One of the posts here reminds me of a girl in my corpse... her brother Br*ce was in your corpse 11th... maybe you remember her if you think about it. She was blonde, wonderfully beautiful in the wholesome healthy girl next door way. Engaged to a 13th guy who went on to become a rc with the initials J*** K****....
Anyway the strangest thing happened, she went out on lightbearers our "senior" year and came back a complete emotional wreck. Had a TOTAL mental breakdown. Was taken away to P** L***'s apartment and sorta held incommunicado. My (then) wife Linda had been one of her closest friends and wasn't allowed anywhere near her.
Sadly I don't remember what became of her. I think she was "taken away" by her brother B*uce. The profile fits. Do you know about this event....
(And to those who don't know me This is not a request for sordid details )
"Because we're talking about RAPE? No people lining up to defend rapists? Especially child molestors - not very popular, even in prisons."
(snip)
"I'm not about defending Wierwille; I'm asking how many of us don't believe that there is some credence to what he taught about sex?"
(snip)
"Again, I'm not trying to absolve or defend Wierwille. I'm just trying to obviate some considerations that I think some people have that are fostering wrangling - but really trying to help mitigate some anger & resolve some guilt for people.
Go easy on each other."
Tom
I appreciate you wanting civility in discourse. I prefer it as well.
However, I think you're putting the emphases where they don't belong-if you REALLY
want to know what's drawing up the "sides" here.
See, this moment, no one's lining up to defend rape or rapists- but they HAVE
done so previously here.
Some people may occasionally SAY they think vpw's comments were appropriate-
but those comments aren't actually germane to the discussion, because they're
not the reason to "defend vpw" they are presented as being.
Further, I never HEARD the secret sex doctrine back then because I was not part
of the privileged few who was deemed able to keep the secret.
So, I heard the PUBLIC comments, the press release-which was
"marry so you don't end up having sex outside of marriage."
Not a problematic answer-but also a misrepresentative answer.
vpw was telling people very different messages in PRIVATE-
and telling them to keep them SECRET-inventing the term "the lockbox"
to describe hiding his secret doctrines.
So, first of all, I find SECRET doctrines highly suspect. WHY keep it secret?
Second of all, their message contradicts the PUBLIC message.
That's completely independent of finding NO PLACE in the Bible that actually
justifies the secret doctrine.
Are we conflicted and think vpw was actually right in the secret stuff?
Doubtful-is someone here really thinking that God Almighty gives us permission
to attend orgies? Or commit adultery? Or have sex outside of marriage?
A number may think that God isn't going to drop on them like a falling safe
for doing what he disapproves of-
but that's a long way from "God's ok with it."
==========
I think that focusing on whether or not vpw was justified in saying it was
fine (SECRETLY) to cheat on one's spouse and have orgies or casual sex
is a lot like focusing on the affects of the amount of oil that Hezbollah
uses on their falafels has on their policies.
That is, compared to the REAL sources of things, it's really a non-issue.
People aren't "defending wierwille" because they agree with his doctrine-
they're "defending wierwille" because they don't want their precious memories
tarnished. They're not stupid enough to say (mostly) that everything he
said was actually RIGHT- so they redirect the conversations.
vpw's rapes are no longer about a minister of God using premeditation,
selecting rape targets, raping women, and covering his tracks.
The discussion becomes
[sarcasm]
about why women didn't shoot him when he
did anything-and not owning a gun is just an 'excuse'.
Since they didn't shoot him, they must have wanted to be raped,
they must have been complicit-unless they're all lying, which of course
they all are.
[/sarcasm]
Another acceptable gambit is to portray vpw as a hero for standing up
against sexual mores of our time-which, incidentally, fairly represent
Biblical morals. Thus, a moral relativism is pushed.
Is that because they approve of moral relativism?
NO- on everything ELSE they're "fundamentalist."
The moral relativism is an EXCUSE, a PLOY.
The reason is "defend wierwille at all costs."
The reason for THAT reason is "defend my precious memories at all costs."
Is it a fear of facing the reality behind the good old days,
or is it a defense mechanism hiding actual events they're hiding from?
Each "vpw defender" would have their own reason.
But this "I want vpw treated fairly" is a conversational PLOY.
They want vpw to have carte blanche to have done all he did and
have it be ok-
because then everything THEY did in response is ok.
Personally, I prefer it when they can just come right out and admit that-
My first thought upon reading Lifted Up's post was that was simply NOT what Dot said.
You're right, that is not what she said. But in practice it becomes what she said, and I'll tell you why. Dot's point is that when a victim comes forward to tell her story of being sexually abused, it is often chopped down, picked apart, belittled, etc. by someone...or maybe by several someones. So, when it comes to telling her story, she can't trust some people not to turn it into an even bigger personal hurt. My point is, it then becomes, she can't trust anyone, because she doesn't know who can be trusted. Remember, this is the internet, and if that is the only way most of us know each other, she has good reason not to trust anyone. Thus the responses like some I have gotten in trying to learn more, like the "you wouldn't believe personal first hand testimony even if you had it" answer I mentioned in my previous post. The fact that somewill chop up her story translates in effect to I am one of them...because she doesn't know me well enough to trust me more than the others.
And, that's understandable. But I am subject to the same problem of trust when it comes to believing what an anonymous poster punches out over the net. That leads me to another piece of Tom's post I want to quote, so pardon this continuation in my next post...
If it were my daughter (that I don't have), & I was there with a knife in my hand, it wouldn't take any deep thought before I'd make his teeny weenie teenier.
I sure hear that mentiond a lot lately...if it were YOUR daughter... (which I have BTW)...
The obvious assumption is that any victim here would have as much right to protection and believability as my daughter would have.
Well, look at it this way...would YOU believe your daughter more than an anonymous nameless person you knew of only online? I certainly would. About anything.
Time and time again I hear people say, they know someone personally who had gone through the hell of abuse, or they have talked with someone personally; therefore they know it is true. They know it happened as was told BECAUSE they know the person, the victim, yet they expect everyone else to accept it by second hand and indirect accounts, by people just talking about it...basically by faith if you will. Then it becomes law on GS, and someone gets their head bit off or hand slapped or worse because they start a thread like this.
My mission in learning more about this subject...should I choose to accept it...is to narrow that gap. I did that...with some success...back in my early Waydale days over 6 years ago...although it didn't involve VPW in those cases. Some other oldies might remember the poster with whom I had some particularly informative contact, if I were to mention the poster's handle.
It is so very true that nobody owes me anything, and that is the way it should be. Besides, grudgingly given testimony isn't worth, well, you know. I've heard people say...okay, I've seen people "say" that they don't care whether others believe them or not. Well, then, so be it.
You're right, that is not what she said. But in practice it becomes what she said, and I'll tell you why....because she doesn't know me well enough to trust me more than the others.
And, that's understandable. But I am subject to the same problem of trust when it comes to believing what an anonymous poster punches out over the net.
I sure hear that mentiond a lot lately...if it were YOUR daughter... (which I have BTW)...
The obvious assumption is that any victim here would have as much right to protection and believability as my daughter would have.
Well, look at it this way...would YOU believe your daughter more than an anonymous nameless person you knew of only online? I certainly would. About anything.
Time and time again I hear people say, they know someone personally ...
Well, I'm not sure (maybe I should read through your posts again) what you're trying to accomplish by starting this thread - I'm guessing that you're trying to know someone more personally who gives 1st hand testimony?
I shared what I did about my daughter (which I don't have) just to get the point across that I don't condone what VP did. I don't need my daughter's testimony. I guess I could say that I know Excie personally, but insofar as I knew her, I didn't know her testimony until I read it here. But again, I don't need her testimony any more than I need my daughter's. Having been at HQ the 1st year of the 5th Corps, I would be surprised if I found out that VP DIDN'T have sex outside of his marriage. I suppose there are those who were in attendance who never thought he did, but there were an awful lot of us who tried to "handle" the freedom he told us about. I don't think too many of us were under the impression VP thought we "handled" it well. We thought he did - at least to the point things weren't blowing up around him at the time. Maye it wasw all a figment of our imaginations. As I said, a lot of people never suspected anything I suppose.
Well, I'm not sure (maybe I should read through your posts again) what you're trying to accomplish by starting this thread - I'm guessing that you're trying to know someone more personally who gives 1st hand testimony?
I didn't start the thread, but you are probably right in your assesment. Not that expecting to accomplish it; there is that trust issue on both sides. Also, as I noted, grudgingly wont' cut it. As Paw has said, it has to be up to the victim to choose to tell it.
And, contrary to what some may think, it wouldnt necessarily have to be full of fine details.
So here we have an old timer...older than me. I got started in late 1975...with an interim 5th corps branch leader BTW. You evidently had a good idea of what the attitude toward sex was in TWI at that time. I will confibe my questions for now to one I posed earlier. Did you ever hear anything about the idea that corps (or anyone else) had to be "loosened up" sexually? Wordwolf and some others have recently mentiond something about VPW telling LCM he had to "loosen up". presumably with the idea that it meant lossening up sexually. Did you ever hear of this attitude back in the "old days"??
Some people may occasionally SAY they think vpw's comments were appropriate-
but those comments aren't actually germane to the discussion, because they're
not the reason to "defend vpw" they are presented as being.
Okay, there is the worship Wierwille faction that wants to preserve his image in worship-worthiness. I didn't take that into consideration. However, I do think that there are many who neither say "they think vpw's comments were appropriate," nor worship him, yet do, perhaps without even thinking about it, agree with his teachings in part. Both factor into the wrangling.
Further, I never HEARD the secret sex doctrine back then because I was not part
of the privileged few who was deemed able to keep the secret.
That was an awefully wide continuum that I gave in my post, the continuum between "scribes and Pharisees who throw stones at adulterers" and "'helping' young conflicted girls get over their sexual problems by giving them 'pure, loving, sex'." One need not have HEARD Wierwille's secret sex doctrine to sit somewhere on that continuum.
WHY keep it secret?
I believe the answer was given that people wouldn't be able to handle it. Obviously the Corps couldn't. Obviously neither Wierwille nor Martindale handled it - or people wouldn't be wishing them dead (or just feeling that way).
That's completely independent of finding NO PLACE in the Bible that actually
justifies the secret doctrine.
1 Corinthians 8:6 But to us there is but one God, the Father, of whom are all things, and we in him; and one Lord Jesus Christ, by whom are all things, and we by him.
7 ¶Howbeit there is not in every man that knowledge: for some with conscience of the idol unto this hour eat it as a thing offered unto an idol; and their conscience being weak is defiled.
8 But meat commendeth us not to God: for neither, if we eat, are we the better; neither, if we eat not, are we the worse.
9 But take heed lest by any means this liberty of yours become a stumblingblock to them that are weak.
10 For if any man see thee which hast knowledge sit at meat in the idol's temple, shall not the conscience of him which is weak be emboldened to eat those things which are offered to idols;
11 And through thy knowledge shall the weak brother perish, for whom Christ died?
Talking only about meat - not if you look at the context. Put that together with some of the places in the Word that talk about adultery or fornication where it is obviously talking about spiritual adultery and not physical (often misrepresented as all instances of "adultery" are spiritual in the bible), and you've got the beginnings of a plausable case in the working. Nothing too obvious - you have to remember that a lot of people can't handle it. It is one of those things that are there in the bible for those who dig deeper in the Word & in life. Remember you can prove anything from the Word, Wordwolf. We were being conditioned to believe anything that Wierwille told us, but we weren't complete know nothings on the Word. There had to be some plausable explanation from the Word. Personally, I don't believe that Wierwille was consciously pulling the wool over everyone's eyes. I think he believed the stuff.
Doubtful-is someone here really thinking that God Almighty gives us permission
to attend orgies? Or commit adultery? Or have sex outside of marriage?
A number may think that God isn't going to drop on them like a falling safe
for doing what he disapproves of-
but that's a long way from "God's ok with it."
"A number may think that God isn't going to drop on them like a falling safe for doing what he disapproves of-
but that's a long way from 'God's ok with it.'"
Actually, those two places are not that far apart. I believe what Wierwille taught us about practical error practiced long enough turning into doctrinal error. It is the nature of the human mind to rationalize its actions. That's why I believe that Wierwille really believed what he taught. And people believed him.
And many fall somewhere on the continuum who never heard him. Know anyone who figures that Clinton got a raw deal because he was president & his enemies capitalized on his misfortune in being caught at what they figure is really okay as in, "C'mon, the guy got a bj - more power to him. His marraige probably sucks; leave the guy alone?"
Apparently Abraham, the father of believing, "handled" more than his wife - or looking at Lebanon & Israel, maybe he didn't.
Apparently Samson "handled" lying with a woman all night & was still in fellowship with the true God to the point that he tore off the gate to the city on the way out leaving the enemy who was lying in wait to kill him staring with their mouths open.
"is someone here really thinking?" I think so. People are thinking all kinds of things (that was my point) + the guilt of those who did the deed & change their guilt into anger + the Wierwille worhippers (if you are right which I don't doubt).
The world populated at a certain point by way of incest. But is it appropriate, godly, morally okay....yeah, it goes on don't it dear. NO it is not in the bible that is okay for what happened to either of us. NOPE, NADA, AIN'T THERE! In fact the opposite of how we were treated is encouraged.
Tom, I'm thinking about a couple things you said. Be back with ya.
I get what you are saying. However, for me there are two issues. VPW wasn't a politician, he was supposed to be a "man of God". Even if you could accurately, scripturally document that it was okay, he would still at best be a hypocrit for teaching one thing to the masses and practicing another thing behind closed doors. But far, far worse than that, how does one biblically document that it is okay to drug or coerce someone into having sex? How is that ever okay?
(Tom said) Talking only about meat - not if you look at the context. Put that together with some of the places in the Word that talk about adultery or fornication where it is obviously talking about spiritual adultery and not physical (often misrepresented as all instances of "adultery" are spiritual in the bible), and you've got the beginnings of a plausable case in the working. Nothing too obvious - you have to remember that a lot of people can't handle it. It is one of those things that are there in the bible for those who dig deeper in the Word & in life. Remember you can prove anything from the Word, Wordwolf. We were being conditioned to believe anything that Wierwille told us, but we weren't complete know nothings on the Word. There had to be some plausable explanation from the Word. Personally, I don't believe that Wierwille was consciously pulling the wool over everyone's eyes. I think he believed the stuff.
I have to agree I think he believed what he taught. With an exception I can think of. I don’t think any of us would disagree that he didn’t twist that sexual allowance stuff into his corner for personal reasons, whether fully cognizant of it or not. But his getting it in there was by way of those who could handle it deeply because of their working understanding of such godly things. And we ate that up, oh gosh how that fed our egos (both good ways and bad). And Craig knew how to do that in his way as well.
Is that VPW won our trust and respect as a minister for God.
He then figured out a way to scripturally justify every sin and moral perversion that he chose to indulge in personally....RATHER than live honestly as a genuine Christian. Rather than minister to his congregation, as a true christian minister ....He instead chose to use his position, his authority, his knowldege of scriptures to rape, to steal, to and destroy the very people he had accepted responsibility to minister to in the name of God.
That *freedom in Christ* doctrine as I see it (as with so many twi doctrines) is a vile lie to excuse ones self from living as a genuine Christian.
There are specific reasons why adultery and fornication, as well as drunkeness and lasciviousness...etc are forbidden scripturally.....and are even listed as fruit of the flesh......one of them being that innocent parties get hurt.
What is WORSE...he taught it to others.
Tom, (and I am sorry if i am wrong) it really sounds to me like you are still trying to use wierwilles lie in an attempt to mitigate the evil of his actions and minimalise the suffering and damage that his self indulgance inflicted on innocent parties.
Is it because you really want to believe contrary to what the scriptures state uncatagorically is wrong...it is more fun to screw who you want when you want, as long as we have that handy dandy verse about freedom?
It really IS ok .... I personally just can`t handle that freedom?
You know Tom...I don`t care what people chose to be or do...but damn it ...if one wants to be a christian or a minister ...then DO it...instead of living a lie and pretending that you are. Finding excuses NOT to honor the biblical instructions given a Christian and to dismiss the fruit that is evidence of your fleshly nature is not how a genuine Christian does.
I think that this is the insidious evil of a lot of wierwilles doctrine.
I will take Blisses example a bit further.... I know instances where the kids have stolen some candy...they then try to share it with their unsuspecting brothers and sisters....some how, they seem to feel that if others are doing it too...they are not so guilty.....
What happened to "It's the word and nothing but the word, I don't care if nobody believes it"
Apparently he cared if people believed his line about adultery being just a spiritual thing, he didn't want to offend people that might stop giving him money.
The goofiest thing about saying God just cared about spiritual adultery, is that you don't really commit spiritual adultery, it is a figure of speech. So if adultery is OK in the physical, it must be OK in the spiritual since God chose that as the point of comparison.
Another wierd slant ... if the body is married to Israel, but the gentile can also go to heaven, does the body of Christ have two wives? or is it seeing gentiles on the sly?
I think that this is the insidious evil of a lot of wierwilles doctrine.
I will take Blisses example a bit further.... I know instances where the kids have stolen some candy...they then try to share it with their unsuspecting brothers and sisters....some how, they seem to feel that if others are doing it too...they are not so guilty.....
Bliss"es" hahahaha
Yes, I agree, Rascal. If vPw and lcm could quietly get a "few" more studs to believe this bunk and do it, then, hey, it can't be all that bad!
sickos
Where's my chocolate???? shhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh!
Okay, there is the worship Wierwille faction that wants to preserve his image in worship-worthiness. I didn't take that into consideration. However, I do think that there are many who neither say "they think vpw's comments were appropriate," nor worship him, yet do, perhaps without even thinking about it, agree with his teachings in part. Both factor into the wrangling.
I'd say that factors in less than you're describing.
I myself agree with the some of the material in "his" teachings.
Very few people would place me on the "pro-vpw" side of discussions.
(I'd say harming me figures into the fantasies of a few "pro-vpw"ers by now...)
I believe the answer was given that people wouldn't be able to handle it. Obviously the Corps couldn't.
I believe that was the answer that was given.
I believe that this is unBiblical,
and was NOT the main reason. (Oil and falafels...)
It was an immoral and unethical doctrine. It was unBiblical and unChristian.
Therefore, it could NOT stand up to scrutiny.
Therefore, hide it.
Obviously neither Wierwille nor Martindale handled it - or people wouldn't be wishing them dead (or just feeling that way).
Proverbs 6:20-33.
20My son, keep thy father's commandment, and forsake not the law of thy mother:
21Bind them continually upon thine heart, and tie them about thy neck.
22When thou goest, it shall lead thee; when thou sleepest, it shall keep thee; and when thou awakest, it shall talk with thee.
23For the commandment is a lamp; and the law is light; and reproofs of instruction are the way of life:
24To keep thee from the evil woman, from the flattery of the tongue of a strange woman.
25Lust not after her beauty in thine heart; neither let her take thee with her eyelids.
26For by means of a whorish woman a man is brought to a piece of bread: and the adultress will hunt for the precious life.
27Can a man take fire in his bosom, and his clothes not be burned?
28Can one go upon hot coals, and his feet not be burned?
29So he that goeth in to his neighbour's wife; whosoever toucheth her shall not be innocent.
30Men do not despise a thief, if he steal to satisfy his soul when he is hungry;
31But if he be found, he shall restore sevenfold; he shall give all the substance of his house.
32But whoso committeth adultery with a woman lacketh understanding: he that doeth it destroyeth his own soul.
33A wound and dishonour shall he get; and his reproach shall not be wiped away.
======
They didn't "handle" it because it's not "handle-able".
Next you're going to say "that's Old Testament".
So I'll check in with my Lord.
John 8:2-4, 10-11.
2And early in the morning he came again into the temple, and all the people came unto him; and he sat down, and taught them.
3And the scribes and Pharisees brought unto him a woman taken in adultery; and when they had set her in the midst,
4They say unto him, Master, this woman was taken in adultery, in the very act.10When Jesus had lifted up himself, and saw none but the woman, he said unto her, Woman, where are those thine accusers? hath no man condemned thee?
11She said, No man, Lord. And Jesus said unto her, Neither do I condemn thee: go, and sin no more.
====
He called it a SIN and said to stop.
Next you're going to say that-although it was our personal Lord that said this, there was
an administration change and now it's ok.
Romans 2:1-23
1Therefore thou art inexcusable, O man, whosoever thou art that judgest: for wherein thou judgest another, thou condemnest thyself; for thou that judgest doest the same things.
2But we are sure that the judgment of God is according to truth against them which commit such things.
3And thinkest thou this, O man, that judgest them which do such things, and doest the same, that thou shalt escape the judgment of God?
4Or despisest thou the riches of his goodness and forbearance and longsuffering; not knowing that the goodness of God leadeth thee to repentance?
5But after thy hardness and impenitent heart treasurest up unto thyself wrath against the day of wrath and revelation of the righteous judgment of God;
6Who will render to every man according to his deeds:
7To them who by patient continuance in well doing seek for glory and honour and immortality, eternal life:
8But unto them that are contentious, and do not obey the truth, but obey unrighteousness, indignation and wrath,
9Tribulation and anguish, upon every soul of man that doeth evil, of the Jew first, and also of the Gentile;
10But glory, honour, and peace, to every man that worketh good, to the Jew first, and also to the Gentile:
11For there is no respect of persons with God.
12For as many as have sinned without law shall also perish without law: and as many as have sinned in the law shall be judged by the law;
13(For not the hearers of the law are just before God, but the doers of the law shall be justified.
14For when the Gentiles, which have not the law, do by nature the things contained in the law, these, having not the law, are a law unto themselves:
15Which shew the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience also bearing witness, and their thoughts the mean while accusing or else excusing one another;)
16In the day when God shall judge the secrets of men by Jesus Christ according to my gospel.
17Behold, thou art called a Jew, and restest in the law, and makest thy boast of God,
18And knowest his will, and approvest the things that are more excellent, being instructed out of the law;
19And art confident that thou thyself art a guide of the blind, a light of them which are in darkness,
20An instructor of the foolish, a teacher of babes, which hast the form of knowledge and of the truth in the law.
21Thou therefore which teachest another, teachest thou not thyself? thou that preachest a man should not steal, dost thou steal?
22Thou that sayest a man should not commit adultery, dost thou commit adultery? thou that abhorrest idols, dost thou commit sacrilege?
23Thou that makest thy boast of the law, through breaking the law dishonourest thou God?
Adultery dishonours God in ANY "administration."
Galatians 5:16-21, 25
16This I say then, Walk in the Spirit, and ye shall not fulfil the lust of the flesh.
17For the flesh lusteth against the Spirit, and the Spirit against the flesh: and these are contrary the one to the other: so that ye cannot do the things that ye would.
18But if ye be led of the Spirit, ye are not under the law.
19Now the works of the flesh are manifest, which are these; Adultery, fornication, uncleanness, lasciviousness,
21Envyings, murders, drunkenness, revellings, and such like: of the which I tell you before, as I have also told you in time past, that they which do such things shall not inherit the kingdom of God.
25If we live in the Spirit, let us also walk in the Spirit.
====
That's the first 4 works of the flesh right there-including adultery AND fornication.
The diametric opposite of the fruit of the spirit.
II Peter 2:13-15
13And shall receive the reward of unrighteousness, as they that count it pleasure to riot in the day time. Spots they are and blemishes, sporting themselves with their own deceivings while they feast with you;
14Having eyes full of adultery, and that cannot cease from sin; beguiling unstable souls: an heart they have exercised with covetous practices; cursed children:
15Which have forsaken the right way, and are gone astray, following the way of Balaam the son of Bosor, who loved the wages of unrighteousness;
=====
There's the "adultery-sin" connection again.
How about the word "fornication?"
I'll skip the before-Pentecost references to save time.
Acts 15:19-20.
19Wherefore my sentence is, that we trouble not them, which from among the Gentiles are turned to God:
20But that we write unto them, that they abstain from pollutions of idols, and from fornication, and from things strangled, and from blood.
Acts 15:28-29
28For it seemed good to the Holy Ghost, and to us, to lay upon you no greater burden than these necessary things;
29That ye abstain from meats offered to idols, and from blood, and from things strangled, and from fornication[/b]: from which if ye keep yourselves, ye shall do well. Fare ye well.
Romans 1:28-30
28And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient;
29Being filled with all unrighteousness, fornication, wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness; full of envy, murder, debate, deceit, malignity; whisperers,
30Backbiters, haters of God, despiteful, proud, boasters, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents,
"Reprobate mind": Greek for "void of judgement", couldn't find the right thing with a GPS locator.
"convenient": Greek for "proper".
Quite a list of evil things fornication is listed with...
and they're all the result of a mind void of judgement.
I Corinthians 6:9a
9Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind,
10Nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God.
Funny how God keeps adultery and fornication in the lists of sins....
I Corinthians 6:13-19
13Meats for the belly, and the belly for meats: but God shall destroy both it and them. Now the body is not for fornication, but for the Lord; and the Lord for the body.
14And God hath both raised up the Lord, and will also raise up us by his own power.
15Know ye not that your bodies are the members of Christ? shall I then take the members of Christ, and make them the members of an harlot? God forbid.
16What? know ye not that he which is joined to an harlot is one body? for two, saith he, shall be one flesh.
17But he that is joined unto the Lord is one spirit.
18Flee fornication. Every sin that a man doeth is without the body; but he that committeth fornication sinneth against his own body.
19What? know ye not that your body is the temple of the Holy Ghost which is in you, which ye have of God, and ye are not your own?
=========
Seems pretty clear that fornication is a sin-and a sin against his own body.
Complete picture AFTER Pentecost on adultery and fornication?
"Bad things. Do not do them."
1 Corinthians 8:6 But to us there is but one God, the Father, of whom are all things, and we in him; and one Lord Jesus Christ, by whom are all things, and we by him.
7 ¶Howbeit there is not in every man that knowledge: for some with conscience of the idol unto this hour eat it as a thing offered unto an idol; and their conscience being weak is defiled.
8 But meat commendeth us not to God: for neither, if we eat, are we the better; neither, if we eat not, are we the worse.
9 But take heed lest by any means this liberty of yours become a stumblingblock to them that are weak.
10 For if any man see thee which hast knowledge sit at meat in the idol's temple, shall not the conscience of him which is weak be emboldened to eat those things which are offered to idols;
11 And through thy knowledge shall the weak brother perish, for whom Christ died?
Talking only about meat - not if you look at the context.
Actually, YES-talking ONLY about meat.
Behold the context!
I Corinthians 8:1-13 (the entire chapter)
1Now as touching things offered unto idols, we know that we all have knowledge. Knowledge puffeth up, but charity edifieth.
2And if any man think that he knoweth any thing, he knoweth nothing yet as he ought to know.
3But if any man love God, the same is known of him.
4As concerning therefore the eating of those things that are offered in sacrifice unto idols, we know that an idol is nothing in the world, and that there is none other God but one.
5For though there be that are called gods, whether in heaven or in earth, (as there be gods many, and lords many,)
6But to us there is but one God, the Father, of whom are all things, and we in him; and one Lord Jesus Christ, by whom are all things, and we by him.
7Howbeit there is not in every man that knowledge: for some with conscience of the idol unto this hour eat it as a thing offered unto an idol; and their conscience being weak is defiled.
8But meat commendeth us not to God: for neither, if we eat, are we the better; neither, if we eat not, are we the worse.
9But take heed lest by any means this liberty of yours become a stumblingblock to them that are weak.
10For if any man see thee which hast knowledge sit at meat in the idol's temple, shall not the conscience of him which is weak be emboldened to eat those things which are offered to idols;
11And through thy knowledge shall the weak brother perish, for whom Christ died?
12But when ye sin so against the brethren, and wound their weak conscience, ye sin against Christ.
13Wherefore, if meat make my brother to offend, I will eat no flesh while the world standeth, lest I make my brother to offend.
=========
Looks like it's a chapter about our liberty in
EATING FOODS OFFERED TO IDOLS.
And why we shouldn't anyway.
What else is it about?
NOTHING ELSE.
Put that together with some of the places in the Word that talk about adultery or fornication where it is obviously talking about spiritual adultery and not physical (often misrepresented as all instances of "adultery" are spiritual in the bible), and you've got the beginnings of a plausable case in the working.
Obviously going to have to get really tricky-
we saw a mighty list of after-Pentecost against adultery AND fornication.
It's a "plausible case" only when you're willing to discard the MANY CLEAR verses for the
few unclear verses. Bullinger (and thus vpw) said that was a big no-no.
And it should be self-evident that Bullinger was correct.
Nothing too obvious - you have to remember that a lot of people can't handle it. It is one of those things that are there in the bible for those who dig deeper in the Word & in life.
That would be the wording used by them.
However, it's incorrect, as we can all see.
Remember you can prove anything from the Word, Wordwolf. We were being conditioned to believe anything that Wierwille told us, but we weren't complete know nothings on the Word. There had to be some plausable explanation from the Word.
This was not a "plausible explanation."
The inner circle was "conditioned to believe anything that Wierwille told us."
And those who might look this stuff up were told not to.
At least one person got kicked FROM the corps for making a corps paper on adultery.
There was an EXCUSE, a PRETEXT, but it was NOT going to stand up to scrutiny-
thus the HIDING.
Personally, I don't believe that Wierwille was consciously pulling the wool over everyone's eyes. I think he believed the stuff.
I think he believed it long before he taught it to staff and corps.
After all, he believed it when he went to the House of Acts,
since he let it slip to J1m D**p that God was ok with orgies.
Some believe he was specifically trolling for Biblical answers at
the time, and others may say he specifically brought it up because
he was trying to find PARTICIPANTS.
"A number may think that God isn't going to drop on them like a falling safe for doing what he disapproves of-
but that's a long way from 'God's ok with it.'"
Actually, those two places are not that far apart. I believe what Wierwille taught us about practical error practiced long enough turning into doctrinal error. It is the nature of the human mind to rationalize its actions. That's why I believe that Wierwille really believed what he taught. And people believed him.
I believe he believed it before ever introducing the Bible, and singled out verses that could be made
to suggest he was right. Then he hid that from the majority of people, and taught it to the most
loyal of the loyal. (He winnowed them out of the corps-which meant he was sifting from among the
loyal.) People believed him because he had "an understanding of the Bible unequalled since the
first Century Christian church."
And many fall somewhere on the continuum who never heard him. Know anyone who figures that Clinton got a raw deal because he was president & his enemies capitalized on his misfortune in being caught at what they figure is really okay as in, "C'mon, the guy got a bj - more power to him. His marraige probably sucks; leave the guy alone?"
Apparently Abraham, the father of believing, "handled" more than his wife - or looking at Lebanon & Israel, maybe he didn't.
Bingo.
20 points.
Apparently Samson "handled" lying with a woman all night & was still in fellowship with the true God to the point that he tore off the gate to the city on the way out leaving the enemy who was lying in wait to kill him staring with their mouths open.
He still had the strength. Doesn't mean he "was still in fellowship with the true God."
He was in violation of the Mosaic Law at the time.
"is someone here really thinking?" I think so. People are thinking all kinds of things (that was my point) + the guilt of those who did the deed & change their guilt into anger + the Wierwille worhippers (if you are right which I don't doubt).
Is that VPW won our trust and respect as a minister for God.
He then figured out a way to scripturally justify every sin and moral perversion that he chose to indulge in personally....RATHER than live honestly as a genuine Christian. Rather than minister to his congregation, as a true christian minister ....He instead chose to use his position, his authority, his knowldege of scriptures to rape, to steal, to and destroy the very people he had accepted responsibility to minister to in the name of God.
That *freedom in Christ* doctrine as I see it (as with so many twi doctrines) is a vile lie to excuse ones self from living as a genuine Christian.
There are specific reasons why adultery and fornication, as well as drunkeness and lasciviousness...etc are forbidden scripturally.....and are even listed as fruit of the flesh......one of them being that innocent parties get hurt.
What is WORSE...he taught it to others.
Tom, (and I am sorry if i am wrong) it really sounds to me like you are still trying to use wierwilles lie in an attempt to mitigate the evil of his actions and minimalise the suffering and damage that his self indulgance inflicted on innocent parties.
Is it because you really want to believe contrary to what the scriptures state uncatagorically is wrong...it is more fun to screw who you want when you want, as long as we have that handy dandy verse about freedom?
It really IS ok .... I personally just can`t handle that freedom?
You know Tom...I don`t care what people chose to be or do...but damn it ...if one wants to be a christian or a minister ...then DO it...instead of living a lie and pretending that you are. Finding excuses NOT to honor the biblical instructions given a Christian and to dismiss the fruit that is evidence of your fleshly nature is not how a genuine Christian does.
I think that this is the insidious evil of a lot of wierwilles doctrine.
I will take Blisses example a bit further.... I know instances where the kids have stolen some candy...they then try to share it with their unsuspecting brothers and sisters....some how, they seem to feel that if others are doing it too...they are not so guilty.....
and i really don't wish him dead again, i just feel that way sometimes
i have never yelled about consenting adults, not even adultery
i think for me it was the betrayal, how i looked up to him, along with how screwed up i already was
Thanks Excie.
About the betrayal - yeah, I can see that. I wasn't taken advantage of like you were, but I understand insofar as he betrayed all of us. Sold us on the Word & sold us out. It is the hardest pill to swallow. I can't imagine it for you.
Did you ever hear anything about the idea that corps (or anyone else) had to be "loosened up" sexually? Wordwolf and some others have recently mentiond something about VPW telling LCM he had to "loosen up". presumably with the idea that it meant lossening up sexually. Did you ever hear of this attitude back in the "old days"??
Oops, sorry about that mistake.
I don't recall ever experiencing that attitude anywhere I was, but I don't doubt that it existed in places - those places where extramarital sex was freely practiced, you know, as a "doctrinal" thing. But Wierwille, nor anyone else, ever taught that when I was around that I remember. Sometimes he taught a lot of things in a short time that were so bizarre to my way of thinking that I might have just missed it.
I do remember hearing that he told Craig that he needed loosen up sexually. As I remember hearing it, VP told him that he would never be able to fully realize his potential ability to minister to women unless he did loosen up with them in that area. I suppose the implication may be made that the "principle" holds for others also, but I never was around anyone who tried to push the notion...umm, again, that I was aware of. People (like me) can be pretty naive or just unaware.
i'm probably most hurt by the childhood incest..... really does something to the core of you
but wierwille knew.... didn't matter to him.... he had some major problems.... is incest okay anywhere in the bible ?
As ChattyKathy said, "The world populated at a certain point by way of incest." I would suppose at that point that there wasn't anything wrong with it.
But that's not the same as what you're referring to as childhood incest.
It is iniquity according to Leviticus.
Leviticus 18:9 Â The nakedness of thy sister, the daughter of thy father, or daughter of thy mother, whether she be born at home, or born abroad, even their nakedness thou shalt not uncover.
Leviticus 18:11 Â The nakedness of thy father's wife's daughter, begotten of thy father, she is thy sister, thou shalt not uncover her nakedness.
Leviticus 18:12 Â Thou shalt not uncover the nakedness of thy father's sister: she is thy father's near kinswoman.
Leviticus 18:13 Â Thou shalt not uncover the nakedness of thy mother's sister: for she is thy mother's near kinswoman.
Leviticus 18:18 Â Neither shalt thou take a wife to her sister, to vex her, to uncover her nakedness, beside the other in her life time.
Leviticus 20:19 Â And thou shalt not uncover the nakedness of thy mother's sister, nor of thy father's sister: for he uncovereth his near kin: they shall bear their iniquity.
Tom,
I get what you are saying. However, for me there are two issues. VPW wasn't a politician, he was supposed to be a "man of God". Even if you could accurately, scripturally document that it was okay, he would still at best be a hypocrit for teaching one thing to the masses and practicing another thing behind closed doors. But far, far worse than that, how does one biblically document that it is okay to drug or coerce someone into having sex? How is that ever okay?
I'm in total agreement, Abigail. I know people are saying that I'm defending Wierwille, & I figured they would, but please remember that I said I wasn't, & I'm not.
Is that VPW won our trust and respect as a minister for God.
He then figured out a way to scripturally justify every sin and moral perversion that he chose to indulge in personally....RATHER than live honestly as a genuine Christian. Rather than minister to his congregation, as a true christian minister ....He instead chose to use his position, his authority, his knowldege of scriptures to rape, to steal, to and destroy the very people he had accepted responsibility to minister to in the name of God.
That *freedom in Christ* doctrine as I see it (as with so many twi doctrines) is a vile lie to excuse ones self from living as a genuine Christian.
There are specific reasons why adultery and fornication, as well as drunkeness and lasciviousness...etc are forbidden scripturally.....and are even listed as fruit of the flesh......one of them being that innocent parties get hurt.
What is WORSE...he taught it to others.
I agree with all that, Rascal. It still doesn't mean that he didn't believe it himself. I think he did. Remember that he taught us that public enemy number one believes he was in the right. He also taught us that sincerity is no guarantee for truth and that it is the sincere ones that fool us. I believe that's what happened.
Hey, maybe I'm wrong. I know there are people who were around at the same time that I was who believe that he consiously made up his doctrine to cover his tracks knowing full well that he was in the wrong. I think he believed his lies - his doctrinal ones I mean.
I remember hearing VPW on more than one occasion talk about how adultery in the BIBLE had a deeper meaning and was actually a figurative way of saying we were not to have SPIRITUALLY adulterous relations. For example : interacting with anyone involved with any form of what he considered witchcraft, using mind altering drugs, considering the trinitarian theory. In the current vernacular,"sleeping with the enemy" who of course we all knew to be satan. In addition, I recall many TL's, BL's, and even limb leaders presenting this line of thinking as be conveyed to them by VPW. He also made a cognizant effort to show how he thought "fornication" and "adultery" were not to be confused with each other. WOW! the MOG himself is showing us a profound truth that noone has seen for thousands of years! IMHO I think he was throwing up a smoke screen like one of the anti-heroes on a LIFETIME CHANNEL movie of the week. There was nothing profound about it. He was simply setting up an alibi that would excuse his actions. A man of GOD is to be above reproach. He is not only to refrain from these actions he is to live in away that will not even give the appearance of impropriety. It would seem that this would not be too much to ask of someone who represented himself as one who spoke on GOD's behalf as noone had done for centuries. He exploited GOD, HIS HOLY WORD, and THE LORD JESUS CHRIST to satisfy his own needs and greeds. Now that my freinds is what I call ADULTERY.!
Tom, (and I am sorry if i am wrong) it really sounds to me like you are still trying to use wierwilles lie in an attempt to mitigate the evil of his actions and minimalise the suffering and damage that his self indulgance inflicted on innocent parties.
Is it because you really want to believe contrary to what the scriptures state uncatagorically is wrong...it is more fun to screw who you want when you want, as long as we have that handy dandy verse about freedom?
It really IS ok .... I personally just can`t handle that freedom?
And so what then, I'm missing out on all the fun because I can't handle the freedom I guess is what you're saying. I'm sorry, I'm just repeating you because that's really a strange notion to me. I'm not one to do that. I've been sort of skirting the limits of adhesion all my life in everything I was ever involved in both good & bad.
I'm not nearly as sure of what I believe on this matter as Wordwolf seems to think I am. Maybe I'll try to address that doctrinally later - or not.
But I don't think that sex is bad, & I don't think that having it outside of marriage makes it so necessarily. I also believe that sexual promiscuity has taken a sad toll on people in our country medically, emotionally, spiritually.
Again, I'm just trying to talk here. I can't stop people from taking what I'm saying as some sort of "Thus saith the Lord" doctrinal stance, but that's not the way I intend it. I usually don't go around quoting scripture unless I'm pretty sure of its meaning & application, but, in some of these instances, I'm not so sure.
I do think there is a spiritual fornication and adultery and a physical, and that there is a relationship.
I'm not in favor of orgies. I think the spirituality of orgies goes back to the OT orgies that happened when Israel went "up upon every high mountain and under every green tree, and there hath played the harlot." I believe that's spiritual adultery, that people can commit it, that they did then, & they do now. It is a given that sex was involved. Obviously, physical adultery may very well be involved, but not necessarily.
For the record, I've never had sex outside of marriage when I was married - either marriage. I don't look at it like I'm missing out on fun; although, I can see where someone might take what I'm saying that way.
I don't think sex outside of marriage, physical fornication, is always spiritual fornication. I don't think that Abraham (the pick for which I received 20 points) was fornicating, nor Jacob, nor the others who did the same. I don't even think that Solomon with all his wives was spiritually fornicating until they got him to open up to their gods - at least not the type of fornicating that Jesus gave as the only reason for divorce. THAT kind of fornication also involves spiritual fornication, thereby bringing hardness of heart into the relationship - the reason Moses allowed divorce according to that same Jesus in the same discourse.
To avoid fornication married people are supposed to take care of each other. I don't think (again, I don't know for sure) that's referring to physical fornication - although it's good advice in that regard too. Plenty of married couples don't have sex for way longer than "with consent for a time, that ye may give yourselves to fasting and prayer; and come together again" without one or the other going out to physically fornicate. But I think it is pretty hard to find a marriage where they don't take care of each other that doesn't have some kind of god making its way into the relationship, setting itself up as an idol in the heart where the true God ought to be, hardening the heart. In many ways, viewing some of the usages of adultery and fornication as spiritual makes it harder to live by rather than easier. It's not an excuse to sin; although, it can be used that way & is many times - usually, I should say.
I didn't bring all this up as an excuse for my sinful fun which I'm not having.
I hope that helps to clarify the way I think whether or not I'm right or wrong about it.
He exploited GOD, HIS HOLY WORD, and THE LORD JESUS CHRIST to satisfy his own needs and greeds. Now that my freinds is what I call ADULTERY.!
He exploited GOD, HIS HOLY WORD, and THE LORD JESUS CHRIST to satisfy his own needs and greeds. Now that my freinds is what I call ADULTERY.!
AMEN!!!! Tes-ti-FY waysider!!!!
Abso friggin LUTELY..... motives, whether he believed his own crap or not, whether he was sincer or decietfull....means precisely SQUAT when it comes to whether or not he was a genuine christian minister or a cleverly disguised counterfit ..a wolf disguised as a sheep in order to gain access to the sheep .... that led people away from the genuine walk with God.
I have absolutely NO doubt that Jim Jones and David Koresche were just as sincere in believing the rot that they used to destroy lives with as well.
There is genuine and there is counterfit.....Both resemble Christianity, both profess to be Godly, there is one surefire way to distinguish the difference.
Recommended Posts
Top Posters In This Topic
39
29
25
14
Popular Days
Jul 14
69
Aug 5
32
Jul 16
30
Aug 3
21
Top Posters In This Topic
excathedra 39 posts
Tom 29 posts
CoolWaters 25 posts
pond 14 posts
Popular Days
Jul 14 2006
69 posts
Aug 5 2006
32 posts
Jul 16 2006
30 posts
Aug 3 2006
21 posts
Al Poole
Geez...
Yo Dot... howYOUdoin......
One of the posts here reminds me of a girl in my corpse... her brother Br*ce was in your corpse 11th... maybe you remember her if you think about it. She was blonde, wonderfully beautiful in the wholesome healthy girl next door way. Engaged to a 13th guy who went on to become a rc with the initials J*** K****....
Anyway the strangest thing happened, she went out on lightbearers our "senior" year and came back a complete emotional wreck. Had a TOTAL mental breakdown. Was taken away to P** L***'s apartment and sorta held incommunicado. My (then) wife Linda had been one of her closest friends and wasn't allowed anywhere near her.
Sadly I don't remember what became of her. I think she was "taken away" by her brother B*uce. The profile fits. Do you know about this event....
(And to those who don't know me This is not a request for sordid details )
Link to comment
Share on other sites
WordWolf
I appreciate you wanting civility in discourse. I prefer it as well.
However, I think you're putting the emphases where they don't belong-if you REALLY
want to know what's drawing up the "sides" here.
See, this moment, no one's lining up to defend rape or rapists- but they HAVE
done so previously here.
Some people may occasionally SAY they think vpw's comments were appropriate-
but those comments aren't actually germane to the discussion, because they're
not the reason to "defend vpw" they are presented as being.
Further, I never HEARD the secret sex doctrine back then because I was not part
of the privileged few who was deemed able to keep the secret.
So, I heard the PUBLIC comments, the press release-which was
"marry so you don't end up having sex outside of marriage."
Not a problematic answer-but also a misrepresentative answer.
vpw was telling people very different messages in PRIVATE-
and telling them to keep them SECRET-inventing the term "the lockbox"
to describe hiding his secret doctrines.
So, first of all, I find SECRET doctrines highly suspect. WHY keep it secret?
Second of all, their message contradicts the PUBLIC message.
That's completely independent of finding NO PLACE in the Bible that actually
justifies the secret doctrine.
Are we conflicted and think vpw was actually right in the secret stuff?
Doubtful-is someone here really thinking that God Almighty gives us permission
to attend orgies? Or commit adultery? Or have sex outside of marriage?
A number may think that God isn't going to drop on them like a falling safe
for doing what he disapproves of-
but that's a long way from "God's ok with it."
==========
I think that focusing on whether or not vpw was justified in saying it was
fine (SECRETLY) to cheat on one's spouse and have orgies or casual sex
is a lot like focusing on the affects of the amount of oil that Hezbollah
uses on their falafels has on their policies.
That is, compared to the REAL sources of things, it's really a non-issue.
People aren't "defending wierwille" because they agree with his doctrine-
they're "defending wierwille" because they don't want their precious memories
tarnished. They're not stupid enough to say (mostly) that everything he
said was actually RIGHT- so they redirect the conversations.
vpw's rapes are no longer about a minister of God using premeditation,
selecting rape targets, raping women, and covering his tracks.
The discussion becomes
[sarcasm]
about why women didn't shoot him when he
did anything-and not owning a gun is just an 'excuse'.
Since they didn't shoot him, they must have wanted to be raped,
they must have been complicit-unless they're all lying, which of course
they all are.
[/sarcasm]
Another acceptable gambit is to portray vpw as a hero for standing up
against sexual mores of our time-which, incidentally, fairly represent
Biblical morals. Thus, a moral relativism is pushed.
Is that because they approve of moral relativism?
NO- on everything ELSE they're "fundamentalist."
The moral relativism is an EXCUSE, a PLOY.
The reason is "defend wierwille at all costs."
The reason for THAT reason is "defend my precious memories at all costs."
Is it a fear of facing the reality behind the good old days,
or is it a defense mechanism hiding actual events they're hiding from?
Each "vpw defender" would have their own reason.
But this "I want vpw treated fairly" is a conversational PLOY.
They want vpw to have carte blanche to have done all he did and
have it be ok-
because then everything THEY did in response is ok.
Personally, I prefer it when they can just come right out and admit that-
which hasn't been lately.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Lifted Up
You're right, that is not what she said. But in practice it becomes what she said, and I'll tell you why. Dot's point is that when a victim comes forward to tell her story of being sexually abused, it is often chopped down, picked apart, belittled, etc. by someone...or maybe by several someones. So, when it comes to telling her story, she can't trust some people not to turn it into an even bigger personal hurt. My point is, it then becomes, she can't trust anyone, because she doesn't know who can be trusted. Remember, this is the internet, and if that is the only way most of us know each other, she has good reason not to trust anyone. Thus the responses like some I have gotten in trying to learn more, like the "you wouldn't believe personal first hand testimony even if you had it" answer I mentioned in my previous post. The fact that somewill chop up her story translates in effect to I am one of them...because she doesn't know me well enough to trust me more than the others.
And, that's understandable. But I am subject to the same problem of trust when it comes to believing what an anonymous poster punches out over the net. That leads me to another piece of Tom's post I want to quote, so pardon this continuation in my next post...
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Lifted Up
I sure hear that mentiond a lot lately...if it were YOUR daughter... (which I have BTW)...
The obvious assumption is that any victim here would have as much right to protection and believability as my daughter would have.
Well, look at it this way...would YOU believe your daughter more than an anonymous nameless person you knew of only online? I certainly would. About anything.
Time and time again I hear people say, they know someone personally who had gone through the hell of abuse, or they have talked with someone personally; therefore they know it is true. They know it happened as was told BECAUSE they know the person, the victim, yet they expect everyone else to accept it by second hand and indirect accounts, by people just talking about it...basically by faith if you will. Then it becomes law on GS, and someone gets their head bit off or hand slapped or worse because they start a thread like this.
My mission in learning more about this subject...should I choose to accept it...is to narrow that gap. I did that...with some success...back in my early Waydale days over 6 years ago...although it didn't involve VPW in those cases. Some other oldies might remember the poster with whom I had some particularly informative contact, if I were to mention the poster's handle.
It is so very true that nobody owes me anything, and that is the way it should be. Besides, grudgingly given testimony isn't worth, well, you know. I've heard people say...okay, I've seen people "say" that they don't care whether others believe them or not. Well, then, so be it.
Edited by Lifted UpLink to comment
Share on other sites
Tom
I understand. It's a conundrum.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Tom
Well, I'm not sure (maybe I should read through your posts again) what you're trying to accomplish by starting this thread - I'm guessing that you're trying to know someone more personally who gives 1st hand testimony?
I shared what I did about my daughter (which I don't have) just to get the point across that I don't condone what VP did. I don't need my daughter's testimony. I guess I could say that I know Excie personally, but insofar as I knew her, I didn't know her testimony until I read it here. But again, I don't need her testimony any more than I need my daughter's. Having been at HQ the 1st year of the 5th Corps, I would be surprised if I found out that VP DIDN'T have sex outside of his marriage. I suppose there are those who were in attendance who never thought he did, but there were an awful lot of us who tried to "handle" the freedom he told us about. I don't think too many of us were under the impression VP thought we "handled" it well. We thought he did - at least to the point things weren't blowing up around him at the time. Maye it wasw all a figment of our imaginations. As I said, a lot of people never suspected anything I suppose.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Lifted Up
I didn't start the thread, but you are probably right in your assesment. Not that expecting to accomplish it; there is that trust issue on both sides. Also, as I noted, grudgingly wont' cut it. As Paw has said, it has to be up to the victim to choose to tell it.
And, contrary to what some may think, it wouldnt necessarily have to be full of fine details.
So here we have an old timer...older than me. I got started in late 1975...with an interim 5th corps branch leader BTW. You evidently had a good idea of what the attitude toward sex was in TWI at that time. I will confibe my questions for now to one I posed earlier. Did you ever hear anything about the idea that corps (or anyone else) had to be "loosened up" sexually? Wordwolf and some others have recently mentiond something about VPW telling LCM he had to "loosen up". presumably with the idea that it meant lossening up sexually. Did you ever hear of this attitude back in the "old days"??
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Tom
Okay, there is the worship Wierwille faction that wants to preserve his image in worship-worthiness. I didn't take that into consideration. However, I do think that there are many who neither say "they think vpw's comments were appropriate," nor worship him, yet do, perhaps without even thinking about it, agree with his teachings in part. Both factor into the wrangling.
That was an awefully wide continuum that I gave in my post, the continuum between "scribes and Pharisees who throw stones at adulterers" and "'helping' young conflicted girls get over their sexual problems by giving them 'pure, loving, sex'." One need not have HEARD Wierwille's secret sex doctrine to sit somewhere on that continuum.
I believe the answer was given that people wouldn't be able to handle it. Obviously the Corps couldn't. Obviously neither Wierwille nor Martindale handled it - or people wouldn't be wishing them dead (or just feeling that way).
1 Corinthians 8:6 But to us there is but one God, the Father, of whom are all things, and we in him; and one Lord Jesus Christ, by whom are all things, and we by him.
7 ¶Howbeit there is not in every man that knowledge: for some with conscience of the idol unto this hour eat it as a thing offered unto an idol; and their conscience being weak is defiled.
8 But meat commendeth us not to God: for neither, if we eat, are we the better; neither, if we eat not, are we the worse.
9 But take heed lest by any means this liberty of yours become a stumblingblock to them that are weak.
10 For if any man see thee which hast knowledge sit at meat in the idol's temple, shall not the conscience of him which is weak be emboldened to eat those things which are offered to idols;
11 And through thy knowledge shall the weak brother perish, for whom Christ died?
Talking only about meat - not if you look at the context. Put that together with some of the places in the Word that talk about adultery or fornication where it is obviously talking about spiritual adultery and not physical (often misrepresented as all instances of "adultery" are spiritual in the bible), and you've got the beginnings of a plausable case in the working. Nothing too obvious - you have to remember that a lot of people can't handle it. It is one of those things that are there in the bible for those who dig deeper in the Word & in life. Remember you can prove anything from the Word, Wordwolf. We were being conditioned to believe anything that Wierwille told us, but we weren't complete know nothings on the Word. There had to be some plausable explanation from the Word. Personally, I don't believe that Wierwille was consciously pulling the wool over everyone's eyes. I think he believed the stuff.
"A number may think that God isn't going to drop on them like a falling safe for doing what he disapproves of-
but that's a long way from 'God's ok with it.'"
Actually, those two places are not that far apart. I believe what Wierwille taught us about practical error practiced long enough turning into doctrinal error. It is the nature of the human mind to rationalize its actions. That's why I believe that Wierwille really believed what he taught. And people believed him.
And many fall somewhere on the continuum who never heard him. Know anyone who figures that Clinton got a raw deal because he was president & his enemies capitalized on his misfortune in being caught at what they figure is really okay as in, "C'mon, the guy got a bj - more power to him. His marraige probably sucks; leave the guy alone?"
Apparently Abraham, the father of believing, "handled" more than his wife - or looking at Lebanon & Israel, maybe he didn't.
Apparently Samson "handled" lying with a woman all night & was still in fellowship with the true God to the point that he tore off the gate to the city on the way out leaving the enemy who was lying in wait to kill him staring with their mouths open.
"is someone here really thinking?" I think so. People are thinking all kinds of things (that was my point) + the guilt of those who did the deed & change their guilt into anger + the Wierwille worhippers (if you are right which I don't doubt).
It all figures in.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
excathedra
i'm probably most hurt by the childhood incest..... really does something to the core of you
but wierwille knew.... didn't matter to him.... he had some major problems.... is incest okay anywhere in the bible ?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
ChattyKathy
The world populated at a certain point by way of incest. But is it appropriate, godly, morally okay....yeah, it goes on don't it dear. NO it is not in the bible that is okay for what happened to either of us. NOPE, NADA, AIN'T THERE! In fact the opposite of how we were treated is encouraged.
Tom, I'm thinking about a couple things you said. Be back with ya.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Abigail
Tom,
I get what you are saying. However, for me there are two issues. VPW wasn't a politician, he was supposed to be a "man of God". Even if you could accurately, scripturally document that it was okay, he would still at best be a hypocrit for teaching one thing to the masses and practicing another thing behind closed doors. But far, far worse than that, how does one biblically document that it is okay to drug or coerce someone into having sex? How is that ever okay?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
ChattyKathy
I have to agree I think he believed what he taught. With an exception I can think of. I don’t think any of us would disagree that he didn’t twist that sexual allowance stuff into his corner for personal reasons, whether fully cognizant of it or not. But his getting it in there was by way of those who could handle it deeply because of their working understanding of such godly things. And we ate that up, oh gosh how that fed our egos (both good ways and bad). And Craig knew how to do that in his way as well.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
rascal
The elephant as I see it Tom...
Is that VPW won our trust and respect as a minister for God.
He then figured out a way to scripturally justify every sin and moral perversion that he chose to indulge in personally....RATHER than live honestly as a genuine Christian. Rather than minister to his congregation, as a true christian minister ....He instead chose to use his position, his authority, his knowldege of scriptures to rape, to steal, to and destroy the very people he had accepted responsibility to minister to in the name of God.
That *freedom in Christ* doctrine as I see it (as with so many twi doctrines) is a vile lie to excuse ones self from living as a genuine Christian.
There are specific reasons why adultery and fornication, as well as drunkeness and lasciviousness...etc are forbidden scripturally.....and are even listed as fruit of the flesh......one of them being that innocent parties get hurt.
What is WORSE...he taught it to others.
Tom, (and I am sorry if i am wrong) it really sounds to me like you are still trying to use wierwilles lie in an attempt to mitigate the evil of his actions and minimalise the suffering and damage that his self indulgance inflicted on innocent parties.
Is it because you really want to believe contrary to what the scriptures state uncatagorically is wrong...it is more fun to screw who you want when you want, as long as we have that handy dandy verse about freedom?
It really IS ok .... I personally just can`t handle that freedom?
You know Tom...I don`t care what people chose to be or do...but damn it ...if one wants to be a christian or a minister ...then DO it...instead of living a lie and pretending that you are. Finding excuses NOT to honor the biblical instructions given a Christian and to dismiss the fruit that is evidence of your fleshly nature is not how a genuine Christian does.
I think that this is the insidious evil of a lot of wierwilles doctrine.
I will take Blisses example a bit further.... I know instances where the kids have stolen some candy...they then try to share it with their unsuspecting brothers and sisters....some how, they seem to feel that if others are doing it too...they are not so guilty.....
Link to comment
Share on other sites
rhino
What happened to "It's the word and nothing but the word, I don't care if nobody believes it"
Apparently he cared if people believed his line about adultery being just a spiritual thing, he didn't want to offend people that might stop giving him money.
The goofiest thing about saying God just cared about spiritual adultery, is that you don't really commit spiritual adultery, it is a figure of speech. So if adultery is OK in the physical, it must be OK in the spiritual since God chose that as the point of comparison.
Another wierd slant ... if the body is married to Israel, but the gentile can also go to heaven, does the body of Christ have two wives? or is it seeing gentiles on the sly?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
bliss
Bliss"es" hahahaha
Yes, I agree, Rascal. If vPw and lcm could quietly get a "few" more studs to believe this bunk and do it, then, hey, it can't be all that bad!
sickos
Where's my chocolate???? shhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh!
Link to comment
Share on other sites
WordWolf
I'd say that factors in less than you're describing.
I myself agree with the some of the material in "his" teachings.
Very few people would place me on the "pro-vpw" side of discussions.
(I'd say harming me figures into the fantasies of a few "pro-vpw"ers by now...)
I believe that was the answer that was given.
I believe that this is unBiblical,
and was NOT the main reason. (Oil and falafels...)
It was an immoral and unethical doctrine. It was unBiblical and unChristian.
Therefore, it could NOT stand up to scrutiny.
Therefore, hide it.
Proverbs 6:20-33.
20My son, keep thy father's commandment, and forsake not the law of thy mother:
21Bind them continually upon thine heart, and tie them about thy neck.
22When thou goest, it shall lead thee; when thou sleepest, it shall keep thee; and when thou awakest, it shall talk with thee.
23For the commandment is a lamp; and the law is light; and reproofs of instruction are the way of life:
24To keep thee from the evil woman, from the flattery of the tongue of a strange woman.
25Lust not after her beauty in thine heart; neither let her take thee with her eyelids.
26For by means of a whorish woman a man is brought to a piece of bread: and the adultress will hunt for the precious life.
27Can a man take fire in his bosom, and his clothes not be burned?
28Can one go upon hot coals, and his feet not be burned?
29So he that goeth in to his neighbour's wife; whosoever toucheth her shall not be innocent.
30Men do not despise a thief, if he steal to satisfy his soul when he is hungry;
31But if he be found, he shall restore sevenfold; he shall give all the substance of his house.
32But whoso committeth adultery with a woman lacketh understanding: he that doeth it destroyeth his own soul.
33A wound and dishonour shall he get; and his reproach shall not be wiped away.
======
They didn't "handle" it because it's not "handle-able".
Next you're going to say "that's Old Testament".
So I'll check in with my Lord.
John 8:2-4, 10-11.
2And early in the morning he came again into the temple, and all the people came unto him; and he sat down, and taught them.
3And the scribes and Pharisees brought unto him a woman taken in adultery; and when they had set her in the midst,
4They say unto him, Master, this woman was taken in adultery, in the very act.10When Jesus had lifted up himself, and saw none but the woman, he said unto her, Woman, where are those thine accusers? hath no man condemned thee?
11She said, No man, Lord. And Jesus said unto her, Neither do I condemn thee: go, and sin no more.
====
He called it a SIN and said to stop.
Next you're going to say that-although it was our personal Lord that said this, there was
an administration change and now it's ok.
Romans 2:1-23
1Therefore thou art inexcusable, O man, whosoever thou art that judgest: for wherein thou judgest another, thou condemnest thyself; for thou that judgest doest the same things.
2But we are sure that the judgment of God is according to truth against them which commit such things.
3And thinkest thou this, O man, that judgest them which do such things, and doest the same, that thou shalt escape the judgment of God?
4Or despisest thou the riches of his goodness and forbearance and longsuffering; not knowing that the goodness of God leadeth thee to repentance?
5But after thy hardness and impenitent heart treasurest up unto thyself wrath against the day of wrath and revelation of the righteous judgment of God;
6Who will render to every man according to his deeds:
7To them who by patient continuance in well doing seek for glory and honour and immortality, eternal life:
8But unto them that are contentious, and do not obey the truth, but obey unrighteousness, indignation and wrath,
9Tribulation and anguish, upon every soul of man that doeth evil, of the Jew first, and also of the Gentile;
10But glory, honour, and peace, to every man that worketh good, to the Jew first, and also to the Gentile:
11For there is no respect of persons with God.
12For as many as have sinned without law shall also perish without law: and as many as have sinned in the law shall be judged by the law;
13(For not the hearers of the law are just before God, but the doers of the law shall be justified.
14For when the Gentiles, which have not the law, do by nature the things contained in the law, these, having not the law, are a law unto themselves:
15Which shew the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience also bearing witness, and their thoughts the mean while accusing or else excusing one another;)
16In the day when God shall judge the secrets of men by Jesus Christ according to my gospel.
17Behold, thou art called a Jew, and restest in the law, and makest thy boast of God,
18And knowest his will, and approvest the things that are more excellent, being instructed out of the law;
19And art confident that thou thyself art a guide of the blind, a light of them which are in darkness,
20An instructor of the foolish, a teacher of babes, which hast the form of knowledge and of the truth in the law.
21Thou therefore which teachest another, teachest thou not thyself? thou that preachest a man should not steal, dost thou steal?
22Thou that sayest a man should not commit adultery, dost thou commit adultery? thou that abhorrest idols, dost thou commit sacrilege?
23Thou that makest thy boast of the law, through breaking the law dishonourest thou God?
Adultery dishonours God in ANY "administration."
Galatians 5:16-21, 25
16This I say then, Walk in the Spirit, and ye shall not fulfil the lust of the flesh.
17For the flesh lusteth against the Spirit, and the Spirit against the flesh: and these are contrary the one to the other: so that ye cannot do the things that ye would.
18But if ye be led of the Spirit, ye are not under the law.
19Now the works of the flesh are manifest, which are these; Adultery, fornication, uncleanness, lasciviousness,
20Idolatry, witchcraft, hatred, variance, emulations, wrath, strife, seditions, heresies,
21Envyings, murders, drunkenness, revellings, and such like: of the which I tell you before, as I have also told you in time past, that they which do such things shall not inherit the kingdom of God.
25If we live in the Spirit, let us also walk in the Spirit.
====
That's the first 4 works of the flesh right there-including adultery AND fornication.
The diametric opposite of the fruit of the spirit.
II Peter 2:13-15
13And shall receive the reward of unrighteousness, as they that count it pleasure to riot in the day time. Spots they are and blemishes, sporting themselves with their own deceivings while they feast with you;
14Having eyes full of adultery, and that cannot cease from sin; beguiling unstable souls: an heart they have exercised with covetous practices; cursed children:
15Which have forsaken the right way, and are gone astray, following the way of Balaam the son of Bosor, who loved the wages of unrighteousness;
=====
There's the "adultery-sin" connection again.
How about the word "fornication?"
I'll skip the before-Pentecost references to save time.
Acts 15:19-20.
19Wherefore my sentence is, that we trouble not them, which from among the Gentiles are turned to God:
20But that we write unto them, that they abstain from pollutions of idols, and from fornication, and from things strangled, and from blood.
Acts 15:28-29
28For it seemed good to the Holy Ghost, and to us, to lay upon you no greater burden than these necessary things;
29That ye abstain from meats offered to idols, and from blood, and from things strangled, and from fornication[/b]: from which if ye keep yourselves, ye shall do well. Fare ye well.
Romans 1:28-30
28And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient;
29Being filled with all unrighteousness, fornication, wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness; full of envy, murder, debate, deceit, malignity; whisperers,
30Backbiters, haters of God, despiteful, proud, boasters, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents,
"Reprobate mind": Greek for "void of judgement", couldn't find the right thing with a GPS locator.
"convenient": Greek for "proper".
Quite a list of evil things fornication is listed with...
and they're all the result of a mind void of judgement.
I Corinthians 6:9a
9Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind,
10Nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God.
Funny how God keeps adultery and fornication in the lists of sins....
I Corinthians 6:13-19
13Meats for the belly, and the belly for meats: but God shall destroy both it and them. Now the body is not for fornication, but for the Lord; and the Lord for the body.
14And God hath both raised up the Lord, and will also raise up us by his own power.
15Know ye not that your bodies are the members of Christ? shall I then take the members of Christ, and make them the members of an harlot? God forbid.
16What? know ye not that he which is joined to an harlot is one body? for two, saith he, shall be one flesh.
17But he that is joined unto the Lord is one spirit.
18Flee fornication. Every sin that a man doeth is without the body; but he that committeth fornication sinneth against his own body.
19What? know ye not that your body is the temple of the Holy Ghost which is in you, which ye have of God, and ye are not your own?
=========
Seems pretty clear that fornication is a sin-and a sin against his own body.
Complete picture AFTER Pentecost on adultery and fornication?
"Bad things. Do not do them."
Actually, YES-talking ONLY about meat.
Behold the context!
I Corinthians 8:1-13 (the entire chapter)
1Now as touching things offered unto idols, we know that we all have knowledge. Knowledge puffeth up, but charity edifieth.
2And if any man think that he knoweth any thing, he knoweth nothing yet as he ought to know.
3But if any man love God, the same is known of him.
4As concerning therefore the eating of those things that are offered in sacrifice unto idols, we know that an idol is nothing in the world, and that there is none other God but one.
5For though there be that are called gods, whether in heaven or in earth, (as there be gods many, and lords many,)
6But to us there is but one God, the Father, of whom are all things, and we in him; and one Lord Jesus Christ, by whom are all things, and we by him.
7Howbeit there is not in every man that knowledge: for some with conscience of the idol unto this hour eat it as a thing offered unto an idol; and their conscience being weak is defiled.
8But meat commendeth us not to God: for neither, if we eat, are we the better; neither, if we eat not, are we the worse.
9But take heed lest by any means this liberty of yours become a stumblingblock to them that are weak.
10For if any man see thee which hast knowledge sit at meat in the idol's temple, shall not the conscience of him which is weak be emboldened to eat those things which are offered to idols;
11And through thy knowledge shall the weak brother perish, for whom Christ died?
12But when ye sin so against the brethren, and wound their weak conscience, ye sin against Christ.
13Wherefore, if meat make my brother to offend, I will eat no flesh while the world standeth, lest I make my brother to offend.
=========
Looks like it's a chapter about our liberty in
EATING FOODS OFFERED TO IDOLS.
And why we shouldn't anyway.
What else is it about?
NOTHING ELSE.
Obviously going to have to get really tricky-
we saw a mighty list of after-Pentecost against adultery AND fornication.
It's a "plausible case" only when you're willing to discard the MANY CLEAR verses for the
few unclear verses. Bullinger (and thus vpw) said that was a big no-no.
And it should be self-evident that Bullinger was correct.
That would be the wording used by them.
However, it's incorrect, as we can all see.
This was not a "plausible explanation."
The inner circle was "conditioned to believe anything that Wierwille told us."
And those who might look this stuff up were told not to.
At least one person got kicked FROM the corps for making a corps paper on adultery.
Ever see this?
http://www.greasespotcafe.com/waydale/misc/adultery.htm
Schoenheit got canned over this.
There was an EXCUSE, a PRETEXT, but it was NOT going to stand up to scrutiny-
thus the HIDING.
I think he believed it long before he taught it to staff and corps.
After all, he believed it when he went to the House of Acts,
since he let it slip to J1m D**p that God was ok with orgies.
Some believe he was specifically trolling for Biblical answers at
the time, and others may say he specifically brought it up because
he was trying to find PARTICIPANTS.
I believe he believed it before ever introducing the Bible, and singled out verses that could be made
to suggest he was right. Then he hid that from the majority of people, and taught it to the most
loyal of the loyal. (He winnowed them out of the corps-which meant he was sifting from among the
loyal.) People believed him because he had "an understanding of the Bible unequalled since the
first Century Christian church."
Bingo.
20 points.
He still had the strength. Doesn't mean he "was still in fellowship with the true God."
He was in violation of the Mosaic Law at the time.
You almost lost me, but I think I agree.
Edited by WordWolfLink to comment
Share on other sites
WordWolf
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Tom
Thanks Excie.
About the betrayal - yeah, I can see that. I wasn't taken advantage of like you were, but I understand insofar as he betrayed all of us. Sold us on the Word & sold us out. It is the hardest pill to swallow. I can't imagine it for you.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Tom
Oops, sorry about that mistake.
I don't recall ever experiencing that attitude anywhere I was, but I don't doubt that it existed in places - those places where extramarital sex was freely practiced, you know, as a "doctrinal" thing. But Wierwille, nor anyone else, ever taught that when I was around that I remember. Sometimes he taught a lot of things in a short time that were so bizarre to my way of thinking that I might have just missed it.
I do remember hearing that he told Craig that he needed loosen up sexually. As I remember hearing it, VP told him that he would never be able to fully realize his potential ability to minister to women unless he did loosen up with them in that area. I suppose the implication may be made that the "principle" holds for others also, but I never was around anyone who tried to push the notion...umm, again, that I was aware of. People (like me) can be pretty naive or just unaware.
Edited by TomLink to comment
Share on other sites
Tom
As ChattyKathy said, "The world populated at a certain point by way of incest." I would suppose at that point that there wasn't anything wrong with it.
But that's not the same as what you're referring to as childhood incest.
It is iniquity according to Leviticus.
Leviticus 18:9 Â The nakedness of thy sister, the daughter of thy father, or daughter of thy mother, whether she be born at home, or born abroad, even their nakedness thou shalt not uncover.
Leviticus 18:11 Â The nakedness of thy father's wife's daughter, begotten of thy father, she is thy sister, thou shalt not uncover her nakedness.
Leviticus 18:12 Â Thou shalt not uncover the nakedness of thy father's sister: she is thy father's near kinswoman.
Leviticus 18:13 Â Thou shalt not uncover the nakedness of thy mother's sister: for she is thy mother's near kinswoman.
Leviticus 18:18 Â Neither shalt thou take a wife to her sister, to vex her, to uncover her nakedness, beside the other in her life time.
Leviticus 20:19 Â And thou shalt not uncover the nakedness of thy mother's sister, nor of thy father's sister: for he uncovereth his near kin: they shall bear their iniquity.
I'm in total agreement, Abigail. I know people are saying that I'm defending Wierwille, & I figured they would, but please remember that I said I wasn't, & I'm not.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Tom
I agree with all that, Rascal. It still doesn't mean that he didn't believe it himself. I think he did. Remember that he taught us that public enemy number one believes he was in the right. He also taught us that sincerity is no guarantee for truth and that it is the sincere ones that fool us. I believe that's what happened.
Hey, maybe I'm wrong. I know there are people who were around at the same time that I was who believe that he consiously made up his doctrine to cover his tracks knowing full well that he was in the wrong. I think he believed his lies - his doctrinal ones I mean.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
waysider
I remember hearing VPW on more than one occasion talk about how adultery in the BIBLE had a deeper meaning and was actually a figurative way of saying we were not to have SPIRITUALLY adulterous relations. For example : interacting with anyone involved with any form of what he considered witchcraft, using mind altering drugs, considering the trinitarian theory. In the current vernacular,"sleeping with the enemy" who of course we all knew to be satan. In addition, I recall many TL's, BL's, and even limb leaders presenting this line of thinking as be conveyed to them by VPW. He also made a cognizant effort to show how he thought "fornication" and "adultery" were not to be confused with each other. WOW! the MOG himself is showing us a profound truth that noone has seen for thousands of years! IMHO I think he was throwing up a smoke screen like one of the anti-heroes on a LIFETIME CHANNEL movie of the week. There was nothing profound about it. He was simply setting up an alibi that would excuse his actions. A man of GOD is to be above reproach. He is not only to refrain from these actions he is to live in away that will not even give the appearance of impropriety. It would seem that this would not be too much to ask of someone who represented himself as one who spoke on GOD's behalf as noone had done for centuries. He exploited GOD, HIS HOLY WORD, and THE LORD JESUS CHRIST to satisfy his own needs and greeds. Now that my freinds is what I call ADULTERY.!
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Tom
And so what then, I'm missing out on all the fun because I can't handle the freedom I guess is what you're saying. I'm sorry, I'm just repeating you because that's really a strange notion to me. I'm not one to do that. I've been sort of skirting the limits of adhesion all my life in everything I was ever involved in both good & bad.
I'm not nearly as sure of what I believe on this matter as Wordwolf seems to think I am. Maybe I'll try to address that doctrinally later - or not.
But I don't think that sex is bad, & I don't think that having it outside of marriage makes it so necessarily. I also believe that sexual promiscuity has taken a sad toll on people in our country medically, emotionally, spiritually.
Again, I'm just trying to talk here. I can't stop people from taking what I'm saying as some sort of "Thus saith the Lord" doctrinal stance, but that's not the way I intend it. I usually don't go around quoting scripture unless I'm pretty sure of its meaning & application, but, in some of these instances, I'm not so sure.
I do think there is a spiritual fornication and adultery and a physical, and that there is a relationship.
I'm not in favor of orgies. I think the spirituality of orgies goes back to the OT orgies that happened when Israel went "up upon every high mountain and under every green tree, and there hath played the harlot." I believe that's spiritual adultery, that people can commit it, that they did then, & they do now. It is a given that sex was involved. Obviously, physical adultery may very well be involved, but not necessarily.
For the record, I've never had sex outside of marriage when I was married - either marriage. I don't look at it like I'm missing out on fun; although, I can see where someone might take what I'm saying that way.
I don't think sex outside of marriage, physical fornication, is always spiritual fornication. I don't think that Abraham (the pick for which I received 20 points) was fornicating, nor Jacob, nor the others who did the same. I don't even think that Solomon with all his wives was spiritually fornicating until they got him to open up to their gods - at least not the type of fornicating that Jesus gave as the only reason for divorce. THAT kind of fornication also involves spiritual fornication, thereby bringing hardness of heart into the relationship - the reason Moses allowed divorce according to that same Jesus in the same discourse.
To avoid fornication married people are supposed to take care of each other. I don't think (again, I don't know for sure) that's referring to physical fornication - although it's good advice in that regard too. Plenty of married couples don't have sex for way longer than "with consent for a time, that ye may give yourselves to fasting and prayer; and come together again" without one or the other going out to physically fornicate. But I think it is pretty hard to find a marriage where they don't take care of each other that doesn't have some kind of god making its way into the relationship, setting itself up as an idol in the heart where the true God ought to be, hardening the heart. In many ways, viewing some of the usages of adultery and fornication as spiritual makes it harder to live by rather than easier. It's not an excuse to sin; although, it can be used that way & is many times - usually, I should say.
I didn't bring all this up as an excuse for my sinful fun which I'm not having.
I hope that helps to clarify the way I think whether or not I'm right or wrong about it.
Amen.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
rascal
AMEN!!!! Tes-ti-FY waysider!!!!
Abso friggin LUTELY..... motives, whether he believed his own crap or not, whether he was sincer or decietfull....means precisely SQUAT when it comes to whether or not he was a genuine christian minister or a cleverly disguised counterfit ..a wolf disguised as a sheep in order to gain access to the sheep .... that led people away from the genuine walk with God.
I have absolutely NO doubt that Jim Jones and David Koresche were just as sincere in believing the rot that they used to destroy lives with as well.
There is genuine and there is counterfit.....Both resemble Christianity, both profess to be Godly, there is one surefire way to distinguish the difference.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.