Raf

I don't think I speculated at all. But thanks for playing...

OM, Thank you for some very good questions. As Tom pointed out, it's not the same sin. Part of the issue, as I see it, is that you see this as "adultery," whereas we see it as the symptom of something greater: "Leaders" took advantage of their positions as "ministers of the gospel" in order to take sexual advantage of God's people. The victims did not do that. "Leaders" neglected sound doctrine (by not teaching it and/or by teaching wrongly about it) to cover up their own sins. The women involved did not do that. "Leaders" told the women it was okay before God. The women trusted these men because of the men's positions as "ministers" of the gospel. The women were manipulated: I know you find it hard to believe that a woman grounded in God's Word could be manipulated to the point of thinking adultery was okay, but think about this: many Christians who, before involvement with TWI, were absolutely convinced that abortion was murder. TWI taught them differently, and they changed their minds. If TWI can get a reasonable person to change their minds about abortion, do you think it's possible that they could get a reasonable person to change her mind about what is right and wrong before God concerning adultery (especially in the absence of sound teaching on the subject: even the Christian Family and Sex class leaves it out)? The women committed no such sin. I know it's hard for you to separate this, but please try: What people here harp on is NOT Wierwille's adultery. It's the fact that he twisted scripture and manipulated vulerable people. Yes, vulnerable. Those who were grounded in sound doctrine resisted, and many of them were blacklisted because of it. Others, who were not as grounded, were manipulated and coerced, either psychologically or worse. Do people harp on them to feed their egos? (I'd like you to name names on that accusation, because I don't know who you're talking about. Or whom. Whatever). Do people harp on them to vent? Yes. Do people harp on them because there are still those who don't understand that adultery is not the issue? Yeah, I think that might be a motivator. Probably not. Probably. I don't know for sure. He was known to call Pharisees hypocrites on more than one occasion. He is the one who coined "do as they say, not as they do." (Not an exact quote, but a fairly close approximation). "Generation of vipers!!!" Yup, that was aimed at the Pharisees, the people who led with hypocrisy. But what would he say about a guy who's been dead almost 20 years? Dunno. But he would probably say a lot worse to Wierwille's face than anyone here has said 20 years later. Some of us here are Christians. Others are not. This verse, at best, applies to Christians. "Should people forgive Wierwille" has come up before. There's no consensus. I can't forgive Wierwille because he never did anything to me. I can however, use my best judgment about (not him, but) his record as a "leader." So can you. We do the same about every other minister: we just don't talk about it. For example: what do you think of Jimmy Swaggart? Oh yeah, you're probably thinking about that episode between him and the prostitute. You hold it against him, don't you? I sure do. And you know what? I don't have to waste time recognizing that the prostitute was wrong too. Swaggart's record as a leader is not dependent on the culpability of the prostitute. I appreciate God's Word, whether or not it came from Wierwille. You don't necessarily agree with everything Wierwille taught (CSBP), but it doesn't lessen your appreciation of Wierwille's teaching. That's fine. And there's nothing wrong with "rebuttal." But you are not offering "rebuttal." What you're offering is distraction. Statement: "Wierwille abused his position as a minister of the gospel." Rebuttal: "No he didn't." Rebuttal: "Maybe, but he did other things that round out his personality. It's unfair to focus entirely on the negative." Not rebuttal: "The women were wrong too." Notice how that last statement takes the focus off of what Wierwille did? It doesn't negate it. It doesn't challenge it. That's not a rebuttal: it's a distraction. Rebut all you want. You were rebutting at the beginning of this thread: "the power exercised by TWI leadership was not 'absolute.'" THAT's a rebuttal. We can disagree about that. People can argue the point one way or another. That's fine. But you seem to be obsessed with the culpability of the women in these adulterous encounters when adultery is not the entire issue. Yes, I'm sure in some instances, these were purely adulterous relationships between two consenting adults. But in other cases, these were not instances of adultery. They were instances of abuse, perpetrated by men acting in God's name, perpetrated against vulnerable people who were taught to submit to their leadership, people who were convinced that God had one organization on this earth and they were in it. Maybe you would have stood up against that sort of psychological pressure. Bully for you. Others didn't have that strength. TWI and Wierwille were in a strong position in these people's lives. Like it or not, they abused that power. Was that power "absolute?" I would argue that no, it was not. But like I said early in this thread: whether or not it was "absolute" power is quibbling over semantics. But that's just my opinion.

Simple. The Bible doesn't say that.

John, I offered no proof that it didn't happen that way... except that the Bible doesn't say it did. As much as you've attempted to justify your interpretation that those Pharisees had all had sex with that particular woman, the bible simply doesn't say that. You're speculating. Yes, Jesus turned the tables on them. Jesus saw into their hearts and made them look into their hearts as well. But he did not accuse them of adultery in general; much less adultery with this particular partner. That is your speculation. The point is this: you brought this whole episode up in order to show that Jesus Christ told the woman "go and sin no more," therefore not forgetting that she sinned. I agree. She sinned, Jesus noticed that, and told her to stop. That is absolutely and positively irrelevant to the point that GOD'S "LEADERS" OUGHT NOT BE DOING THOSE THINGS. People who are "leaders" should not be manipulating the flock for their own sexual gratification (REGARDLESS OF THE LEVEL OF CONSENT INVOLVED). People who are leaders should not be neglecting sound doctrine, or neglecting the teaching of sound doctrine, to cover up their own sexual miscondunt and misbehavior (REGARDLESS OF THE LEVEL OF CONSENT INVOLVED). The point is that men of God ought not be doing those things, yet you and OM are constantly harping on the women who were taken advantage of. You are constantly harping on exactly how much they consented: even though their level of consent is simply not the point. "When and where the Word of God remains silent, he who speaks is a fool." Wierwille said that. Your additions to John 8 are foolish. The Bible teaches enough without the additions that we bring to them: additions that only detract from the meaning of the passage. The Old Testament didn't require a person to be sinless to cast the first stone. You are correct. The Old Testament also did not equate looking at a woman lustfully with adultery: Jesus Christ did. The Old Testament did not equate calling a person "idiot" with murder: Jesus Christ did. The Old Testament did not require a person to be sinless in order to cast a stone: Jesus Christ did. That's what it says; that's what it means. You see, John, Jesus Christ took the law and, instead of looking at it as a bunch of precepts, looked at it as a bunch of evidences of a pure heart. A person who doesn't hate won't kill. A person who doesn't lust won't commit adultery. The lesson of John 8 is one of compassion. Jesus was compassionate to this woman: he did not go to her and say, "Do you recognize that you committed adultery? You know that's wrong, right? You know that's a violation of the Ten Commandments: did you know that?" He didn't do that: he just went straight to the next step: go and sin no more. Amazing that Jesus was far more "judgmental" of the Pharisees than he was of the sinners. I could learn a thing or two from my Lord. So can you.

Eagle, Their attorneys aren't idiots. They've looked into these things with a lot moe scrutiny than any of us armchair legal buffs. While I'm sure Long Gone appreciates the compliment, you give him too much credit if you think he's coming up with something TWI's lawyers have overlooked.

ala, It's a very creepy Silence of the Lambs quote.

I don't know. After reading a few of jell's post, the only thing that kept running through my head was "PUT THE LOTION IN THE BASKET!!!!" Don't know why. Hey jell, when you're done with the kool-aid, your first cup of coffee's on me. Please get it off of me.

Order B.G. Leonard's books here. I've picked up a few. I have very little to say about them. Stiles is harder to find, but the Gift of the Holy Spirit book can be found here. Kenyon, you can find on Amazon.com. And lookie here: Bullinger's Lexicon!

Also, let's remember that we're dealing with "common sense" definitions of what it means to be a "commercial" site. The legal definition may (or may not) be trickier. I've heard (must have been an old piece of literature) that if you're a ".com," the site is commercial, period. I offer this not as legal opinion, but to remind you that our definitions and legal definitions aren't always the same thing.

yeah, ok, whatever, I can see it too. -->

But, but, but,... if you took that position... how could I disagree with you? What would we have to talk about?

No, Mike, what I meant was, "could you imagine TWI selling Greasespot Cafe T-shirts!"

If TWI's lawyers are getting their legal strategies and advice from Long Gone, Goey and me, then don't worry: Pat will win hands down. Not because he's smarter than we are, but because TWI's lawyers, if they're relying on us for ideas, are idiots. On the other hand, it's been said before (and bears repeating) that Pat does himself no favors by posting his legal opinions and strategy all over these threads. He assures us that he's taking that into consideration, which is his business. I answered his question presuming that the premise of his question was true. Goey and Long Gone are challenging the premise of his question. TWI's lawyers will handle him far more harshly than anyone here.

Dot, I'm listening.

Could you imagine?

Not at all.

Mercedes Ruelh. Dot, in the last episode of Benson (I loved that show, stupid as it was), Benson was running for Governor against Gene Gatling (who played the Governor throughout the show's run). The episode ended just as they were about to announce the vote tallies. History will never know who became the next governor of that great state (whatever state it was). You need closure? Call a radio psychiatrist. :)--> Seriously, though, this is classic pessimist/optimist territory. Or romantic/realist. I prefer to think he did the right thing. He had to see about a girl.

It was my impression that he ditched the job to chase the girl. Sort of leaves it to your imagination whether that was a smart move.

NOTICE: PAT IS SPECIFICALLY ASKING FOR "ARMCHAIR LEGAL BUFFS," NOT PROFESSIONAL OPINIONS. HE IS SPECIFICALLY SOLICITING THESE RESPONSES. SO IF YOU DON'T LIKE NON-PROFESSIONALS OFFERING LEGAL OPINIONS, TAKE IT UP WITH PAT. Pat, Presuming your premise to be correct, it would appear the answer is: a. The information you previously provided on the site offers a distilled version of the principles taught in the foundational class. Someone connecting to thewayinternational.com would have obtained the information that TWI sells, without paying TWI. The fact that you gave it away for free is not relevant. You gave away a competing product. Someone looking for info from and about TWI obtained it, and TWI lost money in the process. It should be noted that it doesn't matter that they could have gotten the information elsewhere, because the people who looked for the information didn't go elsewhere; they went to thewayinternational.com. In your defense, I would argue that the majority of hits you received were from people who had already taken PFAL, and thus TWI would not have received any additional money from those visitors. b. They probably can't make that case. c. Short answer: they can't. Skip the long answer if that's all you wanted to hear.

As with all "polling," it will depend on how the question is worded. "If your pastor asked you to have sex with him and that it would please God and that it wasn't adultery, would you do it?" 100% of respondents will agree with OM. "If you were persuaded that your church was God's only true church on earth, and that disobeying your pastor was tantamount to disobeying God, and you were persuaded that God's True Word was not available outside that church, and you truly believed that, and you trusted the people who told you that with all your heart, and your pastor asked you to have sex with him and that it would please God and that it wasn't adultery, would you do it?" I suspect that 100% number will decline somewhat. If anything, they will challenge the premise of the question. "I wouldn't be stupid enough to get involved in such a church." Maybe, but it doesn't answer the question.

The intent that Pat has declared here is that it would be a gripe site, but I do not recall whether he ever actually used it as a gripe site. Perhaps he can answer that if he so chooses. Or not, if he so doesn't.

I'm scratching my head, Goey... are you disagreeing with Long Gone? Because the info you presented only reinforces his point. Unless I'm missing something. In any event... I've been rereading this whole thread today. Zix noted early on that TWI can produce witnesses who say there was no Internet ban just as easily as Pat could produce witnesses who say there was. The difference, and it's in Pat's favor, is that Pat can produce a witness who told TWI to register the domain name at the center of this dispute. They declined to do so, providing Pat the opportunity to secure the name himself. Eagle, I missed something you said about the reasons you want critics to stay silent. I understand your point but agree with the person who responded that TWI's lawyers are probably better than we laypeople at coming up with legal arguments. In other words, they don't need our help. Also, I did not mean to imply that you were abridging my right to free speech. I only meant to assert my right to free speech and, as such, decline your suggestion that this should be discussed privately. Goey, Long Gone, your insights into the legal issues remain fascinating. Pat, Seriously, Good luck.

Did the male leaders who participated in the adultery know it was wrong?

Evan, Actually, it's not a straw man. There are other counterarguments to my position that I won't get into, but straw man is not a legitimate one. My argument is that if the Father is greater than the Son, they are not co-equal, and therefore Jesus Christ is not God because there's something greater than him. You can argue against that, which is fine, but it's not straw man. The second point is that if there's something the Son does not know, then he is not God. Again, the point can be argued, but my position is not straw man. I used to delight in the trinitarian-unitarian argument. I no longer delight in it, so if anyone wants to argue with my position, have at it. Just don't be surprised if I don't engage as vigorously as I've been known to engage on other threads, k?

I don't see how what I wrote was either lying OR spin. Nor do I see how calling my paragraph "stupid" substantively addresses the point I made, which is that you are so obsessed with the sins of the women that you, like the Pharisees who dragged the woman to Jesus' feet, forgot to include the men. Maybe "obsessed" is the wrong word. Pick another one. Insistent. Stubborn. Dedicated. I don't know, YOU pick the word. Whatever. I'm not wedded to that word.