markomalley

Very predictable answer...

You missed one selection: His teachings were wrong AND they enabled his behavior.

Well, I'm sorry I've offended so many on this thread. I guess the face of VP superimposed on the body of Jim Caviezel is rather disturbing. But when I saw this topic coming up, yet again, it brought to mind the words "The Passion of the VP" And I will acknowledge that the collage is shocking. Yet it reveals the truth of the esteem with which some hold Mr. Wierwille.

Clay, A couple of Old Testament verses to consider in your pondering: Ps 108:6a "That thy beloved may be delivered" Zec 11:1 Open your doors, O Lebanon, that the fire may devour your cedars! Zec 11:2 Wail, O cypress, for the cedar has fallen, for the glorious trees are ruined! Wail, oaks of Bashan, for the thick forest has been felled! Zec 11:3 Hark, the wail of the shepherds, for their glory is despoiled! Hark, the roar of the lions, for the jungle of the Jordan is laid waste! Zec 11:4 Thus said the LORD my God: "Become shepherd of the flock doomed to slaughter. Zec 11:5 Those who buy them slay them and go unpunished; and those who sell them say, 'Blessed be the LORD, I have become rich'; and their own shepherds have no pity on them. Zec 11:6 For I will no longer have pity on the inhabitants of this land, says the LORD. Lo, I will cause men to fall each into the hand of his shepherd, and each into the hand of his king; and they shall crush the earth, and I will deliver none from their hand." Zec 11:7 So I became the shepherd of the flock doomed to be slain for those who trafficked in the sheep. And I took two staffs; one I named Grace, the other I named Union. And I tended the sheep. Zec 11:8 In one month I destroyed the three shepherds. But I became impatient with them, and they also detested me. Zec 11:9 So I said, "I will not be your shepherd. What is to die, let it die; what is to be destroyed, let it be destroyed; and let those that are left devour the flesh of one another." Zec 11:10 And I took my staff Grace, and I broke it, annulling the covenant which I had made with all the peoples. Zec 11:11 So it was annulled on that day, and the traffickers in the sheep, who were watching me, knew that it was the word of the LORD. Zec 11:12 Then I said to them, "If it seems right to you, give me my wages; but if not, keep them." And they weighed out as my wages thirty shekels of silver. Zec 11:13 Then the LORD said to me, "Cast it into the treasury"--the lordly price at which I was paid off by them. So I took the thirty shekels of silver and cast them into the treasury in the house of the LORD. Zec 11:14 Then I broke my second staff Union, annulling the brotherhood between Judah and Israel. Zec 11:15 Then the LORD said to me, "Take once more the implements of a worthless shepherd. Zec 11:16 For lo, I am raising up in the land a shepherd who does not care for the perishing, or seek the wandering, or heal the maimed, or nourish the sound, but devours the flesh of the fat ones, tearing off even their hoofs. Zec 11:17 Woe to my worthless shepherd, who deserts the flock! May the sword smite his arm and his right eye! Let his arm be wholly withered, his right eye utterly blinded!" Judas Iscariot was a Judean. If you will recall, the house of Judah was considered the one that was the more faithful of the lot. Note Zech 11:11 "So it was annulled on that day" Judah betraying the Messiah was necessary to annul the covenant. Does that mean it was planned? or that it was prophesied and would happen regardless...? Something to consider.

Mat 27:3 When Judas, his betrayer, saw that he was condemned, he repented and brought back the thirty pieces of silver to the chief priests and the elders, Mat 27:4 saying, "I have sinned in betraying innocent blood." They said, "What is that to us? See to it yourself." Mat 27:5 And throwing down the pieces of silver in the temple, he departed; and he went and hanged himself. I would think that "hanged oneself" is equivalent to committing suicide. If I'm mistaken, so be it.

Personally, I see a number of examples of "unrighteous" figures in the OT becoming the objects of salvation. And this is quite consistent. God's mercy works that way...those who deserve righteousness are not typically receptive to mercy. That's not quite the selection of words I'd use: "gnostic movements going to the extreme" -- although I don't claim to be an expert...from what I've read of them, they appear to set up a counterfeit that distinctly resembles orthodox Christianity. I don't consider it strange in any way that a former member of the Sanhedren was the object of God's mercy and was specifically called to the task. He received God's mercy with meekness in his heart, as evidenced by his writings. The same energy and zeal that he mistakenly applied to persecuting Christians was then applied to spreading the Good News. I consider it no less strange that Jesus would appoint a fisherman as the first Pope, despite his innate moral weakness. The same man who denied Jesus at the time of the passion, loudly and boldly proclaimed Him at the time of Pentacost and then, when faced with execution, stated that he was unworthy to be put to death in the same exact way as the Christ he preached...so they crucified him upside down. The apostles are all that way if one actually examines the records throughout time. It's arguably correct that even Judas, had he been receptive to receiving the God's mercy and forgiveness, could have also been widely reputed. That is the primary thing that separated Judas from the other apostles: they received God's mercy with meekness and thanksgiving. Judas didn't. Again, I personally see nothing "weird" about it. After all, "My grace is sufficient for you, for my power is made perfect in weakness." (2 Cr 12:9) I also have no doubt that Jesus knew in advance that Judas would be the one to betray him. And, rather than stopping him, Jesus told him, "What you are going to do, do quickly." But there is a serious contradiction between any gnostic account of Jesus telling Judas to betray him and the accounts in the NT Canon. (Mt 26:21ff, Mk 14:18ff, Lk 22:3ff, Jn 13:21ff). In fact, both Luke's account and John's account explicitly state that "Satan entered" Judas. The gnostic account, as reported in USA Today, closely resembles actual scripture, but is divergent in a fine amount of detail...just enough detail to make it false. That's the problem with any heresy that develops any kind of following: it's close...

You can speak for yourself Mark, but certainly not for me and thousands of others. Yeah I disagree, and God bless you too. I don't need to speak for you and thousands of others. It is an objective statement of fact.

I heard that Bush flew the airplane by radio control... I also heard that he personally fired the surface to air missiles that caused the two planes to crash into the WTC.

Oldies, It's not a blanket one-size-fits-all condemnation. It's not even a condemnation (if you read what was written) of thousands of people. It is a condemnation of the teachings put forward by VP. In fact, it's the most merciful statement that I could possibly make about him (the sins were a by-product of the teaching). It is a statement that thousands (including, I dare say, all of us reading this, at least for a time) were tricked (note the words "tricked" and "led ... down the road...") into believing that garbage. It is a statement that the "sins" were the by-product of the teachings. Many people may or may not agree with me, but that's life. It doesn't take a prophet to recognize the obvious, oldies.

Here, oldies, let me help you out a little bit: This is not only a condemnation of Wierwille, but thousands who were are being falsely accused of tricked into idolatry.

I don't pretend to be an expert on this gnostic work (other than reading the USA Today article on the subject); but an interesting little tidbit on it is the apparent authorship of the book. From Irenaeus, Against Heresies, Book 1, Chapter 31: Doctrines of the Cainites 1. Others again declare that Cain derived his being from the Power above, and acknowledge that Esau, Korah, the Sodomites, and all such persons, are related to themselves. On this account, they add, they have been assailed by the Creator, yet no one of them has suffered injury. For Sophia was in the habit of carrying off that which belonged to her from them to herself. They declare that Judas the traitor was thoroughly acquainted with these things, and that he alone, knowing the truth as no others did, accomplished the mystery of the betrayal; by him all things, both earthly and heavenly, were thus thrown into confusion. They produce a fictitious history of this kind, which they style the Gospel of Judas. So, although the text is newly found, the existence of the book was known long before this recent find. Who were the Cainites? A Gnostic Sect of the second century was called Cainites or Caianites. They regarded all characters held up to retrobation in the Old Testament as worthy of veneration, as having suffered at the hands of the cruel God of the Jews; hence Cain, as the first man cursed by Hysteraa, the Demiurg, claimed their special admiration. This sect of Antinomians never found many adherents, and Hippolytus at the beginning of the third century dismisses them with the bare mention of their name. - From the Catholic Encyclopedia The Cainites were a Gnostic and Antinomian sect who were known to worship Cain as the first victim of the Demiurge Jehovah, the Old Testament God, who was identified by many groups of gnostics as evil. The sect following was relatively small. They were mentioned by Tertullian and Irenaeus as existing in the eastern Roman Empire during the 2nd century. One of their apocryphal texts was the Gospel of Judas. - From the Wikipedia entry, Cainites Moreover, also, there has broken out another heresy also, which is called that of the Cainites. And the reason is, that they magnify Cain as if he had been conceived of some. potent Virtue which operated in him; for Abel had been procreated after being conceived of an inferior Virtue, and accordingly had been found inferior. They who assert this likewise defend the traitor Judas, telling us that he is admirable and great, because of the advantages he is vaunted to have conferred on mankind; for some of them think that thanksgiving is to be rendered to Judas on this account: viz., Judas, they say, observing that Christ wished to subvert the truth, betrayed Him, in order that there might be no possibility of truth's being subverted. And others thus dispute against them, and say: Because the powers of this world were unwilling that Christ should suffer, lest through His death salvation should be prepared for mankind, he, consulting for the salvation of mankind, betrayed Christ, in order that there might be no possibility at all of the salvation being impeded, which was being impeded through the Virtues which were opposing Christ's passion; and thus, through the passion of Christ, there might be no possibility of the salvation of mankind being retarded. - Tertullian, Against All Heresies, Chapter 1 Thought the above might be of interest...as I said in the subtitle, it's sometimes good to consider the source.

No, VP taught a false, egocentric doctrine that led thousands down the road of idolatry. His sins were a by-product of that false doctrine.

Well, I'm offended, so I guess the picture is appropriate. But, what, specifically, about the picture offends you? Thanks. I hope that folks can get beyond the disturbing folks to get to the message.

CK, I totally sympathize with you, man... It's terrible what he had to go through for us people and then we mock him... We should appreciate him more... (Oh, btw, yes I can do better, Garth, but was in a hurry)

One thing I'd keep in mind, Danny, is that much of what is set up here in this physical plane of existence is a figure, a shadow of what is to come for God's people. We can see that the marriage relationship is but a shadow of our relationship to God. Have you pondered the relationship in light of St. Paul's exposition in Eph 5:21ff, particularly in light of Rev 19? And then meld in the Song of Songs. The deuterocanoncial book "Wisdom of Solomon" is also tremendously rich in this regard. Looking at this in the light of sexuality, the intense physical pleasure received from sex is the "reward" feeling from the total 'giving' of one's self to his partner. The result of the complete physical and spiritual union between the two. There is an inseparable connection between the physical and the spiritual in this light. Actions taken to manifest this physical 'reward' feeling without the corresponding spiritual connection become a dangerous counterfeit. Rather than a "giving," it becomes a "taking." That is the reason why adultery is considered such a grievous sin in scripture. Seeking after 'taking' rather than 'giving' -- I am not getting what I want, so I'll go elsewhere to get it. (And, believe it or not, this is not OFF TOPIC, that is why I am so opposed to the Word-Faith theology, including that which is taught by twi...)

I think the relationship explained between eros and agape within the document is fascinating and very revealing. In paragraph 7, this relationship between eros, being a 'giving' love, and agape, being a 'receiving' love, explains a lot. And that one without the other is not complete for the person. Even if eros is at first mainly covetous and ascending, a fascination for the great promise of happiness, in drawing near to the other, it is less and less concerned with itself, increasingly seeks the happiness of the other, is concerned more and more with the beloved, bestows itself and wants to “be there for” the other. The element of agape thus enters into this love, for otherwise eros is impoverished and even loses its own nature. On the other hand, man cannot live by oblative, descending love alone. He cannot always give, he must also receive. Anyone who wishes to give love must also receive love as a gift. Certainly, as the Lord tells us, one can become a source from which rivers of living water flow (cf. Jn 7:37-38). Yet to become such a source, one must constantly drink anew from the original source, which is Jesus Christ, from whose pierced heart flows the love of God (cf. Jn 19:34).

Todd, You may get some tremendous insight from this document. It discusses in great detail the relationship between eros and agape.

I wonder how many other pedophiles and other assorted perverts have been appointed to positions of power by the Bush administration? After all, this kind of stuff was common with the Nazis, as well, you know. /sarc (sorry, I don't mean to invoke Godwin's law, but I'm surprised nobody had gone there yet) Seriously, folks, what do you do to identify these people beforehand? This guy, by giving out his real world information, obviously has some kind of sickness in the head. Nobody could be that stupid... A genetic test? (prevent reproduction by those with the correct gene) Psychological screening? (find the warning signs beforehand as part of the screening process for employment or security clearances) I don't know...

As in you don't realize how much you're drinking dangerous...

I love limoncello! But I just buy it in the store and keep in in the freezer. The only note is that it can tend to be a bit dangerous...

Grappa!!! -- Distilled from fermented grape skins that had already been pressed for the wine. Pretty nasty straight (imho), but the good stuff was flavored with various herbs...that made it pretty good. There was a Chinese restaurant we went to all the time in Pordenone that gave out shots of grappa after the meal. Then you kept the little ceramic cup they served it in.

I used to live in Northern Italy, where some of the finest wines in the world came from. The way to get the best wines there was to by them by the demijon (a large container sized from 5 to 50 litres) and bottle it yourself. The best wines I have had came from an area near the Slovenian border, called Cividale del Friuli. However, there were vinyards all throughout the Friuli Orientale and Friuli Occidentale growing regions that were simply outstanding. The trouble is that they kept the best stuff for themselves! One thing that was a speciality up there was a particular kind of wine called Fragolino. It was flavored with strawberry essence...you might be thinking Boone's Farm, but you'd be wrong. Just like Merlot has a little bit of a plum-like flavor, Fragolino has a very delicate flavor that isn't exactly like Strawberry, but alters the grapes ever so slightly. (The problem is that there were no legal producers of it, so you had to know a local who knew how to make it...to get the good stuff) ---------------- But as far as table wines available for reasonable around here, you ought to check into the Aussie wines. They actually are not too bad. And they are quite a bit more reasonable than comparable California wines (which, imho, have really gotten overpriced)

I'm sort of torn on this one. First of all, if it is a private institution and no taxpayer dollars are involved then my answer would be an unqualified "no." Second, if the Dutch were talking about making this kind of thing retroactive to women who had already gone through school, my answer would be an unqualified "no." However, at a state institution (University of Maryland, Michigan State, Riverside (CA) Community College, etc.), my tax dollars go to help fund that institution. That's why in-state tuition rates are so much cheaper at a state school than out-of-state tuition rates. I have to ask myself a question, here. Am I wanting my tax dollars to go to simply making a more educated graduate, or am I wanting my tax dollars to go to making a resident who can help generate more income and make a better life for everybody (and generate more income from which tax dollars can be made)? If I am using this money to make an investment in "human capital", then I'd be disappointed if that person didn't use that education to get a job and bring more revenue into the state. Don't think that this is totally unprecedented, though. There are a lot of students from other countries who are sent, along with their families, to US educational institutions. They are expected to pay back their education through working a certain number of years for their government or for their employer. ROTC works this way: you get a scholarship and are required to serve a certain number of years as a military officer to "pay back" for the education. But, should that policy apply to women who want to be stay-at-home moms? If a service commitment is understood as part of the deal to receive in-state tuition, yes. If not, no. At least imho and ymmv...

Please read the article before answering the poll! AMSTERDAM — The Dutch Labour Party (PvdA) has proposed recovering part of the cost of study from highly-educated women who decide not to seek paid work. MP Sharon Dijksma, deputy chairperson of the PvdA's parliamentary party, believes the punitive measure is needed to stimulate more women to join the workforce. She outlined her ideas in 'Forum', a magazine published by employers' group VNO-NCW. "A highly-educated woman who chooses to stay at home and not to work - that is destruction of capital," Dijksma said. "If you receive the benefit of an expensive education at the cost of society, you should not be allowed to throw away that knowledge unpunished." The MP said a fine for non-working mothers is a logical consequence of the PvdA's intention to introduce a 'feudal system', under which graduates repay money dependant on their earnings. "If someone chooses not to work, then a substantial repayment is in order," Dijksma said. Source: link So, are the Dutch on to something?

I would hope we could discuss the beliefs that each other hold (at least down here in the doctrinal basement) like adults. It's better to ask an LDS follower to expound on his beliefs rather than to assume. It's better to ask a TWI follower to expound on his beliefs rather than to assume. It's better to ask a Southern Baptist to expound on his beliefs rather than to assume. It's better to ask a Wiccan to expound on his beliefs rather than to assume. It's better to ask a Catholic to expound on his beliefs rather than to assume. It's better to ask a Marcionite to expound on his beliefs rather than to assume. yada yada yada Provided that the person to whom one directs his questions is actually knowledgeable on the applicable doctrine (rather than being the victim of improper teaching or superstition or folklore propounded through generational effects), one can get a fairly good datapoint upon which to make your judgements. I have a far better understanding of LDS beliefs now than before this thread started (thanks Maureen). So it's been valuable. I'm just sorry that some feel as if they have to attack constantly rather than to learn. It makes me wonder if they are not fully confident in their own beliefs and feel threatened when presented with an alternative. If an attacker was truly confident in his beliefs, he'd simply say "thanks for the explanation, not my cup of tea, but good luck..." and then positively present his own beliefs for the consideration of others. And let them make the adult decision to accept those beliefs or reject them.