Raf

Aww, I'm sure you're not lying about what you saw and heard. Just don't think it's the complete picture, is all. Either that wasn't the "policy" you thought it was, or it was the policy and someone defied it. I just remembered a second interracial couple, married by TWI.

Oldiesman, It's not that I don't see it... It's that IT'S NOT THE FRIGGIN POINT! The sin of the abuse of power cannot be committed by those who are not in power. Don't you ever get it? You deny that the power was "absolute," but it doesn't have to be "absolute" to be abused. It doesn't have to be absolute for God's people to be manipulated. You say I missed Johniam's point in John 8. You're wrong. The point that Jesus said "Go and sin no more" was not refuted by me. What I refuted was the following: Baseless speculation. All of it. Simply untrue, and unsupportable Biblically. That was my objection: that he was misinterpreting John 8 to make that adulteress analogous to the women of the Corps. In fact, the reasons for the adulteresses behavior are unknown and unexplored in scripture (except, of course, for what you guys just decide to make up to flesh out the story).

I'm aware of one interracial couple married by TWI in the 1980s.

Maybe it takes the absence of a pair to constantly harp on the culpability of the powerless when the thread is about the powerful.

Imbus, It saddens me that you were manipulated. I'm glad you recognize that for what it was. It saddens me that you have trouble trusting Christianity. As long as Christians are human, I don't know how you will find a Christian community that is free from sin. I hope you don't let the misconduct of a few Christians (or wolves) rob you of the Christ at the heart of our faith. This really isn't the place for ministering, but if you ever want to talk, you know where to find me. Raf

I agree. I don't think we should get angry. I don't think we should get furious. I don't think we should be malicious or resort to slander. That doesn't mean we sugar coat the past, does it? Call it what it is: just don't let it get the best of you. As for Philippians 4: I rejected that as an excuse to overlook LCM's authoritarianism, and I reject it as an excuse to overlook sadistic leadership. That verse can be used to justify complacency in the church. When misused for that purpose, I rightly reject it (just as you rightly reject it as an excuse to overlook the sins of the Catholic Church, a fact you conveniently neglected to mention). Other than that, we're clearly getting nowhere with this. You cite verses to imply we should sugarcoat the past, and ignore verses that tell us to warn others about the harm caused by people acting in God's name. Go suit yourself.

Oaks, I understand that some Trinitarians say that. The Bible doesn't. If a lamb can be unblemished, why not a man? Adam was unblemished before the fall. Why does the second Adam have to be God to be unblemished? The first Adam wasn't God. The passover lamb wasn't God.

It's not that I see no problem with it, Oldiesman. It's that I can't stop it. It's been argued before: should Wierwille be forgiven. Should Martindale be forgiven? Should we pray for them? There's no consensus on this. I can't quote Eph 4:32 at people who may not necessarily accept Eph. as an authority. It does me no good; it does no one else any good. For the record, here's my take on the subject. And contrary to your accusation, I was not "justifying" Wierwille bashing with scripture. You asked me a question and I answered it. Rather disingenuous to turn around and accuse me of finger-pointing. How would Jesus respond to this? That was your question. I'm not certain how he would respond to something like this, 20 years later. Jesus told his disciples to beware wolves in sheep's clothing, didn't he? (If he didn't, Paul did). How are you going to avoid "wolves" if you don't have the personal courage and honsety to identify them? This isn't justification, and you haven't rebutted it. And, by the way, it is a lie to say that I "don't" or "won't" apply those scriptures to this situation. I absolutely do. It is more correct to say I will not impose those scriptures on those who do not accept them as an authority. When I speak to you, I include scriptural references because I know you accept scriptures as an authority. When you say the scripture instructs us to forgive, I agree with you. But when you imply or state outright that the scripture condemns the idea of "harping" on the misdeeds of leadership, I disagree, and I challenge you on a scriptural basis. Understanding the misdeeds of leadership helps Christians to identify and avoid such misdeeds in the future. You have no problem remembering that Jimmy Swaggart consorted with a prostitute, do you? You have no problem recalling the misdeeds of the Catholic Church, past (Inquisition) and present (pedophile and sex abuse), do you? Do you forgive those priests? Do you say, "well, they may have done some bad things, but they also teach God's Word every Sunday." No, because you know and understand a place for recognizing, understanding and condemning sin. I don't see you saying, "but how many of those abused teens knew having sex with a priest was wrong, but did it anyway?" You don't. And why not? Because it doesn't matter! It doesn't matter if a male hooker dropped to his knees in a confessional booth: you hold the priest to the standard of knowing what is and what is not proper behavior for a minister of God. I hold Wierwille, Martindale and other TWI leadership accountable for knowing what is and what is not proper behavior for a minister of God. Whether their "partners" were willing or not, whether they were equally culpable or victims of manipulative "wolves," is a side issue, one you constantly exalt over the main issue. Suit yourself. I'm sure there are some women who were equally culpable. I'm sure there are others who were not. For those who were not: why did they engage in this behavior? That's the subject of this thread. How did good people end up "servicing" men of God in defiance of clear scriptures on the subject? Because the scripture was muddied for them. Because God was muddied for them. And that muddying was done on purpose. By ministers. I have more contempt for Pharisees who lead people away from Christ than I do for the misled, for the abused, for the hurt. To the victims, I would say "Go and sin no more." To the Pharisees, I would say "you unimaginable hypocrites. How dare you pervert the Word of God for your own lusts!"

Oldiesman, Please keep Zix's quote in context: he's speaking to an ex follower who rejects TWI's authority. If you apply his statement to a different context, it would not be a proper application.

Ok, let me clarify: According to me: Those men brought an adulterous woman to Jesus' feet and said she should be stoned. Jesus responded by reminding them what sinners they were. They left. According to you: Those men had all had sex with that particular woman. Jesus knew that, and made an accusation against them. They left before the woman could rat them out. Exactly how is my "speculation" in any way equivalent to yours? I basically reworded John 8. You added to it. Significantly. Bunch of baseless speculation designed to show... to show what exactly? Nothing relevant to this thread, that's what. Are you suggesting that they chased Jesus because he had the goods on them regarding adultery with that particular woman? And you're accusing me of speculation. Let's look again at your question: why did they chase Jesus at the end of the chapter? I don't know, maybe calling them children of the devil might have p*ssed them off. They were about to pick up stones and stone him for blasphemy - THAT might have had something to do with it. That's explicitly what the Bible says, your baseless speculation notwithstanding. Makes no sense to you? Psst, come here: here's a secret: no one asked you. Stick with what the book says, buddy. Your baseless speculation adds to the Word. It is not what the Bible teaches. So you're saying that Jesus' words in the beginning of the chapter stopped them, but he couldn't say anything at the end of the chapter that would have stopped them: this, you think, proves there was more to the encounter at the beginning of the chapter than meets the eye, right? Look at the chapter more closely: we're not dealing with the same specific Pharisees. Your point is lost.

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?