Twinky

Correction to above post. Can't edit it now.

In church we are looking at 1 Samuel. I nearly fell off my chair when the reading was 1 Sam 3 and verse 13 hit me like ... well, I almost missed the rest of the reading. Fortunately, I had a Bible in my hands to read as well as reading the screen. Do look at all the variant readings for this verse. 1 Samuel 3:13 I told him that I would judge his house forever for the iniquity of which he knows, because his sons blasphemed God and he did not restrain them. (biblehub.com) Eli's sons blasphemed God. Made themselves vile. Brought a curse upon themselves. Did wickedly. Were cursing God. Sons "reviled the people" (Lamsa Bible). The Strong's notes contain this: blasphemed God מְקַֽלְלִ֤ים (mə·qal·lîm) Verb - Piel - Participle - masculine plural Strong's Hebrew 7043: 1) to be slight, be swift, be trifling, be of little account, be light 1a) (Qal) 1a1) to be slight, be abated (of water) 1a2) to be swift 1a3) to be trifling, be of little account 1b) (Niphal) 1b1) to be swift, show oneself swift 1b2) to appear trifling, be too trifling, be insignificant 1b3) to be lightly esteemed 1c) (Piel) 1c1) to make despicable 1c2) to curse 1d) (Pual) to be cursed 1e) (Hiphil) 1e1) to make light, lighten 1e2) to treat with contempt, bring contempt or dishonour 1f) (Pilpel) 1f1) to shake 1f2) to whet 1g) (Hithpalel) to shake oneself, be moved to and fro Various commentaries (click within the page above) refer to this in various less than lovely ways. Gill's commentary calls them vile and contemptible. The Bible reading in church was supposedly from NIV but it described Eli's sons as "CONTEMPTIBLE." I can't find a version of NIV that says this, but I did find on the above page a note that said the Masoretic and the Septuagint versions use the word "contemptible." You can see Strong's definition above. Ugh! Who could stand God saying they - because of their behaviour - were contemptible? I shudder to think of it. "Vile" - sounds horrible. "Blasphemed" - brush it off. (A bit common, what? We hardly think of it these days) But to have God think of one as "contemptible" - now that is scary. Scare-ee.

Glad you get this, Mike. Because, although you might think that VPW might have confessed his sins, he never changed his ways but continued raping women for years. As also did his protege, LCM. Prov 20:11 - Even a child is known by his doings, whether his work be pure, and whether it be right. (How much more a supposed minister of religion??????? )

Note the chorus for the above is NOT: Turn your eyes upon Wierwille Look full at his PFAL And the things of earth will grow strangely dim In the light of its gloating and lies

Another for Mike:

For Mike (if he's still paying attention):

All this was happening while I was trying but failing to sleep in bed. If I'd realised, I'd've got my phone out and tried to read some of this monologue. Would've put me to sleep fast.

It appears that Christ really was "the absent Christ" to VPW. And so, Christ became absent to many who followed (or still follow) VPW and Wayish dogma. To those who practise Christianity in some form but no longer subscribe to Wayish dogma, Christ is far from absent; he's very near. To those who've abandoned all religious notions, Christ is certainly absent, because he doesn't exist and neither does God. Within this group, those seem to be the options.

You had to start by tithing - giving 10% - because if you didn't, God wouldn't even spit in your direction. Later, you had to give of your abundance - 15%. Never mind that some could barely afford to tithe - and "giving of their abundance" caused big financial problems - even to the point of putting people into debt (gasp!). TWI liked tithes, money, anything God says [Amp]: “Woe to you, [self-righteous] scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you give a tenth (tithe) of your mint and dill and cumin [focusing on minor matters], and have neglected the weightier [more important moral and spiritual] provisions of the Law: justice and mercy and faithfulness; but these are the [primary] things you ought to have done without neglecting the others. Well actually, can we say that TWI neglected the more important matters? Did it even know of them, to neglect them? Tiredgirl seems to have made only the one post. Hope things are working out for her, somehow.

Great post, T-Bone. There is a very great deal written in the Bible about "meditating on the scriptures." Doesn't mean sitting in a funny position and making funny noises. It means, thinking about deeply. What does this mean, in heart, principle, action? How does it fit with other similar and dissimilar scriptures? How does one apply this in daily living? We have, through the death of Jesus a bigger picture now than was available in, say, Psalms. The question "Who is my neighbour?" was asked in a snarky way, by a scribe "wanting to justify himself." But it's a good question, when asked with an honest heart. Who do we have to love? And how? There's plenty written about this and I'm not going to reiterate - you can find it yourself online and in commentaries. But each one of us should contemplate who God loves: the rich and the poor, the kind and the unkind. Who does God not want to help? Mmmm... We too were once "afar off," but are now brought not just into God's neighbourhood, but into his house, his heart. How does that fit with our daily living? How does that fit with, for example, TWI's "mark and avoid" policy of those who dare to criticise leadership? Psalms in particular encourages thinking very deeply about all scriptures, doctrines and practices. Thinking deeply implies changes to thought processes, new ideas, new ways of seeing. God tells us his thoughts are higher than our thoughts, and also that we are to seek after his heart and therefore his thoughts. So we should think deeply about what's said and written, discuss with others (iron sharpens iron), and be open to grow and change. ("When I was a child, I thought as a child. But now...") Sometimes those growth changes are sudden, sometimes it's a growing understanding we know better now. Even after his sudden revelation Saul/Paul went off for some years to really think things through - and boy, what a change in his heart. And if you don't think and change, you become babyish ("For even by the time you ought to be teachers [ie living it and showing by example], ... you have become those having need of milk, and not of solid food.") The established churches look at their doctrines from time to time and change position, based often on big meetings (synods) of higher-ups. Views on marriage/divorce, children, abortion, how to treat spouses (specifically wives), homosexuality and same-sex marriage, etc, have all been examined, ideas and doctrines changed. I don't think that TWI has ever had such a discussion except as it pertains to not getting into trouble with secular laws. We all have a long way to go. But we as individuals can start the process now. Grow up. Be ready and willing to change your position on doctrine. Just for starters, try here: 12 BEST PSALMS FOR MEDITATION [Most Powerful Psalms] (psalm91.com)

Perhaps some of us are seeing actual people being "blessed." And none of them know anything about PFAL. But God knows them, loves them and blesses them. As for me, and many people here, we "hang out with" lots of known Christian people. And some non-Christians - for it's possible to have deep and meaningful discussions even with agnostic and atheists. I have NO proPFAL people in my intellectual life's network, because it seems to me that there is no intellectual life in any proPFAL network. I do, however, see the joy in the lives of real, practising, believing Christians across a range of churches and denominations. You will be very surprised, Mike, when you finally see all the joy we Christian people have. I suggest you branch out and get some new ideas flowing regarding Christianity. And in particular, regarding Jesus Christ. I also suggest that you are wrapped up in "intellectual inbreeding" - kinda like being wrapped up in clingfilm.

Too right. No church, no real community involvement, no help to the needy whether "within" or "outside" the "household." Light will only "begin to dawn" when people realise the false dawn of TWI is exactly that - a false dawn. If some parts somehow do draw people to Christ, that's good but only as far as it goes - but when the majority of the false dawn draws people away from Christ, then the falsity is exposed. In fact it's more like the swamp-gas light (will o'the wisp) that leads people into big trouble. Will-o'-the-wisp - Wikipedia

A bit how I feel about my laptop. But actually I think it enjoys the blue haze around it as I curse and practice some of the language I learned in TWI to encourage it to work better (hint: the blue haze doesn't work either!)

When I was in rez, LCM commented one time (lunch time "sharing"?) that he sometimes walked the corridors in Founders Hall, praying for the people there. I'm very much a night owl and there were a couple of quiet but public places I'd go and sit and read or study or write letters. I always hoped I'd see this great "man of God" and be able to speak with him on his perambulations. But I never saw him, was a bit disappointed. I wondered if perhaps he roamed some of the other corridors. Once I learned of his abuse of females (graduated corps, not in rez Corps). then it made sense. I'm guessing he was visiting some female(s) in the other parts of Founders Hall. And his comment was to cover himself if anybody saw him in the Hall at some strange hour of night, when he might be expected to be in that fancy wooden house. And his comment about praying was, I began to assume, misunderstood. He was walking about PREYING on people, not praying for them.

Quite right, WW. Mebbe that's why my optician sent me a reminder recently...!

Cunning, isn't it. As king, all citizens were subject to David. His to command. But not owned by him. Not belonging to him. And that's all citizens - all the men, all the women, all the children. Here's another VPW aphorism: "With rights comes responsibility." Well, David may have had rights to command - but he had commensurate responsibilities to exercise that right, or power, in a way that protected the people. Not in a way that protected, first and foremost, himself. Whether Bathsheba consented or not, what David did was a clear abuse of power. He abused the woman at least once; he abused her husband repeatedly. He also (and nobody has raised this) abused his army and his nation by this selfish act and the subsequent attempted cover-ups. He treated Uriah with contempt, deceitfully trying several times to get Eliab to go to his wife, once after drinking and dining with him [think "salt covenant"], before finally arranging his killing. Bathsheba was in no position to consent. Surely she knew that adultery was wrong. And also what the penalty for adultery was: stoning to death. (Hands up anyone who thinks a one-night stand should lead to a particularly nasty form of execution.) (Wot, no takers? ) Sexual intercourse without consent, both then and now, is called RAPE. To cap it all, VPW claimed that "David was a man after God's own heart" and the clear implication is that this little foible could be overlooked because of the good, or wonderful, or [whatever] things David did. ("It was only a one-off." "It didn't mean anything." "She threw herself at me." And other blah blah excuses.) Check it out: God yelled at David (via Nathan) for the abuse. He "utterly scorned the Lord." God's own heart? I don't think so. Deeply shamed, David repented and seriously humbled himself before the Lord. And as far as we know, although he obviously loved having women around, he didn't rape any other women nor arrange for their husbands to be disposed of. But he did not escape without penalty. The illicit child died, despite David's pleading otherwise. Imagine Bathsheba's grief. Her loving and loyal husband - dead. Her baby - dead. Her king and new husband - a rapist and murderer. And next, imprisoned in a harem with lots of other, probably jealous, women. But David had repented, stayed repented, and it's only that that made him a man after God's heart. 2 Samuel 11 RSV - David Commits Adultery with Bathsheba - Bible Gateway Read the following chapter, too. That should be the model for anyone, especially clergy indulging in adultery. Once: perhaps forgiveable? Twice: perhaps forgiveable, but to protect the congregation, remove such a person from any further temptation - protect the congregation, and the perpetrator himself, from his own weakness - take him away from any role where he might find himself in a position to commit further abuse. Take him away! Put him out! Hey! That sounds very like mark and avoid! 1 Cor 5:11 :But now I am writing you not to associate with anyone who claims to be a brother [yes, even a "clergy brother"] but is sexually immoral or greedy, an idolater or a verbal abuser, a drunkard or a swindler. With such a man do not even eat.

Okay, I read more of the bl00dy transcript. And what it reads like, to me, is a list of the people he plagiarised. And the women he bonked in the early stages of his "ministry." (Am feeling a bit jaded and cynical this morning.)

Well done, Chocky. I wish you many more years of happiness together.

Well done, Rocky. Sounds like your activity was with equals, and not, from your quote, as an abuse of leadership power. Self-awareness is a wonderful thing.

There will always be those stronger males who appear more attractive to the opposite sex (or their own sex...!) and some are not perhaps so attractive but their role in society is. Clergy, doctors, etc, fall into this category. Perhaps politicians, too. Office bosses. Do groupies still hang around pop groups? Some are "alpha males" (and wannabe alpha males) who think it's a recognition of their physical beauty or power. What would Jesus do? He loved women! Surrounded himself with them. Boosted them up against the cultural norm that saw them as second-class citizens (or less). Women followed him, tended him, helped fund his ministry, hung about devotedly with the band of followers and apostles. But show me the report where Jesus abused women, or slept with any of them. I missed that. Or where other males in the company abused such women. Other males in his company had wives, who may or may not have travelled with the band. Jesus did not. Was he asexual? Unlikely. He was in all points tempted like as we are, yet without sin. (Heb 4:15) Therefore, it's possible to resist sexual urges, throwing yourself at women, women who throw themselves at you, etc etc. We all need (yes, really need) food. In a foodstore, do you help yourself to what's available? No! You recognise that it must be paid for, otherwise it's theft. You have the willpower to avoid pocketing that tasty-looking cake or chocolate bar or whatever. You don't steal a bottle of beer - well, maybe, if you're an alcoholic (=sick, ill) - you pay for it and consume appropriately. You don't nick your neighbour's car and go joyriding in it (unless you want a spell behind bars). You have the willpower to resist doing all these things. So why nick your neighbour's wife, daughter, mother? Do you really need to announce to the world how weak you are? How very far from being the strong man you fancy yourself as? Aha! Here is the answer (1 Cor 7:1ff): It is good to abstain from sexual relations. 2But because there is so much sexual immorality, each man should have his own wife, and each woman her own husband. 3The husband should fulfill his marital duty to his wife, and likewise the wife to her husband. 4The wife does not have authority over her own body, but the husband. Likewise the husband does not have authority over his own body, but the wife. 5Do not deprive each other, except by mutual consent and for a time, so you may devote yourselves to prayer. Then come together again, so that Satan will not tempt you through your lack of self-control. Lack of self-control is acknowledged, but hey! Here's the solution! And males who consistently show their weakness and lack of self-control in this area should take themselves away from temptation. Find another job. Never be alone with a woman. Wear a chastity belt. Get themselves castrated. Get psychological help/therapy. Give up your power and ego trip. Your problem - you do what it takes to fix it (developing willpower is a start). (And yes, I write this as one who loves delicious cakes and fine chocolate.) (I cope by avoiding cake shops and the choccy aisle.)

Thanks for confirming that, Rocky. Others, bear in mind that, as well as regular posters here, there are lurkers who read and don't post. I'm not going to tell.

I had a private message concerning this topic and I want to use an extract to highlight something else. (I'm not telling you who PM'd me. If that person wants to "out" themselves, that's their business.) I noticed while in High School a strong human dynamic that pops up in all human organizations and all ages: the Captain of the Football team get his choice of the hot cheer leaders. ... so many ministry leaders were like Football Captains and so many girls threw themselves at their feet, just like in High School and College. Just in case anyone had the idea that the women who served at the entrance to the tent of meeting were high school cheerleaders and "threw themselves" at Eli's sons, can I just remind them that Moses had, not that long before, firmly prohibited adultery. (D'ya remember? The ten commandments?) Who's the "guardian" of those commandments? Eli and his wicked sons. Even if (and there is no such inference) such women had crept naked into the sons' beds, it was still the sons' responsibility to say NO! and not to abuse the women. Eli knew, and half-heartedly rebuked his sons. There were big OT penalties for illicit sexual activity. It's clear those penalties were still in force (albeit laxly) in Jesus's time, and that's a long time later, centuries - over a millennium. There are many admonitions in the epistles; Paul wrote about sexual matters several times. And yet here we are. Two millennia later. Still dealing with clergy abuse of the women of the congregation. It's not limited to TWI. But it is - truly - the modus operandi for TWI. If male clergy feel "tempted" by the women in their congregation, whose fault is that? No, it is not the women's! It's the men's fault, and their weakness, if they cannot resist. And they should do what it takes to remove themselves. Never be alone with a woman not your wife (as Billy Graham is said to have insisted - so as to avoid any possible faint inference of impropriety). And never, never, never hunt down vulnerable women to take advantage of them.

That paragraph jumped out at me, too, WW. But for a bit different reason. And here we go, perhaps a derail of the subject right at the beginning (but I got bored reading the article about 1/3 the way through) - I cannot remember ever hearing said that VPW himself tithed. Lotsa classes that he put together; lots that his minions later taught; but did he himself tithe? Ever? To his old church in Van Wert? To any other churches that he had belonged to? Mocked the alleged ministers in the above paragraph; pretty much made it compulsory for everyone in his own super-shiny new ministry. Mebbe you will say (or he did say) that he didn't draw a salary. I don't know - but he certainly got lots of benefits in kind. A home to live in. Vehicles to drive or be driven in (who paid for the fuel?). Food, both provided and prepared for him. Willing workers, ready to maintain the extensive grounds of his home. Healthcare. Who knows what other benefits? How did he pay for the cigarettes and the booze, if he didn't draw a salary? (Hardly legitimate ministry expenses!) Did he quantify these many and varied benefits and "tithe" off their value? Or did he just all accept it as "love offerings" because he was so deeply committed (oh, soooo deeply committed) to "working the word" that he didn't have time for a paid job?

The "promise" didn't fail - for the simple reason that it never existed.

And here we are again, back in the sidings of despair, way off track, not discussing at all the original subject.