest or a rapist says hey there is a car sitting there."
The devil suggested Jesus throw himself off the Temple and referred to Psalm 91: 11 & 12 implying God's angels would catch him. The words were "true" – in that the devil quoted from Scripture. Jesus quoted Scripture back to him, referring to Deuteronomy 6: 16 – don't test God! Both quoted Scripture. Were they both right? You did!
I never attached right or wrong to these verses. What i said was that the words from scripture spoken were truth. Note Jesus never denied that they were not true. I never said they were both right.
So how is truth still truth regardless of who shares it? It looks like Jesus was refuting the devil's attempt to twist Scripture out of context, out of harmony with other Scripture. Read II Corinthians 4: 2 where Paul talks about the ministry and renouncing secret and shameful ways, not using deception, not distorting the Word of God – we all know that can happen![new bumper sticker: "Cults Happen"]
It is because that is what by nature truth is. If it was not then it would not be truth now would it? You are right he was refuting the attempt to use that which was true (truth) dishonestly. But that does not make it not truth. It makes it a dishonest use of something that is true. 2+2=4 that is true if I were to tell you it was 8 you could refute me (as Jesus did) and say no it is not it's 4 and here is why, but my misuse of truth does not make the answer no longer 4 now does it. The devil quoted that which was true his motive however was not well intentioned Jesus never said his words were not true he responded to his motive.
Yeah, okay – there's a car over there – you're right – it's still a car whether a priest or a rapist points it out. But wouldn't you be a little concerned about their motive or moral character if either one of them invites you into their motor coach?
Absolutely but these are two separate issues. If I get into the motor coach or not has no bearing on the fact that there is a car sitting there. Even if I get in the coach with a rapist there will still be a car sitting there . Thats why it is still truth.
1 Is there a car there or not? What is the truth?
2 Am I concerned about going into a motor coach?
So the truth is a car is still a car and its sitting there. And both the priest and the rapist got it right. Now issue 2 Do I want to get into a motor coach with either one of them? Given the tendencies of priests I'd say No.
That's what frustrates the H out of me, some of the posters who like to fire off salvos and get real personal, yet in their posts, they are stroking each others backs reminding each other how sweet and wonderful they are. We left a lot of that hypocritical b/s back in New Knoxville didn't we ??
It is part of the group think mentality and the co-dependence that twi fed into.
Being a christian to me means having a relationship with Jesus Christ and loving His body of those who believe he is Lord and being kiind to mankind in generlal as Gods creation.
In twi I believe folks set up a world to live in that didnt allow openess or trust to grow or become a part of your life.
It is very difficult to live a full life while involved in twi , they took alot of time and resource and replaced real honest vision for your life and replaced it a group of people in the same game .
some people as they have said came into the group with more needs and personal isues, these factors played into and how they reacted to twi and got involved and or hurt.
some of these same issues play into people today and may forever be the need they are searching to fill.
a family, true love, and even a God like feeling of worship in their at one time was filled by twi.. and they left for what ever reason, and still search and have found some of the same type of relationships here.
It is a real need amoung humanity to be accepted and loved and understood.
sure it is dysfunction and not something folks able to have those needs met in life in typical fashion can understand. But as you read the posts you will read the urgency the true searching and need and then you will understand for some they do not know how and this is it and of course if it is the only connection you have and it feels like a loving relationship most would fight to protect and keep it .
twi really instilled a fear of those not involved(unbelievers)for people with co-dependcy issues , taught in child hood these types of relationships learned are very serious and loving and loyal .
if you look at GS it can be a haven for co-dependacy and those are issues in life one must address outside of twi and its issues ... yes twi fed into the pattern of abuse , but the dysfunction is a life long search to feel a part of something . As long as the need is fed some will not seek any farther in life.
And yet allan and pond you continue to come here and post and participate with us co-dependents with an attitude of better than thou................hmmmmm........must be something here you need also........to feel better than us.....what is your agenda then?
I have zero agenda out this is a nice forum. Unlike the twi fashion it isnt just for the inner circle of those who want to call the shots for anothers life and/or bully another into complice with the staus norm.
Yeah, Fog ...we stand or fall by nothing more than the merit of what we write here.
No name tags ....
Regardless of the whining and insults...accusations and lables one wants to assigne when their posts are not well recieved..... the respect you garner for yourself or your pov pure and simple relies ENTIRELY upon you yourself and what you chose to bring to the table.
It is childish imo, to blame everybody else when your pov isn`t well recieved
Unfortunately Rascal I wish that were true but it is not. There is more to it.
The respect you garner for yourself or your pov pure and simple relies ENTIRELY upon you yourself and what you chose to bring to the table.
Providing what you bring to the table is in agreement with the level of distain for the way and all things related. I've seen many a new poster romped on because they posted something that was perceived as positive about the way. It is not a level playing field from the start for those people. they are immediately labeled apologists or Wierwillites .
My above link is related to your most recent input white dove.
Leaving a organization like twi is easy enough , it is the dealing with the behaviours and attitudes and shame that you may carry for a life time, that is the tough work of healing and moving on with goodness and grace in life.
I believe Greasespot may be place of "practice" of starting and living a new and differnt "way" of life where in one can read his/her own self and decide what it all may mean.
Many here do recognize the trouble we have had in the real world adjusting , and sorting out truth from error, that is the beauty of it.
Some just changed their chairs and stayed the same . some grow and some go away.
Honesty is paramount in any type of positive change and TWI had a room full of Liars.. and those who worshiped them... some things will not change until people "get honest" and look to a differnt way to live other than the group and its approval.
Dove, it all boils down to the respect with which you treat others around here, and you know it. There are plenty of greasespotters around here that do not subscribe to the view point that you described who are treated with the respect that they have EARNED.
Unfortunatly....some times the folks who want to defend the ministry tend to do so with a massive chip on their shoulder .... their privelige, but don`t expect folks to want to engage you in conversation or give your pov any credence.
Personally, I think that if the pro ministry supporters weren`t so rabid in their personal attacks, I might be able consider that their religious pov was healthy or had merrit.
God is no Respector of persons, most of us know the verse what does that mean?
It means a person who is the piller of the community and own a major camp for children can be hailed as a giver and a lover of all that is good.. and yet still be charged with the crime of molesting those under his care .
It means sometimes people live in a secret they will never say out loud because it will hurt their reputation , what people may think or more important what they want people to think.
to give respect one has to know what it is , to have respect for yourself is the only way you can truly set up any type of kudos for anyone eles.
If I do not respect how I feel what I believe is right, how I chose to live , then any wind or thought or ideal of anyone who I "respect" can rob me of my own respect. A person without self respect hears pain and attack in most every thing that does not make them feel better about who they are. like a leaky pot it needs constant approval and filling to feel ok .
When one is strong and healthy thinking we can listen and hear and even see things we may strongly disagree with yet still have peace and alrightness with who we are and how we think.
BUT
This whole "group" ideal thinking is dangerous because if you respect them as your source of self respect then when they fail or make a mistake as all people do, it can, , damage YOU the one who has placed them in such a position in your own life. you volunteer to get hurt in a sense by dismissing your own respect for the respect of him/her. this is not love or giving or sharing it is a hurtful thing that robs one of self.
the pain is more seering and hurtful so it is very easy to dismiss their error or wrongness in your life and accept them regardless of how you may really feel , what your needs may be, or how or what YOU respect. Your personal testimony speaks alot of this type of thinking.
YOu deny you for the sake of the leader or the group. this is how a cult really is defined and it is all about how you think about your own self and the neediness and approval from a "respected' one and then the group as a whole that feeds your own needs of feeling of not being good enough without them.
Healthy people do not feel personal attack when somone disagrees with them regardless of the size or mouthyness of the one who disagrees, but those who struggle with self respect take it very personal and feel every slight of thought that may differ from them threaten who they are and that is why they need to evoke the very core of the safety of the group to feel strong enough to handle it.
respect when used as an emotion , or feeling as you describe it is not "earned" anymore than any other emotion it is just a feeling and just is .
I often read your posts and hear you need the approval of how other people think as a validation for how you think or feel and if you do not get the jolt or need to be ok your very threatened and you attack them personaly and use your "pain " as a tool for evoking sympathy and its gets quite a bit all about your emotions. That makes for a difficult discussion .
Well rascal as I said I wish it were so but it is not and others know it around here also. By the way I used the way example because it is the most prevalent. but it is not the only one there are many more. Ask some of the long time posters that no longer post here if you don't believe me. Here is another example of what I'm talking about. I think you read my point as a complaint it was not, just accepting that it is not an even playing field as some think.
Quote Markomalley;
I sympathize. As one of the few token Catholics on this board, I'm up for daily crucifixion, as well.
And something else when I first started posting here someone asked a question about something ministry related. It was a simple question does anybody remember about so and so. I remembered the answer so I posted it. Well because the answer was not laced with enough negatives it was perceived that I was some how supportive of the issue. Which I was not I didn't care one way or another I figured since I knew the answer, post it done ,no big deal. Well it was apparently and the more I tried to straighten the mess out the worse it became. About midway through a kind person who's name I will not mention cause everyone will know them emailed me and said something to the effect of. Just thought I'd tell you as your new here. This happens all the time you will never make it through the gauntlet. Just drop it before they beat you up too bad. No matter what you say it will never be enough ..... Well I did not take their advice and as it were it got straightened out. They emailed me back and said you know you are the first person that has ever made it through the gauntlet of people. That was years ago and it has not changed that I can see.
I don't see your link anywhere and honestly you lost me. I have no secret shame from the Way. It was what it was take the good leave the bad move along. I also have no need to spend my days rehashing and laying blame on things that are long over. What's the point it wont change a thing. Who needs the anger in their life? Not Me Maybe you can repost your link for me.
FWIW, I don't think we learned how to handle conflict well in TWI.
For one thing, we had the All Truth for All people, so there was that touch of arrogance. Then we had a pecking order, who had to obey who..unless you had a get out of trouble free card, because you had a good buddy or a supportive friend in a higher position then the leader on your case. Add the whole 'like minded' doctrine and peer pressure to it.
Then there was LCM and other leaders, with their sharp set downs and ridicule.
So here it plays out, this group against that group, this poster against that poster.
Hopefully the people that moved on didn't move on because their feelings were hurt, but because they figured some things out in their lives.
That's what frustrates the H out of me, some of the posters who like to fire off salvos and get real personal, yet in their posts, they are stroking each others backs reminding each other how sweet and wonderful they are. We left a lot of that hypocritical b/s back in New Knoxville didn't we ??
Well Alan, You've only been here a short while and based on your post (the one quoted above) I suppose you will be playing the martyr card very soon. And relative to your assertions that there is all this back stroking going on, well I just don't see it. Seems to me you that you would very much like to characterize any opposing opinion as "personal" and the result of a "salvo". Speaking only for myself - I don't know anyone here (at least based on their handles) and I don't look for approval of the forum nor do I attempt to provide it. The great thing about post way living is that no one needs to be "like minded" or concerned about "the body". So maybe you want to respond to this post and pretend that I'm part of some Gspot clique made up exclusively of "back strokers" but I hate to disappoint you. I'm just a guy who thinks for himself. And if you express your point of view then thats cool. I can respect it. But don't pretend that your opinions are are the object of scorn form a Gspot group or clique. Live with your posts - don't try to make it seem like "the man" is coming down on you.
It is part of the group think mentality and the co-dependence that twi fed into.
Being a christian to me means having a relationship with Jesus Christ and loving His body of those who believe he is Lord and being kiind to mankind in generlal as Gods creation.
In twi I believe folks set up a world to live in that didnt allow openess or trust to grow or become a part of your life.
I was trying to figure out where you got that quote from -- I had to do a blasted search on it!!!! LOL
There are so many divergent views around here...if we can state our views intelligently and then discuss politely, we'd all get along better I think. You make good points (once I figured out the context of the quote )
Thanks Mark Hope I did not put you on the spot! But I realized that I needed to take it out of the way context if I had any hope of anyone honestly looking at what I was saying. Dont feel bad I had to search for it too
I often read your posts and hear you need the approval of how other people think as a validation for how you think or feel and if you do not get the jolt or need to be ok your very threatened and you attack them personaly and use your "pain " as a tool for evoking sympathy and its gets quite a bit all about your emotions. That makes for a difficult discussion .
You hear she needs approval, etc? Can you explain that to me please?
Never having learned to leave well enough alone----------
I
need the approval of how other people think as a validation for how you think or feel
That must be why Allen W aka Allen, pond aka MJ, White Dove and others are on the defensive when their position doesn't meet with approval, right??? <_<
and if you do not get the jolt or need to be ok your very threatened and you attack them personaly
That must be why Allen, expends great amounts of energy attacking me for being LDS and Pond when still MJ, and posing as a social worker, falsely accused me of knnowingly being the ex wife of a convicted sex offender and permitting him to molest my children all the while knowing it was going on, Right???
and use your "pain " as a tool for evoking sympathy and its gets quite a bit all about your emotions.
NEWS ALERT: the pain of the Wierwillite faction SCREAMS from every post they, make, for every word they type, their anguish spilling over willy-nilly onto the tables and floors at the cafe. One sometimes is forced to wonder how one person can contain all, the hurt, anger, rage, fear, and hatred some of them evince
Recommended Posts
Top Posters In This Topic
26
22
41
23
Popular Days
Feb 25
28
Feb 15
27
Feb 14
23
Feb 24
22
Top Posters In This Topic
rascal 26 posts
templelady 22 posts
WhiteDove 41 posts
allan w. 23 posts
Popular Days
Feb 25 2006
28 posts
Feb 15 2006
27 posts
Feb 14 2006
23 posts
Feb 24 2006
22 posts
markomalley
Or it could mean that Luther was wrong.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
T-Bone
Okay – before I roll out my usual long sermon – let me apologize for the preachy, cold, and formal nature of my posts. It's going to take me awhile to adjust to the atmosphere of the Café. Since I left TWI in 86 I have pretty much kept to myself. You can't keep all this stuff bottled up inside… I sure hope no one is taking me that seriously. Like I said before – I haven't figured everything out, I don't want a group following me. I keep trying to figure out what I'm doing here and never thought there was much value in looking back on my TWI years. But I feel there's some valuable lessons to learn that will make my life better. Therefore, now we proceed to the entertainment portion of our show…
I have to take issue with WhiteDove saying:
"When the devil quoted scripture it was truth (God's Word) The words he spoke were true his motive however was not. Unfortunately for the devil Jesus had taken the time to learn scripture so no he did not learn anything as he already had learned it. Had he not known the scripture already,( given the fact that the words but not the motive were true) he could have learned something by the devil quoting God. Truth is truth regardless of who shares it or their good or bad moral character. It's just easier to swallow when the moral character is good. If a car is sitting on the street it is still a car if a priest or a rapist says hey there is a car sitting there."
The devil suggested Jesus throw himself off the Temple and referred to Psalm 91: 11 & 12 implying God's angels would catch him. The words were "true" – in that the devil quoted from Scripture. Jesus quoted Scripture back to him, referring to Deuteronomy 6: 16 – don't test God! Both quoted Scripture. Were they both right?
So how is truth still truth regardless of who shares it? It looks like Jesus was refuting the devil's attempt to twist Scripture out of context, out of harmony with other Scripture. Read II Corinthians 4: 2 where Paul talks about the ministry and renouncing secret and shameful ways, not using deception, not distorting the Word of God – we all know that can happen![new bumper sticker: "Cults Happen"]
Yeah, okay – there's a car over there – you're right – it's still a car whether a priest or a rapist points it out. But wouldn't you be a little concerned about their motive or moral character if either one of them invites you into their motor coach?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
WhiteDove
[Of course, WD would never consider taking a
shot at another poster, would he? Especially when
trying to lecture another poster on such things...]
AAAH Wolfman
Just returning the shot you fired over my bow, no sweat I didn't loose any sleep or miss lunch over it.
[it was their material. However, there were fundamental
differences that were introduced-and those made a difference-
not because the material was factually different,
but because it was placed in a framework that specifically
used the material to make claims that had nothing to do
with the material.
Furthermore, there IS a difference between, say, teaching a
class in Intro to Psychology in college-which will of course use
textbooks by others, an outline by others, and lecture material
by others-
and teaching a class supposedly only on the Bible-
using a textbook with your name on it,
and leaving out all names of anyone whose material
was lifted, and then teaching it.
In the first case, it is understood that the teacher is
drawing from the textbook-which lacks his name-
and the work of many others-which is often SPECIFIED
and is always expected in college.]
We all start out in life saying GOO GOO DADA or some such jiberish what we speak or say today is a compilation of all we have absorbed along the way. We are a product of our family, friends, teachers and so on.... When teaching I don't always stop and credit each person with their part in my life. Sometimes I don't even remember where I learned things from. Every preacher that speaks in a pulpit learned from their instructors who in turn learned from theirs who in turn ..... I hear people speak all the time and never stop to say gee now I learned this from so and so as a rule people just don't do this.
As far as printed matter as I said
I'll give you that the work should have been referenced in the books and credited. For an organization that was so nit picky about research papers being right it is inexcusable
["The words he spoke were true, his motive, however, was not."
The concept is certainly one you can grasp, understand and articulate-
when you wish to. (Perhaps my previous comment applied to you,
and you did not find this hard.)
"Truth is truth, regardless of who shares it, or their good or bad moral character."
That is technically true-but not the WHOLE truth.
When a person devoid of guile speaks the truth,
there is no subtext apart from the meaning of the words.
When a deceptive person speaks the truth,
EVEN IF WHAT THEY SAID WAS TECHNICALLY TRUE,
the truth "can dance a fine jig."
Words that are truthful can be used to imply something
false, or lead someone to a false conclusion.
I don't have far to go to give an example.
Luke 4:9-11 gives one.
satan says something true-he quotes Scripture.
He takes that truth, and uses it to justify a falsehood-
that the Son of God should demonstrate his identity
by flinging himself off a roof, to supposedly demonstrate
the quoted Scripture.
Granted, it was possible to receive the technical information
of the verse, when satan quoted Deuteronomy.
However, since the truth came from the mouth of a deceiver,
what was true was then used to suggest a falsehood was ALSO
true. That's why someone lacking in integrity is useless as an
information resource-or nearly so.
If Jesus had been less familiar with Scripture, and he heard
that true verse coupled with the untrue implication from the
mouth of the deceiver, he may well have recognized
Deuteronomy (or not) and otherwise been tricked into
believing the deception-that he was SUPPOSED to jump off
the roof, thinking that truth ALWAYS remains unaffected
when it is said by a deceiver. As we can all see,
this would have been incorrect. As God's Word shows us
in Luke 4, when the truth comes from the mouth of a
deceiver, it should be examined carefully-for it may be
used to hide or justify a lie.]
I agree so examine it! but as I said either it is true or it is not. How one uses truth does not change the fact that it is true. That’s like saying how one uses a gun changes the fact that it is a gun. If you use a gun wrongly it is the wrong use of a gun nothing more If you use the bible wrongly it is the wrong use of the Bible nothing more.
Their work was what was used as a resource.
Those men did not teach you.
You were taught by "THE Teacher."
He said so. He gave you a mailing address to write to him,
giving his name as "The Teacher".
Are you saying that you don't believe vpw was the teacher of pfal?
You said that he was the "instructor"-and that's synonymous with "teacher".
(At least, it's listed as such in a collegiate dictionary.)
I believe he was an instructor as I said for lack of a better word. I use that word because of I Corinthians 4:15
For though ye have ten thousand instructors in Christ, yet have ye not many fathers: for in Christ Jesus I have begotten you through the gospel.
Instructor- being translated as tutor,guide,guardians.
Yes I am aware that he was called The Teacher I'd say he was a instructor or teacher if you prefer in the sense that he did teach some of PFAL I would say he was more of a compiler. None the less the parts he contributed were his instruction the parts others contributed were their instruction. As I said that was no surprise to me, but I guess to some it was. That as I said is why they were my instructors collectively as each authored their part.
Did vpw make predictions that failed to come to pass?
Well, I read a wealth of predictions from him regarding 1976 and
some conspiracies that failed to come to pass.
I bet you heard him make some of them.
I don't think I ever heard him declare himself to be a prophet nor did I hear any prophesies by him in regards to conspiracies. I did hear him discuss the subject much like we are discussing this subject. But not as a prophesy. I'm sure some of the things he spoke about did not come to pass so his opinion was wrong? That is not the same as a prophesy.
[so, at the time you FIRST took pfal,
you came away from the sessions saying
"all this material came from others,
but vpw assembled their work into classes"?
That's REALLY what you said?]
No I said some of this material came from others some came from VP Wierwille. I don't recall if I said that but that is what I thought.
vpw claimed he was THE TEACHER. You said he was your "INSTRUCTOR",
which means exactly the same thing as he was your "TEACHER."
If you had made the claim to vpw-aka "THE Teacher", that
others "taught" you during the 12 sessions of pfal,
you would have been subjected to one of the famed face-melting
sessions he showed lcm how to conduct.
When he called himself "The Teacher", did you actually
come away saying, "No, he didn't 'teach' during those 12 sessions'?
And if he really was incidental to everything you learned,
why try to defend him so vociferously?]
Actually it is translated
Instructor- being translated as tutor,guide,guardians.
As I said he did instruct part of the class. I was not defending him vociferously. I was asking for a clarification on an issue that seems contradictory. It is either his teaching or it is not can't be both.
Quote:
I'm a little confused here. It is well documented here ,geese there have been several threads on where book by book the teaching In PFAL came from.
If one would choose to hold on to something they learned in PFAL wouldn't it be correct to say they were holding on to BG Leonard or Charles Welch or Kenyon's teaching ,not VP Wierwille. On one thread the work was plagiarized and wasn't his teaching on the other thread we were now to move beyond his teaching(which wasn't his teaching) that we were taught by a false prophet. If VP plagiarized others work then we were taught by them. If we were taught by a false prophet then that would rule out Kenyon Leonard or Welch. Seems it cant work both ways.
[You said it, but that's not what happened.
vpw spent one of his hour-blocks on the whole thing.
Then the students were shown a photograph from a page in a book.
If what you're saying was true, the students would have been
told, "vpw got this section from Bullinger, and this is one of the
things Bullinger used to back up his claim of this material."
Instead, they were told
"this is a picture that supports vpw's claims in this session."
That's what I heard EVERY TIME I sat thru that session,
from a variety of teachers, mostly corps.
If it was an attempt for vpw to say "I got this from
Bullinger", then he did a pretty poor job of it-
vpw "forgot" to mention it in the taped session
vpw "forgot" to mention it in the edited books
vpw "forgot" to mention it in the syllabus-even the Advanced class version
vpw "forgot" to mention it in the Home Studies]
That’s exactly what people were told at least in the classes I was around or instructed.
By the way for the record I never thought or said that WW posts were not
laid out completely and "thoroughly". I just don't always agree with the conclusions he arrives at.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
WhiteDove
I have to take issue with WhiteDove saying:
"When the devil quoted scripture it was truth (God's Word) The words he spoke were true his motive however was not. Unfortunately for the devil Jesus had taken the time to learn scripture so no he did not learn anything as he already had learned it. Had he not known the scripture already,( given the fact that the words but not the motive were true) he could have learned something by the devil quoting God. Truth is truth regardless of who shares it or their good or bad moral character. It's just easier to swallow when the moral character is good. If a car is sitting on the street it is still a car if a priest or a rapist says hey there is a car sitting there."
The devil suggested Jesus throw himself off the Temple and referred to Psalm 91: 11 & 12 implying God's angels would catch him. The words were "true" – in that the devil quoted from Scripture. Jesus quoted Scripture back to him, referring to Deuteronomy 6: 16 – don't test God! Both quoted Scripture. Were they both right? You did!
I never attached right or wrong to these verses. What i said was that the words from scripture spoken were truth. Note Jesus never denied that they were not true. I never said they were both right.
So how is truth still truth regardless of who shares it? It looks like Jesus was refuting the devil's attempt to twist Scripture out of context, out of harmony with other Scripture. Read II Corinthians 4: 2 where Paul talks about the ministry and renouncing secret and shameful ways, not using deception, not distorting the Word of God – we all know that can happen![new bumper sticker: "Cults Happen"]
It is because that is what by nature truth is. If it was not then it would not be truth now would it? You are right he was refuting the attempt to use that which was true (truth) dishonestly. But that does not make it not truth. It makes it a dishonest use of something that is true. 2+2=4 that is true if I were to tell you it was 8 you could refute me (as Jesus did) and say no it is not it's 4 and here is why, but my misuse of truth does not make the answer no longer 4 now does it. The devil quoted that which was true his motive however was not well intentioned Jesus never said his words were not true he responded to his motive.
Yeah, okay – there's a car over there – you're right – it's still a car whether a priest or a rapist points it out. But wouldn't you be a little concerned about their motive or moral character if either one of them invites you into their motor coach?
Absolutely but these are two separate issues. If I get into the motor coach or not has no bearing on the fact that there is a car sitting there. Even if I get in the coach with a rapist there will still be a car sitting there . Thats why it is still truth.
1 Is there a car there or not? What is the truth?
2 Am I concerned about going into a motor coach?
So the truth is a car is still a car and its sitting there. And both the priest and the rapist got it right. Now issue 2 Do I want to get into a motor coach with either one of them? Given the tendencies of priests I'd say No.
Edited by WhiteDoveLink to comment
Share on other sites
allan w.
That's what frustrates the H out of me, some of the posters who like to fire off salvos and get real personal, yet in their posts, they are stroking each others backs reminding each other how sweet and wonderful they are. We left a lot of that hypocritical b/s back in New Knoxville didn't we ??
Link to comment
Share on other sites
pond
Allan
It is part of the group think mentality and the co-dependence that twi fed into.
Being a christian to me means having a relationship with Jesus Christ and loving His body of those who believe he is Lord and being kiind to mankind in generlal as Gods creation.
In twi I believe folks set up a world to live in that didnt allow openess or trust to grow or become a part of your life.
It is very difficult to live a full life while involved in twi , they took alot of time and resource and replaced real honest vision for your life and replaced it a group of people in the same game .
some people as they have said came into the group with more needs and personal isues, these factors played into and how they reacted to twi and got involved and or hurt.
some of these same issues play into people today and may forever be the need they are searching to fill.
a family, true love, and even a God like feeling of worship in their at one time was filled by twi.. and they left for what ever reason, and still search and have found some of the same type of relationships here.
It is a real need amoung humanity to be accepted and loved and understood.
sure it is dysfunction and not something folks able to have those needs met in life in typical fashion can understand. But as you read the posts you will read the urgency the true searching and need and then you will understand for some they do not know how and this is it and of course if it is the only connection you have and it feels like a loving relationship most would fight to protect and keep it .
twi really instilled a fear of those not involved(unbelievers)for people with co-dependcy issues , taught in child hood these types of relationships learned are very serious and loving and loyal .
if you look at GS it can be a haven for co-dependacy and those are issues in life one must address outside of twi and its issues ... yes twi fed into the pattern of abuse , but the dysfunction is a life long search to feel a part of something . As long as the need is fed some will not seek any farther in life.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
outofdafog
And yet allan and pond you continue to come here and post and participate with us co-dependents with an attitude of better than thou................hmmmmm........must be something here you need also........to feel better than us.....what is your agenda then?
Edited by outofdafogLink to comment
Share on other sites
pond
I have zero agenda out this is a nice forum. Unlike the twi fashion it isnt just for the inner circle of those who want to call the shots for anothers life and/or bully another into complice with the staus norm.
thank God.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
outofdafog
That's what I like about it pond..............no nametags here..............every one on a level playing field.............
Link to comment
Share on other sites
rascal
Yeah, Fog ...we stand or fall by nothing more than the merit of what we write here.
No name tags ....
Regardless of the whining and insults...accusations and lables one wants to assigne when their posts are not well recieved..... the respect you garner for yourself or your pov pure and simple relies ENTIRELY upon you yourself and what you chose to bring to the table.
It is childish imo, to blame everybody else when your pov isn`t well recieved
Link to comment
Share on other sites
WhiteDove
Unfortunately Rascal I wish that were true but it is not. There is more to it.
The respect you garner for yourself or your pov pure and simple relies ENTIRELY upon you yourself and what you chose to bring to the table.
Providing what you bring to the table is in agreement with the level of distain for the way and all things related. I've seen many a new poster romped on because they posted something that was perceived as positive about the way. It is not a level playing field from the start for those people. they are immediately labeled apologists or Wierwillites .
Link to comment
Share on other sites
pond
My above link is related to your most recent input white dove.
Leaving a organization like twi is easy enough , it is the dealing with the behaviours and attitudes and shame that you may carry for a life time, that is the tough work of healing and moving on with goodness and grace in life.
I believe Greasespot may be place of "practice" of starting and living a new and differnt "way" of life where in one can read his/her own self and decide what it all may mean.
Many here do recognize the trouble we have had in the real world adjusting , and sorting out truth from error, that is the beauty of it.
Some just changed their chairs and stayed the same . some grow and some go away.
Honesty is paramount in any type of positive change and TWI had a room full of Liars.. and those who worshiped them... some things will not change until people "get honest" and look to a differnt way to live other than the group and its approval.
God does indeed still love us all.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
rascal
Dove, it all boils down to the respect with which you treat others around here, and you know it. There are plenty of greasespotters around here that do not subscribe to the view point that you described who are treated with the respect that they have EARNED.
Unfortunatly....some times the folks who want to defend the ministry tend to do so with a massive chip on their shoulder .... their privelige, but don`t expect folks to want to engage you in conversation or give your pov any credence.
Personally, I think that if the pro ministry supporters weren`t so rabid in their personal attacks, I might be able consider that their religious pov was healthy or had merrit.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
pond
That is a very good point Rascal
Respect.
God is no Respector of persons, most of us know the verse what does that mean?
It means a person who is the piller of the community and own a major camp for children can be hailed as a giver and a lover of all that is good.. and yet still be charged with the crime of molesting those under his care .
It means sometimes people live in a secret they will never say out loud because it will hurt their reputation , what people may think or more important what they want people to think.
to give respect one has to know what it is , to have respect for yourself is the only way you can truly set up any type of kudos for anyone eles.
If I do not respect how I feel what I believe is right, how I chose to live , then any wind or thought or ideal of anyone who I "respect" can rob me of my own respect. A person without self respect hears pain and attack in most every thing that does not make them feel better about who they are. like a leaky pot it needs constant approval and filling to feel ok .
When one is strong and healthy thinking we can listen and hear and even see things we may strongly disagree with yet still have peace and alrightness with who we are and how we think.
BUT
This whole "group" ideal thinking is dangerous because if you respect them as your source of self respect then when they fail or make a mistake as all people do, it can, , damage YOU the one who has placed them in such a position in your own life. you volunteer to get hurt in a sense by dismissing your own respect for the respect of him/her. this is not love or giving or sharing it is a hurtful thing that robs one of self.
the pain is more seering and hurtful so it is very easy to dismiss their error or wrongness in your life and accept them regardless of how you may really feel , what your needs may be, or how or what YOU respect. Your personal testimony speaks alot of this type of thinking.
YOu deny you for the sake of the leader or the group. this is how a cult really is defined and it is all about how you think about your own self and the neediness and approval from a "respected' one and then the group as a whole that feeds your own needs of feeling of not being good enough without them.
Healthy people do not feel personal attack when somone disagrees with them regardless of the size or mouthyness of the one who disagrees, but those who struggle with self respect take it very personal and feel every slight of thought that may differ from them threaten who they are and that is why they need to evoke the very core of the safety of the group to feel strong enough to handle it.
respect when used as an emotion , or feeling as you describe it is not "earned" anymore than any other emotion it is just a feeling and just is .
I often read your posts and hear you need the approval of how other people think as a validation for how you think or feel and if you do not get the jolt or need to be ok your very threatened and you attack them personaly and use your "pain " as a tool for evoking sympathy and its gets quite a bit all about your emotions. That makes for a difficult discussion .
Edited by pondLink to comment
Share on other sites
WhiteDove
Well rascal as I said I wish it were so but it is not and others know it around here also. By the way I used the way example because it is the most prevalent. but it is not the only one there are many more. Ask some of the long time posters that no longer post here if you don't believe me. Here is another example of what I'm talking about. I think you read my point as a complaint it was not, just accepting that it is not an even playing field as some think.
And something else when I first started posting here someone asked a question about something ministry related. It was a simple question does anybody remember about so and so. I remembered the answer so I posted it. Well because the answer was not laced with enough negatives it was perceived that I was some how supportive of the issue. Which I was not I didn't care one way or another I figured since I knew the answer, post it done ,no big deal. Well it was apparently and the more I tried to straighten the mess out the worse it became. About midway through a kind person who's name I will not mention cause everyone will know them emailed me and said something to the effect of. Just thought I'd tell you as your new here. This happens all the time you will never make it through the gauntlet. Just drop it before they beat you up too bad. No matter what you say it will never be enough ..... Well I did not take their advice and as it were it got straightened out. They emailed me back and said you know you are the first person that has ever made it through the gauntlet of people. That was years ago and it has not changed that I can see.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
WhiteDove
Pond
I don't see your link anywhere and honestly you lost me. I have no secret shame from the Way. It was what it was take the good leave the bad move along. I also have no need to spend my days rehashing and laying blame on things that are long over. What's the point it wont change a thing. Who needs the anger in their life? Not Me Maybe you can repost your link for me.
Edited by WhiteDoveLink to comment
Share on other sites
Bramble
FWIW, I don't think we learned how to handle conflict well in TWI.
For one thing, we had the All Truth for All people, so there was that touch of arrogance. Then we had a pecking order, who had to obey who..unless you had a get out of trouble free card, because you had a good buddy or a supportive friend in a higher position then the leader on your case. Add the whole 'like minded' doctrine and peer pressure to it.
Then there was LCM and other leaders, with their sharp set downs and ridicule.
So here it plays out, this group against that group, this poster against that poster.
Hopefully the people that moved on didn't move on because their feelings were hurt, but because they figured some things out in their lives.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
diazbro
Well Alan, You've only been here a short while and based on your post (the one quoted above) I suppose you will be playing the martyr card very soon. And relative to your assertions that there is all this back stroking going on, well I just don't see it. Seems to me you that you would very much like to characterize any opposing opinion as "personal" and the result of a "salvo". Speaking only for myself - I don't know anyone here (at least based on their handles) and I don't look for approval of the forum nor do I attempt to provide it. The great thing about post way living is that no one needs to be "like minded" or concerned about "the body". So maybe you want to respond to this post and pretend that I'm part of some Gspot clique made up exclusively of "back strokers" but I hate to disappoint you. I'm just a guy who thinks for himself. And if you express your point of view then thats cool. I can respect it. But don't pretend that your opinions are are the object of scorn form a Gspot group or clique. Live with your posts - don't try to make it seem like "the man" is coming down on you.
Edited by diazbroLink to comment
Share on other sites
diazbro
Pond, What was your previous Gspot handle ?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
markomalley
White Dove,
I was trying to figure out where you got that quote from -- I had to do a blasted search on it!!!! LOL
There are so many divergent views around here...if we can state our views intelligently and then discuss politely, we'd all get along better I think. You make good points (once I figured out the context of the quote
)
Link to comment
Share on other sites
WhiteDove
Thanks Mark Hope I did not put you on the spot! But I realized that I needed to take it out of the way context if I had any hope of anyone honestly looking at what I was saying. Dont feel bad I had to search for it too
But its true I know you take your share of heat.
The Link
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Shellon
You hear she needs approval, etc? Can you explain that to me please?
Thank you
Link to comment
Share on other sites
dmiller
Pond (or is it MJ?) There was no link. You must not have posted it. :)
Link to comment
Share on other sites
templelady
Never having learned to leave well enough alone----------
I
That must be why Allen W aka Allen, pond aka MJ, White Dove and others are on the defensive when their position doesn't meet with approval, right??? <_<That must be why Allen, expends great amounts of energy attacking me for being LDS and Pond when still MJ, and posing as a social worker, falsely accused me of knnowingly being the ex wife of a convicted sex offender and permitting him to molest my children all the while knowing it was going on, Right???
NEWS ALERT: the pain of the Wierwillite faction SCREAMS from every post they, make, for every word they type, their anguish spilling over willy-nilly onto the tables and floors at the cafe. One sometimes is forced to wonder how one person can contain all, the hurt, anger, rage, fear, and hatred some of them evince
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.