Oakspear

According to the only accounts that mention Luke, he never was with Jesus and wasn't a witness to the events of his life, and there is no mention in "Luke" that Luke wrote it. And I'm not saying that the events in the bible definitely didn't happen. What I'm saying is that just because they're written down in the bible doesn't mean that they did. Another thing is, even if nothing in the gospels is historically accurate, I can easily imagine people feeling that the message of the gospels was worth taking a stand and even dying for. There were plenty of sects in the Roman Empire that didn't even pretend to be based on an historical figure. By the time the gospels were written down at least a full generation had passed, even the early epistles were not written down until several decades had passed. Plenty of time for myth and legend and embellishments to make it into verbal and later written accounts. Some scholars, like Bart Ehrman, theorize that the many writings about Jesus were the position papers, the pamphlets, of the various "Christianities" at the time. You can see it in the canonical books as well as the apocrypha and pseudopegrapha where the authors are defending their position and demonizing their opponants. The faction that became orthodox/catholic Christianity got to write the history, with few exceptions, their's were the only books that made it, so they got to declare anyone who disagreed as heretics. So it's not as simple as either the gospel writer was faithfully recording what happened or he was lying.

Yes, I am a big boy, but I have lost a few pounds since I was last seen or photographed by any GSers - but yes, I can and did speak for myself. Personally I believe that the vast majority of folks who suffered abuse at the hands of Wierwille and other TWI leaders fall into two major categories: Those who completely bought into TWI's spin on sin and fully believed that the MOG and MOGlets could do no wrong. Those who knew there were problems, that unbiblical things were going on, but weighed the problems against the perceived benefits and decided to stick it out, it is my thought that this was the larger group I can't imagine too many people putting up with abuse because they liked abuse. The people in the second category can be compared to somebody in one of those company towns where there is only one major employer. Someone without a lot of skills or education might be stuck working at "the company", despite unfair labor practices, unpaid overtime, sexual harrassment etc. Sure they don't have to work there, but their choices are limited. One might point out that in TWI we had many other churches or religions to turn to, but that isn't what we thought then, and many pro-Wierwille folks still think so know (expanding the definition of "where the Word is taught" to offshoots). If this employer is investigated by whatever agency investigates, is the fact that people were theoretically free to leave considered a mitigating factor. Doubt it. If an employee was told that the way to advancement was sex with the CEO, it would still be sexual harrassment. That all being said, for the sake of discussion I'm willing to stipulate that those of us who remained in TWI bear some responsibility for our lives, for not running like h#ll at the first sign of trouble...but but but There was no reason why we should have expected to be abused, especially by those who supposedly were teaching us God's Word. Those we trusted. There is no reason why we should be diverting attention to the poor schmucks who got talked into enduring crap at the hands of our spiritual "leaders".

I guess Pawtucket can speak for himself.

Until posters like you attempt to change the emphasis from the founder and longtime leader of TWI to those he screwed over. I think that your change of emphasis is wrong. In other words, I disagree with your opinion that the spotlight should be shifted. Are you talking hypothetically, or do you think that censorship is being advocated? If so, I must have missed something. I'm certainly not advocating intolerance of viewpoints that I disagree with. I'm not afraid. I disagree with what you say most of the time. I wouldn't think of eliminating your opinion, but think that it is wrongheaded at the very least.

Groucho: In post #189 you are quoting White Dove, who is actually quoting me. Scroll up to the post that he's quoting for the full context of my point. My point is that the emphasis should be on Wierwille's (and other TWI leaders') behavior, not on to what degree, if any, those who he screwed over were responsible for the screwing. Theoretically women who had sex with Werwille (unless drugged) could have said no, theoretically those who didn't like what was going on could have walked away...but so what? It was okay for a married minsiter to have sex with a woman who wasn't his wife if she was consenting? It was okay for ministers to verbally abuse, lie to and whatever else as long as the abused didn't walk away? Nutty questions!?! Is that a personal attack?

Man, you were busy last night! I think you miss my point. I'm not talking about blame. I'm talking about emphasis The emphasis should not be on whether Wierwille, Martindale or Joe Corps Grad was responsible for our mental state, or the problems that we encountered, but whether the actions that they took were ethical or not. When it is pointed out that a TWI leader, Wierwille included, abused his flock in some manner, it is nothing but a distraction to point at others. The question is, was a specific action of Wierwille's ethical, moral, godly, biblical, or wasn't it? The fact that young women for whatever reason agreed to have sex with him doesn't make him any less an adulterer. The fact that many people chose to stick around in the face of abuse doesn't make the abuse okay.

I see Martindale's teachings are still alive and well in TWI

One of the recurring battles here at the ol' cafe features a disagreement between those who assign responsibility for certain woes that befell us to Wierwille and his subordinates and those who feel that each individual is completely responsible for anything that happened to them. It is my position that in most cases we are responsible for how we think and act, and we decide how we will respond to people who treat us wrongly. (Watch for this sentence to be taken out of context to support an opposing opinion!) It is also my position that this kind of discussion gets pushed into a false dilemma: TWI and its leaders are totally responsible for our problems or we are totally responsible for our problems. A third alternative is that although we decided to stick with a group that was in many cases abusive, the leaders of TWI were wrong to take advantage of the position that we put ourselves in. The emphasis should not be on whether Wierwille, Martindale or Joe Corps Grad was responsible for our mental state, or the problems that we encountered, but whether the actions that they took were ethical or not. The way I see it, abusive leaders saw that there were people who, for one reason or another, were willing to put up with whatever level of abuse they were subject to in exchange for what they perceived were benefits: being part of "the household", having access to "the Word like it wasn't known since the 1st century", or whatever other reason people had for putting up with b.s. - Those leaders then took advantage of those people who had put themselves in that position by abusing them. The emphasis should not be on whether those abused people could have theoretically walked away, or spoken up, but should be on those "leaders" who acted unethically and unbiblically when they knew that they had some people by the b@lls. It is a distraction to attempt to turn the spotlight back on those who feel victimized or abused. The spotlight should instead be on the perpetrators.

There were times when I was happy and times when I wasn't. When I was, I gave credit to TWI and when I wasn't I blamed myself.

No, you do not, but I wasn't limiting my end of the analogy to good stuff about TWI, nor to this board only; I would guess that you are not shy about telling people about God, the bible and your knowledge and experience of them. This is a discussion board. Pawtucket could have set this up as just a document archive, but if people want to discuss things, so what? I think you overestimate how much time most people spend here. And how do you know what people do with their time and lives?

If it was indeed wasteful or pointless to continue to talk about the same or similar bad events over and over, wouldn't the same thing apply to talking abgout the same biblical things over and over? Quote from an earlier post altered to reflect my point: Apparently some think that if you have a good experience and feel the need to share it is not enough to have pages of information on the subject. It needs to be reinvented each and every day. After all, if you want to hear about God, there are pages and pages written about him and Jesus in the bible, don't you think people have already heard about him? [For those who don't know me that well, I'm not seriously suggesting that Christians don't "witness", just trying to make a point ]

If you believe that the bible is inerrant than it did happen 40 years after he spoke it, but all that a disinterested observer knows is that it was written down after the city and temple were destroyed. I'm not familiar with this, 100,00 leaving due to Jesus' prediction. What's your source? I'd be interested in learning more if you would be so kind as to point me in the right direction. That's an interesting one. The quote about "The Lord cometh with 10 thousands of his saints" is a quote from the apocryphal Book of Enoch.

Interesting analogy, but what is being discussed is a lot worse than most people encounter at Macy's.

Or perhaps they need to be right out in the open.

So now it's okay to post on Grease Spot and still be involved in TWI. I'll take my apology now.

Wasn't "Hole in the Numbering System" a book by Stephen Hawking?

Jen-o: Yet some of our fellow posters take words like your own and decide that they mean that Wierwille's sins invalidated the truth in them. Excuse me, I assumed that these posters decide what others' words mean. But the facts are that the frequent response to posts like yours is "Wierwille's sins do not invalidate the truth that he taught". We all have different ideas of how much that Wierwille taught was true. However, I have yet to see someone who believes that previously true doctrine, whether plagiarized or original became false once Wierwille taught it due to his character flaws, sins, abuses, etc.

While we're at it, is there anyone here who thinks that any of Wierwille's material was false because it was plagiarized? Or even that all of what Wierwille taught was plagiarized?

Ham: It sounds like you're saying that Wierwille's character indicated or pointed out the falsity of what he was teaching, not that it made false what was otherwise true. Also that his character was a red flag to accept nothing he said at face value. Correct me if I'm wrong and you were really saying that there was truth that his sins turned into lies.

Still waiting for this assertion to be made, other than some posters claiming it has been made.Every poster who has been accused of saying that Wierwille's sins invalidate any truth in his teachings has explained the misunderstanding. Come on! If you're out there and believe that any truth that is in Wierwille's teachings is no longer truth because of Wierwille's sins, step up to the microphone and say so!

They were trying to soak the brides & grooms up here. Last year there was a bill in the legislature to increase the marriage license fee from $15 to $100. It didn't pass. From what I've read, Nevada has the most restrictions and requirements and fees on wedding officiants.

Wierwille defined a prophet as one who spoke for God, which he strongly implied that he did. Someone can't be what they don't explicitly claim to be? Why not?

Is there anyone here who believes that any truth in Wierwille's work is somehow not truth due to any of Wierwille's sins or abuses? If so, please step up and say so clearly. I don't think such a poster exists. I hear posters asserting that Wierwille's character influenced what he taught, should cause one to not take it at face value and that the teachings were not truth. Yet various arguments are addressed by the statement that Wierwille's sins don't negate the truth in them. This strawman has been around so long that it's taken on a life of its own.

They don't require ministerial licenses up here Whitey. They just take your word for it.